PDA

View Full Version : Political Dialogue- A Discussion about Churchill, Bush, Iraq & more.



Rhydderch
Wednesday, February 2nd, 2005, 11:28 AM
Bush is talking about Syria and Iran. Bush is telling Europe how to think and even dividing it according to his likes and dislikes--Old and New Europe. Russia is doing little or nothing although I hope they are selling Syria Sunburn missiles---this is the single greatest weapon which can be fielded against Israel ---which is hitting the core of American influence.Churchill was branded a warmonger by many of his contemporaries for his warnings about Hitler, but history has shown that he was right. If people had listened the second World War may have been avoided.

George Bush is one of the few modern leaders who has the common sense to take the lessons of the past.

The invasion of Iraq was largely prompted by the fact that Saddam Hussein was not co-operating with weapons inspectors; dictators don't usually do this unless they have something to hide, so there was a very good reason to be concerned.
Besides this, the great majority of Iraqis were desperate to have Hussein removed, because they did'nt really like to have members of their families put through shredding machines, tongues cut out, ears cut off, thrown into tubs of acid (and the list goes on and on, they had torturing down to a fine art) simply for saying something which could be taken as critical of their president.


To stop this mad dog, a wave of solid public opinion is needed--a stone wall. This is the most important thing we can do right now in my mind--unless you guys want to live on a fu----g diet of McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Exon/Mobil, Boeing and like smiling at GIs coming to new American military bases in your country.Believe me, I'd prefer those things to being ruled by sadistic murderers like Saddam Hussein or Al-Zarqawi. The thing is, I don't believe there's any reason to think that George Bush desires to rule the world, but we have very good reason to believe that many Muslims do; in fact that is the nature of Islam, it is a militant religion and the Koran promotes spreading it by conquest.
One problem with George Bush is that he insists on saying that Islam is fundamentally a peaceful religion, but nevertheless he has conducted the War on Terror (primarily directed against Islamic militants), so presumably he knows that it's not always peaceful.

The US is arguably the most powerful nation on earth, and we can be grateful for that. If it was'nt the US it could well be one of the many militant and sadistic nations of the earth.

morfrain_encilgar
Wednesday, February 2nd, 2005, 12:27 PM
Churchill was branded a warmonger by many of his contemporaries for his warnings about Hitler, but history has shown that he was right. If people had listened the second World War may have been avoided.

George Bush is one of the few modern leaders who has the common sense to take the lessons of the past.

Actually, Churchill admitted that he knew Germany was no threat to the English, and that the war on Germany was for financial reasons.

In my opinion, the only lesson from the past is that the Jews cause wars, wether its in Iraq or Germany, through the corruption in the English-speaking world. The business of other countries is not the business of the USA or for that matter of the United Nations, an organisation which exists to destroy national sovereignty.

Appalachian
Wednesday, February 2nd, 2005, 01:18 PM
George Bush is one of the few modern leaders who has the common sense to take the lessons of the past.

I sure hope you're joking. Jorge Boosh does nothing but take the notions fed to him by his zionist handlers, infuse them with his own belief that he's carrying out God's plan by bringing about Armageddon, and then uses us all as pawns to carry out his bloody work.

He's a sick, sick, sick man.


The invasion of Iraq was largely prompted by the fact that Saddam Hussein was not co-operating with weapons inspectors; dictators don't usually do this unless they have something to hide, so there was a very good reason to be concerned.

That's not really what the weapons inspectors are saying, and it doesn't explain why we haven't found any WMD in Iraq (including the ones we've conveniently "lost" since invading the place).


The US is arguably the most powerful nation on earth, and we can be grateful for that. If it was'nt the US it could well be one of the many militant and sadistic nations of the earth.

Americans are inherently strong, but peaceful. We generally hold a very laissez faire attitude toward other nations' doings. The problem is that Americans are no longer in control of the United States. We're ruled by a combination of Israel-first zionists and international corporate oligarchs. Whether it's Australians like Rupert Murdoch, Hungarian Jews like George Soros, or US-born zionists with no loyalty to America such as Paul Wolfowitz, foreigners and those loyal to foreign interests are guiding the helm of the ship of state.

This is why I myself am something of a Jacksonian Nationalist (Jacksonian Democrat), but with an emphasis on the rights of the individual sovereign states not necessarily shared by Andrew Jackson himself. I believe in a sort of populist democracy wherein the Republic is governed by the people, not by a small band of businessmen and career politicians.

I selected "Nationalist" on the above poll, but not because I support the government currently controlling my nation; after all, as I have pointed out, the people controlling our government are not of my nation.

Rhydderch
Thursday, February 3rd, 2005, 03:19 AM
Actually, Churchill admitted that he knew Germany was no threat to the English, and that the war on Germany was for financial reasons.Can you give me the quotation?
His actions (and indeed words in general) certainly don't indicate that that's what he thought.

Chamberlain was the naive one who thought that signing on a bit of paper meant everything.


The business of other countries is not the business of the USA or for that matter of the United Nations, an organisation which exists to destroy national sovereignty.The business of another country is the business of the USA if the other country may ultimately be a threat to the USA.

Besides, to follow the same logic, perhaps the USA should not be giving aid to the countries affected by the tidal wave, because it's non of their business; mind you, some people on this forum would probably advocate that, because Asians and Indians are of (to use their word) an "inferior" race.

The USA rescued the people of Iraq, the vast majority of whom supported the "War in Iraq" and I don't see any problem with rescuing the people of another nation. One can argue that perhaps Mr Bush has other motives behind it, and I can't see into his mind, so it is impossible for me to be certain that he does'nt have other motives, but I see no evidence for it.

I agree with your comment about the United Nations, and indeed I applaud George Bush for finally having the courage to overrule them.

Appalachian
Thursday, February 3rd, 2005, 03:44 AM
The business of another country is the business of the USA if the other country may ultimately be a threat to the USA.

Yes, but we could conjecture that any country "may ultimately be a threat to the USA." Does that then mean that we should go storming across the globe, assaulting everyone who looks at us cross-eyed?


Besides, to follow the same logic, perhaps the USA should not be giving aid to the countries affected by the tidal wave, because it's non of their business; mind you, some people on this forum would probably advocate that, because Asians and Indians are of (to use their word) an "inferior" race.

The government of the United States should not be giving money to the countries affected by the tidal wave, because it is not their money to give. It belongs to the citizens of the United States of America, and the federal government is not entitled to spend it for charitable purposes, as was argued almost two hundred years ago by Representative Davey Crockett (http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/4484/crockett.htm).



The USA rescued the people of Iraq, the vast majority of whom supported the "War in Iraq" and I don't see any problem with rescuing the people of another nation.

While they almost certainly supported the deposition of Saddam Hussein, I seriously doubt very many of them were or are enthused about the prospect of long-term American occupation.

Rhydderch
Thursday, February 3rd, 2005, 04:51 AM
That's not really what the weapons inspectors are saying,The point is what they were saying before the war. Before the war, former UN chief weapons inspector Richard Butler said to a reporter in an interview, "Iraq has said, We have no WMD; I want to say to you plainly that is not true. The question is will they be able to conceal it or not". He also said of one particular site in Iraq that there were definitely WMDs there in the past, and there "is no reason to believe that they are no longer there". The general concensus at the time was that there was no question that Hussein had the weapons, it was a question of how to disarm him.
Now the UN advocated a "peaceful" persuasion of Hussein to disarm, both because they refuse to accept the evil of human nature, and because Hussein was a lefty like them.

Now that no weapons have so far been found, they've all become the "wise guys" pretending they knew all along that Iraq had no such weapons, and most of the media has supported them all the way, conveniently forgetting what was said before the war, and covering up for their leftist friend Saddam.


and it doesn't explain why we haven't found any WMD in Iraq (including the ones we've conveniently "lost" since invading the place).The UN did so much mucking around making deals before the war that there would have been ample time for Hussein either to hide his weapons or hand them to one of his allies.
However, even if it turns out that he never had the weapons, the available evidence suggested he did, and it is a fact that he was not co-operating with the inspectors; I remember at the time he finally said the inspectors would be allowed to search anywhere, but when they arrived in Iraq he started saying no you can't search here, you can't search there; it happened over and over, and the UN were only too happy to fool around with him.

If he did'nt have the weapons, the question remains as to why he would not co-operate; there is now some suggestion that he may have wanted his neighbour and enemy Iran to think that he had weapons, but no-one (UN included) thought of that at the time.

So then the invasion of Iraq was well justified.

Appalachian
Thursday, February 3rd, 2005, 05:06 AM
The point is what they were saying before the war.


Scott Ritter:

I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.

While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.

With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within five years (the jury is still out regarding Iraq's VX nerve agent program - while inspectors have accounted for the laboratories, production equipment and most of the agent produced from 1990-91, major discrepancies in the Iraqi accounting preclude any final disposition at this time.)

The same holds true for biological agent, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within three years of manufacture. Effective monitoring inspections, fully implemented from 1994-1998 without any significant obstruction from Iraq, never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections.

In direct contrast to these findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness - or inability - to provide such evidence.


So then the invasion of Iraq was well justified.

Keep telling yourself that. :oanieyes

Anyway, it's easy for you to say. Australia has less than a thousand troops in the theater of operations, and only around 400 in Iraq itself. We've lost three times as many since that idiot Bush declared "Mission Accomplished!"

How many flag-draped coffins will you be seeing? How many people do you know personally who are over there with their boots in the sand?

This is getting off-topic. Perhaps it should be split off into another thread.

Rhydderch
Thursday, February 3rd, 2005, 05:11 AM
Yes, but we could conjecture that any country "may ultimately be a threat to the USA." Does that then mean that we should go storming across the globe, assaulting everyone who looks at us cross-eyed?
Obviously I mean when there is a serious threat, and when there is good reason to believe such a threat exists, as there was in this case.


While they almost certainly supported the deposition of Saddam Hussein, I seriously doubt very many of them were or are enthused about the prospect of long-term American occupation.
It would be very ungrateful and naive of them to expect to be rescued in such a way and then say 'well you can go now'. The country needs to be "fixed up" first, a "cut and run" policy would only leave the country in turmoil and civil war. The "occupation" will last as long as it takes to restore the country to order.

A while ago a survey was done to find out what Iraqis thought of the American presence; I think it was at least 75% who said they did not want the Americans to leave at the time, and that was well after Saddam had been deposed.

Appalachian
Thursday, February 3rd, 2005, 05:16 AM
A while ago a survey was done to find out what Iraqis thought of the American presence; I think it was at least 75% who said they did not want the Americans to leave at the time, and that was well after Saddam had been deposed.

Naturally they don't want us to just abandon the place now, so that the jihadists or one of Saddam's old henchman can take over. Of course they want us to at least finish making the omelette, now that we've broken the eggs.


The "occupation" will last as long as it takes to restore the country to order.


It's very generous of you to commit America's troops to nation-building in far-off lands. :|

Rhydderch
Thursday, February 3rd, 2005, 05:46 AM
Scott Ritter:[QUOTE]
If he really said that, it was not made public at the time; did you hear him say it? I personally saw that interview with Richard Butler, and as I said, the general concensus was that Hussein had the weapons; and one (or perhaps a small few) dissenting voice, while it should not be ignored, is not sufficient to cancel the whole affair when there seems to be very good evidence for WMD.


[QUOTE]Anyway, it's easy for you to say. Australia has less than a thousand troops in the theater of operations, and less than 500 in Iraq itself. We've lost almost twice that many since that idiot Bush declared "Mission Accomplished!"Yes, he made a mistake on that declaration, does that mean he's some great monster?


How many flag-draped coffins will you be seeing? How many people do you know personally who are over there with their boots in the sand?Well that's a different matter all together, I'm talking about the moral legitimacy of this war; if you are opposed to war per se then that's not the same at all.
But no one has been conscripted in America has he? If you have friends over there who can't stand war then they should'nt have joined the army.

It may be easier for me to say it from over here, but if one does not oppose war in itself then he should be prepared to accept the consequences, and the trauma of losing one's family or friends can obstruct objectivity, so we should'nt try to find evidence that this war is not legitimate simply because we don't like the consequences.

Appalachian
Thursday, February 3rd, 2005, 06:18 AM
Yes, he made a mistake on that declaration, does that mean he's some great monster?

That alone does not mean so, no. It is his actions taken as a whole which expose him as one.


Well that's a different matter all together, I'm talking about the moral legitimacy of this war; if you are opposed to war per se then that's not the same at all.

I'm not "opposed to war per se;" I am opposed to the useless loss of American lives in a war that has zero "moral legitimacy" no matter how much of Rupert Murdoch's bullshit you try to peddle.


But no one has been conscripted in America has he? If you have friends over there who can't stand war then they should'nt have joined the army.

I have lots of friends and comrades over there (though more of my friends are in Afghanistan at the moment) -- fine American men and women with whom I served. Many of them have expressed to me their anger and disappointment with an administration that would so uselessly sacrifice them.

If Bush cared at all about America's national security, he would bring them home and plant them along the Mexican border. Instead, he collaborates with the Vincente Fox government to encourage illegal immigration and orders the officers of his executive branch not to enforce our existing immigration laws.

Hell, national security? What would we do in the event of a real disaster here in the States, considering he's committed our state militias (National Guard) and our reserve forces to "combatting terror" on the international playing field?

The man has recklessly endangered our nation, and it is clearly because he has no loyalty to it. He's a spoiled, insulated little New England socialite who likes to dress up like a cowboy and talk like the good Texans of the state he and his daddy have bought their way into, but his loyalty is not to them. His loyalty is only to his moneyed friends and to those villainous vipers hissing zionist poison in his ear. He thinks nothing of sacrificing America's sons and daughters (but not his own) for the interests of AIPAC and the oil industry.

God save America from this twisted little puppet and the evil men pulling his strings.


It may be easier for me to say it from over here, but if one does not oppose war in itself then he should be prepared to accept the consequences, and the trauma of losing one's family or friends can obstruct objectivity, so we should'nt try to find evidence that this war is not legitimate simply because we don't like the consequences.

If the war were legitimate, the sacrifices would be somewhat easier to bear. I would never tell my friends outright that they are risking their lives in vain; they don't need to hear that when every day for them is a struggle for survival. Some of them have, however, freely voiced just that very opinion of their own volition.

One has even told me that all they've really accomplished through this invasion is increasing the world's anger against America. So much for bolstering our national security...

I hope you sleep easy down under, because I know I retire every night with heavy, heavy thoughts weighing on my brow. And so I go to bed now...

Rhydderch
Thursday, February 3rd, 2005, 11:31 AM
I'm not "opposed to war per se;" I am opposed to the useless loss of American lives in a war that has zero "moral legitimacy" no matter how much of Rupert Murdoch's bullshit you try to peddle.Rupert Murdoch?! He's responsible for a lot of the misinformation that goes on. I don't know what he thinks of the war though because I don't read his newspapers.
My views on the war are not programmed by the media; believe me, our leftist media is dead against this war, and what you are saying is perfectly in line with what a typical journalist here would say, and indeed most of the American media seems to be the same, except that neither of them is so pre-occupied with Jews.


His loyalty is only to his moneyed friends and to those villainous vipers hissing zionist poison in his ear.And what proof do you have for that?


One has even told me that all they've really accomplished through this invasion is increasing the world's anger against America.If I listened only to the media that would be the impression I'd have as well; one must look carefully (and beyond the usual media) to find out what's really going on, and as far as I can tell, that's totally untrue.


I hope you sleep easy down under, because I know I retire every night with heavy, heavy thoughts weighing on my brow. And so I go to bed now...Someone with friends involved in a war will understandably have heavy thoughts, however I think if you knew (or accepted) the truth of what's happening those thoughts would probably be somewhat lighter.

Appalachian
Thursday, February 3rd, 2005, 02:45 PM
Rupert Murdoch?! He's responsible for a lot of the misinformation that goes on. I don't know what he thinks of the war though because I don't read his newspapers.
Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News, the foremost cheerleader for the Bush administration. Fox News is no more than a propaganda outlet for the neocons, and you sound just like all the armchair commandos here Stateside who get their views shaped by it (and don't have the balls to go to Iraq themselves, but will gladly send someone else's children off to die there).


My views on the war are not programmed by the media; believe me, our leftist media is dead against this war, and what you are saying is perfectly in line with what a typical journalist here would say, and indeed most of the American media seems to be the same, except that neither of them is so pre-occupied with Jews.
I wouldn't say I'm "pre-occupied [sic] with Jews," but anyone in this country who is really paying attention can see what's happening.



And what proof do you have for that?
Proof? I can see it with my own two eyes, and so can anyone else who is paying attention. General Anthony Zinni, former CENTCOM Commander and former Bush administration envoy to the Middle East, went on national television and said, "This was the wrong war at the wrong time with the wrong strategy." He also said that he blames “the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly.”

Who makes up "the civilian leadership of the Pentagon?" Zionist neocons like Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, former Defense policy board member Richard Perle [who has since been forced to resign -- at least nominally], National Security Council member Eliot Abrams, and the vice president's chief of staff, Lewis Scooter Libby. General Zinni even said, on national television, that these people pushed an Iraq agenda designed to strengthen the position of Israel.

When he was asked if these same neocons were the engineers of the war in Iraq, he said, "I think they are. I think it's the worst-kept secret in Washington. That everybody I talk to in Washington has known, and fully knows, what their agenda was and what they were trying to do. In one article--because I mentioned the neo-conservatives, who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy of those that propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are, and I'm not interested. I know what strategy they promoted, and openly, and for a number of years, and what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from.”

Like the man said, it's the "worst-kept secret in Washington."



If I listened only to the media that would be the impression I'd have as well; one must look carefully (and beyond the usual media) to find out what's really going on, and as far as I can tell, that's totally untrue.

I don't even own a television. I read the 'newspapers' online at news.google.com, so that I can get a variety of perspectives on each story. I talk to friends and associates who are in the know. If I were dependent on the media to shape my opinions, I assure you I would have drawn quite different conclusions.


Someone with friends involved in a war will understandably have heavy thoughts, however I think if you knew (or accepted) the truth of what's happening those thoughts would probably be somewhat lighter.
When considering whether this war was a justifiable action, let's again listen to the words of General Zinni, who said, “Well, I think the generals, and I can't speak for all generals, certainly, but I know we felt that this situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained -- The no-fly, no-drive zones, the sanctions that were imposed on him. Now, at the same time, we had this war on terrorism. We were fighting al-Qaeda, we were engaged in Afghanistan. We were looking at cells in 60 countries. We were looking at threats that we were receiving information on and intelligence on. And I think most of the generals felt, 'Let's deal with this one at a time, let's--let's deal with this threat from terrorism, from al-Qaeda.'”

And if you want more proof, go to the website of the neocon thinktank known as The Project for a New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/). Read their whitepapers, letters to Congress, and policy positions on Iraq. You'll see that they've been advocating and invasion of Iraq and even using Bush's term, "regime change," since the 1990's. You'll see that as far back as 1998, Paul Wolfowitz was writing articles with titles like, "How to Attack Iraq."

Now compare some of the names of the other signatories on those whitepapers, letters, and policy position statements to the names of the people in Bush's cabinet, the civilian leadership positions of the Pentagon, and the 'journalists' who have been some of the most vocal proponents of this war. You'll see that they're largely the same. Coincidence? I think not.

Look, if the security of Israel is more important to you than American lives, why don't you just come right out and say so? :|

morfrain_encilgar
Thursday, February 3rd, 2005, 04:23 PM
Now the UN advocated a "peaceful" persuasion of Hussein to disarm, both because they refuse to accept the evil of human nature, and because Hussein was a lefty like them.

Saddam Hussein is actually a Baathist Conservative, not a "lefty".

morfrain_encilgar
Thursday, February 3rd, 2005, 05:02 PM
Can you give me the quotation?
His actions (and indeed words in general) certainly don't indicate that that's what he thought.

I will try to find a quote for you.


The business of another country is the business of the USA if the other country may ultimately be a threat to the USA.

How was Iraq a threat to the USA?


Besides, to follow the same logic, perhaps the USA should not be giving aid to the countries affected by the tidal wave, because it's non of their business; mind you, some people on this forum would probably advocate that, because Asians and Indians are of (to use their word) an "inferior" race.

With so many white Americans who live without shelter or health care, that aid money could obviously have been spent on Americans (and so could the money that paid for a war on Iraq).


The USA rescued the people of Iraq, the vast majority of whom supported the "War in Iraq" and I don't see any problem with rescuing the people of another nation. One can argue that perhaps Mr Bush has other motives behind it, and I can't see into his mind, so it is impossible for me to be certain that he does'nt have other motives, but I see no evidence for it.

I tihink that the continuing resistence of the people of Iraq contradicts your belief that Iraq was being rescued from Saddam Hussein. And in the elections the Arabic-speakers didnt vote, it was mostly the Kurds, so they dont seem to want democracy as much as you think.


I agree with your comment about the United Nations, and indeed I applaud George Bush for finally having the courage to overrule them.

Do you applaud Saddam for refusing to give in to them, like George Bush?

Rhydderch
Friday, February 4th, 2005, 10:56 AM
Saddam Hussein is actually a Baathist Conservative, not a "lefty".A quote from Encyclopaedia Britannica on the Ba'ath party:

"in full ARAB SOCIALIST BA'TH PARTY, or ARAB SOCIALIST RENAISSANCE PARTY, Arabic HIZB AL-BA'TH AL-'ARABI AL-ISHTIRAKI, Ba'th also spelled BA'ATH, Arab political party advocating the formation of a single Arab socialist nation......

Within both countries (Syria and Iraq) the Ba'thists formed fronts with smaller parties, including at times the communists."

Elsewhere I have heard of their ideology and it is very similar to Communism.

Socialism is what I mean by "lefty" and Communism is also extreme left. However, the political terms "left" and "right" are not always easy to define and I tend to think that it's a bit like a circle; if you go far enough to the right you'll end up pretty much the same as extreme left.

Rhydderch
Friday, February 4th, 2005, 12:42 PM
How was Iraq a threat to the USA?As I said "it may ultimately be a threat" to the USA. Hussein was an ambitious man and had to be stopped; if he had'nt been stopped he could potentially have caused another world war (as Hitler did, because most people failed to realise what was happenning). We may never know whether Saddam would have gone that far, but one cannot take any chances.

I would say a world war is a threat to America.


With so many white Americans who live without shelter or health care, that aid money could obviously have been spent on Americans (and so could the money that paid for a war on Iraq).I doubt that many Americans are worse off than the victims of the tidal wave.


I tihink that the continuing resistence of the people of Iraq contradicts your belief that Iraq was being rescued from Saddam Hussein.The people of Iraq? You mean those lunatic "insurgents"? They don't represent the people of Iraq. You may not have seen my post about the percentage of Iraqis who want the American presence to stay for the time being.


And in the elections the Arabic-speakers didnt vote, it was mostly the Kurds, so they dont seem to want democracy as much as you think.While the voter turnout was especially strong in the Kurdish areas (probably because they suffered particularly under Hussein) it was also a big success in the Arabic-speaking areas, in fact, far bigger than people were predicting. The turnout was between 60 and 80 percent of Iraq's people; the Kurds make up five percent of the population, while Arabs make up three quarters; therefore the majority of voters were Arabic-speakers.

It was the minority Sunni Muslims (Saddam's religion) who were not so keen on voting. Saddam generally treated his co-religionists better, and in fact advanced them (as is to be expected), so many were sorry to see him go.


Do you applaud Saddam for refusing to give in to them, like George Bush?My applaud for President Bush is not for the fact in itself of overruling them, but for his courageously doing so when he had good reason.

Appalachian
Friday, February 4th, 2005, 01:37 PM
As I said "it may ultimately be a threat" to the USA.

Australia "may ultimately be a threat" to the USA. Should we invade you, too?


Hussein was an ambitious man and had to be stopped; if he had'nt been stopped he could potentially have caused another world war (as Hitler did, because most people failed to realise what was happenning).

I urge you to read the quotation above from General Zinni in which he says that the generals believed Saddam to have been effectively contained.


I would say a world war is a threat to America.

I'd say you're right. Unfortunately, the members of the Bush administration have, following the lead of ex-CIA director James Woolsey, who was quoting a professor named Eliott Cohen, begun referring to the "war on terror" as "World War IV." They seem to revel in that designation. I guess it fits nicely with their plan to invade Iran and Syria. Those neocons are the greatest threat to America.


I doubt that many Americans are worse off than the victims of the tidal wave.

Never been to the coalfields, have you? Never seen what happens when the rains come down and there's no vegetation to hold back the hillside because some greedy bastard scraped it all off trying to get to the coal underneath. I've seen a two hundred year-old town swept away in the blink of an eye. I've seen families living in school buses and abandoned coalmines. But that's another topic...

Anyway, I've often tried to see what good could possibly come out of this whole mess, and so far as I can see, about the only good thing is this:

When these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines begin returning from Iraq in numbers, they're going to find that just after Bush sent them off to lose their arms and legs and friends in the sands of Iraq, he also cut funding for the Veterans Administration, actively opposed measures in Congress to increase such funding, closed seven VA hospitals (at a time when there was already a six-month waiting list for a VA doctor's visit), introduced a plan that would double the cost of prescription drugs from the VA, cut the VA benefits for more than 160,000 veterans who make a certain minimum income, started robbing us of our Constitutional Rights, and turned the Mexicans loose on our soil. That means there's going to be a whole lot of pissed-off, battle-hardened men demanding change.

That's about the only good thing I can see coming out of this.

Rhydderch
Friday, February 4th, 2005, 04:05 PM
Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News, the foremost cheerleader for the Bush administration. Fox News is no more than a propaganda outlet for the neocons, and you sound just like all the armchair commandos here Stateside who get their views shaped by it (and don't have the balls to go to Iraq themselves, but will gladly send someone else's children off to die there).Rupert Murdoch has realised that he can get more money by stepping in line with general public opinion. But most of the media are too cracked on their own agenda to do that, they want to mould society toward their ideals.

What you are doing is giving a slap in the face to all those of the Coalition forces who have willingly gone to Iraq, knowing that they are fighting for a good cause.

And someone who joins the army should be prepared to fight in wars, so it's no good castigating those who believe that the war is right, but don't go themselves.

You said in an earlier post that it's easy for me to talk in Australia, but I think the outcome of the last US Presidential election says it all: most Americans certainly seem to support the war in Iraq.


General Anthony Zinni, former CENTCOM Commander and former Bush administration envoy to the Middle East, went on national television and said, "This was the wrong war at the wrong time with the wrong strategy." He also said that he blames “the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly.”
General Zinni even said, on national television, that these people pushed an Iraq agenda designed to strengthen the position of Israel.

When he was asked if these same neocons were the engineers of the war in Iraq, he said, "I think they are. I think it's the worst-kept secret in Washington. That everybody I talk to in Washington has known, and fully knows, what their agenda was and what they were trying to do. In one article--because I mentioned the neo-conservatives, who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy of those that propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are, and I'm not interested. I know what strategy they promoted, and openly, and for a number of years, and what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from.”

Like the man said, it's the "worst-kept secret in Washington."


I don't even own a television. I read the 'newspapers' online at news.google.com, so that I can get a variety of perspectives on each story. I talk to friends and associates who are in the know. If I were dependent on the media to shape my opinions, I assure you I would have drawn quite different conclusions.


When considering whether this war was a justifiable action, let's again listen to the words of General Zinni, who said, “Well, I think the generals, and I can't speak for all generals, certainly, but I know we felt that this situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained -- The no-fly, no-drive zones, the sanctions that were imposed on him. Now, at the same time, we had this war on terrorism. We were fighting al-Qaeda, we were engaged in Afghanistan. We were looking at cells in 60 countries. We were looking at threats that we were receiving information on and intelligence on. And I think most of the generals felt, 'Let's deal with this one at a time, let's--let's deal with this threat from terrorism, from al-Qaeda.'”

And if you want more proof, go to the website of the neocon thinktank known as The Project for a New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/). Read their whitepapers, letters to Congress, and policy positions on Iraq. You'll see that they've been advocating and invasion of Iraq and even using Bush's term, "regime change," since the 1990's. You'll see that as far back as 1998, Paul Wolfowitz was writing articles with titles like, "How to Attack Iraq."

Now compare some of the names of the other signatories on those whitepapers, letters, and policy position statements to the names of the people in Bush's cabinet, the civilian leadership positions of the Pentagon, and the 'journalists' who have been some of the most vocal proponents of this war. You'll see that they're largely the same. Coincidence? I think not.When I mentioned the media generally being against this war, I did'nt mean to say that I thought no one else is. There are plenty of socialists around peddling their own agenda, civilians or not, and their words are relished by our media, and repeated time and again. There are also plenty of soldiers who are sick of war (or could never stand it in the first place) and its consequences, and they are only too happy to try and find some reason to say that this one was not legitimate, which is understandable under their circumstances, but neither should we go to them to find an objective view of whether or not this war is legitimate.

I would'nt believe a word of this nonsense about Bush swallowing everything the "Zionists" tell him. What sort of dimwit do you think he is? Perhaps some of these Jews have their own agenda, but I think Mr Bush is smart enough to see through that.

However, Israel is virtually a de facto ally of the US, in the middle of the often hostile Muslim world, and I think it's conceivable that, as well as all the other reasons for the invasion, President Bush may have had an eye to protecting Israel; if the US's main ally in the unreliable Middle East is eliminated, then that could spell danger for the security of the region, ultimately for the world and of course for the US itself.

I don't see how advocating an invasion of Iraq since the 1990's effects the legitimacy of the war. I think it's likely that the idea of an invasion has been around since the first Gulf War; the threat has been there all along.

As for the names you refer to, Jews are (as also I think a Jewess said on another forum) are often intelligent, hardworking and ambitious and they also tend to favour the conservative side of politics (although of course there are some notable exceptions). So no, I don't think it's coincidence; but as I said, some of them may have their own agenda.

Now I sincerely hope, if I am ever conscripted to fight in a war (which I would, on principal, be compelled to admit is legitimate), that my fear or stress will not overcome my rational thinking.

Rhydderch
Friday, February 4th, 2005, 04:15 PM
Never been to the coalfields, have you? Never seen what happens when the rains come down and there's no vegetation to hold back the hillside because some greedy bastard scraped it all off trying to get to the coal underneath. I've seen a two hundred year-old town swept away in the blink of an eye. I've seen families living in school buses and abandoned coalmines. But that's another topic...
We're talking about a very large scale disaster with the tidal wave, and I'm not pretending that Americans are all well off; and disasters happen in Australia as well, you know.

morfrain_encilgar
Friday, February 4th, 2005, 05:09 PM
A quote from Encyclopaedia Britannica on the Ba'ath party:

"in full ARAB SOCIALIST BA'TH PARTY, or ARAB SOCIALIST RENAISSANCE PARTY, Arabic HIZB AL-BA'TH AL-'ARABI AL-ISHTIRAKI, Ba'th also spelled BA'ATH, Arab political party advocating the formation of a single Arab socialist nation......

Within both countries (Syria and Iraq) the Ba'thists formed fronts with smaller parties, including at times the communists."

Elsewhere I have heard of their ideology and it is very similar to Communism.

Socialism is what I mean by "lefty" and Communism is also extreme left. However, the political terms "left" and "right" are not always easy to define and I tend to think that it's a bit like a circle; if you go far enough to the right you'll end up pretty much the same as extreme left.

Socialism is not the same as leftism, though the word leftist has different meanings it usually meant Marxist and now means liberal, and Baathism is neither of these, its conservative and patriotic.

Appalachian
Friday, February 4th, 2005, 05:20 PM
Rupert Murdoch has realised that he can get more money by stepping in line with general public opinion. If that were the case, his "news" outlets would be against the war.



What you are doing is giving a slap in the face to all those of the Coalition forces who have willingly gone to Iraq, knowing that they are fighting for a good cause.
Have you not heard a word I've said? How many soldiers serving in Iraq do you keep in contact with? How many soldiers have personally told you that they believe they're "fighting for a good cause?"

I'm a recent vet, and I keep in close contact with many of the people with whom I served, and of them, not one, from Colonels to E4s, has ever used the words "good cause" to describe this war. Not one. Many of them have said that the misery faced by the Iraqi people is heart-breaking, and that they want to help them, but not a single one of them has ever told me that they think this war is "a good cause," or even that it's justified. Most of them are just trying to do their duty because they took an oath to obey their Commander in Chief, even though they know he's a fucking idiot.


And someone who joins the army should be prepared to fight in wars, so it's no good castigating those who believe that the war is right, but don't go themselves.
Yeah, people make all sorts of pathetic, pussy-footed excuses for sending others to fight in their stead. If this war is so justified, why not enlist and do your part?


You said in an earlier post that it's easy for me to talk in Australia, but I think the outcome of the last US Presidential election says it all: most Americans certainly seem to support the war in Iraq.
Most? Ha! About half of the people who even bothered to vote cast their ballots for Bush, and of those, many of them were voting on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage rather than on Iraq.


There are also plenty of soldiers who are sick of war (or could never stand it in the first place) and its consequences, and they are only too happy to try and find some reason to say that this one was not legitimate, which is understandable under their circumstances, but neither should we go to them to find an objective view of whether or not this war is legitimate. No one knows better about the legitimacy of this war than the men who've been there serving in a military capacity in the Middle East. For you to dismiss their judgement in favor of those who've been no closer to Iraq than their vacation homes in Haifa is ludicrous! I'll take the word of a former CENTCOM commander, a man who oversaw the no-fly zones and Iraqi containment efforts for the better part of a decade, over the word of ideologues occupying cushy offices in Washington and plotting the destruction of Israel's enemies.

I've avoided saying this, but I myself sat through plenty of intel briefings detailing the Global SITREP, and never once did I hear anything that would lead me to believe that Saddam Hussein had the capacity to threaten America. As a matter of fact, we were assured that the situation was stable and that he was contained.


I would'nt believe a word of this nonsense about Bush swallowing everything the "Zionists" tell him. What sort of dimwit do you think he is? Perhaps some of these Jews have their own agenda, but I think Mr Bush is smart enough to see through that.
I think he's an absolute moron. I think he's a lucky moron whose extremely powerful daddy (ex-CIA director, ex-president, ex-drug company head [the same company that, during his tenure as Chairman of the Board, provided the federal government with LSD for its MK-Ultra experiments]) ensured him a place in the political elite and groomed him to be president. Fortunately for his handlers, he's just stupid enough to be useful. These zionists (they're not all Jews, and I never said they were), most of whom despise Christians and Christianity, are more than willing to play off his devout fundamentalist beliefs, which has allowed him to become convinced that he's doing the Lord's work and combatting the anti-Christ.



However, Israel is virtually a de facto ally of the US, in the middle of the often hostile Muslim world, and I think it's conceivable that, as well as all the other reasons for the invasion, President Bush may have had an eye to protecting Israel; if the US's main ally in the unreliable Middle East is eliminated, then that could spell danger for the security of the region, ultimately for the world and of course for the US itself. Israel is not our ally. Israel is our greatest liability. Our unflagging support for Israel is the very reason for 9/11, and Osama bin Laden even said so in his speeches. Of course, the Bush regime couldn't allow those speeches to be aired, so they made up some bullshit story about how there were "encoded messages to sleeper cells" in them and refused to allow them to be aired on "national security" grounds.


I don't see how advocating an invasion of Iraq since the 1990's effects the legitimacy of the war. There seems to be a lot you don't see. Let me break it down for you:

A group of zionist neocons form a think tank shortly after the end of the first Gulf War because they're upset that Bush, Sr. didn't 'finish the job' by deposing Hussein and hungry for revenge over Saddam's scud missile attacks on Israel. They endlessly and tirelessly agitate for a second invasion of Iraq. When Bush, Jr. gets elected, they make up his cabinet. 9/11 occurs. The Bush regime begins circulating fabricated evidence (which they have since admitted was fabricated, but still offered no apology for) and falsely insisting that Saddam Hussein was conected to 9/11. They insist that "regime change" in Iraq (the same term they've been using since the 1990s) is the only way to ensure America's security. Despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of Americans take to the streets to protest such blatant falsehoods, they declare a doctrine of Preemptive War, which flies in the face of the Constitution by ignoring the fact that the Constitution grants the right to declare war solely to the Congress, and proceed to launch a mostly-unilateral invasion of Iraq.

Is that clear enough for you?


As for the names you refer to, Jews are The only time I've mentioned "Jews" in this thread is when I pointed out that George Soros, whose papers are mostly opposed to the war, is a Hungarian-born Jew or when I've referred back to a statement you've made.


(as also I think a Jewess said on another forum) are often intelligent, hardworking and ambitious and they also tend to favour the conservative side of politics (although of course there are some notable exceptions). That's ludicrous.


Now I sincerely hope, if I am ever conscripted to fight in a war (which I would, on principal, be compelled to admit is legitimate), that my fear or stress will not overcome my rational thinking. I'm getting tired of the subtle innuendos implying that anyone who doesn't see this war as legitimate is a coward.

Rhydderch
Saturday, February 5th, 2005, 05:21 AM
Have you not heard a word I've said? How many soldiers serving in Iraq do you keep in contact with? How many soldiers have personally told you that they believe they're "fighting for a good cause?"And how many do you keep in contact with? Those soldiers you know must be a small minority, and yet you're going to pretend that they represent the opinion of the US army in general.

Besides, I know that socialists are usually louder about their opinions than others, and those who know the war is justified quietly keep their opinions to themselves. This is not an idea I have formed on the spot, it is judged from my previous knowledge of socialists.


Many of them have said that the misery faced by the Iraqi people is heart-breakingWhich is quite true, but the misery was caused by their dreadful leader, not by the US "invasion". Mind you, many Iraqis have probably been miserable for centuries.


Yeah, people make all sorts of pathetic, pussy-footed excuses for sending others to fight in their stead. If this war is so justified, why not enlist and do your part?If I believe on principle that this war is justified, then whether I go there or not is irrelevant.

I have given you my reasons for believing it is justified. Now, let's look at it hypothetically for a minute: if what I am saying is true, about the reasons for the war, would you say that the war is legitimate?



Most? Ha! About half of the people who even bothered to vote cast their ballots for Bush, and of those, many of them were voting on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage rather than on Iraq.You have been implying that Americans feel strongly that this war is wrong; if that's the case then why did'nt they bother to vote. More than half of voters chose Bush did'nt they? That's what I meant by most.
If they're feeling so strongly about the war, then why did they either not vote at all, or else allow their opinions on social issues to override those feelings.
Perhaps it's because Kerry is part Jewish.

I suppose the ones who had abortion in mind knew that hundreds of thousands of Americans are being killed every year on home soil.


No one knows better about the legitimacy of this war than the men who've been there serving in a military capacity in the Middle East. For you to dismiss their judgement in favor of those who've been no closer to Iraq than their vacation homes in Haifa is ludicrous!I'm taking the word of war veterans from World War II, the Vietnam War and the first Gulf War. Although I don't know many of them personally, I nevertheless know their opinion, even though they're not as loud as the opponents of the war. I would say virtually all conservative voters here would be in favour of the war, and that includes large numbers of war veterans.
I could'nt be certain of this, but I think that, per head of population, more Australians fought in the second World War than Americans, and that includes relatives of mine, so it's not as if we don't know what war is all about.


As a matter of fact, we were assured that the situation was stable and that he was contained.That's what all the "wise guys" said about Hitler before World War II.


I think he's an absolute moron. I think he's a lucky moron whose extremely powerful daddy (ex-CIA director, ex-president, ex-drug company head [the same company that, during his tenure as Chairman of the Board, provided the federal government with LSD for its MK-Ultra experiments]) ensured him a place in the political elite and groomed him to be president. Fortunately for his handlers, he's just stupid enough to be useful.And presumably all those fellow countrymen of yours who voted for him are stupid enough to put him into office.

And all my fellow countrymen who voted for John Howard, thereby making it clear what they thought of the war and his backing of George Bush, are dumb?



Israel is not our ally. Israel is our greatest liability. Our unflagging support for Israel is the very reason for 9/11, and Osama bin Laden even said so in his speeches. Of course, the Bush regime couldn't allow those speeches to be aired, so they made up some bullshit story about how there were "encoded messages to sleeper cells" in them and refused to allow them to be aired on "national security" grounds.In alliances, one country often suffers for their support of the other; that does'nt mean it's not an alliance.

I'm assuming that you personally heard those speeches of bin Laden, and that it's not a second-hand story; it's quite likely that the perceived support of Israel is one reason for 9/11, but the main reason is that the Muslims envy the power of "Christian" America, and they are also rightly (and indeed self-righteously) disgusted at its decadence.

My brother has communicated with many Muslims over the internet and it is clear what they think of America.


Despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of Americans take to the streets to protest such blatant falsehoodsProtesters tend to be socialists (by which I mean Democrat and Labour voters) and in their eyes Conservative Governments never do anything right. My experience of protesters over here tells me that they are a lunatic fringe, not representative of public opinion.


The only time I've mentioned "Jews" in this thread is when I pointed out that George Soros, whose papers are mostly opposed to the war, is a Hungarian-born Jew or when I've referred back to a statement you've made.When you mentioned names, I assumed you meant there were many Jewish names, but it seems I was mistaken on that; what then did you mean?


I'm getting tired of the subtle innuendos implying that anyone who doesn't see this war as legitimate is a coward.I have in mind the fact that you seem to be saying anyone who does see it as legitimate is a coward.

Rhydderch
Saturday, February 5th, 2005, 05:47 AM
Socialism is not the same as leftism, though the word leftist has different meanings it usually meant Marxist and now means liberal, and Baathism is neither of these, its conservative and patriotic.Well as I implied it's a bit of a matter of definition what leftist means, and it's hard to define it strictly; but it generally means socialist or anything leaning that way, including Communism.

I can accept that Baathists are patriotic, but anything leaning toward Communism is not conservative in my opinion, although Hussein was probably conservative in the sense that he wanted to make reminders of the past, including for instance, the Nebuchadnezzar division in his army.

Socialists and Communists are basically the same as the old Levellers, and whose driving force is envy of (especially hereditary) leaders and their aim is generally to bring those down and and either put themselves in power or level everyone so they can be a "law unto themselves".

Lidvick
Saturday, February 5th, 2005, 06:39 AM
George W. Bush :thumbdown :dgrin :evil is a guy who goes around with God on his shoulders with other crazy minded political leaders.

This is the guy who has spent millions upon millions of dollars the United States does not have and uses the words freedom and liberty so many times to make his regime's motives and intentions justified.

If someone wants proofs of his actions I say turn on the news on tv or read a newspaper , and if you are not satisfied with American news broadcasting because most of the time I am not then I say go to Euro- media sections they are just as good in information if not better:D

Let us go through the list of things of chaos in our country because of good old George W. Mexican border easier to cross ( better start studying how to speak beaner), Social Security, medical assistance, I have not seen this guy try to impose laws against out sourcing jobs, terrible funding of education and Vetrin- Hospitals, We have not lost so many jobs since Hoover and he says providing jobs in this country is a main agenda and yet nothing satisfactory, Conspiracy with Israel over the Middle East, Back Draft of American troops, Ill- Funding of soldiers and their families, Does not have a good plan of yet to start pulling troops out. ECT.

The list is quite endless but I think I have proven myself.

As for the Tsunami disaster the giving of money to those countries was the Humane thing to do , however we did not have the money to even give to them and yet we are spending money we don't have and that right there makes it wrong. I think had we had the money we should of helped some because if we didn't that would be a ignorant and arrogant thing to do.

There are those who say all races besides of the White race is inferior I say there is no Inferior or Superior beings were all human stuck in this place called earth and we should be diplomatic with each other and sincere. I aslo believe like many here if you are white support your race with pride, strength and unity , this does not mean putting everyone else down for this just makes our cause worse in the eyes of the multi-culturalist pigs and we would risk further ridicule.

I am not saying be a coward , for I be damned if I ever give up the cause to bring the greatness of the white race back where it so rightly deserves I am simply saying there is a civilized way in doing things.


Also Afghanistan was the right thing to do , Iraq was not.

Afghanistan had the taliban and Iraq did not.

Afghanistan had Bin Laden supporters and Iraq did not.


:) :D :thumbup ty .

morfrain_encilgar
Saturday, February 5th, 2005, 07:11 AM
I can accept that Baathists are patriotic, but anything leaning toward Communism is not conservative in my opinion, although Hussein was probably conservative in the sense that he wanted to make reminders of the past, including for instance, the Nebuchadnezzar division in his army.

Baathism isnt anything to do with Communism, because Baathism is actually an anti-Communist movement.

Rhydderch
Saturday, February 5th, 2005, 07:19 AM
If someone wants proofs of his actions I say turn on the news on tv or read a newspaper , and if you are not satisfied with American news broadcasting because most of the time I am not then I say go to Euro- media sections they are just as good in information if not better
If you read my earlier posts you'll see what I said about the media; mostly it's the same all over the world.


I am simply saying there is a civilized way in doing things.
Again that's what the "wise guys" said about Hitler.

We cannot expect to deal civilly with a man who enjoys taking his son down into the torture chambers to show him people being dismembered or thrown into acid baths. I've forgotten some of the tortures he used but they get a lot worse than that.

If you think Mr Bush is bad enough with God on his shoulders I don't think you'd like to be under a man who rides on the shoulders of the Devil, as Hussein.


Afghanistan had the taliban and Iraq did not.
What's that supposed to imply?

Rhydderch
Saturday, February 5th, 2005, 07:23 AM
Baathism isnt anything to do with Communism, because Baathism is actually an anti-Communist movement.
How do you know that? All the same their ideology is similar and I find it interesting that they "formed fronts" (political alliances) with the Communists.

morfrain_encilgar
Saturday, February 5th, 2005, 07:32 AM
Besides, I know that socialists are usually louder about their opinions than others, and those who know the war is justified quietly keep their opinions to themselves. This is not an idea I have formed on the spot, it is judged from my previous knowledge of socialists.

The Appalachian is not a socialist, unlike people who believe in spreading revolutions by foreign invasions, such as George Bush and his Communist advisors and cheerleaders, who were agitators in the 60s.


I'm assuming that you personally heard those speeches of bin Laden, and that it's not a second-hand story; it's quite likely that the perceived support of Israel is one reason for 9/11, but the main reason is that the Muslims envy the power of "Christian" America, and they are also rightly (and indeed self-righteously) disgusted at its decadence.

Without knowing it youve just explained why real conservatives support Saddam Hussein.

morfrain_encilgar
Saturday, February 5th, 2005, 07:35 AM
How do you know that? All the same their ideology is similar and I find it interesting that they "formed fronts" (political alliances) with the Communists.

I know it because Baathism is influenced by German nationalism, and because Baathist litreature identifies Communism as being Jewish.

Rhydderch
Saturday, February 5th, 2005, 08:33 AM
The Appalachian is not a socialist
I was'nt saying he necessarily is, I was talking about those he gets his information from; but nevertheless what he's said is the same as our socialist media.


Without knowing it youve just explained why real conservatives support Saddam Hussein.
Again, "conservative" is a broad term so there's no point arguing about what a "real" conservative is.

However, I was referring to fundamentalist Muslims. Hussein and his sons were far more decadent than America, you should hear some of the stories.

Rhydderch
Saturday, February 5th, 2005, 11:48 AM
I know it because Baathism is influenced by German nationalism, and because Baathist litreature identifies Communism as being Jewish.
And yet they still formed alliances with them. They are separate entities and presumably think of themselves as such, but I repeat that their beliefs are similar.

Speaking though of variability and arbitrarity in definitions of left, right, conservative and socialist, Hitler's party are usually referred to as right wing but they called themselves the National Socialists, and as far as I'm concerned there is fundamentally no difference between them and the Communists. They both hated the aristocracy and sought its downfall. A difference is that Hitler tended to look into ancient history for many of his ideals.

Rhydderch
Saturday, February 5th, 2005, 12:03 PM
As for the Tsunami disaster the giving of money to those countries was the Humane thing to do , however we did not have the money to even give to them and yet we are spending money we don't have and that right there makes it wrong.You don't have what?! You don't have the money? Are you serious? I can imagine someone from Romania might say that but America!..... You would have to be joking.

I mean, I can certainly understand that there are disadvantaged people over your way, but help is surely within reach in most cases, and America is one of the richest countries on earth, surely you can afford to offer a bit of help, even in hard times.

Huzar
Saturday, February 5th, 2005, 12:25 PM
And yet they still formed alliances with them. They are separate entities and presumably think of themselves as such, but I repeat that their beliefs are similar.

Speaking though of variability and arbitrarity in definitions of left, right, conservative and socialist, Hitler's party are usually referred to as right wing but they called themselves the National Socialists, and as far as I'm concerned there is fundamentally no difference between them and the Communists. They both hated the aristocracy and sought its downfall. A difference is that Hitler tended to look into ancient history for many of his ideals.
It's questionable. If you say very "similar", i could agree, but if you say "no difference between them" you're on the wrong way.

Appalachian
Saturday, February 5th, 2005, 07:18 PM
And how many do you keep in contact with? Those soldiers you know must be a small minority, and yet you're going to pretend that they represent the opinion of the US army in general.

I'm certainly not claiming to talk to every soldier in the Army, but I do keep in close contact with about twenty soldiers from several different units (and less close contact with scores of others -- I occasionally send packages of "pogie bait," toothbrushes, magazines, etc. to different units, and always receive some kind of letter in return). They run the spectrum from the CO of an Infantry brigade to an SGM to a few E4s in differing MOSs. None of them are "socialists," I assure you, and none of them are protestors of this war per se, but all of them have at one time or another quietly confessed that they have serious doubts about the justifiability of this war, as would anyone who didn't swallow the media's message hook, line, and sinker.


Besides, I know that socialists are usually louder about their opinions than others, and those who know the war is justified quietly keep their opinions to themselves. This is not an idea I have formed on the spot, it is judged from my previous knowledge of socialists.

There you go with that "socialist" strawman again.



Which is quite true, but the misery was caused by their dreadful leader, not by the US "invasion". Mind you, many Iraqis have probably been miserable for centuries.


Of course Iraqis have been miserable for centuries, and it's none of our business. It is not our job to storm across the globe toppling every tyrant who terrorizes his own people. And if you don't think we've caused any significant amount of misery since we've been there, you're deluding yourself.


If I believe on principle that this war is justified, then whether I go there or not is irrelevant.

Those who are willing to so vocally express their opinion that this invasion was a just cause should be among the first to volunteer for it. In reality, though, it seems that the biggest cheerleaders for this war want to hide behind their careers or their families or whatever other excuses they make for their own cowardice. It's pathetic.


I have given you my reasons for believing it is justified. Now, let's look at it hypothetically for a minute: if what I am saying is true, about the reasons for the war, would you say that the war is legitimate?

I can't even consider that, as I'm quite convinced that what you're saying is not now, nor was it ever, true.



You have been implying that Americans feel strongly that this war is wrong; if that's the case then why did'nt they bother to vote.

Most Americans don't vote because most Americans feel it won't make a difference.


More than half of voters chose Bush did'nt they? That's what I meant by most.

What was the final tally? 52% vs. 48%? A tiny majority -- certainly not what I'd call "most..."



If they're feeling so strongly about the war, then why did they either not vote at all, or else allow their opinions on social issues to override those feelings.
Perhaps it's because Kerry is part Jewish.

I don't follow your logic. Most Americans probably don't even realize that Kerry is Jewish. Someone's Jewishness is not really something the media is allowed to discuss (and if it is discussed, it is never, ever, ever allowed to be painted in a negative light).


I suppose the ones who had abortion in mind knew that hundreds of thousands of Americans are being killed every year on home soil.

Yep. Too bad that many of those voters are the same ones who are building housing complexes for Hmong and Somali tribesmen.


I'm taking the word of war veterans from World War II, the Vietnam War and the first Gulf War.

And what do war veterans from WWII and Vietnam have to do with Iraq, pray tell? I'm talking about people who have been to Iraq, been intimately involved with our efforts in the Persian Gulf in the past few decades, and are well aware of the situation. You're talking about media pundits.

Besides, if the opinions of Vietnam vets are to be taken into account, we should note that America's most-decorated living veteran, COL David Hackworth, has been a very outspoken opponent of this war from the very beginning.


Although I don't know many of them personally, I nevertheless know their opinion, even though they're not as loud as the opponents of the war. I would say virtually all conservative voters here would be in favour of the war, and that includes large numbers of war veterans.

Do Australians watch as much TV as Americans? In Australia, has the word "conservative" come to represent the ideology espoused by former Trotskyites also known by the moniker "neoconservatism," as it has in America?


I could'nt be certain of this, but I think that, per head of population, more Australians fought in the second World War than Americans, and that includes relatives of mine, so it's not as if we don't know what war is all about.

I'm well aware of Australia's commitment to various war efforts. As a matter of fact, I made a related post (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=261539#post261539) yesterday in the "Listening to at the Moment" thread (I must confess that I had you in mind).

But what does that have to do with the present situation? Absolutely nothing.


That's what all the "wise guys" said about Hitler before World War II.

And what does that have to do with the present situation? Absolutely nothing.


And presumably all those fellow countrymen of yours who voted for him are stupid enough to put him into office.

People are easily manipulated, especially when they watch too damned much television.


And all my fellow countrymen who voted for John Howard, thereby making it clear what they thought of the war and his backing of George Bush, are dumb?

If the shoe fits...



In alliances, one country often suffers for their support of the other; that does'nt mean it's not an alliance.

There's a big difference between allied countries and countries being governed by proxy.

Besides, allies don't attack each other (http://www.ussliberty.org/).


I'm assuming that you personally heard those speeches of bin Laden, and that it's not a second-hand story;

I do not speak Arabic, but I know people who do, and I have been assured that the translations I have read are accurate.


it's quite likely that the perceived support of Israel is one reason for 9/11, but the main reason is that the Muslims envy the power of "Christian" America, and they are also rightly (and indeed self-righteously) disgusted at its decadence.


Yeah, yeah, "they hate us for our freedom." :blueroll:

They're so disgusted that our women wear hotpants that they're willing to hijack planes and fly them into buildings full of people. Please ignore that their statements immediately after the fact clearly said that it was attributible to our relationship with Israel and that peace would only come to us by withdrawing our support of Israel and removing our troops from Saudi Arabia. Just keep repeating the neocon mantra, "They hate us for our freedom. They hate us for our freedom," and everything will be alright. :blueroll:


My brother has communicated with many Muslims over the internet and it is clear what they think of America.

Yeah, well I've got a few choice words about Islam.


Protesters tend to be socialists (by which I mean Democrat and Labour voters) and in their eyes Conservative Governments never do anything right.

From my experience, protestors cover the entire political spectrum, from paleocons to anarchists to libertarians to communists to somebody's otherwise apolitical 80 year-old grandmother. It's simply convenient and expedient for the controlled media to label them all "socialists," and people like you buy it.


My experience of protesters over here tells me that they are a lunatic fringe, not representative of public opinion.

And what, pray tell, is that experience?


When you mentioned names, I assumed you meant there were many Jewish names, but it seems I was mistaken on that; what then did you mean?

I mentioned some individuals. I made no effort to point out anyone's ethnic background. What you read into that largely reflects what's in your own mind, so please don't try to put words in my mouth.


I have in mind the fact that you seem to be saying anyone who does see it as legitimate is a coward.

Not everyone, no. But I do have a healthy disrespect for those who are oh-so-willing to send someone's else's son off to die for a cause they are not willing to die for themselves.

Appalachian
Saturday, February 5th, 2005, 07:30 PM
You don't have what?! You don't have the money? Are you serious? I can imagine someone from Romania might say that but America!..... You would have to be joking.


He's right. We don't have the money to give. Hell, we don't even have any money of our own. The federal government's participation in various usurious schemes has dug us deeper and deeper and deeper into debt, and we're on the verge of bankruptcy and economic collapse.


America is one of the richest countries on earth, surely you can afford to offer a bit of help, even in hard times.

Sure, we can throw more borrowed, baseless paper their way, but that just puts us deeper in the hole.

Lidvick
Saturday, February 5th, 2005, 10:57 PM
The Applachian , lol dang you beat me to it that is what I was going to say:) :thumbup

I agree totally.:D

Lidvick
Saturday, February 5th, 2005, 11:13 PM
If you read my earlier posts you'll see what I said about the media; mostly it's the same all over the world.


Again that's what the "wise guys" said about Hitler.

We cannot expect to deal civilly with a man who enjoys taking his son down into the torture chambers to show him people being dismembered or thrown into acid baths. I've forgotten some of the tortures he used but they get a lot worse than that.

If you think Mr Bush is bad enough with God on his shoulders I don't think you'd like to be under a man who rides on the shoulders of the Devil, as Hussein.


What's that supposed to imply?







The Media is not really the same around the world for In Europe they really are not all propaganda like our own country for they are spectators to this American war event why would they be the same?

I think BBC or other Euro- News agencies would have information regards to the Iraq war I have even watched such broadcast from a world news channel I have.

Ok yes Hussein is a bad guy , but he was virtually contained in his crappy war mongering country after the gulf war , we searched in there with weapon inspectors and nothing showed of any significance. Yes perhaps there was hostility when the inspectors was there but if they found nothing then he was not hiding any weapons perhaps it was hostility that a blood thirsty once dictator became a pawn of the U.N.

Also yes he was bad and his genocides were well recorded but America can not police the whole world and why should we if were the only country to do such a thing and everyone else not. It is simply ignorant thinking that America should handle such cases all the time, when is the last time I have ever seen anybody else get in line ?

As for my statement of ,

( Taliban in Afghanistan war good , and Taliban not in Iraq war bad statement.)

The war in Iraq was caused by the fact that Bush and those crazy political alliances he has said repeatedly that Iraq was in with the Taliban regime and harboring terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

The funny thing is we have been in Iraq a long time now , there is no weapons of mass destruction, there is no Taliban force infact most of the rebel fighters there are Saddam loyalist, Syrian and Iraq nationalist fighters, and couple of religous freedom fighters because our presence in their eyes is invasion and alliance with Israel.

:|

Rhydderch
Sunday, February 6th, 2005, 10:32 PM
It's questionable. If you say very "similar", i could agree, but if you say "no difference between them" you're on the wrong way.Yes, I meant to say "very similar" as opposed "no difference between them". I was meaning to imply that but perhaps it was a bit unclear.

Rhydderch
Monday, February 7th, 2005, 06:45 AM
but all of them have at one time or another quietly confessed that they have serious doubts about the justifiability of this warWell that's more understandable, "serious doubts" is different to confident opposition, which is what I thought you were saying.

Besides, when I mentioned things like stress or fear overcoming someone's rational thinking (and causing him to look for reasons to say the war is wrong), I was not saying it must be due to cowardice, I think it would be quite understandable, and it could happen to any brave man, especially if he knows that some people are already against the war.


Of course Iraqis have been miserable for centuries, and it's none of our business. It is not our job to storm across the globe toppling every tyrant who terrorizes his own people. And if you don't think we've caused any significant amount of misery since we've been there, you're deluding yourself.It's possible that some misery has been caused, as there often is in (even a just) war, but if I believe everything the "insurgents" say then I would certainly think that America had caused a lot of misery. They're always coming up with some account of how a stray American bomb has landed on a populated civilian area.
Their technology is relatively un-advanced (compared with that of the US), we know that they have a total disregard for human life, even of their own compatriots, and they are very dishonest, so I simply don't believe them and I think its much more likely that the bombs are their own misfirings; obviously they're going to blame the US for it, because it's such an embarrasment.

If that's not the sort of thing you have in mind, then what are some examples of the misery caused?


I can't even consider that, as I'm quite convinced that what you're saying is not now, nor was it ever, true.I ask you to look at it hypothetically because you're saying things like "the biggest cheerleaders behind this war are those who have'nt got the guts to go and serve" and you're implying that I'm probably the same. To imply such a thing is inaccurate when you know my reasons for saying this war is justified.

So I urge you again to look at it hypothetically.


What was the final tally? 52% vs. 48%? A tiny majority -- certainly not what I'd call "most..."Well fair enough I suppose but that's still a very significant proportion of voters.


I don't follow your logic. Most Americans probably don't even realize that Kerry is Jewish. Someone's Jewishness is not really something the media is allowed to discuss (and if it is discussed, it is never, ever, ever allowed to be painted in a negative light).I was being sarcastic when I said the reason may be Kerry's partial Jewishness.


And what do war veterans from WWII and Vietnam have to do with Iraq, pray tell?I refer again to what you've been implying. I'm just saying that there are numerous men supporting this war who have experienced war's effects. They are not cowards who sit in their cushy offices sending others' sons off to die.


I'm talking about people who have been to Iraq, been intimately involved with our efforts in the Persian Gulf in the past few decades, and are well aware of the situation.People who are involved in the war itself are not necessarily any better informed about its legitimacy than anyone else, except presumably the highest ranks.


You're talking about media pundits.Actually, I'm talking about war veterans.


Besides, if the opinions of Vietnam vets are to be taken into account, we should note that America's most-decorated living veteran, COL David Hackworth, has been a very outspoken opponent of this war from the very beginning.Yes, I indicated in a previous post that I know there are war veterans opposed to this war, and their opinion is cherished by our media while those in favour are rarely shown.


Do Australians watch as much TV as Americans?I don't know but they watch far too much. And I thought I'd made it clear already that our TV news is unambigiously opposed to this war, even though they don't say it explicitly. They know that a more effective way of opposition is simply to twist the facts and give certain impressions; they interview Saddam's men and act as if that is objective truth, and they drag out the opponents of the war at every turn, scarcely giving the other side any say at all, and when they do get a say, their words are carefully edited.

The reason John Howard so soundly won the last election is apparently because people are finally realising that the media can't be trusted. They seem to have less influence on public opinion than they used to, but their influence is still much too strong.

By the way, I have no great sentimental attachment to the word 'conservative', it's just a convenient term to describe those who vote for parties like the Liberal party (John Howard's) here, and I know that is the general usage of the word here and in Britain.

These parties have many principles which in my opinion are wrong, but they are better than the major opposing parties, for whom I use the term "socialist".


I'm well aware of Australia's commitment to various war efforts. As a matter of fact, I made a related post (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=261539#post261539) yesterday in the "Listening to at the Moment" thread (I must confess that I had you in mind).That song (is it a song?) is typical of the sort of thing our anti-war media brings up all the time. Although I'm not convinced that it was written by a World War I veteran (correct me on that though if I'm wrong), they frequently find some vulgar song about how dreadful war is; of course, we know war is dreadful but sometimes it is necessary.

The attitude and manner of speech there is not typical of Australian society at the time (though some like to pretend it is); it is more representative of the Australian lower (or perhaps criminal) class.


And what does that have to do with the present situation? Absolutely nothing.To those who are wise enough to take the lessons of the past it has a lot of relevance to the present situation.


People are easily manipulated, especially when they watch too damned much television.Indeed, and the one or two American channels, which from time to time (for some of the profound events like and since 9/11) have been played live on Australian TV, were exactly the same as our media, very anti-Bush and anti-Iraq war.


Besides, allies don't attack each other (http://www.ussliberty.org/).Current allies have not necessarily been allies all along, and I would have to see the background to that before I form any opinions on it.
However, I did say "virtually de facto allies"; Israel does a lot of things George Bush does'nt like.


They're so disgusted that our women wear hotpants that they're willing to hijack planes and fly them into buildings full of people. Please ignore that their statements immediately after the fact clearly said that it was attributible to our relationship with Israel and that peace would only come to us by withdrawing our support of Israel and removing our troops from Saudi Arabia.And you believed them did you? They know exactly what their fellow enemies of George Bush in the media are saying, and they are perfectly happy to play on that.


Just keep repeating the neocon mantra, "They hate us for our freedom. They hate us for our freedom," and everything will be alright. :blueroll:You seem to have ignored my main point, and that is that they envy the power of what they see as "Christian " America.

They see the West as Christian and America as the most powerful nation in the West, and they would love to see it conquered in a Jihad by Islam. Their way of thinking is still back in Mediaeval Crusader days, when they failed to conquer Europe for Islam.

Even George Bush himself insists on ignoring this fact.


From my experience, protestors cover the entire political spectrum, from paleocons to anarchists to libertarians to communists to somebody's otherwise apolitical 80 year-old grandmother.Obviously it covers the whole spectrum. I'm talking about a tendency and I'm using the word 'socialist' in a broad sense and indeed I'd consider most of those categories as being various forms of what I'm calling 'socialist', and as I said recently on the thread their aims are pretty much the same ultimately.


It's simply convenient and expedient for the controlled media to label them all "socialists," and people like you buy it.I don't think I've ever heard the media refer to them as 'socialist', in fact I'm not sure that I ever remember hearing the word from the mouths of the media, they would'nt want to label to their own people, because they consider them to represent what is normal, how society should be.


And what, pray tell, is that experience?I'm not quite sure what you mean by that but I'm talking about my general knowledge of their opinions and activities.
But again I'm thinking generally; not every protester is part of a lunatic fringe but most of them seem to be extremists of some sort, and rather ironically, their "anti-war" protests are often decidedly violent.


I mentioned some individuals. I made no effort to point out anyone's ethnic background.What did you mean by comparing their names?


What you read into that largely reflects what's in your own mindWhat I read into that reflects that you mentioned 'zionists' a number of times, and you've made it clear that you think it's all about Israel


Not everyone, no. But I do have a healthy disrespect for those who are oh-so-willing to send someone's else's son off to die for a cause they are not willing to die for themselves.Let's take that to its logical extreme. I doubt that you would feel obliged to be actively involved in everything you think is justified, or that you strongly believe is right.

Rhydderch
Monday, February 7th, 2005, 07:29 AM
The Media is not really the same around the world for In Europe they really are not all propaganda like our own country for they are spectators to this American war event why would they be the same?Perhaps I said that too rashly but what I know of the media in Western countries they seem to be mostly the same.



Ok yes Hussein is a bad guy , but he was virtually contained in his crappy war mongering country after the gulf war , we searched in there with weapon inspectors and nothing showed of any significance.I've quited a UN weapons inspector earlier in this thread and that's definitely not what the generality of them said at the time.
Their reason for opposing the war was not because they believed Iraq had no WMD but because they foolishly thought that if Saddam was given yet another chance, he would comply. They wanted to disarm him peacefully.


Also yes he was bad and his genocides were well recorded but America can not police the whole world and why should we if were the only country to do such a thing and everyone else not.Well perhaps the police have no right to interfere with the criminals' who want to steal from your house and beat you up.

I would'nt say America is always obliged to police the world but if it is the only country which has the means then in my opinion there is nothing morally wrong with doing so.


The war in Iraq was caused by the fact that Bush and those crazy political alliances he has said repeatedly that Iraq was in with the Taliban regime and harboring terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.It's pretty clear that they were harbouring terrorists, though most of them probably fled the country after they realised Hussein had lost the war.


The funny thing is we have been in Iraq a long time now , there is no weapons of mass destructionI also dealt with that in an earlier post, I would suggest that you read the whole thread.
Even if there are no WMDs in Iraq now, it does'nt mean there were none at the beginning of the war, and it does'nt change the fact that the UN said in no uncertain terms that there were such weapons in Iraq and that Saddam was planning on building more. There was no doubt at the time that the US would find WMDs in there but when that did'nt come about they (the UN in particular) started pretending they knew all along.

Rhydderch
Monday, February 7th, 2005, 11:22 AM
He's right. We don't have the money to give. Hell, we don't even have any money of our own. The federal government's participation in various usurious schemes has dug us deeper and deeper and deeper into debt, and we're on the verge of bankruptcy and economic collapse.If you'll just pardon me for a minute......but that is just quite laughable really, coming from what is presumably the richest country on earth (or at least among the richest).

I've heard people say that Americans are introverted but up until now I thought it was unfair; I'm wondering now whether perhaps there's some truth in the comment ;)

From relatives who've gone over there, it seems that the gap between rich and poor is greater in the US than here. But I'd say the average American is still a fair degree wealthier than the average Australian, now in my opinion (and I suppose everyone else's) Australians are very wealthy compared to the inhabitants of most countries worldwide.

Appalachian
Monday, February 7th, 2005, 01:42 PM
Well that's more understandable, "serious doubts" is different to confident opposition, which is what I thought you were saying.
When one is in a situation where expressing anything more than "serious doubts" could cause quite a bit of trouble, "serious doubts" often equal confident opposition.


Besides, when I mentioned things like stress or fear overcoming someone's rational thinking (and causing him to look for reasons to say the war is wrong), I was not saying it must be due to cowardice, I think it would be quite understandable, and it could happen to any brave man, especially if he knows that some people are already against the war.
You just don't get it. These men aren't looking for reasons to say it's wrong, they're looking for reasons to say it's right. They want this war to be justified, since it would help them live with themselves a little easier. Unfortunately, it just isn't so.


It's possible that some misery has been caused, as there often is in (even a just) war, but if I believe everything the "insurgents" say then I would certainly think that America had caused a lot of misery. They're always coming up with some account of how a stray American bomb has landed on a populated civilian area. Their technology is relatively un-advanced (compared with that of the US), we know that they have a total disregard for human life, even of their own compatriots, and they are very dishonest, so I simply don't believe them and I think its much more likely that the bombs are their own misfirings; obviously they're going to blame the US for it, because it's such an embarrasment.
May I ask if you've ever served in the military? Mistakes get made all the time. If our advanced technology can't prevent the kind of operator error that allows us to kill our own people, what makes you think it can prevent us from accidentally killing theirs?


I ask you to look at it hypothetically because you're saying things like "the biggest cheerleaders behind this war are those who have'nt got the guts to go and serve" and you're implying that I'm probably the same. To imply such a thing is inaccurate when you know my reasons for saying this war is justified.
The question stands: Are you of age to participate in this war? If so, since you so stongly feel that it is a just cause, why have you not enlisted your services?


So I urge you again to look at it hypothetically.
Ok. Hypothetically, if Iraq had posed a threat to the United States, then the war would have been justifiable.


I refer again to what you've been implying. I'm just saying that there are numerous men supporting this war who have experienced war's effects. They are not cowards who sit in their cushy offices sending others' sons off to die.
You think George Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Charles Krauthammer, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, WIlliam Kristol, Robert Kagan, and that sort have spent a lot of time on the battlefield experiencing the horrors of war? I sure don't. Their battlefields have been publishing houses, corporate boardrooms, and the lobbies of Congress. These are the men who are sending America's sons and daughters off to fight a war that is not ours.


People who are involved in the war itself are not necessarily any better informed about its legitimacy than anyone else, except presumably the highest ranks.
Like, perhaps, General Anthony Zinni, the former CENTCOM commander who has publicly stated that this war was engineered by neocons for the benefit of Israel?


Actually, I'm talking about war veterans.
War veterans now acting in what capacity? As talking heads?


Yes, I indicated in a previous post that I know there are war veterans opposed to this war, and their opinion is cherished by our media while those in favour are rarely shown.
Maybe in Australia, but not here.


I don't know but they watch far too much. And I thought I'd made it clear already that our TV news is unambigiously opposed to this war, even though they don't say it explicitly.
Then things are very, very different here.



That song (is it a song?) is typical of the sort of thing our anti-war media brings up all the time. Although I'm not convinced that it was written by a World War I veteran (correct me on that though if I'm wrong), they frequently find some vulgar song about how dreadful war is; of course, we know war is dreadful but sometimes it is necessary.
Yes, it's a song. It's been around for many years. And no, the author was not a WWI vet.


The attitude and manner of speech there is not typical of Australian society at the time (though some like to pretend it is); it is more representative of the Australian lower (or perhaps criminal) class.

Yeah, the sort of people who get sent off to fight wars while "society" sits at home smoking stogies and sipping cocktails.

Anyway, don't you think it's ironic that someone from a nation whose roots are as a penal colony would refer to its "criminal class" in a pejorative sense? That's almost like me calling someone a "rebel" and intending it as an insult.



And you believed them did you? They know exactly what their fellow enemies of George Bush in the media are saying, and they are perfectly happy to play on that.

If you think that the American "news" media have ever said that our support for Israel was the reason for 9/11, you're fooling yourself. I've never even heard the words "Israel" and "9/11" used in the same sentence on television.


You seem to have ignored my main point, and that is that they envy the power of what they see as "Christian " America.
Would they be so envious of that power, if we kept it to ourselves and didn't go parading it through their lands? I think not. You're making excuses for imperialism.


They see the West as Christian and America as the most powerful nation in the West, and they would love to see it conquered in a Jihad by Islam. Their way of thinking is still back in Mediaeval Crusader days, when they failed to conquer Europe for Islam.
And apparently so is yours -- stuck, that is, in the Mediaeval crusader days, when we failed to conquer the Islamic world for Christendom.



Obviously it covers the whole spectrum. I'm talking about a tendency and I'm using the word 'socialist' in a broad sense and indeed I'd consider most of those categories as being various forms of what I'm calling 'socialist', and as I said recently on the thread their aims are pretty much the same ultimately.
Somehow I doubt that the free-market Libertarians and the Anarchists and the paleocons and somebody's otherwise apolitical 80 year-old grandma all ultimately have the same aims.


I don't think I've ever heard the media refer to them as 'socialist', in fact I'm not sure that I ever remember hearing the word from the mouths of the media, they would'nt want to label to their own people, because they consider them to represent what is normal, how society should be.
Wow! The Australian media must indeed be very different from that of the US, because here, anyone who goes out to publicly protest the war is painted as a freak. Indeed, they only show the freaks. They only interview the freaks. That way, they can convince people that all people opposed to the war are freaks, and people like you seem to buy it.


I'm not quite sure what you mean by that but I'm talking about my general knowledge of their opinions and activities.
Yeah, and what I'm asking is: What is that knowledge based on? What is the closest you've ever been to an actual real, live anti-war protest?


But again I'm thinking generally; not every protester is part of a lunatic fringe but most of them seem to be extremists of some sort, and rather ironically, their "anti-war" protests are often decidedly violent.
Ever been teargassed? Ever been shot by a rubber bullet for getting too close to a fence? What makes you think the protestors always initiate the violence?


What did you mean by comparing their names?
When did I "compare" anyone's names? I was just mentioning some of the key players. Why do you ask? Have you noticed some kind of pattern to their names?


What I read into that reflects that you mentioned 'zionists' a number of times, and you've made it clear that you think it's all about Israel
You're right. I do.


Let's take that to its logical extreme. I doubt that you would feel obliged to be actively involved in everything you think is justified, or that you strongly believe is right.
Unless I were old, infirm, or crippled, I would not advocate sending other men to fight a war I was not willing to fight myself. Anything else is despicable cowardice.

Appalachian
Monday, February 7th, 2005, 01:49 PM
I would'nt say America is always obliged to police the world but if it is the only country which has the means then in my opinion there is nothing morally wrong with doing so.

Then obviously you understand neither the American spirit nor the intent of our Founding Fathers.

Appalachian
Monday, February 7th, 2005, 02:33 PM
If you'll just pardon me for a minute......but that is just quite laughable really, coming from what is presumably the richest country on earth (or at least among the richest).

I've heard people say that Americans are introverted but up until now I thought it was unfair; I'm wondering now whether perhaps there's some truth in the comment ;)

From relatives who've gone over there, it seems that the gap between rich and poor is greater in the US than here. But I'd say the average American is still a fair degree wealthier than the average Australian, now in my opinion (and I suppose everyone else's) Australians are very wealthy compared to the inhabitants of most countries worldwide. Yeah, we have lots of little green pieces of paper, for what it's worth.

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=20822&highlight=federal+reserve
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=29731&highlight=federal+reserve
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=27223&highlight=federal+reserve
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=23460&highlight=federal+reserve



http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/inflation.gif

Lidvick
Tuesday, February 8th, 2005, 12:19 AM
Perhaps I said that too rashly but what I know of the media in Western countries they seem to be mostly the same.


I've quited a UN weapons inspector earlier in this thread and that's definitely not what the generality of them said at the time.
Their reason for opposing the war was not because they believed Iraq had no WMD but because they foolishly thought that if Saddam was given yet another chance, he would comply. They wanted to disarm him peacefully.

Well perhaps the police have no right to interfere with the criminals' who want to steal from your house and beat you up.

I would'nt say America is always obliged to police the world but if it is the only country which has the means then in my opinion there is nothing morally wrong with doing so.

It's pretty clear that they were harbouring terrorists, though most of them probably fled the country after they realised Hussein had lost the war.

I also dealt with that in an earlier post, I would suggest that you read the whole thread.
Even if there are no WMDs in Iraq now, it does'nt mean there were none at the beginning of the war, and it does'nt change the fact that the UN said in no uncertain terms that there were such weapons in Iraq and that Saddam was planning on building more. There was no doubt at the time that the US would find WMDs in there but when that did'nt come about they (the UN in particular) started pretending they knew all along.



I hardly would say the news across the world is the same while America is always saying the war is dangerous and will cause great economic stress there is a great campaign of propaganda of freedom and liberty from bush and the jewish media. The great crusade of peace and freedom for the Middle East. If you look at the French, German and other sources they criticize the war all the time infact alot of The European politicians loathe Bush and I can not blame them.


I must say perhaps of the peace and such of letting Saddam have one more chance of putting down arms could be a possibility of U.N. weapon inspectors.

I however I think that is unlikely because I would like to think the U.N. is more professional then that.:lmao

I doubt that the U.N. has the mentality aww :baby this mad dictator is making weapons of destruction but we can give them one more chance.:stop


First off local and national police is two different things , In your own country you need the police to keep the balance in your country from total anarchy.

In national policing is a ridiculous idea because each goverment is to police and attend to their own affairs , America is no exception of this we have our own problems to deal with , and the Middle East has theirs.

The Morally wrong part is that were so busy now correcting other countries and were now ignoring the internal problems of our own country leading to a decaying withering society in a downward spiral of upheaval and chaos.

Also you must have got your information wrong again there were NO TERRORIST IN IRAQ!!!!!! That Was Afghanistan with all the Taliban and Al Qaeda and that was a just war. Iraq only had Saddam national guards and saddam loyalist running the whole country, It may be true to say that terrorist went to Iraq during Afghanistan invasion to escape American Marines but there is no proof that Saddam on a national level aided or even had business with the terrorist. Saddam was only loyal to his regime and his family.

Give me proof of Iraq connections with Al Qaeda. :thumbup




I shouldn't of said there was no weapons of mass destruction lol , I forgot to count all those deactivated ones in the ground from the Gulf War :lmfao: :rofl :lol .


In a more serious sense however there was nothing and even if he moved them we would of known somthing about them.

With Regards , Lidvick

Rhydderch
Tuesday, February 8th, 2005, 04:49 AM
May I ask if you've ever served in the military? Mistakes get made all the time. If our advanced technology can't prevent the kind of operator error that allows us to kill our own people, what makes you think it can prevent us from accidentally killing theirs?As I said then perhaps some misery has been caused but of course it certainly does'nt equal the misery caused by Iraq's former leader, and I think that misery alone which he caused is enough to justify this war. But that's not to say I think America was necessarily obliged to do it.

Now I know that our media is highly biased, and if something goes wrong in Iraq, we'll know about it all right.


The question stands: Are you of age to participate in this war? If so, since you so stongly feel that it is a just cause, why have you not enlisted your services?I'm not so hyperactive as to think I must be actively involved in everything I believe is right. If I did, I'd be leaping around all over the world.
Besides, even if I joined the army now, it's very unlikely that I'd be sent to Iraq; the Australians who are over there at the moment are SAS, highly skilled men, different to the common soldiery.



Ok. Hypothetically, if Iraq had posed a threat to the United States, then the war would have been justifiable.Well, there was a bit more to it than that, but I'll probably leave it there.



You think George Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Charles Krauthammer, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, WIlliam Kristol, Robert Kagan, and that sort have spent a lot of time on the battlefield experiencing the horrors of war?I did'nt say so did I? but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them have been involved in war; was'nt Bush himself? And if you say of him the same thing that Kerry said, that won't help convince me that you are being objective.


Like, perhaps, General Anthony Zinni, the former CENTCOM commander who has publicly stated that this war was engineered by neocons for the benefit of Israel?Even in the highest ranks, men have their own motives. I think it's likely that he knows exactly what is going on.
Now, if he votes at all, I'd be interested to know whether he habitually favours Democrats over Republicans (including before 9/11). For that matter, I'd also be interested to know the traditional political leanings of you, your family and friends.


War veterans now acting in what capacity? As talking heads?The only talking heads here are the opponents of the war, and not many of them seem to be war veterans.


Maybe in Australia, but not here.The two American channels which were played over here were exactly the same as our media, very pro Democrat and anti-war.

If there are media outlets over there that are different, then I'm glad to hear it.


Yeah, the sort of people who get sent off to fight wars while "society" sits at home smoking stogies and sipping cocktails.I think you've misunderstood my use of the term 'society'; I mean Australians in general, in particular I was referring to the soldiers themselves. They were drawn from all ranks of Australian society (of course including the minority criminal-type class), and I doubt that anyone was left so untouched by the war as to 'sit at home' with not a care in the world.

The general attitude at the time was 'God, King and Country'.


Anyway, don't you think it's ironic that someone from a nation whose roots are as a penal colony would refer to its "criminal class" in a pejorative sense?Aha! I wondered if you'd say something like that. While the first settlers here were mostly convicts and their governors, it can hardly be said that Australia's roots are as a penal colony; in fact few Australians would be descended from convicts.


That's almost like me calling someone a "rebel" and intending it as an insult.If you're descended from rebels, then to do so would be ironic, but since I have no convict ancestry, that point does'nt apply to me, nor, in all likelihood, does it apply to many other Australians.

Interesting thought about rebels though, I assume you have the War of Independence in mind; I wonder if you think that war was justified.


If you think that the American "news" media have ever said that our support for Israel was the reason for 9/11, you're fooling yourself. I've never even heard the words "Israel" and "9/11" used in the same sentence on television.Media are usually subtle, they don't say things explicitly, they just give impressions.
Even if it's not the media though, it sounds like the story is doing the rounds, and these Muslims have contacts all over the western world.

And if even George Bush does not admit the main reasons for 9/11, it's unlikely that any media would, whether they are for him or against him. So if the terrorists have publicly stated the reasons, we still would not necessarily know about it.



Would they be so envious of that power, if we kept it to ourselves and didn't go parading it through their lands? I think not.I think so. They've had the same attitude towards all western countries, and before 9/11 Muslim immigrants in Sydney have been attacking Australians because they're Australians, their desire is to bring the Western world under Muslim domination; in England, some Muslim leaders even had the audacity to suggest that they form a separate Islamic state within England, and they were'nt joking.

And what better place to start a 'Jihad' than the most powerful "Christian" country; although it is likely that what they see as America's support for Israel is also firing them.


And apparently so is yours -- stuck, that is, in the Mediaeval crusader days, when we failed to conquer the Islamic world for Christendom.No, it's not. The West is hardly Christian today, nor was it in Mediaeval times, but today it is scarcely even officially Christian.
Also, I do not advocate military conquest of the Islamic world for Christendom.


Somehow I doubt that the free-market Libertarians and the Anarchists and the paleocons and somebody's otherwise apolitical 80 year-old grandma all ultimately have the same aims.You have your opinion, I have mine. However, I said 'most' of those categories, not 'all'.


That way, they can convince people that all people opposed to the war are freaks, and people like you seem to buy it.The 'buyers', in what respect are they 'like me'. I've told you that I'm not listening to the media.


Yeah, and what I'm asking is: What is that knowledge based on?It's based on a lot of things, which can't really be explained in a nutshell. And our media shows enough of them to make it clear what they're like; if there's violence, they will ignore it as much as possible, but they know that people will find out somehow or other what's going on, so they can't ignore it altogether, otherwise they would lose all credibility, and as a result, all influence as well.


Ever been teargassed? Ever been shot by a rubber bullet for getting too close to a fence? What makes you think the protestors always initiate the violence?If people were being attacked with teargas and rubber bullets, we'd know every detail.
These people are only confronted by police if they are being unruly or violent, and even then, the police are, in my opinion, generally too soft on them, and the protesters are usually allowed to disrupt traffic in the centre of the city.

They also damage property in the vicinity of their protests, definitely not prompted by attacks from people with opposing views, indeed the property owners are not usually there at the time.

If any of them are hurt in the process of being arrested, oh the sympathy and, oh how terrible the police are.


When did I "compare" anyone's names? I was just mentioning some of the key players. Why do you ask? Have you noticed some kind of pattern to their names?"Now compare some of the names of the other signatories on those whitepapers......."

I was'nt sure what you meant by that.


You're right. I do.Which, together with your mention of Zionists is what made me think you were referring to Jewish names.


Unless I were old, infirm, or crippled, I would not advocate sending other men to fight a war I was not willing to fight myself. Anything else is despicable cowardice.Being willing, and actually going, are two different things. The troops' numbers are currently sufficient, and even so, there is no conscription, so the troops over there have, by joining the army, showed their willingness to fight, and if everyone joined the army who think the war is justified, there would be too many soldiers.

So the fact is, it's not always necessary to join in even a war that one believes is right, and it is absurd to say that someone who does'nt is a despicable coward.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, February 8th, 2005, 05:08 AM
Yeah, we have lots of little green pieces of paper, for what it's worth.I mean wealth in general, everything taken into account, such as standard of living and possessions, not just little green pieces of paper.

Appalachian
Tuesday, February 8th, 2005, 05:51 AM
As I said then perhaps some misery has been caused but of course it certainly does'nt equal the misery caused by Iraq's former leader, and I think that misery alone which he caused is enough to justify this war.

How do you know? Have you been there? Have you spoken to anyone who has? Have you asked any Iraqis how they feel about it?

Let's see... Saddam had torture chambers. We have torture chambers. Saddam killed innocent civilians. We kill innocent civilians. Saddam antagonized Iran. We antagonize Iran. What's changed, other than the fact that Saddam didn't allow radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorists to go around blowing things up?


Now I know that our media is highly biased, and if something goes wrong in Iraq, we'll know about it all right.

Trust me, there's a lot you don't hear about.


I'm not so hyperactive as to think I must be actively involved in everything I believe is right. If I did, I'd be leaping around all over the world.

Then maybe you shouldn't go volunteering other men for the job.


Besides, even if I joined the army now, it's very unlikely that I'd be sent to Iraq; the Australians who are over there at the moment are SAS, highly skilled men, different to the common soldiery.

Good excuse.



I did'nt say so did I? but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them have been involved in war; was'nt Bush himself?

No. He was a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard and never saw active combat -- especially since he was AWOL for much of his tour of duty (cocaine'll do that to you).


Even in the highest ranks, men have their own motives. I think it's likely that he knows exactly what is going on.

Yeah, he does. And he came out and said so on 60 Minutes, which is probably why he hasn't been invited back for any more network TV appearances since then.


Now, if he votes at all, I'd be interested to know whether he habitually favours Democrats over Republicans (including before 9/11). For that matter, I'd also be interested to know the traditional political leanings of you, your family and friends.

My own "political leanings" have been clearly stated on this very board. As for my family, though that is totally irrelevent to this discussion, most of them are old-school Southern Democrats (and given your apparent ignorance of American politics, that probably doesn't mean what you think it does). My father has, in recent years, become something of a neocon. Of course, he watches a lot of Fox News. My friends have political opinions running the gammut.


The two American channels which were played over here were exactly the same as our media, very pro Democrat and anti-war.

What, Comedy Central and MTV?


Interesting thought about rebels though, I assume you have the War of Independence in mind; I wonder if you think that war was justified.

Of course it was, but that has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. Well, I guess peripherally it does, in that since we were fighting a war for the right of a nation to be independent of the imperial power which was oppressing it, we've now gone back on our principles by launching an unjustified invasion of a sovereign country which was absolutely no threat to us.



Even if it's not the media though, it sounds like the story is doing the rounds, and these Muslims have contacts all over the western world.

And zionists don't?



The 'buyers', in what respect are they 'like me'. I've told you that I'm not listening to the media.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.


It's based on a lot of things, which can't really be explained in a nutshell. And our media shows enough of them to make it clear what they're like;

I thought you didn't listen to the media?


if there's violence, they will ignore it as much as possible, but they know that people will find out somehow or other what's going on, so they can't ignore it altogether, otherwise they would lose all credibility, and as a result, all influence as well.

They ignore it because they don't want to downplay how pissed-off people are becoming.


If people were being attacked with teargas and rubber bullets, we'd know every detail.

Do you live in a bubble?
http://www.bartcop.com/rubber-bullet.jpg
http://www.morphizm.com/images/politix/levine/rubberbullet_reu_tim_wimborne.jpg
http://mdfa.blogdns.org/pixels/Protester_injured_by_rubber_bullets_in_P ortland.jpg


These people are only confronted by police if they are being unruly or violent,

From my personal experience this is not the case.


and even then, the police are, in my opinion, generally too soft on them,

I hope someday you get to experience such 'softness' yourself. :)


They also damage property in the vicinity of their protests, definitely not prompted by attacks from people with opposing views, indeed the property owners are not usually there at the time.

I'll grant that attacking people's private property is very, very wrong and I wish those stupid black bloc kids wouldn't engage in such activity. Of course, I wouldn't shed a tear if every McDonalds and Starbucks in America burns to the ground.


"Now compare some of the names of the other signatories on those whitepapers......."

I was'nt sure what you meant by that.

Then maybe you should have read the rest of the sentence. I said to compare the names of signatories on items put out by the PNAC with the list of members of Bush's cabinet, and you'll see that they're largely the same people.


Being willing, and actually going, are two different things. The troops' numbers are currently sufficient,

That's not what I hear, but hey, you're the one with all the inside info. :lmfao:


and even so, there is no conscription, so the troops over there have, by joining the army, showed their willingness to fight, and if everyone joined the army who think the war is justified, there would be too many soldiers.

You've got a million excuses, don't you?


So the fact is, it's not always necessary to join in even a war that one believes is right, and it is absurd to say that someone who does'nt is a despicable coward.

It's not absurd in the slightest. If a man is willing to speak out in favor of going to war and is healthy enough to go to war, but finds excuses for not going, he's not only a hypocrite, but he's also the most despicable sort of coward.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, February 8th, 2005, 05:55 AM
If you look at the French, German and other sources they criticize the war all the timeThat's exactly what I mean. Most of the media around the world hate Mr Bush and they have political reasons for it; it has nothing to do with believing the war is unjust, they just pretend that's why.

As for the other European leaders, it appears that France may have been supplying Saddam with weapons.


I however I think that is unlikely because I would like to think the U.N. is more professional then that.:lmaoI 'd also like to think so but that is definitely what they were saying. If one can't believe the UN would be so unprofessional then why believe the stories about George Bush being so unprofessional.


I doubt that the U.N. has the mentality aww :baby this mad dictator is making weapons of destruction but we can give them one more chance.:stopThey refuse to understand human nature. They were saying that he should be dealt with peacefully, and that in our 'modern' world we know better than to use force.

Here is Richard Butler, former UN chief weapons inspector, both comments come from the same interview:

"Remember this -- Iraq has said, 'We have no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever.'

I want to say to you plainly that is not true......"

"I would rather see us solve this problem by non-military means, through international law and prove that the world can work around cooperation and law, not just the ancient principle that might is right."


First off local and national police is two different things , In your own country you need the police to keep the balance in your country from total anarchy.

In national policing is a ridiculous idea because each goverment is to police and attend to their own affairs , America is no exception of this we have our own problems to deal with , and the Middle East has theirs.That is fair enough in itself but I believe Iraq was not only dealing with its own problems, I think they were also a threat to other nations so the world needs to be kept from total anarchy if possible


Also you must have got your information wrong again there were NO TERRORIST IN IRAQ!!!!!!Al-Zarqawi is a terrorist and so are many others still there. But as I said before the fact that some may not be there now does'nt mean they never were


That Was Afghanistan with all the Taliban and Al Qaeda and that was a just war.It was a policing of the world though


Give me proof of Iraq connections with Al Qaeda. :thumbupI don't think I ever said that did I. There are many terrorists who are not always connected. But I think Al Qaida were there and I think I also remember that Al-Zarqawi is connected with them somehow.


In a more serious sense however there was nothing and even if he moved them we would of known somthing about them.Not necessarily at all, and Richard Butler admitted it before the war.

Appalachian
Tuesday, February 8th, 2005, 05:56 AM
I mean wealth in general, everything taken into account, such as standard of living and possessions, not just little green pieces of paper.

The subject at hand was charity to tsunami victims, which would come in the form of food, clothing, blankets, etc. purchased by the federal government with little green pieces of paper which do not really belong to the federal government.

Connecting that to our standard of living (which is wholely built on trading those little green pieces of paper) is a stretch.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, February 8th, 2005, 06:30 AM
The subject at hand was charity to tsunami victims, which would come in the form of food, clothing, blankets, etc. purchased by the federal government with little green pieces of paper which do not really belong to the federal government.

Connecting that to our standard of living (which is wholely built on trading those little green pieces of paper) is a stretch.I said not 'just' pieces of paper, everything considered. It is all relevant to whether America is a wealthy nation, and it is, you can't fool me.

Appalachian
Tuesday, February 8th, 2005, 07:01 AM
I said not 'just' pieces of paper, everything considered. It is all relevant to whether America is a wealthy nation, and it is, you can't fool me.

I don't know about that; you seem pretty easy to fool.

G'night.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, February 8th, 2005, 09:56 AM
How do you know? Have you been there? Have you spoken to anyone who has? Have you asked any Iraqis how they feel about it?Do I take it you're denying the obvious truth?
And the war has not lasted anything like as long as Saddam's rule, and his rule would have lasted indefinitely into the future.


Let's see... Saddam had torture chambers. We have torture chambers. Saddam killed innocent civilians. We kill innocent civilians. Saddam antagonized Iran. We antagonize Iran. What's changed, other than the fact that Saddam didn't allow radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorists to go around blowing things up?We're talking on a very large scale here with Saddam, and a very long period of time.

What torture chambers do you have? And how are they as bad as Hussein's torture chambers?

Antagonizing? If someone punches another man and is then punished by the authorities, who is in the wrong, the man who punches or those who punish him?

With Iran, it depends who is in the right, which of course begs the question.


Then maybe you shouldn't go volunteering other men for the job.Does that mean I should'nt form an opinion on anything I need'nt or can't be involved in? Should I oppose such a thing?


No. He was a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard and never saw active combat -- especially since he was AWOL for much of his tour of duty (cocaine'll do that to you).Well I'll have to look into that.


My own "political leanings" have been clearly stated on this very board.I meant in terms of which current parties you would favour over others.


As for my family, though that is totally irrelevent to this discussionYou might think so, but people tend to pick up what they've been surrounded with from an early age. I've noticed that even those who don't like their parents advice quite often end up with the same ideologies and political leanings.


most of them are old-school Southern Democrats (and given your apparent ignorance of American politics, that probably doesn't mean what you think it does).What does it mean then? I suspect they're something similar to the Democrats that I know of.


What, Comedy Central and MTV?If I remember rightly, it was CNN and NBC. If you think they're pro-Bush, then I can only guess your views must be even more extreme than theirs.


Of course it was, but that has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.It could be hypocritical to be opposing a war in Iraq and yet justifying the War of Independence; and I know that almost all Americans seem to think it was justified; however, I don't.


Well, I guess peripherally it does, in that since we were fighting a war for the right of a nation to be independent of the imperial power which was oppressing it,What did that oppression involve? I think self defence is reasonable, when life or limb is in danger, but I don't think it involved that.


I thought you didn't listen to the media?I think you know what I mean. I don't listen to them in the sense of taking their subtle advice.


They ignore it because they don't want to downplay how pissed-off people are becoming.I'm glad you're admitting they're violent.


Do you live in a bubble?
http://www.bartcop.com/rubber-bullet.jpg
http://www.morphizm.com/images/politix/levine/rubberbullet_reu_tim_wimborne.jpg
http://mdfa.blogdns.org/pixels/Protester_injured_by_rubber_bullets_in_P ortland.jpg
From my personal experience this is not the case.I'm talking about Australia. They are rougher on protesters in other countries, and maybe that includes America.


I hope someday you get to experience such 'softness' yourself. :)Well again I'm talking about Australia and I would hope that no law-abiding citizen would experience what you've mentioned.


Of course, I wouldn't shed a tear if every McDonalds and Starbucks in America burns to the ground.I don't know what Starbucks is, and I can understand someone may be concerned about the amount of unhealthy food Macdonalds sell, but burning it to the ground, why would somebody want to do that? ;)


and you'll see that they're largely the same people.Fair enough. I must admit that I read the whole sentence today before I quoted it, and I realised what you must have meant :)


That's not what I hear, but hey, you're the one with all the inside info. :lmfao:Of course, I had in mind the Australian army.


It's not absurd in the slightest. If a man is willing to speak out in favor of going to war and is healthy enough to go to war, but finds excuses for not going, he's not only a hypocrite, but he's also the most despicable sort of coward.It all depends on whether those "excuses" are realistic. Even if there are too few soldiers in Iraq at the moment, would it be necessary for every able-bodied American who thinks the war is right to go over there? I don't think so.

I believe that those who are policemen are doing a good thing; does that mean I have to become a policeman? No. Those who are sheep farmers are doing a good thing; must I be a sheep farmer? No. I could mention any occupation for that matter.
I believe that those who have decided to serve their country in the Armed Forces (in Iraq or elsewhere) are doing a good thing; must I do the same? No.

I'm sure you would'nt take your argument to its logical extreme.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, February 8th, 2005, 10:01 AM
I don't know about that; you seem pretty easy to fool.Oh, so you have been trying to fool me have you :D ;)

Appalachian
Tuesday, February 8th, 2005, 01:48 PM
Do I take it you're denying the obvious truth?
If you do, you shouldn't.


And the war has not lasted anything like as long as Saddam's rule, and his rule would have lasted indefinitely into the future.
We have no way of knowing that.



What torture chambers do you have?
I've got to ask again: Do you live in a bubble? ;)


And how are they as bad as Hussein's torture chambers?
I don't know that they are, but some of the inmates have said so (not that their word is necessarily worth much).


Antagonizing? If someone punches another man and is then punished by the authorities, who is in the wrong, the man who punches or those who punish him?

With Iran, it depends who is in the right, which of course begs the question.
Yeah, Iran hasn't punched us since January 20, 1981.


Does that mean I should'nt form an opinion on anything I need'nt or can't be involved in? Should I oppose such a thing?
Perhaps you should keep your opinion to yourself, if you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is.


I meant in terms of which current parties you would favour over others.
I think the two party system is broken. I tend to lean toward the Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.com/), myself.


You might think so, but people tend to pick up what they've been surrounded with from an early age. I've noticed that even those who don't like their parents advice quite often end up with the same ideologies and political leanings.
I'll grant this. :)


What does it mean then? I suspect they're something similar to the Democrats that I know of.
Maybe not, since traditional Southern Democrats would today be considered to the right of most Republicans (and certainly far to the right of the reformed Trotskyite sect known as neoconservatives).

This wikipedia entry is an almost decent summation of the historical aspects, though it glosses over the doctrine and lists some people who are far from traditional Southern Democrats:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats


If I remember rightly, it was CNN and NBC. If you think they're pro-Bush, then I can only guess your views must be even more extreme than theirs.
I certainly wouldn't say they're pro-Bush. CNN is garbage -- it's the BBC of America. I don't know much about NBC, but MSNBC (never thought I'd hear myself praise anything associated with Microsoft) is not half bad. Their opposition to Bush seems to be because they take a more conservative stance than he does (Pat Buchanan is one of their most popular commentators).


It could be hypocritical to be opposing a war in Iraq and yet justifying the War of Independence; and I know that almost all Americans seem to think it was justified; however, I don't.
Maybe if the British had paid Indians for the scalps of your family members, you'd change your mind. Goddamned Tories...


I think you know what I mean. I don't listen to them in the sense of taking their subtle advice.
Maybe their real agenda is so subtle that you don't even realize you're taking it in...


I'm glad you're admitting they're violent.
I suppose you would characterize the Boston Tea Party as an 'act of violence,' too.


I'm talking about Australia. They are rougher on protesters in other countries, and maybe that includes America.
Land of the Free, eh? The young people above were shot for "failure to disperse," a direct contravention of their Constitutional Right to the Freedom of Assembly. Maybe you "good colonials" are used to being 'read the Riot Act,' but having long ago shaken off the slavish fear of authority, it really rubs us the wrong way.


Well again I'm talking about Australia and I would hope that no law-abiding citizen would experience what you've mentioned.
As for America, I would tell the government that if they expect the citizenry to obey the law, then they'd better be willing to obey it themselves.


I don't know what Starbucks is, and I can understand someone may be concerned about the amount of unhealthy food Macdonalds sell, but burning it to the ground, why would somebody want to do that? ;)
I suppose people have lots of reasons for such things. I wouldn't know, as I have no plans to commit any such acts of vandalism or arson. I'm just saying it wouldn't upset me.


It all depends on whether those "excuses" are realistic. Even if there are too few soldiers in Iraq at the moment, would it be necessary for every able-bodied American who thinks the war is right to go over there? I don't think so.
It's always easy to throw one's support behind a war if one doesn't have to fear the bullets himself. People should put their money where their mouths are.



I believe that those who have decided to serve their country in the Armed Forces (in Iraq or elsewhere) are doing a good thing; must I do the same? No.
But when those soldiers -- at the highest ranks -- warn against the war, you should listen. The oaths soldiers have taken preclude them from protesting this war, but the generals have been quietly against this thing from the start.

Anyway, I maintain that those who are willing to volunteer other men to die for a cause without being willing to die for that cause themselves are nothing but cowards. They'll make a million excuses for starting a war, then make a million excuses for sending someone else's son to fight in their stead. It's disgusting. People like that should put up or shut up.

Appalachian
Tuesday, February 8th, 2005, 01:50 PM
Oh, so you have been trying to fool me have you :D ;)

It seems I'm too late, as the neocons have gotten a head start. ;)

Lidvick
Wednesday, February 9th, 2005, 12:23 AM
That's exactly what I mean. Most of the media around the world hate Mr Bush and they have political reasons for it; it has nothing to do with believing the war is unjust, they just pretend that's why.

As for the other European leaders, it appears that France may have been supplying Saddam with weapons.

I 'd also like to think so but that is definitely what they were saying. If one can't believe the UN would be so unprofessional then why believe the stories about George Bush being so unprofessional.

They refuse to understand human nature. They were saying that he should be dealt with peacefully, and that in our 'modern' world we know better than to use force.

Here is Richard Butler, former UN chief weapons inspector, both comments come from the same interview:

"Remember this -- Iraq has said, 'We have no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever.'

I want to say to you plainly that is not true......"

"I would rather see us solve this problem by non-military means, through international law and prove that the world can work around cooperation and law, not just the ancient principle that might is right."

That is fair enough in itself but I believe Iraq was not only dealing with its own problems, I think they were also a threat to other nations so the world needs to be kept from total anarchy if possible

Al-Zarqawi is a terrorist and so are many others still there. But as I said before the fact that some may not be there now does'nt mean they never were

It was a policing of the world though

I don't think I ever said that did I. There are many terrorists who are not always connected. But I think Al Qaida were there and I think I also remember that Al-Zarqawi is connected with them somehow.

Not necessarily at all, and Richard Butler admitted it before the war.




So you are saying that they have certain political reasons to hate Mr. Bush it has nothing to do with the war and the horrible way he is in power?;) :thumbdown

Do tell what political reasons these are if they exist.;)

I mean before the Bush administration we have had relative good relations with Europe.:D


The U.N. is of many countries was formed as a peace council of many nations.

Notice the " Many Nations."

Are you saying half the world is incompetent?:P


As for my great lack of faith in George Bush well let us take a stroll back into Bush family history.

A. His family has alot of money invested in Saudia Arabia Oil since the 1970's or somewhere around there.

B. His dad was a crooked president won because he said he would not raise taxes and what did he do raised taxes;) , other things too.

C. Though Senior Bush is no longer president he still goes to Saudia Arabia alot to check on his investments.

Oh and did you know that Binladen family also has ties with the same oil outlet as the Bush family?

D. Bush has caused the deficit to sky roof ever than before , why today I was reading in the news paper that he wants a couple ( TRILLION ) dollars for goverment issues. That is more than millions and billions of dollars. Think about it.

E. Well look at my other post in the forum of why I hate Bush.



I believe in your statements you were saying we should of just ignored the whole weapon inspectors and just stroll right in there, and make war. ( Sigh)

You know why they were trying peaceful alternatives that is what I believe they call , " Diplomacy."


"Remember this -- Iraq has said, 'We have no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever.' - Rydderch


I want to say to you plainly that is not true......" - Rydderch


Well fancy that please do tell your proof or findings that would suggest that Iraq had such weapons before the invasion and during. - Me

P.S. "Findings of the New Iraq war and not the old Gulf one.":thumbup


Iraq a threat to other nations this poor little country with enough social and strife problems of it's own and virtually contained after the Gulf war.:D

Some big threat.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bin Laden rival? - BBC News Press.

Zarqawi's network is considered the main source of kidnappings, bomb attacks and assassination attempts in Iraq.

Although he is thought to have links with al-Qaeda, experts regard his group as autonomous - perhaps even a rival to Osama Bin Laden's organisation.

The US has put a $25m bounty on his head - the same sum they are offering for Bin Laden himself.



The reward was increased after American authorities intercepted a letter which, they claimed, confirmed he was working with al-Qaeda to drive the US out of Iraq.

In the run-up to the Iraq war in February 2003, US Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations Zarqawi was an associate of Osama Bin Laden who had sought refuge in Iraq.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39852000/jpg/_39852251_zarqusposter_afp203.jpg A 'wanted' poster for Zarqawi: there is $25m bounty on his head



Intelligence reports indicated he was in Baghdad and - according to Mr Powell - this was a sure sign that Saddam Hussein was courting al-Qaeda, which, in turn, justified an attack on Iraq.

But some analysts contested the claim, pointing to Zarqawi's historical rivalry with Bin Laden.

Both men rose to prominence as "Afghan Arabs" - leading foreign fighters in the "jihad" against Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

It was a far cry from Zarqawi's youth as a petty criminal in Jordan, remembered by those who knew him as a simple, quick-tempered, and barely literate gangster. But after the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan, Zarqawi went back to Jordan with a radical Islamist agenda.



http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39929000/jpg/_39929270_zarqawi_ap203body.jpg


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this article it has been said there was a letter that linked him to Osama Binladen , but notice nothing has showed up about him before the war only in the 1980's do we hear about him.

Could it be that possible when he started a group in revolt and knew he was failing against the pressing American Soldiers that perhaps he could look up to Al Qaeda?


Where was this guy when Saddam was the leader of Iraq?

I never heard anything of him prior to the war.

In my opinion Al Qaeda two countries away from Iraq heard of the invasion of Iraq and came to aid the war for perhaps more converts in their fanatical army.

I mean when we invaded virtually every Iraqi thought of us the big corporate devil country invading anyways , what strong morale of thought in people that a Al Qaeda terrorist might think hey it is recruiting season.


Many people have thought this guy to be rivals with Osama rather than friends which is ironic they practically have almost the same fanatical stand point.


After the defeat of Soviets he went back to Jordan away from Afghanistan.

This right here is interesting consisting the fact that Afghanistan used to be Al Qaeda country and their fanatical nightmare capital. If this man was so prominent with Al Qaeda why did he go back to Jordan?


You will need more than a letter to prove this,

I bet when the Bush administration heard of a letter they thought to themselves yes finally a scrap to start our Iraq Al Qaeda propaganda again.:| :thumbdown

Rhydderch
Wednesday, February 9th, 2005, 02:23 AM
We have no way of knowing that.Well either way his rule lasted a lot longer than the US "occupation". And the truth is no one knows how long it would have lasted.

Perhaps you could talk to some of the people who suffered under his rule, ask them how it compares with US "occupation".

If you want me to 'prove' beyond any doubt everything I say, well I could suggest you try proving to me that America exists, it would'nt be all that easy would it?

I've got to ask again: Do you live in a bubble? ;)

I don't know that they are, but some of the inmates have said so (not that their word is necessarily worth much).Ah, now I assume you're talking about Guan......(whatever the spelling) bay. Have you ever been in there?

And no I think their lies have no merit.


Perhaps you should keep your opinion to yourself, if you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is.That's a bit more reasonable, but still it would lead to plenty of absurdities.



I think the two party system is broken.I do too actually. Rocking back and forth between two parties with different opinions can't be good for any country. But then I suppose we have to make the best of what we've got.


Maybe not, since traditional Southern Democrats would today be considered to the right of most Republicans (and certainly far to the right of the reformed Trotskyite sect known as neoconservatives).Seems they're somewhat different to what I know of Democrats, but perhaps they're just a more extreme form. As I said earlier, far right is often pretty much the same as far left.


Their opposition to Bush seems to be because they take a more conservative stance than he does.I somehow don't think so, unless your definition of 'conservative' is different from mine.



Maybe if the British had paid Indians for the scalps of your family members, you'd change your mind. Goddamned Tories...Ah, yes, the Indians knew the British were less oppressive than the American colonists, so they became allies. However, I'm talking about what prompted the war, not what happened while it was in progress


Maybe their real agenda is so subtle that you don't even realize you're taking it in...'Subtle' was maybe the wrong word. They don't usually state their opinion explicitly, but I suppose their opinions are rather thinly disguised.


Land of the Free, eh? The young people above were shot for "failure to disperse," a direct contravention of their Constitutional Right to the Freedom of Assembly.I'm not convinced that it's a direct contravention, it depends what else is said in the Constitution, which would perhaps put it in its right context.

I've heard Americans say that sort of thing many times, they'll use their Constitution to legitimise anything they like.


Maybe you "good colonials" are used to being 'read the Riot Act,' but having long ago shaken off the slavish fear of authority, it really rubs us the wrong way.That's right, socialists don't like to be under authority, and disguise their aversion to it with all sorts of words and excuses.


It's always easy to throw one's support behind a war if one doesn't have to fear the bullets himself.That's true in itself, but of course the argument does'nt necessarily hold.


But when those soldiers -- at the highest ranks -- warn against the war, you should listen. The oaths soldiers have taken preclude them from protesting this war, but the generals have been quietly against this thing from the start.True, we should listen, but since you presumably know only a small minority of generals, that argument is meaningless, you have little better of an idea of their opinion than me, and I'm pretty sure that large numbers of them would be in favour.


Anyway, I maintain that those who are willing to volunteer other men to die for a cause without being willing to die for that cause themselves are nothing but cowards.If there was conscription, then an unrealistic excuse would be cowardice. If I think this war is right, and I was conscripted, then I should be willing to go, although I'm not going to pretend I would have no fear.


They'll make a million excuses for starting a war, then make a million excuses for sending someone else's son to fight in their stead.By your logic then, even if the army agrees that a given war is necessary, the leader of a nation should not declare war unless either he or one of his sons is involved in combat.

If there is no conscription, then those who will be sent off to fight will obviously be those who have made it clear that they want to serve their country in the Armed Forces. If that does'nt include the son of a nation's leader, then so be it.


By the way, based on what I know of your views so far, it seems that you are indeed what I would call "socialist". Now one can argue about the definition of that word, but my usage of it is, as far as I can tell, the same as the general usage here, and it would seem elsewhere as well.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, February 9th, 2005, 10:44 AM
So you are saying that they have certain political reasons to hate Mr. Bush it has nothing to do with the war and the horrible way he is in power?;) :thumbdown

Do tell what political reasons these are if they exist.;)

I mean before the Bush administration we have had relative good relations with Europe.:D The media I meant. They are generally Bush's political opponents.


The U.N. is of many countries was formed as a peace council of many nations.

Notice the " Many Nations."

Are you saying half the world is incompetent?:P They are a union of ambitious left-wingers from all over the world. If you think they are representative of their countries then you are greatly deluded.

They tried to overrule John Howard's policies on 'boat people' as well.


D. Bush has caused the deficit to sky roof ever than before , why today I was reading in the news paper that he wants a couple ( TRILLION ) dollars for goverment issues. That is more than millions and billions of dollars. Think about it.That's the sort of thing our media is always saying about John Howard's government. Oh, if only we had a Labour government, then everything would be alright.
They bring up all these stories about what turmoil the government is causing in every area of life. The problem is, I live in this country and I know what its like, and what they are saying is not true.

So if I were you I would'nt jump to conclusions about your problems all being Bush's fault.


I believe in your statements you were saying we should of just ignored the whole weapon inspectors and just stroll right in there, and make war. ( Sigh)You can sigh as much as you like, it does'nt change the fact that the weapons inspectors said there were WMD in Iraq.


You know why they were trying peaceful alternatives that is what I believe they call , " Diplomacy."You may not like me bringing up Hitler again, but that's what their likes said before World War II, and they were proven wrong. One should certainly try peaceful alternatives but with Hussein they tried it time and again and he simply would'nt co-operate.



"Remember this -- Iraq has said, 'We have no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever.' - Rydderch


I want to say to you plainly that is not true......" - Rydderch


Well fancy that please do tell your proof or findings that would suggest that Iraq had such weapons before the invasion and during. - Me

P.S. "Findings of the New Iraq war and not the old Gulf one.":thumbup Well I'm sorry but they are the words of Richard Butler in 2002.


Al-Zarqawi is a terrorist, and although he has or did have links with Al-Qaida, that is irrelevant.


I mean when we invaded virtually every Iraqi thought of us the big corporate devil country invading anywaysMmm.....I wonder what is your source of information. The survey done in Iraq well after the war would certainly seem to refute that, and so does the information from before the war. Their faces showed it when Saddam was finally defeated, and their words "thank you Mr Bush".
The delighted look on their faces was markedly different to the anxious look when they used to come out "cheering" Hussein.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, February 9th, 2005, 11:06 AM
It seems I'm too late, as the neocons have gotten a head start. ;)Keep telling yourself that :D

Appalachian
Wednesday, February 9th, 2005, 02:55 PM
Well either way his rule lasted a lot longer than the US "occupation". And the truth is no one knows how long it would have lasted. And no one knows how long the US occupation is going to last, and at what cost.



Perhaps you could talk to some of the people who suffered under his rule, ask them how it compares with US "occupation".
That's what I was talking about when I referred to the fact that some people are saying the US is worse.


If you want me to 'prove' beyond any doubt everything I say, well I could suggest you try proving to me that America exists, it would'nt be all that easy would it? Yeah, I understand that you have difficulty grasping the obvious.


Ah, now I assume you're talking about Guan......(whatever the spelling) bay. Have you ever been in there? Have you never heard the words "Abu Ghraib?"

http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/prison/abu-ghraib/ghraib-pile2-larger.jpg
http://www.webbusiness.no/webprivat/usa/upfiles/irak-tortur9.jpg
http://www.webbusiness.no/webprivat/usa/upfiles/irak-tortur16.jpg


I do too actually. Rocking back and forth between two parties with different opinions can't be good for any country. But then I suppose we have to make the best of what we've got. The differences of opinion between Republicrats and Demublicans on most issues aren't so very different at all.


Seems they're somewhat different to what I know of Democrats, but perhaps they're just a more extreme form. No, they're the traditional, conservative form. The modern, Cultural Marxist expression of the Democratic Party is the extreme.


As I said earlier, far right is often pretty much the same as far left. Case in point: The reformed Trotskyite sect known as "neoconservatives."


I somehow don't think so, unless your definition of 'conservative' is different from mine. I think that's probably a given.



Ah, yes, the Indians knew the British were less oppressive than the American colonists, so they became allies. However, I'm talking about what prompted the war, not what happened while it was in progress
A matter for a different thread, to be sure. By all means, start a thread on why you think our Revolution was unjust. That should be entertaining.



I'm not convinced that it's a direct contravention, it depends what else is said in the Constitution, which would perhaps put it in its right context. The amendment in question reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Those people in Oakland (and Colorado Springs) were indeed peaceably assembled. The fact that a few businessmen weren't happy that a crowd was blocking access to the ports through which they import cheap plastic junk from China doesn't give them the right to call in the government thugs to disperse them.


I've heard Americans say that sort of thing many times, they'll use their Constitution to legitimise anything they like.
Once again, I see that you have difficulty, due to your slavish fear of authority, in understanding the hearts of free men -- the sort of men who have had the strength of character and the strength of will to long ago shake off the shackles of serfdom which still grip your heart and hold you prostrate before a corrupt, decrepit crown.

You see, the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the government, not the rights of the citizenry.

I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with the Amendments IX and X:

"Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."




That's right, socialists don't like to be under authority, and disguise their aversion to it with all sorts of words and excuses. Preposterous! So now Americans are all socialist? Your "argument" holds no water, since every actualized socialist government in modern history has been authoritarian in nature.


True, we should listen, but since you presumably know only a small minority of generals, that argument is meaningless, you have little better of an idea of their opinion than me, and I'm pretty sure that large numbers of them would be in favour. I'm quite sure I've got a much better idea of their opinion than you, provided you are who you say you are. Anyway, for your own edification, I refer you back to the post in which I first quoted General Zinni (http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=261107&postcount=13).

But you'll probably just call him a "socialist" and expect us to then ignore everything he says.



By your logic then, even if the army agrees that a given war is necessary, the leader of a nation should not declare war unless either he or one of his sons is involved in combat. Not necessarily, no. Of course, the army is not always given the option of voicing their opinion on the necessity of a given war.


If there is no conscription, then those who will be sent off to fight will obviously be those who have made it clear that they want to serve their country in the Armed Forces. If that does'nt include the son of a nation's leader, then so be it. So that gives politicians the right to use them as pawns in their own personal power struggles or to achieve their own political aims?



By the way, based on what I know of your views so far, it seems that you are indeed what I would call "socialist". Yes, it would seem you have little understanding of what the word actually means, and just use it as a convenient label for anyone who disagrees with you.

Lidvick
Wednesday, February 9th, 2005, 05:20 PM
The media I meant. They are generally Bush's political opponents.

They are a union of ambitious left-wingers from all over the world. If you think they are representative of their countries then you are greatly deluded.

They tried to overrule John Howard's policies on 'boat people' as well.

That's the sort of thing our media is always saying about John Howard's government. Oh, if only we had a Labour government, then everything would be alright.
They bring up all these stories about what turmoil the government is causing in every area of life. The problem is, I live in this country and I know what its like, and what they are saying is not true.

So if I were you I would'nt jump to conclusions about your problems all being Bush's fault.

You can sigh as much as you like, it does'nt change the fact that the weapons inspectors said there were WMD in Iraq.

You may not like me bringing up Hitler again, but that's what their likes said before World War II, and they were proven wrong. One should certainly try peaceful alternatives but with Hussein they tried it time and again and he simply would'nt co-operate.


[b]Well I'm sorry but they are the words of Richard Butler in 2002.


Al-Zarqawi is a terrorist, and although he has or did have links with Al-Qaida, that is irrelevant.

Mmm.....I wonder what is your source of information. The survey done in Iraq well after the war would certainly seem to refute that, and so does the information from before the war. Their faces showed it when Saddam was finally defeated, and their words "thank you Mr Bush".
The delighted look on their faces was markedly different to the anxious look when they used to come out "cheering" Hussein.


Yeah I was talking of the media too due tell why you believe European Media or political leaders are against Bush if not because of the war.




So the U.N. is this incompetent organization we should just get rid of it?

It is full of left wingers who know nothing?

................right:| ;)

That does not make sense to me, please if you can make that statement more sense to me.


I never jumped to conclusions I have thought long and hard and even studied the Bush administration before I got to my conclusion.


Ok you said weapon inspectors said they had weapons , perhaps in the beginning , when our CIA said Iraq had weapons of mass-destruction , only what happened later , a high official pointed information that there was no such threat in the Iraq.

Later , we hear of faulty information in the U.S. intelligence and the president being very apologetic later on , saying that at the time he truely thought that Iraq had weapons of mass-destruction and was linked in terrorism. Also saying he truely thought the intelligence he had was truthful.

Is it just a coincidence that Bush father years ago went to war with the same country?

Is it maybe that Bush is just continuing daddy's war?


You can bring up Hitler all you want , I actually don't hate Nazi Germany persay there was some things of Nazi Germany that can be understandable , and I can understand the Anger of the Germans of that era.

Al-Zarqawi is a terrorist, and although he has or did have links with Al-Qaida, that is irrelevant. - Rhydderch

Well actually it is very much so relevant we went to war with Iraq because of Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda blew up the twin towers of New York City.

Iraq though a country with very many terrible issues was not involved with Al Qaeda , thus that makes us in the wrong for invading a country who had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda.

I suppose you will say well there were terrorist or militant groups even if they had nothing to do with Al Qaeda at all.

I then would tell you there is terrorist and militants all over the world , so should we go to war with the whole world?............ sounds silly doesn't it.;) :P



Ah yes , cheering in the crowds and smiles on the faces yay the Americans great victors over Iraq and salvation to the Iraqi's.

You see stuff on the media time and time again one pocket of Iraq giving praise to the freedom and salvation of the U.S.

notice I said pocket............


I see all the time whole towns and cities protesting American invasion in their lands.

I see new militant groups everyday rising and being born wanting to kill and fight for foreign armies out of their land.

I see a woman crying because her kid or family was a casualty of war.

and so on..........

I see much more bad in the eyes of Iraqi's then good........ you must be warped if you think everything over there is just peachy keen and that the Iraqi's see us as the loveable liberators.:-O

Rhydderch
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 01:52 AM
And no one knows how long the US occupation is going to last, and at what cost.We'll see wont we?


That's what I was talking about when I referred to the fact that some people are saying the US is worse.Yes, I've heard it all before and I don't believe a word of it. I know that some people in Iraq hate the US, and obviously they (no doubt supported all the way by our media) will invent all sorts of lies.


Yeah, I understand that you have difficulty grasping the obvious.I appreciate the witty remark, however, I'm talking theoretically. You don't seem to understand abstract thought ;)


Have you never heard the words "Abu Ghraib?"As a matter of fact, I've heard it quite a few times, the media won't let us forget about it. Of course, they're not going to show us what happened in Saddam's torture chambers, but according to an Iraqi man I heard on the radio (they picked the wrong man, no doubt to their consternation), videos and pictures of it are freely available in Iraq.
But what happened at Abu Ghraib is equivalent to any sadistic or disgusting lunatic criminal in any country. Oh yes, how the American government oppress their people, with massacres like at Colombine high school!
We're talking here about torture chambers made and supported by the government.

According to the same Iraqi (in the same interview), his countrymen have mixed feelings about Abu Ghraib, considering most of the victims were those who had been torturing and oppressing them for so long, and he said it's not as if they have'nt heard of that sort of thing under Saddam.


The differences of opinion between Republicrats and Demublicans on most issues aren't so very different at all. Too true. In fact people sometimes refer to our Liberal party as the Laboural party. Though there is enough difference between them to make it worth supporting one and not the other.


No, they're the traditional, conservative form. The modern, Cultural Marxist expression of the Democratic Party is the extreme.Then they're probably similar to our old Labour party, which I consider has been socialist all along.


I think that's probably a given.Well it's true that socialists can be conservative in ways, but it often depends on what they're conserving.


A matter for a different thread, to be sure. By all means, start a thread on why you think our Revolution was unjust. That should be entertaining.Well I was asking you actually, you can try justifying it if you want. If you think the British were oppressive, just think of living under Saddam Hussein.

You're saying that America should'nt have helped those under Saddam.


The amendment in question reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."I doubt that "peacably to assemble" includes blocking access to ports. Protestors don't (or should'nt) have the right to obstruct people from going about their daily work, which unfortunately they do all the time.


Once again, I see that you have difficulty, due to your slavish fear of authority, in understanding the hearts of free men -- the sort of men who have had the strength of character and the strength of will to long ago shake off the shackles of serfdom which still grip your heart and hold you prostrate before a corrupt, decrepit crown.I like these eloquent speeches, but to apply them to Australians is just......err......nothing short of comical.


Preposterous! So now Americans are all socialist?Actually, I was talking about you and others who try to justify what socialist demonstrators do. But Americans are far more socialist than they like to admit.


Your "argument" holds no water, since every actualized socialist government in modern history has been authoritarian in nature.That's why they're such hypocrites. But I'm really referring to their ideology, the values which they claim to hold. And they con their people into thinking they are the helpers of the 'poor man', into thinking that they represent 'the people'.
Besides that, they are the government, so they're under no man's authority, and they've usually got there by overthrowing the men whose authority they hated to be under.


I'm quite sure I've got a much better idea of their opinion than you, provided you are who you say you are.Perhaps I've been 'having you on' all this time ;)


Anyway, for your own edification, I refer you back to the post in which I first quoted General Zinni (http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=261107&postcount=13).

But you'll probably just call him a "socialist" and expect us to then ignore everything he says.I would'nt advocate ignoring everything he says, it's just that he does'nt represent the whole US army.


So that gives politicians the right to use them as pawns in their own personal power struggles or to achieve their own political aims?Of course not. And that statement is based on the assumption that your view of this war is objective truth, which once again begs the question.


Yes, it would seem you have little understanding of what the word actually means, and just use it as a convenient label for anyone who disagrees with you.Well I don't use it that way actually, but from what I know of your views, they are exactly the same as those over here who call themselves 'democratic socialists'.

Spartacus74
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 01:58 AM
Iran next, then who?
Gore Vidal, Independent

George Bush's apparent desire to create a state of perpetual war spells disaster

23 January 2005

Last week, courtesy of Seymour Hersh and The New Yorker, we learned that a long-held prediction of mine had come true. American forces have been operating inside Iran, thus extending yet further the President's "war on terror".

There is no war, other than the one the President unilaterally is waging against a weak Congress and weak countries with oil. It's true that Congress has given the President certain unusual powers, but as only Congress has the constitutional power to declare war, he is not, as he keeps yapping, a wartime president. Hence his conviction that he can lock anyone up, foreigner or native, and send them off to Guantanamo without due process of law.

This is simply a Bush war. It has nothing to do with the American people. And we were not in danger from weapons of mass destruction. The danger is an Administration that has fallen in love with war because of the special powers war gives the Administration to rid itself of the Bill of Rights and lock up dissenters. We've had some scary times in the past but nothing to compare with this. So what do we have to look forward to?

A disaster, in short. Iran/Persia represents a brilliant culture, one of the greatest the planet has ever known. They do have atomic weapons, and that is why our rulers are pretending that they are longing to blow us up - because we have liberty and freedom and democracy and are so prosperous. (None of these things do we actually have, but this is the official line that we are asked to believe.)

The Iranians have a lot of oil, of course, and a lot of enemies among the neocons, who have pretty much taken over the Pentagon. The President doesn't seem to understand what is happening, but if he does he's seriously culpable. So here we are, in the middle of the unfinished Iraq tragedy, and the President, in his inaugural address, is serenely declaring war on the rest of the world. Instead of talking about how the hell we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, we are talking about going into Iran.

Here we are headed for absolute disaster, yet the American public has no weapons left, legally. If an American citizen were really in trouble - I ask in all seriousness - to whom would he turn? He can't go to his Congressman, because he's helping out GM or whoever paid for his election. He can't turn to the executive branch, because they now run concentration camps and don't like dissent. The courts are pretty expensive and the higher courts are, shall we say, not on our side.

No one has explained why, if Saddam Hussein had all these weapons - which he did not have - why he would have wanted to blow us up. We know why Osama bin Laden hit us. He sent us a lot of unpleasant letters and wrote a long list of things saying why, for religious reasons. He is a religious zealot. And he was doing a religious job. We're doing a job for the oil and gas business. They're the people who are making a lot of money out of all this. Heaven knows how it will end, but we, the American people, are going to be the losers.

Symbolically, it's interesting that regions of the US are rejecting Darwin and evolution. I can see why. We have a substantial minority in the US that hasn't advanced much beyond the baboon. These ignorant folk are full of hatred, which is why they are currently rejecting evolution and going back to the stone age with torture, killing innocent people, attacking countries that have done us no harm. This is insupportable.

In a recent TV programme that we lucky Americans were shown of previous inaugural addresses, our former President Franklin D Roosevelt spoke of Social Security, something he invented for us. Yet his successor, Harry Truman, starts talking about a terrible enemy. In effect, he is starting the Cold War. Roosevelt had made certain arrangements with Stalin and the USSR, which could have kept the world quite peaceful and avoided the Cold War, but Truman was having none of it. He had been convinced by certain people who had made a lot of money out of the war that we should be forever armed, in order to wage perpetual war for perpetual peace.

So there we are, on top of the world, militarily and economically. We have the atomic bomb, and here is Harry Truman saying in 1948 that we've got to watch out there - there's this godless nation intent on world conquest.

But the Russians didn't want anything very much then, except to recover the 20 million people they had lost in the Second World War. They weren't going anywhere at that time, but we saw to it that over time they became frightened and heavily armed. We made them active enemies, and we've been creating enemies ever since. Now we are going to take on one billion Muslims. Brilliant. One billion people who will really deeply and truly hate us. And it will take several generations for us to bring them around, if possible.

George Bush doesn't compare with previous presidents. He doesn't come from any established system that we've ever tried before. He wasn't elected the first time and perhaps not truly the second time. Certainly, he was not elected on any issues, like the morality of the war or the wisdom of the war, or the techniques that we used in waging that war.

I would have thought that, at the moment since about 56 per cent of the people think we should never have gone to war with Iraq and those numbers were indeed rising as we approached the election, we would have voted against this President. Instead of talking about the war, we were talking about abortion and homosexual marriage. What great topics to be discussing for a great people on the march with atomic weapons! There was so much else to talk about, but neither Bush nor John Kerry were going to do so because they both approved of the war, and their advisers - or certainly Kerry's - had told them to do so. No wonder people don't care to vote. They seldom have much to vote for. But often a lot to vote against.

There was a huge, unrepresented anti-war party at the last election. We, as a people, have generally believed in minding our own business, not in attacking other countries - "enough to do at home" and all that. But we now have a government that is not remotely a democracy but we're trying to export it elsewhere. I suppose that on the ground democracy is a nice word. We treat it like ketchup. Put it on everything. We're bringing it to Iraq, we say.

The result, once more, is perpetual war for perpetual peace. The spirit of Harry Truman marches on. After war with Iran, who's next? Russia? Or someone else? God help us if we make China angry. There are a great many more of them than of us.

This war will end in our defeat, and that is why I want us to get out of it as soon as possible. I want us to try and bring the troops home and try and invent a more realistic education system because I am convinced that democracy, too, may one day come to the US, and I want us to be alive to celebrate it.


La Nazione Eurasia - Archivio in rete:
http://lanazioneeurasia.altervista.org/

Spartacus74
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 02:02 AM
well let's see an interesting article of an Italian website owned by an american that lives in Italy.
He is explaining in a complete way the fundamentalist ideology of what is the "Think Tank" of present USA.
http://www.kelebekler.com/circasgb.htm

Spartacus74
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 02:14 AM
http://forums.skadi.net/image.php?u=2911&type=profile&dateline=1107352151

Rhydderch
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 03:18 AM
Yeah I was talking of the media too due tell why you believe European Media or political leaders are against Bush if not because of the war.That's another thing that's not easy to explain in a nutshell, but I suppose one thing is the inconsistency in the media's opposition to this war. They opposed it all along, and yet what they claim to be reasons for their opposition are generally quite different now from what they were saying originally.


So the U.N. is this incompetent organization we should just get rid of it?We should either get rid of it or reform it.


I never jumped to conclusions I have thought long and hard and even studied the Bush administration before I got to my conclusion.I'm sure there are plenty of people who've studied the Bush administration and come to quite different conclusions.

People usually think they are justified in what they believe.

Two given men (let's call them Jim and Bob) might have opposite opinions, which they both think are justified. Now, either Jim is right and Bob is wrong, Bob is right and Jim is wrong, or they are both wrong. In other words, they can't both be right, so obviously one of them is strongly holding to an opinion which is actually wrong.

So what we need here is objective truth.


Ok you said weapon inspectors said they had weapons , perhaps in the beginning , when our CIA said Iraq had weapons of mass-destruction , only what happened later , a high official pointed information that there was no such threat in the Iraq.Then why did'nt he make it public beforehand?


Is it just a coincidence that Bush father years ago went to war with the same country?No co-incidence at all, Hussein's been dangerous all along, but the Democrats could'nt be bothered doing anything about it.


You can bring up Hitler all you want , I actually don't hate Nazi Germany persay there was some things of Nazi Germany that can be understandable , and I can understand the Anger of the Germans of that era.Well, that says it all.


Well actually it is very much so relevant we went to war with Iraq because of Al Qaeda.If that was a reason at all, it was'nt the primary one.


Al Qaeda blew up the twin towers of New York City.I see, so never mind the problems boiling up, we'll only worry about the ones which we can see happening before our eyes, when it's too late.


I then would tell you there is terrorist and militants all over the world , so should we go to war with the whole world?Well, Mr Bush said it would be a long fight did'nt he? But don't forget, America is'nt doing this all single-handedly. There's a new alliance of many nations which is bothering to do something about the problem, unlike the UN.


Ah yes , cheering in the crowds and smiles on the faces yay the Americans great victors over Iraq and salvation to the Iraqi's.

You see stuff on the media time and time again one pocket of Iraq giving praise to the freedom and salvation of the U.S.

notice I said pocket............Yes, you said pocket, but we're talking about reality here.


I see all the time whole towns and cities protesting American invasion in their lands.But what makes you think whole towns and cities are against the American presence, and only small pockets are in favour. That's the way the media would have us see it, but the information available suggests that it's the other way round.


I see much more bad in the eyes of Iraqi's then good.I see it the other way round ;)

Lidvick
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 05:57 AM
That's another thing that's not easy to explain in a nutshell, but I suppose one thing is the inconsistency in the media's opposition to this war. They opposed it all along, and yet what they claim to be reasons for their opposition are generally quite different now from what they were saying originally.

We should either get rid of it or reform it.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who've studied the Bush administration and come to quite different conclusions.

People usually think they are justified in what they believe.

Two given men (let's call them Jim and Bob) might have opposite opinions, which they both think are justified. Now, either Jim is right and Bob is wrong, Bob is right and Jim is wrong, or they are both wrong. In other words, they can't both be right, so obviously one of them is strongly holding to an opinion which is actually wrong.

So what we need here is objective truth.

Then why did'nt he make it public beforehand?

No co-incidence at all, Hussein's been dangerous all along, but the Democrats could'nt be bothered doing anything about it.

Well, that says it all.

If that was a reason at all, it was'nt the primary one.

I see, so never mind the problems boiling up, we'll only worry about the ones which we can see happening before our eyes, when it's too late.

Well, Mr Bush said it would be a long fight did'nt he? But don't forget, America is'nt doing this all single-handedly. There's a new alliance of many nations which is bothering to do something about the problem, unlike the UN.

Yes, you said pocket, but we're talking about reality here.

But what makes you think whole towns and cities are against the American presence, and only small pockets are in favour. That's the way the media would have us see it, but the information available suggests that it's the other way round.

I see it the other way round ;)


Well in a nutshell it might be hard to explain but you brought it fourth nevertheless in the thread I only thought you may explain, because if you don't I will not know where you are getting at.


You said we should either get rid of it or reform it. I believe getting rid of it is a bit harsh and not thought out. The other alternative perhaps of reform I would be obliged to say yes I agree perhaps it needs to be reformed to fit today's standards, however I do not see anything wrong that needs to be reformed.

The thing you spoke objective truth is very touchy because one man's truth is another man's lie and so fourth. I do think however and will still stand on my point that Bush administration is twisted and incompetent I have yet to meet a person to defend the administration to change my mind further.


On my discussion of Bush and the CIA and then you asked why he didn't make it public beforehand. I would inturn to say to you good question nobody knows;) I would like to know why as well.:)


On my comments of Hitler and your comment of that explains it all.

I will say that after World War I other European countries put severe restrictions on Germany , so it was natural that Germany took the militant approach of liberation of itself. Also Hitler saw the chance to take a revolution in Germany and he did so.

Read about the treaty of Verssailes and the economic depression of Germany afterwards of World War I.

Al Qaeda was the reason we went to war because people came on American soil and attacked us. Before that we were not at war and we were just being a country of peace enjoying economical success , though Bush changed all of that with his plans and the Economy is doing poorly now.

Had we just invaded Afghanistan and not Iraq we would be ok now.


I see, so never mind the problems boiling up, we'll only worry about the ones which we can see happening before our eyes, when it's too late. Rhydderch

Yes we only worry of the problems of our own country I believe I have told you the problems of policing the whole world and the silly idea it is.

The only allie that is even worth mentioning is Great Britain , you said allies I inturn will say what allies?:P We have a ally not allies.:P


On the subject of how the Iraqi views America I believe one must be dilusional to think they view us as kind hearted liberators. I will not even add more on the subject there is nothing reasonable or practical that will show me otherwise. Only propaganda these days will show the results and outcomes you speak of.

Rhydderch
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 09:49 AM
Well in a nutshell it might be hard to explain but you brought it fourth nevertheless in the thread I only thought you may explain, because if you don't I will not know where you are getting at.Well although I don't live in Europe I find from information here and there that they are the same as our media. Our media very obviously does'nt like governments such as the Liberal party in Australia, the Republicans in America and the Conservative party in Britain. It's just that I hear their opinion all the time, they oppose those parties and their policies at every turn. And I've heard their opinion over many years.

That's why I say I can't explain it in a nutshell.


The other alternative perhaps of reform I would be obliged to say yes I agree perhaps it needs to be reformed to fit today's standards, however I do not see anything wrong that needs to be reformed.That may well be because your ideology is similar.


The thing you spoke objective truth is very touchy because one man's truth is another man's lie and so fourth.As far as they are concerned yes, but if two men hold opposite opinions, they can't both be right.


I do think however and will still stand on my point that Bush administration is twisted and incompetent I have yet to meet a person to defend the administration to change my mind further.I'm not sure whether you mean you've never met someone who defends the Bush administration, or whether you mean you have but he could'nt change your mind.
If the latter, then that's also the same with me.......except, vice versa of course :)


On my discussion of Bush and the CIA and then you asked why he didn't make it public beforehand. I would inturn to say to you good question nobody knows;) I would like to know why as well.:)Personally I think it's likely that he expected he would be proven wrong, because most of the evidence suggested there were WMD in Iraq. But he prepared himself in case it turned out, against all expectation, that none would be found.



On my comments of Hitler and your comment of that explains it all.

I will say that after World War I other European countries put severe restrictions on Germany , so it was natural that Germany took the militant approach of liberation of itself. Also Hitler saw the chance to take a revolution in Germany and he did so.

Read about the treaty of Verssailes and the economic depression of Germany afterwards of World War I.Germany had restrictions put on it for a good reason, because they were the main aggressors in World War I.
You may have misunderstood what I meant by 'explains it all'. If so, I'll clarify that I meant if you have sympathy with an organisation so dreadful as the Nazis, then that explains why you would oppose this war in Iraq, and perhaps even have sympathy with Hussein.


Al Qaeda was the reason we went to war because people came on American soil and attacked us. Before that we were not at war and we were just being a country of peace enjoying economical successThe 9/11 attacks woke everyone up to what's happening in the world. If people had woken up earlier though, it may be that those attacks would have been prevented.


Had we just invaded Afghanistan and not Iraq we would be ok now.You may have been ok now, but one must also look to the years ahead.


Yes we only worry of the problems of our own country I believe I have told you the problems of policing the whole world and the silly idea it is.It would'nt necessarily be policing the whole world, when I say problems boiling up I mean serious threats, more than the usual turmoil which goes on in some parts of the World.
Now although the US did'nt find actual WMD, what seems to have been forgotten is that they did find information in there for illegal WMD production.


The only allie that is even worth mentioning is Great Britain , you said allies I inturn will say what allies?:P We have a ally not allies.:P What I mean is that lots of the world is on the side of George Bush and they have shown that by supplying troops. They may be small contributions but they have nevertheless shown their alliance, and I would expect that the supplies will be expanded if necessary.
And as for the particular countries, I can't remember all of them but you'll find out if you look into it.


On the subject of how the Iraqi views America I believe one must be dilusional to think they view us as kind hearted liberators.Well, liberators anyway, and I believe one must be delusional to think they don't. True there is opposition, but from the available information they certainly seem to be minority groups.


Only propaganda these days will show the results and outcomes you speak of.Vice versa ;) One must not expect that the media will always be honest, and so should scrutinize their information carefully.

The media would like us to think this invasion of Iraq is a disaster. They way they do that is not to say so explicitly, but to give impressions. If something goes wrong there, they make a great fuss over it; but when everything is going well there, they ignore Iraq altogether, and focus on other issues; they brush over the successes, in most cases with scarcely a mention. That way, they give everyone an impression.

That's just an example of what they do with any policy they don't like.

Also, you said in an earlier post that you've studied the Bush administration. It'd be interesting to know whether you did so objectively; whether you disliked Bush already, before you decided to study his administration.

Spartacus74
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 01:33 PM
This is what is going around in the world, and the US power is giving a firm contribution to the adfirmation of this New World Order, this is the thought of a cultural association of my friends in Italy.

http://www.francocenerelli.com

The introduction is this interview to the artist, i think he has been quite fitting for the ongoing situation if the agenda of neocons and teocons will continue to grow and expand.


The "regression" as political idea inside of the nightmare, next to his planetary realization, which sees the production, the consumption, the growth, assume holy and absolute value, the "regression" is a blasphemy, but optional which to high speed is leading us toward the chasm with the belts laced well is also the only possibility of splitting the engine to this Full car...

What which Alacremente is working to is also a world a minority will be able in which, through a planetary police regime, to defend its privileges to press some hungry masses, that the strategy of the death (the big Arcano of the worldwide Masonic drawing) with his wars, famines, plagues, abortion and contraception has not been sufficiently able to Decimare.

Appalachian
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 03:14 PM
We'll see wont we?

I suppose so, since we can't very well turn back the clock.


Yes, I've heard it all before and I don't believe a word of it. I know that some people in Iraq hate the US, and obviously they (no doubt supported all the way by our media) will invent all sorts of lies.]

Of course, it's also possible that they've been brutally tortured in an US-run facility.


I appreciate the witty remark, however, I'm talking theoretically. You don't seem to understand abstract thought ;)

You can talk about all the theory and hypothetical situations and what ifs you want; I'm dealing in reality. As a matter of fact, your whole argument here is based on one giant what if.


As a matter of fact, I've heard it quite a few times, the media won't let us forget about it. Of course, they're not going to show us what happened in Saddam's torture chambers, but according to an Iraqi man I heard on the radio (they picked the wrong man, no doubt to their consternation), videos and pictures of it are freely available in Iraq.

I wonder if the remaining 900-odd photos from Abu Ghraib are available there -- you know, the ones we haven't been allowed to see.


But what happened at Abu Ghraib is equivalent to any sadistic or disgusting lunatic criminal in any country.

Except this was not the act of a lone criminal, or even a small gang of criminals. These actions were ordered at the highest levels -- and if you think it ain't so, then I'd suggest you consider the way Bush's new pet Mexican commissar... er... "attorney general" has made arguments for the use of torture on opponents of the Bush regime.

Also interesting is the fact that Janice Karpinski, the commander of Abu Ghraib during the time period those photos were taken, was originally being set up to take the fall. She may have saved her own ass, though, by virtue of the fact that she pointed out that there were Israeli advisors directing the events there. After that, they conveniently tucked her away and concentrated their efforts on prosecuting a few lower enlisted troops as scapegoats.


Oh yes, how the American government oppress their people, with massacres like at Colombine high school!

What the hell does that have to do with anything?


We're talking here about torture chambers made and supported by the government.

Yes, we are.


According to the same Iraqi (in the same interview), his countrymen have mixed feelings about Abu Ghraib, considering most of the victims were those who had been torturing and oppressing them for so long, and he said it's not as if they have'nt heard of that sort of thing under Saddam.

Well, he's lying and telling the media what they want to hear.

See how ridiculous your argument sounds when it's turned back on you?


Then they're probably similar to our old Labour party, which I consider has been socialist all along.

You're stuck on that word, aren't you?



Well I was asking you actually, you can try justifying it if you want. If you think the British were oppressive, just think of living under Saddam Hussein.

Does that mean that it's our job to depose him and liberate them? No, it does not.


You're saying that America should'nt have helped those under Saddam.

Yes, I am. We've got enough problems of our own without fighting other people's wars of national liberation.


I doubt that "peacably to assemble" includes blocking access to ports. Protestors don't (or should'nt) have the right to obstruct people from going about their daily work, which unfortunately they do all the time.

If we thought that way, we wouldn't exist as a nation.


I like these eloquent speeches, but to apply them to Australians is just......err......nothing short of comical.

I wasn't applying them to Australians in general; I was applying them to you.


Actually, I was talking about you and others who try to justify what socialist demonstrators do. But Americans are far more socialist than they like to admit.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We get it already -- anyone who doesn't believe in your authoritarian, aristocratic point of view is "socialist." :blueroll:


That's why they're such hypocrites. But I'm really referring to their ideology, the values which they claim to hold. And they con their people into thinking they are the helpers of the 'poor man', into thinking that they represent 'the people'.

No disagreement there -- at least when applied to real socialist and not simply anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view.

Of course, that statement also applies equally well to Bush and company.



Perhaps I've been 'having you on' all this time ;)


Don't think I haven't considered the possibility. I've actually been wondering if the ethnicity line in your profile shouldn't actually read "Levantine."


I would'nt advocate ignoring everything he says, it's just that he does'nt represent the whole US army.

And he didn't claim to, but he certainly has a better idea of what "the generals" think than you do, and he said it.


Well I don't use it that way actually, but from what I know of your views, they are exactly the same as those over here who call themselves 'democratic socialists'.

And from what I can see of yours, they're exactly the same as those over here who call themselves "neoconservatives," and it's well-established that they are a reformed Trotskyite sect who have simply changed their rhetoric from "exporting eternal revolution" to "exporting democracy." Different terminology, same scum.

Spartacus74
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 11:59 PM
We'll see wont we?

Yes, I've heard it all before and I don't believe a word of it. I know that some people in Iraq hate the US, and obviously they (no doubt supported all the way by our media) will invent all sorts of lies.

I SOME PEOPLE IN IRAQ HATE US?
hEY GUY, maybe you ignore that right now the incredibles adventures of Bush-ites are getting all the arab and islamic world in a hateful view towards USA.

So not some people but the almost whole population of Iraq feel the same. And i have a direct uncle in the Airborne of Italy who is gone in Irak, he told me that NONE DOesN'T HATE WESTERNS. Of course with Italians is a little bit better because Italians weren't there in the war and now are there for a peace keeping operation (?? as well i have to say). But the feeling of all Irak is to revenge the invasion whatever they considered Saddam a President or a bloody dictator.

And this regards the normal person as the terrorist, the people feel themselves as under occupation and the attitude of US Army is normally this.

And let's stop the crap of the antiterrorist action, the USA there are invaders and the event as Falluja and Abu Ghraib are not scandal but normal.
Also the stupids and the dishonests in Europe (a parte the supporters of economical colonization of Irak) now realized that this is a armed robbery and burglary of a foreign nation.

Rhydderch
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 12:29 AM
You can talk about all the theory and hypothetical situations and what ifs you want; I'm dealing in reality. As a matter of fact, your whole argument here is based on one giant what if.You're dealing in the 'one great reality' of conspiracy theories, talk about a 'what if'.
Yours is the most extreme form of what the media can imply, but not many people would take their implications that far.

What you've said both above and below indicates very much that you are in a 'what if' situation.


I wonder if the remaining 900-odd photos from Abu Ghraib are available there -- you know, the ones we haven't been allowed to see.It would be virtually impossible to show that many on TV, but they've done their best to show as many as possible.


Except this was not the act of a lone criminal, or even a small gang of criminals. These actions were ordered at the highest levelsWell I suppose we can't rule it out can we?

Maybe Neil Armstrong did'nt get to the moon after all ;)


Well, he's lying and telling the media what they want to hear.Believe me, (well I suppose you don't have to) they made a mistake putting him on. The radio stations are sometimes more reasonable, however, this was the ABC, which is just the same as the rest of the media.


You're stuck on that word, aren't you?Maybe you think it's bit like the way you're stuck on the word 'neocon'. You knew I'd say that did'nt you?


Does that mean that it's our job to depose him and liberate them?If this war was only conducted for the purpose of liberating them, then I'd say it's not necessarily your job, but it is still entirely legitimate to have done so.


Yes, I am. We've got enough problems of our own without fighting other people's wars of national liberation.Yes, most countries have their problems, but you see some countries problems are worse than others. America is a priviledged country, like most in the West.


I wasn't applying them to Australians in general; I was applying them to you.Alright then, applying them to an Australian.


Yeah, yeah, yeah. We get it already -- anyone who doesn't believe in your authoritarian, aristocratic point of view is "socialist." :blueroll:Well, not quite, mind you anyone who hates aristocracy I would urge him to consider whether he may be a socialist.


Of course, that statement also applies equally well to Bush and company.Begging the question again.


Don't think I haven't considered the possibility. I've actually been wondering if the ethnicity line in your profile shouldn't actually read "Levantine."???


And from what I can see of yours, they're exactly the same as those over here who call themselves "neoconservatives," and it's well-established that they are a reformed Trotskyite sect who have simply changed their rhetoric from "exporting eternal revolution" to "exporting democracy." Different terminology, same scum.Which would seem to contradict what you say about my aristocratic way of thinking.
By the way, I think there are many problems with Mr Bush's American-style democracy.

Lidvick
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 12:37 AM
Well although I don't live in Europe I find from information here and there that they are the same as our media. Our media very obviously does'nt like governments such as the Liberal party in Australia, the Republicans in America and the Conservative party in Britain. It's just that I hear their opinion all the time, they oppose those parties and their policies at every turn. And I've heard their opinion over many years.

That's why I say I can't explain it in a nutshell.

That may well be because your ideology is similar.

As far as they are concerned yes, but if two men hold opposite opinions, they can't both be right.

I'm not sure whether you mean you've never met someone who defends the Bush administration, or whether you mean you have but he could'nt change your mind.
If the latter, then that's also the same with me.......except, vice versa of course :)

Personally I think it's likely that he expected he would be proven wrong, because most of the evidence suggested there were WMD in Iraq. But he prepared himself in case it turned out, against all expectation, that none would be found.


Germany had restrictions put on it for a good reason, because they were the main aggressors in World War I.
You may have misunderstood what I meant by 'explains it all'. If so, I'll clarify that I meant if you have sympathy with an organisation so dreadful as the Nazis, then that explains why you would oppose this war in Iraq, and perhaps even have sympathy with Hussein.

The 9/11 attacks woke everyone up to what's happening in the world. If people had woken up earlier though, it may be that those attacks would have been prevented.

You may have been ok now, but one must also look to the years ahead.

It would'nt necessarily be policing the whole world, when I say problems boiling up I mean serious threats, more than the usual turmoil which goes on in some parts of the World.
Now although the US did'nt find actual WMD, what seems to have been forgotten is that they did find information in there for illegal WMD production.

What I mean is that lots of the world is on the side of George Bush and they have shown that by supplying troops. They may be small contributions but they have nevertheless shown their alliance, and I would expect that the supplies will be expanded if necessary.
And as for the particular countries, I can't remember all of them but you'll find out if you look into it.

Well, liberators anyway, and I believe one must be delusional to think they don't. True there is opposition, but from the available information they certainly seem to be minority groups.

Vice versa ;) One must not expect that the media will always be honest, and so should scrutinize their information carefully.

The media would like us to think this invasion of Iraq is a disaster. They way they do that is not to say so explicitly, but to give impressions. If something goes wrong there, they make a great fuss over it; but when everything is going well there, they ignore Iraq altogether, and focus on other issues; they brush over the successes, in most cases with scarcely a mention. That way, they give everyone an impression.

That's just an example of what they do with any policy they don't like.

Also, you said in an earlier post that you've studied the Bush administration. It'd be interesting to know whether you did so objectively; whether you disliked Bush already, before you decided to study his administration.




Germany had restrictions put on it for a good reason, because they were the main aggressors in World War I.
You may have misunderstood what I meant by 'explains it all'. If so, I'll clarify that I meant if you have sympathy with an organisation so dreadful as the Nazis, then that explains why you would oppose this war in Iraq, and perhaps even have sympathy with Hussein.

The 9/11 attacks woke everyone up to what's happening in the world. If people had woken up earlier though, it may be that those attacks would have been prevented.

You may have been ok now, but one must also look to the years ahead.

Rhydderch-


The Nazis were not so dreadful the only act of dread or bad on their part was the holocaust , however in reality the numbers of the holocaust were quite small , to the lies the Jewish peoples have made it to be today.

I am not saying that makes it right , however there were many more Jews with businesses than Germans and how would you feel if in your own country foreigners owned more jobs then you did?

In every war however there is always tragedies.

Other than the fact of Nazi Germany in the holocaust , the Germans back then did many good things.

They united Germany and raised a once poor desolate economy to a strong European power.

Yes they were agressive in World War I but the fact is the treaty of Verssailes was the most dis-honorable move made by the surrounding countries. In war even in victory one should still know the notion of honor to those it has conquered. So World War II was going to happen it was only sooner or later that it did.



Actually we were already woken up before the attacks we had spies and knowledge of terrorist activities it was the incompetence of the Bush administration that did not take the necessary precautions in order to protect our borders.


I agree one should look to the future I know I do my share of looking in the future but there is a right way of doing it without being ignorant.:) :thumbup

Spartacus74
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 01:50 AM
Germany had restrictions put on it for a good reason, because they were the main aggressors in World War I.
You may have misunderstood what I meant by 'explains it all'. If so, I'll clarify that I meant if you have sympathy with an organisation so dreadful as the Nazis, then that explains why you would oppose this war in Iraq, and perhaps even have sympathy with Hussein.

The 9/11 attacks woke everyone up to what's happening in the world. If people had woken up earlier though, it may be that those attacks would have been prevented.

You may have been ok now, but one must also look to the years ahead.

Rhydderch-
http://www.francocenerelli.com/iraqflag.jpg (fulcanelli999@tin.it)



http://www.geocities.com/kshatriya_/Evola-twintowers.jpg
[/url]
[url="http://www.avanguardia.tv/Man188a.jpg"]http://www.avanguardia.tv/Man188a.jpg (http://www.avanguardia.tv/Man188a.jpg)

Rhydderch
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 10:19 AM
The Nazis were not so dreadful the only act of dread or bad on their part was the holocaust , however in reality the numbers of the holocaust were quite small , to the lies the Jewish peoples have made it to be today.There's a lot more to it than the Holocaust. They are responsible for World War II.


I am not saying that makes it right , however there were many more Jews with businesses than Germans and how would you feel if in your own country foreigners owned more jobs then you did?We must look to the reasons why Jews had so many business. They are successful and that's why many people are jealous of them.
However, that's not all there is to it because after the Nazis invaded and conquered other countries they started killing Jews there as well. It's not Jewish lies it's well documented by non-Jews.


They united Germany and raised a once poor desolate economy to a strong European power.But they should have left it at that. They did'nt need to conquer other countries.


Yes they were agressive in World War I but the fact is the treaty of Verssailes was the most dis-honorable move made by the surrounding countries. In war even in victory one should still know the notion of honor to those it has conquered. So World War II was going to happen it was only sooner or later that it did.I'm not sure of the background to the treaty of Versaille, but in my opinion banning them from amassing large numbers of weapons was reasonable.
I'm not sure that that would have had anything to do with the desolate economy.


Actually we were already woken up before the attacks we had spies and knowledge of terrorist activities it was the incompetence of the Bush administration that did not take the necessary precautions in order to protect our borders.Yes that's true but there was no 'War on Terrorism' before 9/11. I don't mean to say that everyone was asleep beforehand but it got them going, resolved to take action.



I agree one should look to the future I know I do my share of looking in the future but there is a right way of doing it without being ignorant.:) :thumbupThat's basically what I'm saying.

Rhydderch
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 10:31 AM
SOME PEOPLE IN IRAQ HATE US?
hEY GUY, maybe you ignore that right now the incredibles adventures of Bush-ites are getting all the arab and islamic world in a hateful view towards USA.

So not some people but the almost whole population of Iraq feel the same. And i have a direct uncle in the Airborne of Italy who is gone in Irak, he told me that NONE DOesN'T HATE WESTERNS. Of course with Italians is a little bit better because Italians weren't there in the war and now are there for a peace keeping operation (?? as well i have to say). But the feeling of all Irak is to revenge the invasion whatever they considered Saddam a President or a bloody dictator.

And this regards the normal person as the terrorist, the people feel themselves as under occupation and the attitude of US Army is normally this.

And let's stop the crap of the antiterrorist action, the USA there are invaders and the event as Falluja and Abu Ghraib are not scandal but normal.
Also the stupids and the dishonests in Europe (a parte the supporters of economical colonization of Irak) now realized that this is a armed robbery and burglary of a foreign nation.We've basically discussed these issues earlier in the thread, and since most of the post contains little more than bald assertions, it's not really something I can reply to.

Appalachian
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 01:38 PM
You're dealing in the 'one great reality' of conspiracy theories, talk about a 'what if'.

Who has said anything about "conspiracy?" There's no great "conspiracy" about it. It's quite out in the open.


Yours is the most extreme form of what the media can imply, but not many people would take their implications that far.

Yours is the exact form of what the media tells people to believe here in the States. That may have something to do with why I ain't buyin' it.


What you've said both above and below indicates very much that you are in a 'what if' situation.

No, friend. You're the one who is supporting a war that hinges solely on a "what if." Let me see if I can sum up your argument:

What if Saddam did have WMD?
What if he did intend to use them against the US?
What if he did have the capability to do so?
With all these "what ifs," it's good that we went ahead and took him out!


Well I suppose we can't rule it out can we?

Maybe Neil Armstrong did'nt get to the moon after all ;)

Trust me, believing our "leaders" aren't capable and more than willing to employ such tactics is more akin to buying into such nonsense than believing they are.

Christ, no one can be more dense or deluded than someone who thinks Bush is one of the "good guys" fighting the "evil doers."



Maybe you think it's bit like the way you're stuck on the word 'neocon'. You knew I'd say that did'nt you?


Yeah, but at least I know what the words mean.


If this war was only conducted for the purpose of liberating them, then I'd say it's not necessarily your job, but it is still entirely legitimate to have done so.

Maybe within the British imperialist context, but not within the American context. It goes against everything our Founding Fathers warned us about.


Yes, most countries have their problems, but you see some countries problems are worse than others. America is a priviledged country, like most in the West.

Correction: Certain groups of people in America are privileged, as long as they aren't poor and White.


Alright then, applying them to an Australian.

Hey, if the shoe fits...


Well, not quite, mind you anyone who hates aristocracy I would urge him to consider whether he may be a socialist.

Ok. Consider it considered... and rejected.



Which would seem to contradict what you say about my aristocratic way of thinking.

Hey, as you yourself have pointed out, the socialist rhetoric is generally just a cover for establishing and maintaining the rule of a small group over "the people." It is no different with the neocon rhetoric. It's a cover for corporate oligarchy.


By the way, I think there are many problems with Mr Bush's American-style democracy.

The largest problem is that it isn't very "American-style" at all.

Rhydderch
Saturday, February 12th, 2005, 01:27 AM
It's quite out in the open.Mr Bush being led about by his 'zionist' advisors'? out in the open? err, no.


Yours is the exact form of what the media tells people to believe here in the States.Which media outlets? Of course, we know that CNN and NBC are out of the equation.


What if Saddam did have WMD?
What if he did intend to use them against the US?
What if he did have the capability to do so?The evidence strongly suggested so before the war, and there is little reason to believe it was'nt the case, since there are plenty of possibilities as to where the weapons disappeared.
Saddam was not co-operating with weapons inspectors.

And its not only about protecting the US either; if a powerful nation has the ability to protect other nations, and 'world peace', then there is nothing wrong with doing so.


Trust me, believing our "leaders" aren't capable and more than willing to employ such tactics is more akin to buying into such nonsense than believing they are.Anyone is capable of a lot of things, but the problem is we have no good evidence for that, it's a 'what if' scenario.


Christ, no one can be more dense or deluded than someone who thinks Bush is one of the "good guys" fighting the "evil doers."I don't know Mr Bush personally, so I don't know if he really is a 'good guy', but he's doing some good things. But yes, murderers and sadistic tyrants are 'evil doers'.


Yeah, but at least I know what the words mean.I know what the word 'socialist' means, but you don't seem to realise I'm not always using it in its strict sense. When I talk about Americans being far more socialist than they like to admit, I don't mean they're necessarily fully fledged socialists, but many of their ideas are pretty similar.

And when I mentioned socialists in the US army (opposing the war), I only meant a lot of them are probably Bush's political opponents, who have never liked him, regardless of the war. That side of politics is usually referred to as 'socialist', at least over here.


Maybe within the British imperialist context, but not within the American context. It goes against everything our Founding Fathers warned us about.The problem is, many Americans seem to treat them as Deities, who must be consulted at every turn. Fair enough if you want to take their advice on occasion, but their words need'nt be treated as gospel.

But I do know that many seem to take them out of context.


Correction: Certain groups of people in America are privileged, as long as they aren't poor and White.Trying to con me about America again. What one considers 'poor' depends on the wealth of those who surround him, so if he's surrounded by rich men, he'll probably think he's poor, even though he might be a lot better of than the average man in the average country.


Hey, if the shoe fits...I don't see the point here. I meant I find it comical to have those speeches applied to an Australian, including me.


Ok. Consider it considered... and rejected.So you hate aristocracy? By which I basically mean hereditary rule.


Hey, as you yourself have pointed out, the socialist rhetoric is generally just a cover for establishing and maintaining the rule of a small group over "the people."For those who rule yes, but not for 'the people' themselves, who are conned into thinking everyone is basically equal. So the socialism of the one is different to that of the other, even though what they claim to believe, is the same.


The largest problem is that it isn't very "American-style" at all.So you think, and I'm talking about the democracy itself, not the way it is spread.

Lidvick
Saturday, February 12th, 2005, 05:26 AM
There's a lot more to it than the Holocaust. They are responsible for World War II.

We must look to the reasons why Jews had so many business. They are successful and that's why many people are jealous of them.
However, that's not all there is to it because after the Nazis invaded and conquered other countries they started killing Jews there as well. It's not Jewish lies it's well documented by non-Jews.

But they should have left it at that. They did'nt need to conquer other countries.

I'm not sure of the background to the treaty of Versaille, but in my opinion banning them from amassing large numbers of weapons was reasonable.
I'm not sure that that would have had anything to do with the desolate economy.

Yes that's true but there was no 'War on Terrorism' before 9/11. I don't mean to say that everyone was asleep beforehand but it got them going, resolved to take action.


That's basically what I'm saying.

It could be argued the European Allies harsh and agressive diplomacy with Germany was the reason for World War II.


Ok so they killed Jews in many other countries , but a interesting question I would ask what are so many jews doing in Europe back then and now anyways?

They might of not needed to conquer other countries but they did , probally to set a example of their new found power every war starts out like this, don't be hostile of the subject just because it is Nazi Germany we speak of.

Well you said yourself you don't know much of the Treaty of Verssailes perhaps you should look more into it and then look at the consequences of the treaty and then the economical depression it left in Germany. Also the treaty not only banned a German Army but many other worse things to be noted as well.


Yes that's true but there was no 'War on Terrorism' before 9/11. I don't mean to say that everyone was asleep beforehand but it got them going, resolved to take action. - Rhydderch

That statement I will agree upon however , the United States seems to be the only serious player of the War that and Great Britain. All other countries give little military help. I will also say though again war on terrorism did not start until they attacked us , because you should never go into war without some sort of reason to do so. I doubt the notion of war on terrorism was a thought in post 9/11. I can also say I don't blame them either for not doing so in post 9/11. You don't go going to war around the world without a reason.

:thumbup :)

Rhydderch
Saturday, February 12th, 2005, 10:58 AM
Ok so they killed Jews in many other countries , but a interesting question I would ask what are so many jews doing in Europe back then and now anyways?Well I think their success can make their numbers seem higher than they actually are. There are a disproportionately high number in businesses etc.


They might of not needed to conquer other countries but they did , probally to set a example of their new found power every war starts out like this, don't be hostile of the subject just because it is Nazi Germany we speak of.That is conjecture though; I think it's more likely that they (like so many others in world history) simply wanted more power.


Well you said yourself you don't know much of the Treaty of Verssailes perhaps you should look more into it and then look at the consequences of the treaty and then the economical depression it left in Germany. Also the treaty not only banned a German Army but many other worse things to be noted as well.I think the economical hardships in Germany at the time are more likely a direct result of World War I, rather than the restrictions. Prolonged war take its toll.


I will also say though again war on terrorism did not start until they attacked us , because you should never go into war without some sort of reason to do so.That's right although I think it's possible that there may have been some reason to consider it even before 9/11. The terrorists were there and possibly 9/11 could have been prevented.

Appalachian
Saturday, February 12th, 2005, 06:37 PM
Mr Bush being led about by his 'zionist' advisors'? out in the open? err, no.

You don't think? Let's see... It's openly acknowledged that David Frum is one of his head speech-writers, that characters like Paul Wolfowitz are formulating his military policies, etc.

Just because you choose to ignore the obvious doesn't mean that it's not there for all to see.


Which media outlets? Of course, we know that CNN and NBC are out of the equation.

We know no such thing. They might not toe the party line as strictly as do outlets like Fox News, but they still refrain from rocking the boat too much.


The evidence strongly suggested so before the war, and there is little reason to believe it was'nt the case,

Except for the fact that the Bush administration has since admitted that much of this "evidence" was a complete fabrication! They haven't even offered so much as an apology for this; they've simply shrugged it off as if to say, "too late now!"


And its not only about protecting the US either; if a powerful nation has the ability to protect other nations, and 'world peace', then there is nothing wrong with doing so.

In other words, you think America has an obligation to protect Israel from its enemies. Why didn't you say so from the start?


Anyone is capable of a lot of things, but the problem is we have no good evidence for that, it's a 'what if' scenario.

Not at all. Karpinski herself said that the orders came from higher, and if you think that any soldier (all of whom have been well-educated on the Geneva Convention and the Law of Land Warfare) is going to undertake that sort of action without orders, you clearly know nothing about the military.


I don't know Mr Bush personally, so I don't know if he really is a 'good guy', but he's doing some good things.

Name one.


I know what the word 'socialist' means, but you don't seem to realise I'm not always using it in its strict sense.

Yes, I know that you simply use it do describe anyone who doesn't agree with you.


When I talk about Americans being far more socialist than they like to admit, I don't mean they're necessarily fully fledged socialists, but many of their ideas are pretty similar.

Talk about a meaningless statement...


And when I mentioned socialists in the US army (opposing the war), I only meant a lot of them are probably Bush's political opponents, who have never liked him, regardless of the war. That side of politics is usually referred to as 'socialist', at least over here.

Ah... So it's not necessarily that anyone who disagrees with you is a 'socialist,' it's anyone who disagrees with Bush. How cute.


The problem is, many Americans seem to treat them as Deities, who must be consulted at every turn. Fair enough if you want to take their advice on occasion, but their words need'nt be treated as gospel.

I don't treat their words as gospel, but I can certainly see the wisdom contained therein.


Trying to con me about America again. What one considers 'poor' depends on the wealth of those who surround him, so if he's surrounded by rich men, he'll probably think he's poor, even though he might be a lot better of than the average man in the average country.

You're the one trying to con me here! You seem to think that little green pieces of paper and easy access to mind-numbing entertainment equal wealth. I would maintain that someone living in a rural Mongolian village in touch with his traditions is in many respects richer than some fat slob living in an apartment in NY, stuffing his face on McDonalds and Coca-Cola and watching endless hours of mind-numbing TV.


I don't see the point here. I meant I find it comical to have those speeches applied to an Australian, including me.

Hey, if the shoe fits...


So you hate aristocracy? By which I basically mean hereditary rule.

Of course! It's just plain unAmerican.


For those who rule yes, but not for 'the people' themselves, who are conned into thinking everyone is basically equal.

Wow! Good summary of the current American political climate.


So you think, and I'm talking about the democracy itself, not the way it is spread.

So am I.

Lidvick
Sunday, February 13th, 2005, 08:10 PM
Well I think their success can make their numbers seem higher than they actually are. There are a disproportionately high number in businesses etc.

That is conjecture though; I think it's more likely that they (like so many others in world history) simply wanted more power.

I think the economical hardships in Germany at the time are more likely a direct result of World War I, rather than the restrictions. Prolonged war take its toll.

That's right although I think it's possible that there may have been some reason to consider it even before 9/11. The terrorists were there and possibly 9/11 could have been prevented.

Rhydderch Well I think their success can make their numbers seem higher than they actually are. There are a disproportionately high number in businesses etc.

Well that is debateable.


That is conjecture though; I think it's more likely that they (like so many others in world history) simply wanted more power.- Rhydderch

That I can agree with because all wars are somthing like that so there really is no reason to further downgrade the Nazi German actions , because simply they did what many other nations or cultures in war do.


I think the economical hardships in Germany at the time are more likely a direct result of World War I, rather than the restrictions. Prolonged war take its toll.- Rhydderch

I will agree to a point , however I believe the treaty had a large vital point of the economical depression.



That's right although I think it's possible that there may have been some reason to consider it even before 9/11. The terrorists were there and possibly 9/11 could have been prevented- Rhydderch


That I will agree with yes , however there would have to be large circumstantial reason for a offensive war.:thumbup :)

Spartacus74
Sunday, February 13th, 2005, 09:25 PM
We've basically discussed these issues earlier in the thread, and since most of the post contains little more than bald assertions, it's not really something I can reply to.
in the last posts you were only sayig that there is an awful "propaganda" against the US Rule in the world, and you get out from the hat also the Socialists, the labourists, the socialdemocratics and so on.

My sentence is made by witnesses i know, and i can assure you that many militars from the USA in Italy changed idea about Irak because they had possibility to SEE something different than CBS or CNN on TV.

Rhydderch
Monday, February 14th, 2005, 11:42 AM
You don't think? Let's see... It's openly acknowledged that David Frum is one of his head speech-writers, that characters like Paul Wolfowitz are formulating his military policies, etc.I said "led about", in other words pushing their agenda on Israel while Mr Bush is so dumb that he does'nt realise; I'm sure you knew what I was implying.


We know no such thing. They might not toe the party line as strictly as do outlets like Fox News, but they still refrain from rocking the boat too much.I know what they're like. If you think they're neutral then you certainly do have extreme views.

They don't rock the boat too hard or they'd lose all credibility.


In other words, you think America has an obligation to protect Israel from its enemies.That's called jumping to conclusions. You're so preoccupied with Israel that you're putting words into my mouth ;)


Not at all. Karpinski herself said that the orders came from higher, and if you think that any soldier (all of whom have been well-educated on the Geneva Convention and the Law of Land Warfare) is going to undertake that sort of action without orders, you clearly know nothing about the military.Ha, ha, I know enough about the military to know that they're not always good boys who do everything they're told, and never do anything they're not told to do.


Talk about a meaningless statement...A statement is always meaningless to those who don't understand it. Just read it and think it about it again ;)


Ah... So it's not necessarily that anyone who disagrees with you is a 'socialist,' it's anyone who disagrees with Bush. How cute.I disagree with Bush on many issues, and I'm not calling myself a socialist.
Something's wrong with your reasoning :D ;)


You're the one trying to con me here! You seem to think that little green pieces of paper and easy access to mind-numbing entertainment equal wealth. I would maintain that someone living in a rural Mongolian village in touch with his traditions is in many respects richer than some fat slob living in an apartment in NY, stuffing his face on McDonalds and Coca-Cola and watching endless hours of mind-numbing TV.But you see we're talking about material wealth. And besides, what makes you mention entertainment?


Hey, if the shoe fits...Yes, it fits me as well as the hat of Tom Thumb fits you.


Of course! It's just plain unAmerican.Ah, well, I said America is too socialist.


So am I.Good then; and it is American-style. If you don't think so, then what is un-American about it?

Appalachian
Monday, February 14th, 2005, 01:38 PM
I said "led about", in other words pushing their agenda on Israel while Mr Bush is so dumb that he does'nt realise; I'm sure you knew what I was implying.

Oh, I'm sure he realizes...


I know what they're like. If you think they're neutral then you certainly do have extreme views.

Did I say they were "neutral?" No.


That's called jumping to conclusions. You're so preoccupied with Israel that you're putting words into my mouth ;)

I'm certainly not "preoccupied" with Israel. It's just that I recognize that our relationship with Israel is currently the number one threat to our national security.

Ok, judging from past experience dealing with the type of jerkoff who pulls out the old "preoccupation with Israel" canard, this is the point where you call me an 'anti-Semite,' whatever that is.


Ha, ha, I know enough about the military to know that they're not always good boys who do everything they're told, and never do anything they're not told to do.

Trust me, a bunch of E5s and below did not simply take it upon themselves to start abusing prisoners in such a manner.


A statement is always meaningless to those who don't understand it. Just read it and think it about it again ;)

Yeah, I'd likewise suggest you reread the whole thread.


I disagree with Bush on many issues, and I'm not calling myself a socialist.
Something's wrong with your reasoning :D ;)

What issues are those, pray tell? Do you think he's waiting too long to invade Iran or something?


But you see we're talking about material wealth.

Yeah, it's called bread and circuses.


And besides, what makes you mention entertainment?

That's the 'circuses' part.


Yes, it fits me as well as the hat of Tom Thumb fits you.

Ouch. :blueroll:


Ah, well, I said America is too socialist.

Yeah, and your overuse of that word is clear to see. Pick a new fetish, will you?


Good then; and it is American-style. If you don't think so, then what is un-American about it?

I'll detail this in a later post. In a bit of a hurry now...

Rhydderch
Monday, February 14th, 2005, 02:16 PM
Oh, I'm sure he realizes...Ah, well, it occured to me that you might say that. And therefore it is not 'out in the open', it's a conspiracy theory.


Did I say they were "neutral?" No.If you think they're pro-Bush, then that proves my point all the more. If you think they're anti-Bush, then I had good reason to say they're 'out of the equation', as being a media outlet which does'nt support him.


Ok, judging from past experience dealing with the type of jerkoff who pulls out the old "preoccupation with Israel" canard, this is the point where you call me an 'anti-Semite,' whatever that is.Oh yes, we've "seen it all before" have'nt we ;) Well actually, if I was going to call you an anti-Semite, I would have done it near the beginning of the discussion.


What issues are those, pray tell?I hesitate to use the word 'nutshell' again.


Yeah, and your overuse of that word is clear to see.For some reason the word 'neocon' enters my mind......

Appalachian
Monday, February 14th, 2005, 03:18 PM
This has obviously devolved into a minor flame-war, and it's increasingly clear that neither of us is going to change the other's mind.

Personally, I think that you either have little idea of what you're talking about or you have an anti-American agenda.

In any event, I'll let you have the last word, if you want, but I'm done. This is clearly going nowhere.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 01:26 AM
This has obviously devolved into a minor flame-war, and it's increasingly clear that neither of us is going to change the other's mind.Well, as I said to Lidvick, we're both holding equally strongly (at least presumably) to an opinion, and yet, the fact that our opinions are opposite means that they can't both be right. Someone has got it wrong (not me, of course :D ).


Personally, I think that you either have little idea of what you're talking about or you have an anti-American agenda.I refute both.

Rhydderch
Thursday, February 17th, 2005, 02:30 AM
A matter for a different thread, to be sure. By all means, start a thread on why you think our Revolution was unjust.In case it was unclear, I meant I believe that the War of Independence itself was unjustified, not necessarily that the grievances were unfounded.