Bombs in London (England)

[Schmeltz]

It certainly is ridiculous to consider a complete takeover of all the oil in the entire world, but looking at the surreal, fantastic ideological foundation of the Bush brand of conservatism it really isn't hard to imagine PNAC taking a stab at one or two countries' worth of crude, and justifying it with whatever crazy bullshit they feel they can get away with.

The USA - or what Toynbee would probably term the American Civilization - is arguably the most complex, diverse, and multilayered society ever created in human history. Naturally it is neither saint nor devil and it ill behooves anybody to make such broad generalizations. But along with that distinction comes a level of responsibility that, like it or not, will be assigned to you by the rest of us. When the USA bludgeons, it is resented with a power that could never be applied to a less prominent nation, just as Britain and Rome were in their heydays. The sad part of it is that there is so much potential for the American Civilization to really rise to the forefront of human society and be appreciated and envied, rather than jeered and resented. Perhaps that will change with time.

[sam i am]

Naturally it is neither saint nor devil and it ill behooves anybody to make such broad generalizations. But along with that distinction comes a level of responsibility that, like it or not, will be assigned to you by the rest of us. When the USA bludgeons, it is resented with a power that could never be applied to a less prominent nation, just as Britain and Rome were in their heydays. The sad part of it is that there is so much potential for the American Civilization to really rise to the forefront of human society and be appreciated and envied, rather than jeered and resented. Perhaps that will change with time.

So, do you believe the USA is more appreciated and envied around the world or more jeered and resented? Keep in mind, there are probably 2 billion Chines and Indians who appreciate and envy our way of life and are working diligently to emulate it....

[Schmeltz]

From what I've heard the USA is much more resented than appreciated at the moment, having managed to squander the vast outpouring of compassion and goodwill with which the rest of the world responded to 9/11. Lots of people here would say the same thing, I'd wager.

As for the rest of it - probably the average Chinese citizen spends more time thinking about that tiresome American guarantee of Taiwanese sovereignty than he does striving to recreate the American Dream, but that's just my opinion. I seriously doubt most people in the world spend much time thinking about the American "way of life," as you put it. The America they see in the news is the one bombing the shit out of tin-pot tyrants and their impoverished subjects.

[sam i am]

the most difficult concept for those of you in other countries to probably grasp is that we in the USA rarely think about what the rest of the world thinks about us on a day to day basis.

We're too busy going to movies and working and flying and driving and raising our children and cooking and lovemaking and etc., etc.

So, for the most part, we really don't care what the rest of the world thinks unless you have the power to make us stand up and notice.

One thing Al-Qaeda has managed to do, that France and Britain and Germany and Russia have not, is get our attention. We don't worry too much about our "allies" because you are not our active enemies. Now, many citizens in those countries may feel genuine hatred for the US, but they are mostly powerless to do anything about it.

Power equals the ability to get and hold someone's attention. Women have sexual power with straight men. Countries with nukes that they are apt to use them (i.e, N. Korea) have power with countries that are influential on the world scene or want to have power on the world scene.

The American Dream is what we in the USA make it, not what the common man around the world makes it. We have the right and the power to make our visions of how the world should be come true. Unlike the ancient Roman Empire and the British Empire, we also have over 300 million people to accomplish what we set out to do. ancient Rome and the British Empire simply ran out of men and willpower to continue to impose their will on those who were not strong enough to stop them. Especially the British were essentially "bled dry" by WWI (Battle of the Somme, over 600,000 British dead in the space of a few months - think about it). Their Empire crumbled because they didn't have the manpower and the national will to keep holding onto their Empire.

The big, huge, difference with America is : we could make it happen. If we had conscription here, we'd have an army of close to 100,000,000 in the space of a few years. So, it's conceivable that we could take and hold all of the world's oil resources if wanted to. We have the economy and the natural resources to do it. HOWEVER, we CHOOSE not to because America is fundamentally GOOD. Even if you think bush is the anti-Christ, he's gone and out of power in a few more years. No "maniac" can cause the downfall of what we've created, so thank your lucky stars we believe, at our core, in freedom, a betterment of world society, and a lack of imperial drive.

[Ali]

Ok. I read every word of your link under "truth." The hell you did. You read the preamble, saw it wasn't going to support your arguments and dismissed it. If we wanted to, we could go take over all the oil fields in the world and run them solely for our own use. We have the military might. Why don't we just do that and be done with all this endless wrangling? Because the Rest of the World won't let your zillion-dollar-deficit ass do it, that's why.

[Ali]

the most difficult concept for those of you in other countries to probably grasp is that we in the USA rarely think about what the rest of the world thinks about us on a day to day basisexcept the French, of course.

[Ali]

However, liars invariably get caught : Nixon got himself impeached and was forced to resign. Kennedy got himself shot. :eek:

Please, O Learned One, explain to us poor, unedumercated fools how Kennedy got himself shot.

Un buh leeevable!

[Qdrop]

Qdrop, you are a pretentious, pompous, arrogant, self-involved little fuck.

good riddance
.
?
huh?.....i'm not going anywhere....


someday, soba...someday....
you will contribute something meaningful to this section....


someday....

[Burnout18]

:eek:

Please, O Learned One, explain to us poor, unedumercated fools how Kennedy got himself shot.

Un buh leeevable!

For being liberal in a conservative state.... with the top down.

[Qdrop]

For being liberal in a conservative state.... with the top down.

eh....i don't think that was the determinant factor.

[Ali]

For being liberal in a conservative state.... with the top down.For being liberal.

[D_Raay]

D_Raay - I don't think it's blind faith. I am quite confident that I cited numerous examples throughout this thread of where we voluntarily left countries after invading them and mostly making them over.

Here's a few examples off the top of my head :

-The Dominican Republic in the 1920's
-Cuba in 1898
-Panama in 1989 (and before that with the Panama Canal)
-Western Europe after World War II
-The Phillipines after World War II
-Japan after World War II
-France after World War I
-Grenada in the 1980's
-The American South after Reconstruction after the American Civil War
-Mexico after the Mexican-American War of 1848 (we invaded and captured Mexico City)

This is just a partial list. The point is that we have ALWAYS gotten out of other countries after accomplishing what we set out to do. Sometimes, we've had to go back in, as in Panama, because circumstances changed and we were the ones who had to fix it. Who else in the world has stepped up to make these historic changes? France and England were bankrupt colonial powers after WWII.

Finally, to address your point of is our government capable of lying to us for it's own gain? I know that EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING is capable of lying for their own gain. Therefore, it is completely plausible that our government could do the same. It is mad up of human beings.

However, liars invariably get caught : Nixon got himself impeached and was forced to resign. Kennedy got himself shot. Hitler lost a war and an ideology and ended up blowing his own brains out. Stalin died a bitter and paranoid old man. Mussolini got strung up and gutted. For you Liberals for whom Reagan was the anti-Christ : Reagan got Alzheimers and forgot who he was (not many fates worse than that).

So, it's possible, but we have a society and free debate and the ability to band together if and/or when our basic liberties are infringed upon. Trust me, us Conservative Republicans still believe in the Constitution and we'll be there with our Liberal friends if ever there is a government that truly exceeds it's rights to our liberties. That's a promise! :cool:

I'm sorry Sam, I truly enjoy your posts (it's most refreshing, all we have is Sisko and valvano), but I just don't see a bigger crime that can be committed than lying to the people to get us into a needless war. I think what conservatives don't get about the left is we don't consider any human loss to be acceptable. Especially under these circumstances.

I was not very political to be honest, even though I am close to several individuals on Capitol Hill, until the 2000 election. I was completely shocked at what transpired then and came to the conclusion that a camp such as Bush's that was capable of such wanton deception was one that needed my full attention as an American citizen, and I was sure that there would be alot of likeminded individuals as well.

Well, there were , but it wasn't enough. That is very disconcerting. After the 2004 election, I seriously considered a move to Canada. Even tendered an offer on a house up there. My Dad somehow convinced me to stay. I realize now that this was probably smart in the long run. The Bush house is showing cracks and giving true conservatives, such as yourself, a bad name.

What you are right about is it's going to take conservatives and liberals working TOGETHER to fix this mess (there are no democrats, only republican lite, well except Kucinich).

Well, I've taken a step forward, how about you do the same? Ease up on the French-they have suffered through history much more than our fledgling nation- and be willing to listen to information that is passed along by some of us regarding the direction that our lame duck leader is taking us in. There is nothing that can be said to convince anyone of us that Bush is a good leader.

[sam i am]

I'm sorry Sam, I truly enjoy your posts (it's most refreshing, all we have is Sisko and valvano), but I just don't see a bigger crime that can be committed than lying to the people to get us into a needless war. I think what conservatives don't get about the left is we don't consider any human loss to be acceptable. Especially under these circumstances.

I was not very political to be honest, even though I am close to several individuals on Capitol Hill, until the 2000 election. I was completely shocked at what transpired then and came to the conclusion that a camp such as Bush's that was capable of such wanton deception was one that needed my full attention as an American citizen, and I was sure that there would be alot of likeminded individuals as well.

Well, there were , but it wasn't enough. That is very disconcerting. After the 2004 election, I seriously considered a move to Canada. Even tendered an offer on a house up there. My Dad somehow convinced me to stay. I realize now that this was probably smart in the long run. The Bush house is showing cracks and giving true conservatives, such as yourself, a bad name.

What you are right about is it's going to take conservatives and liberals working TOGETHER to fix this mess (there are no democrats, only republican lite, well except Kucinich).

Well, I've taken a step forward, how about you do the same? Ease up on the French-they have suffered through history much more than our fledgling nation- and be willing to listen to information that is passed along by some of us regarding the direction that our lame duck leader is taking us in. There is nothing that can be said to convince anyone of us that Bush is a good leader.

D_Raay - at least you have the strength of your convictions. It's good to hear you thought about Canada. Follow your instincts!

the saddest line in your paragraph was the one that read "there is nothing that can be said to convince anyone of us that Bush is a good leader." Who is your "good leader?" John Kerry? Al Gore? Bill Clinton? All of them AGREED with Bush that there was a significant problem in Iraq. If you think Kucinich is the answer, keep fighting for your beliefs or run for office yourself. Sell your ideas and get others to follow you. If you give up, you might as well move to Canada, but I'd hate to see you go.

We are AMERICANS, dammit, and we are BETTER than our government. We vote everyone out every 2, 4, or 6 years in the Legislative branch. You HAVE the opportunity to make your vision for how you want things to be come true, but you have to GO OUT THERE and MAKE IT HAPPEN. Us conservatives will fight for our ideas, you fight for yours, and then we see who buys in the marketplace of ideas. You had 40 years of controlling most of the facets of government and we conservatives stuck by this system and country : now it's your turn to be the loyal opposition. :)

Now, as for Ali : you are a lying piece of shit. I DID read every word of the article, not just the preamble. Again, the quotes were uncited, the writer revealed his bias at every turn, and it was a "hit piece" to prove an assumption that he started with. Even so, he contradicted himself innumerable times and based his conclusions on flawed reasoning and uncited sources. If you have any way to defend that, then your point of view is based on a house of sand, my friend...

Finally, to address my comment about Kennedy : my point was, and I do have one, that Kennedy was a LIAR. He was among a list of liars. He got himself shot by Oswald or the CIA or the Cubans, or the mob, or whatever because he was dangerous and because, like Clinton, he was inherently untruthful. Don't me a smarmy ass when you know what I meant.

[D_Raay]

Who is your "good leader?" John Kerry? Al Gore? Bill Clinton? All of them AGREED with Bush that there was a significant problem in Iraq. If you think Kucinich is the answer, keep fighting for your beliefs or run for office yourself.
No no no, I do not think those mentined would be good leaders either. I don't see much difference between these guys and Bush except that they may have quite a bit more intelligence which may give them a bit more of a conscience.
Kucinich would probably be one in my opnion, but you never know how long one can maintain his integrity in this day and age.

As for running for office, I wouldn't have the stomach for it and would end up in crashed plane in northern Minnesota a la Paul Wellstone.

[D_Raay]

Ok Q, from the other thread but pertaining to this one I will attempt, once again to put this issue right. I may be wrong but I think I have a pretty good grasp on what has actually gone on here. (referring to your comment on the left of this board not being able to form coherent arguments)

As the dust settles in London, and Karl Rove dances the Potomac Two-step, the time has come for Americans and the British to refocus on the far greater crime of a head of state who has lied to trick the people into a war of conquest.

I cannot speak for Great Britain, but in the United States, the Constitution does not explicitly authorize the government to lie to the people and the tenth amendment prohibits the government from arrogating that right to itself. Certainly the President is not allowed to lie to the United States Congress. Yet both of these crimes have undeniably happened, in both these nations.

First off is Tony Blair's "Dodgy Dossier", a document released by the Prime Minister that made many of the claims used to support the push for war. The dossier soon collapsed when it was revealed that much of it had been plagiarized from a student thesis paper that was 12 years old!

The contents of the dossier, however much they seemed to create a good case for invasion, were obsolete and outdated.

This use of material that could not possibly be relevant at the time is clear proof of a deliberate attempt to deceive.

Then there was the claim about the "Mobile biological weapons laboratories". Proffered in the absence of any real laboratories in the wake of the invasion, photos of these trailers were shown on all the US Mainstream Media, with the claim they while seeming to lack anything suggesting biological processing, these were part of a much larger assembly of multiple trailers that churned out biological weapons of mass destruction.
The chief proponent of this hoax was Colin Powell, who presented illustrations such as this one to the United Nations on February 5th, 2003.

This claim fell apart when it was revealed that these trailers were nothing more than hydrogen gas generators used to inflate weather balloons. This fact was already known to both the US and UK, as a British company manufactured the units and sold them to Iraq.

Colin Powell's speech to the UN was itself one misstatement after another. Powell claimed that Iraq had purchased special aluminum tubes whose only possible use was in uranium enrichment centrifuges. Both CIA and Powell's own State Department confirmed that the tubes were parts for missiles Saddam was legally allowed to have. Following the invasion, no centrifuges, aluminum or otherwise were found.

Powell also claimed to the United Nations that the photo on the left showed "Decontamination Vehicles". But when United Nations inspectors visited the site after the invasion, they located the vehicles and discovered they were just firefighting equipment.

Powell claimed the Iraqis had illegal rockets and launchers hidden in the palm trees of Western Iraq. None were ever found.

Powell claimed that the Iraqis had 8,500 liters (2245 gallons) of Anthrax. None was ever found.

Powell claimed that Iraq had four tons of VX nerve gas. The UN had already confirmed that it was destroyed. The only VX ever found were samples the US had left as "standards" for testing. When the UN suspected that the US samples had been used to contaminate Iraqi warheads, the US moved quickly to destroy the samples before comparison tests could be carried out.

Powell claimed that Iraq was building long-range remote drones specifically designed to carry biological weapons. The only drones found were short-range reconnaissance drones.

Powell claimed that Iraq had an aggregate of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical and biological warfare agents. Powell gave no basis for that claim at all, and a DIA report issued the same time directly contradicted the claim. No biological or chemical weapons were found in Iraq following the invasion.

Powell claimed that "unnamed sources" confirmed that Saddam had authorized his field commanders to use biological weapons. No such weapons were ever used by the Iraqis to defend against the invasion and, of course, none were ever found in Iraq.

Powell claimed that 122mm warheads found by the UN inspectors were chemical weapons. The warheads were empty, and showed no signs of ever having contained chemical weapons.

Powell claimed that Iraq had a secret force of illegal long-range Scud missiles. None were ever found.

Powell claimed to have an audio tape proving that Saddam was supporting Osama Bin Laden. But independent translation of the tape revealed Osama's wish for Saddam's death.

Colin Powell's UN debacle also included spy photos taken from high flying aircraft and spacecraft. On the photos were circles and arrows and labels pointing to various fuzzy white blobs and identifying them as laboratories and storage areas for Saddam's massive weapons of mass destruction program. Nothing in the photos actually suggested what the blobby shapes were and inspections which followed the invasion, all of them turned out to be benign.

In at least one case, the satellite Powell claimed had taken one of the pictures had actually been out of operation at the time. And many questioned why Powell was showing black and white photos when the satellites in use at the time over Iraq took color images.

Another piece of evidence consists of documents which President Bush referenced as in his 2003 State of the Union Speech. According to Bush, these documents proved that Iraq was buying tons of uranium oxide, called "Yellow Cake" from Niger.

Since Israel had bombed Iraq's nuclear power plant years before, it was claimed that the only reason Saddam would have for buying uranium oxide was to build bombs.
This hoax fell apart fast when it was pointed out that Iraq has a great deal of uranium ore inside their own borders and no need to import any from Niger or anywhere else. The I.A.E.A. then blew the cover off the fraud by announcing that the documents Bush had used were not only forgeries, but too obvious to believe that anyone in the Bush administration did not know they were forgeries!

In the end, the real proof that we were lied to about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is that no weapons of mass destruction were ever found. That means that every single piece of paper that purported to prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was by default a fraud, a hoax, and a lie. There could be no evidence that supported the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction because Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. In a way, the existence of any faked documents about Iraq's WMDs is actually an admission of guilt. If one is taking the time to create fake documents, the implication is that the faker is already aware that there are no genuine documents.

What the US Government had, ALL that they had, were copied student papers, forged "Yellow Cake" documents, balloon inflators posing as bioweapons labs, and photos with misleading labels on them. And somewhere along the line, someone decided to put those misleading labels on those photos, to pretend that balloon inflators are portable bioweapons labs, and to pass off stolen student papers as contemporary analysis.

And THAT shows an intention to deceive.

Lawyers call this "Mens Rea", which means "Guilty Mind". TV lawyer shows call it "Malice aforethought". This means that not only did the Bush Administration lie to the people and to the US Congress, but knew they were doing something illegal at the time that they did it.

All the talk about "Intelligence failure" is just another lie. There was no failure. Indeed the Army agents who erroneously claimed that missile tubes were parts for a uranium centrifuge received bonuses, while the Pentagon smeared Hans Blix, and John Bolton orchestrated the firing of Jose Bustani, the director of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, because Bustani was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad.

The President of the United States and his Neocon associates lied to the people of the United States to send them off on a war of conquest.

More than that, the President lied to the US Congress in his letter of March 19, 2003 in which he claimed to have proof that Saddam was in defiance of UN Resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction, and that Iraq had played a role in 9-11.

Right now, we have the criminals at hand. and, while other leaders in history have lied to start wars, for the first time in history, the lie stands exposed while the war started with the lies still rages on, to the death and detriment of our young men and women in uniform. We cannot in good moral conscience ignore this lie, this crime, lest we encourage future leaders to continue to lie to use to send our kids off to pointless wars. Lying to start a war is more than an impeachable offence; it the highest possible crime a government can commit against their own people. Lying to start a war is not only misappropriation of the nation's military and the nation's money under false pretenses, but it is outright murder committed on a massive scale. Lying to start a war is a betrayal of the trust each and every person who serves in the military places in their civilian leadership. By lying to start a war, the Bush administration has told the military fatalities and their families that they have no right to know why they were sent to their deaths. It's none of their business.

Our nation is founded on the principle of rule with the consent of the governed. Because We The People do not consent to be lied to, a government that lies rules without the consent of the governed, and ruling without the consent of the governed is slavery.

[sam i am]

D_Raay - well thought out and cogent - just read it and I'll take some time formulating my response in detail, if you don't mind... :D

[Documad]

The US government lying to its citizens to manipulate them (into wars or anything else) is nothing new.

[D_Raay]

The US government lying to its citizens to manipulate them (into wars or anything else) is nothing new.
while other leaders in history have lied to start wars, for the first time in history, the lie stands exposed while the war started with the lies still rages on, to the death and detriment of our young men and women in uniform. We cannot in good moral conscience ignore this lie, this crime, lest we encourage future leaders to continue to lie to use to send our kids off to pointless wars.

[D_Raay]

D_Raay - well thought out and cogent - just read it and I'll take some time formulating my response in detail, if you don't mind... :D
Sure take your time...

[Qdrop]

Very well done, D.

a few slightly biased, unsubstantiated parts.....but overall, very well laid out and pretty accurate.

the weight of the left on this section truly rides on your shoulders....

[Documad]

D_Raay, my comment was merely meant to set the stage for the historical portion of the program. We've covered how we "left" the Phillipines but we skipped over how we got there in the first place -- not during WWII, but as part of another war in our hemisphere. I've never understood that one.

Why not just say that the US is going to look out after its own interests and fuck anything that gets in its way? At least that's honest. We're not about helping people in other countries live a more free lifestyle and we never have been. It's always been about self interest--or the self interest of our hugest corporate citizens. Part of me has no problem with that. The other part of me worries about the long term costs of this policy and what happens when we aren't holding all the cards anymore. Maybe sam i am will tell us about the Roman Empire. They too benefitted many of the places they invaded, and in the long term. But what happened to the Romans?


D-Raay, I was opposed to the war when it started and I'm even more upset now. But what would you have the US do now that we're in this mess?


P.S. I'm not trying to be snotty. I enjoy hearing what other people say, especially if they have anything to say that isn't merely copied from some other source.

[D_Raay]

D-Raay, I was opposed to the war when it started and I'm even more upset now. But what would you have the US do now that we're in this mess?
Well, that's the question now isn't it? I've pondered this one quite a bit. Now that we are there it would be irreponsible of us to leave.

However, each death increases the pressure to do just that. The argument is getting flimsy, most people don't care whether Iraq gets it's "freedom"- at least not at the expense of more American lives.

What would be ideal is if we could get a true "coalition of the willing" to help us get out of there. What we have now pales in comparison to what we SHOULD have. Pre-emptive invasions, even by the all-mighty holier-than-thou USA, aren't usually received well in the world.

Personally, I think the only option left is to slice up the cake quite a bit thinner. Then we'll get the support we need.

[Documad]

We can't get support unless we give up something in exchange. I'm not sure we have anything left to give. Bush's buddies got the big contracts. And who wants to be part of this mess now? Plus Bush could never admit that he needs help. It's not in his makeup.

[D_Raay]

We can't get support unless we give up something in exchange. I'm not sure we have anything left to give. Bush's buddies got the big contracts. And who wants to be part of this mess now? Plus Bush could never admit that he needs help. It's not in his makeup.
Yes i agree. Which is why we are in the position we are in.

[sam i am]

Ok, D_Raay & Documad (and any other "centrists" or lefties out there too afraid to post but still reading... :D )

I'll keep it short & sweet, especially since Documad dislikes the "denseness" of my historical commentary that helps to get people thinking and puts perspective on what we're discussing... :rolleyes: :confused:

Powell was, is, and will always be a "tool." The man was never a favorite of us conservatives. But, just because what turned out to be the truth (i.e., no weapons of mass destruction found, etc.) does not give prima facie evidence that a lie occurred. This is basic logic : if it turns out that you felt something to be true, had a goodly amount of what you perceived to be evidence on your side (or even a preponderance), and went out and sold it, only to find out after the fact that your house was built of sand and the tides coming, DOES NOT mean you deliberately lied.

BTW, I was glad the query was posed : OK, what's YOUR solution?

Finally, the JFK thing was just an example. It was not the whole point if you go back and read the original post. The man was a liar (affairs, etc.) and got his comeuppance. Doesn't mean I LIKED what happened to him, but he did get himself shot : that's just a fact...



More than not believed Sadaam had weapons and was a true danger. So, we went to war on a lie : the real question is was it DELIBERATE? I would venture to postulate that it was not, but rather well-meaning and well-intentioned.

[sam i am]

D_Raay, my comment was merely meant to set the stage for the historical portion of the program. We've covered how we "left" the Phillipines but we skipped over how we got there in the first place -- not during WWII, but as part of another war in our hemisphere. I've never understood that one.

Ok, Documad, here's a little history lesson : 1898, Spain declares war on the USA. We invade Cuba (Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders) and the Phillipines. We set up an AUTONOMOUS government in both countries, leave some soldiers, navy bases, and airforce bases in place, and LET EACH COUNTRY RUN IT'S OWN AFFAIRS. When Japan conquers the Phillipines during WWII (early 1942), the Japanese government sets up a puppet Filipino government THAT REPORTS DIRECTLY TO TOKYO - no autonomy.

We go back in 1944, kick the Japanese out and LEAVE an autonomous country. See the differences now?


DOCUMAD said : "Why not just say that the US is going to look out after its own interests and fuck anything that gets in its way? At least that's honest. We're not about helping people in other countries live a more free lifestyle and we never have been. It's always been about self interest--or the self interest of our hugest corporate citizens. Part of me has no problem with that. The other part of me worries about the long term costs of this policy and what happens when we aren't holding all the cards anymore. Maybe sam i am will tell us about the Roman Empire. They too benefitted many of the places they invaded, and in the long term. But what happened to the Romans?"


Here's why we don't say we're going to look after our interests and fuck anything that gets in [our] way : the USA relishes, cherishes, and promotes FREEDOM. We know that free people don't war with each other and economically healthy countries are better off trading with each other rather than going in and sucking down all of those countries' resources.

Here's what happened to the Romans : They became an EMPIRE and kept the territories they invaded. We don't. The USA has ALWAYS brought it's soldiers home. Some countries still want us there, and they pay for our protection, but if they want us gone, we go. Look at Subic Bay in the Phillipines, Panama, etc. (I've listed innumerable exaples previously : please go back and peruse). So, we don't waste our resources occupying, rather we setup countries so they can handle themselves and we trade with them. True American capitalism : gotta love it!

Here endeth the lesson... ;)

[Documad]

I'll keep it short & sweet, especially since Documad dislikes the "denseness" of my historical commentary that helps to get people thinking and puts perspective on what we're discussing... :rolleyes: :confused:

BTW, I was glad the query was posed : OK, what's YOUR solution?

Finally, the JFK thing was just an example. It was not the whole point if you go back and read the original post. The man was a liar (affairs, etc.) and got his comeuppance. Doesn't mean I LIKED what happened to him, but he did get himself shot : that's just a fact...
I don't mind long posts -- they're my forte! I just want you to tie the history to today more. And I want you to be more clear when you make a historical reference. Like before it looked like you said that JFK was murdered BECAUSE he was a liar. Now it looks like you just think that he deserved to die because he was an immoral person. The first doesn't make sense and the second is just icky. He didn't "get himself shot"--he was murdered.

If the question was for me, I don't have an answer. I think we're truly and completely fucked and once again, I'm happy I don't have children.

[sam i am]

I don't mind long posts -- they're my forte! I just want you to tie the history to today more. And I want you to be more clear when you make a historical reference. Like before it looked like you said that JFK was murdered BECAUSE he was a liar. Now it looks like you just think that he deserved to die because he was an immoral person. The first doesn't make sense and the second is just icky. He didn't "get himself shot"--he was murdered.

If the question was for me, I don't have an answer. I think we're truly and completely fucked and once again, I'm happy I don't have children.

Documad - if this is your reasoning, then everyone I originally listed was "murdered," except Hitler - he took himself out. Mussolini was "murdered" by Italian partisans.

The reason I look at ALL history, not just recent history, is because examples abound throughout the length and breadth of recorded history to emphasize points about current events. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it...look at the patterns and you see a greater picture.

I neither think Kennedy deserved to get "murdered" nor do I think he deserved to die because he was immoral : don't put words into my mouth - I'm plenty articulate enough to speak for myself. All I was doing was utilizing his death as an EXAMPLE of a liar who got comeuppance - they all do eventually. Unfortunately, in his case, it ended in death. I'd have rather seen him contract syphillis or gonorhhea from all his promiscuous sexual escapades and die a long, lingering, horrible death...but, hey! that's just me... :rolleyes:

[Documad]

Ok, Documad, here's a little history lesson : 1898, Spain declares war on the USA. We invade Cuba (Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders) and the Phillipines. We set up an AUTONOMOUS government in both countries, leave some soldiers, navy bases, and airforce bases in place, and LET EACH COUNTRY RUN IT'S OWN AFFAIRS. When Japan conquers the Phillipines during WWII (early 1942), the Japanese government sets up a puppet Filipino government THAT REPORTS DIRECTLY TO TOKYO - no autonomy.
My question about the Phillipines was about this first part. You like to focus on post WWII. My understanding is that the Phillipines is where the USA found its taste for an empire.

I've been interested in the Phillipines because my best childhood friend was from there. Even as a kid, when I read about the Phillipines, I wondered why the country was 95% Catholic when the other Asian countries weren't.

I never heard that Spain declared war on the US. That's not the version I learned. I heard that there had been tension but that diplomacy was working. I heard that we didn't like Spain's abuses in its colony of Cuba, that our president was worried about people calling him a wimp, that our ship blew itself up accidentally, that people thought Spain did it, that yellow journalists fueled the flames, and that the US went to war. That part of the war lasted a very short time.

What I don't get is how we wound up in the Phillipines (which is nowhere near Cuba!!!), why we took over as the colonial boss (the senate voted not to guarantee its independence) and we ended up doing to the Phillipines what we didn't like Spain doing to Cuba! We fought Filipinos, not Spanish. I heard that we killed a greater percentage of the civilian population in the Phillipines than we did in Vietnam. Apparently the massacre of civilians shocked even Teddy Roosevelt. I've got a book that includes an old fashioned torture collar for use on the locals. And we made the whole country Catholic. We didn't leave completely until the Japanese kicked us out in WWII.

Oh, and I think that McKinley said that it was God who told him to change his mind on keeping the Phillipines. :rolleyes: Another parallel?

[Documad]

Finally, to address your point of is our government capable of lying to us for it's own gain? I know that EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING is capable of lying for their own gain. Therefore, it is completely plausible that our government could do the same. It is mad up of human beings.

However, liars invariably get caught : Nixon got himself impeached and was forced to resign. Kennedy got himself shot. Hitler lost a war and an ideology and ended up blowing his own brains out. Stalin died a bitter and paranoid old man. Mussolini got strung up and gutted. For you Liberals for whom Reagan was the anti-Christ : Reagan got Alzheimers and forgot who he was (not many fates worse than that).
^^ Here's what you said that started the JFK questions. I still don't get what your point was. Are you saying that we don't have a right to call Bush and Blair to account for their lies because eventually they will either be killed or die of old age? It's nonsense.

I think you like to sprinkle in things that sound intellectual and that you're counting on no one knowing anything about history. But whenever anyone pins you down on something you misstated about history, you say you didn't mean it in the first place. It might just be a whole lot of honest mistakes, or it might be that you're trying to make us focus on a few things you do know in hopes that we won't challenge you on the ones you're making up.

[sam i am]

My question about the Phillipines was about this first part. You like to focus on post WWII. My understanding is that the Phillipines is where the USA found its taste for an empire.

I've been interested in the Phillipines because my best childhood friend was from there. Even as a kid, when I read about the Phillipines, I wondered why the country was 95% Catholic when the other Asian countries weren't.

I never heard that Spain declared war on the US. That's not the version I learned. I heard that there had been tension but that diplomacy was working. I heard that we didn't like Spain's abuses in its colony of Cuba, that our president was worried about people calling him a wimp, that our ship blew itself up accidentally, that people thought Spain did it, that yellow journalists fueled the flames, and that the US went to war. That part of the war lasted a very short time.

What I don't get is how we wound up in the Phillipines (which is nowhere near Cuba!!!), why we took over as the colonial boss (the senate voted not to guarantee its independence) and we ended up doing to the Phillipines what we didn't like Spain doing to Cuba! We fought Filipinos, not Spanish. I heard that we killed a greater percentage of the civilian population in the Phillipines than we did in Vietnam. Apparently the massacre of civilians shocked even Teddy Roosevelt. I've got a book that includes an old fashioned torture collar for use on the locals. And we made the whole country Catholic. We didn't leave completely until the Japanese kicked us out in WWII.

Oh, and I think that McKinley said that it was God who told him to change his mind on keeping the Phillipines. :rolleyes: Another parallel?

Documad - where did you get this history? Is it all from your friend? Did he have an agenda or was he just a blithering idiot who didn't know his own country's history? Or, worse, did you just make this stuff up?

Here's the real deal, if you'd care to read : April 25, 1898 - Spain declares that a state of war exists between it and the United States.

The Phillipines were Catholic because Spanish missionaries converted the island upon colonization.

Spain owned the Phillipines by right of conquest and colonization. The US, during the war with Spain, conquered the Phillipines from the SPANISH. The US then established an autonomous government PRIOR to WWII. The rest is history as I stated it in a previous post.

The US did not make the Phillipines Catholic, the Spanish did.

The US did have a short occupation period when we first took it from the Spanish. There were atrocities on both sides, just like in Vietnam. We realized the errors of our ways and granted autonomy in 1935 (Commonwealth status with their own President, Legislature, and courts). Prior to that, they were a US Territory, like Guam today.

This is the real story : live it, love it, but most of all, learn it...

[sam i am]

^^ Here's what you said that started the JFK questions. I still don't get what your point was. Are you saying that we don't have a right to call Bush and Blair to account for their lies because eventually they will either be killed or die of old age? It's nonsense.

I think you like to sprinkle in things that sound intellectual and that you're counting on no one knowing anything about history. But whenever anyone pins you down on something you misstated about history, you say you didn't mean it in the first place. It might just be a whole lot of honest mistakes, or it might be that you're trying to make us focus on a few things you do know in hopes that we won't challenge you on the ones you're making up.

My point was CLEARLY stated : liars eventually get caught. If Bush and Blair are liars, they will eventually get caught as well. History and other humans will catch up to them.

I'm so glad you're here to keep me grounded in reality. I don't count on people not knowing about history. I count on people not knowing as much, nor as in depth, about history as I do. That's fair, because I took, and take, the time to study history assiduously so as to remain at the top of my game.

Show me once where I was "[pinned]...down on something [I] misstated about history [and I] say [I] didn't mean it in the first place." Just once....I'm waiting.

Honest mistakes are typing king instead of queen when you're responding late at night....look at the time and how quickly I acknowledged a small mistake.

Otherwise, I stand by what I have typed. Do the research and prove me wrong or quit your challenging....

[sam i am]

Ok, D_Raay & Documad (and any other "centrists" or lefties out there too afraid to post but still reading... :D )

I'll keep it short & sweet, especially since Documad dislikes the "denseness" of my historical commentary that helps to get people thinking and puts perspective on what we're discussing... :rolleyes: :confused:

Powell was, is, and will always be a "tool." The man was never a favorite of us conservatives. But, just because what turned out to be the truth (i.e., no weapons of mass destruction found, etc.) does not give prima facie evidence that a lie occurred. This is basic logic : if it turns out that you felt something to be true, had a goodly amount of what you perceived to be evidence on your side (or even a preponderance), and went out and sold it, only to find out after the fact that your house was built of sand and the tides coming, DOES NOT mean you deliberately lied.

BTW, I was glad the query was posed : OK, what's YOUR solution?

Finally, the JFK thing was just an example. It was not the whole point if you go back and read the original post. The man was a liar (affairs, etc.) and got his comeuppance. Doesn't mean I LIKED what happened to him, but he did get himself shot : that's just a fact...



More than not believed Sadaam had weapons and was a true danger. So, we went to war on a lie : the real question is was it DELIBERATE? I would venture to postulate that it was not, but rather well-meaning and well-intentioned.

Documad - did you read this post? Why not respond to all of it instead of picking one little part and still not being proven right? I take the time to repsond to each of your points...please return the favor of doing the same for me...

[D_Raay]

Ok, D_Raay & Documad (and any other "centrists" or lefties out there too afraid to post but still reading... :D )

I'll keep it short & sweet, especially since Documad dislikes the "denseness" of my historical commentary that helps to get people thinking and puts perspective on what we're discussing... :rolleyes: :confused:

Powell was, is, and will always be a "tool." The man was never a favorite of us conservatives. But, just because what turned out to be the truth (i.e., no weapons of mass destruction found, etc.) does not give prima facie evidence that a lie occurred. This is basic logic : if it turns out that you felt something to be true, had a goodly amount of what you perceived to be evidence on your side (or even a preponderance), and went out and sold it, only to find out after the fact that your house was built of sand and the tides coming, DOES NOT mean you deliberately lied.

BTW, I was glad the query was posed : OK, what's YOUR solution?

Finally, the JFK thing was just an example. It was not the whole point if you go back and read the original post. The man was a liar (affairs, etc.) and got his comeuppance. Doesn't mean I LIKED what happened to him, but he did get himself shot : that's just a fact...



More than not believed Sadaam had weapons and was a true danger. So, we went to war on a lie : the real question is was it DELIBERATE? I would venture to postulate that it was not, but rather well-meaning and well-intentioned.

All I can say sam is there is enough evidence (Niger documents, Downing street memo) to have taken Clinton to the cleaners. If this were the Clinton administration or Kerry or Gore would you be fighting whether the lie was "deliberate" or "well meaning"?

What exactly is the best of intention anyway? Lies are ok as long as you can "say" you meant well? I'm sorry Mrs. Johnson your son was killed over a lie, but I meant well? I would expect more of you sam than that hollow explanation. A conservative friend of mine, who doesn't care for Bush but is for the war, defends it by saying that they HAD to lie knowing we as a people would not accept an explanation such as forcing peace on people who don't realize what they are missing. By taking Iraq a pathway opens to a whole new market that is just ripe for the plucking. I tend to think he may be right. Will it stand though? There is only one right side of this, unless you stand to personally profit from it. Conservative or Liberal really does not apply, we are Americans are we not? Is this the sort of behaviour we would condone?

[Documad]

Documad - where did you get this history? Is it all from your friend? Did he have an agenda or was he just a blithering idiot who didn't know his own country's history? Or, worse, did you just make this stuff up?

The US did have a short occupation period when we first took it from the Spanish. There were atrocities on both sides, just like in Vietnam. We realized the errors of our ways and granted autonomy in 1935 (Commonwealth status with their own President, Legislature, and courts). Prior to that, they were a US Territory, like Guam today.
My friend was a girl. I haven't talked to her in about 20 years. I learned my version from history books (and junior high school). My INTEREST in the matter was because of knowing her as a child.

You're a hoot! I've read a lot about it. I remember the main story from school--I hope we all do. But I've been studying the last half of the 19th century. I was trying to find the death toll (200,000 civilians in the Phillipines) so I looked at The American Century by Harold Evans because I had remembered the icky photo and it's a coffee table book so it's on my shelf nearby. You're saying we only stayed 37 years! I hope that's not the "short occupation" the US plans for Iraq! :p And come on! It was FDR who realized the "error of our ways" because he was against colonialism. :rollseyes:

It's also covered in one of those books on Teddy Roosevelt--I think the one that won the Pulitzer, and I've been studying the more obscure presidents like Garfield and McKinley. Oh, and I even studied up on Hearst last fall before visiting his mansion. There was no controversy. They all told the same basic story. btw, Spain issued the formal declaration, but before that McKinley had asked for war powers and Teddy Roosevelt had been goding him into the war. Hearst had drummed up public opinion (falsely is turns out). Also prior to that date, McKinley got the powers, severed diplomatic relations with Spain, put the country on a full war footing and sent warships to Cuba. But you're right, Spain issued the formal declaration first. :)

And I still don't get what that had to do with the Phillipines. Or what the War of 1812 has to do with Iraq or terrorism. Or our founding fathers, the original 13 colonies, the US Constitution, etc.


P.S. If you quit being sloppy with the historical fact-a-likes, I'll quit picking at them.

[sam i am]

All I can say sam is there is enough evidence (Niger documents, Downing street memo) to have taken Clinton to the cleaners. If this were the Clinton administration or Kerry or Gore would you be fighting whether the lie was "deliberate" or "well meaning"?

What exactly is the best of intention anyway? Lies are ok as long as you can "say" you meant well? I'm sorry Mrs. Johnson your son was killed over a lie, but I meant well? I would expect more of you sam than that hollow explanation. A conservative friend of mine, who doesn't care for Bush but is for the war, defends it by saying that they HAD to lie knowing we as a people would not accept an explanation such as forcing peace on people who don't realize what they are missing. By taking Iraq a pathway opens to a whole new market that is just ripe for the plucking. I tend to think he may be right. Will it stand though? There is only one right side of this, unless you stand to personally profit from it. Conservative or Liberal really does not apply, we are Americans are we not? Is this the sort of behaviour we would condone?

This goes back to what I orignally said : everyone lies. We lie to ourselves everyday. We lie to others. How can we expect a government made up of human beings NOT to lie? The miracle is when the "truth" actually comes out and that we are not more screwed as a human race than we are.

That being said, did YOU believe Powell or all of the case that was made for war before we went to Iraq? Did you do all you could do to prevent it? Did you do everything you could to get anti-war, bring our troops back politicians into office in 2004? If you did, then you did all you could do. If not, too bad.

We live in a Republic (hence the references to the Roman Republic Documad ;) ) where the majority rules. More of us voted for Bush and to go to war, and then to finish it with our votes for Bush in 2004. Republicans INCREASED their share in the House, the Senate, state Governorships, and State Legislatures. Our ideas and the way we are conducting the war WON. So, until the next election cycle, ain't nothing gonna change!

Now, YOU have the chance to change that in 2006, but in the meantime, suck it up and wait your chance....

BTW, my point on lying originally was that I don't think we were lied to. I think most people and our leaders believed the intelligence that was given to them and acted upon it accordingly. We're there now and we HAVE to finish the job even if that intelligence proved to be incorrect. No one accused the Administration of lying BEFORE the fact, only after. So, we were all lying to ourselves or we all believed what we were doing was right and found out after the fact we were wrong....this does not PROVE lying.

Finally, I unmitigatedly disagree with your "conservative" friend. We'll be out of there substantively by next year. You heard it here first...

[Documad]

Actually, I'll quit picking at them in this thread no matter what because it's gone on way too long and way to far afield. Sorry Brits. :)

[sam i am]

I learned my version from history books (and junior high school).

You're a hoot! I've read a lot about it. I remember the main story from school--I hope we all do. But I've been studying the last half of the 19th century. I was trying to find the death toll (200,000 civilians in the Phillipines) so I looked at The American Century by Harold Evans because I had remembered the icky photo and it's a coffee table book so it's on my shelf nearby. You're saying we only stayed 37 years! I hope that's not the "short occupation" the US plans for Iraq! :p And come on! It was FDR who realized the "error of our ways" because he was against colonialism. :rollseyes:

It's also covered in one of those books on Teddy Roosevelt--I think the one that won the Pulitzer, and I've been studying the more obscure presidents like Garfield and McKinley. Oh, and I even studied up on Hearst last fall before visiting his mansion. There was no controversy. They all told the same basic story. btw, Spain issued the formal declaration, but before that McKinley had asked for war powers and Teddy Roosevelt had been goding him into the war. Hearst had drummed up public opinion (falsely is turns out). Also prior to that date, McKinley got the powers, severed diplomatic relations with Spain, put the country on a full war footing and sent warships to Cuba. But you're right, Spain issued the formal declaration first. :)

And I still don't get what that had to do with the Phillipines. Or what the War of 1812 has to do with Iraq or terrorism. Or our founding fathers, the original 13 colonies, the US Constitution, etc.


P.S. If you quit being sloppy with the historical fact-a-likes, I'll quit picking at them.

OK - to make it crystal clear on your point of view, I highlighted your words above. You "remember?" Your "version?" What the heck does that mean? You could "remember" anything but it doesn't make it so. Get the facts and state them, not your "rememberances."

thank you for acknowledging that I was right about the Declaration of War. I appreciate an honest accounting.

What it had to do with the Phillipines was as follows : The Phillipines belonged to Spain. We were at war with Spain. When at war, it is expeditious and advantageous to attack your enemy wherever he is. Spanish troops, ships, and resources were in the Phillipines. So, we attacked them where they were as well as in Cuba. They're lucky we didn't go after them in their home country!

The War of 1812, I'll reiterate, was an EXAMPLE of a time when the USA was occupied by a foreign power. British troops conquered and burned Washington DC. They ATTEMPTED to reimpose their will on the US. I had responded to a query previously where the inquirer had asked for examples of when what we are doing in Iraq had happened to the USA. I responded with this as one example (also included the invasions of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Pennsylvania by the South during the Civil War) to illustrate that we have had it happen here and we are not immune.

Go back and read all the posts and look at the CONTEXT of my examples. They all flow nicely if you take a few minutes.

Hope this retread helped..... :confused:

P.S. I haven't been sloppy...I've been consistent and pithy. Please just read the posts and keep them in the context they were offered rather than lazily throwing them up as my "sloppiness." As a matter of fact, I find you a "hoot" as well due tou YOUR sloppiness and laziness in NOT being thorough and being accusatory towards me when it is YOU, sir, who is guilty of the offense.

[sam i am]

Actually, I'll quit picking at them in this thread no matter what because it's gone on way too long and way to far afield. Sorry Brits. :)

This is too bad. It was just getting good.

[D_Raay]

This goes back to what I orignally said : everyone lies. We lie to ourselves everyday. We lie to others. How can we expect a government made up of human beings NOT to lie? The miracle is when the "truth" actually comes out and that we are not more screwed as a human race than we are.

That being said, did YOU believe Powell or all of the case that was made for war before we went to Iraq? Did you do all you could do to prevent it? Did you do everything you could to get anti-war, bring our troops back politicians into office in 2004? If you did, then you did all you could do. If not, too bad.

We live in a Republic (hence the references to the Roman Republic Documad ;) ) where the majority rules. More of us voted for Bush and to go to war, and then to finish it with our votes for Bush in 2004. Republicans INCREASED their share in the House, the Senate, state Governorships, and State Legislatures. Our ideas and the way we are conducting the war WON. So, until the next election cycle, ain't nothing gonna change!

Now, YOU have the chance to change that in 2006, but in the meantime, suck it up and wait your chance....

BTW, my point on lying originally was that I don't think we were lied to. I think most people and our leaders believed the intelligence that was given to them and acted upon it accordingly. We're there now and we HAVE to finish the job even if that intelligence proved to be incorrect. No one accused the Administration of lying BEFORE the fact, only after. So, we were all lying to ourselves or we all believed what we were doing was right and found out after the fact we were wrong....this does not PROVE lying.

Finally, I unmitigatedly disagree with your "conservative" friend. We'll be out of there substantively by next year. You heard it here first...

Sigh, yes I did do everything I could, yes I said "wait a minute" from the start. Let me ask you this; if we knew then what we know now would we be there? I doubt it. I am one of those "I told you so" people.

[sam i am]

Sigh, yes I did do everything I could, yes I said "wait a minute" from the start. Let me ask you this; if we knew then what we know now would we be there? I doubt it. I am one of those "I told you so" people.

OK, only since this was probably a rhetorical question, but for you, D_Raay, since I respect you, I'll answer :

I think a case could easily have been made that it was time to finish the job on Hussein. I think we could have NOT gone to the UN, gone in, and taken Hussein out for crimes against humanity (like Milosevic). This was not the case up front, but I think it lends moral aptitude to what we are doing now.

I am a believer in having the terrorists in Iraq trying to kill our well-armed military rather than having them turn all of their time and attention to finding ways to attack us again here in the US. In this resepct, I believe the war to be successful. For all those killed or seriously injured and their families, it sucks ass. But, they volunteered knowing this could be the case, so I don't have the same pity I would have if they were drafted and had NO choice but to go there.

Hopefully, that answers your question. Thanks for taking the time to answer mine....

[D_Raay]

OK, only since this was probably a rhetorical question, but for you, D_Raay, since I respect you, I'll answer :

I think a case could easily have been made that it was time to finish the job on Hussein. I think we could have NOT gone to the UN, gone in, and taken Hussein out for crimes against humanity (like Milosevic). This was not the case up front, but I think it lends moral aptitude to what we are doing now.

I am a believer in having the terrorists in Iraq trying to kill our well-armed military rather than having them turn all of their time and attention to finding ways to attack us again here in the US. In this resepct, I believe the war to be successful. For all those killed or seriously injured and their families, it sucks ass. But, they volunteered knowing this could be the case, so I don't have the same pity I would have if they were drafted and had NO choice but to go there.

Hopefully, that answers your question. Thanks for taking the time to answer mine....

Well sure it answers part of my question. We all wanted Saddam out. Regardless of the fact that we had quite a role in putting him there in the first place. He abused his power just like certain members of our Government do.

I really can't explain it any further other than to say I carry a heavy heart. One death is too many in this situation. I'm somewhat glad they don't show us the bodies coming home (although it's wrong) for I don't know if I could handle it on such a large scale. Don't mean to be sappy I just never swallowed this whole Iraq thing and it pains me to think there are Americans dying over it. I will show resolve though, and I hope I get a chance to champion my beliefs tomorrow although I doubt it.

[Documad]

This is too bad. It was just getting good.
If it was ever good, it was so many pages ago, I lost track.


Re "suppressing" Muslims:

I have noticed that the people who bomb abortion clinics and shoot abortionists tend to be militantly anti-choice. Thus I think for the protection of our country, it's time to start "suppressing" all militantly anti-choice people immediately.

[Mr_Complex]

He died in hospital last night.

Rest in peace, Richard.

[Ali]

He died in hospital last night.

Rest in peace, Richard.I'm sorry to hear that.

[freetibet]

1) The terrorists who committed the attacks were muslims. (how nazi of me) *

2) They had British passports. (how ironic) **

3) One of those bitches graduated in the US (how fucked up, they're better treated than us)


* Face it. Their religion promotes such 'misbehaviour'.

** That's a key problem. You'll never prevent attacks with such minorities on board, driving BMWs (social help). No.. don't kick them out. Just don't blame the Iraq affair.

[freetibet]

And RIP to all the victims :(

[Medellia]

He died in hospital last night.

Rest in peace, Richard.
Oh man, I'm really sorry.

[Freebasser]

I see valvano went quiet in here after it was stated that 3 of the 4 bombers were British born.

So much for nuking foreign countries in order to battle terrorism, eh?

[sam i am]

If it was ever good, it was so many pages ago, I lost track.


Re "suppressing" Muslims:

I have noticed that the people who bomb abortion clinics and shoot abortionists tend to be militantly anti-choice. Thus I think for the protection of our country, it's time to start "suppressing" all militantly anti-choice people immediately.


Hey Documad - since you publicly challenged me to backup my points, see attached :

http://www.ampolitics.ghazali.net/html/abdel_fattah.html

http://www.islamicity.com/recognitions/SaJose/

http://www.weeklyplanet.com/2001-09-27/cover.html

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/senate_proc091201.htm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article/asp?ARTICLE_ID=28400

http://www.cmcla.org/articles/terrorized.htm

http://www.fbi.gov.publications/terror/terror99.pdf

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0920-08.htm

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15021

NONE of these are blogs and offer a fairly balanced point of view, in my opinion. Let me know what you think after perusing these...

[Documad]

The first one says the opposite of what you've been arguing and the FBI-looking one doesn't work. Tell me which one says that the FBI backed off of pursuing Muslim terrorists because of Oklahoma City and I'll read that one. Thanks.

[sam i am]

The first one says the opposite of what you've been arguing and the FBI-looking one doesn't work. Tell me which one says that the FBI backed off of pursuing Muslim terrorists because of Oklahoma City and I'll read that one. Thanks.

Sorry, put a "." when I should have put a "/" : here's the link again:

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror99.pdf

and the last link above is the best one to describe and back up, by example, what I have said... ;)

[Documad]

Thanks. The FBI one is 68 pages and I can't find anything in the FBI section that has to do with your position. Do you happen to have a page cite because I'm going to have to print out the applicable pages to read it properly?

P.S. I have to leave soon, but if you cite the pages I'll read them later, as well as that last article you posted from some right-wing source (when I scanned it just now I couldn't see anything on point but I'll have to read it more thoroughly).

You do understand, don't you, what the FBI's jurisdiction was pre 9/11? The articles you posted seem to have all kinds of other arguments about things going on outside the US, so I'm missing the link to the FBI (and to the American left somehow getting them to fall down on the job due to emotional leverage).

[yeahwho]

He died in hospital last night.

Rest in peace, Richard.

RIP, very sorry to hear this, an innocent victim in an insane world.

[sam i am]

Thanks. The FBI one is 68 pages and I can't find anything in the FBI section that has to do with your position. Do you happen to have a page cite because I'm going to have to print out the applicable pages to read it properly?

I read the whole FBI one. There is a section under Oklahoma City. Don't have a particular page citation at the moment....doing work at the same time I doing this. Will try to get you one later if I can....

BTW, my point in providing all of those links was to point out that there did exist "ANGST" at the time; that there was a national discussion about profiling, tracking of Muslims, etc. So, I'd like your acknowledgement that I proved my point and that you were incorrect in challenging my credentials and facts.....waiting...... :cool: :rolleyes:

[sam i am]

He died in hospital last night.

Rest in peace, Richard.

Very sorry to hear this. My fervent wish is that we can honor his death, in whatever way ALL of us can. His family and friends' sense of loss, I am sure, is acute. May our prayers and thoughts (if you don't believe in prayer) be with you as you suffer this time of grief.

[freetibet]

Long thread.. I smell some talking about unrelated things like FBI 4 example.

Islami terrorists did it. End of thread.

[Documad]

sam i am, I don't want to be mean and I definitely don't want you PMing me. So I'm going to put you on ignore. I think that you and I don't speak the same language. The more you say the less I can't understand what your point is and how you think you're proving it.

You said something about the FBI being responsible for 9/11 and I asked you to back it up -- IN ANOTHER THREAD!!! You cited a bunch of stuff IN THIS THREAD that doesn't say the FBI backed off anything due to liberal angst. Believe me, you don't have to prove that Muslims don't like racisim (that's what your sources say). That was never the issue. I'm positive they don't. I don't.

I don't even like the FBI, but you happen to have hit two of my hot buttons: (1) irresponsible slamming of law enforcement and (2) inaccurate citing to sources (you are causing me to have flashbacks for my early career doing cite checks and that's NOT a good thing).

You haven't proved a god damn thing to me and my brain hurts from trying to follow your argument--especially now that it's crossing from one thread to another. This is beyond boring for the rest of the board. So I'm ending it. Sorry to be disrespectful but your comments to me have been truly out of this world. I haven't been this frustrated since I had an "argument" with Anne Lauren, and believe me, that's saying something. :p

[sam i am]

sam i am, I don't want to be mean and I definitely don't want you PMing me. So I'm going to put you on ignore. I think that you and I don't speak the same language. The more you say the less I can't understand what your point is and how you think you're proving it.

You said something about the FBI being responsible for 9/11 and I asked you to back it up -- IN ANOTHER THREAD!!! You cited a bunch of stuff IN THIS THREAD that doesn't say the FBI backed off anything due to liberal angst. Believe me, you don't have to prove that Muslims don't like racisim (that's what your sources say). That was never the issue. I'm positive they don't. I don't.

I don't even like the FBI, but you happen to have hit two of my hot buttons: (1) irresponsible slamming of law enforcement and (2) inaccurate citing to sources (you are causing me to have flashbacks for my early career doing cite checks and that's NOT a good thing).

You haven't proved a god damn thing to me and my brain hurts from trying to follow your argument--especially now that it's crossing from one thread to another. This is beyond boring for the rest of the board. So I'm ending it. Sorry to be disrespectful but your comments to me have been truly out of this world. I haven't been this frustrated since I had an "argument" with Anne Lauren, and believe me, that's saying something. :p

Whatever. Have a good life in your ignorance of others' points of view. Hope you have an "interesting" life... :D

[Ali]

Whatever. Have a good life in your ignorance of others' points of view. And you in yours.

[sam i am]

And you in yours.

Oh, I'll keep talking and listening. I DON'T give up. That's the difference between us optimists and you pessimists...