Iraq Crisis
- Thread starter johnstone1985
- Start date
bradleeM...
yeah, when i go home and look across the river to nyc, i want to cry; and sometimes do. so i can get emotional about this also.
but the point is there is no clear and convincing evidence that saddam and iraq are linked to the 9/11 attack. to my knowledge, it was planned and executed by a few faithful in al queda. i think the question becomes does the destruction of bin laden et al. become sidetracked and energized by our unprovoked attack on iraq? i think it does. people who return from the middle east and southeast asia will tell you that america is hated...no big deal, we have been hated for decades for our power and perceived arrogance. however now, i am told that the hate has spread to individuals traveling and living abroad. in the past, they told american travelers, "we love your people BUT do not approve of your government." if you need more than antedotal evidence, check out the information for travelers and those living abroad on the u.s. state department web site...the warning is very clear.
the war against bin laden meets the criteria of a just war as set forth by st augustine in the 4th or 5th century. in essence, a defensive war is justified. a week or so ago, the pope pointed this out to the world and to the bush administration (if anyone was listening). undertaking preemptive strikes without compelling evidence does not.
seriously, what is the compelling evidence? the bush administration keeps assuring us there is...but has not or cannot satisfy the congress or a large segment of the american people, so the silent mantra is "trust me" as if the american people have no reason to distrust government. i seem to remember distrust of government is a recurring republican/bush theme.
to win the war on terrorism [ala bin laden], the u.s. needs the full support of our allies in europe, asia, and africa. if an iraqi war causes regime change in egypt, saudi arabia, yemen, etc., i think the world becomes much more dangerous. success thus far, in the war on terrorism, is in part due to european intelligence and intelligence from friendly regimes in africa and asia. let's not destroy this cooperation on an ill-advised war; one that has neither world support nor even the over-whelming support of the american people...in fact the polls indicate a majority have major reservations.
jay
yeah, when i go home and look across the river to nyc, i want to cry; and sometimes do. so i can get emotional about this also.
but the point is there is no clear and convincing evidence that saddam and iraq are linked to the 9/11 attack. to my knowledge, it was planned and executed by a few faithful in al queda. i think the question becomes does the destruction of bin laden et al. become sidetracked and energized by our unprovoked attack on iraq? i think it does. people who return from the middle east and southeast asia will tell you that america is hated...no big deal, we have been hated for decades for our power and perceived arrogance. however now, i am told that the hate has spread to individuals traveling and living abroad. in the past, they told american travelers, "we love your people BUT do not approve of your government." if you need more than antedotal evidence, check out the information for travelers and those living abroad on the u.s. state department web site...the warning is very clear.
the war against bin laden meets the criteria of a just war as set forth by st augustine in the 4th or 5th century. in essence, a defensive war is justified. a week or so ago, the pope pointed this out to the world and to the bush administration (if anyone was listening). undertaking preemptive strikes without compelling evidence does not.
seriously, what is the compelling evidence? the bush administration keeps assuring us there is...but has not or cannot satisfy the congress or a large segment of the american people, so the silent mantra is "trust me" as if the american people have no reason to distrust government. i seem to remember distrust of government is a recurring republican/bush theme.
to win the war on terrorism [ala bin laden], the u.s. needs the full support of our allies in europe, asia, and africa. if an iraqi war causes regime change in egypt, saudi arabia, yemen, etc., i think the world becomes much more dangerous. success thus far, in the war on terrorism, is in part due to european intelligence and intelligence from friendly regimes in africa and asia. let's not destroy this cooperation on an ill-advised war; one that has neither world support nor even the over-whelming support of the american people...in fact the polls indicate a majority have major reservations.
jay
Let's go BEYOND all these appearances...
There is a certain interest for a war to start.
There is a certain interest that this war embraces a religious shape.
Cui prodest ? To whom the use ?
Oil ? Damn this f**king product ! There are technologies that make oil compeletely useless (electromagnetic energy, the tahions, the photo-voltaic [sp ?] cells). If the West changes fuel and a part of its needs, Middle East will be nothing but a bunch of sand. [Yes, I'm a bloody imperialist.] It's just about the will.
A war will always be a valid excuse for a huge change.
The much desired New World Order is, by any chance, on its way ?... !
There is a certain interest for a war to start.
There is a certain interest that this war embraces a religious shape.
Cui prodest ? To whom the use ?
Oil ? Damn this f**king product ! There are technologies that make oil compeletely useless (electromagnetic energy, the tahions, the photo-voltaic [sp ?] cells). If the West changes fuel and a part of its needs, Middle East will be nothing but a bunch of sand. [Yes, I'm a bloody imperialist.] It's just about the will.
A war will always be a valid excuse for a huge change.
The much desired New World Order is, by any chance, on its way ?... !
hung: I do not have a video of the World Trade Center towers falling. I can still see them and the dust and destruction that resulted in the deaths of so many. I have recall of the WTC basement garage bombings. I have stood at attention on too many ships as the passed the Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor. I have read history and just last year watched "Band of Brothers" the HBO special which was in part filmed on the "Saving Private Ryan" site. I am a proud veteran with years of experience standing tall to defend our very nation. Throughout history we have witnessed via our reading and history lessons that no civilization survived much more than 200 years. Why did they fall? The became fat, dumb and happy with their lifestyle and were led to believe that they could not defend themselves.
We here in the United States of America are now on our 226 years since 1776. We must remain ready to defend ourselves.
If we do not stand tall now and defend our country against terrorist we will be slapping the faces of those who have defended us ever since the Revoluntionary War, even the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam and then in the Gulf War. While we do not need to honor these veterans, we need to remember what they fought for. I believe Iraq is in partnership with the terrorist. I believe we need to stand tall at this time. I believe that Prime Minister Blair and our President know the real facts and are leading us to do what is only right and proper.
I do wish the United Nations was a real organization dedicated to promoting world peace; however it appears that although we fund a great portion of the U.N. we are seen as a willing target. I can still the twin towers falling as I enter this post. We need to realize that terrorist are still planning more attacks on America and also all freedom loving people everywhere.
I abhor War. I realize this is a long post; but I had to enter my thoughts. As General Douglas MacArthur stated in 1962 (I believe), of all professions: "The Soldier prays for Peace."
Yet, sad to say, what about WWII and what Hitler did to millions of innocent people? In our world today we have far too many people who want to be Politically Correct. I simply say to them: "If you stand up for nothing, what do you stand up for." We need to recall the sacrifices our forebears made to make our very lives possible. I say this to all the citizens in this World. Appreciate what your forebears did so that you may enjoy your current life. Did they give up on their responsibilities? I know they did not!! Thoughout history people have done what they thought was proper and correct. Yes, I defended the right to allow everyone to speak their peace. Yet I remain committed to working to achieve peace in our world. Yet I also know that as long as this world is allowed to exist there will be strife. Yes, this is all part of History. Thanks.
We here in the United States of America are now on our 226 years since 1776. We must remain ready to defend ourselves.
If we do not stand tall now and defend our country against terrorist we will be slapping the faces of those who have defended us ever since the Revoluntionary War, even the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam and then in the Gulf War. While we do not need to honor these veterans, we need to remember what they fought for. I believe Iraq is in partnership with the terrorist. I believe we need to stand tall at this time. I believe that Prime Minister Blair and our President know the real facts and are leading us to do what is only right and proper.
I do wish the United Nations was a real organization dedicated to promoting world peace; however it appears that although we fund a great portion of the U.N. we are seen as a willing target. I can still the twin towers falling as I enter this post. We need to realize that terrorist are still planning more attacks on America and also all freedom loving people everywhere.
I abhor War. I realize this is a long post; but I had to enter my thoughts. As General Douglas MacArthur stated in 1962 (I believe), of all professions: "The Soldier prays for Peace."
Yet, sad to say, what about WWII and what Hitler did to millions of innocent people? In our world today we have far too many people who want to be Politically Correct. I simply say to them: "If you stand up for nothing, what do you stand up for." We need to recall the sacrifices our forebears made to make our very lives possible. I say this to all the citizens in this World. Appreciate what your forebears did so that you may enjoy your current life. Did they give up on their responsibilities? I know they did not!! Thoughout history people have done what they thought was proper and correct. Yes, I defended the right to allow everyone to speak their peace. Yet I remain committed to working to achieve peace in our world. Yet I also know that as long as this world is allowed to exist there will be strife. Yes, this is all part of History. Thanks.
BIGBOYDAVE: Here is an Artical I red recently Taken from the UN REFORMER Here is a link also http://www.cunr.org/Newsletter/newsletter.html
Comments please Have To post it in sections as it is a bit long sorry about this but seems verry appropriate at this time
Mr. Bush, The Answer Is In Your Hands
Nothing can distort the true picture of conditions and events in this world more than to regard one’s own country as the center of the universe, and to view all things solely in their relationship with this fixed point. Emery Reves
On September 12th, President Bush asked, “Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?”
In the wake of World War II we created the United Nations in part to ensure that weapons of mass destruction would never be used. We established this organization after having learned a hard lesson in two successive world wars – that national ambitions must be contained and responded to by a collective will, or men, women, and children everywhere will suffer the consequences.
Although the United Nations is a flawed organization – confined by its charter, subject to the whims of its Member States, and chronically under-funded – it has so far fulfilled its most basic mandate of preventing World War III. Its member-states have preferred mutual survival to mutual self-destruction. Today however, two evils threaten to destroy this thin shield of self-interest.
In Iraq we face a brutal dictator, with a proven record of using chemical weapons, who has flouted on numerous occasions the collective will of the Security Council. Hussein could ignite the Middle East tinderbox -- engulfing the region, perhaps the entire world, in a horrific war.
In the United States we face a President eager to take on the threat posed by Iraq. He has obtained Congressional authorization to unilaterally attack it, even if it destroys the very institution that our parents and grandparents created to contain such ambitions. This should not be allowed to happen.
See pt 2
Comments please Have To post it in sections as it is a bit long sorry about this but seems verry appropriate at this time
Mr. Bush, The Answer Is In Your Hands
Nothing can distort the true picture of conditions and events in this world more than to regard one’s own country as the center of the universe, and to view all things solely in their relationship with this fixed point. Emery Reves
On September 12th, President Bush asked, “Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?”
In the wake of World War II we created the United Nations in part to ensure that weapons of mass destruction would never be used. We established this organization after having learned a hard lesson in two successive world wars – that national ambitions must be contained and responded to by a collective will, or men, women, and children everywhere will suffer the consequences.
Although the United Nations is a flawed organization – confined by its charter, subject to the whims of its Member States, and chronically under-funded – it has so far fulfilled its most basic mandate of preventing World War III. Its member-states have preferred mutual survival to mutual self-destruction. Today however, two evils threaten to destroy this thin shield of self-interest.
In Iraq we face a brutal dictator, with a proven record of using chemical weapons, who has flouted on numerous occasions the collective will of the Security Council. Hussein could ignite the Middle East tinderbox -- engulfing the region, perhaps the entire world, in a horrific war.
In the United States we face a President eager to take on the threat posed by Iraq. He has obtained Congressional authorization to unilaterally attack it, even if it destroys the very institution that our parents and grandparents created to contain such ambitions. This should not be allowed to happen.
See pt 2
BIGBOYDAVE: Pt 2
To be clear, the evils of George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein are not in the same league. Bush threatens to act unilaterally if the United Nations won’t enforce its own resolutions. Hussein invades Kuwait. Bush, in his new National Security Strategy, purports to seek a “balance of power that favors human freedom: conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for themselves the rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty.” Hussein gasses Kurds.
But what makes the two leaders equally problematic is that they both rely on national interest and national sovereignty to legitimize their use of military might and coercive force to achieve their aims. Both threaten to act outside of international law, thereby decreasing human security while increasing the potential of global warfare. This is where the United States and Iraq should part company. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration’s new preemptive policy of acting against “emerging threats before they are fully formed” undermines the basic principles of the United Nations and collective security.
Although President Bush should be commended for his recent push to pay U.S. arrears to the U.N. and rejoin UNESCO, the majority of his foreign policy decisions have been completely unilateral. Under his leadership, the U.S. has not complied with the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, withdrawn from the ABM treaty, scuttled efforts to create verification protocols for the Biological Weapons Convention and Torture Convention, imposed limits on the Chemical Weapons Convention, walked away from the Kyoto Climate Change treaty, and unsigned the International Criminal Court treaty. His administration’s underlying distrust of treaties and multilateral organizations like the U.N. has soured relations with the European Union and other allies.
However, this downhill course could easily be corrected by a “Nixon goes to China” change of heart. If one ignores the reactionary isolationist paranoia of some core Republican Party activists, there are legitimate reasons to distrust the current international system. Too often the Security Council proffers toothless resolutions weakened by competing national interests. Too many nations comply with their treaty obligations only when convenient or when forced to. International action is applied unevenly, too often driven by the media rather than by principles.
Unfortunately the U.S. reaction to these problems is to walk away from negotiations, weaken enforcement regimes, or attempt to carve out exemptions. A more constructive approach would be for a leader like President Bush to shed the light of day on systemic problems and resolve to establish an international system that works.
The United State’s push for assertive United Nations inspections in Iraq is useful. But consider the positive impact U.S. efforts would have if President Bush simultaneously supported a robust U.N. role in Kashmir, Sudan, Colombia, Israel/Palestine, and other hot spots. What if he declared that violence is not a legitimate means of settling political disputes and backed it up with resources? How about if he declared that the overwhelming economic and military power of the United States is going to be used to build a "democratic world order" based not only on the enforcement of law but also on allowing the whole world to participate in making the law? Many would call it an unrealistic dream, but imagine a well-funded United Nations, with U.N. police backing up weapons inspectors. What about a universally accepted International Criminal Court and a Security Council with a reformed veto that did not water down most of its resolutions?
These and other reforms could be instituted if the United States made a conscious decision to:
1) Actuate U.S. rhetoric and work to establish genuine democratic governments in every nation. This is a prerequisite for an empowered international governance system to have a legitimate mandate.
2) Advocate a system of enforceable international laws, with appropriate checks and balances that work for everyone – with no U.S. exemptions.
3) Put our money where our mouth is and invest the hundreds of billions of dollars we are willing to spend on military campaigns on international development.
Is this a dream? There once was a wise old woman who knew the answer to everything. Seeking to fool her, a young man approached her holding a tiny bird cupped in his hands and asked, “Is this bird alive or dead?” The old woman knew that if she said “alive”, the young man would crush the bird and kill it, and if she said “dead”, then the bird would be released to fly away. She pondered for a moment and then simply said, “The answer in is your hands.”
President Bush, will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant? The answer is in your hands.
To be clear, the evils of George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein are not in the same league. Bush threatens to act unilaterally if the United Nations won’t enforce its own resolutions. Hussein invades Kuwait. Bush, in his new National Security Strategy, purports to seek a “balance of power that favors human freedom: conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for themselves the rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty.” Hussein gasses Kurds.
But what makes the two leaders equally problematic is that they both rely on national interest and national sovereignty to legitimize their use of military might and coercive force to achieve their aims. Both threaten to act outside of international law, thereby decreasing human security while increasing the potential of global warfare. This is where the United States and Iraq should part company. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration’s new preemptive policy of acting against “emerging threats before they are fully formed” undermines the basic principles of the United Nations and collective security.
Although President Bush should be commended for his recent push to pay U.S. arrears to the U.N. and rejoin UNESCO, the majority of his foreign policy decisions have been completely unilateral. Under his leadership, the U.S. has not complied with the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, withdrawn from the ABM treaty, scuttled efforts to create verification protocols for the Biological Weapons Convention and Torture Convention, imposed limits on the Chemical Weapons Convention, walked away from the Kyoto Climate Change treaty, and unsigned the International Criminal Court treaty. His administration’s underlying distrust of treaties and multilateral organizations like the U.N. has soured relations with the European Union and other allies.
However, this downhill course could easily be corrected by a “Nixon goes to China” change of heart. If one ignores the reactionary isolationist paranoia of some core Republican Party activists, there are legitimate reasons to distrust the current international system. Too often the Security Council proffers toothless resolutions weakened by competing national interests. Too many nations comply with their treaty obligations only when convenient or when forced to. International action is applied unevenly, too often driven by the media rather than by principles.
Unfortunately the U.S. reaction to these problems is to walk away from negotiations, weaken enforcement regimes, or attempt to carve out exemptions. A more constructive approach would be for a leader like President Bush to shed the light of day on systemic problems and resolve to establish an international system that works.
The United State’s push for assertive United Nations inspections in Iraq is useful. But consider the positive impact U.S. efforts would have if President Bush simultaneously supported a robust U.N. role in Kashmir, Sudan, Colombia, Israel/Palestine, and other hot spots. What if he declared that violence is not a legitimate means of settling political disputes and backed it up with resources? How about if he declared that the overwhelming economic and military power of the United States is going to be used to build a "democratic world order" based not only on the enforcement of law but also on allowing the whole world to participate in making the law? Many would call it an unrealistic dream, but imagine a well-funded United Nations, with U.N. police backing up weapons inspectors. What about a universally accepted International Criminal Court and a Security Council with a reformed veto that did not water down most of its resolutions?
These and other reforms could be instituted if the United States made a conscious decision to:
1) Actuate U.S. rhetoric and work to establish genuine democratic governments in every nation. This is a prerequisite for an empowered international governance system to have a legitimate mandate.
2) Advocate a system of enforceable international laws, with appropriate checks and balances that work for everyone – with no U.S. exemptions.
3) Put our money where our mouth is and invest the hundreds of billions of dollars we are willing to spend on military campaigns on international development.
Is this a dream? There once was a wise old woman who knew the answer to everything. Seeking to fool her, a young man approached her holding a tiny bird cupped in his hands and asked, “Is this bird alive or dead?” The old woman knew that if she said “alive”, the young man would crush the bird and kill it, and if she said “dead”, then the bird would be released to fly away. She pondered for a moment and then simply said, “The answer in is your hands.”
President Bush, will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant? The answer is in your hands.
pokjbv: If you ask me all the men/women in the UN suffer from small penis syndrome! LOL
The UN was a noble idea put into practice, but it never fulfilled the potential it was meant to have. It is a diversion from the real issue, those that will not be governed by the UN like the collective Islam, will not be constrained, and we are not going to be hogtied by the UN either. Where was the UN when the Towers fell? East 48th street, arguing over the admission of Syria to the security council. What a joke! What was the UN's response to the terror? Nothing tangible for sure. What of the bombing of the towers the first time, or the Cole in Aden? Or, the marine barracks in Lebanon, our embassy in Kenya? I am fed up and the list grows.
It was the American goal to remove Hussein in 1991 but our allies constrained us. Now we are back to finish the job, we all knew the day would come. How specific does the link between Iraq and 911 have to be? Al Queda and Iraq are not the enemy, it is the philosophy that allows Al Queda to exist that is the problem. It is the Mullahs spewing hatred and sponsoring terror camps. And, throwing money at the world's problems will not help, there is not that much money on the planet.
I remember the burning of the Kuwaiti oil fields. And the gassing of the Kurds. The protracted and pointless war with Iran, and the mistreatment of Iranian POW's. What more justification is required.
We are damned if we do, and damned if we do not in this issue, might as well be damned AND take out a villian. The USA has always inherited colonial messes from imperialist powers, like French Indo-China, how dare the French chastise us when they are as good at fucking things up as anyone. Like their track record in Algeria, soon to be a fundimentalist haven in a civil war. Or, the UK and their mess in Ireland, and the Falkland War.
We will be hated for not stepping in to stop atrocities such as the slaughter in Rawanda, and we are villified for stepping in as cultural imperialists as in Somalia when we do act. No win. How about Venezuela spiraling down into civil war, shall we act to stop it, or will it be harshly viewed as a grab for oil? What about Columbia, in civil war for a decade now? We have been asked to intervene in the Ivory Coast to prevent civil war, shall we go? The Muslim warlords have triggered famine and prevented relief aid from reaching the Horn of Africa, now 40,000,000 face starvation, why don't we help them? Why did we not force an end to apartheid in South Africa? When our government sponsored a coup in Chile to prevent civil war between the left and the right we were berated. What of Pakistan and India sitting on a powder keg with the fuse lit. It is just a matter of time before that one blows. Why does the UN not stop it?
OK, we cannot be everywhere, and should not be anyway, but when they bring death and terror to our shores they will justifiably die for it, no matter where they hide out and in this case it really is a matter of you are either a friend or you are an enemy.
War IS hell, too bad we were dragged into one on 911. It has been a war in slow motion so far, but it must be fought. I will not accept a world in which seemingly random acts of violence and terror are inflicted globally becuase of a few psycho Koran thumpers that want to please allah! Religion is on the way out and this is the death rattle, the rally at the end for it. I hope anyway!
The UN was a noble idea put into practice, but it never fulfilled the potential it was meant to have. It is a diversion from the real issue, those that will not be governed by the UN like the collective Islam, will not be constrained, and we are not going to be hogtied by the UN either. Where was the UN when the Towers fell? East 48th street, arguing over the admission of Syria to the security council. What a joke! What was the UN's response to the terror? Nothing tangible for sure. What of the bombing of the towers the first time, or the Cole in Aden? Or, the marine barracks in Lebanon, our embassy in Kenya? I am fed up and the list grows.
It was the American goal to remove Hussein in 1991 but our allies constrained us. Now we are back to finish the job, we all knew the day would come. How specific does the link between Iraq and 911 have to be? Al Queda and Iraq are not the enemy, it is the philosophy that allows Al Queda to exist that is the problem. It is the Mullahs spewing hatred and sponsoring terror camps. And, throwing money at the world's problems will not help, there is not that much money on the planet.
I remember the burning of the Kuwaiti oil fields. And the gassing of the Kurds. The protracted and pointless war with Iran, and the mistreatment of Iranian POW's. What more justification is required.
We are damned if we do, and damned if we do not in this issue, might as well be damned AND take out a villian. The USA has always inherited colonial messes from imperialist powers, like French Indo-China, how dare the French chastise us when they are as good at fucking things up as anyone. Like their track record in Algeria, soon to be a fundimentalist haven in a civil war. Or, the UK and their mess in Ireland, and the Falkland War.
We will be hated for not stepping in to stop atrocities such as the slaughter in Rawanda, and we are villified for stepping in as cultural imperialists as in Somalia when we do act. No win. How about Venezuela spiraling down into civil war, shall we act to stop it, or will it be harshly viewed as a grab for oil? What about Columbia, in civil war for a decade now? We have been asked to intervene in the Ivory Coast to prevent civil war, shall we go? The Muslim warlords have triggered famine and prevented relief aid from reaching the Horn of Africa, now 40,000,000 face starvation, why don't we help them? Why did we not force an end to apartheid in South Africa? When our government sponsored a coup in Chile to prevent civil war between the left and the right we were berated. What of Pakistan and India sitting on a powder keg with the fuse lit. It is just a matter of time before that one blows. Why does the UN not stop it?
OK, we cannot be everywhere, and should not be anyway, but when they bring death and terror to our shores they will justifiably die for it, no matter where they hide out and in this case it really is a matter of you are either a friend or you are an enemy.
War IS hell, too bad we were dragged into one on 911. It has been a war in slow motion so far, but it must be fought. I will not accept a world in which seemingly random acts of violence and terror are inflicted globally becuase of a few psycho Koran thumpers that want to please allah! Religion is on the way out and this is the death rattle, the rally at the end for it. I hope anyway!
i am not sure that denigrating another's religion adds much to a discussion of should we make war on iraq; it seems much like ridiculing someone for having a small penis. about the latter, i have never seen anyone be so gross.
i tend to think there is no one size fits all in religion...so there are many paths to god.
jay
i tend to think there is no one size fits all in religion...so there are many paths to god.
jay
Pokjbv wrote:
You're somehow close enough, but... grossly wrong. The USA DID NOT inherit colonial messes from anyone, neither France, nor UK. USA imagined, since 1920s, that they are the messengers of new politics: the one of Morality. See W. Wilson, 1919. By virtue of this idea, USA involved in every corner of the planet, doubling its actions with the principle of USSR containement after 1945. Nobody expressly asked US to involve, Pokjbv. Neither in Coreea, nor in Vietnam, Latin America in the 70s, Afghanistan (1979-1989)
or Grenada in 1983, etc. It just pursued its own interests, on the corpses of the European colonial empires.
What you are in fact trying to say is that USA would like to cope better with a European-shaped world, whose principles are quite different from US political wishes. European-shaped means in my text (besides culturally shaped) the European heritage left on the other continents in political terms.
This would be it...
You're somehow close enough, but... grossly wrong. The USA DID NOT inherit colonial messes from anyone, neither France, nor UK. USA imagined, since 1920s, that they are the messengers of new politics: the one of Morality. See W. Wilson, 1919. By virtue of this idea, USA involved in every corner of the planet, doubling its actions with the principle of USSR containement after 1945. Nobody expressly asked US to involve, Pokjbv. Neither in Coreea, nor in Vietnam, Latin America in the 70s, Afghanistan (1979-1989)
or Grenada in 1983, etc. It just pursued its own interests, on the corpses of the European colonial empires.
What you are in fact trying to say is that USA would like to cope better with a European-shaped world, whose principles are quite different from US political wishes. European-shaped means in my text (besides culturally shaped) the European heritage left on the other continents in political terms.
This would be it...
BIGBOYDAVE: Quote
i am not sure that denigrating another's religion adds much to a discussion of should we make war on iraq; it seems much like ridiculing someone for having a small penis. about the latter, i have never seen anyone be so gross.
i tend to think there is no one size fits all in religion...so there are many paths to god.
jay
I'm With U Jay
Religion and politics don't mix and usually end up being the chief reason behind most wars when we start the blame game on Religious groups
It achieves nothing and shows exactly where the other is coming from in there bias
i am not sure that denigrating another's religion adds much to a discussion of should we make war on iraq; it seems much like ridiculing someone for having a small penis. about the latter, i have never seen anyone be so gross.
i tend to think there is no one size fits all in religion...so there are many paths to god.
jay
I'm With U Jay
Religion and politics don't mix and usually end up being the chief reason behind most wars when we start the blame game on Religious groups
It achieves nothing and shows exactly where the other is coming from in there bias
BIGBOYDAVE: pokjbv
I am sorry u are hurt and can understand your pain I too lost friends on 911 but I do not seek Revenge I offer forgiveness.
I do however want to see justice done to those responsible
But not at the cost of World Peace and the loss of many many more Thousands of lives and the destruction of complete Cities and not just a few buildings.
I cried when I saw what was happening on Sept. 11 . In our revenge do we have to bring much more of the same suffering to others Here and in distant lands . When will our need for revenge be satisfied .
How many more innocent people will have to suffer till we say Ok Its enough.
I am sorry u are hurt and can understand your pain I too lost friends on 911 but I do not seek Revenge I offer forgiveness.
I do however want to see justice done to those responsible
But not at the cost of World Peace and the loss of many many more Thousands of lives and the destruction of complete Cities and not just a few buildings.
I cried when I saw what was happening on Sept. 11 . In our revenge do we have to bring much more of the same suffering to others Here and in distant lands . When will our need for revenge be satisfied .
How many more innocent people will have to suffer till we say Ok Its enough.
bradleeM: Jay-Too
BigBoyDave
7 X 6 and Change
Thanks to all for your comments. But none of you have addressed my questions. You all seem to have a lot of anger toward Bush, for being the current President (regardless of how or why he is there; the fact is he is the President whether anyone likes it or not); the issue is what would any of you done if you were in his shoes from 9/11 on.
You do not express what your reaction would be if the terrorists had attacked the countries I mentioned. You saw how Russia reacted to the Chechnya take-over of the Opera House. What would they have done if bin laden and his group had done in the Kremlin? You and I both know what would have happened.
As a citizen of this country your government does not owe you or anyone else an explanation for its actions to defend this country's interests. Under the constitution you have rights to try to get that information and the right to have any grievances addressed; except when this country is at war. If you do not like how your government behaves, on the next election cycle you can vote for those who are close to your ideals.
The duty of any government is to protect itself against all of its perceived enemies. We owe no allegiance to the United Nations or to the opinions of other citizens around the world, when our country has been attacked.
When something goes wrong to those people and the UN, who in the hell do they all come crying to first? All of you know the answer to that. They sure do not go to the countries I mentioned in my previous letter.
A country like ours does not and should not handle problems like terrorism and threats from countries like Iraq and North Korea , by using "sunday-school tactics".
The record is clear..............since 1984, Islamic Terrorists have been attacking this country around the globe, and since no serious response from this country occurred , they boldly attacked on 9/11 and tried to attack 27 other locations that day. Now that this country has a President who has said "enough is enough".......the world apologists have come out of the woodwork. Whether anyone understands or believes this, Terrorism is the greatest threat to Western Civilization in history. Think about the implication of that statement.
Are you really ready to put your trust in the Hussein and Bin Ladens of the world instead of your own flesh and blood? Get real!
Nostradamus made a prediction about this period that he called the 27 year war of Islam against Christianity. There would be 3 Anti-Christs during this period. Hussein, Bin-Laden, and a leader from Morocco, began their current careers in 1979. All 3 would be defeated, but not before they caused the destruction of Rome, Istanbul, New York City and one other city, by nuclear weapons. Bin Laden and Hussein will unite the arab peoples by this act........they will destroy the moslem holy site in Jerusalem, where Mohammed arose to heaven, and make it seem that the act was done by Israel. That is the one thing that will unite the arabs in a holy war on the west . Israel will be destroyed in the process. It will all be over by 2006. Watch for NYC to be destroyed in 2004.
Iraq and Turkey are the keys. Bin Laden will take over Turkey before this year is out. If the USA waits for the UN to act, all of this will take place. If we take action before hand, it will be avoided.
A Nation, just like an individual, has to take care of itself first before it can provide help to anyone else.
This nation has the evidence on Iraq. Would you have wanted Hitler stopped before he killed 12 million people in the gas ovens if you had known his intentions?
Know your enemies and their intentions and you will survive.........ignore them, trust in their sanity, and public opinion, and you will not.
The choice is yours for now...............but soon it will be out of everyone's hands and in the hands of the Islamic terrorists.
BigBoyDave
7 X 6 and Change
Thanks to all for your comments. But none of you have addressed my questions. You all seem to have a lot of anger toward Bush, for being the current President (regardless of how or why he is there; the fact is he is the President whether anyone likes it or not); the issue is what would any of you done if you were in his shoes from 9/11 on.
You do not express what your reaction would be if the terrorists had attacked the countries I mentioned. You saw how Russia reacted to the Chechnya take-over of the Opera House. What would they have done if bin laden and his group had done in the Kremlin? You and I both know what would have happened.
As a citizen of this country your government does not owe you or anyone else an explanation for its actions to defend this country's interests. Under the constitution you have rights to try to get that information and the right to have any grievances addressed; except when this country is at war. If you do not like how your government behaves, on the next election cycle you can vote for those who are close to your ideals.
The duty of any government is to protect itself against all of its perceived enemies. We owe no allegiance to the United Nations or to the opinions of other citizens around the world, when our country has been attacked.
When something goes wrong to those people and the UN, who in the hell do they all come crying to first? All of you know the answer to that. They sure do not go to the countries I mentioned in my previous letter.
A country like ours does not and should not handle problems like terrorism and threats from countries like Iraq and North Korea , by using "sunday-school tactics".
The record is clear..............since 1984, Islamic Terrorists have been attacking this country around the globe, and since no serious response from this country occurred , they boldly attacked on 9/11 and tried to attack 27 other locations that day. Now that this country has a President who has said "enough is enough".......the world apologists have come out of the woodwork. Whether anyone understands or believes this, Terrorism is the greatest threat to Western Civilization in history. Think about the implication of that statement.
Are you really ready to put your trust in the Hussein and Bin Ladens of the world instead of your own flesh and blood? Get real!
Nostradamus made a prediction about this period that he called the 27 year war of Islam against Christianity. There would be 3 Anti-Christs during this period. Hussein, Bin-Laden, and a leader from Morocco, began their current careers in 1979. All 3 would be defeated, but not before they caused the destruction of Rome, Istanbul, New York City and one other city, by nuclear weapons. Bin Laden and Hussein will unite the arab peoples by this act........they will destroy the moslem holy site in Jerusalem, where Mohammed arose to heaven, and make it seem that the act was done by Israel. That is the one thing that will unite the arabs in a holy war on the west . Israel will be destroyed in the process. It will all be over by 2006. Watch for NYC to be destroyed in 2004.
Iraq and Turkey are the keys. Bin Laden will take over Turkey before this year is out. If the USA waits for the UN to act, all of this will take place. If we take action before hand, it will be avoided.
A Nation, just like an individual, has to take care of itself first before it can provide help to anyone else.
This nation has the evidence on Iraq. Would you have wanted Hitler stopped before he killed 12 million people in the gas ovens if you had known his intentions?
Know your enemies and their intentions and you will survive.........ignore them, trust in their sanity, and public opinion, and you will not.
The choice is yours for now...............but soon it will be out of everyone's hands and in the hands of the Islamic terrorists.
7x6andchg: Bradlee-
You are correct in that I am not a fan of Bush..I didn't vote for him in 2000, and I won't vote for him in 2004. That is, as you note, my right, as an American.
However - I respectfully disagree with your contention that the country does not have to explain itself to its citizens. We certainly have to do the opposite - and often. If I was, let us say, to not pay my taxes this year, stating that I, as a citizen of the United States, did not want my taxes to go for a fight that I see no reason to fight, you had best believe that the IRS is going to want a little more of an explanation than that. I think we all know that the IRS really tends not to take "no" for an answer.
I don't necessarily doubt that what you say will happen might very well happen. However, within the bounds of what is classified information, I think we, hoi polloi, deserve at least a little more explanation of what our tax dollars and our soldiers are going over there for. If intelligence shows that what you say is going to happen is going to happen, then, can't we at least get a snippet, a sound bite? Perhaps this is what Secretary Powell will say tomorrow?
I think that President Bush would find it more politically advantageous to ensure that his citizens are behind him as well (except for the die-hard peace mongers, who never will be).
I firmly believe that one of our largest problems (and now I am expecting a firestorm from this) is that our borders are too open. For many many years, the US has thought that because we had an ocean to the West and an ocean to the East, and Canada to our North, and Mexico to our South (both friends of ours), that we would never ever have to worry about this. We need to tighten our borders in the same way that many other countries of the world have. INS is flooded with far too much to do, as is Customs. We need to stop letting people in and out as easily as we do, and we need to seriously look at closing the borders until INS can come up with a system that allows us to ensure that those who enter our country do not have any means to bring us ill will.
Again - just my 2 cents - what a lively discussion - I'm sure Johnstone never meant for it to get this heated - or perhaps he did?
Paul
7x6&c
You are correct in that I am not a fan of Bush..I didn't vote for him in 2000, and I won't vote for him in 2004. That is, as you note, my right, as an American.
However - I respectfully disagree with your contention that the country does not have to explain itself to its citizens. We certainly have to do the opposite - and often. If I was, let us say, to not pay my taxes this year, stating that I, as a citizen of the United States, did not want my taxes to go for a fight that I see no reason to fight, you had best believe that the IRS is going to want a little more of an explanation than that. I think we all know that the IRS really tends not to take "no" for an answer.
I don't necessarily doubt that what you say will happen might very well happen. However, within the bounds of what is classified information, I think we, hoi polloi, deserve at least a little more explanation of what our tax dollars and our soldiers are going over there for. If intelligence shows that what you say is going to happen is going to happen, then, can't we at least get a snippet, a sound bite? Perhaps this is what Secretary Powell will say tomorrow?
I think that President Bush would find it more politically advantageous to ensure that his citizens are behind him as well (except for the die-hard peace mongers, who never will be).
I firmly believe that one of our largest problems (and now I am expecting a firestorm from this) is that our borders are too open. For many many years, the US has thought that because we had an ocean to the West and an ocean to the East, and Canada to our North, and Mexico to our South (both friends of ours), that we would never ever have to worry about this. We need to tighten our borders in the same way that many other countries of the world have. INS is flooded with far too much to do, as is Customs. We need to stop letting people in and out as easily as we do, and we need to seriously look at closing the borders until INS can come up with a system that allows us to ensure that those who enter our country do not have any means to bring us ill will.
Again - just my 2 cents - what a lively discussion - I'm sure Johnstone never meant for it to get this heated - or perhaps he did?
Paul
7x6&c
pokjbv: We did indeed inherit colonial messes, when we got the Phillippine Islands in the Spanish American War, ditto Cuba. We did grant independance to these nations, and look where they are as compared to Puerto Rico which has long had the option of leaving the commonwealth status it seems to enjoy! The Monroe Doctrine was for a very large part of our history the guiding principal; we stay out of foreign intrigue, and others stay out of the America's entirely. That did not stop us from confronting immediate threats in foreign affairs when needed ie. the Barbary Piracy. History is FULL of mistakes and some blatant abuses, but like Perry forcing Japan to trade with us, only history can judge whether it is for the best or not.
For those of you that think I denegrate a person or an entire religion, to be more acurate I denegrate ALL religion that is orthadox and dogmatic! Why, because they ALL have the capability of being bloody and and of denying what is before their very eyes. I was raised Catholic and see that it is almost the bloodiest of them all. But, even Catholic dogma has reluctantly accepted that the world is not flat, they no longer burn people at the stake. Religion and rational thought are opposite ends of the same spectrum. Islam shows no sign of reaching for it's potential beauty and only intentionally ignorant people will believe it can. How many stories must be read about the inflexibility of that system before it is judged to be toxic?
Fifteen schoolgirls parish, burned alive in a school fire because the police will not permit them egress from the burning building....the girls were improperly attired for the street. Homosexuals are to be taken to the highest point and cast down, this is routinely done in Tehran. A 15 year old boy in Iran is executed for "excessive consumption of alcohol" last week in Tabriz.
The UN has potential. It is yet to be realized. The USA has a fabulous constitution, only rarely does it meet all of it's potential. What do all belief systems have in common, they are flawed and inflexible. Islam is a FLAWED system of belief that is incompatible with western civilization, and Islam has declared war on us. Plain and simple. Some will deny it, but I saw those damned planes go over my house in New York and I know better. In a secular world, there is no room for ANY fanaticism. You write the manual about how to tell a terrorist that wants to kill us from a devout Muslim that wants only to worship at his alter! Good luck at it too. Me, I am picking up a gun like the Taliban man and defending my home.
I reiterate; we are damned if we do and damned if we don't...err on the side of caution. No more terrorists and no more American death from them! Let Islam clean it's own house if it can, but my wager is it will not.
For those of you that think I denegrate a person or an entire religion, to be more acurate I denegrate ALL religion that is orthadox and dogmatic! Why, because they ALL have the capability of being bloody and and of denying what is before their very eyes. I was raised Catholic and see that it is almost the bloodiest of them all. But, even Catholic dogma has reluctantly accepted that the world is not flat, they no longer burn people at the stake. Religion and rational thought are opposite ends of the same spectrum. Islam shows no sign of reaching for it's potential beauty and only intentionally ignorant people will believe it can. How many stories must be read about the inflexibility of that system before it is judged to be toxic?
Fifteen schoolgirls parish, burned alive in a school fire because the police will not permit them egress from the burning building....the girls were improperly attired for the street. Homosexuals are to be taken to the highest point and cast down, this is routinely done in Tehran. A 15 year old boy in Iran is executed for "excessive consumption of alcohol" last week in Tabriz.
The UN has potential. It is yet to be realized. The USA has a fabulous constitution, only rarely does it meet all of it's potential. What do all belief systems have in common, they are flawed and inflexible. Islam is a FLAWED system of belief that is incompatible with western civilization, and Islam has declared war on us. Plain and simple. Some will deny it, but I saw those damned planes go over my house in New York and I know better. In a secular world, there is no room for ANY fanaticism. You write the manual about how to tell a terrorist that wants to kill us from a devout Muslim that wants only to worship at his alter! Good luck at it too. Me, I am picking up a gun like the Taliban man and defending my home.
I reiterate; we are damned if we do and damned if we don't...err on the side of caution. No more terrorists and no more American death from them! Let Islam clean it's own house if it can, but my wager is it will not.
bradleeM
i thought you were asking a rhetorical question about responses by china, russia, germany, and france to a terrorist attack. i certainly do not know, and i am certain that no one does. this is an imponderable question.
i can only address a couple of parameters. for varied reasons, their response would have been more muted.
russia lacks the economic strength and the morale of russia's armed services is poor due to the inability to pay soldiers. moreover, they do not have the sophisticated weapons and intelligence systems we have and they have had a veeeeery bad experience in afghanistan a couple of decades ago so they would be reluctant to go back.
i do not think china has the infastructure to wage a war so far from home, and there are sensitivities with pakistan over borders that might make taking action in afghanistan difficult.
like china i think germany and france would lack the infastructure to undertake an invasion of afghanistan. i think there are constitutional problems with germany related to external actions.
thank you for your civics lesson, but i would like to point out that you are WRONG. inherent in the american experience is the concept that government is accountable to the people. public rage over vietnam caused johnson to decide that it was better to try to end the war than to run for reelection; public rage resulted in goldwater going to nixon to say the public and the congress wanted him out; public rage over lying crippled the clinton presidency.
at the risk of being tacky
i would like to point out that obtaining information from the feds is under the freedom of information act and not specifically a constitutional guarantee.
nostradamos? you are sure about the dates? if you really believe in him, then there is no recourse...goodbye, nyc. but then your promise that if we act now, nyc will survive. brad, it is time for a reality check...or at least the logic.
about george bush? i don't remember venting about him except to say he had not presented irrefutable evidence of the al queda link or the danger to the u.s.
in fact until 9/11, i was trying to make dubya one of the most quoted presidents in history...you have gotta admit all the bushisms are hilarious. since then, i have tried not to shake my head because i fear he really is in over his head.
you do make the good point that i should try to elect a better president....so i guess, i will look the democratic nation committee up on the web and send a contribution. i will act on your suggestion, thanks.
jay
i thought you were asking a rhetorical question about responses by china, russia, germany, and france to a terrorist attack. i certainly do not know, and i am certain that no one does. this is an imponderable question.
i can only address a couple of parameters. for varied reasons, their response would have been more muted.
russia lacks the economic strength and the morale of russia's armed services is poor due to the inability to pay soldiers. moreover, they do not have the sophisticated weapons and intelligence systems we have and they have had a veeeeery bad experience in afghanistan a couple of decades ago so they would be reluctant to go back.
i do not think china has the infastructure to wage a war so far from home, and there are sensitivities with pakistan over borders that might make taking action in afghanistan difficult.
like china i think germany and france would lack the infastructure to undertake an invasion of afghanistan. i think there are constitutional problems with germany related to external actions.
thank you for your civics lesson, but i would like to point out that you are WRONG. inherent in the american experience is the concept that government is accountable to the people. public rage over vietnam caused johnson to decide that it was better to try to end the war than to run for reelection; public rage resulted in goldwater going to nixon to say the public and the congress wanted him out; public rage over lying crippled the clinton presidency.
at the risk of being tacky
i would like to point out that obtaining information from the feds is under the freedom of information act and not specifically a constitutional guarantee.nostradamos? you are sure about the dates? if you really believe in him, then there is no recourse...goodbye, nyc. but then your promise that if we act now, nyc will survive. brad, it is time for a reality check...or at least the logic.
about george bush? i don't remember venting about him except to say he had not presented irrefutable evidence of the al queda link or the danger to the u.s.
in fact until 9/11, i was trying to make dubya one of the most quoted presidents in history...you have gotta admit all the bushisms are hilarious. since then, i have tried not to shake my head because i fear he really is in over his head.
you do make the good point that i should try to elect a better president....so i guess, i will look the democratic nation committee up on the web and send a contribution. i will act on your suggestion, thanks.
jay
pokjbv
historians today write that the spanish-american war was the result of a couple of things. first, the contest between hearst and pulitzer to sell newspapers (hence, the incendiary articles on supposed spanish atrocities in cuba) and the belief of both along with that of many leaders in the us that to fulfill our manifest destiny we had to have fueling stations around the world. hey, spain is a cripple; let's take the remnants of her empire.
the spark that ignited the war? in the past couple of years research on artifacts from the ship indicate that it was not a bomb that blew up the maine in havana harbor but most likely spontaneous combustion. at any rate, the explosion was from the inside out. so america got its great little war....and took some possessions.
jay
historians today write that the spanish-american war was the result of a couple of things. first, the contest between hearst and pulitzer to sell newspapers (hence, the incendiary articles on supposed spanish atrocities in cuba) and the belief of both along with that of many leaders in the us that to fulfill our manifest destiny we had to have fueling stations around the world. hey, spain is a cripple; let's take the remnants of her empire.
the spark that ignited the war? in the past couple of years research on artifacts from the ship indicate that it was not a bomb that blew up the maine in havana harbor but most likely spontaneous combustion. at any rate, the explosion was from the inside out. so america got its great little war....and took some possessions.
jay
bradleeM: Thanks guys for your comments and opinions. I appreciate reading them all.
My point about the govt 's first responsibility still holds true........it must defend the homeland at all costs if it is doing what I am paying it to do, with my taxes. Afterwards, if I do not like their explanation for their actions, I vote against them, pure and simple. I do not want a damn debate every time it feels it needs to act to protect us. I trust my govt that much, regardless who the political leaders are. I do not want them coming to me to get my approval before they act.
That is what elections are for...........the elected are there to do a job, do it and if it is done right they will be re-elected, they fuck up, they will be out of office.
The whole point is this about the times we live in.......it is truly a global village........ and an individual is now capable of doing serious harm to a country all by themselves. It is a whole new world and 9/11 woke a lot of people up , but, sadly it looks as though there will need to be a few more 9/11s to wake up others before it is too late. I just hope that my family, friends, etc., are out of harms way when they happen.
I still trust my country before I trust a church or anyone outside this country where my freedom is concerned. Good or bad, Bush is the man that has to make the decisions and I am glad he is in there, all the other available ones are pussies in my book, and this is no time for pussies to lead the greatest nation on the planet.
My point about the govt 's first responsibility still holds true........it must defend the homeland at all costs if it is doing what I am paying it to do, with my taxes. Afterwards, if I do not like their explanation for their actions, I vote against them, pure and simple. I do not want a damn debate every time it feels it needs to act to protect us. I trust my govt that much, regardless who the political leaders are. I do not want them coming to me to get my approval before they act.
That is what elections are for...........the elected are there to do a job, do it and if it is done right they will be re-elected, they fuck up, they will be out of office.
The whole point is this about the times we live in.......it is truly a global village........ and an individual is now capable of doing serious harm to a country all by themselves. It is a whole new world and 9/11 woke a lot of people up , but, sadly it looks as though there will need to be a few more 9/11s to wake up others before it is too late. I just hope that my family, friends, etc., are out of harms way when they happen.
I still trust my country before I trust a church or anyone outside this country where my freedom is concerned. Good or bad, Bush is the man that has to make the decisions and I am glad he is in there, all the other available ones are pussies in my book, and this is no time for pussies to lead the greatest nation on the planet.
- jonb,
@Ralexx:
There's also what the US did to become 50 states. The ink hadn't yet dried on the Treaty of Paris before they were violating Indian treaties.
@pokjbv:
Iraq's constitution is officially secular. The Taliban's already been taken out, even though the US put them in power.
@bradleeM;
"This nation has the evidence on Iraq. Would you have wanted Hitler stopped before he killed 12 million people in the gas ovens if you had known his intentions?"
Okay, everyone: Godwin's Law! Thread's over! LOL
Seriously, an American accusing anyone of genocide is hilarious; this country only stopped forcibly sterilizing Indian women in the last decade. And guess where all the nuclear-waste dumps are? Yucca Mountain's on Shoshone land. Another 1/3 of the US's nuclear waste's on Navajo land. I'm sure you can guess where the remaining nuclear waste is. And then there's the Oliphant decision; did you know that non-Indians on reservations have carte blanche immunity? States can't enforce laws on reservations, and tribes can't prosecute non-Indians. It's made worse because in a lot of central states, it's a rite of passage for white boys to rape pre-teen Indian girls.
None of this is apologism for any of the dictators which the US put in power, but physician, heal thyself.
There's also what the US did to become 50 states. The ink hadn't yet dried on the Treaty of Paris before they were violating Indian treaties.
@pokjbv:
Iraq's constitution is officially secular. The Taliban's already been taken out, even though the US put them in power.
@bradleeM;
"This nation has the evidence on Iraq. Would you have wanted Hitler stopped before he killed 12 million people in the gas ovens if you had known his intentions?"
Okay, everyone: Godwin's Law! Thread's over! LOL
Seriously, an American accusing anyone of genocide is hilarious; this country only stopped forcibly sterilizing Indian women in the last decade. And guess where all the nuclear-waste dumps are? Yucca Mountain's on Shoshone land. Another 1/3 of the US's nuclear waste's on Navajo land. I'm sure you can guess where the remaining nuclear waste is. And then there's the Oliphant decision; did you know that non-Indians on reservations have carte blanche immunity? States can't enforce laws on reservations, and tribes can't prosecute non-Indians. It's made worse because in a lot of central states, it's a rite of passage for white boys to rape pre-teen Indian girls.
None of this is apologism for any of the dictators which the US put in power, but physician, heal thyself.
pokjbv: My 10 month old neice is a member of the Yurok Tribe in California! She has more money and status than the rest of the family combined because of casinos and she can't even walk.
Spanish American war a rivalry between newspapers? Horse shit! Rivalry existed but was not the cause of the war.
I saw those planes over my house in New York, I do not need the French, the UN or you to tell me we are at war and all holds are legal.
This thread is not over! I have much more to say about it! I have a big cock and I don't want it shot off, but I will risk it if it means Maura can grow up in a place that means something good and consistant! As I said I am a disabled veteran, you that ridicule my reasoning can walk a mile in my shoes. JohnB....The Taliban has been taken out? Since when my dear? We just had the worst firefight of the war two days ago. And a lull in the battle does not mean the enemy is defeated. As I said they just go underground. One pissed off Muslim can get on the metro in Huntington Station and drop a vile at Pentagon Station ten minutes later. You tell me which one is a terrorist and which one is a loyal citizen. Sounds like the interrment camps of WWII yes? Yes, it does, but Japanese appearing people in the 1940's did not have the capability of wiping out a whole city with a pocket full of viles of disease, and nuclear weapons were not yet invented, no less a suitcase bomb. Do you know that I could make a dirty bomb with $1,200 and a stick of TNT? Easy, just buy a bunch of smoke detectors and tape the power reserves to the dynamite. The smoke detectors have cesium 37 (note the instructions inside detectors that tell you not to dispose of them in landfills) in them and the TNT spreads it around. Now if I wanted to be a terrorist how would you spot me?
The Visigoths and the Vandals destroyed the greatest empire in history with raids on Rome from fast horses' backs. They terrorized the population and the legions could not respond.
I have often thought after seeing documentary footage of WWII if I could kill a little baby Hitler in his crib. Weird right? If you could go back and strangle a little baby in a crib knowing that he would otherwise survive to bring death to so many. What a mind bender that one is, even if you think you could go back and do it, what about the consequences of not doing it? You would be an evil murderer. But, you would save a billion lives in the process ( Billion = 120 million that died as a result of the war times the offspring they would have had.) We can know the past, and it is as dead as the people that used to work in the World Trade Center. We can know part of the present, though only a small fraction of it. But, we cannot know any of the future, and we have to guess about it. My guess is that extreme people will only be daunted by extreme measures now. And some are sick, unaware of the world around them. They will be stopped by nothing. They are manufactured by the thousands in Islamic hate schools. Deny that fact!
Spanish American war a rivalry between newspapers? Horse shit! Rivalry existed but was not the cause of the war.
I saw those planes over my house in New York, I do not need the French, the UN or you to tell me we are at war and all holds are legal.
This thread is not over! I have much more to say about it! I have a big cock and I don't want it shot off, but I will risk it if it means Maura can grow up in a place that means something good and consistant! As I said I am a disabled veteran, you that ridicule my reasoning can walk a mile in my shoes. JohnB....The Taliban has been taken out? Since when my dear? We just had the worst firefight of the war two days ago. And a lull in the battle does not mean the enemy is defeated. As I said they just go underground. One pissed off Muslim can get on the metro in Huntington Station and drop a vile at Pentagon Station ten minutes later. You tell me which one is a terrorist and which one is a loyal citizen. Sounds like the interrment camps of WWII yes? Yes, it does, but Japanese appearing people in the 1940's did not have the capability of wiping out a whole city with a pocket full of viles of disease, and nuclear weapons were not yet invented, no less a suitcase bomb. Do you know that I could make a dirty bomb with $1,200 and a stick of TNT? Easy, just buy a bunch of smoke detectors and tape the power reserves to the dynamite. The smoke detectors have cesium 37 (note the instructions inside detectors that tell you not to dispose of them in landfills) in them and the TNT spreads it around. Now if I wanted to be a terrorist how would you spot me?
The Visigoths and the Vandals destroyed the greatest empire in history with raids on Rome from fast horses' backs. They terrorized the population and the legions could not respond.
I have often thought after seeing documentary footage of WWII if I could kill a little baby Hitler in his crib. Weird right? If you could go back and strangle a little baby in a crib knowing that he would otherwise survive to bring death to so many. What a mind bender that one is, even if you think you could go back and do it, what about the consequences of not doing it? You would be an evil murderer. But, you would save a billion lives in the process ( Billion = 120 million that died as a result of the war times the offspring they would have had.) We can know the past, and it is as dead as the people that used to work in the World Trade Center. We can know part of the present, though only a small fraction of it. But, we cannot know any of the future, and we have to guess about it. My guess is that extreme people will only be daunted by extreme measures now. And some are sick, unaware of the world around them. They will be stopped by nothing. They are manufactured by the thousands in Islamic hate schools. Deny that fact!
Similar threads
