Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Rockstar on April 04, 2003, 11:52:17 AM
-
by Daniel Pipes
New York Post
March 19, 2003
Has anyone noticed an indifference in the precincts of the far Left to the fatalities of 9/11 and the horrors of Saddam Hussein?
Right after the 9/11 attack, German composer Karlheinz Stockhausen called it "the greatest work of art for the whole cosmos." Eric Foner, an ornament of Columbia University's Marxist firmament, trivialized it by announcing himself unsure "which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House." Norman Mailer called the suicide hijackers "brilliant."
More recently, it appears that none of the millions of antiwar demonstrators have a bad word to say about Saddam Hussein nor an iota of sympathy for those oppressed, tortured and murdered by his regime. Instead, they vent fury against the American president and British prime minister.
Why is the Left nonchalant about the outrages committed by al Qaeda and Baghdad?
Lee Harris, an Atlanta writer, offers an explanation in a recent issue of the Hoover Institution's journal, Policy Review. He does so by stepping way back and recalling Karl Marx's central thesis about the demise of capitalism resulting from an inevitable sequence of events:
* Business profits decline in the industrial countries;
* Bosses squeeze their workers;
* Workers become impoverished;
* Workers rebel against their bosses, and
* Workers establish a socialist order.
Everything here hangs on workers growing poorer over time - which, of course, did not happen. In fact, Western workers became richer (and increasingly un-revolutionary). By the roaring 1950s, most of the Left realized that Marx got it wrong.
But rather than give up on cherished expectations of socialist revolution, Harris notes, Marxists tweaked their theory. Abandoning the workers of advanced industrial countries, they looked instead to the entire populations of poor countries to carry out the revolution. Class analysis went out the window, replaced by geography.
This new approach, known as "dependencia theory," holds that the First World (and the United States above all) profits by forcefully exploiting the Third Word. The Left theorizes that the United States oppresses poor countries; thus Noam Chomsky's formulation that America is a "leading terrorist state."
For vindication of this claim, Marxists impatiently await the Third World's rising up against the West. Sadly for them, the only true revolution since the 1950s was Iran's in 1978-79. It ended with militant Islam in power and the Left in hiding.
Then came 9/11, which Marxists interpreted as the Third World (finally!) striking back at its American oppressor. In the Left's imagination, Harris explains, this attack was nothing less than "world-historical in its significance: the dawn of a new revolutionary era."
Only a pedant would point out that the suicide hijackers hardly represented the wretched of the earth; and that their objectives had nothing at all to do with socialism and everything to do with - no, not again! - militant Islam.
So desperate is the Left for some sign of true socialism, it overlooks such pesky details. Instead, it warily admires al Qaeda, the Taliban and militant Islam in general for doing battle with the United States. The Left tries to overlook militant Islam's slightly un-socialist practices - such as its imposing religious law, excluding women from the workplace, banning the payment of interest, encouraging private property and persecuting atheists.
This admiring spirit explains the Left's nonchalant response to 9/11. Sure, it rued the loss of life, but not too much. Dario Fo, the Italian Marxist who won the 1997 Nobel Prize for literature, explains: "The great [Wall Street] speculators wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions of people with poverty, so what is 20,000 dead in New York?"
The same goes for Saddam Hussein, whose gruesome qualities matter less to the Left than the fact of his confronting and defying the United States. In its view, anyone who does that can't be too bad - never mind that he brutalizes his subjects and invades his neighbors. The Left takes to the streets to assure his survival, indifferent both to the fate of Iraqis and even to their own safety, clutching instead at the hope that this monster will somehow bring socialism closer.
In sum: 9/11 and the prospect of war against Saddam Hussein have exposed the Left's political self-delusion, intellectual bankruptcy and moral turpitude.
-
lol that you post this tripe is the funny thing.
or sad i guess.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
lol that you post this tripe is the funny thing.
or sad i guess.
Wow, you really cut through the BS and got to the crux of the matter.
:rolleyes:
-
most liberals are not very religous. Hell most of us think any kind of religous extremists christian or islamic are the bane of this earth. So everytime i see tripe about how i am supposedly supporting any kind of religous wack job makes me sick. The taliban and iraq represent everything a liberal government hates. jeez. They are more conservitive then anything.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
most liberals are not very religous. Hell most of us think any kind of religous extremists christian or islamic are the bane of this earth. So everytime i see tripe about how i am supposedly supporting any kind of religous wack job makes me sick. The taliban and iraq represent everything a liberal government hates. jeez. They are more conservitive then anything.
Well..you see... thats the irony mentioned in said article...
-
well you see your confuseing the wackos that support osama and saddam as liberals. they are not.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
well you see your confuseing the wackos that support osama and saddam as liberals. they are not.
Is that why millions on the left are protesting aginst the only real option to remove Saddam Hussein, and dont forget massive numbers on the left also demostrated against retaliation for 9/11...
-
Maybe they do so for religious reasons? Try Matthew 5:39.
-
Mr. Pipes was just nominated by President Bush to the Institute for Peace. CAIR is of course having a coronary and it still has to get thru the senate.
But it's nice to see someone in touch with reality nominated. If anything it's going to cause a stir, let's see who starts squirming first.
I'd like to how Mathhew 5:39 applies? Were they Christian? Because thats who is being addressed in that verse. And who struck them?
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/5553635.htm
http://www.danielpipes.org/
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Maybe they do so for religious reasons? Try Matthew 5:39.
Right...
frogman said:
most liberals are not very religous.
-
Are you saying that most conservatives are pro-war?
While you're at it... try Matthew 5:44 also.
-
You arent seriously suggesting that left wing anti war porttestors are bsing their opposition on the bible are you?
I dont know if most conservatives are pro war or not, but a clear majority of americans are. Anyway thats just a red herring and irrelevant to the discussion.
-
You aren't seriously stating that all anti-war protestors are left wing, are you?
-
In this thread "left wing anti war protestors" refers to anti war protestors who are left wing.
But I do beleve the majority of anti war people are left leaning, certainly many of the largest anti war protest organizers are very left wing like ANSWER etc...
-
This thread assumes that the left loves Osama and Hussein.
It's a load of crap.
-
I think it makes an intersting argument to that end.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I think it makes an intersting argument to that end.
That's because you understand the left half as well as you think you do.
-
I underand the left pretty well as they present themselves. I see them protesting on the streets about the evils of america, I dont see them protesting about the evils of saddam.
Of course thats just a dumb insufficienty nuanced right wing statement lacking in the finer subtelites of left wing intellectual handwringing.
Tell me right now what plan do all these left wing anti war groups have to remove saddam, who (you say) they dont like, without resorting to war.
And since you will not show me a plan, but by all means go ahead and prove mr wrong on that, the practical reality of it is that they are acting in a way that keeps saddam hussein in power.
-
So "anti-war" is the same thing as "pro-Hussein"?
-
Yes in effect it is, provided of course one does not present a workable real world alternative for his quick removal, and they have not.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yes in effect it is, provided of course one does not present a workable real world alternative for his quick removal, and they have not.
And that shows that you don't understand the left.
You are smuggly certain that you do, but that doesn't make it so.
-
How about you just tell me how a left wing anti war person who hates saddam like soooo much is proposing to get rid of him soon.
Cmon Karnak, youra smart guy a genuine SF liberal you must have the answer.
Otherwise you are just happy to see him sit in Baghdad while his people dide in the tens of thousands because he doesnt think its worthwhile to obey the agreement he signed to end the war.
So let me see it.
Right now here is your chance.
Give me your plan!
Tell me something I dont know about the left wing plans for Saddam.
-
its the soon i dont understand . the al queda connec is bull****.
weapons of mass destruction found to date "none"
why now ? his boarders were open people who wanted to could flee. why now ? why not 12 years ago when we were there.for peace love and the american way? or the 6 trillion bucks under that sand. according to bush every country is open to invasion by anyone who feels like it. no need for a war declaration just lie and invade nazi style. i hate the man for it.
one man wants to do this for his own probably religious reasons. he has a propaganda machine running overtime in say anything mode scareing the hell out of anyone who will listen to their crap. im tired of my wife crying about his lies. can you say terror alert lavender.
many many posts have pointed out the deficiencys of bushes regime they will be happy to write books on his failings. hes a friggin deserter for gods sake and a coke head. everyone wants rid off saddam hell i was there the first time. you just dont kill your neibor cause you think you have a mission from god. or if you do its called murder.
calling a spade a spade without the propaganda crap and the mans a war criminal. you hollering about the ends justifying the means just says you havent understood the failings of "the prince"
its that simple
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
calling a spade a spade without the propaganda crap and the mans a war criminal. you hollering about the ends justifying the means just says you havent understood the failings of "the prince"
its that simple
calling a spade a spade without the propaganda crap and you really are illiterate.
It's that simple.
-
Congrats Vador, Marlet just called you illiterate.. that means those on the left won this argument by default.
BTW are all these people lefty commie liburals?
1) Norman Schwarzkopf
Yes, Stormin' Norman thinks the Bush administration may be rushing things a bit. "efore I can just stand up and say, 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq,'" he told the Washington Post, "I guess I would like to have better information." Unlike his former comrades in the Bush administration, he supports acting with "a bit of prudence" and letting the U.N. weapons inspectors do their jobs. "I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with, and hopefully they come up with something conclusive," he said. Though a conservative friend of the Bushes, he was also quite critical of Donald Rumsfeld. "Candidly, I have gotten somewhat nervous at some of the pronouncements Rumsfeld has made," he said, adding, "He almost sometimes seems to be enjoying it," which, in Schwarzkopf's experience, "is a sensation to be avoided when engaged in war."
See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52450-2003Jan27.html
2) Nobel Laureates in Science and Economics
Forty-one American Nobel laureates in science and economics, all of whom served as government advisors, issued a declaration opposing unilateral action against Iraq on the grounds that, even if it succeeded, such action would make America less safe in the long run. "The undersigned oppose a preventive war against Iraq without broad international support," the document reads. "Military operations against Iraq may indeed lead to a relatively swift victory in the short term. But war is characterized by surprise, human loss and unintended consequences. Even with a victory, we believe that the medical, economic, environmental, moral, spiritual, political and legal consequences of an American preventive attack on Iraq would undermine, not protect, U.S. security and standing in the world."
Some of these scientists worked in the Pentagon and on the atomic bomb and are certainly not representative of the traditional anti-war crowd.
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/national/28NOBE.html
3) Other Military Experts
In addition to Norman Schwarzkopf, other high-profile military officers have voiced concerns."You don't have license to attack someone else's country just because you don't like the leadership," former National Security Advisor General Brent Scowcroft told the BBC and London Times, later saying that war might unleash "an Armageddon in the Middle East"
See: http://www.ciponline.org/iraq/experts.htm
General Anthony Zinni also scoffed at those who feel a war with Iraq might help stabilize the Middle East. "I don't know what planet they're on," he told the BBC. "Such a war would make the situation between Israel and the Palestinians much worse."
See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2245632.stm
4) The World War II Generation
"Of all the generations studied by pollsters, these Americans -- now in their 70s, 80s and 90s -- are showing the most resistance to an invasion in Iraq in surveys of American opinion," the LA Times recently reported. Suspicious of the Bush administration's motives and leery of anything as un-American as preemptive military action, overwhelmingly, the Greatest Generation doesn't think this war's so great.
See: http://www.ppu.org.uk/iraq/whatgood.html
5) Veterans
Anti-war groups are springing up from within veteran's ranks. There are the "Vietnam Veterans Against the War," "Gulf War Veterans For Common Sense" and "Soldiers' for Truth" to name a few. Another group, "Veterans' Call to Conscience," recently issued a statement expressing their opposition to war with Iraq and urging soldiers to question their orders: "Now we see our REAL duty is to encourage you as members of the U.S. armed forces to find out what you are being sent to fight and die for and what the consequences of your actions will be for humanity," they warn. "If you choose to participate in the invasion of Iraq you will be part of an occupying army. Do you know what it is like to look into the eyes of a people that hate you to your core?"
See: http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/CtC/
6) The CIA
Not known for being leftist peaceniks, the CIA nevertheless issued one of the most compelling reasons for not launching an attack: "Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions." -- CIA October Threat Letter
See: http://www.ciponline.org/iraq/experts.htm
7) Richard Butler
Though certain Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, former chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler is nevertheless stunned by America's 'shocking double-standard' in dealing with Iraq. "The spectacle of the United States, armed with its weapons of mass destruction, acting without Security Council authority to invade a country in the heartland of Arabia and, if necessary, use its weapons of mass destruction to win that battle, is something that will so deeply violate any notion of fairness in this world that I strongly suspect it could set loose forces that we would deeply live to regret," he said.
See: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0128-02.htm
8) Bob Novak
Even Bob Novak, who is often a cheerleader for the Bush administration, questions the agenda behind this war. Critical of any pretext "for a decision that's already been made at high levels of the U.S. government to change the government in Iraq," he spelled out the Bush's administration's real reason for waging war. "They want a war as a manifestation of U.S. power in the world and as a sign that the United States is capable of changing the balance of power and the political map of the Middle East," he said on a recent Capital Gang. Revealing that a senior official had told him, "If we don't hit in Iraq, where are we going to hit?" Novak added, quite bluntly, that "it's a desire that the United States, the superpower, is going to manifest its authority to the rest of the world."
See: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/18/cg.00.html
9) Conservative columnist Paul Craig Roberts
Arguing that the upcoming war on Iraq "is likely the most thoughtless action in modern history," Roberts describes the war's two primary supporters as being neoconservatives who want to impose America's 'exceptionalism' on the rest of the world and foreign policy advisers "who believe that the primary aim of U.S. foreign policy is to make the Middle East safe for Israel."
None of this involves America's national security, of course, and so, like many of us, he questions the dubious reasons we're given for waging war.
See: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulcraigroberts/pcr20030129.shtml
10): Republican Businessmen
Conservative businessmen ran an ad in the Wall Street Journal entitled, 'A Republican Dissent on Iraq.' "Let's be clear," they stated in an open letter to President Bush and the American people. "We supported the Gulf War. We supported our intervention in Afghanistan. We accept the logic of a just war. But Mr. President, your war on Iraq does not pass the test. It is not a just war." The group pointed out that war should always be the last option and explained that the U.S. would create "a billion enemies," not security for our children. They also invoked the Revolutionary spirit that made this country great: "War with Iraq is not inevitable," they reminded. "Now is the time to stop it. Speak out at your place of worship, at your business, among your friends and relatives. Make your convictions known to your Mayor and Governor and -- above all -- to your elected leaders in Washington."
See: http://www.anitaroddick.com/weblog/weblogdetail.jsp?title=null&id=371
If those 10 examples don't convince warmongers opposition isn't stemming from a bunch of wild-eyed leftist radicals, the chief ecumenical officer of the United Methodist Church, Melvin Talbert, is being featured in a commercial sponsored by the National Council of Churches -- spreading the message that "Iraq hasn't wronged us," and that the war will "only create more terrorists."
See: http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001/20030129/201349789.htm&sc=1110
In a statement, Talbert criticized the Bush administration's plans to invade Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein, saying, "No nation under God has that right. It violates international law. It violates God's law and the teachings of Jesus Christ."
Although, come to think of it, the pro-war camp would most likely paint Christ as silly, addle-brained peacenik, too.
-
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/World/iraq_poll030328.html
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Congrats Vador, Marlet just called you illiterate.. that means those on the left won this argument by default.
BTW are all these people lefty commie liburals?
1) Norman Schwarzkopf
Yes, Stormin' Norman thinks the Bush administration may be rushing things a bit. "efore I can just stand up and say, 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq,'" he told the Washington Post, "I guess I would like to have better information." Unlike his former comrades in the Bush administration, he supports acting with "a bit of prudence" and letting the U.N. weapons inspectors do their jobs. "I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with, and hopefully they come up with something conclusive," he said. Though a conservative friend of the Bushes, he was also quite critical of Donald Rumsfeld. "Candidly, I have gotten somewhat nervous at some of the pronouncements Rumsfeld has made," he said, adding, "He almost sometimes seems to be enjoying it," which, in Schwarzkopf's experience, "is a sensation to be avoided when engaged in war."
See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52450-2003Jan27.html
2) Nobel Laureates in Science and Economics
Forty-one American Nobel laureates in science and economics, all of whom served as government advisors, issued a declaration opposing unilateral action against Iraq on the grounds that, even if it succeeded, such action would make America less safe in the long run. "The undersigned oppose a preventive war against Iraq without broad international support," the document reads. "Military operations against Iraq may indeed lead to a relatively swift victory in the short term. But war is characterized by surprise, human loss and unintended consequences. Even with a victory, we believe that the medical, economic, environmental, moral, spiritual, political and legal consequences of an American preventive attack on Iraq would undermine, not protect, U.S. security and standing in the world."
Some of these scientists worked in the Pentagon and on the atomic bomb and are certainly not representative of the traditional anti-war crowd.
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/national/28NOBE.html
3) Other Military Experts
In addition to Norman Schwarzkopf, other high-profile military officers have voiced concerns."You don't have license to attack someone else's country just because you don't like the leadership," former National Security Advisor General Brent Scowcroft told the BBC and London Times, later saying that war might unleash "an Armageddon in the Middle East"
See: http://www.ciponline.org/iraq/experts.htm
General Anthony Zinni also scoffed at those who feel a war with Iraq might help stabilize the Middle East. "I don't know what planet they're on," he told the BBC. "Such a war would make the situation between Israel and the Palestinians much worse."
See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2245632.stm
4) The World War II Generation
"Of all the generations studied by pollsters, these Americans -- now in their 70s, 80s and 90s -- are showing the most resistance to an invasion in Iraq in surveys of American opinion," the LA Times recently reported. Suspicious of the Bush administration's motives and leery of anything as un-American as preemptive military action, overwhelmingly, the Greatest Generation doesn't think this war's so great.
See: http://www.ppu.org.uk/iraq/whatgood.html
5) Veterans
Anti-war groups are springing up from within veteran's ranks. There are the "Vietnam Veterans Against the War," "Gulf War Veterans For Common Sense" and "Soldiers' for Truth" to name a few. Another group, "Veterans' Call to Conscience," recently issued a statement expressing their opposition to war with Iraq and urging soldiers to question their orders: "Now we see our REAL duty is to encourage you as members of the U.S. armed forces to find out what you are being sent to fight and die for and what the consequences of your actions will be for humanity," they warn. "If you choose to participate in the invasion of Iraq you will be part of an occupying army. Do you know what it is like to look into the eyes of a people that hate you to your core?"
See: http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/CtC/
6) The CIA
Not known for being leftist peaceniks, the CIA nevertheless issued one of the most compelling reasons for not launching an attack: "Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions." -- CIA October Threat Letter
See: http://www.ciponline.org/iraq/experts.htm
7) Richard Butler
Though certain Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, former chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler is nevertheless stunned by America's 'shocking double-standard' in dealing with Iraq. "The spectacle of the United States, armed with its weapons of mass destruction, acting without Security Council authority to invade a country in the heartland of Arabia and, if necessary, use its weapons of mass destruction to win that battle, is something that will so deeply violate any notion of fairness in this world that I strongly suspect it could set loose forces that we would deeply live to regret," he said.
See: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0128-02.htm
8) Bob Novak
Even Bob Novak, who is often a cheerleader for the Bush administration, questions the agenda behind this war. Critical of any pretext "for a decision that's already been made at high levels of the U.S. government to change the government in Iraq," he spelled out the Bush's administration's real reason for waging war. "They want a war as a manifestation of U.S. power in the world and as a sign that the United States is capable of changing the balance of power and the political map of the Middle East," he said on a recent Capital Gang. Revealing that a senior official had told him, "If we don't hit in Iraq, where are we going to hit?" Novak added, quite bluntly, that "it's a desire that the United States, the superpower, is going to manifest its authority to the rest of the world."
See: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/18/cg.00.html
9) Conservative columnist Paul Craig Roberts
Arguing that the upcoming war on Iraq "is likely the most thoughtless action in modern history," Roberts describes the war's two primary supporters as being neoconservatives who want to impose America's 'exceptionalism' on the rest of the world and foreign policy advisers "who believe that the primary aim of U.S. foreign policy is to make the Middle East safe for Israel."
None of this involves America's national security, of course, and so, like many of us, he questions the dubious reasons we're given for waging war.
See: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulcraigroberts/pcr20030129.shtml
10): Republican Businessmen
Conservative businessmen ran an ad in the Wall Street Journal entitled, 'A Republican Dissent on Iraq.' "Let's be clear," they stated in an open letter to President Bush and the American people. "We supported the Gulf War. We supported our intervention in Afghanistan. We accept the logic of a just war. But Mr. President, your war on Iraq does not pass the test. It is not a just war." The group pointed out that war should always be the last option and explained that the U.S. would create "a billion enemies," not security for our children. They also invoked the Revolutionary spirit that made this country great: "War with Iraq is not inevitable," they reminded. "Now is the time to stop it. Speak out at your place of worship, at your business, among your friends and relatives. Make your convictions known to your Mayor and Governor and -- above all -- to your elected leaders in Washington."
See: http://www.anitaroddick.com/weblog/weblogdetail.jsp?title=null&id=371
If those 10 examples don't convince warmongers opposition isn't stemming from a bunch of wild-eyed leftist radicals, the chief ecumenical officer of the United Methodist Church, Melvin Talbert, is being featured in a commercial sponsored by the National Council of Churches -- spreading the message that "Iraq hasn't wronged us," and that the war will "only create more terrorists."
See: http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001/20030129/201349789.htm&sc=1110
In a statement, Talbert criticized the Bush administration's plans to invade Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein, saying, "No nation under God has that right. It violates international law. It violates God's law and the teachings of Jesus Christ."
Although, come to think of it, the pro-war camp would most likely paint Christ as silly, addle-brained peacenik, too.
10 Bears, please stop posting your mindless communist propaganda crap link-show immediately or i will get on the next Air France flight to NY and hit my shoe right in ya face, you Golly-geen anti-american, gay, Saddam prettythang-lickin school boy!!!!! :D
(No regards this time) i hate you !!!!
Hitler never died, you moron, he escaped with U- 651 and tries to rebuild his evil regime in Bagdad now. We need to get him now because our military had some sparetime lately, can't you see that????
Wonder how many operations was nessasary to change his face, most likely he uses same doctor as "Cher".
Only important question left right now: Where is "Blondi", his "Schäferhund??? Tell ya what: Our CIA guys will find out soon!!!!
-
this thread is so full of crap its bursting at the seams.
what an utter load of drivel!
why dont you guys just state your own views instead of trying to second guess 90% of the populations political leaning by asking if they want war or not.
If you advocate the war on Saddam it doesnt make you right wing just as if you would rather it didnt happen makes you a leftwing type.Come on people! its so much more complex than that , you all sound like school children, hell maybe you are?
heres my veiw irrespective of whether Im being fooled by propaganda or not.
I approve of Saddams removal, although i suspect the Iraqi people will be far LESS thankfull for it than we might imagine.
I DO NOT APPROVE OF ANY WARS. However I suspect that people like Saddam and Osama and the 1000's of others waiting to fill their shoes have to be constantly tackled in order to keep them from becoming powerfull enough to threaten our society as we know it.This unfortunately means action HAS to be taken.
I doubt Saddam had or has the power to mount any kind of threat other than the funding and arming of terrorist organisations who are prepared to even suicide themselves in attacking us.If we leave him in power he will most assuredly kill many many more civilians, fund/train/give haven to many terrorist organisations if it means he can hurt the US/Western economies etc.
So faced with the choice of #1 waiting to see what new diabolical terrorist plot Saddam will fund next OR #2 go in and kill the bastard
I choose #2. Im from the UK and I have worries like the rest of the world over the power the US has but lets face it, those fundamentalists who attacked the US on sept11 began this.On that day they changed my whole veiw on the human race and damaged part of our collective human psyche.I do not want to see that happen again and I truelly believe we are acting in the interests of our families and countries safety. Im more appreciative now than ever before at the tollerance of a world power that, lets face it, if it was based on the fundamentalist ideals would have ruled the planet or destroyed it trying. Im thankfull the American people are the way they are.
If you denounce the war on Iraq, you must be at least prepared to accept responsibility for the 'next' sept 11th style attrocity.Do nothing now and they will CONTINUE to hate and attack us.If you believe we are causing hate by our actions and that if we did nothing the hate will stop then you live in a f*cking dream world.
excuse my language ;)
As terrible as the war is I believe it necessary.I dont like saying it, I wish there was some other way, but there just isnt.
Now its started theres no going back.no half measure will suffice.
Remove Saddam, try to stabalise the region as best we can.Hopefully the next power in Iraq will be voted for in a democratic way and will not desire anything but the improvement of living conditions for their fellow countrymen.They have the financial wealth to be the most modern of civilisations on the planet yet they seem to be living in the stone age.Its about time the Arab leagues did something to improve the way they treat their own people.Dont look to the US as the causes of the terrible living conditions in most of those countries, look to the leaders of those countries sitting on their thrones like medievil kings of old.They dont give a crap for their own people and people who advocate no action expect these people to live in peace? Its time to start the change like it or not i say.
-
"If you denounce the war on Iraq, you must be at least prepared to accept responsibility for the 'next' sept 11th style attrocity.Do nothing now and they will CONTINUE to hate and attack us.If you believe we are causing hate by our actions and that if we did nothing the hate will stop then you live in a f*cking dream world.
excuse my language"
hazed
so after we take over the oil rich state we are gonna go after all the murdeous dictatioships in the world. ya know the ones without 6 trillion in oil reserves.
and the notion that if you are against the war on iriq on the idea that international vigilantiism is wrong. you say i must accept responsibility for he next attack of a soudi from afganastan?
it has been said befor ill say it again - nonsequitor
i refute, that you can say speaking for law and order is weakness. here in texas we used to lynch people when the law was to weak it was wrong and we are still paying for it. am i responsible for the actions of thos we have not lynched? on the idea that if we had killed them they would not have commited a crime. sorry that idea is a no go.
the world would have given permission but by the time it happend bush would have been a memory politicaly. that is one of the reasons why he attacked against the law. or blair was about to get sacked and the english would have pulled out. it was now or never for him to play chosen by god. ill have not truck with it and only bad will come of it.
to break established laws to get your way is childish and stupid this isnot a john wayne movie its life. if they think im gonna send my son on bushes "crusade" (his word not mine) they are mad. it will be war time on another front. and osama will be the least of their worrys.
tree of liberty and all.
-
just bring peace to cuba and see the raging rutabagas!
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
weapons of mass destruction found to date "none"
Give the troops some time... I have confidence that they'll be cache's.
If Iraq truly rid itself of of NBC weapons and weapons programs, as mandated by the UN, Saddam sure caused much hardship among Iraqi citizenry for no good reason.
SH could have opened up to inspectors years ago, and had the sanctions lifted. He chose not to, and that very fact should give some insight.
Todays' trivia questions:
How much oil did we get for changing the regime of Noreiga?
How about Milosovich?
-
Noreiga perfect example. we made the monster or the cia did. then when he didnt suit us we invaded a soverign nation and removed the head of state to try him on charges from another nation? never mind we invaded columbia to create panama when they would not do what we wanted. if anyone stops the canal for 24 hours we will invade again why . cause we can.
you start using that "cause we can" argument there is no end to it as you become rome. if you are willing to send the youth of our nation to die so we can become the police of the world god bless you, but i will fight you tooth nail and whatever else. till the reign of law returns. and i am far far from alone.
-
So you are saying because somebody was our friend in the past and has since betrayed us this means that we cannot fight fight him now?
Explain why this is the correct policy...
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Give the troops some time... I have confidence that they'll be cache's.
Absolutely - they'll find those caches even if they have to put them there themselves. ;)
-
what percentage of the country to we now control ?
number of confirmed weapons of mass distruction. 0
number of half cocked lies about them being discovered 4 that i count.
chances they will find what they want to find with the level of credibility they have 100%.
-
Originally posted by hazed-
If you denounce the war on Iraq, you must be at least prepared to accept responsibility for the 'next' sept 11th style attrocity.Do nothing now and they will CONTINUE to hate and attack us.If you believe we are causing hate by our actions and that if we did nothing the hate will stop then you live in a f*cking dream world.
excuse my language
What if this war will give birth to a 100 new little Bin Ladens?
Doesn't need WMDs or Boing planes flying into buildings.
Needs 30 fanatics only,willing to sacrify for Saddam, Allah, God or whatever.
30 guys with semiautometic weapons, maybe a few hand grenades goin simutanesly in warehouses, car movies or other crowded places in 30 different cities in any given western country.
How much will they kill?
How much will it cost to organize, millions?
How much organization you need for that?
How can ya prevent crap like that? By creating more hate?
Violence will nothing create but violence.
Now tell me that this war make sense to prevent terrorist attacks.
Regards Blitz
-
Originally posted by blitz
What if this war will create a 100 new little Bin Ladens?
Doesn't need WMDs or Boing planes flying into buildings.
Needs 30 fanatics only,willing to sacrify for Saddam, Allah, God or whatever.
30 guys with semiautometic weapons, maybe a few hand grenades goin simutanesly in warehouses, car movies or other crowded places in 30 different cities in any given western country.
How much will they kill?
How much will it cost to organize, millions?
How much organization you need for that?
How can ya prevent crap like that? By creating more hate?
Violence will nothing create but violence.
Now tell me that this war make sense to prevent terrorist attacks.
Regards Blitz
you go on living in fear of taking action. Be a victim.
We'll take care of it, we always do.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
you go on living in fear of taking action. Be a victim.
We'll take care of it, we always do.
Empty words only!
How can ya prevent it?
ETA-> Spain
IRA-> UK
Tschetschenien
Afganisthan (Today 1 of Karsais friends was assasinated again by Taliban)
RAF-> Germany
Many countries have seen terrorism for a long time but normaly it was against 'hard to get' targets like military people and government members but if terrorists really want to get civilians we are lost because that is very easy.
Look at Washington sniper.
Regards Blitz
-
Originally posted by Martlet
you go on living in fear of taking action. Be a victim.
We'll take care of it, we always do.
...while you support preemptive action on the basis of fear. You're already the victim.
-
Yes Blitz we simply must do nothing. If we do nothing they wont attack, yes Yes they wont..
-
and we got the washington sniper.
and we got the taliban
and we'll get saddam
Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. But hunting them down as they pop up, at least distributes justice. It's really all you can do.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
...while you support preemptive action on the basis of fear. You're already the victim.
keep thinking that. you'll feel better, honest.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
you go on living in fear of taking action. Be a victim.
We'll take care of it, we always do.
History has proven that, still to scared to join the War Crimes Tribunal?
(http://www.trialofhenrykissinger.org/images/trialcover_small.jpg)
-
You really stirred 'em up Rockstar. :D The article you posted seems pretty much on target to me.
-
Originally posted by Torque
History has proven that, still to scared to join the War Crimes Tribunal?
(http://www.trialofhenrykissinger.org/images/trialcover_small.jpg)
No, we just have no desire to have the will of 3rd world countries imposed on us. We take it upon ourselves to do the right thing. If you don't like it, do something about it.
-
So might makes right?
-
Martet,
Get a clue. The Left isn't opposed becuase they're afraid. There's nothing from Iraq to be afraid of. They're opposed because they think its a stupid thing to do.
The only apparently afraid people are those advocating it by claiming that if we don't Saddam'll do a 9-11 on us. If they themselves are not afraid, they are most certainly trying to play the fear card to justify the war.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
No, we just have no desire to have the will of 3rd world countries imposed on us. We take it upon ourselves to do the right thing. If you don't like it, do something about it.
Of course you do...
(http://www.latribuduverbe.com/images/sadrum.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Martlet
and we got the washington sniper
Was he willing to give his life?
and we got the taliban [/B]
That was revenge for 11/9 and ok by me. But Taliban is still alive there, killing people , firing rockets on german camp, killing american boys .
and we'll get saddam [/B]
Invading a sovereign country by violation of international law will bring up more hate.
More hate = more terrorism
Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. But hunting them down as they pop up, at least distributes justice. It's really all you can do.[/B]
We can accept and provide international laws and try to make them better.
We can be fair to third world countries and try to convince them by getting rid of allies who oppress their people and are dictatorships.
We can do a lot more things other than playin the easy card and call for the bloody gods of war.
Regards Blitz
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Martet,
Get a clue. The Left isn't opposed becuase they're afraid. There's nothing from Iraq to be afraid of. They're opposed because they think its a stupid thing to do.
The only apparently afraid people are those advocating it by claiming that if we don't Saddam'll do a 9-11 on us. If they themselves are not afraid, they are most certainly trying to play the fear card to justify the war.
Turn on the news once in awhile. Pick up a paper. Educate yourself.
Fact: Saddam is a threat to his neighbors when the US isn't spending it's money babysitting him.
Fact: Saddam is in violation of numerous UN resolutions.
Fact: Terrorists train in Iraq.
Fact: The US is constantly threatened by terrorists.
etc etc.
You can keep your head in the sand, I'll do my best to keep you safe.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Turn on the news once in awhile. Pick up a paper. Educate yourself.
Fact: Saddam is a threat to his neighbors when the US isn't spending it's money babysitting him.
Fact: Saddam is in violation of numerous UN resolutions.
Fact: Terrorists train in Iraq.
Fact: The US is constantly threatened by terrorists.
etc etc.
You can keep your head in the sand, I'll do my best to keep you safe.
(http://www.soaw.org/new/img/op/99procsign.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Martlet
you go on living in fear of taking action. Be a victim.
We'll take care of it, we always do.
How can ya prevent it?
ETA-> Spain
IRA-> UK
Brigade Rosse-> Italy
Tschetschenien
Afganisthan
RAF-> Germany
Many countries have seen terrorism for a long time but normaly it was against 'hard to get' targets like military people and government members but if terrorists really want to get civilians we are lost because that is very easy.
Look at Washington sniper.
Regards Blitz
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You can keep your head in the sand, I'll do my best to keep you safe.
keep thinking that. you'll feel better, honest.
-
Originally posted by blitz
How can ya prevent it?
ETA-> Spain
IRA-> UK
Brigade Rosse-> Italy
Tschetschenien
Afganisthan
RAF-> Germany
Many countries have seen terrorism for a long time but normaly it was against 'hard to get' targets like military people and government members but if terrorists really want to get civilians we are lost because that is very easy.
Look at Washington sniper.
Regards Blitz
I answered this in the first thread you posted it in. Can you try to keep your arguments together?
-
well i respect your veiws and all but I firmly believe, either incorrectly or not that Blair is of the opinion that this man Saddam is the biggest threat to western society. To me he seems more a concerned head of our countries security than some kind of oil game player.Blair was in no fear of losing the next election (when it would have come and there was no election on the immediate horizon threatening his position).From a UK citizens point of veiw Blair is in fact risking his entire future on this war.
The political opersition to Blair and the labour party is practically non existant,The conservative party are a joke. So you have to ask yourself why he would risk everything when there was just oil involved.He risks losing the next election now even if the war is won AND they find the weapons of mass destruction.
The British are notorious for voting in a change of government even after a victorious war.Im sure Blair must be fully aware that his image in the eyes of the British public has now been completely changed. I know it sounds rediculous to say but I trust the man.He has a family and I think he would think of his childrens future. I dont think he wanted this war anymore than any of us but he is aware of more than us im sure.For him to risk so much, well for me its telling me to listen and to listen NOW.
true the terrorists will seek revenge.Im damn well sure they will and i dread it as well all should BUT they sure wont have the funding to opperate at such high levels as they are presently receiving from Saddam.I say strike first and rid the world of his fanatical regime.I make this decision on the information I have received from my elected government who i trust(somewhat instinctively I admit but something is telling me Blair is right).I only hope its a trust well founded.
As for Bush I wasnt certain of his motives and remain uncertain but if Saddam is produciing these weapons and on a scale that only an entire country can produce I can certainly understand the desire not to wait for everyone to stop flapping their arms around.
I suspect he is as forced into action as Blair.They know Saddam is doing what they accuse him of and they know theres precious little time to do it before they are used on our countries.At least I hope that is the reason.Again its based on a trust we are being told the truth.If it turns out we are being lied to then what will it say about our systems of government? A huge risk indeed and i hope Bush is sencere.
-
Originally posted by hazed-
well i respect your veiws and all but I firmly believe, either incorrectly or not that Blair is of the opinion that this man Saddam is the biggest threat to western society. To me he seems more a concerned head of our countries security than some kind of oil game player.Blair was in no fear of losing the next election (when it would have come and there was no election on the immediate horizon threatening his position).From a UK citizens point of veiw Blair is in fact risking his entire future on this war.
The political opersition to Blair and the labour party is practically non existant,The conservative party are a joke. So you have to ask yourself why he would risk everything when there was just oil involved.He risks losing the next election now even if the war is won AND they find the weapons of mass destruction.
The British are notorious for voting in a change of government even after a victorious war.Im sure Blair must be fully aware that his image in the eyes of the British public has now been completely changed. I know it sounds rediculous to say but I trust the man.He has a family and I think he would think of his childrens future. I dont think he wanted this war anymore than any of us but he is aware of more than us im sure.For him to risk so much, well for me its telling me to listen and to listen NOW.
true the terrorists will seek revenge.Im damn well sure they will and i dread it as well all should BUT they sure wont have the funding to opperate at such high levels as they are presently receiving from Saddam.I say strike first and rid the world of his fanatical regime.I make this decision on the information I have received from my elected government who i trust(somewhat instinctively I admit but something is telling me Blair is right).I only hope its a trust well founded.
As for Bush I wasnt certain of his motives and remain uncertain but if Saddam is produciing these weapons and on a scale that only an entire country can produce I can certainly understand the desire not to wait for everyone to stop flapping their arms around.
I suspect he is as forced into action as Blair.They know Saddam is doing what they accuse him of and they know theres precious little time to do it before they are used on our countries.At least I hope that is the reason.Again its based on a trust we are being told the truth.If it turns out we are being lied to then what will it say about our systems of government? A huge risk indeed and i hope Bush is sencere.
Ok, one big problem for me is that US government said they had huge prove that Saddam has lots of WMDs and other weapons he wasn't aloud to possess.
The Inspectors have run north and south, to the east and to the west. They couldn't find anything. With all the intelligence, spy satelites, human spys US had, the inspectors couldn't find anything?
This is not a country like Vietnam, it's flate like a table, no vegetation, just dessert, wouldn't it be well worth the time to led the inspectors finish their job instead going to war with thousants dying?
Was US government really interested in disarming Iraq?
Did they lie in the face of the world all the time when they told it they were? Was the plan right from the beginning to go to war with Iraq?
Are many in the current US government former oil guys?
Did the oil industry provide election of Bush with 50 million dollar?
Did US government changed their goals for this bloody war every second day?
Blitz
-
Originally posted by blitz
Ok, one big problem for me is that US government said they had huge prove that Saddam has lots of WMDs and other weapons he wasn't aloud to possess.
The Inspectors have run north and south, to the east and to the west. They couldn't find anything. With all the intelligence, spy satelites, human spys US had, the inspectors couldn't find anything?
This is not a country like Vietnam, it's flate like a table, no vegetation, just dessert, wouldn't it be well worth the time to led the inspectors finish their job instead going to war with thousants dying?
Was US government really interested in disarming Iraq?
Did they lie in the face of the world all the time when they told it they were? Was the plan right from the beginning to go to war with Iraq?
Are many in the current US government former oil guys?
Did the oil industry provide election of Bush with 50 million dollar?
Did US government changed their goals for this bloody war every second day?
Blitz
It's a little early to start screaming "liars". You quite obviously have no practical knowledge of military operations. I'll bet you 3 months of AH that WMD are found.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
It's a little early to start screaming "liars". You quite obviously have no practical knowledge of military operations. I'll bet you 3 months of AH that WMD are found.
No doubt about it.
Makes absolutely no sense now, though.
Your government has played 'va banque'.
They must find WMDs or they lost in space.
Plan Nr. 1 They find some WMDs Saddam has hidden somewhere.
Plan 2. If they don't find WMDs they'll find WMDs...., i asure you.
Would have been much more convincing if the UN inspectors would have found WMDs.
Your government is a Bunch of Liars to me, sorry to say, can't help :(
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous- It's a classic bloody 'Aggression War'
When will this tough little country of Vietnam see that apology?
Americans and Vietnamese have something in common :
Their pride
-
Originally posted by blitz
Your government is a Bunch of Liars to me, sorry to say, can't help :(
Damned if we do and damned if we don't eh? Good thing most of us here don't give a **** what you and your ilk think.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Damned if we do and damned if we don't eh? Good thing most of us here don't give a **** what you and your ilk think.
Truth is a one way street and ya government tried to use it both ways- lost it :(
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous- It's a classic bloody 'Aggression War'
When will this tough little country of Vietnam see that apology?
Americans and Vietnamese have something in common :
Their pride
-
So you have allready made up your mind that any WMD found in Iraq are not genuine and have been planted by the USA forces trying to fool the world...
Faaack You, seriously Blitz you are such a loser..
-
Originally posted by blitz
RAF-> Germany
what the hells that supposed to mean?
-
Originally posted by Furball
what the hells that supposed to mean?
Rote Armee Fraktion = german terrorist group
RAF started in 1970 and worked till mid 90thies
Ulrike Meinhof, Gudrun Enslin, Jan Carl Raspe, Holger Meinhof , Andreas Baader were some 'famous' members of the first generation.
They commited a lot of assasinations on government members and some on american military personal.
General Kroesen was 1 of their victims in 'Heidelberg.
They fired a russian RPG on his car and scored a hit but his Mercedes was just to strong :)
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous- It's a classic bloody 'Aggression War'
When will this tough little country of Vietnam see that apology?
Americans and Vietnamese have something in common :
Their pride
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So you have allready made up your mind that any WMD found in Iraq are not genuine and have been planted by the USA forces trying to fool the world...
Faaack You, seriously Blitz you are such a loser..
You moron, i'm no loser, i'm a coward!!!! :D
Seriously, i'm a coward and ya government has way too much to lose.
They will find WMDs , either way....
Regards Blitz
btw Remember Tonking?
Remember first Gulf War with that iraq girl telling her stories about iraq soldiers in a Kuwait birth hospital? Who paid that?
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous- It's a classic bloody 'Aggression War'
When will this tough little country of Vietnam see that apology?
Americans and Vietnamese have something in common :
Their pride
-
Originally posted by blitz
Plan 2. If they don't find WMDs they'll find WMDs...., i asure you.
Friggin retard.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader so after we take over the oil rich state we are gonna go after all the murdeous dictatioships in the world. ya know the ones without 6 trillion in oil reserves.
How much oil did we get for changing the regime of Noreiga?
Noreiga perfect example. we made the monster or the cia did. then when he didnt suit us we invaded a soverign nation and removed the head of state to try him on charges from another nation?
The answer you did not give is that we got no (zero) oil when we toppled Manuel Noreiga. No oil for interventions in Grenada, Haiti, and numerous other nations. (No I do not believe that the USA is all clean and pure in international issues)
So the case can be made that the US intervenes on issues other than oil. So the possibility exists that WMD, UN Resolution violations, human rights violations, and 12 years of non cooperation with the Gulf War 1 armistice by the government of Saddam Hussein may have been contributing factors.
The possibility also exists that pressure on the governments of France, Germany, and Russia brought to bear by their economic ties with the SH regime can also have been factors in those governments decisions to oppose intervention. The possibility exists that France, Germany, and Russia's decisions where not made with pure altruistic, humanistic intent, but rather were colored with national and economic interest.
Seems both sides of the issue have some merit, but non intervention still allows Saddam Hussien to rule the people of Iraq using the time honored techniques of Maximilian Robspierre.
-
Marlet wrote:
It's a little early to start screaming "liars". You quite obviously have no practical knowledge of military operations. I'll bet you 3 months of AH that WMD are found.
My 45$ wager with Toad is about that.. I say they find a couple of buckets of bug spray.. he says they have massive piles of the stuff.. The deal is he gets three months from the day of surrender to prove to me Iraq has these massive piles... I expect surrender in the next few days. This is based on two things.. three things really.. The testimony of Gen Kardan (spelling) the son in law of Saddam who defected.. He stated that most of the WMD was destroyed shortly after the Gulf war. This was left out, the rest of his testimony is what is being used to justify this invasion. Secondly poor Colin Powel trotted out in front of the security council to provide evidence on the centerfuse tubes.. turns out, this evidence was bogus... Thirdly, Jack Straw offered up some plagiarized 12 year old collage paper equally bogus.. I’d say the Bush regime has a credibility problem which might explain the dissention of 9/10ths of the world population. This credibility problem is also the reason I stipulated that any WMD found would have to be inspected by a 3rd party.
Unfortunately I expect to win this wager... why do I say unfortunately?... because it would be an impeachable offense baby! Waaaa invasion of a sovereign country under false pretexts? Complete destruction of any type of international rule of law?.. Even Toad said he would call for Bush’s head on a spit..
No, if no WMD is found, they’ll have to insert a “throw gun”... but how?.. The boys that normally do the dirty tricks.. the CIA don’t seem too pleased about this whole adventure.. You notice they keep leaking stuff that directly contradicts the White House talking points.. I get the feeling they don’t want to be made a patsy if anything should go wrong.. Also this op would be bigger than the usual hub and spoke conspiracy. Hub and spoke conspiracy is what Iran/Contra was.. About 20 guys on the top that really know what’s going on.. the hub.. the spokes are the folks that think they are just doing their jobs. This throw gun operation would require at least 100 people.. the C130 to deliver the stuff to some warehouse in Iraq.. the people that load the barrels onto the transport plane.. Of course some nosey Yerp would want to test this stuff.. so it would have to be untraceable back to the United States.. somebody would have to be in charge of that.. Sounds like the hub would be too big to be a successful hub and spoke.
The possibility also exists that pressure on the governments of France, Germany, and Russia brought to bear by their economic ties with the SH regime can also have been factors in those governments decisions to oppose intervention. The possibility exists that France, Germany, and Russia's decisions where not made with pure altruistic, humanistic intent, but rather were colored with national and economic interest.
Holden McGroin; Lets assume for a minute that the agenda for Project for a New American Century is the correct one.. that is American/British military control all the way from Syria to the western border of China.. Now.. if you were Russian president wouldn’t you be at the very least concerned America would have sole control of the oil spikit? That means any nation that steps out of line their price of oil would jump to the moon. Already we think France will have the highest prices for fuel in the world..
-
So I see the liberal camp has allready acquitted Saddam hussein of possesing any illegal WMD....
Wow this is the second or third BBS liberal rant I have seen today that made it clear you fools will consider any WMD found in Iraq to be an evil USA planted false evidece.
Fer Gods aske if you hate this country so much please stop torturing yourseleve anmd just leave. Go ahead, got to that dream country of yours - its much better over there...
-
Let's see... I understand. If we don't believe there is WMD in Iraq, we probably don't love our country either. That the point?
-
Lets see:
He basically said
Any WMD found in Iraq will likely be a planted US lie. He said that America just attacked a country for some other reason and that the reason presented was a lie, so america is a lying evil invader of an innocent country..
Seems to me if thats how he views america then he should pack up and leave, it must be a tererible place for him.
-
If we agreed with our government all the time, we would have no need for Democracy now would we?
-
There are those who agree and those who disagree, those are fine.
But beyond that there are the paranoid hystericics and whacko conspiracy theorits. For example people who have allready made their minds up that any WMD found in iraq will be US planted lies. or those who think the CIA did 911. Or those who always see america as evil or doing wrong.
I kindly sufggest that group leave this evil country for their own safety before the black helicopters take them away.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
How much oil did we get for changing the regime of Noreiga?
In 1991, US Congress passed a resolution to renegotiate the Panama Canal Treaty on the grounds that the Panamanian government could not adequately defend the canal, thus ensuring a continued US military presence into the 21st century.
Those supertankers can't pole vault to the west coast.
Noriega was considered an outstanding recruit at the SOA, also he was on the CIA payroll (to the tune of up to $100,000 a year) from the mid-’60s to the mid-’80s.
Common thread is the Bush Family.
-
I guess the fact there are no more US military bases at the canal or the fact that the canal is controlled and managed by a chinese company really doesnt matter much to Torques delusions...
-
America the beautiful. Where one can savor the delicious irony of a youthful immigrant who has been here barely more than a decade telling native born citizens to leave their homeland. All the while behaving like a rabid animal whose seething mind has been reduced to instincual aggression by unquenchable thirst. But don't blame him, he hasn't lived here long enough to learn the true complex nature of democracy and the dichotomies therein. For all it's faults, I love my country. I still would recommend keeping my distance from rabid animals though, as they are prone to unprovoked attacks.;)
kbman
-
Its funny how you consider people who have allready decided that no matter what happends the USA will plant any significant WMD evidence to be people who understand the "true complex nature of democracy and the dichotomies therein."
Sorry KB i just dont cobsider rabit anti-americansim to very democratic or patriotic.
You may disagrre, but I dont care. This country has touched my life 10,000 times more in the past 14 years alone than it has in your whole life- its little wonder thsat you take it for granted.
-
I've found many immigrants that, having lived without the things those of us that are born here begin to take for granted, appreciate and understand the groundstone of America far better than those of us raised under the protection of it's umbrella.
Not all, probably not even a majority, but many. And those ones that truly get it, probably do more for this country than those of us that spend our lives here, taking advantage of the freedom we are given, without really understanding how lucky we are.
-
Grun,
That is precisely my point. In a democracy, none of us has the right to tell anyone else to leave because we disagree with their point of view. It is here for everyone to partake of and contribute to and everyone's opinion carries the same weight. I am glad your life has been touched and enriched in the fertile soil of this great land. That you would attempt to deny that ability to anyone who disagrees with you bespeaks your immaturity and misunderstanding of the basic principles of democracy and freedom. America's strength derives from the diversity of it's people from it's founding onward and may it always remain so. I sincerely hope you will grow to understand and accept this fact and refrain from your tendency to attack those who differ from you.
kbman
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Holden McGroin; Lets assume for a minute that the agenda for Project for a New American Century is the correct one.. that is American/British military control all the way from Syria to the western border of China.. Now.. if you were Russian president wouldn’t you be at the very least concerned America would have sole control of the oil spikit? That means any nation that steps out of line their price of oil would jump to the moon. Already we think France will have the highest prices for fuel in the world..
Wow! did I advocate US/UK world domination? I didn't think so, I thought that I wrote that there is more here to US policy than oil, and oil is indeed a part of the French/German/Russian agenda.
Loïk Le Floch Prigent, a former chief of ELF Aquitane (French Oil Co.) was convicted and is serving time on corruption charges that had something to do with Elf Aquitaine giving vast amounts of money to the Gaullist party of President Jacques Chirac, and other political leaders / parties. I call it bribery, they called it 'subvention'.
"Some politicians were not inclined to support our activities in Africa. We had to silence them," said the former Elf CEO. With money, that is. Around five million euros.
French Company which has signed contracts with Saddam?---> Elf
I believe that the opposition to the military option in Iraq was not pure and clean. That is what I thought[/b] I said.
Another point, non intervention and continuation of sanctions and inspections costs the lives of innocent Iraqis. According to UNICEF, more than 1.2 million children since Gulf War 1. So a continuation of Hans Blix looking where Saddam allows is not the most humane policy either.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Lets see:
He basically said
Any WMD found in Iraq will likely be a planted US lie. He said that America just attacked a country for some other reason and that the reason presented was a lie, so america is a lying evil invader of an innocent country..
Seems to me if thats how he views america then he should pack up and leave, it must be a tererible place for him.
Don't blame America, boy, blame ya government, they alone are responsible for this political mess!
Regards Blitz
-
Holden can you explain me why you are linking ELF trial about corruption and Saddam ?
Africa is not middle-east if my geography is not too bad :)
This corruption trial must be more compared to the Enron scandal.
-
Originally posted by Torque
Those supertankers can't pole vault to the west coast.
They can't fit through 1914 locks either. Supertankers need to go around Cape Horn.
So the answer to my question of how much oil for the ousting of Noreiga, is still "zero"
Now where did I put my Bush family conspriacy parody?
-
I think the the reason is that the left hates Bush more than anything. It doesn't matter if it's right, if Bush is for it, "I'm against it". I haven't seen such hatered for an President since Nixon.
-
Originally posted by firbal
I haven't seen such hatered for an President since Nixon.
Were you living under a rock from '92 to '00???
-
Originally posted by firbal
I think the the reason is that the left hates Bush more than anything. It doesn't matter if it's right, if Bush is for it, "I'm against it". I haven't seen such hatered for an President since Nixon.
I don't hate him, i love him :)
Don't want to think of the horrible political scenario if he was a little bit smart.
Yet, he is like an open book with the title: "How to miss a barn with a shootgun from 20 feet distance" :D
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was plain ridiculous- It's a classic "Agression War.
When will this tough little country of Vietnam get that apology?
Americans and Vietnamese have something in common:
Their pride