79 replies to this topic

[Shahenshah]

 

So you won't even consider an argument because his spokeperson (who is paid to cover his ass when he says stupid shit) says that he now supports something different than THE WORDS THAT CAME OUT OF HIS MOUTH. Cool bro, tell me more about how hes a straight talker and says what he means. Tell me more about how honest he is. Tell me more about how he isn't racist.

No I won't consider it because people opinions change, weird how stuff can happen like that, isn't it? And you can't say what is, and isn't reality. Also, I'd really love to hear where I said that other countries were 100% not helping AT ALL, if you can't find where I said that then please don't try to use it as an argument. And I don't really care if corporations outsource their warehouses and everything, if anything they are giving jobs to an impoverished people.
 
And as ccbal said, Islam isn't a race so how about YOU give ME info on how he is positively without a doubt racist, thinking white Americans are superior to anyone else to ever walk the face of the Earth, please and thanks. And oh god, not another Wikipedia conspiracy theory about Bin Laden having secret training by the CIA. But honestly, do you genuinely think that the USA who the only one who funded them or any other group ever? And they weren't necessarily a terrorist group, they were mujahideen freedom fighters, doing Jihadist work which now has a nasty connotation.
 
And you fail to see my point on the whole topic, all I'm trying to say is that America isn't the only one to blame when everything goes wrong, and we shouldn't have to be a "breeding ground" for illegals and we shouldn't get all these refugees when there are over 75 other well off countries other than America. Am I saying we are perfect and everybody else is wrong? No. America isn't perfect no person, country, idea, or religion is, nobody is completely wrong either. I just wish America wouldn't get so much shit in the news and just from other countries in general when we are seriously trying, not as hard as we could mind you, but we are trying with what resources (candidates and other politicians) we have.
 
that's all I'm going to say because I'm tired, have school tomorrow, and need my sleep. 

Do you want non wikipedia links? It's not a conspiracy theory that CIA setup the extremists to finger Soviet Russia. Alot of these are established facts of history. We're they alone? Off course not, but when you're the biggest alpha male in the house, you call the shots bro and everyone else fall in line and follow. 

[Chaplain of death]

Though I understand what you're both saying, my question to you Chap is how do you expect Hillary - who has made millions on millions off the political system staying as is - will try to beckon any change? Her and Bill are getting off free and happy while they line their pockets with a sold-off America to any company or organization that wants to pay their foundation millions on millions of dollars.

 

If you're avidly against Trump because you believe he's a liar, then please do not vote for one who has pathological lying syndrome (my own created phrase ) much worse than he possibly ever would.

 

I detest Hillary on so many levels. But I'm less concerned for my well being and the well being of those around me with her in office than I would be with Trump. I'd rather not vote for either but the Political system in our country has been rigged into a 2 party system, and the options they've given us are both awful. I'd rather go with the career politician who is corrupt than go with someone who I have legit concern will go full internment camps on the people he doesn't like (Muslims, Mexicans). 

 

In my opinion its like asking me to shoot myself in the leg, or shoot myself in the chest. Either way, I could end up just fine with no real permanent damage, but one has a far higher chance of killing me or severely damaging me than the other. Either way its not going to be fun.

[spike2]

 

 

 

 

Though I understand what you're both saying, my question to you Chap is how do you expect Hillary - who has made millions on millions off the political system staying as is - will try to beckon any change? Her and Bill are getting off free and happy while they line their pockets with a sold-off America to any company or organization that wants to pay their foundation millions on millions of dollars.

 

If you're avidly against Trump because you believe he's a liar, then please do not vote for one who has pathological lying syndrome (my own created phrase ) much worse than he possibly ever would.

 

I detest Hillary on so many levels. But I'm less concerned for my well being and the well being of those around me with her in office than I would be with Trump. I'd rather not vote for either but the Political system in our country has been rigged into a 2 party system, and the options they've given us are both awful. I'd rather go with the career politician who is corrupt than go with someone who I have legit concern will go full internment camps on the people he doesn't like (Muslims, Mexicans). 

 

In my opinion its like asking me to shoot myself in the leg, or shoot myself in the chest. Either way, I could end up just fine with no real permanent damage, but one has a far higher chance of killing me or severely damaging me than the other. Either way its not going to be fun.

 

how did it come out that he hates Mexicans and Muslims? he said deport illegal immigrants not just Mexicans. I have some Mexicans friends that want trump to win. I have no clue how he comes off as racist to some. when BLM isn't getting called racist for targeting white people (mostly cops)

[Fermion]

Didn't he make several speeches specifically targeting Muslim groups? I remember he said something about Muslims to the effect that they were celebrating when 911 happened. That's pretty bigoted imo, as well as many of his other speeches. 

[spike2]

i'm not saying all Muslims are bad but this guy is Muslim and well yeah watch the video for yourself

[DeathMerchant]

 

My point was that the United

States gave them weapons (stingers and other weapons). That is an
indisputable fact. Those same stingers have been used against us.
Indisputable fact.

As far as I am aware, not a single Stinger missile sent by the CIA in Operation Cyclone was used in an attack against Western forces. Before I explain why, I want to mention some historical events. Not many people are aware how Operation Cyclone was carried out, and a lot of misconceptions exist, so I would like to shed some light on this area. If you don't feel like reading this part just skip the next paragraph.

 

The US did offer a buyback program for unused Stingers but most of what was leftover likely ended up on the international black market, where they would fetch higher prices than what the US was offering. The exact number is subjective but it is commonly believed the CIA sent at least 500, or 1,500-2,000 Stinger Missiles. These Stingers consisted of the 9K32 Strela-2 (NATO reporting name SA-7 Grail) and the Blowpipe, and for some unknown reason these plans didn't work out to well. My best guess is since the first weapon originated in the USSR acquiring an adequate stock would be difficult. However these could have been bought from China, sent to Pakistan, and then smuggled into Afghanistan. Which was the route most small arms took. While the second weapon originated in the UK, there are claims the guerillas didn't like this specific weapon. The Blowpipe is not a fire and forget weapon (doesn't lock on to heat signature), it is a manually operated weapon. The operator must guide the missile to the target while exposing himself to return fire. And the required training to accurately use such a weapon would have been rather impossible to provide. This leads us to the American FIM-92 being sent. So back to the numbers, the conflicting accounts as to how many Stingers were sent is probably due to 3 different types being planned. Their are photos of the SA-7 in guerilla hands, which yes the CIA did give some of these to guerillas. A couple Blowpipes were probably sent. While the rest were the FIM-92s.

 

As for the CIA Stingers given to Afghan guerillas, the US Government claims it recovered all but 600 of them. 100-200 were rumored to be stockpiled in Afghanistan, some of which were found once the US invaded. While the rest ended up on the black market and in several other war torn countries. So that gives us approximately 400-500 unaccounted for Stingers. What happened to them? Well their battery packs ran out. The FIM-92 battery only lasts 4-5 years (a Pentagon report does exist saying they could theoretically last up to 10 years), after that the weapon system is useless. It could still have a live missile, but their is no way to fire it, nor recharge its battery. The SA-7 is rumored to also have a 4-5 year battery life. In the ongoing Syrian Civil War, some SA-7 battery packs have been replaced with improvised batteries. Reports state these batteries may have gotten the missile to fire, but the tracking was unpredictable and erratic. It is not known if any of these modded SA-7s have even hit a target. One Syrian apparently found a way to use a laptop battery and claims he got a SA-7 to properly work, but the claim is difficult to verify. Even if it is true, that means only one Stinger has been successfully re purposed. A Stinger which likely did not originate from Operation Cyclone, it is probably Russian stock, sold to the Syrian Army, and then captured by rebels.

 

The stinger threat has been overblown because it instills so much fear, and makes for a terrifying story. Even the actual effective use of Stingers in the Soviet Afghan War is widely debated. The term 'Stinger Effect' was coined because there is this notion that the Stingers made the Soviets leave Afghanistan and subsequently broke up the USSR. That is far from the truth as the Soviets planned to pull out of Afghanistan at least a year prior to the first CIA Stinger being used. The US claimed a high shoot down rate (which is difficult to actually verify because accounts were mostly given by guerillas), while the Soviets stated their losses were smaller. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. I suspect aircraft/helicopter loses declined later in the war as pilots adjusted their tactics and were given better equipment.

 

The deadliest weapon the CIA gave to the guerillas, isn't sophisticated technology, but the cheap AK47s bought from China. Those weapons will be in use for decades to come. Easy to maintain, operate, and ammunition is readily available.

 

 

Didn't
he make several speeches specifically targeting Muslim groups? I
remember he said something about Muslims to the effect that they were
celebrating when 911 happened. That's pretty bigoted imo, as well as
many of his other speeches.

There were multiple videos shot by journalists and I remember seeing one of them being aired on September 11, 2001. Some of the videos were shot in East Jerusalem or the West Bank (Gaza Strip). Some footage exists on Youtube, which is mostly people dancing in the streets cheering. If I am remembering correctly, this was the video that aired.

 

Now there is some debate if this video is actually factual and relevant to 9/11. Claims exist that it was actually a much earlier celebration in regards to the 1993 WTC Bombing (Although it is hard to tell by the video quality given. Its a low quality video that is also compressed by YouTube, but to me the footage quality does appear to be circa late 90s-early 2000s. Footage in 1993 of the WTC has a lot of blur and has a definitive 90s look to it), some also argue the celebration was staged due to a 'supposed' interview with one of the people that was in the video. So unfortunately there is no real clear answer to whether or not the video of Muslims dancing is true. Even contacting the broadcast company that aired/taped it (might have been CNN/Reuters) would probably not offer much factual evidence. After all, what broadcast company would be quick to admit something they aired isn't 100% accurate, or being willing to help investigate an accidental mistake?

[samudragupta]

I am outsider.. I think trump will be better bet if,if he is not a lier and somehow he is able to achieve even half of what he said..

There is trend going on everywhere to select right wing government..

[samdoo]

It`s embarrassing to be american right now. the 2 major canidates were chosen by roughly 15% of the population, in a fairly corrupt primary system that is the definition of vote disfranchisement. 

 

The issues i care about aren't acknowledged by the canidates (well maybe jill a bit),

 

sutdent loan debt (being the second largest debt in the country, used to be housing then cars, then students, but we know what happened with houses) needless to say cars are next.. and i'm hoping for student loans (8% on an education while homes are  even lower than that). 

 

underemployment. I have a job, but there is no way to live off of it, nor make progress on student loans, my mom is in the same boat as me as she helped with my schooling. This would include decreasing corporate subsides which would hopefully make it so less people would need help to survive. 

 

decriminalization of drugs, a rape sentence is lighter than a possession sentence. 

 

 

clinton i hate, she seems crazy, the campaign slogan of "stronger together" should honestly be "join or die"... the law suit against the dnc.. somehow those lawyers have dropped dead, bernie feels forced to support her as does Michelle and with what bill did to the global economy with free trade i'd not want another Clinton able to influence the economy. oh and clinton is no where near the left, i've seen republican candidates more left leaning. 

 

trump doesnt understand the term its impossible or illegal, a majority of what he said can't and will never happen. and i enjoy having my civil rights finally. the campaign slogan of "make america great again" isn't fitting, the greatest america was when we had FDR for 4 terms, none of his polices are anything near FDR. it should be "things i wanna say" cause they have no way to be implemented. oh and he is a failed businessmen who  has inherited wealth and has had more lawsuits than the number of crime shows on TV in the US. 

 

going jill to influence the next election cycle more than anything else, my vote is in a heavy red state so between the 2 parties it ain't changing. voting 3rd gives a chance for a crazy new process in 2020, jill and gary both have larger support than any 3rd party candidate before and they still aren't allowed to join the presidential debates. if gary and/or jill gets 5% of popular vote the funding for the party greatly changes and they will have to be on the presidential debate stage.(in 2020, a touch after the fact) 

 

I can't stop trump from winning with the state I'm in but I'm gonna change the process to make more outcomes if trump was to run again.

[The Warrior]

What are you doing there? Invading? you're there forcefully, nobody asked you to go there, you're not wanted there, nor you're welcome there. Reverse the roles and imagine, some coutnry comes, invades you from 10k km away, imposes their brand of governance, and tells you to do what it says or get shot. What would you do? 'Yessir' ? No, I dont think anyone with an iota of self dignity would let any foreigner come to there land and tell them what do.

 

And that's just Iraq.

I am not a member of the United States Military but I come from a military family. My best friend joined the United States Marine Corps after we graduated from high school. He served two tours in Iraq totaling more than 12 months of service. The stories he brought home with him paint quite a different picture than the one you are painting here, Shah.

 

I have no doubt that there are some Iraqi citizens who despise America and despised that we were ever there, but I think that you would be quite surprised to hear stories about how many Iraqi citizens do not agree with you here. I have heard the stories and seen videos of what it was like on the ground in Fallujah. Large groups of Iraqi citizens cheering as American soldiers defended them, cared for them, and played with their children. Of course you won't see any of that anywhere in the media.

 

There has no doubt been tens or hundreds of thousands of lives tragically lost in warfare over there. No one disputes that. War is hell. But can you honestly say that  that war wouldn't have happened at some point anyway?

 

 

 

 

So you won't even consider an argument because his spokeperson (who is paid to cover his ass when he says stupid shit) says that he now supports something different than THE WORDS THAT CAME OUT OF HIS MOUTH. Cool bro, tell me more about how hes a straight talker and says what he means. Tell me more about how honest he is. Tell me more about how he isn't racist.

You realize that your argument here is among the many reasons why you shouldn't vote for Clinton, right?

 

 

 

I detest Hillary on so many levels. But I'm less concerned for my well being and the well being of those around me with her in office than I would be with Trump. I'd rather not vote for either but the Political system in our country has been rigged into a 2 party system, and the options they've given us are both awful. I'd rather go with the career politician who is corrupt than go with someone who I have legit concern will go full internment camps on the people he doesn't like (Muslims, Mexicans).

With the trail of blood behind Hillary Clinton, I don't think anyone can legitimately claim that they are safer with her in office.

[onbekende]

I'd vote for Trump, so I can troll all of his supporters from Nov 2018 to Nov 2020. 

 

2y? Why 2y? Or is this about a Senate/Congress becomming +60% democrat?

 

 

 

As for the Muslim issue..... It is all Muslims hes trying to get rid of. He's doing it to "get rid of the terrorists", but he wants to deport them and then refuse to take any from that entire region of the world. Personally I have no issue with a stricter immigration process for people coming from a region of conflict, but deporting people for their race is 100% racist.

 As for the Muslim issue... It is NOT all Muslims he's trying to get rid of... http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/24/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-election-2016/ "His spokeswoman Hope Hicks first told CNN late last month that Trump supported banning Muslims from terror states, not all Muslims, as he had said in December. Those comments came after Trump suggested he would allow a Scottish Muslim to enter the US under his latest proposal." (direct quote from the article) So I'm not gonna entertain the rest of that paragraph, especially the racist part.

 

 

Well thats the deal, his spokeperson's and "team" are there just to "explain" every one-liner he drops into a "he didn't mean it that extreme". basically his Presidentional run will be likewise, lukewarm at best. You should be more concerned about the backlash when the whipped idiots find out he can't actually deliver on all the gold he promised...

[Chaplain of death]

 

 

My point was that the United

States gave them weapons (stingers and other weapons). That is an
indisputable fact. Those same stingers have been used against us.
Indisputable fact.

As far as I am aware, not a single Stinger missile sent by the CIA in Operation Cyclone was used in an attack against Western forces. Before I explain why, I want to mention some historical events. Not many people are aware how Operation Cyclone was carried out, and a lot of misconceptions exist, so I would like to shed some light on this area. If you don't feel like reading this part just skip the next paragraph.

 

The US did offer a buyback program for unused Stingers but most of what was leftover likely ended up on the international black market, where they would fetch higher prices than what the US was offering. The exact number is subjective but it is commonly believed the CIA sent at least 500, or 1,500-2,000 Stinger Missiles. These Stingers consisted of the 9K32 Strela-2 (NATO reporting name SA-7 Grail) and the Blowpipe, and for some unknown reason these plans didn't work out to well. My best guess is since the first weapon originated in the USSR acquiring an adequate stock would be difficult. However these could have been bought from China, sent to Pakistan, and then smuggled into Afghanistan. Which was the route most small arms took. While the second weapon originated in the UK, there are claims the guerillas didn't like this specific weapon. The Blowpipe is not a fire and forget weapon (doesn't lock on to heat signature), it is a manually operated weapon. The operator must guide the missile to the target while exposing himself to return fire. And the required training to accurately use such a weapon would have been rather impossible to provide. This leads us to the American FIM-92 being sent. So back to the numbers, the conflicting accounts as to how many Stingers were sent is probably due to 3 different types being planned. Their are photos of the SA-7 in guerilla hands, which yes the CIA did give some of these to guerillas. A couple Blowpipes were probably sent. While the rest were the FIM-92s.

 

As for the CIA Stingers given to Afghan guerillas, the US Government claims it recovered all but 600 of them. 100-200 were rumored to be stockpiled in Afghanistan, some of which were found once the US invaded. While the rest ended up on the black market and in several other war torn countries. So that gives us approximately 400-500 unaccounted for Stingers. What happened to them? Well their battery packs ran out. The FIM-92 battery only lasts 4-5 years (a Pentagon report does exist saying they could theoretically last up to 10 years), after that the weapon system is useless. It could still have a live missile, but their is no way to fire it, nor recharge its battery. The SA-7 is rumored to also have a 4-5 year battery life. In the ongoing Syrian Civil War, some SA-7 battery packs have been replaced with improvised batteries. Reports state these batteries may have gotten the missile to fire, but the tracking was unpredictable and erratic. It is not known if any of these modded SA-7s have even hit a target. One Syrian apparently found a way to use a laptop battery and claims he got a SA-7 to properly work, but the claim is difficult to verify. Even if it is true, that means only one Stinger has been successfully re purposed. A Stinger which likely did not originate from Operation Cyclone, it is probably Russian stock, sold to the Syrian Army, and then captured by rebels.

 

The stinger threat has been overblown because it instills so much fear, and makes for a terrifying story. Even the actual effective use of Stingers in the Soviet Afghan War is widely debated. The term 'Stinger Effect' was coined because there is this notion that the Stingers made the Soviets leave Afghanistan and subsequently broke up the USSR. That is far from the truth as the Soviets planned to pull out of Afghanistan at least a year prior to the first CIA Stinger being used. The US claimed a high shoot down rate (which is difficult to actually verify because accounts were mostly given by guerillas), while the Soviets stated their losses were smaller. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. I suspect aircraft/helicopter loses declined later in the war as pilots adjusted their tactics and were given better equipment.

 

The deadliest weapon the CIA gave to the guerillas, isn't sophisticated technology, but the cheap AK47s bought from China. Those weapons will be in use for decades to come. Easy to maintain, operate, and ammunition is readily available.

 

 

Didn't
he make several speeches specifically targeting Muslim groups? I
remember he said something about Muslims to the effect that they were
celebrating when 911 happened. That's pretty bigoted imo, as well as
many of his other speeches.

There were multiple videos shot by journalists and I remember seeing one of them being aired on September 11, 2001. Some of the videos were shot in East Jerusalem or the West Bank (Gaza Strip). Some footage exists on Youtube, which is mostly people dancing in the streets cheering. If I am remembering correctly, this was the video that aired.

 

Now there is some debate if this video is actually factual and relevant to 9/11. Claims exist that it was actually a much earlier celebration in regards to the 1993 WTC Bombing (Although it is hard to tell by the video quality given. Its a low quality video that is also compressed by YouTube, but to me the footage quality does appear to be circa late 90s-early 2000s. Footage in 1993 of the WTC has a lot of blur and has a definitive 90s look to it), some also argue the celebration was staged due to a 'supposed' interview with one of the people that was in the video. So unfortunately there is no real clear answer to whether or not the video of Muslims dancing is true. Even contacting the broadcast company that aired/taped it (might have been CNN/Reuters) would probably not offer much factual evidence. After all, what broadcast company would be quick to admit something they aired isn't 100% accurate, or being willing to help investigate an accidental mistake?

 

 

 

The video has the Fox emblem in the bottom left. Just saying.

 

 

 

Warrior I know Clinton is a despicable human being and in no way do I want her in office either. But I'm not concerned AS concerned about world war 3 being started in the next 4 years with her as I am Trump. My best hope is that whoever gets elected gets impeached within the first year.

[SeaBeeGipson]

As far as immigrants go, some of the best people I served with were immigrants that got their citizenship through the military. The pride those guys have for a country they weren't raise in is incredible.
Beyond that, I met one of these refugees at the mall play area while our kids were playing. I feel since it's the topic alot are discussing I should share the story. I have my opposiion towards bringing a mass amount of immigrants from war torn countries over. A mass amount. Do I believe we should help? Yes. It's in our human nature to care for one another. But it's our duty to protect one another. I believe to do that we need alot better background checks. If we can't 100% decide who you are, where you come from, etc, sorry. That's life. It ain't fair but you aren't coming over. And absolutely no single males. Sorry not sorry. If you are of military age and fit for service. Get your ass up and protect what is yours. I have no pity for men who can do something and run from it, allowing their own countrymen to die. Now to families. Those are who i believe we should bring over. Women, kids, and fathers. While i believe men should defend their country when that type of situation arises, a child doesnt deserve to be without a father. A wife doesnt deserve to lose a husband. If their background is clear, let them come. This immigrant i met was a Turkish born citizen. Moved to Syria and moved back to Turkey from the war. Turkey, in turn, classified him a refugee and the USA took him in. Beyond that, they took his wife and two kids in. HE had nothing but good things to say about the US. Beyond that, he was in Texas. A place stereotypes would say is very discriminatory towards anyone. (Not true.) He asked about how he could get Healthcare for his sons. I told him. Texas offers 100% free Healthcare for kids, even if you aren't covered. He asked about the culture. He had only been here for 2 months and was still learning. I told him the differences. If you see the bottom of someone's shoe, it isn't intentally trying to insult you. Things like that. After talking to him, I went from "no refugees" to the mentally I stated above. Some may not agree, and that's fine. That's the beautiful thing about America. We all have different opinions and can freely state it. Don't insult people for their opinions, even if you think they're 1000% asinine and outrageous. Admire their right to do it.
And Shah, as a service member who has lost some brothers in that war. As a service member who lost some brothers from the scars they bring home. I just ask that you not try to paint us as war mongering barbarians attacking a defenceless country. I don't want to dwell on this too much because I'm hoping I got the message wrong, but it hit me in an uncomfortable spot.

I will never try to disrespect soldiers on the Frontline. Never, my apologies if it came that way, my frustration is with the politicians and policymakers and what has become the outcome of war is a total and utter quagmire. You are here to present your views but there is no one here to empathize for people who have collectivly suffered, simply, alot more than anyone of us here. I do not think any one of us can even imagine that scale of suffering as none of us have really experienced the loss of entire families, neighborhoods, cities and country. They are the ones with no voice here, they are the other victims of war besides the soldiers who put everything on the line.  You can, never, ever fault soldiers on the front for the mess being cooked by politicians. 
 
My grandfather, father, both have been service members, my grandfather lost, literally everything in the war, including most of his family, who would have been my uncles, people I never saw, met or know but all I know were they too were 'family', lost somewhere, no where to be found, with no records and no one to tell their story or speak for them. This was during WW2 on the Burmese front vs Empire of Japan. Perhaps, this is why I tend to be very critical of any war and raise alternate view points that someone else will not tell you and I hope, you dont take offense from it, but understand that there is another narrative too and that in the end, you and these silent others have, made the ultimate sacrifices and there are people who have misused these sacrifices, namely, some of the politicians, in Iraq and United States. People are pawn to not all, but many of them. 
 
Has anyone been held accountable for the mess?  

Mainly the reason I didn't want to look too much into it. Getting to know you, it seemed out of character so I felt I was misreading it. I can agree there are mishaps in the middle east. A lot of us care for the citizens there. They care for us. Are they shady? Yes. Would I trust one enough to lower my guard? Absolutely not. The main issue I see in the middle east is the easy accessibility to drone strikes. Politicians and generals/admirals who never stepped foot in the country, appointed to their positions by politicians, order those things based on Intel they receive from field ops. Not always reliable Intel might I add. You have a man behind a desk fly a drone, drop a bomb, and in my opinion, it's like a video game. They don't think of actual people behind the screen. Actual lives lost in that explosion.

Do I believe in accountability? Yes. If I shot an unarmed citizen, I'd be court martialled. If I had thrown a grenade and blew a school aged kid up, I'd be in Leavensworth. Why are these drone operators above repremandation? Why are these politicians untouchable by their own laws they enforce? The issue here isn't those on the ground that many place as scapegoats. The unknowledged feel it's easier to put blame on the ground troops. It's some they can understand. (not stupid, just those unaware. Huge difference.) I can agree, the war itself was both a necessity and unnecessary. The way modern politicians have changed the rules of engagement is my theory to the current time state of things. It's not our presence itself, it's the way our hands are tied behind our back on what we can and can't do. We can't defend those people to our full extent. We can't hunt down the terrorist to our full ability. We can't gather information how we need to so we can prevent a mishap or two or ten. The rules of engagement themselves are another reason politicIan's should be held accountable for the situation in the Midle East. Policies, mind you, that Clinton herself had a huge sway in setting up. Trump, I don't believe understands the military's needs to the fullest extent, but I feel he knows that. Trump has a history of putting other people in places they excel at where he lacks. If he can place a good SecDef or announce a good SecState, there may be hope. Clinton, however, I have no faith could produce an adequately behaved and trained military with proper policies.

We're in for a shit story either way, it's really a matter of would you like sprinkles or whipped cream on top?

[Lysistrata]

I would rather chew glass than discuss politics any longer with most of you here, but I can't leave this unanswered.

It`s embarrassing to be american right now. the 2 major canidates were chosen by roughly 15% of the population, in a fairly corrupt primary system that is the definition of vote disfranchisement. 

 

It's embarrassing to be an American right now because most everyone in the USA has turned their back on their responsibility to protect and defend the US Constitution. Not many care about the sacrifices that were made by generations before them, and they are more interested in the latest iPhone than paying attention to how much wealth is evaporating right under their nose. They elect people that say what they want to hear, and line up to do it again, and again, and again... and allow them to steal their rights, their wealth, and their future. Generation Snowflake is tearing apart the very foundation of the greatest nation the world has ever produced. Most have failed to instruct our children properly... at least I can say that I did not fail with mine.

 

I know how our candidates were chosen. Hillary Clinton had the Democratic Party bought and paid for. The Republican Party had 17 candidates that refused to allow one of them to overcome the popular power of one guy that has 100% name recognition. If they didn't want Donald Trump, they should have never allowed him on the debate stage as a Republican. If only 15% of the population chose the candidates... that is only the fault of the 85% that made the conscience decision to not participate.

 

The issues i care about aren't acknowledged by the canidates (well maybe jill a bit),

 

sutdent loan debt (being the second largest debt in the country, used to be housing then cars, then students, but we know what happened with houses) needless to say cars are next.. and i'm hoping for student loans (8% on an education while homes are  even lower than that). 

 

No one held a gun to your head and forced you to sign a loan document... especially one that cannot be included in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. You believe the Federal Government is there to help you, and they care about your future. You are wrong. The Federal Government is only interested in paying for a over-bloated Department of Education, that is only concerned about taking care of their system. You have been duped. Suck it up and move on... just like we all had to do when we all lost our houses a few years ago.

 

underemployment. I have a job, but there is no way to live off of it, nor make progress on student loans, my mom is in the same boat as me as she helped with my schooling. This would include decreasing corporate subsides which would hopefully make it so less people would need help to survive. 

 

"Underemployed" is a stupid word for people who falsely believe they are more special than they really are. I know more extremely successful people that do not have a college degree than the many that majored in Anthropology and wonder why they are selling phones for T-Mobile. I made more money in Mortgage than I do now... but I decided that my time is worth more to me than all the cash in the world.

 

decriminalization of drugs, a rape sentence is lighter than a possession sentence. 

 

I don't know what to think of this. Are you a drug addict that is more worried about getting busted for heroin than raping the girl next door? Since I'm not a drug addict, and I don't rape girls... I don't really care how long any of them are in prison. I have an older brother that is a drug addict and spent the majority of his adult life in prison. I can only tell you from experience, that everyone was better off with him in there.

 

 

clinton i hate, she seems crazy, the campaign slogan of "stronger together" should honestly be "join or die"... the law suit against the dnc.. somehow those lawyers have dropped dead, bernie feels forced to support her as does Michelle and with what bill did to the global economy with free trade i'd not want another Clinton able to influence the economy. oh and clinton is no where near the left, i've seen republican candidates more left leaning. 

 

Hillary Clinton is a criminal. If Donald Trump wins... I predict that Bill and Hillary Clinton will flee the country to somewhere that does not extradite. They will be indicted and prosecuted under a Trump Administration... probably by Attorney General Chris Christie. Same with Lois Lerner, John Koskinen, all those in the GSA, the VA, and every other corrupt DC syndicate. It would be ironic if they all ended up in the Ecuadorian Embassy with Julian Assange.

 

trump doesnt understand the term its impossible or illegal, a majority of what he said can't and will never happen. and i enjoy having my civil rights finally. the campaign slogan of "make america great again" isn't fitting, the greatest america was when we had FDR for 4 terms, none of his polices are anything near FDR. it should be "things i wanna say" cause they have no way to be implemented. oh and he is a failed businessmen who  has inherited wealth and has had more lawsuits than the number of crime shows on TV in the US. 

 

Oh Gawd... FDR was an utter failure. The only way he could get us out of depression was to get us in a world war... a world war that we should have entered much earlier, but he was such a weak leader he had to piss off Japan enough to attack us. Thank our lucky stars he did not live to see the end of it. What exactly is impossible or illegal that Trump cannot do that he says he will do? That "failed businessman" has a 64 story luxury hotel down the street from me with his name on it. Trust me when I say that Donald has made many times the wealth his father ever dreamed of. I don't see a single thing wrong with inheritance... but I see everything wrong with the Death Tax.

 

going jill to influence the next election cycle more than anything else, my vote is in a heavy red state so between the 2 parties it ain't changing. voting 3rd gives a chance for a crazy new process in 2020, jill and gary both have larger support than any 3rd party candidate before and they still aren't allowed to join the presidential debates. if gary and/or jill gets 5% of popular vote the funding for the party greatly changes and they will have to be on the presidential debate stage.(in 2020, a touch after the fact) 

 

If you live in a deep red state and you vote for Jill Stein you are wasting your time. Jill Stein is bat-shit nuts, and if we were ever stupid enough to follow her lead... the USA would be Venezuela. Sorry about that, but I love my country, and I know where it all came from. Where so many people have gone wrong is they believe down to their soul that life is "fair". There has never been anything fair on Earth... just people who care about other people, and everything has a limit or we all go down. That will not happen as long as there are Americans that know how we got here.

 

I can't stop trump from winning with the state I'm in but I'm gonna change the process to make more outcomes if trump was to run again.

 

I don't know if I will post again... I don't feel I do much good here. All of you take care.

[LordSunday]

Warrior I know Clinton is a despicable human being and in no way do I want her in office either. But I'm not concerned AS concerned about world war 3 being started in the next 4 years with her as I am Trump. My best hope is that whoever gets elected gets impeached within the first year.

 

Clinton would never start WW3, it wouldn't be "politically correct."

You have to understand her only care will be to sell us off politically and economically even more so than our past President and then lie about everything she does while nobody does anything about it because it would alter the political system politicians have strived so hard to make.

Yes the system is corrupt, however Trump did not win <12% of the vote in the primaries. In fact, I clearly remember hearing many times that this was for Republicans one of the largest voting turnouts in American history, and that was for a primary.

Though until the day he is sworn into office the media will try to call him a wild card that shouldn't be trusted, I believe the majority of the American people are too fed up of the "all talk, no action" politicians and for once want there to be some changes.

 

Also what does it mean that "Fox News" covered the video clip that was provided? If you're going to try and start with the Fox being politically biased claims, you're absolutely correct. A general trend of Fox News is they are Republican based with Republican views. But don't think that means any other news station is better. For instance CNN is almost the polar opposite of Fox being in favor of the  Democratic party. No matter where you look and what you listen to, these channels will never, ever express the true story with no twist to try and get you to think a certain way or another.

 

And Lys, why you ignore us now? I normally doesn't post about politics but this all sorts of fun.

[DeathMerchant]

My point was that the United

States gave them weapons (stingers and other weapons). That is an
indisputable fact. Those same stingers have been used against us.
Indisputable fact.

As far as I am aware, not a single Stinger missile sent by the CIA in Operation Cyclone was used in an attack against Western forces. Before I explain why, I want to mention some historical events. Not many people are aware how Operation Cyclone was carried out, and a lot of misconceptions exist, so I would like to shed some light on this area. If you don't feel like reading this part just skip the next paragraph.

The US did offer a buyback program for unused Stingers but most of what was leftover likely ended up on the international black market, where they would fetch higher prices than what the US was offering. The exact number is subjective but it is commonly believed the CIA sent at least 500, or 1,500-2,000 Stinger Missiles. These Stingers consisted of the 9K32 Strela-2 (NATO reporting name SA-7 Grail) and the Blowpipe, and for some unknown reason these plans didn't work out to well. My best guess is since the first weapon originated in the USSR acquiring an adequate stock would be difficult. However these could have been bought from China, sent to Pakistan, and then smuggled into Afghanistan. Which was the route most small arms took. While the second weapon originated in the UK, there are claims the guerillas didn't like this specific weapon. The Blowpipe is not a fire and forget weapon (doesn't lock on to heat signature), it is a manually operated weapon. The operator must guide the missile to the target while exposing himself to return fire. And the required training to accurately use such a weapon would have been rather impossible to provide. This leads us to the American FIM-92 being sent. So back to the numbers, the conflicting accounts as to how many Stingers were sent is probably due to 3 different types being planned. Their are photos of the SA-7 in guerilla hands, which yes the CIA did give some of these to guerillas. A couple Blowpipes were probably sent. While the rest were the FIM-92s.

As for the CIA Stingers given to Afghan guerillas, the US Government claims it recovered all but 600 of them. 100-200 were rumored to be stockpiled in Afghanistan, some of which were found once the US invaded. While the rest ended up on the black market and in several other war torn countries. So that gives us approximately 400-500 unaccounted for Stingers. What happened to them? Well their battery packs ran out. The FIM-92 battery only lasts 4-5 years (a Pentagon report does exist saying they could theoretically last up to 10 years), after that the weapon system is useless. It could still have a live missile, but their is no way to fire it, nor recharge its battery. The SA-7 is rumored to also have a 4-5 year battery life. In the ongoing Syrian Civil War, some SA-7 battery packs have been replaced with improvised batteries. Reports state these batteries may have gotten the missile to fire, but the tracking was unpredictable and erratic. It is not known if any of these modded SA-7s have even hit a target. One Syrian apparently found a way to use a laptop battery and claims he got a SA-7 to properly work, but the claim is difficult to verify. Even if it is true, that means only one Stinger has been successfully re purposed. A Stinger which likely did not originate from Operation Cyclone, it is probably Russian stock, sold to the Syrian Army, and then captured by rebels.

The stinger threat has been overblown because it instills so much fear, and makes for a terrifying story. Even the actual effective use of Stingers in the Soviet Afghan War is widely debated. The term 'Stinger Effect' was coined because there is this notion that the Stingers made the Soviets leave Afghanistan and subsequently broke up the USSR. That is far from the truth as the Soviets planned to pull out of Afghanistan at least a year prior to the first CIA Stinger being used. The US claimed a high shoot down rate (which is difficult to actually verify because accounts were mostly given by guerillas), while the Soviets stated their losses were smaller. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. I suspect aircraft/helicopter loses declined later in the war as pilots adjusted their tactics and were given better equipment.

The deadliest weapon the CIA gave to the guerillas, isn't sophisticated technology, but the cheap AK47s bought from China. Those weapons will be in use for decades to come. Easy to maintain, operate, and ammunition is readily available.

Didn't
he make several speeches specifically targeting Muslim groups? I
remember he said something about Muslims to the effect that they were
celebrating when 911 happened. That's pretty bigoted imo, as well as
many of his other speeches.

There were multiple videos shot by journalists and I remember seeing one of them being aired on September 11, 2001. Some of the videos were shot in East Jerusalem or the West Bank (Gaza Strip). Some footage exists on Youtube, which is mostly people dancing in the streets cheering. If I am remembering correctly, this was the video that aired.


Now there is some debate if this video is actually factual and relevant to 9/11. Claims exist that it was actually a much earlier celebration in regards to the 1993 WTC Bombing (Although it is hard to tell by the video quality given. Its a low quality video that is also compressed by YouTube, but to me the footage quality does appear to be circa late 90s-early 2000s. Footage in 1993 of the WTC has a lot of blur and has a definitive 90s look to it), some also argue the celebration was staged due to a 'supposed' interview with one of the people that was in the video. So unfortunately there is no real clear answer to whether or not the video of Muslims dancing is true. Even contacting the broadcast company that aired/taped it (might have been CNN/Reuters) would probably not offer much factual evidence. After all, what broadcast company would be quick to admit something they aired isn't 100% accurate, or being willing to help investigate an accidental mistake?

The video has the Fox emblem in the bottom left. Just saying.



Warrior I know Clinton is a despicable human being and in no way do I want her in office either. But I'm not concerned AS concerned about world war 3 being started in the next 4 years with her as I am Trump. My best hope is that whoever gets elected gets impeached within the first year.

I believe it also aired on CNN. Fox News wasn't the one who recorded it. If you read my entire post, you would have seen Routers being mentioned.

World War 3 huh? This is something anti Trump people love to throw around. Then I ask them to explain in detail how World War 3 will happen if he becomes POTUS. After months of asking that question, I have yet to get a serious and well thought out scenario. They just repeat the 'he will still start WW3 somehow'. So would you be willing to explain a realistic scenario how Trump would start WW3? I'll even provide you with a few possible starting points.

War with China: Probably the most plausible scenario. Although still incredibly unlikely. Both of our economies are so intertwined it would be catastrophic for both nations. Besides, would sell us computer chips for our missile systems and GPS technology. Thats right, they both come from China.

War with Russia: Highly unlikely. Trump seems to respect Putin so this scenario is out.

War with North Korea: Wouldn't be much of a war, more of a curbstomp. It would play out like Desert Storm. Except North Korea has even worse weaponry/tech then Iraq had. The amount of defections would be through the roof.

War with Iran: Very plausible. Probably wouldn't be a full scale war, as no one really cares to actually invade Iran. It would be limited to air strikes, cruise missiles, and improved bunker buster missiles. Main objective would be eliminate nuclear sites without setting foot on the ground. The US does not want a repeat of the Iraq War.

US Civil War 2: Democrats get so pissed off at Trump they take the streets. Oh wait Democrats have spent decades handing in their firearms and have no weapons to fight with. Scratch this scenario...

[SeaBeeGipson]

[quote name="DeathMerchant" post="881541" timestamp="1474326604"][quote name="Chaplain of death" post="881525" timestamp="1474316000"][quote name="DeathMerchant" post="881478" timestamp="1474293235"][quote name="Chaplain of death" post="881408" timestamp="1474256937"]


War with Iran: Very plausible. Probably wouldn't be a full scale war, as no one really cares to actually invade.[/quote]


Right here is my theory on WW3. Iran is pushing too many buttons and have a very large treaty Web on their side. Iran and Saudi Arabia are the two big dogs keeping some sort of stability alive in the Middle East. Create a war with either or and you have 1) a blockade involving the Strait of Hormuz. Which might I add is the largest naval trading route for the Middle East. 2) a net of treaties come into play. From Saudi to Turkey to Pakistan. Yes, Russia would probably also get invovled. Depending how the Web played out as a few nations hold treaties with us, Iran, AND Russia, depends on the side Russia joins. Our only true ally would be Israel. And if we war with Iran, you can guarantee they'll pounce on Israel. 3) our choice of President would decide how this is handle by my previous statement. RoE. 4) nuclear. Iran doesn't quite have the nuclear capacity to inflict major damage to us, but Israel? Yes. Iran has a few allies with nuclear as well. This is all my speculation and a war with Iran would definitely have a few more twists and turns we can't see.

As far as North Korea. China wouldnt allow us to just walk in and screw them up. Nowadays is different than the 50s. China has no ability to stalemate our far superior military (fact. They have numbers, but in an environment as dense in jungles as Korea, 1000 people can easily be as easy a target as 10.) Not much to worry about here except it would go nuclear fast.

A World War would happen no matter who a president is. If a WW3 breaks out, you'd vote on the policies you believe a candidate would follow in that situation. I, myself, doubt a WW3. Countries may push us, but they push our administration. They push our society. As bad as the truth is, our military is feared. Hence when bad stuff happens, who does NATO or the UN try to get involved when a military is needed? These countries know what buttons to push and how far to push to get what they want and avoid war, except North Korea (dumbass man-child runs it.) They've perfected it over the years. They know how they can push us and our society won't go to war. No matter the President, you'd have to convince the society itself to go to war.

Again, this is my take on it with limited information. I don't have access to every thought pattern of every leader, but this is my theory as far as how'd I see it play out and why I think these things happen.

[DeathMerchant]

Some war games and strategy papers I have read seem to support what you described, especially in regards to Iran. Strategy and Tactics magazine runs a series called Modern War. In 2014 they published a series of enlightening articles how a war with Iran would unfold. Economic implications, Iranian Order of Battle, Strait of Hormuz. Quite the good read!

I expect Russia would sit out of a US/NATO vs Iran War. Iran would clearly be on the loosing side. Half the middle east, NATO, the US, and possibly Israel launching strikes against them. So why would Russia sit out? Because they cannot afford to fight a loosing war. While Russia's military is modernizing and getting stronger, their economy would crash if they were dragged into a prolonged war. Russia would condemn Western aggression and make threats, but they know deep down there is little they could do. Look at all the propaganda involving Russian military losses on Syria. A lot of it is covered up because Putin is afraid of low approval ratings. He doesn't want to make Russia appear weak. A war with Russia would still be nasty even if nukes weren't used, but I doubt Russia would voluntarily go to war with the US or any member of NATO. Because they know in a drawn out conflict, that it will result in losing the war.

In the past I was always adamant their had to be some secret pact that if North Korea was invaded China would come to its aid. Now I am not so sure. China in recent years has condemned North Korea for their nuclear program and their war mongering actions. I suspect China's main reason for not wanting war is because they don't want to have a massive refugee problem on their hands. Yes they don't want South Korea with stationed US troops next to the Chinese border, but the situation at least to me seems to go beyond that. A theory of mine is that if US/South Korea and North Korea ever go to war, China will actually step in and send troops into North Korea. Not to fight Americans, but to establish a buffer zone between the Chinese and soon to be the unified Korean border. I look at it as China wanting a piece of the pie. Just like Russia, they know if a shooting war started tomorrow with the west, they too would lose in the long run. The pacific would be a stalemate for some time, but eventually China would get blockaded and their sphere of influence would start shrinking. The only chance of China succeeding in a war with the US is to go into the fight with Russia. And even then its debatable how the winner would be declared. Would it be a nuclear war, successful invasion + occupation, economic collapse, the list goes on and on because when the worlds most powerful nations fight against one another, there is no telling how it will turn out. We can only set up global scenarios using an imaginary conflict, speculate at diplomatic relations, and compile lists of each nation's Order of Battle. That gives us some educated guesses and semi realistic scenarios, but it still is hard to judge how WW3 would actually play out.

[Chaplain of death]

Okay here's 2.

Scenario 1:
We go to war in the middle east and go full scorched earth like Trump has campaigned. The UN puts sanctions on us for breaking the geneva convention and being assholes. Trump tries to wave Americas military dick around in an attempt to get them to back down until we end up in a stand off with the UN. This scenario may not lead to world war 3 as when our country goes to shit from those sanctions i think he'd get impeached quickly.

Scenario 2:
We don't end up in a world war but Trump tries to issue his illegal orders and gets refused by the JCoS, he tries to replace them and jail them, they tell him to eat shit and die and pull what would amount to a coup. From there they could either work towards restoring the government or we could end up in the first dictatorship in American history.

In short you are right, there won't be a ww3 most likely. We will however either get fucked royally, or, Trump won't deliver on his campaign promises in which case hes just being a lying self serving twat like killary.


Yes i know all the major news outlets are biased. Fox just tends to be the biggest joke. I was pointing it out because you said it was broadcast by the shitty left leaning news when that particular clip was quite obviously from the shitty right leaning news.

[Icewolf]

Clinton. You have a 2 party state, and therefore it is Clinton or Trump. 

 

Trump doesn't believe in Global warming and wants to tear up the Paris Climate Convention. Therefore he is a danger to the US and a danger to the world. Anyone who does not believe in global warming should not be let into office for 2 reasons; 

1) It means that they will enact policies to severely damage the world

2) It means they do not hold with evidence based policy making, and will in general make bad policy

 

Further, Trump is a racist, see comments about the hispanic judge in his case that he wanted removed purely on the basis of family history and skin colour. To quote Paul Ryan, textbook racism. We saw in my country after the Brexit vote the impact of validating racists at the ballot box. Racist attacks and general racism goes up. Elect trump, be prepared for petrol bombs through the windows of minorities. It happened here, it will happen to you. 

 

Finally, Trump has no clue on maters of policy and no desire to have a clue. Simple example, upon arriving in Scotland after the Brexit referendum he declared that Scotland had voted to leave the EU. It would have taken a policy advisor 35 seconds (or less) to update him that Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain. Which means either he doesn't bother having informed advisors around, or just doesn't care to listen. This is just one example of the many many many cases where he shows an appalling lack of coherence and basic regards for facts. This man was still adhering to the birther conspiracy until six months ago...does he really seem of sufficiently sound mind to run a government? 

 

Or even today when he called on US police to invalidate any evidence obtained from the suspect in the recent bombings by denying medical care...any law enforcement official will tell you that is insane. This guy has no clue how to respond to even a low level incident, how can he be expected to deal if something actually major happens? 

 

Is Clinton a good candidate? No, but she is the better one. She knows how to run a government. She has a grasp of policy issues. She pays attention to facts. She can handle issues of foreign policy, has a far more measured and practical response to a crises. Yes she has told lies, she is a politician. But so has Trump, and the key difference is, when Clinton tells lies she is grounded enough she knows what the truth is. When Trump lies you get the feeling he no longer knows what is reality and what is not. Is that really a good quality in a candidate?

[DeathMerchant]

Okay here's 2.

Scenario 1:
We go to war in the middle east and go full scorched earth like Trump has campaigned. The UN puts sanctions on us for breaking the geneva convention and being assholes. Trump tries to wave Americas military dick around in an attempt to get them to back down until we end up in a stand off with the UN. This scenario may not lead to world war 3 as when our country goes to shit from those sanctions i think he'd get impeached quickly.

Scenario 2:
We don't end up in a world war but Trump tries to issue his illegal orders and gets refused by the JCoS, he tries to replace them and jail them, they tell him to eat shit and die and pull what would amount to a coup. From there they could either work towards restoring the government or we could end up in the first dictatorship in American history.

In short you are right, there won't be a ww3 most likely. We will however either get fucked royally, or, Trump won't deliver on his campaign promises in which case hes just being a lying self serving twat like killary.


Yes i know all the major news outlets are biased. Fox just tends to be the biggest joke. I was pointing it out because you said it was broadcast by the shitty left leaning news when that particular clip was quite obviously from the shitty right leaning news.

Scenario 1: The problem with this is people just throw around we will go to war 'somewhere in the middle east', but the real question is where. Based on Trump's rhetoric, Iran is really the only possible country that the US might invade. What other country besides Iran do you think the US will invade? We clearly aren't going into Syria as its been an air war with limited special operations groups on the ground. Progress has been slow but ISIS is becoming steadily more contained in Syria. Russia and the Assad regime have both helped to contain ISIS. The UN would never put sanctions on the US, we would have to do something downright ridiculous like invade a member of NATO or attack someone on the UN Security Council. But even that wouldn't work out because 1: The US is on the UN Security Council and would veto any sanctions placed against itself. 2: No one wants the US to stop handing out free money to every country on the block. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid#Recipients

 

Scenario 2: This is isn't even plausible and has the accuracy of a typical conspiracy theory. Look at all the borderline illegal orders the Bush Administration and Obama Administration have given. Occasionally you get a General bad mouthing an Administration but they often just announce their retirement. Another thing that shoots holes in this theory is that while the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff does outrank the respective heads of each service branch, he doesn't legally have command authority over them, nor their respective service branches, nor does he control the Unified Combatant Commands. The Secretary of Defense (who is appointed by the President) is the only one who can give operational orders to the Combatant Commanders. Even if the Chairman did have command authority, the Chairman is nominated by the President and confirmed by vote in the Senate. The Chairman has a 2 year term and can be dismissed by the President at any time. So the chain of command for operational orders goes President -----> Secretary of Defense -----> Unified Combatant Commands (USAFRICOM, USCENTCOM, USEUCOM, USNORTHCOM, USPACOM, USSOUTHCOM, USSOCOM, USSTRATCOM, and USTRANSCOM).

 

Do you even read my whole posts? This is what I said, and I don't see anything about shitty left leaning news. Unless you are trying to draw something from me saying most news outlets are often reluctant to print a retraction or state something they aired was later proven false.

Even contacting the broadcast company that aired/taped it (might have
been CNN/Reuters) would probably not offer much factual evidence. After
all, what broadcast company would be quick to admit something they aired
isn't 100% accurate, or being willing to help investigate an accidental
mistake?