Government and power to civilians

[ColinEssex]

Exactly, the realized that kids needed to be kids instead of little slave workers. The child labor laws are great, and very much needed.

Glad the law works so well

The traditional picture of child labor is of something that takes place in poverty-stricken less developed countries. But the United Farm Workers union estimates that at least 800,000 children work in the fields of the U.S. And when the urban sweatshops of the garment and other industries are accounted for, the total number of child laborers in the U.S. runs even higher.

In the richest country in the world, these children will never know a childhood that doesn’t include the stress, fatigue and cruelty of work.

ref

 

[Rich]

Glad the law works so well


ref

They're either all immigrant children or it's further evidence that Americans feel they can simply ignore the law of the land.
I believe it's something to do with their constitution, for the people, by the people etc., kids obviously don't count as people

 

[ColinEssex]

I don't see it as a miniscule terrorist threat. I'm thankful for all the measures they are taking.

So do you agree with the Iraq invasion and the subsequent killings?

How about Colonel Gadaffi? Your country has recently said he's a really good bloke - yet he was responsible for the Pan Am 103 blowing up. Do you think restoring diplomatic links with a known terrorist is good or bad?

Col

 

[ColinEssex]

kids obviously don't count as people

Not if they're Mexican or Hispanic.

Col

 

[selenau837]

So do you agree with the Iraq invasion and the subsequent killings?

How about Colonel Gadaffi? Your country has recently said he's a really good bloke - yet he was responsible for the Pan Am 103 blowing up. Do you think restoring diplomatic links with a known terrorist is good or bad?

Col

I don't think it is a good idea no! But I'm not in office, so I can't make those decisions.

As for Iraq, yup. I agree with it. Did you think I wouldn't??

 

[jsanders]

I don't think it is a good idea no! But I'm not in office, so I can't make those decisions.

As for Iraq, yup. I agree with it. Did you think I wouldn't??

Why........?

 

[selenau837]

Why........?

Why what j? Why I can't make the decision, or why I feel the invasion is ok?

After 9/11....I'm shocked you don't agree. I'm sure you are about to try and speak over my head and try to make me look unintelligent wth your gargantuan word vocabulary, but I have my views on that and I am not changing them. So take your best shot!

I feel that if we sit back and take it and not do anything about it, then they will continue to walk all over us and attack us in such cowardly ways.

 

[FoFa]

So do you agree with the Iraq invasion and the subsequent killings?

Yes and war leads to killing, so you really are over exagerating the point.

 

[FoFa]

Why........?

Well we have not had any ships blowed up (aka Cole) or barracks in non war areas blowed up, that kind of thing since the invasions. And I hear a lot of B. S. over Iraq, but what about Afganistan (sp)? Shoot, any more I am thinking, they do something to us, lets take another country! What I can't figure out is why England didn't do that after the London bombings. Would have a been a prime time to stand up and say, PISS OFF YOU BUGGERS!

 

[Kraj]

I feel that if we sit back and take it and not do anything about it, then they will continue to walk all over us and attack us in such cowardly ways.

I couldn't agree more. Which is why I completely agree with a.) replacing the regime in Afghanistan and b.) hunting down Bin Laden and dismantling Al Queda. Iraq has/had nothing to do with either of those goals and has actually impeded the success of both.

 

[selenau837]

I couldn't agree more. Which is why I completely agree with a.) replacing the regime in Afghanistan and b.) hunting down Bin Laden and dismantling Al Queda. Iraq has/had nothing to do with either of those goals and has actually impeded the success of both.

Explain please!! Obviously I don’t understand then. I was under the belief it was all for the same reason. Please, in a nice way, not a belittling way explain to me.


PSssttt..Kraj....empty your basket.

 

[Kraj]

PSssttt..Kraj....empty your basket.

Why are you looking at my basket?

Explain please!! Obviously I don’t understand then. I was under the belief it was all for the same reason. Please, in a nice way, not a belittling way explain to me.

Wow, you must really trust me if you automatically assume you're wrong when I disagree with you. This could be fun...

To seriously respond to your inquiry, though:

As you know the events of 9/11 were planned and carried out by Al Queda with Bin Laden at the helm. Al Queda's major base of operations was located in Afghanistan and they received political and financial support from individuals and nations from all over the world.

After 9/11 Bush sent the military and CIA into Afghanistan. That was a good move. They trashed Al Queda's operations and overthrew the Taliban. Bin Laden went into hiding, which is the best outcome other than capturing or killing him. They've had a fair amount of success with capturing many key members of Al Queda. These are all good things for fighting terrorism.

Then there's Iraq. Bush gave the following reasons for invading Iraq, in chronological order (I put them in chronological order because he started with one, and then changed he reasons as he went along):

1. Iraq harbored and supported terrorists.
2. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
3. Saddam Hussein refused to comply with UN mandates.
4. Saddam Hussein was a despot who terrorised his citizens.
5. Saddam was "a threat".

1. In a supreme stroke of irony, it turns out Iraq is one of the only countries in the middle east without any ties to terrorism. There has been not one single shred of evidence to link Saddam to terrorism in the past 10 years or so. The last thing he could be accused of being involved in was the foiled assassination attempt on Bush senior in the 90s. There are no financial links, and there are no significant social links between Saddam and terrorists. No known terrorists were being sheltered in Iraq, no training camps. Nothing.

2. This was true during the Gulf War. It wasn't true after. Not only have they not found anything that resembles a functional weapon (as far as I'm aware, they've found a few parts here and there) or any evidence of a weapons program, but there was never any intelligence that said there were any in the first place. Bush's claim that there was evidence of WMDs in Iraq was based entirely on a report from a single informant. Ignoring the fact that the informant was considered unreliable in the first place, the CIA always gets confirmation from multiple sources before they consider any information "intelligence".

3. This had been an ongoing issue with Saddam since the Gulf War (before it, really). The funny thing about it is that Saddam actually did comply shortly before the invasion occurred.

4. This is the only true, real, and good reason for getting rid of the bastard. I have a feeling that if Bush had given this reason from the start, he would have met more resistance initially but he'd be in much better shape today.

5. This one is so vague it's hard to say it's not true (which I'm conviced is the intention), but I'll go ahead and say it anyway. The man was a bat-shit-crazy murdering sonofabitch, but the only people he had the power to theaten were his own citizens. I'm pretty sure he knew darn well that if he did anything to provoke the U.S. he'd be crushed like a bug, so he focused on maintaining control of Iraq.

Am I glad he's gone? Yes. Do I think it was worth it, or that the world is a safer place because of it, or that the Iraq invasion hurt Al Queda in the slightest? No, not really. In fact, I believe (but I'm not an expert so I can't say for sure) that the Iraq war has hurt the 'war on terror' by expending resources that could be used to search for Bin Laden/Al Queda or to deal with other nations that actually do have strong terrorist ties like Syria, Lebbanon, Iran and (our so-called ally) Saudi Arabia.

I hope that is the kind of response you were looking for, love.

 

[selenau837]

Why are you looking at my basket?

Cuz I can.

Wow, you must really trust me if you automatically assume you're wrong when I disagree with you. This could be fun...

You know I do. Just becareful with your power, don't use it for evil, use it for good.

To seriously respond to your inquiry, though:

As you know the events of 9/11 were planned and carried out by Al Queda with Bin Laden at the helm. Al Queda's major base of operations was located in Afghanistan and they received political and financial support from individuals and nations from all over the world.

After 9/11 Bush sent the military and CIA into Afghanistan. That was a good move. They trashed Al Queda's operations and overthrew the Taliban. Bin Laden went into hiding, which is the best outcome other than capturing or killing him. They've had a fair amount of success with capturing many key members of Al Queda. These are all good things for fighting terrorism.

Then there's Iraq. Bush gave the following reasons for invading Iraq, in chronological order (I put them in chronological order because he started with one, and then changed he reasons as he went along):

1. Iraq harbored and supported terrorists.
2. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
3. Saddam Hussein refused to comply with UN mandates.
4. Saddam Hussein was a despot who terrorised his citizens.
5. Saddam was "a threat".

1. In a supreme stroke of irony, it turns out Iraq is one of the only countries in the middle east without any ties to terrorism. There has been not one single shred of evidence to link Saddam to terrorism in the past 10 years or so. The last thing he could be accused of being involved in was the foiled assassination attempt on Bush senior in the 90s. There are no financial links, and there are no significant social links between Saddam and terrorists. No known terrorists were being sheltered in Iraq, no training camps. Nothing.

2. This was true during the Gulf War. It wasn't true after. Not only have they not found anything that resembles a functional weapon (as far as I'm aware, they've found a few parts here and there) or any evidence of a weapons program, but there was never any intelligence that said there were any in the first place. Bush's claim that there was evidence of WMDs in Iraq was based entirely on a report from a single informant. Ignoring the fact that the informant was considered unreliable in the first place, the CIA always gets confirmation from multiple sources before they consider any information "intelligence".

3. This had been an ongoing issue with Saddam since the Gulf War (before it, really). The funny thing about it is that Saddam actually did comply shortly before the invasion occurred.

4. This is the only true, real, and good reason for getting rid of the bastard. I have a feeling that if Bush had given this reason from the start, he would have met more resistance initially but he'd be in much better shape today.

5. This one is so vague it's hard to say it's not true (which I'm conviced is the intention), but I'll go ahead and say it anyway. The man was a bat-shit-crazy murdering sonofabitch, but the only people he had the power to theaten were his own citizens. I'm pretty sure he knew darn well that if he did anything to provoke the U.S. he'd be crushed like a bug, so he focused on maintaining control of Iraq.

Am I glad he's gone? Yes. Do I think it was worth it, or that the world is a safer place because of it, or that the Iraq invasion hurt Al Queda in the slightest? No, not really. In fact, I believe (but I'm not an expert so I can't say for sure) that the Iraq war has hurt the 'war on terror' by expending resources that could be used to search for Bin Laden/Al Queda or to deal with other nations that actually do have strong terrorist ties like Syria, Lebbanon, Iran and (our so-called ally) Saudi Arabia.

I hope that is the kind of response you were looking for, love.

Yes it is, thank you. It has all been put into perpective for me. Thank you honey!

 

[FoFa]

Terrorist ties to Iraq

 

[FoFa]

Iraq WMD
OK, this one is contriversial, but you can't ignore some of these just because it serves your view on "I hate Bush".

 

[FoFa]

Saddam Hussein Did Not Commit Genocide
And just to throw a wrinkle into the works

 

[Rich]

Terrorist ties to Iraq

Hasn't the good ol' US of A funded terrorist groups when it suited them?

 

[FoFa]

5. This one is so vague it's hard to say it's not true (which I'm conviced is the intention), but I'll go ahead and say it anyway. The man was a bat-shit-crazy murdering sonofabitch, but the only people he had the power to theaten were his own citizens. I'm pretty sure he knew darn well that if he did anything to provoke the U.S. he'd be crushed like a bug, so he focused on maintaining control of Iraq.

Seemed like he was a threat to Kuwait, and even Iran. What would make you say he wouldn't again be a threat if left to his own devices after a time?

 

[FoFa]

Hasn't the good ol' US of A funded terrorist groups when it suited them?

THATS OK, it's US, but it isn't ok for THEM.
As long as we can kick their arsh, too bad so sad.

 

[Rich]

Seemed like he was a threat to Kuwait, and even Iran. What would make you say he wouldn't again be a threat if left to his own devices after a time?

Oops, couple of slight mistakes there old bean, the Alliance prevented any further attempt at Kuwait and the US was hoping he'd win against Iran anyway