Some may view that differently.......

• I've been asked "What is bootstrap mentality?" - The answer is complicated. Could use some help..s
  • A good uplifting point of view from God..... - sm
  • I believe that it refers to the work ethic basically... - sam
  • explanation - BDAyes
    • As in someone's slacker is another - Person's victijm/evacuee/refugee. nm
    • To the poster who asked the original question. - This would be what I was talking about..sm
      • That is so sad - mtstudent
    • Some may view that differently....... - sm
      • Thank you for this polite, respectful - Insightful and wise response. nm
    • So much for honest no bashing answers....LOL - sam
      • The only bash under this thread is - This cheap shot here. nm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html

Did the U.S. Use "Illegal" Weapons in Fallujah?

Media allegations claim the U.S. used outlawed weapons during combat in Iraq

The fighting in Fallujah, Iraq has led to a number of widespread myths including false charges that the United States is using chemical weapons such napalm and poison gas. None of these allegations are true.

Qatar-based Internet site Islam Online was one of the first to spread the false chemical weapons claim. On November 10, 2004, it reported that U.S. troops were allegedly using "chemical weapons and poisonous gas" in Fallujah. ("US Troops Reportedly Gassing Fallujah") It sourced this claim to Al-Quds Press, which cited only anonymous sources for its allegation.

The inaccurate Islam Online story has been posted on hundreds of Web sites.

On November 12, 2004, the U.S. Department of Defense issued a denial of the chemical weapons charge, stating:

"The United States categorically denies the use of chemical weapons at anytime in Iraq, which includes the ongoing Fallujah operation. Furthermore, the United States does not under any circumstance support or condone the development, production, acquisition, transfer or use of chemical weapons by any country. All chemical weapons currently possessed by the United States have been declared to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and are being destroyed in the United States in accordance with our obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention."

To its credit, Islam Online ran a Nov. 25, 2004, story carrying the U.S. denial.

In both stories, Islam Online noted that U.S. forces had used napalm-like incendiary weapons during the march to Baghdad in the spring of 2003. Although all napalm in the U.S. arsenal had been destroyed by 2001, Mark-77 firebombs, which have a similar effect to napalm, were used against enemy positions in 2003.

The repetition of this story on Islam Online�s led to further misinformation. Some readers did not distinguish between what had happened in the spring of 2003, during the march to Baghdad, and in Fallujah in November 2004. They mistakenly thought napalm-like weapons had been used in Fallujah, which is not true. No Mark-77 firebombs have been used in operations in Fallujah.

On Nov. 11, 2004, the Nov. 10 Islam Online story was reposted by the New York Transfer News Web site, with the inaccurate headline "Resistance Says US Using Napalm, Gas in Fallujah."

The headline was wrong in two ways. First, as explained above, Islam Online was incorrect in claiming that U.S. forces were using poison gas in Fallujah. Second, the New York Transfer News misread the Islam Online story to mean that U.S. forces were currently using napalm-like weapons in Fallujah. But Islam Online had never claimed this; it had only talked about napalm use in 2003.

The false napalm allegation then took on a life of its own. Further postings on the Internet repeated or recreated the error that the New York Transfer News had made, which eventually appeared in print media. For example, on Nov. 28, 2004, the UK�s Sunday Mirror inaccurately claimed U.S. forces were "secretly using outlawed napalm gas" in Fallujah.

The Sunday Mirror story was wrong in two ways.

First, napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed. International law permits their use against military forces, which is how they were used in 2003.

Second, as noted above, no Mark-77 firebombs were used in Fallujah.

The Sunday Mirror�s phrasing "napalm gas" is also revealing. Napalm is a gel, not a gas. Why did the Sunday Mirror describe it as a gas?

It may be that, somewhere along the line, a sloppy reader read the inaccurate New York Transfer News headline, "Resistance Says US Using Napalm, Gas in Fallujah," and omitted the comma between napalm and gas, yielding the nonsensical "napalm gas."

Next, the Sunday Mirror�s misinformation about �napalm gas� was reported in identical articles on Nov. 28 by aljazeera.com and islamonline.com. These two Web sites, which are owned by the same company � AL Jazeera Publishing � are deceptive look-alike Web sites that masquerade as the English-language sites of the popular Qatar-based Arabic-language satellite television station al Jazeera and the popular Islam Online Web site, which is islamonline.net.

Finally, some news accounts have claimed that U.S. forces have used "outlawed" phosphorous shells in Fallujah. Phosphorous shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.

[November 10, 2005 note: We have learned that some of the information we were provided in the above paragraph is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, i.e., obscuring troop movements and, according to an article, "The Fight for Fallujah," in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine, "as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes �." The article states that U.S. forces used white phosphorous rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.]

There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using "outlawed" weapons in Fallujah. The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq.

And that you classify such thinking as wrong.

Perhaps you should spend some time thinking on that.

oops

I never gave this a thought. The previous incumbent was so poor and Palin scared the bejesus out of me and McCain isn't that much of a maverick and doesn't know squat economically that I never let race enter into my voting decision. For me it was an obvious choice. (Not my first choice but by Nov. my only choice.)

If you read through this cnn.com article, you'll read that blacks who were innovative do feel they're or were held to different standards.

The very fact that this article is worthy of being printed surprises me.

=========================================

(CNN) -- Just days before he was sworn in, President Obama was giving his daughters a tour of the Lincoln Memorial when one of them pointed to a copy of Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address carved into the wall.

Obama's 7-year-old daughter, Sasha, told her father that Lincoln's speech was really long. Would he have to give a speech as long? Obama's answer was completed by his older daughter, 10-year-old Malia.

"I said, 'Actually, that one is pretty short. Mine may even be a little longer,' " Obama told CNN recently. "At which point, Malia turns to me and says, 'First African-American president, better be good.' "

The story is light-hearted, but it touches on a delicate question: Will people hold Obama to a different standard because he is the first African-American president?

Americans appear split by race on that answer. According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, 53 percent of blacks say the American public will hold Obama to a higher standard than past presidents because he is black. Most whites -- 61 percent -- say Obama's race will not matter in how he will be judged.

The question divided several people who were racial pioneers themselves.

Alexander Jefferson was one of the first blacks allowed to become a fighter pilot. He was a member of the Tuskegee Airmen, a group of black pilots who escorted bombers in World War II.

"We had to be twice as good to be average," he says.

Obama won't face the same pressures he did because his presidential predecessor was so inept, Jefferson says.

"No, the world is ready for him," he says. "The [George W.] Bush debacle was so depressing."

Jefferson was shot down by ground fire on his 19th mission and spent a year in German prison camps. He wrote about his POW experiences in "Red Tail Captured, Red Tail Free: Memoirs of a Tuskegee Airman and POW."

Jefferson says he dealt with the pressures of being a racial pioneer by drawing on the strength of black leaders who opened doors for him.

"I sit on the backs of everyone who came before me," says Jefferson, who attended Obama's inauguration with other Tuskegee Airmen.

Jefferson says he would have emotionally imploded if he'd thought too much about the pressures of representing all blacks and dealing with the racism he encountered when he returned home to a segregated America after the war.

"I did what I had to do so I didn't go stark-raving mad," he says. "There wasn't all this self-analysis and back and forth. I was too damn busy with a wife, a child and a mortgage."

Michele Andrea Bowen couldn't avoid a bout of constant self-analysis. She was one of the first African-American students admitted to a doctorate program in history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

"I know Obama is going to be held to a different standard," says Bowen, author of "Up at the College" and books such as "Holy Ghost Corner," which celebrate black faith and culture.

Bowen says she faced relentless scrutiny, and so will Obama.

"You know that it was hard for you to get in it, and you know they're watching you," Bowen says. "And you know that they're judging you by a critical standard that's sometimes not fair."

Bowen says a white classmate, her partner in dissertation, once confided to her that he received the same grades as she did, even though he knew his work was inferior.

"It toughened me up," Bowen says. "It can give you headaches and stomachaches. I learned you have to be thankful that God blessed you with that opportunity. At some point, you stop worrying, and you trust God."

'Would Bush have been president if he were black?'

Perhaps Obama will avoid those stomachaches because of the massive good will his election has generated. But that could change quickly if Obama makes a controversial decision or a mistake, says Andrew Rojecki, co-author of "The Black Image in the White Mind: Media and Race in America."

Rojecki says people who say Obama isn't going to be held to a different standard because of his skin color didn't pay attention to his campaign.

He says Obama had to deal with challenges that other candidates didn't have to face. Obama's run for office was almost ended by his association with his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose incendiary sermons shocked many.

But Republican presidential nominee John McCain's relationship with the Rev. John Hagee, who was accused of anti-Semitism, never threatened to end his campaign, Rojecki says.

"Obama was held responsible for what his minister said, and McCain was associated with Hagee, but somehow that didn't stick," says Rojecki, a communication professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Even people who regard themselves as the most progressive, open-minded supporters may subconsciously hold Obama to a different standard, Rojecki says.

He says several academic studies show that it often takes people longer to associate good qualities to blacks when different faces are flashed across a screen.

"They have these stereotypes buried in their subconscious," he says. "That's why people cross the street when they see a young black man. They'd rather not take a chance."

Obama virtually had to be perfect to overcome those stereotypes, Rojecki says. He was the first black Editor of the Harvard Law Review, he has an Ivy League-educated wife and adorable daughters, and he ran a great campaign.

"He's the perfect symbol of achievement," Rojecki says.

White candidates for office don't have to have an uninterrupted life of achievement to be considered for the Oval Office, Rojecki says.

"If George W. Bush were black, do you think he would be president?" Rojecki says.

Jefferson, the Tuskegee Airman, says Obama should have at least one consolation. The problems he confronts now are so immense that anyone, even someone who was considered by many to be perfect, would not be able to escape withering judgment.

"If the president was Jesus Christ, '' Jefferson says, "they would still debate if he's qualified."

Thinking About Iraq on King Day
By Star Parker
Monday, January 15, 2007

The characteristic of greatness - whether we are talking about a great man or great art - is that it transcends time and place. It dips into that which is universally and eternally true and applies those truths to a particular moment and a particular place.

Re-reading, after many reads, Dr. Martin Luther King's words of Aug. 28, 1963, the famous I Have a Dream speech, his greatness rings clearer than ever.

Because King did indeed touch the heavens on that day and pull down kernels of eternal truths about freedom and the condition of man, those words of 40-plus years ago have relevance to our struggles today. They can serve as guidance in these difficult times.

Am I saying that King's message from 1963 can guide us in today's conundrums _ about our embroilment in Iraq, about the Middle East, about America's role in the world? Yes, I am saying this.

The power of King's message, the unquestionable reason that the movement he led was successful, was his appeal to the truth of freedom and its universal applicability to all men.

By identifying and appealing to the freedom of man as a universal and eternal truth, and going on to make clear that this truth defined what this great country is about, then King's conclusion _ the intolerability of conditions that denied any American full participation in this freedom _ could not be denied.

Beyond this central message, King made other very important points in this speech.

One of key importance was that responsibility for solving a problem does not necessarily imply direct responsibility in having caused that problem.

Although the responsibility clearly was in the hands of those Americans with power, overwhelmingly white Americans, to fix the problems in the country that limited the availability of freedom to all, this did not mean that all those same Americans were racists or had caused the problem to begin with.

The responsibility for fixing these problems came, rather, with being the beneficiaries of a country whose destiny and identity was fundamentally linked with the enterprise of freedom.

In King's words, white Americans have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

He appealed to blacks not to allow suffering to translate into bitterness nor into categorical hate of white Americans. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

Instead, King exhorted black Americans to Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

So Dr. King accomplished a lot of business that August day in 1963.

He recognized the universal truth of human liberty. He recognized our country as a unique vessel of that truth. He appealed to Americans with power to assume their responsibilities as the beneficiaries of liberty to make this a better and freer country. And he appealed to black Americans to assume a different kind of responsibility _ to not allow themselves to be destroyed by unearned suffering but to be redeemed by it.

The prophet is a lonely man because he brings a message that people do not want to hear.

Dr. King's activism was not welcomed by most whites and a good many blacks.

There is natural appeal in the inertia of the status quo. Change and assumption of new responsibilities and challenges are welcomed by few.

Turmoil tells us that something is wrong and we have no choice but to open our eyes and ears and assume the responsibilities that are cast upon us.

I am, of course, not a military tactician and am in no position to speculate about how best to use American troops to midwife a portion of the world that clearly needs help in becoming more modern, more civil and freer.

However, I can say, that I am in complete sympathy with our president who senses that America has a unique and special role to play in this world. We cannot shirk responsibilities that are clearly ours.

I cannot help but think that it is not an accident that the United States stands so alone, despite many other nations that claim to have similar commitments to and stakes in civility and liberty. The way they act makes clear that they don't.

The truths that Dr. King articulated in so crystal clear a way in 1963 continue to resound today. Freedom is what this country is about. We have no choice. It is our heritage. We thrive and prosper from it. And we cannot avoid the responsibilities that come with it in our engagement with the rest of the world.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=17587

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-11/20/content_10388377.htm

Kaydie and LA difference.

You need to get out into the real world. From your post, it seems like you are living in a dream world.

When you have someone in your family assaulted and spends weeks in the hospital on the "edge", you will see why our right to own a gun is necessary. I certainly will not hesitate to shoot if I'm being threatened or to protect my family.

Only criminals use guns indiscriminantly and they don't care about life itself, or haven't you noticed? And that brings me to the point of the death penalty. Those that use a gun to commit a crime should receive the death penalty if they kill someone. I believe the death penalty is a deterent; i.e., some criminals with brains think twice before killing, but others do not.

I won't even go into your pub or Roe vs. Wade. They are so asinine, they don't deserve a reply.

I love the part where they ask him if he checks his facts.....ROFL.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/ladies-view-rake-glenn-beck-over-coa

but not everybody thinks he has lied.  Just because people say he has lied does not make it true.  There has been nothing substantial to support that he lied.  I just wish people would just quit throwing the word lie around so freely, because they are jumping to conclusions with no substantiation.

What scares me is I wonder how many people could withstand a real threat to this country.  We are so un-unified if it came across the television that we were being attacked....I'm not sure some of you would believe it....you'd just say, "another Bush lie..."

Our generation knows nothing of true hardship.   The Iraq war is not a quagmire...it's not another Vietnam...it's not anything like the dems are whining about it being....

You are right, we could argue until we're blue in the face.  No man, except for Jesus Christ, has ever been perfect, and that's the point.  Man is his own downfall everytime.  That's because of sin.  Christians, Jews, pagans, Hindus, Muslims etc. etc. all have the same problem, and it's sin.  Until we leave the Earthly realm man is never free of it, but Jesus paid the price for it.  Yes, I believe the Word of God is inerrant.  I feel you have to believe it all or not at all.  It's either right or wrong.  I don't expect you to see it the same way, but I can assure you I haven't drank the Kool-Aid.  I have read many, many different historical and Christian writings.  I highly recommend the book The Case for Christ about a atheist who took a year to research Christianity before making a decision whether or not to accept it.  Also, another good book is I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist  (from your writings it doesn't sound like you're an Atheist though)  Ultimately though it comes down to a leap of Faith.  The definition of faith is believing in something I cannot see.  It's hard for me not to look at nature without seeing God's hand all over it, and as the Bible says, The Heavens declare His Glory.

I have enjoyed our debate, but I am moving on...

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.

A little over one year ago:

1. Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
   
2. Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
   
3. The unemployment rate was 4.5%;
   
4. The DOW JONES hit a record high � 14,000+;
   
5. American�s were buying new cars, taking cruises, and vacations overseas, living large!

But Americans wanted CHANGE! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep � we got CHANGE all right.

In the PAST YEAR:

1. Consumer confidence has plummeted;
   
2. Gasoline hovers near $4 a gallon;
   
3. Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
   
4. Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS & prices are still dropping;
   
5. 1% of American homes are in foreclosure;
   
6. As I write, the DOW is playing around 11,500. $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM OUR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

Yes, in 2006 America voted for change. And we sure got it. Now Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president, claims he�s really going to give us change.

How much more CHANGE do you think we can stand?

http://bigshow.bigfolio.com/?s=000011662&t=0e6a8ae03101be65098418ccb735e4a1

Definitely worth the watch

The dems are saying McCain wasn't presidential and made faces or whatever.  The reps say that Obama smirked and not presidential.  LOL!  It really comes down to who you believe.  If you don't like McCain, you are going to see the negative things you want to and vice versa.  We are all guilty of this. 

I think this election can go either way and we won't know until it is over.  I just know who I'm supporting and I will continue to support until the end.

Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation.

So acorrding to you, we should just scrap this whole civil rights thing that would protect those who do not have as large a voice and go for a majority vote?