Yes it is but that doesn't show the rest of the world on your side. As far as me posting the links for you I'll hunt them down for you, I pointed via links to that post in previous posts for you.
You actually made it for me. I choose not to say what the point was. Those who can figure it out for themselves will understand. Say gworld, why have you dropped to only 1 green block? Didnt you used to have like 4 green blocks? 930 posts and only 1 block. Seems to me the viewers who do not post are not only on a different page as you, they arent even in the same book.
gworld, are you giving up on this thread already? Only 35 pages into it? http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=32745
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=361875&postcount=126 #1 post I found of you requesting info, of which you didn't respond and again accused me of not showing any proof or an article. and yet again on to #2 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=362076&postcount=183 Not to mention comments such as telling you I gave you the link? There might be more, but I trust this proves I did in fact post the link after your request?
Poll: Bush Ratings Hit New Low I have links to two polls for how the rest of the world views the US. I am not trying to prove anything, just put them up because I saw this mentioned on another page.
Sorry, but I dont see how that is relevant. I cant stand Bush, and god knows I think a lot of his policies are f-ing shit. With that being said a poll is a generalization of the man rather than the Iraq issue alone. I did a poll on one of my sites a few months ago and out of 250 submissions 190 supported the idea of staying and finishing no matter how long it takes. This thread is about Iran, I havent met a single person here in Nevada that feels Iran would be better left alone. How does a poll about Bush's overall performance answer any questions about the validity of going into Iran?
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/06/18/iran.nuclear/ Referring to article just above, there is no pressue from the US on the IAEA or EU in this article. Zero. The US is pressuring Iran, and rightfully so, has the IAEA and other nations. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_26-5-2005_pg4_9 Referring to article just above, there is no pressure from the US on IAEA or the EU. "An Iranian negotiator warned on Wednesday that US pressure was an obstacle to reaching an agreement between EU countries and Iran over Tehran’s controversial nuclear programmeme during talks in Geneva." It does not say the US is pressuring the EU or IAEA, but rather that an Iranian sayd US Pressure (with no mention towards the EU or IAEA, which could also be pressure on Iran directly) was an obstacle. http://www.ips-dc.org/comment/Bennis/blink_iran.htm Referring to article just above, the author notes pressure from the US with no sources. Credibility? Who knows. Looks like a blog of some sort. http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/20503 Referring to the post directly above, author (interesting name, but not surprising giving the op-ed), mentions US pressure. Should I take into consideration the author? Just doing a quick search on google answers that question for me. http://www.dawn.com/2004/11/19/int5.htm Not sure what kind of site this is, but ok, the title says "US pressures EU to toughen Iran draft." What pressure? To toughen up the draft? http://www.rense.com/general67/usindia.htm Regarding the article directly above, reprinted on some obscure site from Al Jazeera? May I stop now? I'm not able to conclude the same as *absolute fact* based on these sources and lack thereof.
This is an ultra-clever tactic! I always enjoying seeing this one the most as it's so easy to spot, Ray Charles could see it if he were still with us. Jump right in with some anti-Bush material that has no bearing on the topic. Not sure who invented such a clever and sneaky method, but it's a real winner!
Due to propaganda in the US, you folks don't realize the opposite is true, the rest of the world looks up to france, and only 37% to the US. The smear campaign by the current admin in Washington is filling the news with falsity. This is the truth right now: Christian Science MonitorOn world stage, France's role is audience favorite Here is a report at Yahoo News: I still have links to polls about whether the world is a safer or more dangerous place, and I also have a link about Syria which shows that Bush is lying through his teeth. I saw about two weeks ago that Syria had offered 100% support for the US and wanted to co-ordinate intelligence and tactics, and give the US their unbridled co-operation. It is a lie that Syria is helping the terrorists, they have been jailing them. If the US invades Iran or Syria, there is going to be some very, very serious consequences from the rest of the world. You have no idea how bad the US looks to everyone, no idea. It is becoming the laughingstock of the rest of the world and people in Europe and everywhere else do not understand what the f*** is wrong with your leader and admin. It is a very serious image problem that I don't think people understand, and I am not trying to be nasty or anything. That is how it is. People are dumbfounded at how Bush lies so consistently about Iraq.
I was not saying they were all 100% factual or credible, simply that there are many reports both online and off of the US pressuring which is common, I am not saying it's a bad thing, however to say there has been no US pressure I don't believe to be accurate.
HUH? So instead of saying sorry yes I do see that you did post the links which I would have accepted you post something such as this?
Fair enough, and if my rep tank wasnt on empty I would green you for that post. BUT, I still havent seen you point out any flaws in what GTech is posting. hrl, I actually have quite a bit of family in Iraq right now fighting this war and from what I read through e-mails everyday Iran is A MAJOR PROBLEM and what we hear from the people actually on the ground in the middle east the situation is perfectly lined up with what GTech is saying here. I dont get into the debates because I prefer to trust what I hear directly from the mid east rather than debate links and pimped out stories that pass through several sets of biased hands (biased both directions). Simply put... You either feel that Iran needs to be delt with, or you dont.
I feel they DO need to be dealt with! I actually mentioned a bombing campaign if shit keeps hitting the fan. Where I submitted info to dispute gtech was much earlier in the thread, now it's begun to simply be a pissing match ---edit and with all the bud lights I've been drinking I've got plenty of piss, Now seriously I think all on the thread should sit back and relax and have a beer, as it appears we do have much of the same beliefs it however comes down to extremely trivial issues. Maybe I read one post of gtechs wrong which got me pissed off and who knows maybe I started the pissing match, fine. Reguardless of who feels what proof is enough or what isn't it at least appears to me most of us, even Gworld which I know you righty's wont believe feels the same way as we do, just a different interpretation. The only reason I got involved in this thread was 'the attack iran now' that the original intent of the thread had to it
Trying to break this down: 1) There is pressure, which you claim, and back up with (what kind of links were those???) 2) Not saying they were all 100% factual or credible, but let's post them just the same? 3) This justifies "many reports both online and off" of US Pressuring? 4) Not saying it's a bad thing, but compelled to point it out with shaky links? 5) Who said there was no pressure? What exactly should I conclude from this?
I actually did mention something to the point of possibly I read you incorrectly. I had many links showing US pressure, plus have watched many shows on it. I thought in one post at least who were leading on to say that the US only backed but was not pressuring, in my mind when reading multiple articles and watching many news shows stating there was US pressure this is incorrect on your part. However again I stated if I read you wrong I appologize. The links I listed were only a small section of my latest book marks, I have read many more and watched many more news shows on the subject. They were not to be 100% proof but show the US does pressure, which I think the US should pressure on cases such as this. Again it comes down to trivial issues, I agreed with what you said, yet I at least 'though be it incorrectly?' you stated one thing, most wont dispute someone who agrees with them, I however will if I feel it's not fully factual. I've stated this before and I will state it again. I'm sure this wont ever get me any hardcore supporters as I challenge everyones point at one time or another 'in other words lots of red ', but in my mind I simply can't let anything go that I feel is not correct. Just as you stating items that you believe are factual, and I believe to be speculation. I admit it's a trivial thing, but it still does not take from the fact if it's factual or not. Now settle down and have that DAMN BEER
I don't take this personally. It's like a good match of chess. You win some, you lose some. You come back the next day and here we go again. And yes, you were right, I was wrong on the post you mentioned. I usually pay closer attention and will do so in the future. No comment on the gworld rubbish. Later...