| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/18/2004 02:21:38 PM · #826 |
Ah well, I'm afraid we just approach things from different angles. David Kay has sold out, and Scott Ritter's integrity was long ago sold out - I'd not trust either of them. And as for destabilizing the middle east more than it was prior to our going in there, I'd say that remains to be seen. But, I've gotta sign off for now - don't have time left to play for a while. Later! Keep searching for the truth - it's out there!
|
|
|
|
03/18/2004 04:48:21 PM · #827 |
Originally posted by kaycee:
While there may or may not be a direct link between Al Quiada and Saddam Hussein, they're equal in my book. Both Bin Ladin and Hussein are/were terrorist thugs. |
And yet you are completely comfortable with the facts that our current Secretary of Defense went to visit Mr. Hussein (without a contingent of Marines), and our country sold him arms and materiél (including the fixings for the famous gas he used against the Iraqi Kurds)?
And it's OK with you that bin Laden received mucho bucks (more than welfare payments) from the US, when it was to our advantage to have some thugs harassing the Soviets?
Message edited by author 2004-03-18 16:50:07. |
|
|
|
03/18/2004 07:08:52 PM · #828 |
No, GenE, it's really too bad - but at that time (1983) they were seen as the lesser of two evils. If you recall our hostages (who had been held for 444 days beginning in November of 1979) had only relatively recently returned home. Iran at that time WAS seen as the bad guy, and therefore, helping Iraq to defend itself against waves of Iranian suicide (actually should be called HOMICIDE) bombers was seen to be the best thing to do at the time to combat the terrorism then most prevalent. Ever heard the expression "politics makes strange bedfellows"? Well, sometimes, things are done which have unforeseen consequences down the road. So what do ya do? Do you just compound the errors or take the bull by the horns and try to correct past mistakes?
Wasn't it you just saying on another thread that at least the left is willing to recognize their hypocrisies and change their stance when shown to be wrong?
|
|
|
|
03/18/2004 10:49:41 PM · #829 |
Originally posted by kaycee:
Wasn't it you just saying on another thread that at least the left is willing to recognize their hypocrisies and change their stance when shown to be wrong? |
Yup, it was. Unfortunately that lesser of two evils strategy you avow is why a lot of people vote Democratic. I don't necessarily consider myself aligned with the "left" as they exist in this country though.
And, as I remember, the Iranians were encouraged to keep those hostages for an extra few weeks by Republican election strategists, who then arranged for their release just before the election by selling the Iranians armaments, and sending the money from that to support the thugs who were trying to overthrow the elected government in Nicaragua.
What do you call a country which sells arms to both sides in a conflict? |
|
|
|
03/18/2004 11:49:12 PM · #830 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Nobody is restricting anyone's right to assemble and speak out. Who is doing this?? |
How about when protesters are kept in a restricted area far out of sight/earshot (like a mile away) of the President whenever he goes to speak in public? I'd say that's a significant "restriction" on people's right to "petition for redress ..."
It has nothing to do with safety concerns -- there are plenty of people around Him at the time, just not any who disagree .... |
General, those people (jobless teenage liberals) are much more likely to cause trouble and/or threatin the President in some way, so therefore they have to be controlled, and much more so then if conservatives where protesting Clinton for example. :) I know you'll love this response. LOL.
Basically for them (liberals) it's more of lifestyle, going to protest functions, breaking store windows afterwards, etc., then any real concern for the country. :D
|
|
|
|
03/18/2004 11:54:39 PM · #831 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Nobody is restricting anyone's right to assemble and speak out. Who is doing this?? |
How about when protesters are kept in a restricted area far out of sight/earshot (like a mile away) of the President whenever he goes to speak in public? I'd say that's a significant "restriction" on people's right to "petition for redress ..."
It has nothing to do with safety concerns -- there are plenty of people around Him at the time, just not any who disagree .... |
General, those people (jobless teenage liberals) are much more likely to cause trouble and/or threatin the President in some way, so therefore they have to be controlled, and much more so then if conservatives where protesting Clinton for example. :) I know you'll love this response. LOL.
Basically for them (liberals) it's more of lifestyle, going to protest functions, breaking store windows afterwards, etc., then any real concern for the country. :D |
I think you assertions are entirely unsupportable by any facts; they are complete stereotypes. Even so, that has no bearing on people's Constitutional rights, and the President's sworn oath to uphold its provisions. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were enacted specifically to PROTECT the rights of the UNPOPULAR MINORITY from ignorance or suppression my the popular majority. |
|
|
|
03/19/2004 12:06:46 AM · #832 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think you assertions are entirely unsupportable by any facts; they are complete stereotypes. Even so, that has no bearing on people's Constitutional rights, and the President's sworn oath to uphold its provisions. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were enacted specifically to PROTECT the rights of the UNPOPULAR MINORITY from ignorance or suppression my the popular majority. |
They aren't stereotypes, they are fact 9 times out of 10. When is the last time you heard of a conservative protest that got out of hand, meaning that the people involved in the protest prevented others from going to the jobs or traveling through the city, or destroyed personal property of others and businesses, etc.? The reason liberal protests are more likely to "get out of hand" is because in general, liberals have never been taught the difference between right and wrong.
I'm thinking about going to SF this weekend for this protest thing that's supposed to happen, just to see if somebody tries to block my car or hassle me. :) I'll jump out with my billy-club and teach them a lesson that they should have been taught as a kid. :D :D
|
|
|
|
03/19/2004 12:12:45 AM · #833 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
... if somebody tries to block my car or hassle me. :) I'll jump out with my billy-club and teach them a lesson that they should have been taught as a kid. :D :D |
As you should have learned in school, this is assault and battery (by you) and in California you would deserve about 1-4 years in State Prison. Please leave the agent provocateur activities to the professionals in the FBI .... |
|
|
|
03/19/2004 12:17:41 AM · #834 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As you should have learned in school, this is assault and battery (by you) and in California you would deserve about 1-4 years in State Prison. Please leave the agent provocateur activities to the professionals in the FBI .... |
Yeah, cooler heads preval usually. I won't go to SF I guess, it will just piss me off. :) |
|
|
|
03/19/2004 12:18:12 AM · #835 |
In psychiatric terms I would call that country schizophrenic...
What you're referring to is called October Surprise and it is alleged that it occurred during the election of 1980 between Carter and Reagan. As the story goes, campaign strategists from the Reagan camp met with officials from Iran before the elections...they're still not sure what was spoken about, but it's believed that they made a deal with the Iranians to hold on to the hostages until after the election was over because it was widely believed that if Carter could free the hostages before the election he would win another term and if not, it would go to Reagan. We know how the election turned out, and the hostages I believe were released the same day, or the day after, Reagan was inaugurated. That does sound pretty fishy to me.
During the Reagan administration, arms were sold to both the Iraqis and Iranians during their very bloody 8 year war. We were playing both sides of the fence as we armed the Ayatollah because it was believed at the time that Hussein was a threat to Israel. We also armed Sadaam Hussein, who was also at one time a CIA operative (besides the point) because it was widely believed within the Reagan administration that if the Iranians had won the war with Iraq that we would never get our hands on Iraqi oil that was so necessary to our economic stability.
The problems in the middle east really started in the early part of the century when it was discovered that the mideast had vast quanities of oil reserves by the Brits who started overthrowing leaders in those countries in the region and installed their own puppet regimes to get a hold of that oil. Other countries got involved too, but the US didn't really start to seek out it's own stake until after WWII when they realized just how valuable an asset oil was to the military and the economy.
In 1953 the CIA helped by Kermit Roosvelt (Pres Roosvelt's grandson) helped to overthrow the democratically elected president of Iran, Mozadek and installed the puppet regime of The Shah, who was a dictator and a brutal one...as bad as any we've seen. But, he was the US's guy and we supported him...Over the years, that eventually lead to much discontent from the Iranians who eventually kicked the Shah out again and the Ayatollah was installed into power.
So you see, boys and girls...oil is at the heart of the problems in the mideast, along with the Palestinian problem...and the fact that the US is such a supporter (financially and politically) of Israel, does nothing for us in the eyes of the Arabs. How would you feel if the US were invaded by foreigners for years and years to exploit the natural resources of the country and little was gained for the US population? How would you feel if a brutal dictator was installed here who killed political opposition to that dictator? I think the Arabs have had enough of our western ways.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by kaycee:
Wasn't it you just saying on another thread that at least the left is willing to recognize their hypocrisies and change their stance when shown to be wrong? |
Yup, it was. Unfortunately that lesser of two evils strategy you avow is why a lot of people vote Democratic. I don't necessarily consider myself aligned with the "left" as they exist in this country though.
And, as I remember, the Iranians were encouraged to keep those hostages for an extra few weeks by Republican election strategists, who then arranged for their release just before the election by selling the Iranians armaments, and sending the money from that to support the thugs who were trying to overthrow the elected government in Nicaragua.
What do you call a country which sells arms to both sides in a conflict? |
|
|
|
|
03/19/2004 12:19:09 AM · #836 |
The blood's running down the blackboard of a blind street
Convicts shake the cages of a bad dream
And they'll quote you in the classroom that it cannot happen here
But it has happened here
I remember nothing that I memorized
I got my education from a black eye
And they'll preach you law and order if you dare to play your hand
Spare the club and spoil the man
--Phil Ochs, Another Age (1968) |
|
|
|
03/19/2004 12:23:18 AM · #837 |
Chris, you're so out of touch about who liberals are, it's not even funny...and after a comment about taking out your billy club and commiting assault and battery, I'm wondering if you are "touched."
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As you should have learned in school, this is assault and battery (by you) and in California you would deserve about 1-4 years in State Prison. Please leave the agent provocateur activities to the professionals in the FBI .... |
Yeah, cooler heads preval usually. I won't go to SF I guess, it will just piss me off. :) |
|
|
|
|
03/19/2004 12:30:13 AM · #838 |
.
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think you assertions are entirely unsupportable by any facts; they are complete stereotypes. Even so, that has no bearing on people's Constitutional rights, and the President's sworn oath to uphold its provisions. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were enacted specifically to PROTECT the rights of the UNPOPULAR MINORITY from ignorance or suppression my the popular majority. |
They aren't stereotypes, they are fact 9 times out of 10. When is the last time you heard of a conservative protest that got out of hand, meaning that the people involved in the protest prevented others from going to the jobs or traveling through the city, or destroyed personal property of others and businesses, etc.? The reason liberal protests are more likely to "get out of hand" is because in general, liberals have never been taught the difference between right and wrong.
I'm thinking about going to SF this weekend for this protest thing that's supposed to happen, just to see if somebody tries to block my car or hassle me. :) I'll jump out with my billy-club and teach them a lesson that they should have been taught as a kid. :D :D |
|
|
|
|
03/19/2004 12:31:49 AM · #839 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Chris, you're so out of touch about who liberals are, it's not even funny... |
Oly, most of the time these protests lead to violence don't they? Remember last year's protest in SF? The protestors vandalized business, etc. You see, most of them are not really interested in the protest itself, they are most interested in causing trouble or looking for an excuse to cause problems for others.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
and after a comment about taking out your billy club and commiting assault and battery, I'm wondering if you are "touched." |
I'm just kidding, I wouldn't go looking for trouble. And what does "if you are touched" mean?
|
|
|
|
03/19/2004 12:32:24 AM · #840 |
We're not going to know for 20 or so years if this war was "worth" it. Will it make for a better world? Too early to tell. But should people vehemently protest against their gov't when they disagree. Of course! They are using the lives of our young men and women, not to mention thousands of innocent bystanders. They should be under constant pressure to justify themselves. Conservatives, more than anyone, philsophically speaking, should be opposed to war by executive fiat.
People forget that there was a strong bi-partisan effort to avoid this war. But when Gephardt came out supporting it, no Republican could afford the political fallout of opposing it, so the effort died.
This administration should just be more honest their reasons and their mistakes |
|
|
|
03/19/2004 12:39:38 AM · #841 |
They couldn't be more honest about their motives as this would mean their political ruin.
Originally posted by davidbedard:
People forget that there was a strong bi-partisan effort to avoid this war. But when Gephardt came out supporting it, no Republican could afford the political fallout of opposing it, so the effort died.
This administration should just be more honest their reasons and their mistakes |
|
|
|
|
03/19/2004 12:39:40 AM · #842 |
whoops, cut myself off on my last post.
Anyway, since this rant started with links to a couple of books about individual freedom as opposed to collectivism, let me just say that all people have a collectivist streak with their own pet notions. Look how "States Rights" Republicans act when states do something they don't like.
Me, I live in Mount Pleasant and traffic is getting horrible. I think we need a constitutional amendment to make all people who have moved here in the last five years, leave!. And smokers. Don't get me started. We need a constitutional amendment to keep smokers from getting married! |
|
|
|
03/19/2004 12:45:15 AM · #843 |
I've never seen you here before, David, but I like you already :)
Originally posted by davidbedard:
whoops, cut myself off on my last post.
Anyway, since this rant started with links to a couple of books about individual freedom as opposed to collectivism, let me just say that all people have a collectivist streak with their own pet notions. Look how "States Rights" Republicans act when states do something they don't like.
Me, I live in Mount Pleasant and traffic is getting horrible. I think we need a constitutional amendment to make all people who have moved here in the last five years, leave!. And smokers. Don't get me started. We need a constitutional amendment to keep smokers from getting married! |
|
|
|
|
03/19/2004 12:49:19 AM · #844 |
Originally posted by davidbedard:
We're not going to know for 20 or so years if this war was "worth" it. Will it make for a better world? Too early to tell. But should people vehemently protest against their gov't when they disagree. Of course! They are using the lives of our young men and women, not to mention thousands of innocent bystanders. |
True, war should never be entered into lightly. I think in this case however Bush was going on the information he had. All countries like Iraq who have "WMD" weapons also have a plan that allows them to quickly destroy or MOVE these weapons if discovery of them is iminent. Why has nobody even broght this up? The weapons were probably moved to another country or destroyed a week before war was iminent.
Originally posted by davidbedard:
They should be under constant pressure to justify themselves. |
I agree that there should be pressue to justify themselves, but NOT "Constant pressure to justify..." after the action has been started. That is just a devisive tool used by scum who are opposed to a particular President no matter what they do, good or bad (repub and dem). Their motive in these situations is not for the good of the country but to serve themselves and their own "agenda", and they do this these days with no shame at all.
Originally posted by davidbedard:
This administration should just be more honest their reasons and their mistakes |
Even if part of the reason includes protecting the oil on which this country depends on to survive almost, why are some people so opposed to this? It's for our national security so it's right no matter what (in most cases). I have no problem removing Saddam's control of the oil (if that was really a motive) at all, because he was using the profits from it to fund terrorism and to build his palaces, while the rest of the Iraqi people struggled to even feed themselves. At least now the people will (or have a possibility of) benefiting from the sale of the oil in terms of economic grow, etc. in the country. |
|
|
|
03/19/2004 01:10:09 AM · #845 |
Even if part of the reason includes protecting the oil on which this country depends on to survive almost, why are some people so opposed to this? It's for our national security so it's right no matter what (in most cases). I have no problem removing Saddam's control of the oil (if that was really a motive) at all, because he was using the profits from it to fund terrorism and to build his palaces, while the rest of the Iraqi people struggled to even feed themselves. At least now the people will (or have a possibility of) benefiting from the sale of the oil in terms of economic grow, etc. in the country. [/quote]
I believe protecting the Saudi oil fields was one reason for this war, and given our dependence, a good one. One big reason for the terrorism directed against us, ( stated by Osama himself), was our military presence in Saudi Arabia. It was also becoming a big political problem for the Saudi ruling elite. But we couldn't just leave them with Saddam sitting there on their northern border with a seathing grudge. Its not like we should expect the Saudis to defend themselves! So we had to take out Saddam. And the day after the "war" part of the war was over, we pulled our troops back to Bahrain.
I still think it will be a couple decades before we know if any real improvement will fall to the Iraqi people. So far they have traded a central dictator for a lot of neighborhood dictators. They're at the mercy of of whatever local armed group controls their neighborhood. If that happens to be the U. S. military, they are truly lucky. But that's only about 5% of the population.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2004 01:16:15 AM · #846 |
You are saying then that Sadaam would have attacked Saudi, or al Qaeda, or both?
Originally posted by davidbedard:
Even if part of the reason includes protecting the oil on which this country depends on to survive almost, why are some people so opposed to this? It's for our national security so it's right no matter what (in most cases). I have no problem removing Saddam's control of the oil (if that was really a motive) at all, because he was using the profits from it to fund terrorism and to build his palaces, while the rest of the Iraqi people struggled to even feed themselves. At least now the people will (or have a possibility of) benefiting from the sale of the oil in terms of economic grow, etc. in the country. |
I believe protecting the Saudi oil fields was one reason for this war, and given our dependence, a good one. One big reason for the terrorism directed against us, ( stated by Osama himself), was our military presence in Saudi Arabia. It was also becoming a big political problem for the Saudi ruling elite. But we couldn't just leave them with Saddam sitting there on their northern border with a seathing grudge. Its not like we should expect the Saudis to defend themselves! So we had to take out Saddam. And the day after the "war" part of the war was over, we pulled our troops back to Bahrain.
I still think it will be a couple decades before we know if any real improvement will fall to the Iraqi people. So far they have traded a central dictator for a lot of neighborhood dictators. They're at the mercy of of whatever local armed group controls their neighborhood. If that happens to be the U. S. military, they are truly lucky. But that's only about 5% of the population. [/quote] |
|
|
|
03/19/2004 10:03:54 AM · #847 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
In psychiatric terms I would call that country schizophrenic... |
Perhaps you meant to use the word duplicitous instead of schizophrenic. That you choose to use a different and wholly incorrect term leads me to believe that you do not understand its meaning. Inappropriate use of words like schizoid, schizophrenia, and schizophrenic continue to reinforce the false notion that schizophrenia, a very serious and popularly misunderstood disorder, is characterized by personalities or ideas & thoughts in opposition.
For your reference, one WHO entry on schizophrenia. For good measure, here's another.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2004 11:08:44 AM · #848 |
YOu are right...point taken
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
In psychiatric terms I would call that country schizophrenic... |
Perhaps you meant to use the word duplicitous instead of schizophrenic. That you choose to use a different and wholly incorrect term leads me to believe that you do not understand its meaning. Inappropriate use of words like schizoid, schizophrenia, and schizophrenic continue to reinforce the false notion that schizophrenia, a very serious and popularly misunderstood disorder, is characterized by personalities or ideas & thoughts in opposition.
For your reference, one WHO entry on schizophrenia. For good measure, here's another. |
|
|
|
|
03/22/2004 10:46:35 AM · #849 |
Some interesting quotes from someone who seems to be have served in a lot of administrations as terrorist advisor.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2004 10:51:15 AM · #850 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Some interesting quotes from someone who seems to be have served in a lot of administrations as terrorist advisor. |
60 Minutes probably did OK in the overnight Nielsens too ... |
|
