STOP the Bush administration NOW

[vulture]

As the US is entering 2004, elections are coming up. People all over the world watch closely as this century's superpower decides who will run the US and partially the world, for the next 4 years.

Millions of people hope that the US citizens will make the right choice and stop the greatest threat towards world stability, the REAL terror at work: The Bush administration.

Many US citizens will say, fuck you, you foreigner, don't meddle with internal affairs. But, since the US claims to run the world and meddles with other countries internal affairs, I think it's nothing but fair that the rest of the world meddles with US internal affairs.

Let me give you a few reasons why Not to choose bush:

#1. Economy: Bush turned a healthy national budget in a large deficit. Cause: Tax cuts for the rich, War against Terror, War in Iraq. The only one benefiting from his economy policy are the megacorps.

#2. Foreign & Security Policy: Yes, these are tied together, contrary to what many may think.
Shortly after Bush was elected, he summed up his little axis of evil, blowing years of diplomacy to shreds. He also claimed he didn't need the rest of the world, especially those boring old European fucks. Oddly enough, after 9/11 we were kindly asked if we could dig deep into our pockets to support the War on Terror.

During the history of the US, the US never had more enemies and displeased allies than under the Bush administration. Bush continues to piss off allies, to threat souvereign countries and to attack countries without a valid reason. In doing that, he claims to make the world a safer place.
We all saw how Iraq and Afghanistan became safer places: Everyday bombings, devestated infrastructure, US soldiers violating human rights and big US companies stealing natural resources.

Bush foreing policy has so far caused more terrorism, war and humane disaster in the world than it cured.

But hey, what to expect from a president that can't tell Russia from Canada?

His rampaging War on Terror claims to make the people of the US more secure. Instead, they are being scared, day in day out, by color coded chart systems and elevated threats. Because they're so busy watching their six, being afraid of terrorists, the Bush administration is allowed to steal their rights and freedom without anyone noticing. The sons of families are dying everyday in Iraq to deepen the pockets of Mr. President, his lackeys and the big spenders to his campaign.

#3. The damage he might do. If Bush is going to be reelected, he's got a wildcard to achieve all his ideological ideas because he will not have to worry about getting reelected. From that point on, it's carving your policy as deep into the country as possible, to make sure the future administrations can't wipe it out easily.

That probably means war against Iran, North Korea, countries that have oil and countries that don't like GWB. This will cause even more suffering and terror, below zero relationships with former allies and global instability, possibly leading to another world war and not small scale conflicts that we're used to.

#4. His ignorance & hypocrisy. I don't think anyone doubts that Dubya has the lowest IQ of all presidents. His knowledge of geography and foreing policy is easily surpassed by an 8 year old.

Worst of all, he's a warchicken. He happily sends thousands of US soldiers to Iraq to die there, but Mr. President himself went AWOL during Nam. As if that wasn't enough, he accuses everyone who isn't in favor of the war as being a coward, including Colin Powell at first, who is the only member of the Bush administration who ever served active duty in a conflict. (check Gulf War II footage)

Do yourself and the world a favor and say NO to GWB.

[Skean Dhu]

I for one agree with you and seeing as how I will be able to vote this november I can garuntee you I WILL NOT VOTE FOR GWB. We need to get somebody in there that is willing to grow a pair of his own balls and make his own desicions rather than listen to Rumsfeld the old fart that he is. We need to get the USA PATRIOT ACT(aka The Screw the Bill of Rights Act of 2001(SBR act) repealed and keep the PATRIOT ACT II from coming to pass. Granted if the house and senate hadn't been for the majority republican he would have had a harder time passing some of the bullshit he has.

I have a hilarious SNL remake of the 2000 debates I'll upload it to the FTP over the next couple days

[daysleeper]

I think Bush is just as much a traitor to the US as any president since the begining of the last century.
Democracy has proven itself unworthy for world acceptance, it allows for to many human flaws to be used against the
general population. This whole system should be destroyed and a better one created by whatever means IMO.

[N\A4567]

Other than the obvious, Bush has been making the executive branch gradually envelop the judicial and legislative branches; this would destroy everything that once made this country great, and it would also make him a dictator. America, in my opinion, is a fascist state as it is, everything I've always wanted to do, now that I'm old enough, is illeglized because of morons like him. Bush is terrorizing the counntry,as Vulture mentioned, with these "Terror alert levels" and people have never been more paranoid, example: I took a pocket knife to camp the summer after 9/11 and they acted as though I were Jack the Ripper incarnate. It's never been harder to get chemicals either, everyone assumes that your a terrorist if you have chemicals and chemistry equipment, and even when you have the excuse that "I'm taking a course in chemistry", they wont sell me anything worth haveing or using (the only sulfuric acid I could get was weaker than the citric in lemons). Anyway, I seem to have ranted into another issue (stupid safety laws). I basicly agree with what Vulture seid.

Just to point out that,
"His knowledge of geography and foreing policy is easily surpased by an 8 year old."
This isn't right, our education system is failing miserably; I've noticed that the average 15 year old has a vocabulary of about 90% vulgarities and 10% articles and prepositions, just there to string the vulgarities together.

[EP]

I'll definetly be voting against him when the time comes. A couple other reasons:

1. Enviroment. Bush has an awful enviromental record, the administrations policies benefit rich corporations that pollute and hurt everyone else.
2. Going along with the whole war thing, the new nuclear weapons policies like developing low yield and bunker buster nukes threaten to start a new arms race and make the use of nuclear weapons more likely.

I have written some stuff (one for school paper, other as research project) on both topics recently if anyone wants me to post them for specifics.

[Arkangel]

Well, I'd happily take a month off if someone would put me up, to do some canvassing on behalf of the democrats - give them the REAL view of people in this country.

I skimmed this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3415361.stm), and there's nothing surprising and plenty that's alarming in it.

You MUST renew the patriot act (and what additions to it>)

You must consent to drug testing in schools, we're putting millions into programs promoting abstinence - but nothing into education about safe sex etc

Get rid of the dimwit:mad:

[gliper]

Democrates are ruled by the same people with the same interists as Republicans and those who actualy contoll the US have more power than any challenger. If the tables turn the new forces will lanch a coup and skip the electoral proses anyway.

[Skean Dhu]

What the hell ? I thought it was called "the State of The Union" not "I'm gonna stand here and brag about all the people I've ordered killed and captured" . He takes a measly 4minutes tops to rush through a few words about how even though people said it was a "risky tax scheme" it worked. He left out the part about losing 3million jobs since he took office, frittering away our nations money until we are in debt up to our ears.
He almost out right says there aren't any WMDs but look at what there was, one funny old man hiding in a dusty hole who hadn't shaven in a few weeks. Had he not taken this country and others like it into war under false pretenses Saddam would still be killing innocent people. Sure bush thats all well and great but you LIED TO US, and then passed the blame to your three-letter agency cronies, you gave them a license to get information any way possible and then you wonder why some of it my be lies?

"America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." Ok then why the hell haven't you bombed North Korea back to the stone age? their missles have a hell of a lot farther range than saddams did. and we know they have a nuclear facility or three

" I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again." whose tyranny are we talking about ? give yourself another term and someone will be saying the same things about you. Wake up Georgy boy you aren't playing Command & Conquer : Red Alert YOU'RE THE FUCKING PRESIDENT OF AN ACTUAL COUNTRY

"Americans took those dollars and put them to work, driving this economy forward. The pace of economic growth in the third quarter of 2003 was the fastest in nearly 20 years. New home construction, the highest in almost 20 years. Home ownership rates the highest ever. Manufacturing activity is increasing. Inflation is low. Interest rates are low. Exports are growing. Productivity is high. And jobs are on the rise."
Of course they're growing, they're on the rebound from your screw-ups.
"These numbers confirm that the American people are using their money far better than government would have, and you were right to return it."
Well at least he knows he would have blown all the cash in five minutes.
*steps down and picks up soap box exit stage left*

[wrench352]

The enemy of your enemy is your friend right.So embrace the democrats?The same people that are trying to ban assault rifles(and guns in general),model rocketry and suppress information on explosives.Supporting Bush leaves a bad taste in my mouth as well.Its the Democrats that want you as sheeple!!!.Something needed to be done in the middle east,toppling two regimes that supported terrorism might just accomplish somethin,look at Libya and Iran now,why were not in Pakistan sorting things out I dont know.Maybe we are.You do your reseach before you do a synthe,do your research before you cast your vote. The democrats represent everything we hate! Are we better off than we were a year ago?Hell yes! Are the Iraqi people? Hell yes! Are the Afgani people? Hell yes!After 9/11 the democrats want us as sheeple more than ever,to potect us from ourselves.Want proof: Feinstein,Lautenberg look what "great" things they want to do with our country,and they're right off the top of my head.If you can think of a political threat to Roguesci I guarantee theyre democrats.Put a democrat in the white house,you empower them.Want to do something about the enviroment?Join Earthshare.BTW,I voted for Clinton twice.

[Flake2m]

Politicians only support the people that fund them.
If GWB was getting all his election money from anti-war groups and lower income class citezin then he might just change his policies. This isn't the case.
Even though I am not American I hope he isn't re elected. But like our prime minister John Howard you might not want him in office but when you look at the other potential candidates you wonder whether they would do any better a job.
While every leader of their country is supposed to put the intrests of the country and there people first. Sometimes you have to wonder whether they prioritised them correctly. Atleast John Howard made sure Australia had the enconomy to handle "A war on Terror" before he committed anything.

[Arkangel]

toppling two regimes that supported terrorism

Which ones were they? The same ones with WMD's pointed at all of our children in their beds? Iraq had no links to terror that threatened the US, and it's debatable how much they supported any other groups. And before you jump on your high horse about it, the US has arguably sponsored more terror in it's meddling in S.America and elsewhere than any other country.

The reason I want Bush out is because he threatens ME, my safety and that of the people I care about. I disagree with a lot of the democrat agenda, but they are WAY less of a threat to America and the rest of the world

[vulture]

You do your reseach before you do a synthe,do your research before you cast your vote. The democrats represent everything we hate! Are we better off than we were a year ago?Hell yes! Are the Iraqi people? Hell yes! Are the Afgani people? Hell yes!After 9/11 the democrats want us as sheeple more than ever,to potect us from ourselves.

Iraq the final Smackdown.

Score: Saddam vs Bush:

Saddam: 200 Iraqis killed per month.
Functioning power grid: Check.
Potable Water: Check.
Police ensuring law&order: Check.
Oil reserves: Check.

Bush: 400 Iraqis killed per month + 500 US soldiers since beginning of campaign.
Functioning power grid: Negative.
Potable water: Negative.
Police ensuring law&order: Negative; random bombings, intimidation and human right violations by US soldiers.
Oil Reserves: Being pumped out to the US by Halliburton, one of the main contributors to the Bush campaign.

The main difference between Bush and the Democrats: 40 million dollars of megacorp money for Bush.

Oh, geez, the democrats are taking your guns away!! Damn, I'd rather have a gun and be indefinetely emprisoned (without my gun ofcourse, since I'm a dangerous terrorist) than loose it!

Seriously, you're scared about the democrats taking away your guns. Bush will let you keep your guns, that's true, unless you've got a slightly different view on politics. Because then you'll have a gun and you'll be a terrorist and then you'll go off to Guantanamo bay.

EDIT: I don't like Howard Dean either. John Kerry seems like a good candidate....Oh, didn't he fight in Nam? Some George dude should have been there with him...

[wrench352]

And which axis of evil nation do you live in.Are you saying that Iraq didnt have WMDs?Tell that to the Kurds.I have heard on and off that there were Iraqi ties to Al-Queda.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.alqaeda.links/
Again I ask are Iraq and Afganistan better off than they were before?And a clear message has been sent to every other rogue state to clean up their act and play nice.Look at Libya,Iran,Syria and even North Korea.I dont agree with a lot of things my govt has done in the past( South America,Iran etc) I was a kid then.Then again we've got revolutionary roots dont we? And were funny how we pick and choose our friends.This is going in the wrong direction.
George Bush is no threat to any nation that can behave itself,and no Iraq till the very end cold not behave itself.Know this and know it well THE LIBERALS CANNOT BY VERY NATURE PROTECT YOU.The first thing they'd do is cut loose those guys in Gitmob loose,then they'd inact a whole new set of laws to "protect us".In addition I dont know one person who gets scared by the terror alert system.
High horse my ass


American Girls and American Guys
We'll always stand up and salute
We'll always recognize
When we see Ole Glory Flying
There's a lot of men dead
So we can sleep in peace at night
When we lay down our head

My daddy served in the army
Where he lost his right eye
But he flew a flag out in our yard
Till the day that he died
He wanted my mother, my brother, my sister and me
To grow up and live happy
In the land of the free.

Now this nation that I love
Has fallen under attack
A mighty sucker punch came flying in
From somewhere in the back
Soon as we could see clearly
Through our big black eye
Man, we lit up your world
Like the 4th of July

Hey Uncle Sam
Put your name at the top of his list
And the Statue of Liberty
Started shaking her fist
And the eagle will fly
And there's gonna be hell
When you hear Mother Freedom
Start ringing her bell
And itll feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you
Ahhh Brought to you Courtesy of the Red White and Blue

Ohhh Justice will be served
And the battle will rage
This big dog will fight
When you rattle his cage
And you'll be sorry that you messed with
The U.S. of A.
'Cause we'll put a boot in your ass
It's the American way

Hey Uncle Sam
Put your name at the top of his list
And the Statue of Liberty
Started shaking her fist
And the eagle will fly
And there's gonna be hell
When you hear Mother Freedom
Start ringing her bell
And itll feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you
Brought to you Courtesy of the Red White and Blue

[vulture]

And which axis of evil nation do you live in.

Belgium, Europe. YUROP for the yanks. So, according to you, every nation who behaves itself is not a threat? Didn't you just call my country a threat? So behaving comes down to blindly swallowing what the dude in the Whitehouse says? That's freedom? My ass.

Tell that to the Kurds.I have heard on and off that there were Iraqi ties to Al-Queda.


This is the standard republican bullshit which is, oddly enough, only believed by a part of the american population. The UN, thousands of independent reporters and intelligence agencies have been looking for WMDs, but nobody found them.

Sure, Saddam used WMDs against The Kurds. So did the Iranians. But that was before Gulf War II. Now, according to Bush Senior, that campaign was a succes, so Iraq didn't have any WMDs anymore.

About that link you gave me, learn how to read:

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein for years has consorted with the al Qaeda terrorist network, often using as a go-between a shadowy figure who set up a training camp in northeast Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday

Let me remind you that Powell also showed proof of Uranium purchases from Niger. Those documents turned out to be forged. There were 3D animations (not actual satelite footage like the public was made to believe) of mobile bio labs. NONE of those were found.

It's not because Powell said it, that it is a fact.

THE LIBERALS CANNOT BY VERY NATURE PROTECT YOU

So Bush can? Read my posts before commenting on them!! The US NEVER had more enemies than under GWB. Is that protecting your country? No. You'll only increase terrorist attacks. Look at Iraq.

You just keep repeating the standard propaganda without actually looking at other arguments.

Also, I fail to see the relevance of the songtext you posted. That's just "baffle them with bullshit" tactic IMHO.

Oh and please spend some time formatting your posts correctly. It's a pity that a foreigner like me seems to master the great language of the great USA better than you do.

[Skean Dhu]

This election as with every other election is about choosing the lesser of two evils. Even though the Democrats are pro-gun control i'm pretty sure they'd have their hands full for the next 4 years cleaning up the mess Bush made .

Wrench sure Saddam had some chemical agents in the late '90's but as you said ask the Kurds where they went. Just because we sold/gave him WMDs in the '80's along with half of the middle east dosen't mean they still have them. Twenty-four years is a long time to hold onto something so valuable, they could have been sold, used up in experiments, or confiscated and destroyed by UN inspectors.
Also you shouldn't need anyone to protect you THATS what the 2nd ammendmant is for, now all we need to do is get rid of that annoying brady bill.

Vulture case in point , thats the Edufication our children is getting under Bushes 'plan' and the No Child Left Behind Act.

[Arkangel]

Tell that to the Kurds

Some wanker pig said this to me when I was being arrested during an anti-war demonstration last year. For the sake of an easier time I didn't take issue with him, but I will with you.

IF saddam gassed the Kurds you're referring to, then it was with WMD's supplied by Rummie. As you so eloquently (I nearly puked) put it "Brought to you Courtesy of the Red White and Blue"

But then we're not sure he did, are we? First, they appeared to have been killed with a blood agent - the Iranians had it, he didn't. Secondly, this was a strategic area for the Iranians to want to attack, and at the time the Kurds were far less of a problem than they became later.

Speaking of the Kurds, I think you ought to watch this space. Their "autonomous" zone covers 40% of Iraqi oil. If you think that Turkey is going to allow them to develop as a statelet then you don't know the Turks. If you think that the Kurds are going to bend over backwards for GWB then you may have more to learn as well.

GWB's desperately trying to get a government installed before the elections and in doing so he's inflaming the entire Shia population. They KNOW that he's trying to install a government he can control (Like the one in Afghanistan - Hamid Karzai spent much of the last two decades working in America for oil companies controlled by the current US administration) and they will not accept it. Hopefully the CPA will accept the Shia proposals for proper elections, but then they don't really want that, do they?

And before you trot off the normal sycophantic, blinkered, US centric crap that I sense you're going to, read up on Daniel Ellsberg. He was around during a similar bit of US government folly, and made the effort to expose the lies and deceipt that surrounded it. If you believe what GWB's telling you, if you believe that he's a safe pair of hands at the wheel then I pity you as much as I fear for the world.


Anyway, moving on

I dont agree with a lot of things my govt has done in the past

Ever heard the expression that a leopard can't change it's spots? You say "in the past" as though some miracle of revelation, the internet, cheaper phone calls, colour tv or whatever has given more honesty and integrity to the US government (and I know this is a thread about GWB, but I'm on a roll).

"In the past"

Do you not think that the same lies, distortions and half truths were being told about Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iran and Iraq (in the 70's/80's) or even Cuba as are being told about Afghanistan and Iraq?:rolleyes:

Moving futher on, they'd inact a whole new set of laws to "protect us Erm, have you been paying ANY attention to the Patriot act? Your constitution is being destroyed and you seem to be comfortable with that. Maybe you should read George Orwell's 1984. If you don't know it, then you should take the trouble to find it. It was written in 1949, and describes how, in a futuristic world, people are watched all the time under the name of "security" and there is a perpetual "war" to keep folks in line. 1984 is reality in America today and Dubya is the keenest exponent of it.

Get rid of him before he gets rid of ALL your rights (the right to bear arms has been extensively discussed here and it's clear that in the original meaning and intent of that principle, the "right" was lost many years ago), screws your economy and loses you your few remaining friends in the world.:p

[vulture]

Vulture case in point , thats the Edufication our children is getting under Bushes 'plan' and the No Child Left Behind Act.

You're right, Skean Dhu, it's a sad coincedence all firm supporters of the Bush administration have rather poor language skills.

Rarely is the question asked, Is our children learning?

Says enough me thinks.

Checkout: www.bushin30seconds.org

http://anon.moveon.speedera.net/2802_small.mov

[Jacks Complete]

Wow... Just checked out the adverts on www.bushin30seconds.org. Brilliant stuff!

Rarely is the question asked, Is our children learning?

Rarely have I laughed so much at a one-liner!

I have made my feelings clear on this board a few times.

Bush has destroyed America's standing in the world, and the running into the ground of it's own self-esteem will do it more harm than a dozen plane hijacks.

The terrorists have won, and quite easily. One little attack, and they get to destroy America's standing in the world, cost America billions, use the Iraqi army and resistance fighters to further their cause, remove the founding rights of all americans, use government scares to shorten americans lives through stress, and lower the US funds to an all time low, all the while doing nothing except running around in the wilderness, hating America, and rubbing their hands with glee.

Someone read, and understood, Sun Tzu, and someone else didn't.

[wrench352]

A leopard cant change its spots,it does here every 4-8 years :)through free elections,that two new governments have now.The Second Ammendment isnt dead yet,Im still fighting for it right here and now.Harmid Karazi was our second choice.I read 1984 when you were in grade school and this aint it.Maybe you should read Farenheit 451 because thats what several Democratic senators and congressmen want.If I didnt make it clear enough George Bush isnt perfect,but under his administration,we exist. I bet The Forum might become a security concern under a democratic president.As far as the Patriot Act goes most of it expires next year :)And of the remaining provisions(extra judges,more funding for law enforcement,etc) which exactly did you have problems with?

[ossassin]

Bush may have a few faults, but keep in mind who the alternatives are: unintelligent liberals who want to ban firearms, allow gay marriage, etc. They are self-proclaimed socialists who want to ruin our country and our way of life. Keep these people out of office.

EDIT:
Vulture, the US does run the world, and this means that you have no right to meddle in its affairs, not the opposite. The US meddles, because it can. What's your excuse?

[Blackhawk]

The US runs the world through ignorance and bullying, rest assured that through time governments have been powerfull forces in the world but they have all fallen, for instance the British Empire, the Romans etc, America is at it's height now but nothing lasts for ever.
"unintelligent liberals who want to ban firearms, allow gay marriage, etc."
As unintelligent as they may be they would have to be a hell of a lot better than Bush. And what the hell is wrong with Gay Marrige, how the fuck does that effect you? I can just picture some ignorant redneck on the other end of the computer who is attracted to catchy phrases like 'gay is bad, duhhh', let me guess, you are a hardline christian who thinks that 'they' are causing the breakdown of the family unit.
"The US meddles, because it can."
You just make statemnts like this with no backing and no meaning, but what should I expect from a GWB supporter, intelligent arguments, HA. In that statement you sound like a three year old, why do you kill thousands of innocents, because we can ha take that poopoo face!
"want to ruin our country and our way of life"
More than Bush has already done? He has passed several freedom restricting legislations, he is spreading layers of meanigless fear over your country and your economy is going down, the Aussie dollar is the highest it has been for decades against the US. He has thrown you into two useless and reasonless wars, have you found OBL? NO did you find WMD in Iraq, NO. Who gave OBL training and weapons, the US. Who gave Saddam his WMD which he used on the Kurds, the US. Perhaps this reasonless "Meddeling because you can" attitude is to blame as to why the US is pretty much the most hated country in the world and why you are constantly targets. You dont care how you use your infulance to mess up the world, so the world dosn't care how they mess up you and I can't say I blame them.

[Pyrovus]

The major trouble with Bush is that he hasn't got a clue what he's doing, and yet he's so self-righteous, he says that God is on his side, that He supports Bush's actions. Funny, though, that this same God is also on Osama bin Laden's side, telling him to strike at Bush. So it appears that the divine will is for these two nutcases to wipe each other out. I have to say I agree with God on this one.

The Iraq war is a good demonstration of Bush's total inability to see through to the consequences of his actions. His justification for the war was that somehow Iraq, a small country with a tiny military was an enormous threat to the world (i.e. the US), citing the alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction. While later, once it became clear the WMD issue was a lie they started citing other reasons, weapons of mass destruction were the key reason why Bush alleged that Iraq was a threat. The one mistake some anti-war people make is the assertion that because no weapons were found, Iraq posed no threat, implying that if they did have these weapons the war would have been justified. The truth is that weapons of mass destruction are almost irrelevant.

Let's consider an alternate reality in which Saddam Hussein actually did have all the terrible weapons he was supposed to have. Sounds scary, doesn't it? But consider what would happen if Saddam actually did use these weapons to launch an attack on the US. He would be annihilated, and very quickly. The simple fact that Iraq was contained - the situation was MAD without the "M", and Saddam Hussein dare not have used these weapons for fear of retaliation. Of course there are those who assert that because Saddam Hussein is bad, and weapons of mass destruction are also bad, he will therefore those weapons without thinking through the consequences (Bush has to learn that not everyone thinks like him). Just because someone's not nice doesn't mean they're stupid or suicidal. If we look at the motives for his evil actions - staying in power at any cost - he's not going to do something that he knows will certainally result in his downfall. The other suggestion, that he was going to pass these weapons on to al-Qaeda, so that he could strike at the West without taking the blame is also laughable. Not only is it inevitable that any attack with WMDs would ultimately be traced back to him and result in his destruction, but Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have been mortal enemies for decades. But then again, everyone knows that dictators who manage to stay in power for thirty years do so by giving powerful weapons to people who want them dead. So, under what circumstances would Saddam Hussein most likely use these weapons? There are two possible scenarios:
1: Archaeologists in Iraq uncover a crashed ancient alien spacecraft and are able to salvage it's technology, enabling Saddam Hussein to assemble a giant fleet of invincible flying saucers. Knowing that he will be able to overpower the US militarily, he knows that he has nothing to fear in terms of retaliation from using WMD, which compared to his antimatter powered death rays on the flying saucers, are now trivial anyway.
2: His regime is threatened with destruction and he figures he has nothing to lose by using them - after all, he will be destroyed regardless of what he does. So in other words, in an attempt to prevent Saddam Hussein from using these weapons, Bush idiotically engages in the course of action most likely to make Saddam use them (and at this stage he'd have nothing to lose giving them to al-Qaeda, as they wouldn't waste them on a regime about to be destroyed anyway). It's very lucky Bush wasn't President during the Cuban Missile Crisis!

Of course, it now seems likely that these weapons were fictitious. If they did exist, they would almost certainally have been used by Saddam. Yet the Bush Administration continues to cling to this excuse, although they have made some attempts to downgrade it, by saying things like he had plans to develop WMD. So essentially what they're saying is that if it weren't for the UN sanctions and inspections, if Saddam Hussein had the materials to make these weapons he might be able to do so - the only thing stopping him from terrorising the world is the fact that he doesn't have the physical capacity to do so. This is a completely meaningless statement. It's identical to saying that if Saddam Hussein were to suddenly transform into a demigod, he would be albe to terrorise the world by turning people 6000 kilometres away into frogs. Call me cynical, but my guess is that they'll plant a few WMD in Iraq a week or so before the US Presidential election, to make sure there isn't time for proof of them being planted to get out until after the election. Sure, people might not be terribly happy about this (although most people are apathetic), but once Bush has won the election, what does it matter? And provided he makes sure there's no proof that he had knowledge of the planting, they won't be able to impeach him. After all, it worked wonders for his mate Johnny with the Children Overboard fiasco.

So it's already clear that the whole Weapons of Mass Destruction excuse was a poor one. With or without WMD, Iraq posed no threat. But what effect does the war against Iraq have on the threats, real or otherwise, coming from WMD worldwide? One of the arguments made by the Bush administration, and blindly supported by our own dear Prime Minister, Little Johnny Howard, was that attacking Iraq would send a message to other 'rogue states' (i.e. countries America doesn't like) not to develop weapons of mass destruction. John Howard used the fear of terrorism to try to gain support by saying that if Iraq were allowed to keep it's WMD, then other states would feel free to do the same, and the more of these weapons that exist, the greater the chances of them falling into terrorist hands. Of course, al-Qaeda won't get them from all those former Soviet republics, or even steal them from labs etc within the US, they'll only get them from officially declared "rogue states". Clearly, WMD elsewhere are totally harmless. What little credibility the Bush-Howard argument had was utterly obliterated when they invaded Iraq without bothering to prove that they had these weapons before doing so. What message does that send to other nations fearful of a US attack? "We don't care whether or not you have these weapons, if we want to attack you, we'll do so regardless," is the most likely one. Of course this gives a great incentive to develop weapons of mass destruction, as if they're going to invade you under the pretext of having weapons of mass destruction whether you have them or not, you might as well have them. That way, at least you have something to fight back with, or to even deter an invasion (it is highly likely that this was the main reason why Saddam desired these, for it's probable he expected the US to be after him sooner or later). After all, if invading a country means sacrificing Washington and New York, they just might think twice about doing so (although with Bush in charge, you never know). The net effect of this is that many MORE of these weapons are created, and as John Howard is so fond of saying, the more of these that exist, the greater the chance they will fall into the hands of terrorists! North Korea got the message from the Iraq invasion, and they're happily churning out an atom bomb a month so they can feel safe from US attack. Bush and Howard said that if they don't "show strength" with dealing with Iraq, then they would be unable to persuade North Korea to disarm. Do they seriously believe that belligerently attacking another nation, effectively saying, "you're next, WE'RE GOING TO ATTACK YOU, WE'RE GOING TO ATTACK YOU, WE'RE GOING TO ATTACK YOU - but you wouldn't mind disarming first before we do so, would you?" - actually have of working?

Perhaps the worst argument of the Bush Administration and cronies to 'justify' the attack on Iraq, was to compare not attacking Iraq to the policy of appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s. The respective situations in Iraq and Nazi Germany were completely different. Iraq is a small nation, and had a weak military before the invasion, and thanks to UN sanctions had no prospect of becoming strong anytime soon. Nazi Germany, by contrast, was an aggressive superpower, bent on world domination, which belligerantly used force or threat of force to bully smaller nations, and force them to give up territory and generally cave into Hitler's will, and often installing puppet regimes. To be fair to Bush and friends, a comparison of the current situation with the Nazi period is accurate - just not in the way they intended. Here we have America, an aggressive superpower, bent on world domination, which belligerantly uses force or threat of force to bully smaller nations, generally for financial gain, and often installing puppet regimes. All Bush needed to do to make it a complete historical match was to dress up a few people in Iraqi uniforms and have them attack Americans.

Now we come to the Holy Grail for the Bush Administration, the ultimate excuse for anything. I speak of course, of the so called War on Terrorism. Let us assume for a moment that Bush is actually serious about winning this war. How does attacking Iraq help in this war? Not only were there no links between al-Qaeda and Saddam, but they actually despised each other. So in order to fight al-Qaeda, they do so by attacking an enemy of al-Qaeda! What a brilliant strategy! The best case scenario for this is that it is unnecessarily fighting a war on two fronts, and diverting resources from the war against al-Qaeda, giving them time to regroup and plan new atrocities while the heat's off them. While Saddam isn't a nice man, it makes no sense to divert resources to attack somebody who, while not nice poses no threat, instead of using those resources to fight people who are actually plotting to fly aeroplanes into buildings. If they wanted to deal with Saddam, it would've made more sense to do so once al-Qaeda had been destroyed, thereby avoiding a war on two fronts. Of course, the consequences of the invasion have been far worse. Belligerantly attacking a Muslim nation for no good reason has created much anger in the Muslim world, making it far easier for people like Osama bin Laden (remember him, George?) to find new recruits. Not to mention that while there was no al-Qaeda presence in Iraq before (except those held captive in Saddam's torture cells), there is a large presence in there now. And of course it now seems likely that the majority will want a fundamentalist government, which will most likely result in a new regime just as evil as Saddam's, except this time with al-Qaeda links. But then again, Bush, who loves democracy so much, could always overthrow the democratically elected government of Iraq if he doesn't like them. Sometimes I feel that the main reason Bush attacked Iraq was because he was annoyed that Saddam Hussein, this evil, brutal, repressive dictator, had more claim to being legitimately elected than he did. After all, at least Saddam Hussein actually went to the trouble of WINNING an election!

Of course, this utterly brilliant strategy of Bush's, that is, 'fighting' terrorism by creating more of it, draws into question whether or not he is actually serious about it. Then again, maybe he feels that by creating more terrorists, it'll be easier to catch them. What we have to look at is, how much of a threat does al-Qaeda pose? If we believe the Bush administration's rhetoric, there are countless millions of evil terrorists who are literally everywhere, under every bed, plotting to destroy life as we know it and take over the world. Surely, if it is as bad as Bush says it is, we'd be expecting a major bombing a week, with every city a war zone. Since September 11, just how many terrorist attacks in the West have there been? Pretty much all terrorist related incidents have occured in the middle east. I'm not disputing that al-Qaeda does pose a threat, I'm saying that this threat has been greatly exaggerated by the Bush administration, in order to create fear in the population so that they can get away with things they would never be able to get away with. Fear is always a very powerful means of keeping the population under control - it allows the government to do pretty much anything, and say "we're doing this to protect you". Of course, the great thing about terrorism is that it isn't one specific threat, say, a single nasty nation. An attack could literally come from anywhere - that white powder in the mail, it isn't a free sample of talcum powder, it's anthrax. This allows Bush and Co to use people's imaginations against them, to control people by making them see everything as something sinister that they need to be protected against. Of course, we never hear about how more people die in car crashes every year, no "orange alerts" about how there's a high risk of catching pneumonia. Terrorism has given Bush such a great excuse to do whatever he likes, whether it be invading countries he doesn't like, wasting billions on stupid missile defence systems or simply attacking civil liberties. Naturally, with this climate of fear working so well for them, it simply isn't in the best interests of Bush and friends to stop the terrorism threat. They want to keep al-Qaeda big and scary so they can continue to use fear. They don't want to give up their orange alerts and extreme terror warnings. Perhaps this is why they've had so much difficulty catching Osama. And you have to wonder about September 11. With all the prior warning they had (like those suspicious Arabs going to a flight school and not bothering to learn how to take off or land), is it not conceivable that the Bush regime ALLOWED September 11 to take place? After all, Bush has demonstrated that he considers human life secondary to political gain. The ten thousand civilian casualties in Iraq are trivial next to the propaganda value of catching Saddam. And the mounting casualties among soldiers is also of no consequence to him - he refuses to have anything whatsoever to do with fallen soldiers. He go to lengths to stop the coffins of fallen soldiers appearing on TV, and tries to hush up any mentions of casualties, for fear of bad publicity. This is nothing but contempt for those who have died at his whim. Is it so farfetched that he or his puppetmasters viewed the 3000 victims of September 11 with the same contempt, as mere collateral damage compensated for by enormous political gains?

Fear of terrorism has provided Bush, Blair and Howard with the means to make sure people are so focussed on external threats that they never see the truth, that the greatest threat to their respective countries comes not from outside but from WITHIN. That they are using people as pawns to further their own aims, that like all megalomaniacs they see people as essentially worthless. They are engaging upon a reckless path of making the world a more dangerous place under the pretext of making it safer. They claim to fight terrorism, but they are in actuality aggravating the root causes of terrorism and increasing the danger to their citizens, just so they can use fear to dominate them. They have betrayed the very people they were elected to represent. But they don't care! They don't give a damn about anybody! They wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice you or me or an entire city if it meant political gains! That is why it is them, not Osama bin Laden, who pose the greatest threat to the West! It should not be al-Qaeda we are afraid of, but Bush, Blair and Howard, who use fear as their weapon! The words of Franklin D Roosevelt certainally ring true for this period in history - "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.". It is not a time for us to cave into fear of whatever Bush and Co tell us to be afraid of, to meekly accept their 'protection' at any cost. Their protection is empty - it offers nothing - to the contrary it creates danger. The fearmongers are the threat - they are who we should be afraid of! They will do anything to keep the climate of fear going, no matter how much blood need be spilled to achieve this! It is time for the world to reject these so called 'leaders', these spineless men who care nothing for their people! The consequences for not doing so could be cataclysmic. With every ill-conceived action the threat of terrorism grows greater, what started as a minor threat could very well become a major conflict. And as this happens, the spineless men become stronger. They get away with more and more, passing off every attack against freedom as defence against terrorism. How long will it be before they're able to ban opposing political parties by labelling them as terrorists? How long until they are able to imprison critics for "inciting terrorism"? The time to act is now.

[Arkangel]

I left grade school in 1974 Wrench, so dunno if you did, and there's PLENTY in 1984 that applies now.

The Patriot Act is possibly the most unpatriotic bit of legislation ever enacted. The founding fathers left their original countries for exactly the freedoms that are being eroded now, in the name of a war that is unneccessary. There are ways to empower your law enforcement system, without some of the provisions included in it.It's due to expire next year - UNLESS it's renewed and if GW is reelected you can bet it will be. All sorts of things worry me about it, there's plenty on the web without me going over it all. Keeping people without trial, representation or the right to have people know about their incarceration is a good start.

And on that subject, Guantanamo Bay is losing you plenty of moral high ground, and genuine support and benevolence the world felt the day after 9/11.

[MrSamosa]

I suppose the Patriot Act could be considered both Constitutional and "American" (as opposed to un-American). It could be justified under the elastic clause of the US Constitution-- i.e.: the "Necessary and Proper" clause that basically states that the Government may take any actions "necessary and proper" in carrying out its duties. However, that does not mean I support it-- as an amateur chemist, especially interested in things other than OTC goo Chemistry sets or soaps, I could easily be regarded as a "terrorist."

I found Bush's State of the Union Speech to be extremely arrogant, and I felt like yelling at him (or shooting the TV) almost the entire way through it. I cannot believe people would clap for those statements, which are blatant propaganda and used all sorts of logical fallacy. So many virtue statements and faulty logic... "Sheeple" is truly correct.

I wouldn't say the Iraqis and Afghans are better off since the beginning of the war on terror. Afghan women are the victims of honor killings again, and are sometimes traded off for bags of flour or food. Taliban at least gave them some security, if not equal citizenship. After all, when you aren't guaranteed the right to live, do you really care about going to school-- especially when you're from a tribal area that doesn't particularly care about education?

As for Iraq, it is starting to look like pre-Nazi Germany. When George Bush wants a "Democratic Iraq that lives in peace with its neighbors," he is talking about permanently weakening Iraq. He wants to reduce the size of Iraq's army and he wants its weapons to only be defensive. He wants to divide up Iraq along ethnic lines (hence the ethnic representatives), thus leading to ethnic tensions...similar to how the US civil war came about (although that was regional tensions).

By the way, before you start yelling nonsense like "Saddam gassed the Kurds!" let me give you a history lesson. During the Iran-Iraq War, Iran invaded North-Eastern Iraq (Kurdish areas-- especially around Halabja and 2 other cities I don't remember the names of), in an attempt to control a certain strategic dam. The Iraqi Army was initially beaten back, lost over 500 vehicles and many of their soldiers surrendered, by the combined Kurdish Rebel and Iranian forces. Saddam's defensive strategy had always been Chemical Weapons, and that's when he used them most-- against Human Waves, on the Al-Faw Peninsula, and the Kurdish areas. As such, the Iraqi army staged a counter-attack and overran Kurdish and Iranian positions. When they reached the city of Halabja (where Iranian soldiers were based in and around), they initially started with a conventional bombardment. Around noon of March 16, 1988, the shells switched to Chemical shells ( Mustard, Phosgene, Tabun )... In retalliation, the Iranian army ALSO fired Chemical Weapons ( Cyanide or Blood-Agents ). Now, when you have two armies firing chemical weapons at each other with a city between them, can you tell me some of the shells won't go astray, or the winds might not change on some of the gases?? Chemical Weapons are very sensitive weapons, you see. From all the various reports, we just know that the Kurds were gassed at Halabja-- but not by who. Saddam's worst massacres of the Kurds were done by conventional means-- mass round-ups, and mass executions. The Kurds were not just killed by blood agents, btw; they were hit with all kinds of gas.

As for me, I'm tired of lies and propaganda. I don't particularly like gun-banning Liberals, but I'm sick of the Neo-Conservatives. I just want a small government that believes that it should serve the people (not that the people should serve it, as that borders on Fascism..).

[PHAID]

I find it funny that everyone blames the President in place for all the problems we have.

Most of their screwups take years to happen so the blame is the process from moronic decisions that past presidents have made.

All of Bush's screwups will hit us in a few years. ( not counting the lame war on terror that he got going now )

I think our entire gov needs a major overhall and should disband all the political parties.

It is a government of the people by the people, i never saw anything about democrats, republicans, liberals etc.......

[bobo]

I don't know how stupid the democrats are... but gun control is a bad move right now. How can a clever politician who wants to push away the republicans ever plead for laws of gun control?

[wrench352]

Well there you go.All I've been trying to say is that Hussein had WMDs.I think its ignorant to pretend he never had any.We've only been trying to find out for sure for like 13 years.And UN inspectors never confirmed to anybodies satisfaction wether he got rid of them.Hes got money,art and cars squirreled away everywhere,why not WMDs(bio and chem).The fact that they havent turned up yet doesnt mean they dont exist.How long did it take us to find the titanic?Your wrong to think I toe the party line,Ive listened to both sides of an argument and this is where I wound up.Did we do it for oil,yes,did we do it to spread democracy yes,did we do it to settle a grudge,yes did we do it to settle international law,yes,did we do it to help repressed people,yes I could go on and on.Were happy,the Iraqi people are happy, everybodies happy but you.How'd you feel when the Iraqi people cheered in the street and when they cheered again when Saddam was captured.
As far as Afganistanian women go,women in Islamic countries always have a rough time. I dont see them being beaten in the street for walking incorrectly anymore. At least they now have the option to earn a living,go to school etc. In Iraq with free elections the people will speak and they'll elect who they want.Democracy isnt always pretty,thats why we have the checks and balances we have here.No one knows what the future holds or the consequences of actions we make today. You give a bum 5 bucks, he buys a knife and later slits your throat,who knew?. In 1978 when the soviets invaded Afganistan,we helped the Mujahadeen(I'm not calling them bums),they were victorious.Then were replaced by the Taliban who WANTED a war with us.Who could see that?Iraq invaded Kuwait,we were asked to intervene,we told them to get,they said bring it on.We whooped they're asses.They were beaten in every sense of the word.As part of the terms of surrender,they had certain obligations.They chose to ignore these obligations,every diplomatic solution was tried.Enter George jr,UH OH.To the victor goes the spoils and now were a OPEC nation by proxy.Its amazing to me that y'all focus on these current events that yall find offensive yet choose to ignore the good things weve done(humanitarian aid to, well most of the world regardless of wether they have oil or not,but then again Im sure you'd think of something.No good deed goes unpunished or remembered for that matter.)And with every other example you can use, right now diplomatic solutions have worked ,in months not years and they'll probably continue to do so since we busted some ass.Like it or not everybody wants to play nice recently.
Those boys in Gitmo are there for a reason.The proper thing to do with them is have them shot(I think I just heard you scream).They took up arms against us and probably would continue to do so.Three years later and were still sorting the 9/11 thing out,one of those boys actually came within a few miles of my house.And maybe thats the difference.If they flew 747s into Brussels,Munich or London maybe things would be different.Were all infidels you know,it makes no difference to them.It just made more significant impact by doing it to us,first.No one is really safe,just unafected for the time being.
As for the economy,it was in trouble when he took office.Ive recently made good money on some tech stocks I bought during the summer and I'm planning on buying my first home.
It seems to me the people in this thread makin the most noise are liberal foreigners with no interest in our domestic agenda. Nobody cares about gay marriage.The things that matter to me are:Free speach and the ability to exchange knowlege with others.The ability to purchase a weapons suitable for home defense in order to better protect my home, family and country.The ability to practice chemistry in the privacy of my own home.To live free and pursue happyiness as I see fit.The Republican Party shares these beliefs ,the Democrats dont. If you dont believe me UTFSE dont take my word on it or these guys either.I think they'd hate us regardless who's in charge.Look how far back they go to find error in our judgement.They blame Democratic presidents as well,Kennedy,Ford and Carter.
Rant done,I ran out of time and steam.
ps again gun banning is the tip of the iceberg.

[Mumble]

I still wonder if the invasion of Iraq was out of pure revenge. It had nothing to do with Sept. 11 or the Taliban or anything. The hunch that there might be WMD is the "official" cause I suppose. What I think is that Junior wanted to get revenge on Saddam. For those of you that don't recall, Saddam tried to have GB Sr. assassinated when he was visiting a place we had recently wiped out. I think it starts with an S, damn. Somalia maybe, but that doesn't sound right. Kuwait is more reasonable/ Well needless to say, GB Sr. survived the attack.

I hate the fact that I'm living under a president that spends billions of tax dollars and sacrafices american lives to fufill a personal vendetta. He's killed the economy If I was old enough by the next election(3mo. too young) I sure as hell wouldn't vote for him.

[nbk2000]

BUSH IS AN ARYAN!

Well, sort of, anyways.

Why do I say this? Simple...Bush wants Americans back on the moon in permanent (and presumably military) bases, get rid of the old shuttle fleet, free ourselves from the yoke better known as the International Space Station, and get America to Mars and the asteroid belt.

If he managed to get that going, then I can forgive him for everything else stupid that he's doing here on earth, as the Ascendancy of Man into space will have begun and eventually the spacers will break away from earth-bound political rulers anyways. :)

[wrench352]

How can yall say he killed the economy?The stock market took a shit when Clinton was in office we went into a recession for a few months and now we've been recovering for the last six months.This is a cyclical part of the economy.And replacing the shuttle fleet was a pet project of Gore originally.

[vulture]

Wrench, did you ever watch anything else except CNN and the state of the union???

Healthy economy? Where did you learn to count? Negative figures = BAAAAD, positive figure is GOOD.

So, let me explain this carefully to you:

- (that's MINUS, yes) 400 million $ on the budget scale
- (again MINUS, yes) 2,7 million jobs

That's called recession, and that my friend = BAD.

Bush however had no problems getting $85 million to sponsor his election. Now if he could collect that amount of money for the tax payer....

The stock market took a shit when Clinton was in office we went into a recession for a few months and now we've been recovering for the last six months

FYI, bush has been into office for 3 years now, not six months. The stock markets were doing great when Clinton was around. I had shares which were worth 70€ a piece. Now they're down to 7€ a piece.

There's a reason why one € = 1.25$ at the moment, brokers don't buy euros for fun. I bet if Bush gets reelected the dollar is going to take a nosedive.

[Blackhawk]

"Those boys in Gitmo are there for a reason.The proper thing to do with them is have them shot(I think I just heard you scream).They took up arms against us and probably would continue to do so."
Yes they bloody well took up arms against you, and if the US INVADED my country without UN or legal backing, hell without even declaring war so would I. The only reason those people are still being held is becuase they were wrongfully labled illegal combatants which means they have no rights, that is also why they are in Cuba, becuase if they were in US soil they would have human rights (of which they are currently deprived). Take the Aussie they have locked up in Gitmo, David Hicks, he was fighting for the Legal Government at the time, the Taliban. So here we have a soldier of a countries Legal Government, taken prisoner in an illegal invasion by the US and held illegaly without human rights for 2 years, how can you justify that?

"All I've been trying to say is that Hussein had WMDs"
Of course he HAD WMD's, thats because the US gave them too him because he was doing such a dandy job of killing the Kurds, thats how your government can recite the exact serial numbers on the sides of the bio agent warheads he apparently has.

"Hes got money,art and cars squirreled away everywhere,why not WMDs(bio and chem)"
How do you know he has such riches squireled away? Becuase you found them after taking controll of his cournty, but even know that you have wrongfully occupied his country for so long you stll can't find them, why? I don't see what the huge problem with Iraq having WMD is anyway, we all know that the US has the most WMD's of any country and we all know that the US blatently sell arms to terrorists (Saddam, OBL) and we all know that the US are the only country ever to detonate two nuclear weapons in civilian cities, so why arn't there weapons inspecters in the US?

No matter which way you look at it, in the war on terror the US is WRONG, they have meddeled in other countries affairs for far too long and it supprises them that everyone hates them. It supprises them that the puppet governments they install in other countries go rouge and use the weapons the US gives them against them. Why does this supprise you? You have been fucking the world for so long now and you can't even see that re-electing someone like GWB is just going to further screw not only the world but your own damn country, and all you can do is give the pre-packaged media line "WMD bad, Terrorists Bad, War on Terror good" the most dangerous terrorist of our time is the US for christs sake.

[TreverSlyFox]

The one thing I love about Europeans. They conveniently forget their history. Most would be speaking GERMAN right now if it wasn't for the Meddlesome U.S. They also forget how much MONEY they OWE us for that Meddling. Only Norway paid us back for our Meddling in WWII.

Europe wants to bitch? Fine, pay off your debt to us, then you can bitch!! Until then your just a bunch of Freeloaders with big mouths.

[MrSamosa]

My friends, we need a history lesson... We have gone on too long saying a bunch of nonsense.

First, Osama Bin Laden did not accept aid from the US or the CIA during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. He has always taken a position against the US and Communists, but his position was never to "destroy" the US. The Soviet Union and Russia are different, however-- they've always existed on the blood of other nations...they were and are parasites (think Chechnya). True, he was OFFERED aid by the US, but he preferred to use his own personal wealth in advancing the conflict.

Bin Laden's position is that the US should not be in ANY Muslim country, particularly the Gulf region. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Al-Qaeda fighters are in Iraq now (but not before the war).

The Taliban did NOT declare war on the US, nor were they responsible for 9/11. If you can remember back to the evening of 9/11/01, when Bush made his speech on TV, he said he would go after "terrorists and those who harbor them." If anything, Taliban harbored Bin Laden...and they were attempting to negotiate his surrender. Their demands were something along the lines of an end to sanctions, international recognition, and UN representation. The US said, "No, we want Bin Laden and we don't give a damn about your negotiations." And so Taliban was bombed. Taliban was such a backward government. They could barely gain control of their own country, so why would they bother declaring war on an international superpower???

It's easy to make fun of women in Muslim countries. Americans and Westerners in general have some stereotypical view of the law in such countries, but this is not always the case. More often than not, women CHOOSE to behave that way, as a result of social consequences of behaving like western women. Sometimes they prefer to veil and to be with men (gives em a sense of security). This is for some women, I should stress. There are progressives and radicals in every country, and they tend to be the most vocal.

So please, stop trying to pretend you know things, and stop espousing stylizations and stereotypes.

[tmp]

It's really sad that American politics are dominated by extremists.
George Bush and the Republican Party are following the political
manual used by Bill Clinton and the Democrats. Co-opting your
opponents' political goals has become so common that in many
ways the lines of distinction between the parties are blurred. In the
case of Bill Clinton it was welfare reform. For George Bush it's
Medicare prescription funding and immigration reform.

Both parties are guilty of trampling on the 1st Amendment with the
now infamous McCain-Feingold bill. Civil liberties groups on both
sides of the political spectrum took this one to the U.S. Supreme
Court and lost in a 5-4 decision. The ACLU and the NRA rarely agree
on anything but both groups went after McCain-Feingold because
they view it as a law that tramples on free speech and protects
incumbent politicians.

George Bush's Patriot Act tramples on many rights as well. Both of
these laws are bad and need to be repealed.

BTW, gun-rights supporters, George Bush supports the assault weapons
ban passed in 1994. When in sunsets in September 2004 look at his
position and see what he does. It's true the Democrats are not our
friends in this regard but I'm not willing to give Bush a passing mark
on this one until I see what he does given his stance on this issue.

When the November elections are over most of the politicians will stop
slinging mud at each other. No matter who wins, I strongly suspect that
after the election Congress will continue to shit all over the Constitution
using crime and terrorism as their excuses. If crushing civil liberties
becomes their main focus then at the very least American FORUM
members can expect increased hostility from the U.S. government.
I may sound paranoid but it's looking more and more like Orwell's 1984.

[wrench352]

My point was people act as if he never had WMDs,now that we have that on the table.A quarter of this board is trying to build their own WMDs,he would have got them regardless of origin.I just researched the topic list of culprits that armed Iraq:the U.S,China,France,The Soviet Union,Germany and North Korea(I just looked it up,of all foriegn suppliers Germany was half the list,and Iraq got germ samples from us for supposed legitimate research) to name the Major players.We used nuclear weapons twice within days of each other and realized they were so terrible we've never used them again.To the best of my knowledge we've never used chemical( do we count CS?) or biological weapons in combat in the last century.This could not be said of Iraq.I dont understand how you could defend these people. They tortured,raped,plundered and killed without remorse.We have gone to extrodinary means to keep safe non-combatanty,no other country would show such concern for civillian losses.I was well aware of the Taliban prior to 9/11 and I remember specifically during the arrest of those missionaries there being calenders depicting the U.S. dropping bombs on Kabul.IIRC,Clinton(D) blew up a terrorist training camp with a couple tomahawks,they wanted payback ever since.They wanted to try and take us down Mujahadeen style,but since we didnt want their shitty lil backwater burg(for resources) we anihilated them.Sun Tzus first rule you must have the moral high ground.
I wasnt meaning to degrade muslim women,I think the way their treated is shameful.And in most Islamic countries their are religeous police(the Mutawwa’in) to make sure people adhere to the law according to the Koran,as interpreted by whomever.
I'm sorry about David Hicks,Im sure he believed in his cause.However he sided up with terrorists that killed thousands of innocent civillians.At any point Im sure he could have gone home,he chose to stay,he got what he deserved.Its the chance you take in war(taking the wrong side). I cant believe your now defending the Taliban.
Pretending to know what Im talking about?Let me introduce some people:
Diane Feinstein and other fine DEMOCRATS:

http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/bradyquotes.html
http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?s=&postid=18114&highlight=diane+feinstein#post18114
y'all will love this:http://www.cdt.org/policy/terrorism/Feinstein_s735_amdt.html
our good friends Mike Shumer and Frank Lautenberg
http://www.space-rockets.com/presscon.html
I could give a crap about steel tariffs and gay civil unions.The above issues are what concerns me.No member of this forum should stand with the democrats.You guys will never change your mind on this and your distracting me from real research.

[akinrog]

Call me a conspirist (sp?) (like Mel in the Movie Conspiracy Theory). But IMHO the events of last 4 decades are schemes and plots in plots to attain purposes and intentions of those power hungry people. I don't want to blame any people or any nation since I don't believe any ordinary citizen of a country may have a saying or something to do in global issues. There is a saying that "revolution eats its own children" or something like that (sorry if the expression is wrong since I am translating it into English). In my opinion the invasion of Iraq is a long planned scheme to enable some oil companies to get a hold on the one of the richest oil fields of the world.
My conspiracy theory goes like this: The greatest threats before the capitalist circles was soviets and other communist countries. The latter was preventing them to abuse, exploit and plunder the world resources freely and without trouble. (I don't mean the socialist and communist countries do not plunder the resources.) So it was necessary to get rid of them. What must have been done? A direct conflict with superpower communist (hereinafter referred to as "Co.Sup") state like USSR shall have rendered entire globe a part of the crater. So a plan was set up. The capitalist superpower (Cap.Sup) of the world of those times must have interfered every communist, socialist, leftist, social democrat movement without any type of ethics or moral values. Even leftist, socialist movements were candidly supported by Cap.Sup. country to increase conflicts (like Nicaragua) There rose a conflict in South East Asia, namely Vietnam, which gave the Cap.Sup. a chance. Cap.Sup. must not have allowed this country to fall wretched hands of communists. Many believe that Vietnam war was lost by Americans, which I oppose. Although Vietnam war was literally lost, the region was destabilized by the war itself, leaving loopholes for drug dealers / manufacturers, arm runners and any type of mobs (collectively the mobs) supported by various intelligence services of Cap.Sup. In order to destablize a country and a region which are poor and unindustrialized, you must put a great amount of dirty money in circulation which in turn easily corrupts entire region. The dirty money raised by the mobs start circulating in the region thereby corrupting entire region. Then there came golden triangle which represents most of the drug manufacturing of the world. Then due to instability of the region, the Mobs shifted their operation bases towards the neighboring regions (namely Pakistan, Afghanistan) forming the Golden Crescent. The Golden Crescent was very near to Co.Sup. Drug traffickers was using the routes over the Co.Sup. to smuggle drugs to Europe thereby leaving a huge amount of money to destabilize Co.Sup. Due to a lot of dirty money Communist State's authorities had become intermingled with mobsters living in this Communist Superpower thereby increasing instability of the country. There created some privileged people (mainly bureucrats) who have luxurious foodstuff that ordinary citizens (comrades) cannot have. (Please read a book called "Red Square" which was written by two authors whose names I cannot remember, but based on the real events. It was an interesting read, showing corruption and rotting of Soviet Bureucracy very well.)
By the way, capitalist superpower ignored a communist /leftist (I don't know exactly) puppet government in Afghanistan to invite Soviets to help them. Thus invasion of Afghanistan occurred. And another opportunity said hello to Cap.Sup. There were Muslim fighters in Afghanistan, called Mujaheeden (which means Muhajeeds), eager to wage war against those ateist communists. They easily found supporters in Cap.Sup. These people were trained by intelligence services by Cap.Sup. They learnt how to kill, make explosive devices, how to fight, and anything a guerilla may need. They fought till the end untill all atheist communist were repelled. (I don't want to insult anybody but this is a sociological truth) Since Afghanistan consists of tribal people with a very little democratic background and almost no state tradition, after the repulsion of soviets they got each other's throats to obtain power in the country. So a huge political and security gap appeared in this country. There appeared great fields of poppy where drugs of those times were produced freely and without disturbance. While the Radical Islamic government of Afghanistan is against anything which creates drunkness, drug manufacturers were ignored in return of tributes paid to clans. These drug dealers which (I suppose) were backed up by Cap.Sup.'s intelligence services, were those which pumped a lot of drugs in to Co.Sup. to increase its instability and corruption.
Meanwhile, to save asses of those capitalist giga companies, a treaty organization (name of which I will not use, in order not to draw attention to this forum, since I see on google messages of this forum are indexed!!!!) was established. While this treaty organization's (pseudo?) duty was to retain and repel evil communist empire, it was actually serving for the very purposes of the great companies to exploit and plunder the world resources. This treaty organization's (hereinafter referred to as "TO") members are mainly western countries and a few of the Asia Minor's countries. This TO set up secret branches (hereinafter referred to as "Fifth Column" or "FC") in its member countries without knowledge of such countries' citizens. The FC started organizing anti-communist and fascist cliques against leftist and extereme leftist movements. In such countries there started some unsolved murders, bombings, etc. which were professionally committed leaving no traces of whatsoever. This FC served for the purpose of keeping any leftist movement (especially anticapitalist ones) from political power. They even engaged in increasing political tension up to civil war so some sort of coup d'etat had to be made by army of some underdeveloped countries (e.g. Turkey, Portugal, etc.) This FC was abolished by the respective nations after the collapse of USSR, since they are intelligible people although they are still present in some underdeveloped countries, since the people living in such underdeveloped countries (where I am living in one of them) are ignorant pieces of shit.

Now back to Com.Sup. The instability created by dirty money in short lead to dissolution of this country leaving a great political power gap in the world politics. Now giga companies' and power hungry people are free to do anything they wish. Now the need for drug dealers pumping drugs and dirty money to former Co.Sup and Mujahedeen are no more. The Cap.Sup. turned against the Islamic Radicals since it no longer needed these instruments /pawns. As a result of this Islamic Radicals turned against the Evil America.

Sorry for writing a such a long story /scenario and disturbing you. But I am now coming back to current world situation. Given the fact that Islamic Radicals were backed up, financed, armed by the Cap.Sup. in the past, it is very easy for one really to assume that they are still backed up, financed and armed by Cap.Sup. A proof of this is the failure to capture OBL. This man is not a demigod, only a human being, how can he manages to avoid capturing and stll doing terrorist acts? The only reason of failure to capture him may IMHO be that he is still supported by a superpower. Only countries which can support him are either Russian Federation or USA. Given the fact that the Russian Federation now is only engaged in getting itself together and raising funds. There only leaves one country, USA!... Now OBL acts as a scapegoat, just Soviets did in the past, playing the bad guy to lure innocent people into believing that some power hungry people that they must conquer, wage war and do anything they say proper!... As for Saddam, IMHO he was/is a puppet of these power hungry people going on another lane. Iraq was the only secular Arab country. And genius (???) GWB destroyed it. Due to its secularity OBL hated it too much now and then. Even Saddam's capture seems to be a plot. The pictures of capturing saddam, shown on TVs seem to be false, since the dates trees shown in the pictures are at wrong phase of blossoming!!!! Some specialists say it is very abnormal for dates trees have such fruits in December!!!! IMHO Cap.Sup was trying to settle in Middle East in past but Iran and Arab countries was opposing it. Now another conspiracy theory Cap.Sup. made a secret agreement with Saddam wherein Saddam shall invade Kuwait thereby luring Arab Countries into believing that Saddam was a threat, and creating a pretext for Cap.Sup. to settle in the region which it tried to settle but opposed by Arab countries and Iran. As you may know Saudi Arabian's oils are being operated by this Cap.Sup.'s oil companies. Given the fact that the oil reserves in Iraq are one of the richest oil reserves, it is very obvious why this Cap.Sup. wants to invade the region.
Another proof that OBL is a accomplice of this Cap.Sup. is blasts in Turkey. These blasts seem to be targeting first Judaist community in Turkey and British targets. But IMHO these also serves for luring World's Public believing that there is a terrorism threat. The first blast was nearby a Synagouge located in Istanbul. The actions were perpetrated by local Radical Islamist groups but experts say Turkish Radical Islamic groups have no means and capability to make such terrorist actions. First assume that you a radical islamist intending to kill non-believer Judaists (Jews). You have a lorry of some sort and you are a suicide bomber. Do you blast you vehicle nearby the Synagouge or run into it and blast the vehicle inside the Temple? Of course you run into the temple to kill as many as non-belivers and not blast it in the street to kill many of your coreligionists. The second blast again occurred in the street with two lorry bombs one exploded nearby the Britihs Embassy and the other nearby the HSBC Headquarters in Istanbul. Again while the suicide bomber may run into buildings and inflict damage to only intended people, they opted to blast the vehicles in the middle of the street to inflict damage on their Muslim brothers. In addition timing of these blasts is very important since (I assume) the western press did not inform you of the timing. The granduor(!!!) GWB pays a visit to England. British people are marching in the streets under the campaign of "Stop Bush". And when GWB and Britihs PM TB holds a meeting boom two blasts targeting British targets occurs in Istanbul. What a concidence!!!!! Only a fool can believe that these blasts are coincidence. As you may know Turkey is resisting to "obey" war against terrorism crap. Similarly while puppet (sorry for this expression) British Government supports GWB, Britons do not. These blasts serves for creating positive public opinion for War Against Terror of our genious GWB in both Turkey and Britain.

So as for conclusion. I would be very glad if GWB is not reelected. Of course anybody who is attacked by some villains has right to defend / counterattack. But the current actions of US Government is overkill, creating more enemies and fear than the terrorists themselves. And invasion of Iraq and splitting it into ethnical bits and pieces is far more dangerous than playing with the fuse of a nucleer bomb. Western people are tolerant and can accept the differences very well. But mojority eastern people could not complete its social and political evolution. If you fan the ethnical fire, you must expect a firestorm. For example, US favors establishment of a Kurdish State. I personally have no objection to it. However, when I saw map of the prospective Kurdish state, I am petrified since it contains one third of Turkey, a twenty percent of Iran and a part of Syria. Do you know what it means. It means conflict (not social conflict but armed conflict) in future. If this country is established and starts sending Kurdish guerillas to neighboring countries to have them rebel, there breaks out an armed conflict which is very opposed the pink picture of democracy and human rights as depicted by GWB.
And finally I feel obliged to repeat my belief that ordinary citizens of any country has little saying and nothing to do in global politics. I do not accuse or blame any ordinary US citizens, but power hungry people which (I believe) to be in office in US government.

Regards

[MrSamosa]

That sounds much like 1984 by George Orwell... using an imaginary/semi-imaginary enemy to instill fear into the population. Another thing that reminds me of 1984 is all the revisionism of recent history. Surely we can remember, with our own minds, only back to 2001?? Remember that year, it wasn't so far away? With that woman Chandra Levy and the Congressman Gary Condit?? Yes, that year. Anyhow, time for more history...some other things I forgot to clear up... can't let revionism prevail, you know?

The UN-backed cease-fire resolution that ended the Gulf War was NOT conditional. That is to say, it completely and totally ended hostilities between coailtion forces and the Iraqi Army...it didn't say, "There will be no hostilities if you comply with these demands." That is a lie that the radical Neo-Conservatives have been yelling on the TV screens. Also, the ones who violated the UN cease-fire the most were coalition (American and British, at least) forces-- what with the No-Fly Zones, daily sorties (reached over 1 million by 2003), and frequent aerial bombardments.

In 1998, the US launched Operation Desert Fox against the Iraqis-- specifically targeting WMD sites. At the end of that campaign, American generals were claiming to have destroyed more than 90% of Saddam's still-existing WMDs, and to have further crippled his army. Now, he had 10% of his 1998 Chemical Weapons in 2003, apparently...all of it unaccounted for. That can mean many things-- maybe it's being hidden, maybe it's buried in the desert, rusting from disuse; maybe Iraq's inventory was just bad... but it doesn't mean for sure that those few weapons are in his ready-to-use arsenal.

Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are two separate entities. Too many people do not understand this. Taliban was an Islamist movement that started in Southern Afghanistan around 1994. Their goals were simple: stop the civil war and unify Afghanistan under Islamic Law. They were confined strictly to Afghanistan, and they never ventured abroad. As for the missionaries, they broke the law of the land and were arrested, and they were treated very well too-- better than any prisoner in a Western Jail ( they were given private rooms, were not man-handled, offered cigarettes, not given jail uniforms, etc...). Think about this very Forum-- what happens if we bad mouth Megalomania or NBK2000? We break the law of the land, and we are dealt with. Al-Qaeda is a whole other beast... It would be more appropriate to call them "The DataBase" of various Jihadis-- Bin Laden's private army that he uses where he wants: Chechnya, the Balkans, Afghanistan, wherever. So, they gave support to the Taliban in Afghanistan and often fought along side of them-- but a major distinction between them: Taliban = Afghanistan; Al-Qaeda = international. And I will say it again, they are NOT interested in annihilating all "infidels" and destroying all Non-Islamic Western Governments. This is a lie, to make them look like real bad guys... That's the goal of propaganda: create a good guy, and a bad guy. It's never so clear-cut in real life.

The Kurds are not entirely innocent. Remember, they allied with Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, when they were geographically Iraqis. That, my friends, constitutes Rebellion and Treason. Now, what should Saddam have done to them?

Also, I'm not defending Bin Laden, Taliban, or Saddam Hussein. I don't particularly care for any of them and I'm not interested in lying to you or telling some Islamist propaganda, I just want you to know the whole story. It has an important effect on one's perception of current events.

What I find truly troubling is George Bush and his supporters' attempts to manipulate recent history. I can't believe the sheeple are so ignorant that they buy into the garbage. We did not invade Afghanistan to liberate women, or declare pseudo-war on Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people. Who here honestly gives a damn about some poor Pashtun woman in Afghanistan or the average Baghdadi? To me, they're statistics, and while I do feel sad, I don't dwell on it. One has to ask themself, why is George Bush trying to change history???

The War on Terror is completely unsound. The strategy is flawed and there is no clear endgame. It's hard on the economy, and it takes a toll on lives-- both Coalition and especially Foreign. 500+ Americans killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, thousands more wounded. I think 100(?) British killed, 18 Italians, a few Spaniards and some Poles. 25,000+ Afghans killed, mostly civilian, and 11,000-15,000 Iraqi civilians killed by latest estimates. I'm not even going to bother finding the numbers of wounded, or the numbers of now-homeless or orphans, or people missing family members. I am a bit of a humanitarian--not as right-by-might or sadistic as I used to be. To me, it doesn't matter if these were "accidents" or "collateral damage;"-- if planes weren't bombing the whole damn country, tens of thousands of people would still be alive today. That is why I, personally, don't like Bush.

[vulture]

The one thing I love about Europeans. They conveniently forget their history. Most would be speaking GERMAN right now if it wasn't for the Meddlesome U.S. They also forget how much MONEY they OWE us for that Meddling. Only Norway paid us back for our Meddling in WWII.

Hey Mr. Redneck. I don't bother speaking German. BTW, most germans who occupied other European countries tried to learn and understand the local language. Americans on the contrary...

IIRC, the debt fell under the Marshall Plan. Besides, if it wasn't paid back, the only objective of the US is to make sure everybody lives in freedom right? So it should have been an honour liberating Europe according to your standards.

Besides, what would ever become of the US if Europeans didn't cross the ocean? Nothing, Nada, just some Indians habiting the continent.

[Blackhawk]

"We used nuclear weapons twice within days of each other and realized they were so terrible we've never used them again."
Which is why GWB has been ripping up pollicy to make a new line of nuclear bunker busters, so he can use more nuclear weapons during the natural course of warfare, this dosn't sound like he holds the use of WMD in any form of horror at all.
"I'm sorry about David Hicks,Im sure he believed in his cause.However he sided up with terrorists that killed thousands of innocent civillians."
No he sided with the Taliban, the legal government of Afghanistan it was Al-Qaeda that 'killed thousands of innocent civilians'. Yet your country has imprissoned hundreds of these fighters under false terms, with no charges or rights for 2 years now, you cannot justify this.

[vulture]

Which is why GWB has been ripping up pollicy to make a new line of nuclear bunker busters

And that's also why he ditched the ABM treaty and why still refuses to sign the chemical and biological warfare convention...

If you're so worried about the world, quit the terror bullshit and start adapting international rules first, Kyoto being one of them.

[MrSamosa]

Depending on your viewpoint, George W. Bush could be considered a very good leader. If you adopt a cynical view of the world, a view of right by might, then George Bush is very prudent. Build up your arsenal, don't agree to anything, and beat up a few countries as an example. After all, that's really how the world works-- the strongest countries militarily have always had a degree of dominance over world affairs, and can flaunt "international law" with impunity. After all, who enforces international law? The world powers, no? In effect, it's like having a corrupt Police force... Naturally, though, if you push the other countries hard enough, they may start to push back and assert themselves, in which case we could have another Cold War. But then, I like that idea; there should not be just one super power-- there should be 2 or 3, all competing and hating each other. That way, if one superpower picks on a little country, that little country can request the aid of another superpower. Of course, that leads to a pre-WW1 Europe type situation, which may explode rather dramatically... but, I think it's safer than having one big bully in the park. Also, let's be nice eh? I like a good, friendly discussion with opposing viewpoints :)

[Blackhawk]

Yes discussion exercises the mind. I think that having one ultimately corrupt superpower is a bad idea, evident now as while wielding ultimate power there is no regard for morals or ethics. The problem with having multiple superpowers is that one will innevitably attempt to eliminate the others and you get a massive war, which would be stupidly costly now with WMD. Throughout history the 'stable' periods are often inhabited by one main power, but that power ultimately falls and is replaced with a new power. I like this system in that when a new power starts it is often idealistic and 'good', of course the ultimate power over time will corrupt it (as has happened to the US) but eventually the power will be replaced by another newer and morally fresher power. The time just before the switch is plagued by war and oppression however, that is where I think the world is at this moment, which is suprising seeing as the lifespan of a superpower is usually a lot longer than that of the US has been, perhaps this is caused by new communications and warfare technologies, I don't know.
Any opinions?

[wrench352]

Hey Vulture,
Whats this say?I cant read it and theres no translation:
http://www.coulthart.com/134/lutremange.htm
oh yeah and for all interested:

How the germans learned to speak Belgian :) (http://www.breendonk.be/en/html/memoren.htm)

When, at any point did I say Belgium was any kind of threat?

[vulture]

And which axis of evil nation do you live in

When, at any point did I say Belgium was any kind of threat?

:rolleyes:

You see, people with different opinions are automatically terrorists to you. Booohooo, Belgium has several nuclear powerplants! We got plutonium! Kill us!

You know, I've been to fort Breendonk myself. The images of Guantanamo Bay strongly reminded me of Breendonk.

So you liberated Europe of the Germans in WWII. Fine. So did the Russians. Do they still use it as an excuse to rampage through the world?

If you cite history, do it correctly. The US was very reluctant to enter the war untill Pearl Harbor happened because they were convinced they were safe because of thousands of miles of ocean in between.

I don't know if CNN covered it, but the chief of the US team searching for WMDs resigned today. He did so because after extensive searching he's convinced that there are and were no WMDs in Iraq...

[knowledgehungry]

I love how the US is accused of fascism but the only place where fascism has actually occured is... thats right EUROPE! I for one am going to vote for Bush, he lowered taxes... for MY family, not the wealthy. And for the major reason that all the democrats are worthless pieces of shit who want to make our country a little socialist paradise. I hate the Patriot Act as much as anyone but honestly you guys in Europe pretend that you have more rights than we do when you dont. In France your not even allowed to wear a beard in school if it is a religious symbol! That's freedom?
Plus the democrats would have had their own patriot act that included the right to bear arms.

[vulture]

Again a bush supporter comes raving in and again the first thing he does is screaming and namecalling at the liberals. Typical. All you guys do is scream and insult, but I haven't heard a single sensible argument that could deny the many facts against Bush.

Yes, fascism occured in Europe, but we didn't voluntarily vote for it a second time!

Because of that, we quickly recognize it. We also know the real suffering which is war, not the high tech footage you see on CNN. You wouldn't be so happy about war if it was being fought on your own soil.

hate the Patriot Act as much as anyone but honestly you guys in Europe pretend that you have more rights than we do when you dont. In France your not even allowed to wear a beard in school if it is a religious symbol! That's freedom?

Please inform yourself before posting crap. In France, you're allowed to wear a beard. The things that are being banned are very specific religious symbols, be it muslem or christian.

That's called the separation of Church and State, which is a common thing for developed countries and does not seem to be implemented in the US yet...:rolleyes:

I bet 2 arms and a leg on the fact that we have more rights. We can't be held in custody for ever because we're being accused of terrorism. We are allowed to see the coffins of dead US soldiers and footage that shows US soldiers shooting innocent Iraqi citizens.
We can say the government sucks without some patriotic neighbour calling the FBI.
We don't have to worry about color coded threat systems and other terrorism crap.
We don't need armed air marshalls on flights.

Why? Because we don't have this arrogant we are elite, the rest of the world sucks, let's bomb and burn them attitude.

We like to keep CIVIL ties with other countries, not walk over them like barbarians because they have something we'd like to have.

[infernal]

vulture I aplaud you for posting this thread as it confirms everything I've belived about GWB.

to the people who wanted to argue... you have that right. but keep in mind that since GWB has been in office, your country is hated by more and more people every day. its not the people, its the government that represents you. i find it amusing when GWB trashes canada for not "doing their part in the war against terror" yet were not the country everyone hates.

its scary that a man with an iq the size of a postage stamp has controll of the largest world stockpile of active nuclear weapons. bush alone could end the world T3 style.

[MrSamosa]

George Bush is an extremist, and extremists are never good to have in power. Yeh, they drive up the rah-rah Patriotism and the holier-than-thou attitude and they sometimes make you feel good about your country... But they profess a very cynical view of the world, an unhealthy and dangerous view. If they just want to rule their own country, fine; but they take their holier-than-thou attitude abroad and demand the rest of the world conform to their own standards.

It's not just George Bush, but this has historically been the case: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Napoleon Bonaparte/Sans-Culote(sp?)--French radicals, etc. In each case, they believe their system will be the best for the world, and they try to force it on other countries with a bloody price... they wage massive wars, occupy lands, and cause suffering for the people. Of course, it can always be argued that had they succeeded, the world would be a better place. But they don't, and if they did, it probably wouldn't last. Human beings have minds and are capable of choice, and that was the basis for A Clockwork Orange-- a book/movie popular amongst us. There will always be dissidents and heretics, even with state propaganda. There will always be some paranoid guy who cries, "That's bullshit!"

So why strive for an impossible goal-- forcing your beliefs on everyone? It's an exercise in futility, and I don't want a leader who does that-- American or foreign.

[Sarevok]

Posted by vulture:
Tax cuts for the rich, War against Terror, War in Iraq. The only one benefiting from his economy policy are the megacorps.
Megacorps are more important than people. If a person here starves, another person there borns. The same doesn't apply to megacorporations.

Posted by EP:
Enviroment. Bush has an awful enviromental record, the administrations policies benefit rich corporations that pollute and hurt everyone else.
Taking care of the environment wastes money. Raping the environment generates money. If you don't know, gaining money equals good; wasting money on trees equals bad.

Arkangel, "safe sex" is fornication. The government is right when it promotes abstinence instead of promoting fornication.

Posted by MrSamosa:
Human beings have minds and are capable of choice.
LOL! How ingenuous one can be?

Yes, Iraq is much worse now, but I don't give a shit. If GWB is taking their oil, then its a good thing for the US. Who cares if they have WMDs or not? Personally, I think GWB lied about the WMDs just to start the war, and I don't give a shit about this also.

I like the way GWB governs and I think he's going to be reelected. A pity he isn't a nazi...

[MrSamosa]

I like the way GWB governs and I think he's going to be reelected. A pity he isn't a nazi...

<sigh> You couldn't have proven my point any better with that quote, or with your entire post for that matter. George Bush is an extremist and he appeals to fellow extremists with a cynical view of the world--people with the bully/machiavellian mentality. Such leaders are great, except when you're on the receiving end of them-- and they will always victimize some group of people to support themselves.

To use Aristotle's theory of government... Extremists, by their very definition, are a very small, extreme sect of society. They are factions. Governments that do not govern in the common interest of the land, but in the interests of factions are perversions and should be removed. Hell, George Bush is even alienating a lot of Republicans and Conservatives... and those rubber stamps in Congress do NOT represent the whole Republican Party.

Your own ideas show extreme short-sightedness. Sure, raping the environment is great for the next few years maybe (assuming total rape), but then what?? You run out of trees, out of wild lands. You kill off the wild animals, you destroy the environment, contaminate the air. You want a government that cares only about big business and wealthy Capitalists, and not about the average worker-- the people. There has to be a balance; you can't have everything in the favor of one side, no matter what the situation. Sure, you can support profit-mindedness, but that doesn't mean abandon the quality of life! That is no way to run a nation, my friend-- that's a way to run it into the ground. We have moved beyond those archaic 18th-19th century philosophies.

...and way to take my quote completely out of context, by the way.

[vulture]

Sarevok, I knew you were a nazi, but the stuff you just posted is just crazy.

Megacorps are more important than people. If a person here starves, another person there borns. The same doesn't apply to megacorporations.

WTF is that supposed to mean? I wonder what you'll say if a megacorp fires you for the benefit of the shareholders, buys your house and ground for scrap with government support and then proceeds to dump their toxic shit into the water well you live off.

Taking care of the environment wastes money. Raping the environment generates money. If you don't know, gaining money equals good; wasting money on trees equals bad.


What the hell are you going to do with all your heaps of money if there are no resources left to make anything, no energy for your comfort and no oxygen to support your life anymore?

GWB is not a nazi, but there are some scary parallells with Adolf Hitler.

Before anyone else lectures me on fascism again, read some of your likeminded friends posts...:rolleyes:

[Sarevok]

I wouldn't like that, but it's how the stuff works. I prefer to see myself as the megacorp owner, not as the oppressed person.

Exploiting the environment isn't going to immediatly destroy nature, nor to have immediate apocalyptic consequences to me. I'm sure it would be bad for some people today, and to the next generations too, but I don't care about them... I prefer have money now, for me, instead of having nature tomorrow, for others.

Let's say nature is being destroyed 1% per year, while I gain a lot of U$ per year. In 50 years, for example, there would still be a lot of resources/energy/oxygen left to me (some people would die from living on a toxic environment, not having potable water, etc, but that would not happen to me because I have money). Of course, in only 100 years most life forms would be destroyed, and no amount of money would be enough to provide resources/energy/oxygen to me, but I would be dead (old age) anyway.

Even if the exploiting of nature immediatly starts to have strong negative consequences to myself, I don't care too, because the entire world would die with me.

[vulture]

Destruction of the environment isn't going to reach a critical level and then become apparent in all it's vicious horror at once. Global warming for example, is already causing floods and very rainy seasons all over the world.

If you just rape the environment, in 50 years, you will have accumulated all sorts of toxic nasties and start to develop rather annoying symptoms of poisoning. You would be coughing and sneezing all day long, exhausted from a short walk, etc. It would greatly decrease your life quality and you'd only die after alot of suffering.

Passing it on to future generations is just utterly selfish. What if the people in the sixties would have said, fuck the environment, we keep polluting on this scale, we'll be living on mars in 2000. (There were alot of people who really thought mars would be in our grasp by 2000. We all know what happened...) Then you'd be fucked today. Money or not.

[knowledgehungry]

Well to be perfectly honest I'm not that happy with Bush, he has spent more money on education and medicare than Clinton did and he continues to raise our deficit, not only that his policy on letting illegals work in America legally is off the wall. I want some one who lwers taxes AND government spending. The only reason i prefer Bush is he spends less than the democrats would and he lowered taxes. Also getting rid of the tariffs on steel industry seems like a bad idea for poor U.S. workers whose jobs are already going overseas.

[MrSamosa]

One thing I don't understand about Democracy... How are we supposed to vote, in theory? Should we vote for the candidate that benefits us, ourselves most? Or should we vote for the candidate that would benefit the people as a whole the most-- whether that be some group, the country, or the world?

[EP]

I thought Sarevok was joking at first when I read his repies, some of the most asinine crap I've read in a long time.

Originally posted by knowledgehungry
The only reason i prefer Bush is he spends less than the democrats would and he lowered taxes. Also getting rid of the tariffs on steel industry seems like a bad idea for poor U.S. workers whose jobs are already going overseas.

You think Bush is spending less than the democrats would? He is spending in different areas ($1.5 billion to promote marriage? gimme a fucking break) and probably MORE than a democratic president would. The tax cut was a joke. It gave a few bucks to the middle class and a ton to the rich, then raised costs on many things like tuition by more than the tax cut saved. And worse of all, the tax cuts massively increased the huge deficit they have created.

They got rid of the steel tariffs because the WTO ruled them illegal (they were under trade rules) and we would have faced sanctions if they weren't lifted. Bush certainly isn't doing anything to keep jobs from moving out of the country.

[vulture]

Democrats wouldn't have spent 87 billion dollar and counting on this Iraq crap. They wouldn't be draining giant amounts of money into the defense industry either.

Before you say anything, 87 billion dollar will create more jobs than the defense industry currently has.

The reason why bush had to put tax on steel is because the US steel industry is very outdated. That's a perfect example of how environmental measures can boost economy: European steel manufacturers had to comply to strict environmental rules by greatly decreasing energy consumption. As a result of that, they produce high quality steel at a low cost.

[knowledgehungry]

87 billion isnt that much in the scheme of things, and the democrats would spend more on many things. As i have said before I have many problems with Bush but the left is not better at all. "The government that governs least governs best"~ Thomas Jefferson. Bush does less interfering than his opponents would IMHO.

[Silio]

TreverSlyFox
A New Voice

Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Missouri Ozarks
Posts: 12
Online

| Offline


The one thing I love about Europeans. They conveniently forget their history. Most would be speaking GERMAN right now if it wasn't for the Meddlesome U.S. They also forget how much MONEY they OWE us for that Meddling. Only Norway paid us back for our Meddling in WWII.

Europe wants to bitch? Fine, pay off your debt to us, then you can bitch!! Until then your just a bunch of Freeloaders with big mouths.

__________________
Be polite, be courtious, be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.



right so what can you say latin americans? we can do no more than bend the knee to the Uslord that controls us but even we can see the error in bushes way. and yeah we owe you tons of money, but you owe us tons' of blood spilt by our govenrments meddling

[vulture]

87 billion isnt that much in the scheme of things, and the democrats would spend more on many things.

Really? How'd you know? Then why is it that Clinton left Bush a nice surplus?

Let's assume the democrats would have spent 87 billion dollar on environment protection, that is upgrading of factories and so on. Sounds like wasted money to you huh?

Well, think of how many jobs this would create in construction, engineering, science etc. The US steel industry for example, could then be competitive with the European one.

Or how about spending 87 billion dollar on upgrading the power grid?

87 billion spent on war doesn't create any jobs. Well, a few extra jobs in the military because of the killed soldiers that have to be replaced...:rolleyes:
The 87 billion is just being shot away as bullets and ordnance and being destroyed as Iraqi terrorists strike once again.

[knowledgehungry]

The government should stay out of private business,its the factories job to upgrade themselves. Not only that Clinton had a surplus due to the taxes he raised. Yes GWB is spending money like a liberal, but I hate the socialist sideof our country. Socialism= no freedom!

[vulture]

Socialism= no freedom!


Either way this is some other piece of propaganda crammed into you or your definition of socialism is flawed.
Socialism implies that the society as a whole takes care of individuals in need. Socialism can be practiced under many types of economic and political systems.

Just bluntly stating that socialism = no freedom is very narrow minded.

That way one could say capitalism = no freedom, because once the freedom get's in the way of the money, it's the money that prevails.

[knowledgehungry]

What i meant was that for socialism to work your own good and rights must be sacrificed for the benefit of the society. The society is what is important, not the individual.

[ossassin]

I can't believe what I'm hearing! How can people envolved in this sort of hobby support liberal socialism??? If the democrats had their way, they would execute you in the streets for doing this. How can you say that Bush is that bad? Clinton got blow jobs by a fat slut in the Oval Office, and I shudder to think of how Al Gore would have handled 9/11. Bush has handled the war situation very well. What's happened to the sense of nationalism in the world? We did what was best for our country, and what the hell is so wrong with that? (Most of) the Europeans are just afraid. They know that they can't stop us by force, so they're trying to stop us by whining and using propaganda. If you are not an American, you HAVE NO RIGHT to post on this thread! You worry about your government, and we'll worry about ours.

EDIT:
Vulture, socialism does not work. In a capitalist system, people work for themselves, but in a socialist system, they work for the government. Therefore, they have no desire to succeed. There is no freedom in a socialist system, because you cannot work your way up the ladder. Chances are that you will stay in the same place your entire life.

Also, keep in mind that the media tends to be VERY liberal. 99% of the news that reaches you in Belgium has been warped by those liberal reporters. Haven't you ever wondered why Bush's approval ratings are so high even though he must sound so evil to you?

[vulture]

Clinton got blow jobs by a fat slut in the Oval Office, and I shudder to think of how Al Gore would have handled 9/11.

What's worse, a president getting blow jobs without any bad consequence for a country, or a president that sends US soldiers to die in Iraq whilst he dodged military duty himself?

Nobody died when Clinton lied.

If Al Gore would have been president, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.
The first thing Bush did as a president was to say "FUCK YOU WORLD" and proclaim his axis of evil. Oh, he didn't need those old irritating Europeans. Oddly, after 9/11 we had to support his illegal wars and clean up the mess the US forces left in Afghanistan.

(Most of) the Europeans are just afraid. They know that they can't stop us by force, so they're trying to stop us by whining and using propaganda. If you are not an American, you HAVE NO RIGHT to post on this thread! You worry about your government, and we'll worry about ours.

Yes, I am afraid of a country that has tons of WMDs and a lunatic with the IQ of a Gorilla who's controlling them.

The US interfered with the Belgian genocide law, so you interfered with our internal affairs. If you want to be leader of the world, you have to take responsibility for it.

Also, keep in mind that the media tends to be VERY liberal. 99% of the news that reaches you in Belgium has been warped by those liberal reporters. Haven't you ever wondered why Bush's approval ratings are so high even though he must sound so evil to you?

I dare to deny that. The major news source in Belgium is the VRT, which is an independent channel payed for by the tax payer. It's not commercial like fox and CNN in america which have to protect certain interests in order to keep the money flowing.

You can't seriously say that the embedded reporters in the War against Iraq were unbiased.
I'd like to see a reporter, surrounded by hundreds of stressed soldiers, saying that they're doing a bad job. It's also interesting that all journalists that were "accidentally" killed by US forces were either from independent news agencies or from agencies that didn't allow censoring.

Bush approval ratings are so high because the major media in the US are under control of the same corporations that are sponsoring Bushs campaign and which interests are in turn protected by Bushs policies. For example, is any major US news source covering the trial against Dick Cheney? Why are no news agencies questioning the fact that the most advanced airforce in the world needed more than 45 minutes to get fighter planes in the air during 9/11?

Do you really think we'd just suddenly turn against the US because we liked too? Up untill the end of the Clinton era, the transatlantic relationships were nearly outstanding. They plummeted when Bush took over, because he showed absolutely no interest in multilateral cooperation.

In fact, opposing the US so strongly is harming our economy because we export alot to the US.
But unlike most Americans it seems, Europeans don't like money or oil that has been earned by unnecessary bloodshed.

Vulture, socialism does not work. In a capitalist system, people work for themselves, but in a socialist system, they work for the government. Therefore, they have no desire to succeed. There is no freedom in a socialist system, because you cannot work your way up the ladder. Chances are that you will stay in the same place your entire life.

You are confusing socialism with communism. Lots of european countries have a socialistic capitalism and so far, it hasn't been doing us any harm, quite on the contrary.
Going to the hospital or having your teeth etc fixed does not endanger our finances, because most of it (up to 85% in most cases) is payed back by social security.

Sure, we do pay more taxes, but in return we have the security that there's a system that'll prevent us from dropping into a black pit when bad luck knocks on our doors.

[knowledgehungry]

The major news source in Belgium is the VRT, which is an independent channel payed for by the tax payer.

So you have a government run media system... How 1984, at least in America they lie to us for the honest reason of money. Since Belgium is a socialist country then obviously the government would decry American ways and paint us in a bad light. Also socialism hasn't worked in America, california had a socialist health care system and it carries a defecit larger than the entire budget of most states. They had to cut back on EVERYTHING and they are governed by a movie star now :(.

[vulture]

So you have a government run media system... How 1984

They get the money regardless what kinda stories they run. In fact, mosts of the news is about government incompetence. Also, for every government politician that get's to do his talk, a member of the opposition gets his airtime too.

Unbiased namecalling (liberal, socialist, treehugger) is also unheard of, which seems a very common thing on US news media. Journalists promoting their own opinions is also quite common on fox and CNN, this is simply considerend unethical in Europe. A journalist should just present the facts with commentary that describes the objective facts, not judges them.

Also, we got foreign news long before 9/11. The US only realized it was not alone in the world after 9/11.

EDIT:

They had to cut back on EVERYTHING and they are governed by a movie star now

That's what you get when everyone who's concerned about the environment and other people is labeled as treehugger or communist. People will then choose for symbols that represent thoughness and zero mercy. Oh, wait, isn't Schwarzenegger a Republican?

Speaking of sluts, wasn't he accused of harrassing several women?

[knowledgehungry]

Schwarznigger is as Republican as Clinton, he runs under the Republican name tag because teh democratic name got fucked up by the previous governor. Also you may think they are giving you objective facts but they still are only telling you what they want you to hear, thats just common sense, the government is the enemy of the people, it always has been so of course they are going to lie to you if they can get away with it and have reason to do so!

[tmp]

Ossassin, every member of this forum(except those BANNED) has a
right to post a reply regardless of point of origin. Name calling doesn't
cut it. Leave that to school children and of course POLITICIANS.

Vulture, you're taking quite a bit of abuse in this thread and I personally
think it's uncalled for. As for former President Bill Clinton, I opposed
many, but not all, of his policies. His sexual antics were not a valid
reason for impeachment but became standard fare for comedians in this
country(Jay Leno, Conan O'Brien, David Letterman, etc.). Political issues
are how I judge politicians and I couldn't give a shit about their sexual
lives.

As for the media, Vulture, if the media in Belgium points out the
incompetence of politicians then I say GOOD ! In the United States, the
media is combative in their attitudes towards politicians. Some of it is
agenda driven to be sure. But without a free press, those bastards
could get away with just about anything they wanted to. The Patriot Act
will be up renewal. I hope it doesn't get passed. Politicians are fair
game for the media and comedians alike. The minute a politician seeks
election or re-election his or her ass may as well be under an electron
microscope. It comes with the territory.

Slighltly off topic, but did anybody see Howard Dean after the Iowa
Caucuses ? He blew up like a volcano in front of his supporters. Is this
possibly a latent pyro tendency ?

[ossassin]

I have many responses to what you've all said, so I decided to make a list.

Vulture:

1. I would rather send our troops into combat than ruin our national image.

2. 9/11 WOULD have happened, because the US supports Isreal and gives them many billions of dollars each year. The liberals want this, not the conservatives.

3. War in and of itself is never illegal.

4. We wanted you to help with the cleanup, because you didn't send many troops (if any.) A few countries, such as Great Britain and Spain, are excluded from this.

5. Bush is a bright guy; he's just not a good speaker. The liberal media in the US came up with the low-IQ stuff. That is proof that our media affects yours.

6. Believe it or not, the media is against Bush, and they always have been. With reelections approaching they want to ruin his reputation. The major newspapers and TV stations are controlled by liberals, specifically Jews, not the major corporations.

7. Why should a college student have to cooperate with 3rd-graders?

8. You may receive free healthcare under a socialist system, but it can't compare to the quality of American healthcare.

9. We have equal time laws, too.

10. Those terms are not derrogatory names; they are members of political parties (except treehugger, which is more of a sect.)

11. The journalists who promote their own points of view almost always side with you (the socialists) on these issues, so don't push it.

12. Ol' Arnie was accused of playfully touching a couple of women on the set of a movie. Since he was a young, very famous body builder at the time, I'm sure that they didn't mind. After all, the story wasn't heard until he ran for governor. Every time they try to ruin conservatives' reputations that way. They either "misinterprite" insignificant things or they find women from people's past that are willing to say that they were molested. Look at Clarence Thomas and Trent Lotte.



knowledgehungry:

1. They lie to us, not because of money, but because they're simply biased. Everyone knows that the liberals have the media in a chokehold.

2. Arnie is cool. ;)


tmp:

1. You know what I meant about them not being allowed to post here.

2. Sexual lives become political when our national image is at stake.

3. I wish I could find an .mp3 of that Howard Dean war cry! :)


EDIT:
Here is an audio copy of the end of the speech:
speech (http://www.geocities.com/ossassin2000/Howard_Dean_Scream_Speach.mp3)
Here is a funny little song that someone made with it. I really enjoyed it.
song (http://www.geocities.com/ossassin2000/Howard_Dean_Megamix.mp3)

[Blackhawk]

"1. I would rather send our troops into combat than ruin our national image."
The funny thing is that 'sending the troops in' is exactly your country's image, that of a rash and irresponsible brute force government with no concern for the rights or sanctity of any other government or person, congrats on supporting such a great image.

"3. War in and of itself is never illegal."
In my mind war in itself is never legal, but if we take this case the reason behind the war was illegal (You had no juristiction or proof that warrented your action) and the fact that your invasion was not supported by the UN and was in defiance of international law, you did not have a war with Iraq, you invaded them illegaly with no credible proof and in the face of the world's public.

"4. We wanted you to help with the cleanup, because you didn't send many troops (if any.)"
Simply because a country refused to help you in your illegal invasion does not mean that they must then take part in fixing the mess you created during said illegal invasion. What are you going to do if they do not help you anyway, Invade them? I would not put it past the US seeing as the last two engaments they have innitiated have been uttely sensless, with no meaning or purpose and against all law.

"Also, we got foreign news long before 9/11. The US only realized it was not alone in the world after 9/11"
Not really Vulture, the US still only covers world events that affect them and even though they know other people exist now they clearly don't care or consider them as human as residents of the USA.

[ossassin]

We would rather be seen as a powerful country who is easily provoked than a country with no morals. I don't see why everyone is so upset about the invasion's legitimacy. Throughout history, countries have invaded other countries for no reason that could be easily explained. It is nothing new. Also, we're not forcing countries to handle the clean-up; we're just telling them to. :) Since you're from Australia, and your country helped us, we probably won't ask you to help. We'll just ass those hordes of cowardly, whining delegates at the UN. I don't even see why we have a UN anymore. We're talking about pulling our funding, you know.

[knowledgehungry]

"Also, we got foreign news long before 9/11. The US only realized it was not alone in the world after 9/11"
Not really Vulture, the US still only covers world events that affect them and even though they know other people exist now they clearly don't care or consider them as human as residents of the USA.


And how would you know that being from Australia :-p

[wrench352]

Well Im glad to see,I'm not the only one SICK of all the America bashing,it was getting really old, really fast. I have never bought into that whole "liberal controlled media" thing. NBC is owned by GE, CBS by Viacom, ABC by Disney and Fox by Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp. Out of this group Disney is as socialist as it gets and I heard the Cult Leader of the Moonies is heavily invested in media but I dont know which ones. But GE liberal,I dont think so, I love that minigun they make. The head of the WMD team has resigned because they couldnt find anything. SWIWrench has stuff cached all over the place and I doubt anyone could find any of it. Also wasnt North Koreas UN inspected just before they admitted they had a working nuke? Same with Iran, it seems to me the UN inspectors are inept.
Also about the invasion being illegal,I have to admit I dont know much about international law BUT,Iraq invaded Kuwait,Kuwait asked for help,we liberated Kuwait,Iraq surrendered to us.Werent they in violation repetedly to terms of surrender .
I am embarassed by GWB's eviromental stance. All of us need to send a couple bucks to a Group called Earthshare,the money will be pooled and split up to a wide variety of ecological groups like Sierra Club and WWF,or you could stipulate what funds go where, so it doesnt go to ultraliberalwhackogroups.
Have y'all called your Senators and Congressmen about the assault weapons ban sunset? Its getting close to the eleventh hour and we need your support! I'm sure everyone knows about www.awbansunset.com it has lists of govt contacts and phone scripts so you dont sound like a goof.
Not to start trouble but.....
Vulture over at Madsci your a mod correct?Ive always wanted to look at "George Bush's personal Mein Campf" in the "Whimsy" section.Ive been a member at madsci for quite a while and asked permission to view the thread but never got to.How come? Why do we need permission?
Ossasin you took the words out of my mouth,about liberals and our hobby.
Edit. I wanted to take a minute to show y'all this a email I just got from awsunset, I think it will help those that want to help the cause:
S.659, the bill that limits junk lawsuits against the firearm industry, will be coming to the floor of the Senate in a month or so. It is almost a certainty that Sen. Feinstein & Co. will attempt to amend the bill with a renewal of the so-called "assault weapons" ban. While it is likely that this "poison pill" amendment, if passed, will not make it through the House/Senate conference committee nor survive a final vote in the House (potentially killing the junk lawsuit bill), we have an opportunity to STOP the ban renewal in the Senate.

A vote on this issue in the Senate would be very close, but could go either way. We need every single vote we can get. Please take just a moment to call both of your Senators, urging them to oppose S.1034 (the standalone bill that renews and slightly expands the 1994 "Assault Weapons" Ban) or any attempt to amend a ban renewal to S.659, the junk lawsuit preemption bill. Even if one or both of your Senators are known to be anti-gun, it doesn't hurt to remind them of how unpopular this issue is.

You can quickly locate your Senators' phone numbers here:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Defeating a ban renewal in the Senate, which is acknowledged as not being nearly as pro-gun as the House, would be an undeniably huge victory for us. Do your part to ensure we win this opening skirmish in the battle to keep the 1994 Clinton semi-auto ban from being renewed. Call your Senators NOW (and encourage your friends to do so too).





http://www.awbansunset.com
http://www.awbansunset.com/forums

[vulture]

We'll just ass those hordes of cowardly, whining delegates at the UN

You're really pissing me off. You've been doing NOTHING but namecalling in this thread. Now that's a sign of the cowardly!

Why are they cowardly? Because they don't support war? Oh yeah, that does make you a coward. I wonder how you'd respond when you see your friends and family getting killed just because somebody felt like invading your country. It's easy to call people cowards if you're not on the recieving end.

I don't see why everyone is so upset about the invasion's legitimacy.

Because you always keep claiming the US stands for freedom, justice and human rights.
This phrase of yours clearly indicates that you (and probably 51% of the US) doesn't give a shit about world peace, a word that GWB, the biggest warmongerer on earth, frequently (ab)uses.

9/11 WOULD have happened, because the US supports Isreal and gives them many billions of dollars each year. The liberals want this, not the conservatives.


Oh really? Then why did Bush demand that Arafat resigned? Also, bush has been openly supporting military actions by the Israelis against the palestinians because of terrorism. Funny thing that unarmed people and young kids always end up getting killed in those raids.

Let's face it. The only thing you guys REALLY care about is:

1.Cheap fuel for your monstrous SUVs.
2.As much guns&bullets as you like, because there's nothing like some useless violence to settle a conflict.


8. You may receive free healthcare under a socialist system, but it can't compare to the quality of American healthcare.


IMHO, that's just a blatant lie. Then why is it that a hospital visit can be a financial disaster for most americans? I've done quite a bit of talking with US NATO people who live in Belgium and they were all impressed by the health system. A good example are the health plans in the US, for example a dental plan payed for by the employer. In Belgium it is an integral part of social security for everyone.

Vulture over at Madsci your a mod correct?Ive always wanted to look at "George Bush's personal Mein Campf" in the "Whimsy" section.Ive been a member at madsci for quite a while and asked permission to view the thread but never got to.How come? Why do we need permission?


Everyone who asks the password gets it from me. I'm not going to discuss Madsci forum policies over here. Are you suggesting I am silencing that discussion?
Then why would I have posted this thread here? I could have posted it on Madsci and censor all the replies I didn't like.

[knowledgehungry]

[i] 2.As much guns&bullets as you like, because there's nothing like some useless violence to settle a conflict.
[/B]

Now your making sense Vulture:p . Well I've had quite enough of this topic so im gone, not because I feel I have lost or won my arguement but merely because i dislike my post count getting boosted by pointless politic talk, it seems like cheating.;)

[Blackhawk]

"And how would you know that being from Australia :-p"
I have been to America before, I base it on what I have seen on TV there and on what I have seen from Americans on TV here (Yes I know that if obviously biased).

[ossassin]

I'm glad that someone here shares my point of view, wrench. I am worried about the assault weapons ban renewal, too. I wonder which party named it...:)

1. Vulture, the "ass" was a typo.

2. The term that I believe you're looking for is "cowardice," not "cowardly"

3. They are cowardly, because they know that in a war, they'd have no chance. They didn't want to help us, but they were afraid to try and stop us.

4. If they're so upset about their friends getting killed, they should fight! The fact that they don't is what makes them cowardly.

5. The majority of the people here would like world piece but are not willing to bend over backwards to achieve it.

6. You're right! We do only care about ourselves! Why should we care about anyone else? (I'm talking about politics here, not human lives.)

7. I said that the quality of the healthcare here was better. I did not say it was cheaper.

8. In the grand scheme of things here on this earth, violence is the only thing that does solve conflicts.


Guys, remember that the Australians are our allies, members of NATO, and they sent troops to help us in Afghanistan and possibly Iraq. Don't give them a hard time.

[wrench352]

Im not implying a thing,I asked to view the thread and never got any reply,and I thought it odd to password yall's equivalent of the water cooler.Funny I still havent got an email....
You called TrevorSlyFox a redneck so you drew first blood,and you were condescending to us "Yanks" about yall's Yurop. I know who Im dealing with ,so know I'm not taking this conversation lightly.Also heres an enlightening chart for you:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.asp?Symbol=%24INX&DateRangeForm=1&CP=0&PT=7&C5=1&C6=&C7=1&C8=&C9=0&ComparisonsForm=1&CE=0&CompSyms=&DisplayForm=1&D9=1&D0=1&D4=1&D5=0&D7=&D6=&D3=0&ShowChtBt=Refresh+Chart.
and
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.asp?Symbol=%24INX&DateRangeForm=1&PT=7&CP=1&C5=1&C6=2000&C7=1&C8=2001&C9=1&ComparisonsForm=1&CE=0&CompSyms=&DisplayForm=1&D9=1&D0=1&D4=1&D5=0&D7=&D6=&D3=0&ShowChtBt=Refresh+Chart
clearly the beginning of the end came in April with full blown recession in September 00
Arkangel,my bad, I was in short pants in 74 so you got me there.However we still call a war a war and theres no big brother in my neighborhood or their'd be less crime. I prefer Heinlein anyway.
From what I understand GWB is going to do nothing either way on the AWB and let em fight it out on the house and senate floor. One of his aides made the mistake(maybe he was testing the water?) of commenting negatively on the AWB. His phones didnt stop ringing for days,and he has'nt,to the best of my knowlege commented on it since.Its a moot point though because look how the democrats view our hobby.Dont get me started on The Branch Davidians or MOTHER FUCKING RUBY FUCKING RIDGE.The original Jack Booted Thugs came from Clintons AG Jant Reno.Compare her againt John Ashcroft antday of the week.I hate to tell you these are our boys they look out for our best interest.
Its my belief we have the high majority of the best hospitals in the world,cutting edge(no pun intended).Im not sure how to quantify that though.Good,fast or cheap, you can pick any two,but you cant have all three.
I dont have cable btw,I have the radio,newspaper and net.I try to watch ABC news every night though this is not always possible.I listen to every side of the argument and I could cut GWB to pieces if I wanted to.Its not in my/our best interest. I wish the Libertarians could come up with a viable candidate.But its not gonna happen this year.Howard Stern for PresidenT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And we all know what how he feels.

[Arkangel]

the Australians are our allies, members of NATO

Another classy demonstration of the typical American Grasp of geography. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation should give you a bit of a clue that Oz can't be a member. It IS an ally of yours though, and it's a member of SEATO. Just in case you're still a bit baffled, it's kind of down a bit from Japan and Hong Kong. Kind of thing. Oh, and isn't it a continent all by itself?:rolleyes:

Anyway, don't confuse yourself with that kind of trivial detail

violence is the only thing that does solve conflicts

:rolleyes:

Is it any wonder that we look at you in despair when you come out with myopic, ignorant, immoral and patently absurd stuff like that?

You could argue, that through violence, the IRA made the British Government work towards some kind of agreement. But in fact, what really did it was the general will of the people, of which violence was a confusing, divisive and delaying irrelevance. By your logic, the British should have used MORE violence than we did and that would have solved it. Only it wouldn't. We AND the loyalist paramilitaries used PLENTY of violence, it's something that we're good at. The more violence we gave, the more we got, until the point that we realised, as I hope that you guys, the Israelis, Palestinians, Indians, Pakistanis and others around the world eventually realise, that our problems were NEVER going to leave us until we start to use dialogue and empathy.

Until you begin to understand WHY the US is held so universally in low esteem, then you won't address those issues. The main reason I want Bush out is because he, Rumsfeld, Cheney and all the other members of his administration will never understand, have no capability to empathise and represent every value about the US that's despised. As long as that continues, we're all in a more dangerous world

And although those of you who've been around a while will know, I am NOT anti US. I admire the nation and I admire the people and what they generally believe in. I think that most Americans are good, honest and kind people. I think that you have problems in your society in the same way that every nation does, and you often try harder than many to put them right. Pointing that out does not mean I'm claiming my country or any other has moral high ground - Great Britain CERTAINLY doesn't have a lot of moral high ground;) As a "friend of the US" (and I don't know what it takes to demonstrate that - I spend a lot of time there and have many American friends all over the world) I think it's only fair for me to be open and honest when I talk about it, same as I would be for any of my personal friends. In anything I say here, I'm not attacking your values, I'm trying to point out how they and your actions are perceived in the rest of the world.

Bush, his manner, his administration, his farcical election and the foreign policies he's pursuing make you look like ignorant, self serving bullies. Sorry if that's a hard pill to swallow.

[knowledgehungry]

What exactly were those charts of wrench?? And lets try to keep the insulting down,no matter how much I disaggree with vulture and arkangel they have contributed more to this forum than most here ever will, so i respect them for that!

[wrench352]

the charts show the history of the S&P 500 (a snapshot of the economy) you can see the tech bubble burst in April 2000,the slide into recession and the beginning of recovery.BTW I place the blame solely on Greenspan than Clinton although he didnt help with the Microsoft debacle,I seem to remember a bruhaha in Yurop over that too.
Agreed about the mudslingin,If you think I have been disparaging let me know.Sometimes I can be abrasive and not know it.
I dont feel as though were held in universally low esteem. The French for one have always disliked us, as have the Arabs(that whole messy crusades thing I guess). This mess has been brewing for millenia.We have givin aid and charity to nearly anyone who asks and helped to spread democracy across the globe. I will always believe the Iraqis have/had WMDs,it just doesnt make sense for them not to, remember the retrofit soviet aircraft made to disperse chems/bios by remote.Why would they have that,supersonic crop sprayer?Sigh,Shroedinger's WMD,I guess.
Thanks Arkangel.

[vulture]

6. You're right! We do only care about ourselves! Why should we care about anyone else? (I'm talking about politics here, not human lives.)


We have givin aid and charity to nearly anyone who asks and helped to spread democracy across the globe

Interesting. Then why is it we always hear the US is only trying to help people? Quit the stupid excuses and say what you're standing for.

Spreading democracy? I never knew democracy was being spread by CIA sponsored coup d'etats.
Remember Allende? Who helped Saddam grab power?

I dont feel as though were held in universally low esteem.

Yes. Instead of thinking about why this could be the case, you only upset more people and then wonder why nobody likes the US.

You called TrevorSlyFox a redneck so you drew first blood,and you were condescending to us "Yanks" about yall's Yurop.

I DID NOT call TrevorSlyFox a redneck. Please show me where I did that.
I wasn't aware of the fact that Yanks was an insulting word. I'll refrain from using it.

I will always believe the Iraqis have/had WMDs,it just doesnt make sense for them not to, remember the retrofit soviet aircraft made to disperse chems/bios by remote.

I guess they were looted too? Be a bit realistic. You guys keep claiming Iraq had hundreds of thousands of tons of VX, thousand kilos of toxins and millions of bioweapons, plus a shitload of diverse dispersing platforms. NONE of them were found. You couldn't possibly hide so much weaponry without anyone leaking, certainly after Saddam's gone.

They didn't want to help us, but they were afraid to try and stop us.

4. If they're so upset about their friends getting killed, they should fight! The fact that they don't is what makes them cowardly.


Let's assume Europe, China and Russia started fighting the US in Iraq. The conflict would quickly go berserk and spread all over the world. The thing would be settled when the US pulls out it's massive stock of WMDs...oh wait...wasn't that were the war against Iraq was all about? Funny thing the US needs millions of tons of nerve gas to "protect" itself. But I guess that's just my liberally warped view of the situation.

You can't solve violence by applying more violence, because you'd be causing violence yourself.

I'd really like to see you fight in Iraq. I'd like to see your face when 2 MPs knock on your door with the message that your brother has been KIAd, give you the letter signed by Mr. Bush and then leave.

It doesn't matter what the motives of the war were, what matters is, do the Iraqi people have a better life, is the world safer?

No. Under Saddam, they atleast had electricity, potable water and gas. The US first worried about getting the oil pipelines of Halliburton working, the electricity in Baghdad still fails frequently.

Is the world safer? No. Never in it's history has the US known so many enemies and pissed off so many allies. More muslems will join terrorists movements, because they've seen the real motives of the US and the suffering it causes amongst their own people.

[MrSamosa]

" Every time someone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can't help but think: before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East."

I don't remember who said that, but the point is that Arabs have NOT always hated America. In fact, they used to love the US, especially in the post WW2 years. They loved when Eisenhower told France, the UK and Israel to get out of Egypt when Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. Bitterness really started in 1973.

Another good quote, this one from our friend Otto von Bismarck: "People never lie so much as they do after a hunt, before a war, or during an election."

And the cult leader of the Moonies... I know he is invested in the Washington Times, and I suspect he might have some involvement with the New York Post, as these are two viciously right-wing papers with mildly spin-off names of well-known papers (Washington Post and New York Times).

I was the one who made the post about the "Mein Kampf" on Madsci. It was about that think-tank "Project for the New American Century" -- which includes several members of the current Administration-- and their pamphlet, "Rebuilding America's Defenses"... I don't have the link on hand, but it's on their site: www.pnac.org , which is often down.

True, history is full of cases of countries invading others and fighting wars for stupid reasons. Genghis Khan conquered almost of all of Asia, ransacking and massacring as he went. We can't say much about Vlad the Impaler's record for defending human rights. "Los Conquistadores" slaughtered whole tribes of natives. World War 1 was fought for no clear reason at all. But then the question is, is this how we want to be? Wouldn't you like to say we've advanced and become more civilized over the last 500 years?

[wrench352]

Your last post of page 1,you called someone a redneck,maybe it was me :) "Hey Mr. RednecK",I consider myself more of a "good ol country boy" than a redneck. I was a little offended at first but dont worry bout it,political discussions get heated sometimes. Not solving violence with violence,tell that to the founding fathers of Hiroshima,lol. As distasteful as it is sometimes you have to roll up your sleeves. Even if you discount the WMDs,they were a beaten people who agreed to our terms of surrender,they refused to be inspected to our satisfaction(wouldnt that have solved everything?at least to my satisfaction),and they'd shoot at our planes daily for christ sake,you cant say they didnt provoke us. Possible terrorist ties,and it sure as shit looked like they were hiding something to me or they would have dealt with UN inspectors correctly. If they'd have play'd nice none of this would of happened,even y'all have to concede that. And yes when we beat you militarily we will make you jump through hoops sometimes,thats how war goes.
BTW I lived in the shadow of war all my life,My father was wounded in Viet Nam,my brother served there too,my other brother was permanently crippled in a missle attack on Riyadh during the first gulf war,this was in my lifetime.My family has always proudly served,it was already discussed within my immediate family if I had to go. I hate sand. I'd go if asked but I would not volunteer,its not my thing.
Thanks for the info Mr.Samosa, I have heard some scary things coming out of govt. think tanks,worse actually.
Weve been sitting on those chemical weapons for years,and I believe were trying to get rid of them,but its a pretty difficult task.Most of what your talking about is left over from the cold war,weve never used em and were trying to get rid of them.The nukes, well I dont ever think we'll be rid of them. If we're makin them smaller, then we've come along way from the MX (remember them).
I have to run now I'll continue this post later.

[ossassin]

Vulture, the term "Yank" is only insulting to those of us in the southern US. The Yankees were the northerners during our civil war, and both sides still hold grudges.

Interesting. Then why is it we always hear the US is only trying to help people? Quit the stupid excuses and say what you're standing for.

We stand for nothing but our own welfare.

This is why we don't want other countries to have WMD's, but we want them ourselves. You should consider reading "The Prince" by Machiavelli. It was bedside reading for leaders such as Hitler and Stalin.

[tom haggen]

I'm Embarrassed that our leader, the leader of the free world thinks the French don't have a word for entreperneur. As a representitave of America he is doing a poor job. He makes all Americans look ignorant to the rest of the world. Whether the rest of the world likes it or not America is taking over. Lets just hope that we can find a better leader in the future.

[MrSamosa]

I much enjoyed "The Prince" by Machiavelli, but it's a very paranoid outlook on the population. Personally, I don't want to be ruled by a leader who believes that the ends justify the means.

The gist of "Rebuilding America's Defenses" is to establish effective empire across the globe by any means possible-- including Nuclear warfare-- thus creating a "Pax Americana." It's rather scary, actually. PNAC includes people like Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol (Editor of The National Review), and other big-name "Neo-Conservatives."

I posted this on the first page, but I guess I should say it again... The terms of the cease-fire after the Gulf War were not that if Saddam didn't comply, the war would start again. It effectively ended hostilities. The No-Fly Zones were a violation of Iraqi sovereignty, and they were not sponsored by the UN. They were some American and British concoction, with the help of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. The planes would fly daily sorties, routinely violating Iraqi sovereignty and frequently dropping bombs (this is also a violation of the cease fire). No country would stand for this, so why should Iraq? This was not part of the cease-fire terms either. The Iraqi Air Defense had every right to defend their territory.

You know, Iraq complied with the UN Inspectors for the first few years. But the international community didn't hold up its end of the bargain, which was to lower the draconian sanctions against the Iraqis-- which hurt the people more than the government, because of Saddam's sick ways. It wasn't until 1997-98 that Saddam accused the Inspectors of being spies, and stopped cooperating. At this time, the UN withdrew them and Iraq was bombed for a few days... Another great lie is that Saddam "kicked out the inspectors."

[ossassin]

Tom, the president is no fool. The media simply tries to make him appear as one in an effort to hurt his chances in the coming election. No offense, but I thought that your post resembled an elementary school paragraph. I think it even had the right number of sentences, if I remember correctly. :)

MrSamosa, Saddam Hussein was foolish to not give us his full cooperation. He should have known that we were out for blood after 9/11. I'm not saying that what we did was right, but he could have avoided it.

[NightStalker]

Wall Street Journal, page A-18, September 22, 2003

The KGB's Man
by Ion Mihal Pacepa

The Israeli government has vowed to expel Yasser Arafat, calling him an "obstacle" to peace. But the 72-year-old Palestinian leader is much more than that; he is a career terrorist, trained, armed and bankrolled by the Soviet
Union and its satellites for decades.

Before I defected to America from Romania, leaving my post as chief of Romanian intelligence, I was responsible for giving Arafat about $200,000 in laundered cash every month throughout the 1970s. I also sent two cargo planes to Beirut a week, stuffed with uniforms and supplies. Other Soviet bloc states did much the same. Terrorism has been extremely profitable for Arafat. According to Forbes magazine, he is today the sixth wealthiest among the world's "kings, queens & despots," with more than $300 million stashed in Swiss bank accounts.

"I invented the hijackings [of passenger planes]," Arafat bragged when I first met him at his PLO headquarters in Beirut in the early 1970s. He gestured toward the little red flags pinned on a wall map of the world that labeled Israel as "Palestine." "There they all are!" he told me, proudly. The dubious honor of inventing hijacking actually goes to the KGB, which first hijacked a U.S. passenger plane in 1960 to Communist Cuba. Arafat's innovation was the suicide bomber, a terror concept that would come to full flower on 9/11.

In 1972, the Kremlin put Arafat and his terror networks high on all Soviet bloc intelligence services' priority list, including mine. Bucharest's role was to ingratiate him with the White House. We were the bloc experts at this. We'd already had great success in making Washington-as well as most of the fashionable left-leaning American academics of the day-believe that Nicolae Ceausescu was, like Josip Broz Tito, an "independent" Communist with a "moderate" streak.

KGB chairman Yuri Andropov in February 1972 laughed to me about the Yankee gullibility for celebrities. We'd outgrown Stalinist cults of personality, but those crazy Americans were still naive enough to revere national leaders. We would make Arafat into just such a figurehead and gradually move the PLO closer to power and statehood. Andropov thought that Vietnam weary Americans would snatch at the smallest sign of conciliation to promote Arafat from terrorist to statesman in their hopes for peace.

Right after that meeting, I was given the KGB's "personal file" on Arafat. He was an Egyptian bourgeois turned into a devoted Marxist by KGB foreign intelligence. The KGB had trained him at its Balashikha special-ops school east of Moscow and in the mid-1960s decided to groom him as the future PLO leader. First, the KGB destroyed the official records of Arafat's birth in Cairo, replacing them with fictitious documents saying that he had been born in Jerusalem and was therefore a Palestinian by birth.

The KGB's disinformation department then went to work on Arafat's four-page tract called "Falastinuna" (Our Palestine), turning it into a 48-page monthly magazine for the Palestinian terrorist organization al-Fatah. Arafat had headed al-Fatah since 1957. The KGB distributed it throughout the Arab world and in West Germany, which in those days played host to many Palestinian students. The KGB was adept at magazine publication and distribution; it had many similar periodicals in various languages for its front organizations in Western Europe, like the World Peace Council and the World Federation of Trade Unions.

Next, the KGB gave Arafat an ideology and an image, just as it did for loyal Communists in our international front organizations. High minded idealism held no mass-appeal in the Arab world, so the KGB remolded Arafat as a rabid anti-Zionist. They also selected a "personal hero" for him-the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, the man who.visited Auschwitz in the late 1930s and reproached the Germans for not having killed even more Jews. In 1985 Arafat paid homage to the mufti, saying he was "proud no end" to be walking in his footsteps.

Arafat was an important undercover operative for the KGB. Right after the 1967 Six Day Arab-Israeli war, Moscow got him appointed to chairman of the PLO. Egyptian ruler Gamal Abdel Nasser, a Soviet puppet, proposed the appointment. In 1969 the KGB asked Arafat to declare war on American "imperial-Zionism" during the first summit of the Black Terrorist International, a neo-Fascist pro-Palestine organization financed by the KGB and Libya's Moammar Gadhafi. It appealed to him so much, Arafat later claimed to have invented the imperial-Zionist battle cry. But in fact, "imperial-Zionism" was a Moscow invention, a modern adaptation of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," and long a favorite tool of Russian intelligence to foment ethnic hatred. The KGB always regarded anti-Semitism plus anti-imperialism as a rich source of anti-Americanism.

The KGB file on Arafat also said that in the Arab world only people who were truly good at deception could achieve high status. We Romanians were directed to help Arafat improve "his extraordinary talent for deceiving." The KGB chief of foreign intelligence, General Aleksandr Sakharovsky, ordered us to provide cover for Arafat's terror operations, while at the same time building up his international image. "Arafat is a brilliant stage manager," his letter concluded, "and we should put him to good use." In March 1978 I secretly brought Arafat to Bucharest for final instructions on how to behave in Washington. "You simply have to keep on pretending that you'll break with terrorism and that you'll recognize Israel-over, and over, and over," Ceausescu told him for the umpteenth time. Ceausescu was euphoric over the prospect that both Arafat and he might be able to snag a Nobel Peace Prize with their fake displays of the olive branch.

In April 1978 I accompanied Ceausescu to Washington, where he charmed President Carter. Arafat, he urged, would transform his brutal PLO into a law-abiding government-in-exile if only the U.S. would establish official relations. The meeting was a great success for us. Carter hailed Ceausescu, dictator of the most repressive police state in Eastern Europe, as a "great national and international leader" who had "taken on a role of leadership in the entire international community." Triumphant, Ceausescu brought home a joint communique in which the American president stated that his friendly relations with Ceausescu served "the cause of the world."

Three months later I was granted political asylum by the U.S. Ceausescu failed to get his Nobel Peace Prize. But in 1994 Arafat got his-all because he continued to play the role we had given him to perfection. He had transformed his terrorist PLO into a government-in-exile (the Palestinian Authority), always pretending to call a
halt to Palestinian terrorism while letting it continue unabated. Two years after signing the Oslo Accords, the number of Israelis killed by Pales tinian terrorists had risen by 73%.

On Oct. 23,1998, President Clinton concluded his public remarks to Arafat by thanking him for "decades and decades and decades of tireless representation of the longing of the Palestinian people to be free, self-sufficient, and at home." The current administration sees through Arafat's charade but will not publicly support his expulsion. Meanwhile, the aging terrorist has consolidated his control over the Palestinian Authority and marshaled his young followers for more suicide attacks.

Mr. Pacepa was the highest ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc. The author of "Red Horizons" (Regnery, 1987), he is finishing a book on the origins of current anti-Americanism.


It'll be interesting to see what he has to say about the european aspect of anti-americanism.

Europeans like to imagine that they're somehow more "civilized" and "sophisticated" than Americans, yet their snobbish belief in their own civility and sophistication (despite have produced two world wars all on their own and being the source of the third [and likely last] world war if it had happened) is actually a delusion fostered upon them by decades of Soviet disinformation and propaganda.

The more sophisticated a person believes themselves to be, the easier they are to dupe, as they ignore obvious evidence of deception in the self-delusional belief that they are "too smart" to be fooled.

What better way to instill discontent and dissention amoung the NATO allies (US and western europe) than to magnify the (very slight) differences between the two?

Worked wonders.

Germans protested against American PERSHING SRBM's being based in their country, the very same country that those nuetron-armed missiles were preventing Soviet armored brigades from invading.

Norway forbids US nuclear armed ships (almost all of them during the Cold War) from using their harbors, the same harbors the Soviets would control if not for the American fleets keeping them out.

"Funny thing the US needs millions of tons of nerve gas to "protect" itself."

Funny thing is that the US has NEVER had "millions of tons" of nerve gas. Millions of pounds, maybe, but tons? That's 2,000x more than pounds. Orders of magnitude of propaganda inflation.

Oh, and wasn't nerve gas a EUROPEAN invention, created during the war that THEY started? Yes, it was, wasn't it.

And where are these "millions of tons" of US nerve gas? Well, once correctly stated at thousands of tons, and all on US soil, and all of it more than 30 years old, in too decrepit of a condition to possibly be used, and none of it ever having been used in war, it's all being burned up or otherwise destroyed as fast as possible without enviromental impact, the enviroment that the euros claim to love so much. (Pick which two you want, as regards nerve gas destruction, quick/safe/eco-friendly, because you can't have all three.)

Odd thing for such a viciously tyrannical empiral power to do with such terribily effective "Weapons of Mass Distraction".

Europeans need to ask themselves if the world be a safer place with Iran and Iraq having nuclear weapons, or any arabs for that matter having nukes? How many nukes did the US set off on european soil in the 50+ years that there were litterally hundreds of US nukes there? NOT ONE!

If al-queda or whatever raghead group had one, how many would they set off in european or US territory? One.

If they had ten, how many? Ten.

If they had one hundred, how many? One hundred.

On and on it goes.

The US has only set off two nukes with intent to kill, and that to finish the war that the euros started, and we haven't used them since.

And the euros think that they somehow came up with all this "human rights" and "anti-nuke" stuff on their own, when the russians have been admitting for the last decade about how the Soviet-era regime was responsible for agitating and supporting these causes because it disrupted American preparedness, contributing to weaker defense of europe, and was just a general thorn in the side of Uncle Sam.

The Soviets are gone but, like landmines after the end of a war, the legacy of the Cold War continue to persist through the decades to come in the Soviet instilled belief that Americas goals are not europes too.

Rather than asking yourself if europe should stand against the US policy, ask if the Western nations (US, UK, W. europe) interests are best served by standing united against the interests of the eastern nations interests (arabia, africa, asia), and you'll see who stands best served by Americas actions.

Don't fool yourselves into thinking that the arabs were only after the US. ALL western nations are targets. Have been for years. Algerian (muslim) terrorists have been bombing the french cities for years, long before 9/11. Basque seperatists, the dutch. I feel confidant in stating the EVERY european country has some islamic-inspired terrorist/seperatist group running around in it, and have for years.

Etc, etc, etc.

Just keep fooling yourselves with your "we're too sophisticated and civilized" thinking and see where it leads when the Eiffel tower is collapsed from a truck bomb, or some other important landmark of your homeland disappears in a cloud of dust and smoke. You "civilized" bastards will be screaming for vengence and war too, not peace-keepers/referendeums/embargos/inspections/multi-lateral joint forces, and all the other useless UN garbage you've tried foisting on the US for decades.

Who will you be asking for help, to get revenge and to rebuild, after ragheads attack your country (as they inevitably will)? The US, as always. And, as always, we'll help you.

I also remember about how belgiums had "colonies" in the congo/zaire, and also massacred native populations there. So all this "genocide" and "human rights" crap sounds real odd coming from such inspirations of human rights.

In fact, most of the problems in africa and arabia could have been avoided, and the US uninvolved, if the greedy bastards of europe had stayed out of those regions and not divided up the tribal territories and whatnot along artifical lines, splitting native tribes along artificial lines of "nations", a concept completely alien to tribal societies, but imposed by the europeans upon their conquered subjects, then the vast majority of the wars we Americans have to deal with wouldn't have happened, or be anywhere near as bad as they were.

Because of european meddling, the US has to deal with the mess started by the euros in the last two centuries.

Two-faced hypocritical bitches, the lot of you are, will (as always) then pretend that we never helped you because it galls you eurotrash to imagine that "the colonists" have passed you by and that you're the global equivalent of withered old-hags who somehow still believe that they're the queens of the ball.

Yes, America will eventually collapse and reform into something else sooner or later, as has EVERY european country and empire, as all empires must. Tell us something new, not stale and old facts that everyone with half a brain knows, 'cause endless repetition of "America will fall!" doesn't hasten the day one wit.

Oh, and I also saw, in the same issue of the WSJ, an article about how the largest, and most profitable, food-retail chain (grocery store) in Belgium, Colruyt, was started by a Mr. Colruyt, using the information that was given to him by US business courses as part of the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of europe after the Second World War, the second world war that they, the euros themselves, had started.

Would this highly profitable business, ran on American capitalist principles, be paying a large amount of the taxes that subsidize the "wonderful" socialist health-care in belgium that you so love to brag about?

How many other Marshall Plan trained, financed, and enabled companies are finacing european snobbery and peace-nik'ing at this very moment?

Hmmm, hmmm???

Like I said, two-faced hypocritical bitches, the lot of you.

BTW, learn what "Unconditional Surrender" means.

It means that, without reservation/clause/condition on the losers part, that they completely surrender themselves to the mercy of the victor, to do with as they will.

[tmp]

NightStalker, most Americans are of European descent - myself included.
Interesting article on Arafat. The Soviets had their agents of influence
since the 1917 revolution. Clandestine operations have been carried
out by the CIA, KGB, etc. for years. There are no innocents here.
It's a matter of of the ideology you support.

[Arkangel]

Interesting bit of writing Nightstalker, and although I don't have time to do a full reply, there are a couple of things I'd like to mention.

Close friends of mine HAVE been terrorist targets in the past. Soldiers under my command HAVE been killed by terrorists, and this happened almost two decades before 9/11. So please don't start telling me or any of the other members of the forum that we don't know about terrorism and are too naiive or arrogant to understand it. Vicious, inhumane and unrelenting terrorism was a part of almost my entire life. Islamic terrorism has gained a great deal of momentum in the last few years and this due to a whole load of reasons, but don't be too quick to pin it all on Soviet agitation.

During the illustious years of "Reds Under The Beds", the US was just the same as the USSR. Two diametrically opposed ideologies going head to head. Mutually assured destruction meant that they never got to play in each other's back yard, but play they did, on every single continent (except Oz).

It's interesting, but not surprising to read that about Arafat, (and I do genuinely believe thngs would move on faster if he wasn't the head man there) but ultimately it's an irrelevance. Posting all you did ignores the fact that America fostered equally sinister Islamic organisations (stingers into Afghanistan) when it was expedient to do so, JUST the same as the Russia is now suffering from ISlamic terror now.

Millions of tons, millions of pounds, yes it IS a big difference, and as you say, the US stocks of BC weapons are not really first line any more, but the Nukes ARE, and there's a logical hypocrisy in what is being said about WMD's of all kind.

But here's the thing, Saddam had BC weapons? (I don't believe he had anything credible personally, and I DON'T think you're going to find much, ever) But so what? WHO was he threatening with them? He wasn't threatening you was he? Certainly not. Everyone knows he was as opposed to Islamic organisations as they were to him. He was promoting secularity until days before his capture, so WHY would he give them to Al Quaeda? He was always a local political player and never had global aspirations. If he had BCW's then it was to secure his regional position, not to threaten us.

I can't really explain where this quote comes from, but here it is:Trade sanctions on Iraq meant that transporting such WMD's to an external terrorist organisation would be so difficult and carry such a high risk of international opprobrium as to be unlikely in the extreme. There is a chance that Hussein could have supplied funds to Al Qaeda, but since they are sworn enemies of his secular regime, that too is a remote possibility. If the CIA or MI6 had any actual PROOF that such things were happening, you can be sure that the entire media resources of the Pentagon and MOD would let the world know this. As the Tokyo cult proved, you don't NEED Saddam to get Sarin, what you DO need is a motive.

To invade, Tony and Dubya made out that he was a clear and present danger, but they lied and we went to war.

For that they should fry, never mind be kicked out office.

Anyway, to put a stop to some of the other horseshit you're asking us to eat, namely:Algerian (muslim) terrorists have been bombing the french cities for years, long before 9/11. Basque seperatists, the dutch. I feel confidant in stating the EVERY european country has some islamic-inspired terrorist/seperatist group running around in it, and have for years. Dude, do you know ANYTHING about Europe?

ETA is an islamic organisation? I'm sorry mate, but you maybe haven't been to the Basque country, that is so fucking off the mark as to be unreal

Algerian terror comes from the fact that France occupied Algeria as part of it's empire. If the reds back Algerian terror then that's one thing, but the "terrorists" had a cause long before the October Revolution.

European countries had Islamic terror for years?

Ok dude, tell me which organisations........IRA, PIRA, RIRA, UVF, Red Hand Commando, Red Brigades, ETA, Baader Meinhof?????

In fact, tell me which terror organisations you know about in Europe or anywhere. Senderosa Luminosa, are they Islamic too? Mate, you need to do a bit more reading before you open your mouth.

I'm pretty sure that we had NO islamic terror (and before then I had access to relevant int) before 1985, other than Palestinian related stuff. Like I said, two-faced hypocritical bitches, the lot of you Don't shoot the messenger right?

The Marshall plan and any other altruistic effort (and let's face it Nightstalker, you haven't really contributed personally to ANYTHING like that, other than military aid and loan guarantees to Israel - the main aid the US gives by quite a margin)(Oh, and before you start lecturing about aid, EVERY European country currently gives a higher proportion of GDP as aid abroad than the US)is NOT a reason to roll over and agree with everything the US says.


Just to keep my unintentionally lengthy post on topic, get rid of Bush, he's a Christian Maniac

[tom haggen]

Ossasin, The President does not need the media to look like a fool. He is quite capable of accomplishing that on his own. Dont get me wrong, I'm glad were over fighting the rag heads right now. I could give a fuck less what all the hippies and frecnhies think. But our president needs to be replaced. All one needs to do is listen to the man speak and you get an impression that the man has a third grade reading level. I don't need the media to spoon feed me my opions about the stupid fucking president. Nightstalker, I somewhat agree with your opion on the rest of the world. I espeically liked the part when you were talking about how the europeans love the environment so much. About 85% of the illegal drug mdma is imported to the U.S. A great deal of that drug is shipped in from Europe. From what I have herd it is not uncommon for the toxic waste which is a biproduct of the manufacturing process, to be dumped in the forests of Western Europe.

[akinrog]

Friends,

First of all, I would like to make it clear I am not an antisemitic (sp?) although I am living a moslem country and having moslem origin though I don't practice any moslem worshipping sermons prayers, etc. and simply do not like Moslem life. I have some judaist (since the term "jew" in my country is taken as a rude term) friends and they are good enough.

But I would like to share some of the information I obtained from local media.
Howewer, First of all I would like to state that no matter who is in power in USA (democrats or republicans (sp?)), IMHO US always supported, financed and be governed by Judaists. First think who operates CNN? What is the origin of CEO of CNN. Is he a Moslem? a Christian? Hell no!...
In addition, I think nobody takes into consideration that there are many freemasonic organizations throughout the world!... In addition, one does not have to be a Judaist to support Jewish purposes and goals. It is sufficient to be a member of freemasonic organization (hereinafter referred to as "FM") to do that.

In local media, it was stated that GWB is a member of Skull and Bones Society (I don't know how this kind of organizations is originally called), which is a FMic organization. In the news it was stated that grand grand father of GWB who was a texas senator, desecrated (sp? since I am heavily boozing) the tomb of Geronimo an Indian chief and stole his skull and kept it in a secret place of Skull and Bones Society. And in the news article, American natives launched a lawsuit to recover the skull of poor Geronimo and this case still continues, although sometimes interrupted and resurrected again. (I cannot verify genuinity of this information since I don't live in US, but the newspaper which published this is a reliable one.)

I don't want to act like a smartass since smartasses are not liked and favored by forume members as far as I know. But for those who is not aware of what a freemason is, I would like to make some explanations regarding freemasons as far as I can (and I know). Freemasons are legal (and in some countries illegal) organizations which have very similarities with Judaist religion. I mentions about reestablishment of Solomon's Temple etc. I may be ignorant about this issue, but everybody I know (and this is the same for several nations, I believe) connects FMic organizations with Judaism.

So if GWB is a freemason so it is very natural and logical to believe that he is acting for Judaist interests. And if it is so, what if he is an Aryan or not?
And I would like to make an expression so contraversial that shall probably cause Nazis (especially NBK) to fry my ass. :D In my opinion, even Nazis served to the purposes of Jews. Let me tell you how:

While they are exterminating the minor jews (i.e. poor) in Europe, majory of the major jews (who have money and power) escaped Europe and money of these rich Jews stayed (deposited ?) in Swiss banks and our good fellow Adolph never attempted to invade and plunder this good country which holds all dirty money of the world without heeding any nationality and political wing (which in essence is very disgusting) seems very suspicious for me. Do you believe that any powerfull person like Adolph may leave such a (relatively) small country uninvaded while he invades its fellow country Austria? Anyway back to how Nazis served for the purposes of the Jews. When they were exterminating poor and non-influental jews, this became a legend for Judaist clique, although many races, many people and many societies were literally raped, extorted (especially of their land like many natives of some countries), enslaved (like Afro-American people and Haiti people), plundered, executed, the only people whose massacre, persecution and difficulties are remembered, reminded and imposed upon on the world opinion are Jews. IMHO, Nazis served to create an edifice for remembrance of jewish agony. I don't want to say it is good to kill Jews or any people but IMHO this is the case with Jews and Nazis.

So I am realy sick of people (no matter Aryan, Moslem, Judaist or Christian) stating that GWB is a good leader who does everything right. First of all, let's look what OBL does and what GWB does. Since I am living in a moslem country, I know very well how efficient, how skillful and how powerful the Moslem community of the world (at least in my region Middle East). Although Moslem people are proud of their strong and truthfull religion, they are always in need of Western help, western technology, western money, western philosophy to make a living for themselves. Given the current state of Moslem world (i.e. capable of doing nothing beyond ordinary terrorist acts!, no scientific improvements, no inventions, no economy other than selling natural resources and nothing at all) do you believe that if I was a genuine and faithful (as well as a smart) Moslem, I should draw wrath of industrialized countries by blowing twin towers of USA? Of course I should not!... IMHO, OBL is a traitor of his religion trying to create excuses for the Cap.Sup. to do anything it deems fit.

And now back to what GWB does. Now assume that I was hit by a villain which is known to me very well and I can simply squash /topple. What should I do? Do I have to create a global conflict and hit the areas which are geopolically important and rich in natural resources, thereby drawing hatred and fear of other democratic nations due to dread I created. (If I do such actions, I am pretty sure taken as a power hungry bastard and son of adultery whose actual aim is not to retailiate of the wrong I am suffering but to attain my imperialist goals by taking hold of oil reserves, and any natural resources which are economically exploitable). No I would not do that. Instead, I shall follow this bastard and sooner or later get a hold on him and simply try him and execute by having him sit on a sharp stake to cause him unique agony which is far beyond the imagination.)
My dear friends!... Are you not aware that you are trying to kill a small fly landed on the face of an innocent man (World) with ballistic missile? Of course this is a foolproof method of killing a fly. ;) which any fool can achieve. But assume that what if such innocent man escapes dying. Do you think he will simply say "good work my friend. It is very goodness of you to kill the fly now let's go on like old friends". Of course not. I am very symphatitizing with the anger of European friends towards GWB. Because current actions of GWB's government destroyed those balances which have been established during several years. I shall serious doubts regarding IQ level and ubiasedness of anybody who fails to see this.

In addition, I would like to add something about the gal sucking c*ck of president BC. Do you know she is also a judaist?

I don't want to and recommend any body to assume "let's hate US and jews attitude". But do you also know that only country which develops WMD (thermonuclear weapons installed on long range ballistic missiles) and is not checked by international atomic energy institution (or what the hell it is called) and simply overlooked by US is Israel? If you search internet, you may find many articles describing that Israel established a breeding reactor in a desert (whose name I cannot recall) and producing weapon grade plutonium and some heavy water facilities!..

I am strongly of the opinion that GWB (his successors and predessors) OBL are close and lovely associates (gay lovers????) to make the Cap.Sup. a dominant power to plunder, extort, thieve and exploit world resources. While Cap.Sup. pretending to search for OBL, I am pretty well sure that OBL (and his associates) are living in a luxurious villas which are provided by and who are given pretty petite girls by pimping intelligence officers of Cap.Sup. And I would also like to add that if I am entirely false in my statements or something like that, it is very dangerouse to say, as one of the forum members stated, that "we may bully the world since we can". So the terrorists may say "we may blow your towers since we can, we may send you letters doped with biological agents since we can. We can kill GI Joes (which have no direct guilt in the events) and send them to their homeland in a coffin, since we can", etc. What about this argument? This type of attitude is entirely nonsense and dangerous not only for us poor third world countries but also ordinary US citizens, since not fat assed megacorps' sons go fighting but you do!... I know many mafia mobsters who are very fierce in their actions since they are right wing actors and thereby favored by law enforcement in my country, who are killed by small chiledren who are unexpected to do such things. Similarly, over the course of time you may become weaker and some small child may kill (collapse) you.

As an epilogue, I would like to say that IMHO your minds are really deceived (sodomized?) by mass media of your country. Everyday, we hear a car blast or military convoy blast with an improvised mine which kills many colloborator Iraqis and a few GI Joes in Iraq. And what I see from your posts, you are completely unaware of these guerilla events. Some of the members stated that US lost 500 GI Joes during the war, which to the best of my knowledge is entirely false, since Iraqi resistence (tries to) kill(s) first colloborators and if possible the GI Joes everyday (which in humanitarian point of view is very bad). But how to verify this? And again I would like to add that any ordinary US citizen is not guilty regarding the extremist actions of current government, although I see supporting attitudes of some forum members. So please stop GWB!....

[vulture]

The more sophisticated a person believes themselves to be, the easier they are to dupe, as they ignore obvious evidence of deception in the self-delusional belief that they are "too smart" to be fooled.


Who's being the hypocrit here now? The US ignored the rest of the world for several years because they had everything bigger and better. Until 9/11 hit them in the face and they suddenly had to act. They didn't know a fuck about the rest of the world, but they just had to go and destroy something to satisfy themselves. Now that's delusional.

Germans protested against American PERSHING SRBM's being based in their country, the very same country that those nuetron-armed missiles were preventing Soviet armored brigades from invading.

That is a load of crap. The soviets would have to cross the border before those nukes could be used. The neutron bombs to kill the tank crews would explode above germany itself! It was not the interest of the US to protect Germany, the interest was to use Germany as a battle field buffer to slow them down.

Funny thing is that the US has NEVER had "millions of tons" of nerve gas. Millions of pounds, maybe, but tons? That's 2,000x more than pounds. Orders of magnitude of propaganda inflation.


I remember the US claiming for years that Iraq had millions of pounds of VX. Given that everything is bigger in the US, I assumed they would atleast have millions of tons.
Anyways, it doesn't matter shit, because you have enough WMDs to kill the worlds population several times.

FYI, the sovjet empire is gone. If you're still believing that McCarthy crap of communists under the bed....:rolleyes:

Don't fool yourselves into thinking that the arabs were only after the US. ALL western nations are targets. Have been for years. Algerian (muslim) terrorists have been bombing the french cities for years, long before 9/11. Basque seperatists, the dutch. I feel confidant in stating the EVERY european country has some islamic-inspired terrorist/seperatist group running around in it, and have for years.


You keep bitchin how full we are of ourselves, but this clearly demonstrates the "we know it all" attitude in the US. What's even more funny is that you don't know shit about Europe.

The dutch? Islamic terrorists? Please stop before I laugh my ass off. The algerians bombed french cities because they weren't happy of what France was doing to Algeria. Once the French gave it up, no terrorist attacks happened anymore.

Stop provoking and terrorism stops. We've learned the lesson...:rolleyes:

The real fact is that you don't want to face the fact that you've demanded terrorism by taking on such a arrogant and aggressive attitude to the rest of the world.

If al-queda or whatever raghead group had one, how many would they set off in european or US territory? One.

If they had ten, how many? Ten.

If they had one hundred, how many? One hundred.


You're contradicting yourself. According to you, Saddam had tons of WMDs and gave them to Al-Queda. Following your reasoning, Europe and the US would be a smoking crater by now.

Because of european meddling, the US has to deal with the mess started by the euros in the last two centuries.


Oh really? So we gave the weapons to the Afghans? And we supplied Saddam with JT Baker chemicals for VX?

The US is not intervening in Africa. There's no oil over there.

I also remember about how belgiums had "colonies" in the congo/zaire, and also massacred native populations there. So all this "genocide" and "human rights" crap sounds real odd coming from such inspirations of human rights.

That was more than a century ago and I wouldn't be supporting it if I lived then.
But you actively support the US policy at the moment and the atrocities that are commited because of it.

To summarize your post: You're typing nothing but false information and every paragraph of that is interrupted by a paragraph of bitching and namecalling. Great post.

EDIT:

Oh, and wasn't nerve gas a EUROPEAN invention, created during the war that THEY started? Yes, it was, wasn't it.


Nerve gas was invented in the mid thirties. It hasn't been used in WWII. However, once the US found out about it, they snagged the scientists away and ordered them to mass produce it in the US...:rolleyes:

Another geography lesson for you: Europe is not the same as Germany. It was Nazi germany that started the war.

I've been saying it over and over again: We fought a devastating war on our OWN SOIL and saw how much useless suffering it caused. You're screaming in your cosy chair behind your PC screen that Iraq should be bombed. Very courageous.

[Skean Dhu]

I think the US needs to have a revolution and get things back to they way they used to be politically(post American revolution back before there where 'parties'). Everything has become too 'political' and concerned with money . It costs millions to run for president and people wonder why the candidates are so corrupt? their biggest campaing contributers are pharmeseudical, TV , magazine/newpaper, petrolium , software and technology(ie; microsoft) companies and Universities.

Also the US media giants who fund senators, represenatives, and presidential candidates managed to get a law changed so that they can own TV/radio stations and newspaper companies that reach up to 39% of the US population it was supposed to be 35% but as usual 'He who has the gold makes the rules'. Now you may say 'Oh thats only an additional 4% but that extra 4% turns out to be 11,691,498 extra people(lowest predicted pop~292,287,454). Our country has become too conerned with money and serving their own ends rather than giving the truth and serving the people that put them in office.

I was watching a news show(McNeal news hour if memory serves) the other night and one of the people being interviewed was talking about how some presidential candidate or another was just now 'beginning to play politics' and that statement pissed me off immensely, you're trying to run a country not play a fucking board game for Gods sake.

[MrSamosa]

George W. Bush is a sick man, a paranoid schizophrenic. He sees Weapons of Mass Destruction where there are none and dreams up mystical transactions between terrorists and state powers. He should be stopped before he destroys another country, like Iran. There are no nuclear weapons in Iran, just like there are no WMDs in Iraq. George Bush should not be President, and he should take medicine for his mental illness.

[tom haggen]

My dad always used to say that the next great war will be fought on american soil. Also anyone with an IQ over 85 should realize that bush is a poor choice for president.

[ossassin]

Tom and MrSamosa, when you insult our president, you insult me. The WMD's were an excuse to the world. The Americans knew it wasn't true. We didn't care. It's called politics, bud.

I agree with Skean Dhu and tom haggen when they say that America should and possibly will go through a sort-of revolution. Modern parties in and of themselves are not bad. The Republicans want things to be the way they used to be, and the Liberals want to change things even more. I'm guessing that you're both Republicans. :)

When you think about it, the Liberals are the meek, anti-gun people. A war against them shouldn't be too hard. All we need is a charistmatic leader.

Nightstalker, all western nations are not targets. The Arabs are not animals just looking for people to kill. They hate the US, because the US supports Isreal. The Isrealis are the real terrorists here. When one Palistinian blows up a building and kills three civilians, they respond buy mowing down a hundred Palistinians in the streets. The suicide bombs seem to be the only way that the Palistinians can fight back. (In case you're wondering, no, I'm not an Arab.)

[knowledgehungry]

[paranoid raving}Kerry the democratic frontrunner is a member of the skull and bones society too Akinrog. As was Clinton and GB sr. America has always been run by them. Bush or Kerry the US is still in the same hands...{/ paranoid raving}

[MrSamosa]

I, too am an American and a Conservative, ossassin. I used to consider myself a Republican, but the Republicans have veered onto some extremist path, and that's not the path I want to be on. I'm a moderate, small-government, leave-the-people-alone Conservative. The United States does not need Revolution, just some moderation. I'm very happy that the US can say that each transfer of power in its history has been peaceful. Guns and explosions are fun, but there are better answers to our problems.

However, one thing I truly can't stand is a leader who lies to the people . I hate being lied to, by Clinton, by Nixon, by Bush, by whoever. If it's about the President getting a BJ in the "Oral Office," that pisses me off and I lose respect for the man... But when these lies lead to the deaths of thousands of people-- American or Foreign-- this is completely unacceptable. It's not just morally wrong, it borders on criminal. As Baghdad Bob said, "They are the superpower of Al Capone," and that's just how he is acting. (The sick thing is, our buddy the Iraqi Information Minister said his statements would make sense over time...and he is starting to sound bloody prophetic!)

The fact is, Bush STILL isn't coming clean about his reasons for war. We all know it wasn't about liberation, and I dare not jump to the conclusion it was over oil. But if it was for some great, noble cause, why would Bush throw out the lie of WMDs?? If he really had a noble cause, wouldn't he gain more support by using THAT as the primary justification for war? Dubya is acting like a little kid with a dirty secret...and a leader that can't be trusted should not be reelected.

[ossassin]

MrSamosa, I don't know where you got your info on America's history, but its only changes in power have been violent ones. We haven't had a change in government since the Revolutionary War. Our only real attempt at one was the Civil War.

Who the hell is Baghdad Bob? I can tell you why we went to war.

1. The Jews forced us to do it.
2. We want to have a little security as far as oil is concerned.
3. The Jews forced us to do it.

He is lying to the rest of the world, because he can't tell the truth. The Jews always manage to have some leverage over the president. I'm not sure how they do it, but ever since Isreal was created, they have. If he told the world that he had no choice, because the Jews were threatening him, it wouldn't turn out well. Don't forget that the Jews have a virtual monopoly on the American media.

Also, I understand why you don't like him and don't want to vote for him. Think about the alternatives, though. Do you really want Kerry or Dean instead of Bush? Think about what you're saying! Things would only get worse.

[knowledgehungry]

We all know how easy it is for someone to make Chem weapons with a reasonable lab, hell I'm sure some of us have done it with the good old mayannoise jars, the fact that we didnt find Chem weapons or Nukes doesn't mean Saddam wasn't a threat. We found illegal missiles that can carry WMD's, which are harder to get/make then the WMD themselves.
Ossassin: Mr. Samosa was talking about when we get a new president, however IMHO the real power never changes.

[Arkangel]

doesn't mean Saddam wasn't a threat Threat to WHO exactly?

And hadn't UNMOVIC already discovered and was in the process of getting rid of those when GWB ordered his boot boys in?

In case you were struggling with the answer, it's "yes".

Nightstalker

From Vince Cannistraro:

Intelligence from defectors often appears fraudulent, in many cases was fabricated and the most benign interpretation was that it was just flat wrong Who's Vince? Former head of counter terrorism at the CIA.

We went to war because the Iraqi defectors your spooks were grooming (e.g. Mr al Haidari) told them lies - and you say that WE are gullible. Maybe you're arrogant enough yourselves to be taken in. Could that be??????

Surely not.

And it doesn't destroy everything about Arafat in your previos post, but it DOES mean that you have to take it with a pinch of salt.

A man hear's what he wants to hear and he disregards the restSimon & Garfunkel

[vulture]

We all know how easy it is for someone to make Chem weapons with a reasonable lab, hell I'm sure some of us have done it with the good old mayannoise jars, the fact that we didnt find Chem weapons or Nukes doesn't mean Saddam wasn't a threat.

According to that philosophy, EVERY nation is a threat. Now that's paranoid thinking.

Well, we can't say for sure how Dean and Kerry would be as president, but one sure thing is that the speeches will no longer be accompanied by 20 monkey face shots.

The thing that really pisses me off about Bush is how he treats his audience: As a teacher talking to kindergartners who are going to have their first potty training.

[ossassin]

Well, we can't say for sure how Dean and Kerry would be as president, but one sure thing is that the speeches will no longer be accompanied by 20 monkey face shots.

You're right. Instead, they will be accompanied by high-pitched war cries.

Don't forget that when Bush talks like that, he's usually talking to congress, half of whom are democrats. Since they don't want to hear about his ideas, he has to explain them slowly...

[Arkangel]

To be fair, they're probably not his ideas anyway...........;)

[vulture]

Scrap that, Deans speeching would be ended by him hyperventilating and drowning the microphone with saliva. Atleast that's the impression he's giving me.

Kerry seems OK. Although he's an old fox, so you never really know what he's up to.
Clark, well, he focuses to much on the military aspect of things. He has some good ideas, but he's more a military man than a politician.

[MrSamosa]

Baghdad Bob/Comical Ali = Former Iraqi Information Minister. Remember him? "We are winning!" "We made the Americans drink poison last night!" <while a battle is clearly heard in the background> "American forces are nowhere NEAR Baghdad."

[EP]

Originally posted by ossassin
Tom and MrSamosa, when you insult our president, you insult me. The WMD's were an excuse to the world. The Americans knew it wasn't true. We didn't care. It's called politics, bud.


If you read the polls around before and during the beginning of the war, many americans DID believe Iraq had WMDs. The politicians who wanted the war knew it wasn't true, but the lied to the american people and the world.

And your belief that jews run everything is just ridiculous paranoia...

I'll vote for whoever has the best chance of beating Bush, although my first choice is Kucinich (who is too committed to real change to win).

[tom haggen]

I never said anything about WMD's Ossassin. Like I said I'm glad were over there bombing those rag heads. Guess i'm just a sick fuck. What I was trying to point out is Bush the man with access to "The Button" is a buffoon.

[Arkangel]

I was under the impression that currently you're over there BEING bombed by them.

I don't know how many of them (rag heads/terrorists/civs) you're killing a week, but for the money being spent on it they are certainly better value than the US at the moment.

[NightStalker]

NightStalker, most Americans are of European descent...


No shit, really? I didn't know that...:rolleyes: I guess I must have slept through class when they talked about how an italian sailed here in the 1500's looking for india (and likely vikings before that), and how British protestants came here in the 1600's, and all the rest, huh?

These were the people who left europe because they got sick of the TIRED AND STIFFLED OLD WAYS of the EUROPEAN nobility that ran the continent and didn't want anything to change...ever!

Americans are well known for being rebellious and for going against the european herd. :)

Of course the US ran intelligence ops. A shocking revelation, to be sure.

And, naturally, it was oppossed to the Soviets. Yet more shocking revelations on your part. How will I ever cope with such shocks to my system?!

But, unlike the communists, ours worked in the end. It doesn't matter how many battles you fight (and maybe lose) as long as you win in the end.


Islamic terrorism has gained a great deal of momentum in the last few years and this due to a whole load of reasons, but don't be too quick to pin it all on Soviet agitation.


I didn't say it was all the Soviets fault, or even partially, just that the communists had a lot of reason for agitating the muslims against the west. Who supplied the arabs (Egypt, chad, libya, iran, etc) with arms and training for decades?


as you say, the US stocks of BC weapons are not really first line any more, but the Nukes ARE, and there's a logical hypocrisy in what is being said about WMD's of all kind.


Nukes haven't been used in a war by ANYONE in 50+ years. Chem/bio has been used by SEVERAL countries (none of them the US) in wars, hundreds of times, in the same time period.

Iran, Iraq, Libya, Vietnam, China, and others.


Algerian terror comes from the fact that France occupied Algeria as part of it's empire. If the reds back Algerian terror then that's one thing, but the "terrorists" had a cause long before the October Revolution.

European countries had Islamic terror for years?


Are the algerians who were blowing things up muslim, or christian? Huh?

NEXT!

To quote myself:


I feel confidant in stating the EVERY european country has some islamic-inspired terrorist/seperatist group running around in it, and have for years.


"Running around in it" is NOT the same as "Blowing shit up in it", now is it? If you assumed that's what I meant, that's your mistake, not mine. How many terrorist groups are "running around" in europe, using it as a source of income (legal or not)/safe haven/staging area for their operations elsewhere in the world?

How many european mosques are used as recruiting stations for muslim terrorist organizations? Wasn't there a major raid on several of them in Germany just recently? Oh, and wasn't the "shoe bomber" recruited from a British mosque? Hmmmm....unless Britian isn't a european country, under your definition of "european".


I'm pretty sure that we had NO islamic terror (and before then I had access to relevant int) before 1985, other than Palestinian related stuff.


"...other than Palestinian related stuff". Aren't the pal's muslim? Why yes, they are. So, if there's even ONE muslim terrorist group operating in your country, then my statement is correct, isn't it? Yes, it is. :p

Akinrog, I believe it's been stated elsewhere that Monica Lewinsky was a jew.


...I am pretty well sure that OBL (and his associates) are living in a luxurious villas which are provided by and who are given pretty petite girls by pimping intelligence officers of Cap.Sup.


CIA is "Big Pimping"?! Freemasons have Geronimo's skull?! Wow...that's some pretty arcane (and wacky) shit you're delving into there...:eek:

From your posting about "hearing explosions of roadside bombs killing GI Joes", that would seem to imply that you are in Iraq, correct? In which case, let's pose this question to you:

Under Saddam Hussein's rule, would you have been permitted to be a member of an Explosive and Weapons Forum, or access the internet at all?

If the answer is no, then what changed that allowed you to do so? US intervention, perhaps?

If yes, then why haven't you posted here before? Afraid of getting a knock on the door in the middle of the night followed by a bullet in the head?

NEXT!


The more sophisticated a person believes themselves to be, the easier they are to dupe, as they ignore obvious evidence of deception in the self-delusional belief that they are "too smart" to be fooled.

Who's being the hypocrit here now? The US ignored the rest of the world for several years because they had everything bigger and better. Until 9/11 hit them in the face and they suddenly had to act. They didn't know a fuck about the rest of the world, but they just had to go and destroy something to satisfy themselves. Now that's delusional.


The US didn't get itself tangled up in the problems of the rest of the world for the very reason you stated...we had it bigger and better...why would we want to get ourselves entangled in other peoples problems?

When those people MAKE IT OUR PROBLEM by flying planes into our buildings, then what's wrong with punishing them for it? Are you saying the euros would send aid packages to al-queda (or whoever) to alleviate the human suffering and economic depression that drove them to such desperate acts? Ohhhhh pleasssse! That is the delusion. You'd bomb and kill and invade if you could.

Japs bomb Pearl Harbor, they make themselves our problem. Ragheads fly planes into WTC, they make themselves our problem.

What other countries never seem to learn is that the US tends to solve it's foreign relation problems with bombs....lots and lots of bombs...nuclear bombs if need be...not words.

Law of Power: "Win through actions, not words".

Euros like to talk a lot of useless shit, then resort to (meager and pitiful) force in the end anyways, when they manage to work up the spine to use it.

America is a lot like NBK.

You might get 1 warning (likely not) but, regardless, you're in for a hurting right promptly if you piss him off, and he doesn't argue with the ban'ee-to-be about it or ask anyone else what they think about the matter, he just DOES IT. (Unilateral Action, I believe it's called).

Works here from what I've seen. Seems to work in the "real" world as well.


Germans protested against American PERSHING SRBM's being based in their country, the very same country that those nuetron-armed missiles were preventing Soviet armored brigades from invading.

That is a load of crap. The soviets would have to cross the border before those nukes could be used. The neutron bombs to kill the tank crews would explode above germany itself! It was not the interest of the US to protect Germany, the interest was to use Germany as a battle field buffer to slow them down.


You prove me right with your own words!

The Soviets would have to cross the border before the PERSHING's would have been used. The ONLY reason the Soviets armored brigades would be crossing the borders would be to INVADE! But they never DID invade, did they? Could it be BECAUSE of the missiles being there to kill them if they did? No, it couldn't be that!

Now, if they were INVADING, the PESHING's would have been used, and that would mean some of them (not all) would be exploding over Germany. An unavoidable consequence. Plenty more of them would have been exploding in the sov's staging areas, in their half, not W. Germany, or did you forget about how germany was in two parts for 50 years?

But why use neutron-bombs, when H-bombs would be much more effective in destroying the Soviet forces, as regards number of missles per brigade?

For the very reason that the missles WOULD be fired over Germany. That's why the US was using ERW's (Enhanced Radiaton Warheads) in the first place, to spare the Germans from the devasting blast and fallout effects of using conventional nuclear weapons.

The nuetrons would kill the tank crews, without obliterating the country, nor showering long lived fallout everywhere. Neutrons-bombs kill people by radiation far more effectively (per KT yield) than the blast effects from conventional nukes.

Though I'm quite confidant you'll find some "evil" reason for the US to have used nuetron-bombs instead of conventional weapons.


Stop provoking and terrorism stops. We've learned the lesson...


In other words, appease the terrorists by craveningly caveing to their demands and grabbing your ankles like little punks so they can sodomize you?

That's the reason why euro's are no longer leaders of the world. You can't be a leader by submitting to a "bubba'ing" by pissant ragheads, or anyone else, for that matter.

Act like punks, be treated like punks.


You're contradicting yourself. According to you, Saddam had tons of WMDs and gave them to Al-Queda. Following your reasoning, Europe and the US would be a smoking crater by now.


Please point out ANYWHERE where I said that "Saddam had tons of WMDs and gave the to Al-Queda."

I WAS saying that IF they (Al-Queda) or other ragheads DID have nukes, that'd they have used them. And that the more they had, the more they'd use.

Your attempt to equate possession ("Anyways, it doesn't matter shit, because you have enough WMDs to kill the worlds population several times.") of Nukes by the US with possession of NBC weapons by other countries, and saying that possession of same-said weapons by countries that have been using such weapons in their incessant wars, with a country that has had MANY TIMES more of same said weapons but that HASN'T used them ONCE in 50+ years is, to me at least, rather absurd.

That's like saying that giving a gun by a delusional jabbering nut who want's to kill all his neighbors, and would have shot his neighbors years ago, is OK because the police, who haven't used their guns in 50 years, despite having to deal with said jabbering nut, have guns too.

Like it or not, America IS the "police" of the world, and we do it well. If we have to beat someone senseless to get them to behave...so be it. At least we haven't "shot" them with our nuclear "gun", which you KNOW you couldn't say about them.


Nerve gas was invented in the mid thirties. It hasn't been used in WWII. However, once the US found out about it, they snagged the scientists away and ordered them to mass produce it in the US...


Invented in the '30s by a EURO? Yes, a German in fact, though you neatly sidestepped my original statement, even though your words agree with mine.

And, once we found out about nerve agents, we did snatch up the chemists, along with every other european country that could get their hands on one, including the "evil" boogi-men...the (european) Soviets.

The euros didn't stop killing each other in incessant wars since time immemorial till the US stopped all that non-sense by being the worlds cop.

There's a saying that history repeats itself because fools never learn.


We fought a devastating war on our OWN SOIL and saw how much useless suffering it caused.


You're using the singular terms "a" and "war", when you should be using the plural "two" and "world wars", but that's only if you are referring to the TWO WORLD WARS that the euros started, and not any of the previous jaunts, like the 30 years war, or the Hundred years war, or the Franco-Prussian war (version 1, 2, 3, ....), or any of the rest.

One world war wasn't enough for the euros, so they had another go at it. :p Fortunately we intervened before you guys could have YET ANOTHER go at it.

Isn't Russia considered a EUROPEAN country? I do believe it is. Eastern european, but still euro. Unless you want to get racist and call them slavs, or get geopolitically incorrect and call them asiatic.


Another geography lesson for you: Europe is not the same as Germany. It was Nazi germany that started the war.


And since when is Germany (Nazi or otherwise) NOT a part of europe? Is it part of africa? No? Asia, perhaps? No, not that either? Ah, must be latin america then? Hmmm...no...not that either. So it must be a part of Antarctica! That's the ticket! Poit!

And you talk about me about needing geography lessons?! BWAHAHAHAHAAA!


FYI, the sovjet empire is gone. If you're still believing that McCarthy crap of communists under the bed....


Hiding under the bed doesn't make the "bad man" go away, either, nor the fact that the Sovjets (:D) had a lot to do with shaping current euro thinking towards America.

FYI, you OBVIOUSLY overlooked "The Soviets are gone..." in my earlier post. Or are you justing parroting me? Tsk, tsk, and here I was expecting some real discussion and not simple parroting.


The US is not intervening in Africa. There's no oil over there.
[/quote

Somalia, Liberia, Rowanda (SP?), South African embargo during Apartheid, etc? Oh, wait, I forgot your geographic dyslexia...those are all CANADIAN COUNTRIES! :p

"Very courageous" of you to sit behind your PC, under the protection of US-led and nuclear-armed NATO, and bitch about how terrible the US is for having such things, while hundreds of American soldiers (NOT Belgiums) are dying (literally) to root out the vermin who'd just as soon see YOUR country turned into an islamic "paradise", where such things as the internet wouldn't exist, nor electricity, or other such tools of Satan.

[quote]
To summarize your post: You're typing nothing but false information and every paragraph of that is interrupted by a paragraph of bitching and namecalling. Great post.


I may have made a few mistakes, I'll have to check, but nothing deliberately "false". And how is YOUR post any better than mine with virtually EVERY (not every other) paragraph of yours being a slam against the US? That makes you TWICE as "bitching and namecalling" as I.

:p

Heheheee, I just love this!


Oh, and before you start lecturing about aid, EVERY European country currently gives a higher proportion of GDP as aid abroad than the US


And your point? You don't have one, because the US (NOT counting aid to Israel), gives several times the aid of EVERY EUROPEAN NATION COMBINED! If our % as relates to our GDP isn't as high as yours, it's because our guilt isn't as high.

Why did the (muslim) algerians bomb the french? Because they "colonized" them for decades? Why did the IRA (not muslim, duh!) terrorize the brits? Because the brits invaded and occupied ireland?

LOGICAL FALLACY ALERT!
Oh, and as relates to the congo and the Belgians, how can you (vulture) stated that "That was more than a century ago and I wouldn't be supporting it if I lived then."
ALL CLEAR!

How do you know this? Have you contacted a parallel "you" that existed during that time frame through some trans-temporal wormhole and asked yourself your opinion about this topic?

Your belief system and everything that you are NOW (mentally) is a product of your times. If you were raised then, you'd likely (though no guarantees, naturally) have thought as the belgians of that time would have thought about "colonies".

Since you're time-warping around, try trans-locating yourself to America as an infant (however manys years ago you were born) and be raised here and then consult yourself about what's right and wrong with the world today.

Or would you still be the same ol' vulture, regardless of time and space, cultural mores, societal influences, media exposure, personal interaction, etc., etc.?

That's like saying that, if I lived in Nazi Germany, I'd have been for the extermination of the Jews. I could just as easily have been hiding them in my attic. Saying that I'd do one thing or another in a different time, unless I "time traveled" my current self into that era, is ludicrous and shows serious flaws with your logical thought processes, and throws into question (serious question) everthing else you've said.

I've also noticed this tendency you (vulture) have to using the "rolleyes" icon in almost every post you make recently. Is this an indication of snotty euro disdain, perhaps?

[vulture]

When those people MAKE IT OUR PROBLEM by flying planes into our buildings, then what's wrong with punishing them for it? Are you saying the euros would send aid packages to al-queda (or whoever) to alleviate the human suffering and economic depression that drove them to such desperate acts? Ohhhhh pleasssse! That is the delusion. You'd bomb and kill and invade if you could.


You're still not getting it. Bushs foreign policy and the arrogant attitude of the US versus muslem countries provoked 9/11. They didn't just fly those planes into those buildings because they liked to.

These were the people who left europe because they got sick of the TIRED AND STIFFLED OLD WAYS of the EUROPEAN nobility that ran the continent and didn't want anything to change...ever!

Boohoo, you're using the Rumsfeld Argument! Old Europe....funny thing that most Europeans are much more progressive than the average american. The very archaic "God bless America" for example, never heard of the MODERN separation of Church and state?

Chem/bio has been used by SEVERAL countries (none of them the US) in wars, hundreds of times, in the same time period.

Iran, Iraq, Libya, Vietnam, China, and others.


Hello, Vietnam? Agent Orange? Does that ring a bell?

Ofcourse, napalm isn't WMD, but it isn't very clean either.

Are the algerians who were blowing things up muslim, or christian? Huh?

NEXT!


That's the typical arrogant viewpoint the US would use. They weren't bombing france BECAUSE they were muslem, they were bombing france because they were being oppressed.

How many european mosques are used as recruiting stations for muslim terrorist organizations? Wasn't there a major raid on several of them in Germany just recently? Oh, and wasn't the "shoe bomber" recruited from a British mosque? Hmmmm....unless Britian isn't a european country, under your definition of "european".

Next thing you're going to say is that we, the euros, talked the muslems into committing terrorism against the US. :rolleyes: (FYI, rolleyes = ironic in case you hadn't figured that out yet)

Britain is de facto the 52nd state of the US. They don't use the €, Blair has a rope around his neck that goes all the way to the white house and they drive on the left side of the road.

"...other than Palestinian related stuff". Aren't the pal's muslim? Why yes, they are. So, if there's even ONE muslim terrorist group operating in your country, then my statement is correct, isn't it? Yes, it is.

Again something illustrating how ill informed you are. The palestinians are committing terroristic acts against Israel because they were and are being oppressed by the Jews.

In fact, your assumption that muslems are just terrorists because they are muslems is a thing that dates back to the time of the crusades. And then you lecture me about OLD europe and learning from your past.:rolleyes:

What other countries never seem to learn is that the US tends to solve it's foreign relation problems with bombs....lots and lots of bombs...nuclear bombs if need be...not words.

Intent to use WMDs was the reason to invade Iraq. What are you showing here? Correct, intent to use WMDs.

For the very reason that the missles WOULD be fired over Germany. That's why the US was using ERW's (Enhanced Radiaton Warheads) in the first place, to spare the Germans from the devasting blast and fallout effects of using conventional nuclear weapons.

I guess your view of the world includes that every other country but the US is very scarcely populated because they're so retarded and stuck in the past. Let me tell you something, detonating neutron bombs where to Soviets would invade would kill millions of citizens in big cities like Leipzig and Berlin.

Euros like to talk a lot of useless shit, then resort to (meager and pitiful) force in the end anyways, when they manage to work up the spine to use it.

Your universal solution to everything is violence. Rather OLD fashioned don't you think? Modern civilized countries try to evade violence at any cost.

Funny thing the euro soldiers are cleaning up the mess you guys left in Afghanistan. Big words, big bombs and fast retreat, that's your game. Cleaning up is left to others.

In other words, appease the terrorists by craveningly caveing to their demands and grabbing your ankles like little punks so they can sodomize you?

That's the reason why euro's are no longer leaders of the world. You can't be a leader by submitting to a "bubba'ing" by pissant ragheads, or anyone else, for that matter.


Newsflash, there haven't been any terrorist attacks in Europe inspired by the same philosophy as those of 9/11. We don't have to shit our pants every day. The terrorist attacks you are talking about are very local, very scarse and not on such a huge scale.

The scale of revenge usually equals the scale of wrong doing.

Act like punks, be treated like punks.


We didn't piss of the world and it's mother, so we have no terrorist attacks, color coded chart systems and the OHS taking away our rights.

You don't seem to get it, so I'll put it this way: You acted like punks against the rest of the world and now you're treated as. That's why you have to watch your six every day.

Invented in the '30s by a EURO? Yes, a German in fact, though you neatly sidestepped my original statement, even though your words agree with mine.


I did not deny that. In fact, I'm proud of it. It shows that Europe was far ahead of the US in science. We had rockets, jet planes and chemicals weapons a long time before you guys did.

The allies were beaten senseless by the Germans in the beginning of the war because of their technical superiority, despite their rather low man count per occupied territory.

One world war wasn't enough for the euros, so they had another go at it. Fortunately we intervened before you guys could have YET ANOTHER go at it.


You kindly forget that the history of Europe goes back much further than that of the US. Europe has been inhabited by tribes since the beginning of mankind and thus territorital disputes from the past were playing a big role.


Isn't Russia considered a EUROPEAN country? I do believe it is. Eastern european, but still euro. Unless you want to get racist and call them slavs, or get geopolitically incorrect and call them asiatic.


The borders of Europe are the Ural mountains and the Caucasus. 90% of Russia is in Asia.
The continent of Europe is NOT the same as the European Union.

Before you bitch about political correctness, how about your axis of evil. That's rather politically incorrect IMHO.

And since when is Germany (Nazi or otherwise) NOT a part of europe? Is it part of africa? No? Asia, perhaps? No, not that either? Ah, must be latin america then? Hmmm...no...not that either. So it must be a part of Antarctica! That's the ticket! Poit!

And you talk about me about needing geography lessons?! BWAHAHAHAHAAA!


Your post insinuated that Germany equaled Europe. Germany is a part of Europe, but, as most kindergartners are being told, one part does not make the whole thing.

Or would you still be the same ol' vulture, regardless of time and space, cultural mores, societal influences, media exposure, personal interaction, etc., etc.?


All you talk about is IF, IF, IF. IF Al gore would have been president, IF the democrats, etc...

I post facts that really happened, acts that were commited by America. I could also say IF there wouldn't have been some reasonable Americans, the US would have started WWIII by nuking the muslem world as a retaliation for 9/11. I could post tons of IFs.

Oh and my typo in Soviets really makes my post crap, now does it? How many languages do you speak? I could say that's typical arrogant American behaviour: bitching at minor spelling errors of someone who's native tongue is not english, but manages to post more coherent posts than quite some Americans in this thread (mostly Bush supporters oddly enough).

How many languages do you speak? Understanding other languages goes a long way in understanding and learning to appreciate other cultures.

Ditching something because you don't understand it is a sign of very narrow mindedness. It's also rather OLDfashioned...:rolleyes:

Boohee, did I just use rolleyes?

[wrench352]

I dont think agent orange was considered a chemical weapon,it s defoliant.9//11 wasnt dreamed up to get Bush in ten months either.When was the first attack on the WTC? 93?98?And the U.S.S. Cole?We should have strung OBL up when we had the chance. All the democratic candidates look like goofballs to me,and every one of them would enable new, stronger legistation on our hobbies. We are on the cusp of letting the AWB sunset and if we pulled together we could get other repressive legislature repealed as well. I know its not cheap,but I encourage everyone to join a guild(pyro,rochetry ect).If as a collective whole they encourage you to vote democrat,well let us know and why. As for me,I'm the NRA and were voting republican.

[vulture]

Agent Orange was severely contaminated with dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls. Those are carcinogenic substances atleast, they can cause severe irritation and some rather unpleasant skin diseases. Also, poisoning their food isn't really conventional, now is it?

The stuff is also very persistent in the environment and can cause detrimental effects years after the original contamination.

[akinrog]

Originally posted by NightStalker
CIA is "Big Pimping"?! Freemasons have Geronimo's skull?! Wow...that's some pretty arcane (and wacky) shit you're delving into there...:eek:

From your posting about "hearing explosions of roadside bombs killing GI Joes", that would seem to imply that you are in Iraq, correct? In which case, let's pose this question to you:

Under Saddam Hussein's rule, would you have been permitted to be a member of an Explosive and Weapons Forum, or access the internet at all?

If the answer is no, then what changed that allowed you to do so? US intervention, perhaps?

If yes, then why haven't you posted here before? Afraid of getting a knock on the door in the middle of the night followed by a bullet in the head?



The part you quoted about pimping is a speculation I have made out of anger. You may very well understand why I am so angry to insult officers whom I never saw or get acquainted with if you have to pay high taxes, bad economy, idiotic people surrounding you, etc. etc. which are caused by warmongers. And pray don't forget entire thing (or shit as you refer to it) :) is a conspiracy theory I had in my mind. (May be I am a psychotic paranoid.) Again I don't take any grudge against any ordinary citizen of US, (everybody, US or non-US, has families, children and many lovely things to love and care for.) since I am not one of those idiots who by the virtue of their bigotic arrogance, think themselves to be capable of defeating a superpower by brute force, which is equipped with WMDs and a strong political and economic influence and power, for they (bigotics) think Allah (God) is with them. (A side note : GWB also think that God is with you. This is a mirror image of Islamic Fanaticism.)
In addition, I don't want to seem to be kissing asses and I still maintain my position regarding GWB's unnecessary violence, warmongering, kissing of weapon manufacturers' ass and idiotism, I must emphasize my belief that many technological advances we today enjoy is from Western world (sphere), of which US constitutes an important part and wherein is an important actor. I have learnt and been learning a lot from western world and mentality and I recommend this to everybody. And trying to destroy such a knowledge base and dynamo of economic, social cultural development (which covers not only US but entire western sphere) is just a folly no good for anyone on this planet.

Regarding the Skull and Bones, I had stated at the very beginning of the passage that this is a news coverage from a daily paper which is at high esteem in my country and not a pro-Radicalist paper, accuracy of which I can neither prove nor disprove. (But if I can find the link on the web site of this daily, I may post here though it is non-English.)

Regarding the explosions, your guess about my location, is wrong. I don't live in Iraq or other countries wherein Islamic laws are present and strictly applied (but Iraq was only secular country). I am living a secular country (which is an ally of US) wherein mundane and spiritual affairs are separated from each other and a theological state (which Islamic Fundamentalists try to achieve) is forbidden and attempted to be prevented. I don't want to give out my location since in my country even having or being involved in such knowledge rotating around here makes me possible threat to state security and it will not be Big Bubba in prison but police officers in police station's torture cells who ream my ass if they found out I research this type of information (even theoretically). In addition, we receive this kind of information due to being geographical neighbor of Iraq which information you (not personnally you, i.e. US citizens) seem to be ignoring or uninformed of.

Furthermore, since I know the current devastated condition of the Country (Iraq), I don't think any Iraqis are here. There is almost no power, almost no live telephone lines (international calls only possible via a so-called satellite phone), no utility, etc. and internet (I think) is a luxurious item. :(

Now I would like to add something to what I said previously, as a person living and therefore having a knowledge on how an Islamic Fundamentalist thinks. This time no speculations, no raving, no conspricy theories, etc. Forget (for the time being of course) all the things I said before. Again I don't want to pose as a smart ass. The main factor for a fundamentalist is the Islam (don't flame me since this is not a clever statement) While Jesus says if someone smite your cheek offer him the other (again translation, I don't know the original), Islam entitles an agrieved man to retailate and do the same thing to the offender. If somebody pluck your eye, you are entitled to pluck (or have it plucked) the offender's eye. An important sidenote: Since I am living in a secular country wherein Islamic laws are prohibited, I don't know the exact judicial procedure, but things go like this in a country wherein Islamic laws are applied. Now I can hear you say "so what". The direct consequence of the somewhat passificism (sp?) of Christian world tends to diminish hostilities amongst the Christian people over the time. Look at the example of EU: While they were at each other's throat about 50 years ago, now today they united have massive trade amongst themselves and prosper over the time. However things are contrary to above in Moslem world, the Islamic doctrine which justifies revengeful attitude, shall aggrevate the hostilities and people shall tend to remain as clans since being a clan you shall be more powerfull. Even today in south eastern part of my country (wherein GNP per capita is about $100 to the best of my knowledge), there are still bloodfeud between clans (although they are not Arabs). Such bloodfeuds erupts due to such foolish trivial events as children fight, etc.

Now I am back to what consequences this attitude has on the actions performed on the pretext of War on Terrorism. If you hit an Islamic country just since you thought there is a dictator which threats entire world and invade the country in question people may welcome you since you are a liberator of the people. But if you apply extreme violence such as bombing civilian people before the occupation and house assaults, harrassing (both sexual and psychological), opening fire to the civilian population, etc., the Moslem people think themselves entitled to the same, take this an onset of a bloodfeud. If you are clever enough, you just hit the dictator and liberate the people/country, then people shall embrace you. Similarly, if you intrigue by splitting the nation into ethnic factions and start fanning ethnical fire, maybe they shall be busied for a period of time since they are busy with cutting throats of each other but thereafter they shall accuse you of the dire events and sooner or later they shall pull out the guns against you.

Now you have only two choice : either sweep entire troublemaker population (which is very hard since all nations are intermingled with each other, what shall you do with those parts of the people living in exile/immigration in other countries like European countries, Australia, even US? Even those who are in exile shall take grudge against you since you killed their close or far relatives even though they even don't love them), or you shall act cleverly (which fits in my mental image of US) and find and punish only those offenders try to mitigate conflicts, respecting all.

While GWB and her lackey are stupidly arrogant and deem themselves as righteous people, the same is valid for those fundamentalists, although they have less things (when compared with Western world) to be proud of. You (not personnaly you again) think extreme violence shall intimidate the people which argument is maybe correct for Christian world but entirely false for Islamic world. Although fanatics seem to be exant or dispersed, eliminated or whatwever, you have to live by always keeping an eye on your ass. How do you expect you shall enjoy the wealth brought by the extorted oil land, while your people are scared to death?

Although this is a speculation and my humble personal belief/opinion, even if not the exact reason, this is the close and similar reason why majority of Islamic countrie are underdeveloped!... Since there is no individual but clan and congregation, no personal interests but tribal and congregational (sp?) interests, people are mainly at each other's throat (sometimes literally, sometimes metaphorically) which is highly aggrevated by the revengeful attitude, between clans, different congregations, sects, cults, etc.

So you may be right, and I am and many opposition here are entirely false and groundless. And GWB and his lackey are sugar candy, ingenious, clever and far seeing people. I just would like to see a lovely superpower which
1. stops intriguing regarding the fate of other nations,
2. continue scientific inventions, technological developments, etc. to make this planet more enjoyable not only for US but also for us poor underdeveloped and developing countries,
3. does not fan, aggrevate hostilities,
4. cease to be greedy and power hungry.

[knowledgehungry]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We all know how easy it is for someone to make Chem weapons with a reasonable lab, hell I'm sure some of us have done it with the good old mayannoise jars, the fact that we didnt find Chem weapons or Nukes doesn't mean Saddam wasn't a threat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



According to that philosophy, EVERY nation is a threat. Now that's paranoid thinking.



Thats not what I said I said We found illegal missiles that can carry WMD's, which are harder to get/make then the WMD themselves.

Not every country has those banned missiles and dispersion devices...

[EP]

There are many things that I would respond to if I had the time, but for now I'll just focus on one:

Originally posted by wrench352
All the democratic candidates look like goofballs to me,and every one of them would enable new, stronger legistation on our hobbies. We are on the cusp of letting the AWB sunset and if we pulled together we could get other repressive legislature repealed as well. I know its not cheap,but I encourage everyone to join a guild(pyro,rochetry ect).If as a collective whole they encourage you to vote democrat,well let us know and why. As for me,I'm the NRA and were voting republican.

The argument than a Democratic president would be much worse for rights/civil liberties is ridiculous. I won't try to speculate on what a Dem president might do and I won't claim they would do no wrong, but I don't think it would be anywhere near what the Bush administration has already done to limit our rights.

Let's start with the First Amendment, the reason this forum can exist. Ever heard of a "free speech zone?" This is what they are doing to peaceful political dissent:

http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

If you dissagree with Bush, they move you a distance away so the cameras don't show you. People that have resisted (the whole country is a free speech zone after all) have been arrested.

Democrats would be the only ones to limit what we discuss here? Ever heard of Raise The Fist and Sherman Austin?

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/02/580.shtml

(first article I found, there are better ones if you look around) Basically, for hosting a site that had some (probably) crappy Anarchist Cookbook type files, Austin was arrested. Free speech? Not anymore.

Second Amendment:

This doesn't really give ordinary citizens the right to own a gun if you actually read what it says, but I'm not really too concerned about the gun issue anyway. Bush is possibly going to just let the assualt weapon ban expire without bringing it up to make the gun nuts happy and hope the gun control people don't notice.

Fourth Amendment:

Parts of the PATRIOT Act and other laws make searches possible *without* a warrent. You can be searched at any time with no judicial oversight if they invoke the boogyman of terrorism. There is plenty of info on this if you look around.

Sixth Amendment:

We are holding hundreds without charges, without access to lawyers, without any legal rights. Again, all they have to do is say the magic "T-word." They have done this to US citizens, not just random kids caught in Afghanistan and held for years (a few young teens were just released from Guantanimo becuase we didn't have any reason to keep them).

This administration has done more to damage legal rights than any time since the Japanese internment in WWII, one of most dictatorial things this country has ever done.

[wrench352]

http://archive.aclu.org/news/w070896b.html
It gets worse as the technology improves I reckon,doesnt matter who runs the show,you should note however there wasnt even a war on.Everybody who's here because of this please raise your hand. At least the republicans would want us to resist if the need arose.
I was aware of Raise the Fist before,there a thread here about it.The legislation responsible for this was brought to by (again) our good friend Diane Feinstein(D) Ca. Plus he was black
:rolleyes: another brother tormented by The Man.
WHEW,"distribution of information related to making explosives",thanks I needed some better links to her:
http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-bombmaking3.htm
Does anybody know what Ashcroft's response was to this letter?Also one thing that stuck out to me.This site is more or less about the "free exchange of scientific data" his site :espouses violence or phsycial force as a means of intimidation or achieving economic, social, or political change.Why isnt the "liberal" media more into this?It was hard to find an unbiased account of what really happened.I just looked at theReclaim guide,its a crapbook,I think there is more to this story. He should'nt have plead guilty,the pussy.And where's the ACLU?
Would you propose we cut these guys loose,they are'nt American citizens or on American soil? I love how they hate the great Satan until they wind up as our prisoners and then want our freedoms.Want to know how we're treated?Look at Jessica Lynch they beat the piss out of her before she got ass-fucked.Think thats goin on a Gitmo?

[tmp]

Dianne Feinstein is the ultimate hypocrite. She's typical of the
"do as I say, not as I do" crowd. Her California issued CCW permit
ensures she can carry a gun to protect herself - a right she wants to
deny most others. Apparently, 1st Amendment rights exist only for
people like her - not for the rest. Austin is going to prison because
he dislikes the government and posted crapbook info !

On the news(02/02/04), preliminary tests show that Bill Frist was sent
an envelope containing ricin. Added to the previous anthrax attacks,
also by envelope, the government will probably seek to dismantle
more of the Constitution.

We can also expect the politicians to put the blame on Islamic terrorists
for this. I can't help but wonder if the attacks were conducted by an American
citizen who's just fed up with the assholes in Washington.

[vulture]

Cut the crap about Diane Feinstein, you're sidetracking the discussion because she's not a presidential candidate.

It's not because one democrat is that way, all of them are. Using that philosophy, every Republican has an average IQ of 80, because they made GWB president.

http://archive.aclu.org/news/w070896b.html
It gets worse as the technology improves I reckon,doesnt matter who runs the show,you should note however there wasnt even a war on.Everybody who's here because of this please raise your hand.

You think the Bush administration places less taps? Ever heard of the OHS and the other things about searches without warrant EP just posted?

Read this:
On May 30, 2002, Ashcroft effectively abolished restrictions on FBI surveillance of Americans’ everyday lives first imposed in 1976. One FBI internal newsletter encouraged FBI agents to conduct more interviews with antiwar activists “for plenty of reasons, chief of which it will enhance the paranoia endemic in such circles and will further service to get the point across that there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox.” The FBI took a shotgun approach towards protesters partly because of the FBI’s “belief that dissident speech and association should be prevented because they were incipient steps towards the possible ultimate commission of act which might be criminal,” according to a Senate report.

On Nov. 23 news broke that the FBI is now actively conducting surveillance of antiwar demonstrators—supposedly to “blunt potential violence by extremist elements,” according to a Reuters interview with a federal law enforcement official. Given the FBI’s expansive defintion of “potential violence” in the past, this is a net that could catch almost any group or individual who falls into official disfavor.

At least the republicans would want us to resist if the need arose.

Do you ever read the posts in this thread? Everyone who resists is Quarantained and arrested if need be.

Not every country has those banned missiles and dispersion devices...

"Banned Rockets". Rockets that barely flew 250km...
Dispersion devices? Which dispersion devices?

It's funny that Bush is now starting an investigation about the WMD investigation. It's also quite coincedental that the investigation will only be concluded after the elections...:rolleyes:

his site :espouses violence or phsycial force as a means of intimidation or achieving economic, social, or political change.

At least the republicans would want us to resist if the need arose.

So, you must be allowed to carry a gun to defend your beliefs, but someone with different beliefs isn't allowed to even post a website about it? That's your idea of free speech?

[MrSamosa]

Call me the Forum History Teacher :) . The whole issue of the Al-Samoud II missiles was really quite silly. They flew barely over the maximum range-limit, imposed by the UN, when they were tested WITHOUT a payload. With the payload installed, they were within the range-limit. In combat, would they fire missiles with our with a payload?

Concerning Saddam's non-cooperation, at first, when it came to the missiles... Why should he cripple his national defenses when a blood-thirsty army is at his border??

If I recall correctly, Iraq did have Internet access prior to the war... They had a national ISP called Uruk Link; but I don't know how many people used it. Iraqis were also allowed to buy weapons that we in the US are not allowed to buy -- full-auto Kalashnikovs, RPK machine guns, etc. Remember the news story where Saddam was "encouraging Iraqis to buy arms to defend their country"? Nobody saw the irony in that...

Dianne Feinstein is one of those political extremists. There is a saying something to the effect of, "Ends meet." That is, if you go far enough to the left or far enough to the right, your dictatorial policies will end up looking the same.

[knowledgehungry]

The WMDS will be "found" about 3 months before the election, proving all the democrats naysaying it wrong and making them look like idiots, I wouldn't be surprised if they already found them and are merely waiting for the best time to say Ha i told you so. That's my prediction we shall see what happens. I talked to a guy in the US military (active duty in Iraq honorably discharged for injured knee) who said they had already found them but weren't telling anyone yet. Anyone want to make wagers against me ?

[wrench352]

Well Diane Feinstein IS a democrat, by electing a democrat to the White House you give her more power also with the links I give there are plenty of other democrats (Shumer,Biden,Dashcle,Kennedy,Liebowwitz,Lautenber g, and Co)that advocate her beliefs.These are the people that want us as sheeple! Your right though if you think I hate Diane Feinstein more than George Bush. And I would go well out of my way to deny her anymore power than she already has. So many other democrats are so like minded and I dont think its side tracking as SHE wrote the legislation y'all are bitchin about.
About RAISE THE FIST,there are so many websites that talk about it but they all say the same thing!Why did he plead guilty?20 years or not he must not have held his convictions that deeply,he had the opportunity to single handedly undo that piece of legislature. He chose to neither fight nor resist.
Do we really have the room to look at the worst democrats and pick them apart?
Lets look at Kerry shall we, early on in the horse race he seems pretty well in front?
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Gun_Control.htm
here's some fun stuff:
http://www.armed-citizens.com/news/armdcitz_news.php?doit=yes&newsid=1031
So he wants to not only extend the AWB but expand on it
And you can take this as you will
http://www.armed-citizens.com/news/armdcitz_news.php?doit=yes&newsid=1041
Just because they're against the war or isolationist doesnt mean its in the best interest of our country.I honestly couldnt find anything on pyro with him.Maybe I'll ask him huh?What do y'all think he'll say?Anyone want to ask the question and I'll email it?I'll let y'all phrase it to be fair ,anyway you want.

As far as wiretaps go,since Hoovers days they've spied on ordinary citizens for whatever "national security" reasons.Im not saying this is right just that both sides are guilty of it.
I really could care less how Yurop feels about us,if y'all care to help,have at it,if not speak your piece.BUT when you sit down at the table and look at the parties, the democrats are very much anti-guns and pyro,wheras the Republicans seem to embrace it(well some of em,more than the democrats anyway).Point in fact that piece of legislature that got Austin in trouble did'nt get one nay in the vote,it was unanimous.Although it was the democrats that bought it to the floor both Ds and Rs held hands on it.
How many of us on the board will take what we learn and use it to further business and industry,science and exploration?Well more I think than those hurling molitov cocktails at G5 summit meetings.Yet the democrats wish to suppress and disarm us.
I wish I knew more about the Sherman Austin case I really do.I just cant see the Gov. of any state giving out the order:"That boys got to go!"
I dont want to go any further underground than I already am and I will not empower the people that will push me there. If yall look at these issues instead of solely focusing on the war in Iraq you'll see what I mean.
On the 2nd amendment thing,not only is there a thread devoted to this already but the distance ya have to go to try and prove your point renders your argument moot. A play on symantics does not a point make.Taken in context you know exactly what the founding fathers meant. How many good men died either trying to procure weapons or protect those we had already, in the beginnings of the Revolutionary war?Then having to fight a long protracted war from a tyrannical govt.If you asked Washington himself if he could elaborate on the 2nd amendment what would he say?The minute men were US!Me and you.not the soildiers on the state and federal till.It is an armed citizenry that keeps the state in check.The fear of an armed insurrection followed by public lynching is supposed to be the underlying motivation to do the right thing.
I feel we should enforce the laws we currently have and are under used and close whatever loopholes there are that persons unfriendly to this country use against us.But we certainly dont need new laws that infringe our rights.The Bush administration is the lesser of two evils.
It seems to me y'all are solely focused on our foriegn policy,and Im concerned about domestic issues as it applies to pyros.In some countries you have no ability to buy either guns or chems or fireworks,maybe not all three but at least one from the list.Here this ability is in grave danger. It is the democrats that come up with these increasingly tougher regulations.
Again with everything pertaining to the PATRIOT ACT.Most of it expires next year,and to the best of my knowledge has contributed very little to the war on terrorism.Someone(I bet a republican) had the good sense to insert a sunset clause,to see if its any good or aids repression.
There is a Patriot Act II in the works, does anyone know anything about this?Oh yeah, about a Democratic Patriot Act ,although Bush and his staff authored most of H.R.3162, guess who helped out a bunch?Bob Graham(D).Also to be fair there was one desenting vote on H.R.3162 Feingold(D).

[tmp]

Vulture, sorry for going off topic. It's just that when Feinstein's name
comes up my blood pressure jumps about 20 points. I still haven't
heard any reports about the testing of the chemical mortar rounds
that the Dane's found near the Iranian border. The pictures I saw of
these rounds showed severe corrosion which probably means they've
been in the ground for a long time. If you've heard anything please
let us know.

The preliminary results on the powder sent to Senator Bill Frist has
come back positive for ricin. They're waiting on a confirmation from
the army on this. The media reminded us of the anthrax spores sent to
Senator Tom Daschle. IT APPEARS THERE'S MORE WMDS IN WASHINGTON
THAN IN BAGHDAD ! I wish the politicians would take a breather and find
out who actually sent all this shit in the mail. These types of attacks
don't seem to be Al-Quaeda's style. I still think it's a local who is either
very pissed off at the U.S. government or some whacko acting out some
twisted fantasy !

Knowlegehungry's post made a claim that the WMDs have been found
and will be rolled out for the world to see right before the election.
I may sound cynical but despite being a Bush supporter, I wouldn't be
surprised if this happened. Bush is from Texas. I'm from Maryland.
Most people know that these 2 states have some of the dirtiest politics
and politicians in the entire U.S. !

FUCK ALL OF THEM !

[ossassin]

EP, I am not paranoid. The Jews are in control of the major media in the US. Look at the CEO's and high-ranking executives...all Jews. About 1/3 of the actors these days are Jewish. That doesn't represent them proportionally to the population, does it? I wonder why...

Vulture, we have every right to be arrogent. When did Belgium become so powerful, anyway?

[EP]

Originally posted by wrench352
It seems to me y'all are solely focused on our foriegn policy,and Im concerned about domestic issues as it applies to pyros.In some countries you have no ability to buy either guns or chems or fireworks,maybe not all three but at least one from the list.Here this ability is in grave danger. It is the democrats that come up with these increasingly tougher regulations.


You want somebody that doesn't affect the laws for pyros? The Homeland Security Act made it almost impossible for hundreds of fireworks shows accross the nation to happen on july 4th because of new handling requirements. They changed some stuff at the last minute so the shows could go on. I don't remember if it was the same law or a different one, but something recently passed made new and much more difficult requirements for high power rocketry, something closely related to pyrotechnics.

I can't figure out why you continue to insist the democrats are out to get you when the republicans have already done many of these things. I'm not saying there aren't problems with the democrats and you can always find one or two extreme examples in any segment of the population, but the republicans have taken it further than any democrats would, I believe.

Originally posted by tmp
I still haven't
heard any reports about the testing of the chemical mortar rounds
that the Dane's found near the Iranian border. The pictures I saw of
these rounds showed severe corrosion which probably means they've
been in the ground for a long time. If you've heard anything please
let us know.


Nothing in them, if there was, you certainly would have heard about it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3407853.stm

[tmp]

EP, thanks for the link ! I thought these rounds might have been
Bush's so-called smoking gun. I was wrong.

[wrench352]

EP,Look at states that allow personal possesion of fireworks and those that dont.Now which are democrat and which republican?
On HPR:
http://www.space-rockets.com/presscon.html
this isnt the link I wanted but it'll do.And there is a republican(I forget who) from AZ who is championing the HPR cause.
Mike Shumer is also into gun-banning and book burning(sound familiar?)
baaaaaahhhhhhhh
Lautenberg is from NJ and has some of the toughest gun restrictions in the country

On a personal note I thought I'd let y'all in on something
I helped get GB SR out of office because of his repressive actions during the war on drugs,those were very scary times.I voted for Clinton twice.Then I became a gun owner.Then I became politically involved with the repeal of the AWB and have been working very hard towards its sunset.

[vulture]

What are you going to do with all your guns if the Bush administration is going to take you down for the very reason of possessing them and being a "possible terrorist"?

The WMDS will be "found" about 3 months before the election, proving all the democrats naysaying it wrong and making them look like idiots, I wouldn't be surprised if they already found them and are merely waiting for the best time to say Ha i told you so. That's my prediction we shall see what happens. I talked to a guy in the US military (active duty in Iraq honorably discharged for injured knee) who said they had already found them but weren't telling anyone yet. Anyone want to make wagers against me ?

Sure, 3 months is time enough to smuggle them into Iraq while the media is being focused on the elections. Such a pity the analysis reports will go missing, because they'd determine the origin...

[wrench352]

I am a patriot,I hold no political affiliations whatsoevr,everything I do is on the up and up. Its also not my intention to harm anyone. I am simply seeking knowledge. Maybe I practice a little kitchen chemistry.
Outside of Jose Padilla and that anthrax guy I dont see them lining up the citizens,yet. I think you'd have to fuck up big time to really draw the ire of the feds. I'm sure your goin to cut me to pieces on this,but. The only people I see being harassed by these new laws are people with ties to islamic fundamentalist groups that may be involved with terrorists,and even then they are either just being investigated or politely asked to leave.We want the big fish,we want OBL.the 50 streetlevel crack slingers dont compare to the one big fish giving the orders.Fifty soldiers could be drafted again,to lose a Lt. or high level officer hurts an organization and provides good intel.Good officers are hard to come by,zealots are a dime a dozen.
Also alot of these programs are old,started by Clinton or older(COINTEL comes to mind)Carnivore,Magic Lantern,that program that monitors all voice traffic.In some cases they've been expanded upon in other cases they've been brought to new light under these circumstances.To everybodies chagrin, e-mail isnt mail,and we've never secured the principal rights to privacy associated with mail,and email has been around a while.Also info you give to a third party isnt private anymore is it?Hell that doesnt even sound right does it? So if the attorney general deems it necessary to subpena your bookstore(to see what you've been reading),I'd take it up with your bookstore!I only heard the stoners complain when they did the same thing on Operation Green Merchant and that was the 1980s
Curiously I wanted to ask Vulture.I'm a big fan of Fabrique National.How hard is it to aquire their products where you live? I've always been under the assumption gun laws in your country are quite lax.Here in the states all can be purchased although the more funner stuff needs special licensing.
Oh btw something I should have said but waited way to long to say anything about,I was never offended by the Yank thing really,I didnt like the condesending attitude that y'all had.We've taken alot of abuse lately and Ive had to really bite my tongue quite a bit.
And this is where I really get into trouble.
Ive known Vulture lives in a constitutional monarchy for a while but never said anything about it.If yall were wonderin that means he lives under a King and I just looked at their constituion and their King still has some power.It's my belief that The Queen of England is just an Ornamental figurehead with no real power,but Belgiums King Albert still has some teeth.(BTW,you can talk shit bout GWB,but could you yell I want to kill the king?)Do yall have provisionions in place in case a King turns out to be a real prick like ours was(King George)?Its funny your trying to influence us about our president when you cant do a thing bout your King,haha.Also when looking at your constitution I notice its similar to ours except for "except in the cases and conditions determined by law"which popped up a bit .I assume your laws are written by your senate and house of represenatives.So yall arnt really constituionally guaranteed a whole lot huh?Divine right of freedom vs divine right of kings.Its a good thing y'all arnt a super power,y'all just might be dangerous.

[vulture]

Ive known Vulture lives in a constitutional monarchy for a while but never said anything about it.

It sounds worse than it is. The king has absolutely no power. He has to sign every law, but if he doesn't, he has to resign. Kinda failsafe. Furthermore, many people, including myself, are lobbying to get rid of the monarchy. The only thing it does is suck up tax money.

Curiously I wanted to ask Vulture.I'm a big fan of Fabrique National.How hard is it to aquire their products where you live? I've always been under the assumption gun laws in your country are quite lax.Here in the states all can be purchased although the more funner stuff needs special licensing.

Honestly, I wouldn't know, as I don't own a firearm except for an airrifle. Before you say anything, contrary to the states, it's not common for people to own guns. Not because we can't, but because we haven't been raised amongst them. It's a culture difference I guess.

EDIT:
In his Lycos 50 Daily Report, Aaron Schatz wrote that the brief flash of flesh has become the most searched for event in Lycos' history. Before this week, the leading search term over a one-day period was "September 11," he said.


This is something I really don't understand about americans. They scream bloody murder when only a tiny bit of nude or sex is shown on TV, but yet they have the largest internet porn industry.

[Arkangel]

This was sent to me today, and seems a fairly appropriate addition to this thread - lets just see what kind of guys you really are:

Moral dilemna.

Answer on your honour and dignity - what would you do?

This test has only one question, but it's very important. Please don't answer it without giving it some serious thought. By giving an honest answer you will be able to see where you stand morally. The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation, where you will have to make a decision one way or the other. Remember that your
answer needs to be honest yet spontaneous. Please scroll down slowly and consider each line carefully - this is important for the test to work accurately.

You're in Florida, USA.....in Miami, to be exact. There is great chaos going on around you, caused by a hurricane and severe floods.There are huge masses of water all round you.You are a CNN photographer, and you are in the middle of this major
disaster. The situation is hopeless. You're trying to shoot impressive and telling photos. There are houses and people floating all around you, disappearing into the water. Nature is showing all her destructive power and is ripping apart everything in sight.

Suddenly you see a man in the water. He's fighting for his life, trying not to be taken away by the masses of water and mud.You move closer. Somehow the man looks familiar. Suddenly you realise who it is - it's George W. Bush! At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him away for ever.

You have two options. You can save him or you can take the best photo of your life. So you can save the life of George W.Bush or you can shoot a Pulitzer Prize winning photo, a unique photograph displaying the death of one of the worlds most powerful men.

And here's the question - please give an honest answer:

Would you select colour film, or would you rather go with the simplicity of classic black and white?

[chemwarrior]

Classic black and white all the way! The photos have a much more, 'attention grabbing' quality. :p

[tom haggen]

Definitely black and white. Oh by the way how can you give a lot of thought and be spontaneous at the same time?

[tmp]

Vulture, you're absolutely right on a couple points about the U.S. and
nudity. There are those in this country who go nuts over a brief flash of
nudity on TV. We do have the biggest porn industry(not just Internet)
in the world.

I assume you're referring to Janet Jackson's right tit sequence at the
Super Bowl. The Hollywood types have always been at political odds
with conservatives. Considering that the game was played in Houston,
Texas, part of the "Bible Belt", and also George Bush's back yard, this
might have been a way for Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake to take
a slap at the religious right. I'm all for that !

I consider myself conservative but definitely NOT part of the religious
right. Too many hypocrites among that bunch. Especially among the
so-called "religious leaders". The Falwells, Bakkers, Robertsons, etc. of
that world are entitled to their beliefs but don't try to shove them down
my throat. Converts aren't made that way !

I have friends who are liberal and conservative. Not one of them felt
offended or outraged by Janet Jackson. In fact we had a good laugh
about it. Of course, the late night comedians had a field day with this.

For those who want to punish Jackson and Timberlake:

IF THEY CAN'T TAKE A JOKE, FUCK'EM !!!

[vulture]

It's interesting that these conversative believers have no problem bombing thousands to death even under false pretext, but a president lying about a sexual affair is committing the worst sort of treason in their eyes?

Isn't there something in the bible about not killing your fellow men?

[Flake2m]

Well I would choose to save GWB. Might sound wierd given the majority of this board dislikes him, but I think he would have more use to me alive. Think about it if you saved a man of such importance you might just get his attention.
Also since GWB is quite wealthy and having ties to Oil companies etc you might end up a little richer.

I also personally think that a single life isn't worth a photo even if it is the best photo ever, even if the person is Osama, Amrozi or GWB.

[MrSamosa]

Did anyone see that English "Super Streaker" on the Superbowl??? The guy who snuck onto the field dressed as an official, stripped down, and started doing what almost looked like Riverdance, just before kicking off the second half??? Haven't heard as much about him, but seeing the video on CNN was hilarious-- though he had a half-football and jock strap covering his nether-areas. I don't care about Janet's breast; it looked to me like an accident, and it'll keep internet searchers entertained for a long time to come. I don't know why people are going to make a big deal about it.

Actually, the far right is out to ban porn all together. If you ever watch Bill O'Reilly or Joe Scarborough, they frequently criticize it and its "moral effects on children." To all you Europeans, send more super-streakers across the pond to help your American friends against the Rabid Religious Right! (personally, I don't mind any religious parties-- but I don't like the *rabid* ones, i.e.: Billy Graham, Falwell, etc.)

[NightStalker]

Bushs foreign policy and the arrogant attitude of the US versus muslem countries provoked 9/11. They didn't just fly those planes into those buildings because they liked to.


They've hated our guts since the 70's, if not earlier, so claiming that it was Bush's fault is silly.


funny thing that most Europeans are much more progressive than the average american. The very archaic "God bless America" for example, never heard of the MODERN separation of Church and state?


Pardon, but did not the seperation of church and state originate in America? That whole 1776 thing. And what does a national anthem have to do with how "progressive" a country is? What are the lyrics to your national anthems? Anything mentioning king, queen, empire, "sun shines on our land forever", or some such? Likely so for every european country. So what?

Also, in our country, "progressive" is a term often used by the socialist parties, IE communists. So are you saying that the euros are communists? I'd believe that.


Hello, Vietnam? Agent Orange? Does that ring a bell?


Hello, Agent Orange is a defoliant, as in kills plants, not people. Ring a bell? ;)

CW's KILL PEOPLE! Agent Orange is a defoliant that, while it may cause health problems decades later, is NOT a chemical weapon. The army's of the world aren't interested in weapons that kill the enemy decades later, but right now.

Trying to equate American use of Agent Orange to "Chemical Warfare!" is the same thing the commies were screaming back in the days of 'nam. Just shows how well the communist propaganda has saturated your (euro) mind.


They (algerians) weren't bombing france BECAUSE they were muslem, they were bombing france because they were being oppressed.


Were the oppressed algerians who were bombing the french christian, or muslim? That was the answer you tried to sidestep.


(FYI, rolleyes = ironic in case you hadn't figured that out yet)


FYI, it's overdone, in case you hadn't figured that out yet.


The palestinians are committing terroristic acts against Israel because they were and are being oppressed by the Jews.


Again, you avoid the answering the question, is it christian or muslim palestinians blowing up the jews?

The muslim religion is the one that has these fools blowing themselves up in "holy wars" against the (christian or judaist) west. (:rolleyes: = ironic)


I guess your view of the world includes that every other country but the US is very scarcely populated because they're so retarded and stuck in the past. Let me tell you something, detonating neutron bombs where to Soviets would invade would kill millions of citizens in big cities like Leipzig and Berlin.


We had a saying the army "The towns in germany are 10 kilotons apart". :p

So, no, us "arrogant" Americans don't think that the germans (or other euros) are so retarded and stuck in the past that they can't be densely population their countries. That's why we had neutron bombs.

With explosive yeilds of only a kT or two, they'd be well under the 10kT range of destroying the uninvolved towns.

Now, if the soviet tanks are rolling through the streets of Leipzig, the germans there are dead meat anyways. The soviets would have proceeded to rape and murder everyone there as they did at the end of WWII. The commies didn't forgive the germans for what happened then, and would gladly have continued on where they left off.

So, if anything, we'd be doing the citizens of those cities a favor by killing them quickly, before the soviets got to them. :)

And, because they're radiation weapons, the city would still be standing afterwards, saving on the cost of reconstructing a demolished city.

After all, without using nuclear weapons, NATO would have to lose millions of troops (mostly euros) in fighting a conventional war against the soviets, demolishing europe (again) in the process.


Your universal solution to everything is violence. Rather OLD fashioned don't you think? Modern civilized countries try to evade violence at any cost.

Funny thing the euro soldiers are cleaning up the mess you guys left in Afghanistan. Big words, big bombs and fast retreat, that's your game. Cleaning up is left to others.


Modern "civilized" countries can talk to each other and resolve their problems. When dealing with tribalistic sheep-herder countries, violence is the only thing they understand, as that's the only thing they respect...someone stronger than them.

As you euros have been successfully sheep-ified by a half-century of American sheep-dog'ing, you don't have the "bite" needed to bring other countries in line. So, we do all the killing and destroying, and leave it to you "peaceful and progressive" euros to maintain the peace...which you don't do very well either...often requiring a return visit by us.

Besides, where are all the euro's in Iraq? Aren't very many, are there? Probably because they can't handle casualties. We're there, "fighting the peace", and losing people everyday, but that's "peace" for ya', and we're still there, not "fast retreating".


We don't have to shit our pants every day.


Right...that's why you've had military guards armed with machine guns in your airports for decades...while we've only started that in the last couple years.

The arabs attacked us in one bold move, possible because of our open society, and haven't been able to do anything since.


We didn't piss of the world and it's mother, so we have no terrorist attacks, color coded chart systems and the OHS taking away our rights.


NO terrorist attacks? :rolleyes: = ironic

And, in order to have right taken away, you'd first have to have them. But euros don't have rights, they have privileges granted to them by either their monarchy, or by the EU commission in brussels.

Does ONE european country have the right to freedom of the press that can't be muzzled by the crown (or the equivalent) when some embarassing story (like prince charley sucking dick) comes up?

Do any euros have the right to be armed to defend themselves against their own government? (I'm sure you'll mention switzerland, so I'll wait till you bring that up yourself)

(BTW, the 2nd IS all about personal firearms possession, and has NOTHING to do with the right of the military to have weapons (DOH!))

I didn't think so.


It shows that Europe was far ahead of the US in science. We had rockets, jet planes and chemicals weapons a long time before you guys did.


State the facts correctly, please. NAZI germany had rockets, jet planes, and nerve agents. NONE of the other european countries had those, and certainly not the belgiums, so don't try and claim credit where none is due.

Your post insinuated that Germany equaled Europe. Germany is a part of Europe, but, as most kindergartners are being told, one part does not make the whole thing.

And, since you mentioned how britian is the 52'nd state, that means that the US had RADAR and nukes (and jets too before the end of WWII), something the inferior science of non-Nazi europe didn't produce either. :p


You kindly forget that the history of Europe goes back much further than that of the US. Europe has been inhabited by tribes since the beginning of mankind and thus territorital disputes from the past were playing a big role.


Would this history that I "forgot" include any of the wars that I mentioned below, some of which happened back in the 1600's or earlier?


any of the previous jaunts, like the 30 years war, or the Hundred years war, or the Franco-Prussian war (version 1, 2, 3, ....), or any of the rest.


Tsk, tsk...now who's forgetting? You can't even remember what I said in a post not even two hours old. What hope have you for history hundreds of years old?

"Axis of Evil" and color codes are just political bullshit to give the appearence of doing something, and has no real meaning to anyone here in america.

All you talk about is IF, IF, IF. IF Al gore would have been president, IF vulture lived a century ago, etc...


Oh and my typo in Soviets really makes my post crap, now does it? How many languages do you speak? I could say that's typical arrogant American behaviour: bitching at minor spelling errors of someone who's native tongue is not english, but manages to post more coherent posts than quite some Americans in this thread (mostly Bush supporters oddly enough).

How many languages do you speak? Understanding other languages goes a long way in understanding and learning to appreciate other cultures.


Typical euro...thinking that my highlighting of a single letter somehow is an affront to their honor...that kind of overreaction is exactly how the world wars started, isn't it? Slights magnified through the lens of euro pride equals WAR!

And what does speaking several language have to do with appreciating other cultures? FYI, I speak two fluently, and a third marginally, with smatterings of a couple others. And I have NO greater appreciation for these other "cultures" than for my own, despite speaking their language, as their cultures are inferior. Being able to speak their language merely enhanced my understanding of this. :rolleyes:

Boo-hoo, did I just use rolleyes? :p

BTW, I read in the paper today that the Grammy Music Awards are/were going to ban janet and justin from this years awards as punishment for their little stunt, and the FCC is going to fuck with them too.

[vulture]

They've hated our guts since the 70's, if not earlier, so claiming that it was Bush's fault is silly.

Might be true, but GWB Bush certainly didn't improve the situation. And that's a rather bold understatement.

Pardon, but did not the seperation of church and state originate in America? That whole 1776 thing. And what does a national anthem have to do with how "progressive" a country is? What are the lyrics to your national anthems? Anything mentioning king, queen, empire, "sun shines on our land forever", or some such? Likely so for every european country. So what?

So why are you allowing your president to reverse it, as it is one of your freedoms you've acquired in the past? Everyone knows the Bush administration hates everything that's non catholic and it makes no secret of it. That also goes a long way to provoking terrorism.

Also, in our country, "progressive" is a term often used by the socialist parties, IE
communists. So are you saying that the euros are communists? I'd believe that.

You're saying my vision is being warped by the communists? That is actually the most warped statement I've ever seen. It's the kind of circular logic people like GWB like to use, to "prove" points. It's true because I say so and I say so because it's true. So it must be true. :rolleyes:

Progressive means that your mind is open to new ideas in society, science and politics. It has NOTHING to do with being communistic or capitalistic, because there can be progressive movements in both ideologies.

that kind of overreaction is exactly how the world wars started, isn't it? Slights magnified through the lens of euro pride equals WAR!

Oh, let me see, who just advocated that socialism = communism and islam = terrorism?
That's the kind of narrow mindedness that starts war.

FYI, except WWI, all european wars were about territorital expansion, not about insults.

Yes, we had two devastating wars and we know how much suffering it caused. That's why we're against useless violence. Yet, you keep blaming us for causing a war for nothing, but the US starts a war under false pretext and we have to say "Yes, thank you"? Gimme a break.

Double standards. Something you guys are very good at.

CW's KILL PEOPLE! Agent Orange is a defoliant that, while it may cause health problems decades later, is NOT a chemical weapon. The army's of the world aren't interested in weapons that kill the enemy decades later, but right now.

Trying to equate American use of Agent Orange to "Chemical Warfare!" is the same thing the commies were screaming back in the days of 'nam. Just shows how well the communist propaganda has saturated your (euro) mind.


Oh, so because it only kills decades later, it's not immoral to use it?

Why do you have to support every argument of yours by calling me a euro commie? FYI, that's exactly what propaganda usually does. But ofcourse, in the great free US, there is no propaganda, right? How silly of me. :rolleyes:

Now, if the soviet tanks are rolling through the streets of Leipzig, the germans there are dead meat anyways. The soviets would have proceeded to rape and murder everyone there as they did at the end of WWII. The commies didn't forgive the germans for what happened then, and would gladly have continued on where they left off.

So, if anything, we'd be doing the citizens of those cities a favor by killing them quickly, before the soviets got to them.


I could say this statement originated from Cold War propaganda in your US mind, but I won't. Oh wait. I just did.

There was no massive killing and raping of germans by the Soviets when they occupied part of the country after WWII. You really should read a good history book, because you present some really fictional facts. The argument that the commies would go on a killing spree shows plain ignorance, because they'd have done it directly after the war, when the wounds were still fresh.

You always present it as if the commies would have attacked if the NATO didn't have nuclear weapons. You're not telling the whole story. BOTH sides wanted each others destruction and if the commies didn't have any nuclear weapons, the US would have attacked first.

You're again turning IFs into facts, when we can't say for sure what would have happened.

Besides, where are all the euro's in Iraq? Aren't very many, are there? Probably because they can't handle casualties. We're there, "fighting the peace", and losing people everyday, but that's "peace" for ya', and we're still there, not "fast retreating".

Newsflash: The Euros are not in Iraq because they don't agree with the war. The fact that you say "fighting for peace" shows that you don't understand the meaning of peace. You can't induce peace with violence unless you obliterate the earth in one blow.

And there you go again calling us cowards because we don't agree with the war. Are you fighting yourself in Iraq? No. But you are happy with the gasoline you can buy cheap because of soldiers dying in Iraq. Go fight yourself or shut up.

Right...that's why you've had military guards armed with machine guns in your airports for decades...while we've only started that in the last couple years.

The arabs attacked us in one bold move, possible because of our open society, and haven't been able to do anything since.


Please refrain from posting lies. I have never seen armed guards at European airports for years.
Perhaps in Britain during the time of the IRA (are they muslems?), but certainly not in continental Europe. Who wants armed air marshalls on flights?

The arabs attacked you because they were sick of the stream of provocations they've been getting from you since the 70's. But ofcourse, that doesn't fit in your propaganda induced view of the world, so it's not true, right?

And, in order to have right taken away, you'd first have to have them. But euros don't have rights, they have privileges granted to them by either their monarchy, or by the EU commission in brussels.

Does ONE european country have the right to freedom of the press that can't be muzzled by the crown (or the equivalent) when some embarassing story (like prince charley sucking dick) comes up?

Oh really we have no rights? We certainly don't have the right to have our home raided and ourselves detained without warrant because of terrorist suspicion, that's correct.

Again you illustrate that you have no idea how things work in Europe. Rights aren't granted by the EU commission or the monarchy, but by the members of parliament (sp?). Each country has it's own constitution, EU legislation is there to facilitate trade between the member states.

Funny thing you guys are so thick with the Brits, the suppressors of free speech. (according to you atleast). Actually, there are a series of documentaries about the dirty laundry of the monarchy in Belgium on TV right now, so the press is allowed to say bad things about it.

Quite contrary to the free speech zones in the US when GWB shows up in front of the cameras.

NO terrorist attacks? = ironic


No, no major scale terrorist attacks like in the US. Zero in fact in Belgium. And certainly not by muslemic terrorists like I pointed out in my other posts. If you'd bothered to read them properly ofcourse.

Would this history that I "forgot" include any of the wars that I mentioned below, some of which happened back in the 1600's or earlier?


You're ripping my posts out of context. I wasn't talking about wars, but about the geographical history and the territorial claims of ancient tribes.


Oh and if you quote me, please do it properly: Use the quote tags and don't alter things I've said.

[wrench352]

Actually GWB is a born again christian or baptist,who dont particularly get along with the Catholics,at least here in the south.
I can think of a islamic terrorist attack in Yurop.Munich '74. That helped shape our policy on terrorism greatly.
um,I just found this:
http://www.cdu.edu.au/cdss2003/papers/Sym3Papers/Appendix1-joannewright.pdf
Most targets were either American or jewish
No one is immune,even if we pulled out y'all would still have jews.
Its funny,while reading about this years Hahj,for the first time ever I heard the muslim clerics not only denounce terrorism but ostrasize terrorism and suicide bombers. I think we made our point.
Something I think we as Americans should do.Everyone who doesnt like the Patriot Act,or any new restrictive laws.Write you Senators,Congressmen,representative and President,it doesnt matter if your old enough to vote or not.
We had ALL the info to have stopped 9/11. This was not GWBs fault. We knew who was involved and what they were doing. The ball was dropped by many people INS,FBI,CIA etc. They need to get better anlysts and management.If a retard is empowered you only get a more powerful retard. I fully encourage everyone to communicate with there representatives,and tell them they're wants and needs.It does not take much to get they're attention.
The terrorists attacked us for a wide variety of reasons.We're a christian nation,we support Isreal,our involvement in the gulf war,etc.
Also can someone help here,who does the PGI,RMPG,PSI endorse for president?I'd be shocked if its Demo
my letter to John Kerry:
Congratulations on your candicacy for President.Myself and a few friends have an interest in pyrotechnics,high power rocketry and home chemistry(sometimes involving energetic materials). We wonder if your election to president would effect us in anyway. Several members of the Democratic party have passed very restrictive legislation on these hobbies and we wonder how you feel about them.Could we expect even more restrictions?

[vulture]

I just found this:
http://www.cdu.edu.au/cdss2003/pape...oannewright.pdf


If you read that document carefully, you'll see that most of these things were arrests. The only real attacks are those of the ETA, which are not muslemic.

This whole thread shows how much you really hate muslems and then you're surprised they hate you?

I can think of a islamic terrorist attack in Yurop.Munich '74. That helped shape our policy on terrorism greatly.

The attack was solely against Israelian sportsmen and it occured at the same time of another "hot spot" in Israel. Munich was just the place, not the motivation.

Muslems carry out suicide attacks because that's the only way for them to get some revenge. They don't have the luxury of carpet bombing cities from a cosy cockpit.

They have to have the guts to blow themselves up.

[akinrog]

I don't want to seem to defend Islamic Radicals. I have shown my position regarding fundamentalists/ radicals. But I would like to point out something which I deem important. Moslem World did not pass through the social evolution phases that Christian world experienced. In my opinion, my post may be helpful to enable forum members to understand what kind of people, US has to deal with. I would like to describe my point of argument as follows:

As you may know, during the Medieval Ages, Europe was mainly at feudal stage and although Europe seemed to be constituted by a few states which were ruled by Monarchs, there were several nobles as well as Christian Church which owned land and any people living in their lands was subjects i.e. in other words, somewhat slaves (I don't know the exact term for this, but there must be one) (An important sidenote : I don't write these for belittling European people but trying to point out current situation of that time in order to make a comparison with the Moslem world). Due to feudality of the continent, they cannot come together to defeat Arabs and Ottoman Empire which were incessantly raiding the borders and invading any land they could. In the mids of the current separated situation of that time, Church was an important actor which somewhat directed and united the forces of European monarchs (e.g. Crusades, etc.). And again amongst the feudal lords, Church was an important and the strongest one although it is not actually a feudal lord. Since it assumed a spiritual and holy character, they were untouchable. However the worst aspect of Church was its scholastic (sp?) attitude. Althogh science was progressing, the Church simply preventing the science from gaining ground (remember Copernicus, Galileo, etc.) During that time Europe was well behind the Moslem world due to fact that the Church was imposing its scholastic doctrine over its congregation, thereby preventing scientific knowledge and the Greek philosophy from being accessible to ordinary citizens/subjects. About 14th century, there rose a movement called Renaissance which brought enlightment of the ordinary people and the states somewhat became secular forcing the clergymen's hands off from state affairs. Those monarch states which ignored such movements (i.e. enlightment and secularism) disappeared in the history (one recent example of this is Russian Empire, wherein the Monarch Tzar assumed the position of as a chosen by the God and ignored the scientific developments and another antagonist example is Ottoman Empire which was not secular and Sultan assumed the position of the Allah's shadow which again ignored scientific and cultural development thereby preparing its fall). However those states (monarch or republic) which assumed and pursued the enlightment brought about by the Rennaisance, prospered over the time and defeated their enemies.

In short, the direct (and most important) consequence of Rennaisance was minimization of the Clergymen's influence over the state affairs, which this process is called secularism. After the enlighment and secularism of Europe, European people start to kick the Moslem invaders out of Europe, thanks to scientific and technologic achievements, European people start improving scientifically, developing a great/huge knowledgebase and prosper over time. At last, they managed to do industrial revolution which was the end of the game for Moslem world.

Now let's look at what Moslems were doing during that time. As you may know, Islam was born in Arab peninsula during 6th century. Newborn Moslem state started as a theological state whose first president (yes President) was the Prophet Mohammad. And theological characteristics of this Moslem state and all and any concurrent and successor Moslem state(s) always remained throughout the history. During the initial times, Moslems were not more bigotic and strictly religious than Christians of that time. And due to dynamism created by the Islamic revolution and birth, the Moslems were good at science, philosophy etc. (Look at the English word "Algebra", if you look at the etymology of this word it is an Arabic word Al-jabr which literally means reunion of broken parts. The number zero again originates from Arabic which some historical sources claim that zero was discovered by Arabs.) After a few centuries, the Islam started to become corrupt when Moslem Clergyman (mollahs) noticed their influence over their coreligionists. They abused their power to gain power over their rivals. And Islam did not pass through the secularism process that Christianity passed, so Mollahs always have a strong influence over the congregations. An example of this is hashshahin (which is the original /ancestor Arabic word of English word Assassin) which was a secret terrorist sect of Moslems which killed their enemies (mainly Crusaders) under the influence of hashish, as inspired and directed by Sheikhs /Mollahs. This sect was one of the first examples of terrorism.

I can hear you say this bitch started raving again. But I am coming to the main point of my argument. The main achievement attained by Europe by means of secularism is suppression of Christian clergymen, some of whom are power hungry people, trying to remove certain rulers from the throne and putting new ones. In addition, since these power hungry clergymen trying to prevent modern knowledge from entering into brains of European people, they were the main obstacle before the development. However, Moslem world had no opportunity to pacify and suppress Mollahs/Sheikhs to become secular thereby making use of modern knowledge, science, technology, philosophy and adapting themselves to modern world and thereby fairly competing with their Western rivals.
What I am trying to say the current aggressiveness/offensiveness of the ordinary Moslem people does not (mainly) originates from their religious ideas but from the directions, inspirations, preaching of the Mollahs. Mollahs says fight a Jihad (Holy War) against non-believers. Some moslem countries (actually only one, my country, with 99% of the population is Moslems) tried to establish a secular state but now even these countries are attempted to be captured by Islamic bigotism, due to hardships they experienced due to some political mistakes of the respective superpowers, and economic as well as political failures of the government(s).

Unfortunately US played the wrong cards in order to prevent soviets from gaining power in Moslem countries. US played their bets on the right-wing actors in Moslem countries to achieve that end, who became sooner or later a supporter of Islamic Bigots. If US supported social democrats (like it did in Europe) and other modern mild people in Moslem countries, today we shall not face with these foolish and dire events. For example look at Saudi Arabia. Possession of drugs in SA by a Moslem entails execution of these individuals by deheading them off by a sword (which is brutal in my opinion) according to Shariah (Islamic Laws), although if you are a non-moslem and a citizen of a developed country, they have no guts to dehead you or apply capital punishment. if you steal in SA, the hand with which you have stolen is cut. In addition, there is serious hypocricy by US and other western people (although this may be due to biased media) when an execution takes place in for example Iran (which GWB mentions to be a member of Evil Axis) according to Shariah, the western people starts rising and yelling, but the Shariah procedures are incessantly implemented in SA. and nothing uttered by Western people against it and it attains no media coverage in Western sphere. A strange coincidence (!!!). OBL is (or was?) a citizen of SA.

So in order to conclude, I recommend you to stop supporting fundamentalists and right wing actors in moslem countries notwithstanding their origins and the sweet profits you leached from them. And at least in my country, although my people are more or less bigotic Moslems (which bigotism attained a great momentum after the CIA sponsored military coup d'etat during 80s), they are mainly ignorant and harmless people. Since they are un(der)educated or only superficial education is given to them, they sooner or later fall and/or shall fall into hands of pigheaded bigots.

[NightStalker]

There's two ways of looking at this.

Either A) Bush is a Nazi:

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/bushnonazi.html

OR

B) Bush is a puppet of ZOG:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/rickross.htm

Either way, we lose.

[wrench352]

First off I want to say that I dont hate all Muslims,I just have very little if any respect for them. And this is only post 9-11, prior to that they had my sympathy (the Palestinians), but to see them cheering in the streets,well,that ended that. Also on Muslims and suicide attacks: I think they do it because they're stupid. SWIwrench could cause as much chaos with a sniper rifle and live to do it repetedly. In Islamic schools instead of a real education, they get an education in hate. I suppose because the ignorant are easily manipulated.
It gets harder to defend Bush every week,but thank God at least things are settleing over there.Now we have Haiti and Howard Stern to contend with. The NRA is really filling my email box every day (up to 12 alerts!!),so the fight is really on.
Well,its really coming down to the Liberals vs the Conservatives. This should really be interesting. I notice however that Kerry really doesnt say much of anything. I think his stategy is to let Bush dig his own grave. I think the liberals are still out numbered and their stategies I've seen so far is shit.
Oh BTW,I'll admit some of our past foreign policy decisions were flawed, but why do you hold Bush accountable for them? (this was brought up before but not directly like this). Will y'all continue with Kerry in the Whitehouse? The last time a similar scenario played out was Somalia.

[vulture]

but to see them cheering in the streets,well,that ended that.

The cheering of the palestinians was archive material broadcasted by CNN and had nothing to do with 9/11. Just to show you how corrupt and biased your media are...

[jim2]

Normally I would not get involved in political discussions but I have never heard so many people writing about things that they have no idea what the truth really is.The paranoid raving of Vulture that after all he put down has the balls to say that the right wing always puts down people.I now see how shallow and scared and peity some of our European members are because Europe not America is being left behind the changing times and you critize all that do not do think as you do.America is the leader and you are being left behind because of alot of talk but no action on your part.You talk about outrage...Where was the European concious when tens of thousands of eastern European Muslims were being killed because they were Muslims.Belgium and FRance and Germany and others did not have the balls to do anything to stop the killing until the Americans used there power to stop the killings.In Checnia the Russians are killing thousands and eUROPE DOES NOTHING.In Africa, Belgium UN troops ran while almost a million people were slaugtered.
No matter what you say America saved Europe in 2 wars and many countries in Asia as well and now Iraq and Afganistan will be free and it sticks in Europes craw that many countries did nothing while Saddam killed thousands every year(where was the outrage Vulture )? France and Germany and Belgium hate the idea that America is changing the world and you have nothing to say about it.An old European adage" History is written by the victor" pains many.
We now know that France, Germany,Russia and others did not want the war because they sold weapons to Iraq during the UN embargo and they were looking out for their own interests:oil contract to France-Billions owned to Russia-German companies selling weapons etc . Yes, I am sure America had interests too but Europes pious and holier than thou attitude when it was all self interests.
Statements of American critics like "The Kurds sided with Iran during the war,What was Saddam supposed to do with them". I guess killing up to 10,000 men women and children was OK hah.Vulture-I did not hear you condeam that act of murder,or is it only that America is wrong and it is alright for other to massacure people.Saddam had and he used WMD's .He admitted he had them,All of the worlds major intelligent agencies believed he had them( in the UN, France,Germany,Russia and all the others voted that they had them and the UN inspectors said he had them.Saddams son-n-laws(who were later killed) told the UN where they were and Saddam admitted they had WMD's.
Before I finish I would also like to mention the lack of moral outrage by the European governments at the open anti-semetic feeling aand acts that are increasing especially in France(come guys-be honest with yourselves,your anti- American raving means nohting unless you are able to admit your own shortcomings.Americans can and do tear into our leaders and debate the good and bad in America.If we are for Buch or not we are Americans and do not need to be told how wrong we are by jealous-narrowminded bigots who are anti-America but have no moral outrage or courage of there own.When your balls grow and are willing to put your action where your mouths are I will be more than willing take you seriously as a citizen of the world.
BY the way,where is all the freedom in some European countries where thw "anti-hate" laws are in effect.It is my understanding that you can be jailed for speaking your mind.
I know that I am not the most popular guy here now and If my forum membership is cancelled I am sorry but I could not stand America being mauled by the likes of some.

[vulture]

For gods sake READ the thread before you post! Everything you said has been covered by me.

I did condemn Saddams actions, READ the thread.

The US selled all the CW precursors to Iraq, Germany, Belgium and France selled apparatus that COULD be used for WMDs. But usually, milk kettles are being used to pasteurize milk, not for WMDs.

Where was the European concious when tens of thousands of eastern European Muslims were being killed because they were Muslims

WTF are you talking about? Killing of Muslems in Eastern Europe, where?
Do you mean Serbia perhaps? Fucking everyone was getting killed there and we had troops there, on the ground. Not stealth fighters bombing the shit out of civilian targets.

Vulture-I did not hear you condeam that act of murder

READ THE FUCKING THREAD!

Before I finish I would also like to mention the lack of moral outrage by the European governments at the open anti-semetic feeling aand acts that are increasing especially in France

Anti-semitic feeling is a rather warped way of looking at it. Europe condems the actions of Israel against the Palestinians, which are being commited with weapons that the US supplied. Who's the hypocrit now?

Which acts in France? You're doing nothing but throwing hollow statements up into the air.

When your balls grow and are willing to put your action where your mouths are I will be more than willing take you seriously as a citizen of the world.

Did you fight in Iraq, Checnia? Did your president fight in Nam? No. So kindly STFU. You never fought a devastating war on your own soil, so you have NO idea what it's like. Like I've said a million times before (READ THE FUCKING THREAD!) that's why were against war, because it kills more innocent people than the real crims.

BY the way,where is all the freedom in some European countries where thw "anti-hate" laws are in effect.It is my understanding that you can be jailed for speaking your mind.


Bullshit. Don't pull stuff out of your ass.

I gues the free speech zones (see further up in this thread!) when Bush pays a visit somewhere are true freedom?

He admitted he had them,All of the worlds major intelligent agencies believed he had them( in the UN, France,Germany,Russia and all the others voted that they had them and the UN inspectors said he had them.Saddams son-n-laws(who were later killed) told the UN where they were and Saddam admitted they had WMD's.

Have you been hiding in a cave or something for the last few months? Blix never found anything, the US forged "intelligence" about uranium and the head of the US WMD research team recently resigned because he believed the search was useless, because there were no WMDs in Iraq.

Saddam also NEVER admitted having WMDs.

Stop pulling stuff out of your ass, it makes you look ridiculous.

EDIT: BTW, if we're so cowardly and not ready for action, why did the US try to shoot down any plan about a mutual european defense force?

Why we're they so fucking scared about the Europeans uniting their defense forces? That would really benefit the war on Terror, since it would allow for much more swift response and logistical support. But noooo, the Europeans couldn't possibly do anything beside the umbrella of the NATO, which has become the main US warmongering machine.

Let me also remind you that the Belgians arrested Nizar Trabelsi, which was planning to bomb Kleine Brogel, a US airbase in Belgium, and the US embassy in Paris. The US intelligence services kindly "overlooked" him.. :rolleyes:

I'll tell you why, because attacks in Europe on US targets could possibly cause more support for the US.

For you conclusion jumpers, notice that this terrorism was in Europe, but against US targets. Not against the EU population itself.

[Arkangel]

I have never heard so many people writing about things that they have no idea what the truth really is Curious then that you go on to talk so much utter crap.

It's 3am and I've just got home, otherwise I'd dismantle your ill-informed, illogically postulated and difficult to read post. (It's customary, and helpful to add a space after a full stop so you can see where the next sentence starts)
As it is, I think it shows you pretty well for what you are without any help from me!

[vulture]

otherwise I'd dismantle.....difficult to read post.

That seems to be a common thing amongst Bush supporters, take a look at this thread in general.

Not to imply anything....

[nbk2000]

This whole topic is pointless, as "The Man", as 60's radicals would refer to them, is in charge, and getting ever better at putting a stranglehold on the world and everyone in it.

You can complain about Bush and the tyrannical american government till your tongue falls out and our ears (or fingers and eyes, in this case) bleed, and it'll have accomplished ZIP.

Bush will still be in power, even if Kerry has to have a "tragic accident", to make sure it happens.

America will still be in control of the Iraqi oil fields, euros will still have to suck it up and deal with it, and we little peon peasants can rant and rave about it all we want.

Because unless you start assassinating the people in charge and making them afraid for their lives for their actions, unless they change, you'll never change anything with just your words.

So, since this thread has lasted WAY beyond any useful purpose, I'm closing it.

To everyone personally invested with "winning" this argument...get a life. :rolleyes:

Remember:

"Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics...even if you win, you're still retarded.". :p

Hey, better yet, vent some of that pent up frustration in true pyro fashion, and blow some shit up! :D

PEACE!