Current Events - March 2007

Which is a more obvious act of war? Going to war under known false pretences or, seizing 15 foreign sailors?

2007-03-28 02:09:23 · 7 answers · asked by Dr Watson (UK) 5

For Britain and the US to 'make a mistake' over the existence of WMD's in Iraq, a mistake that has unfortunately lead to 10's of thousands of Iraqi deaths, 3 thousand American GI's dead and over 100 British troops dead - or, the Iranians seizing 15 British Sailors?

2007-03-28 02:08:03 · 12 answers · asked by Dr Watson (UK) 5

Back in '41, FDR said we had declared war on Japan and the Axis powers. It was an official congressional declaration of war I guess. Did we do that with either Iraq or Afghanistan or the Taliban?

2007-03-28 02:05:02 · 6 answers · asked by f f 1

If you have not heard 15 sailors were seized by Iran as they were conducting operations in Iraqi waters about a week and a half ago. The sailors were in an inflatable craft and were confronted by six Iranian vessels.

Iran gave coordinates of where the sailors were seized and it turned out to be 1.7 miles into Iraqi waters...then they changed their coordinates and the new location was 0.3 miles into Iranian waters.

What should England do about it? Does Iran have a basis to hold the sailors? What if it were Iranian sailors getting too close to U.S. waters?

2007-03-28 01:56:47 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-03-28 01:54:52 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

Give reason for your answer..

2007-03-28 01:26:12 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

You do realize that Iran does provide a significant risk to us, our allies, and our interests. Do you blame Bush and Blair? Come on, even the leaders of China and Russia agree with us on this issue (to a certain extent, yes).

2007-03-28 01:18:53 · 8 answers · asked by casey_leftwich 5

I'm doing a debate and need ideas for being against school uniforms.

2007-03-28 01:18:40 · 8 answers · asked by k a s s i e ;) 2

It seems to me that they are trying to start something and trying to look like the innocent party, saying the prisoners have invaded their country, when they went over the border and captured them.Have they got nuclear weapons? I hope I'm just being paranoid, but I'm worried all the same).

2007-03-28 01:15:28 · 10 answers · asked by survivor 5

2007-03-28 00:48:51 · 10 answers · asked by T.J. H 1

We all know by now he had cheated and abused the public's trust and cheated millions of dollars from we the public for his own greed.Apart from making him to pay back every single cent he has taken(which will be unlikely)What will be the % of him landing him in jail for his selfish ,greedy acts?

2007-03-28 00:33:40 · 3 answers · asked by chasen54 5

How far do you think England should go in punishing Iran if they dont get their soldiers back?

2007-03-27 23:27:06 · 17 answers · asked by sonhutch1 2

2007-03-27 23:10:03 · 20 answers · asked by Say It Like You Mean It 4

2007-03-27 23:03:22 · 18 answers · asked by Green Man 2

When the Japanese conquered Guam in 1939, they sent all the men to labor camps. Most died. First the children were all 1/2 Spanish, then the children were all 1/2 Japanese. The nature of women is not to fight? What about girly-men? Any lessons here?

2007-03-27 21:41:49 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-03-27 20:57:30 · 2 answers · asked by Prince 2

They said the reason for this is to keep all the sexual predators away from the kids.
I guess they are trying to eliminate the competition!
LOL

2007-03-27 20:08:16 · 5 answers · asked by backpackwayne 5

Why is it that any criticism of any aspect of the state of Israel is immediately equated with charges of anti-Semitism? I’ve noticed that any other country and its people can be freely criticized without the attacker being branded a racist.

I ask because I saw Dennis Miller the other day and he was doing one of his famous everyone-sucks-but America-and Israel tirades and everyone in the audience was eating it up and cheering, especially his anti-Chinese and anti-Russian stuff. But no one ever seems to call him a racist. It’s really weird.

2007-03-27 19:48:01 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

and give IRAQ back to IRAQ.
THEN WE WILL LEAVE.
IF YOU COME BACK SO WILL WE.

YOU HAVE CAUSED MISERY AND DESTRUCTION DRIVEN BY MOHAMMADS TEACHINGS AND KILL.LIE AND COWARDLY DISSOLVE INTO THE CROWDS OF PEOPLE THAT YOU DESTROY AND BLAME THE WEST

.EVEN THE PRESIDENT OF IRAN CANT STAND YOU AND ENTERTAINS HIMSELF BY HANGING A DOZEN OF YOU DAILY.
WHY DOESNT THE ARAB LEAGUE THROW A FEW DOLLARS TO THE PALISTINIANS???
How much have they stolen from AFRICA?
WHO GETS THE CHARITY MONEY THE MOSQUES GET FROM WESTERN COUNTRIES?
YOU ARE A DISGRACE TO HUMANITY

2007-03-27 19:31:13 · 3 answers · asked by jumpin0jack0flash 3

Its everyones right to get knowledge and world community will support that. And they have understood that the knowledge is not only sole porperty of Bullying westerners

2007-03-27 19:23:51 · 5 answers · asked by anishraja100 2

If you are not religious any expression of love and support will be acceptable. This is an opportunity for us to put politics and other differences aside and link arms with two other brave and admirable human beings.

2007-03-27 19:15:30 · 10 answers · asked by Warren D 7

2007-03-27 19:06:24 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-03-27 18:47:20 · 10 answers · asked by ram 1

I know that was the reason for Israel to bomb and strike them in Lebanon last summer. But wasnt part of the deal to end the war for Hezbollah to release the soldiers???

Its been about 9 months and they still haven't released them.

2007-03-27 18:41:50 · 8 answers · asked by JJ C 2

2007-03-27 18:40:49 · 11 answers · asked by ram 1

President Bush hadn't brought the troops back from Iraq for 4 years. what makes me think that he'll bring them back after hearing that he'd veto a vote against keeping them there?

2007-03-27 18:38:01 · 21 answers · asked by lovelyhorsefriend06 4

just heard on the news that theres some organisation that wants the goverment (taxpayer) to foot the bill for failed ayslum seekers who decide to take there chances on the streets of uk instead of leaving the country because there to scared to go back to where they come from and that the goverment should make it easier for them to get work here all views welcome

2007-03-27 18:37:03 · 24 answers · asked by steve738494 3

No country bestows absolute freedom to its citzens...we certainly are not free to kill people.

Freedoms, including speech, are constrained largely based on societal interests. For example "fighting words" are not protected speech because of their ability to provoke.

Consider the following absurdity - America spends billions on islamic terror prevention. We send troops to Afghanistan to take out islamic terror camps, to prevent Muslims from...well...committing terror in America.

Can Islamic terror hurt America if there is no Islam in America? Islamic missles could...but terror requires domestic presence and acceptance.

The truth is, all religion is false but what happense when its also violent and virulent presence? Why do we not curtail this social ill as we do others?

The same logic that justifies curtailment of speech applies here...but Americans have such love for religion...its all good...say the dumb sheep.

2007-03-27 18:31:04 · 10 answers · asked by Madness 1

It seems many on these posts think that invading another nation and killing their citizens make our marines heroes and patriotic?. According to Webter patriotism is love for or devotion to one's country, not love for the interests of Bush or Oil companies nor invading unarmed nations..

2007-03-27 18:05:41 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

Interestingly, the burden of proof is no longer on the "conspiracy theorists" but on those who have stood by the government's official claim that 19 hijackers with plastic box-cutters financed by Bin Laden, out smarted the CIA, FBI, NSA, FAA, The Pentagon, and our Multi Trillion Dollar High Tech Military by crashing 4 planes without any intervention.

The following is fact and is irrefutable:

FACT: Bin Laden is NOT wanted by the FBI for the 9/11 attacks. Check out the FBI web site. Reason? They don't have sufficient evidence to convict him. Perhaps this is why Bush said he really doesn't care if we catch him or not.

FACT: There are hundreds of televised claims from the morning of the attacks saying that witnesses heard or felt explosions prior to the collapse of the towers. These include firefighters, police, news reporters, security guards, employees of the WTC and civilians.

FACT: 47 story - WTC 7, we are told, collapsed from fire alone. This was unprecedented for a concrete and steel frame building. Furthermore, it fell symmetrically at free fall speed. Science and deductive reasoning will easily support the cause of this collapse as DEMOLITION. Fire does not have the energy to do this. Besides, Larry Silverstein declared on TV that they “pulled” building 7.

FACT: The steel from WTC was shipped overseas before an investigation was even opened. This is the greatest destruction of evidence and malpractice in the history of forensics.

FACT: Thousands of first responders have been afflicted and some have even died from respiratory failure. The government will not support investigations into the many reports which show that these heroes have micronized steel, glass, and concrete in their lungs. Fire, and the collapse from gravity would not produce this type of dust. Demolitions, however, supports the evidence.

FACT: We were told that NORAD didn't intercept any of the planes that day. This spans from about 8:24 A.M, the time of the first report of a hijacking, to 10:06, when the last plane crashed in Shanksville Penn. NORAD has a prior track record of intercepting planes within minutes. Standard Operating Procedure was not followed that day. The Bush Administration changed their story several times. We must also look at the fact that President Bush ordered Cheney to take control over NORAD the morning of the attacks.

FACT: The investigation into 9/11 was initially opposed by the Bush Administration. The 9/11 families pressed for one. They got it, but with remarkable conditions. The total costs of the investigation, including the NIST report, was only $16 million. The cost to investigate the Space Shuttle crash - $50 million. The cost to investigate Clinton - $42 million. In other words, the greatest failure of our defenses deserved less money than the shuttle and Clinton's perjury. What an insult to the 9/11 families and the loss of their loved ones.

FACT: No one has been fired for the failures of 9/11.

FACT: Right before the attack a spike in “put options” on Boeing, United Airlines, and American Airlines increased dramatically and was never investigated. Millions are still unclaimed. This indicates people knew in advance. Why didn’t the FBI check out these leads?

FACT: In August 6, 2001 A Public Daily Briefing Memo that was titled BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN THE US was brought forward. Yet prior to its declassification, we were told by Rice and Fleisher that there were no warnings. Had this news been made public, couldn't travelers, law enforcement, and airline workers have been a little more guarded or informed to notice something that day? Wouldn't we have guessed right away that the first report of a hijacking was indeed a terrorist? Or would we have dismissed it as "one bad pilot" and continued to read "My Pet Goat" while America was attacked?

FACT: When the United States is under attack the first measure is to secure the President.
The entire nation knew 2 weeks in advance that President Bush would be at Booker Elementary Grade School. Why did his body guards and secret service men let him remain at this location for 20 minutes after the attack? Holding the book “My Pet Goat” upside down while he tried to address a bunch of 5th grade students?

The bottom line is - If the deaths of 3000 people occurred under the control of a corporation, people would have been brought up on charges of criminal negligence. Immediately! Despite the growing movement and mounting evidence into the WTC collapses, the government still has made up its mind that it is fire that brought these buildings down and that 9/11 was simply a failure of imagination. They feel no one is to blame. This was the conclusion they had prior to the investigation. What the 9/11 Commission produced is the anti-thesis of the scientific method. Much of the evidence was outright omitted. Since they determined the conclusion prematurely. Do you understand?

If you were an underwriter at an insurance company, or an architectural engineer, or a fire marshal, wouldn't you want to know what really happened in these buildings? If you were a pilot, or an FAA employee, wouldn't you want to know which NORAD employee stood down, failed to requisition intervention or just plain messed up that day?

To dismiss the overwhelming evidence that explicitly shows how hundreds of questions remain unanswered suggests a cover-up by our government. Conservative thinking has taught us to keep government in check 100% of the time.

More and more people are joining the 9/11 truth movement. We are unstoppable. To deny the smidgeon of facts presented here and the many others unmentioned is akin to being like those who have denied the Holocaust. It's intellectually dishonest.

Go ahead and give this a thumbs down if your Patriotism is of the cheapest kind. Yours is the kind that our forefathers would have laughed at. They demanded that we question authority, as they did. Our Constitution provides us with the means to explore the truth and to keep the government in check. But even the Constitution has been threatened as of late.

So, give it a thumbs down if you wish to cling to your Cheap Patriotism and your unconditional loyalty to a President and a Government that has demonstrated nothing but contempt for Accountability, Truth, Constitution, and most importantly - the 9/11 victims, their families and surviving rescue workers who continue to suffer the loss of their loved ones.

Peace, may the truth be brought forward and the guilty be brought to justice.

2007-03-27 18:02:02 · 8 answers · asked by Surfer Dude 2