[PC1]

Rolling Stone Magaine? This is your "research"? And my problem is that I'm getting my "news" from conventional media outlets? I should give that all up in favor of Rolling Stone Magazine?

First of all, the wooden shed described in the article was housing chemical hazards, not radioactive waste. No disrespect to chemical hazards, but you seem to be a little confused on your facts. Perhaps the nuclear wooden sheds were disclosed in February?

I did read Biggs link, it was an interesting read, but there may or may not be any substance to this article. In any event, I would not characterize your discovery of this article as being "research" on your part.

Irrespective of that, if the article has any truth to it, it would be a perfect "60 Minutes" segment if ever there was one. 60 Minutes, being the liberals they are, would be only too happy to air such a segment against a sitting Republican's administration whom they clearly don't like, and especially during an election year.

And any major newspaper like the NY Times or even a periodical like Newsweek would also be ecstatic to bring the story mainstream. There is no reason for them NOT to.

The media organizations read what each other produce and print, Rolling Stone included. If no one else follows up on this during April, I would dismiss it altogether.

PC1

[PC1]

Originally Posted by NPursuit

..............Just because the resources aren't being stolen right out in the open doesn't mean it isn't happening. There is no point in trying to change your mind on these issues because you have already shown to have a closed mind, and it's unfortunate that people will believe the first things they hear and seek to find facts to back them up no matter how much evidence is against them. I understand though many people have been blinded.

Blinded? There is so "....much evidence is against them"? And just because we can't see the oil being stolen, it's going where......... to secret underground tanks owned by Bush/Cheney?

This is crap, and frankly I wouldn't have expected such a bs post from you.

Our major media outlets for the most part DESPISE Bush. They hammer him every day and have been for months.

For you to suggest that very same media would somehow hold back from reporting the REALLY DAMAGING news is absurd.

There is no point in continuing this discussion. I'm out.

[NPursuit]

For the record that post wasn't aimed at you. Take a look at who I was quoting. Nevertheless I'm sorry you feel that way PC1. No hard feelings bro. I suppose we are better off letting this topic go, because all this political talk raises my cortisol levels anyway.

[jweave23]

I think you need to chill out, considering the fact that he never said it was research of any kind, nor made any points with it or any statement at all for that matter. I just took it as an interesting story, which I can assume is all he was doing. Take a valium.

Originally Posted by PC1

Rolling Stone Magaine? This is your "research"? And my problem is that I'm getting my "news" from conventional media outlets? I should give that all up in favor of Rolling Stone Magazine?

First of all, the wooden shed described in the article was housing chemical hazards, not radioactive waste. No disrespect to chemical hazards, but you seem to be a little confused on your facts. Perhaps the nuclear wooden sheds were disclosed in February?

I did read Biggs link, it was an interesting read, but there may or may not be any substance to this article. In any event, I would not characterize your discovery of this article as being "research" on your part.

Irrespective of that, if the article has any truth to it, it would be a perfect "60 Minutes" segment if ever there was one. 60 Minutes, being the liberals they are, would be only too happy to air such a segment against a sitting Republican's administration whom they clearly don't like, and especially during an election year.

And any major newspaper like the NY Times or even a periodical like Newsweek would also be ecstatic to bring the story mainstream. There is no reason for them NOT to.

The media organizations read what each other produce and print, Rolling Stone included. If no one else follows up on this during April, I would dismiss it altogether.

PC1

[VanillaGorilla]

Rolling Stone isn't exactly the pinnacle of journalism and they are pretty biased to the left. I would take any thing they write with a grain of salt.

Liberals are simply asking: what is best for America, what is the smart thing to do, do we have all the information to justify making such leaps in foreign policy?

Liberals are looking for a wedge issue to get themselves back in power. If this was Clinton or Gore do you think they would be acting like this?
Europe does hate us. France hate us, Germany hates us, and Europe hates us........well pretty much every one but Israel. The mantra seems to be what would Europe do? Who cares what they do or think. They sure as hell don't care about Americas best interest. For the most part the are a bunch of socialist bureaucrats who think they should be able to dictate policy and laws to the US. The globalist believe that the world and every country is it should be run by the UN. Their goal is to have a world that the UN controls.

[VanillaGorilla]

I think allot of people are forgetting why we went into Iraq. On September -11 3000 people died. Several people from the town I live in and in the surrounding towns died. These people had families ,children, and people that cared about them. They were senselessly killed for what? They were killed because a dozen or so people hate us so much that they were willing to take their own life to kill innocent US citizens. One thing people need to keep in mind is you can't reason or understand people like that. They will only understand one thing. These people (if you want to call them that) have no problem and will strap a bomb to a 5 year old child. If we bend over and grab our ankles for the UN that shows that we are weak. Our reason for going into Iraq was the Government had intelligence that Iraq had WMD's and was possibly in possession of nuclear materials. Now they are saying they were possibly mistaken. You can make a few conclusions out of this.
1. Bush and the evil rich white republicans had no evidence of WMD's what so ever and simply wanted to go into Iraq because of the oil.
2. There were WMD's and Sadom moved them some where else. There are reports of a large convoy of trucks headed towards Syria. The Bush administration doesn't want to go in and get them because he is all ready under pressure for invading Iraq.
3. There are no WMD's and they had bad intelligence. After getting hit of 9-11 and one of your advisers came to you and said we have intelligence that Iraq is in the process of making nuclear weapons possibly a few suit case nukes. They told you that there is a 50/50 chance the intelligence was correct but if you waited they might smuggle suit case nukes out of the country what would you do?
4. The terrorist are basically a organized gorilla ware fare operation. They really don't belong or have any association with any country. They may have some ties to counties but they are not like fighting Germany in WW2. You can't show them your weak because other wise they will hit you again. What do you do? You send a message that you don't F' with us and hit a few countries they have operations in or are associated with. There is some evidence that Iraq might have supplied the terrorist with the Anthrax.
I don't know about you but number 2 bothers me the most. If the WMD's were smuggled out you can bet they are attempting to bring them here.

[Biggs]

Originally Posted by jweave23

I think you need to chill out, considering the fact that he never said it was research of any kind, nor made any points with it or any statement at all for that matter. I just took it as an interesting story, which I can assume is all he was doing. Take a valium.

maybe I should have known it would be necessary to preface a simple link with a statement like that, thanks weave.

[jweave23]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

I think allot of people are forgetting why we went into Iraq. On September -11 3000 people died.

Again this is my problem. The war on terrorism is one thing, the war on Iraq was a lie and a stretch, not much to do with 9/11 at all, but certainly a good smoke screen for going in. People still relate these two, no matter how much evidence slowly surfaces to the contrary. 9/11 = War on Terror, not Iraq. Sheep.

[jweave23]

Well I guess that's what happens whenever everyone gets hot and bothered in a discussion. If you made some statements calling that "research" and so forth, surely it could be argued, but apparently it's hard to present some simple food for thought around here

Originally Posted by Biggs

maybe I should have known it would be necessary to preface a simple link with a statement like that, thanks weave.

[NPursuit]

Originally Posted by jweave23

Again this is my problem. The war on terrorism is one thing, the war on Iraq was a lie and a stretch, not much to do with 9/11 at all, but certainly a good smoke screen for going in. People still relate these two, no matter how much evidence slowly surfaces to the contrary. 9/11 = War on Terror, not Iraq. Sheep.

Exactly!

[PC1]

Originally Posted by jweave23

I think you need to chill out, considering the fact that he never said it was research of any kind, nor made any points with it or any statement at all for that matter. I just took it as an interesting story, which I can assume is all he was doing. Take a valium.

Valium not necessary weave........

Originally Posted by npursuit

.........Turn off CNN, Fox, & MSNBC and do some real research. You've discredited all of my points and your rebuttles have been straight from the news. Again no disrespect intended but my facts are straight. They are not made up and were not spoon fed to me by the media.........

..........The amount of plutonium, tritium, and uranium being leeched into our rivers, and aquafiers is profound and should at the very least disturb every citizen of this country. The amount of nuclear waste sitting in cardboard boxes in wooden sheds waiting to be taken over and dispursed into the air by fire is frightening...................

First of all guys, I enjoy discuss most anything with any of you. But it was a little frustrating for me, frankly, having spent the time I did laying out the positions I did, and debating opposing positions in the detail that I did; only to be told that mainstream media accounts somehow are not telling the whole picture, that I needed to do some other research. The only other "research" offered was this piece from Rolling Stone magazine. And it was taken out of context...... the article dealt with hazardous chemicals, not nuclear waste. That doesn't qualify as research in my book, although I applaud the effort to seek alternative sources.

If anyone has anything substantive to offer against my points, on a point by point basis, I'd be happy to take it up again. Pull my quotes on a point by point basis and offer a different view as I have with you. But reviewing this thread, very few of my points have been addressed at all.

Generalizations like being blinded to the truth, or that mainstream media outlets can't be trusted even though they're clearly anti-war/Bush are without substance and meaningless. Only yesterday, there were I believe, 4 journalists who had been kidnapped in Fallujah. People are risking their lives to cover this war, so give me one good reason why their word cannot be trusted?

I have no problem with anyone who is against the war. I wish we didn't have to be there too. But I think we have some good reasons for being there and fighting it from within Iraq. For those of you who think 9/11 and Iraq are separate and distinct wars, al Qaeda and other terrorists from Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran have filtered through and are fighting us in Iraq. Better there than here I say.

[michaelton]

Originally Posted by PC1

For those of you who think 9/11 and Iraq are separate and distinct wars, al Qaeda and other terrorists from Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran have filtered through and are fighting us in Iraq.

The terrorism in Spain during the last month would seem to indicate that the al Qaedists do not see Iraq as being separate from the war on terrorism.

[NPursuit]

Originally Posted by PC1

Valium not necessary weave........



First of all guys, I enjoy discuss most anything with any of you. But it was a little frustrating for me, frankly, having spent the time I did laying out the positions I did, and debating opposing positions in the detail that I did; only to be told that mainstream media accounts somehow are not telling the whole picture, that I needed to do some other research. The only other "research" offered was this piece from Rolling Stone magazine. And it was taken out of context...... the article dealt with hazardous chemicals, not nuclear waste. That doesn't qualify as research in my book, although I applaud the effort to seek alternative sources.

If anyone has anything substantive to offer against my points, on a point by point basis, I'd be happy to take it up again. Pull my quotes on a point by point basis and offer a different view as I have with you. But reviewing this thread, very few of my points have been addressed at all.

Generalizations like being blinded to the truth, or that mainstream media outlets can't be trusted even though they're clearly anti-war/Bush are without substance and meaningless. Only yesterday, there were I believe, 4 journalists who had been kidnapped in Fallujah. People are risking their lives to cover this war, so give me one good reason why their word cannot be trusted?

I have no problem with anyone who is against the war. I wish we didn't have to be there too. But I think we have some good reasons for being there and fighting it from within Iraq. For those of you who think 9/11 and Iraq are separate and distinct wars, al Qaeda and other terrorists from Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran have filtered through and are fighting us in Iraq. Better there than here I say.

PC1 I didn't post up the rolling stone article. I felt my points and facts were being overlooked as well. I believe I recognized and either objected or agreed to almost of your points actually. I presented a lot more than what you just stated above in this post. Should I post up some references for you next time?

[Biggs]

Originally Posted by PC1

That doesn't qualify as research in my book, although I applaud the effort to seek alternative sources.

doesn't qualify as research in my book either, so there's no need to be patronizing me. as it was I was glancing through these posts while I was also looking for music info at Rolling Stone, saw the other article and threw it up here as simply something else for people to look at. I could really care less about 75% of what I read or see coming out of mass media/news corps, more than anything it is "infotainment" and should be taken as such. it's not that the journalists shouldn't be trusted, it's that news service in this country is an extremely competitive, biased, ratings influenced business in the worst kind of way.

this was not a presentation of some grand political or personal perspective, nor was I actively seeking to refute what are obviously deeply held opinions and stances detailed in this thread by individuals whose beliefs are truly unalterable.

[VanillaGorilla]

Again this is my problem. The war on terrorism is one thing, the war on Iraq was a lie and a stretch, not much to do with 9/11 at all, but certainly a good smoke screen for going in. People still relate these two, no matter how much evidence slowly surfaces to the contrary. 9/11 = War on Terror, not Iraq. Sheep.

JW of the four scenarios that I posted do you think the most likely is that Bush deliberately lied just to go in there? From your last post it seems like you do. I think you can accuse them of getting bad intelligence but flat out lying is another manner. If you believe he lied and you say that there is evidence then please provide some evidence to back up your charges.

not much to do with 9/11 at all, but certainly a good smoke screen for going in.

I may be mistaken here but Iraq had terrorist training schools. As I said before that there is some evidence that Iraq may have supplies the 9-11 terrorist with Anthrax.

People still relate these two, no matter how much evidence slowly surfaces to the contrary. 9/11 = War on Terror, not Iraq. Sheep.

Your calling any one who supports the war sheep when you have made a statement like this "Liberals are simply asking: what is best for America, what is the smart thing to do, do we have all the information to justify making such leaps in foreign policy? " ? You also didn't answer my question........ Do you think the democratic leadership would be acting this way if Bill Clinton or Gore or someone with a D instead of an R in from of their name was in office?

[jweave23]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

JW of the four scenarios that I posted do you think the most likely is that Bush deliberately lied just to go in there? From your last post it seems like you do. I think you can accuse them of getting bad intelligence but flat out lying is another manner. If you believe he lied and you say that there is evidence then please provide some evidence to back up your charges.?

I would say a mix of your scenarios 3 and 4, IMO. I do not think the actual man George W. Bush lied about too much, I don't give him credit enough to be able to interpret what he's being told, lol Seriously I blame his administration, not him specifically. But as a figurehead, someone must take the fall, and in this case I feel it should be him as it would remove MOST of the administration as well. Obviously the whole gov't doesn't change under administrations, but some high level decision making power does. Point is: we know the intelligence was bad and that his administration acted on it with what IMHO seems to be litt