Do you support our troops.........

[Basecore Boy]

War is an Ugly Thang. But, someone has to do it.

[mhd]

no one has to do it

[Basecore Boy]

Originally posted by mhd:
no one has to do itWho will protect us. The guy that won't fight back.

[Bill Blake]

Is Iraq 'fighting us'?

[Koffy Brown]

I support the troops but not the government that is sending them there

[Basecore Boy]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
Is Iraq 'fighting us'?Until we have a mushroom cloud over our heads then we fight back. Thank god your not running the country.

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
Is Iraq 'fighting us'?Until we have a mushroom cloud over our heads then we fight back. Thank god your not running the country.</font>[/QUOTE]There has still has been no documented proof provided to the United States people that Iraq is building Nuclear Weapons and if you take any of the accusations that our politicians have given use at face value then you are a bigger fool than could have been thought.

North Korea on the other hand DOES have a nuclear weapon and I don’t see 250 thousand troops surrounding them. Perhaps the notion of Iraq being a nuclear threat is not whey the US is in Iraq IQ boy.

As far has historical precedence is concerned the nation people should be concerned about using a nuclear weapon is the US. We are the only country in the HISTORY OF MANKIND to drop an atomic bomb on a nation.

Sun Tzu ‘To win without fighting is best’. War should ALWAYS be a last resort for a nation with integrity.

And for your info if I was running the country this would not even be a problem because I would have never made Iraq my ally when Iran was fighting them. I would have kicked out Arafat, told Sharon to go **** himself and established a Palestinian democratic state gaining the support of all the Arab nations for my effort in the establishment of that state and from doing so made the US a respected nation in that region to influence events there through diplomacy.

You should being praying to God that I was running the country.

[ March 06, 2003, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: Jamie Lennox ]

[Ken1015]

It's funny you bring this up because I literally just finished composing a letter to Dolemite73, a board member who is over there. I absolutely support our troops. I absolutely do not support their Commander-In-Chief.

[Basecore Boy]

Jamie you have the right to your opinion. That's your freedom here. That's what troops fight for.

But, I will say this anyone that gas their own people are crazy and needs to be dealt with.

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:


But, I will say this anyone that gas their own people are crazy and needs to be dealt with.How many dictators are in the world that commit autrocities such as this that we either ignore or in great of intances support and have supported througout our time here.....a lot.

Again, that aint why we are going there. There were at least two attempts by factions inside to overthough him and BOTH asked for our support.

We didnt give to them.

They are dead now.

[D J 1 3 8]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Jamie you have the right to your opinion. That's your freedom here. That's what troops fight for.

But, I will say this anyone that gas their own people are crazy and needs to be dealt with.Ah but you forget, when he gassed his own people, we did nothing about it. In fact, we gave him the gas. Why all the hub-bub now?

[Koffy Brown]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Jamie you have the right to your opinion. That's your freedom here. That's what troops fight for.

But, I will say this anyone that gas their own people are crazy and needs to be dealt with.And you think it's cool to send our troops over there to deal with this fool without any real cause...

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by DJ 138:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Jamie you have the right to your opinion. That's your freedom here. That's what troops fight for.

But, I will say this anyone that gas their own people are crazy and needs to be dealt with.Ah but you forget, when he gassed his own people, we did nothing about it. In fact, we gave him the gas. Why all the hub-bub now?</font>[/QUOTE]werd

[GROOVE VICTIM]

A president willing to pay 30 billion at at toll booth in Turkey instead of taking that money and use it to serve a better purpose needs to be dealt with.

Peace

[Basecore Boy]

I think 9/11 made our government pay more attention to those countries now. Just think if we took down the Taliban in afghanistan a long time ago, 9/11 would not have happen. We stood by and let these people destroy that country and have somewhere to hide. We are not safe because we are here in America now.

[Koffy Brown]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
I think 9/11 made our government pay more attention to those countries now. Just think if we took down the Taliban in afghanistan a long time ago, 9/11 would not have happen. We stood by and let these people destroy that country and have somewhere to hide. We are not safe because we are here in America now.Oh Lawd...our government was in on 9/11 graemlins/banghead.gif

[Basecore Boy]

You really believe that our government was in on 9/11. I think people watch to many movies.

[Sharp Eye Washington]

Basecore boy is back in full form. Welcome back from exile.

[Koffy Brown]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
You really believe that our government was in on 9/11. I think people watch to many movies.I just think how could they have not known...easier to sacrifice a few thousand to get the support of millions...

[GROOVE VICTIM]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
I think 9/11 made our government pay more attention to those countries now. Just think if we took down the Taliban in afghanistan a long time ago, 9/11 would not have happen. We stood by and let these people destroy that country and have somewhere to hide. We are not safe because we are here in America now.Would the Oklahoma City Bombing have occurred?

[Basecore Boy]

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
I think 9/11 made our government pay more attention to those countries now. Just think if we took down the Taliban in afghanistan a long time ago, 9/11 would not have happen. We stood by and let these people destroy that country and have somewhere to hide. We are not safe because we are here in America now.Would the Oklahoma City Bombing have occurred?</font>[/QUOTE]That's a good Groove.

[Basecore Boy]

I'd just like to say this. My father fought in the Vietnam war and he got no love coming back home. Let's not do this to our troops now.

[Chris Conrad]

for years WE provided iraq with chemical and biological weapons...look it up...

there are various dictators in variosu countries committing much harsher atrocities, and this counry does nothing about them...the genocide in various african countries is a good example...

[fred da warrior]

He got love from you and the rest of your family, didn't he? Isn't that all that matters?

[Basecore Boy]

Originally posted by christopher conrad:
for years WE provided iraq with chemical and biological weapons...look it up...

there are various dictators in variosu countries committing much harsher atrocities, and this counry does nothing about them...the genocide in various african countries is a good example...Funny how millions can March for no war in Irag. But, no marching for Africans that are being mistreated. We sometimes use our energy in the wrong areas. If you want to protest, protest about everything that is wrong.

[ March 06, 2003, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: Basecore Boy ]

[Basecore Boy]

David Mancuso where are you in this whole thang. I'd like to know your position.

[ March 06, 2003, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: Basecore Boy ]

[Chris Conrad]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by christopher conrad:
for years WE provided iraq with chemical and biological weapons...look it up...

there are various dictators in variosu countries committing much harsher atrocities, and this counry does nothing about them...the genocide in various african countries is a good example...Funny how millions can March for no war in Irag. But, no marching for Africans that are being mistreated. We sometimes use our energy in the wrong areas. If you want to protest, protest about everything that is wrong.</font>[/QUOTE]

[ March 06, 2003, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: christopher conrad ]

[Chris Conrad]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by christopher conrad:
for years WE provided iraq with chemical and biological weapons...look it up...

there are various dictators in variosu countries committing much harsher atrocities, and this counry does nothing about them...the genocide in various african countries is a good example...Funny how millions can March for no war in Irag. But, no marching for Africans that are being mistreated. We sometimes use our energy in the wrong areas. If you want to protest, protest about everything that is wrong.</font>[/QUOTE]it's also funny how the things i stated are not covered by our media, while the iraq situation is sold, i mean shoved down our throats...if people knew about what goes on, they mightprotest about it...you see these thigns on foreign news shows or sites, but many times not on major us media outlets...

[Basecore Boy]

Protest these thangs. We as Americans must start to protest the wrongs in the world, but let's start here with our media, friends, family and government.

I love this country, even though the country wrong us (africans).

The best place in the world AMERICA. Don't you forget it.

[konbit]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
I think 9/11 made our government pay more attention to those countries now. Just think if we took down the Taliban in afghanistan a long time ago, 9/11 would not have happen. We stood by and let these people destroy that country and have somewhere to hide. We are not safe because we are here in America now.You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and obviously believe whatever false news you are spoon fed.

Tell me...what did the Taliban have to do with 9/11? I'll give you a clue...nothing.

It amazes me that people cannot even remember what happened one year ago.

[Basecore Boy]

Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
I think 9/11 made our government pay more attention to those countries now. Just think if we took down the Taliban in afghanistan a long time ago, 9/11 would not have happen. We stood by and let these people destroy that country and have somewhere to hide. We are not safe because we are here in America now.You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and obviously believe whatever false news you are spoon fed.

Tell me...what did the Taliban have to do with 9/11? I'll give you a clue...nothing.

It amazes me that people cannot even remember what happened one year ago.</font>[/QUOTE]The Taliban gave safe haven to Al-Qada (hope I spelled right)

[LEONARD REMIX RROY]

I would hope that there is support for us, especially since Dolemite79 & Member 121 are no stranger to some on the page and they are currently deployed.

[Chris Conrad]

also, the government and country have pulled off the biggest scam in history...look how we've changed from going into afghanistan and extensive coverage of that, to being inundated with irag? what happend to afghanistan? i see very little coverage of that...as americans we should be askign about that instead of worrying about who's got better rims on mtv cribs or who joe millionaire is going to marry and get fed five minute clips of what they want us to see...

as american people we've failed miserably in educating ourselves to world affairs or affairs within our own nation...most people have no clue what goes on right here on our own soil, enever mind somewhere thousands of miles away...we're dumb and ignorant yet proclaim to be superior...then we wonder why we're hated...nobody takes the initiative to learn anything on their own, we'd rather get forcefed by the fox news channel.

[Basecore Boy]

Chris,

That statement about us not knowing what is going on in the world is so true. That's why I support or troops and president on war. Even though I don't support all of his policies. Because I don't only watch the FOX, which is the number one station in America. But, I listen to you and others that have an opinion.

But, the funny thing is that when ever they have people for the war and against the war on any news station. The person that is against the war gets buried. Fact is that Saddam is a bad man and if he was in America he would be in jail or dead.

[Bill Blake]

US troops take an oath to defend the constitution. Not the President and for that, they deserve the utmost respect.

I would imagine (and I am only guessing here) that there are a good deal of very intelligent, well educated Generals that have their own opinions of this war, war in general, and are also more concerned about the well being of troops in a way unparalleled to the president and his advisors.

[ March 06, 2003, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Jamie Lennox ]

[Basecore Boy]

Do you think that Colin Powell is not concern about the troops. He is a long time military man.

[mhd]

Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
I would hope that there is support for us, especially since Dolemite79 & Member 121 are no stranger to some on the page and they are currently deployed.the best way to support the troops is to push for peace

[LEONARD REMIX RROY]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
US troops take an oath to defend the constitution. [QUOTE]

The orders of the President of The United States and protect this country against all enemies Forgen & Domestic.

We are more than willing to do all we took that oath to do. I just wonder if civilians realize how serious that is? Emphasis on All Enemies.

[mdpm99]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
I'd just like to say this. My father fought in the Vietnam war and he got no love coming back home. Let's not do this to our troops now.Peace and Blessings Basecore Boy:

First of all I am glad that your Dad made it back home to you and your family safely.

If I may I would like to point this out to you for the record.

When we were involved in the anti-war movement of the sixties/seventies.....with respect to the Vietnam war our goal was to bring the troops home.

We were beaten, arrested, spit upon, bricks thrown at us and etc., by people who were pro-war and thought that we should support our government right or wrong. Well, I support my country but I do not support this government, the Bu$h admistration.

We were very happy to see the troops come home.

IMHO:

Here is a list of all the good things Mr. Bu$h has done:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Now here is a list of 101 reasons Not to Go to War
Irag.

(Alton Miller, who served as Press Secretary to Mayor Harold Washington, teaches "Politics and the Media" at Columbia College Chicago. He is also a member of PCG's Board of Directors. His other commentaries are also available online.)

1. It's not moral. War can never be a moral act, not even as a "last resort." In the best case, war is a
necessary evil. What is the moral difference between a crusade and a jihad?

2. A war on Iraq would not qualify as a just war, conforming to a set of principles that have evolved among civilized societies. A just cause should not be confused with a just war.

3. A war on Iraq for the purpose of "regime change" would not be a legal war under international law.

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter states: All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

4. Bombing of civilian populations is a form of terrorism even more abhorrent than low-tech terrorist street bombings of innocents. This has been so ever since the first instance of "strategic" bombing (coincidentally, in Iraq, in 1917 by the British), up to the devastating bombing of Afghanis in our efforts to destroy Al Qaeda, and our continuing bombing raids into Iraq over the past ten years.

5. "Preemptive war" is anti-American. The concept was made infamous by Adolf Hitler, who claimed his aggression was necessary, to prevent attacks on Germany.

6. Killing fleeing conscripts in a "turkey shoot" like the one that ended the 1991 Gulf War, another likely feature of a new war in Iraq, is un-American, and will certainly take a postwar psychological toll on the combatants who participate in such repugnant acts, and on their families.

7. War without a new, specific U.N. resolution based upon evidence of Saddam's continued non-compliance with U.N. demands would undermine the U.N. and the ideal of a world system based on lawful principles.

8. War now would reaffirm ugly precedents in U.S. Constitutional law. The U.S. Congress has earned disrespect for its abdication of responsibility for declaring war. The shame is mitigated only by the fact that Bush has not yet rendered their abdication effective, by waging war without a declaration.

9. War always has corrosive effects on Constitutional rights. It brings out the worst in presidents, vice-presidents, and attorneys general who are tempted to take Nixonian shortcuts.

10. The war mentality is providing the rationale for U.S. assassinations, like the one in Yemen in early November, making us all complicit in extra-judicial "terminations with extreme prejudice," of not only unindicted suspects but also their friends and acquaintances.

11. Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, is the homeland of Osama and most of his 9-11 suicide squad: "The U.S. warmly
supports the royal kleptocracy next door in Saudi Arabia, fully as totalitarian, if not quite as
violent, as Saddam's government. Any non-Muslim and most women would probably prefer living in Iraq,"
points out the conservative National Review, in an antiwar editorial.
12. War propaganda threatens to corrupt U.S. media. The Pentagon announced last February that it had created
the "Office of Strategic Influence" to promote the war on terrorism. Though they quickly backpedaled, we
were reminded that truth is the first casualty of war. We recall the reports of atrocities in Kuwaiti
hospitals, from a "witness" who turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington;
she had no connection with the hospital. It was later revealed that she had been professionally coached
by the Hill and Knowlton PR firm.
13. The PR component is integral, not peripheral, and blurs public awareness of the facts. In the first Gulf
war, "Hill & Knowlton produced dozens of video news releases (VNRs) at a cost of well over half a
million dollars, but it was money well spent, resulting in tens of millions of dollars worth of 'free'
air time. The VNRs were shown by eager TV news directors around the world who rarely (if ever)
identified Kuwait's public relations (PR) firm as the source of the footage and stories." So write John
Stauber and Sheldon Rampton.
14. Internationally, too, PR techniques, propaganda, and intelligence operations are replacing diplomacy and
genuine culture-to-culture outreach in our dealings with other nations, a process war will accelerate.
15. War will also accelerate our drift toward empire, increasingly the subject of popular discourse, cover
articles in magazines, learned journal articles.
16. In a war on Iraq we'll lose friends all around the world. That's true generally. Specifically:
17. War on Iraq would have serious consequences in Turkey, where sympathy for 9-11 has faded and antiwar
protests reinforce polls that show not only opposition to war on Iraq, but also that only 30% support
America's war on terrorism.
18. War plans are alienating the French public, where 75% believe that "the main reason the United States
would go to war with Iraq would be 'because the U.S. wants to control Iraqi oil.'" A L'Humanité poll
published Jan. 17 tracks antiwar sentiment: "Asked by the CSA polling agency whether they would support
US intervention in Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein, 66 percent of those who responded said they were
opposed, up from 58 percent in a poll conducted in August." We read reports this morning (Jan. 21) that
France will not only oppose immediate military action, but will seek "to mobilize the European Union to
avert a war against Iraq."
19. The British are not with us. In the wake of massive demonstrations in the U.K. (200,000 in London last
September, a survey found that 69 percent of Britons felt that Mr. Blair was too supportive of US policy
toward Iraq." A Jan. 15 BBC poll asked, "Has the government proved the case for a war with Iraq? 81%
said no. Just 19% said yes." A poll reported today (Jan. 21) "shows that opposition to a war has risen
steadily from 37% in October to 47% now." "British military leaders question mission and ethics " of a
preemptive war, the Guardian reports (Feb. 5).
20. Pakistanis are against war on Iraq. In a recent poll, 70% of the Pakistani public said they hold an
unfavorable view of our country. A Yankee war would fuel the fires of Islamist extremists there who,
should an unstable government fall, could inherit Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
21. War on Iraq is bad for the people of Bali, Tunisia, Mombasa and for tourists to those and other world
sites where "soft targets" await vindictive terrorists.
22. War will selectively, profoundly disrupt the lives of more than a million family members across the
United States. The Pentagon says "up to 250,000 troops may be mobilized for the invasion of Iraq. An
additional 265,000 members of the National Guard and Reserve, roughly as many as were called up during
the Persian Gulf War in 1991, may also be activated."
23. War will create new terrorists. "9-11" has been described as an unintended consequence of the 1991 Gulf
War. Certainly, experts agree, Osama has little genuine interest in the plight of Palestinians or other
Mideast issues. Osama's stated casus belli and recruitment tool was the U.S. violation of sacred Saudi
soil.
24. Arms inspectors are saying that Iraqi officials have granted completely open access to every site, are
permitting the questioning of Iraqi scientists, and are otherwise in compliance with U.N. Resolution
1441.
25. A war with Iraq would be very costly. "Informal estimates by congressional staff and Washington think
tanks of the costs of an invasion of Iraq and a postwar occupation of the country have been in the range
of $100 billion to $200 billion. If the fighting is protracted, and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein blows
up his country's oil fields, most economists believe the indirect costs of the war could be much
greater," according to various reports.
26. A subsequent occupation would be even more costly."This war could cost over a trillion dollars, and no
one should think that we're going to be able to use Iraqi oil to pay for it," writes Thomas L. Friedman
in the New York Times.
27. Occupation of Iraq would be a disaster. "You ought to see a therapist if you want to occupy Iraq," says
political scientist Charles A. Kupchan "It's just the last place I would want to set up shop. The whole
region is deeply anti-American. They'll probably be dancing in the streets for 24 to 48 hours and then
they'll take up sniper positions. That's where I think things could go wrong with barracks exploding,
etc. If that were to happen, at the end of the day it would cause us to pull in our horns and cause
Americans to say, 'What have we gotten ourselves into?'"
28. Postwar trials will prove embarrassing for American officials and corporate executives, as we hear
testimony from Iraqi officials whose war crimes were committed under U.S. tutelage in the 1980's when
Saddam was our ally/client fighting Iran.
29. The rationale for preemptive strikes and the war against terror gives the Chinese a free hand to
"preempt" "terrorists" in their own sphere of interest.
30. It gives the Russians a rationale to deal preemptively with Chechens and other dissidents.
31. It gives the Turks a precedent in dealing with their Kurds.
32. In fact, it so violates established precedents and principles of international law that it sets back the
progress of the past 60 years of U.N. development.
33. The war policy is tainted by politics. War hype was postponed until the weeks immediately prior to the
November 2002 elections. The explanation from White House chief of staff Andrew Card: "From a marketing
point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."
34. U.S. policy vis-à-vis Saddam has been dominated by a clique of hawks (the Wolfowitz-Perle-Cheney "cabal"
in the Pentagon), whose agenda has not been publicly aired and subjected to evaluation or Congressional
debate.
35. "Many Pentagon generals reportedly disagreed with their civilian bosses on the immediacy of the Iraqi
threat." Since August the brass have gotten in line, but it's hard to erase images like the one painted
by retiring Marine Corps General Anthony C. Zinni who scoffed at the idea of plans for democracy that
depend upon exiled Iraqis: "There are congressmen today who want to fund the Iraqi Liberation Act, and
let some silk-suited, Rolex-wearing guys in London gin up an expedition. We'll equip a thousand fighters
and arm them with $97 million worth of AK-47s and insert them into Iraq. And what will we have? A Bay of
Goats, most likely."
36. Brent Scowcroft has argued against precipitous military action in Iraq.
37. "Already, the preparations for war are distracting Washington from the task of rebuilding Afghanistan,"
as Michael Massing writes in The Nation.
38. And from the ongoing violence in the Middle East.
39. War is also providing cover for political abuse here at home. When licenses to administration cronies
for drilling in Alaska can be wrapped up in a "patriotic" agenda, we know we're near the bottom of the
barrel.
40. The plight of the cities, and the economic problems afflicting all 50 states, also take a back seat when
the country goes to war.
41. An unjustifiable preemptive war will be opposed by a majority of Americans. "Only about three-in-ten
Americans say they would favor war in Iraq if no weapons program is discovered, even if there is no
proof that Iraq is not hiding weapons," according to a poll by the Pew Charitable Trust reported last
week.
42. War will evoke massive antiwar rallies, further straining citizens' relationships with local
authorities, and further draining city budgets.
43. The talk of a "perpetual war," so reminiscent of Orwell's novel, 1984, suggests a willingness to accept
a long-term suspension of civil rights, looser reins on Federal prosecutors, and more secret tribunals.
44. A "perpetual war" would also tend to institutionalize paramilitary practices on the part of police
departments who will have to develop new routines for handling civil disobedience.
45. A war on Iraq, obsessively occupying U.S. attention, will encourage other world states with scores to
settle, to settle them now while world attention is focused elsewhere.
46. Despite claims that they are stalling or lying, in fact Saddam's officials appear to be complying with
every request from U.N. inspectors.
47. There is no evidence justifying a war. The Bush administration has claimed to have it but they have not
produced it either to make their case to the American public or (as far as we know) to guide U.N. arms
inspectors who have asked for it. Only this week (Jan. 14) did chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix announce
that some materials "from several sources" have become available.
48. So far, the evidence formally presented has been a 50-page dossier British Prime Minister Tony Blair,
presumably fortified if not supplied by U.S. intelligence, which was treated disdainfully by liberal and
conservative critics alike: "While there was limited support for the prime minister's position that 'the
threat [presented by Saddam Hussein] is serious and current,' most commentators felt that the dossier
failed to put forward a compelling case for military action in Iraq. Unusually in Britain's adversarial
journalistic culture, feelings about the dossier were even strong enough to unite editorial writers from
different ends of the political spectrum."
49. There is no identifiable connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. In fact, the Islamist
fundamentalists are mortal enemies of the secular Iraqi Bathists.
50. Absent real evidence, the administration has shown its willingness to fudge facts: Rumsfeld's
"bulletproof evidence" showing an Al Qaeda-Iraq link turned out to be riddled with holes.
51. Instead of accepting the burden of proof, U.S. policy has put Iraqi officials in the position of proving
a negative. It has the same logic as that of an inquisitor who threatens to tighten the thumbscrews with
every denial. "The inspections have yet to uncover compelling evidence of banned weapons programmes, but
the United States has said they are designed as a test of cooperation with a U.N. disarmament resolution
rather than an effort to find hidden arms."
52. War plans are based on a dishonest history of arms inspections. Scott Ritter, the former chief UN
weapons inspector in Iraq says, "The politics of fear have clouded the collective judgment of the
people of the United States to the point where we, unfortunately, are willing to accept at face value
almost any allegation of wrongdoing on the part of Iraq without first demanding to know the factual
basis of such an allegation."
53. The 1990s arms inspections were "in the end corrupted by those who chose to use the unique access to
deliberately provoke a crisis that, in turn, was used to justify the continuation of economic
sanctions," Ritter says.
54. Ritter also charges that inspectors left in 1998, "not because the Iraqis kicked them out, but rather
that they were ordered out by former executive chairman of the weapons inspection regime Richard Butler
under pressure from the United States and without the permission of the Security Council, in order to
clear the way for a military aggression in December 1998."
55. Desert Fox: Its mission was "To strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq's
ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction." But Ritter claims that
"the vast majority of the more than 100 targets bombed by the United States and Great Britain during
Desert Fox had nothing to do with weapons production capability, but rather the leadership and security
establishments of the government of Iraq and that the precision in which these targets were bombed was
due in a large part due to the information gathered by weapons inspectors."
56. Those "chemical warheads" that recent headlines are screaming about are bogus.
57. Purported weapons factories have turned out to be nonfunctional and often in ruins.
58. A nuclear weapons program is "very expensive and readily detectable." The gas centrifuge facilities
"emit gamma radiation, as well as many other frequencies. It's detectable. Iraq could not get around
this."
59. Two of the three types of "nerve agents" formerly made in Iraq Sarin and Tabus "have a shelf life of
five years. Even if Iraq had somehow managed to hide this vast number of weapons from inspectors, what
they're now storing is nothing more than useless, harmless goo."
60. Iraq's capability for developing the third type, VX (about which Iraqis lied to inspectors repeatedly)
was destroyed by inspectors in 1996. The above three points are detailed in War on Iraq, by William
Rivers Pitt with Scott Ritter, which explains that the weapons inspections during the 1990s were
effective.
61. "Contrary to popular mythology, there's absolutely no evidence Iraq worked on smallpox, Ebola, or any
other horrific nightmare weapons the media likes to talk about today," according to the same source.
62. Iraqis made anthrax, "weaponized" it, then "lied about this capability for some time. Finally they
admitted it, and we blew up the plant [in 1995]. Liquid bulk anthrax, even under ideal storage
conditions, germinates in three years, becoming useless Iraq has no biological weapons today, because
both the anthrax and the botulinum toxin are useless. For Iraq to have biological weapons today, they'd
have to reconstitute a biological manufacturing base." (same source.)
63. Saddam has not been able to replace what inspectors destroyed during the '90s. "They'd have to start
from scratch, having been deprived of all equipment, facilities and research. They'd have to procure the
complicated tools and technology required through front companies. This would be detected. The
manufacture of chemical weapons emits vented gases that would have been detected by now if they existed.
We've been watching, via satellite and other means, and have seen none of this. If Iraq was producing
weapons today, we'd have definitive proof, plain and simple." (same source.)
64. "The idea that Iraq can suddenly pop up with a long range missile is ludicrous they can't conduct tests
indoors. You have to bring rockets out, fire them on test stands. This is detectable. No one has
detected any evidence of Iraq doing this." (same source.)
65. Under pressures of an actual shooting war, Gestapo-type spying would become even more customary and
acceptable here in the "homeland." Already, our government is "chipping away at the wall that has
existed for nearly three decades between domestic law enforcement and international intelligence
gathering."
66. There is no clear and imminent danger, and so no compelling reason to move precipitously.
67. The Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan Chicago (among many other religious and faith-based
coalitions) has petitioned Bush to avoid war on Iraq. Their letter, "an unprecedented, unanimous call,"
was signed by Chicago's Christian, Jewish and Muslim religious leaders, and reflects the "opinion across
a broad spectrum of society, " according to the Council's executive director.
68. Pope John Paul II has added his plea for peace and the solidarity of all peoples within a framework of
international law. The Vatican has repeatedly asserted its opposition to war in Iraq.
69. Chicago's City Council has passed a resolution against the war, joining almost 50 other cities, and
making Chicago the largest U.S. municipality to do so.
70. Our plans for a war on Iraq are in conflict with the American values we teach our children. I will never
forget how disillusioned I was as a kid when it was my beloved President Eisenhower, and not that nasty
Premier Khruschev, who turned out to be the liar in the U2 incident. How are young Americans supposed to
reconcile preemptive war with what they've been taught about our country's values?
71. Arab-Americans will suffer if we go to war. Wars tend to demonize. The "war on terror" has already done
some damage; a wide-scale war will make things worse.
72. There is no Mideast support for unilateral U.S. action. Only the cover of U.N. authorization will permit
the leaders of Arab states to defy the strong antiwar public sentiment.
73. The "branding" of the "Axis of Evil," dumbing down U.S. foreign policy has put Iran (a potential ally
against Saddam) on notice that they might be next, in a widening Persian Gulf war.
74. Jordan has said it will not cooperate with U.S. forces moving on Iraq.
75. The Islamist extremist movement in Saudi Arabia, enraged by another U.S. war with Iraq, would become
increasingly problematical for the monarchy, especially if they yield to U.S. pressure to cooperate.
76. Bahrain, which hosts the U.S. Fifth Fleet headquarters, is a wary ally: last spring thousands marched to
protest U.S. policy, and in the ensuing violence a man was killed outside the American Embassy.
77. There is serious concern that a war will result in a protracted civil war among Iraqi Shiites in the
south, Sunnis in the center, and Kurds in the north.
78. A war justifies security measures that would otherwise appear warped and weird, putting foxes in the hen
house, like asking Henry Kissinger to head the investigation of 9-11, or John Poindexter to head the
Pentagon's new Information Awareness Office.
79. The example of North Korea reminds us that even when bad people acquire nuclear capability, we have
response options other than war.
80. If Saddam were to possess weapons of mass destruction, a war on Iraq might make him more, not less,
likely to use them in desperation in the twilight of a dying regime a conclusion of Can Saddam Be
Contained? History Says Yes, by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt.
81. Containment worked against the original "evil empire," which had "verifiable" nuclear capability and a
history of aggression. Why shouldn't it work against Saddam?
82. A war justifies political actions that would otherwise be condemned as downright corrupt, like sneaking
liability protection for Eli Lilly, and other special interest legislation, into the Homeland Security
Bill.
83. While Bush chases Saddam, who is chasing Osama?
84. A war to free Iraqis from their dictator would not only be unburdened by any serious democratic
principles it would be a parody of principles. Our troops are being based in anti-democratic absolute
monarchies. The state religion in Saudi Arabia is Wahhabi Islam the Islamist extremists who gave us
Osama bin Laden.
85. History is not on our side: Kissinger's refusal to provide his client list is a reminder of the
"B.C.C.I. affair a scandal that itself figures in the tangled history of Saudi/Al Qaeda money
laundering," as Frank Rich has written in the New York Times.
86. We are told that we are at war, but we are not asked to make the sacrifices that war entails. We should
beware this "war on the cheap," which smacks of war-as-entertainment. We still haven't recovered from
the last time we fought a decade-long war on a pretext, without public accountability.
87. Regime change? We have no right. Saddam is a vicious tyrant, but nobody elected us sheriff of the world.
It is not our right to depose or assassinate leaders of other countries, and it's not a good precedent
to propose.
88. The White House's anti-Saddam animus reeks of a private agenda that has nothing to do with the stated
reasons for war. "As early as Sept. 12 [that is, the day after 9-11] Rumsfeld argued that the United
States should take advantage of the terrorist attacks to go after Iraq's Saddam Hussein immediately,"
according to journalist Bob Woodward in Bush at War.
89. It's hard to think of a long-lasting consequence of 9-11 that would please Osama bin Laden more than a
Western crusade, led by the "Great Satan," against an Arab nation.
90. Bush's disinformation campaign is contaminating public discourse: According to a Pew poll last October,
80% of us believe that Saddam "already possesses nuclear weapons or could soon obtain them," and
"two-thirds think Saddam had a hand in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."
91. Bush's disinformation campaign insults our intelligence: The Chicago Tribune's conservative columnist
Steve Chapman writes that "someone in the administration managed to sell The Washington Post a story
that Iraq recently shipped nerve gas to al Qaeda. This is hard to believe on its face since it assumes
that Hussein would shun cooperation with al Qaeda until the moment when the world's attention is fixed
on him and he is most likely to be caught Once the Post story broke, an unidentified U.S. intelligence
official interviewed by The Financial Times dismissed it: 'I can't give you any morsel of information
that supports this.'"
92. Another insult to our intelligence: "You're with us or you're against us."
93. Those who oppose Bush's war plans have also had their patriotism questioned.
94. Like the drunk looking for his keys under the light, instead of where he dropped them, a "war on
terrorism" is apparently easier to fight against a government and a population, than it is to hunt down
Osama and his gang. Under cover of the "war on terrorism," a number of other agenda items might also be
within reach, if we're distracted enough, or patriotic enough, to follow illogical rationales
unquestioningly. They range from the merely hilarious to fight terrorists, we must drill for oil in the
Alaskan wilderness to the dirt serious incarceration of aliens and citizens without grand juries or
trials.
95. History is not on our side: The distinguished Indian writer Arundhati Roy writes in The Guardian that
the year Saddam gassed thousands of Kurds, "the US government provided him with $500 million in ... The
next year, after he had successfully completed his genocidal campaign, the US government doubled its
subsidy to $1 billion. It also provided him with high-quality germ seed for anthrax, as well as
helicopters and dual-use material that could be used to manufacture chemical and biological weapons."
96. The arrogance of unelected take-charge minions: The Pentagon's Richard Perle, on a propaganda tour,
outraged many in Britain by saying, "Neither George W. Bush nor Mr. Blair will be deflected by Saddam's
diplomatic charm offensive, the feckless moralising of 'peace' lobbies or the unsolicited advice of
retired generals." (quoted in the London Daily Telegraph.)
97. A war on Iraq would wreak havoc on oil markets and financial markets worldwide.
98. War would likely trigger a new recession. Columnist Robert Samuelson writes of various scenarios, "In
the worst case, Iraq badly damages other oilfields. Production drops by at least 5 million barrels a
day, out of a total global consumption of 77 million barrels a day. Oil prices hit $80 a barrel In the
worst case [unemployment] goes to 7.5 percent."
99. We don't need a war to be rid of Saddam Hussein and I'm not talking about assassination. "The U.S.
should back the formation of an international tribunal," writes the editor of Middle East Report, "under
UN or independent auspices, to indict Saddam Hussein and his top lieutenants for war crimes and crimes
against humanity committed during the Iran-Iraq War, during the genocidal Anfal campaign against the
Kurds in 1987-88, and both during and since the Gulf War."
100. A number of other creative plans are circulating, including that of the Iraqi exile Faleh A. Jabar who
writes in the current issue of The Progressive that we should "threaten Saddam with indictmentgive him
an alternative for safe passage at the same time [to] create a crack in the ruling class-clan demand
that [his top aides] leave the country with him [but name them and limit the number to encourage a coup
by the rest] and sweeten the deal by offering a mini-Marshall plan provided power was transferred to a
civilian, interim government."
101. Intellectuals and artists are against war on Iraq. Okay, this is my personal indulgence, and it's why
there are 101 reasons you can take it or leave it. My personal favorite opposition comes from the
novelist John Le Carré.

http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/pp012103.htm

[ March 06, 2003, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]

[konbit]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
[QUOTE]The Taliban gave safe haven to Al-Qada (hope I spelled right)Actually...they were more than willing to turn him over...all we had to do is give them some proof. How the **** would have preemptively striking the Taliban have prevented 9/11, as you claim? How fast we forget...

[LEONARD REMIX RROY]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
I would hope that there is support for us, especially since Dolemite79 & Member 121 are no stranger to some on the page and they are currently deployed.the best way to support the troops is to push for peace</font>[/QUOTE]This is not to sound flip but, Civilians can push until their arms fall off and all they will make is the news.

[Basecore Boy]

Very good David. But, I have heard these arguments over and over again and some points are very good. But, David what happens to a neighborhood that does not keep the drug dealers out.

[mhd]

Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
I would hope that there is support for us, especially since Dolemite79 & Member 121 are no stranger to some on the page and they are currently deployed.the best way to support the troops is to push for peace</font>[/QUOTE]This is not to sound flip but, Civilians can push until their arms fall off and all they will make is the news.</font>[/QUOTE]exactly, millions pushing all over the world for peace, and if we are successful, dolemite and 121 can be home in time for the chosen few

[mdpm99]

Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
I would hope that there is support for us, especially since Dolemite79 & Member 121 are no stranger to some on the page and they are currently deployed.the best way to support the troops is to push for peace</font>[/QUOTE]This is not to sound flip but, Civilians can push until their arms fall off and all they will make is the news.</font>[/QUOTE]Unless I was dreaming along with millions of other people, the anti war movement had a lot to do with helping to end the war.

Least we not forget about Kent State College and the anti war students who were gunned down by the Nixon admistration......I hope they did not die in vain, Leonard.

d

[ March 06, 2003, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]

[mhd]

Originally posted by david mancuso:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
I would hope that there is support for us, especially since Dolemite79 & Member 121 are no stranger to some on the page and they are currently deployed.the best way to support the troops is to push for peace</font>[/QUOTE]This is not to sound flip but, Civilians can push until their arms fall off and all they will make is the news.</font>[/QUOTE]Unless I was dreaming along with millions of other people, the anti war movement had a lot to do with helping to end the war.

Least we forget about Kent State and the anti war students who were gunned down by the Nixon admistration......I hope they did not die in vain,
Leonard.

d</font>[/QUOTE]d, never in vain

Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'.
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drummin'.
Four dead in Ohio

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Do you think that Colin Powell is not concern about the troops. He is a long time military man.For a long time, I was trying to give the administration the benefit of the doubt.

I was trying to keep into consideration that by them trumping the war card, they were playing a game of chicken and no one would take them seriously about their demands unless they knew that they were willing to go to war.

But it now seems as if their demands were nothing but a smoke screen for what they really want which is to invade, occupy Iraq, establish a puppet democracy that America can control.

Unfortunately it seems as if Powell is more concerned with the attempt to secure more power of other regions than well-calculated use of troops for the legitimate need of war.

This one still has not been established as legitimate in my eyes.

There just does not seem to be a reason a more intelligent strategy could not have been developed to get rid of Saddam, get a better government in there and have better relations in the region in general than going to war.

[mdpm99]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Very good David. But, I have heard these arguments over and over again and some points are very good. But, David what happens to a neighborhood that does not keep the drug dealers out.That I believe is a whole another topic. I can say this tho' -- one main reason alphabet city got the way it did (75-90) was because of the "real estate game."

d

[LEONARD REMIX RROY]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by david mancuso:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
I would hope that there is support for us, especially since Dolemite79 & Member 121 are no stranger to some on the page and they are currently deployed.the best way to support the troops is to push for peace</font>[/QUOTE]This is not to sound flip but, Civilians can push until their arms fall off and all they will make is the news.</font>[/QUOTE]Unless I was dreaming along with millions of other people, the anti war movement had a lot to do with helping to end the war.

Least we forget about Kent State and the anti war students who were gunned down by the Nixon admistration......I hope they did not die in vain,
Leonard.

d</font>[/QUOTE]d, never in vain

Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'.
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drummin'.
Four dead in Ohio</font>[/QUOTE]That is example of.... "Defend against all enemies, Forgen & Domestic"

[konbit]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Very good David. But, I have heard these arguments over and over again and some points are very good. But, David what happens to a neighborhood that does not keep the drug dealers out.Who in our "neighborhood" is presenting a threat?

[Basecore Boy]

I have not heard one time here about how bad this man Saddam is. Seems to me like more people are about protecting their back yard than helping another human being.

[Basecore Boy]

Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Very good David. But, I have heard these arguments over and over again and some points are very good. But, David what happens to a neighborhood that does not keep the drug dealers out.Who in our "neighborhood" is presenting a threat?</font>[/QUOTE]Saddam and his regime.

[Chris Conrad]

again, saddam hasn't f*cked with anyone lately...and ther are for more 'bad' men in the world that should be dealt with than saddam, and again, we hear nothing about them...oh yeah, i forgot, those other bad men are not sitting smack dab in the middle of rich oil fields...

[Basecore Boy]

Maybe to achieve world peace we must start with the middle east. They were the ones who attacked us and has done for several years.

[mhd]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Maybe to achieve world peace we must start with the middle east. They were the ones who attacked us and has done for several years.which years

[Cheddar]

Which country from the Middle east attacked the USS Liberty???

[konbit]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Very good David. But, I have heard these arguments over and over again and some points are very good. But, David what happens to a neighborhood that does not keep the drug dealers out.Who in our "neighborhood" is presenting a threat?</font>[/QUOTE]Saddam and his regime.</font>[/QUOTE]WRONG!!!!

[JMNYC]

BB, I hope some of this info is hitting home ... do not allow yourself to be misled by documented conspiracies of misinformation (ie. the major media outlets) that propogate the administration's message.

The events of September 11th have been used to scare Americans into sacrificing their constitutional rights.

Ironic that we call the act of bombing "terrorism" when in fact our government is terrorizing our population and our forces may be put in the position of terrorizing innocent civilians.

"Terrorism" as defined by Dictionary.com:

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Isn't that EXACTLY what our government is doing?

[domodisco]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Maybe to achieve world peace we must start with the middle east. They were the ones who attacked us and has done for several years.No, 'the Middle East' didn't attack us, a faction of fundamentalists attacked us. The only connection they have to Iraq is Arabic ancestry. And if you really think our goal in all of this is 'world peace', I'm sorry to say that you are deluded. This conflict has never been about world peace, or peace at all, for that matter. It is about geopolitical dominance, opening up new markets for American goods, and, yes, oil.

[ March 06, 2003, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: domodisco ]

[Basecore Boy]

Ok, It was the people of middle east countries that keeps the hatered going on Americans. The world trade center was attacked before. US Cole ship, Government facilities around the world and some I can't think of right now.

Do you know that middle east countries teach their children to hate Americans. Why?

[mhd]

Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by david mancuso:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
I would hope that there is support for us, especially since Dolemite79 & Member 121 are no stranger to some on the page and they are currently deployed.the best way to support the troops is to push for peace</font>[/QUOTE]This is not to sound flip but, Civilians can push until their arms fall off and all they will make is the news.</font>[/QUOTE]Unless I was dreaming along with millions of other people, the anti war movement had a lot to do with helping to end the war.

Least we forget about Kent State and the anti war students who were gunned down by the Nixon admistration......I hope they did not die in vain,
Leonard.

d</font>[/QUOTE]d, never in vain

Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'.
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drummin'.
Four dead in Ohio</font>[/QUOTE]That is example of.... "Defend against all enemies, Forgen & Domestic"</font>[/QUOTE]actually, it was an example of poorly trained, poorly led unprofessional ohio national guard troops opening fire on innocent, unarmed, kent state university students... incidentally who were pushing for peace to end the war

exactly, millions pushing all over the world for peace, and if we are successful, dolemite and 121 can be home in time for the chosen few

[mdpm99]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
I have not heard one time here about how bad this man Saddam is. Seems to me like more people are about protecting their back yard than helping another human being.Saddam is a bad man.
Bush is a bad man.

Bad people make war, not love.

Make love, not war.

peace,

d

[Cheddar]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Ok, It was the people of middle east countries that keeps the hatered going on Americans. The world trade center was attacked before. US Cole ship, Government facilities around the world and some I can't think of right now.

Do you know that middle east countries teach their children to hate Americans. Why?Because for the last decade Iraqi babies have been born with defects. Because every time Sharon sends the military after suicide bombers (killing many innocent) the weapons either have a MADE IN THE USA stamp on them or are paid for with YOUR & MY tax dollars. Because of what we did to Afghanistan. Because we throw money and fake governments around in the Middle East like nothing...PLAYING GOD in a sense.

Shall I continue?

[Basecore Boy]

I wish this could be heaven! We have people right here on the board that can't respect others. But, now we want to change other people around the world. Sometimes force is needed.

[ March 06, 2003, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: Basecore Boy ]

[konbit]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Do you know that middle east countries teach their children to hate Americans. Why?Answering this question and resolving it is the only way to create peace...

Attacking people will only inrease this hatred, and cause the cycle of violence to go on.

[Basecore Boy]

Or should we teach them with force that bad things like teaching hatred gains nothing.

Do you teach your children to hate others.

Support our troops.

[ March 06, 2003, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Basecore Boy ]

[konbit]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Or should we teach them with force that bad things like teaching hatred gains nothing.

Do you teach your children to hate others.

Support our troops.First...that is hypocritical. Hate breeds hate.

Second, we have taught far more hate than they have (against Arabs, against Europe...hell even against minorities in this country!)

Third...that is so unbelievably condescending, refering to other sovereign nations as children who need to be taught, that I cannot believe it. If anybody needs some lessons on how to quit ****ing up the planet, it's the good ol US of A

[Basecore Boy]

Ok, Let me clear something here. The adults in the country should not teach their children hate. We have in the past taught hatred. But, the world is changing and other must join us in making this positive change.

[Chris Conrad]

and we don't teach hate in this country? after 9/11, all people of arab descent were profiled...in some communities, ignorant people went after all people they thought were of middle eastern descent, including people of east indian descent...i was at a fast food place once buying food, that happend to be run by east indians...a fellow with me made a comment about them, something along the lines of 'damn taliban...'...i made a comment about how they weren't taliban and were a whole different religion...his response to me was, 'all those people are the same to me...'

[Basecore Boy]

Chris that sucks.

I was hanging out with some guys at the old shelter and we went to the deli down the street and someone with us turned over food stands in the deli. I'm no longer friends with this person. We must speak out about all wrong doings. Not just when it is our countries leaders.

[TAD]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
War is an Ugly Thang. But, someone has to do it.would you??

[lyot]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
[QUOTE]

You should being praying to God that I was running the country.i've been willing to say it already a couple of times but now the moment is there. Jamie, you should go into politics.. I think your country needs people like you

peace

[Basecore Boy]

Originally posted by Cosmic_Twin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
War is an Ugly Thang. But, someone has to do it.would you??</font>[/QUOTE]I will die for what I believe in! How about you, would you die for what you believe in?

[konbit]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cosmic_Twin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
War is an Ugly Thang. But, someone has to do it.would you??</font>[/QUOTE]I will die for what I believe in! How about you, would you die for what you believe in?</font>[/QUOTE]That sounds like the attitude of some people who fly planes into buildings...

[the crackhouse]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Maybe to achieve world peace we must start with the middle east. They were the ones who attacked us and has done for several years.Hey Basecore, unless you're a native american, don't forget you live on someone else land...
Don't go making troubles in other countries without any good knowledge of what's the situation all about.
Would YOU go to kill Saddam by your own ?
Is he responsible for your suffers ?
Do you think ALL americans are living in the best place in the world ?

For just one reason I'm happy to live in France than in america : the right for medicine for all, without views on their insurances, names, skin color or salaries.

[Basecore Boy]

France has more to gain than anyone, about not going to war. The French always wants somebody else to fight for them. You guys in France should sit back and be silent. \

I know I'm gonna get it for this statement.

By the way my Grandmother is American Indian. Full Blooded.

[ March 06, 2003, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Basecore Boy ]

[the crackhouse]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Or should we teach them with force that bad things like teaching hatred gains nothing.

Do you teach your children to hate others.

Support our troops.Your government is teaching you to hate middle east and see them as bad boys.

And we don't have to support the troops, we have to support individuals (people who have a life, the choice to live and see their children wife and familly again, even if they are in the army. ) the army... BB, what are the responsabilities of an army ? Do you know that ?

[yodvibes]

Solution.

Buy Gee Dubiya and his boys a PS2 with a 4-way multi-tap, a broadband setup and a copy of Socom Navy Seals.

[the crackhouse]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
France has more to gain than anyone, about not going to war. The French always wants somebody else to fight for them. You guys in France should sit back and be silent. \

I know I'm gonna get it for this statement.

By the way my Grandmother is American Indian. Full Blooded.Good to know that you are native from this country.
I'll never be silent whenever you country wants to show that he's the strongest on the planet.
For the very first time a lot of nations(and its citizens) have said **** you to the US government.
That is good.
Nobody is stronger than me, nobody never will.
I won't get in the debate of what French did good and what the US didn't. I don't feel responsible for the government I didn't voted for.
If the US is so strong, why don't they go to Irak, and just arrest Saddam ?
The US army is gonna be FORCED to bomb citizens and inocent people. there is never a "clean" war.

Again I ask : what is the role and responsabilities of an army ?

[Basecore Boy]

To defend our constitutional rights.

[TAD]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cosmic_Twin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
War is an Ugly Thang. But, someone has to do it.would you??</font>[/QUOTE]I will die for what I believe in! How about you, would you die for what you believe in?</font>[/QUOTE]why don't you join the armed forces then?

i think anybody in their right mind would die for a cause they believe to be just, but you're talking about blind patriotism.

my father got shot & captured by the communists during wwii & spent considerable time in a pow camp.

when i was 13 i wanted to join the air cadets. i did. i lasted one week when my father found out & pulled me out. he never really explained why but now i understand. war is bullshit. he knew it then & i know it now. would you send your son to go & die for something you're not absolutely sure of?

[Basecore Boy]

I have two sons and I would be honored that they wanted to help make a change for their brothers in Irag and protect their family from Nuclear or chemical weapons.

[TAD]

so you wouldn't fight but you would send your sons to die for a war you know nothing about.

[konbit]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Maybe to achieve world peace we must start with the middle east. They were the ones who attacked us and has done for several years.[/QUOTE]

WRONG! The Middle East did not attck us. (And in fact...we have been attacking them for decades). Saying that 9-11 was the Mid East attacking us is like saying that we should bomb Oklahoma, because someone from that state blew up a government building. There is a huge difference between individuals and states and regions.

[the crackhouse]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
To defend our constitutional rights.Well, no.
The responsabilities of an army is to restore peace by occupying a land, city or strategic areas and force the rebellion to abandon the conflict.
The army is not considered as an offensive weapon, but of a disuasive opposition.
An army is not a weapon, it's a symbolic shield against aggressive populations.
An army fight back but should never attack.
It's all about defense.

Well, it was not made for invasion at the beginning.

[konbit]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
To defend our constitutional rights.When was the last time you studied the Constitution?...because from your posts it is clear that you do not believe in many of its basic principles.

[Basecore Boy]

Do you believe we have evil people in the world. President Bush did not gas us.

[Chris Conrad]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
I have two sons and I would be honored that they wanted to help make a change for their brothers in Irag and protect their family from Nuclear or chemical weapons.again, we provided them with those chemicals and technology and biological agents...

we too have nuclear and chemical weapons...who protects people from us?

[konbit]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
I have two sons and I would be honored that they wanted to help make a change for their brothers in Irag and protect their family from Nuclear or chemical weapons.If you believe that your family is in danger of nulear and chemical weapons coming from Iraq...then you are totally misguided, and misinformed.

[konbit]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Do you believe we have evil people in the world. President Bush did not gas us.No, but his father is directly responsible for killing millions of innocents ...far more than Saddam.

[Basecore Boy]

You guys scare me. I bet you guys would of sat back and let Hitler sack us.

[TAD]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
You guys scare me. I bet you guys would of sat back and let Hitler sack us.hitler was financed by the states, the jews & the italians. hitler was a jew!!!! read your history!!!

[konbit]

Originally posted by christopher conrad:

we too have nuclear and chemical weapons...who protects people from us?In fact...we are the only people ever to use nuclear weapons...now who's the Axis of Evil?

[konbit]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
You guys scare me. I bet you guys would of sat back and let Hitler sack us.You scare me! You know why? Because it is evident that you have next to no knowledge of history or foreign affairs...

Your comments on the Taliban, the Middle East, France, weapons, etc., etc. have no basis in reality.

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
To defend our constitutional rights.Invading Iraq is not a defense of our constitutional rights which only apply to American citizens.

Nothing more annoying that seeing people throw arounds terms like 'constitutional rights' in such miss-aplied ways.

[vinny from the Burgh]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
Is Iraq 'fighting us'?Until we have a mushroom cloud over our heads then we fight back. Thank god your not running the country.</font>[/QUOTE]There has still has been no documented proof provided to the United States people that Iraq is building Nuclear Weapons and if you take any of the accusations that our politicians have given use at face value then you are a bigger fool than could have been thought.

North Korea on the other hand DOES have a nuclear weapon and I don’t see 250 thousand troops surrounding them. Perhaps the notion of Iraq being a nuclear threat is not whey the US is in Iraq IQ boy.

As far has historical precedence is concerned the nation people should be concerned about using a nuclear weapon is the US. We are the only country in the HISTORY OF MANKIND to drop an atomic bomb on a nation.

Sun Tzu ‘To win without fighting is best’. War should ALWAYS be a last resort for a nation with integrity.

And for your info if I was running the country this would not even be a problem because I would have never made Iraq my ally when Iran was fighting them. I would have kicked out Arafat, told Sharon to go **** himself and established a Palestinian democratic state gaining the support of all the Arab nations for my effort in the establishment of that state and from doing so made the US a respected nation in that region to influence events there through diplomacy.

You should being praying to God that I was running the country.</font>[/QUOTE]I dont profess to know all about us foreign policy, but i will say there would be a more stable middle east if palestine did have a sovereign state. on the other hand why do no arab countries help these people on their own instead of sitting back and watching palestinians and israelis kill each other for no reason? Are these people regarded as human to either side if they are by arabs why did king hussein of jordan kick the refugees out?

[TAD]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
You guys scare me. I bet you guys would of sat back and let Hitler sack us.you scare me. it's this type of attitude that got the t-shirt lawyer arrested.

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by idancetoomuch:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Or should we teach them with force that bad things like teaching hatred gains nothing.

Do you teach your children to hate others.

Support our troops.Your government is teaching you to hate middle east and see them as bad boys.

And we don't have to support the troops, we have to support individuals (people who have a life, the choice to live and see their children wife and familly again, even if they are in the army. ) the army... BB, what are the responsabilities of an army ? Do you know that ?</font>[/QUOTE]Whose gov't is teaching us this? The United States of America? My kids aren't taught this in school. No one I know is taught this in universities, on the street. Shit - Bill O'Reilly wouldn't say this.

This is what I mean when I say that the propaganda, knee-jerk reactions and mindlessness cuts BOTH WAYS. It doesn't help the cause of those who seek a non-violent solution to spout bullshit like this.

[ March 06, 2003, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Bold Soul ]

[Basecore Boy]

Originally posted by Cosmic_Twin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
You guys scare me. I bet you guys would of sat back and let Hitler sack us.you scare me. it's this type of attitude that got the t-shirt lawyer arrested.</font>[/QUOTE]It's funny I have to insult someone to get good responses.

When your freedom is gone and no military to defend you and yours. Then you will say the people have no guts.

[Chris Conrad]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
You guys scare me. I bet you guys would of sat back and let Hitler sack us.how is saddamn sacking us? explain...in fact, we have been bombing iraq regularly since 1991...regular bombing runs to supposedly wipe out radar installations and patrol the no fly zone...i many of these bombing runs, which by the way got very little to no media coverage and the legality of them is yet to be determined...on may of these runs, innocent iraqi's have been killed...so you tell me who's sacking who...we are directly sacking them and have been...how is iraq directly sacking us?

[andrea]

Support our Troops, they are only doing their job. So many joined the Armed Forces for education and travel and are now on their way to Iran. Don't let what happened to our Vietnam Vets happen again.

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Do you believe we have evil people in the world. President Bush did not gas us.No, but his father is directly responsible for killing millions of innocents ...far more than Saddam.</font>[/QUOTE]Back up this statement, konbit, if you please. I need a source on this information you are spreading.

I'm no Republican, but in America, one is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty - including the rich and powerful.

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by vinny from the Burgh:
I dont profess to know all about us foreign policy, but i will say there would be a more stable middle east if palestine did have a sovereign state. on the other hand why do no arab countries help these people on their own instead of sitting back and watching palestinians and israelis kill each other for no reason? Are these people regarded as human to either side if they are by arabs why did king hussein of jordan kick the refugees out?Arabic nations don’t want outright war over Palestine because that means going to war with Israel back by the US. And it is a side issue to them but the overall presence of Israel in the Middle East is probably not and the fact that we back them is why they hate us, in part.

But they cant grope at the US and really no other country could if we would have given Palestine their state before all this.

A big part of the world would have turned their backs to the whole issue and France/Germany would have been told to just take their loses.

Keep in mind Im just guessing but it doesn’t seem that unreasonable to assume.

Its a better strategy than the current one.

[Chris Conrad]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cosmic_Twin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
You guys scare me. I bet you guys would of sat back and let Hitler sack us.you scare me. it's this type of attitude that got the t-shirt lawyer arrested.</font>[/QUOTE]It's funny I have to insult someone to get good responses.

When your freedom is gone and no military to defend you and yours. Then you will say the people have no guts.</font>[/QUOTE]our freedom!? do an online search for Patriot Act and Patriot Act II...and see who is taking our freedoms away...

[lyot]

Originally posted by vinny from the Burgh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
Is Iraq 'fighting us'?Until we have a mushroom cloud over our heads then we fight back. Thank god your not running the country.</font>[/QUOTE]There has still has been no documented proof provided to the United States people that Iraq is building Nuclear Weapons and if you take any of the accusations that our politicians have given use at face value then you are a bigger fool than could have been thought.

North Korea on the other hand DOES have a nuclear weapon and I don’t see 250 thousand troops surrounding them. Perhaps the notion of Iraq being a nuclear threat is not whey the US is in Iraq IQ boy.

As far has historical precedence is concerned the nation people should be concerned about using a nuclear weapon is the US. We are the only country in the HISTORY OF MANKIND to drop an atomic bomb on a nation.

Sun Tzu ‘To win without fighting is best’. War should ALWAYS be a last resort for a nation with integrity.

And for your info if I was running the country this would not even be a problem because I would have never made Iraq my ally when Iran was fighting them. I would have kicked out Arafat, told Sharon to go **** himself and established a Palestinian democratic state gaining the support of all the Arab nations for my effort in the establishment of that state and from doing so made the US a respected nation in that region to influence events there through diplomacy.

You should being praying to God that I was running the country.</font>[/QUOTE]I dont profess to know all about us foreign policy, but i will say there would be a more stable middle east if palestine did have a sovereign state. on the other hand why do no arab countries help these people on their own instead of sitting back and watching palestinians and israelis kill each other for no reason? Are these people regarded as human to either side if they are by arabs why did king hussein of jordan kick the refugees out?</font>[/QUOTE]excellent point that has already been mentioned by some of us here..The Palestinian state problem is paramount in solving a whole lot of the problems the Middle East has..Yet, it does not happen..The resentment against the US is not gonna diminish, as long the US doesn't want pull it's hand out of Israel's ass..But on the other hand, if you read about the (ideological) links there are between some high ranking people in the US government and the Israëli government, can one really be surprised ? Member 1343, it's time to post that article again you put in a topic some weeks ago.. People should be aware of how deep the links are..

peace

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by christopher conrad:
our freedom!? do an online search for Patriot Act and Patriot Act II...and see who is taking our freedoms away...Bingo

Dumbassness.

Iraq cant take our freedom away. But you can bet your bottom dollar our own government can....and right now, getting away with it.....under the guise of protecting you.

[TAD]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cosmic_Twin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
You guys scare me. I bet you guys would of sat back and let Hitler sack us.you scare me. it's this type of attitude that got the t-shirt lawyer arrested.</font>[/QUOTE]It's funny I have to insult someone to get good responses.

When your freedom is gone and no military to defend you and yours. Then you will say the people have no guts.</font>[/QUOTE]i don't feel insulted in any way. just exchanging thoughts. your freedom is almost gone & the people already have no guts. also i live in canada so things are a little different here.

[Basecore Boy]

Our government must deal with Palastine and we should be in the streets protesting.

[vinny from the Burgh]

leave saddam go and free palestine!!!!
war is not the answer love is. support our troops though they are our brothers and sisters. we must vote the TYRANT and his warmonger cabinet out of office

VOTE!!!!

[lyot]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Our government must deal with Palastine and we should be in the streets protesting.now you're talking sense ! graemlins/thumbsup.gif

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by vinny from the Burgh:
I dont profess to know all about us foreign policy, but i will say there would be a more stable middle east if palestine did have a sovereign state. on the other hand why do no arab countries help these people on their own instead of sitting back and watching palestinians and israelis kill each other for no reason? Are these people regarded as human to either side if they are by arabs why did king hussein of jordan kick the refugees out?Arabic nations don’t want outright war over Palestine because that means going to war with Israel back by the US. And it is a side issue to them but the overall presence of Israel in the Middle East is probably not and the fact that we back them is why they hate us, in part.

But they cant grope at the US and really no other country could if we would have given Palestine their state before all this.

A big part of the world would have turned their backs to the whole issue and France/Germany would have been told to just take their loses.

Keep in mind Im just guessing but it doesn’t seem that unreasonable to assume.

Its a better strategy than the current one.</font>[/QUOTE]Is it somehow possible that Israel receives US support because they are the only true capitalistic democracy in the region?

I, for one, am very tepid regarding Israel's policies with regard to the Palestinian situation and, like others, see a more peaceful and beneficial solution.

But if there is hope of the Middle East evolving from a region full of aristocractic and fascist and religiously intolerant regimes, promoting and supporting democracy is part of that hope.

I have met and been associated with many people of Arabic descent in my young life - all of whom found their region of origin oppressive toward women, children and those of non-Islamic religious leanings. It is 2003 - time for military dictatorships, aristocracies and fundamentalist states to end.

Blame US foreign policy all you want. Anyone with more knowledge of world history than what they learned in public high school knows that the region has been what most would consider unstable since before the time of the Huns. The USA didn't destabilize the region. The region was never stable to begin with.

And, pray tell, how would the United States have given Palestine its nationhood? Since when has the USA been in the position to pass that out?

[ March 06, 2003, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Bold Soul ]

[Chris Conrad]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by christopher conrad:
our freedom!? do an online search for Patriot Act and Patriot Act II...and see who is taking our freedoms away...Bingo

Dumbassness.

Iraq cant take our freedom away. But you can bet your bottom dollar our own government can....and right now, getting away with it.....under the guise of protecting you.</font>[/QUOTE]same tactics as were used by people like hitler and by the former communist block countries...'for your protection'.

[Basecore Boy]

Originally posted by lyot:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Our government must deal with Palastine and we should be in the streets protesting.now you're talking sense ! graemlins/thumbsup.gif </font>[/QUOTE]The world will look at us differently if we give those people back their land.

I do believe the Israeli/Palastine conflict is destroying the world.

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by lyot:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
[qb]Our government must deal with Palastine and we should be in the streets protesting.now you're talking sense ! graemlins/thumbsup.gif </font>[/QUOTE]The world will look at us differently if we give those people back their land.QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Someone please explain to me how the USA is in a position to do this?

This is what I mean when I say that to speak of things that are only understood on a surface level is folly and potentially dangerous.

Anyone with an understanding of world civilizations will tell you that neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis have any cultural heritage that entitles them to that land. None whatsoever.

The danger in the world is that people still wish to determine their identity based on religion or pseudo-ethnicity.

The Middle East has been ravaged by these ethnic and religious tensions since after the European Crusades ended.

Bottom line - you have large groups of people, many Israelis included, who believe that it is their soverign right to nuke anyone who does not belong to the same sect of an offshoot of some Abrahamic religion (which is simply a derivative of Zoroastarianism, which everyone has forgotten about) as they do. Everyone is crazy and prone to anhiliating everyone else. The USA isn't responsible for that. Cultural Darwinism is.

You all should really read a few books. All this misinformation is making my head spin.

[ March 06, 2003, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Bold Soul ]

[JL]

incorrect. an army is supposed to defend yes, but in times of war their responsibility isn't to win, it's to completely destroy their enemy. the principles of getting into a just war decry this. it is assumed that if you go to war, then you have exhausted every possible route to resolve your difference with your enemy, and cannot. in that circumstance - one of the opposing sides must be destroyed completely to avoid future war, which is inherently unjust.

also, this country doesn't belong to native americans. you have a grave misunderstanding of their respect for the earth if you think they "own" it. no one owns the earth or any portion of it.


Originally posted by idancetoomuch:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
To defend our constitutional rights.Well, no.
The responsabilities of an army is to restore peace by occupying a land, city or strategic areas and force the rebellion to abandon the conflict.
The army is not considered as an offensive weapon, but of a disuasive opposition.
An army is not a weapon, it's a symbolic shield against aggressive populations.
An army fight back but should never attack.
It's all about defense.

Well, it was not made for invasion at the beginning.</font>[/QUOTE]

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by vinny from the Burgh:
I dont profess to know all about us foreign policy, but i will say there would be a more stable middle east if palestine did have a sovereign state. on the other hand why do no arab countries help these people on their own instead of sitting back and watching palestinians and israelis kill each other for no reason? Are these people regarded as human to either side if they are by arabs why did king hussein of jordan kick the refugees out?Arabic nations don’t want outright war over Palestine because that means going to war with Israel back by the US. And it is a side issue to them but the overall presence of Israel in the Middle East is probably not and the fact that we back them is why they hate us, in part.

But they cant grope at the US and really no other country could if we would have given Palestine their state before all this.

A big part of the world would have turned their backs to the whole issue and France/Germany would have been told to just take their loses.

Keep in mind Im just guessing but it doesn’t seem that unreasonable to assume.

Its a better strategy than the current one.</font>[/QUOTE]Is it somehow possible that Israel receives US support because they are the only true capitalistic democracy in the region. I, for one, am very tepid regarding Israel's policies with regard to the Palestinian situation and, like others, see a more peaceful and beneficial solution.

But if there is hope of the Middle East evolving from a region full of aristocractic and fascist and religiously intolerant regimes, promoting and supporting democracy is part of that hope.

I have met and been associated with many people of Arabic descent in my young life - all of whom found their region of origin oppressive toward women, children and those of non-Islamic religious leanings. It is 2003 - time for military dictatorships, aristocracies and fundamentalist states to end.

Blame US foreign policy all you want. Anyone with more knowledge of world history than what they learned in public high school knows that the region has been what most would consider unstable since before the time of the Huns. The USA didn't destabilize the region. The region was never stable to begin with.

And, pray tell, how would the United States have given Palestine its nationhood? Since when has the USA been in the position to pass that out?</font>[/QUOTE]Israel is a problem in that region and in the world in general because it is a religious state. There is not separation between church and state and for that reason it is dangerous. For that reason it is also no different than most of its neighbors.

Although I am for some support and good relations with Israel, we are not getting out of them what we should for the 30 billion in aide a year we send to them….which should be back the **** down in Palestine and get your right winged religious zealots in check.

I certainly don’t blame US policy for the problems in the Middle East that are long standing but we have certainly contributed to problems there with our completely short sided, mis directed policies there.

I don’t believe it not possible to get a state for Palestine. Who would have though the Jews would have Israel?

[ March 06, 2003, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Jamie Lennox ]

[lyot]

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
Blame US foreign policy all you want. Anyone with more knowledge of world history than what they learned in public high school knows that the region has been what most would consider unstable since before the time of the Huns. The USA didn't destabilize the region. The region was never stable to begin with.

And, pray tell, how would the United States have given Palestine its nationhood? Since when has the USA been in the position to pass that out?[/QB]Anyone with more knowledge of international politics then what they teach in public high school knows that it's only because of US support Israel has been able to keep it's harsh position towards Palestinians. If the US wants, the state of Palestina exists tomorrow (as a way to speak)..

peace

[Bill Blake]

I am a firm believer that Muslims and Hebrews can live in peace.

[Chris Conrad]

in a religiosu article i read the other day discussing bush's religious beliefs, he was quoted as saying that he wants to bring 'god's gift of liberty' to the world...

[konbit]

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Do you believe we have evil people in the world. President Bush did not gas us.No, but his father is directly responsible for killing millions of innocents ...far more than Saddam.</font>[/QUOTE]Back up this statement, konbit, if you please. I need a source on this information you are spreading.

I'm no Republican, but in America, one is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty - including the rich and powerful.</font>[/QUOTE]Impact of the 8-Year Sanctions War on the People of Iraq
one-page leaflet for distribution

From UN Reports

"The increase in mortality reported in public hospitals for children under five years of age (an excess
of some 40,000 deaths yearly compared with 1989) is mainly due to diarrhea, pneumonia and
malnutrition. In those over five years of age, the increase (an excess of some 50,000 deaths yearly
compared with 1989) is associated with heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, cancer, liver or
kidney diseases." Approximately 250 people die every day in Iraq due to the effect of the sanctions.
- UNICEF, April 1998.

"The Oil-for-Food plan has not yet resulted in adequate protection of Iraq's children from
malnutrition/disease. Those children spared from death continue to remain deprived of essential
rights addressed in the Convention of Rights of the Child." -- UNICEF, April 1998.

Seven years after the imposition of the blockade on the people of Iraq, more than 1.2 million
people, including 750,000 children below the age of five, have died because of the scarcity of food
and medicine. - Verified by the UN, June 1997.

"32 percent of children under five, some 960,000 children are chronically malnourished - a rise of
72 percent since 1991. Almost one quarter (23%) are underweight - twice as high as the levels
found in neighboring Jordan or Turkey." - UNICEF, November 1997.

"There is no sign of any improvement since Security Council Resolution 986/1111 ["Oil for Food"]
came into force." - UNICEF, November 1997.

"One out of every 4 Iraqi infants is malnourished. … Chronic malnutrition among children under five
has reached 27.5%. After a child reaches two or three years of age, chronic malnutrition is difficult
to reverse and damage on the child's development is likely to be permanent." UNICEF and World
Food Programmed (WFP), May 1997

"Iraq's health system is close to collapse because medicines and other life-saving supplies scheduled
for importation under the 'oil-for-food' deal have not arrived. … Government drug warehouses and
pharmacies have few stocks of medicines and medical supplies. The consequences of this situation
are causing a near-breakdown of the health care system, which is reeling under the pressure of
being deprived of medicine, other basic supplies and spare parts." World Health Organizations
(WHO), February 1997.

"4,500 children under the age of 5 are dying each month from hunger and disease. … The situation
is disastrous for children. Many are living on the very margin of survival."-UNICEF, October 1996.

"Since the onset of sanctions, there has been a six-fold increase in the mortality rate for children
under five and the majority of the country's population has been on a semi-starvation diet." - WHO,
March 1996.

"More than one million Iraqis have died-567,000 of them children-as a direct consequence of
economic sanctions . . .. As many as 12% of the children surveyed in Baghdad are wasted, 28%
stunted and 29% underweight."- UN FAO, December 1995.

"Famine threatens four million people in sanctions-hit Iraq - one fifth of the population - following a
poor grain harvest...The human situation is deteriorating. Living conditions are precarious and are at
pre-famine level for at least four million people. … The deterioration in nutritional status of children
is reflected in the significant increase of child mortality, which has risen nearly fivefold since 1990." -
UN FAO, September 1995.

"Alarming food shortages are causing irreparable damage to an entire generation of Iraqi children". -
UN FAO and WFP, September 1995.

"Sanctions are inhibiting the importation of spare parts, chemicals, reagents, and the means of
transportation required to provide water and sanitation services to the civilian population of Iraq. …
What has become increasingly clear is that no significant movement towards food security can be
achieved so long as the embargo remains in place. All vital contributors to food availability -
agricultural production, importation of foodstuffs, economic stability and income generation, are
dependent on Iraq's ability to purchase and import those items vital to the survival of the civilian
population." - UNICEF, 1995

[lyot]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
I am a firm believer that Muslims and Hebrews can live in peace.i concurr..there are plenty of examples of that by the way ..(Tunesia, Marocco, Egypt..practically the whole of North Africa).

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by lyot:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
Blame US foreign policy all you want. Anyone with more knowledge of world history than what they learned in public high school knows that the region has been what most would consider unstable since before the time of the Huns. The USA didn't destabilize the region. The region was never stable to begin with.

And, pray tell, how would the United States have given Palestine its nationhood? Since when has the USA been in the position to pass that out?Anyone with more knowledge of international politics then what they teach in public high school knows that it's only because of US support Israel has been able to keep it's harsh position towards Palestinians. If the US wants, the state of Palestina exists tomorrow (as a way to speak).

peace[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Again - more superlatives and no ACTUALS. This is a nice PERCEPTORY ASSUMPTION. Facts work better. :rolleyes:

[konbit]

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
Blame US foreign policy all you want. Anyone with more knowledge of world history than what they learned in public high school knows that the region has been what most would consider unstable since before the time of the Huns. The USA didn't destabilize the region. The region was never stable to begin with.
[/QB]That is a common misperception. The region (compared with Europe, Africa and much of Asia and the Americas) has had a relatively peaceful existence. it wasn't too long ago that they considered everybody else as barbarians...and in levels of sophistication, they were pretty right (with the exception of Asia and India...who were way more advanced than everybody until the age of exploration).

Futhermore...al those various religions live peacefully with one another, even within Jerusulum, until the Brits came. One of the main ironies of the Crusades was that more Jews and Christians were killed by the attacking Europeans than Arabs. Europeans couldn't understand different religious groups peacefully coexisting...

[lyot]

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by lyot:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
Blame US foreign policy all you want. Anyone with more knowledge of world history than what they learned in public high school knows that the region has been what most would consider unstable since before the time of the Huns. The USA didn't destabilize the region. The region was never stable to begin with.

And, pray tell, how would the United States have given Palestine its nationhood? Since when has the USA been in the position to pass that out?Anyone with more knowledge of international politics then what they teach in public high school knows that it's only because of US support Israel has been able to keep it's harsh position towards Palestinians. If the US wants, the state of Palestina exists tomorrow (as a way to speak).

peace</font>[/QUOTE]Again - more superlatives and no ACTUALS. This is a nice PERCEPTORY ASSUMPTION. Facts work better. :rolleyes: [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]yeah, there are plenty of links to be found on the internet so this bogus debate shouldn't be done here.. ;)

No seriously, i'll try to come up with some facts from different websites.. Hope you have some patience, because i gotta go now..I'll get back on it later.

peace

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by lyot:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
I am a firm believer that Muslims and Hebrews can live in peace.i concurr..there are plenty of examples of that by the way ..(Tunesia, Marocco, Egypt..practically the whole of North Africa).</font>[/QUOTE]They exist quite well in Los Angeles - 600,000 Iranians alone, and millions of Jewish people. Never an incident.

This has less to do with individual religious preference but human geo-politics.

[vinny from the Burgh]

steelers must refrain from making more of them and there must be less harsh leadership in israel to ever achieve the goal of peace

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Do you believe we have evil people in the world. President Bush did not gas us.No, but his father is directly responsible for killing millions of innocents ...far more than Saddam.</font>[/QUOTE]Back up this statement, konbit, if you please. I need a source on this information you are spreading.

I'm no Republican, but in America, one is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty - including the rich and powerful.</font>[/QUOTE]Impact of the 8-Year Sanctions War on the People of Iraq
one-page leaflet for distribution

From UN Reports

"The increase in mortality reported in public hospitals for children under five years of age (an excess
of some 40,000 deaths yearly compared with 1989) is mainly due to diarrhea, pneumonia and
malnutrition. In those over five years of age, the increase (an excess of some 50,000 deaths yearly
compared with 1989) is associated with heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, cancer, liver or
kidney diseases." Approximately 250 people die every day in Iraq due to the effect of the sanctions.
- UNICEF, April 1998.

"The Oil-for-Food plan has not yet resulted in adequate protection of Iraq's children from
malnutrition/disease. Those children spared from death continue to remain deprived of essential
rights addressed in the Convention of Rights of the Child." -- UNICEF, April 1998.

Seven years after the imposition of the blockade on the people of Iraq, more than 1.2 million
people, including 750,000 children below the age of five, have died because of the scarcity of food
and medicine. - Verified by the UN, June 1997.

"32 percent of children under five, some 960,000 children are chronically malnourished - a rise of
72 percent since 1991. Almost one quarter (23%) are underweight - twice as high as the levels
found in neighboring Jordan or Turkey." - UNICEF, November 1997.

"There is no sign of any improvement since Security Council Resolution 986/1111 ["Oil for Food"]
came into force." - UNICEF, November 1997.

"One out of every 4 Iraqi infants is malnourished. … Chronic malnutrition among children under five
has reached 27.5%. After a child reaches two or three years of age, chronic malnutrition is difficult
to reverse and damage on the child's development is likely to be permanent." UNICEF and World
Food Programmed (WFP), May 1997

"Iraq's health system is close to collapse because medicines and other life-saving supplies scheduled
for importation under the 'oil-for-food' deal have not arrived. … Government drug warehouses and
pharmacies have few stocks of medicines and medical supplies. The consequences of this situation
are causing a near-breakdown of the health care system, which is reeling under the pressure of
being deprived of medicine, other basic supplies and spare parts." World Health Organizations
(WHO), February 1997.

"4,500 children under the age of 5 are dying each month from hunger and disease. … The situation
is disastrous for children. Many are living on the very margin of survival."-UNICEF, October 1996.

"Since the onset of sanctions, there has been a six-fold increase in the mortality rate for children
under five and the majority of the country's population has been on a semi-starvation diet." - WHO,
March 1996.

"More than one million Iraqis have died-567,000 of them children-as a direct consequence of
economic sanctions . . .. As many as 12% of the children surveyed in Baghdad are wasted, 28%
stunted and 29% underweight."- UN FAO, December 1995.

"Famine threatens four million people in sanctions-hit Iraq - one fifth of the population - following a
poor grain harvest...The human situation is deteriorating. Living conditions are precarious and are at
pre-famine level for at least four million people. … The deterioration in nutritional status of children
is reflected in the significant increase of child mortality, which has risen nearly fivefold since 1990." -
UN FAO, September 1995.

"Alarming food shortages are causing irreparable damage to an entire generation of Iraqi children". -
UN FAO and WFP, September 1995.

"Sanctions are inhibiting the importation of spare parts, chemicals, reagents, and the means of
transportation required to provide water and sanitation services to the civilian population of Iraq. …
What has become increasingly clear is that no significant movement towards food security can be
achieved so long as the embargo remains in place. All vital contributors to food availability -
agricultural production, importation of foodstuffs, economic stability and income generation, are
dependent on Iraq's ability to purchase and import those items vital to the survival of the civilian
population." - UNICEF, 1995</font>[/QUOTE]And you can somehow place the blame for the conditions in the text above to ONE MAN named George H.W. Bush?

C'mon man. Again, I want proof that ONE MAN, the 41st president of the United States, killed all those people.

This is life and death, yall. Not a sports tournament. Please be a little more scholarly and a lot less reactionary. Please.

[konbit]

Originally posted by vinny from the Burgh:
steelers must refrain from making more of them and there must be less harsh leadership in israel to ever achieve the goal of peace????

[vinny from the Burgh]

sorry meant to say settlers must refrain from making more of them. a little football sick in the steel city

[konbit]

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
And you can somehow place the blame for the conditions in the text above to ONE MAN named George H.W. Bush?

C'mon man. Again, I want proof that ONE MAN, the 41st president of the United States, killed all those people.

This is life and death, yall. Not a sports tournament. Please be a little more scholarly and a lot less reactionary. Please.First...get off your high horse. despite your claims of "looking for more info." You as reactionary as anybody else here.

Second, if you go and look at the context of the initial reference...you will find that it was in comparison to Saddam. Saddam, the president of Iraq, is as responsible for the deaths attributed to him as Bush (who spearheaded the sanctions beyond what other countries found appropriate).

If you'd like, i can look up the number of Iraqis killed in '91 from US attacks...those were directly by the order of Bush. (I believe the figure is in the 500,000-1 million range). It was a pre-emptive attack (no self-defense).

[rexdale brawler]

As a Canadian I hope Canada stays out of war.
I like Americans, but I think Bush is a puppet.
If we go to war we are just as big a pussy as
Tony Blair and all the other pantywastes.
If they want to attack terrorists he should attack Canada cause it did, (and was the only ) country to ever burn down The White House.
F war and F Bush.
God Bless.

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
And you can somehow place the blame for the conditions in the text above to ONE MAN named George H.W. Bush?

C'mon man. Again, I want proof that ONE MAN, the 41st president of the United States, killed all those people.

This is life and death, yall. Not a sports tournament. Please be a little more scholarly and a lot less reactionary. Please.First...get off your high horse. despite your claims of "looking for more info." You as reactionary as anybody else here.

Second, if you go and look at the context of the initial reference...you will find that it was in comparison to Saddam. Saddam, the president of Iraq, is as responsible for the deaths attributed to him as Bush (who spearheaded the sanctions beyond what other countries found appropriate).

If you'd like, i can look up the number of Iraqis killed in '91 from US attacks...those were directly by the order of Bush. (I believe the figure is in the 500,000-1 million range). It was a pre-emptive attack (no self-defense).</font>[/QUOTE]Ah - so because I don't choose to suck down the popular view of Americans as warmongers so easily, I am on a "high-horse"?

Why don't you stop making specific assertions with general opinions and I'll give you an opportunity to influence my thinking. Until then, I retain my responsibility to educate myself.

[konbit]

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
And you can somehow place the blame for the conditions in the text above to ONE MAN named George H.W. Bush?

C'mon man. Again, I want proof that ONE MAN, the 41st president of the United States, killed all those people.

This is life and death, yall. Not a sports tournament. Please be a little more scholarly and a lot less reactionary. Please.First...get off your high horse. despite your claims of "looking for more info." You as reactionary as anybody else here.

Second, if you go and look at the context of the initial reference...you will find that it was in comparison to Saddam. Saddam, the president of Iraq, is as responsible for the deaths attributed to him as Bush (who spearheaded the sanctions beyond what other countries found appropriate).

If you'd like, i can look up the number of Iraqis killed in '91 from US attacks...those were directly by the order of Bush. (I believe the figure is in the 500,000-1 million range). It was a pre-emptive attack (no self-defense).</font>[/QUOTE]Ah - so because I don't choose to suck down the popular view of Americans as warmongers so easily, I am on a "high-horse"?

Why don't you stop making specific assertions with general opinions and I'll give you an opportunity to influence my thinking. Until then, I retain my responsibility to educate myself.</font>[/QUOTE]Nope...that is not what i said: you are on a high horse because you make accusations of others being reactionary...when it is easy to see that you are as reactionary (as the word denotes) as anybody else. (though what you are reacting aginst is, of course slightly different).

Believe me...I'm not one of these protesters who basis my opinions my opinions on some skewed sense of being "liberal" any more than you.

Please clarify "specific assertions on general opinions"

[mdpm99]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
I am a firm believer that Muslims and Hebrews can live in peace.Amen to that......after all, they are practically cousins anyway.

d

Ps Hope to see ya' soon smile.gif d.

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
And you can somehow place the blame for the conditions in the text above to ONE MAN named George H.W. Bush?

C'mon man. Again, I want proof that ONE MAN, the 41st president of the United States, killed all those people.

This is life and death, yall. Not a sports tournament. Please be a little more scholarly and a lot less reactionary. Please.First...get off your high horse. despite your claims of "looking for more info." You as reactionary as anybody else here.

Second, if you go and look at the context of the initial reference...you will find that it was in comparison to Saddam. Saddam, the president of Iraq, is as responsible for the deaths attributed to him as Bush (who spearheaded the sanctions beyond what other countries found appropriate).

If you'd like, i can look up the number of Iraqis killed in '91 from US attacks...those were directly by the order of Bush. (I believe the figure is in the 500,000-1 million range). It was a pre-emptive attack (no self-defense).</font>[/QUOTE]Ah - so because I don't choose to suck down the popular view of Americans as warmongers so easily, I am on a "high-horse"?

Why don't you stop making specific assertions with general opinions and I'll give you an opportunity to influence my thinking. Until then, I retain my responsibility to educate myself.</font>[/QUOTE]Nope...that is not what i said: you are on a high horse because you make accusations of others being reactionary...when it is easy to see that you are as reactionary (as the word denotes) as anybody else. (though what you are reacting aginst is, of course slightly different).

Believe me...I'm not one of these protesters who basis my opinions my opinions on some skewed sense of being "liberal" any more than you.

Please clarify "specific assertions on general opinions"</font>[/QUOTE]I have made no such accusations, but I believe you are constructing this untruth in order to waylay my genuine arguement that no one knows anything for certain and making a platform out of half-truth and innuendo is not only irresponsible but damages the cause of non-violent resolution.

BTW - the manner in which you have twisted my words to fit your perception of my character (using terms such as "high horse" implies a sense of elitism, which you can't substantiate but you irresponsibly purport) is an example of a "specific assertion of a general opinion."

[ March 06, 2003, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Bold Soul ]

[konbit]

Alright...i could continue on this (and would be happy to over PM, if you want)...but we are begining to argue more about the ways in which we debate than the actual topics at hand.

So, before we get back to actually talking about the issues, I'd like to say that I do agree with your consistent argument that people here generally argue from a position without many real facts (on both sides of the issue).

However, since nobody can ever know all the facts about anything, I think you're gonna have to let up on that just a little...there are still plenty of points to be argued within the realms of what we know and can easily infer. And, such debate is probably beneficial, somehow.

Again, I'd love to hear your opinions on the Cause not symptoms thread.

Peace.

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by konbit:
Alright...i could continue on this (and would be happy to over PM, if you want)...but we are begining to argue more about the ways in which we debate than the actual topics at hand.

So, before we get back to actually talking about the issues, I'd like to say that I do agree with your consistent argument that people here generally argue from a position without many real facts (on both sides of the issue).

However, since nobody can ever know all the facts about anything, I think you're gonna have to let up on that just a little...there are still plenty of points to be argued within the realms of what we know and can easily infer. And, such debate is probably beneficial, somehow.

Again, I'd love to hear your opinions on the Cause not symptoms thread.

Peace.I have to disagree with you Konbit (even though I don't want to). People stop digging for actual facts once they've found grounds to support their arguement in the stack. This is human nature in the age of the soundbite.

Where are the leaders for peaceful resolution and why aren't they working to educate the public? I understand there are sincere efforts across the internet and other sources that provide a dissenting view, but who is PRESENTING real PROOF that this burgeoning war is a Bush Administration ploy/scam? Actual proof that will make a difference.

Impotence of the Dems, maybe? I don't know. It just seems to me that no matter how shallow an arguement the current administration is accused of presenting, those for non-violent resolution are missing the opportunity to present one better.

All the Republicans have going for them is UNITY of purpose and a singular focused message delivered by a strong personality. But, as we are seeing, that is all they need. It makes everyone else come off like whiny backstabbers and traitors. And that is lamentable. It is the reason why I decided to be judiciously neutral. I really want no military action, but I have yet to see why it isn't now necessary - nor that it will never be.

[ March 06, 2003, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Bold Soul ]

[konbit]

Outside of the US, I think you will find many, many intellegent people (including governemnt leaders) who feel contrary to the US' admin.'s stance. (In fact...the vast majority of people outside the US, froom all the polls I have heard.) I think that many of them have plenty of their own facts.

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by konbit:
Outside of the US, I think you will find many, many intellegent people (including governemnt leaders) who feel contrary to the US' admin.'s stance. (In fact...the vast majority of people outside the US, froom all the polls I have heard.) I think that many of them have plenty of their own facts.I'm sure, but where is their SPONSORSHIP?

It isn't the weight of the message that gets the point across but the weight of those who carry the message. Bush is loudest because he has the largest megaphone. I've heard a bit of Ted Kennedy, but where are the other political heavies?

I know where my vote isn't going in 2004. Unfortunately, I can't tell where it should go.

[Mah'chew]

They're pawns and expendable in the eyes of your government - it always seems to be the normal, everyday, street level people that go to war and it never seems to be the kids of Rumsfeld et al that are first in line for the mustard gas and shrapnel...

Yes support your troops but not at their own expense, think about it, it's all a scam to get the working class kids out there in the name of the ruling elite..

Just who is exactly resposible when one of your buddies comes home dead or maimed - them damn muslims? No way, it's your leaders that are throwing your people in the mincing machine and for what? Freedom? Democracy? Smokescreen? The US government is preapred to kill your kids, buddies, DJ's, fathers, sisters and for what? Because they are scared, they want to be an empire and have a P & L to work to, your expendable for the $$$...

Support your forces friends, it must be hard, but thay are not fighting for a higher cause, their personal ethics are honorable, but their leader's motives are the sickest thing this world has ever seen.

So, in the nicest way, you owe it to your self to not support them or this war !

[ March 06, 2003, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: Mathius ]

[Pete Nice]

has anyone hear asked themselves why 9/11 happened? we used to support the taliban when russia was attacking them. there are wicked dictators all over the world and we want sadaam only... it's been horrible to see the way all this has gone down. we need to take a good look at ourselves and stop being so righteous. if i'm not mistaken we're still the only coutry in the world who has actually used nuclear weapons agianst humans. but that's okay 'cuz we're always right.... we can't even educate the poor children of this country, but we're liberate the iraqi people and fix their lives? doesn't this seem ass backwards? i support our troops and have no ill will towards them, but our so called leaders can take a flying leap graemlins/cussing.gif

[the crackhouse]

Originally posted by JL:
incorrect. an army is supposed to defend yes, but in times of war their responsibility isn't to win, it's to completely destroy their enemy. the principles of getting into a just war decry this. it is assumed that if you go to war, then you have exhausted every possible route to resolve your difference with your enemy, and cannot. in that circumstance - one of the opposing sides must be destroyed completely to avoid future war, which is inherently unjust.

also, this country doesn't belong to native americans. you have a grave misunderstanding of their respect for the earth if you think they "own" it. no one owns the earth or any portion of it.

About the army, i'm talking about why armies have been created for, but you're right, this is what the armies are about NOW !

About no-one is inherent about

[the crackhouse]

Originally posted by JL:
incorrect. an army is supposed to defend yes, but in times of war their responsibility isn't to win, it's to completely destroy their enemy. the principles of getting into a just war decry this. it is assumed that if you go to war, then you have exhausted every possible route to resolve your difference with your enemy, and cannot. in that circumstance - one of the opposing sides must be destroyed completely to avoid future war, which is inherently unjust.

also, this country doesn't belong to native americans. you have a grave misunderstanding of their respect for the earth if you think they "own" it. no one owns the earth or any portion of it.

About the army, i'm talking about why armies have been created for, but you're right, this is what the armies are about NOW !

About no-one owns any part of the earth, I think you are way too hippie for me !
I will kick back you to the days of the colonization of africa, the colonization (invasion and destruction) of the "old" america, of the south america, of the barbarians invasions in europe, of the rome invasion of europe, and you'll tell me another story.
Your idea is clear : earth doesn't belong to anybody, but so, where is your home ? Where are your roots ?
I'm not speaking about the "everybody gets home" here, but about the roots. Countries should admit immigration for people who have problems in their native country, but your idea is a lil bit short concerning the abuse of territory invasion.
I think immigrants should be treated as good as native citizens, as humans, but you never forget where you come from, and colonizations have shown that it's impossible to change a nation spirit, and the legal and moral feeling that this land is yours, due to what you made of it... I don't speak about the respect of the earth, but of how you use it, as a human being, to live in the better conditions.
When people come and try to tell you how to do, it's crushing one's mind, or spirit, or creativity and beliefs.
Isn't it ?

[Tenyu]

i'm sorry, Bold Soul, but don't you have a phd?

[Mah'chew]

Originally posted by Tenyu:
i'm sorry, Bold Soul, but don't you have a phd?If not then this would be like the film 'Good Soul Hunting'! :D

[Red D]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Protest these thangs. We as Americans must start to protest the wrongs in the world, but let's start here with our media, friends, family and government.

I love this country, even though the country wrong us (africans).

The best place in the world AMERICA. Don't you forget it.Yeah right, and in how many places have you lived to be able to make such a statement?

RD

[Chris Conrad]

Originally posted by Red D:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Protest these thangs. We as Americans must start to protest the wrongs in the world, but let's start here with our media, friends, family and government.

I love this country, even though the country wrong us (africans).

The best place in the world AMERICA. Don't you forget it.Yeah right, and in how many places have you lived to be able to make such a statement?

RD</font>[/QUOTE]i used to feel exactly as basecore boy does...eyars ago...i've been lucky in that i've had the opportunities to travel extensively, not just because of music but prior to that with my family, and i have many family overseas...when you tarvel and really spend time with people in otehr countries, not just hit the usual tourist traps, you really learn a lot about yourself and the world, and your perception changes a bit. when you sit on your ass in one country all your life, sure you'll feel only one way. by the way, most americans never leave the country or have passports. the big trip of a lifetime for most americans is to go to disney world and spend money on mickey mouse. it's no wonder many have a limited and biased world view.

[Basecore Boy]

Ok, I'm back. What did you think of the speach last night? I thought he did a great job of laying out his case.

[JL]

Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
Blame US foreign policy all you want. Anyone with more knowledge of world history than what they learned in public high school knows that the region has been what most would consider unstable since before the time of the Huns. The USA didn't destabilize the region. The region was never stable to begin with.
That is a common misperception. The region (compared with Europe, Africa and much of Asia and the Americas) has had a relatively peaceful existence. it wasn't too long ago that they considered everybody else as barbarians...and in levels of sophistication, they were pretty right (with the exception of Asia and India...who were way more advanced than everybody until the age of exploration).

Futhermore...al those various religions live peacefully with one another, even within Jerusulum, until the Brits came. One of the main ironies of the Crusades was that more Jews and Christians were killed by the attacking Europeans than Arabs. Europeans couldn't understand different religious groups peacefully coexisting...[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]you're actually right. this sort of post imperialistic tribal factionsim isn't unique to that region either. i did my thesis on Indonesia, perhaps the most diverse region of the world (over 14,000 different peoples, 7000 languages, and countless religions indigenously united into one by the Dutch Imperialists). The region was stable until they were raped for their natural resources and put together into one nation state.

[House]

support our troops.....

has anyone seen the article in the LA Times concerning captured Al Qaeda fighters who have been tortured to death...this finding has been made by US military forensic pathologists....

support our troops....

[Basecore Boy]

Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
support our troops.....

has anyone seen the article in the LA Times concerning captured Al Qaeda fighters who have been tortured to death...this finding has been made by US military forensic pathologists....

support our troops....What do you recommend the military do with killers.

[JL]

you're dancing around your original assertion that North America belongs to Native Americans. In doing so, you disregard their relationship with the Earth and assert Western notions of tieing nation states to geographically bounded areas, which I can also prove to be false.
I can say that I'm from Asia, but I was actually born here. I don't have any ties to any land, and there is an increasing group of 2nd generation immigrants like myself who are "rootless". How many people can actually tie themselves to a certain geographically limited plot of land? Even so, does that convey to nationalistic ideas of rootedness? I submit that those notions are neither continuous, bounded, or homogenous.
I understand what you are saying, in practice, notions of belonging to a certain area are in place - but that doesn't detract from their false basis.


Originally posted by idancetoomuch:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JL:
incorrect. an army is supposed to defend yes, but in times of war their responsibility isn't to win, it's to completely destroy their enemy. the principles of getting into a just war decry this. it is assumed that if you go to war, then you have exhausted every possible route to resolve your difference with your enemy, and cannot. in that circumstance - one of the opposing sides must be destroyed completely to avoid future war, which is inherently unjust.

also, this country doesn't belong to native americans. you have a grave misunderstanding of their respect for the earth if you think they "own" it. no one owns the earth or any portion of it.

About the army, i'm talking about why armies have been created for, but you're right, this is what the armies are about NOW !

About no-one owns any part of the earth, I think you are way too hippie for me !
I will kick back you to the days of the colonization of africa, the colonization (invasion and destruction) of the "old" america, of the south america, of the barbarians invasions in europe, of the rome invasion of europe, and you'll tell me another story.
Your idea is clear : earth doesn't belong to anybody, but so, where is your home ? Where are your roots ?
I'm not speaking about the "everybody gets home" here, but about the roots. Countries should admit immigration for people who have problems in their native country, but your idea is a lil bit short concerning the abuse of territory invasion.
I think immigrants should be treated as good as native citizens, as humans, but you never forget where you come from, and colonizations have shown that it's impossible to change a nation spirit, and the legal and moral feeling that this land is yours, due to what you made of it... I don't speak about the respect of the earth, but of how you use it, as a human being, to live in the better conditions.
When people come and try to tell you how to do, it's crushing one's mind, or spirit, or creativity and beliefs.
Isn't it ?</font>[/QUOTE]

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Ok, I'm back. What did you think of the speach last night? I thought he did a great job of laying out his case.Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists -- terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries. Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.

If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.

Consider the above. Every country in the world except maybe Japan has weapons that could harm its people and anyone else. Simply because someone has a gun does not mean that they will use it on you.

If the argument is that Saddam has used his weapons in the past. So have we. Numerous times. If your argument is that he is a threat against other nations because he has used weapons before then by the same logic we are a threat as well.

“Confronting” the Iraqi regime does not mean one has to use force. He even damages his own argument referring to the 9/11 attacks. On 9/11 our OWN damn planes were used to cause catastrophe of death. One could argue that the notion of Iraq’s weapons being a threat may not be as much as are own weapons or planes being used against us. The people responsible for 9/11 didn’t need weapons of mass destruction to carry out the most devastating attack ever on American soil. They just used our planes.
Bush doesn’t name any of the terrorist Saddam is accused of harboring.

Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by inspectors. In some cases, these materials have been moved to different locations every 12 to 24 hours, or placed in vehicles that are in residential neighborhoods.

We know from multiple intelligence sources that Iraqi weapons scientists continue to be threatened with harm should they cooperate with UN inspectors. Scientists are required by Iraqi intelligence to wear concealed recording devices during interviews, and hotels where interviews take place are bugged by the regime.

If this is the case, where are the photos and documents that validate these claims? If this is the case, have the weapons inspectors been given this information? If they are moving weapons around and we know it how come we aren’t following them and giving that information to the inspectors so they can go to these places and see the weapons? Wouldn’t that be the best thing for Bush? These inspectors finding one pile of the weapons he claims they have and yet the inspectors have not?

And then as for North Korea he states This is a regional issue. I say a regional issue because there's a lot of countries that have got a direct stake into whether or not North Korea has nuclear weapons.

Isn’t and issue a regional issue?

Isn’t Iraq a regional issue? Don’t plenty of countries have a stake in the policy we deice to carry out? Based on his logic about handling North Korea differently, he poses an argument that could be just as easily thrown back at him for Iraq.

So, therefore, I think the threat is real. And so do a lot of other people in my government. And since I believe the threat is real, and since my most important job is to protect the security of the American people, that's precisely what we'll do.

This is an argument ad populum and invalid and his beliefs and what is real are two different things.

And the big kicker:

The risk of doing nothing, the risk of hoping that Saddam Hussein changes his mind and becomes a gentle soul, the risk that somehow -- that inaction will make the world safer, is a risk I'm not willing to take for the American people.

NO ONE has advocated the idea of doing NOTHING in the last few months. His trying to slip this red haring of his idea being ‘something’ and that the only alternative is ‘nothing’ is completely ludicrous and as bad as argument for assessing the risk involved as you could get.

I swore to protect and defend the Constitution; that's what I swore to do. I put my hand on the Bible and took that oath, and that's exactly what I am going to do.

Whether or not he invades Iraq has nothing to do with defending the constitution. This is a hollow statement and to draw the conclusion that invading Iraq is defending the constitution is a false statement.

I gone on too long but the fact is he did not provide one shred of evidence that Iraq is an immanent threat. He did not give one credible explanation for why force is the only option that is the most beneficial and basically boiled it down to I going in because ‘I believe they are a threat’. But what did he give us to make US believe that they are a threat?

Nothing really.

[ March 07, 2003, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Jamie Lennox ]

[House]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
support our troops.....

has anyone seen the article in the LA Times concerning captured Al Qaeda fighters who have been tortured to death...this finding has been made by US military forensic pathologists....

support our troops....What do you recommend the military do with killers.</font>[/QUOTE]ever heard of the Geneva convention...in war everyone is a killer so i guess if our troops are tortured to death you'll be just fine with that

[Basecore Boy]

I see some people rather see a mushroom cloud over our heads and thousands dead before we take action. Or maybe we should just let thousands die and forgive Saddam. The argument about him using weapons of mass destruction and the USA using them are two different cases. We used them for protection of our nation. Saddam used them to take over nation and stop an uprising of his own people. What would you think if the Bronx was speaking out about President Bush and he decides to lauch chemical weapons on them.

[Basecore Boy]

Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
support our troops.....

has anyone seen the article in the LA Times concerning captured Al Qaeda fighters who have been tortured to death...this finding has been made by US military forensic pathologists....

support our troops....What do you recommend the military do with killers.</font>[/QUOTE]ever heard of the Geneva convention...in war everyone is a killer so i guess if our troops are tortured to death you'll be just fine with that</font>[/QUOTE]Ok, your right I would not like to see our troops tortured.

[Chris Conrad]

Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
support our troops.....

has anyone seen the article in the LA Times concerning captured Al Qaeda fighters who have been tortured to death...this finding has been made by US military forensic pathologists....

support our troops....What do you recommend the military do with killers.</font>[/QUOTE]ever heard of the Geneva convention...in war everyone is a killer so i guess if our troops are tortured to death you'll be just fine with that</font>[/QUOTE]also, isn't torture and the liek illegal under the geneva convention?

[Chris Conrad]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
support our troops.....

has anyone seen the article in the LA Times concerning captured Al Qaeda fighters who have been tortured to death...this finding has been made by US military forensic pathologists....

support our troops....What do you recommend the military do with killers.</font>[/QUOTE]ever heard of the Geneva convention...in war everyone is a killer so i guess if our troops are tortured to death you'll be just fine with that</font>[/QUOTE]Ok, your right I would not like to see our troops tortured.</font>[/QUOTE]but what might happen if they are captured...

[Chris Conrad]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
I see some people rather see a mushroom cloud over our heads and thousands dead before we take action. Or maybe we should just let thousands die and forgive Saddam. The argument about him using weapons of mass destruction and the USA using them are two different cases. We used them for protection of our nation. Saddam used them to take over nation and stop an uprising of his own people. What would you think if the Bronx was speaking out about President Bush and he decides to lauch chemical weapons on them.you bring this up and and mentioned in a previous post about how are goverment did not gas its own peopel like saddam did...are you aware that our government has conducted variosu experiemtns on its own people? medical and chemical experiments? look up MK Ultra and Tuskeegee Syphillis experiments on a web search and see what you get...you still haven't responded to my post about looking up Patriot Act and Patriot Act II to see who is taking our constitutional rights away...in alst night's speech, bush gavce no evidence and repeated what he's been saying for months...read Lennox's analysis again, carefully...and please look up the things I refer to before stating that this country is completely innocent in things...

[f0reverneverm0re]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
support our troops.....

has anyone seen the article in the LA Times concerning captured Al Qaeda fighters who have been tortured to death...this finding has been made by US military forensic pathologists....

support our troops....What do you recommend the military do with killers.</font>[/QUOTE]the military should hire killers, like it normally does. the military knows they have a good number of domestic abusers (easy enough to research this on the net, i've done it before).

i caught a blurb on CiaNN that talked about how the Al Qaeda detainees @ Guantanamo were having to be "rescued" from suicide attempts; the video footage showed some MPs loading some guy in an orange jumper onto a stretcher next to what looked to me like a small shed. just going by what i saw. maybe this implies "being tortured toward death"...

[Chris Conrad]

CiaNN...nice one...

[House]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
[QB]The argument about him using weapons of mass destruction and the USA using them are two different cases. We used them for protection of our nation. Saddam used them to take over nation and stop an uprising of his own people. QB]WRONG AGAIN

Saddam used chemical weapons in his war against Iran (remember that?) in fact, both sides used toxic agents....do you know what the us response was then - we threw a ****ing party. after all they were two warring nations of sand niggers - let themkill themselves and we'll march in and grab the oil for ourselves.

and if this were truly a valid argument of yours then we would invade N KOrea TODAY - they have the bomb and missiles which can reach the west coast of the USA! and our allies in Japan

but obviously you've drank the government kool-aid

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
[QB]The argument about him using weapons of mass destruction and the USA using them are two different cases. We used them for protection of our nation. Saddam used them to take over nation and stop an uprising of his own people. QB]WRONG AGAIN

Saddam used chemical weapons in his war against Iran (remember that?) in fact, both sides used toxic agents....do you know what the us response was then - we threw a ****ing party. after all they were two warring nations of sand niggers - let themkill themselves and we'll march in and grab the oil for ourselves.

and if this were truly a valid argument of yours then we would invade N KOrea TODAY - they have the bomb and missiles which can reach the west coast of the USA! and our allies in Japan

but obviously you've drank the government kool-aid</font>[/QUOTE]Bingo

[Chris Conrad]

and let's examine why we might not be too worried abotu N. Korea, who has the capabilties as Buddy just said...gee...N. Korea is a communist regime right next to China, a very large communist regime...and, gee whiz...look at where are most of our products are manufactured...

[Basecore Boy]

Chris,

I don't think America has no sins. But, I feel that Saddam is the reason why terrorist think that terror is profitable, because the biggest terrorist has a country and oil.

[Bill Blake]

basscore

You are aware that Saddam was our ally at one time.

When he was, he was just as bad as he now, maybe even worse and had plenty of blood on his hands.

If America is on such a moral crusade, why did they ever side with a mass murderer in the first place?

And before you answer please know (since Ill bet you didn’t) that Donald Rums**** was the guy the Reagan administration first sent over as a diplomat to befriend Saddam. My isn’t that odd.

[Chris Conrad]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Chris,

I don't think America has no sins. But, I feel that Saddam is the reason why terrorist think that terror is profitable, because the biggest terrorist has a country and oil.by the way, nobody seems able to prove a link between saddam and al quaeda...

[House]

Originally posted by christopher conrad:
and let's examine why we might not be too worried abotu N. Korea, who has the capabilties as Buddy just said...gee...N. Korea is a communist regime right next to China, a very large communist regime...and, gee whiz...look at where are most of our products are manufactured...this country has neither the stomach or the balls to confront N Korea...they have a massive army...have withstood american ground and air assaults in the past and have the capabaility of producing and using tactical as well as short range strategic nuclear weapons...this would be a real war - not shooting sandniggers with pea guns

thats why we're bitching up for all the world to see - its typical bully shit; ya figure ya can't woop one fella so you pick on someone who is decidedly weaker too pump yourself up

[House]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Chris,

I don't think America has no sins.
because the biggest terrorist has a country and oil.funny...peeps in guatemala,nicaragua, bolivia, peru, el salvador, panama and colombia have been saying this very same thing for years

to paraphrase what malcolm x said when the kennedy got shot "the chickens have come home to roost"

[Basecore Boy]

I like to say that we have been very foolish in the past and must stop making friends with dictators.

You guys have openned my eyes to alot of things. But, Saddam must go.

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by christopher conrad:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Chris,

I don't think America has no sins. But, I feel that Saddam is the reason why terrorist think that terror is profitable, because the biggest terrorist has a country and oil.by the way, nobody seems able to prove a link between saddam and al quaeda...</font>[/QUOTE]Yea, there seems to be more hiding out in Pakistan and they our are ‘friends’.

Although America is both their enemies so they have common goals so its possible, they are still not providing the PROOF!

[JL]

Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
this country has neither the stomach or the balls to confront N Korea...they have a massive army...have withstood american ground and air assaults in the past and have the capabaility of producing and using tactical as well as short range strategic nuclear weapons...this would be a real war - not shooting sandniggers with pea guns

thats why we're bitching up for all the world to see - its typical bully shit; ya figure ya can't woop one fella so you pick on someone who is decidedly weaker too pump yourself upexactly. north korea has a million men in their army in active duty right now. the US army has just shy of a million in active duty. the terrain of north korea is vietnam part 2 - deep forests and mountains - and it is believed that north korea has tons of cave bunkers and other munitions put into place. put simply, a war with north korea would cost us many many US lives, and we're not ready for that.

the shit in the middle east is about money, plain and simple. we could all sit here and list 10 rulers more insane than Saddam, 10 people who pose a larger threat to the US, 10 countries with more discord with UN Resolutions (of which Isreal is the leader), etc etc. Think critically about why we are choosing to fight Iraq.

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
I like to say that we have been very foolish in the past and must stop making friends with dictators.

You guys have openned my eyes to alot of things. But, Saddam must go.Sure he must go

And so should Bush

That man has put a gag order on Executive documents from the last 30 years of serious proportions.

Talk about defending our ‘freedom’.

His ability and finesse to be diplomatic is horrible.

Where was he during the United Nations hearings on individual rights internationally and environmental summits?

He didn’t go their way….and now he demands that everyone follow suit with him?

****ing idiot.

[House]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
I like to say that we have been very foolish in the past and must stop making friends with dictators.

You guys have openned my eyes to alot of things. But, Saddam must go.What our allies are saying is that Saddam is contained. He is of no real consequence and does not control the Kurdish north of his country or anything in the southern no fly zone. he is under containment and while not safe he is of no threat.

what is actually going on here relates to a policy of the usa which seeks to establish a safe "democratic" haven in the middle east which would enable us to control the region. i read the policy statement recently and will forward it if i can find it (i read tooo much).

another scary thought - the turkish military is keen to reverse their parliaments decision as it relates to assisting the US..WHY?..turkey has a problem with its own ethnic kurdish population coupled with a history of genocide this doesn't produce good feelings

the world is not as simplistic as Bush lays it out (mister no fuzzy numbers himself - that should have clued american clods in then)

[ March 07, 2003, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: your idol, Buddy Love ]

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
I like to say that we have been very foolish in the past and must stop making friends with dictators.

You guys have openned my eyes to alot of things. But, Saddam must go.What our allies are saying is that Saddam is contained. He is of no real consequence and does not control the Kurdish north of his country or anything in the southern no fly zone. he is under containment and while not safe he is of no threat.

what is actually going on here relates to a policy of the usa which seeks to establish a safe "democratic" haven in the middle east which would enable us to control the region. i read the policy statement recently and will forward it if i can find it (i read tooo much).

another scary thought - the turkish military is keen to reverse their parliaments decision as it relates to assisting the US..WHY?..turkey has a problem with its own ethnic kurdish population coupled with a history of genocide this doesn't produce good feelings

the world is as simplistic as Bush lays it out (mister no fuzzy numbers himself - that should have clued american clods in then)</font>[/QUOTE]Bingo again.

[Basecore Boy]

Do you guys listen to the Iragi's that are now here in good old USA. They speak of some foul shit going on. They say the people will be happy when we get there, just like france was happy to see American troops.

Joke: I guess our boys from the DHP will be gettin some free butt.

Serious: They are my true hero's.

[konbit]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
I see some people rather see a mushroom cloud over our heads and thousands dead before we take action. Or maybe we should just let thousands die and forgive Saddam. The argument about him using weapons of mass destruction and the USA using them are two different cases. We used them for protection of our nation. Saddam used them to take over nation and stop an uprising of his own people. What would you think if the Bronx was speaking out about President Bush and he decides to lauch chemical weapons on them.What are you talking about?!?!? Iraq poses NO THREAT to the US. Please, give me any sort of evidence to the contrary.... Their missles don't make it this far. And they have NEVER attacked any coountry outside their region (if only we could say the same). There is no documented or circumstantial evidence showing that they have ever planned, talked about or imagined attacking the US.

Second...you are WRONG in your assumption. Saddam very well may have never used chemical weapons to quel an uprising of his people. Where did you get that information? Please provide some proof. Please refer to my "From America With Love" thread to read more?

[ March 07, 2003, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: konbit ]

[Bill Blake]

Part of the article in the NY Times today:

And in a veiled jab at the United States, he said inspectors had been unable to verify some claims about hidden Iraqi weapons and he asked again for more information about suspect sites.

CIA Director George Tenet has said all relevant information had been passed along already.

Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency also took a swipe at U.S. intelligence, saying his analysis now definitively showed that suspect aluminum tubes were not destined for equipment that could be used to refine uranium for nuclear weapons use.

"Extensive field investigation and document analysis have failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these 81mm tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets," ElBaradei said.

ElBaradei also told the council that the IAEA found no evidence to support reports that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger.

"Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that documents which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic," he said. "We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded."

[jsd540]

Yes, our troops deserve our support. The president on the other end does not.

[mdpm99]

(hope I didn't drift to far off topic) biggrinangel.gif

d.

AccuThreat: Five-Day Outlook

http://www.satirewire.com/news/feb02/images/5day.gif

Ps.

FBI TO ISSUE 5-DAY TERROR FORECASTS
Recognizable Format Should Make It Easier for Americans to Organize Week

Washington, D.C. — Abandoning the last-minute, panic-inducing warning system it has used until now, the FBI today said it will begin issuing regular, five-day terror forecasts. Today's outlook: light, scattered terrorism early, tapering off by noon. Tomorrow: Clear, and seasonably dangerous.

According to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, the forecasts will serve as a more consistent, and less frightening, reminder that Americans should stay vigilant, while the familiar, five-day format should make it much easier to plan ahead.

"We in law enforcement are duty-bound to report inherent danger, so we will continue to alert the public to serious threats," said Ashcroft. "But we also understand how frustrating it is to organize a family picnic or corporate event, only to have it washed out by the late-breaking specter of impending doom. So before you venture out, tune in to us."

Critics, however, immediately questioned the ability of the FBI's on-air AccuThreatTM forecasters to partake in awkward, meangingless banter with local TV news personnel, citing an exchange last night between sports anchor Marv Rupert and FBI anchor Robert Carpenter on KTLA-Los Angeles.

Marv: "...and speaking of zone defenses, Bob, I hear we might be in the 'danger zone' tomorrow. Ha ha."
Robert: "Your comments are suspicious. Do not leave the studio."

Across the country, meanwhile, most Americans welcomed the initiative, although some said it did not go far enough.

"I understand that terrorism is unpredictable, like the weather, but I need a long-range forecast, not a five-day," said bride-to-be Sarah Hanover of Keene, N.H. "I've already booked the Elks Club for June 15. Will that be a bad day? Should I switch to the 22nd? And should I wear white, or Kevlar?"

[ March 09, 2003, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]

[mdpm99]

The fact that the reasons our troops have been called upon by this Admin for this action have changed and have in many cases been proven false bother most Americans. We support our young people in the military and despise seeing them misused in any way ... those of us against this war truly support our troops.

d

The pioneers of future wars will be the soldiers who refuse to fight in them.

Albert Einstein

[ March 09, 2003, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]

[f0reverneverm0re]

-cut up- Basecore Boy:
I see some people rather see a mushroom cloud over our heads and thousands dead before we take action. Or maybe we should just let thousands die and forgive the Bush Admnistration. The argument about him using weapons of mass destruction and Iraq using them are two different cases. Saddam used them for "protection" of his nation. the Bush Administration used them to take over nation and stop an uprising of his own people. What would you think if the Bronx or anywhere populated by a lot of "ethnics" was speaking out about President Bush and he decides to lauch chemical weapons on them.very good argument ;)


Do you guys listen to the Iragi's that are now here in good old USA. They speak of some foul shit going on. They say the people will be happy when we get there, just like france was happy to see American troops.

Joke: I guess our boys from the DHP will be gettin some free butt.

Serious: They are my true hero's.as long as men try to maintain dominance over women, the boys will get all the free butt they can handle, IMO.

even as a beta-male, sometimes i do feel a bit proud of the guys who get all the ladies.

[mdpm99]

Naplam....a weapon of mass destruction

Several tons were used in Viet Nam

:(

d

[ March 09, 2003, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]

[mdpm99]

Originally posted by jsd540:
Yes, our troops deserve our support. The president on the other end does not.Amen!

d

[mblack]

I just love all the moaners " ohh but we gave Iraq gas, ohh but we trained osama bin laden " im afraid it doesn’t work on me and doesn’t fool anyone.

Let me give you moaners an answer that will shut your anti American moans once and for all (only American moaners).

If your a school and you support your pupils and teach them how to behave and then when one of the kids grow up and decide that they don’t want to listen anymore and they will punish the headmaster and the school and become anti school (for any reason), I know and you know that the school wouldn’t say "ohh but we educated him and we gave him the knowledge to be anti school and its really our fault that he behaves like that" the school will punish the kid and then if the kid continues to play games and be mean he will be chucked out to secure the normal behaviour and safety of everyone else.

You see, we cant blame the US for creating an enemy because that wasn’t the plan, we want allies not enemies and to suggest that we created saddam or bin laden or anyone else just so we can fight them later is about as sane an the lizard theory (David icke).

Now don’t moan and get on with your free life and if you have a problem, maybe you should go and become "a human shield" against your own troops. (Freedom of choice right?) because otherwise your nothing but hypocrites or just plain ignorant

[ March 09, 2003, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: mblack ]

[Mah'chew]

Originally posted by mblack:
I just love all the moaners " ohh but we gave Iraq gas, ohh but we trained osama bin laden " im afraid it doesn’t work on me and doesn’t fool anyone.

Let me give you moaners an answer that will shut your anti American moans once and for all (only American moaners).

If your a school and you support your pupils and teach them how to behave and then when one of the kids grow up and decide that they don’t want to listen anymore and they will punish the headmaster and the school and become anti school (for any reason), I know and you know that the school wouldn’t say "ohh but we educated him and we gave him the knowledge to be anti school and its really our fault that he behaves like that" the school will punish the kid and then if the kid continues to play games and be mean he will be chucked out to secure the normal behaviour and safety of everyone else.

You see, we cant blame the US for creating an enemy because that wasn’t the plan, we want allies not enemies and to suggest that we created saddam or bin laden or anyone else just so we can fight them later is about as sane an the lizard theory (David icke).

Now don’t moan and get on with your free life and if you have a problem, maybe you should go and become "a human shield" against your own troops. (Freedom of choice right?) because otherwise your nothing but hypocrites or just plain ignorantYou ain't free, you just think you are!!!

I would love to see a world force coming into the US demanding some answers from your administration, let's open up some of your government's files!

You're blinded by the Amerikkka machine

[ March 09, 2003, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: Mathius ]

[mdpm99]

Originally posted by mblack:
I just love all the moaners " ohh but we gave Iraq gas, ohh but we trained osama bin laden " im afraid it doesn’t work on me and doesn’t fool anyone.

Let me give you moaners an answer that will shut your anti American moans once and for all (only American moaners).

If your a school and you support your pupils and teach them how to behave and then when one of the kids grow up and decide that they don’t want to listen anymore and they will punish the headmaster and the school and become anti school (for any reason), I know and you know that the school wouldn’t say "ohh but we educated him and we gave him the knowledge to be anti school and its really our fault that he behaves like that" the school will punish the kid and then if the kid continues to play games and be mean he will be chucked out to secure the normal behaviour and safety of everyone else.

You see, we cant blame the US for creating an enemy because that wasn’t the plan, we want allies not enemies and to suggest that we created saddam or bin laden or anyone else just so we can fight them later is about as sane an the lizard theory (David icke).

Now don’t moan and get on with your free life and if you have a problem, maybe you should go and become "a human shield" against your own troops. (Freedom of choice right?) because otherwise your nothing but hypocrites or just plain ignorantGreetings mblack:

What does "icke" mean?

graemlins/cool_shades.gif

d

Ps Have a great day!

[mdpm99]

Originally posted by mblack:
I just love all the moaners " ohh but we gave Iraq gas, ohh but we trained osama bin laden " im afraid it doesn’t work on me and doesn’t fool anyone.

Let me give you moaners an answer that will shut your anti American moans once and for all (only American moaners).

If your a school and you support your pupils and teach them how to behave and then when one of the kids grow up and decide that they don’t want to listen anymore and they will punish the headmaster and the school and become anti school (for any reason), I know and you know that the school wouldn’t say "ohh but we educated him and we gave him the knowledge to be anti school and its really our fault that he behaves like that" the school will punish the kid and then if the kid continues to play games and be mean he will be chucked out to secure the normal behaviour and safety of everyone else.

You see, we cant blame the US for creating an enemy because that wasn’t the plan, we want allies not enemies and to suggest that we created saddam or bin laden or anyone else just so we can fight them later is about as sane an the lizard theory (David icke).

Now don’t moan and get on with your free life and if you have a problem, maybe you should go and become "a human shield" against your own troops. (Freedom of choice right?) because otherwise your nothing but hypocrites or just plain ignorantGreetings mblack:

Pray tell. What does "icke" mean?

What say you?

graemlins/cool_shades.gif

d

Ps Have a great day!

[mblack]

Originally posted by Mathius:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mblack:
I just love all the moaners " ohh but we gave Iraq gas, ohh but we trained osama bin laden " im afraid it doesn’t work on me and doesn’t fool anyone.

Let me give you moaners an answer that will shut your anti American moans once and for all (only American moaners).

If your a school and you support your pupils and teach them how to behave and then when one of the kids grow up and decide that they don’t want to listen anymore and they will punish the headmaster and the school and become anti school (for any reason), I know and you know that the school wouldn’t say "ohh but we educated him and we gave him the knowledge to be anti school and its really our fault that he behaves like that" the school will punish the kid and then if the kid continues to play games and be mean he will be chucked out to secure the normal behaviour and safety of everyone else.

You see, we cant blame the US for creating an enemy because that wasn’t the plan, we want allies not enemies and to suggest that we created saddam or bin laden or anyone else just so we can fight them later is about as sane an the lizard theory (David icke).

Now don’t moan and get on with your free life and if you have a problem, maybe you should go and become "a human shield" against your own troops. (Freedom of choice right?) because otherwise your nothing but hypocrites or just plain ignorantYou ain't free, you just think you are!!!

I would love to see world force coming into the US demanding some answers from your administration, let's open up some of your files!

You're blinded by the Amerikkka machine</font>[/QUOTE]. First, im not American, im in the UK and my second point is that I share the same view and freedom that exists in the US and over here (I know its a bit different but hey each country has its culture and degree of freedom and it seems to me that the west in general has the same kind of free way of thinking around 90% of the same views and 10% varies as a result of cultural difference.)

Im speaking as a western now (which I consider my self to be and in my natures as a western I support the US).

So you would say the same thing about Japan maybe? Why am I not free? When was the last time the US wanted to add another state to its collection (please spare me with” they are doing it, you just cant see it") Because we are free and we are happy to share with other countries and help other countries (and of course we expect something back, its the nature of being a partner) we don’t want a war and we have to learn from the past that’s why we are doing what we are doing now)

[TAD]

Originally posted by mblack:
Let me give you moaners an answer that will shut your anti American moans once and for all (only American moaners).bush & his administration are anti american.

[mdpm99]

Originally posted by Cosmic_Twin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mblack:
Let me give you moaners an answer that will shut your anti American moans once and for all (only American moaners).bush & his administration are anti american.</font>[/QUOTE]Greetings Cosmic_Twin:

Now ain't that the truth!!!!

graemlins/cheering.gif

d

[Rudy Jordan]

Originally posted by jsd540:
Yes, our troops deserve our support. The president on the other end does not.It took 7 1/2 pages to get to the answer to the question in the subject line. Thanks jsd540.

After 12 years in the Army and being a combat vet I wholeheartedly support our troops. I know the feeling of coming close to losing my life in a foreign country. I have fought an enemy that only wanted to kill me before I killed him. Every day I wake up with the knowledge that I killed a man and his family will never see him again. I have been under a triple canopy Panamanian jungle at night, afraid that that night might be my last. I don't want to see any of our troops experience that, but I know that we have the best military in the world and every member would face the same danger I have if called on.

Do I support the President? Hell no! I didn't support his father when I spent Christmas Eve in a firefight in Colon, Panama. You have every right to voice your opinion about your elected leaders. But anyone who bad-mouths our servicemen for answering the call losses my respect forever.

Everyone has been repeating that the US is the only country to use nuclear weapons. So what? That was almost 60 years ago! How many dead sailors are still trapped in the USS Arizona? How many thousands of soldiers, sailors, and Marines died in the Pacific? The use of the H-bomb was a terrible act, but it was not an unprovoked act. Japan pulled us into WWII and people die in war, a nuclear blast or a bullet, it's all the same. I feel bad for the people of Japan, but I feel worse for the US servicemen that died and their families.

Is this all about oil? So what if it is? Do the French, Russians, Germans, and Chinese care about the Iraqi people? France and Russia oppose war in Iraq because they stand to lose contracts to build refineries and pipelines to ship oil out of Iraq. Do we care about the Iraqi people? Colin Powell made a statement that when Saddam is gone the liberated Iraqis will remember who helped them. So which is more morally wrong? We want to remove Saddam for the oil, France and Russia want to leave him in power for the oil. Which do you think the Iraqi people want?

I read a post that claimed UN sanctions are killing Iraqi children. But answer this; We fly over the no-fly zone every day and destroy anti-aircraft systems. If Saddam has money to buy this expensive electronic equipment with his oil money, why can't he buy food and medicine for his people? And if N Korea can afford to develop a nuke, why can't they feed their own people?

Back to the original question. I am not pro-Bush. I am not pro-war. I AM anti-Saddam. And I AM pro-military. I think of the kids that I enlisted when I was a Recruiter. I think of the families of the soldiers that I served with. I ask that you think of them and pray for them as I do. They are just like you and I, they want to be home with their families in the comfort of their own homes. They want a better life for their children. Many are happy to just have a job, to be counted on, to feel like they are part of a team, to have a purpose.

My hat is off to every man and woman in uniform today. They are serving so you can enjoy the freedom to sit in the safety of your home and critisize the people that you have the power to vote out of office.

There have been plenty of posts recently about how evil the US is and all the people we've killed, and all the dictators we've supported, etc. How many of those wrongs were committed during a time when you were of voting age? How many elections have you voted in? If you don't like Bush, don't heap the wrongs commited by the US in the past on him, vote him out. And if you think the US is so bad, go live in some of the shitholes I've been to. You'll be running back to the good ol' US of A with the quickness.

Time to get off the graemlins/soapbox.gif and go to bed.

Peace

[ March 09, 2003, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: Rudy Jordan ]

[f0reverneverm0re]

Originally posted by mblack:
You see, we cant blame the US for creating an enemy because that wasn’t the plan, we want allies not enemies and to suggest that we created saddam or bin laden or anyone else just so we can fight them later is about as sane an the lizard theory (David icke)i agree--US interests would NEVER overthrow another countries leadership, or use the leaders of other nations against that nations own people...

we can blame the US for creating an enemy because sometimes they do work to 'create' enemies. i don't know exactly if it's the US controllers intent (sometimes i think it is, as is the case with Muslims, IMO) to create these enemies, but they do--i trust that people who hate the US, going on what i can see, have every right to hate the hell out of this evil place. yes, i say the US did help to mold the bin Ladens and whoever else into who they are today, w/ the aid of ALL other severely colonialist nations.

now that the US (Judeo-Christian) is being pit in a fight against Islam (even though you're not supposed to think or acknowledge this out loud, this is what subtle programming via the media and social engineering efforts seeks to do) is one thing, but do you really think that tormenting the "enemy"--those at Guantanamo, those who have been made to feel that western influence is evil or who have come to understand the truly wicked influence of the far west, blah--is the best (read: most 'efficient') course to take in ending terrorism? please explain how this eradication of ALL "terrorists" will help the US become a better, more secure nation? (who the fvck are all these terrorists Colin Powell keeps talking about? is shutting down Affirmative Action the same as not giving aid to terrorists?...). i say it starts with sincerity--right there, the US is already in the whole cuz the people running this nut house are wicked as well as most of the people who blindly support the nutty rulers. as well, wide open dialogue between all concerned parties--all nations and peoples on the face of the earth and even any space aliens that might be around--is the best course; respectfully (maybe even lovingly) dealing with each other is the most efficient way of handling our perceived human problems.

how to get ALL people to think beyond themselves... graemlins/banghead.gif

and i don't subscribe to anybody elses view on what's allegedly going on in the world, behind the scenes, david icke or whoever. a Ken Burns documentary is a better source for developing an understanding of just how devious and wicked many representing the US can be/have been throughout the years.

IMO, if you're a US "ally" don't keep your back to the US cuz you will end up with a knife marks right between your shoulder blades. (remember, business interests influence most major national governments, so when i say US i mean the businesses that the govt sucks up to).

so why not argue against the intellectual who says that man 'invented' morality? (sorry for pulling this out of nowhere, my mind is racing and i was thinking about something else while typing, but run w/ it if you want mblack)

i care because you do

------------------------------
SOC ENG (take at *your* decided face value)
--------------------------------

http://www.baiengineering.com/links/socialengineering.html

http://www.restoringamerica.org/archive/guested/just_matter_of_time.html

http://web.cetlink.net/~kellycm/freedom.html

B.F. Skinner's utopia revisited (people saying they want the "best for you" can't actually know what's best for *you*) (..yes mblack, i agree it should always be about free choice)
http://www.coedu.usf.edu/bostow/mcohen/walden/

section on politics and propaganda
http://www.coedu.usf.edu/bostow/mcohen/walden/Chapters23.htm

Digital copyright terminology
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/copyright_jargon.shtml

[f0reverneverm0re]

Originally posted by Rudy Jordan:
After 12 years in the Army and being a combat vet I wholeheartedly support our troops. I know the feeling of coming close to losing my life in a foreign country. I have fought an enemy that only wanted to kill me before I killed him. Every day I wake up with the knowledge that I killed a man and his family will never see him again. I have been under a triple canopy Panamanian jungle at night, afraid that that night might be my last. I don't want to see any of our troops experience thatso wouldn't you agree that diplomacy from the first is a better option than fighting, regardless of whether or not we're past the point of repairing diplomatic relationships around the world?

i support people, not troops or warfare. nobody should have their ass blown off. EOP

[Rudy Jordan]

I would love to live in a Utopian world where the need for weapons didn't exist. This will never happen, due to human nature. Someone always wants something that someone else has, and someone always wants to impose their will on someone else.

Think of how the world would be if no one ever had decided to invade someone else's land, if no civilization had ever enslaved another, if no country ever colonized another. I wonder if we would be any better off. We could discuss this for years and never have the right answer.

Peace

[Rudy Jordan]

Going to bed now. Too much think make Rudy sleepy.

Peace

[mhd]

d, David Icke is a guy with some very unusual theories, www.davidicke.com (http://www.davidicke.com)

[f0reverneverm0re]

Originally posted by Rudy Jordan:
I would love to live in a Utopian world where the need for weapons didn't exist. This will never happen, due to human nature. Someone always wants something that someone else has, and someone always wants to impose their will on someone else.

Think of how the world would be if no one ever had decided to invade someone else's land, if no civilization had ever enslaved another, if no country ever colonized another. I wonder if we would be any better off. We could discuss this for years and never have the right answer.

Peace i see what you mean.

.."the right answer" is what i was just talking about in that crap at the end of my post two back. no one person has the answer for anyone else.

..a collective Utopia might be a better term to use...but of course, since the will of one person can greatly effect the workings in such an environ, utopia might just be nowhere real.

maybe the 'feeling' i get when i wake from deep sleep or head toward it is the closest i get to utopia--this is good enough for me.

..and what's so good about utopia anyway

i've heard people say that if we didn't have (perceive) all of this strife and 'action' in Life, things would be boring, not very interesting. some argue it's necessary but i think a point Buddhist teachings make well is that everything that happens both is and isn't necessary and our minds 'work on' the shit that we perceive is happening. so if i think suffering is happening, i have to understand somehow that there is an end to suffering, that somewhere/somehow suffering isn't being realized, and i have to realize my ability to 'know' the end of what i perceive as suffering.

so maybe war doesn't imply suffering--maybe if i didn't actively think that there was suffering in my world then there would be no suffering. so if suffering is 'bad', the trick would be to see if there is any good in what i consider suffering which would make it more like simply travailing (travelling..battling--battling my own perceptions), like working hard. because we may not like hard work doesn't make hard work bad--it's our choice to hate it.

blah blah--this is why Timothy Leary and others thought it'd be a good idea to try and get the whole human population to drop acid (at least, this is the surface excuse..somewhere it's been suggested that Leary was a CIA guy). they felt that it was one of the only ways to spark the conscious collective in an attempt to get all humans on "the same page" or close enough in the book so that we can more readily relate to each other.

the hearts and souls of the people of certain cultures survives to this day because people listen to the *wise* 'spiritual' leaders of the community--like Australian Aborigine. thankfully in the US we have Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, among others, to guide us to our Spirit Home :rolleyes:

maybe then the real issue is maintaining a balanced mind and not letting 'evil' thinking colonize it

sorry for rant (maybe EOP)

[mdpm99]

Originally posted by f0reverneverm0re:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rudy Jordan:
I would love to live in a Utopian world where the need for weapons didn't exist. This will never happen, due to human nature. Someone always wants something that someone else has, and someone always wants to impose their will on someone else.

Think of how the world would be if no one ever had decided to invade someone else's land, if no civilization had ever enslaved another, if no country ever colonized another. I wonder if we would be any better off. We could discuss this for years and never have the right answer.

Peace i see what you mean.

.."the right answer" is what i was just talking about in that crap at the end of my post two back. no one person has the answer for anyone else.

..a collective Utopia might be a better term to use...but of course, since the will of one person can greatly effect the workings in such an environ, utopia might just be nowhere real.

maybe the 'feeling' i get when i wake from deep sleep or head toward it is the closest i get to utopia--this is good enough for me.

..and what's so good about utopia anyway

i've heard people say that if we didn't have (perceive) all of this strife and 'action' in Life, things would be boring, not very interesting. some argue it's necessary but i think a point Buddhist teachings make well is that everything that happens both is and isn't necessary and our minds 'work on' the shit that we perceive is happening. so if i think suffering is happening, i have to understand somehow that there is an end to suffering, that somewhere/somehow suffering isn't being realized, and i have to realize my ability to 'know' the end of what i perceive as suffering.

so maybe war doesn't imply suffering--maybe if i didn't actively think that there was suffering in my world then there would be no suffering. so if suffering is 'bad', the trick would be to see if there is any good in what i consider suffering which would make it more like simply travailing (travelling..battling--battling my own perceptions), like working hard. because we may not like hard work doesn't make hard work bad--it's our choice to hate it.

blah blah--this is why Timothy Leary and others thought it'd be a good idea to try and get the whole human population to drop acid (at least, this is the surface excuse..somewhere it's been suggested that Leary was a CIA guy). they felt that it was one of the only ways to spark the conscious collective in an attempt to get all humans on "the same page" or close enough in the book so that we can more readily relate to each other.

the hearts and souls of the people of certain cultures survives to this day because people listen to the *wise* 'spiritual' leaders of the community--like Australian Aborigine. thankfully in the US we have Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, among others, to guide us to our Spirit Home :rolleyes:

maybe then the real issue is maintaining a balanced mind and not letting 'evil' thinking colonize it

sorry for rant (maybe EOP) </font>[/QUOTE]I had contacts directly with Tim.....

f0reverneverm0re, you are unintentionaly breaking my heart. graemlins/mecry.gif He was alright as a human being, and by no means was he a CIA agent.

graemlins/cool_shades.gif

d

[ March 10, 2003, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]

[mdpm99]

Originally posted by mhd:
d, David Icke is a guy with some very unusual theories, www.davidicke.com (http://www.davidicke.com) Thank you once again, mhd:


graemlins/cool_shades.gif

d

[nev m]

Originally posted by mhd:
d, David Icke is a guy with some very unusual theories, www.davidicke.com (http://www.davidicke.com) I KNOW MAN!! it was weird to watch from where I was sitting!! One minute he's leader of the SDLP next minute the f****r was saying he's a purple f****n lizard on national TV!! Wow man it blew the top of my head off at the time! I'd nearly forgotten about him!! It's nice to know he could have been our Prime minister!! Can you imagine him & Bush whooooa!!! "Lets send them there lizards in David that should flush 'em out!" Thanks MHD I feel sane again!!

[Chemistry]

I support the troops graemlins/thumbsup.gif but I don't support the commander in chief graemlins/cussing.gif

[f0reverneverm0re]

Originally posted by david mancuso:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by f0reverneverm0re:
Timothy Leary and others thought it'd be a good idea to try and get the whole human population to drop acid (at least, this is the surface excuse..somewhere it's been suggested that Leary was a CIA guy)I had contacts directly with Tim.....

He was alright as a human being, and by no means was he a CIA agent.</font>[/QUOTE]well that's what i read somewhere, sorry for not noting the source. i don't care either way. i tried to read some theory stuff of his online i think; number systems or something dealing w/ number theory and the universe and octets and hexadecimals. made my head hurt.

everybody dropping acid would have been a trip though but who knows what world leader would have freaked out or gotten angry and pressed the red button..

[mdpm99]

Originally posted by f0reverneverm0re:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by david mancuso:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by f0reverneverm0re:
Timothy Leary and others thought it'd be a good idea to try and get the whole human population to drop acid (at least, this is the surface excuse..somewhere it's been suggested that Leary was a CIA guy)I had contacts directly with Tim.....

He was alright as a human being, and by no means was he a CIA agent.</font>[/QUOTE]well that's what i read somewhere, sorry for not noting the source. i don't care either way. i tried to read some theory stuff of his online i think; number systems or something dealing w/ number theory and the universe and octets and hexadecimals. made my head hurt.

everybody dropping acid would have been a trip though but who knows what world leader would have freaked out or gotten angry and pressed the red button.. </font>[/QUOTE]the "set and the setting" is crucial for any sucessful journey.

d

[mdpm99]

"The idea that we can invade Iraq to bring democracy and freedom is a confidence trick designed to draw western liberals into providing legitimacy for old-fashioned conquest."

[Wild i]

Okay, there is no way I am reading this whole thread. Let me just say, make no mistake, this "police action" is about oil and nothing else. Bush started this war mongering while he was campaigning and fools still voted for him. I say fools because Bush is all about the rich -- 10% of the population. The rest of us are just adding to his coffers.

As a veteran and a patriot, of course I support our troops. But I don't suppot the idiotic actions of the idiot king. The jester is running the town. I may not be first in line with a ticker-tape parade when Johnny comes marching home, but I hope Johnny understands that it's not because I don't appreciate him putting his life on the line for me, but because I don't want Dub'ya and company to think for one minute that I approve of him sending Johnny over there in the first place.

Finally, please don't fool yourself into thinking that the people of the middle east (not only Iraq and Iran have a problem with the USA) woke up one morning and decided to hate America. We been standing on necks and fostering stereotypes for years. "The Thief of Bagdad," "The Sheik," "Aladdin," "Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves," are examples of Hollywood's contribution. The excrement hit the air circulation device when Opec was formed and started demanding their due rather than the undercutting of oil prices we'd been doing (and not just going to the Shah or the Sultan of Dubai).

I think we are fortunate in that we can both support the government and abhor its actions -- and work to change them. I remember accusing my sister of being a "sellout" (I didn't use that term. I didn't have the language at the time) during the 60s when everyone was being all militant and she was working in the courts. She told me something that is perhaps the wisest words she ever said to me and I have never forgotten them: Someone has to work for change from the inside. That's pretty much what I told my dad when he said my brother and I had gone into the most prejudice branches of the military (USAF & USN). It never hurts to have a friend in the system.

[lyot]

Originally posted by f0reverneverm0re:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rudy Jordan:
I would love to live in a Utopian world where the need for weapons didn't exist. This will never happen, due to human nature. Someone always wants something that someone else has, and someone always wants to impose their will on someone else.

Think of how the world would be if no one ever had decided to invade someone else's land, if no civilization had ever enslaved another, if no country ever colonized another. I wonder if we would be any better off. We could discuss this for years and never have the right answer.

Peace i see what you mean.

.."the right answer" is what i was just talking about in that crap at the end of my post two back. no one person has the answer for anyone else.

..a collective Utopia might be a better term to use...but of course, since the will of one person can greatly effect the workings in such an environ, utopia might just be nowhere real.

maybe the 'feeling' i get when i wake from deep sleep or head toward it is the closest i get to utopia--this is good enough for me.

..and what's so good about utopia anyway

i've heard people say that if we didn't have (perceive) all of this strife and 'action' in Life, things would be boring, not very interesting. some argue it's necessary but i think a point Buddhist teachings make well is that everything that happens both is and isn't necessary and our minds 'work on' the shit that we perceive is happening. so if i think suffering is happening, i have to understand somehow that there is an end to suffering, that somewhere/somehow suffering isn't being realized, and i have to realize my ability to 'know' the end of what i perceive as suffering.

so maybe war doesn't imply suffering--maybe if i didn't actively think that there was suffering in my world then there would be no suffering. so if suffering is 'bad', the trick would be to see if there is any good in what i consider suffering which would make it more like simply travailing (travelling..battling--battling my own perceptions), like working hard. because we may not like hard work doesn't make hard work bad--it's our choice to hate it.

blah blah--this is why Timothy Leary and others thought it'd be a good idea to try and get the whole human population to drop acid (at least, this is the surface excuse..somewhere it's been suggested that Leary was a CIA guy). they felt that it was one of the only ways to spark the conscious collective in an attempt to get all humans on "the same page" or close enough in the book so that we can more readily relate to each other.

the hearts and souls of the people of certain cultures survives to this day because people listen to the *wise* 'spiritual' leaders of the community--like Australian Aborigine. thankfully in the US we have Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, among others, to guide us to our Spirit Home :rolleyes:

maybe then the real issue is maintaining a balanced mind and not letting 'evil' thinking colonize it

sorry for rant (maybe EOP) </font>[/QUOTE]damn, forevernevermOre, that's by far the deepest post i've read on the DHP since ages..Interesting thoughts! graemlins/thumbsup.gif

[mdpm99]

Dear Wild i:

Well, said. I really like how you pulled it into perspective.

Just one thing, and that is if I understood it correctly re everyone being militant in the sixties......

Not all were.

graemlins/cool_shades.gif

d

[ March 10, 2003, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]

[Wild i]

Originally posted by david mancuso:
Dear Wild i:

Well, said. I really like how you pulled it into perspective.

Just one thing, and that is if I understood it correctly re everyone being militant in the sixties......

Not all were.

graemlins/cool_shades.gif

d David, Please! You were the most militant of all. You started a movement that turned into a culture. Maybe you didn't realize it at the time, but choosing to have loft parties for an unpopular segment of society in an unsavory part of town was pretty radical and militant. Not all militant wore red, black and green. Someone has to carry a flower.

[mdpm99]

Originally posted by Wild i:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by david mancuso:
Dear Wild i:

Well, said. I really like how you pulled it into perspective.

Just one thing, and that is if I understood it correctly re everyone being militant in the sixties......

Not all were.

graemlins/cool_shades.gif

d David, Please! You were the most militant of all. You started a movement that turned into a culture. Maybe you didn't realize it at the time, but choosing to have loft parties for an unpopular segment of society in an unsavory part of town was pretty radical and militant. Not all militant wore red, black and green. Someone has to carry a flower. </font>[/QUOTE]Hello Wild i:


Flower Power......ok smile.gif d.

Ps. "Bombing for peace is like fu*king for virginity." biggrinangel.gif

[konbit]

Originally posted by david mancuso:

Ps. "Bombing for peace is like fu*king for virginity." biggrinangel.gif Funny...and true.

[Rudy Jordan]

Much respect to ya Wild I.

Peace

[Mah'chew]

Originally posted by nev m:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
d, David Icke is a guy with some very unusual theories, www.davidicke.com (http://www.davidicke.com) I KNOW MAN!! it was weird to watch from where I was sitting!! One minute he's leader of the SDLP next minute the f****r was saying he's a purple f****n lizard on national TV!! Wow man it blew the top of my head off at the time! I'd nearly forgotten about him!! It's nice to know he could have been our Prime minister!! Can you imagine him & Bush whooooa!!! "Lets send them there lizards in David that should flush 'em out!" Thanks MHD I feel sane again!! </font>[/QUOTE]Coventry City's best Goalkeeper ever !!!!
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/bob.dunning/icke.jpg


But really dry as a kid's TV presenter (he was competing against Tiswas though !!!)
http://www.paulmorris.co.uk/satkids/pictures/superstore1.gif