Another round of US deaths... I think it's 18 by now for today....22 in the last two weeks.... Rumsfeld says he doesn't count the dead on the 'other side.' Who? What 'other side?'

Boy have we been duped. Here's a clever analogy that really defines the horror of what the PNAC guys have pulled off. And don't - please DO NOT tell me you don't know that PNAC runs things.

I told you NOT to tell me...

Dr. Bush's Botched Surgery. Think on it.

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/dr__bush_s_botched_surgery.html

So I'm quessing you would have rather just left him alone so he could go on with his wonderfull treatment of people? It is always easy to ignore a problem, if you ignore it long enough it will go away.......right? What is your perfect plan to stop a**holes like Sadam, give him a cookie and tell him to behave or he'll be grounded?

tell me, when was the last time you heard one good story out of Iraq, just one....I bet you cant even think of one. Do you know anything about whats going on over there besides what DAn Blather tells you? I bet if you really wanted to know what was going on you could, but when what you hear falls into like with what you want to believe for selfish political reasons, its easy to go with it. I listen to these talking heads on the alphabet channels and its almost as if they are happy to report American deaths, kind of like a big middle finger "I told you so" to the administration. To them this war is a political issue, not a war. AMybe you could do some reaserch into Iraqw, and how the people who live there feel. Of course there are terrorists who want to drive us out so they can return the country to a dictatorship, but the majority of them love freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion. maybe if you had any clue you could sift through all the crap propaganda reports and could see the truth.

It's funny how folks make Bush out to be the bad guy, when Sadam was the one sticking electrodes to womens private parts. Bush is horrible, after all the only thing Sadam did was torture, and kill kids and other innocent folks.

Do you vote, skippy?

Originally posted by Travh20
I bet if you really wanted to know what was going on you could, but when what you hear falls into like with what you want to believe for selfish political reasons, its easy to go with it. (…) AMybe you could do some reaserch into Iraqw, and how the people who live there feel. Of course there are terrorists who want to drive us out so they can return the country to a dictatorship, but the majority of them love freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion. maybe if you had any clue you could sift through all the crap propaganda reports and could see the truth.

OK Travh.
Show us your good news from Iraq. Give us your quotes from happy Iraqi people. I'm eagerly waiting.

I happened to watch a news report recently regarding the activities in Northern Iraq, where the US has plenty of good news to report. US troops have completed many large engineering projects returning water to the region. Also, there are no reports of the kinds of violence seen in & around Baghdad coming fron the northern areas. Not everything is gloom & doom over there as the multitudes of talking heads love to talk about. One bad bit of news gets carried on all the media but the good deeds are ignored. Life goes on as usual in that respect.

It's amazing how many people that fought in Iraq call into the local talk shows and talk about the good things that they did and wondering why it's never in the news.

Death and destruction will always be bigger news than good things - that's the nature of the news. And the death of U.S. soldiers should be bigger news in the U.S. than the restoration of the Iraqi phone system, or whatever. But it is inexcusable that no good news at all ever comes out of there. Compare this to Afghanistan, where the government is having massive problems keeping the country under control and yet no news stories seem to come out of there. Why is that not covered with equal intensity?

But there ARE good news coming from Iraq. Just read the papers.

example #1 :

"Major donors to George Bush's election campaigns were the main beneficiaries of an $8bn (£4.7bn) bonanza in government contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq, an investigation published yesterday said.
More than half of the companies - and nearly every one of the top 10 contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq - had close ties to Washington's political establishment or to the Pentagon. "


That is good news for these companies and for the White house !


(http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1074762,00.html)

example #2 :

"The highest British honour for gallantry has been awarded to a 19-year-old soldier for his bravery, it is revealed today. Trooper Chris Finney of the Household Cavalry Regiment was awarded the rare George Cross, which has equal status with the Victoria Cross, after he struggled to haul his colleagues from a burning tank while being shot at.

After being attacked by US aircraft in a "friendly fire" assault.
"
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1076460,00.html)

That is good news for this english guy, and it also shows that A-10 aicraft are pretty deadly weapons ! Good news for the US army.

example #3

"For the first time, a poll has found that a majority of Americans disapprove of President George Bush's handling of Iraq, even before yesterday's devastating helicopter attack.

The Washington Post-ABC poll released yesterday shows the number who approve of Mr Bush's handling at 47%, a fall of 28% percentage points on the end of April. "

That is the best piece of news I've read about iraq for years.

It would only make sense that the Iraqi's would want things back the way they were. It has to be a great feeling knowing your kid is going to be thrown in a cell and tortured(NOT) It must be wonderfull for a woman to walk down the street and be thought of as a being a thing, close to that of a pig(NOT) Oh ya lets not forget how much women love having there privates parts stimulated by electricity. How much proof do folks need to have to show how things are and will get better over there?

Astra - it would serve you right if the next leader of France was a Bush. You sit thousands of miles from the U.S., you don't pay taxes here, don't vote here, don't live here, yet your negativity regarding our President & his administration never stops. What's the matter -- not enough to bitch about right there in your own backyard?

Originally posted by es347fan
Astra - it would serve you right if the next leader of France was a Bush. You sit thousands of miles from the U.S., you don't pay taxes here, don't vote here, don't live here, yet your negativity regarding our President & his administration never stops. What's the matter -- not enough to bitch about right there in your own backyard?

ooooooooo.....that's cold, but well-stated

Originally posted by astrapol2
That is the best piece of news I've read about iraq for years.

I think you prove my point - all you can find is negativity. But surely you can recognize that some good things are happening in Iraq. Or do you think the U.S. is just collecting money from Iraqi oil?

Originally posted by astrapol2
OK Travh.
Show us your good news from Iraq. Give us your quotes from happy Iraqi people. I'm eagerly waiting.

Here you go smart ass

your quotes (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/voices_of_freedom.html)

Oh wow, think that source might be a bit biased, Trav? Hmm?

OK, dickhead, I dont know if you noticed, but every single quote has a source, and guess what, they are all from you buddies in the media, NY times, LA times and the like, they are COMPILED on that page, you are one stupid son of a bitch, please take a moment to use your head before trying to bring me down.

Borg you don't think what Astrapol is quoting is biased? Every goddamn news source available is biased in one way or another.

I didn't notice Astrapol's links, but yes they seem biased as well. I think the closest to unbiased as you can get is MSNBC. Good stuff.

Trav, my point was, those were only quotes from a certain segment of people. Was there a fair and accurate representation of the Iraqi population there? No.

What are you looking for - some group of individual Iraqi citizens that actually liked having Saddam for a ruler? Somebody that actually will mourn his death? Even his blood relatives were not safe from his psychotic behaviors.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
I didn't notice Astrapol's links, but yes they seem biased as well. I think the closest to unbiased as you can get is MSNBC. Good stuff.

Trav, my point was, those were only quotes from a certain segment of people. Was there a fair and accurate representation of the Iraqi population there? No.

I think its quite obvious that there is a certain percentage of Iraqis not happy with the new order in Iraq, wouldnt you say? Do you really need quotes from them? Arent car bombs good enough?

Are the individuals responsible for the recent terroristic activities in Iraq even citizens / residents of that country? There's a real good chance that they aren't, and are crossing the borders in an effort to find a faster way to Allah & their imagined bounty of 40 worn out muslim sluts in the promised land.

Originally posted by es347fan
Borg you don't think what Astrapol is quoting is biased? Every goddamn news source available is biased in one way or another.

Of course. There is no such thing as totally unbiased information, since any peiece of news is the result of the human choice of the journalist who chooses to report it.
Now, yes, my quotes were biased and provocative on purpose.
To get a little deeper in the debate, here are a few thoughts about Iraq.

1- I still believe the USA should not have started this war. It was done for wrong reasons (WMD, links with 9-11) and most of all, in spite of all international laws. And nobody really tried to figure out how badly things would be in Iraq once Saddam was gone.

2- Now, the war has been started.
There are positive aspects. Sure, I do not regret Saddam and I agree that most Iraqi must be happy that he was thrown away.

But let's face it. Bias or nor, it is a mess there. People's life have not improved - the country is in chaos, people do not have work, gangs rule, there is no police…
Of course the US army should not leave. You have started the work, finish it. But Bush should acknowledge the fact that his strategy was wrong. He should now give more power to the UN and Iraqi people there. Only by doing that the Iraqi will feel that the US troops are not there for a long occupation army but just for a transition.
This is important for Iraqi people, for the american soldiers who risk their lives, and for the world stability and international justice.

I vote Astra for the ruler of the world, peace be with you all, now play nice or you don't get a cookie.

Astrapol2 list

[1] no guns
[2] no bad guys
[3] no wars
[4] no rules
[5] if you do have rules don't enforce them just keep giving threats
[6]if you do follow through and try to enforce a rule then you will be hung
[7] leave the poor bad guys alone, after all America is bigger then Iraq
[8] most important rule of all, whine, whine, whine, and do nothing.

Sorry Astra but all you are doing is bashing, and blaming America for all the problems in the world. I have yet to hear you b***h about the real cause of the problem(terrorist) only the ones trying to fix it(Americans). Can you atleast agree Sadam was a threat, your government did at one time remember they were over there to. Why is it that your country was with us untill the going got tough? Who realy was worried about the oil? You are mad at us for taking action to stop a mad man how would you have felt if we had just left Hitler alone?

Hey ! Calm down !
I do not blame the USA for all the problems of the world. And I agree that Europe and my country have their own responsibility in many of them.
But terrorism was not the real issue in Iraq. If you still believe that making war in Iraq was a question of fighting terrorism or WMD, you should find very good arguments to support your view. Because these were only the bad reasons found by your govt to sell this war to the opinion.

I believe in international rules. I think no country should try to be the planet cop alone. It is moraly wrong, it is dangerous, and it is not effective.

Originally posted by astrapol2
I believe in international rules. I think no country should try to be the planet cop alone. It is moraly wrong, it is dangerous, and it is not effective.

I don't understand why it's morally wrong. I don't think it's an issue of morality, but if it is, the actions in Iraq were no more immoral than the actions of everyone else - i.e. selling Saddam arms, supporting his regime, selling him gold plated toilets to put in his palaces.

The problem with your solution is that nothing ever gets done in the U.N. Any reasonable world governing body would have gotten rid of Saddam a long time ago. And Castro, Kim Jong Il, etc. But there's always countries that don't do the right thing because they'd rather make money. That's always going to be the case.

Sorry Atsra I was a bit harsh but lately it seems you like to bash Bush and our military. I understand Bush is not perfect and I will agree that he seems to be somewhat backwards right now. BUT I do not work in the white house and am not sure what the big picture is. I did agree 100% with this war to stop Sadam, for whatever reason, he is/was a sick puppy. I hear this side say that, then I hear that side say this, when in reality neither side knows anything except from whatever media source they are getting it from. I think the biggest PROBLEM is the media they seem to make up, or atleast twist the news to there way of thinking. This is why it is hard for anyone to know what the heck is going on. The media has a new outlook, it is called making the story, not reporting the facts. I have talked to some (military)people that were over there and they said the overall majority are happy with Americans. They have told me that they are glad America has stepped in, they do want America to leave, BUT not until things are taken care of. Rome was not built in a day, neither will the war on terrorism be won in a day, nor will Iraq be rebuilt in a day. We need to give the folks in charge some time, after all it is easy to sit in our chairs and tell the world how wrong they are. If someone has the perfect solution then I would think instead of b***hing on a forum the person would offer the solution to the powers at play. It is funny how everyone can come to a conclusion with only a few of the facts, but the ones with the facts can't figure out what the heck to do. The folks(us on the forums) with a few facts don't even know if our facts are correct.

Well put, mad dog.

Originally posted by astrapol2

I believe in international rules. I think no country should try to be the planet cop alone. It is moraly wrong, it is dangerous, and it is not effective. I agree. Next time there is an international crisis, all countries should provide the exact same amount of money and security troops. And those that do not participate no longer has a voice in international affairs. All or nothing.

Originally posted by mad dog ...all you are doing is bashing, and blaming America for all the problems in the world. I have yet to hear you b***h about the real cause of the problem(terrorist) only the ones trying to fix it... [/B]

This Government and its leaders have no intention whatsoever of halting terrorism.

If they did, they could simply make a few changes and stop doing the three main things [among others] that cause terrorists to attack america.

This government has been killing people in Iraq [thru sanctions and thru hundreds of bombing attacks carried out continuously throughout the 1990's] and other Muslim countries for many many years........this President could have stopped it prior to 9/11, but he didn't, just as Clinton did not put a halt to it.

Also this Government supports Israeli terrorism against Palestinians to the tune of billions per year. Putting a stop to that support would do a great deal to lessen the terrorist threat......but the Oil barons who run the country want to keep Israel as their bully in the area to keep the oil producing (Muslim) countries submissive to American business interests [IOW, American Corporate/Oil/Defense interests].

Thirdly, the maintaining of U.S. military bases in Saudia Arabia is a constant irritant to the Muslim community. Ossama bin Laden himself stated that that was a primary factor in his resentment for America. Moving the military bases out of Saudia Arabia would greatly reduce the spread and incidence of terrorist activity, but again the Big Oil interests are making billions in profits in Saudia Arabia are are unwilling to have American military might pulled out of the area......and we all know that whatever the Big Oil/Big Defense fatcats demand is quickly and unfailingly carried out by their lackeys [IOW, Bush and Co] in Washington DC.

Americans are being bilked out of billions in taxdollars each year that are going toward "liberating" and "rebuilding" another country [IOW, the money is being funnelled directly into the pockets of Halliburton, Bechtel, etc] thousands of miles away, while the infrastructure in THIS country suffers from horrendous neglect.

Americans are being forced to live in constant threat of another terrorist attack so that people like Jack Welsh and the other Big Business moguls can add a few billion to their bank accounts yearly..........fortunately for the bosses of the mega-Corporations, the vast majority of the sheep in the U.S. are too ignorant and too blinded by their 'patriotic' zeal to realize what is taking place.

Originally posted by Freethinker


Thirdly, the maintaining of U.S. military bases in Saudia Arabia is a constant irritant to the Muslim community. Ossama bin Laden himself stated that that was a primary factor in his resentment for America. Moving the military bases out of Saudia Arabia would greatly reduce the spread and incidence of terrorist activity, but again the Big Oil interests are making billions in profits in Saudia Arabia are are unwilling to have American military might pulled out of the area......and we all know that whatever the Big Oil/Big Defense fatcats demand is quickly and unfailingly carried out by their lackeys [IOW, Bush and Co] in Washington DC.


So are you saying that anything that another country finds an "irritant" we should immediately stop? What kind of foreign affairs would that be?

Also, are you saying that by maintaining a military base in Saudi Arabia that our country, in turn, deserves to suffer terrorist attacks?

Originally posted by HaVoK
So are you saying that anything that another country finds an "irritant" we should immediately stop? What kind of foreign affairs would that be?

Prudent.

Humane.

Progressive.

Fair.

IOW, all things that are anathema to the Conserva-Fascist aim of U.S. global hegemony and control.


Originally posted by HaVoK Also, are you saying that by maintaining a military base in Saudi Arabia that our country, in turn, deserves to suffer terrorist attacks?

No, not that this country "deserves" the attacks for our having an unwanted military presence in Saudi Arabia......simply that the American People will suffer them as a consequence of it.

we dont have people in Saudi Arabia anymore Einstein, the only reason we had them was becasue of Sadam, now those guys are in iraq.

Originally posted by Freethinker
No, not that this country "deserves" the attacks for our having an unwanted military presence in Saudi Arabia......simply that the American People will suffer them as a consequence of it.

The underlying assumption here is that the terrorists and Saddam and those sort of people are reasonable people that would actually stop trying to destroy this country if we did everything you suggest. The reality is that some people only understand force. Our past reactions to terrorism, such as lobbing a few cruise missles into empty terrorist camps or, even worse, withdrawing from countries (Beirut, Somalia) after something happens only proved to them that they could attack the U.S. without any harm on their part.

Besides, as much as terrorists hate our presence in their neighborhoods, they have equal hatred for most of American culture - whether that be democracy, the role of gays in society, movies with naked people, etc. Until we get rid of all of those things, which of course we won't and shouldn't, they're going to continue to attack.

lionel, the liberals think deep down in their hearts that if they respect the terrorists that the cloud of radiation from the dirty bomb will pass over their house and to the militant right winger next door who dare attempt to stand up to them, instead of trying to understand them. I dont think they realize that they are just as much targets as the conservatives, if not more, since the terrorists love to prey on the weak, and believe me liberals, to men who would slash a flight atendents throat and fly a loaded plane into a skyscraper, you are weak.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
The underlying assumption here is that the terrorists and Saddam and those sort of people are reasonable people that would actually stop trying to destroy this country if we did everything you suggest. The reality is that some people only understand force.

Besides, as much as terrorists hate our presence in their neighborhoods, they have equal hatred for most of American culture - whether that be democracy, the role of gays in society, movies with naked people, etc. Until we get rid of all of those things, which of course we won't and shouldn't, they're going to continue to attack.

Two generalizations here.

1- terrorists and Saddam want to destroy the USA.
Saddam NEVER threatened the USA. He was a bloody tyrant but he had no link with terrorists. In fact he benefited from the support of the USA until he invaded Koweit. The USA even hinted that they would let him do so. Then the USA led the coalition to stop him (and this war was right).

2- the terrorists attack the USA because they "hate" America.
This is denying the very political meaning of terrorism. Terrorists sure do not like the USA, but this is not their main motivation. Their acts are based upon the political part the USA play in the Arab world. Freethinker's analysis of the situation in Saudi Arabia is perfectly accurate : the american presence in Saudi Arabia (which is bigger than ever now, sorry Travh, check it out) is the main reason why Ben Laden started his war against his former ally. And the palestinian question is also central.

Originally posted by astrapol2
2- the terrorists attack the USA because they "hate" America.
This is denying the very political meaning of terrorism. Terrorists sure do not like the USA, but this is not their main motivation. Their acts are based upon the political part the USA play in the Arab world. Freethinker's analysis of the situation in Saudi Arabia is perfectly accurate : the american presence in Saudi Arabia (which is bigger than ever now, sorry Travh, check it out) is the main reason why Ben Laden started his war against his former ally. And the palestinian question is also central.

I heard an actual interview with a terrorist (I honestly can't remember where he was from or which group he was associated with). When asked if a U.S. withdrawal from the region would end attacks against the U.S. his answer was absolutely not, he hated the U.S. and would continue attacking until it was destroyed. So that's where I got that from.

Originally posted by Travh20
we dont have people in Saudi Arabia anymore Einstein, the only reason we had them was becasue of Sadam, now those guys are in iraq.

Let's see.....

...the U.S. doesn't have any people in Saudi Arabia anymore.....

....and the only reason we had military bases in Saudi Arabia was because of Saddam Hussein......?!?!?!?!?

Whew.....you're even more clueless than I had thought previously.

ok, you are right, we are there for the oil that Bush and his cronies are hording in their bunkers.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I heard an actual interview with a terrorist (I honestly can't remember where he was from or which group he was associated with). When asked if a U.S. withdrawal from the region would end attacks against the U.S. his answer was absolutely not, he hated the U.S. and would continue attacking until it was destroyed. So that's where I got that from.

OK. I agree that on an individual basis, many "terrorists" could say this. But this hatred is caused mostly by political reasons.
I met palestinians last summer. They told me that, since the beginning of the Iraqi crisis, people were so upset with the USA there that those who usually smoked american brands like Marlboro had changed to french brands. And I guess you could find similar examples all through the arab world (even here in France in arab groceries Coca Cola has often been replaced by "Mecca cola", an arab brand).
This attitude is clearly linked with the US foreign policy, not to western lifestyle or values (since France could appear much more decadent to a fundamentalist muslim then the USA). Most of these people are not fundamentalist and enjoy many aspects of western lifestyle.

Perhaps, but as long as the U.S. is the most powerful country in the world (I imagine we'll be replaced by China at some point in the future) people are going to hate us, regardless of our policies. Which is why terrorism seems to haunt us regardless of the political leanings of the the existing president. It's just human nature. I root against the New York Yankees (an eternally powerful and successful sports team, if you're not aware) for the same reason.

They hate us because we make them hate us. We kill arabs like they're going out of style -- tens of thousands in Iraq alone.

They hate us because we back Israel militarily.

They hate us because the PNAC crowd needs them to hate us so they can push their agenda through the US congress with rubber-stramp approval leading to the killing of more arabs, further strengthing of the Israel power over the entire middle east, robbing of the US treasury and transferring the plunder to the no-bid companies in Iraq which are controlled or owned by the richest of the administration themselves.

They hate us because we let them hate us and do nothing to stop them ... I.E. Our president sat in a school room for a half hour after the 911 attacks.

911 was the first time in the recorded history of NORAD that it's procedures were not followed when an aircraft went off radar of lost transponder. Chrissakes ... this was 5 airplanes -- not one.

Someone grounded our air force that day. Why? 'Cause we need them to attack us so we can kill them so they can hate us.

Dop

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Someone grounded our air force that day. Why? 'Cause we need them to attack us so we can kill them so they can hate us.

Dop

Ah, another conspiracy theorist.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Perhaps, but as long as the U.S. is the most powerful country in the world (I imagine we'll be replaced by China at some point in the future) people are going to hate us, regardless of our policies. (…)

I partly agree. USA sure attract criticism just because they are the only superpower - and it is easy to make it the scapegoat for many problems.
Sure, Europe, former USSR and the arab themselves have a lot of responsibility in the situation in Middle east. And if the USA are the major target for terrorists today, it is because they are the superpower.

But feeling that the USA should sometimes be humbled down is not exactly a reason powerful enough to crash yourself with a plane on the WTC…

The question in fact is : should the USA adopt a different foreign policy ?

I know some people are going to say "Astra, you **** leftist coward, so you are telling we should appease the terrorists so that they don't attack us again ?". But I think that, on many points, a fairer policy would cut the roots of terrorism.

LionelHutz

Please feel free to dispute my claim of intentional grounding.

Thought so.

Dop

Originally posted by astrapol2

The question in fact is : should the USA adopt a different foreign policy ?

I know some people are going to say "Astra, you **** leftist coward, so you are telling we should appease the terrorists so that they don't attack us again ?". But I think that, on many points, a fairer policy would cut the roots of terrorism. What is a "fairer policy"? One in which there is no response for a terrorist's efforts? I dont think you are a coward for wanting to find an end to terrorism in the least Astro. I just feel that you are looking in the wrong direction for the solution. The solution is not to allow cowards to strike fear at you and not respond. That much history has shown us. An aggressor will not stop its assault simply out of goodwill.

And you still blame America for terrorism? Why? Because we have military bases in Saudi Arabia with permission from the Saudi royal family? What would you have us be "fairer" about?

I do not say that nothing should be done against terrorism. Actually, I think it was fair to fight the taleban regime and to hunt down Ben Laden. I think that international police cooperation and investigation must be continued to dismnatle the terrorist networks. This is the most effective immediate response to terrorism.
But war against Iraq was not a response to terrorism - or, if it was, it was only a demagogic one.

There are two ind of things that should be done to fight terrorism. First, as I said, police and intelligence work. Second, cut the roots of hatred. This will take much more time. But the USA cannot on the same time act against Iraq on the basis that it is a threat (false), a terrorist state (false) and a dictature (true) and support regimes like Pakistan which is worse in every regard.

Just a question to end this post : with your taxmoney, do you like to sponsor torture in Uzbekistan ?

And now we're sending 85K more troops over there...must mean things really are failing if we have to do that. Our troop morale is already really low, which doesn't help the situation at all. What happened to all these other countries and allies that said they would help out in the rebuilding stage? Did they just forget about us? Or maybe there's a conspiracy behind it.....who knows, and who really cares?

silverbullet

Sending these extra troops is a sleigh of hand in that it is not a one-for-one swap out. We send 85K over and bring back only 40K or so (or less) and guess what we can now do with the extra compliment? You bet -- Syria and Iran just in time for the Nov elections.

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
We send 85K over and bring back only 40K or so (or less) and guess what we can now do with the extra compliment? You bet -- Syria and Iran just in time for the Nov elections.

But is it really worth it to start another war with any one of those guys? War doesn't determine who's right, it determines who's left.

Originally posted by astrapol2
.

Just a question to end this post : with your taxmoney, do you like to sponsor torture in Uzbekistan ? No i do not like to think that my taxpayer's dollar is funding torture anywhere on the globe. But the word torture can have many different meanings. Which are you using?

Originally posted by astrapol2
question in fact is : should the USA adopt a different foreign policy ?

Towards terrorism? No. Towards the middle east in general? Perhaps. Our strong support of Israel is obviously the cause of a lot of our problems. While I have nothing against Israel, I'm not a big fan of spending my tax money to support governments that are more than capable of supporting themselves. Not that supporting Arafat is a viable alternative.

It's an ugly situation in that region whatever way you cut it and anyone who thinks they have the magic answer is kidding themselves.

LionelHutz Please feel free to dispute my claim of intentional grounding.

If I recall correctly the air force was standing down for training. But there were still a few planes on ready status and they did attempt to intercept. Now if you're asking me to prove that the standdown was for training and not for nefarious reasons, I can't. And you can't prove that it was. I'd just like to point out that as with most conspiracy theories, so many people would have to be involved that the likelihood of it staying a secret is damned near impossible.

Thought so.

Uh huh.

That's some great spin. The *ENTIRE* air force and all naval air stations in the country were stood down on the same day for training.

BTW: there is something like 7 facilities close enough to NYC and DC to take out the bad guys but they didn't do. Make what you want of it -- I already know what it spells out to me.

Dop

OK, I'm stupid - you'll have to spell the entire thing out for me. Like how the government got some people volunteer to crash into the towers. Or alternatively how the government pieced together the evidence of what was about to happen, including the exact date and time, managed to keep it from leaking out, and decided without any objections from anyone involved to let it happen. And hey, why not throw in a little evidence why you're at it.

I don't recall making any claims that the gov perped 911.

All I ask is the same you are asking. Where's the evidence against OBL that was promised and never materialized? How about all that evidence against SH? Why are they protecting the Saudis? How about Israel? What's their part in this mess?

Time for some answers or they can count me out and I'll bet they can count out most of america next time they want to kill tens of thousands of arabs with hidden evidence.

No one likes to be played for a sucker.

Dop

Originally posted by HaVoK
No i do not like to think that my taxpayer's dollar is funding torture anywhere on the globe. But the word torture can have many different meanings. Which are you using?

Breaking fingers, ribs and skulls with a hammer.
Driving needles under fingernails.
Boiling people to death.

Last year, Uzbekistan received $500m from the USA, of which $79m went to the police and intelligence services, who are responsible for most of the torture. While the US claims that its engagement with Karimov will encourage him to respect human rights, like Saddam Hussein he recognises that the protection of the world's most powerful government permits him to do whatever he wants.

(more on http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1072313,00.html)

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
I don't recall making any claims that the gov perped 911.

Sorry for misinterpretting, but this seemed like a pretty strong implication of government involvement to me:

Someone grounded our air force that day. Why? 'Cause we need them to attack us so we can kill them so they can hate us.

Anyone in here signing up for the military? I see a lot of "armchair quarterbacks" full of hot air & opinions, but no one of the right age stepping up to take on some piece of the task at hand. There is a job to be done, and the U.S. military has been handed the work order. Are you going to sit & bitch, or are you going to help shoulder the load?

Originally posted by HaVoK
What is a "fairer policy"? One in which there is no response for a terrorist's efforts?

No.....a "fairer" policy would be one that does not incite and inflame the people of other countries to despise the US because of this nation's incessant bullying and theft of human and natural resources.

Originally posted by HaVoK The solution is not to allow cowards to strike fear at you and not respond.

No, the solution is to stop maintaining UNwanted military bases in Saudi Arabia, to stop funding the terrorist state of Israel, and to stop murdering millions of men women and children in the Middle East thru bombing campaigns and sanctions, thus not forcing them into the desperate measure of making suicide attacks against the unrelenting aggression of Western imperialism.

es-fan

Although well intentioned, I'm sure, your challenge for people to join military service opens the door for some questions.

Have you served? Do you understand the meaning of military pride as it relates to the inner-feeling that you are doing what is the best for the country? Have you ever experienced the feelings of love for your country(wo)man to the point you will lay you life on the line and regardless of the consequenses, feel in your soul that a true and meaningful purpose was the catalyst for the outcome of the events?

Most soldiers, sailors and airmen of the past could answer yes to those questions. Standing under the flag, taking the oathe of alligence to our country is the proudest moment one can experience and it doesn't come without full committment.

Seems today it's different -- the committment is gone. Seems though not all our service personel believe in what we are doing in Iraq and A-stan and I don't wish to debate the value of their convictions in this post but I do wish to point out we are dangerously close to destroying the honor of being in military service. No one wants to die for a cause for which they don't believe. Give us the cause, show us the evidence and I guarantee our brothers and sisters will stand tall like never seen before.

Yes, I have served -- 10 proud years in the U.S. Navy including Cuban missle blockade, Bay of Pigs, VN and Nato defense forces-Europe.

Dop

From what I have gathered from es' postings I think he served for quite a while including during 'Nam.

Israel is not a terrorist state. They have a right to exist. They have a right to defend themselves from their enemies.
Murdering millions in the Mid East? Not hardly.

I haven't been a forum member long enough to know who is and isn't a vet and I certainly am not ridiculing anyone that hasn't served. BTW: Thank you es for serving but the point is still the same.

Ya gotta believe in what you're doing and you gotta believe the government that asked you to do it stands behind you.

So far there has been no honors accorded to the dead and wounded that I can recall. Even the transport tubes are being hidden from public view and the wounded at Walter Reed and other facilities are being, from what I'm told, treated like 2nd class citizens. Should I mention the 18% cut in VA benefits and the special law passed to allow companies to drop the health insurance of those reservists and guard that were called up? How about the lies about rotating the troops and then reneging on it?

This isn't the government for which I was proud to serve.

Dop

On edit: clean up my spelling.

I proudly served in the U.S. Army from 1968 ~ 1988. From Oct 69 ~ Aug 72, I was in Viet Nam. Other overseas postings included a trip to South Korea and another to West Germany. All told, I spent more than 11 years overseas.
There is no "best time" to serve one's country. Even WWII had its antiwar crowd. Those of us who served in Viet Nam put up with tremendous abuse for many, many years. Having Richard M. Nixon as POTUS was not a peach either, even though many in the military supported him. Beyond the administration, one is serving the country. As I've said before, administrations change rather often. During my time, I saw LBJ, RMN, GF, JC, RR, & GB, all as the Commander in Chief of the time, and each of those administrations had their own set of priorities. They all had plenty good and not so good for the general public to talk about. What's changed is the level of media attention & coverage available.
Concerning our war dead from the current conflict, other than a military service at time of burial, it seems that honors for wartime dead are held when the conflict is actually over, and then their names are added to those we honor on Memorial Day & Veteran's Day. Military hospitals are not country clubs, and never have been. They are staffed by soldier-medics & civil service personnel who have to live 24/7 with the realities of military service. People scream enough about the military's budgets. Perhaps this latest conflict will send more money to those many hospitals & clinics providing health care for the Nation's Finest.
Following 9/11, I attempted to re-enlist, however age prevents further service.

Welcome home, Dop.

Well said es.

Dop

Originally posted by es347fan
Israel is not a terrorist state. They have a right to exist.

On those two points we disagree.

Originally posted by es347fan
They have a right to defend themselves from their enemies.

Technically, i guess i'd agree.

They have that "right" because of their MIGHT....military might. They possess that might for ONE reason....U.S. support.

If a Palestinian kid straps a bomb to his body and kills himself and three Israelis, the Israelis have proven they have the "right" to move an assault force into the settlements and begin firing, usually killing several times as many Palestinians in retaliation as were killed in the prior attack.

I agree that the Pals bring much of the retaliatory violence on themselves, but i think those who support Israel are steadfastly refusing to look at the problem from the point of view of the Palestinian people.


Originally posted by es347fan
Murdering millions in the Mid East? Not hardly.

Speakers at US conference condemn sanctions against Iraq
By Shannon Jones------19 October 1999

Some 275 delegates attended a national conference the weekend of October 15-17 at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor opposing the economic sanctions and ongoing American bombing of Iraq. Speakers and panelists at the conference included civil libertarians and experts from the academic community possessing in-depth knowledge of the impact of sanctions on the Iraqi people, which by some estimates have resulted in 1.4 million deaths.

I stand corrected. Not "millions" but merely 1.4 million.

Both Palestine and Isreal are terrorist states. We shouldn't interfere and just let them sort out their own problems on their own. We are not the International Police.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Speakers at US conference condemn sanctions against Iraq
By Shannon Jones------19 October 1999

Some 275 delegates attended a national conference the weekend of October 15-17 at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor opposing the economic sanctions and ongoing American bombing of Iraq. Speakers and panelists at the conference included civil libertarians and experts from the academic community possessing in-depth knowledge of the impact of sanctions on the Iraqi people, which by some estimates have resulted in 1.4 million deaths.

I stand corrected. Not "millions" but merely 1.4 million.

As I'm sure you're smart enough to realize, people like to trump up numbers to make their point. During the first gulf war people were spray painting "The press lies - 1,000,000 dead in Iraq!" all over campus. Of course nothing near that number of dead actually occurred.

But even assuming these numbers are correct, I note that you're neatly ignoring the fact that Saddam was allowed to sell oil to support his people. Why it's the U.S.'s fault that he spent it on more palaces is beyond me.

Es, liked reading your last couple of post keep up the good work.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Both Palestine and Isreal are terrorist states. We shouldn't interfere and just let them sort out their own problems on their own. We are not the International Police.

Sorry Borg, I do not agree. Or only partly.
Sure, both Palestine and Israel have a lot of innocent blood on their hand.
Sure, the USA are not the International Police.
But I do not think that "we" (I include Europe in this "we") should let them sort their problem alone. The present situation is so tense that it is just not possible - they need intermediates to shift toward peace.
A few years ago, with the Oslo agreements, hope had never been bigger of reaching peace. It was possible only with the goodwill of the USA, the EU, and a few other countries like Jordan.
I think it will now take years to get back to that point, and if possible to go further. But "we" should do everything possible to get peace in the Middle East, since world stability depends from it, and also because "we" have our responsibilities in this conflict.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Both Palestine and Isreal are terrorist states.

Sorry, Borg, but this increasingly popular opinion disgusts me. That is, you're morally equating Isreali tactics to Palestinian tactics. This is so bogus. The U.S. wouldn't be behaving any differently if there were Palestinians blowing up busloads of women and children in our country. Or to make it more analagous, if Native Americans started blowing up busloads of women and children in the United States, I don't think Americans would be any more tolerant of Native American militants than Isreal is of Palestinian militants. Remember when we reloctated the Japanese during WWII? That was without any hostile actions by Japanese citizensm what do you think our solution would have been if the Japanese-Americans HAD actually been committing hostile actions?

Isreali terrorism? Maybe, but such terrorism is morally justifiable and that doesn't make them a "terrorist state."

I applaud you for trying to be open-minded, but there is no logical perception of Palestinian tactics than outright condemnation. Specifically targetting citizens as a tactic of war is not acceptable under any circumstances.

Trying to pretend the Isrealis are acting as badly Palestians is twisted and ludicrous.

Somewhere, very insidiously, some Uninformed Americans - with no familiarity with international law, suggest it's OKAY to invade a country if we decide that the leader is not dealing properly with his people. Hey, that sounds like Bin Laden, speaking.

The imposter in the White House made up lies to convince the world that he had the right to invade a sovereign nation. That is the only legal way to invade and occupy a a nation. And you wonder why people hate us?

The GOOD news from Iraq is that we're rebuilding the schools we bombed out, and the hospitals we destroyed, and are trying to get as many contracts for US friends of Bush to use up the 87 billion bucks that we cannot afford to give away.

Half the nation is unemployed. Iraq never had terrorists (hey, Saddam knew how to deal with insurgents and fundamentalist extrememists)...nor bombs not fear of civil war until WE went in. Bush One and Two have killed far more Iraqis than Saddam ever did.

The US has and continues to support some of the most brutal dictators in history (including those we set up like the Shah and Pinochet). We are best friends with the Saudis...geez. They don't allow anyone but Moslems to worship there...not even our troops. Their women are in veils, can't even drive...Iraqi women were totally free until now...because the Shia are back in power. Learn some history.

It's a WAR, stupid...(not the poster, but the pResident!) Read this and think.


http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/it_s_a_war__stupid_.html

Originally posted by Leper
Sorry, Borg, but this increasingly popular opinion disgusts me. That is, you're morally equating Isreali tactics to Palestinian tactics. This is so bogus. The U.S. wouldn't be behaving any differently if there were Palestinians blowing up busloads of women and children in our country. Or to make it more analagous, if Native Americans started blowing up busloads of women and children in the United States, I don't think Americans would be any more tolerant of Native American militants than Isreal is of Palestinian militants. Remember when we reloctated the Japanese during WWII? That was without any hostile actions by Japanese citizensm what do you think our solution would have been if the Japanese-Americans HAD actually been committing hostile actions?

Isreali terrorism? Maybe, but such terrorism is morally justifiable and that doesn't make them a "terrorist state."

I applaud you for trying to be open-minded, but there is no logical perception of Palestinian tactics than outright condemnation. Specifically targetting citizens as a tactic of war is not acceptable under any circumstances.

Trying to pretend the Isrealis are acting as badly Palestians is twisted and ludicrous.
I suppose it's a matter of the lesser of two evils. I still think they're equal in their terrorism. This sums up my view:
Originally posted by Freethinker
If a Palestinian kid straps a bomb to his body and kills himself and three Israelis, the Israelis have proven they have the "right" to move an assault force into the settlements and begin firing, usually killing several times as many Palestinians in retaliation as were killed in the prior attack.
Israel's tactics may be different, but they still kill plenty of people.

The problem in the Middle East is that Sharon's tactics are exactly that of Bush - believing he can brutalize a people into submission...and he is being driven by a small minority of right wing settlers. The entire problem could be mitigated if the settlers were removed, and a Palestinian state were established with most of the 1967 borders. Occupation breeds hatred. Hatred with no weapons breeds 'terrorism" - a name far too loosely used. Bush and Sharon have the arms.....and believe Might makes Right. No way. Right makes Might.

skippy, why do you leave the UN out of your diatribe? The UN set the sanctions against Iraq after the Iraqi idiot decided to invade Kuwait, and then would not follow the rules the UN established following that first conflict. The US & Britan were tasked with helping to enforce those sanctions. Neither the US or Britan laid these at the Iraqi idiot's door, the UN did this. The world watched for over a decade as the sanctions slammed the Iraqi citizens, and the Iraqi idiot built ever more decadent palaces, and continually thumbed his nose to the rest of the world. Under the klinton administration nothing changed. The US & Britan continued to spend huge amounts of money keeping troops deployed to enforce the UN established no-fly zones. GW Bush made it clear during his campaign that one of his goals was to deal with the situation in Iraq. GW wasn't in office 9 months when 9/11 was laid in his lap. The US, and the rest of the world woke up to a very different situation on 9/12, much the same as they did on 12/8 so many years before.

As it's so popular to be against the sitting POTUS, perhaps when the next election rolls around you'll be old enough, or involved enough to go to the voting booth yourself. IMO, had it not been for 9/11, GW Bush would have been a rather benign 1 term President. He & his administration have had to deal with a whole new game, thanks to the likes of bin laden & his barbaric minions.

Multitudes of braniacs have attacked the stiuations in the middle east for decades and come up with exactly nothing. Arafat has shown that he's not interested in peace, regardless of the drivel that escapes his lips. That terrible situation is beyond your statement " ... The entire problem could be mitigated if ... ".

Originally posted by BorgHunter
I suppose it's a matter of the lesser of two evils. I still think they're equal in their terrorism. This sums up my view:

Israel's tactics may be different, but they still kill plenty of people.

The difference is that Isrealis are selective about who they shoot at, while Palestinians are not. That's DAMN big difference if you ask me.

I read an interview w/ a Berkley student w/ dual U.S./Isreali citizenship who volunteered to serve in Isreal's army. He said he NEVER fired until fired upon (That was Isreali military policy), but he ended up expeneding crateloads of ammunition. Unless I'm being completely misinformed (which I don't believe), Isreal is only on the defensive. That has been the case since at least WWII.

Is there any doubt that if Palestinians had their way, Jews would be exterminated from the face of the planet? That's why it's OK to purposely kill women and children. Possibly even more disgusting to me are Palestinian values that mimic Nazi values. They teach children who are too young to think for themselves to hate Jews. They spread ridiculously false rumors and lies about Jews. And they, as a society, are tolerant of people holding up signs that say things like "6 million was not enough."

Basically, Isreal is fighting for survival and Palestinians are fighting for land they didn't even want until Isrealis developed it. I mean, was Palestinian land an issue when Isreal was formed in 1948? No, it wasn't.

Palestinian values boil down to one thing: anti-semitism. Don't try to give them credence they don't deserve.

P.S. If I were an Isreali citizen, I would support even more hardline stances than Isreal takes now, such as ejecting every Palestinian from the country period. That's the only way to deal with the problem. There is no reasoning with the Palestinian people; they are the products of a society of hate, fanaticism, and ignorance.

You are right - Bush had decided to make war to Iraq. 9-11 gave him the opportunity to do so with a massive support from his opinion and he did. But that does not men he was right.

1- Even the White house now admits that there were no link between 9-11 and Iraq.

2- The UN never allowed the USA to start a war against Iraq.
Even worse, the UN inspectors had failed to find any WMD and kept asking more time for inspections. The USA attacked nevertheless, and it is now clear that there were no WMD and that the so called "secret evidence" used by the US govt to justify this war were bogus.
So the US violated international law and became the agressor for the first time in their history.

The UN has become a working definition of a toothless wonder. A whole lot of American citizens are beyond caring one little bit about what the UN says/does/threatens/rules on. What may have begun as a legitimate series of ideals following the debacle of the League of Nations appears to have outlived its' purpose.

The Un sure is far from perfect. But it is the only thing looking like a place were international conflicts can be settled. And it is also a place were many other issues are dealt with. Before saying it is useless, you'd better have a very good idea of what should replace it.

The UN is nothing more than a loose collection of has been super powers, 2nd rate democracys and gun shy dictatorships who get together to spend American money to try and stop American influence from spreading. Thats it. The whole thing is a sham. Kick the UN out of America and move it to Paris where they can turn into the beaurocratic top hatted pigs they really are.