My two cents on Iraq - probably the solution

[catatonic]

Hello everybody,

I don't write this to offend but to share my opinion and am not seeking anyone's harm, discomfort, or even unhappiness. I have been given a clear mind tonight and I wanted to suggest something. To the brave women and men serving in Iraq I don't feel they would dislike me saying this although they wouldn't all have to agree, but my hopes are high that everyone can agree to this.

George Bush has regained some political capital, and he intends to spend it. George Bush has said that the September 11th attacks were unprovoked today. Why doesn't he stop lying* and invest his politcal capital instead of spending it? Al Qaeda couldn't have warned us more about the upcoming attacks. We were warned over and over again for years, and there was plenty of intelligence to predict 9/11 anyway. The reasons were clear*, including our bombing of an embassy 10 years or so before. My understanding is that in their evil way, the terrorists have yet been honorable and honest in that they've left countries alone that have withdrawn from Iraq and released corresponding hostages and they have been honest with us (they said they would attack us for a long time before we did).

So here's the point. Why doesn't George Bush take his political capital and invest $5000 in getting somebody to ask Al Qaeda, the simple questions, "If we left Iraq would we be free from a terrorist threat?", "If not what would it take?", "How can we trust you?", "What can we negotiate about?", etc... Sure appeasement didn't work with Adolph Hitler, who was also an evil man,
but Adolph Hitler was dishonest and atheist. These people live by a religion. George Bush has characterized the religion for the terrorists as Islamo-fascism. Why doesn't he examine whether Islamo-fascists are honest, and then simply hold them to their word? Even if the very worst situation occured, and 5 years down the road they attacked us again, it would likely be the same number of lives as would have been lost by staying in the war, and we would have saved all that money, and besides then they would have a much tougher time indoctrinating people to join them, because young Muslims wanting to join would then view them as dishonest. We would need somebody to carefully examine the wording of any agreements to make sure they were understood, and that would be it.

If this idea doesn't get done, then I think the real reason for the war is to boost our economy, but the coming debt from the war only promotes war with Asia, and I don't think it's worth it. With Asia, as with Iraq, taking the moral high ground would intimidate an opponent into feeling morally lacking if they wanted to attack us, leading to an easier war victory if we were attacked.

Thank you, I will read your comments tomorrow.

*1917 - Palestine, Aided by the Arabs, the British captured Palestine from the Ottoman Turks. The Brits gave the arabs several promises But in secret they made conflicting agreements, in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, Britain promised the Jews a Jewish "national home" in Palestine. Something that the arabs strongly opposed since that was not part of the initial agreement.

1936 - Palestine, Palestinians holds a six-month strike against the confiscation of land and Jewish immigration. The british does nothing.

1937 - Palestine, The british Peel commission concludes that the situation in Palestine is unworkable. The commission recommends a partition of Palestine into a jewish state, an arab state and a neutral international/british state that would contain the sacred parts of jerusalem.

1939 - Palestine, Due to the growin unrest in the region the British government published a suggestion that Jewish immigration should be restricted and that Palestine should become an independent state. The Zionist movement rejected this and founded terrorist organizations who launched a bloody campaign against the british and palestinians.

1947 - Palestine, UK decides to leave Palestine. The UN creates a plan to partition palestine into two states, a jewish and a palestinian. Arab protests against the partition results in violence, Palestinians attacks jewish settlements in retaliation of the jewish terrorist attacks that massacred hundreds of unarmed Palestinians.

1948 - Israel, The state of Israel is born. The US and UK manipulates the UN, all nations in the region vote against the founding of Israel. The US makes several nations drop their votes. The arab nations says before the voting that they will declare war on the state of Israel if it is founded. Later, Israel is attacked.

1956 - The Suez Crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_crisis

1957 - Jordan, Support of Pro-US dictator

1958 - Lebanon, The Lebanon Crisis. The US sends 14,000 troops to remove the anti-US dissents in Lebanon. CIA funds and manipulates the election of Camille Chamoun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon_crisis_of_1958

1960 - Iraq, Abdul Karim Kassem founds OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries). OPEC challenges western oil companies. CIA plans and tries to assassinate Kassem. CIA funds the kurds to oppose their leader.

1963 - Iraq, CIA overthrows Kassem in a coup and executes him. The Baath party gets the power. CIA gives the party a list of thousands of communists who are then executed. Saddam Hussein is involved in torture for the regime.
UK and US arms the new Iraqi government. The new regime attacks the kurds that the US earlier armed and pushed to opposed Iraq. A promise from the Iraqi government is given that US oil corporations is given full control of the Iraqi oil.

1970 - Oman, The US and Iran cooperates in the secret invasion of Oman.

1972 - Iraq, The US gives $16 millions of military aid to the Kurds to oppose the Iragi goverment and to please their puppet government in Iran.

1975 - Iraq, Iran and Iraq makes an peace agreement. Iraqi launches an attack at the Kurds, killing thousands. The US ignores the Kurds who are slaughtered. The famous Henry Kissinger quote is created "covert action should not be confused with missionary work" http://www.google.com/search?q=%22c...sionary+work%22

1975 - Morocco (not middle east but a muslim state), Morocco invades Western Sahara, The "International court of Justice" rules that Marocco has no right to claim the region. The US funds and supports the cruel dictator of Marocco in the war, in return the US are allowed to create airbases in the area.

1977 - Pakistan, The US supports a coup in pakistan. Former leader is executed. The US arms Pakistan. Martial Law lasts until 1985.

1977 - Egypt, The US funds the dictator of Egypt in order to remove any anti-Israel actions.

I can give you the rest if anybody wants to read this.

[Ace42X]

That is surprisingly astute for a young mormon. Well done, I am impressed.

[catatonic]

Thank you.

[D_Raay]

Yes very astute, as I said before I am very happy to hear coherent, well thought-out posts from a person of faith.

[racer5.0stang]

I think that maybe if they would just tell us ahead of time when and where to expect their next strike, then we would be better prepared to help the people who survived. Then we could just say well we deserved it they told us it would happen.

"Hey if we spend $5000 now, we will save a ton of money over the long run and even if they give us the shaft and bomb another city killing thousands, we will still have all that money we saved by not putting a stop to it before it happened."

Your disregard for life is disturbing.

[catatonic]

Racer, I'm impressed that you didn't have the usual objections you can find on this same thread at hannity.com. Let's consider your remarks, since you are the type of person who could convince the President to try this, and I believe it is vital that Bush's base do so.

First of all, they have always told us ahead of time that they would strike. Osama Bin Laden couldn't have warned us more that he was going to attack us. As for telling us when and where, 49% of New York City residents 41% of New Yorkers believed on August 30, 2004 in a Zogby poll that some U.S. leaders knew ahead of time the attacks were to be centered around 9/11. As for where, there are stories of phone call warnings and business leaders moving their businesses elsewhere under strange circumstances or citing security threats.
911research.wtc7.net/ and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks . I'm not saying they knew where or when, but there are some who suggest that they did.

Second, I didn't disregard life. I believe you disregarded life and if you believe me and don't act to convince your fellow Republicans it makes sense that you will then have blood on your hands. If they attacked us after 5 years of peace, that would be 5000 lives saved from not fighting and 2000 lives lost. 2000 because it would be hard to find as big of a target. Then we could win the war easily because they would be morally disadvantaged. God would be on our side in a Constitutional War and their morale would be like poop. We would save lives overall. Do you think the attack would be more than 2000? Consider how many lives would be lost if the war continued for 15 years by staying the course. Not to mention millions of lives that would then be lost because of what I said about War with Asia.

Understand? I need you to, and I need you to try to convince your fellow Republicans.

[Rancid_Beasties]

Its all well and good to compare the amount of lives lost in terrorist attacks like 9/11 with the lives lost in Iraq, but the fact remains that the republicans would rather fight a war off US soil, regardless of how many more people die because of that situation. You are unlikely to have any success convincing them that we should wait until they attack us first before attacking them, because that totally ignores the core of the Bush doctrine and the terms in the "National strategy to combat weapons of mass destruction". For them, the possiblity of an attack on US soil is a far better reason to launch a war than actual moral reasoning. Since when have morals mattered to George Bush.

[racer5.0stang]

First of all, they have always told us ahead of time that they would strike. Osama Bin Laden couldn't have warned us more that he was going to attack us.

So if THEY (whoever that is) always warns us before THEY attack, why couldn't Osama? After all he did take credit for the attacks.

As for telling us when and where, 49% of New York City residents 41% of New Yorkers believed on August 30, 2004 in a Zogby poll that some U.S. leaders knew ahead of time the attacks were to be centered around 9/11.

So these New Yorkers have more information than what our gov't has? Why didn't they tell someone? Oh, it is an OPINION poll not actual facts, well that explains alot.

As for where, there are stories of phone call warnings and business leaders moving their businesses elsewhere under strange circumstances or citing security threats.

You really can't be serious.

Second, I didn't disregard life. I believe you disregarded life and if you believe me and don't act to convince your fellow Republicans it makes sense that you will then have blood on your hands.

According to your original post you want the military to follow the demands of Al Quaeda and leave. Then you stated to trust them and let them decide if they still want to kill more Americans or anyone that does not share their same faith.

So how is it that I have a disregard for life?

If they attacked us after 5 years of peace, that would be 5000 lives saved from not fighting and 2000 lives lost. 2000 because it would be hard to find as big of a target.

What exactly are you comparing here?

Are you saying that 5000 lives are better lost NOT fighting than 2000 that ARE fighting? What is this target you are refering to?

Then we could win the war easily because they would be morally disadvantaged. God would be on our side in a Constitutional War and their morale would be like poop. We would save lives overall.

Yeah cause our technology, manpower, strategy wouldn't have anything to do with wiping out a terrorist group. First of all we must be on God's side not the other way around.

Consider how many lives would be lost if the war continued for 15 years by staying the course.

Consider how many lives would be lost if the U.S. back down from every attack that threatened it's people. "Well somebody might get hurt, we better not."

Not to mention millions of lives that would then be lost because of what I said about War with Asia.

When did you say that we are going to war with an entire Continent?

Understand? I need you to, and I need you to try to convince your fellow Republicans.

What that your twisted religous and political views are true? Maybe you should pull your head out of John Smith's anal cavity and look around at what is happening.

Check out Luke 21:8-28

Everything happens for a reason.

[Qdrop]

umm....okay.
this is pretty asinine......


you are calling for a negotiation with Al Queda and the like?
"what do we have to do to get you to leave us alone?"

you're serious?

so they tell us to do all these things....we do them.
they now know thier tactics work, even on the most powerful country in the world.
they become enbolded with pride.....why stop here?
terrorism get them what they want....

and what exactly do the insurgent in Iraq want (which by the way, are not all Al Queda operatives)? they want us to leave so....what?...so Iraq can be free to set up their own secular gov't with civil rights for all?
or the so the many Insurgents (of whom there are many sects with many differant objectives) can now concentrate thier attacks on each other and a undertrained iraqi gov't military....and engage in a military coup to set up a stictly muslim gov't....complete with civil rights abuses and backward social mentality.

yes, yes...let's just give them what they want.....
they have fought so hard and clearly want whats best for everyone...right?
we're just standing in thier way....

let us give in to the bully....we all know giving in to the bully works best for everyone.

[sam i am]

The most telling remark in Catatonic's missive was his analogy with appeasement of Adolf Hitler.

This line of reasoning has been tried countless times throughout history, with bloody and catastrophic consequences for the country that engaged in the : "we'll trust you and leave so you'll leave us alone" mentality.

A few examples : The Romans did this with the Germanic tribes along the border. They ATTEMPTED to coerce some tribes by integrating them into the Roman system, then left the area and those tribes were overwhelmed by the more powerful tribes behind them (namely the Normans, the Huns, the Alans, etc., et al). Rome ended up conquered, defeated, and it's population scattered across the Italian peninsula as a result.

The British and French were quite sure they had a "deal" with Hitler. Just take the Sudetenland and leave the rest of Czechoslovakia alone. You only want the part that is majority German speaking, right? OK....... 6 months later German troops marched into Bohemia and Moravia, controlling the entire country, which was left defenseless by the lack of a strong border defense. 6 months after that, Poland got the same "treatment" and WWII followed, with 50 million lives lost overall. Sounds like a bargain : the British and French "saved" themselves while the rest of Europe got the shaft...at least until May 1940..... :rolleyes:

[Ace42X]

let us give in to the bully....we all know giving in to the bully works best for everyone.

By that argument, the insurgency should last forever.

[Qdrop]

By that argument, the insurgency should last forever.

yep....all a matter of perpective....from both sides.

hey, i'm not gonna pretend i have the answer, the way Catatonic is....

it's a shitstorm....a complete, immoral, shitstorm...from ALL angles.

[sam i am]

yep....all a matter of perpective....from both sides.

hey, i'm not gonna pretend i have the answer, the way Catatonic is....

it's a shitstorm....a complete, immoral, shitstorm...from ALL angles.


Only if you agree with ace that the US is a bully, instead of trying to make things better eventually over there.

Truth is, the US will not LIKELY be there for much more than a year or two from now except as advisers. I saw an interesting article recently that talked about the need to build up the governmental bureaucracy in Iraq so that the stepping-stones to a more democratic, law-abiding society are in place when we leave.

Time will tell.....

[D_Raay]

I believe you guys are missing catatonic's point, which is perhaps a measured response would be the best way to go now. We haven't exactly had a resounding victory , or made much headway as is.

[Qdrop]

I believe you guys are missing catatonic's point, which is perhaps a measured response would be the best way to go now. We haven't exactly had a resounding victory , or made much headway as is.

if you start with lies and agendas, couple it with greed....this is what you end up with, i would think.

but, yes...bitching about the past doesn't do anything for our future.....and we need to do something moving forward.

i just don't think telling the insurgents/terrorists "hey, we'll do whatever you want, if you just leave us alone" will have anything but a disasterous effect in the longrun.

[sam i am]

I believe you guys are missing catatonic's point, which is perhaps a measured response would be the best way to go now. We haven't exactly had a resounding victory , or made much headway as is.

I would disagree on the making much headway part of your statement, D_Raay.

Although the "insurgency" is ongoing, it's often darkest before the dawn. The Constitutional elections coming up at the end of the week will be a truly telling benchmark of where we are at and where we should go in the immediate future.

The real problem with Catatonic's advice above is that he seems to think we should negotiate, at this point, with the easy to see result being the emboldening of Al-Qaeda. If we tuck our tail and run and ask for promises of no more attacks, we're blinding ourselves to the kind of messianic vision that the radicals have on that side of the equation.

Now, I fully realize that those words can just as easily be turned against the US by those who oppose our presence there (both domestic and foreign analysts), but we do have a certain degree of "right" on our side, IMO. I do think we are slowly, painfully, winning over there, but that it is truly up to the Iraqi and Afghan people, at this point, to step up and take over their own countries' defenses.

I am NOT forecasting the demise of whatever government comes into being in Iraq ala the fiasco in South Vietnam in 1975. I do think the Shiites and the Kurds are fed up with Sunni instrangience and will unite to suppress that portion of the population that is willing to terrorize to acheive their goals.

I know my opinion and forecasting is open to commentary, so have it....

[D_Raay]

Although the "insurgency" is ongoing, it's often darkest before the dawn
This is nothing but a Republican talking point that was drivel when they were saying it , and is drivel now.

Also, what I meant by measured response should be very clear. It isn't simply agreeing to whatever demands they have-- and all the language you are using such as "tucking our tail" and running is obviously not what cata or I were suggesting. It cheapens the debate by throwing language so disengenuous into the mix.

You are disguising the real situation with your "unwavering" optimism in the face of actually being dead wrong. A true sign of a hopelessly partisan individual who can't bring himself to actually want to help the people of this country, rather than tow his party's line.

As for Q, you hit the nail on the head brother. It's how we were brought into this that makes trusting these same people to get it right almost impossible.
We need real negotiation that actually leads somewhere without showing weakness before progress can be made. Wouldn't that be better than the alternative we have laid out before us now? It would certainly save some lives, but then, with all the pandering and bickering and rhetoric; who cares about lives anymore? :rolleyes:

[catatonic]

It's nice to have maybe the smartest two on this board on my side. Yeah I'm not saying we give in to all their demands, but negotiate.

Actually, I've found out what they want. They don't want atheists but won't do anything about this if they can't attack. They don't want infidels, for instance they want Christians to not worship Jesus as the son. If Christians worshipped Jesus as the Father this would go away (I'll explain). They don't want Jesus elevated in the trinity.

Jesus Christ is considered by Mormons the Father and the Son. The Son because he was begotten (made exactly like) God or in other words is God. The Son because of his flesh. Jesus himself said, "Why call ye me good? There is none good but my father who is in heaven." He repeatedly called for worshipping the Father and not him, so Christians should jump at the chance to agree with Muslims, and then they won't terrorize us. Terrorizing infidels serves the double purpose of keeping infidels from being prideful and converting atheists to belief in God. There is no reason to be afraid of terror.

[catatonic]

Rancid Beasties was right on the money.

[racer5.0stang]

It's nice to have maybe the smartest two on this board on my side.

I assume that you are refering to Ace and D-Raay. Just shows how truely blind someone can be.

Yeah I'm not saying we give in to all their demands, but negotiate.

You have no idea what you are saying.

Actually, I've found out what they want. They don't want atheists but won't do anything about this if they can't attack. They don't want infidels, for instance they want Christians to not worship Jesus as the son. If Christians worshipped Jesus as the Father this would go away (I'll explain). They don't want Jesus elevated in the trinity.

Who are THEY?

So what you are saying is that these people whoever THEY are want Christians to denounce their faith.

Christians base their faith on what the Bible says and it plainly states that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was conceived by a virgin, who performed many miracles, and who died on the CROSS and was resurrected on the third day and lives forever more.

Out of curiousity, why do THEY want Jesus worshipped as God the Father? What benefit is it to them?

Jesus Christ is considered by Mormons the Father and the Son.

How does that make sense? Do you consider yourself to be your father and your son? Even an unsaved person realize the fallacy in your statement.

The Son because he was begotten (made exactly like) God or in other words is God.

He is the Son of God, one third of the trinity. You know God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

He repeatedly called for worshipping the Father and not him

It is quite disturbing to see the Bible mis-quoted. Maybe instead of being a parrot, you should try learning on your own. Jesus claimed to be God on several occasions but he wanted God the Father to get the credit for what He was doing.

so Christians should jump at the chance to agree with Muslims, and then they won't terrorize us.

You are a sick individual.

Terrorizing infidels serves the double purpose of keeping infidels from being prideful and converting atheists to belief in God. There is no reason to be afraid of terror.

Sounds like you have switched sides. I hope your mormon friends are aware of your decision. Do you think any of them will associate with you now?

[D_Raay]

He is the Son of God, one third of the trinity. You know God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
In Christianity, Jesus is God in flesh who paid for our sins on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24).

In Christianity, the greatest act of love is performed by God Himself -- since Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2:9).

I assume that you are refering to Ace and D-Raay. Just shows how truely blind someone can be.

Assuming that he IS actually talking about me and Ace, why would you say he is blind? Does it have to do with your religious beliefs?

[catatonic]

I assume that you are refering to Ace and D-Raay. Just shows how truely blind someone can be.

But you didn't say I was blind. Thank you.



You have no idea what you are saying.

It doesn't matter. The American people will sooner or later end this war.

Who are THEY?

So what you are saying is that these people whoever THEY are want Christians to denounce their faith.

Christians base their faith on what the Bible says and it plainly states that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was conceived by a virgin, who performed many miracles, and who died on the CROSS and was resurrected on the third day and lives forever more.


They are Muslims and while a few of them, not particularly the terrorists, may feel that Christians should denounce their faith, that is not really what the Qu'Ran is asking.

Jesus refers to himself as both the Father and as the Son. As the Son, he is the son of an earthly mother, subject to weakness. As the Father, he is God because he was made exactly like God or existed with God and was exaclty like Him. As the Flesh, he said, "Why calleth thou me good? There is none good but my father." for which he was referring to himself as the Father. As the Father, he was magnificient and was indeed the very eternal Father. This is not to say his mother's side shouldn't be given credit. Subject to the flesh, he yielded to no temptation, enabling him to perform miracles and along with his gift speak with exactness (the tongue of the learned). But what Muslims are really saying, and I'm not sure I agree with him, is not to worship him as the flesh. It's true that only because he was begotten of the Father could he atone for our sins. Living perfectly isn't enough to atone for the sins of another.

Either way, why be terrorized? You said in the verses you brought up yourself that Jesus said not to be terrorized, so don't worry about it!


Out of curiousity, why do THEY want Jesus worshipped as God the Father? What benefit is it to them?


No benefit, and I didn't say they wanted Jesus worshipped as God the Father, just not worshipped as the flesh.

I have never become Muslim although I am wondering about it since I have overcome this hurdle that seperates Muslims from Christians. However I believe that Gordon B. Hinckley is the messenger of God and not Mohammed. Friends of mine know about these things I've told you and they completely understand. I am sorry you think I'm sick - I hope you don't think I'm sick now that I've explained myself!

[Funkaloyd]

How does that make sense? Do you consider yourself to be your father and your son? Even an unsaved person realize the fallacy in your statement.
How is Jesus being both the father and the son any crazier than God being both the father and the son?

You should seriously examine your own beliefs before you call anyone else's illogical.

[catatonic]

All it's saying is Jesus had two parents, God and an earthly woman. Because of God, who is our Father, he is the Father. Because of the woman, he is the Son. It's even OK to blend the two by saying, "my only begotten Son" or "Jesus is God in flesh.". That doesn't take away from what's going on here.

[yeahwho]

I respect your thoughts and premise on an Iraqi war solution. I've been avoiding this thread but now can no longer avoid it. A faith based solution by brand of religion sounds noble and is actually eloquently put forth and I respect that.

But now here we are 25 posts down disagreeing on who is the father and who is the son within our own western christian ideology. WTF is that all about. Nobody in their right mind would want to live with a war based on false ideological mis-information, yet this is what is happening today.

Our president went into Iraq on flimsy (preconcieved) information and only military advice he wanted to hear. As I look around at the Planet Earth today these decisions by both factions have harmed/maimed/killed millions of people.

The few who have actually done well from the Iraq war are people affiliated with Major oil companies and Infrastructure Rebuilding Companies.

I'm seeing something much more evil than religion.

[catatonic]

I would never invest in Halliburton, which Dick Cheney made $8,000,000 from this year in stock options!

[greedygretchen]

If this idea doesn't get done, then I think the real reason for the war is to boost our economy

more like to boost oil economy and it is the real reason for war

imo, the only answer to ending the war (and mitigating global warming) is ending our dependence on oil and moving to alternate forms of energy (like hemp among others; I heard that some cars are running on vegetable oil) when that'll happen though or if it's realistic that it'll happen is beyond me at this point. :(

[yeahwho]

War is Over (http://suchi.srs.ne.jp/today/wio2002/)

[SavannahMan]

The OP shows a complete lack of understanding behind the current conflict.

How can one "negotiate" with a group of people who despise not just your religion or your foreign policy but your entire civilization?

Grow a spine man. Do you capitulate like this in real life?

[Ace42X]

The OP shows a complete lack of understanding behind the current conflict.

Hmmm, and yet...

How can one "negotiate" with a group of people who despise not just your religion or your foreign policy but your entire civilization?


Funny, you just managed to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding behind the current conflict...

That makes you... It's coming... OH YES, A FAT STINKING HYPOCRIT. Great second post, asshat.

[Ali]

How can one "negotiate" with a group of people who despise not just your religion or your foreign policy but your entire civilization?Exactly!

How can anyone ever negotiate with the United States?

[SavannahMan]

Hmmm, and yet...



Funny, you just managed to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding behind the current conflict...

That makes you... It's coming... OH YES, A FAT STINKING HYPOCRIT. Great second post, asshat.

Perhaps you would attempt to enlighten me shitstain?

Tell me what your liberal media masters have sold you to help explain why radical Muslims want to kill you.

eta: oh God - let me guess - "It's Bush's fault" :rolleyes:

[Ali]

Oh goody.

Another one...

[Ace42X]

Tell me what your liberal media masters

I don't know what planet you're from, but liberals don't control the media in my country, and they sure as shit don't in the US.

have sold you to help explain why radical Muslims want to kill you.

"Radical" muslims want to kill civillians for a number of disparate reasons. The vast majority of them are indignant about the 400,000 - over 1 million civillians killed in Iraq since the first US invasion. Many are irate about the US constantly preventing peace in the middle east by supporting the Israeli militantcy. IE giving them attack choppers, for example. Many are irate about the US propping up despots, resulting in their friends and family getting massacred in the crossfire, and then waging war on the self-same despots causing their remaining friends and family to get killed.

Then there are the breaches of international law, the US's economic and cultural imperialism, the covert operations against soverign nations, the US's use of chemical weapons, the US's total inability to follow the human rights conventions that it itself championed.

However, the reasons the extremist bombers want to blow *ME* up is because my stupid government decided to follow your crooked president into a totally illegal and unjustifiable war, which has quite rightly incensed every right-thinking person to the point of apopoleptic rage.


All of this should be self-evident to someone even remotely aquainted with the facts. However, as you no doubt view anything that you find distasteful as "liberal propoganda bullshit" - no doubt you will be unable to put aside your patriotic brainwashed delusions and actually take an objective look at the facts.

"That goddamn liberal media... Telling us that there are no WMDs... They even made it look like our government had to admit that there were no WMDs... That's how good they are at manipulating the facts, you see..."

[SavannahMan]

Ah how predictable - blame it on Israel, blame it on Bush, and on American "imperialism" both cultural and economic.

Gosh you almost make them sound like the good guys fighting the bully opporessor....

You actually came close to the correct answer (perhaps by chance).

I will try to keep this simple for you as I am sure you will appreciate.

1. Islam (especially these radical sects) calls for spreading Islamic rule over the world

(Assuming you don't have any objecitons so far)

2. American cultural and economic dominance in the world makes it quite impossible for that to happen. These hardline Muslims look around and see what the encroaching world will do to their 16th century way of thinking - they know that the "infidels" will overrun them and their way of life unless the "infidels" are destroyed.

This is not a conflict that can be negotiated away. The terrorists we are fighting want to kill you not because of something Tony Blair did or anything Bush did. It isn't directly related to Israel. It is a dying civilization lashing out at the encroaching civilization that appears destined to overtake and destroy it.

[SavannahMan]

I don't know what planet you're from, but liberals don't control the media in my country.

My mistake I assumed you were from the UK

[franscar]

People this deluded don't exist. I'm sure of it. Please, enhance my faith in humanity and tell me you're just having a bit of a giggle.

[Ace42X]

Ah how predictable

Yes, arguing using facts does tend to be predictable. Us stinking 'liberals' and our use of objective fact into subjective and unsupported opining, what will we sink to next?!?

blame it on Israel, blame it on Bush, and on American "imperialism" both cultural and economic.

Don't forget military.

Gosh you almost make them sound like the good guys fighting the bully opporessor...

Let's see, "bully oppressor" - your army invaded their country, has killed tens of thousands of them, created a climate that has resulted in hundreds of thousands more, and reduced one of the most secular countries with the highest quality of life in the whole region to a stinking quagmire on the brink of civil war... You're freaking world heroes!

You actually came close to the correct answer (perhaps by chance).

Funny how you conflate "correct" with "fitting into your simplistic and profoundly ignorant world view." But hell, you're American, the two coincide.

1. Islam (especially these radical sects) calls for spreading Islamic rule over the world

Which is why the US has to go over there and invade the most secular nation in the region, in the process exposing the christian minority to a renewed wave of religious intollerance...

Next you'll be telling me about those brave crusaders defending the French borders from those rampaging turks, while the brave american soldiers save their butts "again."

"It's Islam's fault" - Never mind the fact that all of the greatest acts of human savagery have been comitted by non-Muslims. Nevermind the provocation your government has given them.

"No, it's got nothing to do with the deaths of millions of arabs because of US foreign policy. It's got nothing to do with the physical things we've done to them again and again. It's because THEIR HOLY BOOK CAN BE MISINTERPRETED BY IGNORANT BACKWARDS HICKS..."

2. American cultural and economic dominance in the world makes it quite impossible for that to happen. These hardline Muslims look around and see what the encroaching world will do to their 16th century way of thinking - they know that the "infidels" will overrun them and their way of life unless the "infidels" are destroyed.

Tish and fipsy. It must be nice to be able to throw away the facts and pretend that other people's motives are whatever you ascribe to them. Much in the way lobotomies must be.

The terrorists we are fighting want to kill you not because of something Tony Blair did or anything Bush did. It isn't directly related to Israel. It is a dying civilization lashing out at the encroaching civilization that appears destined to overtake and destroy it.

You're absolutely right. Except for the fact that you are wrong in every single respect.

Firstly, Islam is a religion, not a civilisation. Secondly it is the fastest growing belief system in the world. Thirdly you are the most profoundly stupid fuckface since Gizmo.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that all these muslims, who've had their wives, children, parents killed by the US don't give a rat's ass. But because you bring them coca-cola and shitty sit-coms, they're all reaching for the AKs because of sour-grapes?

Can you smell what you are shovelling?

Next you'll be telling me Bush invaded Iraq because God told him to as part of the white man's manifest destiny...

[Ace42X]

My mistake I assumed you were from the UK

I am from the UK, and if you knew anything about the subjects you were trying to discuss, you'd know that the BBC (which is actually very impartial) is infact beholden to the Labour government which holds the purse-strings. As such, it is in its best interests to kow-tow to the pro-war movement. More so as the people who were most anti-war got kicked out after the Hutton report.

You'd also know that the right-wing conservative party are very much associated with the other TV networks - the Sky channels are owned by Rupert Murdoch, same media mogul that prints several of our newspapers and is responsible for the news abomination which is "Fox". The current lead-runner for the position of Tory leadership worked for Carlton, one of the major independant tv providers. Boris Johnson, also a tory, was the editor of the spectator.

But, you see, despite the media being actually in the pocket of the right on the whole, we like some news with our daily dose of propoganda, so we actually get facts fed to us. You, however, get bileous rantings of morons like O'Reilly, Hannity, and the other ignorant retards that make your whole country look like a bunch of insular racist paranoid delusional self-absorbed fuckholes.

[SavannahMan]

Ahh you started out sounding so good - talking about the facts you were going to bring to the table - but then just degenerated into the name-calling and liberal hysterics.

Well this debate is a couple years old and rehashing it with some anti-America, anti-Christian, Euro-trash isn't terribly exciting.

No - you have it right my foul-toothed friend. America is the evil villian who stirred up those peaceful Muslims and by gosh any trouble those Muslims give to Europe is probably America's fault also.

....and if it isn't America's fault it's because of the Crusades!

Hysterical little "progressives" like you make me laugh - so full of yourselves thinking YOU have the answers and yet the world never seems to go your way. Funny how that works out.

I am sorry I tried to show you that maybe this conflict wasn't about something as simple as a phrase that can fit on your protest posterboard - I should have know it would be too much for your little brain to absorb.

[SavannahMan]

and the other ignorant retards that make your whole country look like a bunch of insular racist paranoid delusional self-absorbed fuckholes.

You forgot poopyheads.

Did you really think I would care what you think of this country? You and your little country are just one of our bitches - you know it and I know it. I guess if I was in your shoes I might not like it much either - sucks for you.

[Funkaloyd]

Ace, think about it: he's been registered for all of 2 minutes, and he yet he knows that you're from England.

[SavannahMan]

Ace, think about it: he's been registered for all of 2 minutes, and he yet he knows that you're from England.

Sheesh and I know you are from New Zealand - god it's like I have ESP or something.

I can tell you are used to not being the sharpest knife in the drawer. Perhaps you better sit this one out since you seem better suited as the back-slapping type.

[SavannahMan]

You know what else Funkaloyd - I know that you live pretty near Cook Straight and that you have freakishly small genitalia. Am I amazing or what?

Freaking simpleton goat herder.

[Ace42X]

Ahh you started out sounding so good - talking about the facts you were going to bring to the table

You have yet to bring a single fact to the table yourself. I have mentioned several key facts which you have yet to answer. I felt no need to source them, as anything you dislike you'll simply put down to "liberal propoganda."

but then just degenerated into the name-calling and liberal hysterics.

I called you an asshat from the start. Hardly a degeneration, moron.

Well this debate is a couple years old

Because it has yet to be resolved. Your government's policies are still making the situation worse in Iraq, and have increased the threat of terrorism exponentially. Animosity to the west in the muslim world has sky-rocketed. And despite all this you right-wing cranks are STILL making excuses for the shit you have caused.

and rehashing it with some anti-America, anti-Christian, Euro-trash isn't terribly exciting.

Anti-American? In that, as I stated earlier, the US has commited plenty of atrocities, yes, I am against that. If you want to conflate hypocrisy and crimes against humanity with "America" as a whole, go for it. But don't expect any sympathy when some irate muslims knock down some more of your buildings again because you haven't learned your lesson.

Anti-christian? Where did you pull that from? Oh, yes, your ass - the same place you get all your information.

Euro-trash? What, that I come from a nation not comprised of creationism spouting snake-handling illiterate boobs that think the fairy-tales they are fed by their "news" are anything other than manipulative fantasies? Mea culpa.

No - you have it right my foul-toothed friend.

Foul-toothed? It's you inbred slack-jawed yokels that have dental problems. Here even the poorest people in society can get adequate dental care. You don't have to be rich to afford basic medical treatment in my nation.

America is the evil villian who stirred up those peaceful Muslims and by gosh any trouble those Muslims give to Europe is probably America's fault also.

The ones that have specifically said they were retaliating against the nations involved because of their support of the US in Iraq? But let me guess, they video-taped themselves stating these as their motivations to CONFUSE US ALL. "I'm going to kill myself, but I'm not going to tell you precisely what my grievance is, because I'M JUST A MAD DARK-SKINNED BOGEY MAN! OOGA BOOGA! Let me bamboozle by telling you one thing, when really it is all part of a hypnotic suggestion!"

What a crock.

...and if it isn't America's fault it's because of the Crusades!

Want me to give some more analogies for you to totally misunderstand?

so full of yourselves thinking YOU have the answers and yet the world never seems to go your way. Funny how that works out.

Yeah, funny. Almost as funny as the fact that the majority of your countrymen are corpulently obese and dying of all manner of cardio-vascular diseases because you lard-butts don't listen to common sense. Nearly as funny as your countrymen jumping out of the WTC without parachutes because your government doesn't listen to warnings. Almost as funny as you guys paying over the odds for an inferior healthcare system because you don't listen to people who have the answers. Nearly as funny as your gun-crime statistics.

Yeah, your country is pretty funny. In a retard flinging his own shit around kinda way.

I am sorry I tried to show you that maybe this conflict wasn't about something as simple as a phrase that can fit on your protest posterboard - I should have know it would be too much for your little brain to absorb.

What a load of bullshit. "It's not about what you can see and touch and feel, it's about some invisible ideology that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest it exists."

I understand what you were trying to show, and I understand perfectly well that it was close-minded and ill-informed biggotry that didn't deign a reasoned response. Which is precisely why you didn't get one.

[Ace42X]

Ace, think about it: he's been registered for all of 2 minutes, and he yet he knows that you're from England.

I'm guessing it's that bdavid fuckface that got his ignorant ass banned a while back.

Perhaps we should have a sweepstake...

"Which cunt is it anyway?"

anyone want to nominate? I'll run the odds.

[SavannahMan]

Oh lookie I got this brown-tooth all up in arms!

Got him to show his ass and throw in a little America-hating to boot.

Too easy.

Funniest part of his rant? When he calls Americans "inbred" - the dude lives on a freaking ISLAND!!!! ROFL.

I have always found that with dolts like this the longer they live in mommy's basement the fouler their language becomes - some sort of compensation I would imagine as they come to the realization that they have such a sorry lot in life.

[Ace42X]

Oh lookie I got this brown-tooth all up in arms!

Got him to show his ass and throw in a little America-hating to boot.

Too easy.

Actually, if you were capable of understanding "irony" - you'd see I was playing you. Perhaps I should've included a laugh-track to help you out.

Funniest part of his rant? When he calls Americans "inbred" - the dude lives on a freaking ISLAND!!!! ROFL.

You might not be aware of this, being stupid, but the UK is a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society. And, as for "living on a freaking island" having anything to do with inbreeding, you might not be aware of such inventions as boats, planes, and we have a little thing called "the channel tunnel" which gives us a direct land connection to Europe major. As if that actually had any bearing on what I was saying.

I have always found

You haven't found shit. You're a biggot and too stupid to see when you are being mocked - all you've found is a damned good cussing.

that with dolts like this the longer they live in mommy's basement the fouler their language becomes - some sort of compensation I would imagine as they come to the realization that they have such a sorry lot in life.

What sorry lot? Living in a country which is superior to yours in pretty much every single respect? You should come visit us, get a taste of civilisation.

[SavannahMan]

Yeah - "I was playing you" - the mouse said to the cat.

Too easy.

It's a Beastie Boys message board - of course it's easy - not exactly a challenge.

p.s. I have been there for a "taste" - and I don't want to taste it again. You freaks are still eating the same slop they served up in the Middle Ages. :eek:

Britain is Uncle Sam's bitch.

Owned.

Out.

[Ace42X]

Owned.

Yeah, I pointed out that you are an ignorant ill-informed biggot, threw in plenty of insults for good measure, and you threw back a few feeble, clichéd and patently false stereotypes as a weak retort. You sure showed me!

p.s. I have been there for a "taste" - and I don't want to taste it again. You freaks are still eating the same slop they served up in the Middle Ages.

Yes, because the wide variety of international cuisine you can find in even the smallest of towns was here, in takeaway form, in the middle ages...

"We don't want any of this foreign muck... Give us Big Macs, processed cheese, and beer that tastes like carbonated urine!"

All of which you can buy in their imported varities if you so like, incidently...

[Ali]

It is a dying civilization lashing out at the encroaching civilization that appears destined to overtake and destroy it.
Which civilisation is dying? The one which uses the most oil and has run out of its own? Or the one which has all the oil?

Who's "lashing out"? The civilisation which lost 3,000 people in a hijack on a day when there were so many drills for a situation which "nobody expected" that nothing was done to stop those planes being flown into their targets, or is it the civilisation which has been bombed into the stone age, with hundreds of thousands of its people injured, killed, homeless, jobless, hopeless?

Which country has a trade deficit of $477 billion (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/26/budget.deficits.ap/)?

And how does it manage to maintain such an astronomical debt?

Pump up the oil price and cash in on the PetroDollar (http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html).

That's right. Fuck with an oil producing country (after fabricating a reason a la Operation Northwoods (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf)), which pushes the oil price up, which forces everybody to buy more dollars to pay for the same amount of oil (especially when the dollar value has gone down, making the oil dollar price even higher) et viola! everybody's buying billions and billions of your dollars and your deficit isn't really as big as it seems.

Here are some extracts from Richard Benson's article:Oil for Dollars, and Dollars for US deficit. (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_Economy/GD09Dk01.html) in the Asia Times:
Indeed, this jump in the price of oil increases the world's daily oil consumption bill of 84 million barrels a day to $4.2 billion, from $2.5 billion (or $1.5 trillion a year from $900 billion). The world now has to shell out an additional $600 billion a year of "lucky bucks" to oil-producing countries just to stay in motion.

The bigger shock, however, is in the devaluation of dollar holdings of US Treasury debt. The rise in oil prices guarantees that the value of the US dollar will be pushed down even further, and stay down.

The US strategy for using oil to finance its deficit is, of course, brilliant. America's elected officials knew that at some point those independent foreign central banks would start getting edgy about buying more dollars to pay for the United States' war and deficits. The $650 billion trade deficit is breathing down the dollar's neck. So which central banks can the US continue to use as the fall guys to buy the dollar? Why not the Persian Gulf oil states - but where would they get the dollars to buy US Treasuries? Well, with the Chinese piling up dollars and growing like crazy, at some point the oil market had to tighten.

As the price of oil goes up, extra money floods into the Gulf kingdoms. With the US secretary of defense putting troops all over the ground in the Middle East, and those nimble aircraft carriers nearby and ready to deliver the "shock and awe of sudden democracy" to the Gulf monarchs, it's a sure bet that America's OPEC buddies will stash their newly found Asian lucky bucks into good old American Treasury notes.

With such a simple policy to fund its deficit for another year, it's no wonder the United States can get by without any brain power at the Treasury Department. In effect, the US and its Gulf Arab allies just pulled off the biggest central-bank heist in the history of the world. The price of oil just went up 60% or more, which really cuts down to size that $3.4 trillion of net foreign holdings of US financial assets.

The United States is extracting tribute on oil from the world. If the world wants Middle Eastern oil, it can pay for it through the Saudi branch of the US Treasury. Why do the heads of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, Qatar, etc, hold dollars? Because they want to keep the money and the power. The ruling family of Saudi Arabia controls 25% of the world oil reserves and is completely dependent on oil revenues for its survival. Tens of thousands of Saudi princes live off lavish royal stipends. Think of Arabia as a family firm. If the dollar goes down in value, the Saudi royal family still gets to keep hundreds of billions of dollars. But, if they don't buy dollars, why would the US keep them in power? It would simply not be in our interests to do so. Remember when Saddam Hussein talked about pricing Iraq's oil in euros? "Shock and awe" quietly followed.Pity so many people have to suffer and die to maintain this little scam you have running.

How are the invasion plans for Iran (http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html) going? You'd better hope you can fuck them up properly before they start selling their oil in Euros. Your economy will be truly fucked then, amigro, you'll ALL be living in the conditions we saw on the TV after Katrina, not just the ex-slaves. It might be quite tricky to fight the Iranians, when you armed them in the first place. They won't just roll over and give up like Saddam's conscripts and trying to occupy Iran will make Iraq seem like a picnic.

Are you ready for the next big 'terror attack' in the U.S. which will be blamed on Iran and used as a reason to invade?

[catatonic]

Hey. Go easy on America. President Bush said he sought to destroy it, and it's still standing strong. A lot of people are fighting it.

My revised plot is to negotiate privately to reduce the number of potential casualties in future terrorist attacks, (while we can), then withdraw.

[D_Raay]

You know what else Funkaloyd - I know that you live pretty near Cook Straight and that you have freakishly small genitalia. Am I amazing or what?

Freaking simpleton goat herder.
Stunning... Someone possibly from Savannah calling funkaloyd a simpleton.
I have awoken in Bizarroworld perhaps?

[D_Raay]

Ah how predictable - blame it on Israel, blame it on Bush, and on American "imperialism" both cultural and economic.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us-poor-set-to-lose-food-stamps/2005/10/29/1130400390006.html

With more than 38 million Americans too poor to buy adequate food, the US Congress has begun to take away the food stamps many of them receive.

The Republican majority on the House Agriculture Committee has approved budget cuts that will take "food stamps" away from an estimated 300,000 people and could cut off school lunches and breakfasts for 40,000 children.

The action came as the US Government reported that the number of people who are hungry because they can't afford to buy enough food rose to 38.2 million in 2004, an increase of seven million in five years.

The number represents nearly 12 per cent of US households.

But Israel still gets billions every year.

Do you get it? The US Congress is willing to starve Americans in order to continue to send money and weapons to Israel.

I highly doubt that you will get it, in the face of this fact (and many others I could show you), what with all the drugs you do, or the unfortunate breeding your family may have indulged in, that puts you on the ridiculous side of this,
but hey I won't lose any sleep over it.
Think twice, however, about verbally bashing highly respected members of this board for many of us will take it personally. And just like that yahoo-laden, vitriol spewing site Hannity.com, where you would feel much more at home with your own kind, you may actually get banned here if your not careful.

[fucktopgirl]

well interesting debate ,a melting pot of religion,hate,lies,obstination!

you know The american governement knew about the 9/11,but they did not stop it,not a bit,even that day their where a couple of gard missing in the airports; its seems!

anyhow,for bush and his little friends,9/11 was a good thing,oh maybe they lost 3000 people,but think about the money they could make out of it!

-a reason to go to war and invade everywhere in the name of terrorist
-good fucking money$$$weapons,defense,,,a really good business. A lot of investor.
\
-money market is excitate,a lot of action!!

-good reason to kill all those terrorsit and ,while we are there,take upon everysingle oil factory around!

you know the governement dont give a shit about you,he want power ,control,money..The usa a re the fucking devil in my opinion.they invade every place in the world to install their system,value.There is even a 7'eleven in a small town inthailand,,htey want worl domination and dont respect no others country!!
they will never want to stop war in irak,what about negociation;not good business .they want war,its boost the economical system and they can play with their new toys!

i dont think we can a find a solution for war to stop!the only solution would be that some intelligent human are in charge of this but its a mirage,never gona happen!

[EN[i]GMA]

anyhow,for bush and his little friends,9/11 was a good thing,oh maybe they lost 3000 people,but think about the money they could make out of it!

-a reason to go to war and invade everywhere in the name of terrorist
-good fucking money$$$weapons,defense,,,a really good business. A lot of investor.
\
-money market is excitate,a lot of action!!

-good reason to kill all those terrorsit and ,while we are there,take upon everysingle oil factory around!

So let me get this straight: The richest, most powerful men in the history of the planet decide, just for shits and giggles, to become even more rich and powerful?

They risk everything they have on a plot that will be easily unravelled, on a scheme that will be investigated as much as any throughout history for:


-a reason to go to war and invade everywhere in the name of terrorist

As we're well aware, they're good for making up a reason.

-good fucking money$$$weapons,defense,,,a really good business. A lot of investor.

They're already so rich they could never possibly spend all their money. Why risk it ALL for more?

-money market is excitate,a lot of action!!

But they don't need more money, and risking an entire war for the phantom promise of 'profit' is insane.

Iraq is likely to devolve into a civil war and ruin all their holdings there, for instance.


-good reason to kill all those terrorsit and ,while we are there,take upon everysingle oil factory around!

I don't think one needs a 'good reason' to kill actual terrorists.

Are they going to control all the oil?

[greedygretchen]

GMA']So let me get this straight: The richest, most powerful men in the history of the planet decide, just for shits and giggles, to become even more rich and powerful?

um, yeah


GMA']
They're already so rich they could never possibly spend all their money. Why risk it ALL for more?

it's never enough for these people, they just want to amass more and more for themselves and possibly their families and their future generations...for example, why do movie stars want more and more for the movies they do when they're already sick rich as it is? Couldn't they say "well i got 5 million for the last one so I'll just stick with that figure"

and really...what have bush and cheney risked? certainly not their lives or the lives of their children...certainly not their funds as they're not paying for the war out of their own pockets. "they" have risked nothing

GMA']But they don't need more money, and risking an entire war for the phantom promise of 'profit' is insane.

It's not about "needing" the money, it's about straight out avarice and greed
and there's nothing "phantom" about it...Standing in line to get a hot dog last night I saw the front page of USA today with the headline reading something like "Historic Profits for Big Oil..." That's real and you're right-it is insane which is why I understand why you find it hard to believe

When someone has spent their whole life in the pursuit of money and power, how do they know when to stop?

[D_Raay]

Project for the new American century... 'nuff said.

[EN[i]GMA]

um, yeah

How...convenient.


it's never enough for these people, they just want to amass more and more for themselves and possibly their families and their future generations

And you're qualified to make this assumption, how?


...for example, why do movie stars want more and more for the movies they do when they're already sick rich as it is? Couldn't they say "well i got 5 million for the last one so I'll just stick with that figure"

Perhaps they enjoy acting?


and really...what have bush and cheney risked? certainly not their lives or the lives of their children...certainly not their funds as they're not paying for the war out of their own pockets. "they" have risked nothing

Except jailtime, death for treason, a ruined reputation, the repossession of their assets and their life.

They've gained nothing.

[
It's not about "needing" the money, it's about straight out avarice and greed
and there's nothing "phantom" about it...Standing in line to get a hot dog last night I saw the front page of USA today with the headline reading something like "Historic Profits for Big Oil..." That's real and you're right-it is insane which is why I understand why you find it hard to believe

There's a distinct difference between an oil company selling oil to make money and a government doing something like this.


When someone has spent their whole life in the pursuit of money and power, how do they know when to stop?

Good question.

But 'never' isn't a good answer.

[greedygretchen]

I never thought one had to have "credentials" to state their perception of greed! Is my name greedygretchen enough to qualify that I have a perception of what I think is greed?

So by that same token what qualifies you to say that "They're already so rich they could never possibly spend all their money. Why risk it ALL for more?" Is that an absolute fact? Or simply your perception? Did they personally tell you that?


And I see the point about celebrities was missed. My point was this- Say an actor makes $2 million for a movie...if he was doing it purely for the love of acting-why wouldn't $2 million be enough for the next film? $2 Million seems like an awful lot of money to me! But no you hear about salaries for stars skyrocketing some making as much as $50 million per movie (think Cruise, Hanks, Willis) Aren't they already rich enough? What I take from your perception is that they should be making movies for free if they're already rich-they're so rich they don't need to ever make another high budget film! I'm sure there are a lot of quality projects that they could act on for free or for much less than $50 mill rather than making Die Hard 16...So since Bush and Cheney are already rich, why would they want to make more?The emphasis on materialism,wealth, and power in American society looms larger than anyone would expect.

Except jailtime, death for treason, a ruined reputation, the repossession of their assets and their life.

LOFL. Yeah and who's gonna convict them and sentence them to death for treason? The Supreme Court Justices who put them there in the first place? Or the ones that have the Cheney/Bush administration to thank for their appointments? Who's gonna ruin thier reputations? The "liberal" media? Fox News? puh-lease.


There's a distinct difference between an oil company selling oil to make money and a government doing something like this.

i guess bush and cheney never had anything to do with oil? does a little company called "halliburton" mean anything to you?

And lastly, never isn't the answer I would choose anyway...I mean they'd stop when they die or became physically incapable of working right?

[EN[i]GMA]

I never thought one had to have "credentials" to state their perception of greed! Is my name greedygretchen enough to qualify that I have a perception of what I think is greed?

So by that same token what qualifies you to say that "They're already so rich they could never possibly spend all their money. Why risk it ALL for more?" Is that an absolute fact? Or simply your perception? Did they personally tell you that?

A little bit of logic.

IF they saw me walking down the street they wouldn't punch me and take my wallet for money.

They're not that desperate.

Why are they desperate enough to start a war?

I can't see the impetus behind this scheme: "Let's start a war that, in all liklihood, will result in a civil war in Iraq or an anti-American theocratic state, which will mean DECREASED oil profits, as a nefarious money-making scheme!"

Devious. And stupid.

If things go wrong in Iraq, like they probably will, they're fucked. They're out money.

They gambled and lost; why gamble?

This isn't 'easy money', this is as hard of money as you can get.


And I see the point about celebrities was missed. My point was this- Say an actor makes $2 million for a movie...if he was doing it purely for the love of acting-why wouldn't $2 million be enough for the next film? $2 Million seems like an awful lot of money to me! But no you hear about salaries for stars skyrocketing some making as much as $50 million per movie (think Cruise, Hanks, Willis) Aren't they already rich enough?

I would argue so, they would argue not, but they certainly aren't going to kill anyone for the slight possiblity of getting more, and the gigantic risk of getting found out.


What I take from your perception is that they should be making movies for free if they're already rich-they're so rich they don't need to ever make another high budget film! I'm sure there are a lot of quality projects that they could act on for free or for much less than $50 mill rather than making Die Hard 16...So since Bush and Cheney are already rich, why would they want to make more?The emphasis on materialism,wealth, and power in American society looms larger than anyone would expect.

Materialism? What more can they buy? They can't spend what they have.

Wealth? As I've stated before, these people are the wealthiest in the world.

Power? They cannot get any more power. What are they going to do, become president?

Are these real people or comic book villians?


LOFL. Yeah and who's gonna convict them and sentence them to death for treason? The Supreme Court Justices who put them there in the first place? Or the ones that have the Cheney/Bush administration to thank for their appointments? Who's gonna ruin thier reputations? The "liberal" media? Fox News? puh-lease.

The voters?

I've heard there were some sort of elections or another.

I can't really take this analysis seriously; there is none in America with the power or prediliction to stop them?

Then why aren't we living in Airstrip One now?

They're JUST fiendish enough to start a war for profit, JUST powerful enough not to get caught but not powerful enough to do anything more?

If they want money, and they're above the law, why not just raise taxes and keep the money or, create an energy bill chocked full of pork for their friends?

Why do the most risky, illogical, wasteful thing imaginable?

Instead of spending half a trillion on war, why not just give themselves the money?

Why does their psychosis so neatly match with your theories?

Coincedence? Or are they part OF your theories?


i guess bush and cheney never had anything to do with oil? does a little company called "halliburton" mean anything to you?

Yes, yes it does.

But if this is your evidence, you'd be laughed out of court.



And lastly, never isn't the answer I would choose anyway...I mean they'd stop when they die or became physically incapable of working right?

Not if they use their vast stores of money to make themselves into vampires!

[D_Raay]

Because Enigma the simple fact is they are scared of the people, and rightfully so. Because what you suggest, that they COULD be so blatant about it is not true, the people wouldn't allow it. History has taught them this.

I don't get this blind devotion to capitalism you show, siding with big oil who's best argument against the recent allegations are that times haven't always been good, or anything it seems that you deem just to ridiculous to consider, no matter how it may look or what the truth may actually be.

I don't disagree with you on Capitalism, or the leftists on Socialism, but it is my estimation that the problem isn't within the systems, it's the ones who wield the system.

You saw how this ridiculous group of people, who are incapable of any atrocious or risky policies, dealt with the Libby indictment today? They are counting on the short attention span of the public with the nomination of a controversial figure to the Supreme Court. So, instead of actually fielding any questions, having a news conference to explain to the American people just what the hell is going on here, they choose to just simply move us and the media on to the next topic. Well, the media is fully complying with that directive, but I am not, and I would hope none of us here would either.

They are guilty as helll. It shows everyday. It shows in how they handle everything.

[greedygretchen]

GMA']A little bit of logic.
Not if they use their vast stores of money to make themselves into vampires!


And you can't take my analysis seriously!! :p (i know this is a joke- i think!)

oh yeah, and the voters can't even get the president they want elected but we're gonna be the downfall of Bush and Cheney oh okay, thousands of protesters lined the streets and practically nothing was on about it in the news, but okay- Bush and Cheney are accountable to us...and since when is the Beastie Boys message board a court of law? :confused:

and like I said I understand why it's hard to accept-this type of evil and greed is hard to fathom

last point-your logic still does not "qualify" you to state your opinion as fact no less than mine does, but let me state that I respect you and your opinion and at this point we'll just have to agree to disagree

[EN[i]GMA]

Because Enigma the simple fact is they are scared of the people, and rightfully so. Because what you suggest, that they COULD be so blatant about it is not true, the people wouldn't allow it. History has taught them this.

But I must say, starting a war is pretty damn obvious.


I don't get this blind devotion to capitalism you show, siding with big oil who's best argument againest the recent allegations are that times haven't always been good, or anything it seems that you deem just to ridiculous to consider, no matter how it may look or what the truth may actually b.

What are the alternatives?

State-socialism? I'm no fan of that.

'Controlled' capitalism? That's what we have, only it's the corporations who control it.

Communism or its ilk? I post at Revolutionary Left to investigate this, and I'm underwhelmed by its prospects.

I think that capitalism, good or bad, is our only real choice, and I'm looking for ways to make it better.

I don't think it's realistic to expect it to be perfect, as it isn't realistic to expect anything to be perfect.

I hate sounding like a fatalist here, because it's not indicitive of how I really am, but I think it's the truth, at least in this case.

You'll probably tell me to 'hope for something better'; I am.


You saw how this ridiculous group of people, who are incapable of any atrocious or risky policies, dealt with the Libby indictment today? They are counting on the short attention span of the public with the nomination of a controversial figure to the Supreme Court. So, instead of actually fielding any questions, having a news conference to explain to the American people just what the hell is going on here, they choose to just simply move us and the media on to the next topic. Well, the media is fully complying with that directive, but I am not, and I would hope none of us here would either.

How does this bode for our future? IF people are this easily fooled, I can't think things will be getting better.


They are guilty as helll. It shows everyday. It shows in how they handle everything.

If they can indeed handle everything, what chance do we have?

[EN[i]GMA]

And you can't take my analysis seriously!! :p (i know this is a joke- i think!)

Vampiracy is no joke. It's the leading cause of death among the undead.


oh yeah, and the voters can't even get the president they want elected but we're gonna be the downfall of Bush and Cheney oh okay, thousands of protesters lined the streets and practically nothing was on about it in the news, but okay- Bush and Cheney are accountable to us...and since when is the Beastie Boys message board a court of law? :confused:

and like I said I understand why it's hard to accept-this type of evil and greed is hard to fathom

And even harder to controll or stop.


last point-your logic still does not "qualify" you to state your opinion as fact no less than mine does, but let me state that I respect you and your opinion and at this point we'll just have to agree to disagree

Agreed. It was somewhat trivial anyway.

[D_Raay]

What are the alternatives?

State-socialism? I'm no fan of that.

'Controlled' capitalism? That's what we have, only it's the corporations who control it.

Communism or its ilk? I post at Revolutionary Left to investigate this, and I'm underwhelmed by its prospects.

I think that capitalism, good or bad, is our only real choice, and I'm looking for ways to make it better.

I don't think it's realistic to expect it to be perfect, as it isn't realistic to expect anything to be perfect.

I hate sounding like a fatalist here, because it's not indicitive of how I really am, but I think it's the truth, at least in this case.

You'll probably tell me to 'hope for something better'; I am.
Yeah you got that right. Just that it would seem you are actually siding with big oil for the sake of your belief in capitalism.

Would we really be so bad off with no government at all? The human race has been compared to a virus, which is highly adaptable. Are we not adaptable enough?

Or better yet, the elimination of federal government. We could all have our own individual communes living inside a state government with very little power. Maybe just a bit of general legislation.

Sounds like moving backwards, but it would probably be better than what we have.

[EN[i]GMA]

Yeah you got that right. Just that it would seem you are actually siding with big oil for the sake of your belief in capitalism.

Would we really be so bad off with no government at all? The human race has been compared to a virus, which is highly adaptable. Are we not adaptable enough?

Or better yet, the elimination of federal government. We could all have our own individual communes living inside a state government with very little power. Maybe just a bit of general legislation.

Sounds like moving backwards, but it would probably be better than what we have.

Sounds very Libertarian.

But I doubt it.

We need Leviathan.

Though I consider myself quite misanthropic, so I might not be the person to ask.

[D_Raay]

GMA']Sounds very Libertarian.

But I doubt it.

We need Leviathan.

Though I consider myself quite misanthropic, so I might not be the person to ask.
I think we all are a bit misanthropic.

I don't get the leviathan reference, perhaps you could elaborate?

[EN[i]GMA]

I think we all are a bit misanthropic.

I don't get the leviathan reference, perhaps you could elaborate?

I mean that we need a governmental force to control certain aspects of our lives (Specifically, law).

We won't live peacefully without it.

[D_Raay]

GMA']I mean that we need a governmental force to control certain aspects of our lives (Specifically, law).

We won't live peacefully without it.
Oh sure we do, but couldn't we do that strictly on a local level? It would be mush easier to pick competent individuals for this on a smaller scale. Ditto for local leaders or representatives.

[sam i am]

Oh sure we do, but couldn't we do that strictly on a local level? It would be mush easier to pick competent individuals for this on a smaller scale. Ditto for local leaders or representatives.

D_Raay.....

I tend to agree with your vision of a much more accountable, local society. The larger problem seems to be getting every country in the world to agree to such a scheme as well.

Look at what happened to "states" you are describing in the past when confronted by much more militant, centralized states or societies : I am specifically referring to the colonization of Africa, much of the Middle East, North and South America, Australia, and Asia during the 1400's - 1900's by the Europeans.

Do you really want that kind of outcome for Americans? What would preclude a highly nationalistic, agressive state from conquest and subjugation in the name of resources or whatever?

What arguments could you make to a Third World citizen that your vision is better than the images they can see of how we Americans (and most Europeans and Japanese) live on a day to day basis. The vision of having excess and virtually unlimited food and water supplies, etc., et al is EXTREMELY enticing for most around the world.

I recently had occasion to visit the Bahamas and the rest of the Caribbean : although there is poverty, there are also entrepreneurs, gaining and spending wealth to increase their standards of living. Construction and trade and good humor and abundant food were evident everywhere.

Seems like much of the world has chosen to at least TRY to emulate the US way of doing things......and Enigma's idea of having some semblance of a "leviathan," as he puts it, keeps national defense and projects that are only available through national will alive (i.e., Space program, regulation of international commerce, etc.).

Just my two cents.

[D_Raay]

D_Raay.....

I tend to agree with your vision of a much more accountable, local society. The larger problem seems to be getting every country in the world to agree to such a scheme as well.

Look at what happened to "states" you are describing in the past when confronted by much more militant, centralized states or societies : I am specifically referring to the colonization of Africa, much of the Middle East, North and South America, Australia, and Asia during the 1400's - 1900's by the Europeans.

Do you really want that kind of outcome for Americans? What would preclude a highly nationalistic, agressive state from conquest and subjugation in the name of resources or whatever?

What arguments could you make to a Third World citizen that your vision is better than the images they can see of how we Americans (and most Europeans and Japanese) live on a day to day basis. The vision of having excess and virtually unlimited food and water supplies, etc., et al is EXTREMELY enticing for most around the world.

I recently had occasion to visit the Bahamas and the rest of the Caribbean : although there is poverty, there are also entrepreneurs, gaining and spending wealth to increase their standards of living. Construction and trade and good humor and abundant food were evident everywhere.

Seems like much of the world has chosen to at least TRY to emulate the US way of doing things......and Enigma's idea of having some semblance of a "leviathan," as he puts it, keeps national defense and projects that are only available through national will alive (i.e., Space program, regulation of international commerce, etc.).

Just my two cents.

I'm not saying it would work, rather it's just a pipe dream probably. I would love to see the day, however, when it could work. When people from every corner of the world were enlightened enough to just leave each other alone and actually live their own lives as happily and as peacefully as they should and have the right to.

[D_Raay]

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/36584.htm

Historic Vermont Meeting in State Capital Passes Resolution to Secede from the U.S.
The members of a peaceful freedom-fighting group want no part of neo-cons running the imperialistic U.S. government. Plan to secede from the U.S. gaining momentum in the fiercely independent Green Mountain state.

Last Friday at the state capital building in Montpelier, a historic independence convention was held, the first of its kind in the United States since May 20, 1861, when North Carolina decided to leave the Union.



A packed House Chamber in the Vermont statehouse, with more than 400 gathered, started the daylong secession convention with a speech by keynote James Howard Kunstler, author of The Long Emergency, and ended with a resolution passed to secede from the United States.



Most people think of secession as impossible if not treasonous, but the concept is deeply rooted in the Declaration of Independence, reminding us that “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it and to institute new government.”

Although the resolution is the first step in the long process that needs support from the state legislators – as well as an officially recognized convention - the grass roots group called the Second Vermont Republic passed the following citizen’s resolution:



“Be it resolved that the state of Vermont peacefully and democratically free itself from the United States of America and return to its natural status as an independent republic as it was between January 15, 1777 and March 4, 1791.”



Even though critics give the secession group ‘a snowball’s chance in hell,’ organizers are firmly convinced in the present-day tyrannical political climate secession will not only succeed but will prosper.

Besides holding the Vermont independence convention in Montpelier, the smallest state capital city in the United States, it also has the reputation as being the most fiercely independent and anti- big business, being the only one not allowing a McDonald’s in the entire country.



“First and foremost, we want out of the United States. It’s not just an anti-Bush statement and if Kerry was elected, we still would have wanted out,” said Naylor. “The reality is that we have a one party system in this country, called the Republican party, that is owned and operated and controlled by corporate America. So it’s not just a Bush protest, but a protest against the Empire.
-----
It may be possible to get out from under the empire's stranglehold, and people are making the effort. This is what I am getting at. This kind of action is our best hope for a SANE future.

[EN[i]GMA]

Perhaps.

But why not allow a McDonalds and allow the people who want to shop there, shop there?

If people WANT to eat at a McDonalds, shouldn't they be allowed to?

Wouldn't it be BETTER if there were McDonalds failing left and right because none ate there, not because they were banned?

Isn't this just curing the symptom, not the disease?

What needs to happen is people shop intelligently. You certainly don't need to eat at McDonalds (Though I myself actually enjoy it somewhat), so why not allow one to be built?

[D_Raay]

GMA']Perhaps.

But why not allow a McDonalds and allow the people who want to shop there, shop there?

If people WANT to eat at a McDonalds, shouldn't they be allowed to?

Wouldn't it be BETTER if there were McDonalds failing left and right because none ate there, not because they were banned?

Isn't this just curing the symptom, not the disease?

What needs to happen is people shop intelligently. You certainly don't need to eat at McDonalds (Though I myself actually enjoy it somewhat), so why not allow one to be built?
Hehe, I only put that in bold because I knew it would get a rise out of you.
I don't feel much either way on the McDonalds issue, and you're probably right about the symptom.

I was just pointing this article out for the sake of the discussion about real change in government and how people choose to live their lives by their own rules not a goverment's.

[sam i am]

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/36584.htm

Historic Vermont Meeting in State Capital Passes Resolution to Secede from the U.S.
The members of a peaceful freedom-fighting group want no part of neo-cons running the imperialistic U.S. government. Plan to secede from the U.S. gaining momentum in the fiercely independent Green Mountain state.

Last Friday at the state capital building in Montpelier, a historic independence convention was held, the first of its kind in the United States since May 20, 1861, when North Carolina decided to leave the Union.



A packed House Chamber in the Vermont statehouse, with more than 400 gathered, started the daylong secession convention with a speech by keynote James Howard Kunstler, author of The Long Emergency, and ended with a resolution passed to secede from the United States.



Most people think of secession as impossible if not treasonous, but the concept is deeply rooted in the Declaration of Independence, reminding us that “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it and to institute new government.”

Although the resolution is the first step in the long process that needs support from the state legislators – as well as an officially recognized convention - the grass roots group called the Second Vermont Republic passed the following citizen’s resolution:



“Be it resolved that the state of Vermont peacefully and democratically free itself from the United States of America and return to its natural status as an independent republic as it was between January 15, 1777 and March 4, 1791.”



Even though critics give the secession group ‘a snowball’s chance in hell,’ organizers are firmly convinced in the present-day tyrannical political climate secession will not only succeed but will prosper.

Besides holding the Vermont independence convention in Montpelier, the smallest state capital city in the United States, it also has the reputation as being the most fiercely independent and anti- big business, being the only one not allowing a McDonald’s in the entire country.



“First and foremost, we want out of the United States. It’s not just an anti-Bush statement and if Kerry was elected, we still would have wanted out,” said Naylor. “The reality is that we have a one party system in this country, called the Republican party, that is owned and operated and controlled by corporate America. So it’s not just a Bush protest, but a protest against the Empire.
-----
It may be possible to get out from under the empire's stranglehold, and people are making the effort. This is what I am getting at. This kind of action is our best hope for a SANE future.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html

^^^^^^ Just some facts about Vermont to put this whole question into context.

D_Raay : do you REALLY want to get into the whole nullification debate AGAIN, which was pretty much settled by the Civil War?

Also, do you want to be championing a movement from a state that is nearly universally a white state? What if a state wants to reinstitute slavery? Is that OK, since it was part of the original Constitution and LEGAL in many states until 1865? How about a state that secedes, closes its borders, and says we won't allow abortions under ANY circumstances (which would likely happen in states like Utah or South Carolina).

The problem with ONLY localism, especially when coupled with the abomination of egalitarianism, is that you then have to tolerate the local laws and customs that could be anathema to the vast majority of humanity. Hitler sure tried to rock the system and we ended up with 6 million dead Jews. Stalin tried to rock the system and we ended up with 20 million dead Kulaks. The Great Leap Forward, the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the prevalence of cannabilism in Caribbean societies prior to colonialism, the murder of baby girls in current rural Chinese villages, the forced circumcision of women in certain African tribes, etc., et al are all examples of what can happen when there exists local (in the loosest sense of the term) law without some overweening societal (read state or national) laws to keep the worst excesses from occurring.

[EN[i]GMA]

Hehe, I only put that in bold because I knew it would get a rise out of you.

I'm predictable.


I don't feel much either way on the McDonalds issue, and you're probably right about the symptom.

Of course I am.

[qipte]
I was just pointing this article out for the sake of the discussion about real change in government and how people choose to live their lives by their own rules not a goverment's.[/QUOTE]

Except of course, the people who might want a McDonalds.

They're fucked.

[sam i am]

[QUOTE='EN[i]GMA']Except of course, the people who might want a McDonalds.[QUOTE]

McDonald's sucks because it's food is gross.

[D_Raay]

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html

^^^^^^ Just some facts about Vermont to put this whole question into context.

D_Raay : do you REALLY want to get into the whole nullification debate AGAIN, which was pretty much settled by the Civil War?

Also, do you want to be championing a movement from a state that is nearly universally a white state? What if a state wants to reinstitute slavery? Is that OK, since it was part of the original Constitution and LEGAL in many states until 1865? How about a state that secedes, closes its borders, and says we won't allow abortions under ANY circumstances (which would likely happen in states like Utah or South Carolina).

The problem with ONLY localism, especially when coupled with the abomination of egalitarianism, is that you then have to tolerate the local laws and customs that could be anathema to the vast majority of humanity. Hitler sure tried to rock the system and we ended up with 6 million dead Jews. Stalin tried to rock the system and we ended up with 20 million dead Kulaks. The Great Leap Forward, the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the prevalence of cannabilism in Caribbean societies prior to colonialism, the murder of baby girls in current rural Chinese villages, the forced circumcision of women in certain African tribes, etc., et al are all examples of what can happen when there exists local (in the loosest sense of the term) law without some overweening societal (read state or national) laws to keep the worst excesses from occurring.

Short answer; yes, yes , yes and yes.

I am of a mind now after engrossing myself in the inner workings of politics and the unending research of legislation and policy that, yes, no government is good government. Especially the federal government.

People are meant to fend for themselves, not to be tended like so many sheep. Will there be some rogue policies made? Most assuredly. Who will make these policies? Like-minded individuals. Will people suffer for this?
Yes. I do not come to this easily, for my reasons for even contemplating such issues is that I truly want all people to be happy and fullfilled, but I believe we would be better off.
The same things that make man do the things you brought up in your post, are being done now with governments in place. At least we wouldn't be lied to and manipulated and robbed by the very people we supposedly choose to protect us. Protect us from what I am not quite sure about either. From something THEY did would be the logical answer.

I believe we are all born with our own individual purpose, and all I see everyday are empty suits and faceless faces. Everyone so caught up in the existence they have created for us with their greed, that they don't even know what it is to be alive until they have to mourn the dead. Not everyone though. For some, it takes their own mortality. And sadly that might not do it either.

[Ali]

Think twice, however, about verbally bashing highly respected members of this board.Which ones
:confused:

[sam i am]

Short answer; yes, yes , yes and yes.

I am of a mind now after engrossing myself in the inner workings of politics and the unending research of legislation and policy that, yes, no government is good government. Especially the federal government.

People are meant to fend for themselves, not to be tended like so many sheep. Will there be some rogue policies made? Most assuredly. Who will make these policies? Like-minded individuals. Will people suffer for this?
Yes. I do not come to this easily, for my reasons for even contemplating such issues is that I truly want all people to be happy and fullfilled, but I believe we would be better off.
The same things that make man do the things you brought up in your post, are being done now with governments in place. At least we wouldn't be lied to and manipulated and robbed by the very people we supposedly choose to protect us. Protect us from what I am not quite sure about either. From something THEY did would be the logical answer.

I believe we are all born with our own individual purpose, and all I see everyday are empty suits and faceless faces. Everyone so caught up in the existence they have created for us with their greed, that they don't even know what it is to be alive until they have to mourn the dead. Not everyone though. For some, it takes their own mortality. And sadly that might not do it either.

Are you serious?

Doesn't really sound like it.

Are you contemplating the full ramifications of your stance? The loss of interconnectedness with the rest of the world? The absence of trade and commerce? The denial of basic human nature?

[D_Raay]

Are you serious?

Doesn't really sound like it.

Are you contemplating the full ramifications of your stance? The loss of interconnectedness with the rest of the world? The absence of trade and commerce? The denial of basic human nature?
Au contraire, it would be fully enabling human nature in the rawest sense, and I am quite serious.

[sam i am]

Au contraire, it would be fully enabling human nature in the rawest sense, and I am quite serious.

Alright.

Sorry to question your motives, but you hadn't taken this hardline a stance previously, so I just wanted to inquire to be sure you were on the level.

[sam i am]

More news from Iraq :

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051108/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq

Does this mean that Russia.....and FRANCE? :confused: :eek: signed off on the continuation of this "illegal" war?

Under what basis could they continue to support the Coalition mandate if the war was illegal in the first place?

[Funkaloyd]

I wouldn't be surprised if their policy too is determined by what's economically beneficial to them.

However, have you seen Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove? The US has essentially launched the nukes and said "it's too late now, we must continue the attack, we have no choice."

[sam i am]

I wouldn't be surprised if their policy too is determined by what's economically beneficial to them.

However, have you seen Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove? The US has essentially launched the nukes and said "it's too late now, we must continue the attack, we have no choice."

Ah, yes.....

The Dr. Strangelove attack. Interesting.

Why would France and Russia and China go along with the continuation of an "ILLEGAL" war? What benefit is it to them?

BTW, I ask this knowing what I believe to be the answer, but I'd be curious to see if anyone else is on to the game being played in the Security Council and by those nations supposedly "opposed" to the Coalition (read : US) intervention in Iraq....