[v1p3r]

Originally Posted by Vert1go

Actually, WMDs were i fact discovered, though not widely reported. I would also argue that their active nuclear program constitutes a WMD issue - which was in violation of the UN.

FOXNews.com - Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq - U.S. & World
FOXNews.com - Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell - U.S. & World

If you ask me, I'm glad the US removed a dictator that murdered hundreds of thousands of people. I'm also glad Iraq no longer has the means to produce a nuclear weapon.

If they obtained this technology, what would you think of it?

Anyway, sorry for ranting, I just think there are issues here that we will never know about. The news agencies are not always the most reliable sources of information.

That's from Fox News, the official news channel of the right wing. Since we're quoting news agencies, here's a less biased one. BBC NEWS | Middle East | Report concludes no WMD in Iraq

And this, admittedly, is more liberal than Fox. CIA?s final report: No WMD found in Iraq - Conflict in Iraq- msnbc.com

You'll notice that both these reports came in AFTER the Fox article you posted, in one case over one year later.

Originally Posted by Vert1go

That is OPEC imports - the US does not control, nor does not say which countries are exporting through OPEC. Look at the non-OPEC part of that list, and Iraq is not there. As you know, OPEC is a single entity that governs the export of oil, it's not a negotiation among countries as to who provides it.

OPEC countries are free to sell to customers as they choose. OPEC does not sell oil as an entity. Its main purpose is to control oil production through the use of production quotas for its various member countries, and thus also control world oil prices. These quotas are often not observed by member countries, most recently by Saudi Arabia last year.

I have a feeling the OPEC listing there was just to group them together for reference. You'll notice that a much newer page has Iraq listed separately, as the 6th largest exporter of oil to the US.

Anyway, they invaded Iraq, ostensibly to find WMDs, which they didn't. Just like they invaded Afghanistan to find Osama, and that hasn't happened yet.

Look, no one's trying to pass judgement, or rather, no one really has any right to. Morals and fairytales aside, it's pretty much normal for someone to use the power they wield against their enemies, real or imagined. So yeah, if I have beef with some poor soul who can't really fight back, and I'm really pissed off with him, I'm probably going to make his life miserable, whatever anyone else says.

But it's a bit rich to deny that the US invaded a helpless country full of oil. Saddam was about as powerful compared to the US as the wildest mountain cat is when up against a hunter with a high-powered sniper rifle in a bulletproof Hummer. No contest.

The US has a long history of supporting dictators, most of them tyrannical, many homicidal, and some genocidal. Off the top of my head, I can recall Yahya Khan, Suharto, and Augusto Pinochet.

The US also currently engages and trades with a country that has a large WMD arsenal, a very poor human rights record, and absolutely no democracy. It's called China.

Like I said, no one has a right to pass judgement. But honesty would be nice.

[Samurai]

Let's not get too carried away here. Martial arts schools all over the world with some rare exceptions have been giving out black belts like candy to undeserved students in the last couple decades. When the mighty noble prize has been given to Obama for doing nothing, what is black belt in comparison?

If you think about it, most of our national awards (Bharath Ratna, Padma awards) are given out of political patronage.

[greenhorn]

forget fox news's right wing bias. It has actually argued for, and apparently won the right to lie to the public in court. I would take any information from them with a very hefty dose of salt

[pranavt]

Originally Posted by Vert1go

Actually, WMDs were i fact discovered, though not widely reported. I would also argue that their active nuclear program constitutes a WMD issue - which was in violation of the UN.

FOXNews.com - Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq - U.S. & World
FOXNews.com - Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell - U.S. & World

If you ask me, I'm glad the US removed a dictator that murdered hundreds of thousands of people. I'm also glad Iraq no longer has the means to produce a nuclear weapon.

If they obtained this technology, what would you think of it?

Anyway, sorry for ranting, I just think there are issues here that we will never know about. The news agencies are not always the most reliable sources of information.

Hahahaha

Fox news? Seriously? Last time I checked a dictionary for the meaning of bias, it said "see: Fox news." You'd have a better chance of a Pakistan Terrorist leader having a favorable impression of India than a Fox news blurb saying negative things about Bush and his friends.

[Vert1go]

I can see what I'm up against. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

And yeah, Fox News. But I suppose most people would not find news credible that didn't match their ideals.

Originally Posted by pranavt

Hahahaha

Fox news? Seriously? Last time I checked a dictionary for the meaning of bias, it said "see: Fox news." You'd have a better chance of a Pakistan Terrorist leader having a favorable impression of India than a Fox news blurb saying negative things about Bush and his friends.

[Vert1go]

Originally Posted by pranavt

Hahahaha

Fox news? Seriously? Last time I checked a dictionary for the meaning of bias, it said "see: Fox news." You'd have a better chance of a Pakistan Terrorist leader having a favorable impression of India than a Fox news blurb saying negative things about Bush and his friends.

[\quote]

Says you... Ironically, 'right wingers' say that CNN is bias as well. So, who's to say which one is right? This goes once again to what I said above.

But let's keep in mind that Fox News is far and away, the most popular news agency in the US, as far as I know. Acording to Wiki, The O'Reilly Factor has been the #1 rated cable show for 100 months consecutively.

Maybe most of the US is biased then.

Originally Posted by pranavt

But it's a bit rich to deny that the US invaded a helpless country full of oil. Saddam was about as powerful compared to the US as the wildest mountain cat is when up against a hunter with a high-powered sniper rifle in a bulletproof Hummer. No contest.

Alright then, where my oil? I mean, if we were in there 'for the oil', why don't we have it? I'm wondering what the liberal generic answer for this one is.

You may also want to reflect that it was not only the US that went into Iraq. Remember that Iraq chose to violate the UN mandates requiring inspection. When they kicked them out and would not permit the inspectors to do their job, what is the world to think? Funny how the world was behind the US all the way prior to the invasion.

Originally Posted by pranavt

The US has a long history of supporting dictators, most of them tyrannical, many homicidal, and some genocidal.

They do? A long history? The US is barely over 200 years old.
Had it not been for the US, most of Eastern side of the world would be speaking German today.

Originally Posted by pranavt

The US also currently engages and trades with a country that has a large WMD arsenal, a very poor human rights record, and absolutely no democracy. It's called China.

Agree, but then so does the world my friend.
Ironically, Hussein was also attempting to make deals with China for the purchase of nuclear arms.


I do not wish to find myself at odds with the people of this forum. I joined this forum because I like it here. But also respect the fact that I live in the US, and my viewpoint will be different than that of the world. I'm not saying that means everyone here thought Bush was great - not even close. But many people hear don't really relish Obama either, nor to they feel he is appropriate for the job. We will see.

[pranavt]

Oi oi, you are quoting someone else. Don't put words in my mouth, err, posts.

Maybe most of the US is biased then.

You believe otherwise? Anyone chewing on Fox news propaganda and watching The O'Reilly Factor will have a completely different view of what's going on around the world. The network thrives on trash, exaggeration, lies and hysteria.

Funny how the world was behind the US all the way prior to the invasion.

Eh, no. Quote a few Americans themselves were against the invasion.

[Vert1go]

Oh yeah, I see I made an error with the post, sorry about that. Maybe a mod will correct, I cannot edit the post now.

As for Fox - I believe all news agencies are biased to some degree. But I watch Fox the most, and according to the ratings, so do most people here.

The question is, who's to say what is propaganda? What you say about Fox more people here say about CNN and MSNBC. Do you know exactly what's going on based on hard facts? No. Neither does anyone but the people truly involved.

I'm a conservative - a 'right-winger', if you choose the term. That doesn't mean I'm blinded by my views. The US was built on conservative politics, and those are the views I hold.

I respect others for their views just as well, even if I disagree with them.

Many here were against the invasion, just as many here were for it. Based on the many soldiers I know personally over there, the Iraqis are extremely thankful for what the US accomplished there.

Unless I'm there myself, that's all I have to go on to form an opinion.

Originally Posted by pranavt

Oi oi, you are quoting someone else. Don't put words in my mouth, err, posts.


You believe otherwise? Anyone chewing on Fox news propaganda and watching The O'Reilly Factor will have a completely different view of what's going on around the world. The network thrives on trash, exaggeration, lies and hysteria.


Eh, no. Quote a few Americans themselves were against the invasion.

[greenhorn]

vert1go, you still haven't responded to my post.
Fox has won the right to lie, or rather, mislead its audience. Why should you, much less us, trust a source which has no credibility by its own admission?

[Samurai]

Since nobody is discussing the topic mentioned in the title, may be this is a good time to close the thread? After all we don't allow political discussions here.

[Sarvodaya]

If such things continue, then there is no meaning of AWARD. Nobel Prize, Oscar Award, Olympic Medal to name a few has their own character, recognition. After toiling all their life, in their respective fields, very few people deserve these. But of late, these awards are losing their charm. People who do not deserve these, who has done nothing are getting these awards. Maybe the time has come to to scrape these awards.

[WhiteKnight]

Sticking to the topic. Now that he got black belt, could we arrange a martial arts contest with Putin?

[amitk26]

This is really insignificant in comparison to Nobel ,But why single out Obama if Yasser Arafat can get it earlier with all the laurels he had achieved by the time of getting Nobel peace price what is wrong with Obama who is yet to make his bones (with apologies to Mario Puzo for blatantly copying this ).

Don't loose heart guys we are not far behind, Our own Dr. Jayalalitha , Dr. Vijay Mallaya and Dr. A.P.J Abdul Kalam are shining examples of PHd out writing ever writing a thesis.

Yes it may be surprising but a person like A.P.J Abdul Kalam prefers to put an honorary doc. as his qualification , While Indira Gandhi despite all her follies was prude enough of not calling herself Doc. Indira knowing very well that is it just an honor bestowed upon herself.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by amitk26

Yes it may be surprising but a person like A.P.J Abdul Kalam prefers to put an honorary doc. as his qualification ,

We can make an exception for him since he was a real technologist and had abour 30 honorary doctorates bestowed upon him. Meanwhile I have known boat load of guys with worthless PhDs. For example, a visual basic programmer with PhD in Psychology, a lousy C++ programmer with PhD in Chemistry, etc. Fortunately, most of these guys didn't use the Dr. title in their name.

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by Samurai

We can make an exception for him since he was a real technologist and had abour 30 honorary doctorates bestowed upon him. Meanwhile I have known boat load of guys with worthless PhDs. For example, a visual basic programmer with PhD in Psychology, a lousy C++ programmer with PhD in Chemistry, etc. Fortunately, most of these guys didn't use the Dr. title in their name.

Well in most of the cases like lousy C++ or VB programmer PhD is obtained much before they turn to programming for bread and butter.Most probably If they were getting a fellowship in some university they would have never turned to programming and that is the root cause of being a lousy programmer.

I know a worthy Dr. who spent his youth in Arctic chasing Aurora or northern lights for his PhD and then became a test house lab manager in Germany to earn living in his late 40s.