PDA

View Full Version : Iraq after the War



Rei
04-17-2003, 12:54 PM
Now that the war on Iraq has almost totally finnished, it would seem appropriate to concentrate more on the rebuilding and new goverment.

Although the general public are opposed to the American goverment just installing a puppet goverment in Iraq, in order for them to have cheap control over the large oil reserves, and to have a large foothold within Eastern Europe in order to pressurize the rest of the area to also give them cheap oil.

Rei

Bill
04-17-2003, 12:58 PM
........hmmmmmmmmm.............and you can back this up how?

kenmac
04-17-2003, 02:18 PM
Pretty antagonistic comment Rei.
Let me guess…You're a liberal…..

Rei
04-17-2003, 02:41 PM
No I am not. I do not have any piticular based viewpoint. I will comment on matters as I see to do so.

About my previous comment, I do have proof that this is what is happening. However none of it is acsesable at the present time. A large point comes from the Money program.

Ever since the late 80's there has been a decrease in the number of barrels of oil being found each year. This means that there is less and less oil to drill for. Also many of the oil wells that were being tapped are now running out of pressure. This means that, although there is still a large percent of the orignal oil still in there, it is very hard to get out. This results in a large price rise of the barrel. The reason America is so desprate to at least secure contracts with companies operating within Iraq, is because it will soon be imposible, using current technology, to obtain any oil any more.

Although I do not want to say that this war was based only upon the oil reserves that were previously unavalible to America because of Hussain. This was also partily responsable for Americas reluctent to use the UN to go to war, because it was the UN that stopped America from getting the oil. If it was not for these, then America would have never started this war on its own. (I consider Blair a subsiduary of Bush). Now that it is over, America will be able to secure oil contracts with companies within Iraq.

Rei

kenmac
04-17-2003, 04:06 PM
Say for arguments sake the US only did this for oil.
It appears that the Iraqi people don’t seem to mind now that they are not under Saddam.
So what is your point?

Rei
04-17-2003, 04:20 PM
ohh, maby i have spoken to much allready.

I do not have a problem with any force removing a dictator from power, especially when the dictator runs the country with no regard for the people who live in the country. I am glad that someone had the courage to remove Hussain, because i did not support that (see the war thread). However the Iraqi people do not yet know, on a whole, that America (going with what you have said) is going to put in a puppet govement, and use it to drink the Iraqi oil wells dry. Thats the point, that even though America and Britian say that they are going to make sure that the Iraqis gain from there own resources, that will not happen. Mainly because America can not afford to let that happen.

Rei

Meaty
04-17-2003, 10:13 PM
Well, a couple points of clarification.

Iraq's oil pumping technology is ancient and crumbling, just like everything in Iraq. Getting some new hardware in there would tap those reserves just fine. There is plenty in there to keep them going for quite a long time.

Second, the U.N. didn't stop the United States from getting Iraqi oil after the first Gulf War. We didn't invade Iraq then, we kicked them out of Kuwait. There was never any intention to March into Iraq with a giant red, white and blue straw and suck the oil out. The oil for food program was sqandered by saddam to build palaces and illegally boulster the military.

Third, this so called puppet government that has been popular to talk about is a little unnerving for a couple of reasons. The United States has been involved in quite a few conflicts this century. Would you say that the German, Italian, and Japanese governments are mere puppets of the United States? I sure wouldn't. Consider this also. Put yourself in the shoes of Bush and Blair. Imagine you just led a monumental effort and successfully ousted a dictator. Would you really allow a government to come into power that is sympathetic to the cause which you were just fighting against? Of course not. That would be pretty damned dumb if you ask me. As a result, we find ourselves in a bit of a sticky situation. The government that will take over will naturally be symapthetic to the causes the Coalition were fighting for. So there is a government which sees eye to eye and is tightly aligned with U.S. policy/military. It would have to be or else there would be a power vacuum. This situation is simply a catch-22. The only outcome that would result in people not calling the new Iraqi regime a puppet goverment, would be if they immediately disagreed with the U.S. on everything. This obviously won't happen. So, there is now a government which is involved with the United States. Does that inheritly mean it is a puppet government? Not at all. We will gladly BUY Iraqi oil, provide stability to the country, end Saddam's torturings, and not ask for a dime of the $80 Billion already allocated for the first year in Iraq. So, if people want to complain about a puppet government, well, I suppose complainers will always find something to complain about, and given the catch-22 presented in how this will 'look' no matter what, I don't really care. Quality of life in Iraq will improve, the American economy will improve, and any economist will tell you, that is good for the entire world.

Rei
04-18-2003, 12:05 PM
yeah.

I never said that no one will be able to tapp the oil fields, however even with the inclusion of these new fields, the worlds supply of oil could run out within 20-50 years. Think about that for a moment, there will be a change coming soon.

I never said that I support Saddam, or what he did for the country. However even if the companies that do start extracting the Iraqi oil appear to be fair, they are not going to give 100% of the profit to Iraq, something which I belive that they should do. This is because of the Oil crisis. If it were to be fair, there should be only Iraqi companies tapping the oil. This isnt going to happen, so whatever goverment is in place, it Will have to comply with America when it comes to giving them cheap oil, puppet goverment or not.

The reason America needs the oil so badly (im about to go off again) is because of its relcutance to modernise. The majority of cars over there are very inefficent, fuel using machines. If the American goverment had the balls to stand up and say, we must stop using huge cars, stop using so much oil, they would probably get taken over by the people. As a result, there wont be a change in the American society, and there is a good probability of wars being started over oil. In some ways, this was another 'pre-emptive strike' that America is so fond of using, but jumps up and down like a headless chicken (ive scene them) when somone else wants to do it (NK)

Rei

Bill
04-18-2003, 01:08 PM
Rei,
I was actually starting to see your point of view; you seemed to be somewhat opened minded and looked at all aspects of a situation. But with this last thread you showed your true colors. This war was not over the oil. It was partly because the UN would not live up to its word: It was over the lack of compliance from the Hitler stylistic regime in Iraq: It was because Iraq kept thumbing its nose at the UN. Oil might have been an ASPECT of it but not the underlining cause of the war. You need to quit blowing smoke and look at the bigger picture or are you as narrowed minded as the French and support a Hitler stylistic regime?

Rei
04-18-2003, 01:16 PM
I dont know about that, Im not sure I have any true colours, but hey.

I dont want to say that this war is/was totally about Oil, because I know it is not. If I came across as just saying that, then I didnt mean it. I am glad that someone could acctually follow there own way, and propose something, and then do it. I congratulate America for removing Saddam, and I hope that what replaces him, stands a chance of representing the Iraqi people, whos country is drawn up over a line in the sand.

I certainly do not support a Hitleristic regime anywhere. And I would not consider myself to be narrow minded (the opposite).

Rei

Prosprctor
04-19-2003, 10:03 AM
:) AHH
a new thread..




The reason America needs the oil so badly (im about to go off again) is because of its relcutance to modernise.
HHHUUUUUU:confused:

We are the most modernized country there is....

Over here we have market freedoms, if people want those slow,plastic cars they would buy them, we don't want the government to tell us how or what to drive.
That is NOT a government operation allowed by the Constitution.

There have been companies trying to get those eggcrates on the roads and they keep going broke. The people don't want them...

We have enough oil in Alaska (as big as Saudi Arabia, by reputable estimates,and NOT by enviromentalist wacko whinnings) to last for a long time, also there are hundreds of oil wells around Texas, Oklahoma, Lousiana, Wyoming, California that are just shut off because the price of oil is too low to make it worthwhile to pump. They usually start them when the 40 dollar mark is reached, so there is plenty of oil.


So what REALLY needs to be done in Iraq is to let people know by radio,TV, papers, just who wanted them to keep being slaughtered by Saddam;

Like the UN, who stopped the co-alition in 91 to remove Saddam, and resulted in hundreds of thousands of Iraquis being killed.

Like thier supposed friends around the Mid-East who did NOTHING to help the people of Iraq so they could get goodies from Saddam.

Like the UN in the last 12 years who wouldn't keep thier word and kept Saddam in power just to kill more Iraqis.

Like the French who tried to stop the UK, US, and the rest from liberating them now.

This SHOULD be made known to the Iraqis now so they can make an informed decision about who can get those rebuilding contracts and oil contracts, and who of thier neighboring countries are REALLY friends (like Kuwaite) and REALLY thier enemies (like Syria and Iran). And that Al-Jasseria TV is juat a mouthpiece for the dictators and terrorists in the region.

Rei
04-19-2003, 10:25 AM
No they are not.

Japan is the most modernised country that there is. (and i wouldnt just say that) However Britian is also quite modern, socialy (not technology that is just Japan and China...)

Sure Americans may not want to drive big cars anymore, but they still want to drive, prehaps it is time that the goverment took some bold steps in saying that people should have to get smaller efficent cars (like the smart cars in europe).

The quotas I gave for oil were not based on "wacco tree huggers" but by several large Oil firms, and prospecting companies. These took into account the oil that can be produced from Texas and Alaska. Also Alaska does not have more Oil than the mid-east.

I agree that the Iraqis need to know what is happening but, it is not just to say that the UN wanted to leave sadam in power. If they had wanted to remove him in 91, then it would have to be called an Invasion, not a counter attack. This would have meant a large amount of burocracy...

I know this is a little harsh, but did you ever wonder why the powerstations were taken out, it is to provide a falling US economy with rebuilding contracts so that they do not have to walk down the path they need to for a while longer. This is also the reason America was reluctant to secure Baghdad as soon as they entered. It would have been quite simple to take control of the hospitals and banks quite easly, esp with the ammount of troops the US has. But no, they were happy to let them be raided so that they could help with the building. Even if they say that it is to help the Iraqis, it is more to help the US than them. The Iraqis would survive without them, The US would not.

Rei

Meaty
04-19-2003, 11:34 AM
Rei,

America is a big place. The average person spends 25 to 30 minutes commuting each way to work every day. That being the case, people want to be in big cars and stay safe and comfortable. I will say that i HATE SUVs with a passion. Most people don't need them and they are indeed a sign of the excess in American culture. Has anyone seen the Cadilac Escalade? Or as I like to call it, the Excesslade? It is just a monstrosity. In any event, they are gas guzzlers, and they and comprable automobiles like them ARE popular, and YES this is a problem IMO. But it is also not fair to say that the government isnt doing anything about it. There are plenty of enviro friendly initiatives in this respect. For example, there are sizable tax breaks for people who drive the hybrid gas/electric cars, and I commute around the Capital Beltway everyday and see a good number of them. There is also a gas guzzler TAX for SUV owners. The President also stated in his State of the Union address that he intends to put forth initiaves to give incentives to automobile manufacturers to continue development of Hydrogen Fuel Cells to reduce dependency on foreign oil.

We have come a very long way since the 70s.

ted
04-19-2003, 11:46 AM
It's insane to ASSume the US spent all that money to make a 30%-70% return on it's money. What world are you from?

But go ahead and make up your reality if it makes you feel smarter or better.

Funny how many of the people pissing on the US and what we've done, never give a solution of what should have been done, when, and how.

It's much easier to ***** and moan then to do something about it!
But then, it's obvious these people have an agenda that reality just won't support.

Rei
04-19-2003, 11:49 AM
Meaty,

I realise that my view on american cars is not 100% accurate, the last time I was in America was 3or4 years ago. Thankyou for pointing out that there are many people in American cities that use 'clean' cars, and that there are taxes on gas-guzzlers.

I would like to point out an artice I read in New Scientist a month ago. It stated that the US goverment is acctually making it easier for companies to buy SUV's and gain tax returns on them. This contradics what you said. Another thing about SUV's they are more likly to kill you if you are involved in a RTA with them.

This is a little ignorant of me, because I have spent my time living in cities with good public transport.

Rei

Meaty
04-19-2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Rei
I would like to point out an artice I read in New Scientist a month ago. It stated that the US goverment is acctually making it easier for companies to buy SUV's and gain tax returns on them. This contradics what you said. Another thing about SUV's they are more likly to kill you if you are involved in a RTA with them.

That is probably referring to the fact that all business expenditures are inheritly less expensive than private persons purchasing something. This is because, in America, corporations are taxed on profit after expenditures which includes, pencils, pens, computers, rent, salaries, and of course company cars. People however, are taxed before expenses are calculated.

Unless the article points to a specific loophole or Bill, then I would be pretty doubtful that the government makes it any more appealing to buy SUVs than any other automobile.

Rei
04-19-2003, 02:32 PM
I looked around for the article, but i couldnt find it. However i think it did motion that it was better for them to get SUV's because they could get them for around $400!

Can we get back on topic, instead of someone *ahem* having a go at the US.

Rei

Prosprctor
04-19-2003, 07:06 PM
Man oh man, what are you guys (or gals? ) smokin????

I would rather be in a Hummer or an escalaide than one of those electric/gas hybrids, during an accident.

Right now I run a 62 international Pickup with NO seatbelts (which it origionally never came with, and it just drives the police mad cuz they can't give me a ticket :D )

And the steel the body is made of will out crush just about any car built since 85. I love it and will never let it go. Also run a jeep when wheelin.

Once Anwar is open in Alaska we will have oil up the yingyang.
So we really don't need Iraq oil (we only get 3% now).

Also we should let the Iraqis know that France, Germany, Russia, and thier mideast friends don't want the Iraqs to turn on thier own oil, and would rather see them starve than sell thier own oil.

And YES the UN wanted to leave Saddam in power.
If ya do nothing to remove him, you in effect agree with him.

No beurocracy, we were halfway there already till the UN and all Iraqs neighbors said we couldn't go all the way.


So they should be told every little secret about all thier so called friends, and the UN.

I wanna see it ALL come out before ther Iraqis decide on thier future.
They might even ask us to attack thier neighbors AND France:D

Rei
04-20-2003, 02:01 AM
I think you are the reason most people dont want to get the smaller cars. If people like you dropped the huge machines, then there would be less fatal RTA's.

I doubt anyone would go to war with France, allthough they are unpopular, they do have a large Nuke comppatible air force and navy. If a war started out it would be Bye Bye Europe, then Inda and Pakistan would blow the crap out of each other, Russia would take out the US (starwars wont work) and then the US will take out the rest of the world... Which is not very nice is it?

This has happened before, when the League of Nations was concived after WW1, The more powerfull countries went around it, and after a while it ceased to function and was shut down. Although this is not that likly to happen to the UN that soon, it is a possibility, and we would have the US to blame for it. I dont want to see them shut down, because they provide a much needed medium to operate with.

Although the Iraqis would probably not like the UN after what they did the first time round, they are not likly to ask the US to start a war, all they care about now is rebuilding their lives. France is going to play a part in that, there are French Oil companies that are going to be working in Iraq, because they allready had contracts.

United Nations

Rei

Prosprctor
04-20-2003, 03:32 PM
France is going to play a part in that, there are French Oil companies that are going to be working in Iraq, because they allready had contracts.

Those were with Saddam and the former govt.
The new government can and probably will make them null and void.

Which would put the French oil companies about 30 billion in the hole:D

The Russians would lose 8 billion. :D

Cool !!! They would deserve it.


I think you are the reason most people dont want to get the smaller cars.

Actually since there are more people who like driving 'real' cars like me than those plastic eggcrates, then any politician even talking about making laws against them would never win elections.

I don't mind letting the market decide, but, the government ordering it?? NO FRIGGIN WAY !!!

Besides...we can go back to using whale oil;)

Rei
04-20-2003, 04:09 PM
I knew that would happen. Anyway Russia is screwd, because Saddam owed them a lot of money, now that they are not going to get it, i think they might be a bit more pissed off with the US than usual. And I dont think that any econamy deserves that, it looks like the French enconomy is going to collapse because of this!

I think that a few countries round the world could do with some dictators that know where the country should head, and just make it go there. The whole democracy thing dosnt work really its just a farce.

Rei, probably known as an extreemist because of this

lone
04-20-2003, 05:02 PM
no, that would make you a TOTALITARIAN.

Meaty
04-20-2003, 10:59 PM
I don't think that Russia had a chance of getting their money back anyways.

Besides, holding the new Iraq accountable for those debts would keep the Iraqi economy stifled for decades. I consider these terminated contracts France and Russia's first contribution to the new Iraqi.

Rei
04-21-2003, 11:36 AM
ohh, ok. No need to worry because I dont want to be involved in politics anyway, for those reasons.

The contracs are going to be canceled, but you are right, if they let them go without a fuss, then we can be sure that they are, at least, not against new Iarq.

In the news today, the American guy that has been put in to rebuild Iraq recieved a warm welcome in the form of the first no orchestrated demonstration by the Iraqi people. Looks like they still know how to party!

Rei

ted
04-21-2003, 04:23 PM
At least they can now demonstrate without getting thrown in prison! Thanks to the Unite States of America. No thanks to the “Useless Nations”!

As for the cars, let people drive what they want.
Personally, all this garbage about bigger cars being dangerous... well if that's a rational analysis, (which it isn't), everyone should go back to walking.
There is no way you could make a vehicle safe for all motorcyclists, bicyclists, pedestrians, etc.

I'll keep my extended cab 4X4 Pickup. Thanks.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for exploring cleaner fuels and solar power.
But until it's practical, I'll pay my own fuel costs, higher "sin" taxes and you drive what you want.

Better yet, for "safety sake", I think we should pass a law that YOU CAN'T DRIVE anything, I THINK is too small!
Doesn't make sense does it?:)

Prosprctor
04-21-2003, 11:14 PM
I WANT AN M1 ABRAHMS !!!!!


lets see...
solar powered Planes and Jets ??? Nope
Solar powered Tankers ??? Nope
Solar powered Cruise Ships ??? Nope
Solar Powered Trucks ??? Nope

Any of them wind powered ??? Nope
well unless we go back to 6 months to cross the Atlantic.
or 4 weeks to deliver food from the west coast to the east coast.

They would all have to be Nuclear powered.

He HE He that ought ta get the greenies happy

:D
Little nuclear powered reactors driving and floating and flying all over the world.....

Just brings a warm fuzzy feeling to my heart.

OIL !!! thats where the future is

:D

Rei
04-22-2003, 11:29 AM
Another thing.

We are going to run out of Uranium 235 quite soon too, and that means no more nuke power too. Although im not against it, its much better for the enviroment, as long as it is stored correctly afterwards.

Thinking of that, why dont we just fire it all into the sun? (i have a point there)

Final note about cars, I want a CRAV... YAY

Rei

rick_r
04-25-2003, 07:21 AM
Hey Rei. Susan Sarnadon called. She says to stop looking up her dress. Everybody elsed called. They want you to stop talking about nothing.

ecliptic87
04-25-2003, 09:11 AM
You don't just need Plutonium 235 to make nuclear fission reactors, besides fission is the way of the past. We really need to get the efficiency better on fusion reactors which can run on, say for instance, water.

Rei
04-25-2003, 11:28 AM
Who is Susan Sarnadon?

I agree about fusion, though the liklyhood of cold fusion is still some way off. The US navy has been reserching on it for the past 10 years, and has not been able to prove anything. If it did work, im all for water powered things.

More news, the Iraqi second in command has been 'captured', which means more info on where the Americans can't find the WMD's that the Iraqis dont have.

Rei

Bionic Antboy
04-28-2003, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Meaty
That is probably referring to the fact that all business expenditures are inheritly less expensive than private persons purchasing something. This is because, in America, corporations are taxed on profit after expenditures which includes, pencils, pens, computers, rent, salaries, and of course company cars. People however, are taxed before expenses are calculated.

Unless the article points to a specific loophole or Bill, then I would be pretty doubtful that the government makes it any more appealing to buy SUVs than any other automobile.

Hmmm...pipe dream promises like the fuel cell car comments in the SotU are more to strike a 'feel good' mood than to be real policy...

As for loopholes... take a look at these tax breaks and tell me if they are REALLY enviro-friendly...

http://www.komotv.com/stories/22303.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/GoodMorningAmerica/mellody_mail_030127.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70E1FF739540C728EDDA80894DB4044 82

Of course, for the hybrid car, you get to deduct $2000

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/tips/20030219a1.asp?prodtype=itax

http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/fuel4_20030304.htm

In the end, if you could write off on average $2,000 by buying a fuel-efficient, hybrid car, or $30,000 on an SUV over 6000 lbs, which one is gonna be cheaper? HINT: Which one is the real deal? It's definitely NOT the SUV. Taking a look at the breaks into account, a person could by a $45,000 (2003 model) Lincoln Navigator and get enough of a tax break on it to make it cost the same, or even less than a (2003 model) Toyota Prius. Now tell me that the SUV manufacturers aren't happy about this :)

(all found in seconds with google, using TAX BREAKS LARGE SUV and TAX BREAKS HYBRID CAR). There's more out there too... and on mainstream sites, not just "liberal rags" ;)

prospector
04-28-2003, 07:02 PM
Not the SUV ????

30,000 for Lincoln or 2000 for Prius

Suv wins

Crash between Lincoln and Prius

Suv wins

Lowest cost of medical bills after crash between Lincoln and Prius

Suv wins

Actual fun driving

Suv wins

Best choice to get you to work anywhere north of Amarillo in winter

Suv wins

Bionic Antboy
04-29-2003, 06:52 AM
Well, my cutting and pasting got fudged up...

As long as the government decides to underwrite SUV sales, it's everyone else who loses. It strikes me as corporate welfare to give such deep discounts for an SUV over 6000 lbs...

In any case, the point was to give an example of the fallacy of saying that the administration is forward thinking when it comes to the environment and fuel conservation.

As for the safety of SUVs, that's a whole other ball of wax, with lax regulations regarding such things as bumper heights, of course the big guy wins. It was actually talked about having a required "bumper height", but the 3 big the automakers didn't like that, as it "limited" their design decisions...heaven forbid.

rick_r
04-29-2003, 07:08 AM
"but the 3 big the automakers didn't like that, as it "limited" their design decisions...heaven forbid."

Ahh yes - let the machine of Marxism roll over the untidy freedom of individual liberty. Liberals always know what's best for everyone else and don't want the responsibility of managing their own lives. So they turn to the chains of government for security and mindless control.

Bionic Antboy
04-29-2003, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by rick_r
"but the 3 big the automakers didn't like that, as it "limited" their design decisions...heaven forbid."

Ahh yes - let the machine of Marxism roll over the untidy freedom of individual liberty. Liberals always know what's best for everyone else and don't want the responsibility of managing their own lives. So they turn to the chains of government for security and mindless control.

heheh the machine of Marxism...that's funny. Quite the intellectual "jump" isn't it? Explain how having standards for road safety is Marxism.

I guess using your logical reasoning, it's okay to build cars with swinging blades to chop down any annoying pedestrians that get in the way? Or maybe cars with 3 foot spikes on either side so that they can slice up those "commie cyclists". You know, I liked the movie Mad Max, but wouldn't want to live in that world. :)

Meaty
04-29-2003, 07:43 AM
I am not sure if it is stated in any of those articles, but that particular tax break was aimed at, and probably effected the most, people who REQUIRE large SUVs/trucks to do their work, tow companies, construction companies, conversion vans etc... It was based on weight, not body style. It is designed to lower the cost of capital investment in necessary equipment. So it in fact is a loophole that some small business owners capitalize on just to buy huge commuter vehicles.

Bionic Antboy
04-29-2003, 08:20 AM
Exactly. It IS a loophole that applies to any small business, regardless of the industry they are in. For example, someone who runs their own 3D business, who has no business need for an SUV could get the tax break. Even if there WAS a need to take one's machine to a site, a workstation easily fits in the back seat of a Mini Cooper.

For those who don't currently have a small business, the relatively small hassle of starting one is more than defrayed by the potential savings on a huge SUV (if someone want's one).

Meaty
04-29-2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Bionic Antboy
Exactly. It IS a loophole that applies to any small business, regardless of the industry they are in. For example, someone who runs their own 3D business, who has no business need for an SUV could get the tax break. Even if there WAS a need to take one's machine to a site, a workstation easily fits in the back seat of a Mini Cooper.

For those who don't currently have a small business, the relatively small hassle of starting one is more than defrayed by the potential savings on a huge SUV (if someone want's one).

Now, I am not familiar with this particular tax law, but if it is like other deductions, that means that in order to take advantage of it, the company needs to post revenues from which their profits can be taxed. So no need to worry about people filing their articles of incorporation simply to get a cheap SUV.

prospector
04-29-2003, 12:15 PM
heheh the machine of Marxism...that's funny. Quite the intellectual "jump" isn't it? Explain how having standards for road safety is Marxism.

No jump

It is my duty as a family person to get the safest vehicle on the road that I can afford to protect family.

So if my vehicles bumper comes even wth your windshield,and yours goes under my axel, it isn't my fault.

Forcing someone to drive any vehicle that the govt aproves of just so everyone is eqally at risk is not the American way.



Even if there WAS a need to take one's machine to a site, a workstation easily fits in the back seat of a Mini Cooper.

Really ??

I would take my SUV and equipment out on fishing,hunting,nature shooting for those 'how to tapes'.

I would take an SUV out on a 4X4 gathering like at MOAB and get my equipment to those places that only a 4X4 can go.

I would take my SUV out on trips into the boondocks to report on how the enviromentalists lie about loosing forests, only counting 1 spotted owl per million square miles of K-Mart signs ( ;) Just had to put THAT lie in)

There are MANY jobs that need an SUV to get to the shoot site.





Or maybe cars with 3 foot spikes on either side so that they can slice up those "commie cyclists".

I just look down and open the door when I see them coming up between lanes:D

rick_r
04-29-2003, 12:40 PM
"it's okay to build cars with swinging blades to chop down any annoying pedestrians that get in the way? Or maybe cars with 3 foot spikes on either side so that they can slice up those "commie cyclists". You know, I liked the movie Mad Max, but wouldn't want to live in that world. "

Now you're just being ridiculous and absurd - d'oh, I meant to say, 'now you're being liberal.'

Bionic Antboy
04-29-2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by prospector
No jump

It is my duty as a family person to get the safest vehicle on the road that I can afford to protect family.

So if my vehicles bumper comes even wth your windshield,and yours goes under my axel, it isn't my fault.

Forcing someone to drive any vehicle that the govt aproves of just so everyone is eqally at risk is not the American way.

Really ??

I would take my SUV and equipment out on fishing,hunting,nature shooting for those 'how to tapes'.

I would take an SUV out on a 4X4 gathering like at MOAB and get my equipment to those places that only a 4X4 can go.

I would take my SUV out on trips into the boondocks to report on how the enviromentalists lie about loosing forests, only counting 1 spotted owl per million square miles of K-Mart signs ( ;) Just had to put THAT lie in)

There are MANY jobs that need an SUV to get to the shoot site.

I just look down and open the door when I see them coming up between lanes:D

For the first part, safety regs are an important part of the auto industry. The bumper clearances are a safety issue. It wouldn't have stopped the auto makers from making large vehicles, just made them design them differently, for example, in rear end collisions providing additional safety of the other vehicle. The automakers still can sell them. They are still profifting from them, there's no "Marxism" involved in that. Sheesh... :rolleyes:

Or we could just say screw it to safety standards, not only in the auto industry, but every industry...what a wild and wacky world that would be...

Of course, you could (and probably WOULD) argue that everyone should drive an SUV, so that everyone is equally safe... ;)

As for the second half of my post, you either only half-read -or half-understood- it. ;) I'll let you figure out where you went wrong. That's not my job... well, what the heck... I was refering to a business that wouldn't need a SUV, not one that would...the comments about you personally needing one to make certain shoots was totally irrelevant. In the future, I'd suggest this fun time happy guide...
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

Meaty:
As for people starting small businesses for tax purposes, it happens all the time. There are books out there to show you the ropes, take a look at amazon.com. AFAIK, I don't think that incorporation is needed.

Meaty
04-29-2003, 01:21 PM
My amazon results came back with 3871 results, can you point to one that shows how someone with no posted profits/revenues can take a tax deduction?

Bionic Antboy
04-29-2003, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Meaty
My amazon results came back with 3871 results, can you point to one that shows how someone with no posted profits/revenues can take a tax deduction?

Seriously? The idea of starting a small business to get tax write-offs has been around for a long time, as long as you do, nominally, have some kind of business. Haven't you ever heard of people doing this before?!?

An easy one would be to use the "Starting an eBay Business For Dummies". From personal experience, I've known comic collectors to start up businesses just to better manage their comic collection, and get deductions for mileage while looking for an X-Men #1 (or whatever). A couple of them actually turned into a quality comic shop, but others just operate as if it's their hobby, but keep receipts and get deductions because money changes hands, and in the end, deductions make it worthwhile.

Do I really NEED to explain any more? This kind of tangental (or tangential depending on your preference in spelling) conversation goes far in distracting attention from the original point.
:D

EDIT: Just to clarify, I never said the business couldn't post ANY revenue, that was a stipulation you added.

Meaty
04-29-2003, 05:45 PM
Okay, now I am no expert in tax law but it seems to me that if someone sells $2000 worth of comics, and say that amounts to $200 of profit which is taxable, assuming the comics+operating costs were $1800. Then that person buys an SUV for that business that costs $40,000 and the deduction is for $25,000 of it, then they will still only see $200 of the deduction. The government won't just write that person a check for the remaining $24,800. I do know that people start private businesses and write off expenditures, that's smart! But to say that anybody can start a business, buy an SUV, and get a huge tax break on it all in one day seems a little 'off' to me.

Bionic Antboy
04-30-2003, 07:38 AM
But to say that anybody can start a business, buy an SUV, and get a huge tax break on it all in one day seems a little 'off' to me.

I never said in one day either :)

Similarly, the original point of my post was to illustrate the loophole that makes buying an SUV all that more attractive for any number of people, when compared to the tax break for buying a hybrid car.

The talk has turned into a business 101 discussion forum, and doesn't really have anything to do with the new Iraq :)

Unless, of course, Iraqis will be getting good deals on SUVs (or hybrid cars for that matter), vive la PNAC.

Meaty
04-30-2003, 08:34 AM
You're right, it is getting too off topic. My apologies!

In an attempt to bring things back on topic, here is a link to an Op-Ed at www.nytimes.com by Thomas Freidman. In general his editorials talk about the implications of the future of Iraq to the entire mid-East. In his most recent article, he writes about, among other things, the impact the new Iraqi government will have on the stability of Iran.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/30/opinion/30FRIE.html

If you cant get to that article, you might have to register :mad: but i *think you might only need to register to see the older articles.

p.s. I used the phrase "In one day" in an attempt to find something to equate to your use of the phrase "the relatively small hassle." :D Sorry, couldn't help myself :D Yeesh, I am stubborn. hehe

Bionic Antboy
04-30-2003, 09:58 AM
It's an interesting piece, especially in that it helps highlight some of the complexities inherent in the whole process.

It will indeed be messy, and as Friedman points out, trying to "go it alone" is going to make things worse, not better. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of faith in the process, as I suspect the men behind the curtain prefering the "US stooges" scenario over any real semblance of a self-determing country. Obviously, I hope I'm proven wrong...

I guess we just have to wait and see how it plays out.

I just wish that more people got their news from places other than the CNNs and FoxNEWSes (sp?) of the world. For all the coverage they provide, it's about as deep as the dregs in a case of empties on a Sunday morning :)

And...to go back off topic for a second...well, no...I'll "let" you have the last word. How magnanimous of me, eh? :D ...okay, I can't help myself...just one more thing...

I'll trump your "in one day" comment with a "fix the loophole in the first place" and then a guy who makes money by doing web design (for example - not picking on web designers) doesn't get a big fat deduction that makes a $45,000 vehicle as cheap as a $20,000 hybrid (or even normal) car. :)

I understand the need to be stubborn too. :D If you want to post another comment on the subject, I PROMISE not to respond, and let you have the last word, since the above statement more or less sums up my opinion on it. :)

ted
04-30-2003, 11:35 AM
I'll make this quick, cause I've got bigger fish to fry.

The tax break for "SUV'S" is over and done with. That program no longer exists. Move on.

I know of a few people who bought a new vehicle to take advantage of this.
If it helped sell some new vehicles, good for the program. And since most of the SUV's that qualified were "American Made", (loose term now days), GREAT!
Even if those weren't American made, it helped put a lot of money in the economy.

That's a great program! Plain and simple!


As for CNN News, those Jackarses hid the truth from the world for over a decade, just so they could keep their headquarters in Iraq.

May they burn in hell for keeping the world from seeing what Sadam was doing.

No wonder people didn't understand what Bush certainly did and acted to stop it. And did such a good job of it.

OK boys, go back at it!:cool:

Rei
05-01-2003, 12:42 PM
These Shi'ites stand for the kind of rule that so many Iraqis dread

Taken from the Sunday telegraph, with a picture showing lots of Shi'ites taking part in a festival of self mutilation!

I belive that there is an answer to the problem, get rid of Iraq. Iraq was made out of some lines in the sand. The reason there has been so much trouble over there is because the country could never represent all of Iraq. If the Shi'ites were given there own country, for where they live, and the other Iraqis given a country, then the problem would be much easier to solve. The Shi'ites could goveren themselves and the other people would not have to go with them. Radical I know (that is what I do) but it could work.

Hervé
05-01-2003, 11:35 PM
even more radical, those 2 new countries, let's say Chitraq and Bushraq will only stay quiet for let's say 2 months, then off course one of them (you guess...) would start war again....

You're right, pretty radical....

Have a nice day. Hervé

prospector
05-02-2003, 05:57 AM
Actually SUVs and Iraq have something in common.

T o answer a past question..
YES I would make ALL Iraqis get an SUV.

reasons..
1.plenty of oil to make gas
2.all the cool sanddunes
3.all the cool mountains to the north


Now if the Iraqis could 'eliminate' any and all enviromentalists and animal rightist that put thier toes across the border, they could have an absolutly marvelist country.

Go 4 wheelin whenever or wherever ya want.
no-one to say your tearin up 'Ghia' with the tires.

Go 'boggin' down the south end of the country in the mud swamps, or 'snowin' in the mountains of the north, or 'dunin' in the desert of the middle....

just makes my mouth water thinkin of the fun they will soon be havin:D

If we could just liberate the US so we could do the same
*sigh*

uberslayer™
05-22-2003, 09:18 PM
Hvae any of you guys seen this cool anti suv site?

http://www.idontcareaboutair.com/bumpers/create.shtml

ps America is the beast.

James Moore
05-25-2003, 08:55 PM
God Forbid we should let this thread die before the troops leave Iraq. Just to stoke the fire a bit and keep the good American citizens aware of what many of the world think, especially with an election approaching in the States and a fine Memorial day weekend upon them.


The perverse irony is that, rather than being penalized for this heightened insecurity, Mr. Bush profits from it, such is the state of opinion and the level of analysis in his country

In an editorial comment in Friday's Toronto Globe and Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030523.usimp0523/BNStory/International/?query=Jeffrey+Simpson

or, just pasted for easy reading:


Jeffrey Simpson


By JEFFREY SIMPSON
From Friday's Globe and Mail


There were supposed to be weapons of mass destruction. And links to al-Qaeda. And scenes of jubilation at the "liberation." And sobering lessons for terrorists. And more safety for Israel.

Instead, as could have been predicted, Iraq is chaotic to the point of street-level anarchy, weapons of mass destruction cannot be found, terrorism is on the rise, and the United States is stuck in Iraq.

None of this will change the minds of those who tub-thumped for "regime change" in Iraq. Indeed, it has been astonishing to observe the swiftness with which they have changed their justifications, once the previous ones' weaknesses were exposed.

The public justifications, as opposed to the real ones, were about weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. Remember? Saddam Hussein was supposed to possess considerable stockpiles of such weapons and would either use them against the U.S. (and other Western countries) or give them to terrorist groups, notably al-Qaeda.

The U.S., acting in its own self-defence, simply had to strike "preemptively" by toppling his regime and removing the threat. Recall George W. Bush's State of the Union address or his speech to the United Nations. Study again Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council. Read anything by Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld or his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz. Read anything by the chorus of pro-war columnists in the U.S. (and Canada).

We don't hear much about these justifications any more, largely because they were as bogus then as now. The Americans are scouring Iraq for these weapons. They have their own intelligence sources, now enhanced by more information from captured Iraqis. They have the UN weapons inspectors' reports. So far, nothing. As for al-Qaeda, it never bothered about Iraq, was never located there, and has popped up again killing people in other Arab countries.

Instead, today's justifications are about America's "noble" mission of freeing Iraq from tyranny.

Tyranny existed under Saddam Hussein, and of a murderous kind, to be sure. But tyranny alone could not have been the original justification; if it had been, then the Bush doctrine would have been about overthrowing tyrants everywhere.

The Bush doctrine was about striking pre-emptively against those who directly threatened, or might threaten, the United States. This was not a doctrine of making the whole world democratic by the might of the U.S. military, but removing actual and potential threats.

Except Saddam Hussein did not threaten the United States. That, however, was not important to the ideologues in Washington who wanted to overthrow him. So they misled their people, still traumatized by 9/11, into believing such a threat existed. Other than Britain, Australia and Israel, no other country bought the argument. The result was a worldwide collapse of goodwill toward the United States.

The result, too, is that the Americans performed vastly better at winning an easy war than establishing a firm peace. Almost every report from Iraq describes nightly anarchy, the collapse of public safety in urban areas, an upsurge in Shia fundamentalism, continued looting, and no sign yet of a credible U.S.-backed Iraqi leadership. Yankee go home is the prevailing Iraqi view.

Some U.S. senators had warned that the Bush administration had poorly thought through governing Iraq, and they were right. The U.S. has already replaced its top administrator for Iraq, Jay Garner, with L. Paul Bremer, a Rumsfeld ally.

In other words, almost nothing has gone according to plan. Maybe new plans will unfold eventually and the situation will improve. Meantime, there are 200,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, with another 15,000 on the way. A prolonged U.S. military presence, and a very long U.S. pro-consular role, will be necessary. There will be no speedy withdrawal.

The invasion that was supposed to deal another blow to terrorism has increased militancy and terror, with attacks in Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Far from making the Middle East less volatile, and U.S. citizens and interests safer at home and abroad, the "liberation" has heightened insecurity.

The perverse irony is that, rather than being penalized for this heightened insecurity, Mr. Bush profits from it, such is the state of opinion and the level of analysis in his country.

ted
05-25-2003, 11:59 PM
James Wrote,
"In other words, almost nothing has gone according to plan."

What war have you been watching?
With all due respect, it's gone a heck of a lot better then all the nay sayers claimed.
Now you fine crumbs to whine about. Typical.

If you thought we would pack up and go home the day we took Baghdad, you underestimated what it would take to reverse years and years of oppression.

I remember Bush telling us that it would take quite a while too. Don't you?

As far as terrorism, when you stir a hornet’s nest, there's going to be some pissed off hornets swarming about.
But I can't understand anyone crying, leave them alone. Let the terrorists gain strength and numbers because we don't want to make them mad???:rolleyes:

I say kick their arse and don't stop!

lone
05-26-2003, 06:32 AM
so i guess everything is perfect where you live, James? give it a freakin' rest, already.

Rei
05-26-2003, 11:37 AM
Arn't Pre-emtive strikes illegal anyway?

I was opposed to this war, but the US and the UK did an ok job. For what it's worth I think they could have done better (less FF) but on the whole it went OK. Now all we have to do is sit back and relax whlist that America Ex-General takes control, does nothing for the Iraqi's and ends up with the Shi'ites in control via a legal demmocracy. Perfect huu?

uberslayer™
05-26-2003, 04:39 PM
It's so nice how you all support your president even though he's a criminal, cocian abusing, vote rigging, unelected idiot.

We have a democratic political system so I don't really understand how it works under your shadow governing regime.:p

lone
05-26-2003, 05:04 PM
and i suppose your country, your President, and all your politicians are utterly perfect, and immune to corruption.

ted
05-26-2003, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by uberslayer™
It's so nice how you all support your president even though he's a criminal, cocian abusing, vote rigging, unelected idiot.


You obviously have NO clue that this President won by the same rules we've used for over 200 years.

I did get a kick out of the "other party", trying to "rig" the vote by over counting and eliminating specific couties, even the military votes.
It was them that tried to change the rules AFTER the vote was tallied properly.

Even then they couldn't rig it enough! Now THAT, was the joke you seemed to ignore.

And speak of criminal! HA!!!
I think Clinton had a copyright on that title!:D :p :D :p :D :p

Me thinks somebody needs a time out, or a nap!:p

Bionic Antboy
05-26-2003, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by Rei
Arn't Pre-emtive strikes illegal anyway?

Rei, pre-emptive strikes aren't illegal, as long as there is a real and imminent threat. The problem with the whole US vs Iraq "war" is that so far, there really hasn't been any conclusive evidence of any threat to the security of the US coming from Iraq. That's why the "reasons" or "excuses" (depending on your POV) for the invasion keep changing.

uberslayer™
05-27-2003, 05:56 PM
Lone: Yeah pretty much now that you mention it. lol. I have been to America (but mostly just CA and Hawaii lol) and I can tell you now, you guys have no idea what it's like to live in a country with one of the lowest corruption rates in the world.(according to those world surveys they throw lots of money at to find out what we already know) Or what it's like to be able to watch objective (or any) news about the rest of the world.

Ted: No my poor misguided patriot. You obviously have no idea that when a new president is elected in America and the party is over, he gets taken into a room full of cigar smoking tycoons............................. the lights dim..........................a screen rolls down...........................and they show him the Kenedy assaination from an angle that none of the American public have ever seen before................................then they ask "Any questions"....................."Duh........I don't wanna be misunderestimated, but whats my agenda?"

"I think the puppet on the left shares my views"
"I think the puppet on the right shares my views"

"But look the same guy's holding both puppets"

"Shuddup and keep drinking beer America. Have a twinkie and think about something else"

ps. I hope no one gets too upset. This is just open debate and I'm just messing wif ya's

rick_r
05-28-2003, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by uberslayer™
It's so nice how you all support your president even though he's a criminal, cocian abusing, vote rigging, unelected idiot.

We have a democratic political system so I don't really understand how it works under your shadow governing regime.:p

This is a typical liberal argument, complete with name-calling, fear mongering and fabrication. The only thing it’s missing is a blessing from Jayson Blair.

To find out how liberals really think check out Ann Coulters book, Slander. http://www.anncoulter.org/

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400046610/wilsixst98-20/ref%3Dnosim/104-9733555-0699145

Bionic Antboy
05-28-2003, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by rick_r
To find out how liberals really think check out Ann Coulters book, Slander.

Uh huh...that's about as accurate as Phil Donahue putting out a book telling people how conservatives think. :)

The news media (mainly broadcast) hasn't had a huge liberal agenda ever since they started merging with companies that are also defence contractors. Their bias is towards the status quo. Hence the Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon (Xbox edition) stlyle coverage of the Iraq invasion (with well-scripted cut scene of a herioc rescue to boot).

Jake
05-28-2003, 11:47 AM
Here's a scathing review of Slander from someone on the left:

http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/slander.html
Underneath the invective, the guy makes good points. The article contains plenty of foul language, though, so if you're offended by such things you probably shouldn't go there.

And to balance things out, here's a letter from The National Review on why they parted ways with Ann:

http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment100301.shtml
Liberals aren't the only ones who take issue with her.

uberslayer™
05-28-2003, 08:21 PM
Hey I'm no hippy liberal, as a matter of fact I like violence.

I think I'm more of an anarchist.

rick_r
05-29-2003, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by Jake

http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment100301.shtml
Liberals aren't the only ones who take issue with her.

Interesting review from the NRO. Whatever Ann's personal problems are her book is amazingly accurate especially the first paragraph of chapter 2. After I read that I wanted to frame it because it was a perfect description of some of my liberal friends.

I can see why liberals don't like her because she played 'connect the dots' with their own words. Slander really does pick up where Goldberg’s BIAS leaves off so if you haven't read the first one the sequel makes you wonder.

Rei
05-29-2003, 11:46 AM
Just incase you dont watch news programs. Dick Chenne has openly declared that there may not be any WMD's in Iraq at all (bar US!). The NBC weapons that Saddam was claimed to have ready to use in under 45 mins were not real, and were added to security reports by polititions (from GCHQ). I wana know, can we try Bush and Blair in the Hague for acting as an Aggressor now?

Also can someone explain the US parties for a dumbass, or compare them to the British parties.

Bionic Antboy
05-29-2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Rei
Just incase you dont watch news programs. Dick Chenne has openly declared that there may not be any WMD's in Iraq at all (bar US!). The NBC weapons that Saddam was claimed to have ready to use in under 45 mins were not real, and were added to security reports by polititions (from GCHQ). I wana know, can we try Bush and Blair in the Hague for acting as an Aggressor now?

Also can someone explain the US parties for a dumbass, or compare them to the British parties.

Actually, it was Rumsfeld who said that Iraq had probably destroyed the WMD before the war, although Cheney may have mentioned it as well. I don't recall hearing that though. I would suspect that if the weapons were destroyed, it was done so long before the war, not in the days leading up to it. The whole case for Iraq was sold to the people by (admittedly) forged documents and fear-mongering.

Hmm... Bush and Blair in the Hague hot seat... I doubt we'll ever see that happen. The US declared itself above international law back in the 1980s with Reagan. When one country holds over half the military might in the world, then you're kinda stuck with whatever form of (in?)justice it wants.

As for the parties, without going into too much detail, I would say that the best comparison is that UK Tories are generally of the mindset of US Republicans, whereas the Labour Party is more like the US Democrats. This is an admittedly HUGE generalization. Considering the difference of cultures, it's not a direct correlation but pretty reasonable, none the less, though that seems to have changed a bit of late, eh?

Rei
05-29-2003, 01:27 PM
Thanks, I saw Chenne before Rumsfield... I sorta get US politics now, im just glad I dont live over there (not much offence)

Its a shame that the US ended up the way they are, no one could even try to apply international law to them, they would just get wiped out!

uberslayer™
05-29-2003, 04:45 PM
Just in case you guys live somewhere with state controlled media like USA. The American military has just found a shiet load of UNDOCUMENTED WMD's including, CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS at a military base weapons dump.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. ........................fewer than 50 miles from Washington, near Fort Detrick in the Maryland countryside.

here's the story.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,965319,00.html

Why haven't you heard about it?

See first sentence.

uberslayer™
05-29-2003, 04:56 PM
Oh and while I'm at it, lets make light of the situation.

"We sit miles offshore in billion dollar war ships firing million dollar missiles into ramshackle villages. They strap explosives to themselves blow themselves up to get to us...............and we call them cowards"

"We're like the bullies of the world. We're like Jack Pallance in the movie shane, throwing the pistol at the sheep herders feet.
"pick it up"
"I don't wanna pick it up mister you'll shoot me"
"pick it up"
"Look mister I don't want no trouble. I just came into town to get some hard rock candy for my kids and some gingham for my wife................I don't even know what gingham is but she seems to go through a whole roll a week of that stuff."
"PICK UP THE GUN"
.......................he does.
BANG, BANG, BANG.
"You all saw him he had a gun.""

Bill Hicks, Another dead hero.

How does America know Saddam has chem/bio weaponry?


They kept the reciepts.

uberslayer™
05-29-2003, 09:29 PM
This one fully cracked me up (so true).

>When you're happy and you know it bomb Iraq
>
>If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
>
>If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
>
>If the terrorists are frisky,
>
>Pakistan is looking shifty,
>
>North Korea is too risky,
>
>Bomb Iraq.
>
>If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
>
>If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
>
>So to hell with the inspections,
>
>Let's look tough for the elections,
>
>Close your mind and take directions,
>
>Bomb Iraq.
>
>It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq.
>
>Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
>
>They've got weapons we can't see,
>
>And that's good enough for me
>
>'Cos it's all the proof I need
>
>Bomb Iraq.
>
>If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
>
>If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
>
>If you think Saddam's gone mad,
>
>With the weapons that he had,
>
>(And he tried to kill your dad),
>
>Bomb Iraq.
>
>If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
>
>If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
>
>If your politics are sleazy,
>
>And hiding that ain't easy,
>
>And your manhood's getting queasy,
>
>Bomb Iraq.
>
>Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
>
>For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
>
>Disagree? We'll call it treason,
>
>Let's make war not love this season,
>
>Even if we have no reason,
>
>Bomb Iraq.

Hervé
05-29-2003, 11:25 PM
Is it rap lyrics ??

James Moore
05-30-2003, 07:49 AM
I am surprised that Bush is still riding so high in the polls :( Unfortunately it doesn't look like the democrat's are going to provide much in the way of an alternative and now that Bombing Iraq is sort of like bombing the US, all those lyrics are going to have to change...

If you are a happy and you know it
Attack Iran.....

just a rather sad thought for a friday morning....

rick_r
05-30-2003, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by James Moore
I am surprised that Bush is still riding so high in the polls :( Unfortunately it doesn't look like the democrat's are going to provide much in the way of an alternative and now that Bombing Iraq is sort of like bombing the US, all those lyrics are going to have to change...

If you are a happy and you know it
Attack Iran.....

just a rather sad thought for a friday morning....

good grief all this bed wetting liberalism is going to give you guys a rash.

James Moore
05-30-2003, 09:10 AM
"bed wetting liberalism". c'mon, such a cop out approach to argument/discussion. I guess it shows the vacuous nature of the 'conservative' argument if that is all you can come up with. Such simplicity my man, speak to the points.

You invaded a sovereign nation saying that they posed an imminent threat because they possesed WMD. Most of the rest of the world said 'let the inspectors look/keep looking', you said "they aren't finding them, we know they have them, we are going on our own". Now, no WMD, oh but we liberated them blah blah blah

I hope you conservatives 'feel good' as you drive your SUV's burning stolen gas, yet paying through higher deficits (eventually higher taxes or elimination of services i.e The 44 Trillion Hole http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/29/news/economy/social_security_pain/index.htm) as Bush and his oil buddies scoop loads of cash, and Cheney and his PNAC pals move toward world domination.

A blog that gives a real interesting insight into what life is currently like in Iraq http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/


There is no way to “minimize” the contribution of the USA in removing saddam. The USA waged a friggin’ war, how could you “minimize” a war. I have said this before: if it weren’t for the intervention of the US, Iraq would have seen saddam followed by his sons until the end of time. But excuse me if I didn’t go out and throw flowers at the incoming missiles. As for the second point, I don’t think anyone has the right to throw cluster bombs in civilian areas and then refuse to clean up the mess afterwards.

You know, War isn't so bad here on this side of the world, you sit in your easy chair suck on a beer and marvel at the wonders of technology....unless you lost someone on 911, or a family member/friend is in the military, then maybe there is a little more jeopardy

Bionic Antboy
05-30-2003, 10:45 AM
Regarding those who like to spout out rhetoric without any kind
of backing, such as comments like "you're nitpicking" and
"The war is over, give it a rest" etc etc., I think that Salam
sums up the issue quite succinctly with the following....


...One day, like in Afghanistan, those journalists will get bored and go write about Syria or Iran;
Iraq will be off your media radar. Out of sight, out of mind. Lucky you, you have that option. I have to live it.

I guess we all can turn off CNN and FoxNEWS, and escape to the
world of "reality" television like For Love or Money, Fear Factor,
and whatever tiny talent show with has-been celeb judges and
flashy light shows are currently up for offer.
"Ooohhh who did the Bachelor pick?"
"What did they have to eat to win the $50,000? No WAY!"
"I can't believe Monica Lewinsky is hosting a reality show... way to go."

It's the politics of fear and distraction, baby, and if you can't see
behind the bad funk groove they's layin' on ya, then they've got
ya, hook, line and sinker! Pass the plastic and don't bogart that
duct tape, cause Meesa scared!

Fight the PNAC!

James Moore
05-30-2003, 11:10 AM
On the flip side of my opinions, my opinion of Mr. Bush and his actions will rise considerably if he manages to now use his leverage in the Middle East to broker a long lasting deal between the Palestinians and the Isreali's.

ted
05-30-2003, 02:43 PM
James, I'm glad to see you are at least "slightly openminded":D about Bush.
But don't get your hopes up too much and don't put too much of the responsibility on Bush.
That region has been beating each other up for centuries.

As soon as we get close to a deal, (which has happened many, many times), some idiot goes out and screws it up by doing another attack.
Then the other side, (partly understandably so), retaliates.

It's a vicious circle that I don't even think Bush can stop.:confused:

James Moore
05-30-2003, 08:56 PM
Thanks for giving me some credit for listening and considering other points of view.

Yes the Isreali Palestinian conflict does appear to be intractable, and yes it is presumptuous to think that one man (Bush) has the power to solve the problems, but, the US can play a very significant role in solving the problem. The current approach does lend itself to being derailed by one suicide bomber, and that should be changed. We could be sitting at a crucial point in Middle East history, and the US, like it or not, sits at the fulcrum. It can lend its weight and make things happen. Unfortunately, it may be polictically distasteful to do so within the US. We shall see. Mr. Bush seems to be driven ideologically, and he may give this whole mess a push, political consequences be damned. I raise my beer in hope!

rick_r
05-31-2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by James Moore
"bed wetting liberalism". c'mon, such a cop out approach to argument/discussion. I guess it shows the vacuous nature of the 'conservative' argument if that is all you can come up with. Such simplicity my man, speak to the points.

(and from there it drones on and on with a lot of hand wringing until it spirals down to a distopian liberal jiggling mess)



It goes like this. Before the war in Iraq the international community hated Americans. During the war in Iraq the international community hated Americans. And now after the war in Iraq the international community hates Americans. I guess that's why most Americans don't give a crap about what the international community (or liberals in American who also hate America) thinks about what or why there was a war in Iraq. Get over it and get out of the way of my f*ing SUV or I'll drive over your pointy little heads.

lone
05-31-2003, 05:09 PM
RICK_R - that's it in a nushell, isn't it?

Jake
05-31-2003, 07:46 PM
It goes like this. Before the war in Iraq the international community hated Americans. During the war in Iraq the international community hated Americans. And now after the war in Iraq the international community hates Americans. I guess that's why most Americans don't give a crap about what the international community (or liberals in American who also hate America) thinks about what or why there was a war in Iraq.

That's how the right-wing rhetoric goes. The fact of the matter is that the international community doesn't like American foreign policy, which basically amounts to support terrorists and petty tyrants when they serve your ends and blow the crap out of them (and the countries that harbor them) when they get in your way. Liberals are critical of the Bush administration's policies, both foreign and domestic. This doesn't mean they hate the damn country.

Of course, it gets messy going into detail about whether or not our foreign policy is justified. It's a lot easier to just say that people who don't like it, well. . . they just hate America! It's a much greater appeal to emotion, too. Who wants to be perceived as hating America? Better get that flag out on the front porch!

Honestly, I think this crap pisses me off more than the war itself. Who the f*ck are you to say what is and isn't American? Where do you get off taking dissent, which is probably the most fundamental American quality (remember those guys who dumped tea into Boston harbor?) and dressing it up like something foreign that doesn't belong? And while we're at it, rick_r, where do you get this garbage about "most Americans"? Did you conduct a poll? Or just pull the figure out of your a**?


Get over it and get out of the way of my f*ing SUV or I'll drive over your pointy little heads.

Oh I sorry! Are we keeping you awake? By all means go back to sleep. Everything's fine! There's no reason to worry about what the government is doing to you. . . uh, I mean for you.

rick_r
05-31-2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Jake
That's how the right-wing rhetoric goes. . . . (translation, "BWWAAAAAHHH!!!")

Careful now, I warned you about getting a rash.
Oh and please wipe your feet. It smells like you stepped in a pile of liberalism.

Jake
05-31-2003, 08:44 PM
Good! Keep up the smarminess, 'cuz making arguments just ain't your thing. ;)

rick_r
05-31-2003, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by Jake
Good! Keep up the smarminess, 'cuz making arguments just ain't your thing. ;)

Actually it's really amazing how long a LIbEral can flap his/her gums over, well, everything. A world based on relativism is a world of no real answers, no absolutes. It's like the saying goes. "If your not a LIbEral when you in your 20s then you have no heart, but if you're still a LIbEral in your 40s then you have no mind."

Jake
05-31-2003, 09:13 PM
Lol! You're like a conservative ink blot, all the familiar themes are there just muddled together together in some kind of vague ad hom. Who are you trying to regurgitate?

The only comment with any substance in that post was this:


A world based on relativism is a world of no real answers, no absolutes.

So liberalism is based on relativism? Maybe you want to go check that? You know, think it through a little deeper. Just a suggestion.

As for these absolutes you mention, where do you suggest they come from?

rick_r
06-01-2003, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by Jake As for these absolutes you mention, where do you suggest they come from?

They come from the Bible. Please spare me the usual arrogant LIbEberal gas-bagging. I've had all of the LIbEberal "tolerance" and "compassion" I can stomach.

Jake
06-02-2003, 12:56 AM
Dude, it's obvious that the only thing you can stomach is your own viewpoint. Now if you want to base your politics on a book written hundreds of years ago by people with no grasp of science, be my guest--just don't get so snippy when you're not taken seriously.

Oh, and if the Bible is your absolute you should try reading it and comprehending it. It's pretty clear how Jesus feels about war.

Karmacop
06-02-2003, 06:30 AM
Alot of you sound really selfish. You drive an SUV because it's safer for YOUR family. You don't care that you're destroying the environment more because it's not your problem. You think carmarkers shouldn't be regulated by the government because it imposes on their and your freedom? Why don't you think about other people for a change .. think about future generations that don't want to breathe your polution. Think about the family you're going to crush.

Lightwolf
06-02-2003, 07:37 AM
Hi there guys (and gals?)...
I've been following this thread for some time now, ready to jump in ;)

rick_r: The bible. Fine. I wouldn't mind if people actually lived after what is says in the bible, let's start with the basics "Thou shalt not Kill" (ten commandments). (heck, I'm even not religious and I follow that commandment...). Next please.

Karmacop: From all the discussions that I've followed during the past couple of months, one thing became quite clear, the so called "Conservatives" seem to have a fairly simple hierarchy in life: God, Me, my family, my country. Not mor and not less. I sometimes think the notion of a society seems to be totally foreign to many of them, sad but true.
Cheers,
Mike

rick_r
06-02-2003, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by Jake Oh, and if the Bible is your absolute you should try reading it and comprehending it. It's pretty clear how Jesus feels about war.

How judgemental you automatically assume that I am Christian. Jewish people also read the Bible. And yes it's pretty clear what the Bible and the New Testament talk about war. God commanded that the enemy be totaly wiped out. Even Jesus will returnon a white horse holding a sword to do battle. Comprehending the Bible is easy.

Lightwolf
06-02-2003, 08:22 AM
Hi rick_r,
I would assume that radical muslims say the same about the quran. You seem to actually have a deep sympathy for the actions of the likes of al-quaida, since you defend their "absolutes" as well.

As for assuming you are christian, you did mention the bible, not the torah or the quran (which both include parts of the the Old Testament).

Jake
06-02-2003, 04:41 PM
From all the discussions that I've followed during the past couple of months, one thing became quite clear, the so called "Conservatives" seem to have a fairly simple hierarchy in life: God, Me, my family, my country. Not mor and not less. I sometimes think the notion of a society seems to be totally foreign to many of them, sad but true.

More specifically, the conservative viewpoint in the United States is based on the individual and individual rights. Their whole view of government is based on that building block, along with a couple other fundamental concepts like the free market.

Conversely, a leftist viewpoint usually begins with a view of a group, whether it be the society as a whole, racial and ethnic groups, income levels, or whatever.

Strong arguments can be made from either point of view. I don't have a problem with someone having a conservative (or liberal) viewpoint as long as they are willing to rationally debate their position. However, discussing something like this war and flat out rejecting someone's argument because it's a "liberal" argument is absolutely moronic. Moreover, it's knee-jerk, lazy *** posturing like this (meaning you rick_r) that explains why our current political climate is so acrimonious and sh*tty.


How judgemental you automatically assume that I am Christian.

Wow. The guy who complained about my liberal bedwetting and said that he would run my pointy head over with his SUV is now whining because I assumed (correctly) that he was a Christian.

Yawn.

Lightwolf
06-03-2003, 03:26 AM
Hi Jake,
hm, I guess both viewpoints are "extremist", and balance is something that is hard to obtain.
While I consider myself as being more on the leftist side (because my view tend to be more reflected in that political area), some of my views are on the right as well.
I think the basic notion that any modern, civilized government has to fight with is the individual vs. society debate. One doesn't work without the other.
If you don't care about society, then don't rely on it and go live in the woods by yourself. But as long as people live together (whether in a flat, in a city or in a nation) society becomes on of the building blocks.
Imho a society should be based on individual rights, but this assumes that any member of the society has those rights, and just like I don't want anyone to step on my toes, I should be limited on stepping on somebody elses toes.
Or, more simply, my freedom is the freedom of somebody who thinks differently.
Cheers,
Mike - who still believes in civilisation.

rick_r
06-03-2003, 10:40 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jake
flat out rejecting someone's argument because it's a "liberal" argument is absolutely moronic. QUOTE]

No - rejecting the LIbEral view is the only road to common sense. The one size fits all way of the LIbEral ends up being cruel when in fact one size does not fit all. Everybody is different. Lumping people into separate catagories is what racism (for example) is all about.

And as far as my comment about running over your pointed head with my SUV - hold back from your next green peace donation and buy yourself a sense of humor pal. I don't even own an SUV and if you wear a hat your pointed head won't even show. That way you can blend in with the others in your group/class/race/whatever. Your responses have given me a nice chuckle but seriously, about that rash. . . .

rick_r
06-03-2003, 10:43 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lightwolf let's start with the basics "Thou shalt not Kill" (ten commandments). (heck, I'm even not religious and I follow that commandment...). QUOTE]

It's Thou Shalt Not Murder. Get it right or go home.

Lightwolf
06-03-2003, 10:54 AM
rick_r:
As you are well aware, this is depending on the translations and even discussed hotly by scholars of the subject.
Nonetheless, where is the big difference?

kenmac
06-03-2003, 12:16 PM
Die thread die!!!

Bionic Antboy
06-03-2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Lightwolf
rick_r:
As you are well aware, this is depending on the translations and even discussed hotly by scholars of the subject.
Nonetheless, where is the big difference?

I agree, the difference is minimal, and would only be debated in a very minor context. To say "Thou Shalt Not Murder" as opposed to "Kill" for example, is to say it is okay to kill, just not commit the legal crime of murder or homicide. In that vein...

I've actually heard this come up a few years ago during a discussion of the death penalty. A preacher (I don't recall his name, but he was a reverend - not a nationally famous one though) who was in support of the death penalty was asked how he could support it when it states in the Bible that "Thou Shalt Not Kill". He actually used the argument that it could be interpreted as "Murder", then went on to justify his beliefs.

Depending on which side of the fence one may be on the death penalty issue is one way where the translation matters, if you are trying to justify your point of view using Biblical text. This applies to both sides of that particular debate, of course, so I'm not assigning any opinion on the subject myself, and it's not really the point I'm trying to make. The above is just semantic muscle flexing. :)

My point is that in such debates as this thread, there are often people who use false arguments that end up deflecting the whole conversation.

On the topic of deflecting a conversation, I'd like to point out that NOBODY "accused" rick_r of being a Christian. He was the first to bring it up. Jake only mentioned that since rick_r used the Bible as his reference, he should maybe get a better grip on what it says in there. At the same time, rick_r is more than happy to apply labels to anybody who disagrees with his point of view. Bed wetting LIbErals, and rejecting, out of hand, anything that anyone who he assumes, either correctly or not, as one of those bed wetters, just shows that there can really be no open dialogue with him.

Of course, to sink to that level of discussion would be to write things like
CONservatives or rePUBlICanS , but I'll try not to do such things... again :)

That being said, for those who are more interested in what's happening in Iraq, here's an interesting opinion piece or two you may find interesting.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3711

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3706

I'll be the first to admit the souce site isn't unbiased, but the facts mentioned in them are all accurate.

By the way, I heard that the Bush administration is "adjusting" their definition of WMD delivery systems. Since Anthrax powder can be delivered in the mail, all envelopes in Iraq are now considered "WMD delivery systems". :eek:

JohnD
06-03-2003, 04:08 PM
Wow. I haven't been on Newtek's site for a month and didn't expect this thread to still be alive. No way I'm gonna read it all.

Jake
06-03-2003, 07:40 PM
Hi Lightwolf,


I think the basic notion that any modern, civilized government has to fight with is the individual vs. society debate. One doesn't work without the other.

It's amazing the extent to which human thought is constrained by binary thinking: right vs. left, good vs. evil, individual vs. society, etc. I wish it were possible to view more of the raw data out there without being battered by dialectically opposed viewpoints. But it seems to be part of human nature to emotionally invest in absolutes.

rick_r,


No - rejecting the LIbEral view is the only road to common sense. The one size fits all way of the LIbEral ends up being cruel when in fact one size does not fit all. Everybody is different.

Everyone please take a moment to revel in the glorious incoherence of this post. :D

First of all, you really don't seem to have a grasp of liberalism at all. What is your definition? If you can't come up with something reasonably accurate, you should just quit while you're far behind.

Secondly, if we accept the suppositions that "one size does not fit all" and "everybody is different", then a liberal viewpoint is not only warranted but inevitable. Which totally contradicts you're opening line about "the only road to common sense." Is there a single coherent thought in your head?


Lumping people into separate catagories is what racism (for example) is all about.

This is also priceless.
No, Rick, that is not what racism is all about. By your twisted logic, the average American family restaurant is racist because it has men's and women's restrooms.

Sad, sad boy. You are funny, but not in the way that you imagine.

rick_r
06-04-2003, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by Lightwolf
rick_r:
As you are well aware, this is depending on the translations and even discussed hotly by scholars of the subject.
Nonetheless, where is the big difference?

Acording to the dictionary (words do mean things):

Kill - "1 a : to deprive of life"

Murder - "1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice 2 : to slaughter wantonly"

Killing someone is battle or in an act of self defense is very different from murder.

Jake, If you don't like the way I think or what I say then you should be a big boy and move on. Go spread your bile some where else.

Lightwolf
06-04-2003, 07:09 AM
rick_r:
Words can mean different things:

Murder: [v] kill intentionally and with premeditation;

Which is a bit different from you definition and would, for example, include soldiers (unless they trip over a mine, which makes it accidental, then again, the laying of the mine is intentional).

"Thou shalt not" however implies that you actually have a choice of action, in which case just about any killing (of humans) is murder (with very, very few exeptions).

And, to quote Bionic Antboy, this is semantic muscle flexing.

redlum
06-04-2003, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by Lightwolf And, to quote Bionic Antboy, this is semantic muscle flexing.

I wonder if any of you realize how arrogant you sound. Regardless of what rick_r thinks there is an enormous amount of "higher than thou" attitude coming from the left on this thread.

Lightwolf
06-04-2003, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by redlum
I wonder if any of you realize how arrogant you sound. Regardless of what rick_r thinks there is an enormous amount of "higher than thou" attitude coming from the left on this thread.
Well, I don't know. rick_r started bringing the bible into play here, how much higher do you want to get?
And since the reasoning behind the iraq war has to do a lot with semantics, I wouldn't call that argument arrogant. After all, it was a "higher than thou" attitude that started it, the left is just trying to catch up ;)
Cheers,
Mike

Bionic Antboy
06-04-2003, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by Jake
It's amazing the extent to which human thought is constrained by binary thinking: right vs. left, good vs. evil, individual vs. society, etc. I wish it were possible to view more of the raw data out there without being battered by dialectically opposed viewpoints. But it seems to be part of human nature to emotionally invest in absolutes.

I couldn't agree with you more. This binary way of thought is one of the reasons I think it makes it difficult for a third party to emerge from the US system. It is so skewered towards maintaining said system. In the media, it makes polarization of views much easier, as if groups are divided into two easily defined camps, it's easier to dismiss the "others" out of hand.

Although I won't hesitate to say that in many areas, my views are "generally" the same as those of the "old Left", that's not entirely true. There are some aspects of the "old Left" thinking that I don't agree with. Similarly, one thing that always bothered me is the fact that in this "Left-Right" thinking, Communism and Fascism are on opposite ends of the spectrum, but both forms of government, in their idealogical extremes, have a lot in common. in that they are totalitarian in nature.

I came across a couple of places that have tried to define multi-axis methods of definiton, and thought I'd share them, since the subject came up...

http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/05/LeftandRight.shtml

Now this one above, I don't entirely agree with, as some of the axes seem kind of out of whack, and he also lumps Jerry Faldwell and Noam Chomsky into the same group, which either shows a flaw in the execution of his scale, or a none to great understanding of each man's point of view. I think it could use some tweaking (mainly some paring down). There are things in it that I don't think really need to be applied to political definitions.

This next link is from Jerry Pournelle's Imperial Stars, and I remember originally seeing this quite some time ago (a friend and fan of Pournelle's pointed it out), but I found this on the web just recently as well.

http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm

This chart isn't as complex as the one the first link attempts, but I think it's more succinct, but not without it's flaws either.

Just food for thought. :)

Lightwolf
06-04-2003, 07:51 AM
Bionic:
I agree on the binary way of thought, or, to be more precise imho, the extremist way of thought.
What makes it even more difficult is that you have different definitions across country borders.
In Germany for example you'd put a free market liberal on the right political side, while a social conservative is on the left. I find it quite amusing to see the term "liberal" being used to describe left wing thoughts...
Fascism isn't actually on the opposite end of the communism spectrum, since when it was implemented in history (esp. Germany and Italy), it tended to be a socialist variant. Nazi does stand for national socialist.
I'd put anarchy there, which seems to express the notion of a free for all much better (allthough, I tend to think that at the extreme ideals, when you think them through to try to make them work, anarchy and communism aren't that far away from each other either...).

James Moore
06-04-2003, 07:59 AM
rick_r, a couple of questions.

So, if it is 'thou shalt not murder' is manslaughter then okay?

If you kill someone in 'self defense' but you were wrong in your assumption of the threat, is that then murder since you purposely killed with premeditated malice?

meshmaster
06-04-2003, 09:19 AM
Will this thread never die?

The whole Muslim vs Christian thing is getting old... Religion and State are suppossed to be seperate but George W. isn't letting it be. He keeps doing the whole PTL (Praise the Lord) thing in his speeches, and that's just got to be pissing off a lot of Muslims in the States, which surely can't be a good thing since Jyhad is all about religious war being justified....

It's kinda scary, but I came across this link yesterday...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,969564,00.html
If you though 911 was bad, I hate to think what real terrorists are cooking up as their hate for old George W. grows...

meshmaster
06-04-2003, 09:23 AM
for all you Bible thumpers out there - have a read on the Forgotten Books of the Bible, The Hiram Key, and a few books by similar authors... I'm not a Mason, but think some of their ideas should be looked at by those of you that read into the bible word for word and memorize every dang word of it, even though the words that you are memorizing are actually badly translated versions that have had tons of words and phrases added over time as all the scribes kept thowing in more parts, notes, and tried to get the words to translate to their own language....

redlum
06-04-2003, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by James Moore
rick_r, a couple of questions.

So, if it is 'thou shalt not murder' is manslaughter then okay?

If you kill someone in 'self defense' but you were wrong in your assumption of the threat, is that then murder since you purposely killed with premeditated malice?

I hate to stick my neck out for someone I've never met but leave it alone for goodness sakes. What does it prove to keep picking away at minutia?

Have any of you ever thought that maybe the reason the right and left have a hard time understanding one another is because most people like in a philosophical ghetto? Before I get run though by James let me explain. If you ever had a chance to see the 'Bush Country' t-shirt it showed where the highest concentration of voters for one side or the other live. NY LA and DC of course were entirely blue and the rest of the country (give or take) was red (I know this is generalizing so don't jump on the details quite yet). The point of this is do you think that because of this high concentration of one kind of thinking, or philosophical ghetto, that creates a communication gap?

Please forgive my bad grammar. I'm a modeler not a writer.

redlum
06-04-2003, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by redlum Have any of you ever thought that maybe the reason the right and left have a hard time understanding one another is because most people like in a philosophical ghetto?

I meant to type 'live' instead of 'like'.

Bionic Antboy
06-04-2003, 02:29 PM
redlum,

I think the response from James was justified. He wasn't "nitpicking", he was asking rick_r to more clearly define HIS nitpicking, which was done JUST to be contrary for it's own sake. :)

I'd like to see a reasoned answer for it myself. :)

As for the "philosophical ghetto" thing, it's true there is a certain "cityfolk vs. country bumpkins" kind of thing. What can you do? It's a two party system.

Kang and Kodos laugh maniacally and enslave the human race. :)

BTW, if there's typos in your post that bug you, there's a handy little "edit" button underneath each post, and you can just fix it right up.

Jake
06-04-2003, 03:16 PM
redlum,

First off, the division of the country with the little blue and red areas to signify who voted Democrat or Republican is a distortion generated by the electoral process. The colors signify when a majority won an area. So for instance, if there are 1000 people that live in some little county and 501 voted for Bush, that area would be painted red. Do you see how this is misleading? I'm not saying that certain regions don't have a political leaning one way or the other--just that you need to be wary of abstract representations such as the shirt you mention, which is of the "damn lies and statistics" family.


I hate to stick my neck out for someone I've never met but leave it alone for goodness sakes. What does it prove to keep picking away at minutia?

The ultimate topic of this thread is justification (or lack of) for war. Recently, the topic has shifted to justification for killing. Justification isn't the same thing as opinion. Any justification for the taking of human life has got to be based on rock solid logic and rationality. If you can remove some small premise and the whole argument falls apart like a house of cards, then that argument needs to be scrapped.

Letting someone's faulty reasoning go uncommented upon is like giving that person a license to be stupid. It's bad for the discussion and probably detrimental to the human race in general.
More so in times of war.

One the subject of war:
Killing innocents is never justified, no matter what interpretation of the Bible you are using. Any war that is fought involves collateral damage. Therefore, it is impossible to justify war using the Bible in this fashion.

And any idiot can see that killing and war are antithetical to Christ's message.

Rei
06-04-2003, 03:30 PM
ya see, your argument for that is based on being a chirstian. Now not everyone is a christian round here (world), so you cant justify your actions (not that you are) beause you are a christian, which is what Bush has been doing, when the area you are invading is not christan, but Islamic. They claim a Jihad and the way bush talks about there God Give Right, I dont blame them.

And if i say its not about justification, ist about slaging of america, because i started it, is anyone going to follow suit? This thread is free speach. (before the mods get here anyway)

Hervé
06-04-2003, 11:45 PM
well I think this thread is pointless, and therefore should be removed by Mods, coz it makes LW looking like a ..... (you decide)

redlum
06-05-2003, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by Bionic Antboy
As for the "philosophical ghetto" thing, it's true there is a certain "cityfolk vs. country bumpkins" kind of thing. What can you do? It's a two party system.

Hmmmm, I think I see the reason rick_r got so upset.

Another way of saying this could be, New York snobs and the rest of US. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just pointing out a little bias. Bernie Goldberg spent an entire book illustrating this very point. The media and those who are connected to it are in a liberal ghetto (NYC DC LA, etc.) - and then there's the rest of the country. I switched off the three networks right before the war and took a rest from Peter, Tom and Dan. It's amazing what they sound like after you've turned away for even a short period of time. After the war started I kept hearing Peter Jennings say things like, "The War in Iraq and how you should feel about it." In fact that was the title of one of his shows during the war. I remember thinking when I heard this was, "you mean I can't decide for myself how to feel about the war in Iraq?" And then there's FOX's "we report you decide." I would switch back to hear Ted Koppel on the front lines give his worst-case scenario report. War was hell on his comb over.

redlum
06-05-2003, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by Lightwolf And since the reasoning behind the iraq war has to do a lot with semantics. . .

You mean they were searching for Semantics of Mass Destruction? Sorry - I couldn't let that one go. :-)

redlum
06-05-2003, 09:05 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jake Letting someone's faulty reasoning go uncommented upon is like giving that person a license to be stupid. It's bad for the discussion and probably detrimental to the human race in general.
More so in times of war.QUOTE]

And your ability to use your "beautiful, subtle mind that can see 12 sides to every issue" with the "intelectual firepower that permits you to be devious, clever and amoral" (thank you Mr. Blankley) doesn't justify calling anyone stupid or an idiot. It just makes you rude, unclever and not a very nice person.

Lightwolf
06-05-2003, 09:06 AM
redlum:
lol :D
Actually, I think they used Semantics of Mass Distraction. :p

Bionic Antboy
06-05-2003, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by redlum
You mean they were searching for Semantics of Mass Destruction? Sorry - I couldn't let that one go. :-)

Well, yes. Members of the administration have admitted in public that there were probably no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by the time the war started, so their whole reason for going in was based on semantics.

That and mentioning Al-Quada in almost every sentence they mentioned either Iraq or Hussein, even though there was no evidence of Iraq's involvement in Sept 11. Even so, half of America thought, at the time of the onset of the invasion, that Hussein was personally responsible for the tragedy.

That strikes me as a war based on semantics, or I guess, a war based on lies and half-truths.

Now, Colin Powell is trying to gather more resources to show that the intel they had at the time of the presentation to the UN pointed to those weapons existing. This strikes me as nothing more than spin control, in the fact that no matter what "intel" they may or may not have (and lets not forget the purposefully faked intel), in the end, if there were no weapons before the first bomb dropped, then their main reason for going in was wrong.

That kind of sums it up, doesn't it? It has nothing to do with left/right. It's either justified or not. There was no real threat from Iraq against the US, just a "perceived" threat, and that was a perception that was perpetrated by the administration.

Heck, even Iran and Israel didn't feel any threat from Iraq, which has been just about the weakest nation in the region since the sanctions started.

EDIT: BTW, the date those weapons were supposedly destroyed is up in the air. Considering the activity of UN inspectors just before the war, and the additional focus on the country, I would think it would have been MORE difficult for Iraq to destroy the chemical/biological agents days before than months before. I suspect also that Hussein knew back in August or so that the US was going to invade, either with or without UN backing, with or without solid evidence. I sure as hell did. It wasn't hard to read between the lines.

redlum
06-05-2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Bionic Antboy That kind of sums it up, doesn't it? It has nothing to do with left/right. It's either justified or not. There was no real threat from Iraq against the US, just a "perceived" threat, and that was a perception that was perpetrated by the administration.

Heck, even Iran and Israel didn't feel any threat from Iraq, which has been just about the weakest nation in the region since the sanctions started.

This could also be said about Clinton in Kosovo and when he had that 'evil' asprin factory bombed.

Bionic Antboy
06-05-2003, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by redlum
This could also be said about Clinton in Kosovo and when he had that 'evil' asprin factory bombed.

I agree entirely, but that's going off on a tangent, as just about every post WWII US administration has such "war crime" skeletons in their closet. And it's not just limited to the US.

Heck, in the early part of the last century (circa 1920), Churchill wasn't opposed to using poison gas on "uncivilized tribes", meaning Afghani Kurds, in the Middle East when he was colonial secretary for Britain. His full quote is as follows...
"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes."

It's a systemic problem, one that's been with us for a long time, but it's not something that the general population has become really aware of until recent decades, partly because of the growth and organization of the so-called "counter-culture".

Even though I may not agree with everything that said "culture" espouses, there's a lot of history one can learn from it, and if you doubt what they say, research it before dismissing them out of hand because they wear flowers in their hair or are vegetarians, or are pagan (or atheist) as opposed to Christian etc etc. Before the days of the internet, confirming things was much more difficult, as it meant going to reference libraries and all that fun stuff, but now, googling can find you a lot of reliable resources, and if you doubt their veracity, real research can back it up, or even confirming it through multiple fairly reliable sources online.

When people argue about issues of black and white, there's plenty of historical evidence to show that, in reality, it's all shades of grey.

And the so-called "white" in the current situation is getting more and more tarnished as it's held up to the light. I suspect there will be some other "war" to rally the population before the election rolls around, too, as it will be fortuitous timing for the incumbant administration, and furthering the goals of a "peace at the barrel of a gun" that many in that administration openly advocate.

redlum
06-05-2003, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by Bionic Antboy
[B]I agree entirely, but that's going off on a tangent,

Not so far off as you might think. Clinton was the original wag-the-dog president. Everytime there was a bimbo eruption he was off bombing some poor country to divert attention. I think he called it, 'foriegn policy', or something crazy like that. Of course the loud liberal left never said a word because their man was acting all presidential killing folks (as you put it) who were "no real threat".

rick_r
06-05-2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by redlum
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jake Letting someone's faulty reasoning go uncommented upon is like giving that person a license to be stupid. It's bad for the discussion and probably detrimental to the human race in general.
More so in times of war.QUOTE]

And your ability to use your "beautiful, subtle mind that can see 12 sides to every issue" with the "intelectual firepower that permits you to be devious, clever and amoral" (thank you Mr. Blankley) doesn't justify calling anyone stupid or an idiot. It just makes you rude, unclever and not a very nice person.

My thoughts exactly. thank you.

Bionic Antboy
06-05-2003, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by redlum
Not so far off as you might think. Clinton was the original wag-the-dog president. Everytime there was a bimbo eruption he was off bombing some poor country to divert attention. I think he called it, 'foriegn policy', or something crazy like that. Of course the loud liberal left never said a word because their man was acting all presidential killing folks (as you put it) who were "no real threat".

Well it IS going off on a tangent, considering the original title of this thread. I agree with you that Clinton bombing the factory et al was wrong.

More importantly, what's your take on the Invasion of Iraq? Deflecting the conversation to a past president, and continuing to do so without addressing the issues of the current administration is avoiding the subject.

Do you think that the Invasion of Iraq was justified or no, if so, why? If not why?

Jake
06-05-2003, 04:43 PM
redlum,


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jake Letting someone's faulty reasoning go uncommented upon is like giving that person a license to be stupid. It's bad for the discussion and probably detrimental to the human race in general.
More so in times of war.QUOTE]

And your ability to use your "beautiful, subtle mind that can see 12 sides to every issue" with the "intelectual firepower that permits you to be devious, clever and amoral" (thank you Mr. Blankley) doesn't justify calling anyone stupid or an idiot. It just makes you rude, unclever and not a very nice person.

Well, where to begin? Let's back up for a moment. I was making a general point concerning justification for war. You reply with what I take to be a negative characterization of liberals (who the hell is Mr. Blankley?), which you extend to an assessment of my character. There are a lot of unspoken assumptions going into this exchange that are worth comment but I think it might be easier to just give an example:

About a couple of weeks into the war I was with some coworkers and we had this discussion about Iraq:

A: We should just nuke Iraq.
Me: Why?
A: Why not? They're terrorists. Just get rid of them. Fix the problem.
B: Well, yeah but there are a lot of innocent people there too.
C: There is no such thing as an innocent Iraqi.

Needless to say, I unloaded on A and C to the extent that I was able within the workplace. I honestly don't know the political orientation of these guys, but when it comes to this subject I won't hesitate to call them idiots. Does that make me rude? Am I unclever and not a nice person?
What would you have me do, couch my critique in niceness (You know, I never thought of that! Nuke Iraq! That's a good idea--it will probably save American lives! But what about. . .)? Or would you prefer that I take pains not to offend anyone and just not criticize their viewpoints at all. Please enlighten me. I'm all ears.

As for Mr. Blankley:

"beautiful, subtle mind that can see 12 sides to every issue"

Step back for a second and just think about what this guy is mocking. The ability to see an issue from multiple perspectives. The effort to gain a nuanced understanding of of an issue.

"intelectual(sic) firepower that permits you to be devious, clever and amoral"

Here he basically mocks intellectualism itself. The flip side of this assertion is that people who lack "intellectual firepower" are not permitted to be devious, clever, and amoral. Sounds like pure bravo sierra to me. Also, ultimately condescending to both sides.

I could be wrong, but Mr. Blankely's comments suggest a demagogue of the anti-intellectual variety. One who appeals to people's fear of looking stupid, plays to their pejudices against complicated ideologies, and likes to offer simple, emotionally pleasing answers to complicated questions.

Jake
06-05-2003, 05:11 PM
More importantly, what's your take on the Invasion of Iraq? Deflecting the conversation to a past president, and continuing to do so without addressing the issues of the current administration is avoiding the subject.

This is a really common rhethorical tactic you hear these days. If Clinton did [ ], why is not allright for Bush to do [ ]? The basic intent is to make critics of the Bush administration look like hypocrites. If you can make them look like hypocrites (the other common one is liars), then you can just throw out all their arguments and all is well.

Which is a friggin JOKE! Let's turn this thing around and talk about the Clinton administration. I had never seen such a pathological hatred of an idividual by conservatives as was elicited by this man. I really doubt that he did anything that did not result in some branch of the right wing bitching and moaning to the high heavens. So let's turn things around. Why was it ok for conservatives to complain when Clinton did [ ], but it is not ok for liberals to complain when Bush does [ ]?

This is a ridiculous argument that is akin to a snake eating its own tail. But Clinton did this! But Bush Sr. did this! But Reagan did this! But Carter did this! On and on and on.

Government is there to represent the interests of the people. When the people don't like what's going on, they *****. It's that simple. The question is: do you take it on the chin or do you stonewall? The Bush admin typically stonewalls.


My thoughts exactly. thank you.

RFLMAO! At last, someone to voice your opinion!

Bionic Antboy
06-05-2003, 07:01 PM
Jake, you nailed it exactly.


This is a ridiculous argument that is akin to a snake eating its own tail. But Clinton did this! But Bush Sr. did this! But Reagan did this! But Carter did this! On and on and on.

I know I definitely wasn't going to fall into the trap of being an apologist for Clinton's actions during his reign. But boy, do those boys on the right sure love to hate him. :)

Most "pundits" like to divide themselves into two close-minded camps, and lob thought grenades at one another. As if one "side" is infallible. It would be nice if people could get over this "binary" political thinking, especially when it comes to issues beyond their own country's borders, and look at what's really going on.

I imagine that those who here who've complained about Clinton's bombings, while supporting the Bush administration are trying to figure out some kind of spin control to justify their stance without having to look at facts.

And so it goes...

ted
06-05-2003, 11:33 PM
If you're open-minded, you gotta admit, the left sure is up in arms about every issue, while they proclaimed “Right Wing Conspiracy” with every "issue" that Clinton brought upon himself, while embarrassing the United States as a whole.

But then again, the right, (which I lean towards), sure made issue about everything Clinton pulled while in office.

The difference as I see it is when it’s a liberal in trouble, it gets blown over, when it’s a conservative in trouble, he loses his job.
So the way I see it, the liberals will defend the indefensible, while the conservatives will cave in and dump the baggage.

Both extremes are just that, extreme.

Back to work!

Jake
06-06-2003, 12:56 AM
The difference as I see it is when it’s a liberal in trouble, it gets blown over, when it’s a conservative in trouble, he loses his job.
So the way I see it, the liberals will defend the indefensible, while the conservatives will cave in and dump the baggage.

I have to disagree.

Clinton was involved in the Whitewater controversy and his various sex scandals. His political enemies dogged him relentlessly, but were unable to make anything stick. Nevertheless, there was a concerted effort to totally destroy his legacy before he had even left office. Republicans would have you believe that the only thing the Clinton administration was about was sex scandals and lying under oath. Gore took this various seriously and made an effort to distance himself from Clinton during his election campaign. This was a mistake, IMO, that cost him the election since a lot of people still like Bill a lot, despite his failings.

Reagan was involved in the Iran Contra scandal, but suffered no great loss of popularity with conservatives as a result. Oliver North was a key player in the scandal and I believe he later became a Senator. Pointdexter (first name?) was another key player in that transaction and he now heads up the Bush administration's data mining program (which sickens many conservatives as well). Bush Sr. probably had knowledge of Iran Contra, but claimed, cryptically, that he was out of the loop, so nobody really bothered him about it. Bush Jr. was key in the Savings and Loans bailout, but that obviously didn't stop him from getting the presidency. I think there's plenty of baggage there if you pay attention. BTW, one of the first things Dubya did when he entered office was to extend the time period under which classified documents from the Reagan era would remain unavailable to the public.

Hervé
06-06-2003, 02:53 AM
Well, Gentlemen, you could at least make a pause today with this damn thread as Today is the Memorial day in France for the WWII American Soldiers that lost their life back then....

So a day of silence is required in here, unless you dont care about the dead American Soldiers ....

Trompets.... tuuuu ttuu tu tu ta !!

Lightwolf
06-06-2003, 03:11 AM
Trompets.... tuuuu ttuu tu tu ta !!
Ssssssshhhh, quiet... ;)

Hervé
06-06-2003, 03:17 AM
............:cool:

(((ok)))

redlum
06-06-2003, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by ted If you're open-minded, you gotta admit, the left sure is up in arms about every issue, while they proclaimed “Right Wing Conspiracy” with every "issue" that Clinton brought upon himself, while embarrassing the United States as a whole.

But then again, the right, (which I lean towards), sure made issue about everything Clinton pulled while in office.

The difference as I see it is when it’s a liberal in trouble, it gets blown over, when it’s a conservative in trouble, he loses his job.
So the way I see it, the liberals will defend the indefensible, while the conservatives will cave in and dump the baggage.

And don't forget the 'win at any cost' tactics of the Clintons, which amounts to the nastiness we now see. As a result there is no honor in politics anymore, only power. When Nixon saw that he was going to be impeached he did the honorable thing and resigned. Clinton WAS impeached and remained in his shame. It's a sick double standard.

And of course you disagree Jake – only your opinion counts. After all there can be only one right.

James Moore
06-06-2003, 10:28 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hervé
Well, Gentlemen, you could at least make a pause today with this damn thread as Today is the Memorial day in France for the WWII American Soldiers that lost their life back then....

So a day of silence is required in here, unless you dont care about the dead American Soldiers ....

Trompets.... tuuuu ttuu tu tu ta !! [/QUOTE

hmmm, is it only Americans that get honored today? I don't think so....

ted
06-06-2003, 12:08 PM
[i]

Clinton was involved in the Whitewater controversy and his various sex scandals. His political enemies dogged him relentlessly, but were unable to make anything stick. [/B]

Unable to make anything stick????:confused:
Many issues were proven and FINALLY admitted to.
Talk about "paying attention"!

My biggest issue with Clinton, as touched on here, was the fact that he would deny things, ruin several peoples careers trying to protect himself, even allow his own people to put their heads on the chopping block, only to later say, well, I didn't understand the question.

If someone gets caught doing something, fine, if he denies it, fine. But when he try’s to cover it by destroying others, I think that person should be publicly hung. Not allowed to represent our country. Clinton IS a slime ball held up by his followers like a cult leader.

While I'll admit both parties need a good arse whooping, I can't understand how anyone could deny Clinton was undoubtedly the most embarrassing President we've ever had and simply put, a self-serving, slimy character.

Lightwolf
06-06-2003, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by ted
I can't understand how anyone could deny Clinton was undoubtedly the most embarrassing President we've ever had ...
Well, the most embarassing President the US has ever had is the current President (at least from a foreign perspective).
The only thing that stuck as being embarassing from Clinton is the term "Clinton Sex", but even that seems to be too raunchy for GWB :)
Now, as for the misunderstated president being embarassing... well, they made a TV show about him,didn't they? ;)
Cheers,
Mike - off into the weekend...

James Moore
06-06-2003, 01:14 PM
To many in the 'rest of the world', the American obsession with Clinton's sex life, was...an obsession. Leaders have been sowing the sexual benefits of their power for ages. What Clinton did that was so wrong, which deservedly got him impeached, and should have removed him from office, was that he lied under oath.

jricks
06-06-2003, 04:06 PM
Some of the little things Clinton pulled in office...

1. Provided forbidden technology and design information to China, a complete violation of US trade laws including satellites, super computers and nuclear. When Clinton entered office China's missle program was all but nonexistant. When Clinton left office China was nuclear and could strike us and you from multiple locations.

2.China has now exported the results of that technology to countries that created nuclear programs including Pakistan.

3. Allowed Korea to expell all UN inspectors so that they could develope their nuclear interests in private. Korea now benefits from the Chinese technology provided to them.

4. Public outcry stopped Clinton in 1998 from leasing California's Long Beach Naval Yard to the Chinese firm COSCO.

5. China's sharing of nuclear technology with Pakistan causing India to boost the program of the same. A story we have all watched as tensions became extreme recently that is the result of Clinton legacy.

6. Allowed Iraq to expell all UN inspectors.

7. Launched multiple military strikes that accomplished nothing.

8. Clinton's top campaign contributor in 1992 was China. A pocket picked more than once and then by Gore.

9. Clinton recieved funding directly from known or suspected Chinese intelligence agents.

10. Clinton appointed anti-nuclear activist Hazel O'Leary to head the Department of Energy. O'Leary set to work "leveling the playing field," in her words, by giving away our nuclear secrets. She declassified 11 million pages of data on U.S. nuclear weapons and loosened up security at weapons labs.

11. March 1999 U.S. Commerce Secretary William Daley's trade delegation to China produced several sweet business deals, including a special little gem for Enron. Clinton's connection to Enron is simply amazing.
Examples: Enron's dealings with a Chinese army oil company engaged in oil-for-blood in Sudan. The mass media neglected to inform the U.S. public about the cruel use of humanitarian aid by the Clinton administration that greased an Enron deal in Africa.

12. Did nothing about Bin Laden.

13. Decreased the integrity and security of Visa info into this country allowing over a million to be here on expired Visa's and having no way of knowing where.

The list is truly too long, even without the word sex.

Clinton's legacy Presidential policy?

Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, Adultery, and outright lies to his family, his staff, the congress and the country, raising the danger level throughout the world for us all by doing nothing to prevent it and by providing nuclear capability to China will be his legacy and what future Presidents will have to deal with.

The next time you read about increased terrorism, corruption or nuclear missles around the world, think Clinton...

That is his contribution.

Bionic Antboy
06-06-2003, 10:06 PM
Surprise surprise, the mouth frothing starts as soon as someone mentions Clinton's name, how Pavlovian :)

Not that I'll dispute a lot of it, but heaven forbid anybody points out what's going on RIGHT NOW.

Accusing Clinton of increased terrorism, amongst all the crap that just about EVERY president's administration has pulled overseas, is like picking a single rock thrower out of a mob, and making him carry the burden for all of them, especially when it's a long line of systemic behaviour that was around when Clinton was just a tyke.

Sheeh.

jricks
06-06-2003, 10:36 PM
Dispute what you'd like.

It's not the first opportunity by any stretch that I've said something. And it is in more support of your comments than in contradiction too.What I see... is a significant incline to the danger that spread during his administration in corruption paired with a Communist country and the incredible spread throughout the world of nuclear weapons.

Freaks me out... amoung other things.

Lots of things going right now, still got some cleaning up to do also.

I spent a ton of posts on what's going right in another thread.

What surprises me so much is that Europe seems to think that Clinton was so harmless.

Jake
06-06-2003, 11:54 PM
jricks,

First of all, you make a lot of unsubstantiated claims about Clinton "providing" forbidden nuclear technology to China. Exactly how did this come to pass? Do you have a link or at least a more detailed explanation of that to which you refer?

Secondly, your comments in general are irrational in the extent to which they blame Clinton for world events beyond his control. Do you really expect any US leader to be able to prevent other nations from going nuclear indefinitely? You mention the growth in the Chinese nuclear threat over his term. So we're talking eight years? Are you expecting them to stay incompetent forever?

Again, you blame Clinton for their progress. How do you know that their progress was based on info stolen from the US? What about the breakup of the former Soviet Union? Do you have some special connection with the red Chinese to know what their actual nuclear capability is at the present?

So China gives Pakistan nuclear technology and it's the fault of ...Clinton. India hates Pakistan, so they go nuclear and it's the fault of... Clinton. How about blaming China, Pakistan, or India?

UN inspectors get kicked out of some place. Who do you blame? Not the UN, you blame ... Clinton.

The military action Clinton did take, according to you "accomplished notion." Our actions in Bosnia accomplished nothing? We maintained the no-fly zone for nothing?

You then throw in the claim that Clinton did nothing about Bin Laden. Pre 9/11, what did Bush jr. do about Bin Laden? Post 9/11, with the suppport of pretty much the entire country behind him, why didn't he bag Osama? Where is Bin Laden now? Why don't we know? Maybe because he's one slippery motherf*****?

I wouldn't say that it's fair to blame Clinton for increased terrorism because he was unable to apprehend Bin Laden. I would blame whatever bastard gave the CIA the ok to train Bin Laden. And I lament the fact that Reagan and crew decided it was in the best interests of the US to back Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran.

Oh, and I think your picture of Enron is a bit distorted. Here's a nice article that details how they've supported Dubya since his first run for political office:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020118.html

jricks
06-07-2003, 10:22 AM
Jake,

No Jake I don't have a special connection, I simply care enough to look before running around with comments, something that you obviously haven't developed an interest in.

Take time to realize how substantiated they are, wanting them not to be, or wanting Bush to be worse does not make them unsubstantiated.

If it rattles your reality too bad the info is there, spend ten minutes with google.

Thrash about as much as you want, Clinton broke the trade laws of his own country, went to bed with China, spent 8 years with Enron and is probably the single most devistating president we have ever had and has left behind a nuclear legacy that endagers the world as it's never seen.

As for the increased terrorism, Clinton was offered Bin Laden's head and didn't care, beyond that Bin Laden may be hard to find now, Clinton didn't have much interest. But more than Bin Laden himself, which is the point... it was his administration that allowed inspectors to be kicked out of Korea, kicked out of Iraq. It was his foreign policy which allowed terrorism to develope unrivaled. The others may find it hard to contain, it is his that allowed it to penetrate and build. In addition to that, you haven't heard how extremely our national security was screwed while he was in office... another search you should explore.

I didn't say it was about Bin Laden, with or without his head it's now a much bigger problem and Clinton did more to allow it than diminish it.

If you're pissed at Bush, in comparison Clinton should be in prison for treason.

Jake
06-07-2003, 11:36 AM
jricks--


No Jake I don't have a special connection, I simply care enough to look before running around with comments, something that you obviously haven't developed an interest in.

So if you looked at something before making those grandiose claims, why can't you provide some links to back them up?


Take time to realize how substantiated they are, wanting them not to be, or wanting Bush to be worse does not make them unsubstantiated.

There are two kinds of unsubstantiated claims in your post. The first is factual (e.g. Clinton provided China with forbidden nuclear technology). So you really expect someone swallow that without any info to back it up? Dates? Description of the incident? Write ups in newspapers or magazines? Anything? Just because you say so?

The second kind of claim is more interpretive (e.g. the single most devistating president we have ever had and has left behind a nuclear legacy that endagers the world as it's never seen.)

You don't even really make a case for this, you just spout it as if it were truth. You don't take into account other factors behind nuclear proliferation. You blame Clinton for the actions of other nations that were beyond his control. You refuse to acknowledge the fact that nuclear proliferation is pretty much inevitable.



If it rattles your reality too bad the info is there, spend ten minutes with google.

Total copout. Why should I waste my time looking for information on google to prove your point? Furthermore, why would you be so naive to think that my search on google is going to pick up the so-called "info" that you had in mind? If your too lazy to back up your points, the reasonable thing to do is take them at face value: sensationalistic garbage.

jricks
06-07-2003, 01:18 PM
Jake, this is stuff that we have had access to for 12 years.

The copout is knowing nothing about it. I wouldn't expect you to spend any time or you would already know.

He sold your country's security to China, opened our borders to terrorism, spread nuclear technology to dangerous hands, that then spread them even further.

jricks
06-07-2003, 02:57 PM
Jake,

Here's a tip or two for you.

Start with the Cato Institute, it is a watch site on Civil Liberties, Limited Government, Free Market and Peace.

If you don't trust it, look for other sites, with allegiance to nothing but your Constitution and get involved in your country in a way that will preserve it instead of debate it over generalisations or perception. Opinion should be based on information.

I have no idea your age, but due to the fact that you know nothing about ChinaGate you must be young or disinterested.

Your mind is worth more, and, if we do not watch and remain involved we will not gain back any ground regardless of President. However, there will be some that gain more back than others and some that take more away. It is not all he did, so I will. Some of it takes parts that may well be unforgivable.

Knowing the difference between what is inherent in politics and treachery to your nation is paramount. Controlling politics through knowing is something that can be done. Loosing more ground is the worst thing that can happen. Knowing the facts is the beginning of changing it.

The internet has caused a major uprising in information.

Check into:
1. the Libertarians
2. the Federalist papers
3. get to know your country as a Republic that it was created as by the founding fathers, NOT a Democracy that is an improperly used designation.
4. Senator Ron Paul of Texas

Read about the warnings our Founding Fathers gave us about corporations, long binding alliances, the danger of Democracy, the role of our Government. Your guaranteed Freedoms, when we became the "defenders of democracy" (hint President Wilson), or look up Wilsonism.

Even if you do it in your spare time, a little, you will make a difference.

Do not think someone pointing out the treachery of one because of the dismisal of his wrongs in a debate is dismissing others.

Then, fight like hell but not against those doing the same preserving your Constitution and trying to gain back ground.

Nuclear proliferation may be inevitable, but we have survived a President that radically accelerated it by braking his Nations laws and tried to sell both our butts down river off-shore, there will be another... what will we do about it?

Congress.org is a good place to start, there are others, it will put you in contact with your representatives, allow you to follow any pending legislation, voice your opinion. Take control of your rights by knowing.

Take it for what it's worth and what you're willing to do to understand it.

ted
06-07-2003, 03:14 PM
So much "sticking the head in the sand" comments about Clinton, minimalizing the important facts. Too much to address with my schedule.

The one thing I gotta comment on is the attitude that Clinton can't be blamed for everything.

True.
But I found it interesting with Bush in office for less then a year, all the blame from the left for 9-11, went to Bush. And they poured it on THICK!
Even the Media went down that road.

None of the points JRICKS so wonderfully pointed out, (or even others he left out), were connected to Clinton's 8 years of letting conditions line up.

Clinton built a friendly environment for terrorist’s activities and world nuclear chaos. But nobody spent much energy pointing that out.

Same with my Father, (very much a Republican hater).
When it's a Republican, he's spewing hatred and calls for action bigger then the situation.

When it comes to another Democrat's actions or behavior, he claims the same BS that I'm reading here,
"Well, their all politicians, they all do it", or, "it wasn't his fault".
Minimalizing your own party’s actions while blowing out of proportion something the other party does.

Funny how two minds see the same situation so differently?
I'm just glad I'm on the "Right" side!:)

jricks
06-07-2003, 03:30 PM
yeh ted, when I see you banging away in threads... it gives me hope... to know that some know...

The arguments that cry Bush, and UN without having information on why Bush is and why UN didn't can be dizzying.

lone
06-07-2003, 03:58 PM
what gets me is, the left doesn't think Clinton is to blame for ANYTHING, yet they bend over backwards to give him credit for the boom of the '90s. if there is a BILL responsible for the '90s, it's GATES. if you factor out ALL of the money generated by the sales of computers (PCs, servers, monitors), and network equipment (especially the zillion miles of fiber), etc., it would have been the WORST decade economically since WW2.

just for the record, while i think Clinton could have done far more serious damage then he did, had it not been for the election in '94, and i didn't care for him a bit, i can't say i liked Bush Sr. (Mr. lying 'no new taxes' POS) any better.

Republicans, democrats; no matter how you slice it, at best you're choosing the lesser of 2 evils. VOTE LIBERTARIAN - they can't screw it up any worse!

Hervé
06-08-2003, 12:22 AM
OK, who's next on this famous axis of evil....

Bush is a terrorist in the name of God, like his friends, just different Gods.... the war of the Gods.... in fact....

Clinton, .... I think he's very happy with all the money "stupidos" are giving to him.... ha ha... oh and his wife too, he he he...

really the force and conviction you guys talk about politics that would spit on you any time is rather amazing, I mean funny...

Oh dont forget the Nazi Italian, and best of all, the Chirac pouet pouet !! Chirac loves the Corona beer.... oops I forgot Blair who's real name (from "The Economist") is in fact Bliar...

I really could shoot all those people in the back of the head, as I am a Royalist, at least back then you knew who is lying, today they share the lies

Bah , next week is father's day, so I'll have to think about a small gift....

Have a medium day...

jricks
06-08-2003, 09:39 AM
It's the same conviction that packs our bags, sends our money and our families to other soil when asked for help after the spitting is replaced by need.

That's funny, and changing.

Jake
06-08-2003, 01:48 PM
jricks,


Jake, this is stuff that we have had access to for 12 years.

That would be 1991. The scandal over the espionage and political contributions hit mid-nineties at the earliest.


The copout is knowing nothing about it. I wouldn't expect you to spend any time or you would already know.

Oh, I was familiar with many of these incidents, just not the whole Chinagate interpretation.

I am going to harp on this one last time--you either get it or you don't. If you're going to make an allegation that is based on facts (as opposed to interpretation, ideology, or opinion), it is your responsibility to back your claim up. Let me give you an example.

I make the outrageous claim that Bush jr. snorted 20 million dollars worth of coke while Governor of Texas. Then I tell you to google to find the proof. What if your search references 150 sites that make reference to a joke about Bush doing coke?

I did a google search for "Chinagate" and it pisses me off that I had to waste my time filtering through unrelated crap to find the meat of your argument because you simply couldn't be bothered.

Most of the sites I looked at were reference sites that provided links to two main Chinagate resources. The first site was "The Idiot's Guide to Chinagate" by Richard Poe. Oddly, Poe's comments seemed familiar. I went back to one of your earlier posts and saw that at least one section of it was lifted, word for word, from Poe's article (unless you and Poe lifted it from some other common source). Why didn't you link Poe's article?

Poe basically states that his article is an abbreviated version of the "Chinagate for Dummies" site, so I spent most of my time there. On the first readthough it was extremely damning. On the second readthrough, I started following the links (i.e. the ones that actually worked) and, viola! a broader picture started to emerge. Some of the things that stood out were:

1. One of the main technological features holding China's nuclear ability back was the capability to create smaller warheads for cluster bombs and increased payloads. This technology is thought to have been stolen from the US. The theft is believed to have occured in the 1980s.

2. The main suspect in the espionage case was Wen Ho Lee. To this day, the FBI has not been able to establish that Lee was a Chinese agent or rule out that the info was stolen from some other location.

3. When the scandal broke, there were several inquiries (Cox etc.) into the theft of nuclear technology by the Chinese. All of these investigations agreed that Chinese espionage was a serious matter that had to be dealt with. However the intelligence community was sharply divided over an assessment of the damage that had been done. There were many that argued the advancement of the Chinese nuclear program was the result of not only secrets stolen from the US, but information gathered from sources in the former Soviet Union and (gasp!) the product of their own ingenuity.

4. Clinton did approve the sale of satellite and computer technology to the Chinese against the recommendation of Warren Cristopher. However, I think its worth mentioning that this course of action was one highly desirable for the American aerospace industry, which had lobbied long and hard for the option of selling goods to China. Moreover, engaging China economically to promote a capitalist makeover is an approach that has been argued by Republicans and Democrats alike. In other words, there are more issues involved than "evil Clinton trying to compromise our national security."

5. Check out the "Bush connection" section of the Chinagate for Dummies site. Many of the people who had advised Clinton had also worked for Bush Sr., which leads me to my last point:

6. Once in office, Bush Jr. drops any and all prosecutions relating to the Chinagate affair, to the great chagrin of his own party. Ashcroft was basically ordered not to follow up on anything. I can think of two compelling reasons why the Bush camp would make it all go away:

A. The evidence relating to the spy case and alleged wrongdoing by Clinton officials was so speculative and circumstantial that further investigation would be a waste of time and resources.
B. There was a case to be made, but doing so would expose a network of interests that extended beyond the Clinton camp to certain people Bush wouldn't want implicated.


Does the Chinagate material suggest corruption in the Clinton administration? Yes.
Does it suggest incompetency in the Clinton administration? Yes, though hindsight is 20/20.
Do I feel like wading through all this crap again to defend Clinton? Good lord no.
Do the things I read about Chinagate support your statement:

He sold your country's security to China, opened our borders to terrorism, spread nuclear technology to dangerous hands, that then spread them even further.

Not in the least. You're basically pushing a conspiracy theory that takes various incidents out of context and uses them to paint a picture of evil Bill trying to screw over his own country for ... campaign contributions? To get rich(er)? These details are nauseating, but they're not the EVIL conspiracy you make them out to be.


Here's a tip or two for you.

Start with the Cato Institute, it is a watch site on Civil Liberties, Limited Government, Free Market and Peace.

I am familiar with the Cato Institute through Steve Milloy's Junkscience website. I've frequented the trash talk BBS linked to that site for a little over a year now (it recently changed to Debunkers.org). The site is predominently conservative with lots of libertarians mixed in.

I'm familiar with the general content to which you refer (federalism, the danger of democracy, etc.). There are a lot of things I agree with, and many things that I don't.


Even if you do it in your spare time, a little, you will make a difference.

Do not think someone pointing out the treachery of one because of the dismisal of his wrongs in a debate is dismissing others.

Then, fight like hell but not against those doing the same preserving your Constitution and trying to gain back ground.


What do you think I'm doing here? Bush is our president now. There are very serious issues relating to his administration. They can, IMO, be divided roughly into foreign policy issues (mainly the war in Iraq) and civil liberties issues (the extended powers granted to Ashcroft and company).

jricks
06-09-2003, 02:17 AM
I will first say, I agree that the Patriot Act is on the ragged edge. It has a sunset clause that mandates it be voted back in to survive a certain date, the way I understand it.

Be aware of the second Part (still pending I think) Patriot Act II. Although, terrorism is unlike anything we've faced, it still unerves me for that bending of rights, even temporarily.

Jake, it may piss you off running through comics to get to info about the Impeached President in question. It floors me to have to provide you with info on public issues you say you've already heard about. My first post had enough for you to do a decent search of standard, plentiful sites on a subject you admit having some background on to begin with.

What difference does its later name make? What was your first conclusion while we were living it? Party rivalry? Badgering Bill?

I've tried to select some links that contain documents with names and other things that can at least jump start your search should you choose to look further.

This is all I have time to provide.

This stuff has been in the news for years.

I have no idea what you think risking your national security is, but below are reasons I believe qualify.

Tangent: Did you know the Supreme Court Disbarred Clinton and WILL NOT allow him to practice law in front of them? After the Supreme Court of his home state notified them of doing the same?

Another probable first for his legacy?

http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/100201/new_1002010022.shtml
Other sources I'm sure are available.

His legacy of shame and as the father of nuclear proliferation into adversarial hands will be epic.

INVESTIGATION OF ILLEGAL OR IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN CONNECTION WITH 1996 FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS FINAL REPORT of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS SENATE Rept. 105-167 - 105th Congress 2d Session - March 10, 1998

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1998_rpt/sgo-sir/2-18.htm

Cash donations from an active adversary?

Pursuing nuclear and technological trade as policy with non-allies? Even though we knew they were actively providing nuclear technology to others not considered friendly either... in active hotspots? Any rational reason at all to accelerate the nuclear program of an adversary? Is that risking our security and the security of the western world significantly?

Deregulate thousands of documents on how to nuke... like we need to know?

Trying to sell a Naval Ship yard on the West coast to a Chinese Company?

Leaving someone suspected of being a spy in a sensitive position for 3 years within our nuclear program?...a suspect?

If you or I were a suspect in eating too many free donuts... would we work at that donut shop long?
http://www.house.gov/hunter/chinaspy.htm

One of our Scientists blowing the whistle?
http://www.anomalous-images.com/news/news383.html

Clinton Administration's Response to Chinese Espionage? Sell them super computers and open nuclear trade. Lots of talk about prevention, looking into existing espionage... do you remember any results?
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/whcox052599.htm

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/pubs/editorials/1998/pitfalls.html
excerpt: In February, Zhao Chengkun, dean of China’s Nuclear Power Institute, laid out China’s plans for dealing with Westinghouse. China plans to start with the latest Westinghouse design, the advanced AP600 reactor, for which U.S. taxpayers shouldered half the development cost.

In the middle of the fund-raising scandal
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/1997/33.shtml
excerpt: This raises the specter that U.S. national security interests have been sold and compromised for campaign contributions. The sale of nuclear technology to China - a significant future military threat to the United States and the world...

Don't tell...
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/asia/030699china-nuke.html
excerpt: ... The department's chief of intelligence, who raised the first alarm about the case, was ordered last year by senior officials not to tell Congress about his findings because critics might use them to attack the administration's China policies, officials said.

White House officials ... said they determined on learning of it that the Chinese spying would have no bearing on the administration's dealings with China, ... included the increased exports of satellites and other militarily useful items. They continued to advocate looser controls over sales of supercomputers and other equipment, even as intelligence analysts documented the scope of China's espionage.

HUH? Security risk here.

http://www.nti.org/db/china/ncaorg.htm
excerpt: The 1985 US-China Nuclear Cooperation Agreement (NCA) was signed on 23 July 1985 and approved by the US Congress on 30 December 1985, but has not yet been fully implemented. In October 1997, US President Clinton announced his intention to implement the agreement, and on 12 January 1998 he signed the formal certifications and reports required by US law to implement the agreement...

http://www.house.gov/hunter/chinaspy.htm
http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/pubs/ib22.html
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/1997/printer_33.shtml
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1998_01-02/chinajf.asp
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/3/190315.shtml
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1997/971030-prc.htm

If you continue a search. Don't look for it on a Democratic site. Don't look for the conviction of the guy that introduced himself to us with the "I tried it but didn't inhale story" or the same guy that admitted to giving false testimony. Even after blatant perjury... nothing, just the tarnish of being impeached... forever - some consolation I'll admit.

Little did we know we'd have 8 full years of it between not inhaling and lieing under oath with a whole lot spread in the middle.

PS. I would love to know what you disagree with that the Founding Fathers had to say about the example topics I gave as suggestions to check out.

Especially how you feel about Jackson telling us: Democracy is nothing more than mob rule where 51 percent take away the rights of 49 percent.

Or If you know the electoral college was created by them to prevent that mob control?

Or when they told us Democracies are doomed to fail by their own bankruptcy.

How bout some links, How about some points of your own beyond counterpoints?

Easy to pick apart, question and ask for links.

History will prove or disprove either of us with Clinton. I feel real secure in my opinion of where he'll land in it. I can't believe so many had so little interest while it was happening. It's already apparent that it fell on many unwilling ears and eyes.

Multiple papers on Clinton, Nukes and China.
http://www.nci.org/nci-usc.htm

A site you've given as an example I think.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york-issue112901.shtml
excerpt: So Clinton talked tough. But he did not act tough. Indeed, a review of his years in office shows that each time the president was confronted with a major terrorist attack — the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole — Clinton was preoccupied with his own political fortunes to an extent that precluded his giving serious and sustained attention to fighting terrorism.

...And that is the key to understanding Bill Clinton's handling of the terrorist threat that grew throughout his two terms in the White House: It just wasn't his thing.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22360
excerpt: This, coupled with Clinton's approval of letting Loral Space and Motorola sell or transfer sensitive communications and satellite technology to China during the 1990s, and it's no wonder the Chinese are getting better at tracking (and targeting) our regional military assets.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23610
excerpt: WASHINGTON – In terms of sheer numbers, the Justice Department's criminal investigation into 1996 fund-raising abuses appears impressive.

Its special task force has charged 26 individuals and two corporations, yielding 22 convictions so far, with just one acquittal, a WorldNetDaily review of court records shows.

All 26 prosecuted are Democrat donors: Pauline Kanchanalak, Duangnet Kronenberg, James Tjahaja Riady, Audrey Yu, Cha-Kuek Koo, Yi Chu, Man Ho, Maria Hsia, Yogesh Gandhi, Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie, Yuan Pei "Antonio" Pan, John Huang...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14355
excerpt: "The administration continues to coddle China, despite its continuing crackdown on democratic reform, its brutal subjugation of Tibet, its irresponsible exports of nuclear and missile technology, its support for the homicidal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and its abusive trade practices.

Who said that? Richard Gere? Rush Limbaugh? Rep. Nancy Pelosi? Michael Reagan?

No, folks. It was Bill Clinton in a campaign speech at George Washington University, Dec. 17, 1991.

The pride of their summit meeting in Washington will be an announcement that Clinton approved the sale of nuclear reactors to China in exchange for a promise by Jiang not to provide nuclear assistance to Iran and Pakistan.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14293
excerpt: When FBI agent Jerry Campane testified that Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie, a long-time friend of President Clinton, laundered foreign money that may have come from the Communist Chinese government...

redlum
06-09-2003, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by Lightwolf
Now, as for the misunderstated president being embarassing... well, they made a TV show about him,didn't they?

The West Wing is a show written by liberals for liberals. It gives liberals a chance to rewrite the past in their image and deny the facts.

If you want a real dose of fiction take a gander at the new book with HilLIARy's name on it. So far there hasn't been one person to corroborate her stories. I think the icing on the cake will be when they finally reveal who the ghostwriter is. I hear she’s up for another Grammy for the audio version like the one she got for It Take a Village. Now there’s a joke with no punch line. A liberal panel nominating a liberal politician for an award only deserved of artists. Excuse me while I gag.


http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/6/7/221122 (http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/dsp/specialReports_pc_carden_detail.htm?reportID={647A 4CAA-2DAF-4989-AE48-0AF139FCD3D3})

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/6/8/203001[/URL]

http://www.nypost.com/commentary/694.htm

Lightwolf
06-09-2003, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by redlum
The West Wing is a show written by liberals for liberals. It gives liberals a chance to rewrite the past in their image and deny the facts.
...as to rewriting the past and denying facts:
This is a common thing on both sides of the political fence. More clever politians even attempt to re-write current affairs (just look at the current WMD intelligence inquiries in the UK and the US, or the Jessica Lynch propaganda). A solid democracy should be able to tackle those challenges though (that is, for example, what freedom of press is for).

Unfortunately, what most people perceive as facts is usually an opinion based on facts, and that is a big difference.

Cheers,
Mike

redlum
06-09-2003, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Lightwolf Unfortunately, what most people perceive as facts is usually an opinion based on facts, and that is a big difference.

As you probably know the 'cliff hanger' for Left Wi. . .Oh I mean West Wing was a Newt character played by John Goodman becoming president. If you remember back when the republicans won congress in '94 that was the big 'scary' word going around that Newt was only two seats away from getting into the Whitehouse. Since it didn't happen in real life it's great that the liberals can live out their fear mongering fantasies in television.




Originally posted by Jake[/i]I wouldn't say that it's fair to blame Clinton for increased terrorism because he was unable to apprehend Bin Laden.

Clinton was offered bin Laden by the Sadi's but refused because he didn't perceive him as a threat.

Lightwolf
06-09-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by redlum
As you probably know the 'cliff hanger' for Left Wi. . .Oh I mean West Wing was a Newt character played by John Goodman becoming president ...
Actually they showed it for a short time here on television (I think, it had a different title), but I wasn't really interested in watching.
GWB on the news is entertainment enough (I'd laugh harder if he wouldn't make my stomach turn, never watch the news while you eat dinner!) ;)

Cheers,
Mike

redlum
06-09-2003, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Lightwolf Actually they showed it for a short time here on television (I think, it had a different title), but I wasn't really interested in watching.

I don't watch that show either. My favorite was Buffy the Vampire slayer which was much more entertaining and was a little closer to reality than West Wing. There was something appealing about a perky blond poking bad guys with sticks. Sadly Sara has moved on and so now I have more time to do other things on tuesday evenings.


GWB on the news is entertainment enough (I'd laugh harder if he wouldn't make my stomach turn, never watch the news while you eat dinner!)

With a 70% approval rating here in the states who give a crap whether you can keep your lunch down. Try eating softer foods.

Lightwolf
06-10-2003, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by redlum
With a 70% approval rating here in the states who give a crap whether you can keep your lunch down.
Actually, currently between 61% and 66% (job rating), depending on whom you believe...
But since the opposition seems to be quite weak in the US at the moment, those numbers don't really surprise me.
Cheers,
Mike

redlum
06-10-2003, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by Lightwolf
Actually, currently between 61% and 66% (job rating), depending on whom you believe...
But since the opposition seems to be quite weak in the US at the moment, those numbers don't really surprise me.
Cheers,
Mike

Then you are experiencing a mild case of sour grapes.

redlum
06-10-2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Hervé
[B]OK, who's next on this famous axis of evil....

Bush is a terrorist in the name of God, like his friends, just different Gods.... the war of the Gods.... in fact....

Liberals also have to pretend that the only justification for war given by the Bush administration was that Iraq was knee-deep in nukes, anthrax, biological weapons and chemical weapons – so much so, that even Hans Blix couldn't help but notice them.

But that wasn't the Bush administration's position.

When President Bush gave the Hussein regime 48 hours' notice to quit Iraq, he said: "(A)ll the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end." He said there would be "no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."
Ann Coulter

It was more than WMD, but so far that's the only thing the left can remember.

James Moore
06-10-2003, 12:11 PM
The case against WMD is the only rationale that the Bush administration had which had any hope of making the invasion acceptable under international law. Hence Powell's presentation to the UN showing how dire the threat was, and how it was necessary that the US invade to pre-empt the threat to the US nation. Now that we all know the WMD accusations were false, the 'right', to cover their guilt, are reaching for other justifications, unfortunately none pass muster under international law.

Bionic Antboy
06-10-2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by redlum
Liberals also have to pretend that the only justification for war given by the Bush administration was that Iraq was knee-deep in nukes, anthrax, biological weapons and chemical weapons – so much so, that even Hans Blix couldn't help but notice them.

But that wasn't the Bush administration's position.

When President Bush gave the Hussein regime 48 hours' notice to quit Iraq, he said: "(A)ll the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end." He said there would be "no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."
Ann Coulter

It was more than WMD, but so far that's the only thing the left can remember.

Oh, you're right, the number two reason for the invasion was the administration selling the people of the US on the idea that Hussein was behind 9-11, and that he was ready to launch bio/chem attacks at the drop of a hat, which nicely dovetails into the whole WMD thing.

Actually, WMD was THE main selling point that the administration used. Colin Powell didn't go to the UN with a PowerPoint presentation focusing on the torture of dissidents and rape rooms.

The flowery speech you quoted above isn't a "reason" to launch a "war of aggression" (kind ironic Bush using that term really). It's more of a "cover our butts if we find no WMD" rhetorical speech.

Besides, if the US and Britain hadn't vetoed the lifting of sanctions years ago (and yes, this includes Clinton's administration), maybe Iraq wouldn't be in the situation was at the onset of the war. The only thing sanctions did was cause the people of Iraq to suffer even more by increasing the infant mortality rate and humiliating the masses, while Hussein's regime was able to flourish. The reason I mention the sanctions is that lifting of them was also tied to ongoing inspections years ago. Of course, it seems that not many in the US media have talked about how the vetoing of the sanctions was the reason the UN inspectors hadn't been in Iraq for, what, 4-5 years? Of course, this is a whole other matter.

Is the US suddenly willing to take military action against any and all nations that are suffering? Are they going to go to the Congo, for example, where a bloody civil war has claimed the lives of millions through starvation over the past few years? Or was it all just a smoke screen to have a greater foothold in the region?

Considering that it has been a part of the Defence Department's agenda, for about 50 years, to contol energy resources in the region, I'm guessing the latter. Now, oil isn't the ONLY reason, but I'm sure it was a deciding factor. That and the fact that some in the US wanted vengance, even if it was taken out on someone who didn't have anything to do with 9-11.

Remember it was Colin Powell who said of the early draft of the presentation... "I'm not reading this. This is bulls#!+."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030531/wl_mideast_afp/us_iraq_powell&cid=1514&ncid=1480

Hey, if the US's own intelligence agency is coming out and publicly saying that there's a lot of truth stretching going on by the administration, who are you really gonna believe? It's not like the CIA are strongholds of leftwing commmie pinko hippie doves, right? Right? Or is that gonna be Ann Coulter's next piece of in-depth investigative journalism? :D

Lightwolf
06-10-2003, 12:28 PM
James: Don't you know by now that the so called conservatives don't give a damn about international law?
Antboy: " leftwing commmie pinko hippie doves" lol :D
You forgot the vegetarian tree huggers :p

Bionic Antboy
06-10-2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Lightwolf
Antboy: " leftwing commmie pinko hippie doves" lol :D
You forgot the vegetarian tree huggers :p

Sorry, how thoughtless of me. Next time I'll make sure there's some room for them, and the anarchists too! It's easy to forget the anarchists, since they apparently have "issues" with getting organized. :D

James Moore
06-10-2003, 01:03 PM
Don't you know by now that the so called conservatives don't give a damn about international law?

Well, they do seem to have some interest in international law, otherwise they wouldn't have tried so hard to justify the Iraq invasion under International law. One reason for even the 'right' in the US to champion international law is that it has some utility, even for Americans...you know, the "We can have nukes, but you can't" international law. It is quite useful when rattling the North Korean's cage, for example, or even Iran's ;)

You know, the American's were even willing to allow the International Court to go ahead...as long as they weren't subject to its jurisdiction.

Lightwolf
06-10-2003, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by Bionic Antboy
Next time I'll make sure there's some room for them, and the anarchists too! It's easy to forget the anarchists, since they apparently have "issues" with getting organized. :D
lol! Actually, from the opinions I've read I've come to the conclusion that conservatives are actually organized anarchists in disguise... ;)

Lightwolf
06-10-2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by James Moore
You know, the American's were even willing to allow the International Court to go ahead...as long as they weren't subject to its jurisdiction.
I'm glad we have such a powerful nation leading the world so unselfishly into being a more democratic and humane place. The US should be an example to all other nations.
Wait, it is, North Korea seems to have learned the ropes...
*sigh*
Cheers,
Mike

uberslayer™
06-10-2003, 04:58 PM
Speaking of North Korea.............if your poor misunderestimated chimp of a president and the rest of you sepo's are so concerned about WMD's. Why don't you attack old Kim and his cronies? Cause they actually have some? Cause they aren't afraid to use them? Scared?

:eek:

redlum
06-11-2003, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by uberslayer™ Speaking of North Korea.............if your poor misunderestimated chimp of a president and the rest of you sepo's are so concerned about WMD's. Why don't you attack old Kim and his cronies? Cause they actually have some? Cause they aren't afraid to use them? Scared?

:rolleyes:

Be patient mate. First we have to pave over Mt Manganui, Aotearoa so we have a place to park our tanks.

redlum
06-12-2003, 07:02 AM
Did anyone hear Senator Roberts on C-SPAN yesterday? He said something I thought deserves repeating that of course won't be quoted in any of the liberal biased papers or tv.

Basically he said that after 9-11 republicans were bashed because they failed to 'connect the dots' to terrorism, and now after Iraq they are bashed because they tried to 'connect the dots' to terrorism.

My personal feelings about this is that democrats and liberals just like to have something to whine about.

ted
06-12-2003, 09:49 AM
Both parties seem to be on a PR "bring the other guy down to make me look better" mission, more then doing anything with real substance.

But it's obvious that the Liberals spend much more time on this then the Republicans and unfortunately, they are much better! Their "Scare" tactics work too well with the public.

meshmaster
06-12-2003, 10:16 AM
Of course there are more liberals here since artists tend to lean towards that direction, for the most part... being a little more open to change, etc.

hmmm... wonder if that will change in the not-so-distant future with the expected increase in religious folks (which lean towards conservative) on the boards due to Genesis

redlum
06-12-2003, 10:16 AM
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-morris061203.asp (http://)

Don't miss this open letter to HilLIARy from Dick Morris.

redlum
06-12-2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by meshmaster Of course there are more liberals here since artists tend to lean towards that direction, for the most part... being a little more open to change, etc.

Just because you're an artist doesn't mean you have to be so open minded that your brain leaks out. :D

lone
06-13-2003, 06:24 AM
so, what you're saying is; you can't have an open mind unless you are a card-carrying liberal. or maybe it's; you can't be a 'real artist' if you don't vote democratic.

Bionic Antboy
06-13-2003, 06:44 AM
I don't think that's what meshmaster said at all... all mesh said was that artists tend to lean more that way. There was no "absolute" in his statement. :)

meshmaster
06-13-2003, 06:51 AM
that was basically the gist of it...

Most conservative that I know dont understand modern art (20th century art and later), and think we all need to start hallucinating again and pretending that a painted surface must look like a window that looks out into an imaginary world where things painted must look like exact duplicates of photographs. With that type of mentallity, it's really hard to grasp the modern art world and fully function inside of it mentally as an artist.

What's funny about it is that to pretend that a painted surface is a window is really more a crazy "unrealistic" sort of idea than acknowledging that it's a surface that is "real" and can contain textures, colors and things that don't necessarily have to "look like something." That's why I always laugh when someone starts to mention the word "realism" when talking about art.

redlum
06-13-2003, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by meshmaster
[B]that was basically the gist of it...

Most conservative that I know don’t understand modern art (20th century art and later), . . .

Then you need to get out more.


and think we all need to start hallucinating again

I used to use drugs to try to expand my mind. When I finally sobered up I discovered that it had actually dampened my ability to think of the other possibilities for creativity.


With that type of mentality, it's really hard to grasp the modern art world and fully function inside of it mentally as an artist

Here again I think you really need to get out more and meet new people. I have found quite the opposite to be true. When I was working on my masters in computer graphics I took a sculpture class. There was some amazing work being done by the rank and file from the left, but they seemed to be hampered by their own family dysfunctions, drug habits, etc. Even their criticisms were almost incoherent. The instructor bent over backwards showing the class new and different movements in sculpture but even his efforts failed to get through. His final comments to the class was they needed to sober up. He was even a liberal but had to admit the drugs were hurting his students ability to create.

Another area I found since my own sobriety is I am more able to take two ideas and combine them into a new direction. Before I would never have thought of doing that or even how it could be possible. Of course age and experience also has a lot to do with it too.

ted
06-16-2003, 10:22 AM
I'll toke to that!:cool:

uberslayer™
06-16-2003, 10:00 PM
Hurry up ted.

Puff, puff pass man.

You're mucking up the rotation homes.:D

James Moore
07-18-2003, 11:49 AM
Yo, sometime has passed since that last post (likes weeks man) and I trust you folks have recovered from your indulgence ;)

What's prompted this post....well if you hadn't noticed the war isn't over yet, as much as we all would like it to be, and I've felt like ranting for awhile now, but work, Holiday's and VT3 have gotten in the way. There are just a few things I'll note....as opposed to all the rant I feel:

You folks who like to write LIbEral should balance it with CONservative. arararar

I keep thinking of all those poor folks over there in IRAQ. The occupiers sweltering in the Desert heat hanging out, getting attacked, in their stylish Flak jackets. The poor occupied kicking about with little water or electricity.

A quote from my favourite Baghdad blogger (whom is getting quite famous), quoting another Baghdad blooger at http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/


I was listening to the coalition
broadcasting for the Iraqi people. They ware talking
about all low priority stuff like printing "New
passports" for Iraqis, Mr. Bremer attending a Symphony
for the Iraqi Symphony group, and such stuff, without
any mentioning of the fact that about 5 million people
were living under a temperature of 47 degrees and
without electricity and water for three days :-/


I've been reading David Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest (for a second time) and the similarities between this Iraq situation and the early days of Vietnam are quite striking. Many, many differences as well.


Anyway, what really prompted this post today is the breaking story of the dead UK official who seems to be near the center of the doctored British 'intelligence'. My buddy Doug and I stumbled across two CNN.com websites. One for the American public and the other for the rest of the world. The American one at http:\\www.cnn.com had quite a different slant to its news reporting from the international one at http:\\edition.cnn.com The international viewers may not be able to get to the American one unless they spoof it...it seems to detect the location of the viewer and presents the appropriate(?) page.

I've attached (well, I'll see if it gets attached) a jpg of the cnn.com front page and I'll try to get a jpg of the international page up as well since this thing only seems to take one attachment and I can't seem to figure out how to put a picture into the body of this message.

Anyway, maybe the 'closing of the American Mind' isn't wholly the fault of the individual's but rather it is heavily inflluence by the 'Corporate Masters'.....hmmmm, at least the VT3 product is helping wage the battle against media convergence!!

James Moore
07-18-2003, 11:50 AM
Rock'n'Roll....here is the international front page

Bionic Antboy
07-19-2003, 07:16 AM
Of course, the Fox News site thought that the most important story was soldiers blowing up a Saddam statue in Tikrit, with photos and all, and big letters above it that read "It Felt Real Good"

The story about Kelly was a one liner that read "British Uranium Flap Official Vanishes".

Just the news media doing it's job I guess.

gjjackson
07-19-2003, 07:26 PM
Get over it!

James Moore
07-19-2003, 08:56 PM
Get over what?

redlum
07-21-2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by James Moore
Get over what?

Oh great. More semantics from Mr. Moore. Instead of your usual armchair liberal gas-bagging why don't you put you money where your mouth is and move to Iraq, solve their problems with your own hands and then come back and flap your gums. Oh wait that might mean you'd have to move out of your parents basement, learn to drive and GET A LIFE!

meshmaster
07-21-2003, 11:01 AM
because


The NewTek Forums are not a free speech zone
http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8184

James Moore
07-21-2003, 11:32 AM
hehehe, Redlum, you can cause some mirth.

You seem a little angry....maybe a bit of guilt gnawing at you? Are you feeling as if you are slipping down the slippery slope of being.....wrong? Maybe you and your heroine Ann Coulter can get together and ressurect McCarthy's game plan.

Iraq is a really messed up place, I have no desire to go 'fix' it myself. and it seems that many of the US soldiers over there have little desire to try and 'fix' the place. Give it time, and we will probably see the US government turn tail and leave, letting the UN deal with the problems, though the current US administration is having difficulty wrapping its head around the fact that they may have to give up 'control' in Iraq.

grannysmith
07-21-2003, 05:26 PM
hi james, any relation to michael?
its good to see a critique of the administration's middle east policy. abraham lincoln would have approved.
...and low far this administration has fallen from the patriotic ethics of lincoln.

american soldiers have more value than a bodybag full of catfood.
it is wrong to continue the administrations indulgence that leaves those soldiers as target practice in an urban guerilla warzone.
the dead and dying have been ambushed by the li'l texan's intransigence towards international intervention.

and the usa deficit under bush has also been ambushed (how many billions is it now?? unbelievable).
more taxes, more corporate layoffs, more outsourcing to other growth economies, less services. and all usa taxpayers will have to contibute their irs returns to pay for this war (and not their kid's education fees) for years to come.

nasty.
who will you vote for next time round?

uberslayer™
07-21-2003, 09:28 PM
Look out guys I started reading this thread again and now there's a black chopper circling my house.........................:D

redlum
07-22-2003, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by James (Poopy Pants) Moore
[B]hehehe, Redlum, you can cause some mirth.

You seem a little angry....maybe a bit of guilt gnawing at you? Are you feeling as if you are slipping down the slippery slope of being.....wrong? Maybe you and your heroine Ann Coulter can get together and ressurect McCarthy's game plan.

Iraq is a really messed up place. . . blah blah blah.

I will leave the guilt feelings to the liberals since they (you) are much more comfortable at feeling other peoples pain than I.

And of course Iraq looks like a mess. It all depends on where you point the camera and who is speaking into the microphone.

As far as my good friend Ann is concerned, she looked hot in her micro mini skirt on The View.

Hiraghm
07-22-2003, 08:55 AM
abraham lincoln would have approved.
...and low far this administration has fallen from the patriotic ethics of lincoln.


Must have been difficult for you to type that with a straight face.
Lincoln, patriotic? Maybe. Ethical? Hardly.
I'm sure the Founding Fathers would mourn how far Lincoln had fallen from their patriotic ethics when they asserted, in the DoI, that a people had the right to separate from another. Yes, he was a real hero in murdering over 300,000 people and destroying an entire culture just to force his view of morality on others, while enslaving an entire nation for the sake of freeing those who didn't deserve freedom, and effectively making another nation the "occupied" possession of his nation.

Nothing Bush has done could be compared disfavorably with what Lincoln did.

In my brief skimming of this page, I saw the U.S. troops referred to as "occupiers". This is the liberal nonsense that comes out when you permit liberals to assume that the way the U.S. operates is in any way normal or natural. If those troops were occupiers, whenever one of them died, a city block would be levelled. There would be no efforts to form a civilian government; Iraq would be ruled by a governor general, answerable only to the President. We would not be concerning outselves with restoring utilities, but with getting the oil out of the ground and into tankers bound for the U.S. That is what it means to conquer a people. And while I would prefer that was our chosen course, what we are doing over there can hardly be considered "occupation".

Lightwolf
07-22-2003, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by Hiraghm
...what we are doing over there can hardly be considered "occupation".
I thought we had that defined already:
[n] the control of a country by military forces of a foreign power.
[n] the seizure and control of an area by military forces, esp. foreign territory.
What else do you want to call it? Holidays? Friendly visit?
Or is Iraq a part of the US now?
Cheers,
Mike - :confused:

Bionic Antboy
07-22-2003, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Hiraghm
...while enslaving an entire nation for the sake of freeing those who didn't deserve freedom, and effectively making another nation the "occupied" possession of his nation.


Hunh? Who didn't deserve freedom?



In my brief skimming of this page, I saw the U.S. troops referred to as "occupiers". This is the liberal nonsense that comes out when you permit liberals to assume that the way the U.S. operates is in any way normal or natural.

I honestly don't understand that last sentence. Are you saying the the way the US operates is abnormal or unnatural? Or maybe supernatural? ;) BTW, I like the little semantic trick of using the phrase "permit liberals". How very Orwellian, in it's own, foggy way.



...There would be no efforts to form a civilian government; Iraq would be ruled by a governor general, answerable only to the President. We would not be concerning outselves with restoring utilities, but with getting the oil out of the ground and into tankers bound for the U.S. That is what it means to conquer a people. And while I would prefer that was our chosen course, what we are doing over there can hardly be considered "occupation".

Hmmm... Millions of Iraqis are without water or electricity, and those that do have it (beyond the occupiers of course), have spotty service to say the least, while Bremer deems that new passports and attending a Symphony is more important. Of course, the oil is already flowing, and the initial contracts for that were drawn up before the war even started. Seems like the "restoring utilities" you mention isn't really going all that well (or at all)?. And the last I heard, the US was planning on being in control for some time, and Bremer DOES answer to the US.

Seems like a straight-forward occupation to me. You use the word conquer, which would be just too blatant a move in these early stages of the PNAC agenda. :eek:

----------
"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."

Samuel P. Huntington
----------

Jake
07-22-2003, 12:06 PM
Bionic Antboy--


Hunh? Who didn't deserve freedom?

I'm guessing that that would be the slaves, although the absurdity of the statement mystifies me as well.

Hiraghm--



I'm sure the Founding Fathers would mourn how far Lincoln had fallen from their patriotic ethics when they asserted, in the DoI, that a people had the right to separate from another. Yes, he was a real hero in murdering over 300,000 people and destroying an entire culture just to force his view of morality on others, while enslaving an entire nation for the sake of freeing those who didn't deserve freedom, and effectively making another nation the "occupied" possession of his nation.


Let's sum up:

Lincoln preserves the union and abolishes slavery
bad, bad Lincoln

Bush Jr. attacks a sovereign nation, institutes a form of government we prefer, and liberates oppressed Iraqis
good, good Bush

I fail to see how one can rationally be so damning of Lincoln while being so supportive of Bush.


Yes, he was a real hero in murdering over 300,000 people and destroying an entire culture just to force his view of morality on others, <<snip>>

I realize that Ann Coulter an her ilk like to distort language to push their brand of neo-McCarthyism, but could you elaborate on how Lincoln "murdered" over 300,000 people and destroyed an "entire culture"?

And the whole "just to force his view of morality on others" bit.
What is your stance on slavery? Do you think it should be illegal to kidnap someone and physically coerce them to do your bidding? Or is the option to do so more a matter of personal choice in your opinion?

Take your time.

kirk
07-22-2003, 01:44 PM
You Tell 'em, Jake!

When I first read Hiraghm's flame bait, I couldn't figure out how to respond without profanity. I honestly was at a loss for words.

To all that share the belief that America should lead by example, that the Constitution was not a mistake, that Freedom is Fantastic, that human rights are not wrong, and that maybe the smell emanating from Washington right now isn't a good thing, I thank you for coming up with the words I could not.

And as for Hiraghm's tag line "Democrats are traitors", that's stretching it a bit, 'ya think?

I mean, the subject at hand is trying to create an alibi for Ashcroft based on what FDR did. Sorry, what FDR did was wrong, and not learning from that mistake (or the mistakes with slaves and Native Americans) is inexcusable. Just because our government committed atrocities in the past does not excuse them from doing it now. Bush and Ashcroft HAVE NO ALIBI. Wrong is wrong.

Some Republicans are sadistic morons. It doesn't mean they all are. Saying "Democrats are traitors" is ignorant at best, and more likely simple flame bait.

jricks
07-22-2003, 02:23 PM
Although I disagree with Bionic Antboy's read on Lincoln. It is true that the story is slightly incomplete.

The war between the states was over state's rights. After instigated it became marketed as a war against slavery for the support needed to continue it. Although Lincoln's Proclamation left slavery in the north untouched, the war is taught to our kids as one that instigated and continued over slavery. It would be more accurate to see it as a war against Constitutional State's rights to govern themselves, and imposed by the use of federal forces.

This has nothing to do with whether I think the slaves should have been freed. Obviously so, of all ethnic backgrounds, in the south and the north long before the war used it as propoganda against the south.

Jake
07-22-2003, 02:30 PM
Saying "Democrats are traitors" is ignorant at best, and more likely simple flame bait.

It's just character assasination. Most political issues (the war on terror, for instance) are complex and can be argued from a variety of perspectives. So a moron like Coulter skips past the arguments and attacks their proponents directly. Ad hominum.

When I see something like that I'm struck, first of all, the sheer idiocy of the stance, particularly when you figure that the popular vote for the last election was roughly split down the middle. So, what? Half of the voters in this country are traitors? And how many of the registered democrats, over the time span that this book covers, did she examine as the basis for her opinion? I haven't read the book, her columns are bad enough, but I'm sure her definition of treason is logically impaired like everything else.

I have heard a lot of conservatives voice distaste for her as well. Basically, she's just a vacuous and sensationalistic pundit trying to cash in on damning books and a pathetic attempt to look sexy.

Bionic Antboy
07-22-2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by jricks
Although I disagree with Bionic Antboy's read on Lincoln. It is true that the story is slightly incomplete.

Hmmm... I think you mean Hiraghm's read on Lincoln. I didn't say anything about Lincoln, one way or the other.

Just wanted to get that cleared up. :)

uberslayer™
07-22-2003, 02:50 PM
Open your eyes.

Don't believe these lies.

"I think the puppet on the left shares my views"

"I think the puppet on the right shares my views"

"Wait, there's one guy holding both puppets"

You're all missing the point. Your totalitarian government partitions out erroneous information in such a way that the masses are forced to make assumptions and base their views/arguments on complete falsities. Think about it, do any of you truly know that anything you say has or is really happened/happening? Other than “but I read this thing written by reputable, government approved media”. I know a few seppo’s who moved over here, and since watching independent world news on America, form an objective view point, are ashamed and afraid of their country. If China was storming around the world imposing their values on others, would you be so cool about it?:rolleyes:

jricks
07-22-2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Bionic Antboy
Hmmm... I think you mean Hiraghm's read on Lincoln. I didn't say anything about Lincoln, one way or the other.

Just wanted to get that cleared up. :)

Correct. apology for the misreference.

jricks
07-22-2003, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by uberslayer™
Open your eyes.

If China was storming around the world imposing their values on others, would you be so cool about it?:rolleyes:

It would be interesting to see some examples of our imposed "values".

Are you talking about making them not get tortured as a way of life, or saying we make them speak english kind of thing, have the chance to own satellite dishes if they choose or what?

If China imposed it's values, it wouldn't include "choice".

uberslayer™
07-22-2003, 04:41 PM
Yeah what a deal we'll steal all your oil, and introduce you to cable and TV dinners. With US troups getting ambushed and killed nearly everyday, Bush trying to get the UN to help 'cause they actually come from countries that aren't hated by the rest of the world, all the lies that are being found out. Obviously they are stoked about their new occupiers:rolleyes: Did they have a choice?

PS peace in Lybia:(

jricks
07-22-2003, 04:45 PM
At least you're getting closer... now if you'd tell me how we impose our values at least you could substantiate your comments.

A couple examples of oil we've stolen too now.
I don't remember any tv dinners being shipped in. When they become free, they are as welcome to your lifestyle as ours, or their own. Their choice reflects themselves and the act of choosing.

Any other hysteria?

uberslayer™
07-22-2003, 05:03 PM
lol this is fun:D BTW got some great seppo friends, you have some brilliant minds in yer midst so please don't take my anti US rhetoric personally. Right that said.............

Fact 1. US and UK now control Iraqi oil, and what they pay for it. Maybe theft is the wrong word how about fraud.

Fact 2. What they want is Incomprehensible to someone from such a vastly different culture and society. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make them wrong. The TV dinners were my way (perhaps vauge way) of illustrating this.

More hysteria in my next post I promise:p

kirk
07-22-2003, 05:08 PM
OK, I give... What's a seppo?

uberslayer™
07-22-2003, 05:17 PM
It's slang (rhyming slang) for an American (affectionaly used) originally coined in Australia, and widely used down under. Goes like this yank rhymes with tank, then septic tank abrv. to seppo. Probably sounds a bit rude but if you read any low brow Aussie litrature (like ahem........gentlemens magazines;) ) you will see it is used without mallice eg. from FHM: "our beaut seppo cousins" If you think that's offensive, sorry. You should hear what Kiwi's and Aussies call each other (in friendly jest).:)

jricks
07-22-2003, 05:20 PM
Right, I get it Uber.

Nothing real here, just a game of words maybe in general... a dangerous one, but whatever.

The oil. Fraud? How is it fraud to use sale of oil that didn't exist to rebuild their country, pay their policeman, and everyone else that is fixing the last 12 years while their government is being formed?

There's plenty of American cash and lives being left behind to give them the chance.

Any Americans on this board get an extra check this month I don't know about?

No, spent extra on Iraq, haven't made any.

Tv dinners or not, same example. We don't impose our lifestyle. If they run out and buy a satellite dish the first chance they wont' be killed for doing so... only influenced by their own decision to do so.

uberslayer™
07-22-2003, 06:03 PM
I don't want to sound like an alien abtuctee, Conspiracy theorist here but I am cynical, it's my nature I can't help it.

I find it hard to believe the given reasons for America's invasion of Iraq. Why not PNG, North Korea, and the umpteen other countries (with no oil reserves). So I can't buy the spin.

jricks
07-22-2003, 07:32 PM
Uber, you're not only buying spin, you're creating it. I don't have a problem with waiting to find out, reviewing the evidence, wondering about outcome.

You do none, you jump to spin before anything else, sit in your comfy chair while others are out busting a-- to help others in the world while them and their families pay for it personally. You do what? What have you done in this lifetime to make a difference... criticize Americans?

And you, want to come here or anywhere and start stuff without being able to back it up because it's entertainment.

Get out of your comfy pompous chair, bust a nail and help your neighbor, feed a hungry child, stop the torture and murder of others, done that lately?

Then after you do it constantly for those like you, that spit one day and whine for help the next you might have a clue what it's like to loose family for others. Then come back with what you think spin is.

If you'd get out of your chair, there would be less for others to have to do. The spin I wonder about is why isn't everyone doing something to help these people around the world. You always find time to spit in our face, find some time to do something that amounts to something.

Anyone in your family die helping anyone lately? No, just giggles to you, those that die for those dieing... fun and games to you, entertainment, just a whim with a little spin. No harm.

You don't have to worry about the truth, isn't important to you I guess, just spin one way or the other.

Back up your comments, show some evidence or it is nothing but spin, just your personal preference for giggles.

grannysmith
07-22-2003, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by Hiraghm
Nothing Bush has done could be compared disfavorably with what Lincoln did....
murdering over 300,000 people and destroying an entire culture just to force his view of morality on others, while enslaving an entire nation for the sake of freeing those who didn't deserve freedom, and effectively making another nation the "occupied" possession of his nation.


Thanks Hira[gh]m for the irony, pure masonry.

Its very good irony, though; couldn't be read with a po' face.



Democrats are traitors. Read "Treason" by Ann Coulter

Don't think so, she sounds like an intellectual onanism.


.

Hervé
07-22-2003, 11:20 PM
.... and what about Michael Jackson, we should remove this guy from any media...

jricks
07-22-2003, 11:56 PM
Hervé start that petition!
First signature waiting...ha

http://www.petitiononline.com

Hiraghm
07-23-2003, 08:44 AM
I wish we had invaded Iraq just for the oil. It would have been more moral for us to have done so, in my view. Bush gave another sickening speech about delivering the Iraqis into the hands of democracy, as if they either deserve or want it. I didn't realise Iraqis had voted him into office. They must have, there's no other way to explain his taking tax dollars from Americans to rebuild Iraq (most of said rebuilding being necessary because of the depredations of the Hussein regime, *not* effects of the war.)

I'm sick and tired of him listening to the bleeding heart crowd that wants to waste the resources of the U.S. helping people out of the hellholes they've built for themselves, while handing the bill to U.S. taxpayers. 15 billion to Africa to fight AIDS, another 10 billion for rebuilding... 15 billion spread among the 50 States would be 300 million per State. Our State needs 80 million to rebuild our parks and recreation centers to encourage tourism and increase our future State revenues. But, to hell with us, non-Americans have f----d themselves into a hellhole, we gotta waste our hard-earned money helping them, not our own people.

There were lots of good reasons for stomping the snot out of Iraq. None of them included handing the blessings of liberty to Iraq's people (that might have been a reason cited, but it's not a good reason). We seem to have forgotten that our liberties were EARNED by us, not bought and handed to us wrapped in a nice package by strangers.

Bionic Antboy
07-23-2003, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Hiraghm
I wish we had invaded Iraq just for the oil. It would have been more moral for us to have done so, in my view. Bush gave another sickening speech about delivering the Iraqis into the hands of democracy, as if they either deserve or want it. I didn't realise Iraqis had voted him into office. They must have, there's no other way to explain his taking tax dollars from Americans to rebuild Iraq (most of said rebuilding being necessary because of the depredations of the Hussein regime, *not* effects of the war.)


More moral? In what way? Don't play semantics games. If they had said they were invading for the oil, that wouldn't make them moral, just not lying about an immoral act. As for Iraqis not wanting freedom, from all accounts, they DO. They want the right to choose their destiny, not have one forced upon them. Just like all human beings, or have you forgotten that they're human? It's hard to tell from your post.

As for the rebuilding... well, I guess it WASN'T the "Shock and Awe" campaign that knocked out electricity and water? It WASN'T tanks and rockets blowing holes through hotels and markets? Funny, that was even reported by the mainstream media. From all accounts on the ground in Iraq, from both foreigners and Iraqis, the war did a LOT of damage.


(snip) ...15 billion to Africa to fight AIDS, another 10 billion for rebuilding... 15 billion spread among the 50 States would be 300 million per State. Our State needs 80 million to (snip). But, to hell with us, non-Americans have f----d themselves into a hellhole, we gotta waste our hard-earned money helping them, not our own people.

Don't worry about the 15 billion to fight AIDS. The first year has already been reduced substantially, and so much of THAT is tied to big drug companies and evangelical missions that the money won't be used effectively anyways. Don't worry, people will keep on dying. You can sleep soundly at night.

As for having "f----d themselves into a hellhole", the blame can be squarely placed on the shoulders of Western nations who, through propping up regimes that favoured the flow of Western money to their personal coffers. Once said regimes decide to no longer support their Western backers, THAT'S when they become "bad guys" in the eyes of the West. Not just the US and Iraq. It's something that has been going on since the early days of colonialism, all over the world. History provides plenty of examples of that.


There were lots of good reasons for stomping the snot out of Iraq. None of them included handing the blessings of liberty to Iraq's people (that might have been a reason cited, but it's not a good reason). We seem to have forgotten that our liberties were EARNED by us, not bought and handed to us wrapped in a nice package by strangers.

From this comment, I guess you mean the US should have either completely leveled the whole country, or taken Iraqis as slaves? This is just a supposition on my part, since you've previously implied that slavery wasn't such a bad idea. Don't you find it interesting that the US accused the UN of taking too long to find WMD, but now they've been there for months, with much more access than the UN inspectors have ever had, and still nothing but a couple of trucks? (would that make them Winnebagos of Mass Destruction?) What about the comments from the administration that Iraq may have destroyed all it's WMD before the war? Wasn't that the whole raison d'être, or at least the one they used to sell the war to the people, anyways?

And I guess that instead of spreading freedom, now that you have yours, better make sure no one else gets it, because it may threaten yours, somehow?

Tom Wood
07-23-2003, 11:55 AM
I'm just wondering why we don't send Britanny Spears et al. to the region. :D Sort of a 'Aren't we grand' tour.

A McDonalds, a Taco Bell, a Macaroni Grill....and a couple of Walmarts should do the trick. :rolleyes:

TW

gjjackson
07-23-2003, 02:13 PM
It's amazing how many people here don't understand a whit about the military.

It sounds like many here are subscribers to the 'Nation' magazine. Those people are so far left they fell of the cliff. Even the former Pres Clinton wasn't left enough for them.

If any of you would actually read Ann Coulter's Treason you'd find out the truth, but
'You can't handle the truth' LOL.

There's a number of things I disagree with Bush on, domestically, but as far as foreign policy he's right on!. I sincerely doubt many here really understand geopolitics.

James Moore
07-23-2003, 02:35 PM
Yo, GJ, I sincerely doubt you know anything about geopolitics.... ;)

Why don't you just state your views rather than simply telling us how much you know?

Jake
07-23-2003, 04:44 PM
Hiraghm--

First of all, I missed it in your most recent post. Could you:

1. explain your stance on slavery
2. explain how Lincoln murdered 300,000 people and destroyed "an entire culture."?


I'm sick and tired of him listening to the bleeding heart crowd that wants to waste the resources of the U.S. helping people out of the hellholes they've built for themselves, while handing the bill to U.S. taxpayers.

Well, at the moment that would be Bush and the majority of the right wing that supports him. I'm not accustomed to hearing them labeled "bleeding hearts."

Your description of the situation is also off. The U.S. backed Saddam when Iraq was at war with Iran because he was perceived as less of a threat to U.S. interests. Obviously that assessment was bad and had serious repercussions for both Americans and Iraqis.

I agree with you to a certain extent about the nation building and its effects on our resources. The actual cost of war and subsequent nation building surely exceeds the actual damage that we have suffered from terrorist attacks to this point. Personally, I feel this course of action, while it may be effective at reducing terrorism, will be very damaging economically. And if we continue to knock over petty despots and run their operations the cost would quickly become overwhelming.

Also, there seems to be assumptions on the part of Bush's supporters that we will be able to enact a government in Iraq that will be able to both survive and be a positive (i.e. pro-U.S.) force in the region. I'm cynical on both counts. However, I disagree with your moralizing of the issue:


We seem to have forgotten that our liberties were EARNED by us, not bought and handed to us wrapped in a nice package by strangers.

Nonsense. How did the average American earn their liberty? By paying taxes? We received our liberties from past generations of Americans who were strangers to us. We didn't earn anything, we were just born as citizens of this country. Likewise, there are plenty of people in this world who haven't earned the misery they endure on a daily basis.

Now whether or not we are obliged to help these people to our own detriment is another issue. But if you don't like the way your taxes are being spent, there's something you can do:

next election, DON'T VOTE FOR BUSH

gjjackson
07-23-2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by James Moore
Yo, GJ, I sincerely doubt you know anything about geopolitics.... ;)

Why don't you just state your views rather than simply telling us how much you know?

What's the point. You certainly won't change my opinions, and I doubt anything I say will in any way affect your opinions. BTW, I used to have the same ideas as you, but I outgrew them. :)

dfc
07-24-2003, 04:50 AM
Jake,

Here's a couple of links for you you might find interesting as in regards to WMD in IRaq..early on.

http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html

This one outlines an early 1984 report I believe.

You'll find this one very interesting too

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

This is a transcript of the last conversation US diplomats had with Saddam prior to him invading Kuwait. I think the time frame was about 2 weeks or so before he went into Kuwait.

Just for the sake of clarification, I don't know the answers to any of the questions..like what the CIA did or didn't do..or what the "secret" us policies and agendas were..that were different from what the US actually did..etc.

I believe nobody really knows those answers..but we can all draw inferences based on what we "do" know.

Occasionally the CIA will screw up..and we'll see a glimps of something they've been invovled with...and there are always the "former" CIA agents who know everything and talk alot. Some of them will even sell you tape on how to kill a man in 3 seconds for 59 bucks.

But, the truth is..nobody "really" knows what was directed somehow by CIA or intelligence sources nor how deep it goes...etc. There is no proof of that..nor would there be by it's very nature.

It's just an inference one can draw..based on our knowledge that these types of organizations "do bad things" because of the very few things we "have" caught them doing from time to time. But, mainly..because of the stories we here...that have never been confirmed nor denied.

But, if you really step back..and look at everything...there are LOTS of seemingly contridictory events, facts..etc..that just almost seem random at times.
And to get any sort of view that takes into account all the dynamics that come into play from around the world..that invovles the middle east..or even just IRaq...over a period of time...things get very, very complicated.

I mean..even the idea that we "supported" Saddam or Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war....there's a lot of events that transpired during that period of time..that just seem to defy this..and beg the question.."why"? If you read that transcript above of Saddam...he's pissed at us for "not" supporting him! And for doing things during the Iran/Iraq war that directly supported the Iranians. We "did" help Saddam in certain ways.
But we helped the Iranians too. We had sanctions put against Saddam via UN...we used all our leverage along with several other countries...to keep certain chemicals, that could be weaponized out of Iraq..etc. It would seem, that out of what we "do" know happened...that trying to piece that together into some inference..is going to be a lot more complicated than we think it is.

Here's another interesting paradox you can hit, Iraq uses almost exclusively Russian military equiopment....but Iran uses US military gear. Saddams majjor purchases for military kit during the Iran Iraq war..was for new Russian tanks and for French Mirage jets with exocet missiles.

Saddam refers to a couple of things he's pissed at the US about. Some of things he mentions..like places or events...you might want to look up. They can get really interesting

There's plenty of history on Iraq around...but here's an interesting take on the Iran Iraq war period. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm

If you look at all this..from the bigger picture of "everything" that was going on..and who was doing what....rather than just... following the US in isolation thru time and history...you start to get a much more complex and dyanmic picture of things...and a much bigger pool to draw inferences and conclusions from that you might have a chance to resolve some of those seemingly paradoxial questions that your left with..when you just try to focus on one isolated moment in time, with one country, under a very narrow microscope...that looses the bigger picture and all the dynamics that come into a play in a place as swarming with interest from around the world.and as full of power ambition....as the middle east is.

And I think any in depth inference into this..that takes into account more than what the US did on a given day in the world...is going to present a much more complicated, diverse picture...with other motivations for things..with a lot more lplayers involved than one might think.

As to the comment about Freedom..ie.."we didn't pay for it but some unknown people before us"....I beg to differ.

Your talking about people from a family that had people who survived them..and grew up without them. I won't even get into taking care of someone with physical or emotional or both..disabilities for the rest of their life and what that can do to families...even generations later.

Jake
07-24-2003, 12:23 PM
dfc--


I mean..even the idea that we "supported" Saddam or Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war....there's a lot of events that transpired during that period of time..that just seem to defy this..and beg the question.."why"? If you read that transcript above of Saddam...he's pissed at us for "not" supporting him! And for doing things during the Iran/Iraq war that directly supported the Iranians. We "did" help Saddam in certain ways.
But we helped the Iranians too. We had sanctions put against Saddam via UN...we used all our leverage along with several other countries...to keep certain chemicals, that could be weaponized out of Iraq..etc. It would seem, that out of what we "do" know happened...that trying to piece that together into some inference..is going to be a lot more complicated than we think it is.

Yes, the whole situation is extremely complex and it's difficult to argue pro or con with respect to the government's involvement with any real degree of certainty.

Check out this link: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1413.htm

I don't think it contradicts or is contradicted by the links you posted, but it offers a rationale for how U.S. backing of Saddam was very real.

BTW, I think it's too early to pass judgement on the whole WMDs issue.


As to the comment about Freedom..ie.."we didn't pay for it but some unknown people before us"....I beg to differ.

Your talking about people from a family that had people who survived them..and grew up without them. I won't even get into taking care of someone with physical or emotional or both..disabilities for the rest of their life and what that can do to families...even generations later.

I said we didn't earn it. First of all, if you are born in this country you receive rights, the same rights whether you risk you're life in the military everyday or lie on the couch smoking crack. The whole point of having a government based on rights is so that you don't have to earn freedom. The Constitution wasn't established as a way of judging who deserves freedom. It's there to grant the same rights to anyone who becomes part of this nation, no matter what kind of person they are (aside from those who have broken the law).

Using our example as an excuse to brand others as undeserving of freedom is just ridiculously wrong and pretty irrelevent.

I'm sorry about the situation with your family, but I hope you can see that it doesn't reflect on who does or doesn't receive freedom in this world.

lone
07-25-2003, 06:55 AM
vote LIBERTERIAN.

rick_r
07-25-2003, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by James Moore
Yo, GJ, I sincerely doubt you know anything about geopolitics.... ;)

Why don't you just state your views rather than simply telling us how much you know?

yawn.

gjjackson
07-25-2003, 08:23 AM
rick_r,

Really.

RE: James Moore,

Have you ever posted anything on this site besides ranting about Iraq and Bush. I mean really; do you hate people on the right THAT much.

meshmaster
07-25-2003, 08:40 AM
The war is over... GET OVER IT! Life goes on. Nuff time wasted in this thread. There are other more important threads I have to read now...

James Moore
07-25-2003, 08:42 AM
gj,

I'm not sure if you were aiming that post at me or rick_r, but

I don't hate people on the 'right' myself. In fact I think categorizing agruments as being from the 'right' or 'left' is useless and begs the questions at issue. I, personally, being a 'businessman', tend to be quite fiscally conservative, which traditionally would put me on the 'right' side of the equation. Bush (the younger in particular) seems to have turned that equation on its head, deficits now for as far as the eye can see.

I really do have problems with the Bush administration; both their Domestic and Foreign policy.

While trying not to release too much hot air:

Domestic Policy:
Tax cuts which primarily benefit the rich which will only marginally help the economy in the short term ,but harm it in the long run.
Policies allowing for the mutilation of the environment.
A 'McCarthy like' intrustive government

Foreign Policy:
A unilateral approach to the world (the really short version).

Lightwolf
07-25-2003, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by meshmaster
The war is over...
You believe that?


Nuff time wasted in this thread. There are other more important threads I have to read now...
unsubscribe :)
Cheers,
Mike

James Moore
07-25-2003, 08:44 AM
Mastermesh (formally meshmaster = banned) go away then, don't read it. Bury your head in the sand and the war really will be over...for you anyway.

meshmaster
07-25-2003, 10:03 AM
Bury your head in the sand and the war really will be over...for you anyway.

Ranting and raving over the war here in a 3d forum isn't going to do a lot of good. If you really care about the war or any political topic, you'd do like I do and send emails to your representatives, the white house, and those in power that can do something. Quibbling and Quabbling doesn't do a lot of good unless the quibbles and quabbles are aimed at those that have the power... That's why the future request thread here gets read by the people at Newtek! :)

James Moore
07-25-2003, 10:19 AM
Each and everyone of you (well in America in this case) have some power, in your vote. The intellectual exercise in discussing all this is, I find, quite beneficial. Contrary to some, my opinions can change, and some folks arguments here have effected that.

Jake
07-25-2003, 01:42 PM
I never get why people go to a discussion board and complain about people discussing something. If you don't like it, don't read the thread. Jeeze!

Microbex
07-25-2003, 06:52 PM
You guys have too many weapons/wmd and too few political parties - i see a Rome. Been there, done that! ;)

Word up from the Euro trash.