The gulf war cost was 62 billion $. Saudi Arabia, Germany and Japan contributed to this bugdet for 48 billions $ !
Estimated cost of a new war against Iraq : 100 to 200 billion $. This time, none of these countries is ready to give a cent.
Ask Albania maybe?

Bin Laden said that the next strike on the western world would be economical. Maybe he is right. Maybe we just start the war and use all our money, ending up with a poor country. Does he win then?

We should have finished the job the first time we where there..

We should seek peaceful methods to war. We should spend the 200 billion dollars to create new jobs, fund schools and use the money to help feed people and feed the 32 million Americans whom live below the poverty level. Just say no to the war on Iraq!

Originally posted by ConfusedYouth
We should seek peaceful methods to war. We should spend the 200 billion dollars to create new jobs, fund schools and use the money to help feed people and feed the 32 million Americans whom live below the poverty level. Just say no to the war on Iraq!

Maybe those 32 Million americans should go out and earn their money instead of expecting others to provide for them.

Originally posted by SB54
Maybe those 32 Million americans should go out and earn their money instead of expecting others to provide for them.
My eye sight is really poor and it comes with nistagme and migraines. After a few hours of 'work' I can't produce no more.

If you want to find me a respectable job for two hours a day, maybe four five days a week, against a paycheck that is enough to stay alive on, feel free to email me. Otherwise shut your piewhole and go earn more money so the economics stay good and I don't have to do anything and can live off of your tax paying dollars.

Kill em all, let god sort em out!!!!:D :D

Originally posted by ConfusedYouth
We should seek peaceful methods to war. We should spend the 200 billion dollars to create new jobs, fund schools and use the money to help feed people and feed the 32 million Americans whom live below the poverty level. Just say no to the war on Iraq!

Thus weakening our defense and making us vulnerable to an attack by the terrorists. Brilliant, I tell you.

History proves fighting terrorism with terrorism only creates more terrorism. We have been bombing the Middle East for 11 years but it does not weaken the terrorist. If we fight back with military action this will only make the terrorist upset. If we seek alternative methods to war it will deteriorate. I have posted alternative methods to war before. Do you always ignore my post and make up your own conclusions?

Iraq is also not a threat. The CIA even admits that Iraq is enable to create weapsons of mass destruction.

You honestly think the best way to fight terrorism is to weaken the military? LOL

I would really love to see the CIA report that says Iraq can't make weapons of mass destruction. That's not what I've heard at all.

And how do you explain the photos showing that Iraq is rebuilding it's facilities that they were using to develop these weapons in before the Gulf War?

Military action has yet to work in fighting terrorism. This is a fact. If we fight terrorism with terrorism we only create more terrorism. Look at they Israel and Palestine conflict. We have alternative methods to war they need to be used because military action doesn’t.

Iraq has no nuclear capacity and is years away from having the ability to turn fissile nuclear material--even if this could somehow be obtained--into a weapon.

Iraq also lacks any long-range missiles. Even the CIA reports that "Iraq is unlikely to test before 2015 any [intercontinental ballistic missiles] that would threaten the United States, even if United Nations (UN) prohibitions were eliminated or significantly reduced in the next few years."

The threat of Iraq’s weapons program is being wildly exaggerated by politicians and the media to scare people into supporting a new war on Iraq

Damn, I am glad you are not running this country. We would all be dead meat.

I'm glad your not running the country because you would create more enemies than we already have.

Also tell me why alternative methods to war want work? My ideas seem to be rational and well thought-out. Your ideas consist of killing innocent civilians for the gain of ending terrorism. Aren’t we committing terrorism our self when we kill innocent civilians?

I will say it again. Terrorism does not end terrorism. Look at the Palestine/Israel conflict. We have been battling terrorism in the Middle East for 11 years and it still exist. Your idea sucks just as much as mine.

A society like the US is always going to be vulnerable to terrorism and yes maybe a war in Iraq may increase the likelyhood of further radicalism pointed toward the US.

It's hard to say if a war in Iraq is the right thing or the wrong thing to do. History shows that appeasement never works - it is seen as weakness.

The world benefits from a strong US with a strong military presence - it creates a certain order. Look at the USSR and how many people died in civil wars after the USSR broke up.

Like it or not the US provides a lot of stability to the world and with Iraq - I don't think it is a case of them having such weapons of mass destruction right now - if they did then the US would not consider a war with Iraq. I think this is the real issue - Iraq is a wildcard that if it ever does aquire such weapons will hold the middle east hostage & threaten the US oil supply in the mid term.

If you live in the west your life revolves around Oil - this may not be great, but it is how it is - I for one wouldn't want to see drastic changes in the quality of living.

Could deplomacy be used instead of War? - maybe. I think they are giving that the best shot right now.

Originally posted by xiphoid
My eye sight is really poor and it comes with nistagme and migraines. After a few hours of 'work' I can't produce no more.

If you want to find me a respectable job for two hours a day, maybe four five days a week, against a paycheck that is enough to stay alive on, feel free to email me. Otherwise shut your piewhole and go earn more money so the economics stay good and I don't have to do anything and can live off of your tax paying dollars.

All I hear is "I am Lazy please provide for me". you should be thanking me for my charity instead of telling me to "shut my pie(w)hole". when you get a present don't you write a thank you note? well you are getting a present from hundreds of millions of tax-payers every month. i guess thats over 100,000,000 thank you notes you need to write.

Originally posted by SB54
All I hear is "I am Lazy please provide for me". you should be thanking me for my charity instead of telling me to "shut my pie(w)hole". when you get a present don't you write a thank you note? well you are getting a present from hundreds of millions of tax-payers every month. i guess thats over 100,000,000 thank you notes you need to write.

My husband and I make a good living. It is honestly sad how much luxury we have in this house that is so big we are considering adopting another child to better fill it. I am more than willing to allow my tax money to go to many of the areas it seems the majority of Republicans do not support such as funds for the arts, funds for education, and, yes, welfare. I agree that the system needs to be fixed, but I feel it needs to remain an option.

You never know SB, you may start having problems like a friend of mine who uses welfare. When she was around the age of 30 she started getting terrible headaches. I can't recall the name of her disorder, but the doctor said that florescent lights were causing her headaches and blind spells (she goes totally blind if she is exposed for too long). She can't use a computer for more than 30 minutes or so a day and can't stand the lights used in most places of work for over an hour or so. She would honestly work if she could. She has a masters in Library Sciences and made much better money before her condition started causing problems.

As an American living above the poverty line, I am more than happy to pay my share in taxes. My only wish is to elect politicians who will do better with those tax dollars, but welfare has little to do with that problem.

Your idea sucks just as much as mine.


Well at least you realize your idea sucks.

I never said my idea sucks. My idea is one that’s willing to help others in need. My idea is rational and humane. Your idea ignores the lower class into believing they can leave poverty if they try hard enough. May be a few do but statistics show it's highly unlikely.

Are you so selfish they your not willing to help others in need? Some people need welfare to survive. it’s the only way they can feed there children or provide them with a proper home or clothing.

If this nation is so great it will do what’s best for it's people. We should spend our money helping others rather than using money to fund wars.

Originally posted by ConfusedYouth
I never said my idea sucks. My idea is one that’s willing to help others in need. My idea is rational and humane. Your idea ignores the lower class into believing they can leave poverty if they try hard enough. May be a few do but statistics show it's highly unlikely.

Are you so selfish they your not willing to help others in need? Some people need welfare to survive. it’s the only way they can feed there children or provide them with a proper home or clothing.

If this nation is so great it will do what’s best for it's people. We should spend our money helping others rather than using money to fund wars.


Blah blah blah, I have never said I didn't think people should get aid.

I wonder if it's even possible for Bush to think of the economy and succeed in making it healthy, rather than fighting expensive wars. Oy vey...

What evidence do you have that would make me believe Bush isn't working on the economy? Do you live in the White House?

We need tax breaks to help the economy. The American people are being robbed by our own government.

We need taxes to support the lower class. Also we need taxes to fund organization. I know you like art. They are cutting art funds at schools. With higher taxes schools might receive more funding for art.

Originally posted by ConfusedYouth
We need taxes to support the lower class. Also we need taxes to fund organization. I know you like art. They are cutting art funds at schools. With higher taxes schools might receive more funding for art.

I firmly believe that the Americans are overtaxed. I also don't really trust the government to use that money wisely.

People like you seem to believe that the money Americans make rightfully belongs to the government and whatever they let us keep is just a gift.

I’m willing to pay taxes only if the money is going to benefit others. You have put words into my mouth. I never said anything about gifts. Like I stated before if the money will benefit others than I have no problem paying high taxes.

And you fully trust all those dark suits in Washington to use your money wisely?

I know they don’t spend my money wisely. That’s our problem.

All those nice big arguments about trust and distrust, yet no one has actually experienced any of those nor have solid sources to back their arguments up. Sorry. It just doesn't do it for me.
Yes!! I do understand it is your personal oppinion and that you are sharing that , together with the feelings and how you see it, I do understand. But still.

I think there just shouldn't be any war at all.

Many intersting contributions here, but I still don't get the answer to my initial question : how is Bush planning to finance a possible war ? By raising (much) more taxes ? Or by cutting (many) other expenses ?
All people who are in favor of a war against Iraq should be aware that they will have to pay for it, and 200 billions are not so easy to find even for the USA !

The military has a defense budget which Bush has increased since he went into office.

Yes. But this budget is for "normal" operation not wartime- it has not been increased from 200 billions (even if it already incredibly high !) So what is going to happen ? Woul Bush stop the war when the bugdet is spent (oops ! don't send another cruise missile, we've run out of tax money). Or will he go in a world tour with Micheal Jackson to raise money ?

Think about how many wars we have fought. Has paying for the war ever been some huge deal like you make it out to be? You make like taxes are going to go up up up because we simply can't afford it. That is ridiculous.

The economy has already been weakened by Sep. 11th and now the simple threat of war with Iraq. Not only will war cost money by paying for troops, missiles, etc., but the weak economy will go down as well, creating a rather large recession for us.

OK Dave just tell me where they will take the money from.

And again : you didn't pay for all the wars. Japan, Saudi Arabi and Germany were major contributors for Gulf war.

First of all, where do you get that 200 billion dollar figure? This will not be a big long war.

Second of all, when the time comes there will be other countries with us other than the UK. I promise.

Third of all, if money was a problem they would be debating it in congress. There are plenty in congress against the war. If they could avoid it by bringing up this point, it would be a big debate.

Fourth of all, I want to make a wager with folks. You think Bush is going to "kill the economy" with this war and will tax us out the wazoo to fund it, correct? I bet you 100 bucks that neither of these will happen.

You can PayPal me the money now or you can wait until after you see I'm right.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
when the time comes there will be other countries with us other than the UK. I promise.

"I promise" ! Oh yes, you convinced me. :rolleyes:

More seriously, this figure comes from Lawrence Lindsey, head of the National Economic Council, who priced the operation at up to $200bn (quoted by the Guardian, you can check on their site).

True, this is much more that what I read on other sources, so here is another estimate :
(quote from ABCnews)

" For the United States, the 1991 war against Saddam Hussein was a financial bargain: $61 billion, 80 percent ($48 billion) paid for by American allies, especially Japan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

But this time, with few exceptions, America's allies want no part of another war. That means the cost, estimated usually at anywhere from $50 billion to $100 billion, would be paid largely by the American taxpayer."

Just to put these figures in perspective :
For $40 billion, you can cover the entire Department of Education budget for this year. How much would it cost to provide every uninsured child in the U.S. with health insurance? Just $13 billion. And housing? For $9 billion, every homeless family with children could be housed.

Gee, I thought we were still paying for all of Clinton's military jaunts.

You liberals just wait. I will say I told you so. Just wait.

To think the United States, the richest nation in the world, can't afford to go and remove Saddam from IRAQ, is absolutely ridiculous. And, again, if it were true, it would be an issue of debate in Congress.

I didn't say you can't afford a war. I just say you will have to pay a tremendous amount of money for it.
And don't forget that you are not only the richest nation, you also have the biggest debt. Which mean you are actually living much above what you can really afford, at the expense of the rest of the world.

God I hate you european socialist pinkos. You live to hate the United States. You think the US is the greatest evil and the cause of all the world's problems. Get back in reality!

God, Dave, astrapol's right! Why do you jump all over every foreigner?

Originally posted by DaveTooner
God I hate you european socialist pinkos. You live to hate the United States. You think the US is the greatest evil and the cause of all the world's problems. Get back in reality!

Dave, I don't hate the USA. I have american friends, I've been there. Nice country, nice people, even the food was not so bad (except for your coffee).

Actually I take a few hours each week to contribute to this forum because I like to discuss with american people, including those who do not share my opinions. And I make the effort to do so in your language.

Internet is a great thing : it allows (rich and educated) people from many countries to discuss, share their experiences, learn things and try to find solutions to global issues. It could be a way of understanding each other much better. That's what I believe - maybe I am naive.

And you, why do you contribute to this forum ? What are your motivations ?

You may like some Americans but you sure seem to hate our Government. A common attitude amongst Eurpopeans, I might add.

For what it's worth, I contribute this forum because I actually enjoy listening to the absurd ideas of liberals and then showing them where they're wrong. This is just my opinion, of course.

Dave, no one here is wrong, they simply have different beliefs than yours. You are so very naïve in thinking that you're right and everyone else is wrong. So naïve.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
You may like some Americans but you sure seem to hate our Government. A common attitude amongst Eurpopeans, I might add.

I don't know. What makes you think so ?

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Dave, no one here is wrong, they simply have different beliefs than yours.
Borg hunter, thank you for this post, but in fact I think Dave is right. I mean, I also believe some people are wrong. If i didn't believe that, I would have to consider that any opinion is acceptable, which I don't. I think some ideas are wrong and even sometimes dangerous.
But that doesn't make me feel I'm always right. Yes, even if I'm nearly perfect :cool:

True. Ever so true.

Yep, we're going to have to pay for the war and the 38 billion for the creation of the Homeland Security Department.

Hey lively, the homeland security dept. is going to create a buttload of new jobs. Isn't that what you liberals are all about - taking more money from the rest of us to create govt programs that will result in more jobs? Sounds like you are contradicting your basic beliefs. Or is it only O.K. when the liberals do it? Just curious.

Originally posted by xingyiman
Hey lively, the homeland security dept. is going to create a buttload of new jobs. Isn't that what you liberals are all about - taking more money from the rest of us to create govt programs that will result in more jobs? Sounds like you are contradicting your basic beliefs. Or is it only O.K. when the liberals do it? Just curious.

From reading your post, it appears you need to find out more about "what liberals are all about" before spreading useless stereotypes. Liberals and conservatives support big government, whether you believe it or not, they just support big government for different purposes.

Liberals usually support gov. programs for the needy, whereas conservatives often support it for reasons of national security (i.e. Homeland Security Dept.). The far right even supports laws governing morality. These are just generalizations, though -- no conservative or liberal always does anything.

Homeland Security may provide more jobs. I don't know how many new jobs because it is really just combining many organizations that already exist, so I don't know how many new workers will be needed.

I support many government programs, not all whether they be started by dem. leaders or rep. leaders. I worry about the cost of this Homeland Security department, and I don't mean only the economic cost. Divisions like the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection part of the department scare me. Maybe we can bring back the "black list" to make certain we sniff out all the communists. :D

"Maybe we can bring back the "black list" to make certain we sniff out all the communists. " J_Lively

I thought Clinton was already up to that with the right wing militias during his presidency.

Originally posted by xingyiman
I thought Clinton was already up to that with the right wing militias during his presidency.

I'm not sure what you are referring to and I don't know, at all, how Clinton is relevant to this discussion. Are you saying that Bush is just following a precedence sat by Clinton?

Perhaps, you took one small comment in my post out of context just so you could point out a fault in a dem. president? That still has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I point out flaws in democrats all the time.

I've already stated, on this thread and many others here, that there are many programs and actions started or condoned by democratic leaders that I do not support. Some things I can not support no matter which party is behind them.

Maybe later on you will actually want to discuss the pros and cons of the possible (probable) up-coming war and the Homeland Security Dept. If so, let me know.

Just for your information, for those who care about what happens "overseas"…
It seems that the french government is actually copying most recipes from yours ! Not only our military buget in drastically increasing, including the funding for a new carrier we obviously don't need, but the security minister has been so active these last months - we could hardly see anyone else on TV ! The major police and intelligence services in my country now have reinforced powers, new laws have been passed to make it easier for them to arrest "dangerous people" like beggars, gypsies, etc… And a major building program has been launched to make brand new prisons.
Of course many social programs also have been cutted.

So, if you want some holidays far away from Bush and his team, don't choose my nice country :(

A liberal will never support any program that is aimed at defending America from other countries.

"I'm not sure what you are referring to and I don't know, at all, how Clinton is relevant to this discussion. Are you saying that Bush is just following a precedence sat by Clinton? " - J-lively

Oh come on! It is a documented fact that Clinton inappropriately(and illegally) used the I.R.S. as muscle against opponents. What about the F.B.I. files (filegate)? I could go on. It really cracks me up(actually it kind of frightens me) that the same liberals who are decrying Bush's assault on civil liberties and invasions of privacy were mouse silent when Clinton was doing the exact same things and probably worse. In fact most of the lattitude and power that Bush as a sitting President has to impede upon our rights establishedand instituted by none other than Clinton himself FOR himself. He never had time to fully realize his dreams because he was so busy covering up for all the lies and corruptions that were finally catching up with him. Oh, and by the way, the policies of "sniffing out communists" were mostly instituted and carried out under democratic administrations (Truman, Kennedy, Johnson).

Have you got something about Albania???

Originally posted by DaveTooner
A liberal will never support any program that is aimed at defending America from other countries.
Not if it's unnecessary.

And I believe many "liberals" support the Homeland Security Dept. and many "conservatives" oppose it.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
A liberal will never support any program that is aimed at defending America from other countries.

LMAO! That's an ignorant statement!

I have said so many times on here already that I agree that war is sometimes necessary. I like living in America -- if I didn't I could have moved long ago. I don't want to be invaded and forced into another way of life.

Dave, do you just come here to post and read your own words? You sure aren't paying attention to anyone elses.

Please explain to me why a homeland security dept. is a "bad idea." Who does it hurt most?

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Please explain to me why a homeland security dept. is a "bad idea." Who does it hurt most?

I have concerns about the Homeland Sec. Dept. but am not totally against it. I worry about what type of info. will be collected by the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection division and how that info. will be used.

I am also very concerned by some of the people Bush is endorsing for these positions -- not the least of which being that Bush wants John Poindexter to head the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection department -- yes, the same Poindexter found guilty of lying before the senate and breaking other laws during the Iran-Contra affair.

The pros I see for the Homeland Sec. Dept. is that it will bring divisions of the gov. together and encourage the sharing of information and communication.

I was honestly quite pleased to see Bush's proposed budget for the coming year. More money was set aside for social programs than defense, and more money was budgeted for education than for the Homeland Sec. Dept.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ConfusedYouth
[B]Military action has yet to work in fighting terrorism. This is a fact. If we fight terrorism with terrorism we only create more terrorism. Look at they Israel and Palestine conflict. We have alternative methods to war they need to be used because military action doesn’t.



Military action is the only thing that can work when fighting terrorism. It is impossible to reason with people who have devoted their lives to destroying you; even more so when these people happen to be the most retarded, irrational bastards alive. Sure military action will not put an end to all terrorism, but that is only because there are so many different terrorist groups. No life is sacred to these people, not even their own. They have been brainwashed into believing that all of their problems can be attributed to a certain country/religion/whatever else they feel like pawning their troubles off on. If a country attacked another country, would any rational human being protest if the recieving country defended themselves? Would you call their reaction to the attack terrorism? How is combating terrorism with military action any different?

You cannot refrain from punnishing terrorists because you are afraid of what they will do to you, or that it will cause them to become even more angry. This behavior will only delude them into believing that they are all powerful, and will make them more confident in their attacks. Terrorists are like children ( vicious crazy bastard children mind you, but the principle is the same. ). They test their limits, and see what they can get away with. If you do not stop them now, they will simply become stronger, more brazen, and more distructive.

As far as alternatives to military action, I do not think that there is a single argument that you could present that would have the slightest effect. These people are insane. They do not want any real change; there is no one out there stupid enough to genuinely believe that crashing planes into buildings will solve their problems. They are there because " Laddie " is a spoiled, rich, disgruntled, racist bastard.



[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ConfusedYouth
Iraq has no nuclear capacity and is years away from having the ability to turn fissile nuclear material--even if this could somehow be obtained--into a weapon.



Good idea! Let's wait until they have their nuclear weapons before we decide to stop them. The fact is that they are making moves towards creating these weapons and, eventually, will figure it out. Besides that, do you really want Iraq to possess any weapons capable of doing harm? Their leader is one psycotic sonofabitch who should never have been allowed to stay in power this long. In this case, prevention is the best cure.

Mika, How do you know so well what's in a terrorist mind ? And how would you define "terrorism ?".
May I remind you that ther is no link between Iraq and 9-11 ?

Mika,

You posted:

"It is impossible to reason with people who have devoted their lives to destroying you; even more so when these people happen to be the most retarded, irrational bastards alive."
***

Is that your best definition of an Israeli Zionist?

Tentmaker

Originally posted by astrapol2
Mika, How do you know so well what's in a terrorist mind ? And how would you define "terrorism ?".
May I remind you that ther is no link between Iraq and 9-11 ?

Actually there is evidence that shows that Saddam and Bin Laden are somewhat fond of each other. Whether or not Saddam helped him or not hasn't been proven one way or the other (that I know of), but the possibility of it seems very realistic.

Even if that was true (which still has to be proven : I'm waiting for more precise facts !), that would not mean that by making war to Saddam, it would weaken Bin Laden. In fact it would resulte in the opposite : another war in Iraq would upset many people in muslim countries, thus fueling extremists propagandas and making Bin Laden even more popular ! Terrorims takes its roots in anger and violence. More violence will make it grow.

Originally posted by astrapol2
Mika, How do you know so well what's in a terrorist mind ?



What? What are you accusing me of?! One can guage how a person thinks and what their motives are by their actions. Ofcourse I do not know exactally what these people are thinking, but I would say that their actions are very much linked to a cult mentality; block out your common sense and listen to every word that your leader says. As well, look back to when the twin towers were attacked the first time. The then president hardly did enough to show terrorists that their distructive actions would have terrible consequences for the terrorist groups involved. A few years later the towers are again attacked, only this time the terrorist are far better trained, and are successful in their mission.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by astrapol2
May I remind you that ther is no link between Iraq and 9-11 ?


For this remark, you will have to look back at what I was responding to. The person was speaking about terrorists not Iraq; as was I.

Originally posted by Tentmaker
Mika,

You posted:

"It is impossible to reason with people who have devoted their lives to destroying you; even more so when these people happen to be the most retarded, irrational bastards alive."
***

Is that your best definition of an Israeli Zionist?

Tentmaker



My best definition, perhaps not. I admit that I got caught up in the moment. I stand by my description of them as irrational and ( for the most part ) insane though. Although I think that that description holds true for anyone who allows their mind to be corrupted by religion and the ideals of other even crazier people. How could any coherent human being possibly think that flying a plane into a building and killing themselves is a good idea? Even if you convinced yourself that crashing a plane was a good idea, are parachutes that expensive?

Originally posted by astrapol2
Even if that was true (which still has to be proven : I'm waiting for more precise facts !), that would not mean that by making war to Saddam, it would weaken Bin Laden. In fact it would resulte in the opposite : another war in Iraq would upset many people in muslim countries, thus fueling extremists propagandas and making Bin Laden even more popular ! Terrorims takes its roots in anger and violence. More violence will make it grow.



The reason that I am in favour of military action is because I am not willing to let the actions of terrorists go unpunnished. If you can come up with a reasonable, effective alternative to " violence " I will gladly accept it.

Originally posted by MikaSiku
The reason that I am in favour of military action is because I am not willing to let the actions of terrorists go unpunnished.

So punish the terrorists (if you can find them) , not Iraq (and specially the Iraqi people) who has no link with 9-11.
Anyway, you don't make wars to "punish" people !
All this is about revenge, anger and punishment. I see no more rationality in making war to Iraq (if not considering the real but not so nice motives - oil and weapons lobby) than in crashig a plane on the twin towers. You don't understand how people "allow their mind to be corrupted by the ideals of other even crazier people" ? So don't allow Bush and his "good vs evil" simplist vision of the world to corrupt your own mind !

Mika,

Well said. The insanity lies equally in both camps. No decent person would go to bed with either of them.

Tentmaker

Originally posted by astrapol2
So punish the terrorists (if you can find them) , not Iraq (and specially the Iraqi people) who has no link with 9-11.
Anyway, you don't make wars to "punish" people !
All this is about revenge, anger and punishment. I see no more rationality in making war to Iraq (if not considering the real but not so nice motives - oil and weapons lobby) than in crashig a plane on the twin towers. You don't understand how people "allow their mind to be corrupted by the ideals of other even crazier people" ? So don't allow Bush and his "good vs evil" simplist vision of the world to corrupt your own mind !



So it is your belief then that anyone with a different opinion than you on military action as a means of stopping terrorism has to have gotten the idea from Bush? Let me clarify this for you, I have never once been able to sit through one of Bush's lectures on terrorism. Anyone with half a brain can recognize that he is sensationalistic in his speech, and only trying to drum up support. I most definately do not get my opinions from him.


As for your other comments, taking over Iraq would be a blessing for the Iraqi people. It is they who are most affected by the actions of the fascist dictator that runs the country. When I said punish, I was speaking about what should be done to the terrorists, not Iraq. I never said that wars are started as a means of punishing people, but those are interesting words to have put in your mouth.

Now how about you answer my question. You stated that " Even if that was true (which still has to be proven : I'm waiting for more precise facts !), that would not mean that by making war to Saddam, it would weaken Bin Laden. In fact it would resulte in the opposite : another war in Iraq would upset many people in muslim countries, thus fueling extremists propagandas and making Bin Laden even more popular ! Terrorims takes its roots in anger and violence. More violence will make it grow. "

Of course this is absolutely insane, but since it is your opinion, back it. Tell us what you would do to Iraq if you found out that they played a major role in the terrorist attacks. Do you really think that you could effectively retaliate without violence?

If I found that Iraq had played a major role in the attacks, I would support war to Iraq. But this is pure fiction.

I return the question to you :
What if you found out that there is no massive destruction weapons in Iraq nor link with the 9-11 attacks ? Would you still support war ?

Originally posted by astrapol2
If I found that Iraq had played a major role in the attacks, I would support war to Iraq. But this is pure fiction.

I return the question to you :
What if you found out that there is no massive destruction weapons in Iraq nor link with the 9-11 attacks ? Would you still support war ?



That is a more difficult question to answer then it seems. If Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks, and were as defenseless as a kitten as far as their weapons capabilities, then I suppose that there would be no legal reason to invade them. That being said however, I am not comfortable with someone like Saddam having power over anyone or anything. Even seemingly innocent technologies could be used by him to cause major harm. He obviously despises western society, and, in my opinion, it really is only a matter of time before he, or one of his equally sadistic offspring, does something about it. It really is difficult to say. The entire middle east needs to get it's act together, and I do not see that happening without some sort of intervention.

OK so basically our positions are not so different as they seemed.
The main difference between us is that I don't believe in the real threat of Saddam now, or more exactly I think this threat is not enough ti justify a war that would surely cause a lot of suffering and be the cause of future conflicts.
Now we can just wait until the inspectors do their job, and hope i was right.

I just thought I'd add this little tid bit:

I was watching the news last night and they were talking about the possible war and how much it would cost. The estimate they gave was 50 billion. A far cry from 200 billion.

Dave,

Given Bush's obsession for the "big lie" it is a safe bet that if he said that the war will cost $50 billion, it will be $500 billion before all is done and said.

Tentmaker

Nice try, pinko, but Bush didn't say it. These were analysts, Former military personel, etc who estimated that cost. No affiliation with the government.

Dave,

When you come out of the self-induced trace of stupidity take a small dose of reality.

Like such commentators would make statements not carrying the stamp of approval of the Zionist-led Bushites. Who the hell do you think controls mainstream media?

Tentmaker

Why does the U.S. federal government want to spend $344 billion on the Pentagon for the current fiscal year?

It currently spends only $42 billion on education; only a miserable $42 billion on all education; a whole $26 billion on affordable housing; a whopping $6 billion on Head Start; and an amazing $1 billion on school construction. Might there not be something distorted about this picture?

Originally posted by Tentmaker
Why does the U.S. federal government want to spend $344 billion on the Pentagon for the current fiscal year?

It currently spends only $42 billion on education; only a miserable $42 billion on all education; a whole $26 billion on affordable housing; a whopping $6 billion on Head Start; and an amazing $1 billion on school construction. Might there not be something distorted about this picture?
I completely and wholeheartedly agree.

Originally posted by Tentmaker
Dave,

When you come out of the self-induced trace of stupidity take a small dose of reality.

Like such commentators would make statements not carrying the stamp of approval of the Zionist-led Bushites. Who the hell do you think controls mainstream media?

Tentmaker

Oh, so you are one of the morons that thinks that the Government controls what the media reports, huh? How utterly ridiculous.

Dave,

Your stupidity is exceedingly amusing. Do keep it well stoked. I'm in need of belly laughs.

Read this, idiot:

ohn Swinton, former Chief of Staff for the New York Times stated,


"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history in America as an independent press. You know it and I know it.
"There is not one of you who dare write your honest opinion and if you did you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with.

"Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions, would be out in the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinion to appear in one issue of my paper, before 24 hours my occupation would be gone.

"The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell this country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it.

"What folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools of vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull our strings and we dance.

"Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

- New York Press Club, 1953

This is absolutely asinine. Cable news networks, newspapers, radio stations, etc. are privately owned. The government does not tell them what they can and cannot report. If the government did this, then why are there so many stories that show the flaws of government? Why do different stations report different things? These news outlets are controled by the owners and the people hired by the owners. You think that some article written by a guy in 1953 is going to convince me of this ridiculous accusation? Please.

A Current Opinion:


"The control of the opinion-molding media is monolithic. All of the controlled media -- television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, motion pictures -- speak with a single voice, each reinforcing the other. Despite the appearance of variety, there is no real dissent, no alternative source of facts or ideas accessible to the great mass of people which might allow them to form opinions at odds with those of the media masters. They are presented with a single view of the world -- a world in which every voice proclaims that Jews are the cornerstone of Humanity, the inerrant nature of the Jewish "Holocaust" tale, that "Israel" has to be accepted as an established fact, that resisting Judaism is "anti-Semitic", that the Iraqis were the "bad guys" in the Gulf War, that there is no fault in the international Jewish Capitalist Banking system, that Islam is always a potential "threat" and that countries like Iran, Sudan and Libya are "supporting terrorism", that Israel´s mass murders and atrocities are made "in legitimate self-defence", that the Black leader Louis Farrakhan is a "racist bigot", etc. It is a view of the world designed by the media masters to suit their own ends -- and the pressure to conform to that view is overhelming. People adapt their opinion to it, vote in accord with it, and shape their lives to fit it."

www.ety.com

Does government also control media on the Internet?

Ever hear of Echelon and Carnivore?

Tentmaker

Tentmaker,
Again the jewish conspiracy theory ! Last time are you going to quote the "Protocols of Zion ?"

Astrapol2,

I go where the evidence leads. Consider that several billion people, not all of whom are stupid, say that they is an international Jewish conspiracy. A very small camp among all those billions are quite forceful in their charge that a global Jewish conspiracy exist. That small camp is called the Orthodox Jew. Who am I to argue against all these people?

BTW, the title of the mentioned work is: The Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion.

Tentmaker

I do not even wish to debate on that matter. This is infamous.

Astrapol2,

You do not wish to debate which matter? And what do you consider "infamous"?

Tentmaker

Astrapol2,

Just for you:

Zionism: Compulsory Suicide for Jews

(Are Americans Next?)

By Henry Makow, Ph.D.

On Nov. 25, 1940, a boat carrying Jewish refugees from Nazi Europe, the "Patra," exploded and sank off the coast of Palestine killing 252 people.

The Zionist "Haganah" claimed the passengers committed suicide to protest British refusal to let them land. Years later, it admitted that rather than let the passengers go to Mauritius it blew up the vessel.

"Sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice the few in order to save the many," Moshe Sharett, a former Israeli Prime Minister said at a memorial service in 1958.

In fact, during the Holocaust, Zionist policy was that Jewish life had no value unless it promoted the cause of the creation of Israel. "One goat in Israel is worth more than the whole Diaspora," Yitzhak Greenbaum, head of the Jewish Agency's "Rescue Committee" said.

Rabbi Moshe Shonfeld accuses the Zionists of collaborating in the Nazi slaughter of European Jewry directly and indirectly.

The charges are contained in his book, "Holocaust Victims Accuse" (1977) which is readable on line. http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/books.htm (Download it by right-clicking on the red Acrobat PDF link. Then left-click "Save Target.")

Rabbi Shonfeld calls the Zionists "war criminals," who usurped the leadership of the Jewish people, betrayed their trust, and, after their annihilation, reaped the moral capital.

Shonfeld states: "The Zionist approach that Jewish blood is the anointing oil needed for the wheels of the Jewish state is not a thing of the past. It remains operable to this very day."

Other books on this theme by Jews include: Edwin Black, "The Transfer Agreement"; Ben Hecht, "Perfidy," M.J. Nurenberger "The Scared and the Damned"; Joel Brand, "Satan and the Soul"; Chaim Lazar, "Destruction and Rebellion"; and Rabbi Michael Dov Ber Weismandel "From the Depth."

The implication, which I will explore later, is that Zionism, at the top, is not a Jewish movement. In the words of veteran Israeli politician Eliezar Livneh, "The Zionist heritage had in it something flawed to begin with."

SHOCKING ''HIGHLIGHTS'' OF RABBI SHONFELD'S BOOK:

+ While European Jews were in mortal danger, Zionist leaders in America deliberately provoked and enraged Hitler. They began in 1933 by initiating a worldwide boycott of Nazi goods. Dieter von Wissliczeny, Adolph Eichmann's lieutenant, told Rabbi Weissmandl that in 1941 Hitler flew into a rage when Rabbi Stephen Wise, in the name of the entire Jewish people, "declared war on Germany". Hitler fell on the floor, bit the carpet and vowed: "Now I'll destroy them. Now I'll destroy them." In Jan. 1942, he convened the "Wannsee Conference" where the "final solution" took shape.

+ Rabbi Shonfeld says the Nazis chose Zionist activists to run the "Judenrats" and to be Jewish police or "Kapos." "The Nazis found in these 'elders' what they hoped for, loyal and obedient servants who because of their lust for money and power, led the masses to their destruction." The Zionists were often intellectuals who were often "more cruel than the Nazis" and kept secret the trains' final destination. In contrast to secular Zionists, Shonfeld says Orthodox Jewish rabbis refused to collaborate and tended their beleaguered flocks to the end.

+ Rabbi Shonfeld cites numerous instances where Zionists sabotaged attempts to organize resistance, ransom and relief. They undermined an effort by Vladimir Jabotinsky to arm Jews before the war. They stopped a program by American Orthodox Jews to send food parcels to the ghettos (where child mortality was 60%) saying it violated the boycott. They thwarted a British parliamentary initiative to send refugees to Mauritius, demanding they go to Palestine instead. They blocked a similar initiative in the US Congress. At the same time, they rescued young Zionists. Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist Chief and later first President of Israel said: "Every nation has its dead in its fight for its homeland. The suffering under Hitler are our dead." He said they "were moral and economic dust in a cruel world."

+ Rabbi Weismandel, who was in Slovakia, provided maps of Auschwitz and begged Jewish leaders to pressure the Allies to bomb the tracks and crematoriums. The leaders didn't press the Allies because the secret policy was to annihilate non-Zionist Jews. The Nazis came to understand that death trains and camps would be safe from attack and actually concentrated industry there. (See also, William Perl, "The Holocaust Conspiracy.')

None of the above is intended to absolve the Nazis of responsibility. However, the holocaust could have been prevented or at least alleviated had the Zionist leadership behaved honorably.

WHAT IS ''ZIONISM''?

Lord Acton said, “The truth will come out when powerful people no longer wish to suppress it.” Since Sept. 11, more and more people are turning to the "conspiratorial" or "suppressed" view of history for explanations.

In 1891, Cecil Rhodes started a secret society called the "Round Table" dedicated to world hegemony for the shareholders of the Bank of England and their allies. These priggish aristocrats, including the Rothschilds, realized they must control the world to safeguard their monopoly on money creation) as well as global resources. The same folks control the U.S. Federal Reserve and other major central banks. http://www.savethemales.ca/260602.html

They were united also by a commitment to freemasonry, which at the top, is dedicated to the destruction of Christianity, the worship of Lucifer, and the building of a pagan temple in Jerusalem. They see most of humanity as "useless eaters" and they pioneered eugenics to decrease population and weed out inferior specimens. The eventual annihilation of non-Zionist Jews was rooted in this English movement.

In 1897, the first Zionist Congress took place in Basle. In 1904, the founder of Zionism Theodore Herzl died at age 44 under suspicious circumstances. The movement was taken over by the Round Table. The purpose was to use it and Communism to advance their plan for world hegemony. During the same week in November 1917, the Bolshevik Revolution took place and the Balfour Declaration promised Palestine to the Jews.

The Round Table group planned three world wars to degrade, demoralize and destroy mankind, rendering it defenceless. The Third World War, now beginning, pits the Zionists against the Muslims. http://www.savethemales.ca/071002.html

The purpose of Zionism is to help colonize the Middle East, subvert Islam, and control the oilfields. For this reason Israel continues to receive blank checks. (One analyst estimates the US taxpayer has spent $1.7 trillion on Israel.) This is why the founding of Israel took precedence over the welfare of the Jewish people.

Israel has little to do with the Jewish people. Zionism, Communism, Feminism, Nazism, are creations of the same satanic cabal. These 'isms are means to the final goal, a neo feudal global dictatorship. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover referred to this when he said: "The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists".



Arab terrorism is also backed by this cabal. (http://www.savethemales.ca/251102.html) Osama Bin Laden made more than 260 phone calls to England between 1996-1998. (http://www.afgha.com/viewtopic.php?topic=748&forum=7) The aim is to contrive a "war of civilizations" as an excuse to grind down both Muslim states and the West to create a global police state.

What I have been calling "compulsory suicide" is satanic "culling." The constant reference by Zionist and other leaders to "blood sacrifice" refers to the practice of human sacrifice. Apparently energy is released when people are slaughtered. Recently U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said the Hezbollah owes the U.S. a "blood debt.") (http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=673)

Our rulers design wars as offerings to Lucifer. They find slaughter and mayhem exhilarating, as long as it is someone else who is sacrificed.

WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE THE JEWS?

For millennia, Jews owed their survival to their devotion to "Torah." In the last century they have forsaken this portable spiritual home, and placed their faith in a tangible one, Israel.

Unfortunately, they have been duped.

Israelis are becoming unwitting overseers in the global plantation. American Jews, prominent in media, education, government and finance, are also unwitting instruments. They will end up taking the blame for the real culprits, the shareholders of the world's major central banks.

Mankind has been betrayed by its leadership. Of Jewish leadership, Israeli journalist Barry Chamish writes: "The richest appoint themselves to the highest posts. Thus the greediest and most unscrupulous run the show. [They] ... will sell their souls and those of their people for power and acclaim." See Barry Chamish "Just as Scared, Just as Doomed."http://www.redmoonrising.com/bc15.htm

There are a few hundred thousand orthodox Jews like Rabbi Shonfeld who have always understood Zionism. They have always rejected the state of Israel and remained faithful to the Torah. They could form a core for a genuine Jewish revival. Their websites are www.jewsagainstzionism.com , http://www.jewsnotzionists.org. and www.netureikarta.org.

...

Henry Makow, Ph. D. is the inventor of the board game Scruples and the author of "A Long Way to go for a Date." henrym@mts.net


http://www.savethemales.ca


Tentmaker

Astrapol2,

If you have significant doubt about the claims made in my post, you may wish to access a site containing the Betarian Ideology. It could possibly be an eye-opener, politically speaking.

Tentmaker

It never ceases to amaze me that people who choose forums to attack other people and people's beliefs are the first to cry foul, begin to whine, and/or get vulgar when they finally meet with a real knife fighter. Lesson to be learned by these lass than rational creatures: choose with caution the people and beliefs you are going to attack. Those better equipped than you BITE.

Tentmaker