The answer without a question

Our "pub" where you can post about things completely Off Topic or about non-silent PC issues.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

yefi
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 3:19 pm
Location: UK

Post by yefi » Mon Jun 09, 2008 4:22 pm

were not American
Bluefront wrote:Neil.....we all make mistakes. At the time, Iran was perceived as the greater threat. It wasn't so long after that, that Iraq gained that position. If my memory is correct, we were using the Iraq/Iran war as a sort-of pay-back for the earlier Iran hostage fiasco......by supporting Iraq.
Never thought their puppet Saddam might one day turn those technologies against his patrons in Washington. How typically American.

Didn't your CIA trian, arm and finance the mujahideen in Kazakhstan because they found that whole jihad against the Soviet Union a dandy way to stem the flow of the red tide. The CIA calls that blowback; we in britian have proper and obscene words for it.
aristide1 wrote:Can anybody find a rule that has no exceptions?
The Law of Non-contradiction.

yefi
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 3:19 pm
Location: UK

Post by yefi » Mon Jun 09, 2008 4:27 pm

andyb wrote:I dont know a lot about quakers (apart from their oats)
Yes, those were developed by the famous quaker, William Penn. Pennsylvannia was actually set up because the soil in the new world was superior for planting wheat. Of course Penn had to fend off his new wheat fields from marauding natives by tossing a caber at them. In one instance he bowled down twelve natives in the Battle of Little Bighorn.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Mon Jun 09, 2008 6:27 pm

Neil, you've been banging your head against the same wall so long that soon its shape will be like that of SpongeBob.
VanWaGuy wrote:Hi JoeWPgh,...
Also, although I know that you disagree with him, I believe that you are mis-representing Bluefront's position. He himself early in the thread said that the statement is not true universally, and then offered up the alternative of saying war is not the answer in Iraq.
No he's not.

LinuxSam wrote:Of course it doesn't work in all situations....
JoeWPgh wrote: I don't know anyone who thinks it would work in all situations.
aristide1 wrote:Of course "War is not the answer" is not always going to work.
Despite everyone else's clear stand we then encounter this:
Bluefront wrote:The "I won't fight back no matter what" outlook has been tried by many different people over the years.
Why? No one here ever remotely made or suggested such a stand. And this transparent technique was done in the CP thread as well, putting words in other people's mouths, which may be civil to some. So what purpose does this statement have?
JoeWPgh wrote:Then go to his argument, which is transparently silly in it's attempt to incite.
And why doesn't VanWaGuy address this?
JoeWPgh wrote:....because of your conservative slant, you only see the insults from one side.
VanWaGuy wrote:Hi JoeWPgh,

Thanks for the civil reply.
Here's some acceptable civility:
Bluefront wrote:That would be at least as hard as having Slick Willey's soon-to-be ex-whatever, sitting in the Oval Office (with the stained carpet). :lol:
Keep in mind this statement was made after Hillary said she would quit running and back Obama on Monday.
Bluefront wrote: Both countries had a history of killing their own people.
Didn't seem to bother Bush Sr all that much, what does that say about him? And what about genocide in Sudan today (I wanted to use the word lately) ? How is that ignorable?


Will VanWaGuy ever answer this question?
aristide1 wrote: If you really want to address pointless it's the argument that the OP's bumper sticker is not always the right. Well gee, no kidding. And yet that "pointless" point-of-view is repeated over, and over, and over again.

But hey, that's OK, right :?:
I guess not, regardless of principles, ethics, even common decency:
JoeWPgh wrote:....because of your conservative slant...
VanWaGuy wrote:Aristide,

It is your lack of respect for others on here that I am reacting to.
Still waiting to hear where these others are. Perhaps hiding with the gloaters?
NeilBlanchard wrote:....
Ah but we also armed Iran.
Well if any one of us did that it would be treason, but it was OK for Bush Sr to do it. You can't imply we used to be friends with Iran, given the American hostages held back in the days of Carter. So was that any less a war crime? That's the interesting thing about the standards some people have, there's just so many to choose from.

Now compare the stains to America in this post to the stains on a carpet. Which stains are truly pathetic?

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Mon Jun 09, 2008 6:47 pm

Here's a classic.

"Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire C-SPAN"

Who said it? Take a look at this world's biggest flip-flopper:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

Oh, by the way VanWaGuy, respect is earned, not given away, and here's the really tough part for your party to understand, you can't buy respect or bomb it into people either.
NeilBlanchard wrote:This pinhead of a president thought it was all done on May 1st, 2003...
Wow Neil, you're an animal, an ANIMAL! 8)

croddie
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 8:52 pm

Post by croddie » Mon Jun 09, 2008 10:38 pm

NeilBlanchard wrote:Nobody has taken on this fact:
Whom does your argument contradict?
What ethical position does it support?
I have taken on the fact but... it leaves me strangely unmoved.

Bluefront
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 5316
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: St Louis (county) Missouri USA

Post by Bluefront » Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:28 am

It's real easy to look back on a course of action, and criticize what was done, leading to the current state of affairs. The harder thing is to take the perfect course of action at the beginning.......rarely accomplished by anyone.

GWB holds the distinction of having the highest voter approval rating of any US president....immediately after 9-11. How fickle we are. A few years later and he has the lowest approval rating. This proves to me that the President and a vast majority of the USA people picked the wrong course of action. Easy to see right now.....hard to see seven years ago.

From the very start, after 9-11, my own estimation of what we should have done has remained unchanged...... an immediate pay-back on suspected terrorist targets without using any ground troops, and too bad if a few innocents get killed (unavoidable during war). The terrorists always kill innocents ......

After that, my entire "war on terror" would have been contained within the borders of the USA. The methods used by terrorists to achieve their goals are not conventional, and cannot be countered by conventional warfare. Of course nothing I advocated at the time has been tried, even though my proposed solutions to terror involved no killing, no warfare. Sad.....

The solution of GWB was met with approval at the start, and bad-mouthed now. My proposed solutions to the real terrorist threats, were bad-mouthed when I made them, and never implemented to any significant extent. We still face the threat of terrorism at home, after much suffering and expense abroad. Our borders remain mostly unsealed, and potential terrorists are still here, allowed to come and go freely. If my proposals had been in place at the time, there would have been no 9-11.

We had a few choices after 9-11........Do nothing, go on the offense against the terrorists, or strengthen our home defense against terrorism. Bush took the wrong course. Doing nothing would have been the wrong course. What does that leave? The threats of terrorism still exist, as long as our home defense remains weak.

Bad-mouth GWB if you will.......easy to do right now. But what would you have done to prevent 9-11#2? The threat still remains.....

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:49 am

And does he also have the distinction of having the worst long term approval rating in US history? All US presidents during a war have such favorable moments, it's when the people see the long term results that they get all the facts.

Name another who has stepped on the Constitution more than GWB? How American is that?

Or name what he did to protect the US the first 8 months in office? Has anyone seen an intelligent answer to that question?

You would still go down the same path with hindsight? The textbook definition of a sheeple. Baaaa baaaa.

VanWaGuy
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Vancouver Wa USA

Post by VanWaGuy » Tue Jun 10, 2008 6:01 am

And does he also have the distinction of having the worst long term approval rating in US history?
Yup, he is an embarassment to the nation and the Republican party.
All US presidents during a war have such favorable moments, it's when the people see the long term results that they get all the facts.
Nope, go look at approval ratings, no such approval rating spike for either the Korean war or the Viet Nam war. How convenient to just make up "facts".
Name another who has stepped on the Constitution more than GWB?
Agreed. As already stated, he is a horrible president, and that is probably the biggest reason.
How American is that?
That does nothing to add to your argument.
You would still go down the same path with hindsight?
Wow, did you even read his message? He said he would not have gone down the current path from the start.
The textbook definition of a sheeple.
Wow again. Definition of sheeple is someone who blindly follows along with what the leaders say without questioning any of the facts, not that they would not repeat the same action again. One of his main points was that we was NOT in agreement with the way things progressed in Iraq. Read his statement, and the definition of the words you decide to label people with.

Bluefront
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 5316
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: St Louis (county) Missouri USA

Post by Bluefront » Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:25 am

VanWaGuy.... As I said before, it's useless to reply to a troll.

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7681
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:53 am

Hello,
croddie wrote:
NeilBlanchard wrote:Nobody has taken on this fact:
Whom does your argument contradict?
What ethical position does it support?
I have taken on the fact but... it leaves me strangely unmoved.
Here's why our whole relationship, over the years, matters:

We sold Saddam the chemical weapons that he used on the Kurds. We knew at the time that he had gassed them -- but we waited about 20 years, and we attacked Iraq; partly because he had killed his own country's citizens.

We sold both Iraq and Iran weapons during their brutal 8 year war, when between 250,000 and 500,000 were killed. We provided Saddam with intelligence along the way, too.

So, when did we grow a spine? When did we find our moral center? We supported Saddam Hussein for years and during all that time we knew full well what he was and what he was doing, and then all of a sudden -- he is a evil dictator and needed to be taken out...

Bush and Cheney and Rove (and the rest of the neocons, like Richard Perl) engineered this war -- they paid the "informants", they planted evidence, they trumped it up and leaned on the intelligence analists, they leaked info to the press; and then they pointed to the "news story" as the evidence they needed to justify attacking Iraq.

So, don't be fooled (any longer): the Iraq War is a travesty beyond anything in our history! We are much less safe for having stuck our stick into it.

Bluefront
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 5316
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: St Louis (county) Missouri USA

Post by Bluefront » Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:49 pm

Neil.... as with everything, there are two (or more) sides. How do you think Israel feels about our having taken out possibly their worst enemy, or Kuwait , or others affected by the Iraq dictator? Come back in twenty years or so, and re-examine the whole thing......you might feel differently.

When Truman dropped the bomb, everyone was glad the war ended. Today, that horrible act of war takes on a different meaning.

Judging such matters as they are happening, never gives you a realistic look......your emotions prevent it.

yefi
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 3:19 pm
Location: UK

Post by yefi » Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:01 pm

Bluefront wrote:It's real easy to look back on a course of action, and criticize what was done, leading to the current state of affairs. The harder thing is to take the perfect course of action at the beginning.......rarely accomplished by anyone.
The actors in the fray of history are without the fortune of hindsight, but that does not somehow excuse them for their bad decisions or attendent sins, as if they existed in some vacuum of reason.

thejamppa
Posts: 3142
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:20 am
Location: Missing in Finnish wilderness, howling to moon with wolf brethren and walking with brother bears
Contact:

Post by thejamppa » Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:43 pm

Troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan... Russia flexing its military muscles and showing its Nuclear capability in Victory day parade... Yes, I think its time for Europeans get ridd of land mines and cluster weapons /Sarcasm.

Even we would ban every weapon and disarm ourselves, its not going to work unless big nations like Russia, China and USA does that same.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Tue Jun 10, 2008 6:07 pm

VanWaGuy wrote:
You would still go down the same path with hindsight?
Wow, did you even read his message? He said he would not have gone down the current path from the start.
my own estimation of what we should have done has remained unchanged
Yes, I took this out of context. You're right about that and I freely say it, but now tell me when have you ever seen BF make such an admission? Or are all his argument just plain perfect?
The terrorists always kill innocents ......
Name an instance where BF can say the words "Bush has also killed innocent people", let alone more than Bin Laden has.

The sheeple argument still stands, based on his commentary of where the party's stand in his own signature, and every third word printed. This is an example of sheeple:
Both countries had a history of killing their own people.
while totally ignoring
Didn't seem to bother Bush Sr all that much, what does that say about him? And what about genocide in Sudan today (I wanted to use the word lately) ? How is that ignorable?
Was that was too inconvenient to address? Or would you like it better being called plain old hypocrisy?
Nope, go look at approval ratings, no such approval rating spike for either the Korean war or the Viet Nam war. How convenient to just make up "facts".
Yes, I blew that one too, but odd how BF's remarks aren't under any kind of microscope that you would own, are they now? But others have addressed this trivial oversight of yours. You never addressed:
The "I won't fight back no matter what" outlook has been tried by many different people over the years.
Or its purpose, why is that?

And the real whopper you didn't address:
Now compare the stains to America in this post to the stains on a carpet. Which stains are truly pathetic?
Did you enjoy the flip-flopping draft dodger video? Inquiring minds want to know. :roll:

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Tue Jun 10, 2008 6:20 pm

Bluefront wrote:Judging such matters as they are happening, never gives you a realistic look......your emotions prevent it.
Thanks for explaining why...
Bluefront wrote:...GWB holds the distinction of having the highest voter approval rating of any US president....immediately after 9-11.

Plissken
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:22 pm
Location: Seattle

Post by Plissken » Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:04 pm

VanWaGuy wrote:he is an embarassment to the nation and the Republican party.
Yes, but not because of Iraq. The left has always disliked him, and he lost the conservative base with all the entitlement spending and trying to give amnesty to illegal aliens. McCain is even worse in that regard, but I digress...
Iraq overall has been a success. Don't believe me? Ask an Iraqi.

thejamppa
Posts: 3142
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:20 am
Location: Missing in Finnish wilderness, howling to moon with wolf brethren and walking with brother bears
Contact:

Post by thejamppa » Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:02 am

the success of Iraq can be dispute. Overall anyone engaged in Iraq have lost more than gained. Only ones who gained and gain something are warprofiteers and arms dealers.

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7681
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:53 am

Hello,
Plissken wrote:Iraq overall has been a success.
I don't know whether I should laugh or cry. Both, maybe?

What evidence do you have that Iraq is better off now?

With suicide bombings, corruption, barrier walls, check points, sectarian killings, kidnappings as a business model, factional armed militias running amok -- I am looking forward to your convincing evidence.

thejamppa
Posts: 3142
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:20 am
Location: Missing in Finnish wilderness, howling to moon with wolf brethren and walking with brother bears
Contact:

Post by thejamppa » Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:17 am

Saddam seemed to be same with Tito into the certain points, except Tito never had oil. Both men had fearsome reputation. Where's Saddam hanged his opponents on meat hooks, Tito supposedly run over them with steamroller or tank. While Saddam's attrocities have proof, there is much less Proof for Tito's attrocities.

However both men contained their countries internal dispute well aslong they remained in Power. When they were gone, internal dispute exploded on hands. Its easy to say we should have learned from Yugoslavia what happends when Strong leader leaves power vacuum in splintered country.

But its very easy to be smart after things happened. But there are great similarities in Breakdown of Yugoslavia and Iraq while there are differences. But end result was basicly same.

To kill hundred for saving thousand...

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:03 pm

Yes, but did you consider that when you kill an innocent you may create a whole family of enemies?

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Sun Jun 15, 2008 5:35 pm

Plissken wrote:
VanWaGuy wrote:he is an embarassment to the nation and the Republican party.
Yes, but not because of Iraq. The left has always disliked him, and he lost the conservative base with all the entitlement spending and trying to give amnesty to illegal aliens. McCain is even worse in that regard, but I digress...
Yeah all this corporate welfare is killing this country, when will they stand on their own two feet like real Americans?

There are people on the other side of the argument that say Billary is nothing more than a moderate conservative, and they hate that.

(I recall a judge on a TV courtroom drama who made a decision that neither side liked. When he saw the results he said "Now I'm sure I'm right.")

There was another political rant in the local tabloid Saturday. It's always amusing to hear somebody say that there are people in the other party that actually wake up in the morning and they have this list of things to do today stuck on the refrigerator, and at the top of the list is "Destroy America." Yeah I noticed that too, I've been to the homes of people on both sides of the argument and they all have that on their lists as well. They clip coupons on Chinese AK-47s and the like.

Hint - If that's your best argument you may as well go back to just saying "bah bah."
Plissken wrote:Iraq overall has been a success. Don't believe me? Ask an Iraqi.
Well so far all the Iraqi's I questioned didn't agree with you. Then again they didn't disagree with you either. In fact they didn't have much to say one way or the other. I'm not sure why.

This may not be related to my asking, but they seemed to have something in common. None of them had a pulse.
thejamppa wrote:the success of Iraq can be dispute. Overall anyone engaged in Iraq have lost more than gained. Only ones who gained and gain something are warprofiteers and arms dealers.
Halliburton and his "objective ex-CEO" are clearly very successful.

JoeWPgh
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 222
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:26 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa

Post by JoeWPgh » Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:09 pm

Bluefront wrote:It's real easy to look back on a course of action, and criticize what was done, leading to the current state of affairs. The harder thing is to take the perfect course of action at the beginning.......rarely accomplished by anyone.

GWB holds the distinction of having the highest voter approval rating of any US president....immediately after 9-11. How fickle we are. A few years later and he has the lowest approval rating. This proves to me that the President and a vast majority of the USA people picked the wrong course of action. Easy to see right now.....hard to see seven years ago.
This is highly misleading. The Shrub didn't enjoy very high favorables until 9/11. During calamity or crisis, Americans of all political stripes unite. It was as his solution became obvious that his disapproval ratings started to return to his pre-9/11 levels. Then our corporate media did everything in their power to help him sell this disaster of policy to the American people. They would treat us to a 'debate' on the wisdom of Bush's adventure, by pitting 2 retired military guys against Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon. Not that those two aren't fine actors, but why did the media have them as the voice of opposition in these 'debates' when there were plenty of ex military, diplomats, intelligence officers, etc trying to make the same points? And as we've now learned, these ex-military guys were following Pentagon orders, with the full knowledge of the networks. I know right wingers love to moan about liberal media, but most evidence points to an opposite bias - pro-corporate at every turn. War does tend to be good for corporate board rooms and TV ratings.
From the very start, after 9-11, my own estimation of what we should have done has remained unchanged...... an immediate pay-back on suspected terrorist targets without using any ground troops, and too bad if a few innocents get killed (unavoidable during war). The terrorists always kill innocents ......
Nice. Bomb people on a hunch as to who the bad guys might be. This is where the American right has gone batshit crazy. They demanded a military solution, while the left favored approaching this as fighting criminals. To date, all success in rounding up terrorists has been due to methodical investigative gathering of evidence - as in fighting crime. The military approach has enjoyed little if any success, and in many cases only made matters worse. Yet, we who were right all along were treated to all sorts of inflamatory insult. My favorite came from Jonah Goldberg, the doughy pantload himself, who called people who opposed Bush's blunder "Brie Eating Surrender Monkeys."

We had a few choices after 9-11........Do nothing, go on the offense against the terrorists, or strengthen our home defense against terrorism. Bush took the wrong course. Doing nothing would have been the wrong course. What does that leave? The threats of terrorism still exist, as long as our home defense remains weak.
We had any number of choices. We could have been logical and followed the evidence. I don't know many people who opposed invading Afghanistan. They had the guy who murdered close to 3000 people and refused to cough him up. I had no problem using our military to take them out. But that wasn't glamorous enough for KingGeorgeTheDeciderer, who took off after something shinier.
Bad-mouth GWB if you will.......easy to do right now. But what would you have done to prevent 9-11#2? The threat still remains.....
I don't see how criticizing a President who many rate as the very worst in our history can be considered bad-mouthing. It's not all that he's done wrong, it's the absence of anything he's done right.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:27 pm

JoeWPgh wrote:I don't see how criticizing a President who many rate as the very worst in our history can be considered bad-mouthing. It's not all that he's done wrong, it's the absence of anything he's done right.
Well that's why most new stations don't even bother painting him as a liar. To be news it has to be unusual and way out of character. Bush telling lies is just BAU. That's why this isn't news either:
JoeWPgh wrote:This is highly misleading.
Most of the right I hear talking are still obsessed with Monica's dress stains. I'm so glad people know how to prioritize.
JoeWPgh wrote:During calamity or crisis, Americans of all political stripes unite.
Well I tried to make that point, but I worded in such a way that VanWaGuy managed to poke a hole in the remark and thus yelled "Mission Accomplished."

So much for all my other questions.
It may be true that you can't fool all the people all the time, but you can fool enough of them to rule a large country.

The political machine triumphs because it is a united minority acting against a divided majority.
Will Durant

Beyonder
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 11:56 pm
Location: EARTH.

Post by Beyonder » Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:59 pm

jaganath wrote:[in fact it was the biggest mistake the Japanese ever made, if they had not done that the Axis powers may have won and we (or me at least) would now be speaking German.
Nitpicker's corner: you'd probably be speaking Russian. Although, to be honest, I've always found these "we would now be speaking xxx" claims to be a little silly; it's not like people are invaded and conquered and all decide to drop their native language.

Bluefront
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 5316
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: St Louis (county) Missouri USA

Post by Bluefront » Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:30 am

Well....languages do disappear when people lose wars. Britain succeeded in all but completely wiping out the native languages of Scotland and Ireland. Things like that happen in wars.

If any country doesn't respond in kind after a massive attack on it's citizens, it invites more attacks. Now whether the response is successful in preventing further attacks depends on many factors.....like the size of the response for instance, the determination to remain free and safe, the resolve.

The president before GB bombed an aspirin factory once after an incident....took a lot of guts.link

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7681
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:15 am

Hello Carl,
Bluefront wrote:Well....languages do disappear when people lose wars. Britain succeeded in all but completely wiping out the native languages of Scotland and Ireland. Things like that happen in wars.
This is colonial occupation, not just war.
Bluefront wrote:If any country doesn't respond in kind after a massive attack on it's citizens, it invites more attacks.
Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attacks on September 11th, period.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:06 am

Yeah, things were different before the CEO of Halliburton was running the country.

walle
Posts: 605
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:52 am

Post by walle » Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:43 am

Hi,

I’m wondering what makes people certain that they would get the present right when they are unable to get even the past right? now, don’t go parroting the regurgitated lies that which are spewed onto the world by the mainstream media propaganda machine, please. As intelligent humans its beneath you, it’s a computer response, and the program is old lacking new updated lies !

Its painful to witness it.


:(
Last edited by walle on Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Bluefront
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 5316
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: St Louis (county) Missouri USA

Post by Bluefront » Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:18 am

Neil.... I don't ever remember anyone ever claiming that the government of Iraq was responsible for 9-11. It was a co-ordinated attack by a bunch of people who share a common religion that uses terrorism to advance it's causes. They do not come from a single country...you know that, everybody knows that.

Our "war" over there is directed at the these people, and at terrorism in general......something the government of Iraq participated in. When Clinton mistakenly bombed that aspirin factory, he was apparently trying to do the same thing.... striking a blow at terrorism.

Terrorism isn't going to go away any time soon, but simply ignoring it, as many around here suggest, would be no better of a policy than what we are doing right now.

blackworx
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 601
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:04 am
Location: UK

Post by blackworx » Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:53 am

Sorry Bluefront, I can't let that lie. It's difficult even to know where to begin. I'll assume you did not intend to label the Islamic religion as terrorist, but there is no other way to interpret your statement "a common religion that uses terrorism to advance its causes". If anything, Islam has been hijacked for political ends. Muslim does not equal terrorist.

The Irish Dynamiters, a 19th century terrorist group, were funded mainly by donations from sympathisers in the United States; Fatah, the PFLP etc. etc. were terrorist organisations active in the 1970s, funded by donations from Iraq and other Middle Eastern oil producing countries. Should there not have been a "war on terror" at those points, or at any other point in the long and varied history of terrorism? Or were the people killed then of less value than those killed in the 9/11 atrocity?

Without totalitarian control*, you cannot repress terrorism; you cannot fight terrorists because terrorists operate outside the law. Our political and military-industrial masters know this. The so-called "war on terror" is only happening now because it is politically and economically expedient.

* "A study of violence in 84 countries reached the conclusion that a little repression increases instability, whereas a great deal of it has the opposite effect, or to put it more obscurely, 'political instability is curvilinearly related to the level of coerciveness of the political regime; the probability of a high level of instability increases with mid-levels of coerciveness, insufficient to be a deterrent to aggression, but sufficient to increase the level of systemic frustration'" - Walter Laqueur

Post Reply