Christian voters

[Carey]

What I find amusing is Bush's current stand on the situation in Burma but does nothing in terms of Tibet.

What do you think his stand dhould be?

 

[Carey]

Judging from your spelling you would not do well on tests.

Here in VA/TN area the teachers are teaching to the tests. That's it. They don't have time to go into any depth on a subject. The schools get good marks from the government, but the kids are learning facts, not how to use them. There are children who can parrot back mathmatical equations, but have no idea of when or how to use them. They just have to be able to fill in the blanks of the basic equations for the tests, not actually use them. One friend of my son outscores him on spelling tests quite regularly, but can't spell those same words two weeks later. Why? Because he is being brought up in a atmosphere that stresses the test and not the information. So he dismisses what he "learned" to "learn" the next batch of facts for the next test. And he is not the only one. It is not until high school that the kids get any substance to go with all the facts and actually learn to use some of them. But by then it may be too late to do some of them any good.

And this is a good thing??

Hahahaha I spell fine but cant type,and I dont feel spell check is necessary to get the point across.

And if the children are'nt learning facts and figures what would you have them learn??

History and social studies are facts.
English and grammar is like a monkey memorizing
what?
Math is memorizing fugures and equtions .

I am confused as to what your complaint is about

</IMG>

 

[Carey]

I'm more looking at motives. If Bush had good motives for attacking Iraq then maybe he should have mentioned them rather than using what any impartial person could see was a lie. Other countries were willing to take action on Iraq but just not the same action the US wanted to take. That is why the US pulled the plug on the vote in the UN so it wouldn't be an illegal war. Of course under international treaties that the US has signed it says all POW's are to be returned to their country. However they decided not to call their attack on Afghanistan a war. Therefore they decided they don't need to follow the agreements they made. No wonder all the Americans I come across in this country have such a poor opinion of him. As I said earlier the US has supported Israel even though Israel were in the wrong. So it is clear that rather than taking action because it is the right thing to do but rather acting because it suits them.

I think an impartial person with only a small amout of common sense would question given Saddams defiant posture would it not be reasonable to assume he probably did have the weapons??
Since we know Syria has them and Israel just bombed some recently would this not make one lean in the direction that Saddam probably sent them there??
Aramdinijads stance on his nukes are much like Saddam and his WMD's .
Remember how Saddam limited the inspectors movements then finally refused to let them inspect prior to the invasion??
If one only uses their memory of the events with Saddams regime prior to invasion . The assumption that the weapons were moved only makes common sense.

Now a Bias person would say I ASSUME they were never there instead of assuming the obvious.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think an impartial person with only a small amout of common sense would question given Saddams defiant posture would it not be reasonable to assume he probably did have the weapons??
Since we know Syria has them and Israel just bombed some recently would this not make one lean in the direction that Saddam probably sent them there??
Aramdinijads stance on his nukes are much like Saddam and his WMD's .
Remember how Saddam limited the inspectors movements then finally refused to let them inspect prior to the invasion??
If one only uses their memory of the events with Saddams regime prior to invasion . The assumption that the weapons were moved only makes common sense.

Now a Bias person would say I ASSUME they were never there instead of assuming the obvious.

The assumption that weapons were moved is only secondary to the assumption that there were any weapons at all. Was an invasion of a nation based on the assumptions of 'leaders' who have a superb track record of concealing truth with secrecy?

 

[Carey]

The assumption that weapons were moved is only secondary to the assumption that there were any weapons at all. Was an invasion of a nation based on the assumptions of 'leaders' who have a superb track record of concealing truth with secrecy?

Since Saddam used WMD's on the Kurds we know they were there

Are their any nations who have not and still to this day conceal some truth with secrecy??

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Since Saddam used WMD's on the Kurds we know they were there

Are their any nations who have not and still to this day conceal some truth with secrecy??

It was John. F. Kennedy, the last truly popular American president, who said something like, "Secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society." Ten days later, he was shot.

 

[Carey]

It was John. F. Kennedy, the last truly popular American president, who said something like, "Secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society." Ten days later, he was shot.

And did'nt he say anything else ten days or 2 weeks or 3 months etc earlier??

I am sorry your reponse seems silly to me.

This is all in fun I truly do not want to upset you.

 

[TheDag]

What do you think his stand dhould be?

It should be the same as his position on Burma at the very least. Of course this would put China offside which would not be good for trade relations and therefore have a negative impact on the US economy.

Now a Bias person would say I ASSUME they were never there instead of assuming the obvious.

Given that Saddam didn't like other countries "meddling" in Iraq's affairs long before any weapon inspectors it suddenly isn't obvious that he must have had them. His stance with the weapons inspectors is consistant with his previous actions. Actually come to think of it he was more helpful towards the weapons inspectors than his normal stance would suggest. Of course if one looks back and uses their memory they would also realise that economic sanctions were in place and he may have been more cooperative to get things he wanted.
In any case as my original point was that because other governments didn't like who was in power so they helped Saddam. Same with the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. They obviously don't do their research. The main reason the US supported Bin Laden was because they were fighting against the Russian backed Northern Alliance which is the same group that the US has now helped put in power in Afghanistan. Let's also look at the US's first choice for an adminstrator in Iraq untill elections could be held. The answer is a man who is wanted on fraud charges in another country!

 

[TheDag]

Since Saddam used WMD's on the Kurds we know they were there

Actually this only proves they had them at one point in time not that they had any in the lead up to the 2nd gulf war. Regardless of what you say it was only an assumption.

 

[Carey]

Actually this only proves they had them at one point in time not that they had any in the lead up to the 2nd gulf war. Regardless of what you say it was only an assumption.

Kets see its a fact he had them in the past.
It was never a fat he destroyed them all.

So we assume he still had them and they got moved.

But it is wiser to assume a Leader of a country would
invade a country knowing he did not have them so just lie invade anyway and risk his credibility world wide.

so whos ASSumption makes more sense??

 

[Carey]

It should be the same as his position on Burma at the very least. Of course this would put China offside which would not be good for trade relations and therefore have a negative impact on the US economy.



Given that Saddam didn't like other countries "meddling" in Iraq's affairs long before any weapon inspectors it suddenly isn't obvious that he must have had them. His stance with the weapons inspectors is consistant with his previous actions. Actually come to think of it he was more helpful towards the weapons inspectors than his normal stance would suggest. Of course if one looks back and uses their memory they would also realise that economic sanctions were in place and he may have been more cooperative to get things he wanted.
In any case as my original point was that because other governments didn't like who was in power so they helped Saddam. Same with the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. They obviously don't do their research. The main reason the US supported Bin Laden was because they were fighting against the Russian backed Northern Alliance which is the same group that the US has now helped put in power in Afghanistan. Let's also look at the US's first choice for an adminstrator in Iraq untill elections could be held. The answer is a man who is wanted on fraud charges in another country!

So your saying a ruler of a country shoudl prioritize and use his military to war against enemies that would be less helpful to his countries economy?? I am afraid that rulers country would not last very long.

Are you suggesting that a ruler of a country he allies with should make the rulers he deals with do a have a certain criteria before he allies with them.

Hmmm I bet that ruler would have no startegic allies when necessary and his country would crumble because
economic reasons.