A New War You Can't Blame On Bush! Or Can You?

"sources" is the key term there. which as far as news media goes, can be a number of things with reputable accuracy and the proper documentation of their sources for you to fact check. Speaking of which, where are you getting your information sir?

There is actually a lot of objective sources for geo-politics. The UN makes public statements on just about everything significant that happens, they routinely publish their reports without redaction, and the information is readily available.

There's factual information (UN, DoD, freedom of information act)
There's news (generally pre-analyzed so marginally subjective)
and opinion/commentary (generally very biased)

Not all sources are created equal. You can put a label on just about anything and pretend it is that. In the end it's all just a catch-phrase.

So some people here literally do not know what a fact is.

no they've been trying to redefine "information" for two pages now for some reason

MLB network

In the context of talking about information vs misinformation, we are in fact talking about what can be considered factual or not. No need to be obtuse about it in order to make an irrelevant point.

When will America stay the hell out of other country's affairs?

Thus far I can agree with WW2. Hitler was an *** and needed to be stopped. WW1 I'm not well versed in, so I can't give an informed opinion.

North Korea? Also not well versed in. I need to wiki.

Vietnam: Communism. Ehrmagerd coomernists gherna gert us. BASH THEM! We gave up, pulled out, and for what? To see the country fall further apart until they ultimately pulled their ***together, soemwhat. We had nothing to gain other than a possible foothold in the Asian market in regards to placement of military.

Desert Storm/Shield: Ok this one is a maybe, but again, pulled out. If we send the military, leave the media at home. It's a war zone, not a sight-seeing tour. If you're a journalist, your safety is on you. Politicians that have no idea about military strategy also need to STFU. You hired your military, let them do their jobs.

Bosnia: peace keeping at best.

Iraq 2.0: *** all you want, Sadam needed ousting. There weren't WMD's per say, but components to create. I know for a fact there was a person in Iraq with a PhD in Chemical Engineering, graduated with my father in 1992. I would hazard a guess if he lived, or wanted to live, he worked for Sadam. I had friends in Iraq who found components. They were missing critical items, but still capable of being manufactured if Sadam were allowed more time.

Afghanistan: other than continuing to purge terrorists (which isn't going to happen....ever) was there any viable reason at all to go there?

America's rep is in the toilet, no, it's not in the toilet, it's in the spotlight, we have a piss poor rep. The longer we continue our current course of world policing, the fewer friends we're going to have. Sooner or later, we'll be the fat kid on the playground picking boogers and talking to ourselves.

Why did Saddam need ousting? Where was the evidence that he was planning to use chemical weapons on American targets? Where was the link between Saddam and Bin Laden? Or Zawahiri? Or any solid evidence that he planned to use WMDs? Was he gonna just fire a SCUD and hope it made it to a military base undetected?

Components don't mean ***. We knew he had chemical weapons at one point because he used them against his people and we turned a blind eye to it back then. The program was abandoned after Desert Storm and the UN and US were aware of it. The man was a ruthless dictator in our employ at one point but he wasn't stupid and the link between his chemical stockpiles and a plot to use them against us was a fantasy.

The idea that Saddam was an imminent threat to the US was based on faulty intelligence, comfirmation bias and neocons oh too happy to be greeted as liberators as they bombed the *** out of Iraq only to make billions cleaning the place up at great loss to our men & women in the field.

Iraq? A cautionary tale of acting on nationalist impulse and letting emotions get the better of us.

I didn't state anything about a link between Saddam and Osama, as far as I was aware there wasn't one, good to know we agree there. As for WMD's, I'll concede that there was no direct evidence of plans to use them on US targets.

As for the removal, we (America) put the power hungry narcissistic totalitarian deuchenozzel in power. With that we had a responsibility to the people of Iraq to end his reign. Will Iraq be better off now? Don't know, time will tell.

I don't agree with the execution of Saddam, if the video is actually true. Exile, yes. Prison, yes. Thrown to the people for lynching, no.

And for the impulse acting, what would you have done if you were president during 9/11? People criticize Bush for acting as he did, but should we have placed a thumb firmly in our collective *** and sat down. Did it fall under "my bad man"? Maybe placing better security measures and a new security administration in our airports would have helped....oh wait...TSA, yeah grand job they do.

I firmly believe acting on intelligence was a key point that was missed that could've prevented the entire tragedy. Also, if we had not enlightened Osama in the ways of the dark arts we may have not had this problem :<

We always seem to have a problem with the little nations that we build always turn around on us and bite our hands. Then, if something happens: surprise, we dont know why it happened.

Statement:

Answer:

I didn't miss the point, I saw it, and agree. Faulty intelligence always bites people in the ***. Intel is only as good as the people you place in charge of gathering it.


Because we have egos the size of the Northern hemisphere. We expect our puppet nations to stay as is until we decide to change them. This is why we should mind our own business. Unfortunately, the powers that be want to generate money for themselves and for companies that helped get them elected.

My guess is when we no longer have a need to Import and Export commodities.

Yet people will still construct them and pretend theirs is actual reality. Yes they ignore things, that's being purposely ignorant, there's a word for that.

Also Bush Jr. Didn't win his first term, Gore did. Just sayin'

yes it's called "global warming" just sayin'

no I didn't make the stupid point that information is never subjective. you just don't like me so as usual you ignore the retardation of their claims and instead comeatmebro.

I'm sure that if Obama won the electoral vote, but Romney won the popular vote, you would be saying "Working as intended."

It's actually called "rapid global climate change" and all of it's causes and effects are very well documented.

IMO, if nearly the entire scientific community looks at a set of data and concludes something, you don't get to disagree based on your years of NOT BEING A SCIENTIST.

Cleverly excising which Bush I blame....

Begging your pardon, but it was Prescott Bush and Jack Philby (Hillary "Harry" St-John Bridger Philby) who gave the world the modern Middle east by converting sheiks to kings in order to to make the world safe for constitutional monarchies and empowering the radical Wahhabi sect in the process.

This happened a bit before JFK became president, or his father ran rum.

Besides, I thought all things liberal were ultimately FDR's fault.

Probably not, to be honest. The main controversy of that election was that the state that had the terrible ballot issues, multiple recounts with varying results, and a supreme court decision to cast it's electoral votes against it's popular votes just happened to be the state that Jeb Bush was the Governor of.

If the 2012 race had been close at all, if the electoral college had cast it's votes in opposition of it's popular vote in a state where Obama's brother had even stopped at a gas station, there would be riots.

That whole building an infrastructure that would propel the US into the largest population, innovation, and economic booms in it's history by giving people (hard labor) jobs... FDR, you socialist pig!

There was a link between Sadam and Osama.

Osama declared a fatwa against Sadam and put a price on his head. I rather doubt W attempted to collect it though.

I wonder if there is a subsect of radical liberals who think that we invaded Iraq hoping that it would lure Osama out of the woodwork.

Another lie from Jassick. Oh please tell me how you arrived at the statistic that nearly the entire scientific community believes in global warming. I know global warming religious zealots never provide any actual data to support their belief, but can you at least tell me how you arrive at the conclusion that nearly the entire scientific community believes it. The only people that make absolutely outrageous claims like that are people that cannot back their supposed science up. Come on who was asked. What defines a scientist? Would a chemist that works at an insulation plant be considered a scientist? How many were asked? What field were they in? What research did they do besides google? Basically if you answer yes that you believe in global warming they consider you a scientist I guess. If you say no they just ignore you. You are so full of crap it would be funny if zealots weren't so scary.

You are repeating crap from Obama "science is settled" speeches and acting like you know science. You hide behind the word science but not actual science.

NOAA's data is conclusive, as are the hundreds of independant investigations regarding ocean temperatures, levels, migration patterns, glacial mass, the global albedo, atmospheric compositions. We know the effects of runaway greenhouse effect to a certainty from studying the atmospheric conditions on Venus, which is by all rights a compositional clone of the Earth. The only qualified scientists who argue with rapid climate change are paid by the petrochemical industries. There is no competing theory, there is no debate, there is no doubt. Scientists call that consensus. The only place there is room for question is the exact cause, and recent data points to domestic livestock having a significant impact due to how much more powerful methane is as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

This has been studied since Obama was in kindergarten, bubba. Or maybe we should all take the "jury's still out" approach to anything we don't want to believe? Like evolution.

Tell me, is the science not settled on the shape of the Earth, because the greeks knew it was round and even it's size (incredibly accurately for the timescale and their method). But I'm sure there's some creation scientist with a degree from Liberty University who says that the Greeks were wrong cause the earth didn't exist or something.

-wakes up to Amand flailing-

In most of the surveys I've seen concerning scientific consensus, a scientist is defined as someone who's published, and a climate scientist would be someone with a large proportion of works in the climate science field.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/05/survey-of-12000-studies-finds-strong-agreement-on-climate-change/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change (yes, wiki, but it links to the major studies whereas the previous link is written more for the layman)

There is very little disagreement on the topic within the scientific community and near zero disagreement from those who would be considered experts in the field.

And there we go, anyone that doesn't believe in the religion of global warming is compared to those that believe the earth was flat, and any scientist that says otherwise is simply just paid by oil companies to say so. Do you see how absurd you sound? 100% of people agree if you ignore everyone that disagrees.

Did you even read that article Pleeb? It was crap.

It's a summary of an actual study. If you didn't enjoy their rundown then here, go nuts:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/

Global climate change is not a religion.

Religion is the belief in something intangible ignoring the absence of data. Global climate science is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.

@ the bolded statement...

I have been an auto tech and machinist for about 10 years now. From time to time people who don't really know anything about cars like to diagnose things. When I come to a different conclusion, NOBODY says "experts unable to agree". The community of qualified scientists don't disagree at all on the issue of rapid climate change, and nobody has an obligation to people who disagree based on their vast knowledge of baking soda and vinegar volcanoes.