Print Page - A Controversial Subject......

Ok, I know that this post will probably generate a lot of controversy and even though it has nothing to do with bad movies I still feel the need to post it here because out of all the forums I post to, this one is the best and I know that I'll get honest, and probably a lot of forthright response from all of you. Most of my rare posts usually do. Since this is September 11th and me being a conservative republican, I fell that I have to get this off of my chest.
I truly believe that the attack last year was only
the beginning. I forsee even worse attacks coming. I'm not trying to be pessimistic, I'm only telling what I think will actually happen.
It's a strange thing to have those thoughts. Most of
the time I don't think about it because something
inside me says to have no fear. When they do come,
they are intense and frightening. Especially when the thought of nuclear weapons comes to mind. Not only do I see
America suffering further attacks but I see England
being hit as well. Since Tony Blair is one of
President Bush's strongest supporters I forsee England
being a prime target. If England is hit, (which I
think they will be eventually) they'll be hit hard. I
honestly don't know.
Now do you see why it is imperative that we attack
Iraq? I remember what the President said right after
the attacks last year. He said, "either you're with us, or
you're with the terrorists." It p**ses me off to no
end when I hear all of this bulls**t about all of the
other countries condemning a possible attack. They're
nothing but a bunch of cowards! Try to look at it
another way. Think of the police. When they suspect
a person of having a gun who will hurt others, what do
they do? They take his ass down and either kill him
or throw him in jail. Imagine your fellow police
officers (America's allies) in the background saying,
"oh I don't know, maybe we should just leave him
alone." That simply isn't acceptable. Eventually
he'll kill, or he'll give his gun to someone else that
will. The man needs to be taken down. The same thing
rings true about Iraq only on a larger scale. I
completely and totally agree with the President and
Prime Minister Blair. I voted for Bush because I have
faith in him and think that MOST of everything he says
is correct. This isn't just about America. It
concerns the whole world. How many of those other countries
do you think would come crying to the United States if
they were the ones who were attacked? Every f**king
one of them. Oh well. If America and England
(hopefully Australia too)decide to go it alone then so
be it.

Although I'm not adverse to attacking Iraq, I'd rather just bomb them enough to put a dent in their weapons program for a while. I really don't want yet another dependent country basically living of the U.S. Afghanistan is bad enough.

It does annoy me to see the countries that Saddam would most likely endanger attempting to keep the US from attacking him. Maybe we should just let him do what he wants, then when they beg us to help stop his invasion tell them that they're on their own. But of course that's just a pipe dream.

I know this sounds bad, but it bothers me that the US gets attacked, we cause the Taliban to scatter, and basically liberate Afghanistan. It bothers me because I feel like in some ways, the attacks were the best thing to happen to Afghanistan--it's almost as if they are being rewarded, even though I know the people themselves had nothing to do with it. I just feel like we, the victims, aren't getting any real benefit--we've basically got a government we have to babysit and an Afghan president whom they're already trying to assassinate that we've got to protect.

I know there will be more attacks, but I'm optimistic because there are other countries around the world that have to deal with that sort of thing yet they are able to go about their business....I think we can do the same.

I voted for Bush too, though I'm not sure if I'll do so again. I'll be the first to admit he probably isn't the brightest guy in the world, but I feel like he is a decent person--and I think he's probably a little more in touch with the country than his father was.

No controversy in this, although some might wish you'd keep it off this board. A few thoughts:

1. Nukes. If they had them, they'd have used them. And if they were to use one, I'm not certain it would be here. Al qaida wants to start a general war between the West and the Islamic World so Muslims will rally to their cause. Whatever you think of Bush, he did a marvelous job preventing that from happening while at the same time striking back. So what would nuking us accomplish? We've shown that we're not willing to make this a war against Islam. BUT - if they had a nuke, wouldn't a better idea for rallying Muslims be to plant it somewhere in Afghanistan (or Iraq, or Sudan, etc) and wait for a US cruise missile strike? Then when the strike comes in, detonate the nuke so it looks like the US did it? Wouldn't that achieve their goal much better and cause worldwide condemnation of the US? Wouldn't that rally Muslims to Al Qaida and against the Arab governments they want to overthrow? Think about it.

2. I am not certain there will be more attacks here. Their last attacks were utter failures in terms of achieving their goals, they've given us greater resolve, they created a lot of sympathy for us, and we were able to anhillate their home base. I DO think there will be more attacks against Americans overseas, but what else is new? I think England is probably safer. Islamic Extremists rely to heavily on operating out of England to start a ruckus there.

3. Saddam must go - it was the great failure of George Bush the elder that he is still alive and in power. He's trying to make nukes and BCW (bio/chem weapons), and when he gets them, he'll use them. I do not believe that he had nothing to do with September 11 either. And DO NOT BELIEVE THE ALL-OPPOSED CRAP WE ARE HEARING FROM OTHER COUNTRIES. Know this: there is nothing the Saudis would love more than for us to oust Hussein. There's nothing the French would love more. There's nothing the Iranians would love more. They all hate him. BUT, this is international politics. They can't just be grateful that we're getting rid of him, they want to make it look like they're doing US a favor when they finally give the nod. That way, we take care of their (and our) problem, and they make it look like we owe THEM one. It's distasteful to deal with, but that's how it works.

Don't worry about another attack. If one comes, it comes and we deal with it. And one might not come - consider that possibility. As for the rest of the world (except our extremely admirable British allies -- who we left in the lurch a LOT longer some 60+ years ago by the way -- and the Aussies). Let them talk. Because in the end, it's all alot of bluster that will - as in the past - be drowned out by the whine of our M1 gas-turbines and the thump thump thump of our Apaches. If you ever find yourself worrying about what France or Saudi Arabia thinks, you're worrying much too much.

ASHTHECAT wrote:
>
> I remember what the President said right after
> the attacks last year. He said, "either you're with us, or
> you're with the terrorists." It p**ses me off to no
> end when I hear all of this bulls**t about all of the
> other countries condemning a possible attack. They're
> nothing but a bunch of cowards!... I
> completely and totally agree with the President and
> Prime Minister Blair. I voted for Bush because I have
> faith in him and think that MOST of everything he says
> is correct. This isn't just about America. It
> concerns the whole world. How many of those other countries
> do you think would come crying to the United States if
> they were the ones who were attacked? Every f**king
> one of them. Oh well. If America and England
> (hopefully Australia too)decide to go it alone then so
> be it.

First off, I never voted for Bush. But that was because I was not of legal age to vote at that particular time, and if so I would have voted for George W. He seems to be doing a fine job at the moment and is handiling this situation on the "War on Terror" the best he can do. A real leader.

I do feel that another terrorist attack will come again somewhere else. But I must dissagre with what I quoted from ASHTHECAT. Bush said "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists", but that is quite a harsh statement to make. Granted, we are getting some support (i.e. England is one of them), but for those who wish not to be involved I would not so quickly as to label them "cowards". Rather, the situation has nothing to do with them and therefore want to remain neutral. The September 11 incident was an attack on America, and is considered to be an American involvement. Europe, or any other country for that matter, was not attacked (at least not yet, as we seem to feel) so they are not involved.

But even we, in the past, have stayed neutral whenever one country is at war and we become involved when we are threatened with war. If I remember my history a bit (and you can correct me if I am wrong), back when England and Germany were at war during the rise of World War 2, England tried to get the United States involved. However, as much as the USA going through the 'Lend-Lease Act' with Britian, the United States remained neutral. That is, until Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese. And since both Germany and Japan were allies, the USA thus was able to go to war against those countries and support Britian. This is just one small example to go by for a moment.

The biggest question is why do we need to join forces with other countries for assistance, even though the USA is considered to be the most powerful country in the world and a heavy millitary and weapons division? Yes, one can say this isn't just about America but involves the entire world as well. But, from what I see, it seems America is the only place that has been attacked.

This is indeed a controversial subject and I might be getting out of my league here, but as much as I have disageed with ASHTHECAT's complaint I must say he has started an interesting discussion. I just hope I don't get hung for my statements. That's happened before.

If America and England go at it alone, then I guess that will be it as ASHTHECAT said earlier.

I was correct in stating that this post would generate a lot of replies. I posted it an hour and a half ago and already there are 4 posts, most of them agreeing with me. Thank you for that. When typing it out I had a feeling that the comment about the other countries being cowards would create the most controversy. I agree that that was a harsh term to use but look at what I typed about the police. What would you think of a fellow police officer who was it seemed on the outside, afraid to take the perp down? Would you call him or her a coward? I sure as hell would! Then again I'm a realist and I tend to live in the moment (seeing the big picture as well) and in the moment of truth in a situation like that I tend to be a little harsh. Most people would be too. I guess it just comes from my "American arrogance" as my Australian girlfriend is so fond of pointing out. As for quoting Bush's statement about being with us or with the terrorists, he said it, not me. He put it in very simple terms. When it comes to dealing with these worthless SUBHUMAN terrorists I think that seeing things simply in black and white and as bluntly as possible is the only way to go. I heard a long time ago that America was the "police officer for the rest of the world." Someone has to do it and if that means us, then in the immortal words of Happy Harry Hard-on...."So be it!"

Looks that I'm a minority. I don't think Iraq should be attacked, at least we must have solid evidence of what they are doing. And no, a blurred aerial shot of something being build is not enough. If the USA have real solid evidence, why not showing it at the UN? If that didn't grant more countries to support the attack, I don't know what would.

About, Bush, I don't like him at all. OK, he's been doing a great job rebuilding the psyche of the USA after the attacks, but the more time passes, the more his external politics grow more extravagant. First the US attacked Afghanistan. OK, good job, Al Qaeda on the run and the Taliban out of power. But Bin Laden has escaped, the side effects (I refuse to use the expression "collateral damage") on civilians have been horrible (and the attempts by US to hide them do not help), and worst of all, Afghanistan is very far from becoming a violence-free place.

Also there's the Palestinian problem. Previous US presidents have tutored during the last decades peace plans for the region. What happens now? Israel has the more phanatised president ever (for those who don't know it, he may be prossecuted in Europe for a couple of masacres years ago), who quite obviously has no peace plan for the problem. Sharon has disguised his objectives (politically eliminate Arafat, destroy any possibility of Palestina of becoming independent) as Anti-terrorism and thus obteined an unvaluable help from Bush.
And no, I am not condoning Palestinian terrorism. While the Palestinians have the right to have their own country, this doesn't make their actions the least acceptable.

And now, Bush is using the first aniversary of the NY attacks to appeal to the US people sense of revenge to obtain the support for an attack many countries in the world, many americans and even many republicans think unnecessary. I found it quite sickening, really. Even if Saddam is deposed, what is going to happen to Irak afterwards? If the US are going to depose Saddam Hussein, it is their moral responsability to create a solid government afterwards, if not for the Iraqis, who have suffered a Stern dictatorship for many years (and Hussein had plenty of support from the US), for the sake of the region stability.

Ok Neville. I remember you from the previous posts I've placed in the past. You seem to always disagree with everyone and that is your right. You like to take other people's comments and then quote them and then turn it around to your favor. I'm not buying into ANY OF IT! Do you honestly think the Bush administration would consider attacking Iraq for no reason? Believe me when I say that the most powerful country in the world wouldn't attack Iraq unless we were 100% sure that this worthless piece of trash (hussein...name doesn't deserve capitalization) was developing weapons of mass destruction. He ranks right up there with bin laden(name doesn't deserve capitalization either). In my opinion they are insects that should be stepped on and crushed. And after they are crushed, someone should take a magnifying glass and scorch their bodies, erasing all proof of their existense. They both are evil incarnate and must be exterminated at ALL costs.

One more thing. As for the Palestinians, I can understand where they are coming from and in a way I do sympathize with them. I try to be universal and allow myself to see their mindset. Let me tell you something else. I'm not Jewish but I, and probably all of the rest of you know that the Jews have been persecuted for hundreds of years. If you need a lesson watch Schindler's List (which I just finished watching earlier tonight). After all of the s**t Jews have been through they deserve the state of Israel that they are currently living in. It just happens to be their misfortune that they are surrounded by most of the arab world. It's like finding the perfect house that happens to be in the WORST neighborhood. I see it both ways. I completely understand the Palestinians plight as do I the Jews. But in the end IT'S NOT FOR ANY OF US TO DECIDE. There's nothing you or I can do about it so I figure it's best left alone. If I have offended you....I'm not sorry and I never will be. That's MY right.

The government acts as if they are doing their best to keep us safe,this is a crock! chasing the taliban out of afghanastan did little or nothing to stop terrorism. we were helping our "allies" the northern alliance,don't they know by now that our middle eastern "allies" are almost always our enemy in a few years? the government says that there is about 5,000 people with ties to terrorists in the usa,I've heard experts say it's more like 100,000. the only reason they have not started suicide bombing on a regular basis is they are not rooted in deep enough here,and they don't want to see their friends stop getting visas. it doesn't take a very smart person to see that it's not a good idea to let people in the usa who dance in the streets of their country chanting "death to america". I've met some middle eastern people who are very kind,but there's still at least millions of them that want to kill us all. the day after the attack,they should have shut the borders down and rounded up everybody here on visas and checked them out good. I feel bad for any peaceful people this would affect,but it's not our fault that so many of them are insane suicide bombers. I was just reading an article,in june,al gore's luggage was searched twice at the airport,I've also heard time and again how they search old ladies and send arabs right through. all this "equal rights" s**t is pure nonsense and is making the usa look like fools. it makes me sick that the government will risk thousands or mabey even millions of american lives so they can give a bunch of terrorists visas!

Just a few thoughts:

1) About the Middle Eastern situation, I think that the Jewish people are like an abused child in some respects. They've taken so much crap that now they're in a position of power, they're not sure what to do and so may be acting with uneeded brutality. This doesn't mean that I condone the terrorist attacks they've suffered, I'm just offering a reason for some of their behavior.

2) President Bush. I personally don't care for him and think that he's not the best person for the job, I think he's done a good job keeping things together but I can't help but suspect that the 9/11 attacks caused him to breathe a (tiny) sigh of relief in some respects in that they made the media back off. Perhaps he just wants to keep the popularity wartime ball rolling with this Iraq situation. That's all just an idea of mine, no solid evidence, and I'm not saying he approved of the attack.

3) Iraq: I won't deny that their a dangerous regime that needs to be taken care of, but you can't just say that their making weapons without proof and then go to war. I'm all in favor of assassinating him, but you better have someone good to take over or nothing will change. Same thing with bin laden, cutting a head off of the hydra won't help. Terrorism is here to stay and there's no real conclusive way to stop it.

J.R. wrote:
>
> And I'm getting tired of Europe's
> attitude. "Oh, let's just forget America saved our
> weird-smelling (ever notice people from foreign countries
> smell weird?) butts in WW1 and 2, and make it our perogative
> to be pricks whenever they want to do anything!".

Just to point a few things out:

We didn't exactly save Europe's ass during WW1. More or less, we became involved when it had virtually nothing to do with us. France and Britian were kicking Germany's ass pretty hard and the US didn't become involved until the Lusitania was sunk by a German sub (Now you might ask, how did we become involved when the Lusitania was a British ship. The ship apparently had some American passengers and therefore president Woodrow Wilson felt it was time to go at war, while using the excuse "We have to make the world safe for Democracy" even though Democracy was not the issue or in danger!).

Also, France was a major part of the victory when they fought alongside the collonists during the Revolutionary War. Looks like one European country had to save our butts when the USA was in it's infancy.

But I understand how you feel, J.R. I too am tired of the Europen's attitude towards us, but let's face it THEY ARE NOT INVOLVED. It is strictly an American involvement and it will be that way untill some country in Europe is attacked by terrorists and will therefore join with us. Only time will tell.

ASHTHECAT wrote:
>
>When typing it out I had a feeling that the
> comment about the other countries being cowards would create
> the most controversy. I agree that that was a harsh term to
> use but look at what I typed about the police. What would
> you think of a fellow police officer who was it seemed on the
> outside, afraid to take the perp down? Would you call him or
> her a coward? I sure as hell would! Then again I'm a
> realist and I tend to live in the moment (seeing the big
> picture as well) and in the moment of truth in a situation
> like that I tend to be a little harsh. Most people would be
> too. I guess it just comes from my "American arrogance" as
> my Australian girlfriend is so fond of pointing out. As for
> quoting Bush's statement about being with us or with the
> terrorists, he said it, not me...When it comes to dealing with these worthless
> SUBHUMAN terrorists I think that seeing things simply in
> black and white and as bluntly as possible is the only way to
> go.

If I made it sound like you said Bush's statements about being for us or with the terrorists, my mistake. I was writing my say in the long hours of the night so I should have been more specific. I see your point, but seeing things in black and white isn't gona make the situation the USA is in any easier or understandable. Right now, we are all trying to understand just what the hell is going on. As for the terrorists, somebody said it here on this post that terrorism is still going to be on this mortal world. Ture, for we can exterminate the low-life bastards who attacked us, that doesn't mean others will follow in the terrorists footsteps. What's even scarier is that it could be somebody living here that have plans for a terrorist attack or movement. We don't know, so as I said it's going to be somewhat difficult. As for your example of an officer afraid to take the perp down, would I label him a coward? I might. But then, could the cop have also been afraid and could not take it? That could be it too. So it's not all about cowardice, more close to being afraid. And fear is quite natural, too. We sometimes have to get over it, but their are times when we can't. However, your example was quite good, ASHTHECAT.

ASHTHECAT wrote:
>
>I'm not Jewish but I, and probably all of the rest of you know that the Jews have >been persecuted for hundreds of years. If you need a lesson watch Schindler's >List (which I just finished watching earlier tonight). After all of the s**t Jews have >been through they deserve the state of Israel that they are currently living in. It >just happens to be their misfortune that they are surrounded by most of the arab >world.

Ah, a quick movie recommendation from ASHTHECAT. However, I am not going to watch SCHINDLER'S LIST in order to understand what the Jews have been through during Nazi Germany. Speilbergs film is pompous and pretencious. If I want to understand how the Jews went through it all, I will read countless interviews of the Hollocaust survivors (which I have done) and read more about it in other informative history books. I just can't rely on a film to teach it to me, especially when it's from Speilberg. But thanks for the recommendation. Nonetheless, the Jews so-rightly deserve the state of Israel and it seems they are fighting back at their enemies as best as they can.

Chris K. wrote:
>
> J.R. wrote:
> >
> > And I'm getting tired of Europe's
> > attitude. "Oh, let's just forget America saved our
> > weird-smelling (ever notice people from foreign countries
> > smell weird?) butts in WW1 and 2, and make it our perogative
> > to be pricks whenever they want to do anything!".
>
> Just to point a few things out:
>
> We didn't exactly save Europe's ass during WW1. More or less,
> we became involved when it had virtually nothing to do with
> us. France and Britian were kicking Germany's ass pretty hard
> and the US didn't become involved until the Lusitania was
> sunk by a German sub (Now you might ask, how did we become
> involved when the Lusitania was a British ship. The ship
> apparently had some American passengers and therefore
> president Woodrow Wilson felt it was time to go at war, while
> using the excuse "We have to make the world safe for
> Democracy" even though Democracy was not the issue or in
> danger!).

Actually it was only after the Zimmerman telegraph (when Germany tried to get Mexico to attack us) that Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war. The Lusitania was before his re-election, on the slogan "He kept us out of war".

Germany was bleeding France and England pretty hard too. So much so that the French soldiers actually revolted for brief period. The US's entry pretty much made Germany realize it was too weak to continue. Unfortunately that came about a month too late for my great uncle.

I agree with the rest of what you said

How much proof of Iraqi weapons production do people f**king need!?!?

1. We have over a dozen defectors from Iraq who said they PERSONALLY worked on NBC (nuke-bio-chem) weapons programs. We have many more who didn't work on the programs but offer evidence of their existance.

2. We have inspectors who found all that stuff in the early 1990's and we NEVER SAW TO ITS DISMANTLEMENT.

3. We have satellite photos that may look blurry to you, but the highly trained experts who look at them for a living say they're pretty good evidence.

4. This SHOULD be the clincher: We have HUNDREDS OF IRAQI CURDS GASSED ON f**kING VIDEOTAPE AND TELEVISED ACROSS THE WORLD. THIS WAS ON CNN PEOPLE!!!

Earth to the bone-headed morons who are hell bent on opposing Bush no matter what he suggests: THE IRAQIS HAVE MADE SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS TOWARD NBC WEAPONS AND HAVE NOT ONLY PRODUCED BUT HAVE USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON THE CURDS IN THEIR OWN f**kING COUNTRY. WAKE UP!!! ARRGH!!!

Good grief, how stupid can people be??? I guess this is what we get from our 8 years of a "swell" economy and total disregard for world events under Clinton.

Wow.
....Well...its not suprising the response.
....I was tempted to ask the gang about thier reactions to the 9/11 remembrances.But, i was afraid to strike too personal a cord. This whole situation is hard to handle. We each have our opinions on who should do what, but the complexitys are mind numbing.
....Hoo-sane? Not him! The evidence is there. Today, Bush spoke to the Dis-united Nations. And of corse, every one had their spin machines engaged. The Iraqi's B.S.ed, Bush gave the U.N. an in your face "s**t or get off the pot", and the politicions were playing "Vote for me!"
....Any wonder people get buffaloed?
....I see many intresting points here gang. One thing about this site...its never boreing!
....btw, i'll be in old blighty, leaving on 9/18, for some R&R at Grange over Sands, by the English sea side. I'll ask the locals what they think, and try to have a "Man in the street" for ya when i get back. Cherrio, lads!

Click here to read about America's own brand of terrorism (http://www.zmag.org/GlobalWatch/chomskymit.htm)

George W. Bush is the spoiled brat son of an ex-spy who didn't deserve anything he got in life. He didn't have the grades to get into his college, he was a boozer, coke-addict and joker at school, failed multiple businesses he was involved in and wasn't even elected!

He's so much of a puppet, I'm surprised no one see the strings. He's surrounded by daddy's (AND REAGAN'S) cronies and THEY are the one's who are making the decisions. Bush & Reagan are no friend to the common man.
And all you guys that are ready to start up a war that could domino into WWIII better read up on FEMA's powers (which was brought up during the Iran/Contra hearings).
If the President declares a National Emergency, then the Constitution is SUSPENDED. This means YOU, Mr. & Mrs. Citizen have NO RIGHTS.

Just some examples:
Executive Order 10995 provides for the takeover of the communications media. (This means phones, radio, tv, and other devices)
Executive Order 10997 provides for the takeover of all electric, power, petroleum, gas, fuels and minerals.
Executive Order 10988 provides for the takeover of food resources and farms.
Executive Order 10999 provides for the takeover of all modes of transportation, control of highways, seaports, etc. (There goes your car)
Executive Order 11000 provides for the mobilization of all civilians into work brigades under the Government supervision. (People can be forced to work for six months with NO COMPENSATION.)
Executive Order 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
Executive Order 11004 provides for the Housing & Finance Authority to relocate communities, designate areas to be abandoned and establish new locations for populations. (Here families have the potential to be broken up)

Read up on it and don't be so blinded by Patriotism. They've killed off most of the Indians (Native Americans) who were balanced in nature. The evil of men have disrupted that balance but their quest for blood has not been satisfied. But who shall bear the wrath of the Devil? "Those who will not use their brains are no better off than tose who have no brains, and so this mindless school of jellyfish, father, mother, son, and daughter, become useful beasts of burden or trainers of the same."

All I say is don't be deceived by silent weapons for secret wars. (DIVERSION SUMMARY
Media: Keep the adult public attention diverted away from the real social issues, and captivated by matters of no real importance.
Schools: Keep the young public ignorant of real mathematics, real economics, real law and real history.
Entertainment: Keep the public entertainment below a sixth-grade level.
Work: Keep the public busy, busy, busy, with no time to think; back on the farm with the other animals.)

"The political has nothing in common with the moral. The ruler who is governed by the moral is not a skilled politician, and is therefore unstable on his throne. He who wishes to rule must have recourse both to cunning and to make-believe. Great national qualities, like frankness and honesty, are vices in politics, for they bring down rulers from their thrones more effectively and more certainly than the most powerful enemy. "
"Our countersign is --Force and Make-believe. Only force conquers in political affairs, especially if it be concealed in the talents essential to statesmen. Violence must be the principle, and cunning and make-believe the rule of governments which do not want to lay down their crowns at the feet of agents of some new power. This evil is the one and only means to attain the end, the good. Therefore we must not stop at bribery, deceit and treachery when they should serve towards the attainment of our end. In politics one must know how to seize the property of others without hesitation if by it we secure submission and sovereignty."

ig·no·rance (n.) The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed. (note: NOT synonymous with "patriotism.")
-------------------------
"Now do you see why it is imperative that we attack
Iraq?"
-------------------------
China is an "evil regime" that has nukes. Why is it not imperative that we attack them? (As opposed to awarding them "Most Favored Nation" trade status.) Say, India has the Bomb, and they're pretty swarthy-lookin.' Shall we kill them too? Osama and most of the hijackers were Saudis, and Saudi Arabia trains and indoctrinates anti-US terrorists. Why not nuke the crap out of Saudi Arabia? Oh yeah--that might make fillin' the SUV up pretty pricey. Never mind.

Hey, suddenly "good" and "evil" ARE relative, after all... Just like when a Republican's daughter gets busted with a pocketful of Coke, or Enron executives get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

This "imperative" is, by your own words, based on a "feeling" you have--not fact, nor even vague information. That's preposterous. You might as well be living your life based on what the Magic 8-Ball tells you.

Hussein might indeed strike at the US. (So might the Montana Militia.) However, Saddam knows that doing so will result in the utter destruction of Iraq. This is not a gibbering loony we're talking about; this is a crafty, vicious son of a b***h who has held an entire country in his grasp for decades. If we're going to suddenly start up a war we felt VERY comfortable abandoning a decade earlier, I NEED TO SEE PROOF. "President" Dimbulb saying, "trust me, I've never lied before" and "we have proof but we can't let you see it" doesn't even begin to cut it.

And if you can't see what Cheney and his pet meatpuppet George have to gain by creating a phony war, you haven't been paying attention.
-------------------------
I remember what the President said right after
the attacks last year. He said, "either you're with us, or
you're with the terrorists."
--------------------------
...Considering "us" have been helping arm Iraq (and other "evil regimes") over the years--even while Hussein was using "weapons of mass destruction" on his own people, to our full knowledge--I'm a little confused by Dum-Dum's ultimatum.

Cheney & Friends were making lots of money dealing with post-Gulf War Iraq--during the Embargo. He was also negotiating with the Taliban over the construction of an oil pipeline all the way up to early September 2001. Whoopsie-doodle. Now we're being asked (well, told, really) to trust that sound judgment once again.

When you examine the facts (as opposed to regurgitating whatever the flag-waving Corporate Spin Machine tosses out to you and/or relying on the Force, the Magic 8-Ball, and your Quija board), the situation becomes more complex--which is probably why examining the facts isn't all that popular. Instead, you can kick back, have a beer, wave a flag, and watch people die on TV. Woooooo!

(Unless, of course, something goes terribly, terribly wrong. But hey, death's like Global Warming. Bush says, "you get used to it.")

Ashthecat said: "You seem to always disagree with everyone and that is your right."

Well, thanks to understand that. If I use to disagree with the other regulars (specially on politics) is because I am not american, not because I enjoy quarreling.

Ashthecat said: "You like to take other people's comments and then quote them and then turn it around to your favor."

I really don't know what you mean with that :-) Now seriously, I use to reproduce the points I talk about for clarity's sake.

Ashthecat said: "Do you honestly think the Bush administration would consider attacking Iraq for no reason?"

Never said that. I really hope there is a serious reason for attacking another country.

Ashthecat said: "In my opinion they are insects that should be stepped on and crushed. And after they are crushed, someone should take a magnifying glass and scorch their bodies, erasing all proof of their existense. They both are evil incarnate and must be exterminated at ALL costs."

Probably Nazis thought the same on jews. And do you really believed all that "Evil" crap thing? Reagan used to call former USSR "an evil empire". Looks that all that is needed to become "Good" is to become an ally of the USA. BTW, is Pakistan good or evil? Last time I heard a great portion of the country was in favour of the Talibans. But of course, they helped the USA and now General Musharraff can be in power for at least 5 more years without thinking on democracy, elections or things like that.

Ashtecat said: "I'm not Jewish but I, and probably all of the rest of you know that the Jews have been persecuted for hundreds of years. If you need a lesson watch Schindler's List (which I just finished watching earlier tonight). After all of the s**t Jews have been through they deserve the state of Israel that they are currently living in."

I see. So your point is that if a certain group of people suffer abuse (and certainly the Jews did), they automatically must be put in a situation where they can abuse another group of people without being judged or bothered until the end of times.

Ashthecat said: "If I have offended you....I'm not sorry and I never will be. That's MY right."

Uhmmm... Don't think so. Probably I skipped that part of the Constitution.

Ashthecat said: ". I find that I tend to vent my frustration on world issues and other people's idiocy and shortsightedness in the form of writing. "

Have you looked at yourself in the mirror? To disagree with others' views is one thing, to insult is a very different one.

There's archaeological evidence that the American indians drove dozens of species (including an indigenous horse) into extinction, and they soil eroded the entire Southwest by overfarming. The indians are people, just like any other people in the world. Don't confuse a lack of technological innovation with "balance in nature."

As for your other nonsense, nobody can suspend the Constitution for any reason. The executive orders you cite (if they really exist as YOU interpret them, which I have questions about) are all done within the limits of the Constitution and can be found UNconstitutional by the supreme court if they are ever applied. Congress of course is another check against them with its control of funding (they can simply cut off FEMA's money. (Wasn't there an AWFUL made for TV movie based on the laughable premise that FEMA launched a coup de etat against the government during an emergency? Is that your SOURCE for this, K-Sonic??).

People like you are always good for a laugh... well, until you rent Ryder trucks and start buying fertilizer in bulk.

Um... China may be "evil" in how they treat their citizens... but when exactly was the last time they invaded a foreign country? I'll answer that for you: Tibet in the 1700's. Meanwhile Iraq has invaded Kuwait and Iran in the last 25 years, AND they've launched ballistic missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia.

China may have nuke-bio-chem weapons, but have they ever used them? Nope. Iraq has them and HAS used them just miles from the border of a NATO signatory (that's Turkey, and NATO is a treaty of mutual defense between the US, Turkey and 16 or 17 other countries FYI).

Did Mohammad Atta meet with the head of Chinese intelligence in Prague a couple of months before September 11? No.

Did Mohammad Atta meet with the head of Iraqi intelligence in Prague a few months before September 11? Yes.

We can say the same things about India that we said about China, shooting to pieces your pathetic insinuation that this effort against Iraq is driven by racism.

Some people need pictures drawn for them I guess.

Sorry you don't like Bush. Sorry your guy lost in 2000. Sorry Florida Demicrats have trouble with simple ballots (and still seem to). Sorry we couldn't suspend the Constitution, abolish the electoral college, and go to a straight popular vote. Actually, no I'm not. If Gore were president on September 11, Osama and Mullah Mohammad would have been laughing in Kabul as we pulled out our troops from Saudi and begged the UN for help.

Fact check: the Floridians who seem to have the most trouble with ballots are Jeb and his minions. (And earlier, Poppy's appointees to the Supreme Court.) Oh look, a bunch of uncounted ballots!! Again! Don't worry, Jeb sez, we will get it right...next time. Hyuck. (Oh, get over it.)

Brain check: "...your pathetic insinuation that this effort against Iraq is driven by racism?!?" Straight from the Ann Coulter school of "debate"- through-diversion. While racism has always been a precious, vital tool to Republicans, it doesn't enter into my argument.

Iraq has been chosen for political ends; to avenge Poppy's failure to end Saddam's threat (itself a political calculation that backfired) and to "bookend" the Clinton adminstration (hey, if that's not a good reason to sacrifice American lives, what is?).

The purpose of this new pending "war" is simply to keep us distracted from the blossoming fireball that is our economy. ("We'll pay for it all out of the Surplus! We'll pay for it ALL out of the Surplus!" ...who has the Fuzzy Math now, smart guy?)

...Some people need pictures drawn for them I guess.

I'm sorry Squishy but you just don't get it. The Bush administration is made up of some of the most brilliant minds in the word and they are not stupid. They are looking at the big picture. They are looking down the road. When it comes right down to it what is it you think that deep down every red-blooded American wants? We want freedom, liberty and justice and everything else that was laid out in the Constitution of the U.S. over 200 years ago. Those men weren't stupid either. They had some of the most brilliant minds too. When either 2, 5 or 10 years from now when saddam or whomever he sold his nuclear payload to, decides to and accomplishes a successful attack on the U.S. and tens of thousands of people, maybe millions are killed what will you say then? Hmm? I think that in the back of not only your, but everyone else's mind we would've wished that we'd have gone in there and taken his ass down to prevent such a thing from happening and IF WE DON"T TAKE ACTION NOW, IT WILL. Mark my words. You know it. I know it. We all know it. The way I see it is that the Bush administration is and has been looking down that road for a long time now. It isn't about revenge. You need to understand that Iraq is A VERY SERIOUS THREAT TO EVERYTHING THAT THE U.S. REPRESENTS AND STANDS FOR. He and all of the rest of his "cronies" are simply looking to preserve the United States of America's very life as we know it.

"The Bush administration is made up of some of the most brilliant minds in the word and they are not stupid. They are looking at the big picture. They are looking down the road... You know it. I know it. We all know it."

Ha ha ha. Thank you. That's the funniest thing I've ever read. Ever. Maybe you can adopt this as your mantra while you watch the s*** continue to hit the fan. Oh wait, it already is your mantra. Love the redundancy. :)

"Oh, by the way. Don't ****ing quote me in any future posts you make please. ...I think this feature should be removed." (Obscenity removed by Squishy)

You're going to have a hard time removing "cut and paste," brilliant mind; that's what I use. Say, maybe you could try to get John Ashcroft to have me locked away without legal representation. Otherwise, I'll quote whatever public source I wish; welcome to America.

"It serves no purpose but to turn one's words around against them."

Hey, you're catching on. But I suppose that's only okay when "us" used it against "them," hah? Your reaction is your problem. Again, try Ashcroft. Maybe he can change the Constitution for you.

HEY EVERYONE! Want to read more "brilliant mind" stuff written in Ash's interesting style? Check out "Equal Time with Bob Boudelang." (http://www.democraticunderground.com/bob/index.html) Biased and unfair? You bet. And it's about time.

"MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia ignored U.S. and European
criticism of its threat to use force against Georgia on Friday
and accused Tbilisi of portraying Russia as an external enemy
to prop up President Eduard Shevardnadze's "teetering"
administration."

Holy cow, the irony. All it requires is name changes, and it turns from the actions of an "Evil Empire" (Russia's blasting Chechens all over again) into a "Supreme Act of SuperPatriotism" which is brilliant and not stupid because Iraq's planning to nuke Houston with West Nile virus and you can't disprove that so it must be true.

If you'll excuse me, I have to shoot my neighbor. You see, he has a gun, and he's not a nice person and he might use it on me if I don't blast him first and anyone who gets in my way. Everyone says it's wrong to do it but I know my cause is just and God is on my side and the guy made fun of me and my dada so shut up shut up shut up. Or I'll blast you too! I get my way!!!

(Just kidding.)

Another "funny" news story, edited for brevity and point (probably less funny to the people involved):

"NAPLES, Fla. (AP) - Three men reportedly overheard talking about a terrorist plot were pulled over and detained for 17 hours Friday before authorities said the men were apparently kidding around and released them.

After their release, the three...denied making any comments or jokes about terrorism. One man, who has a long beard and wore a skull cap, said the woman who reported them to police may have been influenced by his appearance. The cars were stopped after the Georgia woman reported overhearing three men who appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent making ``alarming'' comments.

``I appreciate someone like her with the courage to do it,'' said neighbor Eric Finch. ``For anyone to sit around and joke over a cup of coffee about a couple of thousand people being killed - they should be prosecuted just for that.''

Bush said the information that triggered the threat came from credible witnesses. ``Making a mockery or laughing about 9-11...gives us all some concern,'' he said."

(My comments now: Giggling publcily about "hitting the trifecta;" okay. Being an American of Middle Eastern descent in Georgia; not okay. Prosecuting fellow citizens for being accused of making a tasteless joke; priceless. I wonder which law they would be jailed and/or executed under? Maybe it's a secret law.)

Chill, Lee, chill.
....Posting in anger won't accomplish anything. Relax. All you can do is state your case, and leave it. What others decide to do or believe you can't control.
....As i once heard it paraphrased of Ben Franklin, "Its always better to speak the truth. That way, you never have to worry about keeping your story straight". Relax, let the anger settle, then address the issue as calmly as you can, say what you think, then let it go. I know it can be hard, but getting older has taught me, that its a good way to avoid ultcers, if not a grouchy attitude.
....Trust me, it ain't worth it.
....If we want a free scociaty, we need to accept that we'll be flamed sometimes. And, we will flame. But, like Andrew said, lets continue to try, at least try, being civil.
....As for the Democratic Underground....no differant to me then its Republican equivilant. 6 of one, half dozen the other. Same condesention, same dissing. Same tune, differant band. In the end...it don't mean nothin'.

Alright, this is just too long and drawn out for even me to stay out of.
Bush=Smirking chimp.
Cheney=The man cranking the caliope.
Sadam=A man who if we realy wanted to get rid of him, we could do so without war.
Iraq=a convenient country we can go to war with to (try to) jump start a sagging economy.

"Man who ignore wasp have CHANCE of getting stung ONCE. Man who smash wasp GUARENTEED to get stung once and have chance of getting stung MORE by wasps' friends. Man who ignored wasp and got stung can still smash wasp anyway." -Confused

"You might as well be living your life based on what the Magic 8-Ball tells you. "
I like my magic 8-Ball. I trust it more than I would trust a (man?) who can't pronounce "subliminal".
I believe in government cover-ups, I just don't care. I know I probably look like I'm wearing a "kick me" sign in a locker room, but I don't care about that either. In life, be happy and don't try to hurt folks.
-------ooo-'U'-ooo------Kilroy was here.

Lee: What's a "scemer?"

Cullen: A real flame war requires two-way combat. This is more like a kid lighting his farts to get attention, then pitching a screaming cursing fit because his a**hole got burned and he got laughed at. (In fact, I'm still laughing. I'm picturing Cartman from "South Park" running about spraying flames--"Owww, my ass!! Seriously!!"--or maybe Kenny setting himself ablaze in the SP movie.)

Some thoughts:

--If this upcoming "war" isn't about avenging Poppy, distracting the populace from domestic issues, and oil--and if it's actually about stopping terrorism and doing the Right Thing--then how come we never blasted the crap out of Libya, whose government-sponsored terrorist acts against the western world are so very well documented? And why are we snuggling up to Pakistan (ditto)? And negotiating with North Korea (likewise)?

--If Bush and his people are so "brilliant," and this doesn't involve religion or race, then why did Bush on one occasion refer to The War On Terror as a "crusade"--the worst possible word to use around Muslims--and on another occasion refer to Islam as "a false religion?" Was he trying to shore up support and make allies in the Middle East? Or is he just a buffoon?

Keep the (blind) faith, kids. You'll need it. This ain't gonna be Kuwait.

... we DID blast the crap out of Libya and Libya quieted right down and has been more or less behaving itself ever since we did so.

What domestic issues is Bush distracting us from?? I'm a regular middle class guy and I frankly haven't been hurt at all by this "horrible economy." The only people who have been were the people who invested everything in the smoke'n'mirrors economy of the 1990s (which I suppose you're going to tell me is all W's fault somehow).

Fair point about Bush the Elder in Iraq. Stormin Norman had nothing but 100 miles of sand between him and Baghdad. Older Bush didn't finish it. Younger Bush is gonna try. Doesn't seem like "avenging" (your word) as much as finishing a job left undone (but TWO presidents).

The use of the word "crusade" was a clear gaff. All politicians make them. I'd rather have a guy who makes honest ones now and then than a guy who just makes up lies about his family to try to strengthen his arguments (remember Gore's little story about his mom getting screwed by the health care system that turned out to be patently false?).

As for your continued assertions that racism governs our foreign and defense policy (an assertion you denied making in an earlier reply and then made again with this last post), anyone with access to a grade school history book will tell you that the USA deals with whoever threatens them no matter what their color. We killed more rosy cheeked blue-eyed Germans this century than we did Koreans, Vietnamese and Iraqis put together. And we killed more Confederates than we did Germans. We also spent 95% of our post-WWII military budget trying to counter the not-so-brown Russians. Get over it, man. I'm sure it gives you great comfort to believe that people who disagree with you are all evil racists, but that doesn't mean we really are.

Domestic issues? For starters, the assorted investigations Bush and Cheney have been singing "executive privlege" about. The huge budget deficit. Campaign reform. Holding "suspects" without charges or legal representation. Spying on citizens without cause. There's more.

We popped a few missiles at Libya. (We've done the same to Iraq.) Khaddafy stills supports terrorism. He's still there. "More or less behaving himself?" More or less? Heh heh heh. Tell it to Scotland. Reminder: every time Clinton ordered a strike, the GOP whooped and shrieked that he did it solely to divert the press' attention from The Great Scandal. (Remember? SEX!!) But Bush, oh no, that's different! He HAS to do it, or else Saddam will kill us all tomorrow!!

This "horrible economy" is just getting rolling. Those deficits will have to be reversed eventually. In the meantime, Bush's stimulus package: More tax cuts! More spending! Gotta pay for my war! ...I'll let you do the Fuzzy Math.

I'm sure it gives you great comfort to believe that people who disagree with you are all accusing you of being an evil racist, but that doesn't mean we really are. I'm saying that the party of Jesse Helms, that ran the "Willie Horton" ads--and just recently, the state-campaign ads claiming programs to be "reverse repatriations"--will gladly use skin color and "different" religions as a scare tactic to gather support. Everyone but the Confederates in your list were "dirty foreigners," and we were very happy to leave Europre to Nazi Germany--until the Japanese attacked us. We blew up the Krauts because they were linked to the Nips.

WWII analogies are okay, but Vietnam ones are better.

Actually, it was Al Gore trying to beat Dukakis for the Dem nomination who first raised Willie Horton, but I'm sure you don't want to hear that so you won't. Al Gore also made sure no blacks got on his secret service detail. Maybe he was a Republican in disguise, because no Democrat is capable of racism.

You got us pegged. Everyone right of the extreme left is racist and out to demolish the Bill of Rights. The German's alliance with Japan is the ONLY reason we fought them (even in World War I we were clearly anticipating their future alliance with the Emperor of the Rising Sun). And we only went to war with Japan because they were not white (their attack on us had nothing to do with anything). Also, Bush manufactured this war to divert attention from the economy, and the US has no right to defend itself or respond to terrorist threats. You've solved it all, Squish.

You are blind blind blind blind blind. I'm done responding. Get your last word in. I won't read it.

Henry Ford was doing business with Adolf Hitler. They were mutual admirers. Regardless of any "anticipation," the simple fact is this: we stood by and let it happen for years, all the way up to December 7th, 1941. Before that, many Americans stood up and demanded action against the Axis; the government chose to sit on its hands. Now the government wants to declare "regime changes" at will, on the basis of conjecture with barely the pretense of proof, again heedless of the will of the people and the ultimate results in terms of casualties and international relations.

I would love to see Hussein dying slowly in the gutter. I still remember the video of Hussein bouncing the terrified son of a British diplomat on his lap--one of many "guests" he was hiding behind following the invasion of Kuwait. He is a monster. He deserves a slow, slow roast. The last thing he should taste are his own eyeballs.

...And IF Bush can provide the "smoking gun" he claims he has, and consequently if the UN and the Arab countries support us, I think we can hope for a resolution to this problem with the massive casualties we are liable to incur shooting it out in the streets of Baghdad.

I have mentioned racism--initially as an important part of the blind redneck support for Blowin' Them Towelheads Up, then as an regular aspect of GOP strategy. You're the one who keeps claiming I base all my arguments on it; like the whole "invented the Internet" gag (a lie created by Trent Lott, repeated until it was simply accepted without question) this is a popular technique the desperate use when the facts don't back them up. There's a difference between disputing my assertions and trying to get away with just ridiculing them.

I would LOVE to see a reference to Gore's alleged racism. (Pat Buchanan rantings and Rush Limbaugh "facts"--snicker--don't cut it. Give me something real.) But it remains a distraction tactic; any such behavior on Gore's part still doesn't change the reality of how the GOP works, and what's going on right now.

Bush remains a silver-spoon-sucking coke-sniffing drunk and business failure; Cheney remains a conman; Ashcroft continues to dream of subverting the Constitution at every turn. And like the Vietnam conflict, "The New War" remains a con. These men would gladly kill you to save--no, merely assist--their own hides.

If you want to pretend otherwise, I assume you've signed up for military duty like a good faithful patriot. I kind of doubt it; your last message ended with a childlike outburst one would except from Lee, after which you ran off crying. Like Bush and Cheney, you're fine with warfare as long as you believe yourself safe from harm--just like you were more than willing to ignore the massive layoffs and financial failures across the country, so long as you got yours. If that's the only alternative to being blind, thank God I'm "blind blind blind blind blind."

This country has never prospered on the basis of unquestioning submission masquerading as "patriotism." That's for complete idiots. It leads only to disaster.

I may be the only one interested in this thread anymore, but since I have been accused repeatedly and falsely of declaring any and all Republicans (or Conservatives) as being racist/stupid/corrupt/blahblahblah, I offer this tidbit:

"This is not an issue we should be addressing as Republicans or Democrats, or as supporters or opponents of the president. This is one where all of us owe our constituents our best judgement. There are no easy, risk-free options. Sending young men and women into war should never be taken lightly. Elected leaders should ask the tough questions before sending them into a situation that may result in the ultimate sacrifice."

Dano can mail his hate letters to Vietnam veteran Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska (Republican) for that quote. Blind blind blind blind blind!!

Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Bad Movies => Topic started by: ASHTHECAT on September 12, 2002, 12:45:01 AM