OMG.... a real Conservative from the GOP 4 prez!

Funny, Pat Buchanan is sticking up for Ron Paul.

Pat Buchanan writes an OP ED about Guilliani and Ron Paul

BTW Wild, in case you havent been paying to much attention lately:

Iraq was indeed based on lies. I said it years ago (on this forum even!) and unfortunatly, I was right. Not one pre-war justification has held up. No WMD, no AL-Quaeda in Iraq (pre war), nothing, nadda. The Al-Queda thing was cooked up 100% by Doug Feith at odds with the CIA assessments.

You do know that congress had all the same intel reports that bush had. Both dem and rep had access to it and they still voted for it.

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H7777&dbname=2002_record

I am a newb with computers I havent figure out how to put in links so I will cut and paste

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu

It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world's cause."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on commencement of military strikes against Iraq
March 20, 2003
http://kerry.senate.gov/high/record.cfm?id=191582

Senator John Edwards, when asked about "Axis of Evil" countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea:

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition"
February 24, 2002
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Congressman Gephardt links Saddam with the threat of terrorists nuking US cities:

BOB SCHIEFFER, Chief Washington Correspondent:

And with us now is the Democratic presidential candidate Dick Gephardt. Congressman, you supported taking military action in Iraq. Do you think now it was the right thing to do?

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, D-MO, Democratic Presidential Candidate:

I do. I base my determination on what I heard from the CIA. I went out there a couple of times and talked to everybody, including George Tenet. I talked to people in the Clinton administration.

SCHIEFFER:

Well, let me just ask you, do you feel, Congressman, that you were misled?

GEPHARDT:

I don't. I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening. And it was on that basis that I voted to do this.

Congressman Richard Gephardt (Democrat, Montana)
Interviewed on CBS News "Face the Nation"
November 2, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/03/ftn/printable581509.shtml

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/

The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix

I can go on and on and on with this shit. Bush must be the smartest motherfucker in the world to influence all these people some even before he was President.

To bad alot of it is way out of context, or, propogated by self-serving politicians who were bowing to the wave of current public opion- which at the time was heavily influenced by post-911 PftNAC propoganda machine.

At the time many of those politicians were spewing some of that crap, the Dixie chicks of all people were being assailed as un-american, and going against the grain was considered by most a sure-fire career death sentance. The pre-Bush statements were used as justification for continuing embargoes, which suited the then-President just fine and are unrelated to the calls for war.

It is that very fact combined with the obvious media puppeteering that made the reg flags go up in the first place for me.

You say you can go on? If youd like I start picking apart each reference one by one, but since I wouldnt be quoting any sites with pre-canned servings of rebuttal I'll see how you respond before investing the time and effort, because frankly, I am reasonably sure you realize I am 100% correct without me having to do so.

You won't bait me into the Iraq War debate Derid! That horse is about as dead as can be. You will continue to believe your side, and I will believe mine; we might as well be debating Creationism. (The facts, or lack thereof, are equally debatable on both sides at this time, so let us return to Mr. Paul.)

I'll definitely read up more on Paul, but so far I'm not seeing any Republican candidates, who actually have a chance in hell, that I would vote for.

Apart from that I'm just looking forward to playing Eve again, where I can imagine that I'm pod'ing liberals and fundamentalists.

The point is that Ron Paul did in fact buck the trend, put his career on the line and voted against the war and against the Act. He saw BS, he called BS, and now he's running for Prez.

During the General Election, I can see the merit or sometimes picking a lesser of Evils, but during the Primaries, I say support good principles.

Just because Rupert Murdoch can arrange for an a specific audience responce during a debate on his network, doesnt mean Ron Paul stands no chance. True, he has a hard row to hoe, but things worth doing usually arent easy.

My objection to Ron Paul is that he is a kook, a conspiracy theorist, and a 9-11 'truther' who thinks that somehow the Bush Administration was behind 9-11, or at least knew about it and did nothing.

For some examples, go here, here, or here, or here.

The guy is a loon.

We can pick apart each other all day. My point was that everyone (well almost everyone) knew or thought they knew he had wmd's. They were going by intel reports that all were privy to. Its like with the firing of the federal laywers Clinton fired all of them Bush fires 5 and Bush is a bad guy. Its all in who is reporting it. There is a liberal media domination and they would go after Bush for anything that would make him look bad but never good. Like how his ranch uses 75% less electricity then others his size due to when he built it he put in eco system. But in the media he is blasted as a crazy polluter.

And being a different president does not mean you have to do what the previous president did. They all have there ways of take care of the problem. One may bomb asprin factorys and kill a janitor. Another may start a war to try and take care of the problem.

...meanwhile, people have fallen for the bi-polar trap and are bickering over who's side is better and yada yada rather than taking a step back out of the steaming pile of bullshit.

Seriously, guys...

I hate them all I dont have a side to defend.

I forget what the temp of burning jet fuel is, but it's a good bit more then what's required for heated steal to lose 50% of it's strength.

I think Bush is evil...
I think the media is evil..
Hum...Hilary Clinton is probably evil..Although it would be fun to see what a madam president can do not because shes a woman but because shes a woman. (<--not sarcasm, merely pulled it out of its sterotypical shell.)
I think Dick Chaney is evil...
I think the entire Bush Administration is not evil...but some of them are...
9/11 was probably something conjured not with the Bush Administration but with people intrested in using the Bush Administration as a scapegoat.
I don't think we went into Iraq for oil, because gas prices are still 3.4, atleast here anyway.
I think that with all thats been going on in the last couple of years out of all of the candidates for president atleast one of them has set principles uncorrupted by the media, washington, etc etc. I would hope theres alteast one preson within those candidates that wants to change how things have been going for America for the better. Whatever better they decide is most relative to them still a better.
Because even if we say that this side did this and this side did that or what they didn't do. It hasn't been a great couple of years.
I think we should pull out of the Middle East and whereever else soldiers are waiting to come home.
I think we should focus on America here first because its not all that great for us to have the levergity to go out and try to help other countries when we ourselves are deterierating. And we are. Slowly ever so slowly.
I think that many of the things that happen in washington and most of the things said by Bush are things used to create theater for America. Its a failsafe. Bush is probably a smart man otherwise he wouldn't have pretended so vigorously to laugh at Steven Colbert's comments about him at that party thingy they had a few years ago and then a few days later give another one of his famous speeches.

I like politics but I don't care too much about my opnions about them because they are just relative to where I live and what I see etc etc. So I don't think they can provide and analysis of integerity for the way America works today, because they are just way to injustifiable. Circumstances are different for everyone. I think we need a president that is willing to hear the people and take all that and make an average of assumptions and from there make his decisions, but thats what weve always needed , right? Shrug, saw the politics discussion couldnt resist. lol

Bush is evil? Cheney is evil? Based on what?

If you like playing video games of Teen rating up to Mature or better, Don't vote for Hilary Clinton. She's the Anti-Gamer from hell. Voting for her is voting to stop one of your favorite hobbies.

Ive presented tons of evidence over the years on why B n C are evil, or at least spread and commit great evil. Some people will never believe it simply because they dont want to believe it however. But there is nothing good about statism, no good has ever come from it in any society, nor has any good ever come from surveillance societies. That much is plain and clear, and just because Bush and Chen might not think of themselves as evil is irrelevant. Evil is as Evil does, not as Evil says, basically.

As far as the 9/11 stuff goes, I think there is a "relativly decent chance" that there was... a LOT going on regarding that, that isnt yet accepted in popular culture.

That doesnt necesarrily mean I buy into one particular theory 100%, but regardless of who,why, and who knew- I am almost 100% certain that there is alot more to it than accepted.

Or in other words, there is enough evidence out there to state with almost total certainty that the whole story wasnt told, and that many things were misreported- but not enough to lay blame on any particular party or buy into one particular "conspiracy theory".

BTW Zone - Hillary eats from the exact same trough as Bush does, basically all the evil bastages of our society (Axciom, Seisint, etc) give plenty of money and favors to both. The only real difference between them, is Hillary adds more socialism to the statist mentality but is currently vocally supporting different foreign policy objectives. If anything Hillary is even scarier than GWBush.

Julio said: "Frankly anyone who blames 9-11 on the U.S. is a cook and should outright be brought up on charges of treason"

- Now thats just damn scary Julio. Seriously.

Imprisoning and harassing those who take positions against the state sanctioned view of thinking is something the Nazis and Communists are infamous world-over for. It saddens me that so many US citizens are now looking to them as role models.

Next thing you know the same media owners who have agendas like Murdoch will start forcing entertainers who speak ut against the war rationale off the air and sponsor smear campaings, and the government will start infiltrating and monitoring normal US political groups, and we will be forced into "free speech zones" during political events to make things more rosy looking for those in power.

Oops, my bad.... that was 5 years ago now.

If anyone is serriously considering Hillary as a viable option for president, I suggest you do a search on a Florida attourney named Jack Thompson, Hillary is backing his 'holy war'. He is dead set in his mind that ALL video games are evil and train those who use them to become merciless killers. I'm all for a female president, I just don't want anything to do with any caddidate male or female that wants to target my video games.

Also, while yes we should focus more on American problems, the UN should have done what we did in Iraq years ago. It's sad that the US is the only country that stood up and actualy had the balls to say 'enough is enough, this villian has to be brought to justice.' We should support our troops and be proud that they are there fighting for what we beleive in. They are there, because they are in the millitary. It's a life they chose to go into. I think it's horrible how civilian people want to do the same thing now they did in Vietnam and not support our troops. Every time someone says we need to leave Iraq, we're insulting our millitary personal who are risking their lives to try and bring some stability to a land that's been chaotic far too long. Not to mention if we were to just up and leave now, the new Iraq government would prolly collapse with out our help and the neighboring countries would carve it up for themselves.

Quote:

If anyone is serriously considering Hillary as a viable option for president, I suggest you do a search on a Florida attourney named Jack Thompson, Hillary is backing his 'holy war'. He is dead set in his mind that ALL video games are evil and train those who use them to become merciless killers. I'm all for a female president, I just don't want anything to do with any caddidate male or female that wants to target my video games.

Couldnt agree more with that.

Quote:

Also, while yes we should focus more on American problems, the UN should have done what we did in Iraq years ago. It's sad that the US is the only country that stood up and actualy had the balls to say 'enough is enough, this villian has to be brought to justice.'

Uhhmmm. ....... I thought it was about WMD, posing a threat
to american interests, and involvement with 9/11. Well, that was the rationales at the time. Only now do people say "bring a villian to justice". W T F?

So your saying hundreds of billions, 3500 US soldiers lives, 10's of thousands of amputations, and several HUNDRED
THOUSAND Iraqis dead since the "war" was worth it, simply cause Saddam was a bad guy? I'm sure the scores of Iraqis found dead every week may beg to differ with you, despite the fact that not many of them liked Saddam.

Quote:

We should support our troops and be proud that they are there fighting for what we beleive in. They are there, because they are in the millitary.

Who is the "we" in the "fighting for what we beleive in"? Personally I think supporting the troops often means bringing them home safe as soon as possible. Alot are overdeployed, tired and would surely like to see their families. I'm not to sure theyd appreciate random people speaking for them talking about things like pride.

Quote:

It's a life they chose to go into. I think it's horrible how civilian people want to do the same thing now they did in Vietnam and not support our troops.

I've never seen even a small inkling of this from any quarter. If this sentiment does in fact exist, please point me in its direction, as some people are in dire need of being torn down publically and made to look like idiots. There is a huge difference between disagreeing with the politicians who make the calls regarding a war, any war, and supporting or not supporting those who actually have to go fight it.

Quote:

Every time someone says we need to leave Iraq, we're insulting our millitary personal who are risking their lives to try and bring some stability to a land that's been chaotic far too long. Not to mention if we were to just up and leave now, the new Iraq government would prolly collapse with out our help and the neighboring countries would carve it up for themselves.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the first part, unfortunatly I have to reluctantly agree with the second part to an extent. Except I dont think the Iraqis qould be so lucky as to be taken under the wing of a stable government, most likely it would start to look something like afghanistan in many areas.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. 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. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

"Theodore Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star",
May 7, 1918

Quote:

BTW Zone - Hillary eats from the exact same trough as Bush does, basically all the evil bastages of our society (Axciom, Seisint, etc) give plenty of money and favors to both. The only real difference between them, is Hillary adds more socialism to the statist mentality but is currently vocally supporting different foreign policy objectives. If anything Hillary is even scarier than GWBush.

thats definetely something to keep in mind, but i like the idea of a woman president, i think a feminine face would appeal to the international relationships we have in general maybe not hilary, but someone else.

Quote:

If anyone is serriously considering Hillary as a viable option for president, I suggest you do a search on a Florida attourney named Jack Thompson, Hillary is backing his 'holy war'. He is dead set in his mind that ALL video games are evil and train those who use them to become merciless killers. I'm all for a female president, I just don't want anything to do with any caddidate male or female that wants to target my video games.

Also, while yes we should focus more on American problems, the UN should have done what we did in Iraq years ago. It's sad that the US is the only country that stood up and actualy had the balls to say 'enough is enough, this villian has to be brought to justice.' We should support our troops and be proud that they are there fighting for what we beleive in. They are there, because they are in the millitary. It's a life they chose to go into. I think it's horrible how civilian people want to do the same thing now they did in Vietnam and not support our troops. Every time someone says we need to leave Iraq, we're insulting our millitary personal who are risking their lives to try and bring some stability to a land that's been chaotic far too long. Not to mention if we were to just up and leave now, the new Iraq government would prolly collapse with out our help and the neighboring countries would carve it up for themselves.

its not so much that we don't support our troops, i mean the idea of going to war for your country is very honorable, extremely and rightly so deserves its own platform of respect. but when there is a clouded horizon about the reasons in which we are involved and the powers at be doing nothing to provide light instead enshrouded themselves into more mysticism, only to achieve their own ends. anyone thats watched more then 3 presidential press conferences that retain about the war will realize that they are extremely vague and seem to shine with hidden agendas in the back corners of their gaze. i admire the soldiers that go to war so that i can have a solid way of life to live in but i hate the people that send them to a war that seems to only provide a way for them to feed off the strength and courage of the valiant.

Your right if we did pull out parts of the middle east would probably cave in but I don't think that the soldiers that are there will find it very facinating if the US forces them to stay there until democracy has gotten a strong threshold in the middle east. It's not going well to say the least and I strongly doubt democracy will hold too long once the US decides to pull out for good. I think those men don't deserve to be there, it's an injustice to them and to their families. At some point your going to have to ask yourself
" Does the end justify the means or does the means justify the end?" Hum..macabre was it i can't remeber.

I'm not saying thet desrve to be there, and I totaly agree that it was wrong for us to go into Iraq for the reasons we did. Yes, it is an injustice that our troops are being forced to stay there. But as part of the UN, a governmental alliance which last I knew was supposed to be ensuring things like;

"life, liberty and the security of person"
Article 3 - (UN) UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
Article 5 - (UN) UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

it at the very least should have been the responsible thing for the UN as a whole to go and remove a tyrant who is willing to kill his own people with chemical weapons (launched chemical attacks against 40 Kurdish villages and thousands of innocent civilians in 1987-88). Hey, look, he did have a WMD and it's unlikely that he'd use his only chemical weapon against his own people. I don't think the way this war was started was correct at all, but if the UN wasn't going to do this, then atleast the US is humanitarian enough to be willing to liberate others from oppression.

Quote:

Iraqis found dead every week may beg to differ with you, despite the fact that not many of them liked Saddam.

You mean the same Iraqis who are dead because other Iraqis blew them up with a car bomb?

You're right, they were so much better with Saddam in power then they are now. He was only using chemical weapons that can imeadiatly cause; Death by asphyxiation, Skin burns and blisters, Impaired vision, blindness, Breathing difficulty, respiratory shutdown, Vomiting, diarrhea, digestive shutdown, Neurological disorder, Convulsions, comas OR LONGTERM EFFECTS; Permanent blindness, Disfigurement, Respiratory, digestive and neurological disorders, Leukemia, lymphoma colon breast lung skin and other cancers, Increased miscarriages and infertility Severe congenital malformations and other birth defects... and hell "5,000 civilians, many of them women, children, and the elderly, died within hours of the attack." (I think 10,000 die in total after some time goes by) is SO much better then the hell we're putting them through now where they have to walk up steps and actualy get to vote for who they want to lead their country...

Quote:

Quote:

It's a life they chose to go into. I think it's horrible how civilian people want to do the same thing now they did in Vietnam and not support our troops.

I've never seen even a small inkling of this from any quarter. If this sentiment does in fact exist, please point me in its direction, as some people are in dire need of being torn down publically and made to look like idiots. There is a huge difference between disagreeing with the politicians who make the calls regarding a war, any war, and supporting or not supporting those who actually have to go fight it.

Quote:

Who is the "we" in the "fighting for what we beleive in"? Personally I think supporting the troops often means bringing them home safe as soon as possible. Alot are overdeployed, tired and would surely like to see their families. I'm not to sure theyd appreciate random people speaking for them talking about things like pride.

You don't think that sentament exsists? Look at the news/media and ask any Vietnam vet if that looks even vaugly familiar to them. (watch yourself cause you might get an ass whooping from them for asking such a stupid question) I've spoken to a few friends and relatives who went to Vietnam, and they all are quite pissed that the civilans and media are clamoring about how we should 'pull out of a war that's not ours' just like when they were in Vietnam. These Vet's all seem to think that these things are makeing things worse for the soldiers there. Soldiers are trained to do their job and do it to completion. While they might not want to be over there, I'm sure they'd rather compleat their objectives and come home as victors, heros and saviors of the Iraqi people, then having to put their tails between their legs and give up to a much smaller group of poorly trained terrorists. And that which oddly enough my cousin, (who's on 3rd deployment in Iraq) and alot of those serving with my cousin, seem to have a very strong agreement with.

I'd had hope that it would be obvious that the 'we' would stand for the American peoples as "WE" seem to enjoy democracy where "WE" can argue about politics and wars and say things like 'our president is an asshole(evil)' with out worrying about nerve gas or black opps dragging us out of our houses in the middle of the night. Or have the right to worship any god(s) or no gods as we please compaired to the Shi'ites in Iraq when Saddam was in charge.

Bringing them home safe as soon as possible would be a great thing, especialy if the Democrats, who keep putting up bills they KNOW the president is going to VETO just to 'make a point', would pull their heads out of their asses and actualy fully fund our troops to do their job and do it with proper resources. But hey, it's not like any of their kids are in Iraq, so it's prolly not a big deal having to piss around another month or so till the next war funding bill is drafted and put up to vote....

And yes, alot of our troops are overdeployed, tired, missing their families, and going through hell. It's too bad the US is the main factor in something the world as a whole should be trying to aid.

Quote:

I'm not to sure theyd appreciate random people speaking for them talking about things like pride.

Untill they can come home, someone needs to speak out for them... I'd rather be proud that our troops are doing something noble then pissed about it.

I think being proud in what they are doing is going to make them feel a hell of alot better about themselves, then saying things like, "it's a stupid pointless war, that we shouldn't be a part of". If they think I'm an ass for thinking like this, I'll appologize to each and every one of them I come across.

Untill they can come home, I will

them and our

Troops, kick some ass!

Eh, so its up to you then to raise the self-esteem of the troops or something? Gimme a break man. Some might want to stay over there for whatever reason, but thats not all of them by a long shot. Noone said they werent or shouldnt be proud of their service and work, but letting pride keep you in a place where your buddies are getting blown up solely for prides sake is foolhardy.

Your post and overall tone is a very emotional one, which though understandable strikes at the heart of why we cant as a nation elect good leadership. We need to think more logically about things.

First off, the UN. Do you REALLY want to see the UN as a sovereign body? Seriously. Do you really want the Euros and Russians and Chinese telling you what to do? World Govt is a bad bad idea.

The reality is there are no superheros, there are no world police, the people who should have done something about Saddam was the Iraqis themselves.
Good intentions are nice, but the reality is very unpleasant.

Your emotional appear to create the US and UN as worldwide liberators from all "tyrrany" is an interesting one, but one western nation no matter how rich cannot successly nation-build one arab country, no matter how hard it tries. They are Arabs, not Europeans. They have different cultures and traditions and ways of thinking and more. Frankly given the results and expenditure , of this and other previous foreign intervention adventures, I would think that people would realize that we should be looking after ourselves, not the rest of the world.

Our own traditions of having a free republic are under enough threat here at home for one thing. We cannot (or will not, as a practical matter) force the cultures of others to change through violence, and most cultures arent capable of sustaining a western style democratic nation anyhow.

But anyhow, if you want to "free" the whole world by force of arms, feel free. Go pick up a rifle and join whatever revolutionaries are fighting against the tyran of that particular country, and I will in all honesty and enthusiasm wish you well. Just dont try and say its the national duty of all of us, and claim rightousness supports taking the tax dollars and family members of the rest of us forcibly away to achieve that objective.

Quote:

one western nation no matter how rich cannot successly nation-build one arab country, no matter how hard it tries.

They said the same thing about Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany following WWII. It took quite a while for both of those, but I think the end result worked out pretty well.

Nobody said it would be easy. In fact, it's damned hard, but I wouldn't say it was impossible.

Well, first and foremost, there is a big difference between Germans, Japanese and Arabs. Totally different culture. Totally different circumstances.

Secondly, back during ww2 era, we had some decent leadership. Abysmal leadership from the current administration does cloud the issue.

Most importantly, if we were going to succeed, doing so in afghanistan first was far far more important than attempting to do so in Iraq.

So anyhow, bad parralel.

There is always 3 sides to an issue. Like with how well Bush is doing his job..

One side says he is doing great hes the right man for the job.
Second side says hes a frickin idiot and should be hug from his balls till next leap year.

Quote:

If anyone is serriously considering Hillary as a viable option for president, I suggest you do a search on a Florida attourney named Jack Thompson, Hillary is backing his 'holy war'. He is dead set in his mind that ALL video games are evil and train those who use them to become merciless killers. I'm all for a female president, I just don't want anything to do with any caddidate male or female that wants to target my video games.

And don't forget that Hilary, (and Obama for that matter), is also on the list of politicians who take money from the RIAA:

Consumerist Article - Contact Information For 50 Politicians Who Take Campaign Money From The RIAA

Quote:

Eh, so its up to you then to raise the self-esteem of the troops or something? Gimme a break man. Some might want to stay over there for whatever reason, but thats not all of them by a long shot. Noone said they werent or shouldnt be proud of their service and work, but letting pride keep you in a place where your buddies are getting blown up solely for prides sake is foolhardy.

Your post and overall tone is a very emotional one, which though understandable strikes at the heart of why we cant as a nation elect good leadership. We need to think more logically about things.

What I'm saying has nothing to do with troop moral or self esteem. I'm pointing ouit the basic fact that once the government decided to send our troops into a war, (even if it was all based on lies or not) we should stand behind them till they compleat the job and not suddenly decide midway that "ooops it was a bad idea" and try to pull out halfway. As for some wanting to stay over there, I really doubt any want to be there, but all the troops I've talked to seem to be saying they want to get their job (objective) done and get out of the hell they're in. Get it done then leave. It doesn't have anything to do with pride, it is part of 'Living the Army Values' to them. Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, Personal Courage. These values are what they are as much as their training as firing a gun. These and namely, 'DUTY', especialy to 'fullfill their obligations' and going 'one assignment onto another' is why they stay to finish the job. Pulling them out before they succeed, violates their training and disgraces/dishonors them. It might not have been right that they were sent there, but since they were, let them do their job.

You are absolutly right in that last part, we need to logicaly elect good leadership.

Quote:

First off, the UN. Do you REALLY want to see the UN as a sovereign body? Seriously. Do you really want the Euros and Russians and Chinese telling you what to do? World Govt is a bad bad idea.

The reality is there are no superheros, there are no world police, the people who should have done something about Saddam was the Iraqis themselves.

I'm not really where you get the idea I'd like to see the UN as a governing body... I'm against world government as much as I'm against people like Hillary and Thompson trying to take away my videogames. My point about the UN is that it is supposed to ensure things like 'basic human rights'. Honestly, I feel being a part of the UN and NATO do more damage to our country then the supposed good it is supposed to bring. While the Iraqi peoples should have been the ones to do something, they didn't or couldn't, and THAT is where the UN should have done something other then waving their finger.

As for the link, this is what I was talking about, we're looking at what the media has to say about our involvement in the war. Not supprisingly, it's showing us just how much of a 'negative impact' we're having on these people. First I'd like to point out that it's based on a survey or Iraqi civilians, any of whom could be the terrorist/extreamists that blend right into their population and love to use our own media for their propiganda. Secondly, the majority of responsibility of these deaths falls in the 'unknown' area and later on show that insurgent forces are causing more civilian deaths then colation forces. Thirdly, doing the math, these piecharts are innaccurate in their displays. Which is prolly the result that 'statistics and charts' can be made to show what the person collecting the information wants it to show, and the media/news sells so well when it's based on fear, death and distruction. It doesn't suprise me at all that these statistics are showing such mass amounts of death.

Quote:

Your emotional appear to create the US and UN as worldwide liberators from all "tyrrany" is an interesting one, but one western nation no matter how rich cannot successly nation-build one arab country, no matter how hard it tries. They are Arabs, not Europeans. They have different cultures and traditions and ways of thinking and more. Frankly given the results and expenditure , of this and other previous foreign intervention adventures, I would think that people would realize that we should be looking after ourselves, not the rest of the world.

Our own traditions of having a free republic are under enough threat here at home for one thing. We cannot (or will not, as a practical matter) force the cultures of others to change through violence, and most cultures arent capable of sustaining a western style democratic nation anyhow.

The statements that where made about the UN and US liberating other from tyrany is more a reason as to why we should support our troops in finishing their job over there. I'd rather see us not involved with the UN and tend to our own personal problems here at home. I agree fully with you on the fact we should look after ourselves and not the rest of the world. I'm not sure why you think that the Iraqi people are being 'forced' into change through violence... They seemed to have made a relatively peacefull change from dictatorship to democracy by their own choice. They took their former dictator to trial and found him guilty and had him executed, all on their own. Whether or not they are capable of sustaining it is another matter... The main cause of chaos currently is between religious factions who are fueling hate towards the US because we haven't left yet because the Iraqi new government cannot sustain itself yet. If their new government falls these factions will most likely try and move in to grab power along with boardering countries.

Quote:

But anyhow, if you want to "free" the whole world by force of arms, feel free. Go pick up a rifle and join whatever revolutionaries are fighting against the tyran of that particular country, and I will in all honesty and enthusiasm wish you well. Just dont try and say its the national duty of all of us, and claim rightousness supports taking the tax dollars and family members of the rest of us forcibly away to achieve that objective.

I have do desire to 'free' anything. Frankly the rest of the world can kill off their own peoples or blow each other to hell for all I care. I'd rather see the world population brought down some anyways because I'm getting sick of these bleeding heart commercials about hungry orphans in Africa. I think more along the lines 'who the hell cares? we've enough starving kids on the streets in America that no one seems to give a damn about.'

I claim neither 'national duty' nor 'rightousness' as my only real objectives are to sit here and play video games untill I'm no longer able to. Tax dollars should be spent on bettering our country, and family members should only be taken away if they're defending our country as an objective...

The fact remains that our troops are over there, and should be fully funded with as many tax dollars as needed to get them home sooner and safer then later and unsafe.

Do I like taxes? NO, but I want my friends and family back ASAP just as much as everyone else who has friends and family there. We're not going to get them back quickly if we keep trying to nickle and dime every thing in this war.

Quote:

As far as the 9/11 stuff goes, I think there is a "relativly decent chance" that there was... a LOT going on regarding that, that isnt yet accepted in popular culture.

That doesnt necesarrily mean I buy into one particular theory 100%, but regardless of who,why, and who knew- I am almost 100% certain that there is alot more to it than accepted.

Or in other words, there is enough evidence out there to state with almost total certainty that the whole story wasnt told, and that many things were misreported- but not enough to lay blame on any particular party or buy into one particular "conspiracy theory".

If you get a chance read the (Pulitzer Prize Winning) book "The Looming Tower." I think it's a legitimate arguement to say that the U.S. had prior knowledge (or atleast could have connected the dots) of 9/11. The problem is that between the CIA and the FBI and thier in-fighting, information was not freely shared between the agencies leaving niether agency with a clear picture of the 9/11 plot.

The problem is it's a BIG jump from 1) several agencies having minor knowledge of 9/11, but not connecting the dots to 2) Bush having prior knowledge of 9/11 and being completely complacent in allowing it to happen; and an even FURTHER leap to 3) Our government planting explosives in the trade towers because "fire can't melt steel".

I personally will never understand the desire of some Americans to blame the world problems (evern terrorism) on the U.S. As if the world were a perfect Utopia before, and would be again after, the U.S. (General statement not directed at anyone)

Quote:

Julio said: "Frankly anyone who blames 9-11 on the U.S. is a cook and should outright be brought up on charges of treason"

- Now thats just damn scary Julio. Seriously.

Imprisoning and harassing those who take positions against the state sanctioned view of thinking is something the Nazis and Communists are infamous world-over for. It saddens me that so many US citizens are now looking to them as role models.

Don't worry Derid, it was a "tounge in cheek" statement. If someone were actually brought up on charges for a thought/idea/stance I would be the first one taking to the streets, pitchfork in hand...

Quote:

Also, while yes we should focus more on American problems, the UN should have done what we did in Iraq years ago. It's sad that the US is the only country that stood up and actualy had the balls to say 'enough is enough, this villian has to be brought to justice.

I couldn't agree more... After countless Resolutions/Sanctions against Iraq the U.N. still wouldn't move... The originization is a complete joke... It was only after 9/11 did we realized that we cannot let these tyrants continue to disregard our (U.N.) authority and not allow weapons inspectors in. Had Saddam let the inspectors have free riegn and Bush still wanted to invade I would be with the anti-war crowd. Hind sight is 20/20 but at the time we only had one decision to make and we cannot regret it. Frankly I think that our only mistake was to think that we could "Nation Build." As far as I'm concerned we should issue warning to tyrants who pose a threat to the U.S., topple thier governments and let the citizens sort it out.

Well regarding 9/11, the 2 biggest things that are actually provable are as such:

1) Whatever hit the pentagon was not a jumbo jet.

2) What crashed in Pennsylvania wasnt a jumbo jet.

The idea that explosives went off in the main towers is possible, but not in my mind provable. And if it was proven, whos to say that it wasnt a terrorist working as a janitor or something that planted them.

The other main loose end that drives a wedge on the whole scenario though is why did world trade #5 fall.

But back to the 2 main points.

I did some follow up research on plane crashes, and have to conclude along with loosechange that there is in fact no way
jumbo jets were at the crash sites at the Pentagon and Penn.
It actually struck me as odd watching it at the time, but I remember thinking that the Penn site where they were reporting at, was just somewhere close. In fact I recall clearly one of the live anchors saying as much. However it turns out that it was, in fact, the site of "the main crash".

I know the footage used in loosechange wasnt faked as well, because i was watching 90% of it live at the time it aired, having a computer and multiple TVs.

I also remember vividly the incident at the airport in Cleveland, both from reporting, and because someone I knew at the time was set to fly out of there, and was present at the airport during the hubbub. He said it was right strange.

Does any of this point a finger conclusivly at anything specific? No, not necesarrily, those who were said to be responsible, could, theoretically, have used slightly different means than reported in some cases and had the misreported stories stick for one reason or another. Maybe the terrorists really did get ahold of a missile somehow, I can see why the govt might not have wanted that kind of news to spread if true.

But what I remember most clearly from the aftermath, is the
stop for the search for truth in the public mass media, and a uniform switchover to the "story", and anyone who questioned anything at the time was quickly labelled as un-patriotic as the drums of war began to mark the marching cadence of the nation.

It was unsettling, but I still was taking the "official" 9/11 story mostly at face falue for a good deal of time. Thinking initially that the Neo-Conservative factions in the
Executive branch were simply taking good advantage as the Nation was set upon Iraq. However with new information and background, and a closer re-evaluation, I now harbor the darkest of suspicions regarding what happened.

The only defense I have ever seen from anyone (not a verbal counter-offensive, but a real defense) is that why would any american do something like that, harbor or abet anything like that. Well I can think of billions of reasons, hundreds of billions of them actually.

History has proven for the last several thousand years, that with the type of money and power that revolved around the whole incident, noone no matter how friendly appearing or normally upright-appearing of character can be held as beyond suspicion.

If any consortium of individuals on this planet can be said
to be theoretically capable of pulling off a shady conspiracy, well lets just say the profits in both money and power would have been worth every bit of effort and expense in this case.

Quote:

Thinking initially that the Neo-Conservative factions in the
Executive branch were simply taking good advantage as the Nation was set upon Iraq.

Don't you mean Afghanistan?

Oh, right, nobody remembers Afghanistan... :-x

Afghanistan was first, but at the time I was thinking it was called for. Toppling an extremist government that is intentionally harboring people targeting is more than justified.

I was even applauding Rumsfeild back then, thinking his agressive attitude of getting US boots on the ground ASAP, taking some risk to get the ball rolling as quickly and powerfully as possible was by far the best route.

It wasnt until the "no dissent = patriotism" mentality was continued, and the war focus started shifting to Iraq that the alarm bells started going off.

Quote:

I did some follow up research on plane crashes, and have to conclude along with loosechange that there is in fact no way
jumbo jets were at the crash sites at the Pentagon and Penn.
It actually struck me as odd watching it at the time, but I remember thinking that the Penn site where they were reporting at, was just somewhere close. In fact I recall clearly one of the live anchors saying as much. However it turns out that it was, in fact, the site of "the main crash".

I know the footage used in loosechange wasnt faked as well, because i was watching 90% of it live at the time it aired, having a computer and multiple TVs.

I also remember vividly the incident at the airport in Cleveland, both from reporting, and because someone I knew at the time was set to fly out of there, and was present at the airport during the hubbub. He said it was right strange.

Does any of this point a finger conclusivly at anything specific? No, not necesarrily, those who were said to be responsible, could, theoretically, have used slightly different means than reported in some cases and had the misreported stories stick for one reason or another. Maybe the terrorists really did get ahold of a missile somehow, I can see why the govt might not have wanted that kind of news to spread if true.

LCCM's (low cost cruise missles) aren't overly hard to make in your grage is you know what you're doing. I've often thought that the pentagon looked like something alot smaller and with a bit more power then a plane hit it.

I'm sure you could immagine the chaos of fear that would spread in the public if they admitted something like terrorists actualy had missles they could fire with relative accuracy...

Quote:

1) Whatever hit the pentagon was not a jumbo jet.

2) What crashed in Pennsylvania wasnt a jumbo jet.

I'll bite: why not?

Owain, I could go on regurgitating the information in the Loose Change documentary, but it's a pretty good watch, and anyone with an hour and a half to burn can grab it off their website for free.

http://www.loosechange911.com/lc2e.htm

I'm sure there's a lot of stuff in there that is laughable from a certain point of view, but they point out some incredibly weak points of "our government trying to cover up their immoral actions on 9/11". Watch the documentary, then make a decision for yourself. Personally, I am so torn between wanting our government to be at fault and not wanting our government to be at fault that I don't really like to go into detail on my personal views of the tragedy.

isnt there another movie coming out by that guy, i forget his name, glasses rather large fellow, i think its called sicko, probably not as much about 9/11 but more about the current administration, i know that bush and probably hilary don't care for him very much either.

Michael Moore?

I never really cared much for him. TBH Loosechange is much much better than Moore's 911 film by a long shot.

For the most part any documentary is nothing but propuganda. Well unless its something like that gorrila chick.

Moore and Gore are the biggest ones out right now. They fill the movies with half truth and outright lies that are torn apart buy scientist and others that actually know what they are talking about and no one listens to them because they dont say millions of people will die in a lake of fire. If it bleeds it leads. No one is going to report all is good. I forgot the guy that ate nothing but mcdonalds for a month I belived that one, you should see the fat fuck I work with, all the fast food chains have his picture on the billboards.

First, Loose Change 9/11 is a documentary filmed and produced by a handful of college students (I don't live too far from them, actually; they used to advertise on the radio station my dad was working for a little while back.)

Second, PLEASE link me to articles written by scientists that "tear apart" Gore's "half truth and outright lies". Please DON'T link me to articles about how he's a hypocrite because he uses a lot of electricity or has people in his film that have personal jets. I also don't really care to read articles about how petroleum has reduced the percent of malnourished people in the world: there are alternate sources of fuel that are much more environment-friendly.

Well if you have seen "Loose Change" what do you think of the criticisms leveled here.

I've haven't seen the thing myself, but I have read plenty of descriptions of it saying it's pretty transparent propaganda, and not very good propaganda at that, since most of it is pretty easily refuted.

I'm not given to conspiracy theories myself, which is why I don't waste my time with things like this, or stuff by Michael Moore. For one thing, as a government employee myself, I know first hand that no one in the government is nearly smart enough to pull off any of these intricate "Dr Evil" plots.

You guys can dislike President Bush if you like, but keep it to stuff that is plausible.

This crap is foolish.

Heh so I take a look at that blog. Let me say that their counterclaims are really really .... REALLY poor.

A couple of points may be correct, but they are not particularly important to the main points, and in some cases I can testify that the counterpoints are 1): often taken out of context, 2) sometimes outright false, and 3) often something they "claim" was said or claimed by loosechange, was in fact NOWHERE TO BE FOUND IN THE DOCUMENTARY.

Frankly the gross innaccuracies, and blatant ignorance on the part of the screw loosechange blog seriously throws into doubt its credibility. More like someone wants to be half assed, and get praise from people who dont know better for being the great guys to "debunk conspiracy theories".

"Look at me folks, many people dont like something someone labels as a conspiracy theory, so I get to look cool for my friends, and everyone tells me they love me. Except for those nutcases who watch X-files and think something might be different than Fox/CBS reported" - This previous paragraph sums up my opinion of that blog.

Loosechange may well not have gotten everything right. I dont doubt that in some cases its far from perfect (I could think of a handfull of such places when I watched it)but it still does a very good job overall.

In this case, the debunkers are gonna have to try harder.

I started reading over the blog and ended up reading something that made me LOL (some list of reasons Loose Change was B.S.) and then I read the responses to it. 90% of the responses were all the same thing -- people LOLing at the blog for trying to discredit Loose Change by listing a bunch of empty rebuttals to the documentary. Then I stopped reading it. (If anyone sees anything on the blog worth reading, I'm all ears!)

First off I still believe 90% of documentarys are 2 pounds of bullshit in a 1 pound bag. I dont have a link for that you just have to come over to my house for a few wild turkeys.

Second Loose Change-never seen it, most likey never will.

Thirdly Al Gore is a nut job. See first part.

http://www.noaa.gov/
http://www.globalwarmingarchive.com/History.aspx

heres some links I know you like them. The noaa is a gov one so they will not be politiclly incorrect. But the other has articles over a long time line.

By the way yes there are lots of different fuel types out there and when they are viable replacements they will be used. They have to be viable first we have nothing that can replace coal,petro,nuclear that would not cost a fortune to use. And incase you didnt notice the polution levels of the

have dropped. I cant remember the last time I heard we were going to have acid rain. You was co2 levels to drop look at the rest of the world. I once saw a ad for one of those little tin boxxes they have in the eu that gets like 60mpg. After we get it over here and add all the gadgets to lower emisions it get 40mpg. So who is putting out more greenhouse gasses, it thats what they are. Show me a link that proves they are. Not one that says they are but has proved it.

When I was a kid in high school, the 80's) we were told we were going to freeze to death from the glaciers comeing down on us. Now the oceans are going to start on fire. You can see my reluctance to belive junk science.

I also live in a place that once had tons of ice above my head and then later it was an ocean. Point is the climate changes all the time. One side says co2 is the cause of global warming another says it is a result. Most of the scientist dont agree with what is the cause so how does Al Gore know. He doesnt it has turned in to a pollitical party that has an agenda. They tell use we have 10 years before we die, we dont, then they tell us no missed a 3 now we have 50 years. Nobody knows for sure because the cavemen never keep records on a world wide scale to give us an model to look at.

Now we have some people telling us what the climate should be, like they invented it. Then they tell us we are destroying the planet. The planet has been through more then we can put out so I think the planet will be fine

There is only one thing I know of that can cause rapid climate change do you.

well all in all i want john steward to be president, because atleast hell make presidents of other countries laugh and maybe get free stuff in the process.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE