O'reilly Vs. Moore

[SuperJude™]

Did not know it was going to happen, but my two least favorite blowhards had it out last night on tv, and man I would love a copy of it. If anybody taped it please encode it and put it out there!

-SJ™

[BigBank_Hank]

I didn’t know that it was going to happen either because I’m not watching TV until the democratic convention is over. You can read the transcript of the interview here though. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html)

[muchspl2]

stayed up just to watch the replay
noone got anywhere, pretty even

[j2k4]

Originally posted by muchspl2@28 July 2004 - 14:16
noone got anywhere, pretty even
To say no one got anywhere is quite accurate.

To call it "pretty even", though, is to assign it coherence-there was certainly none of that.

Bill Buckley used to host a program called Firing Line, where various issues and subjects were debated, vigorously and well.

No one even knows how anymore, not least of all Mr. O'Reilly, and certainly not Michael Moore.

Save your bandwidth, SJ; it was a total non-event, I assure you. ;)

[muchspl2]

Transcript
http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc4.htm

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE JULY 27, 2004 16:02:35 ET XXXXX

MICHAEL MOORE/O'REILLY SHOWDOWN AT CONVENTION
Tue Jul 27 2004 16:51:50 ET

FOX NEWS is planning to air a redhot interview between Bill O'Reilly and boxoffice sensation Michael Moore on Tuesday.

The DRUDGE REPORT has obtained an embargoed transcript of the session:

Moore: That’s fair, we’ll just stick to the issues

O’Reilly: The issues… alright good, now, one of the issues is you because you’ve been calling Bush a liar on weapons of mass destruction, the senate intelligence committee, Lord Butler’s investigation in Britain, and now the 911 Commission have all come out and said there was no lying on the part of President Bush. Plus, Gladimir Putin has said his intelligence told Bush there were weapons of mass destruction. Wanna apologize to the president now or later?

M: He didn’t tell the truth, he said there were weapons of mass destruction.

O: Yeah, but he didn’t lie, he was misinformed by - all of those investigations come to the same conclusion, that’s not a lie.

M: uh huh, so in other words if I told you right now that nothing was going on down here on the stage…

O: That would be a lie because we could see that wasn’t the truth

M: Well, I’d have to turn around to see it, and then I would realize, oh, Bill, I just told you something that wasn’t true… actually it’s president Bush that needs to apologize to the nation for telling an entire country that there were weapons of mass destruction, that they had evidence of this, and that there was some sort of connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th, and he used that as a –

O: Ok, He never said that, but back to the other thing, if you, if Michael Moore is president –

M: I thought you said you saw the movie, I show all that in the movie

O: Which may happen if Hollywood, yeah, OK, fine –

M: But that was your question –

O: Just the issues. You’ve got three separate investigations plus the president of Russia all saying… British intelligence, US intelligence, Russian intelligence, told the president there were weapons of mass destruction, you say, “he lied.” This is not a lie if you believe it to be true, now he may have made a mistake, which is obvious –

M: Well, that’s almost pathological – I mean, many criminals believe what they say is true, they could pass a lie detector test –

O: Alright, now you’re dancing around a question –

M: No I’m not, there’s no dancing

O: He didn’t lie

M: He said something that wasn’t true

O: Based upon bad information given to him by legitimate sources

M: Now you know that they went to the CIA, Cheney went to the CIA, they wanted that information, they wouldn’t listen to anybody

O: They wouldn’t go by Russian intelligence and Blair’s intelligence too

M: His own people told him, I mean he went to Richard Clarke the day after September 11th and said “What you got on Iraq?” and Richard Clarke’s going “Oh well this wasn’t Iraq that did this sir, this was Al Qaeda.”

O: You’re diverting the issue…did you read Woodward’s book?

M: No, I haven’t read his book.

O: Woodward’s a good reporter, right? Good guy, you know who he is right?

M: I know who he is.

O: Ok, he says in his book George Tenet looked the president in the eye, like how I am looking you in the eye right now and said “President, weapons of mass destruction are a quote, end quote, “slam dunk” if you’re the president, you ignore all that?

M: Yeah, I would say that the CIA had done a pretty poor job.

O: I agree. The lieutenant was fired.

M: Yeah, but not before they took us to war based on his intelligence. This is a man who ran the CIA, a CIA that was so poorly organized and run that it wouldn’t communicate with the FBI before September 11th and as a result in part we didn’t have a very good intelligence system set up before September 11th

O: Nobody disputes that

M: Ok, so he screws up September 11th. Why would you then listen to him, he says this is a “slam dunk” and your going to go to war.

O: You’ve got MI-6 and Russian intelligence because they’re all saying the same thing that’s why. You’re not going to apologize to Bush, you are going to continue to call him a liar.

M: Oh, he lied to the nation, Bill, I can’t think of a worse thing to do for a president to lie to a country to take them to war, I mean, I don’t know a worse –

O: It wasn’t a lie

M: He did not tell the truth, what do you call that?

O: I call that bad information, acting on bad information – not a lie

M: A seven year old can get away with that –

O: Alright, your turn to ask me a question—

M: ‘Mom and Dad it was just bad information’—

O: I’m not going to get you to admit it wasn’t a lie, go ahead

M: It was a lie, and now, which leads us to my question

O: OK

M: Over 900 of our brave soldiers are dead. What do you say to their parents?

O: What do I say to their parents? I say what every patriotic American would say. We are proud of your sons and daughters. They answered the call that their country gave them. We respect them and we feel terrible that they were killed.

M: And, but what were they killed for?

O: They were removing a brutal dictator who himself killed hundreds of thousands of people

M: Um, but that was not the reason that was given to them to go to war, to remove a brutal dictator

O: Well we’re back to the weapons of mass destruction

M: But that was the reason

O: The weapons of mass destruction

M: That we were told we were under some sort of imminent threat

O: That’s right

M: And there was no threat, was there?

O: It was a mistake

M: Oh, just a mistake, and that’s what you tell all the parents with a deceased child, “We’re sorry.” I don’t think that is good enough.

O: I don’t think its good enough either for those parents

M: So we agree on that

O: but that is the historical nature of what happened

M: Bill, if I made a mistake and I said something or did something as a result of my mistake but it resulted in the death of your child, how would you feel towards me?

O: It depends on whether the mistake was unintentional

M: No, not intentional, it was a mistake

O: Then if it was an unintentional mistake I cannot hold you morally responsible for that

M: Really, I’m driving down the road and I hit your child and your child is dead

O: If it were unintentional and you weren’t impaired or anything like that

M: So that’s all it is, if it was alcohol, even though it was a mistake – how would you feel towards me

O: Ok, now we are wandering

M: No, but my point is –

O: I saw what your point is and I answered your question

M: But why? What did they die for?

O: They died to remove a brutal dictator who had killed hundreds of thousands of people –

M: No, that was not the reason –

O: That’s what they died for

M: -they were given –

O: The weapons of mass destruction was a mistake

M: Well there were 30 other brutal dictators in this world –

O: Alright, I’ve got anther question—

M: Would you sacrifice—just finish on this. Would you sacrifice your child to remove one of the other 30 brutal dictators on this planet?

O: Depends what the circumstances were.

M: You would sacrifice your child?

O: I would sacrifice myself—I’m not talking for any children—to remove the Taliban. Would you?

M: Uh huh.

O: Would you? That’s my next question. Would you sacrifice yourself to remove the Taliban?

M: I would be willing to sacrifice my life to track down the people that killed 3,000 people on our soil.

O: Al Qeada was given refuge by the Taliban.

M: But we didn’t go after them—did we?

O: We removed the Taliban and killed three quarters of Al Qeada.

M: That’s why the Taliban are still killing our soldiers there.

O: OK, well look you cant kill everybody. You wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan—you wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan, would you?

M: No, I would have gone after the man that killed 3,000 people.

O: How?

M: As Richard Clarke says, our special forces were prohibited for two months from going to the area that we believed Osama was—

O: Why was that?

M: That’s my question.

O: Because Pakistan didn’t want its territory of sovereignty violated.

M: Not his was in Afghanistan, on the border, we didn’t go there. He got a two month head start.

O: Alright, you would not have removed the Taliban. You would not have removed that government?

M: No, unless it is a threat to us.

O: Any government? Hitler, in Germany, not a threat to us the beginning but over there executing people all day long—you would have let him go?

M: That’s not true. Hitler with Japan, attacked the United States.

O: Before—from 33-until 41 he wasn’t an imminent threat to the United States.

M: There’s a lot of things we should have done.

O: You wouldn’t have removed him.

M: I wouldn’t have even allowed him to come to power.

O: That was a preemption from Michael Moore—you would have invaded.

M: If we’d done our job, you want to get into to talking about what happened before WWI, woah, I’m trying to stop this war right now.

O: I know you are but—

M: Are you against that? Stopping this war?

O: No we cannot leave Iraq right now, we have to—

M: So you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that.

O: I would sacrifice myself—

M: Your child—Its Bush sending the children there.

O: I would sacrifice myself.

M: You and I don’t go to war, because we’re too old—

O: Because if we back down, there will be more deaths and you know it.

M: Say ‘I Bill O’Reilly would sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah’

O: I’m not going to say what you say, you’re a, that’s ridiculous

M: You don’t believe that. Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this?

O: Look it’s a worldwide terrorism—I know that escapes you—

M: Wait a minute, terrorism? Iraq?

O: Yes. There are terrorist in Iraq.

M: Oh really? So Iraq now is responsible for the terrorism here?

O: Iraq aided terrorist—don’t you know anything about any of that?

M: So you’re saying Iraq is responsible for what?

O: I’m saying that Saddam Hussein aided all day long.

M: You’re not going to get me to defend Saddam Hussein.

O: I’m not? You’re his biggest defender in the media.

M: Now come on.

O: Look, if you were running he would still be sitting there.

M: How do you know that?

O: If you were running the country, he’d still be sitting there.

M: How do you know that?

O: You wouldn’t have removed him.

M: Look let me tell you something in the 1990s look at all the brutal dictators that were removed. Things were done, you take any of a number of countries whether its Eastern Europe, the people rose up. South Africa the whole world boycotted---

O: When Reagan was building up the arms, you were against that.

M: And the dictators were gone. Building up the arms did not cause the fall of Eastern Europe.

O: Of course it did, it bankrupted the Soviet Union and then it collapsed.

M: The people rose up.

O: why? Because they went bankrupt.

M: the same way we did in our country, the way we had our revolution. People rose up—

O: Alright alright.

M:--that’s how you, let me ask you this question.

O: One more.

M: How do you deliver democracy to a country? You don’t do it down the barrel of a gun. That’s not how you deliver it.

O: You give the people some kind of self-determination, which they never would have had under Saddam—

M: Why didn’t they rise up?

O: Because they couldn’t, it was a Gestapo-led place where they got their heads cut off—

M: well that’s true in many countries throughout the world__

O: It is, it’s a shame—

M:--and you know what people have done, they’ve risen up. You can do it in a number of ways . You can do it our way through a violent revolution, which we won, the French did it that way. You can do it by boycotting South Africa, they overthrew the dictator there. There’s many ways—

O: I’m glad we’ve had this discussion because it just shows you that I see the world my way, you see the world your way, alright—and the audience is watching us here and they can decide who is right and who is wrong and that’s the fair way to do it. Right?

M: Right, I would not sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah and you would?

O: I would sacrifice myself.

M: You wouldn’t send another child, another parents child to Fallujah, would you? You would sacrifice your life to secure Fallujah?

O: I would.

M: Can we sign him up? Can we sign him up right now?

O: That’s right.

M: Where’s the recruiter?

O: You’d love to get rid of me.

M: No I don’t want—I want you to live. I want you to live.

O: I appreciate that. Michael Moore everybody. There he is…

END

-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge
Reports are moved when circumstances warrant
http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
©DRUDGE REPORT 2004
Not for reproduction without permission of the author

[dwightfry]

Moore is a fucking moron. I agree with a lot of his views, but I haven't seen him make a single good point in an interview. He just talks in circles, just like nearly all conservatives do.

O&#39;reilly, even though I disagree with a lot of his views, I like. Unlike most conservatives, he usually makes valid points. But he taught me how to debate. Simply make your point and change the subject as fast as possible. Offer the last word to the guest, and then still get the last word before going on to the next story. <_<

[muchspl2]

torrent on suprnova has the interview

[ahctlucabbuS]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@28 July 2004 - 19:48
I didn’t know that it was going to happen either because I’m not watching TV until the democratic convention is over.&nbsp; You can read the transcript of the interview here though. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html)
Yup, keeping an open mind is what democracy is all about :rolleyes:

Never having seen Bill O&#39;Reilly in live action, I&#39;d love to get my hands on that interview. That&#39;s if he lives up to his reputation (http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly)

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Barky@28 July 2004 - 16:53
Yup, keeping an open mind is what democracy is all about :rolleyes:
You can watch them talk about nothing and talk in circles all you want, it’s just not for me. My TV went into shock the other night when a Clinton was on almost every station.

[clocker]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@28 July 2004 - 16:33
My TV went into shock the other night when a Clinton was on almost every station.
Boy, I sure hope you get that fixed before the Republican convention, Hank.

Could be your last chance to see Bush in action before he sinks into obscurity.

[muchspl2]

yea unless he does a 180 he&#39;ll be out on his ass
just hope Karry is better ;)

[SuperJude™]

Kerry is a Red Sox fan, I do not know if the term better really applies.

Just for humor of course.

I must say I found that Mr. Moore&#39;s hammering away at the "what about your child" point is tatamount to rhetoric. He assures he only hears answers that fit what he wants to hear. You agree with his point or you disagree and are thoughtless.

Listen- nobody would wish death upon their children. Period amen. We can all agree I am sure that WWII was perhaps the most important war fought (at least in the industrial age), that our boys fought and dies bravely, that evil incarnate truly was defeated. Yet how many parents back then would have said "yes I would sacrifice my child for this".

None cause that is a crap line of questioning, and it furthers my view about Mr. Moore being a filmmaker, nothing more. Also, the people who are in Iraq were not recruited. I am not debating how much Iraq sucks, because I do have friends over there I would like to see again. What I mean is they volunteered, so it isn&#39;t like Bush declared the draft and sent our children to war against their will. This is not vietnam, we are a stronger generation than our parents were. What I would say is that IF my child decided to enlist, I would NOT encourage them to be infantry, but IF they wanted to, it would be their choice, as it was the choice of the people serving now to enlist.

It amazes me how a choice of words can put a spin on something, because the WAY Mr. Moore asks the questions you sound like a monster to do anything but agree with him, which of course is just crap.

The whole thing is worth the read of course, though I highly doubt I will be looking to download it, less anybody sends it to me via irc.

-SJ™

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by clocker+28 July 2004 - 17:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 28 July 2004 - 17:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@28 July 2004 - 16:33
My TV went into shock the other night when a Clinton was on almost every station.
Boy, I sure hope you get that fixed before the Republican convention, Hank.

Could be your last chance to see Bush in action before he sinks into obscurity. [/b][/quote]
I know that it would thrill you to death but don’t count your chickens before they hatch. We’re a long way from November and a lot can and will happen in the meantime.

[SuperJude™]

Reminds me oddly of 2000 actually. Lot of chickens counted that never hatched, or am I wrong?

-SJ™

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@28 July 2004 - 23:03
Kerry is a Red Sox fan, I do not know if the term better really applies.

Just for humor of course.

I must say I found that Mr. Moore&#39;s hammering away at the "what about your child" point is tatamount to rhetoric. He assures he only hears answers that fit what he wants to hear. You agree with his point or you disagree and are thoughtless.

Listen- nobody would wish death upon their children. Period amen. We can all agree I am sure that WWII was perhaps the most important war fought (at least in the industrial age), that our boys fought and dies bravely, that evil incarnate truly was defeated. Yet how many parents back then would have said "yes I would sacrifice my child for this".

None cause that is a crap line of questioning, and it furthers my view about Mr. Moore being a filmmaker, nothing more. Also, the people who are in Iraq were not recruited. I am not debating how much Iraq sucks, because I do have friends over there I would like to see again. What I mean is they volunteered, so it isn&#39;t like Bush declared the draft and sent our children to war against their will. This is not vietnam, we are a stronger generation than our parents were. What I would say is that IF my child decided to enlist, I would NOT encourage them to be infantry, but IF they wanted to, it would be their choice, as it was the choice of the people serving now to enlist.

It amazes me how a choice of words can put a spin on something, because the WAY Mr. Moore asks the questions you sound like a monster to do anything but agree with him, which of course is just crap.

The whole thing is worth the read of course, though I highly doubt I will be looking to download it, less anybody sends it to me via irc.

-SJ™
Perfect SJ, you said what&#39;s in my head better then I could ;)

[hobbes]

Saying something that is not true is NOT a lie. A lie is an intentional act to deceive.

It is called a dictionary, check it out Mikey.

A declaration of the state of affairs, given the best information available, which turns out to be wrong, is an "inaccurate" statement, not a lie, not even close to a lie.

Just as people lambaste Bush for not acting on the nebulous information before 9/11, they roast him for his actions based on information, from 3 different sources that did not pan out.

Oh, we all know that Clinton warned him about "terrorism", that is about as helpful as telling him that the problem with the ocean is the fish. Lots of them out there, care to specify?

Talk about a lose/lose situation. Those retrospective historians are a surly lot.

So again, even if with you agree with Moore&#39;s philosphies, the honest mind must recognize his attempt to misconstrue what Bush stated as not an inaccurate comment but a lie.

So in an attempt to discredit Bush, he becomes the one who attempts to deceive, he is the liar.

How many times have I told people, if they want to appear better than those they criticise, they cannot resort to the same tactics because they feel "that their cause is just" and the means justify the ends.

It really just is another political ploy to cause his sheep to "baaaa&#33;" and for open minded thinkers to turn away from his cause as it is riddled with lies.

Sometimes, I want to vote Republican, just to piss Moore off.

[Busyman]

Not I.

Bottom line:

American lives have been lost over bullshit.

As President, Bush either makes a choice to act on certain intel or not.

Bush pushed for the wrong choice. Period.

There were other ways for America to go about this but war was chosen.

If I am a politician and I make decision that are fucked up, I probably won&#39;t remain in office for long.

That&#39;s the nature of leadership in relation to good decision making.

It&#39;s that I necessarily think Bush is evil or anything.

It&#39;s just that as a supposed leader he shitdirtpoor at good decision-making and pisspoor at speaking on just anything.

What makes him so redeemable?

Nothing.

Make a checklist. You&#39;ll get it.

[j2k4]

B-

What would you have done about Iraq at the outset?

Remember:

You know nothing contrary to the standard line on WMD-you think they are there, just like everyone else.

There are umpteen U.N. resolutions pending and being ignored; deadlines for Iraqi cooperation have passed.

As a kicker, try also to forget what you have since become aware of regarding the Oil-for-Food fiasco and the attendent U.N. corruption, and also forget the subsequent revelations about French, German, and Russian efforts to keep Saddam afloat.

Well, President Busyman?

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4@28 July 2004 - 12:30
Bill Buckley used to host a program called Firing Line, where various issues and subjects were debated, vigorously and well.

No one even knows how anymore, not least of all Mr. O&#39;Reilly, and certainly not Michael Moore.
agreed. i may not have liked William F. Buckley&#39;s views and --as with most news & political media over the years-- may have thought the range of opinions allowed into the show was a bit vanilla, but at least he and his colleagues had a handle on the art of discourse. and even good old fashioned wit. i&#39;d go so far as to say Buckley&#39;s the wittiest conservative i&#39;ve ever listened to.

Bill O&#39;Reilly&#39;s style descends from the shock radio trend, imho, of screened calls, going ad hominem only 30 seconds into the interview, shouting people down, and cutting them off if they venture too far off from the host&#39;s presumptions about the topic. it may represent the way "real people" talk, but it&#39;s also endlessly vulgar and hostile. as opposed to Buckley&#39;s comparatively rigid formality, though i&#39;d describe it more as a devotion to polite debate since his chronic slouch was as casual as anything. following that link, i see that O&#39;Reilly kept his cool during the Moore interview, though it shouldn&#39;t be too hard to find tape or transcripts of him berating guests and sending &#39;em packing.

as for Moore... i still think he&#39;s a satirist that people have unfortunately bestowed greater relevance to, than is really deserved. he&#39;s done some funny stuff, but i wouldn&#39;t vote for the guy.

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@28 July 2004 - 21:52
B-

What would you have done about Iraq at the outset?

Remember:

You know nothing contrary to the standard line on WMD-you think they are there, just like everyone else.

There are umpteen U.N. resolutions pending and being ignored; deadlines for Iraqi cooperation have passed.

As a kicker, try also to forget what you have since become aware of regarding the Oil-for-Food fiasco and the attendent U.N. corruption, and also forget the subsequent revelations about French, German, and Russian efforts to keep Saddam afloat.

Well, President Busyman?
Hi j2, President Clocker speaking.

Why presume that we had to do anything about Iraq?
Even granting the assumption of WMD ( despite UN inspectors inability to confirm), where was the "imminent threat" to the US?

The known protagonists of 9/11 weren&#39;t in Iraq, and other countries ( like Iran, for instance) didn&#39;t have presumed WMD, they had confirmed stockpiles and were bragging about it.

So why slog into Iraq at all?

[hobbes]

BM,

Some people will vote Rep, some Dem, no matter what.

My point was that people like Michael Moore tend to drive the thinking man away from his side rather than toward it as they instinctively withdraw in disgust at his dishonest tactics (and apparent poor higiene).

I am not going to vote for Bush, but my comment was to point out my disgust at Moore and how he is driving me to the "dark side".

[Busyman]

Originally posted by j2k4@28 July 2004 - 23:52
B-

What would you have done about Iraq at the outset?

Remember:

You know nothing contrary to the standard line on WMD-you think they are there, just like everyone else.

There are umpteen U.N. resolutions pending and being ignored; deadlines for Iraqi cooperation have passed.

As a kicker, try also to forget what you have since become aware of regarding the Oil-for-Food fiasco and the attendent U.N. corruption, and also forget the subsequent revelations about French, German, and Russian efforts to keep Saddam afloat.

Well, President Busyman?
Hmmm...anything I say would be shot down if it doesn&#39;t go along with what Bush did.

I would have stepped up the intel, using spies whenever possible.

I wouldn&#39;t relied on, "See Mr. President, this box shown on this satellite photo is normally used for chemical weapons". :lol: :lol:

Interesting that Iran and North Korea look a little more promising as "targets for Bush&#39;s wrath".

....but nothing&#39;s happening is it? Or maybe he&#39;s waiting for more intel to state the obvious.

[BigBank_Hank]

So you would have done nothing? :blink:

[clocker]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@29 July 2004 - 09:08
So you would have done nothing? :blink:
About Iraq?
Much was already being done about Iraq, and the country ( despicable as it was) posed no danger to us.
So no, I would not have done anything about Iraq that we weren&#39;t already doing.

Concentrating efforts on hunting down those directly responsible for the 9/11 attack would have had the twinfold benefits of, 1). a plan with a definite beginning and end and, 2). not pissing off the entire rest of the world.

That&#39;s what I would have done.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker@29 July 2004 - 10:28
Hi j2, President Clocker speaking.

Why presume that we had to do anything about Iraq?
Even granting the assumption of WMD ( despite UN inspectors inability to confirm), where was the "imminent threat" to the US?

The known protagonists of 9/11 weren&#39;t in Iraq, and other countries ( like Iran, for instance) didn&#39;t have presumed WMD, they had confirmed stockpiles and were bragging about it.

So why slog into Iraq at all?
If Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that is danger enough. He did attempt to assassinate George Senior, remember. Although people here will tell you that was a hoax, whatever.


Perhaps 9/11 is the lesson in which we learned that a stitch in time saved nine.

Why are you people so fixated on some link between Afghanistan and Iraq. Why does it need to exist?

If Iraq is perceived as a threat, we take action before they do. That was what we learned at 9/11. That&#39;s not really a hard concept.

As far as why Iraq?

The answer is so simple that I know you people are being coy when you ask that question.

It had a leader who was letting his people suffer while he built gold toilets, a leader who was in hot water with the UN, a leader suspected of having WMD, and a leader sitting on a crap load of oil.

He was the #1 target in that his down fall would be a humanitarian victory, it would be a PR victory (Iraqi&#39;s praising the US for saving them from a madman), and an easy military victory. Additionally, his country would be of potential benefit in the future, if a friendly relationship with the new regime could be obtained.

It was basically the easiest way to make an example of someone.

Although 900 soldiers have been lost in the year and a half in Iraq, that is a quarter of the number of lives lost during 10 minutes on 9/11. And certainly a strong message has been sent to the other countries.

BTW, does anybody really think that Saddam and his son&#39;s would have not attempted to get WMD after the inspectors left Iraq? Of course you don&#39;t.

Let&#39;s stop pretending that we are so baffled that Iraq was chosen as an example to send a strong message to the world.

[BigBank_Hank]

Very well put.

Hobbes I think that you aren’t liberal but just afraid to come out of the closet so to speak.

[SuperJude™]

I have my own theories about life, and I think most people are wholly unaware of many things, so I play it closer to the vest than my comments may indicate, but I will comment on a couple things.

Before anything else I will say what I have said for a while, that there were no Afghani&#39;s or Iraqi&#39;s on those planes. That said:

Why Iraq? This is conjecture of course, opinion.

1) Setting an example. All this "we are creating new terrorists every day" concept is fine, but seeing as how those bastards hit the US before we even went to war over there, I now think that the "Arab Street" respects only strength. I mean seriously, why do you think every country there &#39;cept Israel is run like a Mob Family? Think what you will but do you think any states over there are itching to be found supporting terrorism? Seems like Syria has made strives to change a bit, and Libya, well, didn&#39;t think I would see that in my lifetime.

2) Proximity. What countries does Iran border? Afghanistan? Iraq? Afghanistan of course does not apply because there is no disputing that Bin Laden had set up camp there, but Iraq is on the other side of Iran, and I just wonder to myself "How does the flag burning, hostage taking, extremist government of Iran feel NOW exactly?" I bet they don&#39;t feel as safe as they did 3 years ago doing what they were doing. Show power, gain geographical advantage, let possible future enemy take stock of whom the wish to support.

3) Terrorists. Nobody has said this so far as I have read, so maybe I am cold hearted? I don&#39;t think so, but it goes like this: Let&#39;s just give all those people a place to come and fight us so we can kill them. I wonder how many terrorists of other than Iraqi origin have been killed in Iraq. Think spies would have found them? I don&#39;t.

4) Protection. WMD&#39;s have not been found but as late as the later 90&#39;s Saddam was manufacturing agents up to and including Anthrax (does anybody even REMEMBER the anthrax events?). I would rather wear a condom and be safe than not and find out I should have. There were reports of them, Hussein did nothing to dissuage opinion to the contrary less you listen to Hans "Ignorance is" Blixx. Remove the threat remove the worry.

5) America the Great Liberator. You euro&#39;s seem to resent this, but believe it or not many of us Yanks do believe our country to be the bastion of free thought, free trade, freeDOM. So many of you peple come off small minded about the future. Has nobody considered that maybe some GOOD will come from the US being in the middle east? Having people who care about freedom knocking off despots may send a wide message to the area about rights, freedoms, and the fact that their lives suck NOT cause of the US but because their own leaders sell them out. Well we all get sold out in some way by our governments, but then again I do not live on a dirt floor and I have running water so at least hygenically I am better off than a vast amount of people in the middle east.


I also wholly believe that Bush really believed what he was doing. I DO NOT think he said "we need more oil, let&#39;s invade Iraq&#33;" Matter of fact it was the Blood for Oil crowd in their SUV&#39;s that first made me see I was not the liberal I had thought I was.

I know this all diverged from the title of the thread, my apologies for that. However this seems to be one discussion spread about a few threads so I hope the liberties I have taken are okay.

These are just some thoughts, based on some things I have read haerd and seen.

One last thought about this: When 9-11 happened I was 100 miles north of NYC and immediatly set off to Manhattan. Here is the thing- there was never ANY goddamn doubt in my mind that the people who did that to us were from the Middle East. None. And it was true. Therefore America coming to the Middle East was bound to happen, and if those people wanted better for themselves maybe they should have used our education system the way so many immigrants have and do for a better life. For a place that is the Great Satan sure seems a lot of people want to live here.

-SJ™

[Rat Faced]

No, I wont say it was a hoax, as i know nothing about it... except that the people that said it was Saddam did have a vested interest and a grudge, so they are hardly going to pass up an opportunity...


It does occur to me to ask:

"How many times did the UK/USA try and take out Saddam?"

He went through an awful lot of actors.. and there is a reason he couldnt sleep in the same place more than one or two nights.

Is this another case of:

"We can do wtf we like, but you can&#39;t"?

Its OK for us to kill him, but oh my god...if he goes after a guy that was responsible for almost totally destroying his country (in his opinion)... shock, horror :ph34r:


All world, and ex world leaders are at risk all the time...thats why you spend so much on their security, its par for the course ffs. They knew that before they ran for office, its a risk they take.


As to WMD... how was it common knowledge for the entire bloody world, except the intelligence agencies he didnt have WMD?

I mean, we all watched on the news every week for 10 years as we bombed the crap out of anything that looked as if it could conceivably be used for military purposes.


The "British Intelligence" has been shown to be what was asked for. They didnt "Lie" to the Government, they supplied what was requested. If Hobbes definition of a lie is used, then it can be said the British Government lied... ie intentionally misinformed.

If its not, you can claim they didnt...they made decisions the intelligence provided..which is that which was asked for.

I assume the US Intelligence was the same, considering the weight they put on some very dubious sources which have now admitted providing false information (although that didnt stop them getting put in charge of the new "Sovereign" Iraq)


Im quite sure that the Intelligence Agencies had just as much info "Against" WMD, but thats not what they were asked for..... Powel was apparently very dubious by all accounts :rolleyes: (well who would like to stand in front of the UN knowing untold millions are laughing at you?)


I think this is basically one of those things where no one is ever going to agree, and no one is going to find out all the ins & outs.

The whole argument is on shaky and hypocritical ground however, as i said in another thread.....

The only 2 countries ever to spread the technology for Nukes for example...nothing is said about them, despite one of them having loads of outstanding UN resolutions that they are ignoring, and refusing to even sign the non-proliferation agreement, or letting the International Authorities inspect their facilities.... Hypocrits.


BTW SJ:

Prior to the Iran/Iraq war, while saddam was in charge BTW... Iraq had one of the best education systems in the world.

They also had a Free Universal Health system comparable to the best in Europe.

Its not the country of backward peasants that you seem to imply.

And by what right do you think you should enforce your way of life on others?

Im sure that your hearts in the right place, and i&#39;d like to see them adopt democracy etc myself... but it has to come from them. To enforce your way of life on someone else makes you know better than every other country thats tried that against any other country.

Terrorists will never "Come out to fight", that would make them militia. They will always skulk in the shadows. Im sure there are terrorists in Iraq, just as im sure they are in the UK and USA. There are also Iraqi&#39;s fighting an invader...and i refuse to put them in the same category.

If it was the USA that was invaded to enforce a "Better" way of life on you, i KNOW that you would be fighting the invader, no matter what the cost... so would I, if it was the UK. The fact that the last lot were bastards would be immaterial...they&#39;d be invaders in my country.


Edit:

Just to clarify.

Yes i was against going in, however you cannot just desert them now that we have gone in, that would be rediculous.

However the coalition forces are "Invaders", so as long as they are there, there will be bombings and deaths etc...

I&#39;d suggest that the whole security thing be taken over by the UN.... using nations that were NOT involved in the coalition. These troops may not be seen as invaders, but as the security they are until Iraq has its own elections.

No one that has half a mind thinks Iraq is "Sovereign" now. All you need to is look at what the coalition countries still control to know thats hogwash. Its a caretaker government in name only...and the Iraqi&#39;s and all the other Arab nations know this too. Until elections and a legitimate Government is installed, Iraqi&#39;s have every right to fight an invader.

[j2k4]

QUOTE (j2k4 @ 28 July 2004 - 23:52)
B-

What would you have done about Iraq at the outset?

Remember:

You know nothing contrary to the standard line on WMD-you think they are there, just like everyone else.

There are umpteen U.N. resolutions pending and being ignored; deadlines for Iraqi cooperation have passed.

As a kicker, try also to forget what you have since become aware of regarding the Oil-for-Food fiasco and the attendent U.N. corruption, and also forget the subsequent revelations about French, German, and Russian efforts to keep Saddam afloat.

Well, President Busyman?


Hmmm...anything I say would be shot down if it doesn&#39;t go along with what Bush did.

Why do you say that?

Because that is what happened to Bush?

I would have stepped up the intel, using spies whenever possible.

You can&#39;t.

Your abilities to spy were gutted in the 70s by the Church Committee.

I wouldn&#39;t relied on, "See Mr. President, this box shown on this satellite photo is normally used for chemical weapons".

What would you rely on, then?

Interesting that Iran and North Korea look a little more promising as "targets for Bush&#39;s wrath".

Iraq, by virtue of it&#39;s geographic location, made a much better target from which to fight terrorism (as SJ says) than Iran, and even more so than North Korea, which isn&#39;t in the Mid-East.

....but nothing&#39;s happening is it? Or maybe he&#39;s waiting for more intel to state the obvious.

I think I&#39;ll start a thread about "Poor George"

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@29 July 2004 - 11:08
So you would have done nothing? :blink:
Hank R.I.F.


I would have stepped up the intel, using spies whenever possible.

[clocker]

Originally posted by hobbes@29 July 2004 - 11:49



Perhaps 9/11 is the lesson in which we learned that a stitch in time saved nine.

Why are you people so fixated on some link between Afghanistan and Iraq. Why does it need to exist?


What was the lesson again?
According to you, the next time we suffer a terrorist attack we are likely to retaliate against Britian.
Iraq HAD NOTHING TO DO with the September 11th attack.
That&#39;s an awful lot of time stitches to take, hobbes.
"We people" are fixated on the "connections" between Iraq and Afghanistan because they were used as an excuse to invade Iraq.
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeild harped incessantly on the Al-Qaeda-Iraq links ( Cheney still does).
They set up the presumptive importance of those "links", not "we people".

It had a leader who was letting his people suffer while he built gold toilets, a leader who was in hot water with the UN, a leader suspected of having WMD, and a leader sitting on a crap load of oil.
The US routinely ignores other despots who exhibit all those characteristics.
Still do, to this very day.

Although 900 soldiers have been lost in the year and a half in Iraq, that is a quarter of the number of lives lost during 10 minutes on 9/11. And certainly a strong message has been sent to the other countries.
Oh yeah, and it sure is going swimmingly, isn&#39;t it, hobbes?
What message exactly do you think we are sending?
Do you think America is now more beloved than before?
Do you think we&#39;ve dissuaded even one terrorist from dedicating his life to our destruction?

[j2k4]

Quote: Clocker-

Oh yeah, and it sure is going swimmingly, isn&#39;t it, hobbes?

Bush never promised "swimmingly"; in fact, I think he commented the water would indeed be quite "cold".

What message exactly do you think we are sending?

The message is as follows: "If you are a terrorist, you die"; or some derivative of same.

Do you think America is now more beloved than before?

We have never been, are not now, nor will we ever be "beloved".

To consider being "beloved" a necessity is utter foolishness.

We are, however, coveted.

Do you think we&#39;ve dissuaded even one terrorist from dedicating his life to our destruction?

Dead terrorists can certainly be considered to have been "dissuaded".

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Busyman+29 July 2004 - 15:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 29 July 2004 - 15:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@29 July 2004 - 11:08
So you would have done nothing? :blink:
Hank R.I.F.


I would have stepped up the intel, using spies whenever possible.

[/b][/quote]
Busy did you not read J2’s post right before yours?


I would have stepped up the intel, using spies whenever possible.

You can&#39;t.

Your abilities to spy were gutted in the 70s by the Church Committee

[Rat Faced]

The only thing the Church Committee did was take away the ability of the CIA to spy on Americans by putting the Department of Justice in charge of this area.

The CIA was never mandated to spy on Americans, and was doing so illegally until this happened, especially during the Vietnam War...which sparked off the scandal.

The CIA was supposed to be after Foreign Intelligence, not Domestic. This was not altered by the Church Committee.

The CIA can now once again spy on Americans due to the Patriot Act, so we&#39;ve come full circle.


None of all of this altered their ability to put Agents on the ground anywhere else in the world, and they are one of the most respected Intelligence Agencies in the world in their ability to get Agents almost anywhere they want to.



As far as im aware, pror to the Invasion of Iraq.... there werent many Americans there :rolleyes:

[Sprocket]

Quote: Clocker-

Oh yeah, and it sure is going swimmingly, isn&#39;t it, hobbes?

Bush never promised "swimmingly"; in fact, I think he commented the water would indeed be quite "cold".
Bush declared the war "over" monhts ago.
How would you describe what we are currently doing.
"Fiasco" is not available...that would be my first choice.

What message exactly do you think we are sending?

The message is as follows: "If you are a terrorist, you die"; or some derivative of same.
That&#39;s funny.
I hear ALOT more about murdered civilians and dead US soldiers than I do about dead ( or even captured) terrorists.
Must be the "liberal media", eh?


Do you think America is now more beloved than before?

We have never been, are not now, nor will we ever be "beloved".

To consider being "beloved" a necessity is utter foolishness.

We are, however, coveted.
We were certainly beloved after WWII, j2.
Up until the Bush administration we may not have been loved, but were at least respected.
He&#39;s squandered that pool of goodwill.


Do you think we&#39;ve dissuaded even one terrorist from dedicating his life to our destruction?

Dead terrorists can certainly be considered to have been "dissuaded".
And for every dead terrorist we have created such a level of animus that there are 10 to replace him/her.
Good job.

[SuperJude™]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 July 2004 - 19:59


BTW SJ:

Prior to the Iran/Iraq war, while saddam was in charge BTW... Iraq had one of the best education systems in the world.

They also had a Free Universal Health system comparable to the best in Europe.

Its not the country of backward peasants that you seem to imply.


Actually my best friend in high school was Iraqi/Sicilian, and I happen to know that Iraq is not a country of backwards peasants. I should have clarified that point, which was that some countries in the middle east have incredible poverty and their rulers literally shit on golden toilets.

I hear Nazi Germany had a wonderful infrastructure too, does that mean it was all good?

This too- by some logic, nobody should be the cop to the world. To correlate think about our countries. We have police because somebody has to uphold the law. We do not think about how these paramilitary groups attained power, why they have the power they do, etc. We just accept there are cops.

Should America be the worlds cop?

Now, I suppose so. I say this reluctantly because I would LOVE to one day see China or Russia, you know, do the right thing, fight a battle for a higher cause and not to steal land. Imagine that? If Russia or China decided to take on terrorists? And I do not mean Chechnya in the least (obviously). I simply wish that some other countries would take responsibility for the world and not just send delegates to the UN meetings to sign useless resolutions.

Also, not like I need to say it, but RF I have always respectfully opposed some of your opinions, but I still respect them.

:)

-SJ™

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 July 2004 - 17:17
The only thing the Church Committee did was take away the ability of the CIA to spy on Americans by putting the Department of Justice in charge of this area.

:
Rat-

Church and his committee outsmarted themselves, though, and were hoist upon the petard of their own short-sighted arrogance, as explained below by Mr. Walter E. Williams, noted smart guy.

Emasculation of Intelligence Services

Aren&#39;t you a bit perplexed at how rapidly our FBI and CIA identified, arrested or detained so many people involved in the terrorist attack? The answer&#39;s easy. The FBI and CIA had a lot of information about terrorists and their organizations before the attack, but they were hamstrung. According to a Human Events (9/24/01) interview of Mr. Herbert Romerstein, former staffer on House Committees on Internal Security and Intelligence, we&#39;ve emasculated our intelligence services.

Emasculation of our intelligence services began during the Senator Frank Church (D.Idaho) and Representative Otis Pike (D.N.Y) committee hearings in the 1970s. As a result of those hearings Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1979. Liberal Democrats in control of the Congress wanted to protect Americans against domestic spying; what they ended up doing was to protect terrorists and others who might do us harm. You say, "What do you mean, Williams?" For example, suppose there&#39;s a person who hasn&#39;t engaged in spying or terrorism, but is a member of an organization that does. Herbert Romerstein says FISA provides that only leaders of the organization can be wiretapped, not the rank and file. Therefore, had bin Laden been in the U.S., the FBI could have wiretapped him, but not the rank and file men who flew the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

According to Matthew Robinson, in his article, "FBI Forbidden To Tape Hijack Suspect," Human Events (10/1/01), on August 17th, the FBI detained Zacarias Moussaoui for immigration violation. He was the man who paid &#036;8,000 in cash to a flight school for lessons on flying a Boeing 747 and he was uninterested in learning takeoff and landing. On September 1st, the FBI received French intelligence that Moussaoui had spent two months in Pakistan just prior to coming to the U.S. and among his possessions when arrested was a manual on crop-dusting. The FBI went to their Justice Department superiors for a warrant to allow them to collect intelligence on what appeared to be a criminal conspiracy or terrorist planning. They were denied. The Justice Department Office of Intelligence and Policy Review (OIPR) refused to take the case to a judge who could consider a warrant request.

According to a just-released General Accounting Office report, OIPR makes it difficult for the FBI to coordinate investigations within the Justice Department: "Criminal Division officials believe these [OIPR] concerns, while well-intentioned, are overly cautious." The Moussaoui case is the rule rather than the exception where a National Commission on Terrorism said, "OIPR does not generally consider the past activities of the surveillance target in determining whether the FISA probable cause test is met."

Protecting civil liberties against government abuse is laudable but hamstringing our intelligence agencies so that terrorists can roam free in America is stupid. I think Congress should grant U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft some of the investigatory tools that he&#39;s requested to protect Americans against future acts of terrorism. But there should be two important stipulations: first, none of the intelligence gathered under the new provisions may be used to prosecute any American engaged in criminal activity, unless that activity is terrorism or espionage. Second, any changes in the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act of 1979 and other legal measures enacted to prosecute terrorists should contain a sunset provision whereby all changes become null and void two or three years after their enactment. At that time Congress can decide reauthorization.

We Americans had better get used to the idea that a large portion of the world Islamic community hates our guts and we&#39;re going to have to become less naive about what&#39;s necessary to protect ourselves.

Walter E. Williams

[Rat Faced]

Same back at ya SJ :)

I didnt think you meant that, however i thought i better clear it up before some "Liberal" pounced... although i still have trouble believing some of the people you lot call Liberal :lol:


@ J2K4


Therefore, had bin Laden been in the U.S., the FBI could have wiretapped him, but not the rank and file men who flew the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.



As I said... Iraq is not in the USA...

The CIA were free to do whatever they want there, as they were in Afganistan before that.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker@29 July 2004 - 19:16

What was the lesson again?
According to you, the next time we suffer a terrorist attack we are likely to retaliate against Britian.
Iraq HAD NOTHING TO DO with the September 11th attack.
That&#39;s an awful lot of time stitches to take, hobbes.
"We people" are fixated on the "connections" between Iraq and Afghanistan because they were used as an excuse to invade Iraq.

The US routinely ignores other despots who exhibit all those characteristics.
Still do, to this very day.

Oh yeah, and it sure is going swimmingly, isn&#39;t it, hobbes?
What message exactly do you think we are sending?
Do you think America is now more beloved than before?
Do you think we&#39;ve dissuaded even one terrorist from dedicating his life to our destruction?
Clocker,

For the final time (meaning I used this analogy before- with pictures&#33;) If a rattlesnake bites you and you see a cobra. Do you ignore the cobra because it is not a rattlesnake. A threat is a threat.

The rattlesnake taught you to be wary. Best to kill the snake in his hole.

If Saddam had WMD, he was a threat, a threat you might want to eliminate before he bites you like the rattlesnake did.

Iraq and Afghanistan may be 100% mutually exclusive or 100% related and it bears no relevance to me. A threat is a threat.

I recall posting a year and a half ago (and reposting the link several times) that George stated that there were WMD and I demanded that he bring them forth. To prove to the world that he was in the right. He hasn&#39;t and we look pretty bad.

The question we all are privately mulling over is, what did George really believe, did it keep him up at night, did he lose his appetite in apprehension.

Most of are kinda believing he knew nothing was there, but saw a damn sweet opportunity to legitimize taking out a royal pain in the ass.



I was explaining why Iraq was chosen. It had a unique profile of characteristics that made it the most "productive" target. Iran has oil, too, but that war would have been infinitely harder to win. North Korea is militarily unwinnable.

Anyway I think why Iraq was chosen is pretty obvious. This is not a justification, but an explanation for all you coy headscratchers. Or those who called us cowards because we did not attack North Korea. At least we were smart enough not to go there.



The message we sent was quite obvious. If you support terrorism against the US or are perceived a legitimate threat (If Saddam did have nuclear weapons, he would fit this bill), we will not just attack your terrorists (Al Queda) but we will topple the government which harboured it.

Terrorist will always exist, the point was to scare governments into not supporting them, lest they be held as accomplices for anything those terrorists do.

Poor Kim Jong-Il was crapping in a cave for quite a while. Kadafi also got the message.




America is a country, just like all others, that is attempting to secure it&#39;s future and the future of it&#39;s people. It is not a charity, it is not your buddy, it a self centered entity.

Doing the right thing and doing the popular thing are not one in the same. You can piss alot of people off because your selfish goal conflicts with their selfish goal.

The real matter for debate is what is the best way to act in the global community for long term viability and stablity. Opinions vary.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Sprocket@29 July 2004 - 17:22

Quote: Clocker-

Oh yeah, and it sure is going swimmingly, isn&#39;t it, hobbes?

Bush never promised "swimmingly"; in fact, I think he commented the water would indeed be quite "cold".
Bush declared the war "over" monhts ago.
How would you describe what we are currently doing.
"Fiasco" is not available...that would be my first choice.

What message exactly do you think we are sending?

The message is as follows: "If you are a terrorist, you die"; or some derivative of same.
That&#39;s funny.
I hear ALOT more about murdered civilians and dead US soldiers than I do about dead ( or even captured) terrorists.
Must be the "liberal media", eh?


Do you think America is now more beloved than before?

We have never been, are not now, nor will we ever be "beloved".

To consider being "beloved" a necessity is utter foolishness.

We are, however, coveted.
We were certainly beloved after WWII, j2.
Up until the Bush administration we may not have been loved, but were at least respected.
He&#39;s squandered that pool of goodwill.


Do you think we&#39;ve dissuaded even one terrorist from dedicating his life to our destruction?

Dead terrorists can certainly be considered to have been "dissuaded".
And for every dead terrorist we have created such a level of animus that there are 10 to replace him/her.
Good job.
Sprocket-

I do not desire to argue semantics, nor do I wish to re-hash the subject of the liberal media, so I&#39;ll concentrate on the "beloved" issue.

There have been many transient (extremely so) periods when individual countries have evinced fond feelings for the U.S., but such phenomena never last.

WWII provided feelings of relief in Europe, and a few American soldiers no doubt were favored by a few momentarily smitten damsels in Paris, but to say even that we are respected barely attains credit.

We are feared militarily, but, nonetheless coveted, if only for our fat wallet.

We have cordial relations with the Canadians and U.K., but that&#39;s about as far as it goes; give the Brits another election cycle, and they&#39;ll likely hate us, too.

What few true alliances survive are owing to proximity, cultural kinships or monetary ties, and the truth is that we were well down the current path (as it applies to international relations) shortly after the WWI/League of Nations/WWII/United Nations cycle began.

Bush has nothing to do with it, in the long run.

[Sprocket]

Originally posted by hobbes@29 July 2004 - 16:47


For the final time (meaning I used this analogy before- with pictures&#33;) If a rattlesnake bites you and you see a cobra. Do you ignore the cobra because it is not a rattlesnake. A threat is a threat.

The rattlesnake taught you to be wary. Best to kill the snake in his hole.


To continue you managled analogy....
If you are bitten by a cobra you turn around and shoot a cocker spaniel?
Iraq HAD NO CONNECTIONS to Al-Qaeda.
Militant Muslims were as big a threat to Saddam as the US was.
He had no desire to cede one iota of power/control to mullahs or their followers.
Iraq DID NOT attack us.

[Biggles]

Hobbes

Surely if a rattlesnake bites you, your priority would be to go to the nearest hospital and not to fly off to the ME to bat cobras on the head. :blink:

I am also sure I saw something in the Lion King about the circle of life - you can&#39;t denude the world of snakes, you will upset the ecological balance.

Whilst Ghadaffi is now on-side he was leaning that way anyway.

The lesson Iran has learned is that if you have nukes like N. Korea and Pakistan you have a bit of breathing space. However, their only value is retaliatory - Iraq if they had acquired such weapons would have been secure from further invasion and may well have been in a position to negotiate away the no-fly zones and sanctions. I believe that Saddam was pursuing political goals, not ones of world domination. His track record would suggest that he was a player of such games rather than a serious military threat.

Having said that, Iraq should be better off without him - although their history would suggest that they tend towards internal conflict and power struggles. Afghanistan and Iraq are going to be works in progress for the UK and US tax payer for some time to come and we may not even like the end result.

One gets the impression that if Mr Blair and Mr Bush never hear the phrase WMD again it will be too soon.

[Rat Faced]

I disagree J2,

The USA was highly respected just 10 years ago, apart from the people you&#39;ll never please.

Just 2.5 years ago, the whole world was behind you...again, apart from the ones you&#39;ll never please.


It takes real skill to get so low in the popularity stakes so quickly.


Covet your wallets?

Well, ok you have more millionaires per head of population than most places, credit where its due.

The majority of Americans however have considerably less in their wallets than most of the citizens of Western Europe.

Most people I know would rather live in a country where a company has less rights than a person, and where if they fell ill or on hard times there is a Welfare State to catch them.

Nice place to visit, but i wouldnt wanna live there :P


I think in all, you&#39;ll find out that the people that hate you dont covet you.

They dont want what you have, it goes against what they believe.

They just want you to play fair.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Sprocket@29 July 2004 - 21:07

To continue you managled analogy....
If you are bitten by a cobra you turn around and shoot a cocker spaniel?
Iraq HAD NO CONNECTIONS to Al-Qaeda.
Militant Muslims were as big a threat to Saddam as the US was.
He had no desire to cede one iota of power/control to mullahs or their followers.
Iraq DID NOT attack us.
1. Calling something mangled, does not make it mangled. My analogy is perfect.

2. You don&#39;t shoot a cocker spaniel because it is not seen as a threat. You might shoot a rabid foaming at the mouth one, though.

3.Iraq has no connections to Al Queda- who cares. A rabid cocker spaniel has no relation to a cobra. I shoot both.

4 and 5- ?

6. Iraq did not attack us- Well, in the spirit of things they did attempt to assassinate George senior.

But that is the point, they did not attack us because we did not let them. A stitch in time saves 9. 9/11 suggested that we quench the embers before the flame can develop.

Now again, the crux is that Bush must have firmly believed that Saddam had weapons. I&#39;ve already stated what I think.

Stop disrespecting my analogies and who the hell am I talking to.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Sprocket@29 July 2004 - 18:07
Iraq HAD NO CONNECTIONS to Al-Qaeda.

Several respected Senators charged with ascertaining the truth of that precise question beg to differ. ;)

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Biggles@29 July 2004 - 21:08
Hobbes
I believe that Saddam was pursuing political goals, not ones of world domination. His track record would suggest that he was a player of such games rather than a serious military threat.




Biggles,

I don&#39;t believe that Bin Laden was interested in world domination either. My only fear of Saddam is that he would find some boys to take one of his nuclear missles and fly it into the World Trade Center. Revenge is a dish best served cold.

Imagine 9/11, with hydrogen bombs on board.

That would in no way help Saddam become a world power, but it would certainly have us crapping our pants.

The trick is that the people on the plane would have no apparent connection to Saddam. That&#39;s how you work this. Saddam might even get on TV and look longingly at the camera and state something eloquent about a "tradgedy for mankind, after all, we are all human beings". Then laugh his ass on in his favorite bunker.

And you spelled Kaddaffi wrong&#33;

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 July 2004 - 18:12
I disagree J2,

The USA was highly respected just 10 years ago, apart from the people you&#39;ll never please.

Just 2.5 years ago, the whole world was behind you...again, apart from the ones you&#39;ll never please.


It takes real skill to get so low in the popularity stakes so quickly.


Covet your wallets?

Well, ok you have more millionaires per head of population than most places, credit where its due.

The majority of Americans however have considerably less in their wallets than most of the citizens of Western Europe.

Most people I know would rather live in a country where a company has less rights than a person, and where if they fell ill or on hard times there is a Welfare State to catch them.

Nice place to visit, but i wouldnt wanna live there :P


I think in all, you&#39;ll find out that the people that hate you dont covet you.

They dont want what you have, it goes against what they believe.

They just want you to play fair.
Geez, can&#39;t a guy even be cynical?&#33;?&#33;?? :D

Anyway, the term was "beloved", not "respected". ;)

[Rat Faced]

"Iraq" did have connections with Al-Queda.

They had a couple of training camps in the North of the country, controlled by the Kurds. Every time Saddam sent troops up that way, possibly to remove them, or possibly to attack the Kurds... we bombed him ;)

Mr Hussain also executed a few for terrorism.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by j2k4+29 July 2004 - 23:25--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 29 July 2004 - 23:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Sprocket@29 July 2004 - 18:07
Iraq HAD NO CONNECTIONS to Al-Qaeda.

Several respected Senators charged with ascertaining the truth of that precise question beg to differ. ;) [/b][/quote]
The connections were, given the evidence to date, limited. Both sides toyed with idea but the ideological gulf was too great for any serious partnership.

It was the US that trained the terrorist pilots that attacked on 9/11 and it was US stores that sold them their knives. However, not even the most rabid conspiracy theorist would suggest a linkage between AQ and the US (well one or two might :blink: )

AQ recruits primarily in the ME and people travel throughout the region working, studying and going on religious pilgrimages. There are also people of power in Saudi and Iranian circles who, if not pro AQ, turn a blind eye to their movements. Iraq was hardly the prime mover in these activities.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by hobbes+29 July 2004 - 23:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 29 July 2004 - 23:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@29 July 2004 - 21:08
Hobbes
I believe that Saddam was pursuing political goals, not ones of world domination. His track record would suggest that he was a player of such games rather than a serious military threat.




Biggles,

I don&#39;t believe that Bin Laden was interested in world domination either. My only fear of Saddam is that he would find some boys to take one of his nuclear missles and fly it into the World Trade Center. Revenge is a dish best served cold.

Imagine 9/11, with hydrogen bombs on board.

That would in no way help Saddam become a world power, but it would certainly have us crapping our pants.

The trick is that the people on the plane would have no apparent connection to Saddam. That&#39;s how you work this. Saddam might even get on TV and look longingly at the camera and state something eloquent about a "tradgedy for mankind, after all, we are all human beings". Then laugh his ass on in his favorite bunker.

And you spelled Kaddaffi wrong&#33; [/b][/quote]
Hobbes


Perhaps, although I think AQ or similar agents would be more likely to buy an ex-Soviet warhead on the black market. Saddam tended to move politically rather than erratically (like a mad baddie in the 60s Batman series).


:lol:
I have also seen it spelt Quadaffi. Arabic words tend to be moveable feasts on the spelling front

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Biggles+29 July 2004 - 21:43--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles &#064; 29 July 2004 - 21:43)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by hobbes@29 July 2004 - 23:27
<!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@29 July 2004 - 21:08
Hobbes
I believe that Saddam was pursuing political goals, not ones of world domination. His track record would suggest that he was a player of such games rather than a serious military threat.




And you spelled Kaddaffi wrong&#33;
Hobbes


Perhaps, although I think AQ or similar agents would be more likely to buy an ex-Soviet warhead on the black market. Saddam tended to move politically rather than erratically (like a mad baddie in the 60s Batman series).


:lol:
I have also seen it spelt Quadaffi. Arabic words tend to be moveable feasts on the spelling front[/b][/quote]
Russian black market warheads? Thanks for that nightmare.

As for Khadaffi, there is really only 1 way to spell it, obviously. ;)

[SuperJude™]

Saddam as terrorist fighting liberator?

RF, sometimes I think you could just pick any side of an argument and stick to it. Heh.

Since nobody has said it I will: Wonder what the "Arab Street" thought of seeing Saddam not dead but......arrested.

Despots are everywhere and no nation is clean of concience. None. Look at your personal lives, your regrets and failures, remember that these people we elect and then expect to be über-humans are still just humans. I say any one of us in a position of power would end up screwing somebody, or getting somebody killed, that is the way of world politics, and will be when we are worm food.

What amazes me here is that Mr. Moore is getting so much play. Were I the democrats I would hide him far far away. It&#39;s not a good thing when Al Sharpton is considered a more middle of the road speaker.

What I see is what I have always seen, that the US makes the world a little nervous. I remember a term "ugly American" that I have not heard used in quite some time, and to me it seems perhaps many of the liberals took umbrage to that concept so much so that we end up with a group of people no better than those they "hate".

I remember after 9-11 people in my town actually saying this: "We had it coming"

Not saying all liberals are that shallow of course, but there is here a pervasive ignorance of the facts that astounds me, and I think of myself as pretty unastoundable personally. If these people had their way we would have turned the other cheek , which works well for Messiahs but not for nations.

-SJ™

[vidcc]

I would like to inject something to think about.

Why is the USA such a target ? is there a reason and if there is what are we doing about that reason.
I love this country but it&#39;s not perfect and has been guilty of mischief as much as many of the other countries we accuse.

Terrorists need to be punished but they are the symtom of the desease and not the cure so we need to find the medicine to treat the desease as well as releaving the symtoms.

I wonder just how worried a terroist that is prepared to blow himself up for his cause is by the threat of being told we will kill him.

I would also like to make a distinction. Terrorists are not countries otherwise they would be armies.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by vidcc@29 July 2004 - 23:57
I would like to inject something to think about.

Why is the USA such a target ? is there a reason and if there is what are we doing about that reason.
I love this country but it&#39;s not perfect and has been guilty of mischief as much as many of the other countries we accuse.

Terrorists need to be punished but they are the symtom of the desease and not the cure so we need to find the medicine to treat the desease as well as releaving the symtoms.

I wonder just how worried a terroist that is prepared to blow himself up for his cause is by the threat of being told we will kill him.

I would also like to make a distinction. Terrorists are not countries otherwise they would be armies.
#1 You are drunk. Way too many typos for you.

#2 Suicide bombers are the idiot loser pawns of motivated individuals.

#3 Unless you know how to unify the world under one religion, then you have no chance at addressing the motivating force behind terrorism.

#4 The threats are for the governments which support terrorists and will be held accountable for their actions.

Simple as can be, really.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@29 July 2004 - 20:57


Terrorists need to be punished but they are the symtom of the desease and not the cure so we need to find the medicine to treat the desease as well as releaving the symtoms.

I wonder just how worried a terroist that is prepared to blow himself up for his cause is by the threat of being told we will kill him.


Exactly how do you "punish" a terrorist, vid?

You miss the point you yourself make so well in your next paragraph.

We don&#39;t propose to kill terrorists to "punish" them, or to "terrorize" other terrorists, or to teach any sort of lesson; we do it simply to eliminate them and the threat they present.

It really is just that simple.

If, when all is said and done, flipping great wodges of people have been eliminated (because they chose terrorism as their life&#39;s work), I hope to dance on their graves, which I will do without the slightest thought of inherent waste of human life.

Sorry if by espousing this view I paint myself as somehow less worldly or enlightened than yourself, but, hey, I&#39;ve only lived in the good ole&#39; USA. ;)

[vidcc]

Originally posted by hobbes@29 July 2004 - 19:14
#1 You are drunk. Way too many typos for you.


#1 i am a tee total dyslexic


#2 Suicide bombers are the idiot loser pawns of motivated individuals

#2 granted but they must believe in what they are doing, would you lay down your life for a cause you were not sure about?



#3 Unless you know how to unify the world under one religion, then you have no chance at addressing the motivating force behind terrorism.


to address this theory one would have to say that all terrorism was because of religion. I feel it is more political based and religion is often misquoted as justification. Muslims are not at war with us....just some people that happen to be muslims as in the 9/11 case



#4 The threats are for the governments who support terrorists and will be held accountable for their actions.

but what is support of terroism? the IRA had a lot of funding from the USA. Does that mean that we support terrorists?. Our foriegn policy could be subject to a closer look i suppose. Had the 9/11 gang hit targets in iraq would they still be terrorists? (yes they would before anyone picks up on it)

is it good enough to just suspect or do you feel FACTUAL evedence is needed and if we make a mistake should we be free from accountability because we "suspected"

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+29 July 2004 - 18:00--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank &#064; 29 July 2004 - 18:00)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@29 July 2004 - 15:45
<!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@29 July 2004 - 11:08
So you would have done nothing? :blink:
Hank R.I.F.


I would have stepped up the intel, using spies whenever possible.


Busy did you not read J2’s post right before yours?


I would have stepped up the intel, using spies whenever possible.

You can&#39;t.

Your abilities to spy were gutted in the 70s by the Church Committee[/b][/quote]
Sorry at the time I read what you had to say.

I still stick by what I had to say.

I am amazed that when the initial reason, or should I say the "imminent threat of WMD", was a bunch of cow pucky, that the new justification is "but, but we had to get rid of a dictator."

Just say Bush fucked up as out leader and leave it at that. <_<

All other arguments are moot when looking at N. Korea and Iran.

IF OUR PRESIDENT IS GOING MAKE A IMPORTANT DECISION TO COMMIT A GREAT AMOUNT OF GROUND TROOPS TO WAR, HE BETTER BE DAMN SURE IT&#39;S FOR AN "IMMINENT THREAT".

900+ TROOPS DEAD

....but we got rid of a horrible dictator.

One down, 15 to go. <_<

Wanna sign up to defend our country?

[hobbes]

No way Vidcc, you have way too many typos than your norm. I call bullshit.

The suicide bombers believe in what they are doing because their religion decrees that they will get virgins in paradise. Ever heard of "faith".

I NEVER said all terrorism was based in Religion, but this is true of Al Queda and the anger towards America in the Muslim world. That is the "nidus".

Your comments about the IRA are total bullshit. The IRA launders money here, the people and the government have no interest in their cause and assist them in no way.

How can an honest man equate create a parallel between laundering money for the IRA and a government which openly allows a group a military base and weapons. That simply does not exist in the US.

If you could bother to read the thread, where did I ever say that the attack was justified. Never, thanks.

Vidcc, do you believe the lies you tell yourself?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by hobbes@29 July 2004 - 19:48
No way Vidcc, you have way too many typos than your norm. I call bullshit.




seeing as you choose a lower level of debate today with foul language you show yourself to be not a balanced person as you would have us believe.
So because for one evening i don&#39;t go over my post with a fine tooth comb i am bullshitting. I guess i am not a tee totaller and not dyslexic...how i have been misleading myself all this time. My appologies for not knowing anything about myself and therefore talking out my ass.


The suicide bombers believe in what they are doing because their religion decrees that they will get virgins in paradise.&nbsp; Ever heard of "faith".&nbsp;

sorry i forgot you are a mind reader and know what is going on in the head of others. You may be right in many cases but my point is that Islam doesn&#39;t decree killing and that the terrorists and many people are using religion as a convienience. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why a muslim would want to kill me for not being a muslim. A terrorist that happens to be a muslim might want to kill me for being an American though.


I NEVER said all terrorism was based in Religion, but this is true of Al Queda and the anger towards America in the Muslim world.&nbsp; That is the "nidus".

well i was answering your theory that to address the cause of terrorism one needs a unified religion. So how would you address non religious terrorism?


Your comments about the IRA are total bullshit.&nbsp; The IRA launders money here, the people and the government have no interest in their cause and assist them in no way.

can an honest man equate create a parallel between laundering money for the IRA and a government which openly allows a group a military base and weapons.&nbsp; That simply does not exist in the US.



However i have yet to see someone suggest that any kind of terrorist activity in the ME attributed to anyone other than the governments of those countries.

as to the IRA you have perhaps never been in certain bars in new york and seen "collections" And would you be so forgiving of a middle eastern country that launders money for al Queda in the same way as happened in the US? Or could ME countries only do this because they have anti American agendas?


If you could bother to read the thread, where did I ever say that the attack was justified.&nbsp; Never,

Where did i say that you suggested it was justified?. Is posing questions the same as stating something then?

Vidcc, do you believe the lies you tell yourself?

Same question to yourself

[hobbes]

Vidcc,

I didn&#39;t mean that you were necessarily drunk, I meant that you were in a state other than your norm. Tired, angry, high- something that made you rush your post or be careless. Since we know Sam4, I made the most likely guess of you being drunk.

All I have time for. I will wash my mouth out with soap for my profanity. :(

Your attempt to equate collections in local bars for the IRA as equivalent to government sanctioned military bases is the lie you are telling to yourself.

What lie and I telling myself? And in another thread, I already answered this question for you. (http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=119667&view=findpost&p=1096652).

Now this may be sloppy, but I am seriously late for work.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by hobbes@30 July 2004 - 06:30

Your attempt to equate collections in local bars for the IRA as equivalent to government sanctioned military bases is the lie you are telling to yourself.


Read the post for heavens sake


but what is support of terroism? the IRA had a lot of funding from the USA. Does that mean that we support terrorists?.

How is asking a question lieing?

The question was "what is support for terrorism?". I tried to clarify it for you asking if the same went on in a middle eastern country would we be able to seperate government from private activities in deciding if there was support. At no point did i state that the government financed the IRA.... However are you saying that our secret services have never covertly funded certain groups around the world ? which is why i said perhaps we should look at our foriegn policy.
If iran or north korea had an identical foriegn policy to ours would we accept it?



The collections in bars was just a small example, individuals donated to the cause to greater extent. You can tell yourself it never happened but at best that would be naive.

[Rat Faced]

SJ,

Im not painting him as a Terrorist fighting hero.

Al-Queda frequently bombed in Iraq, the members were executed when caught.. QED

You may remember that after the 1st Gulf War, Bin Laden (then an honoured Ally) wished to carry on to remove Hussian. His organisation has bombed that country more than any other. Hussin was worse than the USA for Bin Laden... Hussain was a traitor to his religion and people as far as Bin Laden was concerned.

Hobbes, the IRA raised over 80% of its funds in the USA, and this was known about by the US Government which did absolutely nothing about it. It wasnt all over the USA, there are certain parts that have high Irish American populations such as New York, and they made a packet.

The only time the Government got involved was when they broke a US Law, and often turned a blind eye then too... you mentioned Money Laundering as an example.

It may not have been sanctioned, however turning a blind eye like it did certainly encouraged it.


To my knowledge there were no Government Sanctioned training camps in Iraq either. There were training camps however, run by and large by the Kurds... The Iraqi government did not turn a blind eye to these, they destroyed at least 2 in the last 10 years... not out of any kind of "world solidarity" against terrorism, but because the people that came out of there were trying to kill him.

The US Government was well aware of this... it was on the Whitehouse website prior to the invasion, after all.

It could therefore be argued (although im not doing so) that Iraq was more active against known terror organisations in its country, than the USA was in their country.

Yes, he did support "Terrorist" organisations.... all of them in Palestine and against Israel.

He wasnt alone in this... most wealthy Arabs do, in one way or another. Most Arabian Countries also do, in one way or another.

I dont think he actually gave a crap about the Palestine/Israeli conflict either.

It was politics to play one faction of his people against others...the way he stayed in power.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by vidcc@30 July 2004 - 14:28






but what is support of terroism? the IRA had a lot of funding from the USA. Does that mean that we support terrorists?.

How is asking a question lieing?- The question is obviously flawed and should never be put forth. The distinction between the actions of private individuals and government aide is clear cut.

However are you saying that our secret services have never covertly funded certain groups around the world ?- Secret service is a governmental agency, not a private one. You getting me confused.



The collections in bars was just a small example, individuals donated to the cause to greater extent. You can tell yourself it never happened but at best that would be naive. I know it happened, but again those are individuals

but what is support of terroism? the IRA had a lot of funding from the USA. Does that mean that we support terrorists?.

My question is how can a person who is trying to be honest make such an apples and oranges statement. If you really think that the United States Government supports the IRA based on the contributions of individual citizen in local taverns, then you are lying to yourself.

Saying that local citizens acting to support a personal cause is in anyway comparable to providing military bases, money and protection is self-deceit.

I mean the Taliban went to war for Al-Queda. The US would certainly not do so for the IRA.

They launder the money, to hide the origin and the destination. If the government were in cahoots, why bother.

So much money is laundered, for so many reasons, I imagine the IRA cut is rather peanuts and does not draw top priority.

Rat, stating that the IRA gets 80% of it&#39;s funding from the US makes it seem like we are supporting them, but it appears that the presense of sympathetic Irish Americans makes the US a convenient way to get money home. In America, probably as much money is filtered back to fight the IRA. We have people on both sides of this issue living here.

BTW, 80% is how much money, 8 dollars? And I was not aware that the IRA published a list on contributors. How do we get these percentages?

It reminds of me of how strange it is the Government can tell me that the #1 cash crop in Missouri is marijuana, earning "x" million this year, when marijuana is grown and sold in secret as it is illegal.

[vidcc]

again hobbes i state that i didn&#39;t say or imply that the USA government supports terrorism. it was a question. the question was not flawed but you chose to interpret it that way
let me simplify it

At what point do we, the usa, imply that a country (government) supports terrorism and do we apply the same levels to ourselves.

You have gone to great lengths to draw lines between American citizens supporting terrorists and governments and yet i have not seen anyone being able to do the same with middle eastern countries.

the secret service point was raised because you suggested that our government is pure and any mischief is solely down to individuals in not so many words. I seperated private and government sentences with a period and the word "However".


BTW, 80% is how much money, 8 dollars? And I was not aware that the IRA published a list on contributors. How do we get these percentages?

Are we going to have to wait for publication from terrorists about their supporters before we can take action then?


All this aside my original point was that we need to address the reasons we are a target and not just punish. Prevention is better than cure.
What do you feel the reason that we are a target could be?
It could be argued that all this military action is trying to kill the desease. personally i think it is possible that we are agrevating it.

[DanB]

To go slightly off topic here, what about the CIA selling heroin in years not to far gone by?

tut tut (http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002/news/cia.drug.html)

[Rat Faced]

The British also sold that crap, its why we originally leased Hong Kong from the chinese...

The CIA didnt do it "officially" like the British did, however neither case is a source of pride DanB ;)


Hobbes,

If it was just a quick whip around in the local pub, then I dont think anyone would give a monkeys... in certain Pubs of certain cities of England and Scotland, the same thing happens, im sure

However, as an example of how open it was, and indeed still is:

Shortly after 9/11, that November in fact... Gerry Adams was the guest of honour at a &#036;500 a ticket fundraiser at the Sheraton Hotel in Manhatton.

Ironic.. 2 months after 9/11 and a Terrorist organisation is holding high profile Fundraiser just along the road.


My Apologies btw in giving incorrect data before:

Noraid (The organisation in the USA that quite freely raises funds for a terrorist organisation, even today) contributes an average of &#036;1,000,000 per annum. This is the declared amount they give to the IRA, they also give approx &#036;4,000,000 per annum for the "Families of Prisoners" (some sympathisers wont donate to the IRA, but will to help out these families apparently)... as most of these were released quite a while ago, then you can guess where this money actually ends up.

Thats a total annual estimate of &#036;5,000,000 per annum from the USA.

This total estimated figure is approx 10-12% of the annual income of the IRA.

A further 8% is raised in other overseas countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand (Libya once paid them a lot of money too, but this stopped about 10 years ago...)

The remaining 80% is through "donations" from the UK and Ireland, although most is through Organised Crime; such as protection rackets, Drug Dealing in the UK (But not in Northern Ireland im informed..they Knee Cap Dealers there instead) and Eire, Armed Robbery throughout Northern Ireland and Eire, etc etc


In 1998, it was estimated that they spent in total &#036;1,500,000 on demolition equipment and weapons (the rest being in the form of "Non Cash Donations").... the rest of it goes into their pockets.


So Hobbes, not quite the &#036;8 per annum organisation you appear to believe they are... more a &#036;50,000,000 per annum Corporation with Tax Free Status <_<


Maybe I should start having whip rounds and fundraisers for the Mafia :P

[j2k4]

Originally posted by danb@30 July 2004 - 13:40
To go slightly off topic here, what about the CIA selling heroin in years not to far gone by?

tut tut (http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002/news/cia.drug.html)
True enough, but today, nine out of ten CIA agents don&#39;t even know what heroin is.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by j2k4+30 July 2004 - 20:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 30 July 2004 - 20:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-danb@30 July 2004 - 13:40
To go slightly off topic here, what about the CIA selling heroin in years not to far gone by?

tut tut (http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002/news/cia.drug.html)
True enough, but today, nine out of ten CIA agents don&#39;t even know what heroin is. [/b][/quote]
Really?

Ever wondered why so much money goes to Colombia?

Seems the only people being killed off by the Government sponsored Death Squads are Human Rights activists and Trade Union leaders.... not a lot of Drug Dealers in the Death List <_<


Oops, wrong Drug... thats Cocaine, my Bad...

Maybe we should ask the Afgan WarLords how they manage to get it all out then.. I mean, the US is in control there, isnt it?

[Biggles]

Originally posted by hobbes@30 July 2004 - 17:50


I mean the Taliban went to war for Al-Queda. The US would certainly not do so for the IRA.


Again though, this is a touch apples and a fruit of your choice.

AQ were fighting the Northern Alliance along with the Taliban. Indeed, the bulk of their recruits were either fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan or in Chechyna against the Russians and were not involved in overseas terrorism at all (although I appreciate the Russians may see this differently).

Osama fought the Russians alongside the Afghans in the 80s - it is not surprising that Omar and others held him in affection. Whilst Saddam was unpopular in much of Iraq, Omar and Osama were heros of the war against Russia and this may be why they have been so hard to find - the bulk of Afghanistan being Pashtun and sympathetic to Omar and his friends.

If the US had such a close ally I think it might not be unreasonable to assume they would offer support even if there were a few skeletons in the wardrobe (Israel springs to mind). Clearly the IRA did not fall into this camp and consequently one would have been surprised to see US troops in West Belfast.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+30 July 2004 - 15:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 30 July 2004 - 15:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@30 July 2004 - 20:15
<!--QuoteBegin-danb@30 July 2004 - 13:40
To go slightly off topic here, what about the CIA selling heroin in years not to far gone by?

tut tut (http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002/news/cia.drug.html)
True enough, but today, nine out of ten CIA agents don&#39;t even know what heroin is.
Really?

Ever wondered why so much money goes to Colombia?

Seems the only people being killed off by the Government sponsored Death Squads are Human Rights activists and Trade Union leaders.... not a lot of Drug Dealers in the Death List <_<


Oops, wrong Drug... thats Cocaine, my Bad...

Maybe we should ask the Afgan WarLords how they manage to get it all out then.. I mean, the US is in control there, isnt it? [/b][/quote]
You&#39;re just trying to make me toe your line, you foolish moderator. :P

Indeed, rhetoric and hyperbole do not suit me, do they? :(

[hobbes]

Originally posted by vidcc@30 July 2004 - 16:31
the secret service point was raised because you suggested that our government is pure and any mischief is solely down to individuals in not so many words.

I did? :o :o :o

I was making a distinction between the actions of a few individuals vs the support of a terrorist group by a government.

I fail to see any evidence that I am portraying our government as "pure".

Hell, if RF sees this he will be posting 1000 pages of counter evidence. Save it RAt, I read your posts the first time. ;)

[SuperJude™]

Sometimes in life as with nations, there are two trains of thought. Wait and see what happens, and if something does try to run as far away as possible, and the contrary handle matters as they arise, making decisions.

It seems much of the world (still) cannot stand the US for our power, but what I also see is people abroad as well as many liberals here seem to resent the fact that some people take action. What do you think we have a military for?

What I really wanted to do was this:

Guiliani really hammered Kerry pretty good, but instead of using one source to quote (avoiding any accusations of using tainted sources) here is the Google News Page (http://news.google.com/news?q=Giuliani&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn) with plenty of links.

The makover continues too. Kerry is now coddling both the far left and the conservative left(if that is the correct term for those types of dems).

-SJ™

[Biggles]

SJ

Two trains of thought implies reason and strategy. For example, in the debate on Health Care the choice whether to use a privately owned system or a National Health Care system are two trains of thought, both widely used to good effect. The example you then provide "cower" or "be decisive" are not two trains of thought - they are value laden statements where one action is clearly more sensible, practical and effective than the other. This is a classic trick most often utilised by the political hack to emphasise his way is the only way by associating the other way with a negative image.

On a related issue, and I have not bothered to go back and check, but it seems like every post you have made has used the word Liberal in a negative sense - yet I am unaware of you using the word Conservative in a negative sense. This is surprising as I was sure you said you were in the centre where one normally has the freedom throw brick bats in all directions. :)

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@29 July 2004 - 16:33
the US makes the world a little nervous.
why would the U.S. make the world nervous?

http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/photos/assets/photos/1177.jpg

http://www.ettnet.se/~stefan-a/hiroshima/mini001a.jpg

http://www.subliminal.org/mugbook/spooks/assets/shackley1.jpg

http://www.vcdh.virginia.edu/HIUS316/mbase/images/mylai.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38221000/jpg/_38221454_dowbbc300.jpg

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/specials/0004/cnn20/history.timeline/images/1987.oliver.north.jpg

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Biggles@31 July 2004 - 06:54
On a related issue, and I have not bothered to go back and check, but it seems like every post you have made has used the word Liberal in a negative sense - yet I am unaware of you using the word Conservative in a negative sense. This is surprising as I was sure you said you were in the centre where one normally has the freedom throw brick bats in all directions. :)
Hmmm...you noticed that too huh. ;)

A masquerading conservative? Maybe.
(not that being conservative is wrong)

[SuperJude™]

Originally posted by Biggles@31 July 2004 - 11:54

On a related issue, and I have not bothered to go back and check, but it seems like every post you have made has used the word Liberal in a negative sense - yet I am unaware of you using the word Conservative in a negative sense. This is surprising as I was sure you said you were in the centre where one normally has the freedom throw brick bats in all directions.&nbsp; :)
If I must I will find the statement, but the gist of it was this: The Liberals are becoming just like the conservative assholes I always couldn&#39;t stand.

So yes, I am in fact using the term liberal with a negative connotation, and if you read through the threads I make my case for why, personally, I think most of the liberals should practice more restraint in their beliefs. I really do not respect the turn the liberal left has taken in terms of beliefs and politics.

Don&#39;t forget, these are the same people that would have elected Howard Dean. Remember him? Cause the Dems sure seem to be burying him pretty deep, and yet all I heard (up till Iowa luckilly) was about Dean. It showed me how clueless many of the liberal left truly are about real life.

And now (as previously stated) they act like the conservatives they claim to oppose in the way they (the people I deal with irl as well as the opinions I read online) flagrantly will not consider an opinion that may counter their own, when I used to think liberal meant open minded.

Like I said, if it&#39;s an issue, I will find my previous statement (it&#39;s in one of these threads)

-SJ™

[Biggles]

No that is fine for me. It was more of an observation than an issue.

I think the term Liberal is perhaps the difficulty for me - but we have covered these geographical term variations in other threads.

The far right and the far left, are actualy pretty close in many ways especially in their intolerance of others viewpoints and lifestyles. For myself, the meaning of Liberal is synonymous with tolerance but I appreciate that such labels change with time and location.

I know know nothing of Dean other than his enraged gerbil impersonation.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by SuperJude™+31 July 2004 - 13:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SuperJude™ @ 31 July 2004 - 13:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Biggles@31 July 2004 - 11:54

On a related issue, and I have not bothered to go back and check, but it seems like every post you have made has used the word Liberal in a negative sense - yet I am unaware of you using the word Conservative in a negative sense. This is surprising as I was sure you said you were in the centre where one normally has the freedom throw brick bats in all directions. :)
If I must I will find the statement, but the gist of it was this: The Liberals are becoming just like the conservative assholes I always couldn&#39;t stand.

So yes, I am in fact using the term liberal with a negative connotation, and if you read through the threads I make my case for why, personally, I think most of the liberals should practice more restraint in their beliefs. I really do not respect the turn the liberal left has taken in terms of beliefs and politics.

Don&#39;t forget, these are the same people that would have elected Howard Dean. Remember him? Cause the Dems sure seem to be burying him pretty deep, and yet all I heard (up till Iowa luckilly) was about Dean. It showed me how clueless many of the liberal left truly are about real life.

And now (as previously stated) they act like the conservatives they claim to oppose in the way they (the people I deal with irl as well as the opinions I read online) flagrantly will not consider an opinion that may counter their own, when I used to think liberal meant open minded.

Like I said, if it&#39;s an issue, I will find my previous statement (it&#39;s in one of these threads)

-SJ™ [/b]
Liberals, conservatives....who cares?

Some Liberals are assholes. Move on. <_<

<!--QuoteBegin-SuperJude™
So yes, I am in fact using the term liberal with a negative connotation, and if you read through the threads I make my case for why, personally, I think most of the liberals should practice more restraint in their beliefs.[/quote]

Ok, Ok already&#33;&#33;&#33;

[SuperJude™]

Oh Busyman you make me smile. You have this way of making it seem like I post hysterical things, when in fact mostly I just respond to previous posts. But I do read your posts, so it means nothing but good.

However, move on? Geez man, then why ever post about anything? I make my statements because I have something to say and will continue to make my points, whether here or elsewhere.

After the elections we should have a thread about what our political beliefs are, you know, issue by issue or something, it would be facinating to see where people stand on abortion, taxes, the Pledge of Allegience, gay marriage, drug laws, incarceration in America, etc.

For now though, I must stick to my guns and say many of you who hate Bush and like anybody but need to look deeper into things.

However I see no comments about Giuliani&#39;s bashing of Kerry and Moore, nor about how the left were willing to embrace a small timer like Dean, or how so many people who have influence in the media, who also happen to be on the left, are dictating a huge amount of the news that gets to us (as well as what the actors we watch getting in the mix), with rampant shocking comments about our President, while mostly nobody on their side says "Hey we can do this another way".

And no comments about how the only people in the Democratic party ATM who seem to be TRYING to send a different message than the Bush is evil/Blood for Oil crowd are Kerry&#39;s speechwriters.

Hmmmm.

Next thread?

-SJ™

[Rat Faced]

SJ,

Just so you know where I stand on this, although you&#39;ve probably guessed.

I am one of those Bush haters.

Its not that I favour Democrat over Republican, like yourself I see no basic difference in the 2 main US parties.

Simply put, I believe he is the most dangerous man on the planet at this moment in time.

If i had the choice this second, and i know im gonna upset a LOT of people here, to remove either Bush or Bin Laden from the world equation... I hate to admit that the world would be better off without the guy in the whitehouse.

That doesnt mean i support Bin Laden... I&#39;d like to see them both gone.

I will leave it to you to investigate why... however I&#39;ll point you in the right direction.

It was a belief I had before he was even President.

Therefore its something prior to any election fixing (alegedly) or 9/11 or either invasion.... although all of these could have been predicted in hindsight. (Amazing what can be isn&#39;t it?)

Its also something that is in the public domain, and indeed even publicised...and involves many neo-conservatives.

Its this whole group I consider dangerous... Bush is only so bad because of the position of power he is in. I could say the same about a number of the administration.

Suffice to say, when you publicly announce a new age for the USA, then the other 3 Billion on the planet aint gonna be over the moon about things... especially those that will, by that visions definition, be the losers if that ever comes about.

[SuperJude™]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@1 August 2004 - 00:06
I hate to admit that the world would be better off without the guy in the whitehouse.




Luckilly you are not in the U.S. with sentiments like that. I can say, maybe after a nights sleep maybe you can think about that. Any leader of a civilized nation with a strong army is a "danger" but shit some fuckbird saying blah blah blah cause they hide under the aegis of "Islam" when it sounds like "anarchy" is just another fuckbird with power over bad people.

Or Paul look it it this way:

In real life you would have dinner with Bush I am sure you would find him much like you in his wants and desires, whereas were you to dine with Mr. bin Laden I am sure you would come away wanting a nice shower.

Or in another sense. In 10 years you will laugh at this I assure you. The only reason "Bush" scrares you and the rest of the world is maybe that you have all known that the U.S. is powerful, and maybe Viet Nam confused many of you that was not so, and now it makes you nervous to see that the U.S. is still mighty. Is it the U.S. and our might that scares you or Bush? Damn, I would have been more afraid of Reagan. Oh wait, you all were, and he didn&#39;t kill the world.

Just like Bush won&#39;t despite some peoples hysterics. My opinion cause give me the fucking gun and I would put one in Mr. Bin Ladens head myself, and that is truth, while I would bow to Mr. Bush as what he is- the head of the greatest nation on earth.

Like it or not.

;)

And you KNEW that was coming did you not?

-SJ™

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@31 July 2004 - 21:36
...a civilized nation...

...much like you in his wants and desires...

...wanting a nice shower...

...the U.S. is powerful, and maybe Viet Nam confused many of you that was not so, and now it makes you nervous to see that the U.S. is still mighty...

...while I would bow to Mr. Bush as what he is- the head of the greatest nation on earth...
at the risk of being redundant:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38221000/jpg/_38221454_dowbbc300.jpg

instead of letting the picture speak completely for itself this time, i&#39;ll elaborate. if i lived someplace like Vietnam or Afghanistan or godforsaken Bhopal and i heard some American shooting his mouth off about how the world is just nervous about how rich and powerful the U.S. is, i would prolly want to chop the guy&#39;s head off, castrate him, and burn him alive in no particular order. and it would have nothing to do with being jealous of the greatest nation on earth.

afraid of Reagan, pish. dig up some dead Nicaraguan nuns and ask them what they think of the Reagan administration&#39;s support of the Contras. oh wait, they can&#39;t answer... THEY&#39;RE DEAD. how convenient. but a wild guess says they&#39;d prolly have been more directly afraid of the soldiers funded & trained by the U.S. who made them stop being alive, and not so much afraid of Reagan since he was thousands of miles away poppin&#39; jelly beans down the hatch and firing air traffic controllers.

[SuperJude™]

Just tell me where you from? And since the whole world is fucked there anyway braniac what country exactly would you like looking after things?

I don&#39;t see you offering anything but critique, as is typical.

Bravo for relying what is already stated to give you some semblance of an opinion.

So tempting to flame the stupidity there guy, the username "braniac" all 1337 and the fact that you just posted some really ridiculous pics to "validate your point" or whatever.

Then again I suppose my point all along has been that many humans are sheep. Welcome to the fold guy, misleading username or not.

-SJ™

[3RA1N1AC]

things like the Teddy Roosevelt corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, the fact that the U.S. gov&#39;t is the only one to have ever used an atomic weapon against another country, the tradition (established by people like Theodore Shackley of the CIA and carried forward by the likes of Oliver North) of actively sabotaging other countries&#39; political processes, or an American company like Union Carbide killing several times as many people as were killed by terrorists on 9/11... are only ridiculous to the extent that they should not even be. they are not ridiculous as far as relevance to your posts go.

you say the U.S. makes the world nervous because the U.S. is the greatest. the greatest, how? just inherently the greatest? based purely on domestic merits? or the greatest as a result of how it has dealt and continues to deal with the rest of the world? i suggest that the U.S. makes the world nervous because the U.S. has spent a whopping half of its brief history as a predator.

go ahead, flame away at the stupidity, or believe that i&#39;m unable to form an opinion on my own &#39;cause there&#39;s some anti-Bush liberal fad going on. also, i live in the U.S., so feel free to toss a love-it-or-leave-it this way, if that&#39;s where you&#39;re heading with false dilemmas like "if the U.S. shouldn&#39;t rule the world, which country should be in charge?" whatever. "I would put one in Mr. Bin Ladens head myself, and that is truth, while I would bow to Mr. Bush." get a grip, middle-of-the-road individualism not-a-sheep dude.

[spinningfreemanny]

What amazes me is that some people only grive over deaths that support their viewpoint.

What about the thousands of deaths that Hussein Gleefully carried out (and would still be doing if he was in power)?
nah,

what about the 3000 people on 19/11 who died at the Willing hands of Bin Laden?
Well, it was coming anyway,

what if France was in control; or Spain? what if these guys were not held accountable for their intentional and gleeful slaughter of people?

RF; Please tell me that you don&#39;t think that George w. Bush has the intent to kill thousand of innocents as Bin laden or hussein.


i would prolly want to chop the guy&#39;s head off, castrate him, and burn him alive in no particular order.

Oh, and Brainiac: Your an idiot. No more words to waste with you.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@31 July 2004 - 23:18
What amazes me is that some people only grive over deaths that support their viewpoint.
that amazes me, as well. listening to certain people, you&#39;d get the impression that the Alamo, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are the complete history of crimes against humanity.

and okay, let me phrase the offending statement in a gentler, more slapstick fashion: if i were to live someplace such as the ones previously mentioned, and someone of the American persuasion were to cruise into town and say something to the effect of "y&#39;all are just haters because the U.S. is the best," i&#39;d be inclined to pick up the nearest cripple, dead nun, or deformed baby and slap the aforementioned American with it. at which point, he&#39;d fall flat on his ass while colorfully animated birds and stars fly around his head.

[SuperJude™]

Or have you possibly considered that maybe, just maybe, 9-11 may be tangible to certain people like myself? Ever EVER think about things like that? Events you may not know a damn thing about?

I am sure it would not fit your world view, but hey man just think maybe I have some cultural perspective here. And why do so many of you not from here, never been here, never had your lives changed in any manner cept for the better by the US wanna shit on it?

Cause you are sheep. I have a reason to think about 9-11 there guy, while I am sure in your life you have done a lot of sitting on your ass opinionating.

I guess somebody must do so thought right? While others may actually take action and that scares you who are afraid of action.

-SJ™

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+1 August 2004 - 07:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 1 August 2004 - 07:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-spinningfreemanny@31 July 2004 - 23:18
What amazes me is that some people only grive over deaths that support their viewpoint.
that amazes me, as well. listening to certain people, you&#39;d get the impression that the Alamo, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are the complete history of crimes against humanity.

and okay, let me phrase the offending statement in a gentler, more slapstick fashion: if i were to live someplace such as the ones previously mentioned, and someone of the American persuasion were to cruise into town and say something to the effect of "y&#39;all are just haters because the U.S. is the best," i&#39;d be inclined to pick up the nearest cripple, dead nun, or deformed baby and slap the aforementioned American with it. at which point, he&#39;d fall flat on his ass while colorfully animated birds and stars fly around his head. [/b][/quote]
HAHA&#33; Funny&#33;



Wait....



Nope, still a sick bastard.

[Rip The Jacker]

http://www.kerrygear.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/photobutton2.gif

Man am I asking for it... :ph34r:

[SuperJude™]

Nope just not adding anything. Then again you have the power here so enjoy.

-SJ™

[ilw]

It seems much of the world (still) cannot stand the US for our power,

The only reason "Bush" scrares you and the rest of the world is maybe that you have all known that the U.S. is powerful, and maybe Viet Nam confused many of you that was not so, and now it makes you nervous to see that the U.S. is still mighty. Is it the U.S. and our might that scares you or Bush?

I think you&#39;re writing off a lot with simple &#39;penis envy&#39; type statements, but while the one at the top is rarely liked, I find it a bit insulting and frankly annoying that you brush off our (i&#39;m european) views like this. The fact is that bush is regarded as being fairly stupid and frankly uncaring by europeans (in general) and his policies regarding the environment, nuclear missile proliferation and nuclear missile defence are practically heresy. On a personal note I don&#39;t think bush is competent to be the number 1 man in the world, in fact i find it hard to think of a more bumbling figure in major world politics since Boris Yeltsin (and even then he wasn&#39;t so terribly bad at the start, when he was sober).

[Rat Faced]

The Coalition, over the last 10 years have killed more innocent Iraqi&#39;s than Hussian ever managed.

I can even live with the justification of the last Decade prior to the invasion.. not like it, but live with it.


SJ,

I might actually turn up to a meal with Bin Laden to listen to why he acts like he does... I wouldnt with Bush.

There are a lot of complaints about comparables of US with Nazi Germany at the moment. Ever wonder where why the two are being compared?

Hitler started off with a mission statement almost identicle to that of PNAC, the members of which surround GW, and the policies of which appear to be that of the USA. Hell the PNAC has more... because the people that endorsed Hitler werent as influential when they did, as those that endorse PNAC now.

Its not as if the Bush family can claim they dont have a history with Nazism either..look up what GW&#39;s Grandfather was doing in the 30&#39;s & 40&#39;s <_<

Hitler started off with policies similar to the Patriot Act at home, and giving the nation an "Enemy" to hate..in his case the Jews, in the USA&#39;s the Muslims.

Hell the similarities between the start of the 3rd Reich and the USA today are astounding.

I&#39;ve seen loads of arguments about pre-empting Hussain and comparing him to Hitler, well guess what... Thats exactly what the rest of the world see in GW and his cronies, and its what a lot of us want to stop.


The USA has, by and large, been a good example to the rest of the world for the majority of its history.

Yes, they&#39;ve done some shitty things...so has everyone else.

On the Balance though, its always been one of the "Good Guys".

This has changed in the last 4 years... no one looks to the US for the moral Highground at the moment

As one of your senetors put it:


Recently we met with the ambassadors of Germany and France and Britain in our policy committee, and they said the young people are disillusioned. They always look to the United States for the moral position and taking and defending that particular position. They do not look there anymore.


If this is what your Allies feel, then how do those that have always sat on the fence?

Under GW Bush, the USA has garnered more enemies and illwill than at any point in its history... another similarity with Germany in the 30&#39;s.

Its "Liberated" 2 sovereign nations, that judging by the crap in those countries now, didnt want to be Liberated..... (Anyone remembering the part Germany played in the Spanish Civil War here?)

What next SJ?


Why not read up on whats next at the PNAC site (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)

Maybe its Iran? (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iran-20040224.htm)


Like I said, generally i dont give a stuff about another countries politics. Its for their citizens to decide.

If Pat Buccanon had got nominated and was President, I&#39;d disagree with his politics but respect his views...at least that is straightforward, good old capitalistic greed. He&#39;s much further to the Right than Bush and Co were on most issues i believe.


However Bush, Chaney, Wolfowitz and Co are the most dangerous people in the world at this moment in time.

I hope to hell someone takes them out at the earliest opportunity.



Please dont look at this as an "Anti-American" post.

Its not.

I Like Americans in general, I just dont want to see you go down that road :(

[clocker]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@1 August 2004 - 01:49


I am sure it would not fit your world view, but hey man just think maybe I have some cultural perspective here. And why do so many of you not from here, never been here, never had your lives changed in any manner cept for the better by the US wanna shit on it?

Cause you are sheep. I have a reason to think about 9-11 there guy, while I am sure in your life you have done a lot of sitting on your ass opinionating.

I guess somebody must do so thought right? While others may actually take action and that scares you who are afraid of action.

-SJ™
What are you ranting on about?

What is so unique about your "cultural perspective"?
For that matter, what the hell is your "cultural perspective"?

Who are these mythical people who "never had your lives changed in any manner cept for the better by the US "?


While others may actually take action and that scares you who are afraid of action.
So wrongheaded, destructive and ultimately futile action is better than none at all?

You&#39;re right.
That does scare me.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by SuperJude™+1 August 2004 - 05:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SuperJude™ &#064; 1 August 2004 - 05:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@1 August 2004 - 00:06
I hate to admit that the world would be better off without the guy in the whitehouse.




Luckilly you are not in the U.S. with sentiments like that. [/b][/quote]
Surely that is the raison d&#39;etre of the Democrats. Is it illegal to want a change of Government in the US? :unsure:

For my part, I think the anti-US thing is overblown. Whilst I remain unimpressed by Bush, and in particular think his economic policies are flawed, at worst he will only be around for 4 more years. The world will move on.

There are 6 billion people on this planet - the overwhelming majority give barely a second thought to Bush or the US as they go about their daily business. Their cultural perspective rightly focusing on their daily lives.

The atrocity that was 9/11 is obviously etched on minds in the US - that is a cultural perspective. Equally the 1 million hacked to death with machetes in Rwanda will haunt that nation for a long time to come - yet it rarely gets much of a thought anywhere else. As we discuss this thousands are dying in Dafur - and no doubt we all agree that something should be done - but it is outwith our cultural perspective so it does touch home like a domestic crisis even if it is many times larger.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@1 August 2004 - 05:29
The Coalition, over the last 10 years have killed more innocent Iraqi&#39;s than Hussian ever managed.

I might actually turn up to a meal with Bin Laden to listen to why he acts like he does...

Its not as if the Bush family can claim they dont have a history with Nazism either..

Hitler started off with policies similar to the Patriot Act at home, and giving the nation an "Enemy" to hate..in his case the Jews, in the USA&#39;s the Muslims.

Hell the similarities between the start of the 3rd Reich and the USA today are astounding.

... no one looks to the US for the moral Highground

However Bush, Chaney, Wolfowitz and Co are the most dangerous people in the world at this moment in time.

I hope to hell someone takes them out at the earliest opportunity.




Please dont look at this as an "Anti-American" post.


Wash off the sauce and that is the meat of your post, Rat.

I used the Michael Moore editting technique; I&#39;m sure you can appreciate it. ;)

[SuperJude™]

Originally posted by clocker@1 August 2004 - 11:50

What is so unique about your "cultural perspective"?
For that matter, what the hell is your "cultural perspective"?



I dunno guy maybe digging body parts at the Trade Center after 9-11 perhaps?

Could THAT be what I am reffering to? Is THAT okay to say interms of my cultural persective?

-SJ™

[Snee]

Isn&#39;t 9-11 in some ways something that makes America look bad?

I mean, would it have happened at all if the US hadn&#39;t funded certain groups in their struggle against communism once upon a time, movements that have then turned against the US.

I mean, I&#39;m not saying anyone deserved it, but it happened in part because of their own policies, as many people have pointed out.

Therefore 9-11 is kind of a weak argument as to why to US ought to be allowed to do something or other, it certainly doesn&#39;t make the US government&#39;s cause seem more righteous. If anything it points to that they ought to consider the long-term consequences a great deal more before they jump into anything.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by SnnY@1 August 2004 - 11:36
Isn&#39;t 9-11 in some ways something that makes America look bad?

I mean, would it have happened at all if the US hadn&#39;t funded certain groups in their struggle against communism once upon a time, movements that have then turned against the US.

I mean, I&#39;m not saying anyone deserved it, but it happened in part because of their own policies, as many people have pointed out.

Therefore 9-11 is kind of a weak argument as to why to US ought to be allowed to do something or other, it certainly doesn&#39;t make the US government&#39;s cause seem more righteous. If anything it points to that they ought to consider the long-term consequences a great deal more before they jump into anything.
Okay.

What you are saying is that because the U.S. helped Osama bin Laden in his efforts to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, one would quite naturally and logically conclude Osama would eventually turn against the U.S.? :huh:

9/11 aside (I must say you have a unique view of the event), we still could not have "jumped" much more slowly than we did in Iraq; well over a year and beaucoup U.N. resolutions later?

What we now know about France, Germany, China and Russia, and their special relationships with Saddam, I sincerely doubt anything would ever have been done, so what is it exactly that you propose?

[hobbes]

Rat, your rambling a bit.

The coalition and it&#39;s sanctions were in power long before Bush stepped in office.

The invasion, although not ultimately justified, will actually save lives in the long run, as the sanctions against Iraq are no more.

Someone on the other side might spin it his way by stating that George Bush was a humanitarian that was sickened by the indirect killing of Iraqi&#39;s through sanctions, and although some would die during an invasion, once the root cause was weeded out, lives would be saved long-term.

See how sickening spin can be.



You imply that George&#39;s grandparents were involved in Nazi-ism in the 1930&#39;s and 40&#39;s, but our supportive relationship with Jews in Israel is WHY Bin Laden attacked us.

Where are you going with this scatter gun approach, it does not logically follow. Because Grand-dad was a racist, George must be as well? He chose Muslims. Nice smear technique.


Hitler chose the Jews, as you say, to point a finger at someone, and label them as the problem. Muslims bought their own bad PR in 9/11. We didn&#39;t really have any problems that required a scapegoat, either.

As for Muslims, they are a bit different from the typical American and this lack of familiarity (and the fact that most Americans, prior to 9/11, only knew Muslims from the Palestinean suicide bombers) and 9/11 does lead people to fear this unknown. But gee, muslims are walking the streets of the US, they are working at the desk next to mine, not in a concentration camp being starved, frozen and operated on like guinea pigs.

Sure, bring up Guantanamo Bay, that will underline how specious your comparisons are. Those people were collected during a war they caused, not pulled from their homes in the US. Treatment and prosecution has not been ideal or even acceptable, but the situation is also equally not comparable to a Nazi concentration camp.

Why is Bush being compared to Hitler, because that is who every high school student compares anyone they don&#39;t like too. It is quite the cliche. The beauty is that you don&#39;t have to prove it, you just have to taint George with the association.

As for the US being a good example of conduct before George&#39;s term, this is so astoundingly contradictory to what has been posted on this forum, I am drowning in the inconsistenseas. How can you possibly believe that George Bush alone is responsible for some unique change in the way the US works. We have been plugging in dictators in South America for a 100 years. Working behind the scenes to install "US friendly" governemnts is nothing unique to PNAC.

If I posted your comment that, excluding the last 4 years, the US has been a model of conduct for the world to learn from at Rikk and Cowsy&#39;s, well, I think it would soon just be "Cowsy&#39;s" as Rikk would have...

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dice-man/sanford.jpg Ooh, this is the Big One, Elizabeth&#33;

Rat, you&#39;ve simply become emotionally blinded. Bush is not my favorite guy, but these comparisons to Nazi Germany are specious at best.

And Rat, if Bin Laden could have launched nuclear weapons at the US, do you think he would have hesitated. You should think a bit more before chosing with whom you dine, although the Bush family does have a history of puking. I think even Bush&#39;s grandfather did it.


edit- Ethel was "Aunt Ethel" and about 15 other mistakes.

[BigBank_Hank]

Hobbes you need to get your facts straight. Fred Sanford’s wife was not named Ethel it was Elizabeth :P

[Snee]

Originally posted by j2k4@1 August 2004 - 18:51
Okay.

What you are saying is that because the U.S. helped Osama bin Laden in his efforts to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, one would quite naturally and logically conclude Osama would eventually turn against the U.S.? :huh:

9/11 aside (I must say you have a unique view of the event), we still could not have "jumped" much more slowly than we did in Iraq; well over a year and beaucoup U.N. resolutions later?
I suppose I don&#39;t quite see how supporting Bin Laden&#39;s activities was ever good, how could someone ever justify supporting a man like that?

Clearly he never fought for America, but rather for himself, and the methods he employs most certainly seems a tad, how to put this, inaccurate. Or are you saying that his actions in afghanistan did not entail any collateral damage, and that he always hit those responsible for what was done to the country?

Putting weapons in the hands of fanatics can&#39;t be a good thing, even if they are pointing the other way, I should think.


As for Iraq, can you truly say the wait was long enough? what with the fact that they turned out to not have weapons of mass destruction.

Having said that, my problem lies with why things were done rather than with the fact that they were done at all in Iraq, taking down Saddam wasn&#39;t what I&#39;d call a bad thing. But I&#39;ll always wonder about the why.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by SnnY@1 August 2004 - 12:08
I suppose I don&#39;t quite see how supporting Bin Laden&#39;s activities was ever good, how could someone ever justify supporting a man like that?


bin Laden wasn&#39;t "...a man like that..." at the time, Snny.

Saddam, while not a savory character by any means, was not, at the outset of his relationship with the U.S., what he became.

I guess you could make the case that, absent sufficient will to take the bull by the horns (as we&#39;ve done with Iraq, now), you run the risk of strengthening the Saddams and Osamas of the world when offering mere "aid".

[Snee]

Originally posted by j2k4+1 August 2004 - 19:33--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 1 August 2004 - 19:33)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-SnnY@1 August 2004 - 12:08
I suppose I don&#39;t quite see how supporting Bin Laden&#39;s activities was ever good, how could someone ever justify supporting a man like that?


bin Laden wasn&#39;t "...a man like that..." at the time, Snny.

Saddam, while not a savory character by any means, was not, at the outset of his relationship with the U.S., what he became.

I guess you could make the case that, absent sufficient will to take the bull by the horns (as we&#39;ve done with Iraq, now), you run the risk of strengthening the Saddams and Osamas of the world when offering mere "aid". [/b][/quote]
It&#39;s always been my impression that they were a pair of wild-cards. They were decidedly not as extreme as they are today. But definitely working with their own agendas and methods from the start.

Why America ever needed to work through proxy at all has always seemed slightly odd to me. Better then to not get involved at all than to support people that then turn out to be villains and monsters. And it seems to me this has been happening a couple of times, I&#39;m thinking of Noriega for one.

To stand by and do nothing is not the way to go either, but it seems to me that the current ways are not working.

[Biggles]

J2

The whole anti communist thing in Afghanistan was frighteningly fundamentalist. We supported a side in a game of chess that was going on over the whole world without thought for the future. In short we opposed an ideology (communism) and were content to release whatever dogs of war came to hand. Unfortunately mad dogs will bite any hand.

The Osamas of this world will always take whatever weapons we give them but they never forget we are not part of their world order. I recall criticism to this effect at the time resulting in Margaret Thatcher calling them "wonderful people - heros" and Ronald Reagan coining his famous "one man&#39;s terrorist is another man&#39;s freedom fighter". This is actually very true and to the victor goes the writing of the history books. If the Nazis had won all Partisans would have gone down in the history books as evil terrorists.

[vidcc]

if you dance with the devil in hell you must expect your butt to get burnt

[Rat Faced]

Hobbes,

I said that in the main, the USA have been good guys.

They have done some Godawful things, just like many nations, including my own... however in BALANCE, they are good guys.. I&#39;ll stand by that.

I have never suggested for one second that the USA were angels prior to GW.


The change came with PNAC for me.

That is a declaration that America is the world leader and will do anything to anyone that doesnt do exactly what they want.

It very plainly puts into perspective what these neo-conservatives want.

Its further than Hitler went in publicly stated aims until 1930, 9 years after the party was formed.

Consider the war didnt start until 1939 in Europe.. thats 6 years after he came to power.

Consider that it took only 3 years for this very similar public agenda until Bush was elected and they are in the whitehouse.

In only 4 years, the whitehouse has had 2 wars.

Maybe its due to the fact that there wasnt a depression, and they had money to start with, unlike Hitler.



I make no apology for my comparing Bush to Hitler.

I dont compare the American people with the German people at the time.

And no, just because Granpap was a nazi, does not mean that he is as well.

He made that statement himself when he appointed so many of the PNAC into office, and by adopting their policies as his own. His brother is also a founding member of this group.

So what if he is supportive of Israel and Jeudism? That has absolutely nothing to do with Nazi&#39;sm.

The only reason that Jews were persecuted was as a scapegoat...you think Hitler believed for 1 second that the Jews were responsible for everything? Of course not...that was a handy "enemy" to hand the populace. They were in Recession, the Jews were a minority, and they were smart enough to own more money per head than average, so the Government could get hold of it.

The Jewish vote in the USA is important, there would be no way on earth he would use Jews as a scapegoat, what better than their enemies?


How many times have you seen yourself, people posting crap that all Muslims are terrorists? On this board only?

There is now a substantial proportion of Americans that genuinely believe that this is the case, that the Muslims are all evil... you&#39;ve seen that crap posted here yourself by numerous different kids and fools.

I didnt bring Cuba up, however since you did...the number in Cuba that were Al Queda are very few. The vast majority are Taliban... the only thing the Taliban did was defend their country against an aggressor. YOU would have done the same, and im bloody sure i would have.

And before you start "well they should have handed him over"...they wouldnt hand him over to the USA because they didnt think he&#39;d get a fair trial, they were quite willing to hand him over to a 3rd party.

The very fact of the Cuban camps existance gives credance to what they claimed.


To Conclude:

I stand by:

That I think Bush is the most dangerous man in the world, and I wouldnt shed one tear if him and his whole administration were blown away. I dont say this lightly, its very rarely that anyone or anything gets me so hyped up... He and his managed that before he was ever elected.

He is, in my opinion, a nazi. Thats right, i said it. A Right Wing little prick that wants him and his to rule the world by whatever means necessary. If he just wanted the USA, i wouldnt give a shit... but the PNAC, when you look at it, is quite clear on their goals.

The Laws like the Patriot Act, go further than even Hitler did in Germany in his 1st 3 years of power.

He is a bald faced Liar and Manipulator... however as that fits most politicians of whatever stripe, maybe i shouldnt bother posting it ;)

If it wasnt Bush and the PNAC, then i wouldnt give a hoot about the American Election. As ive said on many occasion, i see little difference between the 2 parties. Hell, ive even defended Bush (once i think) when he was getting labelled for something Clinton started.

There is generally good and bad in most politicians/presidents...however Bush&#39;s ideology is athema to me.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by j2k4+1 August 2004 - 14:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 1 August 2004 - 14:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@1 August 2004 - 05:29
The Coalition, over the last 10 years have killed more innocent Iraqi&#39;s than Hussian ever managed.

I might actually turn up to a meal with Bin Laden to listen to why he acts like he does...

Its not as if the Bush family can claim they dont have a history with Nazism either..

Hitler started off with policies similar to the Patriot Act at home, and giving the nation an "Enemy" to hate..in his case the Jews, in the USA&#39;s the Muslims.

Hell the similarities between the start of the 3rd Reich and the USA today are astounding.

... no one looks to the US for the moral Highground

However Bush, Chaney, Wolfowitz and Co are the most dangerous people in the world at this moment in time.

I hope to hell someone takes them out at the earliest opportunity.




Please dont look at this as an "Anti-American" post.


Wash off the sauce and that is the meat of your post, Rat.

I used the Michael Moore editting technique; I&#39;m sure you can appreciate it. ;) [/b][/quote]
You know fine well what i think of Mr Moore :P

And the edited highlites i do take exception too... as the way you&#39;ve done it really does read anti-american.

You know fine well that ALL my enmity is headed towards the Whitehouse and PNAC, its not even aimed at Republicans.... :angry:

[Biggles]

Rat Face

Ok, so stop beating about the bush (sorry :( ) do you like GW or not?




:lol:

Happy Lughnasad by the way - may all your harvests be good ones.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by Biggles@1 August 2004 - 20:29
Rat Face

Ok, so stop beating about the bush (sorry :( ) do you like GW or not?




:lol:

Happy Lughnasad by the way - may all your harvests be good ones.
The rocks, the stones and the crystals
Hey yung, hey yunga, hey yung.
The rocks, the stones and the crystals
Hey yung, hey yunga, hey yung.
The power of the Earth,
The power of the Earth,
The power of the Earth,
The power of the Earth&#33;



May Lugh Long Arm Be With You&#33;









Sorry, dont speak Gaelic :(



............. How do you now about Celtic Festivals, I thought the Celts stopped all that with the Clan Clergy? :ph34r:

[Biggles]

Well I am a Celt.

Bit pagan around the gills too I am afraid.

We celebrated simply though - had corn on the cob. :01:


I just gently obseve the Sabbats - my daughter tends to take it more seriously.

I am from the North East (our North East) the bible bashers never really got the same foot hold there somehow. :)

[SuperJude™]

Just to add a little more "cultural perspective" here: It is wholly terrible and disrespectful to those who lived through the holocaust to compare a man of evil who wanted to commit genocide to a barely popular war time president.

One thing I have learned from these discussions is that people will say anything to prove a point, since there are no boundries anymore. We are now in a world where it is okay to call the president of the US a nazi, which saddens me. I asked a man who came into my job today about the comparisons, this man wearing a yarmulka indicating he was Jewish, and he said he cannot stand Bush but to compare him to the nazi&#39;s is ludicrous.

It is. It makes me sad to read intelligent people lowering themselves because they are blinded by their dislike for another human.

What also saddens me is there are people from my own country who let this shit go down without the simplest of protests, which is why people like myself speak up more loudly and post in the same manner. Somebody must draw the line and say "No". Bush may be a goddamn shitbird conservative and all that but seriously, comparing him to a man who tried to exterminate the Jews is sad.

It also reminds me that a lot of the world is Anti-Semetic.

I will say I posted in anger before when I replied to clocker. He seems intelligent, but I feel that goading me into explaining fully who I am is lame. I do not use my experiences at the Trade Center as some center of discussion or strategy to win arguements. I did what I did I saw what I saw I learned what I learned. However the flippant manner in which 9-11 is invoked really does piss me off in real life. I saw it, handled it, smelt it and have dealt with the after effects both mental and physical, all of my choosing. But I do think obviously that 9-11 deserves historic event status. I cannot even begin to explain it all, maybe one day I&#39;ll make a thread about it, who knows, but I wish people would not belittle my country because of 9-11, cause you don&#39;t know what you are talking about.

That to me is cultural perspective. I am as Yankee as they get, proud of it even. I show pride in my country, I wish others who may have qualms with the current administration would open their eyes and stop letting everybody else who speaks only from conjecture stop bashing us. And like it or not, Bush represents us, he is one of us.

-SJ™

[Biggles]

SJ

Part of the problem is the distinction between man and post. As far as I can tell the post of Mr. President is held in some esteem in the US regardless of occupant. This is much less common in Europe. We have politicians period. The French do have a Presidential system but it is not as clear cut as the US one as they do also have a Prime Minister. Otherwise Heads of State (like Queenie) are purely figure heads with no particular partisan leaning.

Consequently as purely political figures they are all fair game. If someone criticises Blair I do not consider that an attack on the post of Prime Minister as the role is one given out amongst themselves (first amongst equals etc.,) rather than elected for by the populace.

Of course the other problem (and one which won&#39;t go away) is Rat Face really doesn&#39;t trust the neo-conservatives. The question is do the American people? Perhaps not.

[SuperJude™]

Hard call actually. I will say though that fellow Americans have said some pretty harsh things as well, but being as how I live in Ultra Liberal country (Woodstock NY) I discount a lot of the innanities.

-SJ™

[hobbes]

Rat,

I&#39;ve read your post and I visited the web site you linked. I do understand why you are scared, but I don&#39;t think that GW is in the same league as Hitler. He would not starve, torture and dissect 6 million people.

Remember, Hitler did not just kill all those people, but he tortured primarily and killed them secondarily. That is not scapegoating that is hatred and loathing.


From PNAC

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


• we need to accept responsibility for America&#39;s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles

As for the PNAC, is this philosophy unique to them or to the Nazi&#39;s. No, not even close. All countries would love to be in a position to exert this type of control over the planet. All governments desire to secure the future of their countries. We are just the only ones strong enough to even consider trying to carry out these objectives, at this time. That is where the fear comes from. George and his boys running loose with a hammer and you are helpless to do anything.

I can appreciate your impotent fear and anger, it is terrible. Most Americans felt this after 9/11 and were almost physically ill, like our sister was raped or something. It had nothing to do with the number of people killed, but a sense of violation, a violation that we could do nothing about. George responded in a measured way that Hitler would never have considered. Hitler would have launched the nukes and thought about the consequences later.

As for eating with Bin Laden, he&#39;d just as soon cut your infidel head off, as pass the bread.

[Biggles]

Hobbes

Whilst I agree with much of what you say, I think you overstate the case by saying All countries would like to project their agenda abroad. Some countries, like Switzerland, are obsessively inward looking and most definitely do not want to project anything. Perhaps All superpowers (past, present and future) would like to be able to be in this position states things more accurately.

[vidcc]

Has anyone ever wondered why nobody attacks switzerland?.... could it be that they tend to keep their noses out of everyone elses affairs?


I am of course here omitting the times it was bombed in WW2.... by both sides

[spinningfreemanny]

Honestly, America is not as huge of a guy swinging a hammer as feared: if it was; I have little doubt that we would be in Iran & Syria right now as well. We are significantly hampered by allies opinion. It took a year to get into Iraq and overthrow saddam hussein...Hussein of all people&#33; with a public trac record of genocide and 10 failed resolutions; each specifying threat of war if failure was the outcome. I think that others got freaked out when it came out that the UN could not control the US from action (no matter what the plot was) but I honestly doubt that we could pull anything stronger then Iraq without global support.

example: The US wants to overthrow a dictator accused of genocid and 8 failed resolutions... it will not happen.

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by vidcc@1 August 2004 - 21:33
Has anyone ever wondered why nobody attacks switzerland?.... could it be that they tend to keep their noses out of everyone elses affairs?


I am of course here omitting the times it was bombed in WW2.... by both sides
Maybe of they were in the way of Germany&#39;s blitzkrieg it would be different...

[Biggles]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny+1 August 2004 - 21:43--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (spinningfreemanny @ 1 August 2004 - 21:43)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@1 August 2004 - 21:33
Has anyone ever wondered why nobody attacks switzerland?.... could it be that they tend to keep their noses out of everyone elses affairs?


I am of course here omitting the times it was bombed in WW2.... by both sides
Maybe of they were in the way of Germany&#39;s blitzkrieg it would be different... [/b][/quote]
The Swiss ran things like clockwork (I&#39;ll get me coat), every able bodied man was a member of the National Guard and the country is a nightmare to move around in. It would have taken half the Wermacht to secure it for no strategic gain whatsoever.

Strangely the Nazis observed Sweden&#39;s neutrality and that of the Iberian Peninsula. They had a specific game plan and it mostly involved taking Poland, Ukraine and the Russian oil fields.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@1 August 2004 - 15:43
Maybe of they were in the way of Germany&#39;s blitzkrieg it would be different...
I would like to point out that the germans did very little bombing of switzerland although not an insignificant amount and the USA and her allies did the vast majority.

However i am not really making a point of the world war rather modern day events.

[Snee]

Originally posted by Biggles+1 August 2004 - 23:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles &#064; 1 August 2004 - 23:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@1 August 2004 - 21:43
<!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@1 August 2004 - 21:33
Has anyone ever wondered why nobody attacks switzerland?.... could it be that they tend to keep their noses out of everyone elses affairs?


I am of course here omitting the times it was bombed in WW2.... by both sides
Maybe of they were in the way of Germany&#39;s blitzkrieg it would be different...
The Swiss ran things like clockwork (I&#39;ll get me coat), every able bodied man was a member of the National Guard and the country is a nightmare to move around in. It would have taken half the Wermacht to secure it for no strategic gain whatsoever.

Strangely the Nazis observed Sweden&#39;s neutrality and that of the Iberian Peninsula. They had a specific game plan and it mostly involved taking Poland, Ukraine and the Russian oil fields. [/b][/quote]

A bit OT but...

It should be noted that the swedish Royals were Nazi supporters, and that they weren&#39;t the only Swedes who were of the persuasion. <_< And that that our government at the time gave up people who had ended up in sweden when trying to avoid the war, estonian soldiers I think among others, when prompted to.

I&#39;ve wondered about how much the Swedish neutrality really was worth at the time, and whether the Germans had been so benign had the policies in this country been of another kind.


EDit:
Oh, and I think German soldiers were given passage to Norway. Which btw gave them ample time to spit on those swedes they came across who didn&#39;t fit the aryan model.

[clocker]

SJ,

I suspected that your involvement with the Trade Center was something like what you have revealed.
I&#39;m sure it was/is horrific and I&#39;m sorry you ( and all the others so involved) had to deal with it.
That said....

Why is your anger ( which seems intense) not focused on Bush for letting bin Laden remain free?
After a halfhearted and woefully undermanned and belated venture into Afghanistan to root out Al-Qaeda where they hid, Bush diverted manpower, money and material to fight in Iraq...a country which had NO CONNECTION to the 9/11 massacre at all.
Bin Laden, the man who still gloats that HE was responsible for the tragedy, is no closer to being caught than he was 2 years ago.
He is still organizing and (presumably) planning further attacks on our country, and it seems obvious that Bush could care less.
All of the resources which could have been used to hunt him down were diverted to further Bush&#39;s delusional empire building.

Oddly, to me at least, Bush&#39;s "War on Terror" seems to have completely ignored the biggest terrorist in our history.

Now how come THAT doesn&#39;t piss you off?

[hobbes]

Again, why does Iraq need to be connected to Al Queda? That point is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Was my snake analogy not sufficient for you?

And how did you determine that the effort in Afghanistan was half-hearted and belated?

Are you suggesting that there was some secret connection between Bush, 9/11, and Bin Laden.

[clocker]

No hobbes, your "snake analogy" sucked when you first posited it and it still does.

The effort in Afghanistan was clearly not of the scale of the Iraq incursion, hence my description.

No, I am not suggesting a secret conspiracy.
When it suited his agenda, Bush was all for making Bin Laden the poster boy for world terrorism.
After serving his purpose- galvanizing the public against terrorism and building a willingness to strike back militarily, bin Laden became superfluous...suddenly the biggest bad boy became Iraq.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker@1 August 2004 - 21:17


No hobbes, your "snake analogy" sucked when you first posited it and it still does.

The effort in Afghanistan was clearly not of the scale of the Iraq incursion, hence my description.

No, I am not suggesting a secret conspiracy.
When it suited his agenda, Bush was all for making Bin Laden the poster boy for world terrorism.
After serving his purpose- galvanizing the public against terrorism and building a willingness to strike back militarily, bin Laden became superfluous...suddenly the biggest bad boy became Iraq.
Why did it suck? You make claims without telling us why.

As for Afghanistan, it was a completely different situation. You can blow as many holes in the ground as you wish, but you are only moving dirt.

Why would Bush, as an American, as a human, not want to catch Bin Laden?

Afghanistan was a fugitive situation, Iraq was far different.

Again, why do Iraq and Bin Laden need to be connected, you failed to address this issue.

[vidcc]

Just an observation

I agree with hobbes. Iraq and bin laden don&#39;t have to be connected...in fact there is no credible connection, however i have to say that many of those that support the actions taken against iraq have somehow implied the connection.
Iraq had nothing to do with 911 yet how many times have we heard about how America changed since 911 in debates about iraq?


on iraq though


If we have made a mistake and the WMD never existed and Iraq wasn&#39;t a threat (even with what everyone thought) then we need to accept responsibility and not avoid it and not change the goalposts.

I&#39;m sure very few people would get away with the defence "i thought he had a gun" if tried for a domestic shooting in a court of law
it seems to me that we now have a policy that enjoys the merits of pre-emptive strikes as a defence and that those strikes are worth the price of any mistake...as long as it&#39;s not Americans paying the price. ( America has the right to be free from fear but not those we think don&#39;t like us...even if we just think they don&#39;t like us and actually they do).

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by vidcc@2 August 2004 - 00:06

If we have made a mistake and the WMD never existed and Iraq wasn&#39;t a threat (even with what everyone thought) then we need to accept responsibility and not avoid it and not change the goalposts.

Accept responsibility for what? oops, we accidently attacked your country, sorry.

Hussein is the one that forfited his right to be leader with over 10 resolutions.

It doesn&#39;t matter if all they find is an old crowbar that hussein used to beat people with, his right to be a leader is void.

Why people don&#39;t enforce this is beyond me...oh wait, no it isn&#39;t: oil for food program.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@1 August 2004 - 18:16
It doesn&#39;t matter if all they find is an old crowbar that hussein used to beat people with, his right to be a leader is void.


Well you appear to be one that likes to move the goalposts.


can you place that same thinking to our own leaders?

If a mistake is made and we invade an innocent country do you feel that the leader has voided his right to lead?

My whole point is that if we are going to proclaim ourselves the rightious world police then we can&#39;t be hypocritical and apply lesser standards to ourselves or do you believe that mistakes can be made because the price is worth it as long as it&#39;s not americans paying that price?...i notice you didn&#39;t comment on that bit.

[clocker]

Originally posted by hobbes@1 August 2004 - 17:26

Why did it suck? You make claims without telling us why.


That&#39;s not a "claim" hobbes, that&#39;s my opinion.
You have used the "snake" theory several times in the past to try and convince me ( us) that being bitten by one snake (al-Qaeda) somehow justifies attacking the snake that didn&#39;t (Iraq). I didn&#39;t buy it before and doubt that sheer repetition will sell me in the future.

As for Afghanistan, it was a completely different situation. You can blow as many holes in the ground as you wish, but you are only moving dirt.
And this differs from Iraq how exactly?
The beauty of the terrorist&#39;s position ( from a military standpoint) is that they aren&#39;t fighting for places, they want the hearts and minds of the people.
They don&#39;t have to defend or occupy a stronghold, they can just melt into the populace and find another opportune target.
So far, our military actions in Iraq since the "victory" over the armed forces has amounted to little more than "moving dirt".

Again, why do Iraq and Bin Laden need to be connected, you failed to address this issue.
I&#39;m not the one who forged the connection, hobbes.
Bush/Cheney did.
Cheney still likes to make the connection.

If Bush (presumptively the most powerful man on the planet) was serious about apprehending Osama, we&#39;d have him by now.
You&#39;ll have to ask Bush why he decided to shift priorities and attack Iraq instead.

[hobbes]

Clocker,

You have yet to address why the analogy is not correct. Please explain. How exactly is the analogy incorrect. Is it not possible that 2 independent people want to take the US down and have no relationship with each other.

I don&#39;t care about your opinion, I want exacting detail that proves the fallacy of the analogy.

One has burned us on 9/11, and we strike the other before it has such an opportunity.

Did you notice that the US is not engaging in "shock and awe" in Iraq, currently. Why, because it is more an Afghanistan situation now. Dropping bombs does not equal victory. I agree, now that we are into guerilla warfare, there is little difference between Iraq and Afghanistan currently. See how hard it is to stifle the insugents, just like it is hard to catch 1 man being escorted cave to cave.

Initially, in Iraq, we had to uproot the government to put Saddam and the insurgents on the run, now the battle is more akin to the guerilla warfare which charcterizes the conflict in Afghanistan.

As for Al Queda and Iraq, how many times do I have to say that a connection is not relevant in any way.

Iraq is about quenching the ember before it sparks to flame. If you could have managed to address this the first time, instead of resorting to alter ego "sprocket", maybe we could cover some new ground here.

For those not really in the know, I am a liberal who is fighting "bullshit" as I see it. Agenda driven nonsense is odious to me.

[clocker]

Agenda driven nonsense is odious to me.
Then why do you continue to engage it it?

Why don&#39;t you give me some examples of exactly how Iraq threatened our national security that even begin to compare to the attack of 9/11?
Where are the secret underground Iraqi terror cells in the US?
How many Iraqis were involved in the Trade Center bombing?
Where are the fundamentalist Iraqi mullahs calling for jihad on the US?

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@31 July 2004 - 23:49
Or have you possibly considered that maybe, just maybe, 9-11 may be tangible to certain people like myself? Ever EVER think about things like that? Events you may not know a damn thing about?

I am sure it would not fit your world view...

...

Cause you are sheep. I have a reason to think about 9-11 there guy, while I am sure in your life you have done a lot of sitting on your ass opinionating.
that doesn&#39;t contradict what i&#39;d implied, at all. the average American cares more about the Alamo, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 because it happened here.

"you care more about 9/11 than the nth U.S.-backed atrocity in the third world &#39;cause it happened here and you feel a personal connection to it."
"oh yeah? well i&#39;ve got news for you. i care more about 9/11 than the nth U.S.-backed atrocity in the third world &#39;cause it happened here and i feel a personal connection to it. you ever think of that?"

spinningfreemanny said that people value some lives more highly than others, depending on where their sympathies lie, but he might have meant that only liberals do it in order to send patriots on a guilt trip. i agree that people do it, and it&#39;s wrong, but i wouldn&#39;t say it&#39;s all a liberal conspiracy to beat down the morale of freedom-loving patriots with totally irrelevant gory trivia. maybe there is such a thing as a healthy awareness of such trivia, so when the time comes that our leaders say something like "look what they did to us. we don&#39;t do horrible things to other countries. thus, we now have moral justification to do whatever the heck we want to country A, country B, and country C... who may or may not be connected to 9/11 and WMD," you can see that there&#39;s something not quite right about their claim. but the world doesn&#39;t suddenly become a huge worthless dingleberry on Satan&#39;s backside just because it can&#39;t operate on the premise that the U.S. is simultaneously a babe in the woods and a superhero, either.

as for sitting and opinionating: why does this sort of remark about qualifications for opinionating always end up favoring the person who makes it? "here&#39;s who&#39;s qualified to have an opinion, and i happen to be among that group. here&#39;s who&#39;s not qualified, and --surprise, surprise-- it&#39;s you and all the armchair quarterbacks like yourself." people always manage to set the qualifications up in such a way that they are perfectly qualified, and everyone who disagrees is completely unqualified.

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by vidcc+2 August 2004 - 00:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 2 August 2004 - 00:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-spinningfreemanny@1 August 2004 - 18:16
It doesn&#39;t matter if all they find is an old crowbar that hussein used to beat people with, his right to be a leader is void.


Well you appear to be one that likes to move the goalposts.


can you place that same thinking to our own leaders?

If a mistake is made and we invade an innocent country do you feel that the leader has voided his right to lead?

My whole point is that if we are going to proclaim ourselves the rightious world police then we can&#39;t be hypocritical and apply lesser standards to ourselves or do you believe that mistakes can be made because the price is worth it as long as it&#39;s not americans paying that price?...i notice you didn&#39;t comment on that bit. [/b][/quote]
Your right; I support the U.S.&#39;s action on different grounds then the President; and your also right about iraq as a country being innocent. The problem is that their regime is guilty and that&#39;s why we went there in the first place; President Bush made that very clear when action started.

if we were in Iraq&#39;s place, and our president explicitly committed genocide against his own countrymen and disobeyed 10 resolutions under the threat of war then, yes, our leaders have voided their right to lead. (This though is inherently next to impossible with good ol&#39; democracy. Remember congress decreed action in Iraq for the president to impliment.)

I don&#39;t know what your talking about when you infer that the U.S. is not paying the price; our soldiers are dying every day for Iraq&#39;s freedom, with the reward simply being that there is no longer a dictator in Iraq that will disrupt freedom.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by hobbes@1 August 2004 - 21:09
One has burned us on 9/11, and we strike the other before it has such an opportunity.

Did you notice that the US is not engaging in "shock and awe" in Iraq, currently.&nbsp; Why, because it is more an Afghanistan situation now.&nbsp; Dropping bombs does not equal victory.&nbsp; I agree, now that we are into guerilla warfare, there is little difference between Iraq and Afghanistan currently.&nbsp; See how hard it is to stifle the insugents, just like it is hard to catch 1 man being escorted cave to cave.

Initially, in Iraq, we had to uproot the government to put Saddam and the insurgents on the run, now the battle is more akin to the guerilla warfare which charcterizes the conflict in Afghanistan.

As for Al Queda and Iraq, how many times do I have to say that a connection is not relevant in any way.

Iraq is about quenching the ember before it sparks to flame.&nbsp; If you could have managed to address this the first time, instead of resorting to alter ego "sprocket", maybe we could cover some new ground here.

For those not really in the know, I am a liberal who is fighting "bullshit" as I see it.&nbsp; Agenda driven nonsense is odious to me.
Iraq and Afghanistan are two completely different animals.

Guerilla warfare in a basic dirt land doesn&#39;t compare to densely populated cities where it&#39;s much harder to discern friend and foe.
If the effort for Iraq was put forth in Afghanistan. We&#39;d have Bin Laden.
Of that&#39;s right, there wasn&#39;t really a "plan" after the tank and jet fighting.

Iraq was a means to flex. Imminent threat was never proven.
It was sold to hearts and minds after 911.
The connection was made by Bush.
Do you think we would be in Iraq if there was no 911?
It would have been a harder sell, that&#39;s for sure.

We still have Syria, Iran, and North Korea to go.
No Ko seems to be deserving of a more ramming in the ass. They are basically saying, "Fuck you we are getting nukes motherfucker".

There are the lot that like that "well Bush took action" stance.
It seems a real threat has presented itself and Bush is left sitting on the fence.

Hmmm...we got Saddam but no WMD. That&#39;s a wash because he was another dictator. Yes, another dictator. We spent billions to take down....another dictator.

I would almost be inlcined to wish Bush would stay in office but well..there are domestic issues to be taken care of and we can&#39;t fuck up here and abroad for 4 more years. <_<

[Busyman]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny+2 August 2004 - 01:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (spinningfreemanny &#064; 2 August 2004 - 01:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Your right; I support the U.S.&#39;s action on different grounds then the President; and your also right about iraq as a country being innocent. The problem is that their regime is guilty and that&#39;s why we went there in the first place; President Bush made that very clear when action started.

if we were in Iraq&#39;s place, and our president explicitly committed genocide against his own countrymen and disobeyed 10 resolutions under the threat of war then, yes, our leaders have voided their right to lead. (This though is inherently next to impossible with good ol&#39; democracy. Remember congress decreed action in Iraq for the president to impliment.)

I don&#39;t know what your talking about when you infer that the U.S. is not paying the price; our soldiers are dying every day for Iraq&#39;s freedom, with the reward simply being that there is no longer a dictator in Iraq that will disrupt freedom. [/b]
Iraq&#39;s is guilty of what exactly?

How does that relate to sending ground troops at a cost of billions of dollars and closing in on 1000 American lives lost?

<!--QuoteBegin-spinningfreemanny@ 2 August 2004 - 01:21
our soldiers are dying every day for Iraq&#39;s freedom, with the reward simply being that there is no longer a dictator in Iraq that will disrupt freedom.[/quote]

Ya gotta be shittin&#39; me&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol: :lol: :lol:

That&#39;s like sayin&#39; that Bush is a sharp leader or somethin&#39;. <_<

[spinningfreemanny]

lol, read up on my last couple of posts; CAREFULLY



your also right about iraq as a country being innocent

and sorry for believing in such a cliche word as freedom. Actually no, I&#39;m not sorry at all.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 02:39
lol, read up on my last couple of posts; CAREFULLY



your also right about iraq as a country being innocent

and sorry for believing in such a cliche word as freedom. Actually no, I&#39;m not sorry at all.
Okay newbie,

Remember Bush&#39;s ultimatum to Iraq?

You know, the one to disarm?

What if............

Saddam obliged and allowed the inspectors free reign?

Would we be at war?

Where would this supposed "initial mission" just to topple a dictator be?

Sit down.

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by Busyman+2 August 2004 - 07:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 2 August 2004 - 07:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 02:39
lol, read up on my last couple of posts; CAREFULLY



your also right about iraq as a country being innocent

and sorry for believing in such a cliche word as freedom. Actually no, I&#39;m not sorry at all.
Okay newbie,

Remember Bush&#39;s ultimatum to Iraq?

You know, the one to disarm?

What if............

Saddam obliged and allowed the inspectors free reign?

Would we be at war?

Where would this supposed "initial mission" just to topple a dictator be?

Sit down. [/b][/quote]
Sorry, maybe its just my tiny newbe brain trying to grasp this heavy revelation that your laying down, but, He didn&#39;t oblige and inspectors never had free reign, so now he&#39;s gonna die.

aaaand, you don&#39;t have to act like an ass to get your point across; whatever that might be.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny+2 August 2004 - 04:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (spinningfreemanny @ 2 August 2004 - 04:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@2 August 2004 - 07:10
<!--QuoteBegin-spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 02:39
lol, read up on my last couple of posts; CAREFULLY



your also right about iraq as a country being innocent

and sorry for believing in such a cliche word as freedom. Actually no, I&#39;m not sorry at all.
Okay newbie,

Remember Bush&#39;s ultimatum to Iraq?

You know, the one to disarm?

What if............

Saddam obliged and allowed the inspectors free reign?

Would we be at war?

Where would this supposed "initial mission" just to topple a dictator be?

Sit down.
Sorry, maybe its just my tiny newbe brain trying to grasp this heavy revelation that your laying down, but, He didn&#39;t oblige and inspectors never had free reign, so now he&#39;s gonna die.

aaaand, you don&#39;t have to act like an ass to get your point across; whatever that might be. [/b][/quote]
Well newbie,

It&#39;s great that you have a total grasp of the situation.

The point is that 900+ troops are dead fighting for a freedom of a people that before the war was sold to you, under a different pretense I might add, you gave 2 shits about. Now all of a sudden we went in to free the Iraqi people.

Do you actually shovel that shit or do you just lay in it?

If your family member died for this war you would be singing a different tune but alas, you and they are safe and sound, free to spout about bullshit.

Our soldiers die because inspectors were not allowed in (if you buy that even).

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker@2 August 2004 - 00:09

Agenda driven nonsense is odious to me.
Then why do you continue to engage it it?

Why don&#39;t you give me some examples of exactly how Iraq threatened our national security that even begin to compare to the attack of 9/11?
Where are the secret underground Iraqi terror cells in the US?
How many Iraqis were involved in the Trade Center bombing?
Where are the fundamentalist Iraqi mullahs calling for jihad on the US?
Remember Clocker, I stated quite clearly the first time I made the analogy that it only holds if Bush firmly believed, couldn&#39;t sleep at night, butterflies in the stomach, that Saddam, despite years of attempted disarmament still had WMD.

If Saddam were found to have had WMD, I would have been satisfied. When you go back to the World News section at the onset of the war, we were all focusing on WMD. I don&#39;t remember any talk here that Saddam was behind 9/11 in cahoots with Bin Laden. I will grant you some do believe that, but more the level headed thinkers here were not sold on that.

I then went on to say that I have my doubts about this, I am very troubled by Bush not finding WMD, in fact, I believe I started a thread called "The Retrospective War" well over a year ago.


As for Afghanistan, I cannot recall, at the time of invasion, that people were upset that not enough troops were sent. It seems that this became obvious some time in the future. The retrospective historians are at it again. Bin Laden won, he had the home field advantage.

The implication is that Bush is only willing to go Gung Ho for his oil cronies in Iraq, and really is a bit ambivalent about finding a guy who blew up the WTC, as killing him really won&#39;t help pad his wallet. I consider Bush human enough to feel as personally scarred by 9/11 as I am.

I don&#39;t have an agenda Clocker, I&#39;m trying to look at things from both sides. I have serious doubts about Bush, but my analogy was my attempt to give him the benefit of the doubt, and look at the situation from that vantage point.

[hobbes]

@Busyman,

Your wrong, I&#39;m right, &#39;nuff said, sit down.

:lol:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by hobbes@2 August 2004 - 09:12
@Busyman,

Your wrong, I&#39;m right, &#39;nuff said, sit down.

:lol:
Ok you win mang. :D

I think at this point as far as the election goes, one must ask himself,

Is GW a sharp leader?

I think it&#39;s wash that Kerry has already won.

If GW wins it would have to be fixed. :lol:

There has been no President with such a public outcry of dislike.
(He probably beats Nixon)

[clocker]

hobbes,

I do not subscribe to the (conspiracy) theory that Bush invaded Iraq to benefit Big Oil.
As vile as that scenario might be, I find it less troubling than his stated mission that he feels directed by God to spread democracy to the world.
His democratic jihad seemed then ( and still does) to be poorly thought out and merely a convenient way to don the mantle of "War President"...a role he seems particularly inept at fulfilling.
Even granting that he completely believed the (faulty) intelligence he was presented and that removing Saddam was a worthy goal, the fact that he has failed to accept any responsibilty at all for the quagmire he has lead us into ( in fact, according to him things are going well) is reason enough for me to classify him as a failure as a leader.

The current situation is untenable and I do not believe that Bush has the vision or talent to extricate the US.
His administration seems to be fatally adept at skewing their worldview to fit a preconceived agenda rather than accepting what is and dealing with the realities of the situation.
Given this disconnect, I see no way that another four years can make matters anything but worse.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 08:01

Sorry, maybe its just my tiny newbe brain trying to grasp this heavy revelation that your laying down, but, He didn&#39;t oblige and inspectors never had free reign, so now he&#39;s gonna die.

aaaand, you don&#39;t have to act like an ass to get your point across; whatever that might be.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but he did oblige.

The UN inspectors said he was complying fully, and even offering suggestions as to how the amount of Destroyed shells could be verified.

Its the Coalition that wasnt obliging, in that they blocked the technological equipment necessary to do this.


I can think of another Middle East country with a number of outstanding UN resolutions, and is currently bulldozing houses belonging to an ethnic grouping in its population.

In addition they kill members of that ethnic grouping with missiles and tanks...



So are you suggesting the US should also invade Israel?

I&#39;d have to disagree with you there.

If you arent suggesting that, then your a hypocrite, pure and simple.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@1 August 2004 - 23:21
I don&#39;t know what your talking about when you infer that the U.S. is not paying the price; our soldiers are dying every day for Iraq&#39;s freedom, with the reward simply being that there is no longer a dictator in Iraq that will disrupt freedom.
As unfortunate as it is our soldiers being killed in a mistaken conflict is not what i am talking about when i say that our leaders should accept responsibility.

lets make it a hyperthetical war and take Iraq out of the issue ( sorry j2 :lol: ) and make it dessertland. We think they have weapons and they don&#39;t like us. Let&#39;s ignore the fact that we have weapons far greater than theirs and we don&#39;t like them.

We invade and find that they in fact just have some rocks and sticks and in fact they really held no thoughts about us one way or the other untill we invaded them.

So we clearly have made a mistake.

Do you think that the troops we lost when we mistakenly went in is retribution enough? (forgetting the troops of the country that we invaded that died).

Now let&#39;s ask another hyperthetical question.
After we invade that country mistakenly the UN passes a resolution that we not only withdraw but we dissarm and we should allow inspectors in to make sure.
Do you think the USA could comply?.

I heard on the news the other day but can&#39;t find the story on the net (perhaps someone could help here...it was on cnn) that we are refusing to sign an international nuclear agreement that means we would have to have inspectors in our power plants... the reason for refusing...national security...yet we don&#39;t accept any other countries that have the same idea.

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+2 August 2004 - 15:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 2 August 2004 - 15:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 08:01

Sorry, maybe its just my tiny newbe brain trying to grasp this heavy revelation that your laying down, but, He didn&#39;t oblige and inspectors never had free reign, so now he&#39;s gonna die.

aaaand, you don&#39;t have to act like an ass to get your point across; whatever that might be.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but he did oblige.

The UN inspectors said he was complying fully, and even offering suggestions as to how the amount of Destroyed shells could be verified.

Its the Coalition that wasnt obliging, in that they blocked the technological equipment necessary to do this.


I can think of another Middle East country with a number of outstanding UN resolutions, and is currently bulldozing houses belonging to an ethnic grouping in its population.

In addition they kill members of that ethnic grouping with missiles and tanks...



So are you suggesting the US should also invade Israel?

I&#39;d have to disagree with you there.

If you arent suggesting that, then your a hypocrite, pure and simple. [/b][/quote]
Israel is not committing genocide, and Palestine is actively using terrorism as a utility. In the last year or so in fact; its Israel that has taken the casualty beating over Palestine.

RF, I know that you like to associate scenarios (ie; Bush is Hitler and Israel is Iraq). Every situation is unique.

Iraq came up because they kicked the inspectors out in the first place. Iraq was freaked by the threat of war so they let the Inspectors in with good graces; but even then there was coverups that Colon Powell laid before the U.N. that lead to believe that Iraq was fickle in their obedience.

[Rat Faced]

They threw one inspector out, because it turned out he was an American Spy.

The rest were withdrawn as Iraq, understandably under the circumstances, wouldnt allow another American.. which the Americans were insistant upon.

To me, that means that it was the US&#39;s fault the UN inspectors stopped in 1998.

Im bloody sure that I would have thrown a spy out if i&#39;d been in charge. And certainly every other country throws them out as and when.

Indeed, he was lucky he wasnt arrested, as the Inspectors didnt have Diplomatic Immunity.

Edit:

I dont know where your getting your info from re: Casualties in the Israel/Pallestine fiasco...but your wrong.

There are a lot more Palestinian Casualties. They dont have Tanks and missiles, which cause a lot of damage...they have themselves, with a cpl of pounds of explosives attached.

In case you missed where i stand on this: I think the leaders of both sides are a bunch of bastards.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 10:12
Israel is not committing genocide, and Palestine is actively using terrorism as a utility. In the last year or so in fact; its Israel that has taken the casualty beating over Palestine.


Hold on a moment.... Are you suggesting that genocide has to be comitted before action is just. You just poo pood 90% of your arguement for invading Iraq because Rat made it Isreal.....

Were the french resistance terrorists in WW2 ?

Now don&#39;t get me wrong here. I abhore killing and terrorist type actions but i find the way you choose decide what is rightious is just a tad uneven.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 16:12

Israel is not committing genocide, and Palestine is actively using terrorism as a utility.

Iraq was not committing genocide (unlike Sudan), and the Kurds/Al Queda were actively using terrorism as a utility.


Of course, unlike Israel.... when Iraq went after the terrorists (located in Northern Iraq), they got bombed from the US and UK

Your arguments are spacious...


In addition to what i said in the last post:

Israel is known to both have WMD and proliferate it.

Indeed, its one of only 2 nations known to sell the technology....(the other being Pakistan). There are plenty that peope suspect of proliferating, these are only 2 known to have.

Israel also will not sign the non-proliferation agreement and will not allow International Inspectors...


You want more?

[Snee]

Originally posted by Busyman@2 August 2004 - 15:45
There has been no President with such a public outcry of dislike.
(He probably beats Nixon)
Wasn&#39;t there a famous Nixon/Kennedy debate where the people who watched tv thought kennedy had won, whereas the people who&#39;d listened to the radio thought Nixon had won?

I doubt Bush could ever had beaten Kennedy in a debate, no matter the medium.

If only it it hadn&#39;t been for Watergate... :rolleyes:

[spinningfreemanny]

Ok, let me catch up...

Saddam gassed his own people, I call it genocide but you can call it whatever you want.

I just pointed out 1 difference among many that make Israel and Iraq unique, many things besides genocide can be committed for just action. Really I thought that you can figure that for yourself. There&#39;s a leader that supports terrorism, persues chemical weapons, and supplies a havan for our terrorist enemies among others.

Believe what you want. Saddam was a dangerous risk in his support of terrorists and an democratic Iraq is vital to a war on terror.

Oh, man, some people didn&#39;t like that...

Kind of like someone comparing President Bush to Hitler, lol.

RF, if everything that your saying is true, then hell, something should change; do you not believe that? Though I don&#39;t know what Israeli resolutions specified; Iraq&#39;s resolutions were voided with the specific threat of war in the resolution if failure was to result.

Saddam was given a choice 12 times. War or resolution. if you want to make a case for each resolution go ahead, but the simple number is convincing. There was no mistake on the U.S. part; Saddam gave a legal leeway for war 12 times.

Israel is not invading Palestine, like Germany is invading France. The French did not target German civilians. really people, these camparisons are becoming pretty rediculous. Iraqi war is Veit Nam, Palestine is France, Iraq is Israel, Bush is Hitler, etc...

Israel is vastly outnumbered and hated around the world. There are literally billions of people who would like to blow Israel into the sky save Jerusalem; I would expect them to have an aggressive stance to keep secure.

Edit: Do not take the last statement out of context to assume that I think that Israel has done nothing wrong, and that they should go on a globalizing romp through the ME.

and, as it&#39;s apparent, I&#39;m also outnumbered in this view on this board; so take heart... :(

[vidcc]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 13:09
Israel is vastly outnumbered and hated around the world; there are literally billions of people who would like to run the Jews out of Jerusalem, I would expect them to have an aggressive stance to keep secure.
Not sure that Iraq was exactly popular..... so your justification for the double standard is ????????

[Busyman]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 15:09
There&#39;s a leader that supports terrorism, persues chemical weapons, and supplies a havan for our terrorist enemies among others.

Believe what you want. Saddam was a dangerous risk in his support of terrorists and an democratic Iraq is vital to a war on terror.
Huh, what terrorism? :blink:

[vidcc]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 13:09
.

Israel is not invading Palestine,

WHAT????????? OMG.

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by Busyman+3 August 2004 - 01:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman &#064; 3 August 2004 - 01:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 15:09
There&#39;s a leader that supports terrorism, persues chemical weapons, and supplies a havan for our terrorist enemies among others.

Believe what you want. Saddam was a dangerous risk in his support of terrorists and an democratic Iraq is vital to a war on terror.
Huh, what terrorism? :blink: [/b][/quote]
What? Na, Saddam would not support terrorists... He wouldn&#39;t give money to help people who would like to kill Americans...He likes us&#33; He wouldn&#39;t give terrorists weapons.


Wake up


Edit: I know this is useless trying to convince 5 liberals who will despise any Republican in the White House and hold the "I&#39;ll vote for a ham sandwich before I vote for Bush" Ideology so I won&#39;t bother for more useless clarification... I have made my point for real moderates who wander in and see this thread.

[clocker]

Manny, YOU wake up.

Iraq had no problems supporting Palestinians, but really wanted nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalists- they were a direct threat to Saddam&#39;s power.
AFAIK, the primary targets of Palestinian terrorists are Israeli, or at least people in Israel...certainly, they are not active in the US.

Lots of countries supply weapons to terrorists...which one should we invade next?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny+3 August 2004 - 00:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (spinningfreemanny @ 3 August 2004 - 00:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@3 August 2004 - 01:28
<!--QuoteBegin-spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 15:09
There&#39;s a leader that supports terrorism, persues chemical weapons, and supplies a havan for our terrorist enemies among others.

Believe what you want. Saddam was a dangerous risk in his support of terrorists and an democratic Iraq is vital to a war on terror.
Huh, what terrorism? :blink:
What? Na, Saddam would not support terrorists... He wouldn&#39;t give money to help people who would like to kill Americans...He likes us&#33; He wouldn&#39;t give terrorists weapons.


Wake up


Edit: I know this is useless trying to convince 5 liberals who will despise any Republican in the White House and hold the "I&#39;ll vote for a ham sandwich before I vote for Bush" Ideology so I won&#39;t bother for more useless clarification... I have made my point for real moderates who wander in and see this thread. [/b][/quote]
Assumptions my man.

Another reason to add to a list for justification for war.
None of which was the initial reason given for war....a reason you are now skirting over rather conveniently.

Bullshit detection. ALERT&#33;&#33;&#33;ALERT&#33;&#33;&#33;ALERT&#33;&#33;&#33;

Do you realize that a ham sandwich is sharper than Bush?
Do you realize that is not a bandwagon to dislike Bush?
He&#39;s a fuck up. I have a thread about Bush and the good he&#39;s done.

I think the frogs were burping and the crickets were chirping. <_<

I can&#39;t even give him credit for the housing market (that&#39;s fucking me up right now). I give that credit, believe it or not, to 911.

[Snee]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny+3 August 2004 - 06:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (spinningfreemanny @ 3 August 2004 - 06:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@3 August 2004 - 01:28
<!--QuoteBegin-spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 15:09
There&#39;s a leader that supports terrorism, persues chemical weapons, and supplies a havan for our terrorist enemies among others.

Believe what you want. Saddam was a dangerous risk in his support of terrorists and an democratic Iraq is vital to a war on terror.
Huh, what terrorism? :blink:
What? Na, Saddam would not support terrorists... He wouldn&#39;t give money to help people who would like to kill Americans...He likes us&#33; He wouldn&#39;t give terrorists weapons. [/b][/quote]
Come on now, certain American presidents wasn&#39;t above giving weapons and funding to certain rogue elements of this world, would you hunt your presidents down too?

Or was it cool as long as it wasn&#39;t americans getting killed?

[vidcc]

i&#39;d still like to hear about Isreal not invading palestine...oh wait a moment, he said "like germany ivaded France" (actually he said like germany IS invading France so i&#39;d better point out that ww2 is over). So a partial invasion is just huh?

there are several hard lined republicans on this board, some not actually party soldiers but Bush supporters none the less, and i have to say that i respect them and their opinions even if i disagree with them. They do make intellegent debate.

but manny...i suggest you buy a newspaper or read a history book every now and then. You do a great dis-credit to conservatives.

EDIT:
Edit: I know this is useless trying to convince 5 liberals who will despise any Republican in the White House and hold the "I&#39;ll vote for a ham sandwich before I vote for Bush" Ideology so I won&#39;t bother for more useless clarification... I have made my point for real moderates who wander in and see this thread.


I would vote republican, but not Bush jnr. So they lost at least one vote by having him as the candidate.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Busyman@3 August 2004 - 05:29
I have a thread about Bush and the good he&#39;s done.
That was a great thread. I think that it got lost in the big delete though.

[clocker]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+3 August 2004 - 09:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 3 August 2004 - 09:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@3 August 2004 - 05:29
I have a thread about Bush and the good he&#39;s done.
That was a great thread. I think that it got lost in the big delete though. [/b][/quote]
No.

I think it was moved to Funny Stuff.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc@3 August 2004 - 11:12
I would vote republican, but not Bush jnr. So they lost at least one vote by having him as the candidate.
I too am not oblivious to voting Republican either.


It would have been better maybe if GW had Congressional experience.

[spinningfreemanny]

Sorry for the error vidcc; it was about 3 in the morning and I was watching Conan O&#39;brien while typing that response B) .

But, if you think that the current infadia is remotely akin to the mindset and methods of WW2, Then its you my friend that has to read a history book.

Yes, I know that your trying to give me perspective form Iraq&#39;s point of view, but the simple truth is that I don&#39;t harbor perspectives of crazy dictators and terrorists.

Aaaaand, hitting the final point: I&#39;m not a have it all out Bush defender; This is my arguement for the Iraqi war, not his. In fact I disagree with him on many issues (the ignoring of Sudan and the refusal of support to uproot the Hamas terrorists spring to mind, but thats another topic).


K, off the soapbax and done; ream me however you wish. :01:

[SuperJude™]

My turn then;

clocker- it is nobodies place to decide what I get mad at and what I don&#39;t. The people who attacked us did so cause the wanted to, make no mistake about that. I am 34 and came up as a youth with Nixon, &#39;Nam and OPEC, so my take on the Presidency has always been that the regular guy gets screwed, even by somebody like Carter that I liked. It is what it is. I&#39;m on lunch right now but later I will thread dig and find my statements about other possible reasons we are in Iraq.

Part of what bugs me is this: Supposedly the Republicans (or should I use the button words Cheney&#33; Rumsfel&#33; Halliburton&#33;?) have this ultra secret agenda, and yet we all know about it? Not very secret you ask me, and it is with that arrogance that the liberals on the left have danced, which would cost Kerry the election if he stood by it.

Notice him change his tune? Now he is a middle of the road Democrat? Cause I did. So they are all full of it, and no I don&#39;t get angry at Bush. Rather over the last two years I think he is a lot less "evil" than many in the media, online and irl portray him. I think all Presidents withold info and are duplicitous, just like Kerry would be if he got elected. I simply need nobody else to tell me how to feel.

Or what I love is how some of you care so much (&#33;) about the poor Iraqi&#39;s and their wonderful country that was soooo modern before.

When what I hear from the couple people I know over there is the Iraqi&#39;s rather expect to have a better infrastructure now. And the Iraq as middle class wondrland is bullshit because I myself did a little research and did ya know that Sadr City, which is in Baghdad, home to over a million people, has no running water in most of it, and did not before the war either?

It is called spin.

The spin I see personally is people viciously attacking a President and sometimes even our country when perhaps they should be grateful for what they have. Or would some of you rather Gore had been President these last 4 years........?

Lame Liberal At Jude&#39;s Job Story Of The Day- I could do one of these daily, seriously, but todays episode based on NY Times headlines is that the terror alerts and the reasons for them may be based on old intelligence (gotta love the liberal press. They started planning 9-11 in the mid 90&#39;s, and had we known things may have been different. Would that count as &#39;old intelligence?), so random middle aged liberal states that "any time the Democrats start getting any attention they (meaning the Republicans) raise the alert level to take attention away".

He really meant this like it was pure fact that if any Democrat gets any attention the Republicans raise the alert level. Educated looking guy, nice car, and he babbles crap like that.

It is no wonder that in the next couple months you will see Kerry emerge as middle of the road, since he no longers needs to cater to the liberal crowd as much. Bank on it.

-SJ™

[clocker]

Frankly, I would have preferred that Nader had been President the last 4 years but, failing that, yup...Gore would have better in my opinion.

About your "Lame Liberal" story du jour....
If in fact the intelligence dates back as early as four years ago, then why the hell has it gained so much urgency today?
Furthermore, why are these target sites still unsecured?
Haven&#39;t we been spending billions on "Homeland Security"?
What has Tom Ridge been doing the past few years if not analyzing potential threats and working to prevent their occurance?
If he is only now waking up to the fact that bloody Wall Street fer crissakes might be a potentially irresistable target to terrorists, then perhaps we could come up with someone a little brighter to head our national security.

But I guess that would just be Liberal opinion, eh?

[SuperJude™]

Honestly I think the problems are bigger than partisan politics, and that is what I mean by the regular guys and gals getting screwed. We get played to think one side means one thing etc, when really the issues greatly outweigh Bush vs. Kerry. The billions the gave out for 9-11? You read how many people scammed them that they know about? Of course as you mentioned there still isn&#39;t sufficient security in the most vulnerable of spots (though I know people who have guarded the bridges and they say things are more locked down than you would think).

I see trouble in bigger swarms than what is fed to us, and thus I will not participate and Bush bash when I believe the man does care about this country in whatever manner he does, as does John Kerry.

I can only surmise since frankly unless one of us is in intelligence then we don&#39;t really know do we? After Madrid we would be fools to let our guard down. I would rather them raise the alerts than be wrong and not. I would rather them start patrolling places than not at all.

clocker if you are a liberal I hope you are a real liberal, not todays whiny, mean, closed minded pushy version that sell themselves as the liberal left.


-SJ™

[clocker]

SJ,
I honestly don&#39;t know what a liberal is.
You may be surprised to learn that when I visited j2 we got along like long lost buddies.
None of the (apparent) friction that we generate here on the forum.
Yet he is the (ultra-articulate) voice of conservatism here and I am anything but.
Go figure.
Apparently Liberals and Conservatives can co-exist just dandy when there is enough rum at hand.

The problems we face today are not helped at all by reducing people to nebulously defined labels, but there you have it...it&#39;s the way we operate, seemingly.
Personally, I think the trend has grown more vicious since Bush became President...we&#39;re back to the glory days of "Love it or leave it" and "America-right or wrong&#33;"...nonsense I thought we had moved beyond.

[Busyman]

I myself rarely use the word liberal, conservative, moderate, Republican, Independent, Democrat, (Federalist, or Whig :lol: ).

I support who closely supports my agenda.

Alot of times my list choices get narrower an narrower.

Bush or Kerry, I pick Kerry.

Some believe Kerry won&#39;t help secure this country and they will Bush.
An example: Some gay guy on Bill Maher said he would vote for Bush because of this issue even though Bush would like to make an ammendment to ban gay marraige.

Security was obviously more important to him but...
It seems the Patriot Act and the Iraq War is what defines Bush as hard nosed towards security. Everything else is rather "normal".

If that&#39;s what defines Bush in regards to security then I feel Kerry can about it in a different way, a better way.

Could anyone see Bush helping to negotiate a peace accord?
No
He ain&#39;t sharp enough, not even after his Presidency.
How about for hostages?

Someone tell me why I should vote for Bush, please?
(I know I&#39;m off from my post but please oblige) :D

edit: Oh and btw I am not rich.

[SuperJude™]

clocker well in chat, RF and I get along just swimmingly, and I only met him for a moment irl and he seemed like a great guy, but a message board is a different thought process, especially cause you can read something again and again. My use of the term liberal atm stems entirely from where I live and the fact that I deal with a decent cross cut of the public both local and from abroad. The disdainful tone I take online when I use the term "liberal" you must understand comes directly from who I deal with and what I read. I find many of these people to be 2 faced and closed minded, and irl have alienated a person like me, which I now see as a good thing, for since I also could never stand the conservatives I believe it has forced me to be more pragmatic than I have ever been capable about a thing such as politics.

busyman- Because Kerry is a billionaire and if you think he has our best interests in mind any more than any other billionaire, then you may be suprised at the results. Not saying I am voting for Bush, but you asked for a reason so there is one.

Israel- Bonus points to whomever can tell me what other country was created by the same people who created Israel, which also has nuclear arms and a history of violence, but which never gets treated in the same manner as the Pariah status Isreael has attained. I really believe there is still a lot of anti semitism out there waiting to rear its&#39; head again. Israel builds a fence to finally say "we do not want to war with these people, we will keep them out", and a resolution is drawn up to dismanlte it immediatly by the UN to support a World Court (and who are they again...) decision. Israel, the only democratic country in the Middle East, treated again and again like the problem because they "occupy Palestine" when what about the other country carved out for a muslim population mentioned above? I am disturbed that much of that region thinks only the end of Israel, and indeed all jews (sound familiar?) will be the solution to their problems. Also seems to me that a lot of European countries let this shit go down.

Say what you want about America, but we do promote religious freedom. The defacing of a Mosque is investigated with the same work as that of a Temple or Church. That is the truth. I read people comparing America to germany, sure, it&#39;s lame, but I have also read people trying to make that correlation with Israel too.

Point? Perhaps there is a more fundamental problem in the Middle East and especially the entirety of the Muslim dominated countries that could stand some changing, because this irrational hatred of all things Jew and American will never improve their region. Maybe in the long run, the American presence there will affect this type of positive change.

-SJ™

[Rat Faced]

Pakistan.

Do i win a cookie?

I have pointed out recently that Pakistan is also known to have given the technology to other countries, again pharia states... in this case Iran.


SJ,

If they built the wall on their own land, i dont think anyone would give a monkeys.

They havent, they&#39;ve built it on Palestinian Land and stopped a lot of Palestinians being able to work their own land, as they live on the opposite side of the wall.

Liken it, if you will to Canada deciding to build a wall to keep Americans out... however instead of the Border, the wall cut New York State (and all the other States along the border) into two... for all practical purposes annexing them into Canada.

Im sure the USA wouldnt be too pleased with that.... although if they built a wall just inside their own border; there might be moans, but it would be acknowledged that it was their land, and they can do what they want on their own land.

They have also, after agreeing not to build any more on the occupied territories with Bush... just announced another 600 homes to be built on occupied land.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@3 August 2004 - 17:07
Pakistan.

Do i win a cookie?


Well RF, if you hurry into the chat room I believe there is a last Oreo that the stoners in the "legalize Drugs" thread haven&#39;t discovered yet.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@3 August 2004 - 14:45
Israel, the only democratic country in the Middle East, treated again and again like the problem because they "occupy Palestine" when what about the other country carved out for a muslim population mentioned above?
not precisely the same thing, Pakistan and Palestine. the region that would become Pakistan was already predominantly Muslim at the time of that country&#39;s creation. a very small percentage of the people were Sikhs, and an even smaller percentage were Hindus. people can argue in circles about whether the Palestinians have a historical claim to Israel, and it shouldn&#39;t be too hard to find a pro-Israel organization which&#39;ll gladly tell you that there&#39;s really no such thing as a Palestinian so the Palestinians should all shove off to Jordan or Lebanon or wherever. imho, it&#39;s sorta like telling all Canadians to move to the U.S. or all New Zealanders to move to Australia &#39;cause they&#39;re all the same anyway... or pretty similar, at least.

the creation of Pakistan was less controversial &#39;cause they didn&#39;t have to dissolve another nation and evict its people in order to do it. the people who live in Pakistan now are pretty much the same people who lived there before it was "carved out." some people did oppose it, though. if it lends any moral authority, it doesn&#39;t hurt to point out that Gandhi opposed the severing of Pakistan from India. but then again, he was also against the creation of a new Jewish state out of Palestine.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@3 August 2004 - 11:10
But, if you think that the current infadia is remotely akin to the mindset and methods of WW2, Then its you my friend that has to read a history book.

Times change but underlying results are similar

All i am trying to figure out is where you draw the line of acceptable, you appear to think that anything is acceptable as long as it agrees with American actions but the same standards do not apply in reverse.
I make this statement from the impression I get reading your posts.



Yes, I know that your trying to give me perspective form Iraq&#39;s point of view, but the simple truth is that I don&#39;t harbor perspectives of crazy dictators and terrorists.


How can you therefore be just if you are unable to accept any other view than your own on the basis of your pre defined criteria?
Again you bring up terrorist, where is your hard evidence ( suspecting someone is not the same as that person being guilty by the way )

Remember as Americans we get to democratically elect our leaders. The people of the lands we invade have no say in who we elect so why do we feel that we have a say in their land?


Aaaaand, hitting the final point: I&#39;m not a have it all out Bush defender; This is my arguement for the Iraqi war, not his. In fact I disagree with him on many issues (the ignoring of Sudan and the refusal of support to uproot the Hamas terrorists spring to mind, but thats another topic).


I haven&#39;t suggested that you are defending Bush but you do seem to be quoting from the Bush book of excuses sometimes :D

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Busyman@3 August 2004 - 15:10
Someone tell me why I should vote for Bush, please?
(I know I&#39;m off from my post but please oblige) :D

edit: Oh and btw I am not rich.
If I may let me turn this question around on you: why are you going to vote for Kerry? Just because he isn’t Bush? What do you see in him that makes you think that he will be a better leader than Bush?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+4 August 2004 - 12:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 4 August 2004 - 12:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@3 August 2004 - 15:10
Someone tell me why I should vote for Bush, please?
(I know I&#39;m off from my post but please oblige) :D

edit: Oh and btw I am not rich.
If I may let me turn this question around on you: why are you going to vote for Kerry? Just because he isn’t Bush? What do you see in him that makes you think that he will be a better leader than Bush? [/b][/quote]
kerry (http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html)

bush (http://www.georgewbush.com/Agenda/)

Read their manifestos and make up your our minds

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+4 August 2004 - 14:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 4 August 2004 - 14:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@3 August 2004 - 15:10
Someone tell me why I should vote for Bush, please?
(I know I&#39;m off from my post but please oblige) :D

edit: Oh and btw I am not rich.
If I may let me turn this question around on you: why are you going to vote for Kerry? Just because he isn’t Bush? What do you see in him that makes you think that he will be a better leader than Bush? [/b][/quote]
Answering a question with a question? :blink:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc@4 August 2004 - 13:08

Aaaaand, hitting the final point: I&#39;m not a have it all out Bush defender; This is my arguement for the Iraqi war, not his. In fact I disagree with him on many issues (the ignoring of Sudan and the refusal of support to uproot the Hamas terrorists spring to mind, but thats another topic).


I haven&#39;t suggested that you are defending Bush but you do seem to be quoting from the Bush book of excuses sometimes :D
Yes, yes, it&#39;s called Bush defending.

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by vidcc+4 August 2004 - 17:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 4 August 2004 - 17:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-spinningfreemanny@3 August 2004 - 11:10
But, if you think that the current infadia is remotely akin to the mindset and methods of WW2, Then its you my friend that has to read a history book.

Times change but underlying results are similar

All i am trying to figure out is where you draw the line of acceptable, you appear to think that anything is acceptable as long as it agrees with American actions but the same standards do not apply in reverse.
I make this statement from the impression I get reading your posts.



Yes, I know that your trying to give me perspective form Iraq&#39;s point of view, but the simple truth is that I don&#39;t harbor perspectives of crazy dictators and terrorists.


How can you therefore be just if you are unable to accept any other view than your own on the basis of your pre defined criteria?
Again you bring up terrorist, where is your hard evidence ( suspecting someone is not the same as that person being guilty by the way )

Remember as Americans we get to democratically elect our leaders. The people of the lands we invade have no say in who we elect so why do we feel that we have a say in their land?


Aaaaand, hitting the final point: I&#39;m not a have it all out Bush defender; This is my arguement for the Iraqi war, not his. In fact I disagree with him on many issues (the ignoring of Sudan and the refusal of support to uproot the Hamas terrorists spring to mind, but thats another topic).


I haven&#39;t suggested that you are defending Bush but you do seem to be quoting from the Bush book of excuses sometimes :D [/b][/quote]
The political arena changed with 9-11; It was a huge wake up call to the U.S. that there was a call to action to be made against the United States&#39; enemies;Thats why it saddens me that Spain does not act on the aggressor; instead vouching for hiding and ultimately giving their countries control to the influence of madmen. We should always have ours and our allies interests first.


I have neve made any pre defined criteria; In fact I&#39;ve made it a point to specify that most situations are unique from each other. Where is your line though vidcc? Do American civilians have to die in order for action?

I&#39;m convinced that Hussein would not pass an opportunity to hurt the United States; he had every reason to and no reason not to.

Soon Iraq will be able to democratically elect their leaders too; whens the last time they were able to do that? maybe never.

Edit: pressed tab and enter...automatic post when you use internet explorer :smilie4:

[clocker]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@4 August 2004 - 17:24


I&#39;m convinced that Hussein would not pass an opportunity to hurt the United States; he had every reason to and no reason not to.


Both true ( probably).
However, did he have the means to do anything about his not-so-secret desires?

NOPE.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Busyman+4 August 2004 - 18:04--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 4 August 2004 - 18:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@4 August 2004 - 14:23
<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@3 August 2004 - 15:10
Someone tell me why I should vote for Bush, please?
(I know I&#39;m off from my post but please oblige) :D

edit: Oh and btw I am not rich.
If I may let me turn this question around on you: why are you going to vote for Kerry? Just because he isn’t Bush? What do you see in him that makes you think that he will be a better leader than Bush?
Answering a question with a question? :blink: [/b][/quote]
Busy I know that you remember the thread that you made called Bush and the good he’s done, you even referenced it recently in a post. I pointed out a number of positive things that the President has done during his term. There’s no need for you and I to go over this again.

That brings me to my question. Why vote for Kerry?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+4 August 2004 - 20:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 4 August 2004 - 20:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@4 August 2004 - 18:04

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@4 August 2004 - 14:23
<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@3 August 2004 - 15:10
Someone tell me why I should vote for Bush, please?
(I know I&#39;m off from my post but please oblige) :D

edit: Oh and btw I am not rich.
If I may let me turn this question around on you: why are you going to vote for Kerry? Just because he isn’t Bush? What do you see in him that makes you think that he will be a better leader than Bush?
Answering a question with a question? :blink:
Busy I know that you remember the thread that you made called Bush and the good he’s done, you even referenced it recently in a post. I pointed out a number of positive things that the President has done during his term. There’s no need for you and I to go over this again.

That brings me to my question. Why vote for Kerry? [/b][/quote]
No, no, I recall no positives in that thread (besides a laugh).

Hmmmm....maybe you did mention that the economy was turning around on page 6 or something..Oh wait&#33;&#33;

The thread was deleted before the economy made the "leap" that we see today.

[BigBank_Hank]

What I find amusing is that you can’t come up for a reason for voting for Kerry beside he isn’t George W. Bush, which is why you continue to attack him.

Lets try this for the third time. Why are going to vote for John Kerry?

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by clocker+4 August 2004 - 23:44--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 4 August 2004 - 23:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-spinningfreemanny@4 August 2004 - 17:24


I&#39;m convinced that Hussein would not pass an opportunity to hurt the United States; he had every reason to and no reason not to.


Both true ( probably).
However, did he have the means to do anything about his not-so-secret desires?

NOPE. [/b][/quote]
How hard is it to drop a couple of million on a terrorist group?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@4 August 2004 - 17:24
The political arena changed with 9-11; It was a huge wake up call to the U.S. that there was a call to action to be made against the United States&#39; enemies;Thats why it saddens me that Spain does not act on the aggressor; instead vouching for hiding and ultimately giving their countries control to the influence of madmen. We should always have ours and our allies interests first.






What changed on 911 was the fact the the USA had to face upto facts and not be so arrogant as to think it was so powerful that it was invincable. What didn&#39;t change was the right to attack any country that "looked at us funny"
Iraq wasn&#39;t the agressor...we were

Again i ask is it right that the cost of any mistakes made is worth the price as long as it&#39;s not the USA paying the price.

Your justification on iraq is based on the moved goalposts after the bad intelligence came to light.


I have neve made any pre defined criteria; In fact I&#39;ve made it a point to specify that most situations are unique from each other. Where is your line though vidcc? Do American civilians have to die in order for action?

yes you did..you said you pay no attention to "mad dictators or terrorists".... pray tell me why you feel the USA was a target, after all what could we have done to upset anyone?
And no American civilians don&#39;t have to die, but you had better be sure of your facts before american soldiers kill foriegn civilians ( oops sorry that is colateral and it&#39;s not american civilians dying so it&#39;s a price worth paying )


I&#39;m convinced that Hussein would not pass an opportunity to hurt the United States;


Oh well if you had only told us this from the start...after all that is hard evidence indeed...i&#39;m converted...better invade all the other countries that don&#39;t like us.


he had every reason to and no reason not to.

and what would those reasons be then?. I ask this because you say he has every reason to attack us


Soon Iraq will be able to democratically elect their leaders too; whens the last time they were able to do that? maybe never.


do you feel that this will stabalise the ME or have we made things worse?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+4 August 2004 - 20:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank &#064; 4 August 2004 - 20:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> What I find amusing is that you can’t come up for a reason for voting for Kerry beside he isn’t George W. Bush, which is why you continue to attack him.

Lets try this for the third time. Why are going to vote for John Kerry? [/b]
<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@ 4 August 2004 - 19:04
Answering a question with a question? :blink: [/quote]

[vidcc]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@4 August 2004 - 18:40
How hard is it to drop a couple of million on a terrorist group?
with thinking like this is it any wonder the USA is a target.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Busyman+4 August 2004 - 19:49--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 4 August 2004 - 19:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@4 August 2004 - 20:39
What I find amusing is that you can’t come up for a reason for voting for Kerry beside he isn’t George W. Bush, which is why you continue to attack him.

Lets try this for the third time. Why are going to vote for John Kerry?
<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@ 4 August 2004 - 19:04
Answering a question with a question? :blink: [/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol: You can’t do it can you?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@4 August 2004 - 19:32

:lol:&nbsp; :lol:&nbsp; :lol: You can’t do it can you?
I did...i put links to both official websites so you can read their policies

[clocker]

I found the Bush link to be funnier than anything I&#39;ve seen on TV lately ( well..maybe not funnier than Reno 911, but they are trying to be humorous).

I guess it just exemplifies the folly of electing politicians based on what they say they will do.
Based on his professed policies, hell...I&#39;d vote for Bush.
Based on what he&#39;s actually done to implement them...ha&#33;

With Bush, I feel that things will only get worse.
So yes, this year I feel that ABB IS a completely viable and responsible atitude to have.

[SuperJude™]

And see I am of the "disease was there and we only treated the symptoms" school of thought. Things got worse cause of what happened before Bush, and all I am saying is what does Mr. Kerry really represent?

I know what Bush represents and I know he loves this country, while I know Kerry loves this country but what exactly does he represent?

Mind you, his speech was......... I wish I had written it. Whomever the writer was, or if he wrote it himself, I was impressed.

Then again I get weepy when I read Gehrigs&#39; farewell at the stadium speech, so point being I would feel better if it was not August and I still knew nothing about this guy.

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, the people who have come to Presidency while I have been an adult, I knew who they were in August. Kerry is still a question mark and what he seems to be (sorry to rip you off BigBankHank) is Not Bush.

-SJ™

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@4 August 2004 - 22:35
Mind you, his speech was......... I wish I had written it. Whomever the writer was, or if he wrote it himself, I was impressed.
You are easily impressed. I thought that his speech was laughable and full of contradictions. More of the usual from John Kerry though.

[SuperJude™]

Hardly. Rather, I thought that considering Kerry seemed to have at that point been embracing a very liberal left group of constituants, he then went "mainstream" in his Convention speech, which is of course standard fare for any politician. It was a good speech, regardless of the mans own particular beliefs. Like it or not, it was.

;)

-SJ™

[spinningfreemanny]

Kinda boring, but it didn&#39;t make me mad.

Kinda ironic though that he "reports for duty" for president but cannot support his Veit Nam buddies when he gets back from war...

[j2k4]

SJ and Hank-

Kerry&#39;s speech, as a "stand-alone" piece, was a relatively inspiring piece, but only if you had your back to the TV screen and could imagine someone else saying the words.

As SJ says, it was certainly not evocative of John Effing Kerry.

As a representative "portrait", it was obviously painted with someone else&#39;s brush.

To be totally honest, I started giggling at "...reporting for duty..." and didn&#39;t stop for, oh...about 55 minutes. :lol:

Of course, that&#39;s just me.

I&#39;m sure others found it inspiring.

[spinningfreemanny]

Again; we are the only ones that were willing to pay the price; read up a couple pages ago; I already explained this.

Your "moved goalposts" arguement is only refusal to accept the reasons.

Because God will reward them if they attack America, thats why they hate us (I know you know this)

Its nice to know that you can handle dictators viewpoints, it shows me where your coming from (hopeless; I&#39;m argueing against one who has sentaments of a terrorist or dictator) Really; you will never be able to justify the actions of a terrorist or dictator to me by saying "its your fault&#33;"

Do you really need me to explain what the saying "he had every reason to"? (I can&#39;t believe I have to explain this) it means he will take any reason he can think of do to the simple fact that he hates us with a hatred that no one can comprehend.

We are to stablize Iraq; not the ME. Should we have kept them under a dictator because it made the ME stable?

It&#39;s apparent that you cannot grasp this reasoning and will take every random silly question or reason due to the fact that even if I made remote sensibility you could never admit it. For anymore questions; refer to previous posts.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+4 August 2004 - 21:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank &#064; 4 August 2004 - 21:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman+4 August 2004 - 19:49--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman &#064; 4 August 2004 - 19:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@4 August 2004 - 20:39
What I find amusing is that you can’t come up for a reason for voting for Kerry beside he isn’t George W. Bush, which is why you continue to attack him.

Lets try this for the third time. Why are going to vote for John Kerry?

Originally posted by Busyman@ 4 August 2004 - 19:04
Answering a question with a question? :blink: [/b]
:lol: :lol: :lol: You can’t do it can you? [/b]
...and you can&#39;t stop

Originally posted by Busyman@ 4 August 2004 - 19:04
Answering a question with a question? :blink:
<!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank @ 4 August 2004 &#045; 21:32@

:lol:&nbsp; :lol:&nbsp; :lol: You can’t[/quote]
.....stop doing
<!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank @ 4 August 2004 &#045; 21:32
it can you? [/quote]

[BigBank_Hank]

B-

Your original question was: why should I vote for Bush? Didn’t I already explain to you that we’ve been over this already? You had a 50 page thread where you and I went round and round on this issue.

What the hell does answering a question with a question have anything to do with the subject of discussion? You’re running away from the question because you don’t have an answer for it. So instead of trying to convince me to vote for Kerry, which is what I asked you to do, you’d rather play a silly little game of quoting quotes.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@5 August 2004 - 00:05
Again; we are the only ones that were willing to pay the price; read up a couple pages ago; I already explained this.








please quote as i can&#39;t find it




Your "moved goalposts" arguement is only refusal to accept the reasons.

the reason to go to war was WMD...NOT the "moved goalposts", they came later


Because God will reward them if they attack America, thats why they hate us (I know you know this)

:blink: the question was WHY is America a target...let me rephrase
What did America do that put it into a position where it was a target?
Why would God reward them if they attack America?

Its nice to know that you can handle dictators viewpoints, it shows me where your coming from (hopeless; I&#39;m argueing against one who has sentaments of a terrorist or dictator) Really; you will never be able to justify the actions of a terrorist or dictator to me by saying "its your fault&#33;"

you are a fucking idiot if you think i have a terrorists or dictators sentiments. If you are unable to try to understand something you dislike you are unable to understand the cause of any problem and therefore unable to solve it.


Do you really need me to explain what the saying "he had every reason to"? (I can&#39;t believe I have to explain this) it means he will take any reason he can think of do to the simple fact that he hates us with a hatred that no one can comprehend.
Again i need to put it in a way you understand.

What are those reasons?
I understand the concept of him having reasons, i would just like you to tell me what you think those reasons are


We are to stablize Iraq; not the ME. Should we have kept them under a dictator because it made the ME stable?
So we won&#39;t interfere with Iran...good.. ok do you feel we have created a stable iraq, or made things worse?


It&#39;s apparent that you cannot grasp this reasoning and will take every random silly question or reason due to the fact that even if I made remote sensibility you could never admit it. For anymore questions; refer to previous posts.
I can grasp it and if you come up with anything that actually answer the questions i ask i will accept it

[spinningfreemanny]

Ok, one Mo&#39; Time, straight answers...


please quote as i can&#39;t find it

I stated something similer to - They are our soldiers dying in Iraq...That is a price America&#39;s paying besides other resources


the reason to go to war was WMD...NOT the "moved goalposts", they came later

Again; This is not President Bush&#39;s reasons for Iraq; There my reasons; There are no goalposts to move, just deal with them.


Why would God reward them if they attack America?

For whatever excuses they can come up with; but to me it seems that they hate our lifestyle and our judeo-christian roots. But as of right now, Why does it matter? is there anything possible that would make terrorists love us? Their hate has transformed into a warping of Religion; how do you dissuade someone who has been called by God to kill you?


yes you did..you said you pay no attention to "mad dictators or terrorists".... pray tell me why you feel the USA was a target, after all what could we have done to upset anyone?


you are a fucking idiot if you think i have a terrorists or dictators sentiments. If you are unable to try to understand something you dislike you are unable to understand the cause of any problem and therefore unable to solve it

Not an exact quote from me, but nonetheless; From what I gleaned; if you cannot accept the ideology of me not having a POV of a dictator or terrorist, it&#39;s assumed that you believe that one should try to see it from their point of view.; in other words, sentiments.

Now I know that your not a dictator nor hold their beliefs but thats what your statements point to to me.


So we won&#39;t interfere with Iran...good.. ok do you feel we have created a stable iraq, or made things worse?

I really don&#39;t think that any sane individual will expect a complete stable Iraq in 2 years, But I am confident that a democratic Iraq will come into fruition. I just seen this little clip on the local news a couple of days ago about them creating a boys-girls soccer league. Tell me thats not cool. Do you really think that they had it or would have had it better under Saddam Hussein? And thats just in 2 years.


What are those reasons?I understand the concept of him having reasons, i would just like you to tell me what you think those reasons are

ok; rephrase: Saddam will give any excuse in order to attack the U.S., because he really does have the sentiments of terrorists. The American spy that clocker referenced to would do. I can see that all of your questions are leading to your point that the U.S. is at fault; Why can&#39;t you just state that? as I said before; There is no excuse or reason for the support and actions of terrorism.


Hopefully this will suffice, but somewhow I doubt it...

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@5 August 2004 - 11:04
B-

Your original question was: why should I vote for Bush? Didn’t I already explain to you that we’ve been over this already? You had a 50 page thread where you and I went round and round on this issue.

What the hell does answering a question with a question have anything to do with the subject of discussion? You’re running away from the question because you don’t have an answer for it. So instead of trying to convince me to vote for Kerry, which is what I asked you to do, you’d rather play a silly little game of quoting quotes.
No you didn&#39;t actually. I don&#39;t remember of whole thread full of reasons to vote for Bush (and no one else does either). I do remember a whole lot of "Reasons to vote for someone other than Bush."

If you read carefully the subject was O&#39;Reilly vs. Moore.
Pay attention and check the title of the thread you are now posting in.

While you spout about running away from a question, you are doing it everytime you post. :lol: :lol:

[vidcc]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@5 August 2004 - 11:22



What are those reasons?I understand the concept of him having reasons, i would just like you to tell me what you think those reasons are

ok; rephrase: Saddam will give any excuse in order to attack the U.S., because he really does have the sentiments of terrorists. The American spy that clocker referenced to would do. I can see that all of your questions are leading to your point that the U.S. is at fault; Why can&#39;t you just state that? as I said before; There is no excuse or reason for the support and actions of terrorism.


Hopefully this will suffice, but somewhow I doubt it...
I&#39;ll not go any futher with the other points as we are just going round in circles.

Saddam sentiments can only be assumed and assumtion is not fact.

Yes i agree that nothing justifies terrorism but you have to agree that if the USA takes unjust actions then they are at fault. And as i previously stated our losses due to our actions are not payment, the people that give the order for that unjust action should accept the concequenses.
One American spy is not a reason for war. But America has interfered in foriegn affairs and this is not without risk.
America is not to blame for the worlds woes but if we don&#39;t address the cause for these actions as well as punishing the actions then we will never be free from fear.

i would like to inject a though here
For whatever excuses they can come up with; but to me it seems that they hate our lifestyle and our judeo-christian roots.

Doesn&#39;t this seem that their actions are in reaction to what they see as us forcing our lifestyle upon them?

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Busyman+5 August 2004 - 14:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 5 August 2004 - 14:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@5 August 2004 - 11:04
B-

Your original question was: why should I vote for Bush? Didn’t I already explain to you that we’ve been over this already? You had a 50 page thread where you and I went round and round on this issue.

What the hell does answering a question with a question have anything to do with the subject of discussion? You’re running away from the question because you don’t have an answer for it. So instead of trying to convince me to vote for Kerry, which is what I asked you to do, you’d rather play a silly little game of quoting quotes.
No you didn&#39;t actually. I don&#39;t remember of whole thread full of reasons to vote for Bush (and no one else does either). I do remember a whole lot of "Reasons to vote for someone other than Bush."

If you read carefully the subject was O&#39;Reilly vs. Moore.
Pay attention and check the title of the thread you are now posting in.

While you spout about running away from a question, you are doing it everytime you post. :lol: :lol: [/b][/quote]
The title of the thread was Bush and the good he’s done. You asked for the Republicans of the board to talk about some of the good things that Bush has done during his term in office, which is exactly what I did. I didn’t come up with “excuses”.

And if you read back and look at the first reply to this topic you will see that I addressed the question directly and answered it. Unlike yourself I answered the question that was asked.

[spinningfreemanny]

Actually; I agree with most of whats said. Yeah, scared the hell out of me :o
I&#39;ll keep this short to wrap up.

True about consequences of unjust actions; but 12 resolutions = just war to me.

We do need an internal spotlight to effectively handle forign policy decisions; but I don&#39;t think that there could be any inward change on our part that should avoid war.

I don&#39;t think Democracy is a lifestyle, It&#39;s just the best form of government that we (by we, I mean the world in general) know of at this time. If another country comes up with a more effective and better system, well we should look into that.

Whats more restricting; a dictator telling you what religion to practice or a democratic government with the freedom to practice any religion?

Don&#39;t feel that you need to answer that

@Hank: apparently you need a thread titled "why is busyman going to vote for Kerry?" in order to get an answer.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny+5 August 2004 - 19:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (spinningfreemanny &#064; 5 August 2004 - 19:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> @Hank: apparently you need a thread titled "why is busyman going to vote for Kerry?" in order to get an answer. [/b]
@spinningfreemanny: apparently you know not what you talk about.

This is not an answer
<!--QuoteBegin-BigBank Hank
If I may let me turn this question around on you: why are you going to vote for Kerry? Just because he isn’t Bush? What do you see in him that makes you think that he will be a better leader than Bush? [/quote]

[Rat Faced]

True about consequences of unjust actions; but 12 resolutions = just war to me.



And here, ladies and gentlemen, is a declaration of war against about 20% of the countries that existed in the world prior to the breakup of the USSR.

Including Israel as "public enemy number one", with a wopping 18 UN Resolutions outstanding against it... not including the ones vetoed by the USA.


I don&#39;t think Democracy is a lifestyle, It&#39;s just the best form of government that we (by we, I mean the world in general) know of at this time. If another country comes up with a more effective and better system, well we should look into that.


Prove it.

When you do, please remember to take into account that there are few "pure" Democracies around, and neither the USA nor UK are included in that select club. In both these countries, a party can come to power with a minority of the electorate voting for them.. ie They do not have a true Proportional Representation system in place.

What you are doing is giving an opinion as to "what is best".

Contrary to popular belief, the public are stupid...often.

They wish services and they wish lower taxes, and will vote for these contradictory things.... they vote themselves "cakes and Circuses". This is the reason why politicians dont follow their manefestos anymore, its no longer possible.


A Democracy is based upon the theory that the many know better than the few, other systems belive that the few know more than the many...

Who decides which is best?


As long as there is a Free Market economy, it doesnt really matter which form of Government there is, a country will thrive. Repress "The Market" and it will not develope.

Different cultures wish different things out of life. Not everyone wants a Republican Democracy.

Hell, i&#39;d fight against one, im a Monarchist.

[j2k4]

The U.S. is not a democracy, it is a Representative Republic.

[SuperJude™]

I do not claim to know anything about the election in 2000 other than Gore could not carry his own state. I do not know the higher reasons to all that is now the Middle East.

I do know this though: The beauty of the American system of elections is that it is NOT just a populus vote or the US would be controlled by California, Texas, NY, Florida, Chigcago, Detroit and of course Washington.

Thus it really is a representitive republic something people who have not been fully exposed to may find hard to grasp and yet aside from stray wars and assasinated Presidents in motorcades, one that usually works.

-SJ™

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@10 August 2004 - 20:00
I do know this though: The beauty of the American system of elections is that it is NOT just a populus vote or the US would be controlled by California, Texas, NY, Florida, Michegan/Illinois and of course washington.

what one person might describe as a balanced playing field, another person might describe as overrepresentation. it&#39;s all complicated by the order in which the primaries are held, voter turnout levels, and the method of awarding electoral votes. sure, the value of each electoral vote is the same as every other one, but the effectiveness of each individual vote is totally unpredictable.

(edited on account of longwindedness)

[spinningfreemanny]

Well, we live in a great country where most people have it great; if people live a great life, then there is no motivation for change, thus, no reason to vote.