http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030407/ts_nm/iraq_usa_cache_dc_3

It appears so, but nothing is for sure until we get a confirmation from the Pentagon or top military official. I assume we will find out the truth in a few days.

At this point it's more like, "Who cares?" Also, the possibility of it being planted by--who else--U.S. forces themselves is there. looking at it realistically, it would be inconceivable that such things would be missed by U.N. inspectors, so the conclusion would be one of two things: either U.N. inspectors have not looked hard enough, or the U.S. planted it. The latter would not be easily be dispelled, since whatever reason or excuse the U.S. give out, Bush's war invalidates it since it was without due authority from the U.N. In law, this would be tantamount to arresting the person without the proper warrant. It makes academic the finding, or not finding, of unlawful objects. Also, with U.S. troops inside, it makes it hard to make it look valid, since those inside it are naturally biased about it. That is the importance of having the U.N. inspect it: the report is impartial, and would be more credible. You can shout "I told you so" a thousand times, but it is no more credible than an unauthorized arrest and seizure. In the end, the U.S. still loses big time on this supposed "find".

Originally posted by Milliardo
At this point it's more like, "Who cares?" Also, the possibility of it being planted by--who else--U.S. forces themselves is there. looking at it realistically, it would be inconceivable that such things would be missed by U.N. inspectors, so the conclusion would be one of two things: either U.N. inspectors have not looked hard enough, or the U.S. planted it. The latter would not be easily be dispelled, since whatever reason or excuse the U.S. give out, Bush's war invalidates it since it was without due authority from the U.N. In law, this would be tantamount to arresting the person without the proper warrant. It makes academic the finding, or not finding, of unlawful objects. Also, with U.S. troops inside, it makes it hard to make it look valid, since those inside it are naturally biased about it. That is the importance of having the U.N. inspect it: the report is impartial, and would be more credible. You can shout "I told you so" a thousand times, but it is no more credible than an unauthorized arrest and seizure. In the end, the U.S. still loses big time on this supposed "find".

Yeah, I'm sure that we hate the world and the U.N. so much that we would plant WMD's.:rolleyes: Shut up, that is the stupidest thing I've heard all week.

Originally posted by Milliardo
At this point it's more like, "Who cares?" Also, the possibility of it being planted by--who else--U.S. forces themselves is there. looking at it realistically, it would be inconceivable that such things would be missed by U.N. inspectors, so the conclusion would be one of two things: either U.N. inspectors have not looked hard enough, or the U.S. planted it. The latter would not be easily be dispelled, since whatever reason or excuse the U.S. give out, Bush's war invalidates it since it was without due authority from the U.N. In law, this would be tantamount to arresting the person without the proper warrant. It makes academic the finding, or not finding, of unlawful objects. Also, with U.S. troops inside, it makes it hard to make it look valid, since those inside it are naturally biased about it. That is the importance of having the U.N. inspect it: the report is impartial, and would be more credible. You can shout "I told you so" a thousand times, but it is no more credible than an unauthorized arrest and seizure. In the end, the U.S. still loses big time on this supposed "find".

Who cares?? Are you kidding? Im not going to even dignify your post by responding in a point by point fashion because you're just going to spit out more irrational BS and luny conspiracy theories such that the whole debate will become pointless..... US planted the weapons.........right :rolleyes:. Inconceivable that the UN inspectors missed some WMDs in a country that is over 430,000 square km.....right :rolleyes:.

For some reason I just thought of this qoute:
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

:eek2:

Milliardo,
Right, it is absolutely inconcievable that the U.N inspectors couldn't find weapons in a country of 430000 square kilometers. I mean really, I could scour that myself in three or four lifetimes.
AHHHHHH. Conspiracy theory!! Yeah, we planted 'em alright, 'cause we do that kinda stuff all the time. So the government has planted bugs in your house, and you can only talk to people with loud music on or when the shower is running right?
And I don't see how you can rely on the U.N to lend validation to a war anymore after their performance in the past few months. That is just ridiculous. If they cannot follow up on their own resolutions, then what validity do they have to give? Yes, it's just like unauthorized arrest and seizure. Unauthorized arrest and seizure where the judge sits on the bench and exclaims "no warrant under any circumstances!" What do the police do when the judges decide not to enforce the law? Just say to hell with it and retire?

Originally posted by The Educator
:eek2:

Milliardo,
Right, it is absolutely inconcievable that the U.N inspectors couldn't find weapons in a country of 430000 square kilometers. I mean really, I could scour that myself in three or four lifetimes.
AHHHHHH. Conspiracy theory!! Yeah, we planted 'em alright, 'cause we do that kinda stuff all the time. So the government has planted bugs in your house, and you can only talk to people with loud music on or when the shower is running right?
And I don't see how you can rely on the U.N to lend validation to a war anymore after their performance in the past few months. That is just ridiculous. If they cannot follow up on their own resolutions, then what validity do they have to give? Yes, it's just like unauthorized arrest and seizure. Unauthorized arrest and seizure where the judge sits on the bench and exclaims "no warrant under any circumstances!" What do the police do when the judges decide not to enforce the law? Just say to hell with it and retire?

Milliardo= OwNed

Let's see, that's 12 years of work over a country smaller than the U.S. It took only 3 weeks to do what 12 years can't do? Riigght. I guess Americans can't accept that it can happen, and had been done by nations in the past, to justify their intrusion or occupation of another, or to go to war against another. Briatain certainly falsified and doctored documents, as well as made sure such ships as the Lustiania become live baits for German U-boats to sink during World War I so the U.S. can enter the war. It's been done before, and it can still be done now. What is to stop Bush from doing the same thing, now that he practically owns Iraq? It's to justify his war, as well as take the heat off from those who oppose it. What does the police do when the judge won't issue an arrest? It can't do squat, or else the police will have every human rights organization breathing down their necks for harrassing someone. If the law must be upheld, it must be upheld in the right manner, not take the law into one's own hands and do what is fit. That's precisely what America did: no warrant to arrest and seize, so we take the law our own way and to hell with it.

Go stick your head back in front of your TV and watch that Anime, Until you realize what is truely happening then don't comment, Milliardo you are certainly being mislead, When you grow up and can actually understand the events unwinding around you then you may actually be able to debate with reason, You don't have to agree but at least put forth something worth debating, Others here disagree with the majority of Americans that support this war and at least make sense, You ramble on like a little child, Its time you tell your Mama to stop breast feeding you and for you to see the world for it is, its not whats right outside your front door, Others suffer horrors you can't even imagine, Most don't realize this, I've been around this planet enough to see it. Don't take my word for it, Actually leave your front yard and see what is happening before you start to mumble next time

Settle down guys.:rolleyes:

interesting link there.Note copious usage of the words 'may', 'probably', 'unconfirmed', 'could'..etc.

It's my belief that if the U.S. military found these supplies in the 'facility'[fancy word for shed],they would have definitely been keen to identify them beyond reasonable doubt and parade them as justification for their presence.

The description of the BM-21 system as ' MISSILES' may be technically accurate,however,by failing to mention that they hare a tactical battlefield weapon with a maximum range of less than 16 miles,the information could easily be misinterpreted by those who believe that all missiles are huge projectiles that can propel multiple warheads across large distances.

http://www.rbs.ru/exhibition/UralExpoArms/2000/gradbm-21.htm

The fact that these weapons have such a limited range lead me to wonder...why on earth would they be used for chemical weapons? if you dropped them at their minimum range[less than 3 miles],you'd be at very high risk of gassing yourself.
http://www.netcentral.co.uk/~cobus/bm-21.gif

The bm-21 is a small,light[13 tonne]anti personnel and light vehicle weapon.Of soviet design,it would be readily available and affordable on the arms market to any minor dictator or terrorist group.

It is not a WMD.

I'd give the extremely vague reports of chemicals found more credibility if the articles in question were promptly handed over to the U.N. weapons inspectors for independant analysis....Please don't tell me that they missed these missiles and are incompetent,it's a highly mobile piece of equipment,and there's no indication in the story as to how long it has been in Iraq.


In summary.

The U.S. military found an elderly rocket-launcher abandoned in a shed.There were a couple of drums of chemicals there too,but as yet,the U.S.troops haven't had them analysed.

None of this equates to WMD.If Saddam had them,he would have them in greater quantities,and he would have deployed them by now.

Ummm, yeah, copious usage of "may," "probably," "unconfirmed," and "could" duly noted. I believe that is why the thread was called "WMD Found??????" Note the copious use of six question marks. Nobody here is saying that a BM-21 equates to a weapon of mass destruction, and I don't see why your post focuses so much on its capabilities. Regardless, if we discover that there was mustard or sarin gas in those rockets, that means that he has WMD. It doesn't matter what we find them in, what matters is if he has them. We already know he has lower range variants of scuds, which could easily be used to deliver chemical warheads, so it would be foolish to assume that he couldn't put those chemicals on top of one of these missles. Also, a BM-21 could easily be used to deliver chemicals such as mustard or sarin gas, even within three miles, as they would quickly dissipate to harmless quantities in the air.

It is dangerous to assume that if he has the weapons that he would have them in great quantities, and that he would already have used them. Any military officer taking that stance on a battlefield risks losing a hell of a lot of lives if he's wrong. You cannot take what you think to be rational and project it onto Saddam. You have no idea how he thinks, and to assume he thinks rationally on something this important is potentially disastrous. Even if he does have them, it would be irrational to use them, as it would just turn much of the world against him.

My post focuses on the capabilities of this missile launcher because clearly people are suggesting that WMD's have been found.Your hypothesisis that 'if this turns out to be what Ithink it is,then he could put it into Scud missiles' has no bearing on the topic.It's not in Scuds,it's not even been analysed yet,it may not even be relevant.If Saddam had weapons of mass destruction,as George Bush claims,and if he was as ruthless as George Bush claims,he would have used those weapons by now.There's no tactical advantage to withold your most effective weapons when you are backed into a corner.

This'news' story is irresponsible at best,lies by omission at worst.It implies that WMD exist on the strength of a few untested drums and fails completely to educate it's average reader,preferring to allow them to believe whatever misinformation they have been fed about missiles.

This find in no way represents a threat to America,the fact that whatever these chemicals are,they were found with a short-range delivery system would indicate that they were not intended for terrorist purposes.Yet another of the wafer-thin excuses for starting this war is still to be proven.

The only person who actually suggested that they were actually weapons of mass destruction was Milliardo when he suggested that the U.S planted them ourselves, and nobody really liked his posted. Nobody here has said "oh, yup, we've got them now." Otherwise, didn't you read your last post? That's the same stuff you posted last time. How can you say that it matters what the weapons are found on? They are illegal no matter what. I mentioned the scuds because you seem to think that weapons on this BM-21 would pose no threat, but well, he's not supposed to have them on BM-anythings, so, if it turns out he does have them on this BM-21, why should we assume that he doesn't have them on scud-type missles? That's like "Oh look, we found this 10 megaton warhead on this BM-21, but well, I guess that's OK because he can only shoot it 16 miles." That is the same sort of dangerous logic that leads you to assume that if he has them he would use them.

Originally posted by The Educator
The only person who actually suggested that they were actually weapons of mass destruction was Milliardo
.

Incorrect.Read the thread title.From the original article,it is transparently obvious that the military personnel who discovered these mysterious 'chemicals' also thought it a distinct possibilty and the reporting of the incident appears to play up the possibility.The fact is that any chemical which is detrimental to health,including pesticides,herbicides,solvents,caustic cleaning agents etc,etc ad nauseum will continue to be flagged by theose who are desperate to prove that they are not mistaken as'suspected chemical weapons'.Already some alleged 'chemical weapons' have been discredited,this from CNN [arguably one of the most biased pro-war news sites].

Laboratory tests on the 122 mm chemical rocket warheads found in an Iraqi bunker at Ukhaider earlier this month came back negative for chemical agents, Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix told U.N. Security Council members, diplomats said Wednesday.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/29/iraq.tracker.update/

It's my belief that if the U.S. military found these supplies in the 'facility'[fancy word for shed],they would have definitely been keen to identify them beyond reasonable doubt and parade them as justification for their presence.


The US Military has stated today that the chemicals found in the bunker have not proven to be WMD, Samples were sent to the US as well as Germany who provided the equipment to test them.
With Germany also testing these chemicals that should provide a unbiased opinion considering they are antiwar. That in itself should settle the question at hand.

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i



The US Military has stated today that the chemicals found in the bunker have not proven to be WMD, Samples were sent to the US as well as Germany who provided the equipment to test them.
With Germany also testing these chemicals that should provide a unbiased opinion considering they are antiwar. That in itself should settle the question at hand.

Thanks for the update :).

planted sounds far fetched

i don't think they'd carry barrels of poison across a desert with the risk of it being shot and leaking would be undertaken by the US

I think you're trying to discredit and talk blaitent unsubstantiated BS

Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K


I think you're trying to discredit and talk blaitent unsubstantiated BS

Well,given that this 'find' has proven to be meaningless,one could argue the same about those responsible for the press release of it's discovery.

Uh, you said it yourself Taranaki, look at the copious use of words like "could," "may," "unconfirmed." And now you think it's trying to mislead and bullshit? It's not like the article actually said we found them, it only pointed out the possibility that we may have. Anybody who reads that article and conlcudes that we've definitly found WMD's is an idiot.

Originally posted by The Educator
Uh, you said it yourself Taranaki, look at the copious use of words like "could," "may," "unconfirmed." And now you think it's trying to mislead and bullshit? It's not like the article actually said we found them, it only pointed out the possibility that we may have. Anybody who reads that article and conlcudes that we've definitly found WMD's is an idiot.

agreed,but even the idiots get to vote.

Originally posted by taranaki


agreed,but even the idiots get to vote.

And, in your words," That is the beauty of free speach." You can't have it both ways Naki. There are idiots in this country, but yet their opinions are still heard. And the majority, according to you, voted against Bush, so that must mean that the majority of people that voted for Gore are idiots.

Originally posted by Pick


And, in your words," That is the beauty of free speach." You can't have it both ways Naki. There are idiots in this country, but yet their opinions are still heard. And the majority, according to you, voted against Bush, so that must mean that the majority of people that voted for Gore are idiots.

and Pick gets it wrong yet again........Acccording to me,the majority did not vote for George Bush.That's a different premise entirely to voting against him.And your grasp of logic seem to be minimal.Assuming that there are idiots of every political persuasion,the majority of idiots did not vote for Gore either.You've offered no logical reasoning as to why the 'majority of people who voted for Gore' should be idiots.......which way did you vote again?;)

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/12/sprj.irq.chemical/

This is worth reading!

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/12/sprj.irq.chemical/

This is worth reading!

it's another 'maybe' post from CNN.Personally, I don't trust any station that puts disclaimers like this in it's reports.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was written in accordance with Pentagon ground rules allowing so-called embedded reporting,

Al-Jazeera claims that the British admitted that there might be no WMDs in Iraq. If that were true, the whole war was a cruel joke.

Britain admits there may be no WMD's in Iraq
Monday, April 07, 2003
Source: Aljazeera
Ruben Bannerjee

Well into the war that was supposed to rid Iraq of its alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, a senior British official admitted on Saturday that no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons of mass destruction may after all be found.

Making the startling confession in a radio interview, British Home Secretary, David Blunkett, added in the same breath that he would in any case rejoice the “fall” of Saddam Hussein and his regime — regardless of whether any weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq or not.

The confession reconfirms the worst fears of opponents of the war that “weapons of mass destruction” is only a ruse for the US and the British to go to war against Iraq.

At the very least the admission certainly deals a serious blow to the moral legitimacy that the US and the British have been seeking in prosecuting the war.

Critics of the war across the world have been accusing the US and the British of aiming for regime change in Baghdad under the guise of “unearthing and dismantling weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”

There have been constant accusations that the US and the British are eyeing Iraq’s huge oil wealth, promoting Israeli interests, and that its campaign against “weapons of mass destruction” is only a convenient cover-up.

Even countries like Germany, Russia and France had been less than impressed with the US-led war against Iraq saying all along that the task of unearthing weapons of mass destruction, if any, is better left to UN weapons' inspectors.

In making the confession in an interview with BBC radio, the British Home Secretary however admitted that the non-discovery of any weapons of mass destruction would “lead to a very interesting debate” about the war.

“We will obviously have a very interesting debate if there are no biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear weapons or facilities to produce them found anywhere in Iraq once Iraq is free,” the home secretary added.

The US-led forces stand to face a huge global uproar if no weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq.

US-led forces moving across the Iraqi deserts have been under pressure since the start of the war to find evidence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. But instead of solid evidence, the they have so far raised only false alarms.

From time to time, the US-forces have claimed to have unearthed “suspicious” substances. And each time, the claim has turned out to be without substance.

Today Saturday 5 April, US Marines were reported to be digging up a suspected chemical weapons hiding place in the courtyard of a school in the southeast of Baghdad.

Western media reported that the US Marines were digging after being tipped off by an Iraqi informer. “We don’t have a clue now but we are going to dig it up and check,” said General James Mattis, the commander of the Marine division at the scene.

Iraq has always insisted that it does not possess any weapons of mass destruction.

UN weapons inspectors, who scoured the country for several months until the US asked them to leave last month, had repeatedly certified that they had found no credible evidence of Iraq possessing any weapons of mass destruction. -- Al Jazeera

AS i understand it

how bush got into power wasn't fair in the first place.

I still don't think he acts suitably for the role of a country's leader
he's arrogant and cocky

On a finer note

Due to 24hr news every and any story substantiated and unsubstantiated is released. Which isn't very good is it.

:o

i like the admission it was made by one random MP

David Blunkett isn't he the home secretary? He's not the PM ya know.

I hate Al Jeezera it seems to be completely biased - i really don't like that type of reporting it doesn't leave anything up to the individual

Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K
I hate Al Jeezera it seems to be completely biased - i really don't like that type of reporting it doesn't leave anything up to the individual

Most news report are rather biased. It's just how well they are presented that makes the bias not obvious. In other words, news reports are subtly worded to make the appearance of objectivity.

Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K
AS i understand it

how bush got into power wasn't fair in the first place.

I still don't think he acts suitably for the role of a country's leader
he's arrogant and cocky

On a finer note

Due to 24hr news every and any story substantiated and unsubstantiated is released. Which isn't very good is it.

:o

i like the admission it was made by one random MP

David Blunkett isn't he the home secretary? He's not the PM ya know.

I hate Al Jeezera it seems to be completely biased - i really don't like that type of reporting it doesn't leave anything up to the individual

Would you care to explain how he is cocky and how he got elected. Thank you in advance.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Milliardo
Al-Jazeera claims that the British admitted that there might be no WMDs in Iraq. If that were true, the whole war was a cruel joke.



Yeah, and as if Al-Jazeera and the British press aren't against this war.

Originally posted by Pick


Yeah, and as if Al-Jazeera and the British press aren't against this war.

If you know different,show us a U.N. confirmed report that there were weapons there to be found.

Originally posted by Pick


Would you care to explain how he is cocky and how he got elected. Thank you in advance.:rolleyes:

his manor if you will

if you look at Blair he uses a completely different composure he stands up straight and talks clearly.

Whereas bush leans on the podium and talk slow and patronisingly and states his fact with a smirk. He's a loser admitt it :flipa:

Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K


his manor if you will

if you look at Blair he uses a completely different composure he stands up straight and talks clearly.

Whereas bush leans on the podium and talk slow and patronisingly and states his fact with a smirk. He's a loser admitt it :flipa:

I must admit, I do hate how Bush smirks. It's as though he is using his body language to say "Im right and I know it" But Im not too sure about the whole speech thing. I can understand what he says just fine, besides, I dont care about how he says things, I care about WHAT he says.

Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K


his manor if you will

if you look at Blair he uses a completely different composure he stands up straight and talks clearly.

Whereas bush leans on the podium and talk slow and patronisingly and states his fact with a smirk. He's a loser admitt it :flipa:

Bush cocky, I think not. When has he ever said a cocky or arrogant word? And it seems to me that you demonized Blair in a seperate post. Is that all the insults you have against Bush. He looks cocky and he smirks. You, my friend, are ignorant. Do you dislike him because he has faith in his country, or because he is straight, or because he is a christian?

I know I'm going to take heat for bringing Clinton into this, but I remember Clinton leaning on the podium while he would speak on occassion. IMO, Bush sounds a lot less fraudulant than Clinton did when he would speak. Sorry to bring him up Naki;)

Originally posted by TexasF355F1
I know I'm going to take heat for bringing Clinton into this, but I remember Clinton leaning on the podium while he would speak on occassion. IMO, Bush sounds a lot less fraudulant than Clinton did when he would speak. Sorry to bring him up Naki;)


Nah, I dont think Clinton was fradulent when he talked. I liked Bill Clinton and thought that the whole Monica Lewinsky thing was stupid. If the Prez gets a ride on his slip n' slide it's not the business of the entire United States. Honestly, As I said before, I really dont care how they say something or how they are standing when they say it, I care about what they say because that is what matters most.

Originally posted by ILike2DriveCars
Nah, I dont think Clinton was fradulent when he talked. I liked Bill Clinton and thought that the whole Monica Lewinsky thing was stupid. If the Prez gets a ride on his slip n' slide it's not the business of the entire United States. Honestly, As I said before, I really dont care how they say something or how they are standing when they say it, I care about what they say because that is what matters most.
I can totally agree with that. I do notice that when Bush is leaning it usually occurs more when he is answering questions. I have to vouch for him though for leaning, b/c whenever I give speeches I feel more comfortable leaning than standing straight(my knees tend to lock up). Oh well I see what you are saying now and I agree.

Originally posted by ILike2DriveCars
Nah, I dont think Clinton was fradulent when he talked. I liked Bill Clinton and thought that the whole Monica Lewinsky thing was stupid. If the Prez gets a ride on his slip n' slide it's not the business of the entire United States. Honestly, As I said before, I really dont care how they say something or how they are standing when they say it, I care about what they say because that is what matters most.

You've missed the point of the whole Lewinsky affair. It wasn't that he had sex with her. Thats how the people who wanted to frame the arguement want you to see it. If its about the sex then it doesn't really amount to much. I'm sure most presidents were getting some on the side (some more then others). The issue was that he lied under oath. If you or I do that we'd be spending time in the clink and paying a hefty fine.

You're right that it doesn't matter how someone says things, but it sure does matter when its under oath.

Originally posted by YogsVR4


You've missed the point of the whole Lewinsky affair. It wasn't that he had sex with her. Thats how the people who wanted to frame the arguement want you to see it. If its about the sex then it doesn't really amount to much. I'm sure most presidents were getting some on the side (some more then others). The issue was that he lied under oath. If you or I do that we'd be spending time in the clink and paying a hefty fine.

You're right that it doesn't matter how someone says things, but it sure does matter when its under oath.

All politicians tell lies,twist the truth,get creative with the facts,make 2 and 2 equal 5 or 3 depending on how it suits their argument.If Clinton's actions were any less noble than any other politician[insert ironic laugh here],he'd have been booted out of office by his peers.

Originally posted by Pick


Bush cocky, I think not. When has he ever said a cocky or arrogant word? And it seems to me that you demonized Blair in a seperate post. Is that all the insults you have against Bush. He looks cocky and he smirks. You, my friend, are ignorant. Do you dislike him because he has faith in his country, or because he is straight, or because he is a christian?


I hate blair because we have constant tax hikes.

You are ignorant.


Did i set out in my posts to insult Mr G. Bush

No

Did i say anything insulting

No

Does George W Bush's body language represent that of something which can interpreted by other countries as offensive

Yes

Do you honestly think the way My Bush conducts himself is that of a Distinguished Gentlemen

I surely hope not

Do you make random posts . ie calling me Ignorant (you don't know the meaning of the word look it up in a dictionary before using it and commenting unsubstantiated BS) What do you base me being ignorant on?

Your attitude sucks and is that of an extremely hard lined toughed up useless ignorant oblivious arrogant fool. Surely you can see that the US is fast becoming the least popular country in the world today.

Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K
Surely you can see that the US is fast becoming the least popular country in the world today.

While I am jumping into this rather late and as such won't comment on things said earlier, surely you can admit this is a VAST overstatement of the truth. The US, while the target of a considerable groundswell of criticism, is nowhere near becoming the least popular of countries. More people wish to immigrate here than to any other place in the world.

Originally posted by texan


While I am jumping into this rather late and as such won't comment on things said earlier, surely you can admit this is a VAST overstatement of the truth. The US, while the target of a considerable groundswell of criticism, is nowhere near becoming the least popular of countries. More people wish to immigrate here than to any other place in the world.

I think that in terms of foreign policy,it would be hard to dispute that the U.S. reputation has declined dramatically over the past year.There are always going to be people who see the lowest of living standards in th U.S. as being better than what they can achieve in their own country,America exists on a history of immigration,and will continue to do so.In comparitive terms,the U.S. is still underpopulated when compared with parts of Europe and Asia.

Originally posted by taranaki


All politicians tell lies,twist the truth,get creative with the facts,make 2 and 2 equal 5 or 3 depending on how it suits their argument.If Clinton's actions were any less noble than any other politician[insert ironic laugh here],he'd have been booted out of office by his peers.

The problem with booting Clinton is that many liberals believed he should stay in office, as did a few conservatives. I personally think that if Nixon should have been kicked(I know he resigned), that Clinton should have followed suit. But I see your point.

Originally posted by texan


While I am jumping into this rather late and as such won't comment on things said earlier, surely you can admit this is a VAST overstatement of the truth. The US, while the target of a considerable groundswell of criticism, is nowhere near becoming the least popular of countries. More people wish to immigrate here than to any other place in the world.

yea but that isn't due to foreign policy

its due to the high pay rate and large amount of freedom

When i was in Texas there were still people living there who hated the states.

There was one story about some iranian woman who went into a pizzaria and ordered 10 pizza's they asked her what she was celebrating and it was the fact that they crashed two planes into the WTC.

To say people immigrate because they like the country is slightly misleading. They like the jobs and the money they don't like the politics.

I just don't like Bush's Manorism is represts a lack of respect.

I don't mean to say that the US is the least popular but i can't think of another country which is less popular maybe israel for the Arab States and maybe North Korea for the Asian states but the popularity rating of both the US and Great Britain has plumeted severly as compared to other countries but the swift end has elevated it a bit. I just want to point out that the US isn't well liked and i have a problem with defending my opinion of the US (i really like texas) against other people from England and a Canadian Couple who disliked America fiercely before the war.

Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K


yea but that isn't due to foreign policy

its due to the high pay rate and large amount of freedom


Exactly (not to mention the great educational facilities). In other words, a country's popularity is not decided based solely on it's foreign policy, so your assertion of America becoming the least popular nation was actually in reference to your opinion about our foreign policy. America is and will continue to be one of the most popular countries *overall* for the foreseeable future.

I'm curious though, what in your estimation would be a better tack for our foreign policy? Is it just the war that has you feeling this way, or a larger problem?

Originally posted by texan


Exactly (not to mention the great educational facilities). In other words, a country's popularity is not decided based solely on it's foreign policy, so your assertion of America becoming the least popular nation was actually in reference to your opinion about our foreign policy. America is and will continue to be one of the most popular countries *overall* for the foreseeable future.

I'm curious though, what in your estimation would be a better tack for our foreign policy? Is it just the war that has you feeling this way, or a larger problem?

Hey i got nothing against the US i just don't like the way George W Bush is behaving during the war it seems irresponsible to me.

I also pointed out that people may still seek to go to America but they still will disagree with its government and the way it conducts itself

Politically it is Unpopular. For living, learning and Working it is popular but this does not mean that these people like being there for any other reason. If you look at it its a nice piece of land with opportunity but otherwise people disagree with its politics.

Again, you are overstating and generalizing the situation. Politically it is unpopular to some people. To others it's just fine. And you're mostly speaking of our foreign policy in a specific area of the world, most of our politics are not in question.

I am not attacking your point of view on our politics or it's validity, I am simply asking you to reavelaute your statements that generalize a portion of the world's disapproval of a small portion of our foreign policy into the ridiculous blanket statement that "America is unpopular". America is hugely popular, and this is also true regarding most of our politics. It's not until you start talking about our policies in the Middle East that people start getting offended, and again it's only some people. I have friends in France, Russia, England and other places that wholeheartedly agree with what we are doing. More so than I do in fact.

Originally posted by texan
Again, you are overstating and generalizing the situation. Politically it is unpopular to some people. To others it's just fine. And you're mostly speaking of our foreign policy in a specific area of the world, most of our politics are not in question.

I am not attacking your point of view on our politics or it's validity, I am simply asking you to reavelaute your statements that generalize a portion of the world's disapproval of a small portion of our foreign policy into the ridiculous blanket statement that "America is unpopular". America is hugely popular, and this is also true regarding most of our politics. It's not until you start talking about our policies in the Middle East that people start getting offended, and again it's only some people. I have friends in France, Russia, England and other places that wholeheartedly agree with what we are doing. More so than I do in fact.

fact is that i don't mean that its VASTLY unpopular its increasingly unpopular especially in the middle east and have you been outside of your country recently? I think you largely underestimate the lack of respect most people feel towards america

Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K


fact is that i don't mean that its VASTLY unpopular its increasingly unpopular especially in the middle east and have you been outside of your country recently? I think you largely underestimate the lack of respect most people feel towards america

Disrespect towards what? Our foreign policy? Our government? Our culture? Our people? It seems as if other countries show disrespect towards us, but when have we ever gone as far as to burn another country's flag? The only country we have recently chastised is France.

I agree with NSX-R-SSJ20K: if you know the great resentment people have against the U.S., you will not really say that the U.S. is popular. Insofar as getting jobs, it is still quite one of the choice destinations, but that doesn't necessarily mean the people who go there admire the U.S. More often than not, it is more out of necessity than actual admiration. But insofar as admiration is concerned, more and more resent, or beginning to resent, the U.S. Bush is only making this resentment grow with his actions. If his advisers insist on a war with Syria, the U.S. will become even more isolated, and Britain might even rethink its position if that ever comes.

Originally posted by Milliardo
I agree with NSX-R-SSJ20K: if you know the great resentment people have against the U.S., you will not really say that the U.S. is popular. Insofar as getting jobs, it is still quite one of the choice destinations, but that doesn't necessarily mean the people who go there admire the U.S. More often than not, it is more out of necessity than actual admiration. But insofar as admiration is concerned, more and more resent, or beginning to resent, the U.S. Bush is only making this resentment grow with his actions. If his advisers insist on a war with Syria, the U.S. will become even more isolated, and Britain might even rethink its position if that ever comes.

I don't think we will see a war with Syria. I also disagree with you. Do you think the world would be better of with or without the U.S.? And I think this 'resentment' is jealousy on the part of most European countries.

Originally posted by Pick
I don't think we will see a war with Syria.

Yet. And yet the hawkish advisers of Bush constantly whisper that war with those against the U.S. is good. I think we'll see a war with either Syria or Iran in the months to come.

Do you think the world would be better of with or without the U.S.?

Does the world revolve around the U.S.? I think not. So would the world be better off without it? If the world was able to survive without the U.S. for more than 18 centures, the world will still go on if the U.S. disappeared today.

And I think this 'resentment' is jealousy on the part of most European countries.

It might actually be true if it's only European nations, but it's not just them. It might be true if their standard of living is unnervingly pathetic. As it is, it's not. So what jealousy is there then?

Originally posted by Milliardo
Yet. And yet the hawkish advisers of Bush constantly whisper that war with those against the U.S. is good. I think we'll see a war with either Syria or Iran in the months to come.

Really? Damn I need to visit the White House more often, I didn't know the average Joe got to overhear Oval Office conversations so easily :rolleyes:

We will not go to war with Syria or Iran anytime soon, unless something horrible happens directly implicating those countries as having attacked us. The American people won't stand for it. You seem to be forgetting that many people in the government would love to make a case for this administration being on a warpath, and they would bury Bush in a landslide of public opinion if he even suggested another conflict right now.

If Mr Bush wants control of Syria,he will take it,but only when he can steer public opinion behind him.To achieve that,he simply has to wait for the next terrorist attack on troop positions in Iraq,and then jump up and down saying'gosh darn,those pesky Syrians are harbouring terrorists,and they're not very democratic either..........'

It worked for Iraq,nobody gave a toss about Saddam until they were told to.

Originally posted by texan
Really? Damn I need to visit the White House more often, I didn't know the average Joe got to overhear Oval Office conversations so easily :rolleyes:

There are 2 groups in the White House who are trying to get the President's attention: the neocons and the liberals. Right now the neocons are winning this fight, with the war in Iraq, and they're now leaning on going to war with Syria as well. So far Bush has resisted this advice, but the neocons will get their way. Most of their lot hold key positions within the government (Rumsfield is one of them, incidentally).

Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K




Your attitude sucks and is that of an extremely hard lined toughed up useless ignorant oblivious arrogant fool. Surely you can see that the US is fast becoming the least popular country in the world today.

Your name-calling only makes this situation worse. Let me say this, I will change my wording: You are ignorant about who George W. Bush is, what he is about, and why he does the things he does. So you have a bone to pick with him because of his mannerisms? You sound like a damn grammar school administrator. Get over your 'attitude' and stop bashing a man because of the way he talks and stands.

Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K


Hey i got nothing against the US i just don't like the way George W Bush is behaving during the war it seems irresponsible to me.

I also pointed out that people may still seek to go to America but they still will disagree with its government and the way it conducts itself

Politically it is Unpopular. For living, learning and Working it is popular but this does not mean that these people like being there for any other reason. If you look at it its a nice piece of land with opportunity but otherwise people disagree with its politics.

WHY IN THE HECK DOES THE U.S. HAVE TO APPEASE EVERYBODY? Somebody tell me. Is it because act in our and other's best interest? Or because we are the world's only superpower? Somebody tell me their country has never acted in its best interest.

Originally posted by Milliardo


There are 2 groups in the White House who are trying to get the President's attention: the neocons and the liberals. Right now the neocons are winning this fight, with the war in Iraq, and they're now leaning on going to war with Syria as well. So far Bush has resisted this advice, but the neocons will get their way. Most of their lot hold key positions within the government (Rumsfield is one of them, incidentally).

And who are these neo-cons and what do they stand for?

Neo-con = neo-conservative. NSX makes it sound as though there are two warring factions inside our government, and no moderates anywhere. That these two factions are responsible for all of the policy making and hold all the cards, while the 280 million living here are simply subject to them.

The truth is a long ways from that. Most people in the government are extremely moderate, and the populace holds powerful sway over both policy and decision making.

Originally posted by texan
Neo-con = neo-conservative. NSX makes it sound as though there are two warring factions inside our government, and no moderates anywhere. That these two factions are responsible for all of the policy making and hold all the cards, while the 280 million living here are simply subject to them.

The truth is a long ways from that. Most people in the government are extremely moderate, and the populace holds powerful sway over both policy and decision making.

Right on. Nice post.