LOL @ Afam Now i see why you gave up. Thank God his views are in the minority amongst Africans, and the rest of the world. Americans are now just waking up to what the rest of the world were saying for a long time. Looking forward to seeing Bush in a war crimes tribunal. (Sadly it will never happen)

@Tornadoz

I can see you have an ally who thinks that another Nairaland user was better off a dead man  because he disagreed with him

Gave up indeed,in other threads he has refered to others as "dogs","evil men".You will notice that most people who respond to him are ,like you,only those who agree with him unless they are new to this forum and don't know him

One last thing,you made the point that most of the world thinks lowly of Bush.Great,most of the world think badly of Black people,perhaps that means that their thinking is justified

4PLAY WROTE

One last thing,you made the point that most of the world thinks lowly of Bush.Great,most of the world think badly of Black people,perhaps that means that their thinking is justified

Of all the arguments i put forward the one that annoyed you most is the above. I dared to speak wrongly of Bush. Bush does'nt give a damn about your silly arse, to him you are a nigger. This is unbelievable. You said that "most people who respond to him(Afam) are ,like you,only those who agree with him". Reading through this thread even an idiot will agree with Afam and co. The point was plain and simple. America should not tell every one not to have nuclear weapons while armed to the teeth themselves. Does it take a genius to understand the above. You blindly follow G. Bush. Listen if you were not so far up inside the man's arse i would continue with this debate, pull your head out and we can have a reasonable discussion. What is your problem with black people? You come across like you hate yourself. What blackman would say

most of the world think badly of Black people,perhaps that means that their thinking is justified

The people who think badly of black people are racist. Its called prejudice. On the other hand, we say Bush is an evil man because of his deeds, his wars etc. This is no prejudice, because we can point out the many bad things he has done. The people who hates blacks, hates us for the colour of our skin, not for the bad thing we have done. Free your mind and your yansh go follow.

@Tornadoz,

You ain't seen anything yet! This man will clutch at anything and he will always end up talking trash.

If you ask him tomorrow to summarize his position(s) on this thread he will certainly be unable to do so because he does not have a mind of his own, he seems as a microphone for the US, UK and Israel.

He is dangerously mis-informed and irredeemably unintelligent, only God knows what someone like him would have been doing in the village if he had not left the village.

@Tornadoz

Let me try and wade through your miasma of incoherence

Tornadoz:

4PLAY WROTE Of all the arguments i put forward the one that annoyed you most is the above. I dared to speak wrongly of Bush. Bush does'nt give a damn about your silly arse, to him you are a nigger.

This is pure gibberish.Neither you nor I know what Bush thinks of Black people in private.Do you have psychic powers?How are you sure your much loved Clinton does not think lowly of Black people .How come he never appointed Blacks to positions of high authority.Name one significant Black appointee in the Clinton Adminstration

Tornadoz:

You said that "most people who respond to him(Afam) are ,like you,only those who agree with him". Reading through this thread even an idiot will agree with Afam and co.

Idiots agree with idiocy.Which idiot won't agree with the idea that every country should seek to acquire nukes?An idea that everyone in the field of International relations do not subscribe to

Tornadoz:

The point was plain and simple. America should not tell every one not to have nuclear weapons while armed to the teeth themselves. Does it take a genius to understand the above. You blindly follow G. Bush.

This is what happens when you try to debate ignoramuses.There are 188 nations that are signatories to the NPT.The US is just one of 188 nations.A nation signed an agreement undertaking not to develop nukes,it could have chosen ab initio not to.

Tornadoz:

Listen if you were not so far up inside the man's arse i would continue with this debate, pull your head out and we can have a reasonable discussion

The first resort of intellectually challenged people is to resort to ad hominen attacks.Let me descend to your level.It seems you are anally fixated.

Listen,anal man,the issue of nuclear proliferation is an issue of International Law and International Relations.You have not made a single contribution on this thread that addresses the substance of the proliferation regime.Obviously an intellectual debate is beyond your capacity.

Tornadoz:

. What is your problem with black people? You come across like you hate yourself. What blackman would say The people who think badly of black people are racist. Its called prejudice. On the other hand, we say Bush is an evil man because of his deeds, his wars etc. This is no prejudice, because we can point out the many bad things he has done. The people who hates blacks, hates us for the colour of our skin, not for the bad thing we have done. Free your mind and your yansh go follow.

This is imbecillity in its purest form.
My point about global attitudes towards Black is to illustrate the fact that because most people dislike a man or a people does not in itself justify their dislike .This was in reference to your point about how everyone hates the Bush adminstration.A viewpoint is not justified because it is shared by many

I had a hard time addressing your comments.It is difficult debating with intelligent people at University and then coming to debate nitwits on the net

@4Play Wrote

"Neither you nor I know what Bush thinks of Black people in private."

True, non of us is privy to his private thoughts, but we can deduce from his actions that he doesn't like black people. Am sorry if you are disappointed. Hurricane Katrina exposed it for all to see. For days the president of the richest, most powerful country in the history of the world didn’t seem to notice that America's worst disaster has just happened.Can you imagine Bush leaving white people on their roofs for five days? If African Americans says Bush hates black people, who are you in London to disagree with them, do you live in America?

Name one significant Black appointee in the Clinton Administration

Haba mallam! Bush appointed Condi "black jew" as secretary of state because of political correctness, or was it blatant tokenism for the disadvantaged blacks. Majority of black folks would want him to do something about the high cost of health care, education etc, Clinton at least attempted health reform. When Rosa Parks died, did you not see Clinton amongst the mourners? Did you listen to his eulogy. Why was he one of the few white people in the congregation.

This is what happens when you try to debate ignoramuses. There are 188 nations that are signatories to the NPT.The US is just one of 188 nations.

If we believe the above why then does the US, feels it necessary to police it independently. Why is the US always more nervous when other nations try to build nuclear weapons. Why did the US disregard the findings of the IAEA in regards to Iraq? To an Iranian why should the US/Israel have monopoly on nuclear weapons? Why is the US not bombing or threatening N.Korea? Scared?

You have not made a single contribution on this thread that addresses the substance of the proliferation regime

Is it not too convenient that after certain countries acquired nuclear weapons they tried to stop developing nations from acquiring same. I have repeatedly said to you that, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. First America will have to destroy its own stockpiles of nukes, then and only then will it have the moral duty to tell other nations not to build nuclear weapons. Is this too complicated for you to understand?
Earlier you said

most of the world think badly of Black people,perhaps that means that their thinking is justified?

Now you say this

My point about global attitudes towards Black is to illustrate the fact that because most people dislike a man or a people does not in itself justify their dislike

I did not understand why you would use the example you used. People who hate Bush does so because of his goverment's policies which they dislike, those who hate black people does so because of our skin colour (prejudice).Comparing the hatred people have for Bush's racist policies with the racism black people face because of our colour was unintelligible.

It is difficult debating with intelligent people at University and then coming to debate nitwits on the net

No surprise there then. With views the KKK would be proud of, little wonder you are always debating?

The mayor of New Orleans(Black) and the Governor for whom primary responsibility lies for evacuation did nothing.The Fed Govt can only help when the states request it,that is why most Americans attach greater blame to the Mayor and the Gov than the President.Most people who died in Katrina were not Black.

4Play ~ You live in the UK, but you seem to know more about America than those that live there. Where do you get your newsfeed from? BBC? You're blaming both the Mayor and the Governor for Katrina. Are you on Prozac?

kabiyesi:

4Play ~ You live in the UK, but you seem to know more about America than those that live there. Where do you get your newsfeed from? BBC? You're blaming both the Mayor and the Governor for Katrina. Are you on Prozac?

Most Americans attribute greater blame to the Mayor and Governor than the President in every poll conducted on the subject.Last time I checked,most Americans live in the US

Seems someone is going round the bend here. Abi the spin doctor don run out of ideas?

Afam:

Seems someone is going round the bend here. Abi the spin doctor don run out of ideas?

Na you be the Igwe of Spin of Nairaland.I still admire the work you did on UN Security Council Resolutions and the CNN report

My 2 earlier statements on who America blames for Katrina are in no way different

Just try to be as objective as you can, complete condemnation or commendation of anyone, group or nation is usually wrong unless you are 100% certain that not a single issue could be established against a position.

I had thought that by now, the plethora of comments pointing out your total and sometimes wrong support for the US, UK and Israel should have made you to retrace your steps and contribute more meaningfully to issues.

Most Americans attribute greater blame to the Mayor and Governor than the President in every poll conducted on the subject.Last time I checked,most Americans live in the US

I hate people who talk out of their ass and pull statistics from thin air. please post one stat from a reputable source that shows this. You are living in a dreamland where up is down and left is right. You are the lowest form of scum for thinking we Nairaland users are so stupid as to believe the putrid bullshit you spew from your various orifices. Go find some monkeys in the zoo and try and convince them that what you speak makes an iota of sense.

Over to you shango. Lol. I have given up on the man. He lives in a fools paradise. He conveniently ignores the fact that New Orleans voted back the same Mayor that ignored them during the hurricane. Majority of New Orleans are blacks. in fact 70%. Now point us to a site where the people who went through this disaster blamed the mayor.

CNN Poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation. Aug. 18-20, 2006. N=1,033 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

 
"Who do you think is more responsible for the problems New Orleans faced after Hurricane Katrina last year: President Bush and other federal government officials, or Mayor Ray Nagin and other local government officials?"

      .

                   President/Federal   Mayor/Local   Unsure   
  % % %   
8/18-20/06    40                       53                7   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.pollingreport.com/disasters.htm

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Sept. 13-14, 2005. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

.

"Who do you hold more responsible for the problems responding to Hurricane Katrina: the state and local governments in the affected areas or the federal government?"

.

State/LocalGovernments FederalGovernment Both (vol.) Neither (vol.) Unsure

9/13-14/05 42 29 19 6 5

Na wahooooo. Two surveys, almost a year apart to support a position. Now I guess it makes sense to assume that only 2 surveys were carried out in the US since Katrina.

The other time I was asked to go and see a survey on page 51 on a website that I have never heard of to see how Iraqis prefered the carnage to the state of affairs under Saddam.

There is always a support for something whether it is right or wrong, please do not use isolated cases to make a case that is too glaring.

shango:

I hate people who talk out of their ass and pull statistics from thin air. please post one stat from a reputable source that shows this. You are living in a dreamland where up is down and left is right. You are the lowest form of scum for thinking we Nairaland users are so stupid as to believe the putrid bullshit you spew from your various orifices. Go find some monkeys in the zoo and try and convince them that what you speak makes an iota of sense.

I posted 2 stats for you.I have not seen one poll of Americans in my whole life that attributes greater blame to President Bush than to the state and local governments.

This is the problem I refered to earlier when I talked about a media meme.Bush,because of the war, on terror is hated so much that anyone who dares defend him is accussed of being deluded or as you say "living in a dreamland"

A psychologist diagnosed this as Bush Derangement Syndrome

.The poll on Americans is well known,that is why Toranadoz cleverly caveated it by saying earlier that it is because most Americans are White.You,being the ignorant one,decided to launch an attack,before reviewing the facts first    .

@Afam

The onus of responsibility to prove an assertion lies on the person making it.If you believe that there is a poll out there of Americans that attributes greater blame to Bush than the state/local officials,please post it here

I made the claim that every poll I have seen shows that more Americans attribute greater blame to the Gov and Mayor than the President and I have posted my supporting evidence.Do likewise if u disagree

Don't go back to that old issue since I can remember that you asked me to "go ask CNN" while i linked you to my supporting evidence

I want evidence based argument,if you can't back your claims with evidence,how am I supposed to believe it?


I throw a challenge to Shango and Afam to produce evidence that contradicts my claims instead of just making perjorative remarks.People should put up or shut up

One more:An ABC News Poll conducted on September 2, 2005, showed slightly more blame is being directed at state and local governments (75 percent) than at the Federal government (67 percent), with 44 percent blaming President Bush's leadership directly.[90] A later CNN/USATODAY/GALLUP poll showed that respondents disagreed widely on who is to blame for the problems in the city following the hurricane — 13 percent said Bush, 18% said federal agencies, 25% blamed state or local officials and 38% said no one was to blame.[91]

I culled this one off Wikipedia

I know what will happen next.Neither of you will have the graciousness to admit you were a bit too hasty to jump the gun.What will follow is an attempt to skit round the issue.I am used to that  .

Everybody is entitled to their opinion but I despise the easy resort to insults by those who cannot base their posts on reasoned and evidence based arguements.An educated and intelligent adult should be able to argue without resorting to cheap insults.That is what marks you out from the rest

4 Play:

I throw a challenge to Shango and Afam to produce evidence that contradicts my claims instead of just making perjorative remarks.People should put up or shut up

Put up or shut up? I thought that line of thinking is old news.

No, I do not have any information to present on the issue of Katrina, I wasn't even involved in it because I have better reasons to blame Bush for his many blunders. So, I do not have any business looking for content to oppose your links. I was bothered that only 2 surveys in almost a year apart could come up to defend such a position.

As to the insult issue, I guess you are turning a new leaf now as you now realize that the best way to respond to people you disagree with is not the insults route. Welcome to my world.

Seriously though, I still believe you have complete faith in Bush even with his many blunders and it doesn't look good to me as the man's many blunders are too obvious.

I throw a challenge to Shango and Afam to produce evidence that contradicts my claims instead of just making perjorative remarks.People should put up or shut up

You make asinine and ridicolous claims and try to douse them on these boards as facts and i am supposed to counter your insane posits? You think I live and breathe on this forum and have time to counter the rantings and posting of someone who is clearly out of the loop of reality? Its like saying I should provide proof that the world is not flat because you say it is. You really must think I am a monkey or one of the baboons you usually recount your so called "facts" to.

I see 4Play conveniently avoided the fact that Black people voted back Ray Nagin. The Katrina issue arose between me and you because i gave hurricane Katrina as one of the reasons we believe Bush hates black people. Stop quoting Fox (false) news if you want to be taken seriously. Don't depart from the argument, show a poll amongst African Americans that blame the local govts. Bill O'reilly is proud of you my son.

4Play ~ Do you know anything about New Orleans?

The Big Easy is, on average, eight feet below sea level. Tall levees to the north and south keep the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain from pouring into the center of the city. And an intricate system of pumping stations and canals keep the land dry, even after heavy rainfall. Without this drainage system, much of the city would be engulfed in water. New Orleans occupies swampland created by millions of years' worth of silt deposits from the Mississippi River. As a result, the ground is wet and spongy, and prone to flooding from rainfall and hurricanes.

Ironically, all the pumps, canals, and levees that work so hard to keep New Orleans above water are actually causing the city to sink at a rate of three feet per century. Some scientists predict that by the year 2100, the "City That Care Forgot" will be under water. Does New Orleans have a deep-sea Mardi Gras in its future? Scuba gear or not, it's interesting to ponder.

http://ask.yahoo.com/20041005.html

Who is responsible for these levees? It's not the Mayor. It's not the Governor. It's the US Government. Your dim mindset blames both the Mayor and the Governor for failing to evacuate a Metro population of 1.4 million people. It shows that you don't know how the system works in US. You should be ashamed of yourself in that your only defense are these polls. It was Bush that cuts the fund that the US Army Corps of Engineers needed to maintain the levees.

I'm disappointed that I need to help you do your own homework at this age. Here is what your dearest BBC says:

Video showing President George W Bush being warned on the eve of Hurricane Katrina that New Orleans' flood defences could be overcome has emerged. It shows plainly worried officials telling Mr Bush very clearly before the storm hit that it could breach New Orleans' flood barriers. In the past, the president has said nobody anticipated a breach but the video shows Michael Brown, the top emergency response official who has since resigned, saying the storm would be "a bad one, a big one". "We're going to need everything that we can possibly muster, not only in this state and in the region, but the nation, to respond to this event," Mr Brown says.

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, shown the footage for the first time at a press conference, told Reuters he was "shocked" by what it revealed. "It surprises me that if there was that kind of awareness, why was the response so slow?" he asked.

Mr Bush has accepted he shared some of the responsibility for the flawed response to Katrina and the White House has talked of the "fog of war" rendering decision-making difficult. Michael Brown told AP this week that he did not "buy the 'fog of war' defence".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4765058.stm

Post-flood city wrestles with race issue

Race, class, money and power are inextricably linked in the US, and the flooding of New Orleans is proving a textbook example of how they intersect. "In the wake of the flood, a small group of powerful business leaders and developers - the old blue-blood elite - took it upon themselves to plan the city into the next 20-30 years," says Lance Hill, executive director of the Southern Institute for Education and Research at Tulane University.

The problem was that "virtually no African-Americans" had returned to the city when those plans were being formed, says Mr Hill, who describes himself as a white liberal. There were proposals not to rebuild historically black neighbourhoods, which alarmed African-Americans, he says.

"African-Americans who were displaced became deeply suspicious that their homes were going to be bulldozed, their jobs taken away and their hospitals closed. "There was a general fear that they were being locked out of the city," Mr Hill says.

He says he believes the intention was to exclude poor people. But because the city had been racially segregated for generations, the practical effect was to exclude blacks. "If you want to eliminate a high concentration of poor African-Americans by eliminating a neighbourhood, you also eliminate working-class, middle-class, even wealthy blacks," he says.

Mayor Ray Nagin may have been trying to take advantage of those African-American sentiments with his widely-reported pre-election comment that New Orleans should remain "a chocolate city". Mr Nagin, who is black, was first elected mayor in 2002 with overwhelming white backing and lukewarm black support.

But in the face of African-American anger at his support for rebuilding New Orleans in a way that might exclude them, he reversed course. That alienated the city's white elites and forced Mr Nagin to seek black votes, Mr Hill says. He was re-elected this year with about 80% of the black vote about 20% of the white vote - a dramatic reversal of his 2002 showing. "Now the mayor has a vested interest in bringing back the black community," Mr Hill says.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5283522.stm

I see 4Play conveniently avoided the fact that Black people voted back Ray Nagin.

I guess those blacks in New Orleans are clueless monkeys who do not realize Nagin is to blame for Katrina and are not as well informed as White Conservative Fox Viewers who put the blame of the response to Katrina squarely on who deserves it, the well funded, possesing unlimited resources, Mayor Nagin. Abi 4Play those blacks just do not see the light like their white conservative counterparts who are always in the right. I mean look at how right that crowd was concerning Iraq and WMD's. We have hung Saddam and all the problems in the Middle East are gone. Anyone complaining about GW's perfromance has a Psychological condition as you put, what did you call it again,

You really would fit beautifully on the O'Reilly factor.

@Shango

The O'Reilly factor is the best program on TV.

You should read "Culture Warrior",a masterpiece on the battle for the moral heart and soul of America

Although you are brain dead,you might learn something

US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack

The Sunday Times ~ February 25, 2007

Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter, Washington

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.

“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”

A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.

The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not “be right to take military action against Iran”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece

Iran intelligence 'incorrect'
25/02/2007 14:40 - (SA)


Washington - Most US intelligence on Iran shared with the International Atomic Energy Agency has proved to be inaccurate and failed to lead to discoveries of a smoking gun inside the Islamic Republic, The Los Angeles Times reported on its website on Saturday. Read more @
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2074633,00.html

The many lies of the US especially under the current administration have become serious liabilities and the earlier Bush is taken out of the political life of the US the better otherwise it will continue to be despised and loathed by a lot of people and nations.

At least the Iranian president has promised to stop enrichment of uranium once the West stops its own enrichment and I agree with him 100%.

It is either we rid all nations of nuclear weapons or every country should aspire to own them, there is no middle ground on this issue.

Nucear weapons in the hands of a fanatical country and president like in Iran, is a bad thing not only for the Middle East but the entire world. I am even suprised Irael let them get this far. The whole entire nucear program in Iran should be unambiguously scrapped. I hope they can destroy it without using nukes.

And why would nuclear weapons in the hands of Isreal be ok while asking Iran not to develop one.

Why the double standdard? Why the hypocrisy?

Afam:

And why would nuclear weapons in the hands of Isreal be ok while asking Iran not to develop one.
Why the double standdard? Why the hypocrisy?

Iran is a signatory to the NPT,Isreal is not and was never a signatory.

Isreal is a small nation(pop.7 million) sorrounded by bigger nations whose leaders at various times in history have threatened to "drive them into the sea"

Iran is a big nation (pop.70 million) that does not share any boundaries with Isreal,they have no territorial disputes with Isreal and Isreal has never made any claims to Iranian territory.

Strange thing is,Iran's Arab minority is severly persecuted and is involved in a small scale insurgency.While Iran is busy championing the rights of Sunni Arab Palestinians in public,their local Sunni Arab minority is rebelling back home

Afam you and I go a long way back from the Punch forum. Now, let answer the seeming hypocrisy. Independence or freedom of or for anything is nnot always a good thing because of the respponsibility attached to it.
A child or teenager loves independence from the parents, but still wants to be financed or still tied to their purses.
US, USSR, China,India,Israel and all those nations who had nules a long time ago, have demonstrated a maturity which goes along with having such weapons of mass destruction.
A lot of the fanatical countries of the Middle East do not have such maturity and if they do, are not stable or sensible enough to demonstrate they can safely posses what could easily consume a section of the World, if not starting a World war out of alliances in existence.
Believe it or not, nukes in the hands of Iran pose more dangers to other Middle Eastern countries and Israel than it does to America.
I live in America, but do not support Bush policies, I believe it is more divisive and has been too intrussive.