Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Have US cityzens fear to block Bush?


Recommended Posts

Silly Willy Nilly posters!!! This crap about Baby George bringing the head of Saddam because DADDY couldn't do it. Yeah...that's it! Effing brilliant! And Baby George wants ALL THE WORLDS OIL! "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" goes the cries from the "students" and "artists". More shite. Should we have let Saddam plunder and murder for 60 percent of the world's oil when he was eventually going to take over Saudi Arabia as well, right??? Your frikkin computer is partially composed of oil/petroleum products. It aint just gas-o-line. Duh! Read key objectives and get used to them~~~> 1-MAINTAIN FREE FLOW OF OIL 2-SADDAM'S USE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WITH INTENT AND PREVIOUS USE) NOT NICE! 3-ALLY ISRAEL AND OTHER NATIONS IN CROSSHAIRS OF LONGER RANGE AL-HUSSEIN ROCKETS WITH CHEM/BIO/POSS NUKE WARHEADS. HELLO????????? Like....give it a rest, you whackos out there in "idealism-land". Time to bust some dictators ass out there.....NATION BUILD, you know, instill a halfway democratic system of government, and stop the propogation of these radical groups/individuals from forming and fomenting in the first place. The Iraqui people have been brainwashed into thinking that their piss-poor situation is due to the "Americans and Zionists". Do you wonder why they DESPISE us??? Get real, you armchair socialist/anarchist/lefties/knowwhatsgood for allofus types. Other that that, peace out, dudes! [img]http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung/waffen/waffen056.gif[/img]

Joe Pine (60's talk show host who sported a wooden leg) to Frank Zappa -- "So, with your long hair, I guess that makes you a woman." Frank Zappa's response -- "So, with your wooden leg, I guess that makes you a table."

 

 

http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/album.php?aid=2001&alid=-1

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply
To demonize one and uplift the other seems to me to be the ultimate folly. Any man of power must be watched closely. The psychological corruption that can be incited by power is quite observable. And before you all pass this off as some idealistic mumbo jumbo, I'm all for war, as long as it's just Sadaam and Dubyah in the ring working it out. Leave the rest of us out of it.

"All conditioned things are impermanent. Work out your own salvation with diligence."

 

The Buddha's Last Words

 

R.I.P. RobT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Jedi: [b]I'm all for war, as long as it's just Sadaam and Dubyah in the ring working it out.[/b][/quote]Why don't you have one of those 'special' names for Saddam? Just an observation. Rick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Salty Tonk: [b]Hey DX and Lee Tyler read my post closer.I'm on your side.[/b][/quote]Gotcha, Salty! My last post wasn't for you... I edited it accordingly. Sorry for the misconception. I guess I'm just fed up with the general attitude that we are the instigators of this whole thing. I won't deny that things could have been handled differently on all sides. But this is how it is [i]now[/i], so we need to buckle down and deal with it. If it means war, so be it. Our boys (and girls) in uniform are aware of the dangers of war. So are our leaders. Bottom line, whether its about oil, religion, power, real estate, it needs to end and if the only way to end it is to scrap, then lets toe the line. And at this point, it looks like the only way to end it for good [i]is[/i] by force. DX

Aerodyne Jazz Deluxe

Pod X3 Live

Roland Bolt-60 (modified)

Genz Benz GBE250-C 2x10

Acoustic 2x12 cab

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Rick Kruezer Why don't you have one of those 'special' names for Saddam? Just an observation. Rick [/quote]Well Rick, that "special name" for Bush is not of my own invention. I got it from these forums and it just cracks me up. But yeah that would be a good idea, how about "Sadman" well that sucks or "Sadvomit" or "Sadonna". Now, that has a ring to it. Lincoln Ross Dead Black Jedis

"All conditioned things are impermanent. Work out your own salvation with diligence."

 

The Buddha's Last Words

 

R.I.P. RobT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]so how 'bout them Lakers?? [/quote]They seem to be pulling it together.The Mavs are like 14 games up on them though.But the Mavs haven't proven they can beat the West's elite(LA,Sac,and the Spurs).The Mavs probably wont win the ring this year.But I can't help being excited about them turning it around after 15 years of being the NBA doormat.Mavs are just a couple of pieces away,maybe next year.This year appears to be the Kings. :D
jgc2002 is not responsible for damages ,injuries and or death as result of above post.Side effects include nasuea,dizziness,dry mouth,vomiting,blurred vision,nervousness,loss of memory and in extreme cases sexual side effects. www.mp3.com/salt_creek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Rick Kreuzer: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Jedi: [b]I'm all for war, as long as it's just Sadaam and Dubyah in the ring working it out.[/b][/quote]Why don't you have one of those 'special' names for Saddam? Just an observation. Rick[/b][/quote]GOOD observation. A (derogatory) nickname for Bush and the real name for Hussein. That's a little suspicous. You can clearly see Jedi's sympathy for Saddam in that. I'd suggest you report him to the Homeland security people as an "enemy combatant" before he does anything to further help Saddam to destroy the US. :D
"Ya gots to work with what you gots to work with". - Stevie Wonder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to Tron's original question, the "block" he mentions wouldn't work here because in spite of what is supposed to be, OUR government officials think otherwise. More succinctly, if any of you ever noticed, during elections the candidateds all talk about each other's ability to LEAD. When, in fact, they are supposed to be elected to SERVE. That being said, it's obvious our government officials believe they are in the position to DICTATE(yes! I said that!) our nations course instead of work out what the people may actually require. And it's not getting any better. What do you suppose the government is hoping to accomplish with the sought after directive to take a tally of Mosques and Muslims living in this country? Would that be Bush's way of enforcing his claim that Islam is not the enemy? And just how good do you suppose homeland security is actually working? Let me give you an example... Last May, I bought a carton of cigarettes at the duty free store on this side of the Ambassador Bridge before going into Canada. On the return home, the guards at this side of the border asked if I made any duty free purchase. As I was already asked that on the Canadian side, where I showed my reciept, and as I was RETURNING from Canada, I assumed the guard meant a purchase at the duty free shop on the Canadian side. When I said no, he spotted the bag of smokes in the back of the car, and started acting like I was smuggling nuclear warheads. When I claimed(which was true) that I didn't realize I had to declare them twice, he called me a liar. The upshot of this whole thing is, from then on, whenever I travel into Windsor, I am asked to pull over to the side and go through extra search and questioning. Invariably, if the car in front of me has Ontario liscense plates, it's simply waved on through. And I'M the natural born, taxpaying and law abiding citizen. Add to that the fact that each time this happens, the level of rudeness is incredible. But to add to the absurdity of this, it only happens if I go over the bridge in the car I was driving the night of the "Great Tobacco Caper." If I take the other car, I just breeze on through only having to show my ID and birth certificate. Now, how SECURE does THAT make you feel? When returning citizens are treated criminally(over a $14 tobacco purchase), and visiting FORIEGNERS are waved by with a smile. The whole thing is a JOKE! And if the government can't manage to sensibly handle things at THAT level, just HOW MUCH can you trust it's ability to handle ANYTHING more SERIOUS?? Go to WAR? Man, would WE fuck that up! Whitefang
I started out with NOTHING...and I still have most of it left!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote] What do you suppose the government is hoping to accomplish with the sought after directive to take a tally of Mosques and Muslims living in this country? Would that be Bush's way of enforcing his claim that Islam is not the enemy? [/quote]With all due respect Whitefang,there has not been any muslim leaders speak out against terrorism against the US ,neither here nor abroad.You can't deny the fact that radical muslims make up 99% of the terrorist landscape.I'm not saying that that Islam is the enemy,and niether is Bush,but is it just a coincidence that most terrorist are muslim?........As to the rest of your post,I agree about bureaucratic red tape.But the way I look at it,We have to have faith that they can handle the sensitive millitary and security issues.Our armed services are the best trained in the world and I believe our intelligence agencies are as well.They know all the things we're not privey to.You and I can never know all the facts.If you have any ideas on who to trust other than the best trained collective of soldiers,agents,and investigators,please let me know.Plus these folks are our friends and nieghbors,brothers,sisters,mothers,and fathers.They have our best intrest in mind.
jgc2002 is not responsible for damages ,injuries and or death as result of above post.Side effects include nasuea,dizziness,dry mouth,vomiting,blurred vision,nervousness,loss of memory and in extreme cases sexual side effects. www.mp3.com/salt_creek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The US could just as easily seal off it's borders and harden 'Homeland Security' and choose to take no outside action, other than to protect itself against any direct attacks... we could sit back and watch the terrorists reduce the 'Western World' to chaos." Which might actually work to our benefit; then, the 'holdouts' would take some pounding of their own and realize 'Hey...this sucks!' then throw in a bawwwk! for Superchicken. I see a lot of valid points, here on the forum...more than I've got the time to respond to for the moment. For what it's worth: * "Thoughts of getting my wife and son out of the country and keeping my mouth shut become more attractive." A work-in-progress for us. For my wife and I, we are in a similar boat. All we want is to leave people alone and be left alone. We want our friends...after that, no problemo. FWIW: I don't trust our President. I didn't vote for him. Lots of us didn't, and we got him anyway through still questionable means. Shortly after the 'election', he came through our area; an observer on the street asked him why he felt he had to steal the election. GWB's response? "Aw, who the hell cares what you think!!!" Yeah, buddy...a man who 'cares about his country'. OTOH: I think Husseins' a threat, and I think he needs to be contained. Contrary, probably. I don't trust him AT ALL...I think he's poised to become another N. Korea...and I think he needs to be 'contained'. To those who think he's harmless: Hello? He has verbalised his disdain for us, as have certain other, uh, "regional" cultures, so it's no stretch to figure they're shaking hands. (It also stuns me how a few regional cultures can be embroiled in their own lack of conflict resolution for centuries then bring the REST OF THE WORLD in on their schoolyard fight..."I just wanna say 'We'll stop when YOU stop!' But hey....what do I know...I'm just a human.) I DO wish we had more support from other countries, but then it moves back to my first statement. It's a double-edged sword I live on, and I make no excuses, because I don't think the world can be summed up in black or white. Hussein needs to be contained, and I think Bush is just nuts enough to go in there and do it like a wild man, but after that, we need some serious control, ourselves. Hussein and Bush are fightin' a family war, and it has little to do with us, anymore. tnb: "It wouldn't be because when Americans go abroad that they act like dicks, would it??? Of course not all Americans, just the ones who seem to think that everybody needs to kiss their ass because they are Americans." dead fucking on. It's so hard to keep a low profile overseas because of the rep some Americans leave for you to deal with, like demands that our culture be accomodated..."HOW COME YOU DON'T SERVE ICE IN MY DRINK!!! ARE YOU COMMUNISTS?" I heard this, once. Nice restaurant. In London. 1978. I was profoundly embarrassed. Sometimes, I get sad because I feel these might be the end times; I don't reference to 'the Bible', because it is a collection of works and stories assembled long after the events and written and interpreted and re-written and re-interepreted by human beings over the course of a couple centuries, but I do look at the increasing stupidity and abandonment of what used to be common sense, these days. "More succinctly, if any of you ever noticed, during elections the candidateds all talk about each other's ability to LEAD. When, in fact, they are supposed to be elected to SERVE. That being said, it's obvious our government officials believe they are in the position to DICTATE(yes! I said that!) our nations course instead of work out what the people may actually require. And it's not getting any better." whitefang NAILS it...fucking NAILS it. when the people of this country are willing, as a whole, to stand up to the weapons shoved in their face every time dissent is voiced, then change will occur. tron: To address your question...No, maybe we don't really fear blocking Bush, we fear the repercussions. We either a) don't have the means to effectively block, or b) don't trust our luck in being left alone after griping. In some ways, it's not a hell of a lot different than the stories you read about certain other countries. AGAIN: All we (my wife and future children and I) want is to leave people alone and be left alone. Why is this so hard? (p.s. danymal_x...it's 'foul', not 'fowl', in this context. I had a hard time not chuckling at the image of the people crying 'chicken'. sorry, man...)
I've upped my standards; now, up yours.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Salty Tonk: [b]With all due respect Whitefang,there has not been any muslim leaders speak out against terrorism against the US ,neither here nor abroad.[/b][/quote][b]"Who has the greatest duty to stop violence committed by Muslims against innocent non-Muslims in the name of Islam? The answer, obviously, is Muslims."[/b] [i]Ingrid Mattson, Vice President, Islamic Society of North America[/i] [b]"Hijacking Planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood constitute a form of injustice that can not be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts."[/b] [i]Shaykh Abdul Aziz al-Ashaikh, Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and Chairman of the Senior Ulama, on September 15th, 2001[/i] [b]"The terrorists acts, from the perspective of Islamic law, constitute the crime of hirabah (waging war against society)."[/b] [i]September 27, 2001 - Fatwa, signed by: Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Grand Islamic Scholar and Chairman of the Sunna and Sira Countil, Qatar Judge Tariq al-Bishri, First Deputy President of the Council d'etat, Egypt Dr. Muhammad s. al-Awa, Professor of Islamic Law and Shari'a, Egypt Dr. Haytham al-Khayyat, Islamic scholar, Syria Fahmi Houaydi, Islamic scholar, Syria Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani, Chairman, North America High Council [/i] [b]"Neither the law of Islam nor its ethical system justify such a crime."[/b][i] Zaki Badawi, Principal of the Muslim College in London. Cited in Arab News, September 28, 2001.[/i] [b]"It is wrong to kill innocent people. It is also wrong to praise those who kill innocent people."[/b][i] Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai, Pakistan. Cited in the New York Times, September 28, 2001. [/i] [b]"What these people stand for is completely against all the principles that Arab Muslims believe in."[/b] [i]King Abdullah II, of Jordan; cited in the Middle East Times, September 28, 2001. The above statements by high ranking international Muslim scholars and leaders appeared in an advertisement placed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, in the New York Times, October 17th, 2001 (p. A 17) [/i] [b]"I'm a Muslim. I've been a Muslim for 20 years. I want the world to know the truth about Islam. I wouldn't be here to represent Islam if it were the way the terrorists make it look...Islam is for peace."[/b] [i]Former World Heavyweight boxing champion, Muhammad Ali, at the telethon benefit concert, September 21, 2001. [/i] [b]"Those terrorists must be reading a completely different Quran than the rest of us. This isn't about Islam. It's about terrorism."[/b] [i]US Marine Corps Captain Aisha Bakkar-Poe.[/i] [b]"Terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam is like a knife through my heart - that people would practice Islam, but do deeds like what they've done. It's not true faith. Some people twist religion to the way they think."[/b] [i]US Army Captain Arneshuia Balial, a convert to Islam since 1987. [/i] source: [url=http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm]Muslims Against Terrorism[/url] :idea:

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

Phil Mann

http://www.wideblacksky.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the above post, Philter - I was just about to comment on the same quote. I Don't live in the U.S. therefore I'm not 100% qualified to speak of how filtered the media is there, but I do remember there were many Muslims and Islamic organizations that vilified terrorism in general and the acts that were committed pre and post 9/11. Although I think all religion is completely fucked up, equating Islam to terrorism is like equating Christianity to Slavery and sexism (the king James bible promotes both.) That doesn't make all Christians sexist racists and in the same sense, all Muslims terrorists. Salty Tonk, with all due respect, please check and double-check your facts before posting such statements. Thank you :thu:
meh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to address the original question in a bit more detail: The US Constitution does not allow for a direct vote on specific issues. My understanding is that this is possible in Switzerland, but it never had been here. Our system was intended to be essentially a representative democracy, meaning that we vote for people who then vote on specific legislation. Some states allow exceptions to this, but not at the federal level. The perception among many Americans is that our "democracy" is no longer very "representative". The primary reason for this is simple: Most people don't vote. In fact, I would bet even money that half of the people bitching in this thread did not vote in the most recent election available in their district. There are several other problems as well: * It is so expensive to be elected to national office here that all politicians must raise huge sums of money from businesses and rich people, making them at least somewhat beholden to them. * Because of that, the two parties actually disagree on most issues only in rhetoric, in action they do the same things -- whatever business wants. * Through inattention we've allowed many, if not most, of our civil liberties to erode. * Academia and the media have conspired together to create a culture where appearances are more important than facts. * We've had a polarized two-party system for so long that politically active people often take positions on issues based on being "against" the other party, rather than thinking through each specific issue. Personally, I basically gave up hope when we allowed -- pretty much with no outrage whatsoever -- the feds to pass laws that enable cops to seize the property of people who are *accused* of selling drugs. Not convicted, accused. This has been true for almost 20 years now, and is a clear violation of due process. Yet no one seems outraged. I make it a rule to never vote for anyone who currently holds office. Since the majority of people who are eligible to vote do not, we could completely change the entire Congress next election, by the simple measure of everyone who didn't vote voting for a new person. But it will never happen. --Dave

Make my funk the P-funk.

I wants to get funked up.

 

My Funk/Jam originals project: http://www.thefunkery.com/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is clear to the world,and the U.N. security council, that Saddam is playing a game. This would stand to reason that he has weapons of mass destruction.The game is designed to devide the world,the US,and the UNSC.Listening to the responses on this forum make it clear to me that he is succeeding. Post 9-11,The US,and the western world have good reason to be on the defensive. The western world is the modern Roman Empire,very powerfull,yet,very dependent on outside natural resourses,and very vulnreable because of it. Until we can make industry see the need for alternative energy sources,like hydrogen,solar and wind.Until it's citizens shape the marketplace in such a way that someone in the automobile industry will break rank,and develop a cost effective,affordable means of transportation;oil,will continue to dictate our economy,and our politics. Lets face it.No one in power would care what happens "over there",if big oil,or some other resource, wasn't at stake.If not for "our" dependency or some other "alliances" dependency we probably would not be in this mess. This mess started a long time a go.Now we have to stick together and clean it up.We have made our beds,and so on,and so forth. Rick Irvine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Stephen LeBlanc: [b]DX...I removed my earlier post because I realized I made a lot of unfair assumptions about you...I'd hoped that was obvious. Regardless...I still disagree with your view of the situation. .[/b][/quote]Stephen. You are to be commended for being big enough to do that. These ARE serious issues being dealt with here, and it's far too easy to want to grab someone by the shirt collar and start screaming in their face. I purposely try not to spend too much time in these threads, but I ALSO try very hard not to allow a person's view point to color my view of them as a person. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that two people could be debating passionately in one thread, and helping/joking/supporting each other in another thread. I can really appreciate the sentiment that even though I may strongly disagree with you over something, I will still give you the benefit of the doubt that you are a good person and want what is best people. The great thing about the internet is that we can all express our views about these things. The unfortunate thing about the internet is that we can't shake hands afterward and be friends. [b][i]"For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's futures. And we are all mortal." [/i][/b]

Super 8

 

Hear my stuff here

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Dogfur: [b] [quote]Originally posted by BNC: [b]tron- The majority is not against war, the current split is basically 50/50.[/b][/quote]That would be if you believe the accuracy of major media sponsored polls. I think if any one of us asked 1000 people what they thought it wouldn't be such an even split.[/b][/quote]A 50/50 split would mean there is no majority, but IMHO it is more like 70/30 against the war.[/b][/quote]Man, is your HO wrong..... Sixty-six percent in this ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll support attacking Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, up from 57 percent Jan. 20. And for the first time the slimmest majority, 51 percent, supports action even over U.N. opposition. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/bush_iraq_poll030202.html and this was BEFORE Powell spoke to the UN! Peace, C :wave:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Sir Winston Churchill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. I'm still stunned at the hatred for our country some of you exhibit. I'm surprised at the "war for oil" mantra. I'm surprised at the "no Al Queada connection" mantra, even after the Powell UN discussions. We heard all these silly statements before we went to Afghanastan. "They beat the Russians, Another Vietnam, Innocent civilians will die by the millions, etc. etc. etc.". Please don't let fact get in the way of your hatred for America. 1. There is a huge group if Iraqi citizens allied with us to kick Sadam out of Iraq. They will be the new government. Exactly like we did in Afghanastan. The Afghanastan government is not a puppet government of America, but was elected by the people of Afghanastan. Do any of you remember? 2. If we wanted the oil we would have taken it in 1991. Wasn't the senior President Bush an Oil Man too? Where is your proof we want the oil? 3. The current situation in Iraq is totally different than the situation in N. Korea. Sadam has used his weapons on his own people. He has attacked Israel with Scud missles. N. Korea hasn't attacked anybody for a long time. 4. Iraq borders several small fairly defenseless countries. N. Korea has China right next door. A pretty good deterent. We are not sure Iraq has nukes, we know N. Korea has them. Never take a knife to a gun fight. 5. Our sons and daughters are fighting for our country. You who hate America and support our enemies are showing our children the ultimate in disrespect. You will be the first to call on them to defend your family and your self if we are attacked and yet you stand on the sidelines and throw insults at them, their leaders and their country. The next time you post your anti American hate on a public forum like this, it's too bad you can't remember why you have that right and who is fighting your right to support our enemies. Move to Bagdad, set up a web site and start posting anti Sadam messages like you post anti Bush crap here. I'll give you about 10 minutes of life expectancy. But hey, America is the enemy right? So sad..

Mark G.

"A man may fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame others" -- John Burroughs

 

"I consider ethics, as well as religion, as supplements to law in the government of man." -- Thomas Jefferson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by GZsound@hotmail.com: Move to Bagdad, set up a web site and start posting anti Sadam messages like you post anti Bush crap here. I'll give you about 10 minutes of life expectancy. But hey, America is the enemy right?[/quote]Maybe just you (and those like you) are the enemy. I see other Americans asking serious questions about all this. I see some taking it so seriously they feel they gotta shut up and obey the US government JUST AS IF it was Saddam's government, to protect the safety of their children. I see others deciding for that same reason that they don't dare be silent. I've seen people from the CIA and the military raise objections to this course of action and I've seen retired Joint Chiefs of Staff try to persuade the administration that this is, never mind wrong, a BAD IDEA. It should TELL you something that the goddamn MILITARY is more pacifistic than you- for good, pragmatic reasons having to do with not fueling unnecessary trouble. The military is ABOUT knowing how to do these things correctly and if their judgement is being ignored... It's absolutely bizarre, but right now I would feel safer if the United States was taken over and run by the military alone. I doubt that would be good in the long run, but just for right now, our military is SMARTER than the civilian leadership, and is trying to do the best it can with BAD ORDERS while knowing they're bad, and I have close personal friends in the military who deserve better than this. They are the fist that Bush and his cabal propose to use to punch a brick wall in order to teach it a lesson. Is it too much to ask that the military be used for USEFUL fights that will improve the situation of the United States? Chris Johnson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To those of you who think there is no evidence or rightful cause for a war against Iraq, there could be undisclosed information that the general public will never be privy to. There is a reason that the US is heading in the direction of war, and it isn't oil. I believe it's to prevent future 9/11 scenarios. I'd prefer a peaceful solution, but that just isn't going to happen unfortunately.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by meriphew: There is a reason that the US is heading in the direction of war, and it isn't oil. I believe it's to prevent future 9/11 scenarios.[/quote]So carpet all Iraq with weapons inspectors, permanently. Last I heard they were tripling the numbers. Never mind that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and hates Al Quaeda, which is a twisted perversion of SHIITE Muslim and Iraq is Sunni Muslim. Never mind that when people are fat and happy they talk a lot of trash but strangely aren't willing to die to hurt their enemy, and only intense death and destruction can produce suicidal terrorists- religion alone isn't enough to make terrorists. I can't agree more with your desired goal there, but you've gotta be smarter about achieving it- and I expect the people who run my country and make the decisions to be smarter about achieving it. It's not like they haven't been told over and over by their own military and intelligence agencies! Chris Johnson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Jedi: [b] But yeah that would be a good idea, how about "Sadman" well that sucks or "Sadvomit" or "Sadonna". Now, that has a ring to it. [/b][/quote]Nah! Saddam works just fine. It accurately describes what he's been doing to the people of his and neighboring countries for some time. Iraq has been 'saddam-[i]ized[/i]' :eek: :freak:

Super 8

 

Hear my stuff here

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris- The former Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff, Colin Powell, supports using military action. He has historically been against using the military whenever possible. Please post some examples of military heads of state who oppose the administrations actions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by GZsound@hotmail.com: [b]Wow. I'm still stunned at the hatred for our country some of you exhibit. [/b][/quote]GZ, I don't think it's a 'hatred of America'. Maybe some do hate America, but I suspect that most by far love America. I REALLY think what it comes down to is a distrust of our government. For some, it may be only a distrust of Republicans in government. But for others it may be distrust of politicians PERIOD. Have you ever seen the bumper stickers that say "I love my country but fear my government"? A lot of people would agree with that statement. What do you think, GZ? Do you fear your government? Do you fear certain people in government? What do you think of lobbyists courting our politicians over pro-business, anti-business, pro-religion, anti-religion -many things you'd probably agree with, and many others that you would stand opposed to? Are people 'anti-wealth' or just 'anti-greed'? There is a difference -I'm sure you would agree. It's true that there are many very wealthy people serving in our government. It's not surprising really. Many are successful at business, hence they've made money. Many who are successful in business have good contacts. And lets not forget how unfortunately expensive it is to campaign for an election. The problem with this is that many people have a distrust of wealthy business oriented people. I think they see them as greedy and self-serving, and willing to take advantage of the less-fortunate in order to serve their own selfish interests. What do you think of this, GZ? Would you deny that there HAVE been wealthy politicians who have acted that way in the past? Can you understand why many people might say; "I've been bitten once and I won't allow them to do it to me again." Can you understand why -with a seemingly endless supply of scandals emerging- that people would have some trouble even relating to our politians as even being human??? I bring all of this up to point out that there may be less that divides us than it appears. The problem with division is that we all end up endlessly fighting each other over relatively small differences in opinion. I say 'small differences' because I think those differences appear much larger than they really are. But if we can establish the things that unite us, if we can establish whether or not we can agree on a single desired outcome -regardless of the means-, then I think we can see that our differences in determining how to solve our problems and achieve our goals are really not that great. If we could unite, I think we could be much more productive. I really feel that there needs to be less 'them' and 'us' and more 'we'. Sorry if that sounds flowery or too idealistic and unrealistic. But every realized goal starts out as an idealistic dream. Society is a work in progress, and 'NEVER' is a long time.

Super 8

 

Hear my stuff here

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point meriphew. The best example being the US and Russia during WWII. We were not big fans of Stalin and communism, but we banded together because Hitler was much worse. I'd say that opposing groups in Iraq and the entire Arab world could easily come to face the US. One of Saddam's tactics is to unite the Arab world against westerners.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...