PDA

View Full Version : Iraq War Quiz


Tecknowledgy
04-03-2003, 03:16 AM
by Stephen R. Shalom


1. The anti-war movement supports our troops by urging that they be
brought home immediately so they neither kill nor get killed in a unjust
war. How has the Bush administration shown its support for our troops?

a. The Republican-controlled House Budget Committee voted to cut
$25 billion in veterans benefits over the next 10 years.

b. The Bush administration proposed cutting $172 million from
impact aid programs which provide school funding for children of
military personnel.

c. The administration ordered the Dept. of Veterans Affairs to stop
publicizing health benefits available to veterans.

d. All of the above.



2. The anti-war movement believes that patriotism means urging our
country to do what is right. How do Bush administration officials define
patriotism?

a. Patriotism means emulating Dick Cheney, who serves as
Vice-President while receiving $100,000-$1,000,000 a year from
Halliburton, the multi-billion dollar company which is already lining up
for major contracts in post-war Iraq.

b. Patriotism means emulating Richard Perle, the warhawk who serves
as head of the Defense Intelligence Board while at the same time meeting
with Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi on behalf of Trireme, a company
of which he is a managing partner, involved in security and military
technologies, and while agreeing to work as a paid lobbyist for Global
Crossing, a telecommunications giant seeking a major Pentagon contract.

c. Patriotism means emulating George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul
Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Tom DeLay, John Ashcroft, Lewis
Libby, and others who enthusiastically supported the Vietnam War while
avoiding serving in it and who now are sending others to kill and be
killed in Iraq.

d. All of the above.



3. The Bush administration has accused Saddam Hussein of lying
regarding his weapons of mass destruction. Which of the following might
be considered less than truthful?

a. Constant claims by the Bush administration that there was
documentary evidence linking Iraq to attempted uranium purchases in
Niger, despite the fact that the documents were forgeries and CIA
analysts doubted their authenticity.
b. A British intelligence report on Iraq's security services that
was in fact plagiarized, with selected modifications, from a student
article.
c. The frequent citation of the incriminating testimony of Iraqi
defector Hussein Kamel, while suppressing that part of the testimony in
which Kamel stated that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had been
destroyed following the 1991 Gulf War.
d. All of the above.

4. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher stormed out of a press
conference when the assembled reporters broke into laughter after he
declared that the U.S. would never try to bribe members of the UN. What
should Fleisher have said to defend himself?

a. It wasn't just bribery; we also ordered the bugging of the home
and office phones and emails of the UN ambassadors of Security Council
member states that were undecided on war.

b. Oh, come on! We've been doing this for years. In 1990 when Yemen
voted against authorizing war with Iraq, the U.S. ambassador declared
"That will be the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast."

c. Why do you think the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act makes one
of the conditions for an African country to receive preferential access
to U.S. markets that it "not engage in activities that undermine United
States national security or foreign policy interests"?

d. All of the above.



5. George Bush has declared that "we have no fight with the Iraqi
people." What could he have cited as supporting evidence?

a. U.S. maintenance of 12 years of crippling sanctions that
strengthened Saddam Hussein while contributing to the death of hundreds
of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

b. The fact that "coalition" forces have indicated that they will
use cluster bombs in Iraq, despite warnings from human rights groups
that "The use of cluster munitions in Iraq will endanger civilians for
years to come."

c. By pointing to the analogy of Afghanistan, which the U.S.
pledged not to forget about when the war was over, and for which the
current Bush administration foreign aid budget request included not one
cent in aid.

d. All of the above.



6. The Bush administration has touted the many nations that are
part of the "coalition of the willing." Which of the following
statements about this coalition is true?

a. In most of the coalition countries polls show that a majority,
often an overwhelming majority, of the people oppose the war.

b. More than ten of the members of the coalition of the willing are
actually a coalition of the unwilling - unwilling to reveal their names.


c. Coalition members - most of whose contributions to the war are
negligible or even zero - constitute less than a quarter of the
countries in the UN and contain less than 20% of the world's population.


d. All of the above.



7. The war on Iraq is said to be part of the "war on terrorism."
Which of the following is true?

a. A senior American counterintelligence official said: "An
American invasion of Iraq is already being used as a recruitment tool by
Al Qaeda and other groups....And it is a very effective tool."

b. An American official, based in Europe, said Iraq had become "a
battle cry, in a way," for Al Qaeda recruiters.

c. France's leading counter-terrorism judge said: "Bin Laden's
strategy has always been to demonstrate to the Islamic community that
the West, and especially the U.S., is starting a global war against
Muslims. An attack on Iraq might confirm this vision for many Muslims. I
am very worried about the next wave of recruits."

d. All of the above.



8. The Bush administration says it is waging war to stop the spread
of weapons of mass destruction. Which of the following is true?

a. The United States has refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty, viewed worldwide as the litmus test for seriousness about
nuclear disarmament.

b. The United States has insisted on a reservation to the Chemical
Weapons Convention allowing the U.S. President the right to refuse an
inspection of U.S. facilities on national security grounds, and blocked
efforts to improve compliance with the Biological and Toxin Weapons
Convention.

c. Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby, Director of the Defense
Intelligence Agency, testified on Feb. 11, 2003, "The long-term trends
with respect to WMD and missile proliferation are bleak. States seek
these capabilities for regional purposes, or to provide a hedge to deter
or offset U.S. military superiority."

d. All of the above.



9. The Bush administration says it wants to bring democracy to Iraq
and the Middle East. Which of the following is true?

a. If there were democracy in Saudi Arabia today, backing for the
U.S. war effort would be the first thing to go, given the country's
"increasingly anti-American population deeply opposed to the war."

b. The United States subverted some of the few democratic
governments in the Middle East (Syria in 1949, Iran in 1953), and has
backed undemocratic regimes in the region ever since.

c. The United States supported the crushing of anti-Saddam Hussein
revolts in Iraq in 1991.

d. All of the above.



10. Colin Powell cited as evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link an
audiotape from bin Laden in which he called Saddam Hussein and his Baath
Party regime "infidels." Which of the following is more compelling
evidence?

a. An FBI official told the New York Times: "We've been looking at
this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think
it's there."

b. According to a classified British intelligence report seen by
BBC News, "There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the
al-Qaeda network."

c. According to Rohan Gunaratna, author of Inside Al Qaeda: Global
Network of Terror, "Since U.S. intervention in Afghanistan in October
2001, I have examined several tens of thousands of documents recovered
from Al Qaeda and Taliban sources. In addition to listening to 240 tapes
taken from Al Qaeda's central registry, I debriefed several Al Qaeda
and Taliban detainees. I could find no evidence of links between Iraq
and Al Qaeda."

d. All of the above.

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

Answers with sources in 3 days.

Cedwyn
04-03-2003, 09:52 AM
brav-O!

that was great!

thanks, teck!

Tecknowledgy
04-03-2003, 12:24 PM
For sure!

I'll actually post the answers tomorrow. I don't want to wait two more days.

Actually I'll post them later today.

Mike S
04-03-2003, 01:15 PM
*snicker*

And after the class kids we're going to show a short film on liberal bias in the classroom.



MS

Cedwyn
04-03-2003, 04:54 PM
facts have no bias, mike.

Carley
04-03-2003, 05:11 PM
But one can present 'facts' at a bias. This quiz is a perfect example ;)

Carley
04-03-2003, 05:41 PM
So I just checked this first question to get a feel for its credibility. I guess the answer is ‘d’ ~ none of the above ;)

Originally posted by Tecknowledgy


a. The Republican-controlled House Budget Committee voted to cut
$25 billion in veterans benefits over the next 10 years.


''Veterans' Benefits and Services (Function 700)

As approved by the Budget Committee, S. Con. Res. 23 assumes $29.0 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical programs. This is a increase of $3.7 billion over the 2003 enacted level, and the second largest increase for medical care in the last 5 years. This increase will help the VA in its mission to provide medical care to its core constituency - low-income and service-connected disabled veterans.''

http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/2003/L15bd031703.pdf

But:

'Although the President's FY'04 budget calls for a large increase in VA health care, it will not fix years of inadequate funding which have created a system that is unable to provide timely access to high quality health care for all veterans. The President request is $25.2 billion for VA health care. The Independent Budget, which we proudly co-author, recommended $27.2 billion for VA health care. The President's budget is $2 billion short of what is needed to properly fund the VA health care system. "

http://vocusgr.vocus.com/vfw/webpub/vfw/ProfileIssue.asp?IssueID=56&XSL=ProfileIssue

b. The Bush administration proposed cutting $172 million from
impact aid programs which provide school funding for children of
military personnel.

This one I'm not even looking up. Note the language ~ "proposed." Yet another way of presenting facts at a bias. This doesn't neccesarily *mean* anything, but it sure sounds bad!!

c. The administration ordered the Dept. of Veterans Affairs to stop publicizing health benefits available to veterans.

http://www.va.gov/health_benefits/

I'll wait for your sources on the rest Eli :)

Tecknowledgy
04-03-2003, 10:15 PM
1. d (a) Cong. Lane Evans, "Veterans Programs Slashed by House
Republicans," Press Release, 3/13/03,
http://www.veterans.house.gov/democratic/press/108th/3-13-03budget.htm.
(b) Brian Faler, "Educators Angry Over Proposed Cut in Aid; Many
Children in Military Families Would Feel Impact," Washington Post,
3/19/03, p. A29. (c) See Veterans' for Common Sense, letter to George W.
Bush, 3/20/03 http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/print.asp?id=563;
Melissa B. Robinson, "Hospitals Face Budget Crunch," Associated Press,
7/31/02; Jason Tait, "Veterans angered by marketing ban," Eagle-Tribune
(Lawrence, MA), 8/2/02,
http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20020802/FP_003.htm

2. d (a) Warren Vieth and Elizabeth Douglass, " Ousting Hussein
could open the door for U.S. and British firms. French, Russian and
Chinese rivals would lose their edge," Los Angeles Times, 3/12/03, p.
I:1; Robert Bryce and Julian Borger, "Halliburton: Cheney is still paid
by Pentagon contractor, Bush deputy gets Dollars 1m from firm with Iraq
oil deal," Guardian (London), 3/12/03, p. 5 (which notes that
Halliburton "would not say how much the payments are; the obligatory
disclosure statement filled by all top government officials says only
that they are in the range of" $100,000 and $1 million. (b) Seymour M.
Hersh, "Lunch with the Chairman," New Yorker, 3/16/03; Stephen Labaton,
"Pentagon Adviser Is Also Advising Global Crossing," NYT, 3/21/03, p.
C1. Perle is to be paid $725,000 for his lobbying effort, including
$600,000 if his lobbying is successful. (c) New Hampshire Gazette, "The
Chickenhawks," http://nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html.

3. d (a) See the evidence collected in Cong. Henry Waxman's letter
to George W. Bush, 3/17/03,
http://www.house.gov/waxman/text/admin_iraq_march_17_let.htm. (b) See
Glen Rangwala's report, http://traprockpeace.org/britishdossier.html.
(c) See Glen Rangwala's report, http://traprockpeace.org/kamel.html.

4. d (a) Martin Bright, Ed Vulliamy, and Peter Beaumont, The
Observer (London), 3/2/03. (b) Quoted in Phyllis Bennis, Calling the
Shots: How Washington Dominates Today's UN, New York: Olive Branch,
1996, p. 33. (c) Sarah Anderson, Phyllis Bennis, and John Cavanagh,
Coalition of the Willing or Coalition of the Coerced?: How The Bush
Administration Influences Allies in Its War on Iraq, Washington, DC:
Institute for Policy Studies, 2/26/03, p. 4.

5. d (a) For background, see Anthony Arnove, ed., Iraq Under Siege:
The Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War, Cambridge: South End Press,
updated ed. 2003. (b) Paul Waugh, "Labour MPs Attack Hoon After He
Reveals That British Forces Will Use Cluster Bombs," Independent,
3/21/03, p. 4; Human Rights Watch, Press Release, 3/18/03: "Persian
Gulf: U.S. Cluster Bomb Duds A Threat; Warning Against Use of Cluster
Bombs in Iraq." (c) Zvi Bar'el, "Flaws in the Afghan Model," Ha'aretz,
3/14/03,
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?ite
mNo=272884.

6. d (a) See, for example, the revealing comment of Secretary of
State Powell: "We need to knock down this idea that nobody is on our
side. So many nations recognize this danger [of Iraq's weapons]. And
they do it in the face of public opposition." Quoted in Steven R.
Weisman With Felicity Barringer, "Urgent Diplomacy Fails To Gain U.S. 9
Votes In The U.N." NYT, 3/10/03, p. A1) (b) U.S. Dept. of State, Daily
Press Briefing, Richard Boucher, Washington, DC, 3/18/03. (c) Country
list: White House, Statement of Support from Coalition, 3/25/03,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/print/20030325-8.html;
population calculated from Statistical Abstract of the United States,
2001, Washington, DC: 2001, table 1327. Total includes USA. The White
House list includes countries whose leaders have done no more than state
their support for the United States, and the listing changes from day to
day, with some countries being added and some removed.

7. d (a) Don Van Natta Jr. and Desmond Butler, "Anger On Iraq Seen
As New Qaeda Recruiting Tool," NYT, 3/16/03, p. I:1. (b) Van Natta and
Butler, NYT, 3/16/03. (c) Van Natta and Butler, NYT, 3/16/03.

8. d (a) Colum Lynch, "U.S. Boycotts Nuclear Test Ban Meeting; Some
Delegates at U.N. Session Upset at Latest Snub of Pact Bush Won't Back,"
Washington Post, 11/12/02, p. A6. (b) Amy E. Smithson, "U.S.
Implementation of the CWC," in Jonathan B. Tucker, The Chemical Weapons
Convention: Implementation Challenges and Solutions, Monterey Institute,
April 2001, pp. 23-29, http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/tuckcwc.htm;
Jonathan Tucker, "The Fifth Review Conference of the Biological and
Toxin Weapons Convention," Feb. 2002,
http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_7b.html. (c) Testimony before the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, excerpted at
http://traprockpeace.org/usefulquotesoniraq.html.

9. d (a) Craig S. Smith, "Saudi Arabia Seems Calm But, Many Say, Is
Seething," NYT, 3/24/03, p. B13. In fact, "Though the Saudi government
officially denies it, the bombing campaign is being directed from Saudi
Arabia - something that few Saudis realize." (b) On Syria, see Douglas
Little, ACold War and Covert Action: The United States and Syria, 1945
1958,@ Middle East Journal, vol. 44, no. 1, Winter 1990, pp. 55 57. On
Iran, see Mark J. Gasiorowski, "The 1953 Coup D'Etat in Iran,"
International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 19, Aug. 1987, pp.
261-86. (c) Andrew Cockburn and Patrick Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The
Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, New York: HarperPerennial. 1999, chap.
1.

10. d (re audiotape, see David Johnston, "Top U.S. Officials Press
Case Linking Iraq To Al Qaeda," NYT, 2/12/03, p. A1; Mohamad Bazzi,
"U.S. says bin Laden tape urging Iraqis to attack appears real,"
Newsday, 2/12/03, p. A5. (a) James Risen and David Johnston, "Split at
C.I.A. and F.B.I. On Iraqi Ties to Al Qaeda," NYT, 2/2/03, p. I:13. (b)
"Leaked Report Rejects Iraqi al-Qaeda Link," BBC News, 2/5/03. (c) Rohan
Gunaratna, "Iraq and Al Qaeda: No Evidence of Alliance," International
Herald Tribune, 2/19/03.

Tecknowledgy
04-03-2003, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by Carley


I'll wait for your sources on the rest Eli :)

Are you the same Carley I met at Chandra's event?

Effendi
04-04-2003, 07:10 AM
.
Thanks for sharing the wisdom, we need to kick it again sometime..

Thank You!!

Scott!!

Carley
04-04-2003, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by Tecknowledgy 1. d

(a) Cong. Lane Evans, "Veterans Programs Slashed by House
Republicans," Press Release, 3/13/03,
http://www.veterans.house.gov/democratic/press/108th/3-13-03budget.htm.
(b) Brian Faler, "Educators Angry Over Proposed Cut in Aid; Many
Children in Military Families Would Feel Impact," Washington Post,
3/19/03, p. A29. (c) See Veterans' for Common Sense, letter to George W.
Bush, 3/20/03 http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/print.asp?id=563;
Melissa B. Robinson, "Hospitals Face Budget Crunch," Associated Press,
7/31/02; Jason Tait, "Veterans angered by marketing ban," Eagle-Tribune
(Lawrence, MA), 8/2/02,
http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20020802/FP_003.htm



...those sources ~ except the Eagle Tribune article ~ don't exist anymore. If he had cited his sources correctly we could have seen when he supposedly viewed them, but instead we're sol. Even still, the Eagle Tribune article does not conclude "The administration ordered the Dept. of Veterans Affairs to stop publicizing health benefits available to veterans."

There was a budget cut for a specific outreach program, which is sad (but that is what happens to *everything*, not just VA items)… but not what Stephen R. Shalom asserts. And the budget in full can be explained here:

''Veterans' Benefits and Services (Function 700)

As approved by the Budget Committee, S. Con. Res. 23 assumes $29.0 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical programs. This is a increase of $3.7 billion over the 2003 enacted level, and the second largest increase for medical care in the last 5 years. This increase will help the VA in its mission to provide medical care to its core constituency - low-income and service-connected disabled veterans.''

http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/2003/L15bd031703.pdf

And the VA’s position here:

'Although the President's FY'04 budget calls for a large increase in VA health care, it will not fix years of inadequate funding which have created a system that is unable to provide timely access to high quality health care for all veterans. The President request is $25.2 billion for VA health care. The Independent Budget, which we proudly co-author, recommended $27.2 billion for VA health care. The President's budget is $2 billion short of what is needed to properly fund the VA health care system. "

http://vocusgr.vocus.com/vfw/webpub...SL=ProfileIssue

Anyway, that doesn't make me very eager to pursue the rest of it. If someone else has time, things might get interesting :)

Are you the same Carley I met at Chandra's event?

I don't think so :) But I do think we ran into each other while we were building the Man Eating Vaginaaaaaaaah at last years Earthdance...?

Tecknowledgy
04-04-2003, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by Effendi
.
Thanks for sharing the wisdom, we need to kick it again sometime..

Thank You!!

Scott!!

Aye that we do.

MO
04-04-2003, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Carley
But one can present 'facts' at a bias. This quiz is a perfect example ;)
it is humanly impossible for someone to be completely objective. Just as the quiz may have been presented on a slant, I'm sure you read it with some degree of bias. Many facts are still in there.

Carley
04-04-2003, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by MO

it is humanly impossible for someone to be completely objective. Just as the quiz may have been presented on a slant, I'm sure you read it with some degree of bias.

Um... why yes! I agree. That is why I responded to this:

'facts have no bias, mike."

with this:

"But one can present 'facts' at a bias. This quiz is a perfect example ;)"

Many facts are still in there.

Unfortunately the "Facts" I checked were not "facts" at all. Please see my post following the one you quoted ;)

MO
04-04-2003, 12:20 PM
I did read your post, and while you tackled the veteran funds issue, though I still doubt a refusal of the facts in the quiz based on government sources, you didn't address anything else. And you didn't quite catch my point.. I meant to point out that your reading of the quiz may too have been biased. Of course I realized that you understood the quiz to be biased before I quoted you. Do you agree that your perspective is biased as well??

ANYWAY..I think the whole your source v. my source thing is a bit tired. The fact remains that many people don't trust and don't agree with policies enacted by the current administation. Many of us feel ignored, betrayed, lied to, and ashamed of our government....

My sources (since you'll probably discredit my stance unless I give you some) are friends abroad who are witnessing world wide Anti-American sentiment and my own personal observations of the hipocracy and ignorance of a public too lazy to question authority. Our civil rights are being threatened every day this war for "freedom" continues, and anyone with some education knows that nothing is reported by the corporate media unless authorized by the gov. Do you really think you're getting the full story of what's going on? Why didn't we hear about the mass protest that occurred the same weekend that Bush made his final pull for diplomacy with Spain? Why didn't we hear about Athens being shut down this week and the exodus of Americans there whose lives were endangered by a city on strike in outrage of this war?

We've been promised freedom and security with this war. How free are the Iraqi people if they aren't granted self-legislation? How safe am I if this war stirs up hatred among international groups that have the means of attacking the US? The FACT is, people are scared and pissed off...and we (as global citizens) are the majority. So please don't give me a wink face.. all this isn't cute..it's fucked up

Carley
04-04-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by MO
[B]I did read your post, and while you tackled the veteran funds issue, though I still doubt a refusal of the facts in the quiz based on government sources, you didn't address anything else.

And I explained why. After 40 minutes of my time I found each ‘fact’ of the first ‘answers’ to be incorrect, and after they were provided, I found that ¾ of the authors sources DIDN'T EXIST. I find it awfully hard to justify spending any more of my time to evaluate each answer on an already discredited source. Although I still encourage anyone with the TIME to continue on the path of CRITICAL THINKING (not just taking something at face value because it SOUNDS GOOD and FITS YOUR IDEAS OF WHAT IS RIGHT)

And you didn't quite catch my point.. I meant to point out that your reading of the quiz may too have been biased. Of course I realized that you understood the quiz to be biased before I quoted you. Do you agree that your perspective is biased as well??

Um… yes, I did catch your point. I am not dull ;) I have never implied that my perspective (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perspective) does not have a bias (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bias), as it is my perspective (can we say ‘redundant?’), although I do think that there are ways to evaluate information that can lessen the influence of ones preconceptions.

I also think YOUR bias has gotten in the way of what I have actually written in my posts, and somehow you have concluded what sort of person I am, and my “positions” on a variety of HUGE issues simply because this “quiz” smelled like fish and I looked into it.

ANYWAY..I think the whole your source v. my source thing is a bit tired.

…yes. Evidence. What a silly concept. Now what was that little problem with Bush's argument for war with Iraq...?

The fact remains that many people don't trust and don't agree with policies enacted by the current administation. Many of us feel ignored, betrayed, lied to, and ashamed of our government....

No one has disputed that. In fact, this board provides more evidence of THAT than anything else ;)

My sources (since you'll probably discredit my stance unless I give you some) are friends abroad who are witnessing world wide Anti-American sentiment

I too have MANY friends abroad (and have traveled FREQUENTLY abroad myself) and witness the same thing. Not that I need to use them as a source for it, because the headlines and polls are quite abundant.

Also, I was alerted in another thread that ‘Anti-American’ is no longer a politically correct term ~ apparently it is used only by fascists to keep the people down. Evidently ‘Anti-administration’ is preferred now. Anyway.

The rest of your post has absolutely nothing to do with this quiz, nor does it discount the FACT that all 3 of the ‘answers’ for the first question were all incorrect, and the sources the author provided were nonexistent.

Dime, if I provided multiple sources to you that linked Saddam Hussein to Al Queda and none of my sources really existed… and you looked for the answers yourself & found, via horses’ mouth, completely contrary information… would you still be so quick to accept my claims as fact?

I don’t fucking care if the issue is this WAR or what’s in your city water. If someone is going to provide misinformation it needs to be addressed. REGARDLESS of my “bias”

Maybe you should look a little deeper into YOUR OWN before you ride off on your high horse.

Ciao.

MO
04-04-2003, 03:51 PM
Carley-
I'm not on any kind of horse, high or other wise. Sorry if you felt like I was being preachy. I was expressing myself in regard to how I see it. Also, I havn't been judging you (no matter how you interpreted it)...until now
You know, I have yet to see you (and many other frequent war posters) apologize or at least excuse themselves when they misinterpret someone's post and then go off on an accusatory, often name-calling rampage. You seem pretty unwilling to learn or give way to the possiblity that your perspective could use some widening. That's just my take on what I've read from you so far. You spend more time defending yourself than addressing issues..which is interesting.

As for what you said about evidence: There is sooo much information floating around. I care less about what's most true and instead focus on what's happening from my perspective. It seems diffult to know for sure what soures are completely credible, and as we've agreed, everyone harbors one form of bias or another.

What I know, from how I feel and interpret the events of the last few months, is that this war (and administration) does not appeared to be just, in my eyes,
and I think that's what the quiz was trying to get across...but nit pick at it all you want if you don't have anything better to do.

Still, I think that if you are going to go after one of the questions, finish the job..but whatever

Sorry if I got off topic, were you taking notes or something?? Anyway, this is a thread in a forum that has been placed under "off topic"...so whatever
and again, the winking gets old, really...when you do it so much, it loses meaning.. whatever it was supposed to be to begin with
-Mo

p.s. i think I've had my fill of this forum...I know there are better places to discuss my views and there are certainly more effective ways of working towards some positive change. i think I'll go back to those and let you guys have your fun.
I'm glad I didn't waste too much time...
PEACE

Carley
04-05-2003, 08:28 AM
I started to reply, but thought this might save whatever bother I would go through.

You said:

I care less about what's most true

and instead focus on what's happening

from my perspective.


PEACE

Once again ~ ciao! ;););););););)