Blasting U.S. [Archive] - ClothesFree Forum

KirkOntario

03-11-2005, 05:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:
I do not consider Bill Clinton to be a great President.

Of course there are others who disagree.

This time, I won't go on about the respect that I have for those who disagree with me.

I will, however, state that it is great that we have the freedom, whether right, left or just plain wrong, to express our views.

In my travels, I have never found any country that is as great as our USofA!

Let's never forget this!

And if anyone even suggests that we conform to any other country, let's all speak up in one all-American voice and say, FORGET IT!!!

This is our country, the US...not the UN. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great post PJ! Clinton was a very immoral man who was not a bad president but who will not be remembered for much. America was prosperous because a Republican congress prevented Clinton from implementing a liberal agenda. America was blessed with prosperty and a period of peace brought about by the economic and foreign policies pursued under Reagan.

America is an amazing country. The first nation founded on a philosophical basis. It was a radical experiment to see if nations could actually govern themselves but with rights used to check the vices that normally destroyed republics. And it has been a roaring success and an example to the world.

NudeAl

03-11-2005, 06:28 AM

Let me put it this way. I have traveled around this world a bit. I've been to evry continent and usually more than a few contries on that continent. I whave met some great people and some not so great. I've seen some amazing things and some horrible things. There have been one or two places I've been tempted to live if I were given half a chance, Australia being a prime example. I love that country I think it is one of the friendliest I have ever been to. It is full of natural beauty. But I will not move there permanently, my cousin did and he is now a proud Australian citizen.

So here's my question. If you feel like America isn't your cup of tea. Where would you rather live? Have you ever lived in this country for an extended time? I know the grass is always greener on the other side. But after a little traveling I think most of us would agree, all things consided ther is no where else I would rather live.

JayFromFLA

03-11-2005, 06:35 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Danee:
Oh..term limits. Bah! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, don't feel too bad about it, Danee. Term limits are also what will stop GW from another reign of terror. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

nudeM

03-11-2005, 06:36 AM

The United States is the best country in the world. It is a country where you can openly express yourself (within legal limits) without the law coming down on you.

Those who oppose the USA are in the minority, but they get all the press coverage. I really don't think others don't like us because of who we are, rather, they don't like us because of our policies.

If the USA was that bad, then why are there ILLEGAL's trying to get in? I wish this does not get into a political debate (we've had way too many of those), but it's the system we have that seems to cater to these people. Hell, if I didn't live here and knowing the laws, you bet I would be trying to get in as well.

And I cannot help but mention something about our troops. We must not forget them, even though a minority of us would rather spit in their faces. They are over there, not by choice, but to simply follow orders and defend our interests. I know this is an unpopular war, but since we are involved, we must support the troops.

hm0504

03-11-2005, 11:50 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeAl:
Remember the phrase agree to disagree? Or how about, I don't agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it? That is what make us great for sure. When one side loses the election they don't have to worry about being rounded up and put into camps, or political reeduction centers, or being executed, etc.

I just think we are getting way to polarized in our positions sometimes. We have way more in common with each other than that which seperates us. I also think the extremists on both ends are trying to play the American public against each other in order to further their own agenda. If we spend all our time distracted, fighting amongst ourselves, they can go on with business as usual. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And amen to that.

I think one issue is that we seem to have a lot of arch-conservative media types giving the message that if one is not an arch-conservative, then one is anti-American. I thing such attitudes breed even more anti-Americanism.

Sauna

03-11-2005, 12:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

If the USA was that bad, then why are there ILLEGAL's trying to get in?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not want any debate, but this sentence is in contradiction of reality. Those who come illeagaly come from countries where are minimised possibilities to live. They try to escape nearest country where is high level of living without thinking the political system of the country anything. The only thing what they want is better life.

HereticChick

03-11-2005, 12:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JayFromFLA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Danee:
Oh..term limits. Bah! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, don't feel too bad about it, Danee. Term limits are also what will stop GW from another reign of terror. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here here! Thank goodness that terrorist won't be in office for too many more years. I'm just scared to death that Jeb will run after his term as governor! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

BearEater

03-11-2005, 12:51 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sauna:
I do not want any debate, but this sentence is in contradiction of reality. Those who come illeagaly come from countries where are minimised possibilities to live. They try to escape nearest country where is high level of living without thinking the political system of the country anything. The only thing what they want is better life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would agree with you on some of your view Sauna, except that if they are trying to escape to teh nearest country, why are there thousands of Chinese illegals ending up in New York City, along with Dominicans and Haitians and many other groups. They are not close to the United States, but still want to come here as opposed to more local lands. There has to be something they want that they feel only we can provide.

There are times when I am upset with American politics and fear their absurd practices, but still, I would love to see what would happen to all the countries we give aid to if we decided to stop taking care of them and took care of our own people first. Or better yet, stopped them from immigrating even legally for a few years. Then we would be the bad guys because we aren't taking care of those less fortunate than us.

One thing that made me say that was a recent news report I read online that told how several countries who were devastated by the tsunami a few months ago were saying the USA did not do enough to assist them afterward or warn them before. That angers me because I still see ads for tsunami relief funds and every company my facility deals with has had a benefit for victims of the disaster. Oh yeah, we are the bad guys here.

The same story mentioned how many people from other countries made money on the disaster by charging insane prices for goods to be transported there or for transportation services. Boy, the US should be ashamed for sending it's doctors, including several of my colleagues, nurses and engineers, again more of my colleagues, to the site. We are just the most horrible people.

We are not a perfect place by any means, but people who hate the US should possibly look at their own country with the same jaded eyes and see the nasty little things going on there as well. Maybe then their utopia would look a bit less spotless around the edges.

Sauna

03-11-2005, 01:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BearEater:
Boy, the US should be ashamed for sending it's doctors, including several of my colleagues, nurses and engineers, again more of my colleagues, to the site. We are just the most horrible people.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now I do not agree what you are saying. We have to separate the people meananing human and government meaning state from each other. Most of American I know are very friendly and I have no bad word to say. This dos not mean that I ageree all what govenment does. We have big neiboring country called Russia. Nobody goes there illegally and nobody loves them. They are kings of the world and real superpower if you ask it from them. Still it is better to have your enemies far and friends near.

Still one thing. Everything looks different from the other side of fence. This is true also in nudism.

pek1

03-11-2005, 01:29 PM

HereticChick,

Great avatar!!

pek1

03-11-2005, 01:34 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Danee:And I agree that President Clinton was our best president, at least in my lifetime. Oh..term limits. Bah! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't vote for Clinton in either election, but, did choose Perot. I actually liked Clinton and, I don't believe a word of any of the scandals. Hillary once said, on a news program, that they have been accused of everything under the sun. When Chelsea was little, she would come home crying when she heard the bad stuff.

Also, as a former reporter, I don't believe everything I read.

On another note, I won't stop people if they want to leave the USA. Shoot, the phrase, "America, love it or leave it" from the 60's still holds true.

We don't have worthless "royalty" like Great Britain has...what are those people good for, anyway? They're paid how much and they do squat! Chuckie wants to marry that bag and had his first wife knocked off. Yeah, the world knows who actually had Diana killed, don't we?

However, we do have a GOP party that is worth even less than the queen bag is!

pek1

03-11-2005, 01:35 PM

Oh, by the way, I'm voting for Hillary next presidential election if she's running! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

KirkOntario

03-11-2005, 01:38 PM

Hooked

03-11-2005, 01:42 PM

Hillary? Total crook, in my humble opinion. I'm pulling for Howard Dean again on the Dem ticket.

hm0504

03-11-2005, 02:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We don't have worthless "royalty" like Great Britain has...what are those people good for, anyway? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Royalty is good for being royalty. Having royalty as a head of state means that a country doesn't go around treating its political leader as royalty -- not that all monarch-less countries do, but some do.

Intellectually, I'm not sure I'm keen on the idea of royalty. But practically, it proves itself well. I'm not saying it is for everyone, but if a country likes its royalty, so what? Democratically, it is irrelevant whether a country is a consitutional monarchy or a republic -- both are fine systems. What matters is that people VOTE! And I'm afraid, as great as our respective countries are, voter turnout is shameful and pathetic on both sides of the Canada-USA border. It takes what, 20 minutes, once every four years to vote and its not like we have to worry about getting blown up because we want to vote.

Enough ranting. I leave you with a recent picture of my future King!

http://www.tera.ca/Images/Australia.jpg

God Save the King (to be)!

Silverback

03-11-2005, 04:31 PM

Are these the two women that affended the future king because he saw them topless?

hm0504

03-11-2005, 04:47 PM

Not sure what you are talking about. The two women pictured above were part of an aboriginal dance troupe greeting the Prince and he is just doing the royal chit-chat thing with them (which he has done for decades with topfree women so he is certainly not at all offended by topfreedom).

You may be thinking of a couple of republican protesters in New Zealand (note the small 'r'), one of whom is pictured here with what I think is an anti-monarchy statement written on her chest:

http://www.tera.ca/Images/Hannah3.jpg

See
http://www.tera.ca/
for more info.

sw1sweendog

03-11-2005, 04:49 PM

the way i see it,if you don't like the way the goverment works.then move to iraq.you won't last a month,then you'll come back to america and have a whole new view on what a great country we live in.or you could always run for president!

Naturist Mark

03-11-2005, 05:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
voter turnout is shameful and pathetic on both sides of the Canada-USA border. It takes what, 20 minutes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In parts of Ohio (such as Franklin county) it took 5 to 8 hours of waiting in the rain. Or 10 minutes if you lived in the rich suburb next door.

In America today we have very loud voices telling us that to criticize the actions of our government or to question our leaders is disloyal and "unAmerican". John Ashcroft even said it was "aiding the terrorists". He was dead wrong. You don't really love your country if you sit quietly when you see it failing to live up to its ideals and promise. You don't love it if you refuse to participate in striving for its success and improvement. You don't really love it if you excuse or dismiss the misdeeds of those who hold power on your behalf. Mere flag waving is not a patriotic act, speaking truth to power is.

America today is the indispensable nation, what we say and do effects not just ourselves, but the whole world. We have a tremendous responsiblility to do and be our best, which makes our misteps all the more tragic. If we aren't more careful, that awesome responsibility will not be ours much longer. But even though our standing in the world community has fallen precipitously, the ideals of America, of freedom and fair play and opportunity and generosity, are still what inspire people throughout the world. Those ideals will continue to inspire even if they cease to be associated with America, even if we cease to strive for their perfection in our own land (may God never allow that to pass).

Canadian songwriter/poet Leonard Cohen wrote about America, a country he clearly loves, in the song "Democracy" <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's coming to America first
the cradle of the best and of the worst.
It's here they got the range and the machinery for change
and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

-Mark

Danee

03-11-2005, 06:00 PM

Oh. I see now. We are supposed to like it, or leave. I understand. Here all my life I had this stupid notion that we were ok to give constructive criticism about the way our government ran things. Silly me. I shall go to travelocity.com in the morning and see what I can arrange. I'll call my friends too as many of them must now leave. Thank you Underfuherer for the law refreshment.

-D

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sw2sweendog:
the way i see it,if you don't like the way the goverment works.then move to iraq.you won't last a month,then you'll come back to america and have a whole new view on what a great country we live in.or you could always run for president! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

KirkOntario

03-11-2005, 06:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Danee:
Oh. I see now. We are supposed to like it, or leave. I understand. Here all my life I had this stupid notion that we were ok to give constructive criticism about the way our government ran things. Silly me. I shall go to travelocity.com in the morning and see what I can arrange. I'll call my friends too as many of them must now leave. Thank you Underfuherer for the law refreshment.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think the point is trying to be made is that people in the US being so unaware of what they have do not realize what an amazing place the USA is. Those who criticize it have gone so far as to threaten troop morale and derail important foreign policy objectives in wartime. That is not a great idea.

Danee

03-11-2005, 06:23 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Danee:
Oh. I see now. We are supposed to like it, or leave. I understand. Here all my life I had this stupid notion that we were ok to give constructive criticism about the way our government ran things. Silly me. I shall go to travelocity.com in the morning and see what I can arrange. I'll call my friends too as many of them must now leave. Thank you Underfuherer for the law refreshment.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think the point is trying to be made is that people in the US being so unaware of what they have do not realize what an amazing place the USA is. Those who criticize it have gone so far as to threaten troop morale and derail important foreign policy objectives in wartime. That is not a great idea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh sure it is an amazing place but I disagree. He said what he said. And to my Canadian buddy (whose country I admire so much by the way), I say that criticizing foreign policy does not derail (unfortunately!) foreign policy and I do not believe our guys and chics over there are demoralized this time around as they were perhaps years ago in other foreign campaigns. Not over this anyway. Other things, yes. They know, as so many do, we need to get out and get out fast. We cannot win this deal.

KirkOntario

03-11-2005, 06:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Danee:

Oh sure it is an amazing place but I disagree. He said what he said. And to my Canadian buddy (whose country I admire so much by the way), I say that criticizing foreign policy does not derail (unfortunately!) foreign policy and I do not believe our guys and chics over there are demoralized this time around as they were perhaps years ago in other foreign campaigns. Not over this anyway. Other things, yes. They know, as so many do, we need to get out and get out fast. We cannot win this deal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you ARE winning this deal. Democratic elections have taken place in Iraq and Palestine. Syria is on the defensive. Egypt is talking about possibly allowing opposition candidates to run in their elections. The insurgents are being killed while the Iraqi army is being rebuilt.

hm0504

03-11-2005, 06:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Those who criticize it have gone so far as to threaten troop morale and derail important foreign policy objectives in wartime. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While one does not want to threaten troop morale, one also does not want a situation where the Presidency can start wars, or continue questionable ones, without debate.

As the world leading nation, America is going to be at war somewhere much of the time; it would be absurd to think that it can just stifle and postpone debate and dissent indefinitely in Orwellian fashion.

The issues facing America, and the rest of the free world, are extremely serious and we have yet to see much intelligent debate about it (except here at CFF!). It needs to be done in a way that does not threaten troop morale, but it does need to be done.

Danee

03-11-2005, 06:38 PM

Ok Kirk. We disagree and you are sounding so very much like our President (or theirs) and his cronies. Back to the original post and my response. Unchanged on what I said to what he said. No worries Canuckski! You dont live here my friend. You dont live it.
-D

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Danee:

Oh sure it is an amazing place but I disagree. He said what he said. And to my Canadian buddy (whose country I admire so much by the way), I say that criticizing foreign policy does not derail (unfortunately!) foreign policy and I do not believe our guys and chics over there are demoralized this time around as they were perhaps years ago in other foreign campaigns. Not over this anyway. Other things, yes. They know, as so many do, we need to get out and get out fast. We cannot win this deal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you ARE winning this deal. Democratic elections have taken place in Iraq and Palestine. Syria is on the defensive. Egypt is talking about possibly allowing opposition candidates to run in their elections. The insurgents are being killed while the Iraqi army is being rebuilt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

sw1sweendog

03-11-2005, 06:41 PM

as kirk said danee,i was just pointing out the fact, that a good majority of americans have no idea how good they have it here.and they more than likely the ones who don't vote.but they will be the first to complain.as far as the war goes,our men and women over there ,have no choice.they joined under thier own free will.like it or not.i spent 6 month there,and i was not to happy about the way we went.i think bush went in way to fast.but i signed the dotted line...

NudeAl

03-11-2005, 06:46 PM

Here we have two examples of extreme points of view. This is what I was talking about. It's fine to disagree or to hold an opposing view point and engage in debate. That's part of what makes this country so great. But at some point it becomes a shouting match, my dad can beat up your dad, it's really not helping the situation.

What I was trying to point out earlier is that this may not be a perfect society here. In fact far from it. But it is the best we have been able to achieve so far and no place I would rather live. Can we do better, of course we can. But in order to do that we are going to have to put our ego's aside and put the rhetoric and the accusations on hold.

Danee

03-11-2005, 06:55 PM

I honor you. I really do. I respect you tremendously and am very thankful you are home. I also see what you are saying but you put it abit differently really. No matter.

I do not agree that the 'good majority of Americans do not etc. etc. and are the ones who do not vote and are the first to criticize." I vote, criticize and am firm on my convictions too. But that is good, yes?

Again, I respect and honor what you did and how you went about it.
-D

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sw2sweendog:
as kirk said danee,i was just pointing out the fact, that a good majority of americans have no idea how good they have it here.and they more than likely the ones who don't vote.but they will be the first to complain.as far as the war goes,our men and women over there ,have no choice.they joined under thier own free will.like it or not.i spent 6 month there,and i was not to happy about the way we went.i think bush went in way to fast.but i signed the dotted line... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hooked

03-11-2005, 07:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
But you ARE winning this deal. Democratic elections have taken place in Iraq and Palestine. Syria is on the defensive. Egypt is talking about possibly allowing opposition candidates to run in their elections. The insurgents are being killed while the Iraqi army is being rebuilt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kirk, what would you say to the argument that these new "democratic" systems are a farce. It's not true democracy because it is not being brought about by the people it is supposed to serve. The people of Iraq will not respect a US-appointed government just as the people in Rwanda scoff at the new "democratic" governement which is a total joke b/c the same intimidation tactics and other daily terrorism is still going on.

MikeJB

03-11-2005, 07:59 PM

All I have to say is the US big problem is we have grown to be fat and lazy and dependant on technology to do all of our work for us and we lose the ability to do somethings ourselves that we did in the past. Sometimes this is good but too much of that makes us vulnerable and we are going to get to the point where we are so dependant on our technology that when it breaks down we wont know what the hell to do and we'll be running around like chickens with our heads cut off.

Ive heard of and seen to some extent whole businesses grind to a halt just because their computer network fails, now imagine if that was the government or military? In that small timeframe something bad could happen to our country all because we didnt have any other method to fall back on to get the job done and keep us safe. If we werent so dependant on technology *namely computers* then we would have people who could do some of these things and we wouldnt go nuts.

I think that we should try to keep some of the knowledge we've learned in the past otherwise its going to be gone forever and all of that time people spent devloping things and learning will be for nothing.

P.J.

03-12-2005, 12:11 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nudony:
This is exactly the kind of "american" way of thinking that scares me...

"America's the best, f^%$ the rest!" Right P.J? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WRONG NUDONY!!!
I love my country and I strongly believe in placing my country first.
Others believe in placing their country first, which is to be both understood and expected.
We can live peacefully with other nations and still maintain our national identity.
I'm willing to compromise to a reasonable degree, but never under the control of the UN.

Sauna

03-12-2005, 12:51 AM

This is nice discussion to listen what the superpowers peple think. I'm living in a country of only 5 million inhabitants and about 1000 miles land border line to the other superpower whose nationals come illegally to our country. You do not need to think this kind of threat as we have to do. In 100 miles from our border they have more than ten times soliders and war material as we have. Therefore my opinions and way of thinking may differ a lot of yours, but I'm only listening. The world is not equal to everybody.

Qikdraw

03-12-2005, 01:05 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
The USA has always answered the call to defend the freedom of others...because...its the right thing to do...and usually without being appreciated for it...oh how quickly THEY forget...oui,oui </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How quickly Americans forget that France has been your longest ally, and without their help in the War of Independance, the colonies might not have been able to seperate.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt

Qikdraw

Mountain Goat

03-12-2005, 01:32 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nudistmatt:
I've been to a few forums recently and I see alot of topics constantly bickering about the U.S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A largely irrelevant view from the outside looking at'cha:

I find some of the Americans I have met to be rather insular. "America is the best country" sums up a rather blinkered view of the world. It is only an expression of ignorant zeal... which is fine for a patriot to have.

I remember when I was in China that it seemed to be a world in itself. Although it isn't sealed off from the world, it interprets the world and itself in a very Chinese way. So everything, even the rest of the world, becomes Chinese. I think big countries tend to be like that too, America included. It is hard to think beyond your own country when it is that big and so big that you are a nett cultural exporter.

Let's be fair: Why would you need to think about other countries anyway?

I believe (and you can correct me if I am wrong) Americans also seem to have a blinkered view of their recent history too. Many seem to have only recently seen the film-clip of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, but how many Americans know the roles their country played in Nicaragua and Panama or with President Suharto (Indonesia) or against Salvador Allende (Chile). How does this translate into the idea that the US exports freedom?

But in some ways the Taliban and Iraq wars were a breath of fresh air (even if I was against the latter) because finally the White House has chosen not to go against the will of the people of that country to topple the leading regime. It is nice that they have created at least emergent democracies in both. And accepted an islamic party as victor.

All countries have their problems, and big countries have bigger problems. If the degree of illegal immigration is the measure of superiority, then I'm Magic Johnson. Europe also has its fair share of them illegal migrants. So does our neighbour Australia. Geographical proximity means they take our share.

Every country has a lot to criticise, often on dodgy moral high ground. New Zealanders often used to criticise how other countries treated their native population (especially America and Australia)... then some noticed that the myth of our magnanimity in that department was not all that we were lead to believe. In fact, we are maybe only the best of the worst, which is nothing to be proud of. We were foolish to think we had any right to criticise. Or be proud.

America's teaching of its own history is far better than we have. You can be proud to know that most of you know the blood that was spilt for the foundation of your country. Or actually learn the founding documents and constitution.

My only lesson from all this is this:

Before I could be proud of my country, I needed to know what it really means to be a citizen of NZ. I hope all of you, in your pride and patriotism also seek to have a good understanding of why criticism comes, without being defensive, and understand your responsibility that you have and use it.

It is good to hear that NudeAl has been to every continent. Travel, if you can afford it, is the best way to open your mind. That aside, just a willingness to learn and reading independent media (not that stuff by newsagencies owned by corporate ideologues).

Best wishes to all and no offence intended.

Yours in life,
Mountain Goat

KirkOntario

03-12-2005, 04:38 AM

l2ltlarry

03-12-2005, 04:49 AM

Thank you, nudistmatt, for starting this topic. Discussions like this are what caused me to be attracted to Clothesfree.com in the first place (a year and a half ago). As hm0504 said, "The issues facing America, and the rest of the free world, are extremely serious and we have yet to see much intelligent debate about it (except here at CFF!)."

Two or three thoughts --

As to criticizing the country we love, one book is titled, 'A Complaint is a Gift'. Hardly any of the power that the unpowerful attempt to speak "truth" to seem to believe that.

The 4-H Club, which was invented, I think, in 1935, has the motto, 'To Make the Best Better'. Two and one-half thousand years before the 4-H Club, Socrates is said to have said, "We cannot live better than in seeking to become still better that we are".
This is the continuous improvement principle which business management gurus such as W. Edwards Deming and Stephen Covey and many others popularized in recent years. To me, (always) making the best better is important. But how do we do that? Certainly not by rolling over to everything the powers-that-be foist upon us, but on the other hand, not by being obstructionist.

As posted by Mountain Goat from New Zealand, "A largely irrelevant view from the outside looking at'cha:", looking at ourselves, both individually and collectively, from the outside can help. The word 'paranoia', in its best possible sense, means "alongside + mind", as if climbing up over the windows of our minds and walking off a ways, then looking back and saying, "What do I see from here?". My favorite line from 'Silence of the Lambs' is FBI Agent Clarice Starling's (Jodie Foster's) response to Dr. Hannibal Lechter (Anthony Hopkins) in the dungeon in Baltimore, "That's powerful perception, Dr. Lechter, but can you turn that eye inside and look at yourself? Are you strong enough?"

David77

03-12-2005, 07:30 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
As the world leading nation, America is going to be at war somewhere much of the time </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think one follows the other. I sure hope not.

hm0504

03-12-2005, 07:51 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
But you ARE winning this deal. Democratic elections have taken place in Iraq and Palestine. Syria is on the defensive. Egypt is talking about possibly allowing opposition candidates to run in their elections. The insurgents are being killed while the Iraqi army is being rebuilt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think it is clear at all that the U.S. is winning in Iraq and the Middle East -- it is a very mixed bag. Looking first at Iraq, the insurgency is growing and a country that was almost al-Qaida-free under Saddam is now a major terrorist breeding ground. FYI, the estimates are that insurgents are at about 40,000 (half partially committed and half fully committed). The large majority of insurgents are those seeking to make their tribal group the dominant power in Iraq and are not international terrorist. So the U.S. is essentially got half its military wrappped up trying to stop an Iraqi civil war from escalating -- shades of Northern Ireland but 100-fold worse for the U.S.. Of the insurgents there are a few thousand (steadily growing) who are very much al-Qaida-like. On the plus side, there was an election and that is really great. However, the big winner was not the U.S-favoured party but one with close ties to Iran (no wonder Iran supported the elections). Sure an Iraqi army is being trained, but it is going to be pretty hard to grow a newbie army from scratch to something equivalent to the power of half the U.S. Army. Was turning secular, impotent Iraq into an Islamist, Iran-friendly, world power one of the Whitehouse's foreign policy objectives? Is turning the Middle East into a modern day Iraq the Whitehouse's foreign policy objective?

Definitely, there are many, fine reasonable people in the Middle East who deserve true democracy. The problem is there are also a great many who see democracy as a great way of turning their nations (Egypt, Lebanon, etc.) from relatively, secular authoritarian rule into Islamist authoritarian rule that allows a limited degree of democracy (the Iranian model). I'm not convinced the Whitehouse has fully considered this angle. And I don't just question the Whitehouse: societies in general have yet to understand well religious extremism even though it is has been one of the world's major problems though history.

Now let me say here, that the speculation above could be wrong. Maybe, it will work that after a few years of turmoil that the peoples of the Middle East will embrace democracy, freedom, each other, and the West. I hope that happens but I do have some major reservations.

David77

03-12-2005, 07:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
I'm not saying it is for everyone, but if a country likes its royalty, so what? Democratically, it is irrelevant whether a country is a consitutional monarchy or a republic -- both are fine systems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I see it, there is no "constitutional monarchy" in the UK, eventhough it is a legal monarchy. This is because the UK has no <u>constitution</u> as such, but many democratic laws. The Magna Carta is one of the first influences.

<center><hr width= "20%"></center>
However, as I understand it from comment of Stu, a law professor in England, it is illegal to voice, in the streets, derisive, disrespectful, offensive comments about the government or its leaders, nor to burn the flag. Here in the USA it is not illegal, and would be protected. Maybe this is why we have not heard much criticism from the UK concerning their policies and leaders, even though it is also at war in Iraq which disagrees with many in the UK. But yes, I truly am an anglophile.

Shoobie

03-12-2005, 08:42 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeAl:
When one side loses the election they don't have to worry about being rounded up and put into camps, or political reeduction centers, or being executed, etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, yes and no. Let me explain.

Really, since we continue to grow in the direction of collectivist democracy vs. liberty based republic, the elections determine the victor - and to the victor goes the spoils. The ruling party controlls trillions of dollars and makes regluations and laws that effect our liberty and rights. All that is centralized (whereas you or I could previously make up our own minds to participate or not) and then dolled out to the constituancies, programs and allies, etc. that the winners select. [Some is good. Lots is politics, purely. Little of it is efficient, lots is wasteful.]

As citizens, we have our property, rights and labor confiscated by the victors in order to provide the resources and power that gets dolled out or restricted. I say "confiscated" because we lose all right to it in defference to the collective majority -- the winners of the election.

So, to your point, if we refuse, we are jailed. If we refuse to be jailed and defend ourselves we may be killed, etc.

Now, of coure we comply and therefore we don't h ave the situations you describe above. But I'll guarantee you that if, for example, you object and decide you don't wish to pay for the war, or submit to having your property seized -- all of your worst case will happen.

That said, you must pay to have your nudity rights withheld. You must pay for a war even if you think it is the worst choice. You must give up your rights, even when you are otherwise respecting others and leaving them alone in all ways.

I know this is semantics, but lets be clear what the state is mostly all about: Forcing people to do what they otherwise would not do if free to live life as they choose. (e.g. take away the state and you still can have charity and so forth)

As Ben Franklin warned when asked what type of government do we have on the way out of the constitutional convention, "we have a republic -- if you can keep it." Keep that in mind when politicians talk up "democracy" as if its the holy grail.

Shoobie

03-12-2005, 08:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sw2sweendog:
the way i see it,if you don't like the way the goverment works.then move to iraq.you won't last a month,then you'll come back to america and have a whole new view on what a great country we live in.or you could always run for president! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hah. What a straw man argument. The Irony!

Twenty years ago any one of the US could have gone to Iraq without a worry. That was before we gave the diplomatic green light to Saddam on his Kuwait incurrsion and then pulled out the rug, and the two wars that followed. Of course you'd be stupid to visit.

[please note, i am not making a comment about the war one way or the other]

hm0504

03-12-2005, 09:03 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However, as I understand it from comment of Stu who lives in England, it is illegal to voice, in the streets, derisive, disrespectful, offensive comments about the government or its leaders, nor to burn the flag. Here in the USA it is not illegal, and would be protected. Maybe this is why we have not heard much criticism from the UK concerning their policies and leaders, even though it is also at war in Iraq which disagrees with many in the UK. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I'm not sure what Stu meant but British citizens have just as much right to criticise their leaders as Americans do theirs. It may be that Stu's reference to "derisive, disrespectful, offensive comments" has more to do with libel that political criticism. There were plenty of protests in the U.K. leading up to the Iraq war. I imagine now that most people are more concerned about a sensible exit strategy now that the decision has been taken to go in.

KirkOntario

03-12-2005, 09:05 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David77:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
I'm not saying it is for everyone, but if a country likes its royalty, so what? Democratically, it is irrelevant whether a country is a consitutional monarchy or a republic -- both are fine systems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I see it, there is no "constitutional monarchy" in the UK, eventhough it is a legal monarchy. This is because the UK has no <u>constitution</u> as such, but many democratic laws. The Magna Carta is one of the first influences.

<center><hr width= "20%"></center>
However, as I understand it from comment of Stu, a law professor in England, it is illegal to voice, in the streets, derisive, disrespectful, offensive comments about the government or its leaders, nor to burn the flag. Here in the USA it is not illegal, and would be protected. Maybe this is why we have not heard much criticism from the UK concerning their policies and leaders, even though it is also at war in Iraq which disagrees with many in the UK. But yes, I truly am an anglophile. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The UK has a constitution. It does not have a written constitution as the US and other countries do.

Croydon

03-12-2005, 09:05 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
But you ARE winning this deal. Democratic elections have taken place in Iraq and Palestine. Syria is on the defensive. Egypt is talking about possibly allowing opposition candidates to run in their elections. The insurgents are being killed while the Iraqi army is being rebuilt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think it is clear at all that the U.S. is winning in Iraq and the Middle East -- it is a very mixed bag. Looking first at Iraq, the insurgency is growing and a country that was almost al-Qaida-free under Saddam is now a major terrorist breeding ground. FYI, the estimates are that insurgents are at about 40,000 (half partially committed and half fully committed). The large majority of insurgents are those seeking to make their tribal group the dominant power in Iraq and are not international terrorist. So the U.S. is essentially got half its military wrappped up trying to stop an Iraqi civil war from escalating -- shades of Northern Ireland but 100-fold worse for the U.S.. Of the insurgents there are a few thousand (steadily growing) who are very much al-Qaida-like. On the plus side, there was an election and that is really great. However, the big winner was not the U.S-favoured party but one with close ties to Iran (no wonder Iran supported the elections). Sure an Iraqi army is being trained, but it is going to be pretty hard to grow a newbie army from scratch to something equivalent to the power of half the U.S. Army. Was turning secular, impotent Iraq into an Islamist, Iran-friendly, world power one of the Whitehouse's foreign policy objectives? Is turning the Middle East into a modern day Iraq the Whitehouse's foreign policy objective?

Definitely, there are many, fine reasonable people in the Middle East who deserve true democracy. The problem is there are also a great many who see democracy as a great way of turning their nations (Egypt, Lebanon, etc.) from relatively, secular authoritarian rule into Islamist authoritarian rule that allows a limited degree of democracy (the Iranian model). I'm not convinced the Whitehouse has fully considered this angle. And I don't just question the Whitehouse: societies in general have yet to understand well religious extremism even though it is has been one of the world's major problems though history.

Now let me say here, that the speculation above could be wrong. Maybe, it will work that after a few years of turmoil that the peoples of the Middle East will embrace democracy, freedom, each other, and the West. I hope that happens but I do have some major reservations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you HM0504 for your well thought and educated statement. It really shows how many Americans do not have the slightest idea about what is going on in Iraq. So many are quick to open their fat traps when they do not know what is going on. So many are quick to support the war and the president when they haven't even taken the time out to think about the war, the before and after etc etc etc.

Thank You

KirkOntario

03-12-2005, 09:06 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Shoobie:

Twenty years ago any one of the US could have gone to Iraq without a worry. That was before we gave the diplomatic green light to Saddam on his Kuwait incurrsion and then pulled out the rug, and the two wars that followed. Of course you'd be stupid to visit.

[please note, i am not making a comment about the war one way or the other] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The US did NOT give Iraq the 'green light' as you put it to invade Kuwait. Everyone thought they were bluffing and would not actually invade but that they were just engage in the usual haggling over oil and other matters.

Shoobie

03-12-2005, 09:11 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sw2sweendog:
as kirk said danee,i was just pointing out the fact, that a good majority of americans have no idea how good they have it here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No doubt we are the freest of lands. Even in Canada you can be jailed for your thoughts and words if they defy the conventional wisdom. (no first ammendment).

But we are not the Land of the truly free (when we are otherwise not bothering others) and its not getting better in some areas. In fact, in quite a few areas we are pathetically backwards and not free at all compared to other nations; nudity being an obvious area.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">..and they more than likely the ones who don't vote.but they will be the first to complain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some people make a very educated decision about not endorsing the political system. Really, the system is very much rigged to the benefit of the two major parties who can afford to play ball and comply with the cumbersome regulations involved at all levels. Moreover, the system is skewed to reward those who are into growing government only (e.g. follow the $$$$$$$$) vs. shrinking it or even fixing it. To say you want smaller government and to return rights to the poeople is showing up to a gun fight with a bananna -- you have no political currency to deal.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...as far as the war goes,our men and women over there ,have no choice.they joined under thier own free will.like it or not.i spent 6 month there,and i was not to happy about the way we went.i think bush went in way to fast.but i signed the dotted line... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No doubt the dotted line was signed... fewer folks are willing to volunteer, especially since the fine print has been noticed that says the government can hold you indefinately in duty after signing up. So long as we are free, those who like war for reasons the poplulation does not support will always be limited by lack of volunteers willing to die for a cause they don't deem worthy enough -- such as an actual invasion of our own shores by tyrants, which would get me to join in a jiffy.

Shoobie

03-12-2005, 09:38 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hooked:
Kirk, what would you say to the argument that these new "democratic" systems are a farce. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The question is, what is the value we are promoting? Democracy in and of itself is meaningless. Democracy can be authoritarian, the proverbial "three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner".

I think liberty is a much higher ideal. BTW, most folks are oblivious to the fact that the US constitution and the declaration of independence do not mention democracy once. In fact the founding fathers spoke highly of LIBERTY and were very critical of democracy, since it by defination can violate the rights of a minority, and since groups are often times less educated / informed on reality than individuals -- and even prone to mob behavior.

Shoobie

03-12-2005, 09:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MikeJB:
Ive heard of and seen to some extent whole businesses grind to a halt just because their computer network fails, now imagine if that was the government or military? In that small timeframe something bad could happen to our country all because we didnt have any other method to fall back on to get the job done and keep us safe. If we werent so dependant on technology *namely computers* then we would have people who could do some of these things and we wouldnt go nuts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is all the more reason for citizens having options and for us all to avoid legislative monopolies -- which largely government is. When social security or medicares breaks, for example, we are all sucked down. When a country over inflates its currency, the entire nation suffers. Choice and competing alternatives is good -- we throw the baby out with the bath water because we get hung up on profits, as if those doing the work in government are doing it for charity....

Snoboy

03-12-2005, 09:44 AM

For those of you who know so much about the United States and its government, why not fill out a resume and get jobs FIXING IT, instead of attacking it. If you are NOT an American, work with your own governments to FIX IT. Spend less time belly-aching about presumed-problems with the United States and be a part of the solution to make the world a better place for all of us to live in harmony and PEACE. Other wise, zip your lips.

Shoobie

03-12-2005, 09:45 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
How quickly Americans forget that France has been your longest ally, and without their help in the War of Independance, the colonies might not have been able to seperate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No kidding. As one from the US i find this attitude laughable. As if the US should forever be granted carte blanche to do as it see's fit, and the rest of th world should step into line for past debts.

Each event should be weighed on its face value. If someone saves my life that does not obligate me to to a life of servitude / or for that matter to then kill on their behalf, for heaven's sake. I don't expect this from other nations, either.

hm0504

03-12-2005, 09:47 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Even in Canada you can be jailed for your thoughts and words if they defy the conventional wisdom. (no first ammendment). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, we don't have a 1st Amendment but we do have a Charter section 2b that goes:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Section 2(b) of the Charter states that "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ... freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure there are hate mongers and others who will say Canada does not allow them enough freedom of expression but the idea that "in Canada you can be jailed for your thoughts and words if they defy the conventional wisdom" is beyond comprehension.

ken0254

03-12-2005, 09:58 AM

The US IS the greatest nation in the world. Having been active duty navy and retired, I have been to plenty of other countries. There IS "no place like home". Having said that there are pleny of reasons to criticize the US also. Here we are, the No. 1 industrialized nation in the world, and socially, sometimes I think we are no better than some of the other nations and allies we criticize. We are the only nation in the world that seems to freak out over a breast that gets exposed on prime time television, and it was only a partial breast at that! In Europe, there are bill boards with partially or unclad women on them, and does anyone bat an eye to them??? Sometimes they showed on bill boards what we can't even show on tv here. Again, no one bats an eye. WE have to make laws here to allow women to breastfeed in public areas. It's sad it's just not an accepted right and practice. WE have an FCC that dictates how much bare skin can be shown on the public airwaves, but yet there doesn't seem to be an limits on the amount of violence shown on the public airwaves. Like a bare breast is more harmful to a child over the long haul than seeing violence is. hhmmm WE have people preaching forgiveness and tolerance on Sunday and then during the week tell nudists we can't have our day at water parks. Nude swims that have been going on monthly for over 5 yrs are taken away from us because of so called christian activists. We have legislation made against us that takes away our parental rights in choosing how we want to raise our children. WE have laws that make social nudism an ADULT activity so that we can not include our children in family events. We have conservative legislators that would take away our right to send our children to the summer camp of our choice. We can't have more nude beaches because our lawmakers think this will open up more crimes against women, or it's not THIER idea of family values. WE have lawmakers that say they are for individual rights, but yet, if a flag burning amendment or marriage amendment floated across the desk in the oval office, they would be signed before you could bat an eye! Yes, we do have a lot of rights in this county that many don't have in others. Maybe the question is how long will we have our rights as we know them? Need I go on, or am I just beating a dead horse?

ken

Shoobie

03-12-2005, 10:03 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
The US did NOT give Iraq the 'green light' as you put it to invade Kuwait. Everyone thought they were bluffing and would not actually invade but that they were just engage in the usual haggling over oil and other matters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pay attention not to what governments say, but to how things play out and follow the $$$.

Having read up on the subject, including published copies of communiqués, Iraq was sending out feelers for how the US would respond to their going into Kuwait. Recall, also, that Kuwait was accused of drilling across the boarder into Iraq. The US Ambassador essentially gave the diplomatic equivalent of saying the US has no opinion on the matter – a neutral response.

Diplomatic protocol would have been to suggest that we would intervene in such a case, even if you think someone is bluffing. That's diplomacy 101... unless you have ulterior motives, like wanting to eliminate the military prowess of IRAQ after building it up for so many years and you are looking for a good reason to do so.

The elimination of IRAQ as a power has been on the Neo-Conservative drawing board since the early 1980s -- look up their names and read their books and policy papers. Funny how it all fell into place as they garnered more and more power. Having a Kuwait sure looks better than the US just going out on its own.

Also on their list is Syria and Iran... Syria is playing out at the moment.. we shall see.

Danee

03-12-2005, 10:13 AM

The driveway needs it again snoboy...thanks.

Zip the lips? Who says we do not take an active role in trying to make changes? This is a forum snowman. That means people express their thoughts, views, opinions. Zip it on a forum? I think the CFF would be rather desolate if we did that, no? Something like....Alaska perhaps.

Geesh.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Snoboy:
For those of you who know so much about the United States and its government, why not fill out a resume and get jobs FIXING IT, instead of attacking it. If you are NOT an American, work with your own governments to FIX IT. Spend less time belly-aching about presumed-problems with the United States and be a part of the solution to make the world a better place for all of us to live in harmony and PEACE. Other wise, zip your lips. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

KirkOntario

03-12-2005, 10:30 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Shoobie:

Pay attention not to what governments say, but to how things play out and follow the $$$.

Having read up on the subject, including published copies of communiqués, Iraq was sending out feelers for how the US would respond to their going into Kuwait. Recall, also, that Kuwait was accused of drilling across the boarder into Iraq. The US Ambassador essentially gave the diplomatic equivalent of saying the US has no opinion on the matter – a neutral response.

Diplomatic protocol would have been to suggest that we would intervene in such a case, even if you think someone is bluffing. That's diplomacy 101... unless you have ulterior motives, like wanting to eliminate the military prowess of IRAQ after building it up for so many years and you are looking for a good reason to do so.

The elimination of IRAQ as a power has been on the Neo-Conservative drawing board since the early 1980s -- look up their names and read their books and policy papers. Funny how it all fell into place as they garnered more and more power. Having a Kuwait sure looks better than the US just going out on its own.

Also on their list is Syria and Iran... Syria is playing out at the moment.. we shall see. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, not into the fancy conspiracy theories. As you say, no one gave anyone the green light. Perhaps someone was asleep at the switch. They appear to have believed that after such a ruinous enterprise attacking Iran that Iraq would not attack Kuwait or that this was an Arab dispute that would work it's way out.

hm0504

03-12-2005, 10:37 AM

In general, Shoobie's thing about Iraq thinking the U.S. didn't care about Kuwait is not a fancy conspiracy theory. Whether the U.S. gave that impression or Iraq got the wrong impression, I do not know, but it seems plausible Iraq had that impression -- after all, the U.S. had helped them in their prior war with Iran.

Anyway, its impolite to just go invading countries willy-nilly whether you think the U.S. is on your side or not.

Naturist Mark

03-12-2005, 10:38 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
The US did NOT give Iraq the 'green light' as you put it to invade Kuwait. Everyone thought they were bluffing and would not actually invade but that they were just engage in the usual haggling over oil and other matters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Transcript (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html) of meeting between Ambassador April Glaspie and Saddam Hussain 8 days before Iraq invaded Kuwait.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptab le?

Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.

(Saddam smiles) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course in the aftermath Glaspie and others claimed she didn't mean what she so clearly said:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One month later, British journalists obtain the the above tape and transcript of the Saddam - Glaspie meeting of July 29, 1990. Astounded, they confront Ms. Glaspie as she leaves the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Journalist 1 - Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)

Journalist 2 - You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait.

Journalist 1 - You encouraged this aggression - his invasi on. What were you thinking?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.

Journalist 1 - You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!

Journalist 1 - American green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - the territories claimed by Iraq?

(Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her and the car drives off.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

-Mark

Shoobie

03-12-2005, 10:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
I'm sure there are hate mongers and others who will say Canada does not allow them enough freedom of expression but the idea that "in Canada you can be jailed for your thoughts and words if they defy the conventional wisdom" is beyond comprehension. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hear you. You’re right that I overstated the problem. The question without a first amendment like the US is, who gets to define hate / what is incorrect?

I know of a historian that is a revisionist that remains in a Canadian jail -- He was originally accused of hate mongering, but found not guilty. Now he’s held somehow under your patriot act equivalent for fomenting insurrection or something. (On the other hand, he was picked up in the US on some odd visa related charge and deported to Canada, which immediately resulted in his incarceration.) From what I can find, he has been historically inquiring into Holocaust and requests only that folks consider all facts before coming to a conclusion – that’s what his website says. Distasteful? Perhaps. Illegal?

Now, I'm not sympathetic to his conclusions (IMO the facts speak for themselves) and because of his run ins with the law, the guy seems to have some disturbing beliefs related to who and why folks are out to get him (Jewish conspiracy). But that the system appears out to lock him up is undeniable. Having reviewed the legal situation regardless of what he’s saying, IMO he is being held for defying the conventional wisdom, developing a following (Jews even among them I was surprised to find), and promoting his questions internationally on a website. No doubt he’s a target for his opinions having been deemed dangerous or not approved.

Anyway, he was in Canada for years and not popular, but not a law breaker. He moved to the Us with his US wife until deported on a visa violation. As soon as he arrived in Canada he is jailed under the new patriot type law. In the US the first amendment protected him. Of course, these days in the US we toy with whisking folks off to foreign jurisdictions so to remove constitutionally guaranteed protections. No high horse on this end.

Anyway, seems its far from any kind of a chronic problem, and I didn’t mean to suggest that Canada is locking up folks left and right for stating things that are not popular. But this guy is in jail and being a ACLU type, I think that is as lame as his opinions. I know we have a hard time working up sympathy for the guy's cause, but locking him up is almost martyring him rather than discrediting him with facts as IMO is the better, more credible means.

Shoobie

03-12-2005, 10:56 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Sorry, not into the fancy conspiracy theories. As you say, no one gave anyone the green light. Perhaps someone was asleep at the switch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, come on. These are professionals dealing with the Oil Basket of the world:

-- $$$$$$TRILLIONS$$$$$$$$$$$.

I bristle with dismissal of conspiracy theory. I seriously doubt that nobody was paying attention on this one.

Moreover, rarely do things happen by accident in diplomacy, which makes chess seem by comparison a cakewalk. At least in Chess you know whose moving the pieces and that the other side, in the end, wants checkmate. History is rife with such duplicity in politics and dimplomacy -- why should little old USA be exempt? Because we wave the right flag?

A good book to read is called "The 48 Laws of Power"... A real jerk can use the material in it for the wrong reasons. A thoughtful person looks at the examples of how power has been used through history -- and the many hidden ways things played out -- and says -- Wow.

Things are not always as they seem, and quite often by design.

hm0504

03-12-2005, 11:12 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I know of a historian that is a revisionist that remains in a Canadian jail -- He was originally accused of hate mongering, but found not guilty. Now he’s held somehow under your patriot act equivalent for fomenting insurrection or something. (On the other hand, he was picked up in the US on some odd visa related charge and deported to Canada, which immediately resulted in his incarceration.) From what I can find, he has been historically inquiring into Holocaust and requests only that folks consider all facts before coming to a conclusion – that’s what his website says. Distasteful? Perhaps. Illegal? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are probably thinking of Ernst Zundel who was recently deported by Canada to Germany (where he is now in jail):
http://www.jewishlondon.ca/content_display.html?ArticleID=146985
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/05/09/zundel_court030509

I doubt if any country has absolute freedom of expression. The question is whether the limits are reasonable. I don't want to get in a Canada vs. U.S. debate (as both are excellent countries) but doesn't Arkansas ban "advocating ... or promoting nudism". I also cannot help but think of the FCC bans on stuff that is perfectly legal on primetime Canadian broadcast TV.

Anyway, even countries where freedom of expression is enshrined need to be on guard to ensure that there is substance behind those words. For me, I'm OK with certain minimal limits if they are truly necessary for maintaining security.

Shoobie

03-12-2005, 11:16 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
(Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her and the car drives off.)
-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And as we all know, Ambassador Glaspie was clearly not the top dog on the matter re the message delivered.

In a vaccum this / she is harmless enough, and probably she is being honest herself. But in context of neo-con blueprints for the ME from the early 80s (again, read their books and policy papers), its the perfect opportunity presenting itself on a silver platter.

I think it was Naploeon who said, "Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake."

It ain't conspiracy to point out an obvious plotline. Will we ever know for sure? No. But in life it pays to look at the results and who is getting what they want, and by measuring with that yardstick you sometimes learn more than meets the eye.

KirkOntario

03-12-2005, 11:18 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Shoobie:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Sorry, not into the fancy conspiracy theories. As you say, no one gave anyone the green light. Perhaps someone was asleep at the switch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, come on. These are professionals dealing with the Oil Basket of the world:

-- $$$$$$TRILLIONS$$$$$$$$$$$.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The war for oil theories really don't add up. Considering oil is now at record prices. You have to be very careful with these types of theories they are compelling to certain people. Take the Royal Family killed Dianna believers; they end up dismissing common sense in favour of an elusive murder plot that was somehow sucessful while Dianna was being chased by dozens of photographers under the noses of the public eye.

KirkOntario

03-12-2005, 11:22 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I know of a historian that is a revisionist that remains in a Canadian jail -- He was originally accused of hate mongering, but found not guilty. Now he’s held somehow under your patriot act equivalent for fomenting insurrection or something. (On the other hand, he was picked up in the US on some odd visa related charge and deported to Canada, which immediately resulted in his incarceration.) From what I can find, he has been historically inquiring into Holocaust and requests only that folks consider all facts before coming to a conclusion – that’s what his website says. Distasteful? Perhaps. Illegal? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ernst Zundel is not an historian. He is a neo-nazi with an intense hatred of jews. He spreads lies and hate on the internet and is one of the worlds leading disseminators of hate against the Jews and apology for Hitler. He is a holocaust denier. He was not found not guilty. The charge he was accused of was found to be unconstitutional. He left Canada to live in Kentucky I think it was and lost his residency status (he is still a German citizen); when the US kicked him out they sent him to Canada who held him on a national security certificate. He was deported just last month to face trial in his beloved Germany.

Shoobie

03-12-2005, 11:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
You are probably thinking of Ernst Zundel who was recently deported by Canada to Germany (where he is now in jail): </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks. I'd forgotten his name.

Germany, it is my understanding forbids questioning of the holocaust --They were always extraditing him for his website. He's going to be in jail for a long while.

I think the guy is a nut... but something does not sit right

Doing a google search i came across this:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
On May 25, 1998, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rendered a written decision that the truth of any material on the Zundelsite is "irrelevant" to CHRC (Canadian Human Rights Commission) proceedings.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission lawyers and the intervenors's lawyers were on their feet and objected over 30 times when they thought truth was becoming an issue in the cross-examination of Dr. Schweitzer.

Says Ernst Zundel: "This leaves us in a very difficult position. Frankly, what is there to do or say if truth is not relevant - or even "forbidden" to raise it in one's defense? Truth in history is thus outlawed?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Truth is no defense" is right out of Orwell...

This is a skunk pissing contest. Neither side is easy to defend.

KirkOntario

03-12-2005, 11:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Shoobie:

I think the guy is a nut... but something does not sit right when said nut is not promoting violence -- and, as the article says, tells people to avoid it -- and he is jailed for bein controversial. After looking up some stuff after your post, i read that his place was actually firebombed by opponents.

Neither side is easy to defend. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He has extensive links to skinheads and other Neo-nazi and white power groups. The court found that he is a threat to security because he is inciting others to violence against Jews, blacks and other groups.

Here is the link to his final Federal Court of Canada hearing:

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc295.shtml

gamblefish

03-12-2005, 11:42 AM

No no no you guys all have it wrong!

The best place to live is not in a country, it's in the OCEAN!!

Top 10 reasons to live underwater:

10. No borders to protect.

9. No bad weather.

8. No traffic.

7. No smog.

6. Can travel over 75% of the earth's surface instead of a measly 25%.

5. No Michael Jackson.

4. No Michael Jackson records.

4½. No Michael Jackson trial.

3. Unlimited seafood!!

2. Mermaids!!!

and numero uno...

NO CLOTHES!!!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Shoobie

03-12-2005, 11:44 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Here is the link to his final Federal Court of Canada hearing:
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc295.shtml </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does not suprise me that he'd have those as supporters.

This is getting painfully close to me feeling like i'm supporting the guy, so i'll back off. I am only a history major and was taught to weigh the evidence. I'll just leave it at this: This guys inflamatory opinions convolute the issue -- its between process (historic evaluatoin of facts) vs. content (in this case, questioning the details of the holocaust).

I happen to think no event should be exempt from the former, and that the latter stands on its own based on the facts. Exposing Zundell as a fraud on the facts IMO the way to deal with him and his supporters -- making them look foolish instead of like martyrs. Jailing carries a wrong possible interpretation, that the facts can't stand a challenge -- and therefore he must be shut up.

I know that's not the case. Its only that if we make excuses here, where do we draw the line when if those in power go more orwell? Its certainly happened in the last 100 years.

hm0504

03-12-2005, 11:54 AM

KirkOntario

03-12-2005, 12:07 PM

Shoobie

03-12-2005, 12:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
I think oil is high largely because of uncertainty in the Middle East. Besides if oil is high, there's lots of people in the West and Middle East making lots of money from that so why couldn't it be high? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oil price is going up for reasons also related to the dollar getting weaker relative to other commodities. The $$ printing press has been running hard and eventually that catches up with a currency relative to commodities across the board. Oil is not the only thing shooting up.

KirkOntario

03-12-2005, 12:12 PM

Shoobie I never thought you were supporting him. Let me tell you that I sat through days of his trial back in 1988 for distributing the pamphlet "Did Six Million Really Die." He called lots of witnesses from the Journal of Revisionist History --so called scholar --dedicated to questioning events in history. They wrote only about the holocaust and used half-truths and lies to support their argumets.

Zundel himself came over to talk to me. He spotted a scottish ring from Orkney I was wearing that had a viking ship on it. He then proceeded to complain about a holywood movie with Tony Curtis in it called "The Vikings" that had a black viking in the story. He was very upset about that. It was surreal and funny at the same time. He is definitely a neo-Nazi.

Meg

03-12-2005, 12:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Snoboy:
Spend less time belly-aching [...and so on...] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What happens in America affects the rest of the world too, you know... so if you don't get it right, we have to tell you... and a big strong boy like you can go and fix it!! (when you've finished the driveway)

hm0504

03-12-2005, 12:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The war for oil theories really don't add up. Considering oil is now at record prices. You have to be very careful with these types of theories they are compelling to certain people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think oil is high largely because of uncertainty in the Middle East. Besides if oil is high, there's lots of people in the West and Middle East making lots of money from that so why couldn't it be high?

And what's weird about war for oil theories? Do you think the West wouldn't resort to war to secure oil supplies? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only if oil supplies were completely cut off and if the strategic reserve was running out. Then there are other sources: Canada, Venezuela, Indonesia. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but by far and away, the Middle East is the home of most vast, cheapest oil. The world runs on oil and whoever controls oil, to a great degree, controls the world. Even if the U.S. did not need Middle Eastern oil, it recognizes that the more control it has over the Middle East, the less its soon-to-be arch-rival China does.

And then there's al-Qaida, who are funded spectacularly by Middle East oil. Don't you think the West would have a deeply vested interest in al-Qaida's power base?

If the Middle East didn't have oil, the West wouldn't give a fig about the Middle East.

Shoobie

03-12-2005, 12:41 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Zundel himself came over to talk to me...."The Vikings" that had a black viking in the story. He was very upset about that. It was surreal and funny at the same time. He is definitely a neo-Nazi. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That'd have given me the creeps. Its one of those subjects that makes me quesy even bringing up because of the character involved, but i feel compelled because of my profound belief in the first ammendment. We've actually had politicians suggest the internet is too free -- well, who gets to say what is ok and what is not? I don't trust half of them, and they'd as soon ban this forum.

What were you doing so close to the case? What was the '88 case for? From what i recall, he's been in lots. The stuff i read about him before sounds pretty much like what you say -- racist, etc. Its weird because on one hand while i vehmently disagree with it, i simultaneously respect the importance for the right to be protected for him to say his peace.

On the other hand, If evidence exists that folks are acting out at his direction, that IMO is criminal. (e.g. yelling fire in a theatre) But we don't ban the Koran or bible when people interpret it to voilent ends. We prosecute the nuts that act out wrongly, and root it out if its a conspiracy. My sense was/ sill is this guy writes **** that you or i find offensive, but that people then take it to justify their own stupid actions against others.

BTW, since you seem to know, did they find any connections between his work and violence or is this a preventive measure? And what was the bssis for Canada complying with German extradition if C has no law against it?

Shoobie

03-12-2005, 12:44 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Meg:
......(when you've finished the driveway) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Meg, you need to send him some of your South African summer sunshine to warm his heart (and melt that driveway).

And while you're at it send some my way too! My driveway is covered.

Sauna

03-12-2005, 01:02 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeAl:
Let me put it this way. I have traveled around this world a bit. I've been to evry continent and usually more than a few contries on that continent. I whave met some great people and some not so great. I've seen some amazing things and some horrible things. There have been one or two places I've been tempted to live if I were given half a chance, Australia being a prime example. I love that country I think it is one of the friendliest I have ever been to. It is full of natural beauty. But I will not move there permanently, my cousin did and he is now a proud Australian citizen.

So here's my question. If you feel like America isn't your cup of tea. Where would you rather live? Have you ever lived in this country for an extended time? I know the grass is always greener on the other side. But after a little traveling I think most of us would agree, all things consided ther is no where else I would rather live. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good question. But I do not think that way. I have seen a lot. 70 countries and 35 US States but to me home sweet home. In June we will be in States again looking new places and it is fun but the best is when you are back home again.

KirkOntario

03-12-2005, 01:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:

If the Middle East didn't have oil, the West wouldn't give a fig about the Middle East. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is one thing to say the US has an interest in oil. It is another to say a particular war is purely motivated by oil or is about oil interests making a profit.

I have an interest in gasoline too. But there are a large number of gas stations around and they all want to sell me gas and make a profit. I would want to make sure there is healthy competition and stability of supply.

KirkOntario

03-12-2005, 01:08 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Shoobie:

What were you doing so close to the case? What was the '88 case for? From what i recall, he's been in lots. The stuff i read about him before sounds pretty much like what you say -- racist, etc. Its weird because on one hand while i vehmently disagree with it, i simultaneously respect the importance for the right to be protected for him to say his peace.

BTW, since you seem to know, did they find any connections between his work and violence or is this a preventive measure? And what was the bssis for Canada complying with German extradition if C has no law against it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was no extradition. He is a German citizen. He lived in Canada for decades then went to the US to take up residence due to Canadian anti-hate laws. US kicked him out and they drive him back to Canada. Canada was not obliged to take him as you can lose your status in Canada by being absent for as long as he was. So he had no right of residency in Canada. They held him on a security certificate and got a removal order on him to send him to Germany since that was the last place he was entitled to reside, being a German citizen.

I was in law school and was assigned to the judge hearing the case as part of a criminal law program.

hm0504

03-12-2005, 01:11 PM

And I don't think the West can separate, even if it wanted to, a particular Middle East war from the long history of intense direct political and military involvement in the Middle East by the West dating back to when oil was discovered there.

brax

03-12-2005, 01:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pek1:
We don't have worthless "royalty" like Great Britain has...what are those people good for, anyway? They're paid how much and they do squat! Chuckie wants to marry that bag and had his first wife knocked off. Yeah, the world knows who actually had Diana killed, don't we?

However, we do have a GOP party that is worth even less than the queen bag is! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im British and i totally disagree with ur viewpoint on our royal family, id rather have the queen anyday over ur president, but i respect your viewpoint so please now respect mine.
I feel ur president is also worthless as he has no backbone in standing up to the real USA hawks that run your govenment (e.g big businesses (oil companies included) in saying NO to invading another country and causing thousands of innocent deaths just to keep the money grabing businesses in profit.

And b4 the haters start throwing their bile at me for having that viewpoint - i also know our PM is also weak and has probably been paid off too, like bush. Lets just hope the British public use their common sense and vote Blair out in May.

Qikdraw

03-12-2005, 03:00 PM

To those that say conspiricy theories are not real. What about "Watergate", what about "Iran/Contra"?

Conspiricies do happen, but to just dismiss them because some people take it to extremes is not living in reality.

Now I know I criticize the US at times, but I do love the US, and its people. I am now a permanent resident and have lived here for 3.5 years. My issues with the US have always been its foriegn policy, and now lately, (as I see it closer) with its domestic agenda. Dislike of forign policy is not dislike of the US or its people.

Qikdraw

KirkOntario

03-12-2005, 03:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
To those that say conspiricy theories are not real. What about "Watergate", what about "Iran/Contra"?

Conspiricies do happen, but to just dismiss them because some people take it to extremes is not living in reality.

Now I know I criticize the US at times, but I do love the US, and its people. I am now a permanent resident and have lived here for 3.5 years. My issues with the US have always been its foriegn policy, and now lately, (as I see it closer) with its domestic agenda. Dislike of forign policy is not dislike of the US or its people.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both were pretty simple conspiracies and you can see how clumsy they were pulled off. US gov't can't even pull off a simple break and enter?

Naturist Mark

03-12-2005, 03:51 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The war for oil theories really don't add up. Considering oil is now at record prices. You have to be very careful with these types of theories they are compelling to certain people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you think the goal of the war was to keep oil prices low, yeah that's nuts. But if your theory is that it was to increase oil company profits, to gain new business for your own oil companies and oil service companies (Halliburton) - then it has been a resounding success. High gasoline prices are a sign of success, definitely worth 1500 American lives.

But that is a cynical observation, not a real conspiracy theory. The observation that the majority of the top officeholders in the Administration came from the executive suites of oil industry companies {the very same companies that have benefited from the turmoil, expenditures, and high oil prices) does not in any way prove that the motives behind the war were to benefit the industry most of them made their careers with.

Why call it conspiracy, it may have just been really really good luck.

-Mark

KirkOntario

03-12-2005, 05:32 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

If you think the goal of the war was to keep oil prices low, yeah that's nuts. But if your theory is that it was to increase oil company profits, to gain new business for your own oil companies and oil service companies (Halliburton) - then it has been a resounding success. High gasoline prices are a sign of success, definitely worth 1500 American lives.

But that is a cynical observation, not a real conspiracy theory. The observation that the majority of the top officeholders in the Administration came from the executive suites of oil industry companies {the very same companies that have benefited from the turmoil, expenditures, and high oil prices) does not in any way prove that the motives behind the war were to benefit the industry most of them made their careers with.

Why call it conspiracy, it may have just been really really good luck.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh but it doesn't matter to the conspiracy theorists. Both scenarios fit the silly theory. If oil prices were low that would be cheap oil for corporate america. And if high, profiteering on the part of oil companies. The facts can always fit the theory. The theory shuts out common sense.

There are so many legitimate ways to make money that you don't have to start a war to make money. Politicians do not go to washington to make money. They can make many times more money running a second rate company than being a politician. Those politicians you mention left those companies long ago.

nudistmatt

03-13-2005, 08:18 AM

I give oil another 40 years before it runs out.

hm0504

03-13-2005, 10:11 AM

ARTICLE: Arab democracy just an illusion?
http://tinyurl.com/64arc

Hooked

03-13-2005, 10:47 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hooked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
But you ARE winning this deal. Democratic elections have taken place in Iraq and Palestine. Syria is on the defensive. Egypt is talking about possibly allowing opposition candidates to run in their elections. The insurgents are being killed while the Iraqi army is being rebuilt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not an 'appointed goverment' in Iraq. They had an election and are electing Iraqis to design their own constitution and set up their own government. Unlike Japan's constitution which was written by Gen. Douglas Macarthur the Iraqis will write it themselves. There will be another election in 9 months.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And all the candidates were put in place by Bush which equals US-appointed government in the eyes of the Iraqis and quite frankly in the eyes of anyone who is watching the situation unfold without bias.

KirkOntario

03-13-2005, 11:16 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hooked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hooked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
But you ARE winning this deal. Democratic elections have taken place in Iraq and Palestine. Syria is on the defensive. Egypt is talking about possibly allowing opposition candidates to run in their elections. The insurgents are being killed while the Iraqi army is being rebuilt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not an 'appointed goverment' in Iraq. They had an election and are electing Iraqis to design their own constitution and set up their own government. Unlike Japan's constitution which was written by Gen. Douglas Macarthur the Iraqis will write it themselves. There will be another election in 9 months.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And all the candidates were put in place by Bush which equals US-appointed government in the eyes of the Iraqis and quite frankly in the eyes of anyone who is watching the situation unfold without bias. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually not even the interim government of Alawi was what the US wanted. The US initially governed and an Iraqi council recommended the Alawi in the face of the US choice as interim leader of Iraq. In this election various parties ran their own slates of candidates. The US would have preferred a Sunni led coalition but they will get a Shia/Kurdish coalition in its place. Not a puppet government by any stretch of the imagination. The other thing is newly elected government is there merely to craft a new constitution for elections to be held in 9 months time.

Paniga

03-13-2005, 11:21 AM

we have tons of oil here in canada way more than iraq does just it cost to much to get it out of the oilsands right now

Naturist Mark

03-13-2005, 01:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rabid_Clam:
Hooked, you say all candidates were put in place by Bush. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually neither of you is right.

The people elected in the Iraqi election were not put on the ballot by the US. The US didn't even want the election originally, the administration wanted to wait several more years but Sistani insisted, and the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3033306.stm) is the most important man in Iraq today. Fortunately he has shown himself to be a pretty good leader so far, even though he is actually an Iranian Shiite. He was not chosen by the US, he was chosen by circumstance, the Administration has grown to accept that he is the key to a stable Iraq and just about the only hope for leading Iraq into a sustainable democracy, even if it is a theocratic Islamic democracy (for the record, Sistani supports separation of religion and politics, and refuses to present himself as a political candidate or leader).

However, at this time the US appointed Alawi government is still in power, the winners of the election have not yet formed a new government nor have they taken power. There may be some movement on that issue next week. link (http://www.juancole.com/2005/03/breaking-news-government-to-be-formed.html)

Some of the best analysis of the middle east/Iraq situation can be found at Informed Comment. (http://www.juancole.com/)

-Mark

Hooked

03-13-2005, 02:09 PM

Naturist Mark,

As always, thank you for the factual information and citations. You summed up what I was trying to get at even though I admit I failed by making a broad generalization (something I'm not in the habit of doing but I let this one slip)

Rabbidclam,
You don't offer any proof or citation either and you totally flew off the handle instead of civily disagreeing with me and this is not the first time either. Try to be a little more diplomatic in the future.

KirkOntario

03-13-2005, 03:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hooked:
Naturist Mark,

As always, thank you for the factual information and citations. You summed up what I was trying to get at even though I admit I failed by making a broad generalization (something I'm not in the habit of doing but I let this one slip)

Rabbidclam,
You don't offer any proof or citation either and you totally flew off the handle instead of civily disagreeing with me and this is not the first time either. Try to be a little more diplomatic in the future. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but it is clear you were completely wrong in your assessment of the situation. This is no puppet government. What country other than the US would show such generosity of spirit, such greatness of heart? When was there such a country that has liberated hundreds of millions of people that took not an inch of territory for its own? The doughboys of WWI, the GI's of WWII, the heroes of Korea.... You Americans have a lot to be proud of!

pek1

03-13-2005, 03:43 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nudistmatt:
I give oil another 40 years before it runs out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Less than that, Matt.

Hey, anyone have a $50,000 (USD) SUV you're trying to get rid of? Maybe the Smithsonian would be interested, if they can get the others out of their parking lot!!

BeNudeTX

03-13-2005, 03:58 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

Yes but it is clear you were completely wrong in your assessment of the situation. This is no puppet government. What country other than the US would show such generosity of spirit, such greatness of heart? When was there such a country that has liberated hundreds of millions of people that took not an inch of territory for its own? The doughboys of WWI, the GI's of WWII, the heroes of Korea.... You Americans have a lot to be proud of! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Though it is true that the US has demonstrated a lot of generosity, you would be inaccurate to assume that they are doing it with no reward expected. True, it's not new territory they are after; rather, it is the opportunity to sow the seeds of their own brand of government, a chance to have firm economic control of the region, and a substantial amount of control over their natural resources... the so-called "american interests" that the government wishes to protect that you hear of on the news.

KirkOntario

03-13-2005, 04:03 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BeNudeTX

Though it is true that the US has demonstrated a lot of generosity, you would be inaccurate to assume that they are doing it with no reward expected. True, it's not new territory they are after; rather, it is the opportunity to sow the seeds of their own brand of government, a chance to have firm economic control of the region, and a substantial amount of control over their natural resources... the so-called "american interests" that the government wishes to protect that you hear of on the news. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes to use your words "a lot of generosity". Name a nation that would have acted the same? The Soviets? The North Koreans? Who if not you? Americans have a great deal to be proud of.

BeNudeTX

03-13-2005, 04:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

Yes to use your words "a lot of generosity". Name a nation that would have acted the same? The Soviets? The North Koreans? Who if not you? Americans have a great deal to be proud of. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not everyone in the world views the US actions as acts of generosity when the aforementioned rewards are expected in return. When such rewards are expected, it's no longer considered "generosity". Also, many other people in the world are as generous, or even more so, than the US. But not everyone believes that generosity must come in the form of a war machine.

nudistmatt

03-13-2005, 04:20 PM

Generoisty = self sacrifice in order to aid.

The world has had a mindset presently that whatever the U.S. does is wrong. Many tell us to butt out of the affairs of foreign nations but scold us saying that we did not contribute enough to the tsunami affair.

Hooked

03-13-2005, 04:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Yes but it is clear you were completely wrong in your assessment of the situation. This is no puppet government. What country other than the US would show such generosity of spirit, such greatness of heart? When was there such a country that has liberated hundreds of millions of people that took not an inch of territory for its own? The doughboys of WWI, the GI's of WWII, the heroes of Korea.... You Americans have a lot to be proud of! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not here to compare other nations to the US. I admitted that my generalization was wrong and Naturist Mark focused it for me to what I originally had intended. I admitted my fault now get over it. And for the record, the new, elected government is still yet to take shape, so who is in office now? Go back to Naturists Marks post, that should answer the question. The new government is still considered a farce by the people of the country in that it's only being ALLOWED by the US. If we had a real problem with it, you know we'd be ready to crush it right away. If you don't think the US government has a lot of pull in the set up of the new Iraqi government, then you haven't been paying attention, I mean we did just powerdrive their entire military force.

It is my belief that the current US administration does not wish to empower the Iraqi people. I personally believe they are intentionally instilling weakness in the new government so that they can set it against other ethnic groups as soon as they start to become a problem, especially the Kurds (I'm not saying this is always a bad tactic but our focus now should be empowering the people, not setting up trap doors in their ruling system). Stability in Iraq? Probably not in our lifetime, not if every new government has weakness and treachery bred in.

hm0504

03-13-2005, 04:48 PM

Naturist Mark wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Some of the best analysis of the middle east/Iraq situation can be found at Informed Comment.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Mark, great web site. Looks like soon it will soon be just the U.S. and U.K. with troops in Iraq now that the others are pulling out (I'm guessing Italy will end up withdrawing too.)

Here's my math problem, right now there are 170,000 U.S./U.K. troops in Iraq and an equivalent number in support or waiting their turn at home so that is say, rounding down, 300,000 of the world's best trained, best equipped troops now focuses on keeping the "peace" in Iraq. Now the Iraqi army was that large before the war but obviously they were not nearly as well trained or equipped as the Allied forces or they wouldn't have been run over in a few weeks. How long will it take to build a trustworthy (to use the Pentagon's word) Iraqi army capable of doing the job the U.S. and U.K. and Italy are now doing?

KirkOntario

03-13-2005, 05:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BeNudeTX:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

Yes to use your words "a lot of generosity". Name a nation that would have acted the same? The Soviets? The North Koreans? Who if not you? Americans have a great deal to be proud of. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not everyone in the world views the US actions as acts of generosity when the aforementioned rewards are expected in return. When such rewards are expected, it's no longer considered "generosity". Also, many other people in the world are as generous, or even more so, than the US. But not everyone believes that generosity must come in the form of a war machine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is more generous than the US? Who gave the most money for Tsunami relief? Who rebuilt Europe including West Germany. I think the 'war machine' characterization is a little anti-US don't you? Machines are heartless, Americans are not.

Hooked

03-13-2005, 05:11 PM

Comparing the US to other countries without using a fair amount of cultural relativism is like comparing apples to oranges. Just a thought

KirkOntario

03-13-2005, 05:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hooked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Yes but it is clear you were completely wrong in your assessment of the situation. This is no puppet government. What country other than the US would show such generosity of spirit, such greatness of heart? When was there such a country that has liberated hundreds of millions of people that took not an inch of territory for its own? The doughboys of WWI, the GI's of WWII, the heroes of Korea.... You Americans have a lot to be proud of! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not here to compare other nations to the US. I admitted that my generalization was wrong and Naturist Mark focused it for me to what I originally had intended. I admitted my fault now get over it. And for the record, the new, elected government is still yet to take shape, so who is in office now? Go back to Naturists Marks post, that should answer the question. The new government is still considered a farce by the people of the country in that it's only being ALLOWED by the US. If we had a real problem with it, you know we'd be ready to crush it right away. If you don't think the US government has a lot of pull in the set up of the new Iraqi government, then you haven't been paying attention, I mean we did just powerdrive their entire military force.

It is my belief that the current US administration does not wish to empower the Iraqi people. I personally believe they are intentionally instilling weakness in the new government so that they can set it against other ethnic groups as soon as they start to become a problem, especially the Kurds (I'm not saying this is always a bad tactic but our focus now should be empowering the people, not setting up trap doors in their ruling system). Stability in Iraq? Probably not in our lifetime, not if every new government has weakness and treachery bred in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are again incorrect. First of all you SHOULD compare other nations to the US. It will tell you a lot.

Iraqis were excited about voting, excited about setting up a new government. They risked life and limb to vote on January 30th and they DO NOT see that as a 'farce'. It is not the permitted government of the US, nor is the US pulling strings. As has been demonstrated the gov't that exists now was not the US choice nor is the gov't that is being formed. It is sad that you think just because Americans have interests that they do not have good intentions and generosity of spirit.

KirkOntario

03-13-2005, 05:14 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hooked:
Comparing the US to other countries without using a fair amount of cultural relativism is like comparing apples to oranges. Just a thought </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What exactly do you mean by that statement? Just curious. Why can't you compare nations and people?

NudeAl

03-13-2005, 05:28 PM

If you're so disatisfied with the way things are going in Iraq right now why don't you pick up a rifle and follow me back over there? How'd you like them apples?

nudistmatt

03-13-2005, 05:30 PM

Grannysmith

Hooked

03-13-2005, 05:39 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeAl:
If you're so disatisfied with the way things are going in Iraq right now why don't you pick up a rifle and follow me back over there? How'd you like them apples? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd rather stay here and do my best to sway policy to end it and bring the troops home than add fuel to the fire, thanks anyway. If you like fighting so much then feel free to go on back there and get killed. Have fun while you're at it.

KirkOntario

03-13-2005, 05:41 PM

Hooked

03-13-2005, 05:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hooked:
Comparing the US to other countries without using a fair amount of cultural relativism is like comparing apples to oranges. Just a thought </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What exactly do you mean by that statement? Just curious. Why can't you compare nations and people? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know how to explain it much further, it's plain English. All I can add is that you have to put situations into context before saying one is better than the other. For example, it's hard to say health care is better in Switzerland than it is in USA so USA should be like Switzerland. That's rediculous because Switzerland has a totally different government, way fewer citizens, etc. (not to say I don't think we should continually reform health care here in the USA) Likewise, don't say the USA helps more than any other country, etc etc b/c we are the largest, wealthiest, bestest, etc country in the world we SHOULD be helping the rest of the world when we can! It's our obligation as part of the human race. Like Uncle Ben says "With great power comes great responsibility." You wanna argue with that, take it up with Spider-man...

Hooked

03-13-2005, 05:48 PM

as seen on the wall of the women's rest room at the Draft House (paraphrased to protect virgin eyes):

"Fighting for Peace is like Screwing for Virginity"

KirkOntario

03-13-2005, 05:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hooked:
as seen on the wall of the women's rest room at the Draft House (paraphrased to protect virgin eyes):

"Fighting for Peace is like Screwing for Virginity" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never seen a peace that had not been made possible by the settlement of conflict.

NudeAl

03-13-2005, 05:55 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by NudeAl:
If you're so disatisfied with the way things are going in Iraq right now why don't you pick up a rifle and follow me back over there? How'd you like them apples?

I'd rather stay here and do my best to sway policy to end it and bring the troops home than add fuel to the fire, thanks anyway. If you like fighting so much then feel free to go on back there and get killed. Have fun while you're at it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey thanks for supporting us troops! I'll be sure and send your kind regards to the rest of them over there. But don't bother attempting to sway policy to we don't need or want your help.

KirkOntario

03-13-2005, 05:58 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeAl:

Hey thanks for supporting us troops! I'll be sure and send your kind regards to the rest of them over there. But don't bother attempting to sway policy to we don't need or want your help. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Al...you guys have done an amazing job. Sad that you get so little credit, that reporters think that being a reporter is tearing people down. Afgan troops have been totally ignored. Why? It's been a pretty solid success where everyone predicted utter failure.

NudeAl

03-13-2005, 06:02 PM

Thanks,
You just answered your own question Though. It is not makeing news because it's been a success. That dosen't sell so it's not news.

Unwired

03-13-2005, 06:02 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hooked:
as seen on the wall of the women's rest room at the Draft House (paraphrased to protect virgin eyes):
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey dude what were you doing in the women's restroom of the Alamo Drafthouse?? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ud

KirkOntario

03-13-2005, 06:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeAl:
Thanks,
You just answered your own question Though. It is not makeing news because it's been a success. That dosen't sell so it's not news. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reporters still wrote stories in WWII. They told some great stories that were absolutely true about ordinary men doing great things.

Is it in the interests of the selfish self absorbed baby-boomer age to believe the enemy over the US gov't? Rousseau said: 'the philosopher loves the Tartar so he doesn't have to love his neighbour.' Got it? I think that says it all.

Hooked

03-13-2005, 06:20 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hooked:
as seen on the wall of the women's rest room at the Draft House (paraphrased to protect virgin eyes):

"Fighting for Peace is like Screwing for Virginity" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never seen a peace that had not been made possible by the settlement of conflict. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have to respond to every single post I make?

hm0504

03-13-2005, 06:58 PM

The troops are doing a great job; it is the politicians I am worried about.

Hooked

03-13-2005, 07:03 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unwired:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hooked:
as seen on the wall of the women's rest room at the Draft House (paraphrased to protect virgin eyes):
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey dude what were you doing in the women's restroom of the Alamo Drafthouse?? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ud </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not the Alamo...just The Drafthouse...different place. And my sister told me about it...I didn't see it for myself http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hooked

03-13-2005, 07:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeAl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by NudeAl:
If you're so disatisfied with the way things are going in Iraq right now why don't you pick up a rifle and follow me back over there? How'd you like them apples?

I'd rather stay here and do my best to sway policy to end it and bring the troops home than add fuel to the fire, thanks anyway. If you like fighting so much then feel free to go on back there and get killed. Have fun while you're at it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey thanks for supporting us troops! I'll be sure and send your kind regards to the rest of them over there. But don't bother attempting to sway policy to we don't need or want your help. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For your information, I do support the troops (I have friends over there and others training to go over there) I just don't support your flawed logic. Don't insinuate that I don't support them, I am extremely insulted by such a remark. You don't even know me. It's because I care that I bother to speak out. If I didn't care I would just let this continue without a peep.

Also, you need to speak for yourself and only yourself. Who are the "we" you are talking about here?

KirkOntario

03-13-2005, 07:10 PM

I keep hearing these people say they support the troops. What are they doing to support the troops? These same people knock the actions of the military every time something bad happens --ex. Sgrena hostage situation.

Michael Moore claimed he supported the troops yet made a mockery of them --he made them look like underpaid yahoos that were incompetent or bloodthirsty kids on a spree. It's a bit of a game this claim by many of these folks (not all of course).

When something bad happens they knock the troops but claim they are really criticizing the Pentagon, the Whitehouse etc. but it is clear that they are just army bashing.

more examples: they claim the US targeted Sgrena or they claim the US troops are deliberately trying to kill journalists --both have not factual basis, not one scintilla of evidence yet they jump on it as truth

Unwired

03-13-2005, 07:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hooked:

Not the Alamo...just The Drafthouse...different place. And my sister told me about it...I didn't see it for myself http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Riiiiiiight... (raised eyebrow)

Hooked

03-13-2005, 07:17 PM

HM0504,

My sentiments exactly. Why can't a person disagree with policy without being accused of not supporting the troops? Are the two ideas mutually exclusive of one another? I think not.

Hooked

03-13-2005, 07:28 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
I keep hearing these people say they support the troops. What are they doing to support the troops? These same people knock the actions of the military every time something bad happens --ex. Sgrena hostage situation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I'm not one of "these people" of which you speak but I can tell you what I do to support the troops. I maintain relationships I had with members of the armed forces before this mess started. I respect them for risking their lives for a greater good even if I don't believe this war is justified, I give them the benefit of the doubt that they honestly believe that it is. I do not send hateful messages to them, jeer them publicly or criticize their decision to join the military. I only offer good will and a hope for a safe return and an end to the violence. That's how I support them. I also support them by voicing my opinion, a right secured by the government and defended by the military, so that things might get better and they can come home sooner. You are not trying to hear what I have to say, agree or not. You are closing the dialogue and accusing me of something completely unsubstantiated at every turn (either KirkOntario or NudeAl). Smokescreen, perhaps? At any rate, I am not one to turn away from a fair argument (not that this is one) but I've just about had it with you. I cannot guarantee I will respond to any more messages because we are going to start going around in circles before too long and I'm tired of doing that with my Mom already.

Qikdraw

03-14-2005, 02:22 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
What country other than the US would show such generosity of spirit, such greatness of heart? When was there such a country that has liberated hundreds of millions of people that took not an inch of territory for its own? The doughboys of WWI, the GI's of WWII, the heroes of Korea.... You Americans have a lot to be proud of! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are forgetting a lot of countries in your little quote there. You do realise that it wasn't JUST the US fighting those wars right? Even Korea was not an American only war, it was a U.N. war and America was a large part of that, but by no means the only part. (Even Canada had troops in Korea)

Not only that but as a percentage of GDP the US gives so much less than a lot of other countries. The US hasn't even met its obligation it signed in 2000 to provide the level of GDP support for aid around the world.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Americans have a great deal to be proud of. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one is saying they don't. What they are saying is that Americans have a right, more than a right actually, a duty, to speak out about their government. The US governemnt is accountable to its people, and if it does not listen, how is that better than any dictatorship?

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hey Al...you guys have done an amazing job. Sad that you get so little credit, that reporters think that being a reporter is tearing people down. Afgan troops have been totally ignored. Why? It's been a pretty solid success where everyone predicted utter failure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you haven't notcied about Western media, its all about ratings, and has little to do with covering "feel good" stories, they just want stories that will get them attention. Which is why western mendia, specifically American media is so crappy.

Afganistan is now, again, the worlds largest opium producer. The Afgan government is largely ineffective outside the cities. The people are not happy. I would not call that a success. The reason its not a success is because Bush promised he would not forget them and help them rebuild their country, well he hasn't. He switched all his recources to Iraq, and all the good that could have come from Afganistan has been wasted.

Just another note... Don't forget all the other countries involved in Afganistan as well, Canadian, Brits, French, German, etc...

I'd also like to point out that the current guy in power in Iraq, Allawi, is a paid CIA terrorist. He blew up car bombs in Iraq under the guidance of the CIA. The US's former "go to guy" Chalabi is a wanted criminal in Jordan, (embezzlement) Iranian spy, and provided complete and utter lies to this administration to get us to attack Iraq. Even though the CIA had long known his intelligence information was questionable at best.

I find it amazing that people shout "Support the Troops", when they really mean "shut up and step into line".

What is morally treasonable to the troops is this administration doing all it can to take away from the soldiers. American troops are some of the worst paid troops in the world. Having troops living on food stamps is criminal. (both Republicans and Democrats are guitly of not doing something about this by the way) Having veterens having to pay to get VA care is criminal, but thats something this administration just made happen. Stop-loss is criminal. Having reserve & national guard soldiers lose their lives because the military is keeping them for so long is criminal.

On that note what should be done to help soldiers out is a Bill that stops banks from forclosing, or reposessing their houses or cars because they can't make payments while they are fighting for the US. The US gov should make the interest payments on their loans until such a time as they can come back and lead a normal life.

I think the troops are getting the short end of the stick, and this administration keeps taking more of the stick.

If you really want to help the troops out, help out organisations like www.booksforsoldiers.com (http://www.booksforsoldiers.com), or www.opgratitude.com (http://www.opgratitude.com). If a unit from your area has been deployed, why not try and set up a night where the spouses of the unit can be appreciated. Rent a hall and get people to help provide food, and show how much you appreciate their sacrifice. Its not easy sitting at home, with your wife/husbadn off in war, never knowing if the next call, or the next knock at the door is going to be a message that he/she is never coming home again.

I fully support the troops, I support the troops even though this government clearly doesn't. DOn't listen to what they say, look at their policies.

I love the US, and there is a lot that Americans have to be proud of. The American people ARE kind and generous, the government is another story however.

Qikdraw

hm0504

03-14-2005, 06:54 AM

As I understand it, in a democracy elected politician tell the troops what to do, and the troops have to do it whether they like it or not. If the politicians and the troops were one and the same, and one could not criticize one without criticizing the other, then by definition, that is a military dictatorship.

In Iraq, since Ret. Gen. James Garner was suddenly replaced by Paul Bremer, the U.S. Army has NOT been in charge of Iraq, though perhaps things would have turned out differently if they had been.

The major source of conflict, though certainly not the only one, in Iraq today is the Sunni/Shia antagonism which has been festering for about 1350 years (almost as old as Islam itself). This is now complicated by modern Middle East politics, al-Qaida, oil, etc. but the roots do actually go back over thirteen centuries.

It has been mentioned that one does not get peace without armed conflict first. I think this is often true for international wars, or for civil wars without deep religious roots. I am not so sure it is true for civil wars with deep religious roots.

Can America reconcile the Sunni/Shia schism? The moderate Muslims and the Islamists (and the Kurds)? These are the big questions in Iraq today and from my perspective, they are primarily political and not military. The military is doing a great job there keeping whatever peace there is, but it is politicians who have to address the ideological issues.

Naturist Mark

03-14-2005, 04:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Can America reconcile the Sunni/Shia schism? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, America can't.

But the Sunni and Shia people of Iraq can. It is only going to happen if they WANT it to happen, and it will only happen if it is by THEIR will, we can't impose it.

Essentially it will come down to how generous the majority Shiite leadership is willing to be towards the formerly dominant Sunni minority. Indications are that the most important leaders, such as Grand Ayatolla Ali Sistani accept this and are willing. The (largely) Sunni resistance will continue to try to stir the pot, but even though most Iraqi's are sympathetic to the resistance's opposition to foreign occupation, the resistance is losing support due to their attacks against fellow Iraqi's (at least 9 out of 10 victims of the resistance are Iraqi).

The solution will have to be an Iraqi solution, we can't impose it on them. In the end our forces may just have to stand aside and allow the Iraqi's to deal with it as best they can, even if that means they will fail before they succeed.

As an exercise, consider America's own history. Could a foreign power have healed the schism between States that led to the Civil War? If such a power had attempted to do so, how would we have reacted?

-Mark

KirkOntario

03-14-2005, 04:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:

I think you are forgetting a lot of countries in your little quote there. You do realise that it wasn't JUST the US fighting those wars right? Even Korea was not an American only war, it was a U.N. war and America was a large part of that, but by no means the only part. (Even Canada had troops in Korea)Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, I'm Canadian. We were at war in both wars before you were. The American contingent was huge in Korea and Afghanistan and Iraq. Canada could barely ---I am ashamed to say --muster 800 troops for Afghanistan --due to our shrunken military. See, we think we can let the USA defend us while we sit back and smugly criticize and boast about health care.

nudistmatt

03-14-2005, 05:07 PM

Just some clarification on sunnis and shiites

Sunni: believes anyone can be the successor to muhammad

Shiite: believes only blood relatives can be successor.

nudistmatt

03-14-2005, 05:10 PM

and avergae lifespan, 79 years.

Qikdraw

03-14-2005, 05:55 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Of course, I'm Canadian. We were at war in both wars before you were. The American contingent was huge in Korea and Afghanistan and Iraq. Canada could barely ---I am ashamed to say --muster 800 troops for Afghanistan --due to our shrunken military. See, we think we can let the USA defend us while we sit back and smugly criticize and boast about health care. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doode, I'm Canadian, I live in the US now however. While I agree we need a better military, at least now Martin has promised 15 Billion over the next few years to fix up what they have ignored for the last 20. We HAVE to get rid of the Sea-Kings, they've been death traps for over 20 years now. We also need long distance transport capability. I donno what they have planned, but I'm happy they are at least going to do something.

I disagree with your comment about Canadians think the US will protect us. I never expected the US to do any defending of Canada. I would only hope they would help out if we asked, but I don't expect it.

Canada has a wonderful reputation around the world, and involving ourselves in Iraq would have tarnished that. Canada, rightly so, stayed away from Iraq. We have helped out on the war against terror by being in Afganistan. Iraq was never in the war against terror. It is now, because its now a breeding ground for terrorists. To fix it we need radical changes in policy, obviosuly this administration screwed it up big time, but their policy hasn't changed. Thats stupid.

Qikdraw

hm0504

03-14-2005, 06:07 PM

Canada had 2000 troops in Afghanistan for a year and was heading NATO activities over that time.

On December 7, 2004, "Members of the Canadian Forces unit (CF) Joint Task Force Two (JTF 2) received the United States Presidential Unit Citation from President George W. Bush"..."The United States Presidential Unit Citation is awarded to units of the Armed Forces of the United States and allied nations for extraordinary heroism in action against an armed enemy occurring on or after 7 December 1941. The unit must display such gallantry, determination, and esprit de corps in accomplishing its mission under extremely difficult and hazardous conditions as to set it apart and above other units participating in the same campaign."

That said, I do agree that Canada should agressively build up its military.

KirkOntario

03-14-2005, 06:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:

Canada has a wonderful reputation around the world, and involving ourselves in Iraq would have tarnished that. Canada, rightly so, stayed away from Iraq.
Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, breathless error! Why would bringing freedom to millions by toppling a vicious thug of a dictator ever tarnish Canada's reputation?

Naturist Mark

03-14-2005, 06:20 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
I never expected the US to do any defending of Canada. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course we would protect you! We can't afford to lose Canada - Canada is all that stands between most Americans and Savage Alaska!

-Mark

KirkOntario

03-14-2005, 06:28 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=580276&page=1

biggest demonstration EVER in the Arab world! Your President was right. Congratulations to America. We thank you for the price you have paid and you are paying!

hm0504

03-14-2005, 06:31 PM

Just saw more on the news about the Darfur region in the Sudan. The BBC interviewed a U.S. Marine who was stationed there as an observer. (I think he's now left the Marines to work on getting international attention and action to the situation.) Apparently, now the genocide toll is 180,000 with the rebels ably assisted by the Sudanese government. The Marine suggests a no-fly zone be set up because the Sudanese are using air power to torch villages. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Mark, or anyone else, what are your thoughts on Lebanon. Got any good resources on that one? Looks to me like it is evenly divided between those who want a Western-like country and those who want an Islamist state. I feel both that the West (not just the U.S.) must support those who want true freedom, but I'm also mindful of the 1983 disasters there for the American and French militaries. How could/should the West help in Lebanon?

KirkOntario

03-14-2005, 06:48 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Just saw more on the news about the Darfur region in the Sudan. The BBC interviewed a U.S. Marine who was stationed there as an observer. (I think he's now left the Marines to work on getting international attention and action to the situation.) Apparently, now the genocide toll is 180,000 with the rebels ably assisted by the Sudanese government. The Marine suggests a no-fly zone be set up because the Sudanese are using air power to torch villages. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Mark, or anyone else, what are your thoughts on Lebanon. Got any good resources on that one? Looks to me like it is evenly divided between those who want a Western-like country and those who want an Islamist state. I feel both that the West (not just the U.S.) must support those who want true freedom, but I'm also mindful of the 1983 disasters there for the American and French militaries. How could/should the West help in Lebanon? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Evenly divided? 100,000 versus over a million?

Qikdraw

03-14-2005, 08:24 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Wow, breathless error! Why would bringing freedom to millions by toppling a vicious thug of a dictator ever tarnish Canada's reputation? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because the world was lied to in order to force this war. The reasons for the war have changed many many times. Its easy to say that NOW, we went there to oust a dictator, but then why the hypocracy in ousting a elected president in Haiti and installing a dictatorial government? You can't have it both ways.

The people of the world aren't stupid, specially the arab world. They see what the US says, and then what they do. They've seen US foriegn policy hypocracy first-hand on many occasions. The US used to be Saddams buddy, and while Saddam was gassing his own people, Rumsfeld was over there shaking his hand.

I'm not saying the US can't, or won't, do good, but the US has an enormous amount of skeptisism to overcome. Sadly they've put themselves in that postition.

Qikdraw

Qikdraw

03-14-2005, 08:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

Of course we would protect you! We can't afford to lose Canada - Canada is all that stands between most Americans and Savage Alaska!

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL

Those darn Alaskan savages! They are a constant pain on our borders with them... Violating our soverignty and seals... Its a sad sad state of affairs.. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Qikdraw

KirkOntario

03-15-2005, 03:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:

Because the world was lied to in order to force this war. The reasons for the war have changed many many times. Its easy to say that NOW, we went there to oust a dictator, but then why the hypocracy in ousting a elected president in Haiti and installing a dictatorial government? You can't have it both ways.

The people of the world aren't stupid, specially the arab world. They see what the US says, and then what they do. They've seen US foriegn policy hypocracy first-hand on many occasions. The US used to be Saddams buddy, and while Saddam was gassing his own people, Rumsfeld was over there shaking his hand.
Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all the world was not lied to. The world agreed that Saddam had WMD and he wanted them to believe it too--France, Germany, Britain,Russia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and USA--all had intelligence to suggest he had WMD. He did have WMD and moved them to Syria is the most likely scenario. Further the Duffler Report (sp?) uncovered that he was 'outsourcing' WMD production and paying countries to produce weapons as a way of defeating the inspections. The NYT on the weekend ran a story on a factory Saddam had that was capable of making nuclear weapon's parts that was looted after the war.

The US was never Saddam's 'buddy' as you put it. They merely did not wish his regime to be overrun by Iran making Iran the regional superpower. The US condemned the gassing of Kurds at the time. If you want to argue complicity you might start looking at French and German interests in the Iraq pre-war and who was bought off under the UN's corrupt and incompetent Oil For Food programme.

hm0504

03-15-2005, 06:30 AM

The numbers I heard were these. The first anti-Syria demonstration was 80,000, then the first pro-Syria demonstration was 500,000, and the second (most recent) anti-Syria march was on the order of a million. Could a follow-up pro-Syria rally come close to a million -- I think it is possible.

Anyway, for a country of 3.5 million, these are amazing figures.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Just saw more on the news about the Darfur region in the Sudan. The BBC interviewed a U.S. Marine who was stationed there as an observer. (I think he's now left the Marines to work on getting international attention and action to the situation.) Apparently, now the genocide toll is 180,000 with the rebels ably assisted by the Sudanese government. The Marine suggests a no-fly zone be set up because the Sudanese are using air power to torch villages. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Mark, or anyone else, what are your thoughts on Lebanon. Got any good resources on that one? Looks to me like it is evenly divided between those who want a Western-like country and those who want an Islamist state. I feel both that the West (not just the U.S.) must support those who want true freedom, but I'm also mindful of the 1983 disasters there for the American and French militaries. How could/should the West help in Lebanon? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Evenly divided? 100,000 versus over a million? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hm0504

03-15-2005, 06:41 AM

Gosh, as I recall, there were plenty of people who believed Saddam had not had a WMD program since Gulf War I. Such people included exiled Iraqi WMD scientists who oversaw the shutdown of the program and former UN Weapons Inspector (and U.S. Marine) Scott Ritter.

It is now painfully apparent that these people were RIGHT! And in the irony of ironies, the WMD facilities and equipment that had been secured by the UN since Kuwait were systematically looted by skilled personnel AFTER the U.S. had taken control of Iraq. (The U.S. had secured the facilities but somehow ignored them shortly after.) Yes, Saddam's WMD equipment is know in who know who's hands.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:

Because the world was lied to in order to force this war. The reasons for the war have changed many many times. Its easy to say that NOW, we went there to oust a dictator, but then why the hypocracy in ousting a elected president in Haiti and installing a dictatorial government? You can't have it both ways.

The people of the world aren't stupid, specially the arab world. They see what the US says, and then what they do. They've seen US foriegn policy hypocracy first-hand on many occasions. The US used to be Saddams buddy, and while Saddam was gassing his own people, Rumsfeld was over there shaking his hand.
Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all the world was not lied to. The world agreed that Saddam had WMD and he wanted them to believe it too--France, Germany, Britain,Russia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and USA--all had intelligence to suggest he had WMD. He did have WMD and moved them to Syria is the most likely scenario. Further the Duffler Report (sp?) uncovered that he was 'outsourcing' WMD production and paying countries to produce weapons as a way of defeating the inspections. The NYT on the weekend ran a story on a factory Saddam had that was capable of making nuclear weapon's parts that was looted after the war.

The US was never Saddam's 'buddy' as you put it. They merely did not wish his regime to be overrun by Iran making Iran the regional superpower. The US condemned the gassing of Kurds at the time. If you want to argue complicity you might start looking at French and German interests in the Iraq pre-war and who was bought off under the UN's corrupt and incompetent Oil For Food programme. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

nudistmatt

03-15-2005, 12:19 PM

I don't think he ever did, more like a "scare" tactic.

Lets see, we have all those nations constantly warring, and maybe saying he has WMP will prevent other countries from attacking him. I'm not justifying him, just putting something in a different view.

hm0504

03-15-2005, 12:51 PM

It is generally believed Saddam never outright declared he did not have WMD because, as you say, certain neighbours would have been less likely to attack -- namely Iran.

Iran, like many other Middle Eastern countries, but unlike Iraq, has received the design details for making nuclear weapons from Pakistan's nuclear godfather. Iran and Iraq, of course, had a very bloody 9-year war in the 1980s resulting in a million casualties and not much else.

During the conflict, the U.S. seems to have played both sides, but I think by the end of it, it was softly on the Iraqi side. Of interest given the emerging situation in Lebanon, is the fact some believe Iran was responsible for the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 that killed 241 Marines:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/

I think the U.S. went into Iraq thinking it would be a cakewalk and Iraq could quickly be rebuilt into a potent threat to Iran.

Here's an fairly informative piece on the Iran-Iraq war:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/iraniraq.html

KirkOntario

03-15-2005, 02:57 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nudistmatt:
I don't think he ever did, more like a "scare" tactic.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Saddam did have WMD and used it in the war with Iran and against the Kurds. He also had some Canadian scientist trying to build a super-gun and probably Israel had that scientist murdered. He was near to making a nuclear weapon a few years after the first Gulf War but stopped by weapons inspectors. He had them; he certainly wanted them and he wanted to have them again. Leaving Saddam in place is like going to bed with a murderer sitting at your kitchen table with all the pieces of a gun in front of him.

hm0504

03-15-2005, 03:17 PM

That Saddam had WMD up to the early 90's is not in doubt. It is also not in doubt that by the mid-1990s, Saddam's WMD capability was nil.

As Tom Clancy put it, Saddam was a steer, not a bull.

KirkOntario

03-15-2005, 04:54 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
That Saddam had WMD up to the early 90's is not in doubt. It is also not in doubt that by the mid-1990s, Saddam's WMD capability was nil.

As Tom Clancy put it, Saddam was a steer, not a bull. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it is in doubt because we have yet to learn the full story. We will probably find they were shipped off to Syria just before the war.

Qikdraw

03-15-2005, 06:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Actually it is in doubt because we have yet to learn the full story. We will probably find they were shipped off to Syria just before the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually its not in doubt. This administration has stopped the physical search for WMDs.

The Duelfer report, released in October 2004, concluded that "the weapons that we all believed were there based on the intelligence were not there" and that "much of that accumulative body of intelligence" compiled by the US and its allies over the 12-year period leading to the March 2003 military action "was wrong".

Linky (http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13647921)

So even this administration admits there were no WMDs, why do you persist in beliving there was?

Qikdraw

KirkOntario

03-15-2005, 06:18 PM

Paniga

03-15-2005, 09:50 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hm0504:

I think the U.S. went into Iraq thinking it would be a cakewalk and Iraq could quickly be rebuilt into a potent threat to Iran.

Just how long is a cakewalk anyways according to the u.s.?

Qikdraw

03-16-2005, 02:09 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
It is far to early to know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a feeling you're going to be saying the same thing 10 years from now when they still haven't found anything. The U.N. could not find anything before the war, nothing was found during the war, David Kay could not find anyting after the war, and now his replacement has come out and said all the 'intelligence' was wrong, and that Saddam did not have it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The report also highlights his ability to bluff </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what? What does bluffing have to do with HAVING WMDs as you absolutely believe? His bluffs were mearly intended to keep his enemies away.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and intent to rebuild WMD as soon as possible with our without UN sanctions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok... so wait a moment here!! You're saying he HAD them, definately and irrevocably, but are ALSO saying he had intent to rebuild them? Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Plus intent means nothing. I intend on being a Billionare, owning Microsoft and Electronic Arts, plus owning at least 60% of California, that doesn't mean I'm actually going to be able to. With sanctions and U.N. inspections Saddam did not have the capability to reconstitute a WMD program.

Qikdraw

KirkOntario

03-16-2005, 03:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
It is far to early to know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a feeling you're going to be saying the same thing 10 years from now when they still haven't found anything. The U.N. could not find anything before the war, nothing was found during the war, David Kay could not find anyting after the war, and now his replacement has come out and said all the 'intelligence' was wrong, and that Saddam did not have it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The report also highlights his ability to bluff </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what? What does bluffing have to do with HAVING WMDs as you absolutely believe? His bluffs were mearly intended to keep his enemies away.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and intent to rebuild WMD as soon as possible with our without UN sanctions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok... so wait a moment here!! You're saying he HAD them, definately and irrevocably, but are ALSO saying he had intent to rebuild them? Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Plus intent means nothing. I intend on being a Billionare, owning Microsoft and Electronic Arts, plus owning at least 60% of California, that doesn't mean I'm actually going to be able to. With sanctions and U.N. inspections Saddam did not have the capability to reconstitute a WMD program.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bluffing means everything. Like the boy who cried wolf he got what he deserved.

He intended to rebuild WMD to what they were and to build a nuke. Sadaam said that the mistake he made invading Kuwait was that he should have had the nuke first.

Intent is everything. Would you go to bed leaving a crazed murderer sitting at your kitchen table with the pieces of a gun disassembled before him? You cannot have sanctions and inspections in perpetuity can you?
Our friend in Europe were pushing for santions and our buddies on the left were calling Americans baby killers for having sanctions. Amazing hypocrisy that they are now All for sanctions.

hm0504

03-16-2005, 11:16 AM

As stated earlier, the WMD equipment didn't leave Iraq before the U.S. invasion, it disappeared afterward while under U.S. "supervision" -- quite possibly in the hands of terrorists now; I imagine Iran and Syria have much better WMD-building tools at their disposal..

Suppose democracy prevails in the new Iraq, and Iraq wants to build WMDs because Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Israel, etc. have them. What would the U.S. do then?

If KirkOntario's analogy about the murderer at your kitchen table is valid, is it not criminal for the U.S. NOT to be invading Iran and Syria immediately? Why wouldn't the U.S. have invaded Iran which has threatened and (so it is believed [1]) murdered U.S. citizens instead of Iraq which has never done either?

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/

KirkOntario

03-16-2005, 04:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
As stated earlier, the WMD equipment didn't leave Iraq before the U.S. invasion, it disappeared afterward while under U.S. "supervision" -- quite possibly in the hands of terrorists now; I imagine Iran and Syria have much better WMD-building tools at their disposal..

Suppose democracy prevails in the new Iraq, and Iraq wants to build WMDs because Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Israel, etc. have them. What would the U.S. do then?

If KirkOntario's analogy about the murderer at your kitchen table is valid, is it not criminal for the U.S. NOT to be invading Iran and Syria immediately? Why wouldn't the U.S. have invaded Iran which has threatened and (so it is believed [1]) murdered U.S. citizens instead of Iraq which has never done either?

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all we don't know when they left Iraq. The US is not "criminal" for not invading these countries because it is not a crime not to prevent a murder. Second you suppose they have some god-like ability to take on every rogue nation at once. They have their hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan. And thirdly not all rogue states have to be dealt with by invasion: one example, which is what the US made of Sadaam may deter the others.

hm0504

03-16-2005, 04:59 PM

What I meant was that given that, with the onset of the year 2003, Iran has an active WMD program and has been hostile to the United States so it would have been a more appropriate target instead of Iraq -- not as well as Iraq.

Also, we do know about when the WMD equipment that I referred to was removed from Iraq by forces unkown. See
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/13/news/loot.html

KirkOntario

03-16-2005, 05:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
What I meant was that given that, with the onset of the year 2003, Iran has an active WMD program and has been hostile to the United States so it would have been a more appropriate target instead of Iraq -- not as well as Iraq.

Also, we do know about when the WMD equipment that I referred to was removed from Iraq by forces unkown. See
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/13/news/loot.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, when you are elected leader of the free world you can choose the rogue state you wish to make an example of.

BTW The NYT article is almost funny. They claim no WMD but they went missing under the noses of the Americans. It's called sucking and blowing at the same time.

Ren

03-16-2005, 08:38 PM

He's only the leader of the US, imposer of the will on the rest of the "free world."

Why is it we, the only country to use nuclear weapons, have ANY right to tell others what to do? Maybe we should lead by example for once rather than via oppression.

Mountain Goat

03-17-2005, 01:54 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Well, when you are elected leader of the free world you can choose the rogue state you wish to make an example of. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must have missed the "Free World Election", does that mean I could have voted. I wouldn't put my money on George being elected in that even if there were one...

Mountain Goat

Naturist Mark

03-17-2005, 05:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mountain Goat:
I must have missed the "Free World Election", does that mean I could have voted. I wouldn't put my money on George being elected in that even if there were one... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't put my money on George being elected in a free (http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=2004+election+irregularities&btnG=Google+Search) election in the USA.

-Mark

hm0504

03-17-2005, 06:53 AM

Here's what I want to see happen in Iraq regarding the level of American troops.

The Whitehouse has said that it cannot set a timetable for the pullout of Amercian troops because that would encourage her enemies. I agree.

But what I would like to see is the Whitehouse publish clear milestones for the pullout. For example, it would seem to be that as the size of the new Iraqi army increases, then the number of American troops should decrease. Unfortunately, we are only seeing the level of American troops gradually increase (partly because Coalition members are pulling out their troops). Surely, it would not be infeasible to publish expectations regarding the growth of the Iraqi Army.

Trailscout

03-17-2005, 07:14 AM

The weapons of mass destruction once in Sadaam Hussein's possession are reportedly in Lebananon's Bekaa valley and in a highly unstable condition, guarded by Syrian troops and Hezbollah militia.

hm0504

03-17-2005, 07:24 AM

Qikdraw

03-17-2005, 10:06 AM

Trailscout

03-17-2005, 12:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Is there a reference you can point us to? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Report: U.S suspects Iraqi WMD in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html)

New evidence: Saddam's WMD in Lebanon (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38581)

hm0504

03-17-2005, 01:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:The weapons of mass destruction once in Sadaam Hussein's possession are reportedly in Lebananon's Bekaa valley and in a highly unstable condition, guarded by Syrian troops and Hezbollah militia. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Is there a reference you can point us to? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Report: U.S suspects Iraqi WMD in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html)

New evidence: Saddam's WMD in Lebanon (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38581) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Trailscout.

Cannot really say much about the second link as there are no validated sources.

The first link confirms what I was saying. The first picture is taken 2003 May 28 and shows intact (though not active) WMD facilities and the second photograph taken 2004 February 22 shows the same site cleaned out (by forces unknown). The sticky point is that the war was well over (sort of) by 2003 May 1 when President Bush declared the end of major hostilities. Huge quantities of proscribed WMD materials disappeared AFTER the U.S. was in control of Iraq. Are you saying the U.S. let Saddam move the WMD out after he had been defeated?

KirkOntario

03-17-2005, 04:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mountain Goat:
I must have missed the "Free World Election", does that mean I could have voted. I wouldn't put my money on George being elected in that even if there were one... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't put my money on George being elected in a free (http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=2004+election+irregularities&btnG=Google+Search) election in the USA.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not again of course, unless they amend the constitution. Twice elected and eight years is pretty good run.

hm0504

03-17-2005, 05:01 PM

Bush Announces Iraq Exit Strategy:
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4110

KirkOntario

03-17-2005, 05:05 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Bush Announces Iraq Exit Strategy:
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4110 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

YEAH!!!!!!!

Naturist Mark

03-17-2005, 06:04 PM

KirkOntario wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oh but it doesn't matter to the conspiracy theorists. Both scenarios fit the silly theory. If oil prices were low that would be cheap oil for corporate america. And if high, profiteering on the part of oil companies. The facts can always fit the theory. The theory shuts out common sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about the actual written plans by the Administration? BBC News: Secret US plans for Iraq's oil (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm)

-Mark

namedun

03-17-2005, 08:21 PM

I see this fear of terrorism as someone akin to the red scare, but it's better since it won't run out for a while, and there is more than one country providing the material for propoganda makers. Lets go attack sovereign nations and "free them". Wouldn't be surprised at all if the new Iraqi leader ends up actually threatening the US; there's been a history of the new ruler (in place because of American actions) biting you later on.

NudeAl

03-17-2005, 08:39 PM

You know what, screw it bring the troops home. In fact bring them all home the ones in Iraq, Afgahnistan, Bosnia, Korea, Germany, Turkey, Japan, Cuba and a few dozen others I've forgotten all of them. Put them all on the borders of this country and then just set back and wait for the terrorists to come to us. Then lets just settle back into our pre WWII isolationist role. The hell with the rest of the world! Let them do what ever the hell they want to. It's not our problem right? Oh and the hell with the UN while we're at it. What have they done for us lately? Tell them the rent is due and if they can't come up with it get the hell out. We don't owe the world anything! In fact they owe us big time for saving their butts more times than any other nation on the face of the planet. But you can't say that in polite society can you? No that would be rude! True but rude. If they want us out fine get out no problem but the next time they need someone to save their *** they better call someone who gives a F**k!

Hooked

03-17-2005, 09:47 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA@N udeAl...

Good one, bro. Did you study the comedy of the absurd because that's classic. Ubu Roi, anyone?

hm0504

03-18-2005, 06:42 AM

Of the countries NudeAl listed, except for Iraq, I think the world consensus is that it is good that U.S. troops are there and most of those countries have troops from other Western powers there as well. (NB. I'm not sure one could say the U.S. troops are actually in Cuba -- but rather the leased military base.)

Iraq -- well, that is the tricky one because much of the world did not see the necessity of invading it and foresaw significant complications if invaded so they did not lend their support to it.

As I've said before, I think Western superpowers have generally behave more and more responsibly though history and that includes the U.S. I think it was clear from even before the war, that I thought the decision to invade Iraq was based more on naivete than fear of WMD, but I have not changed my mind that over the past decades, overall the world has been very fortunate to have the U.S..

Naturist Mark

03-18-2005, 07:18 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Twice elected and eight years is pretty good run. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Twice 'selected' perhaps. Still waiting for a proper 'election'. Christopher Hitchens on Ohio Election. (http://makethemaccountable.com/articles/Ohio_s_Odd_Numbers.htm)

Trailscout

03-18-2005, 07:36 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
The sticky point is that the war was well over (sort of) by 2003 May 1 when President Bush declared the end of major hostilities. Huge quantities of proscribed WMD materials disappeared AFTER the U.S. was in control of Iraq. Are you saying the U.S. let Saddam move the WMD out after he had been defeated? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sort of... We did not have good control of the Syrian border and it remained porous well into the operation. Not sure how tight it is even now.

namedun

03-18-2005, 08:03 PM

Great, lets spend more invading a country because its full of brown people and because deomocracy isn't their cup of tea

Trailscout

03-18-2005, 08:13 PM

I agree. Annexing Canada would make a lot more sense.

Besides if you believe the live footage from the anti-Syrian protests in Beirut (estimated crowds 1/4 of total population of Lebanon), democracy is their cup of tea.

KirkOntario

03-19-2005, 04:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
I agree. Annexing Canada would make a lot more sense.

Besides if you believe the live footage from the anti-Syrian protests in Beirut (estimated crowds 1/4 of total population of Lebanon), democracy is their cup of tea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the media kept reporting in error that Iraq had the world's second largest amount of oil reserves: Canada does. And if you count our 'tar sands" which are expensive to extract the oil (mmore feasible at these prices) we have more oil on the planet than anywhere else.

You do not have to annex us. We haven't had hostilities in almost 200 years.

Naturist Mark

03-19-2005, 04:52 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
I agree. Annexing Canada would make a lot more sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dear Canada, if you do decide to annex us, I promise we'll be at least as well behaved as Quebec.

-Mark

NudePete

03-19-2005, 05:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
I agree. Annexing Canada would make a lot more sense... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Our best defence is that most of you Americans couldn't find us on a map if you tried!

(tongue firmly in cheek!)

NudePete

03-19-2005, 05:38 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
I agree. Annexing Canada would make a lot more sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dear Canada, if you do decide to annex us, I promise we'll be at least as well behaved as Quebec.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure that you guys could live with our bland politicians. Yours are always so much more colourful.

Naturist Mark

03-19-2005, 06:21 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudePete:
I am not sure that you guys could live with our bland politicians. Yours are always so much more colourful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please please please please please please please let us have nice polite bland politicians!

-Mark

Qikdraw

03-20-2005, 01:56 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Actually the media kept reporting in error that Iraq had the world's second largest amount of oil reserves: Canada does. And if you count our 'tar sands" which are expensive to extract the oil (mmore feasible at these prices) we have more oil on the planet than anywhere else.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow! Kirk we agree on something!! Probably because it has nothing to do with politics. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Yes the tar sands have massive amounts of oil in there. From what I understand is that when they first started developing the techniques for removing the oil it was around $20 per barrel, now its down around $7. Saudi Arabia pulls out oil for $5 per barrel. (the figures may be a bit wrong as its been awhile since I read an article on it)

Apparently Cheney has an insterest in the oil sands, and I heard China is trying to buy into them as well. Look at what China is doing around the world to secure oil for their future. They've been making some big deals in the last few years.

Also, has anyone read what Greenspan said about how the US dollar is not pulling in foriegn investors like it used to? It seems countries are switching to the Euro for investment purposes. This is not good news for the US economy. He also said that the US deficit gives him shivers. Wish he'd tell that to Bush to get him to stop with massive tax breaks for the wealthy.

Qikdraw

Qikdraw

03-20-2005, 01:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
I agree. Annexing Canada would make a lot more sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dear Canada, if you do decide to annex us, I promise we'll be at least as well behaved as Quebec.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do we have to take the south though? We'll take Texas for the oil, but you'll have to get rid of the guns, or we'll have to consider Texas a rogue nation... http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Qikdraw

hm0504

03-20-2005, 07:37 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:

Also, has anyone read what Greenspan said about how the US dollar is not pulling in foriegn investors like it used to? It seems countries are switching to the Euro for investment purposes. This is not good news for the US economy. He also said that the US deficit gives him shivers. Wish he'd tell that to Bush to get him to stop with massive tax breaks for the wealthy.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have. You know the saying "Nothing succeeds like success"? My view on history is that a superpower rises shortly after the previous superpower make one too many mistakes. When a superpower is super, it remains so because wealth and power naturally are attracted to it and it has the influence to modify the world in a way that best suits it -- allowing it to become even more of a superpower. However, when a superpower begins to trip up, it can fall fast and hard.

I'm greatly concerned that the ill-conceived tax cut (just ask former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill) and the justification-du-jour war in Iraq might be the start of a major downturn in the influence of the United States (which I think has overall been positive). The thing is that today there is challenger -- China. It is good to see the seeds of democracy beginning to sprout in China but I also see a lot more that needs to happen before I'm comfortable with the U.S. world influence waning too far. I think it might be very hard for the U.S. to recover from certain policies of the last 4 years.

Trailscout

03-20-2005, 07:45 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
Do we have to take the south though? We'll take Texas for the oil, but you'll have to get rid of the guns, or we'll have to consider Texas a rogue nation... http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The South was doing just fine as an independent nation, but we were annexed by the United States in 1865. Texas was also an independent nation that was annexed somewhere along the way. Now a Texan is president and our former president was from the old Confederacy. Looks like payback time for the War of Northern Aggression.

Trailscout

03-20-2005, 08:00 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Qikdraw:
I have. You know the saying "Nothing succeeds like success"? My view on history is that a superpower rises shortly after the previous superpower make one too many mistakes. When a superpower is super, it remains so because wealth and power naturally are attracted to it and it has the influence to modify the world in a way that best suits it -- allowing it to become even more of a superpower. However, when a superpower begins to trip up, it can fall fast and hard.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You seem to be implying that there can only be one superpower at a time. Nonsense! The USA and the Soviet Union were at rough parity for a long time. The Greeks and Persians vied for dominance of Western Asia for a long time. I could make a similar case for the various European empires of the past few centuries, ie. Spain vs. Great Britain vs France.

As to your point about China (not quoted), there are two Chinas: one is urban and educated and relatively prosperous, then there is the old China, rural, uneducated, poor and easily dominated by Beijing. How long can the new China contine without due process, rule of law, free press and free access to information? They are a great case study in determining the requisite social conditions for a modern high tech society. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany demonstrated the durability of tyranny in an industrial society, but what about a post-industrial high-tech society? How much repression can they endure and still be competitive in the world market?

hm0504

03-20-2005, 08:24 AM

In the era of global reach, eg. since the early 1800s, there has tended to be one great superpower and one or two also-rans. Britain was the undoubted superpower King up until WWII; and though in the nuclear age, the Soviet Union was a dangerous opponent, it could not sustain its might because it was rotten at the core and that rot eventually came to the surface.

The U.S. came in strong after WWII and never had anything close to the internal rot of the U.S.S.R. My concern is that with the fall of the Soviet Union, a belief within the U.S. that it is utterly invincible has grown and that belief may be the U.S.'s own worst enemy.

hm0504

03-20-2005, 08:32 AM

China certainly has a ways to go but one cannot but be amazed at how far and how fast it has come over the past two decades. It is not at all impossible that within 20 years China will overtake the United States in most significant aspects of the world economy.

Trailscout

03-20-2005, 08:47 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
China certainly has a ways to go but one cannot but be amazed at how far and how fast it has come over the past two decades. It is not at all impossible that within 20 years China will overtake the United States in most significant aspects of the world economy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

China's great experiment has been to allow capitalism without political liberty. I would like to see whether that state of affairs can persist another 20 years.

namedun

03-20-2005, 09:03 AM

"You seem to be implying that there can only be one superpower at a time. Nonsense! The USA and the Soviet Union were at rough parity for a long time."

-Propoganda, the USSR was only ever nearly in line with the US perhaps in military, and even then the US had them beat.

As for China, well, I don't really have any evidence, but in all of my education I've been told that China is rising quickly and WILL overtake the US economically.

hm0504

03-20-2005, 09:11 AM

The thing is if (and yes, it is a big IF) present trends continue, China will overtake (in nearly every sense of the word) the U.S. in about 20 years. China has been closing the gap since about the early 1980s but what is more alarming is the short-term-gain approach of the Whitehouse in recent years. (And yes, I understand that there is polarized opinion about President Bush's major policies.)

Trailscout

03-20-2005, 10:54 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
The thing is if (and yes, it is a big IF) present trends continue, China will overtake (in nearly every sense of the word) the U.S. in about 20 years. China has been closing the gap since about the early 1980s but what is more alarming is the short-term-gain approach of the Whitehouse in recent years. (And yes, I understand that there is polarized opinion about President Bush's major policies.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll repeat my question, do you think a centralized command government run by a handful of aging revolutionaries in a society with no freedom of the press or due process can sustain a high tech economy for the next twenty years with no political change?

hm0504

03-20-2005, 11:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
The thing is if (and yes, it is a big IF) present trends continue, China will overtake (in nearly every sense of the word) the U.S. in about 20 years. China has been closing the gap since about the early 1980s but what is more alarming is the short-term-gain approach of the Whitehouse in recent years. (And yes, I understand that there is polarized opinion about President Bush's major policies.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll repeat my question, do you think a centralized command government run by a handful of aging revolutionaries in a society with no freedom of the press or due process can sustain a high tech economy for the next twenty years with no political change? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I think China has been changing and is continuing to change for the better, but it certainly has a ways to go before I'd be comfortable with it being the world's dominant force.

I think your description of China as "a handful of aging revolutionaries in a society with no freedom of the press or due process" is a bit dated. China is not the Marxist, everyone-dresses-the-same, thinks-the-same place it was. The Chinese are an incredibly creative and industrious people and the fact is a little freedom can go a long way for them.

hm0504

03-20-2005, 05:46 PM

The other thing to remember about China is that its population is 4X that of the United States: that mean China only needs to be 1/4 as productive as the USA to match it economically.

KirkOntario

03-20-2005, 05:48 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
The other thing to remember about China is that its population is 4X that of the United States: that mean China only needs to be 1/4 as productive as the USA to match it economically. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually they have to be very productive just to look after their own popluation. The government feels the double digits economic growth is necessary just to deal with the immense population and all the economic disruption of the last 20 years.

Ren

03-20-2005, 05:56 PM

This goes back a couple pages, but let's all remember that it was the US that supplied Saddam with whatever WMD capabilities he had and that the US looked away when he gassed his own people.

So, I think that it takes a whole lot of gall to suddenly claim moral superiority in this issue.

KirkOntario

03-20-2005, 05:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ren:
This goes back a couple pages, but let's all remember that it was the US that supplied Saddam with whatever WMD capabilities he had and that the US looked away when he gassed his own people.

So, I think that it takes a whole lot of gall to suddenly claim moral superiority in this issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong on all counts.

hm0504

03-20-2005, 06:05 PM

Here's an interesting article about what the new Iraq will look like under the Sistani's party's rule:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0209-02.htm

Sorry Iraqi Muslim women, looks like your days of being able to dress Western style are likely over soon:
http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/menu/2/books/1/miscellany.htm#9

BTW, no life drawing or any 3-D drawing will be allowed either!
http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/menu/2/books/1/miscellany.htm#8

For rules about "An artificial female organ when used by some men, they derive some enjoyment from it" check out:
http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/menu/2/books/1/entertainment.htm
BTW, if you are Iraqi female and like to swim, better take advantage of it quickly; males, of course, needn't worry (see above link).

Remember, Sistani is considered a moderate (and I'm not saying he's not for that area) so my concern is also what happens after Sistani, now 75/76 years old, retires or dies.

namedun

03-20-2005, 09:08 PM

Hey, if I'm understanding you correctly, Don't be hypocritical. THEY chose democratically who would be in office and the system says it's the public's fault if they elected someone who's going to repress them.

Qikdraw

03-21-2005, 02:21 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by namedun:
Hey, if I'm understanding you correctly, Don't be hypocritical. THEY chose democratically who would be in office and the system says it's the public's fault if they elected someone who's going to repress them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the Iraqis didn't really know who they were electing to represent them, the people who were running were not made public, nor were their policies or beliefs known.

Besides, Saddam held elections too, he apparently won with 100% of the vote. So according to your example we should not have gone into Iraq to liberate them from someone they voted in right? I mean its all their fault right?

Qikdraw

Qikdraw

03-21-2005, 02:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ren:
This goes back a couple pages, but let's all remember that it was the US that supplied Saddam with whatever WMD capabilities he had and that the US looked away when he gassed his own people.

So, I think that it takes a whole lot of gall to suddenly claim moral superiority in this issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong on all counts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Kirk, but you're wrong on this one. The US was by no means the ONLY nation helping Saddam develop chemical weapons, but the US did help. (britain for sure, and I think France or Germany were helping too. Although with those two I am not 100% on.)

Plus Rumsfeld was over in Iraq to show the US's support of him, just after he gassed people. (There is picture proof of him shaking Saddam's hand at this meeting) The Reagan administration shut down congress from putting in sanctions against Saddam when the gassing was known.

So you're wrong Kirk.

Qikdraw

hm0504

03-21-2005, 07:37 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by namedun:
Hey, if I'm understanding you correctly, Don't be hypocritical. THEY chose democratically who would be in office and the system says it's the public's fault if they elected someone who's going to repress them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the results of the Iraqi elections are a reasonable accurate reflection of the will of the people (other than Sunnis who would have been at much higher risk either during or after the election). The problem is that democracy requires both majority rule AND minority rights to succeed whereas the religious right has no problem using democracy to gain the power to trample minority rights.

As I've said many times, failure to understand and deal with religious obsession at both the personal and societal level remains one of the greatest dangers to a society. And, in today's world of WMDs, to all humanity.

Shoobie

03-21-2005, 10:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
I'm greatly concerned that the ill-conceived tax cut (just ask former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill) and the justification-du-jour war in Iraq might be the start of a major downturn in the influence of the United States (which I think has overall been positive). The thing is that today there is challenger -- China. It is good to see the seeds of democracy beginning to sprout in China but I also see a lot more that needs to happen before I'm comfortable with the U.S. world influence waning too far. I think it might be very hard for the U.S. to recover from certain policies of the last 4 years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should expand your concern far beyond just tax cuts and look at the reckless spending and growth in government we take for granted even when the US is not waging 500 billion dollar tar baby wars.

I see too many people selectively limiting their disgust purely to recent tax cuts when it should be so much more. We relaly need to look in the mirror when China presents a greater entreprenuerial environment to attract free market capital than "free nations" for doing business.

Don't presume its just the cheap labor, either. Certainly that's a factor, but other nations have added so many arbitrary anchors to their own economy's -- e.g. the US we waste billions to comply with an arbitrarily complex tax code that could be greatly simplified (and redirect tens of thousands of folks working in that line of work into more productive for society / wealth creating jobs) saving billions and billions of dollars for better use.

This is a huge problem related directly to the decline of the dollar, which IMO will continue in relation to many currencies apart from just the Euro.

hm0504

04-03-2005, 06:54 PM

Darn U.S. Presidential Commission liberals!, they're still pushing the idea that Iraq wasn't pursuing a WMD program:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
After the intelligence failures in Iraq, Bush appointed the nine-member commission led by Laurence Silberman, a senior federal appellate court judge and a Republican who was in the Nixon and Ford administrations, and former Sen. and Virginia Gov. Chuck Robb, a Democrat.

An October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate warned that Iraq was pursuing weapons of mass destruction, had reconstituted its nuclear weapon program and had biological and chemical weapons.

The Bush administration used those conclusions as part of its argument for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

But the Iraq Survey Group -- set up to look for weapons of mass destruction or evidence of them in the country -- issued a final report saying it saw no weapons or no evidence that Iraq was trying to reconstitute them.

The commission's report said the principal cause of the intelligence failures was the intelligence community's "inability to collect good information about Iraq's WMD programs, serious errors in analyzing what information it could gather and a failure to make clear just how much of its analysis was based on assumptions rather than good evidence."

The report said analysts were "too wedded" to assumptions about Saddam Hussein's intentions.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/31/intel.report/index.html

KirkOntario

04-03-2005, 06:59 PM

What is important is that having heard for 2 years that "Bush lied" we now know he did no such thing. I'm waiting for the lefties to acknowledge that fact and apologize to a man of great integrity but I'm not holding my breath.

jon71

04-03-2005, 10:05 PM

Bush has no morals or integrity. He was told there were no weapons and sent 1500 good Americans (and others) to die to ensure the election didn't focus on the economy. Whenever it is pointed out that Bush lied the right wing has to knee jerk and say so did Clinton. Clinton's lie was embarassing to him and his family but inconsequential to anyone else. As I said Bush's lies sent 1500 and counting people to die for politics. That is treason. For religious reasons I don't believe in the death penalty but it would apply to Bush and his crimes. Personally I would settle for life without parole but that's me.

KirkOntario

04-04-2005, 03:52 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Bush has no morals or integrity. He was told there were no weapons and sent 1500 good Americans (and others) to die to ensure the election didn't focus on the economy. Whenever it is pointed out that Bush lied the right wing has to knee jerk and say so did Clinton. Clinton's lie was embarassing to him and his family but inconsequential to anyone else. As I said Bush's lies sent 1500 and counting people to die for politics. That is treason. For religious reasons I don't believe in the death penalty but it would apply to Bush and his crimes. Personally I would settle for life without parole but that's me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you have not been following the news but there is no evidence of a lie. Bush was told by his intelligence agency that there WERE WMD. See below.

From the Robb-Silberman report:
http://www.wmd.gov/report/report.html#overview

"These are errors—serious errors. But these errors stem from poor tradecraft and poor management. The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments."

hm0504

04-04-2005, 06:48 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
What is important is that having heard for 2 years that "Bush lied" we now know he did no such thing. I'm waiting for the lefties to acknowledge that fact and apologize to a man of great integrity but I'm not holding my breath. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I cannot speak for lefties, but I think you might have to wait awhile for that apology. Given that there were plenty of people, including some ex-CIA and U.S. Marine, UN Chief Weapons Inspector, Scott Ritter who said the Whitehouse WMD stories were hogwash, many lefties (and righties) will have a hard time being convinced the Whitehouse heard only what it wanted to hear.

MJ_KC

04-04-2005, 09:44 AM

KirkOntario

04-04-2005, 03:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Bush has no morals or integrity. He was told there were no weapons and sent 1500 good Americans (and others) to die to ensure the election didn't focus on the economy. Whenever it is pointed out that Bush lied the right wing has to knee jerk and say so did Clinton. Clinton's lie was embarassing to him and his family but inconsequential to anyone else. As I said Bush's lies sent 1500 and counting people to die for politics. That is treason. For religious reasons I don't believe in the death penalty but it would apply to Bush and his crimes. Personally I would settle for life without parole but that's me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is certainly an extreme position to take.

I do not agree that Bush intentionally lied, but was mislead by people who didn't present him with all of the facts available. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep. "Bush lied" is a simplistic conclusion. And this report shows it to be true. Scary that the CIA based so much of its conclusions on one guy --Curveball--who was talking to them in 2000 and onwards--and then not getting corroboration. As I have told many a client lying is a really bad idea. Complex, usually unnecessary and bound to fail. Doesn't really fit with Bush's character either. He's very direct and open.

jon71

04-04-2005, 04:12 PM

I assume Kirk Ontario watches Fox "news" because your claims have nothing to do with reality. The "intelligence community" was being over ridden by neo-cons who made it clear that anyone who told the truth would be fired. The Bush administration went to extreme lenghts to make sure that only the lies were reported. They had plans for war before 9-11 and only used that as an excuse. Face it, he lied. There is a congressman (I'll remember which one later) who has recorded over 300 bald faced lies Bush told about Iraq. That doesn't include lies about the economy, social security, etc. If you are honest and intelligent you have no choice but to admit that Iraq had nothing to do with national security, just politics.

KirkOntario

04-04-2005, 05:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
I assume Kirk Ontario watches Fox "news" because your claims have nothing to do with reality. The "intelligence community" was being over ridden by neo-cons who made it clear that anyone who told the truth would be fired. The Bush administration went to extreme lenghts to make sure that only the lies were reported. They had plans for war before 9-11 and only used that as an excuse. Face it, he lied. There is a congressman (I'll remember which one later) who has recorded over 300 bald faced lies Bush told about Iraq. That doesn't include lies about the economy, social security, etc. If you are honest and intelligent you have no choice but to admit that Iraq had nothing to do with national security, just politics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry but you need to read the report. It was an exhaustive study of the intelligence failings of the CIA and showed the extent to which the CIA provided the administration with bad information. They did not need to lie, they received bad information by the people they relied on to provide it.

Naturist Mark

04-04-2005, 06:57 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Sorry but you need to read the report. It was an exhaustive study of the intelligence failings of the CIA and showed the extent to which the CIA provided the administration with bad information. They did not need to lie, they received bad information by the people they relied on to provide it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is surprising is that a commission hand-picked by Bush with a very limited mandate (designed to produce a whitewash (http://tinyurl.com/54222) ) that excluded permission to do real analysis about the political pressures on intelligence analysis and its uses, still made such a damning report.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">from the AP (http://tinyurl.com/469hb): The report does not accuse the administration of manipulating the intelligence. The commission noted that it wasn't authorized to investigate how policy-makers used this information. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even though the Commission was prohibited from investigating analytical judgements, it did make a spurious claim that politics did not adversely affect intelligence analysis, a claim contradicted by ample public evidence, one example:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Michael Isikoff writes (http://tinyurl.com/4wgk7) in Newsweek, reminding readers of a Feb. 4, 2003, e-mail made public by last year's Senate panel on intelligence in which a senior CIA official sharply rebuked an analyst who had expressed skepticism about the reliability of a key informant.

"Keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say and that the Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about," the CIA official wrote.

So Isikoff asked Silberman why the e-mail wasn't even mentioned in the report, which concluded that "No analytical judgments were changed in response to political pressure."

Writes Isikoff: "'What e-mail are you talking about?' Judge Lawrence Silberman, the chairman, testily responded. . . . 'I'm mystified.' Two hours later, after Newsweek supplied the panel with a copy of the e-mail from the Senate report, a commission spokesman explained that the panel was aware of it but chose not to include it because its contents were already known. But its absence from the report raises questions of whether the Silberman panel may have 'cherry-picked' evidence to exclude anything politically embarrassing to the 'Powers That Be.' Not so, says the White House. A senior official says the report lays to rest any notion that the administration lied or falsified intelligence." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In particular, I'd like to see some analysis about why the pre 9-11 intelligence about Iraq was so correct (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/5170011252/r/1370011252#1370011252) , but that after 9-11 it turned so faulty. How could it be that Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell and others knew that Iraq was defanged and harmless before 9-11 but didn't know it afterwards.

Another big question should be, how can Bush's policy of pre-emtive war be justified in the face of such faulty intelligence. Doesn't such a doctrine require extraordinarily accurate intelligence? And why was former CIA director George Tenent (who told GWB that the intelligence was a 'Slam Dunk') awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom. (http://www.medaloffreedom.com/) a few months ago if he presided over such a monumental intelligence failure?

(Thanks to Al for the correction on the Medal)

-Mark

NudeAl

04-04-2005, 07:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> And why was former CIA director George Tenent (who told GWB that the intelligence was a 'Slam Dunk') awarded a Medal of Honor a few months ago if he presided over such a monumental intelligence failure?

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry this isn't quite true George Tenent was never awarded the Medal of Honor. Maybe he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom or something else but most certainly not the Medal of Honor.

KirkOntario

04-04-2005, 07:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Even though the Commission was prohibited from investigating analytical judgements, it did make a spurious claim that politics did not adversely affect intelligence analysis, a claim contradicted by ample public evidence, one example:

Another big question should be, how can Bush's policy of pre-emtive war be justified in the face of such faulty intelligence. Doesn't such a doctrine require extraordinarily accurate intelligence? And why was former CIA director George Tenent (who told GWB that the intelligence was a 'Slam Dunk') awarded a Medal of Honor a few months ago if he presided over such a monumental intelligence failure?

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

YOu are correct you have to reform the intelligence gathering agencies that let the administration down. What use the administration made of the information given to them was not really relevant to the inquiry. Question was: Was there political pressure. No there was not (your email might show particular agents were negligent about the quality of the evidence but not that they were pressured to come up with particular evidence). Question was What intelligence was received? Anwer: bad intelligence.

KirkOntario

04-04-2005, 07:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Bush has no morals or integrity. He was told there were no weapons and sent 1500 good Americans (and others) to die to ensure the election didn't focus on the economy. Whenever it is pointed out that Bush lied the right wing has to knee jerk and say so did Clinton. Clinton's lie was embarassing to him and his family but inconsequential to anyone else. As I said Bush's lies sent 1500 and counting people to die for politics. That is treason. For religious reasons I don't believe in the death penalty but it would apply to Bush and his crimes. Personally I would settle for life without parole but that's me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very hard to believe anyone would start a war just for politics. An airstrike maybe but not a war. Too much can go wrong in a war and that is apart from the morality of it. As immoral as Clinton was I do not believe he would start a war for pure politcal gain: he might have done the air strike at the height of the Monica Lewinsky thing but that was almost completely risk free.

Naturist Mark

04-04-2005, 07:18 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeAl:
Sorry this isn't quite true George Tenent was never awarded the Medal of Honor. Maybe he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom or something else but most certainly not the Medal of Honor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Al, you are correct. It was the Presidential Medal of Freedom. (http://www.medaloffreedom.com/)

-Mark

KirkOntario

04-04-2005, 07:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeAl:
Sorry this isn't quite true George Tenent was never awarded the Medal of Honor. Maybe he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom or something else but most certainly not the Medal of Honor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Al, you are correct. It was the Presidential Medal of Freedom. (http://www.medaloffreedom.com/)

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It appears he did not deserve that medal. One thing President Bush can be faulted for is his absolute loyalty to his appointees. Says a lot about him but he may be too loyal at times. Clinton on the other hand had no qualms about betraying friends.

Naturist Mark

04-04-2005, 07:39 PM

George Tenent was a Clinton appointee. Go figure.

KirkOntario

04-04-2005, 07:39 PM

MJ_KC

04-04-2005, 07:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
I assume Kirk Ontario watches Fox "news" because your claims have nothing to do with reality. The "intelligence community" was being over ridden by neo-cons who made it clear that anyone who told the truth would be fired. The Bush administration went to extreme lenghts to make sure that only the lies were reported. They had plans for war before 9-11 and only used that as an excuse. Face it, he lied. There is a congressman (I'll remember which one later) who has recorded over 300 bald faced lies Bush told about Iraq. That doesn't include lies about the economy, social security, etc. If you are honest and intelligent you have no choice but to admit that Iraq had nothing to do with national security, just politics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I consider myself to be both honest and intelligent. I just disagree with your unproductive bashing of our President when he is doing his best to handle a very difficult situation. I do not agree with the assessment that Bush has deliberately lied to the American people.

Qikdraw

04-05-2005, 03:03 AM

Kirk

Have you ever read the letter to Clinton (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm) written in 1998, urging him to attack Iraq? (adobe acrobat link)

Note the names at the bottom are the same names that were pushing this administration, and were in the positions to do so, to attack Iraq.

Have you also read "Rebuilding America's Defences" (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)? It was written in 2000. (adobe acrobat link)

It calls for an increased presence in the middle east. Even if that means leaving Saddam in power. Actually the exact phrase is: Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. (page 14 of the report)

Kirk, I'm curious. You love Bush so much, why don't you come down here and live under his policies? Why not join the American military and support his policies in Iraq? I'm sure the military would love to have you, I hear they are having problems getting recruits for some reason.

You know what this administration has done that is morally corrupt? They spent less on the 9-11 commision, than was spent on harrasing Clinton over a blowjob. The greatest tragedy to hit the US in 50 years, and they didn't seem to care for an answer enough to put a bunch of money into it. In fact they first rejected the idea for a commision. They also hindered it as much as they could. That is morally treasonable to the American people.

Qikdraw

KirkOntario

04-05-2005, 04:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
Kirk

Have you ever read the letter to Clinton (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm) written in 1998, urging him to attack Iraq? (adobe acrobat link)

Note the names at the bottom are the same names that were pushing this administration, and were in the positions to do so, to attack Iraq.

Have you also read "Rebuilding America's Defences" (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)? It was written in 2000. (adobe acrobat link)

It calls for an increased presence in the middle east. Even if that means leaving Saddam in power. Actually the exact phrase is: Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. (page 14 of the report)

Kirk, I'm curious. You love Bush so much, why don't you come down here and live under his policies? Why not join the American military and support his policies in Iraq? I'm sure the military would love to have you, I hear they are having problems getting recruits for some reason.

You know what this administration has done that is morally corrupt? They spent less on the 9-11 commision, than was spent on harrasing Clinton over a blowjob. The greatest tragedy to hit the US in 50 years, and they didn't seem to care for an answer enough to put a bunch of money into it. In fact they first rejected the idea for a commision. They also hindered it as much as they could. That is morally treasonable to the American people.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the link. You are getting into conspiracy theories there. WMD was one of many reasons to resume the conflict with Iraq which became especially important post 9/11. The focus of recent threads has been to rebut the allegation that Bush lied which we have heard for 2 years and which is refuted by this report. In the lead up to the war other reasons were given and despite the lack of WMD the removal of Saddam and the vote in January may have resulted in an "Arab Spring" that may have far reaching historical effects.

As for your invitation for me to move to the US, I thank you heartily but I wonder. I also admired the Pope, do I have to take up residence in the Vatican City and train as a Swiss Guard?

Naturist Mark

04-05-2005, 05:16 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Thanks for the link. You are getting into conspiracy theories there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To dismiss a conspiracy as a 'conspiracy theory' doesn't really negate its malevolence. Project for the New American Century (http://tinyurl.com/4ytxd)

-Mark

Naturist Mark

04-05-2005, 05:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
I do not agree with the assessment that Bush has deliberately lied to the American people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So is it more like Tourette's syndrome - he just can't help himself? Hmmm ... (http://tinyurl.com/3nc45)

-Mark

MJ_KC

04-05-2005, 09:38 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
I do not agree with the assessment that Bush has deliberately lied to the American people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So is it more like Tourette's syndrome - he just can't help himself? Hmmm ... (http://tinyurl.com/3nc45)

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope. My personal opinion is that he based his decisions on the information he had available at the time. No lying or conspiracy involved.

hm0504

04-05-2005, 10:06 AM

I don't tend to think of the Bush administration as lying but more that they have an entrenched ideological view of the world that overrides little things like facts. For example, the massive tax cut of the first term was justified on the basis that the short-term payable amount of the federal debt was only 500B, not 1200B which was the accepted figure at the U.S. Treasury. Where did the Whitehouse get 500B from? A junior accountant who made a clerical error going over data. Even though Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill called the Whitehouse about the error before the Whitehouse published its plan, the Whitehouse would not change the payable debt number in its policy. Why? In my opinion, because the Whitehouse saw the tax cut as a part of a "greater reality" than some debt figures from a whiny Secretary of Treasury.

Unfortunately, many of us mortals cannot comprehend that higher, greater truth on which the Whitehouse bases its decisions.

hm0504

04-05-2005, 11:52 AM

Personally, I have no problem with George Tenet getting an award: the CIA was told to come up with evidence that Iraq had WMD and they came up with dog-and-pony show that gave the Whitehouse the story it wanted while also indicating to most of the rest of the world that the CIA was basically bending over for their political masters.

The question now is whether the forthcoming national intelligence organization be more or less able to give their true voice to issues.

Qikdraw

04-05-2005, 12:43 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Thanks for the link. You are getting into conspiracy theories there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Watergate, Iran/Contra, Gulf of Tonkin, USS Liberty.

All government coverups. Conspiricies if you will... And you'll note that the Gulf of Tonkin was used as an excuse to get the US into a war.

It DOES happen.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for your invitation for me to move to the US, I thank you heartily but I wonder. I also admired the Pope, do I have to take up residence in the Vatican City and train as a Swiss Guard? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you are not adamantly defending the Pope or his policies. Also the Pope's policies really don't effect you, unless you wish it, While Bush's policies effect me, even if I don't wish it. His policies also effect millions of other people around the world. But I invite you to come down here to the US. You're enjoying many freedoms up there in Canada I don't have down here. You're just an observer with no connection to Bush, you need to try living under his policies, and then make your decisions.

Qikdraw

jon71

04-05-2005, 07:10 PM

Bush had "bad intelligence" because he, Chency, and the neocons worked over time to suppress or discredit anything remotely honest and latch on to any lie they could find that supported their preset aganda. People soon learned that if you lied for Bush you would advance if you tried to tell the truth that wmds did not exist you were ignored or worse. The neocons deliberately created the bad intelligence that they later claim to be "victims" of. The claim in the state of the union about uranium from Africa is a prime example. Bush knew in advance that the document was a forgery, but it was a forgery that advanced his agenda so he used and hoped no one would notice.

KirkOntario

04-05-2005, 07:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
[

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for your invitation for me to move to the US, I thank you heartily but I wonder. I also admired the Pope, do I have to take up residence in the Vatican City and train as a Swiss Guard? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you are not adamantly defending the Pope or his policies. Also the Pope's policies really don't effect you, unless you wish it, While Bush's policies effect me, even if I don't wish it. His policies also effect millions of other people around the world. But I invite you to come down here to the US. You're enjoying many freedoms up there in Canada I don't have down here. You're just an observer with no connection to Bush, you need to try living under his policies, and then make your decisions.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lower taxes. Republican government. Great weather. I might just do that.

KirkOntario

04-05-2005, 07:22 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Personally, I have no problem with George Tenet getting an award: the CIA was told to come up with evidence that Iraq had WMD and they came up with dog-and-pony show that gave the Whitehouse the story it wanted while also indicating to most of the rest of the world that the CIA was basically bending over for their political masters.

The question now is whether the forthcoming national intelligence organization be more or less able to give their true voice to issues. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's an interesting idea but you have to prove that careerist CIA employees would come up with bad evidence. And why were they coming up with bad evidence during the Clinton years also? If you read the report they were no more reliable during those years than under Bush. Administrations come and go; in a 30 year career in the CIA you just do you job. These conspiratorial allegations are interesting and conspiracy theories are compelling but they seldom have basis in fact. Problem is the people who hold these beliefs can't drop them even when the evidence suggests otherwise.