Yall Starting to Sicken me.... [Archive]

Rom

03-22-2003, 08:30 AM

You know, I used to feal like part of a community, but there seems to be a whole lot of headz enjoying the fruits of America and in the same breath...crying foul.

Hypocracy!

Even if the ulterior motive for the war is to secure a direct source of oil for America and our brothers in England...into the future...how many of yall plan to stop driving your cars in protest? Why don't you try this...refuse to pay your taxes...since your tax dollars are helping to pay for every bomb we drop!

Think about that as you drive around this weekend in your nice broughm, think about that as you enjoy all that nice heat in your crib and that nice dinner you just had. Think about that as you dawn your designer gear for the evenings festivites...or as you fly to or from the WMC. Think about that as you drop 5 bills for that Heineken tonight at that club. Think about where those ten bills came from that the last patron just paid to get into your party. Think about that as you turn on your system and place that rare 12" on your 1200s or put in that new CD. Think about that tonight when you turn CNN off on your big screen TV. Think about that when you show up for your job Monday.

And you think you are not rich? You dont know what 'poor' is!

Yall protest 'injustice' while you sit back and suckle on the breasts of America while our soldiers risk life and limb to keep you fat!

Damn Hypocracy. Bah.

And if you are an American and NOT enjoying the things I've discussed...try not to confuse or excuse your 'personal ineptidude' for some international conspriracy designed to keep you down...you're doing a good enough job all by yourself.

And why dont our French and German GHP brothers come on and tell us just how 'rich' they are? If you are French or German and not enjoying all that I've outlined so far...I understand. Your 'aristocracy' from the old school brainwashed yall into thinking 'socialism' was a good idea. Why work? We'll pay you 'not' to work...sound familiar? Yall aristocracy sitting at the top with all the money and yall are still like medievil 'serfs' with no money...blaming everything on us 'rich' Americans. Yall leaders are in bed with our leaders...the big differnce is, WE, the Amercan GP...get paid. Yall protesting the wrong government...lol. Ever heard of Machiaveli?

Do you know what form of government most Arab nations have? Monarchy. Did you know most Women have little or no rights what so ever. Chattel?

Be honest, you're not protesting 'for' the sovreinty of Arab states...youre Protesting 'against' America. Because we're free and rich and you are not, and youre jealous, or you're a poor american and jealous too...or your a 'self righteous' well off person thinking this is going to absolve you of all the foul shit you did to achieve your well being. Yeah, now you're a 'Crusader'. You're doing gods will or something. Bah! Perhaps you're rich and dont really realize it. Classic American phenomena, just becuase you dont have a 10M mansion in LA and a Lamborghni...you're oppressed. You make more money in one year than most of the worlds population will ever see in their life...but you
think you're poor. Bah!

I know exactly whats going on here....yall all come here to DHP and preach and 'witness' your 'anti-war' 'anti-american' 'anti-capitalism' idealogies when you are really just giving 'confession' of your sins for really deep inside 'supporting' everything thats going on right now.

You know it.

Freedom aint free godmanit! Brave men are dying for our 'comfort'...and yall are spewing all this anti-everything bullshit...yall need to put the weed down and wake the **** up!

Maybe Im a 'rare' black American who worked his ass off to get what he got but got I did. And I'll say this, yeah, they tried to hold me back but I fought through that bs and if this wasn't America, maybe I wouldn't have been 'allowed' to fight though the bs! Bah! Ill say this too, I wouldn't die for half of yall sorry asses!

I'd like to personally salute all the soldiers from America, Britain and Austraila whatching over my ass while I sleep!

To the rest of yall...just plain kiss my ass!

This is probably why House is dying, Yall all a bunch of broke ass people mad at the world for your 'own' damm broke ass situation! No money to support the scene let alone yourself.

BAH!

mdpm99

03-22-2003, 09:01 AM

Greetings Rom:

1. At least 5 people in this world love you so much they would die for you
2. At least 15 people in this world love you in some way.
3. The only reason anyone would ever hate you is because they want to be just like you.
4. A smile from you can bring happiness to anyone, even if they don't like you.
5. Every night, SOMEONE thinks about you before they go to sleep.
6. You mean the world to someone.
7. Without you, someone may not be living.
8. You are special and unique, in your own way.
9. Someone that you don't know even exists loves you.
10. When you make the biggest mistake ever, something good comes from it.
11. When you think the world has turned its back on you, take another look; you most likely turned your back on the world.
12. When you think you have no chance at getting what you want, you probably won't; but if you believe in yourself, you probably sooner or later will.
13. Always remember compliments you received, forget about the rude remarks.
14. Always tell someone how you feel, then they'll know.
15. If you have a great friend, take the time to let them know that they're great.

[ March 22, 2003, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]

Alanda Marquette from DiscoLadyLand

03-22-2003, 09:04 AM

Good Morning Rom, see you had your brainfood this morning ;) Nice to hear from you. How are the babies and the Mrs?

Very well said. While I am totally against the war you've brought up some very excellent points and I am in agreement with you.

You know you've started something don't you?

DOTSmusic

03-22-2003, 09:36 AM

i'm caught somewhere in the middle i guess.
on one hand i am not pro-war (at least not for myself) though i know everything happens for a reason and no matter what anyone else thinks, there are some things worth fighting for.

on the other hand, though i would never go out and fight for this country, i am 100% in support
of those that are risking their lives, fighting for our asses (us as in Americans)in this war while i sit here comfortably behind this computer.

when i woke up this morning i didn't sense any danger,i didn't fear that an explosive might go off near the spot in which i was sleeping, i didn't fear that some one who never even met me might want to kill me just because of the country i live and or was born in.

though i never had a choice in the matter, i am without a doubt an American just as everyone else that seems to be making such a fuss about the war is.

think about this, if you do not have a loved one over their fighting in this war how in the **** is this war directly affecting you? tell me i'd like to know.

your protests are just as selfish as our governments is for starting this war.
sure there are some innocent lives that might be taken, it's a war for chrissake what do you expect.

how many of you REALLY care about the innocent people that might by die, directly because of this war?

i read all these posts on this board and hear people talk mad shit to one another. that is right here on the DHP. this is our online community and we can't even get along here.now ya'll tryin to front like you care so much about your fellow man, innocent iraqi's that could possibly die, ones you don't even know? BULLSHIT.

i walk a lot, i have walked past protesters on numerous occasions. none of these people give a **** about me, i know damn well they don't TRULLY give a **** about the lives that will inevitably be lost in this war. people walk down the street seemingly oblivious to most of the people walking around them, but now mother****ers want to start caring about their fellow man.
too little too late.

no one is guaranteed a long prosperous life.
when the divine powers of the cosmic universe decide it is our time to go, then we must accept that it is our time to go.

Cheddar

03-22-2003, 09:40 AM

It is obvious you support the military..no dispute here. Whetehr we live and enjoy the fruits..does not mean that the means to these end are not against your nature.

mdpm99

03-22-2003, 09:42 AM

No one gets out of here alive......

- Jim Morrison - The Doors

christiann

03-22-2003, 09:43 AM

Aristocrats brainwashing people into becoming socialists - please :rolleyes:

Do you know anything about the rest of the world? graemlins/jpshakehead.gif

Are you not just saying, that as long as you can live good, you don't have to care for other people? Wake up - that shit is selfish!
graemlins/puke.gif

Remember; thou shall not kill graemlins/nono.gif

Ronnie Ron

03-22-2003, 09:51 AM

Good Point ROM,

No one in there right mind wants WAR. But i support the troops that have put themselves in Harms way and i hope they get the support they need from all of the people. These demonstrations will start a wave of protests getting people angrier and angrier showing little support for the troops and thats sad. I dont agree with the Government but i damn sure support those that are in harms way, If you dont support them then i feel sorry for you because your selfish, and like ROM said the next time you do anything that requires energy think about those that are putting there lives on the line for us.

DOTSmusic

03-22-2003, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by 1343:
It is obvious you support the military..no dispute here. Whetehr we live and enjoy the fruits..does not mean that the means to these end are not against your nature. i support those that do the same for me.
though i never asked for anyone to go out and fight for a country that i never had a choice in the matter to born in, the war has started and they are now doing exactly that.
no, i don't really believe that war is the answer but, since the war has started i feel it is my duty as a human being to support those that are over there risking their lives for our country. a country that i just so happen to live in.
i wish for everyone to come back home unharmed.
i wish for this war to come to an end sooner rather than later.
my blessings are with those who have family members who have or will inevitably lose their lives in this war.
i support the good people of this world who suffer for things beyond their control.
as apathetic of an individual as everyone knows i can be, deep inside i love you all and wish the best for all of you.

dj paradigm

03-22-2003, 10:03 AM

YOU CAN ALWAYS LEAVE!...RON....

[ March 22, 2003, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: dj paradigm ]

imported_Gman

03-22-2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by dj paradigm:
YOU CAN ALWAYS LEAVE!...RON.... I'd like to personally thank all the troops for risking their lives for me too. I guess I'll leave.

-G

lyot

03-22-2003, 10:13 AM

what is it with all these people here that assume to know how *we* all think. graemlins/cussing.gif

mdpm99

03-22-2003, 10:20 AM

Rom:

I am anti war period regardless of who starts it. Violence never has nor will solve anything. Peaceful means are necessary to achieve pure and lasting peace. I too support our troops. But I don't support the fact that they are being abused by this government because of the politics of oil, greed and power. I love my country, but I disagree with the current government.

This war is just starting. If it drags out like the Vietnam war and we have 55,000 American casualties not counting the maimed and mentally destroyed, then I believe that you will re think
"some" of what you said. Almost 2 million Vietnamese died and what was accomplished? This was and is an unnecessary war.

PBS just did a "doc" on the relationship(s) with Iraq and the USA. You should check it out.

This is one world, and what we do to one eventually affects us all.

Peace on Earth

d

DOTSmusic

03-22-2003, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by lyot:
what is it with all these people here that assume to know how *we* all think. graemlins/cussing.gif wassup LYOT. http://deephousepage.com/smilies/gap.gif
when we say ya'll we don't mean EVERYONE.
just those who we are calling out on their hypocrisy.

i support the people, that includes the good people of Iraq, that includes those brave soldiers out there rsiking their lives for us.

DOTSmusic

03-22-2003, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by david mancuso:
Rom:

Peaceful means are necessary to achieve pure and lasting peace. I too support our troops. But I don't support the fact that they are being abused by this government because of the politics of oil, greed and power. I love my country, but I disagree with the current government.
This is one world, and what we do to one eventually affects us all.

Peace on Earth

d i too am a dreamer David. ;)

mdpm99

03-22-2003, 10:34 AM

If you think peace you will have peace.

If you think war you will have war.

"I have a dream" MLK

d

"Before we make war with our enemies, we need to figure out how to make peace with our friends.

dj paradigm

03-22-2003, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Gman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dj paradigm:
YOU CAN ALWAYS LEAVE!...RON.... I'd like to personally thank all the troops for risking their lives for me too. I guess I'll leave.

-G [/QUOTE]When they come home I hope they risk their lives to protect you against racial profiling and happy trigger policemen. Blind patriotism is the worst kind of patriostism. FCUK
WAR!

You've been had,you've been took,you've been misled,you've been BAMBOOZLED.

[ March 22, 2003, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: dj paradigm ]

mdpm99

03-22-2003, 10:47 AM

Ok folks! Time out.

smile.gif

The Top 14 Code Names for the Invasion of Iraq

(Originally published on October 21, 2002)

14> Operation Enduring Recession

13> Operation Cleaning Up Daddy's Mess

12> Operation Liberty Eagle Flag God Bless Freedom Patriot Mountains' Majesty

11> Operation Somebody Wake Up Arthur Kent

10> Operation Infinite Gullibility

9> Operation We Can't Find Osama So This Will Have to Do

8> Operation Gotta Do Something With All These Tomahawk Missiles Lying Around

7> Operation Inspect THIS

6> Operation Pay No Attention to the Economy Behind That Curtain

5> Operatition Dessert Tornerado

4> Operation Thumb Our Nose at the Rest of the World, Especially Those Whiny French Weasels

3> Operation Who's My Daddy?

2> Operation Surprise Attack on New Year's Eve-- D'OH!!

and Topfive.com's Number 1 Code Name for the Invasion of Iraq...

1> Operation Just 'Cause

------------------------------------------------------------------
Code Names for the Invasion of Iraq
RUNNERS UP list -- French Foreign Lesions
------------------------------------------------------------------

Operation Because I Said So

Operation Desert Storm II: Iraqi Boogaloo

Operation Dude, Where's My Oil?

Operation Halliburton Up 17 1/3

Operation I'll Bag Baghdad, Dad

Operation It Takes a Steady Hand... D'OH! The Wishbone Gets Me Every Time!

Operation Macho Cowboy

Operation Our God is Bigger Than Your God

Operation Saddam, May I Have This Dance

Operation Spin Doctor Overkill

Operation The Lord of the Rings, Part II: The Two Towers (Proudly Sponsored by New Line Cinema)

Operation Totally Not Just About Oil

Operation What Economy?

Operation Won't Go AWOL This Time, I Swear

The G-Dub 2002 No Nukes World Tour

------------------------------------------------------------------
Code Names for the Invasion of Iraq
HONORABLE MENTION list -- SNAFU'd
------------------------------------------------------------------

Operation Ank-Spay Ussein-Hay

Operation Camel Smokers

Operation Deja Vu-etnam

Operation Deser-- Hey! Look Up There!

Operation Dick Says

Operation Do Over

Operation Economic Distraction

Operation Enduring Supply of Crude

Operation Eye of the Tigris

Operation Fruitless Endeavor

Operation Junior's Turn

Operation Makeamesopotamia

Operation Mulligan

Operation Nobel Peace Prize *This*

Operation Not Really Nation Building

Operation Retake the Senate

Operation Sins of Our Fathers

Operation Test the Latest Boy Toys

Operation UN-Authorized

Operation Uh, Sure, Why Not?

Operation Wag the Dog

Operation We Just Know You Gots Them Nukes and We Ain't Leavin' Til We Gets 'Em

Operation Who Is This Kofi Guy Anyway?

imported_Gman

03-22-2003, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by dj paradigm:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dj paradigm:
YOU CAN ALWAYS LEAVE!...RON.... I'd like to personally thank all the troops for risking their lives for me too. I guess I'll leave.

-G [/QUOTE]When they come home I hope they risk their lives to protect you against racial profiling and happy trigger policemen. Blind patriotism is the worst kind of patriostism. FCUK WAR! [/QUOTE]My point being is you of all people are in no position to ask anyone to leave this board. Why don't you just address the issues that Rom brought up.

-G

dj paradigm

03-22-2003, 11:08 AM

TAD

03-22-2003, 11:52 AM

the only thing i support is prayer for these poor souls out there fighting for what we/they think is our freedom. and for the babies, women & innocent people that will die because of the bombs that the soldiers that we're praying for will drop on them.

next time you sit down in prayer, try & imagine how ****ed up that really is. and if your conscience is where it should be, you should scream real loud, because none of this shit makes any sense at all.

please tell me, anyone, that you honestly believe in your heart that in order to facilitate or secure freedom here, babies must die & you're ok with that. please tell me that the people you're praying for to come back home safely that might unintentionally kill babies & mothers, please tell me that this is the price for freedom. you need to open your mind for real if you think that this is justified. you must break down immediately & see the madness for what it is.

if you're human you will be sickened by this. you will be sickened at yourself for being a hypocrite. for justifying the death of babies while praising our "heroes" over there for doing what is necessary. after all this is the price of war right?

now think about your own child & how you would feel. it's madness. i don't give a **** how much freedom you promise me. i will not let my mind become apathetic when it comes to innocent lives being lost so that i can justify my "good life". it makes no sense.

i didn't ask to be born here, yet i am here & i am making the best of what god has blessed me with. i don't have anyone to thank but my mother who brought me into this world. i certainly am not going to throw myself on my hands & knees & praise those who run the country of my birth. i don't know these people from adam & they sure as hell don't give a **** about me.

if anybody thinks for a minute that the leaders of this country have your best interests at heart, you are naive. they don't have your interests at heart any more than you have those babies interests 8ooo miles away.

for your emancipation, you will say a self serving prayer for those dead mothers while you exalt your freedom & the will of (some) of the american people.

imported_Gman

03-22-2003, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by dj paradigm:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dj paradigm:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dj paradigm:
YOU CAN ALWAYS LEAVE!...RON.... I'd like to personally thank all the troops for risking their lives for me too. I guess I'll leave.

-G [/QUOTE]When they come home I hope they risk their lives to protect you against racial profiling and happy trigger policemen. Blind patriotism is the worst kind of patriostism. FCUK WAR! [/QUOTE]My point being is you of all people are in no position to ask anyone to leave this board. Why don't you just address the issues that Rom brought up.

-G [/QUOTE]That B.S.@Gman...If he no longer feels like a member of the community then he can always leave....That's all I'm saying....I'm stating that he has the option to leave. I have the right to tell him toleave as much as he has the right to listen or not listen to what I say.
What the heck is going on in here....Are you succumbing to the HOMELAND PATRIOT ACT? @G-MAN [/QUOTE]Address the issues he brought up.

-G

TAD

03-22-2003, 11:57 AM

Minority overrepresentation in the military "is a commentary on the opportunity structures that exist in this society," said Edwin Dorn, a military analyst for the Brookings Institute in Washington, D.C. "In fact, the high representation of blacks in the military is the best evidence that you could have that there is something wrong with the civilian opportunity structure."

FULL ARTICLE (http://www.chicagoreporter.com/1991/01-91/0191%20New%20Military%20Data%2080%20Percent%20of%2 0Chicago%20Area%20Recruits%20are%20Minorities.htm)

mhd

03-22-2003, 12:05 PM

well said Cosmic Twin, i would disagree with you on one point though, i don't for a second think that members of the military actually believe in what they are doing, they of all people would rather be here than there.

mhd

03-22-2003, 12:16 PM

i'm still trying to figure out what the issues are. i always thought that dissent was a major part of what makes america. i thought that civil disobedience during the civil rights movement is what made america live up to the promises in the constitution and allowed people like me and rom work to be successful. i thought that people died at the hands american police forces in the civil rights struggle so that we could think for ourselves and express our opinions.

imported_Gman

03-22-2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by mhd:
well said Cosmic Twin, i would disagree with you on one point though, i don't for a second think that members of the military actually believe in what they are doing, they of all people would rather be here than there. My brother was just about to retire from the military after 22 years. He was going to turn in his paperwork in December of last year. He left for Kuwait two days before christmas. I guarantee you he would rather be home with his family right now. :(

-G

mhd

03-22-2003, 12:37 PM

Bold Soul

03-22-2003, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Gman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dj paradigm:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dj paradigm:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dj paradigm:
YOU CAN ALWAYS LEAVE!...RON.... I'd like to personally thank all the troops for risking their lives for me too. I guess I'll leave.

-G [/QUOTE]When they come home I hope they risk their lives to protect you against racial profiling and happy trigger policemen. Blind patriotism is the worst kind of patriostism. FCUK WAR! [/QUOTE]My point being is you of all people are in no position to ask anyone to leave this board. Why don't you just address the issues that Rom brought up.

-G [/QUOTE]That B.S.@Gman...If he no longer feels like a member of the community then he can always leave....That's all I'm saying....I'm stating that he has the option to leave. I have the right to tell him toleave as much as he has the right to listen or not listen to what I say.
What the heck is going on in here....Are you succumbing to the HOMELAND PATRIOT ACT? @G-MAN [/QUOTE]Address the issues he brought up.

-G [/QUOTE]He can't. None of them are able to and keep a consistent arguement. This has been my claim all along. And everyone "peacefully assaults" anyone who isn't in lock-step with their anti-War and anti-American values. There has yet to be, in my opinion, a true debate on this issue.

Try to keep a level head and offer a contrary view and you are assaulted with "So, you believe what the media tells you?", "Why do Iraqi babies have to die for you to drive?" and other nonsensical, inflammatory bullshit such as this.

Truth is relative to the seeker. Facts are opportunistic. Perception is onerous.

You people are the most hostile peace lovers I've seen. :rolleyes:

mdpm99

03-22-2003, 12:47 PM

When mankind learns that loving our children is more important than hateing each other, than we will have peace.

d

Bold Soul

03-22-2003, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by david mancuso:
When mankind learns that loving our children is more important than hateing each other, than we will have peace.

d Sorry David. Peace, like anything else, is an ongoing process. There will never truly be peace, as peace and war depend upon each other for balance.

As long as human nature moves in cycles, the natural ebb and flow will be peace and war.

mhd

03-22-2003, 12:53 PM

the one thing we have been is consistent.
the us is waging a very effective psy-ops campaign right here in the states which makes thinking for yourself a very, very difficult thing to do. and if your thoughts are contrary to the juggernaut and assault of the us media you will be attacked. that is why rom is getting sick reading views contrary to nbccnnabcmsnbccbsusainc.

hostile peace lovers, that was a good one, hey its a war

DOTSmusic

03-22-2003, 12:54 PM

You people are the most hostile peace lovers I've seen. :rolleyes:

i'm actually a big fan of conflict.
i believe chaos and disorder is actually necessary.
what would peace be without a little chaos there to contradict it?
i guess it just dates back to
my anarchistic Punk Rock childhood.
i'm all about the debate, ya know?
i'm all for the people that a'int scared to say whats on their mind.
we keep on talkin, no one could ever shut us up.
i'd choose death over being a pacifist and not standing up for myself and what i beleive in.

mdpm99

03-22-2003, 01:02 PM

I will never give up believing that there can be peace at the end of the rainbow, Bold Soul.

To think to the contrary would be sheer death.

Peace on Earth

d

"There are believers, and there are non believers."

- Stevie Wonder

djmarbll

03-22-2003, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by david mancuso:
When mankind learns that loving our children is more important than hateing each other, than we will have peace.

d Sorry David. Peace, like anything else, is an ongoing process. There will never truly be peace, as peace and war depend upon each other for balance.

As long as human nature moves in cycles, the natural ebb and flow will be peace and war. [/QUOTE]I tend to agree Bold Soul. Peace is not a goal, it's a moment, which means that there eventually will be peace, like there eventually will be war (Kemetic law of dialectical opposites). Even after the war going on right now, there will be a moment of peace before another war is waged. I think David's point has to do with what happens after the war is over and the price paid for the casualties that were suffered. The true test of this war for oil (Freudian slip), I mean war on terrorism, will be measured by what happens after the troops leave and the process of "democracy" is put in place.

Bold Soul

03-22-2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by david mancuso:
I will never give up believing that there can be peace at the end of the rainbow, Bold Soul.

To think to the contrary would be sheer death.

Peace on Earth

d

"There are believers, and there are non believers."

- Stevie Wonder I see the Stevie Wonder quote as a differentiation between those who want peace your way and those who don't. You want peace, but your peace isn't inclusive.

And that is frightening.

Bold Soul

03-22-2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by djmarbll:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by david mancuso:
When mankind learns that loving our children is more important than hateing each other, than we will have peace.

d Sorry David. Peace, like anything else, is an ongoing process. There will never truly be peace, as peace and war depend upon each other for balance.

As long as human nature moves in cycles, the natural ebb and flow will be peace and war. [/QUOTE]I tend to agree Bold Soul. Peace is not a goal, it's a moment, which means that there eventually will be peace, like there eventually will be war (Kemetic law of dialectical opposites). Even after the war going on right now, there will be a moment of peace before another war is waged. I think David's point has to do with what happens after the war is over and the price paid for the casualties that were suffered. The true test of this war for oil (Freudian slip), I mean war on terrorism, will be measured by what happens after the troops leave and the process of "democracy" is put in place. [/QUOTE]Human beings had to evolve to walk, speak, develop technology, etc. How is it that war can be ceased immediately within the human dynamic.

David's dream is but that - a dream. Where is the action applied to the dream?

War is a part of human consciousness and must be a point to evolve from. It can't be ended until its beginnings are outgrown. That will take many wars and much more time.

djmarbll

03-22-2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Cosmic_Twin:
Minority overrepresentation in the military "is a commentary on the opportunity structures that exist in this society," said Edwin Dorn, a military analyst for the Brookings Institute in Washington, D.C. "In fact, the high representation of blacks in the military is the best evidence that you could have that there is something wrong with the civilian opportunity structure."

FULL ARTICLE (http://www.chicagoreporter.com/1991/01-91/0191%20New%20Military%20Data%2080%20Percent%20of%2 0Chicago%20Area%20Recruits%20are%20Minorities.htm) 80 percent of all Chicago area recriuts are minorities? That's awful!!! It makes me wonder how many Congressmen and Senators have children over there fighting.

Ronnie Ron

03-22-2003, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by dj paradigm:
YOU CAN ALWAYS LEAVE!...RON.... RON or ROM who are you talking to?

mdpm99

03-22-2003, 01:14 PM

My way????

graemlins/cool_shades.gif

Respectfully Bold Soul, you are missing the point....Or am I missing your point?

"All I am saying is give peace a chance, war is not the answer.

smile.gif

d

lyot

03-22-2003, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dj paradigm:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dj paradigm:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dj paradigm:
YOU CAN ALWAYS LEAVE!...RON.... I'd like to personally thank all the troops for risking their lives for me too. I guess I'll leave.

-G [/QUOTE]When they come home I hope they risk their lives to protect you against racial profiling and happy trigger policemen. Blind patriotism is the worst kind of patriostism. FCUK WAR! [/QUOTE]My point being is you of all people are in no position to ask anyone to leave this board. Why don't you just address the issues that Rom brought up.

-G [/QUOTE]That B.S.@Gman...If he no longer feels like a member of the community then he can always leave....That's all I'm saying....I'm stating that he has the option to leave. I have the right to tell him toleave as much as he has the right to listen or not listen to what I say.
What the heck is going on in here....Are you succumbing to the HOMELAND PATRIOT ACT? @G-MAN [/QUOTE]Address the issues he brought up.

-G [/QUOTE]He can't. None of them are able to and keep a consistent arguement. This has been my claim all along. And everyone "peacefully assaults" anyone who isn't in lock-step with their anti-War and anti-American values. There has yet to be, in my opinion, a true debate on this issue.

Try to keep a level head and offer a contrary view and you are assaulted with "So, you believe what the media tells you?", "Why do Iraqi babies have to die for you to drive?" and other nonsensical, inflammatory bullshit such as this.

Truth is relative to the seeker. Facts are opportunistic. Perception is onerous.

You people are the most hostile peace lovers I've seen. :rolleyes: [/QUOTE]hmm, i don't get your point..Where do you see all these attacks on pro-war people ? Aren't we discussing in a civilised way you think ?

peace smile.gif

mhd

03-22-2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by djmarbll:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Cosmic_Twin:
Minority overrepresentation in the military "is a commentary on the opportunity structures that exist in this society," said Edwin Dorn, a military analyst for the Brookings Institute in Washington, D.C. "In fact, the high representation of blacks in the military is the best evidence that you could have that there is something wrong with the civilian opportunity structure."

FULL ARTICLE (http://www.chicagoreporter.com/1991/01-91/0191%20New%20Military%20Data%2080%20Percent%20of%2 0Chicago%20Area%20Recruits%20are%20Minorities.htm) 80 percent of all Chicago area recriuts are minorities? That's awful!!! It makes me wonder how many Congressmen and Senators have children over there fighting. [/QUOTE]i am not the least bit surprised by this stat especially given the poor schools, lack of opportunity, and pervasive discrimination in chicago which makes the military the employer of last resort

[ March 22, 2003, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: mhd ]

mdpm99

03-22-2003, 01:20 PM

Amen, Lyot!

smile.gif

d

martino

03-22-2003, 01:34 PM

None of us want to see troops come back in body-bags. how many times do we have to say that? Thats Just It = We dont think that this war is necessary. ie, we dont believe that anybody has to die in this situation, especially our own brothers and sisters.

i do find it interesting that those of us that have been against the war have had to endure being called hypocrits and armchair critics and anti americans etc. Many of us have backed up our opinions with articles from many sources from typical news sources to UNICEF.
Still we are considered default anti-americans.
Which would mean that we are against whatever the policy on iraq would be. which is retarted. Because if bush wasn't dismissing the inspections from the get-go would we be criticizing?

And as far as this boad is concerned - only since bush started his aggressive foreign policy has there been this much criticism of him and his general views on this board. So were we anti-american before he got elected? Was this board full of this many political discussions before? i certainly dont remember it being like this.

And the only arguements we are seeing against us are in the form of quoted soundbytes from the hawks in this admisitration. If we are default anti-americans then those that criticize us while ignoring our basic message (that saving iraqi lives at the cost of iraqi lives is logistically bankrupt) are default nationalists. Meaning they automatically believe whatever their country does is right...no matter what. which means that those that criticize us are equally guilty of sitting back and believing whatever they want to believe (making many assumptions whether we have a right to criticize the situation). Was vietnam ( and all the american deaths due to that war) necessary? were the critics and protesters guilty of being hypocrits and anti-americans? Or were they concerned that it wasn't necessary and that those lives were being wasted?

I may go out and seek articles that support my belief and provide a link to them and they may just sit there and believe whatever cheney says. that can be seen as pretty close to the same thing. so whats the big problem?

I guess I may be a hypocrit because you know, some kid shit his pants last night and will have nightmares forever cause he saw the roof of his house fall on his parents in order for me to have access to the internet and free speech. (thats basically what youre saying of us that oppose this war).

ps. i live in canada, not that we are squeeky clean or anything , but last i checked we didnt have to invade any country to enjoy listening to records or enjoy some basic human rights, and we're not remotley as rich as the US.
(maybe i misunderstood the original post, but isn't that what youre saying = that troops are there to preserve our way of life?)

[ March 22, 2003, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: martino ]

mhd

03-22-2003, 01:42 PM

Excellent, Martino

mdpm99

03-22-2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by mhd:
Excellent, Martino I second that emotion...

Peace on Earth

d

dj paradigm

03-22-2003, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Gman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mhd:
well said Cosmic Twin, i would disagree with you on one point though, i don't for a second think that members of the military actually believe in what they are doing, they of all people would rather be here than there. My brother was just about to retire from the military after 22 years. He was going to turn in his paperwork in December of last year. He left for Kuwait two days before christmas. I guarantee you he would rather be home with his family right now. :(

-G [/QUOTE]So this has become something personal....Like I said, I'm totally against war and to support any soldiers whether U.S. or Iraqi servicemen in the killing of other humans is not an option for me. The only option is to "bring the soldiers" home.

I will absolutely not jump on the flag-waving bandwagon of cheering U.S. soldiers on in this manufactured war. They do have the option of not fighting.

My brother got out after 20 years of service last year and they asked him to do additional time and he refused. Everyone makes choices.

[ March 22, 2003, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: dj paradigm ]

Bold Soul

03-22-2003, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by dj paradigm:
So this has become something personal....Like I said, I'm totally against war and to support any soldiers whether U.S. or Iraqi servicemen in the killing of other humans is not an option for me. The only option is to "bring the soldiers" home.

I will absolutely not jump on the flag-waving bandwagon of cheering U.S. soldiers on in this manufactured war. They do have the option of not fighting.

My brother got out after 20 years of service last year and they asked him to do additional time and he refused. Everyone makes choices. Not letting this one die.

[ March 22, 2003, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: Bold Soul ]

mdpm99

03-22-2003, 02:14 PM

I believe that "the dream" comes true when we have our gatherings of Love Saves the Day Celebrations. graemlins/1luvu.gif

Therefore it is not just a dream. It is very real and I am grateful for these moments of peace.

Peace on Earth,

d

[ March 22, 2003, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]

Bold Soul

03-22-2003, 02:27 PM

Yo Paradigm. Don't private message me with insults. You want to be insensitive to the feelings of those who make this board possible for you to rant on - I have to right to call you on it.

You instigated it yourself when you posted it. That I was able to respond to your post before you were able to edit it isn't instigating.

And how about we keep it above board. Sending me a PM with a profane insult is juvenile.

dj paradigm

03-22-2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
Yo Paradigm. Don't private message me with insults. You want to be insensitive to the feelings of those who make this board possible for you to rant on - I have to right to call you on it.

You instigated it yourself when you posted it. That I was able to respond to your post before you were able to edit it isn't instigating.

And how about we keep it above board. Sending me a PM with a profane insult is juvenile. What the fcuk are you talkin bout? @boldsoul

By the way..I don't bite my tongue for anyone. I will say what I want to say.@boldsoul http://deephousepage.com/smilies.htm

I have no problem biting the hands that feed me if it is the same hand that would be use to lash out against me unjustly.

[ March 22, 2003, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: dj paradigm ]

Bold Soul

03-22-2003, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by dj paradigm:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
Yo Paradigm. Don't private message me with insults. You want to be insensitive to the feelings of those who make this board possible for you to rant on - I have to right to call you on it.

You instigated it yourself when you posted it. That I was able to respond to your post before you were able to edit it isn't instigating.

And how about we keep it above board. Sending me a PM with a profane insult is juvenile. What the fcuk are you talkin bout? @boldsoul [/QUOTE]I'm talking about this, Paradigm.

http://www.boldsoul.com/images/djpbs.jpg http://www.boldsoul.com/images/djpbs2.jpg

That shit is uncalled for and unwelcome. And I don't tolerate it.

[ March 22, 2003, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Bold Soul ]

dj paradigm

03-22-2003, 02:51 PM

And what are you gonna do about it?
You little graemlins/cussing.gif

Bold Soul

03-22-2003, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by dj paradigm:
And what are you gonna do about it?
You little graemlins/cussing.gif Maybe you ought to PM someone who knows me and ask them if I'm stupid enough to be sucked into your childish games.

Maybe you ought to PM someone who knows me and ask them if Mama Bold Soul raised a punk.

imported_Gman

03-22-2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dj paradigm:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
Yo Paradigm. Don't private message me with insults. You want to be insensitive to the feelings of those who make this board possible for you to rant on - I have to right to call you on it.

You instigated it yourself when you posted it. That I was able to respond to your post before you were able to edit it isn't instigating.

And how about we keep it above board. Sending me a PM with a profane insult is juvenile. What the fcuk are you talkin bout? @boldsoul [/QUOTE]I'm talking about this, Paradigm.

http://www.boldsoul.com/images/djpbs.jpg http://www.boldsoul.com/images/djpbs2.jpg

That shit is uncalled for and unwelcome. And I don't tolerate it. [/QUOTE]Paradigm, what the hell is wrong with you? You know the rules apply to PM's as well. Goodbye for a while.

-G

JoeB

03-22-2003, 03:18 PM

mhd

03-22-2003, 03:33 PM

sorry to see something like that, we can disagree and still show love, my apologies

mdpm99

03-22-2003, 04:15 PM

Always carry a flagon of whiskey in case of snakebite and furthermore always carry a small snake.

WC Fields

O'love

03-22-2003, 05:08 PM

can anyone explain to me how exactly the US soldiers in iraq are protecting your freedom? I read this time and time again, right after the "i support our troops" .. now the support i can understand, but the thing about fighting for your freedom? it's the same nonsense like claiming that the Japanese pilots bombing pearl harbour where fighting to protect Japans freedom, the german soldiers invading poland and the rest of europe to protect the freedom of their country etc.etc. do you really believe that Sadam's regime is a thread to your freedom? In what way could he damage your freedom? In "bowling for columbine" it was made rather clear that right now the media and the US gouvernment are the ones that are decreasing your freedom (ie by spreading fear, and by passing terror-laws etc) the most....

Olaf

Jolyon

03-22-2003, 06:13 PM

An old quote regarding the British troops in the First World War. "Lions led by donkeys."

It is possible to support 'our' troops, I do, but be against the war at the same time.

Remember, the Iraqi troops who are dying are somebody's brother, somebody's father, somebody's husband or lover, somebody's son. They are all human beings who have the same right to life as every single one of us.

Most are young conscripts who are forced to join the Army and hate Saddam more than any of us do. They could not just leave the army for fear of being found and then shot.

Never glory in their death.

Wild i

03-22-2003, 07:45 PM

I really couldn't read the entire spread, but I wanted to consider well my response to Rom's original post. There does seem to to be some hypocrisy to complaining of sour milk all the while sucking at the teet.

But you know, Rom, we suffered unprecedented prosperity for 12 years without war. Gas prices and crime plummeted while the GNP soared. Surely there must be something to that.

I don't object to protection of American resources, but I do take exception to using lives to protect the resources of a very small minority.

I don't see myself as a hypocrite (at least not in this case). I am a patriot AND a humanitarian. Can't one be both?

Byron Long

03-22-2003, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by Rom:

Be honest, you're not protesting 'for' the sovreinty of Arab states...youre Protesting 'against' America. Because we're free and rich and you are not, and youre jealous, or you're a poor american and jealous too...or your a 'self righteous' well off person thinking this is going to absolve you of all the foul shit you did to achieve your well being. Yeah, now you're a 'Crusader'. You're doing gods will or something. Bah! Perhaps you're rich and dont really realize it. Classic American phenomena, just becuase you dont have a 10M mansion in LA and a Lamborghni...you're oppressed. You make more money in one year than most of the worlds population will ever see in their life...but you
think you're poor. Bah!

BAH! [/QB]I feel very sad that you have such a cynical attitude towards human nature. Nobody is protesting because they are jealous of Americas wealth and freedom. What an immensly self-indulgent comment.
People protest because they have seen the way America conducts itself in the world and they are saddened and angered and scared, where will she stop?

f0reverneverm0re

03-22-2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by RonnieRon:
No one in there right mind wants WAR. But i support the troops that have put themselves in Harms way and i hope they get the support they need from all of the people. These demonstrations will start a wave of protests getting people angrier and angrier showing little support for the troops and thats sad. I dont agree with the Government but i damn sure support those that are in harms way, If you dont support them then i feel sorry for you because your selfish, and like ROM said the next time you do anything that requires energy think about those that are putting there lives on the line for us. do you agree w/ the people that control the government? maybe there is someone in their mind enough that they want to see (controllable) chaos reign for a reason.

what if no US troop fought until they were absolutely sure that true justice was being done? you don't have to fight just because somebody tells you, but who wants to suffer the consequences when it's easy enough to kill innocent people and get some money, housing and medical care? i'd feel like a total dunce (not ashamed) if i soon came to find out that i almost got my ass blown off just so a handful of people could make more money and have better control of the world and it's inhabitants.

think before you shoot vs. shoot first & ask questions (maybe) later

why has the Pentagram spent an entire day with their news media trying to explain how their bombs were too smart to kill innocents?

trying to make people feel shame is strange 2 me. the actions taken by people stateside may be costing the lives of some of the citizens here as well. ya think, maybe? huh? maybe?

G-d bless the losers

TAD

03-23-2003, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by mhd:
i would disagree with you on one point though, i don't for a second think that members of the military actually believe in what they are doing, they of all people would rather be here than there. thanks for pointing that out MHD. i have to learn to choose my words more carefully.

mdpm99

03-23-2003, 12:37 PM

"I think war is an act of murder. I think peace is an act of love."

Mah'chew

03-23-2003, 09:45 PM

We are just turning another page in the perceived AmeriKKKan utopian manual - one which will ultimately endanger us all, I'm already getting heat as Bush turns back the clock to an age of global hatred and distrust.

mdpm99

03-23-2003, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Mathius:
We are just turning another page in the perceived AmeriKKKan utopian manual - one which will ultimately endanger us all, I'm already getting heat as Bush turns back the clock to an age of global hatred and distrust. Greetings Matius:

I read your footnote re the Devil. Hope you will find this humerous:

"Thinking of selling your soul" Here's how you can make money on the internet:

http://www.necronomi.com/projects/666/

biggrinangel.gif

d

jsd540

03-24-2003, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by david mancuso:
Ok folks! Time out.

smile.gif

The Top 14 Code Names for the Invasion of Iraq

(Originally published on October 21, 2002)

9> Operation We Can't Find Osama So This Will Have to Do

6> Operation Pay No Attention to the Economy Behind That Curtain

Operation Desert Storm II: Iraqi Boogaloo

Operation Dude, Where's My Oil?

Operation What Economy?

The G-Dub 2002 No Nukes World Tour

You're Killin' Me... graemlins/rofl.gif graemlins/rofl.gif graemlins/rofl.gif

Oak Pk, IL's Best Bedroom DJ, serge

03-24-2003, 03:10 PM

Dang, Rom!

Good points. You and I need to get together and discuss the war over a Heinie.

I'll try to convince you the anti-war movement is a good thing, and you can try to convince me otherwise.

All this while Grandma dances in the background!

"Love the soldiers. Hate the War!"

graemlins/thumbsup.gif

[ March 24, 2003, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: serge ]

Pete Nice

03-24-2003, 03:57 PM

hello rom,
you make some very strong points in your post and i hope it makes people think about what they say and do. but people not driving their cars or not paying taxes isn't really going to help anyone. what we do need to think about is finding alternative fuel sources and stop depending and supporting countreis and leaders that would kill and oppress their fellow humans. as a race we need to evolve..... we need to learn from our mistakes. people i believe are againts this war, because the stakes are raised each time we do go to war. more and more countries have the capability to do harm to a huge number of people. this is a sad time in our history. i think it somewhat sad that you're gald our troops are fighting for "our freedom" aka our creature comforts. no matter how much we talk about the war, it's wrong. it's wrong that we people like sadaam and bush leading people under false promises and hidden agendas. "wise men argue wars and fools fight them." i don't want to be a fool or the wise man that tells the fools what to do. speaking for myself on the subject of not having money and jealouslly: all the money in the world can never make me feel as good as those close to me.... just thinkin' out loud.

konbit

03-24-2003, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
He can't. None of them are able to and keep a consistent arguement. This has been my claim all along. And everyone "peacefully assaults" anyone who isn't in lock-step with their anti-War and anti-American values. There has yet to be, in my opinion, a true debate on this issue.

Try to keep a level head and offer a contrary view and you are assaulted with "So, you believe what the media tells you?", "Why do Iraqi babies have to die for you to drive?" and other nonsensical, inflammatory bullshit such as this.

Truth is relative to the seeker. Facts are opportunistic. Perception is onerous.

You people are the most hostile peace lovers I've seen. :rolleyes: I totally disagree with your assessment. There has been a viable debate. Personally, i have backed up my anti-war views with a wealth supporting documetation, as have most others. In fact, it is the pro-war contingent that seems to rely on cliches that are blind and ficticious ("Our soldiers are risking their lives for our freedom", etc.) over hard eveidence. This, of course, comes as no suprise, as there are very few hard facts that support this war (which is why the UN and the rest of the world oppose it). Unlike Mr. Mancuso, I am not against all wars. I think that there are justifiable reasons to go to war...but not on this occasion. I have posted newspaper articles, government documents and Platonic, logical reasoning for my reviews. Most anti-war people seem to be unable to go beyond nationalistic rhetoric.

I don't think that there is any hypocrisy when anti-war people get passionate (not "assulting" or "inflammatory," as you say). After all, thousands of human lives are worthy of some raised voices.

konbit

03-24-2003, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Dean:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Rom:

Be honest, you're not protesting 'for' the sovreinty of Arab states...youre Protesting 'against' America. Because we're free and rich and you are not, and youre jealous, or you're a poor american and jealous too...or your a 'self righteous' well off person thinking this is going to absolve you of all the foul shit you did to achieve your well being. Yeah, now you're a 'Crusader'. You're doing gods will or something. Bah! Perhaps you're rich and dont really realize it. Classic American phenomena, just becuase you dont have a 10M mansion in LA and a Lamborghni...you're oppressed. You make more money in one year than most of the worlds population will ever see in their life...but you
think you're poor. Bah!

BAH! I feel very sad that you have such a cynical attitude towards human nature. Nobody is protesting because they are jealous of Americas wealth and freedom. What an immensly self-indulgent comment.
People protest because they have seen the way America conducts itself in the world and they are saddened and angered and scared, where will she stop? [/QB][/QUOTE]Well said, Dean. The idea that people abroad dislike the US because they are "jealous" of us, or "hate our ideals" is ludacris. The roots of anti-Americanism are very complicated, but have nothing to do with these reasons.

Pete Nice

03-24-2003, 06:11 PM

[/QB][/QUOTE]Well said, Dean. The idea that people abroad dislike the US because they are "jealous" of us, or "hate our ideals" is ludacris. The roots of anti-Americanism are very complicated, but have nothing to do with these reasons. [/QB][/QUOTE]
yes, i agree with you. the reasons are varied and many indeed. some the countries that we've helped "liberate" have not seen any change. yet another empty promise from the elite pretending to care while further serving their own interest. liberating a country from an oppressive leader is one thing, but then to tell them that democracy is the right way to go seems a little arrogant when you hear strories of a kid getting shot to death for his portable cd player. if we lived in a true democracy we would all respect each others opinions a little bit more and work towards solutions instead of being right or wrong.....

Rom

03-25-2003, 02:45 AM

Number of replys so far = 71
Number of people vowing to give up their cars = 0.

How was WMC?

You can't hide from yourself.

DeesKo

03-25-2003, 07:32 AM

My personal, random thoughts about these varied topics...

Re: Peace

Is peace something you can force/wish upon an entire globe of humans you know nothing about, many of which do not hold the same desires as you or is it simply a state of being that you can only achieve for yourself ?

There are some in this global society who are only at peace when at war. You can't EVER make everyone happy all of the time so is this a viable solution to a global problem ?

What is the saying... something about give me the strength to change the things I can change, accept those things that I can not change and the intelligence to know the difference ? Wouldn't that amount to internal peace ?

Re: This war being justified

I don't know. Its a grey area. It depends on what you consider justification. I don't think it was solely a physical threat to our nation (ie missile attacks) but as much as we might hate to admit it, economic stability can be just as much, if not more of a threat to our national peace as any missile or dirty bomb. Its easy to rebuild a building, its DAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMN hard to rebuild a country coming out of economic ruin.
Ask any one of the South American countries going through massive turmoil right now. Do you think the ills of american society (racism, hatred, inordinate desires for material goods etc) would go away if we all suddenly became poor ? Oh hell no, on the contrary, all of those things would become that much more magnified. Go ask the curly haired Brasilians living on the tops of the hills in Rio.

Re: Canada / other "neutral" countries

I firmly believe that Canada and many other countries who tout their neutral status routinely prosper thanks to our non-neutral status. You ever known that kid in the neighborhood who gained notoriety/cash/power from the company he kept, but when it came down too it, he actually personally never did a damn thing himself ?

How about the co-worker that never accomplishes a damn thing but gets the promotions because he plays tennis with the boss on Sundays and lets him use his boat when the weather is nice ?

Re: Protesters

I think many of the protestors have valid points and need to be heard. I think many of the protestors are idiots who just want to bite the hand that feeds them just like a 2 year old has to push their parents in a battle of wills. I think a larger and larger contingent in this country is just DYING to see our entire country fall to its knees, not realizing what the results would be both to us and to the world in general.

I cherish the fact that either one of the two can stand out in the street and scream their opinions at the top of their lungs. I think both types of protesters are ultimately very valuable and positive in the end because I truly think those protesters are our final check and balance left in this country. Its obvious our political schematic isn't working correctly regarding checks and balances anymore, so we the people are the last line of defense, keeping our government in check... so whether I think any individual protester is wrong or not, I still want to support them standing there, being a check and a balance.

These opinions are subject to change at any time because while there are fundamental underlying believes involved, I still think the whole thing is one big grey area... nothing in this world is black and white and my opinions are not set in concrete. This is the only way to grow as a human being.

Peace

Rob

Bold Soul

03-25-2003, 10:37 AM

DeesKo! :D

Peace is more than the absence of conflict.

Wars will continue for as long as human beings have divergent truths. If we want everyone to think, act and feel the same, THEN and ONLY THEN will we see an end to war.

Bold Soul

03-25-2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Rom:
Number of replys so far = 71
Number of people vowing to give up their cars = 0.

How was WMC?

You can't hide from yourself. No one's listening, man. Shame, isn't it.

Oak Pk, IL's Best Bedroom DJ, serge

03-25-2003, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Rom:
Number of replys so far = 71
Number of people vowing to give up their cars = 0.

How was WMC?

You can't hide from yourself. I am giving up my decent salary this fall to become a teacher.

I also gave up beer for lent.

I'm starting with the man in the mirror.

mhd

03-25-2003, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
DeesKo! :D

Peace is more than the absence of conflict.

Wars will continue for as long as human beings have divergent truths. If we want everyone to think, act and feel the same, THEN and ONLY THEN will we see an end to war. gotta agree with this, when we all think alike, then someone's not thinking

Cheddar

03-25-2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
DeesKo! :D

Peace is more than the absence of conflict.

Wars will continue for as long as human beings have divergent truths. If we want everyone to think, act and feel the same, THEN and ONLY THEN will we see an end to war. gotta agree with this, when we all think alike, then someone's not thinking [/QUOTE]Then a lot of people are not thinking.

martino

03-25-2003, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by DeesKo:
My personal, random thoughts about these varied topics...

Re: Canada / other "neutral" countries

I firmly believe that Canada and many other countries who tout their neutral status routinely prosper thanks to our non-neutral status. You ever known that kid in the neighborhood who gained notoriety/cash/power from the company he kept, but when it came down too it, he actually personally never did a damn thing himself ?

How about the co-worker that never accomplishes a damn thing but gets the promotions because he plays tennis with the boss on Sundays and lets him use his boat when the weather is nice ?

Rob heheh.
Our current prime minister is the master of walking the tight rope. Currently over 70% of canadians support the war ONLY if the UN supports it. (meaning they dont support the war in its current form). Canada has always valued the UN for many reasons. But the funny thing is, we are not in the so called "Coalition". yet, we have 31 troops in iraq providing some kind of military support as well as a couple ships in the area also providing some kind of support. NOt much, but thats more physical support than most of the 30 countries that are supporting the war...most countries only support it on paper. canada does the opposite haha, fricken weasels.

konbit

03-25-2003, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Rom:
Number of replys so far = 71
Number of people vowing to give up their cars = 0.

How was WMC?

You can't hide from yourself. ZZZZZzzzzzzzz Like this is the solution to stopping the war. :rolleyes:

First, there are plenty people here that don't own cars. (You don't live in New York, do you?)

Second, there are plenty of coutries where there are cars, but they aren't going to war.

Third, this ASSumes that the war is for oil, which it most likely, in my opinion, is not.

Fourth, even if it was for oil...there are other sources of oil.

Fifith, I think that you'd find all of anti-war people here willing to PAY MORE for their gasoline rather than see this atrocity happen...which is the REALITY of the argument you are trying to make.

What a weak argument.... graemlins/stupid.gif :rolleyes:

konbit

03-25-2003, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
DeesKo! :D

Peace is more than the absence of conflict.

Wars will continue for as long as human beings have divergent truths. If we want everyone to think, act and feel the same, THEN and ONLY THEN will we see an end to war. This armchair philosophy has no bearing on the current situation. And is untrue, or else we'd be fighting Mexico, atheists would be murdering Baptists, etc.

Bold Soul

03-25-2003, 01:49 PM

mhd - you better wake up. Konbit is encroaching upon your professional contrarian title. graemlins/rofl.gif

[ March 25, 2003, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Bold Soul ]

Bold Soul

03-25-2003, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by konbit:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
DeesKo! :D

Peace is more than the absence of conflict.

Wars will continue for as long as human beings have divergent truths. If we want everyone to think, act and feel the same, THEN and ONLY THEN will we see an end to war. This armchair philosophy has no bearing on the current situation. And is untrue, or else we'd be fighting Mexico, atheists would be murdering Baptists, etc. [/QUOTE]Athiests don't murder Baptists? We haven't fought with Mexico in the past? You have any information that we won't in the future?

Not much finesse in that one, Konbit. Your game is slipping.

And I am certain you gather my inference. You just want to argue. Nice to see you look for my posts. :rolleyes:

konbit

03-25-2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
Athiests don't murder Baptists? We haven't fought with Mexico in the past? You have any information that we won't in the future?

Not much finesse in that one, Konbit. Your game is slipping.

And I am certain you gather my inference. You just want to argue. Nice to see you look for my posts. :rolleyes: Don't flatter yourself...I'm posting in response to things that make no sense to me. You do the same, often. I've agreed with multiple posts of yours as well, so please don't turn this into some sort of affront. Also, from now on, I'd rather debate about the subject, rather than engaging in these personal criticisms that you seem to so freely bestow upon me.

My point was that it is a cop out to say that war is an inevitable consequence of societal differences. There are numerous instances of very different peoples getting along just fine, throughout all of history, without having to go to war. Furthermore, in this particular case, there are many countires (who are also very different from the Iraqis) who see this as an avoidable war. The fact remains that the inspections were working. Blix hadn't even layed out his plan (which he says would have taken mere months, and saved all those being needlessly killed) when the trigger-happy US gov. went marching off too war. This was not a manifestation of a greater pattern. It was the decision of one administration, which could have, and should have, gone the other way.

Bold Soul

03-25-2003, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by konbit:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
Athiests don't murder Baptists? We haven't fought with Mexico in the past? You have any information that we won't in the future?

Not much finesse in that one, Konbit. Your game is slipping.

And I am certain you gather my inference. You just want to argue. Nice to see you look for my posts. :rolleyes: Also, from now on, I'd rather debate about the subject, rather than engaging in these personal criticisms that you seem to so freely bestow upon me.[/QUOTE]So that cheap-shot you threw about "armchair philosophy" is your last one, right?

I don't have any less respect for you konbit because we've had some good rounds, but you come with the cheap shots as well as any of us. ;)

Okay - I'll follow your lead. Sorry about antagonizing you. I know I can be fearsome. graemlins/rofl.gif

[ March 25, 2003, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Bold Soul ]

Lupine

03-25-2003, 07:54 PM

I totally agree on this point. They benefit from our dirty work.

Originally posted by DeesKo:

Re: Canada / other "neutral" countries

I firmly believe that Canada and many other countries who tout their neutral status routinely prosper thanks to our non-neutral status. You ever known that kid in the neighborhood who gained notoriety/cash/power from the company he kept, but when it came down too it, he actually personally never did a damn thing himself ?

How about the co-worker that never accomplishes a damn thing but gets the promotions because he plays tennis with the boss on Sundays and lets him use his boat when the weather is nice ?

Peace

Rob

f0reverneverm0re

03-25-2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by martino:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DeesKo:
My personal, random thoughts about these varied topics...

Re: Canada / other "neutral" countries

I firmly believe that Canada and many other countries who tout their neutral status routinely prosper thanks to our non-neutral status. You ever known that kid in the neighborhood who gained notoriety/cash/power from the company he kept, but when it came down too it, he actually personally never did a damn thing himself ?

How about the co-worker that never accomplishes a damn thing but gets the promotions because he plays tennis with the boss on Sundays and lets him use his boat when the weather is nice ?

Rob heheh.
Our current prime minister is the master of walking the tight rope. Currently over 70% of canadians support the war ONLY if the UN supports it. (meaning they dont support the war in its current form). Canada has always valued the UN for many reasons. But the funny thing is, we are not in the so called "Coalition". yet, we have 31 troops in iraq providing some kind of military support as well as a couple ships in the area also providing some kind of support. NOt much, but thats more physical support than most of the 30 countries that are supporting the war...most countries only support it on paper. canada does the opposite haha, fricken weasels. [/QUOTE]and you might want to watch out for Canadian business owners selling out the people of Canada, selling Canada out from under you.

of course, this is all big suit wearing fvcks all over the universe, even the US's.

(and i don't have a car and will never buy one again)

[ March 25, 2003, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: f0reverneverm0re ]

mhd

03-25-2003, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
mhd - you better wake up. Konbit is encroaching upon your professional contrarian title. graemlins/rofl.gif we are working in shifts

djmarbll

03-25-2003, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by O'love:
can anyone explain to me how exactly the US soldiers in iraq are protecting your freedom? I read this time and time again, right after the "i support our troops" .. now the support i can understand, but the thing about fighting for your freedom? it's the same nonsense like claiming that the Japanese pilots bombing pearl harbour where fighting to protect Japans freedom, the german soldiers invading poland and the rest of europe to protect the freedom of their country etc.etc. do you really believe that Sadam's regime is a thread to your freedom? In what way could he damage your freedom? In "bowling for columbine" it was made rather clear that right now the media and the US gouvernment are the ones that are decreasing your freedom (ie by spreading fear, and by passing terror-laws etc) the most....

Olaf hail.gif hail.gif hail.gif hail.gif

I'm sick of this "protecting our freedom" crap too. I guess Hitler was protecting Germany's freedom when he killed 6 million Jews too right? Yeah right. Where was all this "protecting our freedoms" talk when Ida B. Wells pointing out how many black men were being hanged? Where was it when Emmet Till was murdered? Where was it when Medgar Evers was murdered? Where was it during the Civil Rights movement? In order to have your freedoms protected, you must first be free. And most of the legislation I've seen that helped so-called minorities and women come closer to freedom didn't come from soldiers fighting wars overseas, but from civilians fighting the injustices within their own country. (ie. Malcolm X, Martin King, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, Abby Hoffman, Susan B. Anthony, Che Guavera, Assata Shakur, Angela Davis, the Chicago 8, Muhammed Ali, etc.)

Part Sixx

03-25-2003, 09:50 PM

Hey, Rom!
Wow, cat!
Who pissed you off?!? ;)

Bold Soul

03-26-2003, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
mhd - you better wake up. Konbit is encroaching upon your professional contrarian title. graemlins/rofl.gif we are working in shifts [/QUOTE]Now that's comedy!

Rom

03-26-2003, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by djmarbll:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by O'love:
can anyone explain to me how exactly the US soldiers in iraq are protecting your freedom? I read this time and time again, right after the "i support our troops" .. now the support i can understand, but the thing about fighting for your freedom? it's the same nonsense like claiming that the Japanese pilots bombing pearl harbour where fighting to protect Japans freedom, the german soldiers invading poland and the rest of europe to protect the freedom of their country etc.etc. do you really believe that Sadam's regime is a thread to your freedom? In what way could he damage your freedom? In "bowling for columbine" it was made rather clear that right now the media and the US gouvernment are the ones that are decreasing your freedom (ie by spreading fear, and by passing terror-laws etc) the most....

Olaf hail.gif hail.gif hail.gif hail.gif

I'm sick of this "protecting our freedom" crap too. I guess Hitler was protecting Germany's freedom when he killed 6 million Jews too right? Yeah right. Where was all this "protecting our freedoms" talk when Ida B. Wells pointing out how many black men were being hanged? Where was it when Emmet Till was murdered? Where was it when Medgar Evers was murdered? Where was it during the Civil Rights movement? In order to have your freedoms protected, you must first be free. And most of the legislation I've seen that helped so-called minorities and women come closer to freedom didn't come from soldiers fighting wars overseas, but from civilians fighting the injustices within their own country. (ie. Malcolm X, Martin King, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, Abby Hoffman, Susan B. Anthony, Che Guavera, Assata Shakur, Angela Davis, the Chicago 8, Muhammed Ali, etc.) [/QUOTE]For yall 'war serves no purpose' people, I do believe it was also a big ass war fought that liberated Europe and the Jews 'from' Nazi Germany and the peoples of Asia Pacific 'from' the Japanese. Are they free now? You cant compare Germany's invasion of Poland with the allies invasion of Normandy...one was conquest the other liberation. Did IQ's just drop sharply while I was away?

And lemme ask yall this...who started the 'war against terrorism?' Did America start it? Sombody blew up the WTC and we now have to try to make sure psychos dont do something like that again. It's obvious nobody thought some fanatical zealots could touch us in America from all the way in Afganistan. But they did. How free would you be if another nation could blow your shit up at will? Whatever the 'real' motives for this war are...there sure as hell wont be no more threat from the likes of this professed 'anti-american' regime. For some strange reason I equate staying alive with freedom. Its 'they cant touch us' thinking like this that allowed them to hit our complacent asses in the first place. Come on yall!

And to Marbils point, I happen to consider people like Malcolm X and Medger Evers as 'soldiers' who died fighting to win freedom for you and me. The Civil Rights movement was in my eyes just as much of a war as any other. Lots of people died...and I dont know about you, but I happen to now be free as hell. Yall have obviously forgotten what oppression is. Lemme check, yep, no chains on me, not too many restrictions either. This freedom I enjoy was not free, you've outlined this yourself Marbil.

O'love

03-26-2003, 03:01 AM

Originally posted by Rom:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by djmarbll:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by O'love:
can anyone explain to me how exactly the US soldiers in iraq are protecting your freedom? I read this time and time again, right after the "i support our troops" .. now the support i can understand, but the thing about fighting for your freedom? it's the same nonsense like claiming that the Japanese pilots bombing pearl harbour where fighting to protect Japans freedom, the german soldiers invading poland and the rest of europe to protect the freedom of their country etc.etc. do you really believe that Sadam's regime is a thread to your freedom? In what way could he damage your freedom? In "bowling for columbine" it was made rather clear that right now the media and the US gouvernment are the ones that are decreasing your freedom (ie by spreading fear, and by passing terror-laws etc) the most....

Olaf hail.gif hail.gif hail.gif hail.gif

I'm sick of this "protecting our freedom" crap too. I guess Hitler was protecting Germany's freedom when he killed 6 million Jews too right? Yeah right. Where was all this "protecting our freedoms" talk when Ida B. Wells pointing out how many black men were being hanged? Where was it when Emmet Till was murdered? Where was it when Medgar Evers was murdered? Where was it during the Civil Rights movement? In order to have your freedoms protected, you must first be free. And most of the legislation I've seen that helped so-called minorities and women come closer to freedom didn't come from soldiers fighting wars overseas, but from civilians fighting the injustices within their own country. (ie. Malcolm X, Martin King, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, Abby Hoffman, Susan B. Anthony, Che Guavera, Assata Shakur, Angela Davis, the Chicago 8, Muhammed Ali, etc.) [/QUOTE]For yall 'war serves no purpose' people, I do believe it was also a big ass war fought that liberated Europe and the Jews 'from' Nazi Germany and the peoples of Asia Pacific 'from' the Japanese. Are they free now? You cant compare Germany's invasion of Poland with the allies invasion of Normandy...one was conquest the other liberation. Did IQ's just drop sharply while I was away?

And lemme ask yall this...who started the 'war against terrorism?' Did America start it? Sombody blew up the WTC and we now have to try to make sure psychos dont do something like that again. It's obvious nobody thought some fanatical zealots could touch us in America from all the way in Afganistan. But they did. How free would you be if another nation could blow your shit up at will? Whatever the 'real' motives for this war are...there sure as hell wont be no more threat from the likes of this professed 'anti-american' regime. For some strange reason I equate staying alive with freedom. Its 'they cant touch us' thinking like this that allowed them to hit our complacent asses in the first place. Come on yall!

And to Marbils point, I happen to consider people like Malcolm X and Medger Evers as 'soldiers' who died fighting to win freedom for you and me. The Civil Rights movement was in my eyes just as much of a war as any other. Lots of people died...and I dont know about you, but I happen to now be free as hell. Yall have obviously forgotten what oppression is. Lemme check, yep, no chains on me, not too many restrictions either. This freedom I enjoy was not free, you've outlined this yourself Marbil. [/QUOTE]since when did Iraq commit the WTC terrorist attack? I cannot recall any iraqi on those planes, or a direct link to Saddam. If you wanna have revenge for the WTC attack you have to invade your friends in Saudi Arabia and overthrow the monarchy there.....

furthermore: i have to ask this time and time again, and i don't get an answer: what about Timothy McVeigh? he wasn't a muslim, no arabic country involved at all..... no-one seems to care...it's much easier to be afraid/angry at someone/something far away...

and yes, America started the "War against terrorism" ..... and what's the difference between conquest and liberation in Iraq... by all means what the US is doing in Iraq is conquest in it's full sense..... even though they call it liberation.... i was argueing that also the German and Japanese soldiers in WW2 could have really believed they were protecting their freedom...ever heart of the term "lebensraum"? The Germans' thought it was essential for their wellbeing and economy to invade poland and to put their own leaders or friendly leaders in charge there.... rings a bell doesn't it?

Olaf

farleyfan

03-26-2003, 06:58 AM

If some people HATE this country so much, why do they choose to stay here and keep whining and whining instead of going to another country if America's freedom and wealth is just so horrible??? I asked this once before but nobody responded, so I'll try again.

O'love

03-26-2003, 07:43 AM

DeesKo

03-26-2003, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by O'love:

furthermore: i have to ask this time and time again, and i don't get an answer: what about Timothy McVeigh? he wasn't a muslim, no arabic country involved at all..... no-one seems to care...it's much easier to be afraid/angry at someone/something far away...

Olaf What about him ?

No one seemed to care ?

Like someone else said above, he's BEEN a closed case.

He did his deed
We caught him within weeks
We tried him in civilian court
We found him guilty
We sentenced him to the death penalty
We carried out that sentence swiftly

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with the T. McVeigh thing.

Peace

jurren

03-26-2003, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by DeesKo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by O'love:

furthermore: i have to ask this time and time again, and i don't get an answer: what about Timothy McVeigh? he wasn't a muslim, no arabic country involved at all..... no-one seems to care...it's much easier to be afraid/angry at someone/something far away...

Olaf What about him ?

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with the T. McVeigh thing.
[/QUOTE]o'love is trying to point out that you're fighting an enemy that can come from allover the world. bombing iraq is not going to solve your terrorist problem, it's more likely to expand.

instead of going for the root of the problem, your administration is trying to show of it's force, thereby only creating more hatred.

jurren

Wild i

03-26-2003, 08:40 AM

It took me a minute to do the research but I think it was worth it.

According to the Fair New York web site(http://www.fairus.org/html/msas/042nynym.htm) there are roughly 9,333,651 people in the New York metro area.

According to the APTA web site, NY metro area public transportation ridership is on average 9,009,600 per week.

This goes directly to the "give up your fossil fuel vehicles" argument. It seems like a pretty good average to me. One that could get even better if public transit and its associated consumer cost was improved (which it could be. Even at the lowest fair of $1.50, the joint system gross is $13,514,400 per week -- and many systems (like metro north, LIRR cost considerably more than $1.50 to ride).

Conversely, I have never seen a public bus or rail in Bucks county PA where my son lives, so everyone there gets a car around 16 years old. The cities take the blame for all the smog and whatnot, but the fact is the cities are the only areas that have been able to financial justify, and therefore utilize, public transportation on a large scale.

Give up my car and do what, stay home?

O'love

03-26-2003, 08:44 AM

this is the logic that is followed:

1) McVeigh's Oklahoma City terrorist attack
2) capture McVeigh and sentence him to death
3) WTC terrorist attack
4) Hunt for Osama Bin Laden, presumed mastermind of the WTC attack, in Afghanistan, also "liberating" the country
5) Not finding Osama
6) Invading Iraq and "liberating iraqi people" of Saddam, who has no proven ties to Osama, unless you can call the hatred of Osama for Sadam and other people Osama sees as "infidels" is a connection between the two..

Doesn't sound all to logical doesn't? There is no liberation needed of the US people, and still there exists terrorist groups inside the US that can achieve massive killings..... then there is a terrorist attack from the "outside", mainly conducted by Saudi Arabia people, and next thing you know Afghanistan is bombed in the hunt for Osama, doesn't work out to good, Osama seems to be forgotten, next thing Iraq and Sadam are invaded......

i don't think it's to difficult to understand what i mean when i say "what about McVeigh" ...

Olaf

mhd

03-26-2003, 09:43 AM

DeesKo

03-26-2003, 09:53 AM

Jurren/O'Love

You're mistaking one thing in your arguement...

That the Bush administration is attempting to use the previous terrorist attacks as the foothold in their attempt to justify their invasion of Iraq.

He's mentioned ties to terrorist groups, he's mentioned Iraq housing terrorist cells, etc etc but his primary justification for this is imminent FUTURE attacks and the fact that Saddam has repeatedly refused to disarm and/or stop his attempts at making weapons of mass destruction.

He's mounting a pre-emptive strike to prevent them from developing weapons of mass destruction (chemical/nuclear weapons) because there is a firm belief that should they HAVE these weapons... the first option of their government would be to sell those weapons to the highest bidder in an attempt to alleviate some of the pressures of 10 years of economic sactions.

Quite frankly, I think N. Korea is a larger threat in this scenario than Iraq but that's a whole other issue.

Lets also not forget or downplay the other motives, such as Saddam making us look like punks, which in the end WOULD without a doubt encourage future terrorist attacks, the notion that some people hold that war helps the economy, and that ultimately, the world won't be a worse place without Saddam.

There are a LOT of other factors involved in this and quite frankly, we probably know about 25% of the real reasons. All we are doing is guessing and hypothesizing and then shooting down our own hypothesies and claiming that we know better than the people who actually know the real deal.

Now, with all that said... I don't want you to think I'm pounding the typical patriotic drum... I do think there are issues with this whole thing and it could have been handled much better.

I don't think war is a good thing.

I do think sometimes it is necessary.

Peace

O'love

03-26-2003, 10:10 AM

fair points Deesko..... it's still strange though that a lot of the chemical and other weapons that Sadam uses come from both the US and Britain....and ofcourse other countries like France and Russia too...... it still doesn't make sense...as you say there are other countries (india, n-korea, pakistan etc.) that are somewhat "instable" and are working hard on creating nucleair and other kind of weapons..

Olaf

DeesKo

03-26-2003, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by O'love:
fair points Deesko..... it's still strange though that a lot of the chemical and other weapons that Sadam uses come from both the US and Britain....1. Do you have any proof of this, that these chemicals and/or weapons were obtained directly from the US or Britian within the past 15 years ?

It wouldn't be surprising if this were true, mind you, because ultimately world politics is mostly a shell game of trying to figure out who to side with or support RIGHT NOW because :

a. 99.9% of the time the options aren't good/bad or right/wrong but rather the lesser of 10 evils.

b. Countries change governments and their stances on things so rapidly that you may be ideological partners one year and on exact opposite ends of the spectrum the next.

2. I completely agree that the overall advancement of chemical and weapons development has been mainly driven by a select few countries who have introduced the technology to the entire world and we're now being forced to bear the brunt of our "great" technology. Trust me, I find the great ultimate irony in the notion that eventually, humans are going to devise a way to manufacture more human beings just so that they can devise other ways to kill off more human beings just because its scientifically possible.

it still doesn't make sense...as you say there are other countries (india, n-korea, pakistan etc.) that are somewhat "instable" and are working hard on creating nucleair and other kind of weapons..

Olaf Well... it does make sense in a way.... if you refer back to section a.

India doesn't publicly have an issue with us and we've been fairly cordial with them for quite a long time.

Pakistan is trying to at least act like they are playing nice and we are attempting to go the "buy them out" route with them because it seems more likely to work for right now and we don't need a more established, more ingrained, fiercer version of Afghanistan WITH nuclear capability on our plate. Pakistan internally is such that at any given time their current government could undergo a coup and any one of a number of radical groups would then have control of the country, including their nice little "launch" button. The current government is cool enough with us, so the best way to prevent that coup from happening isn't to attack them, but to drop money, technology etc etc into their hands so that the current government stays sufficiently strong enough to not succumb to a coup.

Does that amount to the US manipulating foreign governments to suit our will... sure... but it is also ultimately in the best interest of the world, especially for all the anti-war people because ultimately we don't WANT to go to war with them and this is the best option for avoiding war with them for the time being.

N. Korea has been relatively quiet and going along with the treaty for quite a few years now and just recently decided to puff their chests at us because they thought the timing was such that they could force our hand and make us relieve the sactions against them. They figured we would immediately shudder and collapse to their demands because of the pressing issue in Iraq and that we wouldn't be able to fight two wars in two different regions if it came to that.

North Korea also has China and Russia backing them with a little more "oomph" than Iraq which makes the entire situation touchy.

Great convo...

Peace

[ March 26, 2003, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: DeesKo ]

jurren

03-26-2003, 11:31 AM

DeesKo,

i don't think that that's the reason iraq is under attack. yes, iraq does not fully comply with resolution 1441, but that's just a cover up for the real reason to disarm, and get rid of saddam hussein.

take a look at this:

http://newamericancentury.org

iraq is no threat to the usa! and i believe this strongly. the usa has a constant eye out to whatever is happening in iraq. if at one moment saddam chooses to start an attack, the usa will no doubt be able to strike it down, without any damage to it's citizens, or property.

the bush administration wants saddam out. nothing more, and nothing less. resolution 1441 was just a way to get some sort of legal basis to start this war.

saddam's regime and others like him provide a save harbour for terrorists, whether on purpose or unknowingly. by turning the middle east into a democratic society, the usa hopes it will have more control/vision over what terrorists are doing, and where they hide.

so it is about terrorism, not about oil or humanitarian reasons, nor saddam's failure to comply with resolution 1441.

jurren

Martin Red

03-26-2003, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by O'love:
fair points Deesko..... it's still strange though that a lot of the chemical and other weapons that Sadam uses come from both the US and Britain....and ofcourse other countries like France and Russia too...... it still doesn't make sense...as you say there are other countries (india, n-korea, pakistan etc.) that are somewhat "instable" and are working hard on creating nucleair and other kind of weapons..

Olaf It isn't specific to Iraq though, most countries especially the ones mentioned are willing to sell anything to anyone, also bear in mind that the UK have been armour exporters for centuries, there is an area in Birmingham which used to be gun making capital of the UK, even Street names give you an idea of what was produced in certain areas, Artillery Street for instance.

France are anti war now but it wasn't long since they where the unpopular ones doing nuclear tests

[ March 26, 2003, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Martin Red ]

O'love

03-26-2003, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by DeesKo:
Does that amount to the US manipulating foreign governments to suit our will... sure... but it is also ultimately in the best interest of the world, especially for all the anti-war people because ultimately we don't WANT to go to war with them and this is the best option for avoiding war with them for the time being.
i will try to adress your other points and questions asap, but to answer to the above:

when you look at the US foreign policy over the last 50 or 60 years exactly the shortsited manupilation in foreign politics has created lots of trouble for the US.... look at the vietcong.... these were fighters that were trained by the CIA to fight against the Japanese during WW2, very very loyal to the US, Ho Chi Minh was a big fan of the US gouvernment.... but after WW2 was over and the french tried to reclaim their old colonial status, Ho Chi Minh several times tried to contact the US to talk about this issue, but no-one responded anymore..he was so pissed off about it...the following events are clear..the vietnam war...a friend turned into an enemy....

Osama Bin Laden: trained by the CIA to fight the Russians during the cold-war.....

Noriega in Panama: first a friend,put there to keep control over the Panama-canal, turned into an enemy...

Sadam: empowered by the US to fight the fundamentalistic danger coming from Iran....

all these are clear examples of how short-sighted foreign manipulations by the US gouvernment went to blow up in their face some years later....

ok there might be some examples where it turned out ok, but i think the above examples are rather clear that the world and it's dynamics are much more complex and long-term, which make it *very* dangerous for a foreign country to try and simply take over control, either directly, or through a puppet-regime..

Olaf

[ March 26, 2003, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: O'love ]

DeesKo

03-26-2003, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by O'love:

when you look at the US foreign policy over the last 50 or 60 years exactly the shortsited manupilation in foreign politics has created lots of trouble for the US....I completely agree that shortsighted outlooks are dangerous. I do still however feel that in many cases what appears to be shortsighted now, was the best option at the time. Remember, hind sight is 20/20. I am not a history buff, so give me some leeway here, but see my comments below :

look at the vietcong.... these were fighters that were trained by the CIA to fight against the Japanese during WW2, very very loyal to the US, Ho Chi Minh was a big fan of the US gouvernment.... but after WW2 was over and the french tried to reclaim their old colonial status, Ho Chi Minh several times tried to contact the US to talk about this issue, but no-one responded anymore..he was so pissed off about it...the following events are clear..the vietnam war...a friend turned into an enemy.... Ho Chi Minh was an active Socialist Party member pre-1923 who formed the Indochina Communist Party in 1930 and began organizing exiled Vietnamese in China before moving back into Vietnam with a desire to take back control of Vietnam from the French or the Japanese, either way. I haven't found anything related to the US backing him in this bid and on the contrary, at one point he approached Lyndon Johnson and was ignored which made his communist ideals even stronger.

He was known for having no flexibility in his beliefs so it would be hard to convince me he bedded with the "enemy" (remember US/anyone communist were devout global enemies at the time) and even if he had, it would have been simply to exploit the US for its resources, not because he was an ideological peer to our country and the Vietnam War was clearly not a result of us suddenly changing or reversing any of our ideological beliefs.

Osama Bin Laden: trained by the CIA to fight the Russians during the cold-war.....

The US again was clearly anti-communist and did not believe Russia had any business taking over Afghanistan. The best option, short of the US standing in Russia's way itself and setting off a global nuclear war that would have without a doubt ended all of our lives, was to fortify Afghanistans troops and let them do the deed.

Did we fail to assist Afghanistan in recovering after that fiasco? Yes. I'm not really sure why. I wish I knew. I read a very good book on Afghanistan and the Russian attempt at occupation but it didn't really go into much detail on why we dissapeared after the fact.

Did we ignite the fire that's burning our asses now ? Yes. Is it justified ? MMMMMMMMM....

When we go to war with someone, we are also the first ones to front money to recover that country. We're already securing ports and shipping goods into Iraq and we haven't even won a damn thing yet. Using this mentality, Russia should have been held responsible for assisting Afghanistan's recovery, not us but we're the better target. We help you NOT get occuppied and then you hate us because we didn't help you rebuild also... when we originally had nothing to do with the whole damn thing to start with ?

The lesson learned there between this and Iraq/Kuwait is that we should just let people overrun whoever they want, say screw um, and keep to ourselves because in the end, either way, we're the bad guy. That won't work either.

Noriega in Panama: first a friend,put there to keep control over the Panama-canal, turned into an enemy...

I would like to see your proof of our "putting" Noriega into power because from everything I find it goes something like this :

Noriega joined Panamanian Army. In October 1968, he participated in a coup that overthrew the Arias government and ushered in an era of military rule under Omar Torrijos. Noriega loyally supported Torrijos, became his right- hand man, and was promoted to lieutenant colonel.
He established a record of harassing, arresting, imprisoning or exiling critics of the Torrijos regime. By the end of the 1970s, Noriega had earned a reputation as the most feared man in the country.

Torrijos died in a plane crash in 1981, setting off a power struggle between civilian and military leaders that resulted in the emergence of General Dario Paredes as the new leader. Noriega succeeded Paredes as the strongman and promoted Nicolas Barletta as candidate for president.. But once Barletta was elected, Noriega had him removed because of Barletta's advocacy of an investigation into the grisly dismemberment of a Noriega critic, Dr. Hugo Spadafora. The American government protested the removal of Barletta -- the first elected president of Panama since the 1968 coup -- and warned Noriega to stop drug trafficking, but Noriega denounced Washington for meddling in Panamanian affairs.

Noriega acquired a highly unsavory image in the American press, but matters became more complicated with the disclosure that Noriega had been in the pay of the U.S. Army and the CIA for more than 30 years. He had been working as a double agent, collecting money from the United States while at the same time working for Communist governments, turning over highly classified U.S. intelligence materials to Cuba, facilitating the sale of restricted U.S. technology to Soviet bloc countries and selling arms to Cuban-backed guerrillas in Latin America -- all in addition to the millions of dollars he pocketed in drug trafficking.

That doesn't really sound like us turning out backs on anything/anyone as much as it sounds once again like someone taking out aid and knowingly backstabbing us regardless of our providing assistance.

Sadam: empowered by the US to fight the fundamentalistic danger coming from Iran....

Saddam's Baath party took control of Iraq in 1968 with his cousin in the lead role. While he served as vice-chairman, from 1968 to 1979, the party's goals had seemed to be Saddam's own. That was a relatively good period for Iraq, thanks to Saddam's blunt effectiveness as an administrator. He orchestrated a draconian nationwide literacy project. Reading programs were set up in every city and village, and failure to attend was punishable by three years in jail. Men, women, and children attended these compulsory classes, and hundreds of thousands of illiterate Iraqis learned to read. UNESCO gave Saddam an award. There were also ambitious drives to build schools, roads, public housing, and hospitals. Iraq created one of the best public-health systems in the Middle East. There was admiration in the West during those years, for Saddam's accomplishments if not for his methods. After the Islamic fundamentalist revolution in Iran, and the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, Saddam seemed to be the best hope for secular modernization in the region.

In the beginning the Baath Party was made up of the intellectual elite of our generation," says Hamed al-Jubouri, a former Command Council member who now lives in London. "There were many professors, physicians, economists, and historians—really the nation's elite. Saddam was charming and impressive. He appeared to be totally different from what we learned he was afterward. He took all of us in. We supported him because he seemed uniquely capable of controlling a difficult country like Iraq, a difficult people like our people. We wondered about him. How could such a young man, born in the countryside north of Baghdad, become such a capable leader? He seemed both intellectual and practical. But he was hiding his real self. For years he did this, building his power quietly, charming everyone, hiding his true instincts. He has a great ability to hide his intentions; it may be his greatest skill. I remember his son Uday said one time, 'My father's right shirt pocket doesn't know what is in his left shirt pocket.'"

He, once again, clearly appeared to be our best option for the Iran issue, but in the end his path clearly changed even by accounts of those who used to work hand in hand with him.

In hindsight, what appears to have made our decisions look shortsighted is the fact that we had to trust people who turned coat on us as soon as we were no longer assisting them in their own personal goals/desires.

Now... forgive the above clearly biased opinions but I needed to speak that way to prove a point.
The point being that while we have had our fair share of foul calls, and while the US may have partaken of short-sighted policies and plans, that was not always our ultimate goal or desire, and just like the old saying goes... it takes two to tango.

Peace

On a side note, I am always willing to read factual, reality based documents that show our underhanded activities in these above-mentioned incidents because by no means am I trying to say the US is an angel and I'm always down to learn about the ugly reality of world life.

Bold Soul

03-26-2003, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by DeesKo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by O'love:

when you look at the US foreign policy over the last 50 or 60 years exactly the shortsited manupilation in foreign politics has created lots of trouble for the US....I completely agree that shortsighted outlooks are dangerous. I do still however feel that in many cases what appears to be shortsighted now, was the best option at the time. Remember, hind sight is 20/20. I am not a history buff, so give me some leeway here, but see my comments below :

look at the vietcong.... these were fighters that were trained by the CIA to fight against the Japanese during WW2, very very loyal to the US, Ho Chi Minh was a big fan of the US gouvernment.... but after WW2 was over and the french tried to reclaim their old colonial status, Ho Chi Minh several times tried to contact the US to talk about this issue, but no-one responded anymore..he was so pissed off about it...the following events are clear..the vietnam war...a friend turned into an enemy.... Ho Chi Minh was an active Socialist Party member pre-1923 who formed the Indochina Communist Party in 1930 and began organizing exiled Vietnamese in China before moving back into Vietnam with a desire to take back control of Vietnam from the French or the Japanese, either way. I haven't found anything related to the US backing him in this bid and on the contrary, at one point he approached Lyndon Johnson and was ignored which made his communist ideals even stronger.

He was known for having no flexibility in his beliefs so it would be hard to convince me he bedded with the "enemy" (remember US/anyone communist were devout global enemies at the time) and even if he had, it would have been simply to exploit the US for its resources, not because he was an ideological peer to our country and the Vietnam War was clearly not a result of us suddenly changing or reversing any of our ideological beliefs.

Osama Bin Laden: trained by the CIA to fight the Russians during the cold-war.....

The US again was clearly anti-communist and did not believe Russia had any business taking over Afghanistan. The best option, short of the US standing in Russia's way itself and setting off a global nuclear war that would have without a doubt ended all of our lives, was to fortify Afghanistans troops and let them do the deed.

Did we fail to assist Afghanistan in recovering after that fiasco? Yes. I'm not really sure why. I wish I knew. I read a very good book on Afghanistan and the Russian attempt at occupation but it didn't really go into much detail on why we dissapeared after the fact.

Did we ignite the fire that's burning our asses now ? Yes. Is it justified ? MMMMMMMMM....

When we go to war with someone, we are also the first ones to front money to recover that country. We're already securing ports and shipping goods into Iraq and we haven't even won a damn thing yet. Using this mentality, Russia should have been held responsible for assisting Afghanistan's recovery, not us but we're the better target. We help you NOT get occuppied and then you hate us because we didn't help you rebuild also... when we originally had nothing to do with the whole damn thing to start with ?

The lesson learned there between this and Iraq/Kuwait is that we should just let people overrun whoever they want, say screw um, and keep to ourselves because in the end, either way, we're the bad guy. That won't work either.

Noriega in Panama: first a friend,put there to keep control over the Panama-canal, turned into an enemy...

I would like to see your proof of our "putting" Noriega into power because from everything I find it goes something like this :

Noriega joined Panamanian Army. In October 1968, he participated in a coup that overthrew the Arias government and ushered in an era of military rule under Omar Torrijos. Noriega loyally supported Torrijos, became his right- hand man, and was promoted to lieutenant colonel.
He established a record of harassing, arresting, imprisoning or exiling critics of the Torrijos regime. By the end of the 1970s, Noriega had earned a reputation as the most feared man in the country.

Torrijos died in a plane crash in 1981, setting off a power struggle between civilian and military leaders that resulted in the emergence of General Dario Paredes as the new leader. Noriega succeeded Paredes as the strongman and promoted Nicolas Barletta as candidate for president.. But once Barletta was elected, Noriega had him removed because of Barletta's advocacy of an investigation into the grisly dismemberment of a Noriega critic, Dr. Hugo Spadafora. The American government protested the removal of Barletta -- the first elected president of Panama since the 1968 coup -- and warned Noriega to stop drug trafficking, but Noriega denounced Washington for meddling in Panamanian affairs.

Noriega acquired a highly unsavory image in the American press, but matters became more complicated with the disclosure that Noriega had been in the pay of the U.S. Army and the CIA for more than 30 years. He had been working as a double agent, collecting money from the United States while at the same time working for Communist governments, turning over highly classified U.S. intelligence materials to Cuba, facilitating the sale of restricted U.S. technology to Soviet bloc countries and selling arms to Cuban-backed guerrillas in Latin America -- all in addition to the millions of dollars he pocketed in drug trafficking.

That doesn't really sound like us turning out backs on anything/anyone as much as it sounds once again like someone taking out aid and knowingly backstabbing us regardless of our providing assistance.

Sadam: empowered by the US to fight the fundamentalistic danger coming from Iran....

Saddam's Baath party took control of Iraq in 1968 with his cousin in the lead role. While he served as vice-chairman, from 1968 to 1979, the party's goals had seemed to be Saddam's own. That was a relatively good period for Iraq, thanks to Saddam's blunt effectiveness as an administrator. He orchestrated a draconian nationwide literacy project. Reading programs were set up in every city and village, and failure to attend was punishable by three years in jail. Men, women, and children attended these compulsory classes, and hundreds of thousands of illiterate Iraqis learned to read. UNESCO gave Saddam an award. There were also ambitious drives to build schools, roads, public housing, and hospitals. Iraq created one of the best public-health systems in the Middle East. There was admiration in the West during those years, for Saddam's accomplishments if not for his methods. After the Islamic fundamentalist revolution in Iran, and the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, Saddam seemed to be the best hope for secular modernization in the region.

In the beginning the Baath Party was made up of the intellectual elite of our generation," says Hamed al-Jubouri, a former Command Council member who now lives in London. "There were many professors, physicians, economists, and historians—really the nation's elite. Saddam was charming and impressive. He appeared to be totally different from what we learned he was afterward. He took all of us in. We supported him because he seemed uniquely capable of controlling a difficult country like Iraq, a difficult people like our people. We wondered about him. How could such a young man, born in the countryside north of Baghdad, become such a capable leader? He seemed both intellectual and practical. But he was hiding his real self. For years he did this, building his power quietly, charming everyone, hiding his true instincts. He has a great ability to hide his intentions; it may be his greatest skill. I remember his son Uday said one time, 'My father's right shirt pocket doesn't know what is in his left shirt pocket.'"

He, once again, clearly appeared to be our best option for the Iran issue, but in the end his path clearly changed even by accounts of those who used to work hand in hand with him.

In hindsight, what appears to have made our decisions look shortsighted is the fact that we had to trust people who turned coat on us as soon as we were no longer assisting them in their own personal goals/desires.

Now... forgive the above clearly biased opinions but I needed to speak that way to prove a point.
The point being that while we have had our fair share of foul calls, and while the US may have partaken of short-sighted policies and plans, that was not always our ultimate goal or desire, and just like the old saying goes... it takes two to tango.

Peace

On a side note, I am always willing to read factual, reality based documents that show our underhanded activities in these above-mentioned incidents because by no means am I trying to say the US is an angel and I'm always down to learn about the ugly reality of world life. [/QUOTE]graemlins/thumbsup.gif

Now that's devil's advocacy!

djmarbll

03-26-2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by farleyfan:
If some people HATE this country so much, why do they choose to stay here and keep whining and whining instead of going to another country if America's freedom and wealth is just so horrible??? I asked this once before but nobody responded, so I'll try again. Who said they hate America? Don't confuse criticism with hate. Part of what makes America the greatest nation in the world is that we can agree to disagree. "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public" --- Former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt.

f0reverneverm0re

03-26-2003, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by DeesKo:
thanks to Saddam's blunt effectiveness as an administrator. He orchestrated a draconian nationwide literacy project. Reading programs were set up in every city and village, and failure to attend was punishable by three years in jail. Men, women, and children attended these compulsory classes, and hundreds of thousands of illiterate Iraqis learned to read.Reading IS Fundamental

Querck

03-26-2003, 03:53 PM

This thread proves how successful this administration has been in brainwashing people. We got people using cliches and wild arguments, while labeling anyone who dares to speak out against the war as anti-American. RIDICULOUS!

For the record, yes I am willing to give up my car, my stereo, my computer, my trip to the WMC...if there were peace on earth. Got it? Please let me keep my house records though, and my turntables, and my mixer...

djmarbll

03-26-2003, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by DeesKo:

Peace

On a side note, I am always willing to read factual, reality based documents that show our underhanded activities in these above-mentioned incidents because by no means am I trying to say the US is an angel and I'm always down to learn about the ugly reality of world life. [/QB]Great points about Noreiga and Hussein. You should check out Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1997 Council on Foreign Relations study called 'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives'. You can find it in Foreign Affairs magazine from 1997 (I'm not sure which issue). Brzezinski, who was the National Security Advisor to former President Jimmy Carter, gives an outline to why the controlling Middle East is important to controlling the world. It basically boils down to controlling Eurasia (all the territory east of Germany, which includes Russia, the Middle East, China, and parts of India). Brzezinski notes that because the world's energy consumption keeps increasing, whoever controls Caspianoil/gas will control the world economy. "It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single [other] power comes to control the geopolitical space [Eurasia] and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it. 75% of the world's population is Eurasian. Furthermore, Eurasia accounts for 60% of the world's GNP and 3/4 of the world's known energy resources. These are Brzezinski's figures. They may not be exactly right, but these are the numbers the CFR is hearing and they're the most powerful foreign affairs group in the nation. Britain also has a branch of the Council on Foreign Relations called the Royal Institute for International Affairs. Ironically, the CIA's biggest client is the CFR. I'm only scratching the surface on the report, but you should check it out to get a better understanding of U.S. foreign policy

Querck

03-26-2003, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by farleyfan:
If some people HATE this country so much, why do they choose to stay here and keep whining and whining instead of going to another country if America's freedom and wealth is just so horrible??? I asked this once before but nobody responded, so I'll try again. First of all, nobody here said anything about hating this country. Second, this argument is in itself pathetic, and only reflects on your own inability to handle opposing viewpoints. Third, have you ever moved from one appartment to another? Well, guess what, it's a pain in the ass. Moving to another country is that times a million. However, if you hook me up with an appartment, a job, and most importantly "legal resident" status in Holland, Denmark, or Canada, I will take you up on this offer.

Austin/Dallas

03-26-2003, 04:01 PM

http://www.pepto-bismol.com/images/pepto-stomach-animation-sma.gif

Everybody breath::

http://www.pepto-bismol.com/images/HR%20PB%20Lqud-8oz.jpg

Friday

03-26-2003, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Austin/Dallas:
http://www.pepto-bismol.com/images/pepto-stomach-animation-sma.gif

Everybody breath::

http://www.pepto-bismol.com/images/HR%20PB%20Lqud-8oz.jpg hehehehehe graemlins/rofl.gif graemlins/rofl.gif

03-26-2003, 04:08 PM

I respect the troops fighting for US!!! I support our troops in TIME of WAR regardless....

Querck

03-26-2003, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Michael J. Carmona:
I respect the troops fighting for US!!! I support our troops in TIME of WAR regardless.... This statement has been bothering me more than anything since the whole thing started. As if there is somebody who doesn't support the troops?! Why don't you get it, criticism of the administration does not mean wishing harm to our troops, ok? EVERYBODY supports the troops, but many of us do not support war!

DeesKo

03-26-2003, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by djmarbll:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DeesKo:

Peace

On a side note, I am always willing to read factual, reality based documents that show our underhanded activities in these above-mentioned incidents because by no means am I trying to say the US is an angel and I'm always down to learn about the ugly reality of world life. Great points about Noreiga and Hussein. You should check out Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1997 Council on Foreign Relations study called 'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives'. You can find it in Foreign Affairs magazine from 1997 (I'm not sure which issue). Brzezinski, who was the National Security Advisor to former President Jimmy Carter, gives an outline to why the controlling Middle East is important to controlling the world. It basically boils down to controlling Eurasia (all the territory east of Germany, which includes Russia, the Middle East, China, and parts of India). Brzezinski notes that because the world's energy consumption keeps increasing, whoever controls Caspianoil/gas will control the world economy. "It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single [other] power comes to control the geopolitical space [Eurasia] and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it. 75% of the world's population is Eurasian. Furthermore, Eurasia accounts for 60% of the world's GNP and 3/4 of the world's known energy resources. These are Brzezinski's figures. They may not be exactly right, but these are the numbers the CFR is hearing and they're the most powerful foreign affairs group in the nation. Britain also has a branch of the Council on Foreign Relations called the Royal Institute for International Affairs. Ironically, the CIA's biggest client is the CFR. I'm only scratching the surface on the report, but you should check it out to get a better understanding of U.S. foreign policy [/QB][/QUOTE]Thanks man... GREAT information provided in the above quote. You're definitely on point with your research and fact finding.

The search for the real truth doesn't like on the far left or the far right. It's somewhere in the middle.

Peace

O'love

03-27-2003, 03:49 AM

Deesko (and others) thanks for the all the hardcore info..... really love this communication... a few days ago i got really sad when i was talking to a person from the US and she had a university degree and all that, but she was only repeating propaganda BS like: "if you ain't with us, you're against us" and after she noticed i wasn't a war supporter she just cut off all communication....

that's what i love about this forum, people are still communicating!

Olaf

DeesKo

03-27-2003, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by O'love:
Deesko (and others) thanks for the all the hardcore info..... really love this communication... a few days ago i got really sad when i was talking to a person from the US and she had a university degree and all that, but she was only repeating propaganda BS like: "if you ain't with us, you're against us" and after she noticed i wasn't a war supporter she just cut off all communication....

that's what i love about this forum, people are still communicating!

Olaf EXACTLY....

Peace

ramar

03-27-2003, 09:30 AM

Rom there is a glaring mistake in your post which started this thread.

your US forces (& our UK forces) - the so-called 'Coalition' forces (a central myth in the info-war) - are NOT fighting to 'Save our asses' or preserve our way of life.

they are fighting for politicians and profiteers at the top level of American establishment who have deemed change on the Mid-East for their own ends.

get it!

RMR

03-27-2003, 01:09 PM

the powers that be never asked whether i wanted them to fight "for me" or not so i have no opinion on the subject at all...if i get bombed, i wouldn't know why - i'm not personally involved and had no say so on the matter...

Rom

03-28-2003, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by ramar:
Rom there is a glaring mistake in your post which started this thread.

your US forces (& our UK forces) - the so-called 'Coalition' forces (a central myth in the info-war) - are NOT fighting to 'Save our asses' or preserve our way of life.

they are fighting for politicians and profiteers at the top level of American establishment who have deemed change on the Mid-East for their own ends.

get it!

RMR Wake up dude. Do yo have a job? The 'system' is why you have a job if you do. Do you pay taxes? Well you're supporting the system and benefiting from it by working, paying your taxes, buying gas and collecting your paycheck, among countless other things. This war and everything else 'the man' does helps keep your ass employed and fat. Your a 'home' whatever just like everybody else, crying 'injustice' while you fatten your face on the spoils of war. You're supporting and benefiting whether you like it or belive it or not. You dont like it? Quit your job, stop driving, stop paying taxes, sell all your nice shit and move to Cuba. Wake up and spare me your hypocracy.

Monny JcIntosh

03-28-2003, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by farleyfan:
If some people HATE this country so much, why do they choose to stay here and keep whining and whining instead of going to another country if America's freedom and wealth is just so horrible??? I asked this once before but nobody responded, so I'll try again. nobody responed because its an irrelevant question, america's strength is in its inherent tolerance for debate and dissent. had to edit my own comment [/QUOTE]Not so irrelevant that the same question under a different guise doesn't generate five pages of discussion.

Rom, to criticize is not hypocrisy. We benefit from all kinds of decisions we disagree with in all kinds of ways - a complicit silence would be the hypocritical stance, it seems to me. Also, I wouldn't presume to judge the motivation of anyone's criticism - European opposition to this war could be as much a fear bred of the last century of politics ruled by might is right as it is any vague anti Americanism. Pop psychological readings of another often reveals more about the judge than the judged. What we can, of course, judge is the substance of a criticism. I totally agree it's important to understand how much we are complicit in what is happening and take the appropriate reaction, whatever form that takes. For that we need the discussion, don't you think?

Jolyon

03-28-2003, 05:27 AM

This war is a disgusting capitalist sham.

If you want to fight terrorism you'd better start bombing Saudi Arabia, because that's the country that funds al-Qaeda etc.

Re: 9/11. America is still hiding its head in the sand about the reasons for this tragedy. Until it addresses the real reasons why 9/11 happened then you'll carry on bombing poor countries with no real threat to the US. America has to take some responsibility for cultivating terrorism by its own shameful foreign policy over many years.

By the way, we in England suffered 25 years of IRA bombing (Hmm, now which country's Irish ex-pat community were the biggest fundraisers for the IRA).

ramar

03-28-2003, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by Jonny McIntosh:
Rom, to criticize is not hypocrisy. We benefit from all kinds of decisions we disagree with in all kinds of ways - a complicit silence would be the hypocritical stance, it seems to me. Also, I wouldn't presume to judge the motivation of anyone's criticism - European opposition to this war could be as much a fear bred of the last century of politics ruled by might is right as it is any vague anti Americanism. Pop psychological readings of another often reveals more about the judge than the judged. What we can, of course, judge is the substance of a criticism. I totally agree it's important to understand how much we are complicit in what is happening and take the appropriate reaction, whatever form that takes. For that we need the discussion, don't you think? on point Jonny graemlins/cool_shades.gif

Martin Red

03-28-2003, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by Jolyon:

By the way, we in England suffered 25 years of IRA bombing (Hmm, now which country's Irish ex-pat community were the biggest fundraisers for the IRA). That would be the same country that they fled too (if survived the trip), they made a home away from the tyranny of the English and the genoside that was caused in their own land. So - They fled to the U.S.A. Isn't it a bitch, this proves foreign policy has a effect for many many years after, yes indeed.

[ March 28, 2003, 06:51 AM: Message edited by: Martin Red ]

Byron Long

03-28-2003, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by Rom:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ramar:
Rom there is a glaring mistake in your post which started this thread.

your US forces (& our UK forces) - the so-called 'Coalition' forces (a central myth in the info-war) - are NOT fighting to 'Save our asses' or preserve our way of life.

they are fighting for politicians and profiteers at the top level of American establishment who have deemed change on the Mid-East for their own ends.

get it!

RMR Wake up dude. Do yo have a job? The 'system' is why you have a job if you do. Do you pay taxes? Well you're supporting the system and benefiting from it by working, paying your taxes, buying gas and collecting your paycheck, among countless other things. This war and everything else 'the man' does helps keep your ass employed and fat. Your a 'home' whatever just like everybody else, crying 'injustice' while you fatten your face on the spoils of war. You're supporting and benefiting whether you like it or belive it or not. You dont like it? Quit your job, stop driving, stop paying taxes, sell all your nice shit and move to Cuba. Wake up and spare me your hypocracy. [/QUOTE]........ dream on Rom. this bar stool socialism philosophy you use is really transperant. you present a gung ho, arse-kickin, Rambo, John Matrix war lovin' attitude and you LOVE IT.

Wild i

03-28-2003, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by ramar:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jonny McIntosh:
Rom, to criticize is not hypocrisy. We benefit from all kinds of decisions we disagree with in all kinds of ways - a complicit silence would be the hypocritical stance, it seems to me. Also, I wouldn't presume to judge the motivation of anyone's criticism - European opposition to this war could be as much a fear bred of the last century of politics ruled by might is right as it is any vague anti Americanism. Pop psychological readings of another often reveals more about the judge than the judged. What we can, of course, judge is the substance of a criticism. I totally agree it's important to understand how much we are complicit in what is happening and take the appropriate reaction, whatever form that takes. For that we need the discussion, don't you think? on point Jonny graemlins/cool_shades.gif [/QUOTE]Agreed. To paraphrase Abby Hoffman, noted anarchist/radical: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

My country, right or wrong only leads to states like Naziism, Stalinism, Aminism, etc. Just because one endeavors to correct the wrongs in one's own system of government does not mean one wished to tear down the entire system a la "throwing out the baby with the bath water (an expression that has very interesting origins... but that's for another thread).

Of course we benefit from the system. That's why we wish to preserve it by not allowing any one faction get too out of control. It's all about balance.

Rom

03-28-2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Wild i:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ramar:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jonny McIntosh:
Rom, to criticize is not hypocrisy. We benefit from all kinds of decisions we disagree with in all kinds of ways - a complicit silence would be the hypocritical stance, it seems to me. Also, I wouldn't presume to judge the motivation of anyone's criticism - European opposition to this war could be as much a fear bred of the last century of politics ruled by might is right as it is any vague anti Americanism. Pop psychological readings of another often reveals more about the judge than the judged. What we can, of course, judge is the substance of a criticism. I totally agree it's important to understand how much we are complicit in what is happening and take the appropriate reaction, whatever form that takes. For that we need the discussion, don't you think? on point Jonny graemlins/cool_shades.gif [/QUOTE]Agreed. To paraphrase Abby Hoffman, noted anarchist/radical: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

My country, right or wrong only leads to states like Naziism, Stalinism, Aminism, etc. Just because one endeavors to correct the wrongs in one's own system of government does not mean one wished to tear down the entire system a la "throwing out the baby with the bath water (an expression that has very interesting origins... but that's for another thread).

Of course we benefit from the system. That's why we wish to preserve it by not allowing any one faction get too out of control. It's all about balance. [/QUOTE]I see little 'endeavor' here? I hear a lot of blatherly self righteous speaches backed up by absolotuely no discussion on what yall are actually gonna 'do' to effect some kind of change in either this system or your collusion. We all like to sit at home in our nice cozy arm chairs and 'rage against the machines' while most of us...dont even vote! Im sorry, this ongoing debate is impotent and hypocritical.

Where's the global outrage at the plight of Palistine? The conquest of Israel was just as much of an 'invasion' as this war we now fight. The UN and America promised the Palistinians they'd have a state...over 50 years ago, then renigged. 50 years of 'diplomacy' has done nothing to 'liberate' these people. How is that? 50 years what have yall done to affect American and global opinion of the Palistinian issue? Yall have sat back and let our government flat out lie to a whole nation and continue to support that lie with a pro-Isreali policy for years. Yall sat back and watched as the Arab peoples were vilified for all these years by the 'western' nations while the pro-Isreali regime continued to oppress these people. Now you wonder why the entrie Arab world, including our supposed Arab allies, hate our guts? So much so that they hijack our planes and crash them into our cities. Now we got no choice but to kill them becuase its kill or be killed. Dont be a fool in thinking they dont want to kill us.

How, after all this time, have we not 'corrected' the subterfuge of administration after administration after administation? How has the anti-palistinian state policy remained in effect all this time? I ask again, do you vote? Who have you been putting in office all this time? How does 'any' of our administrations since the Israeli occupation justify our documented backpeddling on our original promise to the Palistinian peoples after WWII...that they'd be recognized as state? Yall want to 'endeavor' to do something, go straight to the 'real' problem. Vote out of office all anti-palistinian politicians. Vote down all future financial support to Israel since this is just going directly to the continued oppression of these people. Go march in the streets and let the world know about the promise that we and all the nations of the 'UN' have failed to honor til this day. Set the damn Palistinians free and maybe the entire arab world wouldn't hate our guts so much.

But you know, yall aint gonna go do that. Yall haven't done that in 50 years. All a politician has to do is talk about things that concern 'your' immediate well being like 'lower taxes' and you're gonna vote them into office, I doubt you even ask what their stance on Palistine is, if you even vote at all.

This is the nature of our hypocracy. We have done 'nothing' to change anything here in America but service our 'dissent' with impotent words while we buy new cars. We find all kinds of ways of justifying our collusion and we dont want to admit our complicity. Yall can try and intellectualize your guilt away, but thats all your doing, its just lip service.

And this is what angers me, we want to complain about everything but 'fight' for nothing. Yall even intellectualize your 'non-violent' stance, but this just stikes me as another excuse for you to just continue doing what you've been doing all along...absolutely nothing...but succle.

martino

03-28-2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by DeesKo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by O'love:

when you look at the US foreign policy over the last 50 or 60 years exactly the shortsited manupilation in foreign politics has created lots of trouble for the US....I completely agree that shortsighted outlooks are dangerous. I do still however feel that in many cases what appears to be shortsighted now, was the best option at the time. Remember, hind sight is 20/20. I am not a history buff, so give me some leeway here, but see my comments below :

look at the vietcong.... these were fighters that were trained by the CIA to fight against the Japanese during WW2, very very loyal to the US, Ho Chi Minh was a big fan of the US gouvernment.... but after WW2 was over and the french tried to reclaim their old colonial status, Ho Chi Minh several times tried to contact the US to talk about this issue, but no-one responded anymore..he was so pissed off about it...the following events are clear..the vietnam war...a friend turned into an enemy.... Ho Chi Minh was an active Socialist Party member pre-1923 who formed the Indochina Communist Party in 1930 and began organizing exiled Vietnamese in China before moving back into Vietnam with a desire to take back control of Vietnam from the French or the Japanese, either way. I haven't found anything related to the US backing him in this bid and on the contrary, at one point he approached Lyndon Johnson and was ignored which made his communist ideals even stronger.

He was known for having no flexibility in his beliefs so it would be hard to convince me he bedded with the "enemy" (remember US/anyone communist were devout global enemies at the time) and even if he had, it would have been simply to exploit the US for its resources, not because he was an ideological peer to our country and the Vietnam War was clearly not a result of us suddenly changing or reversing any of our ideological beliefs.

Osama Bin Laden: trained by the CIA to fight the Russians during the cold-war.....

The US again was clearly anti-communist and did not believe Russia had any business taking over Afghanistan. The best option, short of the US standing in Russia's way itself and setting off a global nuclear war that would have without a doubt ended all of our lives, was to fortify Afghanistans troops and let them do the deed.

Did we fail to assist Afghanistan in recovering after that fiasco? Yes. I'm not really sure why. I wish I knew. I read a very good book on Afghanistan and the Russian attempt at occupation but it didn't really go into much detail on why we dissapeared after the fact.

Did we ignite the fire that's burning our asses now ? Yes. Is it justified ? MMMMMMMMM....

When we go to war with someone, we are also the first ones to front money to recover that country. We're already securing ports and shipping goods into Iraq and we haven't even won a damn thing yet. Using this mentality, Russia should have been held responsible for assisting Afghanistan's recovery, not us but we're the better target. We help you NOT get occuppied and then you hate us because we didn't help you rebuild also... when we originally had nothing to do with the whole damn thing to start with ?

The lesson learned there between this and Iraq/Kuwait is that we should just let people overrun whoever they want, say screw um, and keep to ourselves because in the end, either way, we're the bad guy. That won't work either.

Noriega in Panama: first a friend,put there to keep control over the Panama-canal, turned into an enemy...

I would like to see your proof of our "putting" Noriega into power because from everything I find it goes something like this :

Noriega joined Panamanian Army. In October 1968, he participated in a coup that overthrew the Arias government and ushered in an era of military rule under Omar Torrijos. Noriega loyally supported Torrijos, became his right- hand man, and was promoted to lieutenant colonel.
He established a record of harassing, arresting, imprisoning or exiling critics of the Torrijos regime. By the end of the 1970s, Noriega had earned a reputation as the most feared man in the country.

Torrijos died in a plane crash in 1981, setting off a power struggle between civilian and military leaders that resulted in the emergence of General Dario Paredes as the new leader. Noriega succeeded Paredes as the strongman and promoted Nicolas Barletta as candidate for president.. But once Barletta was elected, Noriega had him removed because of Barletta's advocacy of an investigation into the grisly dismemberment of a Noriega critic, Dr. Hugo Spadafora. The American government protested the removal of Barletta -- the first elected president of Panama since the 1968 coup -- and warned Noriega to stop drug trafficking, but Noriega denounced Washington for meddling in Panamanian affairs.

Noriega acquired a highly unsavory image in the American press, but matters became more complicated with the disclosure that Noriega had been in the pay of the U.S. Army and the CIA for more than 30 years. He had been working as a double agent, collecting money from the United States while at the same time working for Communist governments, turning over highly classified U.S. intelligence materials to Cuba, facilitating the sale of restricted U.S. technology to Soviet bloc countries and selling arms to Cuban-backed guerrillas in Latin America -- all in addition to the millions of dollars he pocketed in drug trafficking.

That doesn't really sound like us turning out backs on anything/anyone as much as it sounds once again like someone taking out aid and knowingly backstabbing us regardless of our providing assistance.

Sadam: empowered by the US to fight the fundamentalistic danger coming from Iran....

Saddam's Baath party took control of Iraq in 1968 with his cousin in the lead role. While he served as vice-chairman, from 1968 to 1979, the party's goals had seemed to be Saddam's own. That was a relatively good period for Iraq, thanks to Saddam's blunt effectiveness as an administrator. He orchestrated a draconian nationwide literacy project. Reading programs were set up in every city and village, and failure to attend was punishable by three years in jail. Men, women, and children attended these compulsory classes, and hundreds of thousands of illiterate Iraqis learned to read. UNESCO gave Saddam an award. There were also ambitious drives to build schools, roads, public housing, and hospitals. Iraq created one of the best public-health systems in the Middle East. There was admiration in the West during those years, for Saddam's accomplishments if not for his methods. After the Islamic fundamentalist revolution in Iran, and the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, Saddam seemed to be the best hope for secular modernization in the region.

In the beginning the Baath Party was made up of the intellectual elite of our generation," says Hamed al-Jubouri, a former Command Council member who now lives in London. "There were many professors, physicians, economists, and historians—really the nation's elite. Saddam was charming and impressive. He appeared to be totally different from what we learned he was afterward. He took all of us in. We supported him because he seemed uniquely capable of controlling a difficult country like Iraq, a difficult people like our people. We wondered about him. How could such a young man, born in the countryside north of Baghdad, become such a capable leader? He seemed both intellectual and practical. But he was hiding his real self. For years he did this, building his power quietly, charming everyone, hiding his true instincts. He has a great ability to hide his intentions; it may be his greatest skill. I remember his son Uday said one time, 'My father's right shirt pocket doesn't know what is in his left shirt pocket.'"

He, once again, clearly appeared to be our best option for the Iran issue, but in the end his path clearly changed even by accounts of those who used to work hand in hand with him.

In hindsight, what appears to have made our decisions look shortsighted is the fact that we had to trust people who turned coat on us as soon as we were no longer assisting them in their own personal goals/desires.

Now... forgive the above clearly biased opinions but I needed to speak that way to prove a point.
The point being that while we have had our fair share of foul calls, and while the US may have partaken of short-sighted policies and plans, that was not always our ultimate goal or desire, and just like the old saying goes... it takes two to tango.

Peace

On a side note, I am always willing to read factual, reality based documents that show our underhanded activities in these above-mentioned incidents because by no means am I trying to say the US is an angel and I'm always down to learn about the ugly reality of world life. [/QUOTE]deesko. i appreciate you admit to being biased with your retort. but it's more than short-sightness on the CIA et al involved. The CIA seeked and supported the most brutal thugs for a reason. they fought ruthlessley. you dont need 20/20 hindsight to figure that they would rule ruthlessley. We're talking about elite intelligence here. The truth is the CIA didnt care about that as long as their national interests were being served. (but at what cost should be the question). Your article of aiding a secular iraq offsets the american support for islamic fundamentalists in afghanistan. Which to me again means, they dont care who they support. As long as they fight ruthlessley and impose a situation that favours national interests. Which to me is irresponsible to say the very least.

some really quick reads:

Saddam/Iraq Here: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2002/0802blood.htm

Noriega: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Panama_CIAHits.html

Chile: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm

Nicaragua:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Nicaragua_CIAHits.html

El Salvador: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/ElSalvador_CIAHits.html

Indonisia: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/McGehee_CIA_Indo.html

afghanistan: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

This can go on for days. None of this is a coincidence. It's either gross incompetance or moral negligence.
Looking into the CIA is a hobby of mine so you'll excuse me i hope :eek:

this quote somes it up for me:
"But what counter-insurgency really comes down to is the protection of the capitalists back in America, their property and their privileges. US national security, as preached by US leaders, is the security of the capitalist class in the US, not the security of the rest of the people."
Philip Agee, CIA Diary

[ March 28, 2003, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: martino ]

martino

03-28-2003, 02:29 PM

double post

[ March 28, 2003, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: martino ]

Austin/Dallas

03-28-2003, 02:31 PM

I'll be damnnn... Iain't bout to read all this shit....Good or bad... graemlins/rofl.gif graemlins/rofl.gif graemlins/rofl.gif graemlins/rofl.gif :eek:

f0reverneverm0re

03-28-2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Rom:
We all like to sit at home in our nice cozy arm chairs and 'rage against the machines' while most of us...dont even vote! Im sorry, this ongoing debate is impotent and hypocritical.you know you like Elton John's music

mhd

03-28-2003, 03:11 PM

martino, excellent post, it really is that simple. i got a chance to meet agee several years ago, that guy has major stones

TAD

03-28-2003, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by mhd:
....that guy has major stones http://www.fuzzyco.com/bare/nyif/Images/big/balls.jpg

Kemi J

03-29-2003, 05:16 AM

Oil is of secondary importance. The real reason for the war is the search for a symbol as potent as the collapsing twin towers. Justice? Next to the images of September 11th, what good is justice if the only pictures you get from it are of the members of a terrorist cell being tossed into a van.
Bush knows it. Its no secret. Like the french UN rep said "I know Ameicans feel vulnerable after September 11th, but this is not the way".
Justice, most Americans feel, will have been achieved when America gets itself an image of the strength of America that can toe the line with the images of September 11th.

Therein lies the reality.

Others should suffer so we can feel good about ourselves. Knowing how little most americans know about the "others", I can see why this idea doesn't sound all too repulsive to them.

that is my 2 cents.

Kemi graemlins/nono.gif

Bold Soul

03-29-2003, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Kemi J:
Oil is of secondary importance. The real reason for the war is the search for a symbol as potent as the collapsing twin towers. Justice? Next to the images of September 11th, what good is justice if the only pictures you get from it are of the members of a terrorist cell being tossed into a van.
Bush knows it. Its no secret. Like the french UN rep said "I know Ameicans feel vulnerable after September 11th, but this is not the way".
Justice, most Americans feel, will have been achieved when America gets itself an image of the strength of America that can toe the line with the images of September 11th.

Therein lies the reality.

Others should suffer so we can feel good about ourselves. Knowing how little most americans know about the "others", I can see why this idea doesn't sound all too repulsive to them.

that is my 2 cents.

Kemi graemlins/nono.gif That's a rather broad stroke, Kemi.

lyot

03-29-2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Rom:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Wild i:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ramar:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jonny McIntosh:
Rom, to criticize is not hypocrisy. We benefit from all kinds of decisions we disagree with in all kinds of ways - a complicit silence would be the hypocritical stance, it seems to me. Also, I wouldn't presume to judge the motivation of anyone's criticism - European opposition to this war could be as much a fear bred of the last century of politics ruled by might is right as it is any vague anti Americanism. Pop psychological readings of another often reveals more about the judge than the judged. What we can, of course, judge is the substance of a criticism. I totally agree it's important to understand how much we are complicit in what is happening and take the appropriate reaction, whatever form that takes. For that we need the discussion, don't you think? on point Jonny graemlins/cool_shades.gif [/QUOTE]Agreed. To paraphrase Abby Hoffman, noted anarchist/radical: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

My country, right or wrong only leads to states like Naziism, Stalinism, Aminism, etc. Just because one endeavors to correct the wrongs in one's own system of government does not mean one wished to tear down the entire system a la "throwing out the baby with the bath water (an expression that has very interesting origins... but that's for another thread).

Of course we benefit from the system. That's why we wish to preserve it by not allowing any one faction get too out of control. It's all about balance. [/QUOTE]I see little 'endeavor' here? I hear a lot of blatherly self righteous speaches backed up by absolotuely no discussion on what yall are actually gonna 'do' to effect some kind of change in either this system or your collusion. We all like to sit at home in our nice cozy arm chairs and 'rage against the machines' while most of us...dont even vote! Im sorry, this ongoing debate is impotent and hypocritical.

Where's the global outrage at the plight of Palistine? The conquest of Israel was just as much of an 'invasion' as this war we now fight. The UN and America promised the Palistinians they'd have a state...over 50 years ago, then renigged. 50 years of 'diplomacy' has done nothing to 'liberate' these people. How is that? 50 years what have yall done to affect American and global opinion of the Palistinian issue? Yall have sat back and let our government flat out lie to a whole nation and continue to support that lie with a pro-Isreali policy for years. Yall sat back and watched as the Arab peoples were vilified for all these years by the 'western' nations while the pro-Isreali regime continued to oppress these people. Now you wonder why the entrie Arab world, including our supposed Arab allies, hate our guts? So much so that they hijack our planes and crash them into our cities. Now we got no choice but to kill them becuase its kill or be killed. Dont be a fool in thinking they dont want to kill us.

How, after all this time, have we not 'corrected' the subterfuge of administration after administration after administation? How has the anti-palistinian state policy remained in effect all this time? I ask again, do you vote? Who have you been putting in office all this time? How does 'any' of our administrations since the Israeli occupation justify our documented backpeddling on our original promise to the Palistinian peoples after WWII...that they'd be recognized as state? Yall want to 'endeavor' to do something, go straight to the 'real' problem. Vote out of office all anti-palistinian politicians. Vote down all future financial support to Israel since this is just going directly to the continued oppression of these people. Go march in the streets and let the world know about the promise that we and all the nations of the 'UN' have failed to honor til this day. Set the damn Palistinians free and maybe the entire arab world wouldn't hate our guts so much.

But you know, yall aint gonna go do that. Yall haven't done that in 50 years. All a politician has to do is talk about things that concern 'your' immediate well being like 'lower taxes' and you're gonna vote them into office, I doubt you even ask what their stance on Palistine is, if you even vote at all.

This is the nature of our hypocracy. We have done 'nothing' to change anything here in America but service our 'dissent' with impotent words while we buy new cars. We find all kinds of ways of justifying our collusion and we dont want to admit our complicity. Yall can try and intellectualize your guilt away, but thats all your doing, its just lip service.

And this is what angers me, we want to complain about everything but 'fight' for nothing. Yall even intellectualize your 'non-violent' stance, but this just stikes me as another excuse for you to just continue doing what you've been doing all along...absolutely nothing...but succle. [/QUOTE]Rom, I feel you on Palestine...This is the core issue, and I think the US citizens should urge their governement to solve this problem in a way that is satisfactory for the Palestinians..That will deal more effectively with the hate in the Middle East.

djmarbll

03-29-2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by DeesKo:
The search for the real truth doesn't like on the far left or the far right. It's somewhere in the middle.

Peace [/QB]You're exactly right. The truth doesn't need the left or right wing to verify it. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or Ralph Nader would all agree that 2+2=4. ;)

f0reverneverm0re

03-30-2003, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Kemi J:
Therein lies the reality.

Others should suffer so we can feel good about ourselves.and what's so wrong about feeling good about myself? IYO, shouldn't people be allowed to feel "good"? if killing people ('innocent' or whatever) makes me feel good, what's so bad about that?

the only thing is, are the others really "suffering"? bombing a nation and it's people back to an age before the metallurgical age isn't causing suffering--it's causing freedom! some amerikkkans (have 'been made to') feel the US needs to "free" France...

sufferers are martyrs and the trick seems to be to not make martyrs--this is a hard one considering that a holy war is ramping up.

colateral damage isn't suffering, in fact, what colateral damage?

mblack

03-30-2003, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Jolyon:
This war is a disgusting capitalist sham.

If you want to fight terrorism you'd better start bombing Saudi Arabia, because that's the country that funds al-Qaeda etc.

Re: 9/11. America is still hiding its head in the sand about the reasons for this tragedy. Until it addresses the real reasons why 9/11 happened then you'll carry on bombing poor countries with no real threat to the US. America has to take some responsibility for cultivating terrorism by its own shameful foreign policy over many years.

By the way, we in England suffered 25 years of IRA bombing (Hmm, now which country's Irish ex-pat community were the biggest fundraisers for the IRA). How can you even begin to compare the sick terrorism of Muslim extremists to the IRA?
Im talking numbers, darling.

This was a typical way of thinking here in the UK, but lets not fool ourselves, no IRA member was willing to kill himself as well as civilians and the biggest terrorist act in which 29 people died (was it 5years ago?) was because the police got the wrong side of the road after a phone call warning (how polite, I wish that Muslim extremist would show the same courtesy to Israeli civilians).

DeesKo

03-30-2003, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by martino:
deesko. i appreciate you admit to being biased with your retort. but it's more than short-sightness on the CIA et al involved. The CIA seeked and supported the most brutal thugs for a reason. they fought ruthlessley. you dont need 20/20 hindsight to figure that they would rule ruthlessley. We're talking about elite intelligence here. The truth is the CIA didnt care about that as long as their national interests were being served. (but at what cost should be the question). Your article of aiding a secular iraq offsets the american support for islamic fundamentalists in afghanistan. Which to me again means, they dont care who they support. As long as they fight ruthlessley and impose a situation that favours national interests. Which to me is irresponsible to say the very least.

some really quick reads:

Saddam/Iraq Here: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2002/0802blood.htm

Noriega: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Panama_CIAHits.html

Chile: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm

Nicaragua:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Nicaragua_CIAHits.html

El Salvador: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/ElSalvador_CIAHits.html

Indonisia: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/McGehee_CIA_Indo.html

afghanistan: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

This can go on for days. None of this is a coincidence. It's either gross incompetance or moral negligence.
Looking into the CIA is a hobby of mine so you'll excuse me i hope :eek:

this quote somes it up for me:
"But what counter-insurgency really comes down to is the protection of the capitalists back in America, their property and their privileges. US national security, as preached by US leaders, is the security of the capitalist class in the US, not the security of the rest of the people."
Philip Agee, CIA Diary Thanks for the links. I am out of town right now but as soon as I get back home and on my lovely high speed connection, I'll check them.

I read the first link and while I didn't know the British aspect of the history of Iraq, I do not hold that article in very high regard as a factual peice of literary work simply because his assertations of CIA connections to Saddam are nothing more than comments with no facts, no details, no backing evidence, nothing.

I will read through the others as I have time and comment on them and I'm expecting the rest of them to be much more interesting.

In the meantime, for fear of furthering everyone's hatred for our big bullies...
try to check out a book called "Book of Secrets" about the NSA. The author does a very good job of describing things about the NSA, discussing past events, even discussing how the NSA created the environment which eventually led to all of us being hooked on the new G4/Pentium 4 PC's and being addicted to going faster and faster around the world wide net.

The thing is, he doesn't make judgements, he doesn't side with either way, he simply reports things and attempts to temper his disdain for some things with glowing reviews of others and in the end its a very good book....

... and its CHOCK full of nasty tidbits for all the "haters".. smile.gif

Peace

Rob

martino

03-31-2003, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by DeesKo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by martino:
deesko. i appreciate you admit to being biased with your retort. but it's more than short-sightness on the CIA et al involved. The CIA seeked and supported the most brutal thugs for a reason. they fought ruthlessley. you dont need 20/20 hindsight to figure that they would rule ruthlessley. We're talking about elite intelligence here. The truth is the CIA didnt care about that as long as their national interests were being served. (but at what cost should be the question). Your article of aiding a secular iraq offsets the american support for islamic fundamentalists in afghanistan. Which to me again means, they dont care who they support. As long as they fight ruthlessley and impose a situation that favours national interests. Which to me is irresponsible to say the very least.

some really quick reads:

Saddam/Iraq Here: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2002/0802blood.htm

Noriega: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Panama_CIAHits.html

Chile: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm

Nicaragua:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Nicaragua_CIAHits.html

El Salvador: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/ElSalvador_CIAHits.html

Indonisia: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/McGehee_CIA_Indo.html

afghanistan: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

This can go on for days. None of this is a coincidence. It's either gross incompetance or moral negligence.
Looking into the CIA is a hobby of mine so you'll excuse me i hope :eek:

this quote somes it up for me:
"But what counter-insurgency really comes down to is the protection of the capitalists back in America, their property and their privileges. US national security, as preached by US leaders, is the security of the capitalist class in the US, not the security of the rest of the people."
Philip Agee, CIA Diary Thanks for the links. I am out of town right now but as soon as I get back home and on my lovely high speed connection, I'll check them.

I read the first link and while I didn't know the British aspect of the history of Iraq, I do not hold that article in very high regard as a factual peice of literary work simply because his assertations of CIA connections to Saddam are nothing more than comments with no facts, no details, no backing evidence, nothing.

I will read through the others as I have time and comment on them and I'm expecting the rest of them to be much more interesting.

In the meantime, for fear of furthering everyone's hatred for our big bullies...
try to check out a book called "Book of Secrets" about the NSA. The author does a very good job of describing things about the NSA, discussing past events, even discussing how the NSA created the environment which eventually led to all of us being hooked on the new G4/Pentium 4 PC's and being addicted to going faster and faster around the world wide net.

The thing is, he doesn't make judgements, he doesn't side with either way, he simply reports things and attempts to temper his disdain for some things with glowing reviews of others and in the end its a very good book....

... and its CHOCK full of nasty tidbits for all the "haters".. smile.gif

Peace

Rob [/QUOTE]howdy deesko. actually all the reads i listed are very brief. I listed them as "online" kind of reads. but for something more detailed you might want to check something with sources listed like here: http://www.ddh.nl/pipermail/wereldcrisis/2002-October/003148.html

more recent history re: reagan, rumsfeld and saddam:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html

smokin.gif