December 3, 2004 12:33 PM
Danny Schechter's new film Weapons of Mass Deception opens today in Austin, Boston and Denver. (Showtimes)
I had the opportunity to see the film and hang out with Danny when I was at the Copenhagen festival. It's very well done. The film takes on the entire media for its complicity in selling the Iraq war, not just Fox News as Outfoxed did. It shows how embedded "journalism" is used as propaganda, and tells the story in a more personal narrative way, as opposed to loads and loads of footage. The Boston Phoenix said it's "more cohesive and devastating than Fahrenheit 911"
He's also got some good footage of inside the Fox News Channel offices, which I really enjoyed.
Weapons of Mass Deception (12.03.2004)
Next Entry: "If Jesus were in Ibiza (12.10.2004)
Previous Entry: The Opportunity Society (12.03.2004)
Tom from Madison:
As a society, Americans are deeply in need a source of facts that is independant from the filtered news stories we get from administration-approved sources.
The death toll keeps rising in Iraq, yet we don't seem to get much in the way of explanation as to why this is happening or when it will end.
It is quite disheartening to talk to families of soldiers. A custodian at the college where I work has 2 sons in this war--one air force, one army. The one in the army is in Mosul. Families have gotten together to send care packages including bedding, tooth-brushes and other basic necessities including non-perishable food. The supplies getting to places like Mosul are absoutely pathetic.
Morale is low as the soldiers can't see a path to victory. A purely military solution doesn't seem possible given the amount of troops on the ground and the number of factions trying to seize control.
This has truly become a quagmire. Unfortunately, Fox will never report it. Still, they can't remain in denial forever. Too many people are coming back telling to many tales--and they don't match the managed news you see on cable.
Tue Dec 7 2004 7:27 AM
njguardsman:
Tom from Madison
Do you know how many soldiers dies on D day, do you know how many soldiers were lost during World War II?
Did you know the 18 months ago the U. S. only had about 250 armored humvees and APCs in Iraq, now that number is up to 15,000!
Up to this point in the war, we have lost fewer soldiers then in any other war weve been in thats because of our training and technology and the plain old ability to KICK TERRORIST ASS!
My wife works with a mother whos son is in Baghdad, he just came back for two weeks leave and he was ready willing and able to go back when his two weeks were up.
I understand soldiers miss their families and their way of life back home, I myself just came back from a 3 month deployment.
You want to talk about managed news look no further then: CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, The Washington (com)Post, The NY Times, the LA Times, Public TV stations, and National Public Radio.
How many soldiers died in Bosnia? How many are still there? Oh but we only care about the soldiers a Republican President sends in harms way.
Fri Dec 10 2004 3:31 PM
Shock and Awe:
How long ago, again, did Bush declare "Mission Accomplished"????
Sun Dec 12 2004 3:15 PM
evil conservative666:
I'd ask how much longer the left is gonna discuss semantics, but seeing as how that's all that's left for them, I'll take it.
Sun Dec 12 2004 3:32 PM
Dave E.:
Semantics?
That's rich. Any criticism is just semantics now? Do you not know how terribly these wars are being managed? And you wanna color the continuing devolution as semantics?
Tell that to any family that lost someone in Iraq/Afghanistan and brace yourself for a stiff right hook.
Sun Dec 12 2004 9:30 PM
Right Wing Robby:
We have lost far fewer soldiers and our men are better protected then in any war in our history.
There is a simple fact in war and is can be summed up by the words of a German officer in WW2."No plan has ever survived contact with the enemy."
The left frames this war as a being lost, because it helps their agenda. The truth is its the best our soldiers have ever done.
Mon Dec 13 2004 6:58 AM
Tom from Madison:
Neo-cons deserve all the credit for 1) starting this unnecessary war and 2) messing it royally once they started it.
Now it's not just the left who are criticizing this war. I have talked to plenty of families who have sons and daughters over there. They are appalled at the lack of planning. They can't believe the accelerating death toll and total refusal on the part of the administration to acknowledge that there have been serious mistakes--miscalculations that have killed and maimed thousands with no end in sight. Tragically, Rumsfeld and those in charge are still in denial!
It is pathetic how those who have served are being betrayed by their own governement. Soldiers who have served their tours of duty are wrongly being forced to stay extra time.
It is abundantly clear now that the loss of US and Iraqi life has not made the US safer. History will record the Iraq war as a totally unnecessary grandiose blunder.
George W Bush deserves recognition as a top-notch salesman. He continues to play on misguided 9/11 fears, false feelings of patriotism, and ignorant pseudo-Christian "values" to accomplish political gains. Ultimately he and the Republicans will be held responsible by the electorate. You can't fool all the people all the time!
Mon Dec 13 2004 7:31 AM
Dave E.:
RWR:
Nazi quotes now? Could your hidden affections be starting to show?"Better protected"? ...as long as they scavenge a scrapyard before they're deployed (do you just keep yourself uninformed so that pristine illusion of the world isn't disturbed?).
Thanks for teeing those up for me.
Rational society:
How much longer will the wrong wingnuts continue to spout the "we've lost far fewer in this war" rhetoric? It's awfully brash to trumpet as a point of success the number killed, even as they continue to get picked off by remote-controlled IED's.Iraq is not a war. It's an unnecessary occupation, an untenable position to place our military in. They are not designed to be a police force.
A right winger using a Nazi quote for support. I'm getting closer to having seen it all after that one.
Mon Dec 13 2004 8:23 AM
Tom from Madison:
Imagine if, as he was standing on the aircraft carrier, George W Bush had said we will have only 1,200 more US military personnel killed by the end of 2004. What would the reaction have been? Would he have been re-elected?
Unfortunately, the death toll was the foreseeable truth; the predictable result of what he started.
If the President REALLY believed our loss of life would be less, he is profoundly stupid. If he knew better and proceeded anyway, he is evil. It looks to me like he's both.
Mon Dec 13 2004 9:20 AM
Right Wing Robby:
Tom,
You are so far left, can you even see the middle anymore? You make Michael Moore look like a George Bush supporter.
Your Anti-American crap is so old. To call your own President evil is so wrong its funny. There are Presidents I didnt like, but I knew they loved their country and werent evil.
If must be hard for you to wke up everyday in a country you hate. You can leave Tom. No one is forcing you to stay here.
I'll buy you a one way ticket. I'm serious. Ill use my tax refund from the tax cuts to pay for it.
Mon Dec 13 2004 9:41 AM
Actually, if I'm not mistake, technically, Tom is forced to stay. Unless he has citizenship in some other country, or there's a country willing to take him, he's stuck here.
Mon Dec 13 2004 9:57 AM
Right Wing Robby:
I am sure there are plenty of countries that think Bush is evil. He could try North Korea or Iran for instance. Granted, they will cut his head off, but he could blame it on Bush right before it happens.
Mon Dec 13 2004 10:22 AM
Tom from Madison:
RWR:
1) I love my country. That's why I criticize policies that are antithetical to its constitution. Pre-emptive war against a country as weak as Iraq is truly a perversion of what the founding fathers had in mind.
2) I'm not going anywhere.
3) It's not a leftist position to demand accountability from the President. IT'S THE MORAL THING TO DO!
4) When neo-cons are backed into a corner they tend to invoke the "love it or leave it / why do you hate America?" rhetoric. As I said before, I love this country. I'm not leaving & I will continue to cling to the constitution until YOU PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HAND!!!
Mon Dec 13 2004 11:38 AM
Right Wing Robby:
So I guess the terrorists love this country then too. They call the president evil just like you, but I dont see them flying American flags.
Fact is, everytime you say anything about this country, its negative. Its blame America for everything. If you believe what you say about this country, how could you possibly love it? You dont. You love the dream of what you wish it could be. Like Europe or specifically France I suppose. But you dont love THIS country, you despise it.
If you did you would have something nice to say at some point, but you dont. You never have anything good to say about any topic about America. Your verbage is always filled with hatred, distain and dislike.
Im not backed in a corner. I got everything I could have hoped for last month, most of all was my viewpoint being held by the majority of America. A majority liberal heros like Clinton could never achieve.
There is no love of country in you. Patriotism is more than complaining everyday; and complaining is all you ever do.
Mon Dec 13 2004 1:10 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
I absolutly hated the Liberal party for every stupid policy and boondoggle they ever created up here in Canada. Im talking...
1. Billion dollars gone in Human Resources scandal
2. Billion dollars gone in stupid gun registry that doesn't work
3. Cancelling helicopter contract from former Tory gov't and paying 500 mill in penalties
4. Ad-Scam
5. Almost letting the counrty split in half
6. Weak justice system with weak legislation
7. Worse than dogcrap Young Offenders Act (or whatever the F*^* its called now)etc...
Geeeee Right Wing Queenie, i guess i REALLY hate my country eh. Damn i guess since i didn't tow my Prime Ministers party line im just some self-hating Canadian eh. Damn i must be itchin to knock over the CN tower all Al-Quada styles right? Can you really be that stupid?
(The only policy the Libs got right up here was to keep us the F*&^ out of your crazy game of libera.... OCCUPYING Iraq)
To question ones goverments actions, whether in peacetime or time of war is always patriotic. In fact, it's treasonous to just sit like a stump, put your finger in your ass and just accept ad hoc what the gov't regurgitates. Gov't acts for it's own interests, not the people. It's the people that hold gov't to account. Your the treasonous slime who paints every true American with your slander simply because you cant defend the indefesible. It's your cop out. And it's getting weak.
I can only imagine how rabidly ANTI AMERICAN you were when Clinton was in power. Man you musta been foaming at the mouth you crazy crazy boy.
Mon Dec 13 2004 3:20 PM
Tom from Madison:
RWR:
You're way out of line. You certainly don't know me well enough to say I never do anything but attack America. By the way, I have NEVER attacked America. I have often attacked George W Bush and fighting an immoral war. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE.
You are certainly NOT morally qualified to sit in judgment of my patriotism. I think you keep attacking me because you can't defend Bush's failing policies.
In the end, I'm answerable to my own conscience. I will continue to speak out whether neo-cons like it or not. This President has taken a sad situation in Iraq and made it worse. I don't blame America--I blame him. We didn't need to lose so many young lives and hurt our standing in the world so badly. I'm sorry your love for this war is so great that you don't see the value of peace. I pray for your deliverance from ignorance.
Mon Dec 13 2004 4:25 PM
evil conservative666:
Maybe I've noticed because most of my friends are liberal, but....
Pissing matches here aside, has anyone noticed that the political climate in this country is about an eighth as volatile as it was leading up to the election? I'm not terribly surprised that it's calmer, but political warfare has gone the way of John Kerry since the election, and I thought that could take several months. I guess most of the left has decided to look in the mirror and not blame GWB for their loss, and might finally get stronger for it.
I'm glad people are people again, and political difference is back to being a second tier issue so quickly. What are we going to talk about now?
Mon Dec 13 2004 4:59 PM
Right Wing Robby:
Tom, you call the President evil and thats ok. But calling you anything is out of line. Gimmie a break.
The offer is still open, name your country.
I liked Clinton for most of his Presidency. He did somethings well. But some of his failings had terrible consequences. Rowanda and the death of 800,000 people is a big one. His lack of Reagonesque* respect for the oval office is another.
I had the privailege to spend 2 hours with Bill Clinton and Chelsea almost exclusively in Oct of 2003. A 2 hours Ill never forget to say the lest. He is a very likeable guy and easier to talk to then you would expect. While I disagree with his ideology and think he failed during his term in more ways then one, I would never call him evil or any American President for that matter. Thats so far over the line, I lose complete respect for anyone who says it. It shows me that a person doesnt recognize good from evil when statements like that are made; causing me to lose respect thier opinion and judgement.
People in this country dont think Bush is evil unless those people are far far far left. Even normal folks that disagree with Bush, would never call him evil.
Tom obviously doesnt recognize what true evil is. He believes calling his president evil is the moral thing to do. With so much real evil in the world and on our TV's day in and day out, Tom thinks Bush is evil.
I dont need to know anything more about you Tom. I know enough.
Mon Dec 13 2004 6:10 PM
Okay, RWR... tell us what true evil is... and be specific -- not a blanket "terrorists" or anything like that.
Mon Dec 13 2004 6:12 PM
Tom from Madison:
I think telling lies to start a war evil.
The odd thing to me is that anyone would call that a LIBERAL position.
Mon Dec 13 2004 7:53 PM
Right Wing Robby:
Sure. If you were to look at the websters definition, it would leave you with a subjective answer. Evil isnt subjective, and if you think so, Hitlers looking for a defense lawyer. So I can define it by example.
Evil people attacked the World trade Center. They tried to kill as many innocent men, women and children as they possible could. This wasnt a misguided bomb or collateral damage, it was targeted.
When Hitler killed countless jewish people, that was true evil.
When Scott Peterson killed Laci and Conner, evil.
Evil certainly took place in Rowanda.
Oklahoma Bombing, evil.
All of these things werent unwanted, they were intended. That is true evil.
Here are examples of civilian death which are tragic, but not evil.
When Clinton's nato blew up the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Tragic yes, but not evil. There was no intent to kill those people. Clinton isnt evil because of it. A nato spokeperson said is plainly.
"There is always a cost to defeat an evil. It never comes free, unfortunately. But the cost of failure to defeat a great evil is far higher," said Nato spokesman Jamie Shea.
How many innocent Germans did we carpet bomb during WW2? Those deaths were not intended, but the price to winning the war against evil. Were we evil when we carpet bombed Germany? Of course not.
The Iraq civilian deaths, not evil. We arent targeting them, we dont want them to die and we take as much precaution as humanly possible on this planet to avoid. But it cant be avoided completely.
So when I hear people like Tom making statements equating mass graves being filled by Saddam as being morally equivillant to the civilian deaths during this war, it becomes clear people like him dont know the difference.
Hitler was evil. Saddam is evil. Bush is not. Tom, by his own words, cant see the difference.
Mon Dec 13 2004 8:35 PM
Dave E.:
"we take as much precaution as humanly possible on this planet to avoid. But it cant be avoided completely."
What are you, one of the freakin war planners? What a doofus. This statement proves you've got spiral eyes, mesmerized by the groovy Bush propaganda machine and unable to provide anything of meaning to a discussion.
And your soliloquy on evil? I usually take internet comments with salt grains, but man. What a zealot. Complete and utter zealot. Do you not know US history? Full disclosure would demand that you balance that rose-colored discourse with some, uh, historical truths of some US policies that fit your wonderfully eloquent definition of evil to a tee. There is no state with clean hands. To believe such tripe is juvenile.
Do they ask the insurgents to raise their hands, please? Is that how we protect the civilians we're liberating?? Why do you argue such a fantastically doltish point? Does the fallacy have to beat you over the head with a ball-peen hammer for you to notice it? Geezus. Why has Reason deserted so many people! The position we put our military in, understaffed and ill-equipped in an occupation with no readily visible enemy, will create a foggier fighting environment. You don't think our troops hear about Staff Sergeant Johnny Horne getting three years in prison and a dishonorable discharge and not feel like they're only there for the person to the left and right of them? Untenable position, and Bush should be ashamed if he wasn't so busy spending money (we don't have) like a drunken sailor on shore liberty. He's breaking our military, and that is something I take personally. Send more troops. Do it right and save not only troop lives, but Iraqi lives.
Well, old Mccain is finally starting to have his Reason return. Looks like he's had enough of the regurgitative tripe, and now that the election is over he's speaking out about the systematic mismanagement of the Iraq occupation.
I sincerely wish he was our prez during 9/11. Imagine how different he would have handled the country with the world standing single-file behind us. My guess is that he would be speaking to people's minds, not their emotions. Like he is right now, finally. Look to see more moderate repubs start to criticize Bush as his DC circus becomes more circus-ey. His second term is going to be a train wreck, I can feel it. Kerik, Rumsfeld gets humiliated by the troops he leads, Bush in Canada with his horribly-timed "missile" pitch...this terms gonna be a doozer. I just hope there's nothing too irreparable, but judging from the first term...well, batten down the hatches and tie yourselves to the mast.
Mon Dec 13 2004 10:49 PM
Tom from Madison:
Dave E makes many valid points.
We need a President who is willing to wage Peace. The US is in a unique position to either further the cause of peace or to render it impossible. Bush could begin redeeming himself by 1) admitting his administration's mis-steps and 2) replacing Rumsfeld with someone who has a grip on reality.
You don't need to be a liberal to disapprove of the delusional crusade Iraq has become. John McCain is certainly not a leftist. He doesn't "hate America" either. My guess is that 'W' is too small a man to change course even as his actions are resulting in accelerating death rates of both US soldiers and Iraqi civilians.
Tue Dec 14 2004 8:50 AM
Right Wing Robby:
You apparently have no idea about what happened in past wars and how that compares to this one. You live in a land of theory, not reality.
Tue Dec 14 2004 8:53 AM
Tom from Madison:
RWR:
You're wrong again. Here are some key differences:
1) No declaration of war against any nation state -- the Iraq war has been called part of a larger "war on terror".
2) No draft, even though there are severe military personnel shortages.
3) No call for national monetary sacrifice -- we're actually cutting taxes while accelerating military spending on the war.
4) Reliance on large numbers of at-risk, non-military contractors on the ground. These people were deliberately put in harm's way. Some have lost their heads--literally.Please check with Rummy, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and W. According to THEM this is a war like no other. Google [Iraq "different kind of war"]. Oct 4th, 2004 USA Today has a qutoe from Bush.
I'm not sure if you care about the facts or history--but if you care to open your mind you might learn something.
Tue Dec 14 2004 12:28 PM
Right Wing Robby:
HAHA Tom. My point exactly. Look at the number of casualties in comparison. Its not even close. Our army is preforming very well and are prepared better then any of our armies in our nations history.
Naturally you thought I was drawing a likeness. Unfortunatly you are wrong, again. We conduct this war at great cost to avoid things like carpet bombing.
Since you want to draw distinctions between this war and ww2. You forgot this one.
Country Military Civilian Total
USSR 12 million 17 million 29 million
Poland 597,000 5.86 million 6.27 million
Germany 3.25 million 2.44 million 5.69 million
Yugoslavia 305,000 1.35 million 1.66 million
Romania 450,000 465,000 915,000
Hungary 200,000 600,000 800,000
France 245,000 350,000 595,000
Italy 380,000 153,000 533,000
Great Britain 403,000 92,700 495,000
United States 407,000 6,000 413,000
Czechoslovakia 7,000 315,000 322,000
Holland 13,700 236,000 249,000
Greece 19,000 140,000 159,000
Belgium 76,000 23,000 99,000Compare the numbers Tom. There isnt a comparison. Now, tell all the nice folks how this war was more legitimate then Iraq, how this war was somehow worth it, but iraq is an atrocity. You libs point at individual deaths and take to the streets. In past wars Americans withstood MILLIONS of deaths and yelled victory.
Again my point, Iraq is being fought extremely carefully and we are making great effort to avoid civilian death.
But ww2 was ok and Iraq isnt? How can your arguement over civilian loss hold up with numbers in the millions? It cant.
I agree. This war is like no other. Im glad you agree too.
Tue Dec 14 2004 4:07 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
RWR:
I can't disagree with any of those numbers there. Yes WW2 and this Iraq war cannot be compared.
WW2 was a war of no choice. Countries were attacked/invaded/occupied. The invaded fought back. Those who would have been invaded allied to fight back the invaders.
Iraq was a war of choice. A choice made by one single man. America became the invader. It attacked and occupied a nation that posed no threat to mainland america, not even its own regional enemies. Iraq was no Germany and Saddam while vicious was no Hitler.
Your right, there is no comparing the 2 at all!
Tue Dec 14 2004 5:33 PM
Tom from Madison:
RWR:
Lots's of facts--none of them relevant!
You miss the most obvious point of all. We weren't and aren't in danger from Iraq. Being "careful" in an unnecessary war is no justification for needless death and destruction.
Wed Dec 15 2004 8:51 AM
njguardsman:
Mike of the Great White North
The War on Terror was a war of choice. A choice made by one man Osama Bin Laden. America was attacked; we retaliated and liberated approx. 25 MILLION people from an oppressive government that harbored the terrorist who committed mass murder on American soil, who treated the Afghan people like slaves and that countrys women in particular their like own personal property. Now little girls can get an education women can work, vote and become productive members of Afghan society and Osama cant sleep in the same cave twice.
Iraq was a war of choice. A choice made by a single man (Saddam). America became the invader to enforce 14 UN Resolutions over 12 years. We attacked and now have freed approx 25 MILLION people from a dictator who was working on, and would have had weapons of mass destruction, and wouldve threatened his neighbors and the rest of the world.
Before we stepped in 1991 he had the 3rd most powerful military in the world. So dont tell me he was weak.
Even now we find out the ALMIGHTY UN, Russia, France and who ever the F else (and I dont mean Kerry) was getting their greedy little hands on the oil money meant for food and medicine for the Iraqi people all the while Saddam was working the system to acquire weapons to replace the ones he lost
Wed Dec 15 2004 1:25 PM
njguradsman:
Dave E,
Yeah sure just send more troops, how many more 100,000 more, 200,000 more? Since when did this become a numbers game? Then you and the rest of your buddies can hammer the President about more soldiers dying?
Ive had it up to my A$$ with you arm chair quarterbacks, if you think you can do a better job GO FOR IT, BE MY GUEST!!! who knows you might be 25MIL richer and you'll be doing the world a favor.
Wed Dec 15 2004 6:12 PM
njguardsman:
Tom,
You don't need to be a liberal to disapprove of the delusional crusade Iraq has become. John McCain is certainly not a leftist. He doesn't "hate America" either. My guess is that 'W' is too small a man to change course even as his actions are resulting in accelerating death rates of both US soldiers and Iraqi civilians.
So in the words of Bill Clinton: We must have the courage to quit
I ask all of you again, where was all your worry about the troops when Bosnia first started? Where is all your concern about the troops there now? Again you only worry about troops sent into harms way by Republican Presidents.
Wed Dec 15 2004 6:19 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
NJ, I'll agree with you that the war on terror was started by Osama, (even though there are root causes of terror that you fail to acknowledge). The war in Afghanistan I agreed with simply to find capture and/or kill Osama. Liberating 25 million while noble is not what the men and women of the forces sign up for. And it's pretentious for you to assume they are liberated. They still live in squallor, tribal warlords still rule outside the safe zone of Kabul where life is as it was before the war. And inside Kabul, the liberated have to subvert to the Karzai gov't held in power by US forces. You might as well call Hamid Kermit instead. And judging from Osamas tape popping up right before the election, he's sleeping fine. Your war on terror starts and ends with Osama. You diverted. You f'd up.
Iraq was a warmongering and imperialistic choice and at this point im almost happy to let you hang yourself on that choice. Your use of UN resolutions as a justification is laughable, considering you invoke the oil for food scandal to show UN corruption and irrelevancy. Right wingers love to rip and tear into the UN but use it as a crutch to prop up this war. You fail to mention how many times the US has blocked, vetoed or killed resolutions condeming or proposing action against Israel. You would undoubtably say those were not worthy or antisemitic or whatever but you cant have your cake and eat it too. Picking and choosing which resolutions you will enforce is what makes the UN irrelevant.
Again you invoke liberating another 25 million. Show me where on the recruiter form for any branch of the armed services of the USA where it says you have to fight and die for the service of another country. Your duty is to fight and protect America from a real attack, not an imagined threat, not to liberate Iraqies from dictators and not to fight a proxy war for Israel.
"a dictator who was working on, and would have had weapons of mass destruction"-are we still on the same planet? we've already crossed this one a billion times and ive no more time to point out the obvious. ill just throw back at you this. there are dictators out there RIGHT NOW who POSSES NUKES! if you were truley worried about dictators with WMD, youd have dealt with them instead of creating this BS about Saddam having WMD when you knew he didn't. And if you didn't know that, it's your disability, not mine, because i knew! Now North Korea mocks you, Iran defies you and your missile shield just failed another test. I dont think were gonna see Bush saying 'Bring em on' any time soon.
"Before we stepped in 1991 he had the 3rd most powerful military in the world. So dont tell me he was weak."-Whats the key to your whole freakin sentence right there. I'll give you a minute to think about it. Ill give you a clue. The Blue Jays took the World Series the following year. If you guessed 1991, your right. 19-freakin-91 NJ. Bush launched his war in 2003. This means Saddams army was now...
-the army decimated by US forces in 91
-the army that crumbled under UN sanctions
-the army that had no air force
-the army under 2 no fly zones
the army that was in NO WAY 3rd most powerful in the world on May 2003. So yes, i will tell you he was weak!"ALMIGHTY UN, Russia, France and who ever the F else was getting their greedy little hands on the oil money"-No excuse for that and i wont defend it. But dont put on the halo and pretend the US isn't a greedy nation that pulls its own little stunts. America is capitalism, its very nature being greed. When a country is known around the world for starting wars and overthrowing democratically elected leaders for despotic regimes to make a buck in the oil sector, i'd watch labeling others greedy.
Wed Dec 15 2004 9:05 PM
Dave E.:
"njguardsman":
Nice pointless, intelligible diatribe, chief. I was in uniform once, so I'm assuming I know where you're coming from. I think I recognize your frame of mind, and I regret to inform you that, despite your heart being in the right place, your opinion is tragically flawed.
Now, obviously, there is no way anybody's convincing anyone else up in here that somehow, magically, their opinion is way off base and it will suddenly be changed because of their words. So congratulations on yours and I'm glad you're at least concerned enough to have one. Too many still don't.
To the business at hand:
Yes. I would say send at least 200,000 more. I know enough about Colin Powell to have faith in his doctrine calling for overwhelming force with a clear exit strategy. A lifetime spent in war developed this strategy and it remains true to this day. This Iraq mistake is a Rumsfeld special at a discount price - and you get what you pay for. More troops mean more control and less mayhem. Flexibility and will-breaking force. Rumsfeld and co. have admitted to not anticipating such a stout resistance. Are you kidding me? I've spent a year of my life in the middle east; you might have spent time there as well, and if you have, you should know that there is no such thing as a friendly populace there. Oppression breads hate and jealousy, and the US has been sometimes scapegoated by those oppressive Middle Eastern and African regimes to deflect criticism from their own governmental mismanagement (but regrettably, sometimes the contempt is justified).But I suspect I want just the same thing you want: not only the success and safety of our military, but for its integrity to emerge unscathed. Bush and co. UNFORGIVABLY use us our force as a policy tool (again, consult "the project for the new American century"). It's Thucydides for the new millennium. We are designed to be a last resort, not a police force. We are designed to kick absolute and all ass, not tippy-toe delicately through an ethnic pastiche of traditionally hostile locals mixing with a neverending influx of radicals that all look the same. Untenable. "Not able to be occupied".
If I read your call sign acurately, and correct me if I don't, you of all people should be able to begin to look past the appealing Bush company line that only speaks to people's base emotions. Use your mind to realize it is nothing but manipulative rhetoric, designed to maintain and enhance their tiny, elite groups power over the mass of hard working Americans, both traditionally conservative and liberal. Do it now or wait to convert later, after this neocon nonsense can't squeeze anymore influence from 9/11. Until then, down the rabbit hole we go.
Wed Dec 15 2004 9:15 PM
Dave E.:
By the way...since numbers have been thrown around in this thread, lets contextualize things:
Deaths on our highways in 1999: 41,611 (ntsb)
Deaths from the flu in US per year: 65,681 (cdc)
Deaths by murder in US: 15,517 (fbi)
Deaths by heart disease: 696,947 (cdc)
Deaths by cancer: 557,271 (cdc)
Deaths by stroke: 162,672 (cdc)
Deaths by smoking-related disease world
wide: 4.84 million (newsday)
Deaths by malaria (treatable disease): at least 1.5 million (conservative who estimate)
Deaths by AIDS worldwide (2003, including children): 2.8 million (who)Total deaths: 10,679,699
Deaths from terrorism IN THE WORLD since 9/11/2001: 5,959This is not intended to diminish the people that died as a result of 9/11. I was deeply affected psychologically like the rest of us. However, once the fog dissipates, try to put things in perspective to identify the money grab that Bush and co. are perpetuating. He keeps us scared shitless because it's profitable, not because of altruism. He maintains power and keeps free speech in check. The perfect excuse.
What does the word 'priority' mean again?
Oh yeah, whatever can be supressed or exploited to make a buck. Welcome to reality, suckers. If any of you jerks that purport to care about freedom and liberty truly believe in the foundation of the pulpit you stand on, where is the outrage over all of this potentially preventable death?
Answer: nowhere. Try to figure out why.
Wed Dec 15 2004 9:55 PM
Dave E.:
oops. that terrorism death total is INCLUDING those poor souls lost on 9/11/2001. my apologies.
Wed Dec 15 2004 9:59 PM
Dave E.:
And while I'm at it...
njguardsman: if you choose to invoke the Afghanistan women's liberated card like many have, you probably haven't spent time in Saudi Arabia. Please explain why worldwide women's rights are such a fashionable drum to beat until the subject of SA comes up.
I've seen separate serving windows for women, women walking behind men draped in their abayas, a blanket religious law forbidding women to drive...i've even, unbelievably, received a call from a Saudi Arabian female at the installation I lived at, begging to be freed. True story.
Religous police called the mutawa enforcing Shariya, or strict Islamic law, on any and all rulebreakers, including us Americans. I saw skinny, filthy children sitting in front of broken scales begging for any riyals we could spare, all in the midst of lavish and extravagant Saudi government buildings and palaces.
The liberation of women in Afghanistan happened to be a fortunate consequence for Bush and co. Don't bring up the subject of Saudi, because the US elite are so inextricably tied to that country that it remains the elephant in the living room. Saudi regularly beheads its expediantly accused criminals. Hands are chopped off. Everything Bush has used to propagandize crude Islamic justice indeed happens in Saudi Arabia, the state the US is beholden to. I know because I've seen it. I was at a "3 header," what they called the weekly beheadings open to the public. The locals would push the Americans to the front of the crowd as a way to show off what they did to their "criminals." This has been going on for years. The insulated, inattentive American public just recently got wind of this in Iraq and, true to form, Bush was able to twist it into yet another self-aggrandizing, yet hypocritical pitch.
The inattentive public. The vast majority of uneducated America. The reason why Bush is still the President.
Wed Dec 15 2004 10:19 PM
Tom from Madison:
It would definitely help if our terminology were more precisely defined. Saudi Arabian public beheadings are both state-sponsored terror and "barbaric".
So why does Bush reserve his condemnation for such behavior only when it happens in Iraq? Why does the war on drugs apply in Columbia, but not in Afghanistan where Opium trade is at an all time high.
Moral values seem to only matter to this President when it is politically expedient.
Thu Dec 16 2004 9:08 AM
Right Wing Robby:
Its typical of the left to complain that the US isnt solving every problem in the world in an effort to belittle the ones we do. Its an old tired trick that only the liberals fall for.
Democrats are smart and republicans are uneducated? Is that it? Way to make yourself look like a total moron.
Thats right Dave E. So instead of parading death counts around for the iraq war, you would be better served to fight tobacco company's.
Your so short sighted. Terrorism isnt just about number of deaths, its a threat to freedom. It people being afraid to do as they wish. It a direct threat to liberty.
Its obvious when looking at groups like the American Criminal Liberties Union and the rest of them, the left has forgotten what freedom is. Liberty left their table long ago. They are bigots and are suppressing freedom one law suit at a time.
So its not surprising you wont understand what terror does to a society. You lefties just dont care if people are free to practice and do as they wish or not. Given the attack's on Christmas this year, you would rather the not.
Its called suppression, its being funded by the left and its the road to a Saudi lifestyle.
Thu Dec 16 2004 9:44 AM
Dave E.:
Your's is the typical response, chief.
Arguing to continue to live in fear of terrorism and bitching and moaning about progress is...how is it said...ah yes, "letting the terrorists win."
Nobody's gonna bust down your door and piss on your gaudy Christmas tree. Get over yourself.
"Theoretical world," population: RWR
Thu Dec 16 2004 10:19 AM
Tom from Madison:
A perpetual war on terror requires people to be frightened constantly. I have never believed there was a need to fear "terrrorism" the way the President suggested. You need to go case-by-case. Osama-big danger; Saddam in 2002-contained & little danger.
A lot of Bush's own cabinet officials agreed with me. They are now ex-cabinet officials. It turns out that a lot of his evidence that we were in danger was wrong--especially the non-sense about Iraq.
Bush's anti-terrorism zealots played very fast and loose with basic questions like who was being threatened and for what reasons. Bin Laden didn't like Americans on the Arabian Peninsula, didn't like American support for Israel, and didn't like being exploited in the anti-Soviet fight against the Soviet Union. Instead of saying this, Bush repeatedly suggested that terrorists attacked because "they hate our freedom." This is a huge distraction from Bin Laden's real motives.
The reality is we were in the most danger in September 2001 because Bush didn't take a real threat seriously. His biggest response was to go after the wrong people under an anti-terror umbrella.
So why didn't we finish the job in Tora Bora by having US special forces stay to hunt down Osama in his cave? I supported that action as Osama was responsible. Instead Bush outsourced the job.
It looks to me like Bush didn't want to risk lives, $, and time to catch the legitimate threat because it would have interfered with his wish to go after Saddam Hussein.
It is now dawning on Republicans that Osama is at large, Saddam is in custody and we're not safer.
Thu Dec 16 2004 1:48 PM
njguardsman:
Dave E, Mike and Tom
First I knew it was going to happen, just because Kerry lost the American people are idiots uninformed, uneducated trash. I DONT THINK SO!!!! America spoke with one voice UNIFIED and made their intentions known to the world. We know what is at steak and thats why Bush is President AGAIN!!! So take your holier then thou elitist attitude somewhere else, I find it insulting.
Now to the UN issue: plain and simple the UN is ANTI AMERICAN, ANTI ISRAELI, yet we provide 22% of its budget. The UN in its infinite wisdom allows such peaceful countries like CUBA as the head of the human rights council. Again plain and simple UN out of the US, US out of the UN, its a waste of space.
Again you invoke liberating another 25 million. Show me where on the recruiter form for any branch saying you have to fight and die for another country - Show ME where we were obligated to rebuild Europe and Japan AFTER WWII Ok, show me where on my contract with the USAF I had to perform humanitarian missions in Somalia and Haiti in the 90s under Clinton? Oh I forgot Bosnia, but thats OK because Clinton was one of you, bombing an aspirin factory during the Monica scandal is just fine and dandy.
Liberals always conveniently forget military issues when one of theirs is in office.
I do agree Bush has to go further, he needs to confront N. Korea, Cuba, the FARC in Columbia and HAMAS and Syria! I will be the 1st to hold his feet to the fire on these issues. I am no fan of S. Arabia I hate the fact the US is a junkie needing an oil fix from them BUT until we can drill in Alaska I guess we have to deal with the devil. He also has to close the borders (north and south) to illegal immigration.
Yes I would say 200,000 - OK from where? Active duty Army & Marines are already there, 70% of All Army Reserve Units WILL be there this year, the National Guard has at least tripled their deployments so where do we find the people? Thanks to Clinton gutting the defense budget we are playing catch up and to spite ALL that we are still getting the job done.
Even if there were 200,000 more military in Iraq it still wouldnt be enough and youd still say too many are being killed, so no matter what this administration does youd still find fault with it.
We are designed to be a last resort, not a police force Where was all this concern in the 90s when Clinton had US at the UNs beck and call? Did you protest, did you spew the same Bravo Sierra about Clinton?
Rumsfeld is not the be all and end all of the Iraqi war, If I remember the President submits a budget, Congress castrates that same budget and adds their own pork so if anyones to blame try Congress who set the limits to what could be spent so if youre looking to blame some one for not armoring hummers, figure it out.
READ THIS:
This is not intended to diminish the people that died as a result of the attack on Pearl Harbor. I was deeply affected psychologically like the rest of us. However once the fog dissipates, try to put things in perspective to identify the money grab that Roosevelt and co. are perpetuating. He keeps us scared shitless because its profitable, not because of altruism. He maintains power and keeps free speech in check. The perfect excuse how absurd , keep your conspiracy theories to yourself!Of course you 3 are used to instant gratification, since when id there a time limit on the War on Terror?
Do yourselves a favor and get the ENTIRE answer Rumsfeld gave to that soldier and stop listening to sound bites from CNN.
A perpetual war on terror requires people to be frightened constantly. How about a perpetual war on crime requires people to be frightened constantly or- a perpetual war on AIDES requires people to be frightened constantly Do you actually think people are scared? It is a necessity to confront these issues not because they scare us but because they have to be defeated completely and utterly
Bin Laden didn't like Americans on the Arabian Peninsula - OBL is not the political leader of Arabia, so what if he didnt like our dealings with his government.
didn't like American support for Israel Again so what
and didn't like being exploited in the anti-Soviet fight against the Soviet Union - no but he liked the weapons training and support we gave his organization.
Instead of saying this, Bush repeatedly suggested that terrorists attacked because "they hate our freedom." This is a huge distraction from Bin Laden's real motives [No its not because what we call freedom they call decadence and they will not stop until we are converted to Islam or dead.
Fri Dec 17 2004 1:05 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
To Baudrate, Tom, Cici n Dave.
(GSG-9 in Counterstrike... ALWAYS!)Thank you for being the last bastion of sanity. RWR, thank you for being my comic relief.
NJ, you actually make some damn good points in your post this time. Hopefully they'll be addressed.
Let's just clear this one up right away though... "America spoke with one voice UNIFIED and made their intentions known to the world"
-51% is not unified, nor one voice."I find it insulting."
-So do i, when someone continues to scream at me till they're blue in the face trying to convince me that the sky is green and the grass is pink and that the war in Iraq had anything to do with fighting terror and WMD."Again plain and simple UN out of the US, US out of the UN, its a waste of space."
-Agreed! I'm no fan of the UN myself, it's simply another corrupt regulatory body. But I still don't want a unilateral America runnok amok. And after such an eloquent point, please do not ever use the enforcing of UN resolutions as justification again."show me where on my contract with the USAF I had to perform humanitarian missions in Somalia and Haiti in the 90s under Clinton?"
-Agreed! I laughed my ass off when Clinton bombed that factory because i thought it was absolutly stupid. I've always been for less US intervention abroad no matter who at the helm. So if Clintons use of the forces were inapropriate during those missions, why is Bush's use of the forces in a war of false pretense appropriate?"he needs to confront N. Korea"
-Fat chance now that he's given Kim time to make some nukes, it'll be all talk n diplomacy."! I will be the 1st to hold his feet to the fire on these issues"
-I wont be holding my breath."US is a junkie needing an oil fix from them BUT until we can drill in Alaska I guess we have to deal with the devil"
-Convenient. I heard a story about the US invading Iraq so it could control the worlds 3rd largest oil reserve so it wouldn't have to "deal with the devil". Guess it was just an urban legend?"Clinton gutting the defense budget"
-He actually increased it by 12 billion to a total of 110 billion for fiscal 2000, paving the way for your fancy new F-22's and Commanche's."youd still say too many are being killed, so no matter what this administration does youd still find fault with it."
-Agreed! Thats why I say pull the troops out. Jobs done... 'mission accomplished'. Saddams gone, Iraqis free, go home. And don't say your fighting terror, your actually creating more by being there."so if youre looking to blame some one for not armoring hummers, figure it out"
-Rummies still at fault. He planned the war and against the advise of REAL soldiers, his neo-con pals thought a nice small number was all it took cuz hey 'Iraqi children love candy and american flags'"time limit on the War on Terror?"
-The war on 'Terror' is a sham. There is no illusion. You can't prosecute a war against a 'TACTIC'. If there is another Timothy McVeigh, will you launch AC-130's to flatten Oklahoma? Another DC sniper, send F-15's to fuel airbomb I-95? Terrorism is an effect to which there is a cause. It's the weak vs. the strong to achieve a political end. You may completely disagree with their approach to changin policy, but it doesn't change the fact that that's why it happens. It's not freedom they want to destroy, they could care less how Americans live in America. They simply want you to leave them alone. Be deaf and dumb for all i care but mark my words, this is a conflict you will never defeat militarily and until you come to grasp the real social/political/economical inequalities of that region, you will have your war without end."OBL is not the political leader of Arabia, so what if he didnt like our dealings with his government."
-Because his government is not one chosen by his people, his government is a propped up and sheilded US apostate that subverts the people and the resources of his land to the US government."didn't like American support for Israel Again so what"
*Banging head against keyboard*
-Indeed, so what. Keep saying that as more Ameicans continue dying. This one is probably the single most important factor in todays geopolitical landscape and if you cant understand the concept of the US being an HONEST broker in creating a middle east peace (honest implying no favouritism and holding Israel to account for it's actions in regards to the UN & Geneva)then i suggest you continue to live in your land of choclate where it rains donuts all day."no but he liked the weapons training and support we gave his organization"
-indeed. which you more than enjoyed supplying in order to prevent Communist expansion in the region."because what we call freedom they call decadence and they will not stop until we are converted to Islam or dead."
-Yes, they call it decadence. And they dont care how decadent you are on your own turf. They take offence when your decadence (driving 2mpg SUVs) impacts their lives directly (living under rich monarchs who sell oil to US at undervalued price so they can stay in power). Your last line really caught my eye though, that they will not stop until your converted to Islam or dead"... all i have to do is switch Islam to democracy and it describes current day Iraq."just because Kerry lost the American people are idiots uninformed, uneducated trash. I DONT THINK SO!!!!"
-Agreed. Misinformed, decieved and propogandized to would be more accurate.Like i said, you've made alot of very good points!
Fri Dec 17 2004 9:47 PM
Tom from Madison:
Well said Mike!
Fighting a war against something as ill-defined as terror IS a sham. The words "war on terror" were deliberately crafted so as to allow the President license to invade anywhere on the globe without being held accountable.
This notion is anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-humanitarian, and immoral. America should never be associated with empire building or world domination. If we are to be the beacon of freedom, we must live up to that claim by showing it through our willingness to make peace.
Republicans are increasingly questioning this war. Eventually there will be a consensus who realize that further unilateral involvement in Iraq is doing more harm than good.
Americans will not stay scared forever. The terror color-level has proved to be as silly as the plastic sheeting scam. Kerry should have attacked both.
Progressives do not insult the electorate by giving them the facts. Just the opposite, they do them justice and give them respect.
Sat Dec 18 2004 7:35 AM
njguardsman:
Mike
51%is not unified, nor one voice Sorry but it was the highest majority since Reagan, and 51% IS a majority like it or not.
When some one continues to scream at me till theyre blue in the face trying to convince me that the sky is green and the grass is pink and that Fahrenheit 911 was an actual documentary based on fact and not a cleverly edited hatchet job just drives me insane.
But I still dont want a unilateral America run amok then I guess youd rather have any punk with a backyard nuke, dirty bomb, or home made anthrax decide to blow something up (A la Spain) to get their political way, BLACKMAIL the way to go!
Oh I almost forgot when the US tries to legitimize the United Nations and actually proactive on a/an issue that has merit the peanut gallery gives the world: Please dont ever use the enforcing of UN resolutions as justification again
So if Clintons use of military force was inappropriate the y isnt Bushs? Reasons? Here you go: Haiti Somalia, Kobar Towers, WTC bombing in 1993, USS Cole, and embassy bombings in Africa. Do you call these false pretences?
I heard a story about the US invading Iraq so it could control the worlds 3red largest oil supply Why stop at the 3rd largest, why not the first? Why didnt we take over Kuwait in 1991? There is enough oil in Alaska for us to give S. Arabia the (middle) finger for conservatively speaking 30yrs but thanks to envirMENTAL nazis that hasnt happened yet.
During Clintons reign he downsized the Army approx 33%, Downsized the USAF 15% and thats just off the top of my head If I really set my mind to it I could find the actual figures. Thanks to the PEACE DIVIDEND that Reagan achieved by destroying the USSR, Slick Willy cashed it in while the WTC was bombed the first time, when our soldiers were dragged thru Mogadishu streets and he did nothing, shall I go on? The War on Terror began then, he had OBL handed to him on a platter and let him go - he was just in denial again another fine mess brought to our doorstep thanks to a liberal
The War on Terror is a Sham You cant Prosecute a war against a tactic Its not a tactic, its an IDEAL and weve prosecuted a war against an Ideal before THE CIVIL WAR!
His government is a propped up and shielded US apostate - so now that we cleared up that S. Arabia is the 51 state, OBL & his family have made MILLIONS working for the royal family so that makes him two faced or you ill-informed, which is it?
They take offence when your decadence (driving 2mpg SUVs) impacts their lives directly Again the holier then thou BS! You know what you go ahead and drive your Yugo I worked hard for my SUV Bought with my own money, earned by me and I deserve it! Whats next I cant heat my house in the winter because some Arab nomad is walking the desert? SPARE ME.
All I have to do is switch Islam to Democracy and while youre switching find me the 500,000 people in mass graves, show me where the rape rooms are being used, let me see people getting thrown off roofs just for fun.Agreed. Misinformed, deceived and propagandized to would be more like accurate Misinformed by the Democrat party, deceived by Michael Moore and the rest of the entertainment industry, propagandized by John Kerry yeah I can agree to that!
Sat Dec 18 2004 4:06 PM
njguardsman:
or is it: misinformed by John Kerry, deceived by the Democrat Party and propagandized by Michael Moore?
Maybe: misinformed by Michel Moore, deceived by John Kerry and propagandized by the Democrat Party - anyway you put it, it works
Sat Dec 18 2004 5:47 PM
Tom from Madison:
NJ:
Michael Moore may be over the top, but he has the goods on Bush when it comes to Saudi Arabia. The Bush family has been doing business for years with the Saudis and with the Bin Laden family. Do your own research. This is a matter of fact, not opinion.
Why vent all your anti-Arab vitriol against Clinton? Saudi Arabia has been much more sympathetic to terrorists over the years than Iraq has. Why aren't the crusading right-wing zealots screaming for an invasion of Saudi Arabia? The majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.
Could it be that Bush's cozy oil interests are more important to him than preventing terrorist attacks?
Sat Dec 18 2004 8:45 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
51% IS a majority like it or not
-Fine. Using that as the measuring stick, the majority of the planet is against you and your right wing zealot friends like RWR.Fahrenheit 911 was an actual documentary based on fact and not a cleverly edited hatchet job
-And precicely what the (*&^ does that have to do with my point of Iraq having nothing to do with the war on terror or WMD?youd rather have any punk with a backyard nuke, dirty bomb, or home made anthrax
-again i fail to see how this relates to Iraq?blow something up (A la Spain) to get their political way, BLACKMAIL the way to go!
-Lets clear up another republican myth. Spains gov't was on the way out, bombing or no bombing. the population was very opposed to spains conservative gov't bending over and taking it from Bush n co. The opposition party had a 54% lead over him before the bombing (hmmm MAJORITY?), which rose to 89% after the bombing. They kicked their gov't out because they didn't listen to their own constituents.legitimize the United Nations and actually proactive
-PUUUULEEEEZE. i've already demonstrated to you how the US has helped make the UN useless. and your vain attempt to try and spin the Iraq war is proactive is insufferable. You've never to this day answered my original question months ago. What put Saddam on top of the despised list? Proactive would have been working to prevent N.Korea from making a bomb. N.Korea was the closest to making a bomb in your axis of evil, Iran in the middle, Iraq at the bottom. So i ask again, if WMD proliferation and threat of passing off WMD to terrorists was Bush's prime motivation for this braindead scheme, how in the name of Zues's butthole did Saddam make the TOP of the list?***I'll take Iraq war misconceptions for $1000 Alec****
"Haiti Somalia, Kobar Towers, WTC bombing in 1993, USS Cole, and embassy bombings in Africa. What do they all have in common?"
What is "They all had nothing to do with Iraq" Alec!
We have a new Jeapordy Champion!**********
Do you call these false pretences?
-YesIts not a tactic, its an IDEAL and weve prosecuted a war against an Ideal before THE CIVIL WAR!
-no... it is a tactic. Tom Clancy agrees it's a tactic. Michael Shuer agree's it's a tactic. An ideal is thinking that white people are superior to blacks, or that the middle east would be much better off if it was a secular, capitalist carbon copy of your country. Thats a neocon ideology. It has an actual name. Its called 'Project for a New American Century'.S. Arabia is the 51 state, OBL & his family have made MILLIONS working for the royal family so that makes him two faced or you ill-informed, which is it?
-Yes his family made millions, they like the system. He inherited 300 million from the family share. You know what he did? He went off to Afghanistan, used that money in the fight against the soviets (back then you called him a freedom fighter HA) and became deeply religious and when he came back home and started raising a ruckass trying to change the system in S.Arabia his family disowned him and he was asked to leave. Now he's launching attacks within S.A. and is prepared to start attacking oil to knock off the monarchs. So in the best american fashion, he was two faced, because it served his purpose at that moment and when it was no longer convenient, he switched gears. And no. i'm not ill-informed.Whats next I cant heat my house in the winter because some Arab nomad is walking the desert? SPARE ME.
-I've no problem with you heating your home. Just pay the MARKET value for it and stop being a whiney little bitch when the price of gas goes up 2cents. Why is it only Americans get to play the market game. Do you know what the price of gas SHOULD be? You get dirt cheap oil because those Saudi Royals give it to you for next to nothing in exchange for security and arms sales. They buy American F-16's and they contract foriegn nationals to fly them because they DONT TRUST thier own people who might actually rise up against them. This is the kind of democracy you want to export? Gimme a (*&%(ing break.while youre switching find me the 500,000 people in mass graves, show me where the rape rooms are being used, let me see people getting thrown off roofs just for fun.
-ummm, 300,000 is the figure actually. and even thats in dispute because they're not pulling out bodies by the thousands in Iraq. The 500,000 you allude to are the ones that died under UN sanctions (which the US and Britain maintaned long after their usefullness) with even Madelane Albright making the ludicris claim that that price in human life was 'worth it'. The rape rooms are still in use by US serviceman. Deny it if you wish, but I know Abu Ghraib is not an isolated case. And your claim of people being thrown off roofs for fun falls into my uncoraberated delete bin right along with the infamous 'industrial shredder' stories.But i guess your noble heart while wanting to free Iraqis from this beast, simply was not bleeding hard enough for the 2 million people who are starving to death in N.Korea because Kim wants missles and a well fed army instead of a healthy populace. It couldn't bleed enough to invade China after it started crushing people under tanks, beamed around the world for all to see on TV. It's a Communist country!!! Good god you must cry yourself silly just aching to want to invade China and bring democracy to the Pacific Rim? Guess thats next on your 'to do' list. Now you can spare me your Holier than thou BS.
Misinformed by the Democrat party, deceived by Michael Moore and the rest of the entertainment industry, propagandized by John Kerry yeah I can agree to that!
-Bah. I think i've seen grocery produce with more smarts than why im seeing here.
Sat Dec 18 2004 10:44 PM
njguardsman:
Mike
Fine using that as a measuring stick, the majority of the planet is against you and your right wing zealot friends NEWS FLASH the planet (much to your dislike/distain) does not run THIS country, we run this country as a majority proved on 02 NOV 2004!
As Ive written before on the site Iraq was a center for training Saddam provided passive support for the terrorist attacks against American interests and was in dealings to sell WMDs to those very same terrorists.
Fahrenheit 911 was made to specifically discredit President Bush thru rumor and innuendo to make it seem as though he was in bed with the very people who attacked this country just to line his pockets.
If all you wrote about the Spanish election were true, why would terrorists bother blowing up that train if they would already have gotten their way?!?!?!?!?!?
What put Saddam on top of the despised list? Again Ive answered this question, the thing is you dont like the answer: 14 UN resolutions 12 years of him NOT abiding the cease fire agreement and taking potshots at our planes, letting him sell oil for food and medicine instead getting his hands on current gen MIG fighters w/ up to the minute surveillance equipment from France and Germany (ALL AGAINST UN SANCTIONS), Intel from around the world all in agreement that Iraq had WMD and was going to use it/sell it to the highest bidder!
About N. Korea, when they do what Iraq did with in the same time span THEN youd have a point. N. K. right now is in no position to do anything, all they want is attention, they want to be in the big leagues and the more we give them what they want the more of a problem theyll be.
Haiti, Somalia, Kobar Towers, 1st WTC bombing in 93, USS Cole, embassy bombings in Africa, were all attacks in the War on Terror but certain people could never see it, just as Iraq is at this moment!
It is a tactic. Tom Clancy agrees its a tactic. Did Tom Clancy win the election last month?!?! He can have his opinion! Its an IDEAL. You said it yourself: he (OBL) became very religious Did you forget we are called INFEDELS now thats a religious connotation if I ever saw one, did you also forget that we are again called CRUSADERS!
Capitalist carbon copy of your country Im sorry but thats not a bad thing, as a matter of fact more people come here then to all other countries combined because we have more opportunity, freedom then anywhere else!
I thought I was paying market price for oil, youre not? Are you getting a better price then 2.00 per gal? If you are please share! Ive never bitched about the price of oil, although I would prefer paying less.
They buy American F16s and contract foreign nationals to fly them Kuwait does the same thing, did you know no Kuwaiti national works, so are they bad now too? Oh yeah I almost forgot if Canada can make a better fighter then the F16, then offer it to the Saudi Government and then you can have a better trade relationship with them (now whos a whiney little bitch) the world market is open, build a better product reap the profit.
I cant believe you put the US military on the same level as the Iraqi Army and Im not justifying that with a response.
Ive seen video of people being thrown off roofs so its corroborated by me.
I dont see you or your country doing anything about China or N. Korea or the Sudan or anything else for that matter so guess your heart doesnt bleed enough either.
Now can you spare me your holier then thou BS - I have never once said/written anything remotely saying I was better then you, it is you who think you have the moral high ground and denounce my country and sit in judgment of it and me. Well sit in judgment all you want, sit there while we act to preserve our way of life and by default yours.
P.S. After the last comment you wrote, I would prefer the company of grocery produce then the company of some one who cant get his point across with out trying to insult someone who disagrees with him.
Sun Dec 19 2004 9:06 PM
Tom from Madison:
I hope NJ, RWR, and the conservatives who think they're in charge saw the morning talk shows on Sunday.
Republicans will have to live with the fact that THEY sold the American people on the idea of a low-cost, low casualty, quick & easy war which was supposed to result in instant democracy. They are in the process of proving themselves WRONG ON ALL COUNTS!
Democrats and progressives should be proud for knowing this from the very beginning. We need to keep reminding the American people that the Right got it wrong. They can voice their displeasure in 2006--preferably with votes that can be verified with a paper trail.
In the mean time, we would all do well to ask:
1) Who sent soldiers to fight in Iraq without armored vehicles, body armor, and often even without basic necessities such as bedding?
2) Who won't honor agreements made with enlisted men, national guard, and reservists regarding their tours of duty?
3) Why should we trust these war planners who have already messed up so royally?There is a tragic irony in rich republicans riding around the US in humvee H2s--specially adapted for the consumer market. What if Rummy & company had gotten together with GM and suggested that specially armored MILITARY humvees should take priority? Apparently that would have been too expensive.
Mon Dec 20 2004 7:18 AM
Mike of the Great White North:
The planetary comment was to address RWR, who seems under the impression that the world supported this right wing desicion to invade Iraq.
The vegatable comment comes from my absolute frustration with your convolution of facts. Watch how you do it. You say Saddam provided passive support for terrorists against American interests. What your actually describing is Saddam paying members of the PLO and Al-Aqsa monies to their families for suicide bombings against Israeli targets. THIS IN NO WAY PROVIDES FOR THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE WAR. If the president of the US went in front of the American people and said "We must remove Saddam Hussian from power and sacrafice US men and women for the state of Israel", do you really think you'd have gone to war? I doubt it. But you continue to pull this Dick Cheney BS of trying to lump sum regional terrorism with Al-Quada. The 2 are separate with completely different aims! If you believe regional terrorism is on the same playing field... send in special forces and a carrier group off Ireland and start launching against the IRA. And i'd love to know what WMD Saddam would have sold, seeing as how he had F&*% all to his name. "Oh but he did have WMD, intelligence round the world.." BS, I knew he didn't because i didn't swallow the administrations hogwash hook, line sinker. Kay noted there weren't any if ever. Blix stated there were none and wanted more time. You moved because you said Blix was incompetent. He was right, you were wrong. Ritter said so. The IAEA said so... I could go on and on. Everyone who was against this war because they did not believe the WMD argument were right, and you and your prez are sitting there eating crow, but you spin it like your dining on steak.
F9-11. Rumour and Innuendo. I will give you leeway on this because i understand Moore is severe left wing, and i understand the Saudi's left on Sep.13th when commercial traffic opened. I also don't believe the war was started over big corparate interests. They jumped on the bandwagon rightly so after the neocons conned you into it. But i'd like to know what else you consider rumor n innuendo. I might clarrify for you if you provide some examples.
What i said about Spain is correct. Look it up. The terrorists blew it up anyway because OBL was out to make a statement about other gov't help of the US occupation in Iraq. The citizens of Spain paid the price for their gov't actions.
Like i said, if you use UN resolutions as cause and effect, im sure you have a task force off Haifa and Tel Aviv ready to implement resolutions.
Again with the angst against Germany and France. Clue in NJ, their not the only countries that do military sales with other countries. Lets not forget American sales of WMD to Iraq, arming the Muhajadeen, Iran Contra, Arms to Saudi Arabia, missle tech to China under Clinton(i wont forget that one). nah, it's always France this and Germany that.
"About N. Korea, when they do what Iraq did with in the same time span THEN youd have a point"-ok clearly we're not on the same page considering...
Iraq-No WMD b4 war, No WMD after war
N.Korea-believed to be near bomb b4 war, claims 3-6 bombs + plutonium for a dozen more after war.
WHO DROPPED THE F'N BALL HERE? N.Korea in no position? They got Bush scared sh!^less. And your missle shield is still a joke.Terror is a tactic. Tom Clancy is on the forefront of understanding that. Sheuer is on the forefront. Peter Bergen understands this. I dont care if that eggplant won the election last month. I prefer to listen to experts rather than wannabees on what terrorism actually is.
Infidel-Terrorist. Trading names tit for tat. Thier fanatics call me the infidel. I dont care, they can call me that all they want. That just means im a nonbeliever, and being atheist,it suits me fine. Its Crusader i worry about. And that connotation fits, considering the circumstances. It's you thats over there, expanding your bases, your sphere of influence, continuing control over apostate dictatorships like Egypt and the Saudi's.
I never said a carbon copy of your country is a bad thing. It becomes a bad thing when you try and force it down their throats through the barrel of a gun.
"Oh yeah I almost forgot if Canada can make a better fighter then the F16, then offer it to the Saudi Government "
-Nah, im sure the French can make a better fighter. Oh wait, yeah, its bad when the french sell arms to non-democracies. ooops. (would you like some cheese with that 'whine'?)Well, i was't expecting you to betray your loyalities and phathom the possibility that Abu Ghriab and Guantanomo actually happens elsewhere. But im still keeping the roof throwing filed with "industrial shredder" and "Clinton leaves whitehouse in ruins"
"I dont see you or your country doing anything about China or N. Korea or the Sudan or anything else for that matter so guess your heart doesnt bleed enough either."
-I didn't see my country invade another country under the pretext of liberation. My country didn't set the precident for armed conflict for freeing people. My country didn't set this ridiculous bar to jump over. Your the moral leader liberating people... well go right ahead, ill give you a list, start a liberatin."sit there while we act to preserve our way of life and by default yours."
-your doing nothing of the kind for me. my way of life will remain the same so long as we never get invaded by you. You on the other hand, your way of life will change. It has and will continue. You may not see it but it is.
Mon Dec 20 2004 4:37 PM
Bunks:
Your President's a moron. Below is an extract from my local Australian newspaper. They should teach the guy to speak English before he is allowed to make decisions about whether he sends your troops to war!! I still can't believe he was re-elected. There obviously wasn't much opposition.
In Washington, there are plenty of ways to say "no comment," but US President George W Bush offered his own formulation today when he refused to "negotiate with myself in public".
The guys not evil - he's too dumb to be evil....
Mon Dec 20 2004 6:56 PM
Anonymous:
Speaking english is one area the presidents should stick to.
Perhaps we should allow Jimmy Carter to declare war on Poland - again. Now those where some great oratory skills that dumbass had.
Tue Dec 21 2004 6:34 AM
Tom from Madison:
As Bill O'Reilly might say if he were really fair and balanced:
"OK, Mr. No-name, Is that all you got? 'At least he's no Jimmy Carter?'"
I'm amazed by the Bushies' refusal to admit that W has any flaws or has ever made any mistakes. The Poland remark is a total non-sequitor, designed to change the subject ASAP.
Bush's lack of command of the English language should concern all Americans. He speaks more like a child who was "left behind" than like the leader of the free world. He absolutely undermines his credibility as an education reformer. Worse, he hides behind his "handicap" to conveniently duck giving cogent, logical justifications for his failing policies. That's left to PR types and the right-wing noise machine.
Tue Dec 21 2004 11:21 AM
njguardsman:
Peace on Earth, good will toward men I want to thank all those who are not with their families and friends so that I can be with mine.
We if not the entire world are truly in the debt to the men and women of the U S fighting forces; they are indeed now our greatest generation.
They and their sacrifice humble me.
I ask that those reading this keep them in your hearts and prayers this holiday season and that after their noble work is done, that each and every one of them return to their homes safely knowing that they will take their rightful place among this nations heroes, and that we give them the: love, honor and respect they so richly deserve.
Merry Christmas Happy New Year to all!
Sat Dec 25 2004 1:26 PM
njguardsman:
I forgot to mention in the above blog:
My GOD keep them and protect them and walk with them in all the dangerous places where they must go.
they are in my prayers tonight and every night.
Sat Dec 25 2004 2:10 PM
njguardsman:
Saddam provided passive support in that he provided places for these monsters to train, on top of the fact that he provided money to the PLO, HAMAS and other terrorist organizations.
Israel can handle their own affairs, as proven in 1981 when they destroyed that Iraqi reactor. They need no prodding, if anything they might need holding back.
Send in the special forces now whos using the slippery slope argument? Dont be silly; has the IRA attacked the US?
YES, world Intel, from even your credible sources so if you choose to believe it or not its up to you or are you going on the conspiracy kick that the mean U S of A planted Intel and fooled the entire world.
Blix is good for nothing, every job hes done for the UN hes failed at. Ritter is writing for Aljazera (which loves to show Americans losing their heads every chance they get).
President Bush was correct in invading Afghanistan, he was correct in invading Iraq, AND if the trail leads to Iran then so be it and then maybe Syria, and now my personal favorite CUBA we never mind that THE WORLD should have taken that garbage out a long long time ago but as usual no one had the BALLS in plain English (not even us until 2000)!
And for the record I was against any and all sales/trade or anything else to do with China.
Bush scared $h[*less, thanks for making me laugh, N. Korea is a matter to be taken care of and it will be taken care of when the administration decides NOT when the world thinks we should we made that mistake before, Bush will not place the security of the United States on the alter of the United Nations
OBL and his buddies are always saying it: HOLY WAR!!!!!!! = IDEALISM, their holy war is our War on Terror.
Force it down their throats lets see now Japans government was forced down their throats, Germany them too what about the whole of western Europe, weve been there for whats going on 60 years now oh but youre fine with that.
Keep your list Ive got one of my own! Like it or not were towing the line for the world on this one, AGAIN even though the world is too blind, busy stealing money to notice or care!
Until now none of you have proven that Bush invaded Iraq for: Oil, Money, Revenge or any reason/conjecture/fantasy you may have. Yes he went in for WMD, Yes liberation of the Iraqi population was a bonus, if he hadnt announced the invasion Saddam would not have sent his weapons to Syria (yet another Baathist stronghold), which is most likely where they are at this moment
Again I say to you, you HAVE YET to answer my questions about why you havent taken former President Clinton to task about Bosnia or the missile attack in Iraq or for that matter any other military action he ordered (crickets chirping)? Oh but I forget hes one of you and whatever he does or doesnt do is fine.
Sun Dec 26 2004 9:34 AM
Mike of the Great White North:
OMG- Are you dense? Look at the list you gave me. PLO, Hamas. You just made my point. THEY'RE NOT AL-QAIDA! Your equating support for a regional conflict (Israel-Palestine) and trying to Chenyfy it. If this is your argument, if you are saying you took out Saddam because he supported Palestinians resisting Israeli occupation then just come out and say "Amercian troops are dying for Israel" and get it over with!!!
No doubt Israel can handle its own affairs. They are the only true WMD country in the middle east. Course you wouldn't know it because they're not signatories of the NPT or IAEA controls. Theres your double standard. And im sure your itching to see Israel try and bomb Irans 'suspected' sites. You probably want a regional Armageddon there. Are you a rapturist by chance?
Oh i love this comment....
"Dont be silly; has the IRA attacked the US?"
DID IRAQ? or HAMAS? or the PLO?
(if you answer yes, i will call you a vegatable from now on)Did the USA plant Intel? I cant comment since i dont have that kind of access. But what i can say is if world Intel was so alike, why did so many opt out? Remember, it was mostly US intel that was used to recruit coallition members and be used at the UN to spell out your case. Also, you berate Blix and Ritter. But i guess thats what losers do when they cant argue their way out of a paper bag. What did Blix say that was wrong? What did Ritter? Both claimed Iraq clean of WMD, both argued for more inspections, both agreed containment was working. BOTH WERE RIGHT. You can sit there a poo poo and character attack Blix or Ritter all you want, it won't make you argument float.
Guess what NJ, the ownus of proof doesn't fall onto the the people to prove Bush's motives. But there's plenty of evidence to look. Oil? Haliburton no bid contracts make Cheney smile. Money? see oil. Revenge? "After all, this is the same guy that tried to kill my dadday" Nah, the ownus is on Bush to explain why the US is fighting a war on its own, fronting the whole cost, on faulty or phoney intel. And because your such a fan of numbers (remember 51?) since now over 56% of Americans(read MAJORITY) believe the war was a mistake and that the cost is too high... will you now run away from you impressive speach of one nation, one voice? The people are speaking NJ, they want the troops out of Iraq. 56% and growing. Rummy says they're gonna be there til 2010. Well NJ... whats it gonna be? Rummy or one voice.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA. You're a real loon you know. And i love this sick twisted logic you pull. First you ask people here to PROVE their beliefs on Bushs motives. And in the very next sentence, you spew the BULL$#!7 that those nonexistant WMD are magically in Syria... another neocon fable they read to their kids at night. PROVE IT! or shut the (*&^% up. BTW, Bush is still scared $h[*less of Mr. Ill!
"you HAVE YET to answer my questions about why you havent taken former President"
You know whats so funny, I TRIED, i really did, to find some common ground to work with you on. I explained how i disagreed with the actions in Kosovo, Mogadishu, the cruise missle attack in Sudan, the sale of missle tech to China, all under Democrats Bill. I have agreed with you on the invasion of Afghanistan. I have agreed with you that maddrassas should be wiped off the earth etc... etc... and what do i have to show for it? You trying to fudge apart every fact i throw at you just hoping maybe i can get you to see even a sliver of light through this maddness you live in. You can't bring yourself to even absorb any comment or factpoint i make without immediatly trying to bash it simply for the sake of bashing it. Wellllll, those days are over. I've realized i cant argue or debate with a brick wall. You are more than set in stone. Your like Bart Simpson touching the electrified cupcake and no matter what i say to convince you, you're going to end up huddled in the corner forever terrified of the sweet cakes for all.
Sun Dec 26 2004 6:16 PM
njguardsman:
Look at the list you gave me Are they really all that different? Just because they go by different names are that to be treated differently? Answer NO!!! They are all TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS with similar goals!
If you are saying you took out Saddam because he supported Palestinians resisting Israeli occupation then just come out and say American troops are dyeing for Israel and get it over with Im saying America has sacrificed its sons and daughters for freedom, We hold these truths to be self evident that ALL men are created EQUAL, that they are endowed by their creator with LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS. We did it in: WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Granada, Gulf 1, and now Gulf 2, American heroes are buried around the world because of those beliefs and if they were asked to do it all again they would and we continue to even though the rest of the world hate and despises us because we are what the world aspires to be. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060746734/qid=1105745617/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-8936634-2258434?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
Israel is the only true WMD country in the Middle East. Did you forget Libya, Iran, and Syria? Israel is surrounded by her enemies, six or seven sovereign countries that want nothing more then to drive the Israeli people into the sea, how do you like those odds?
Did Iraq attack the US? Did Hamas or the PLO? YES! They did, how many innocent American Jews- for that matter how many innocent Jewish people, how many innocent people just trying to live their lives have they MURDERED? How many busses have they blown up? How many pizzerias have they blown up? Do you remember the 1st WTC bombing? What about the USS Cole? Need I go on?
And since you try shoving numbers in my face remember one thing, Bush was elected President AGAIN, by a majority (no hanging chads, no courts) because the American people put their trust in him [56% like the job hes doing as President]
Oil, Money, Revenge?!?!? Sorry Mike YOU prove it 1st you call Bush an idiot he cant talk, hes stupid BLAH BLAH BLAH now youre saying hes the greatest mastermind the world has ever known fooling the entire country to do his bidding! WHICH IS IT?????
You didnt try to work with me, you blew off those points as inconsequential and concentrated on making bush the Anti- Christ, OOPS I forgot, you dont believe in God. May I ask you this question: Did you work on DEC 25 or did you take time off? Are you religious only when it profits you?
Fri Jan 14 2005 4:40 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
This is just sad and i'm not going to waste my time tonight doing a point by point rebuttle of your lame arguments, ill do that tomorow. Besides, half of my counter arguments are contained in my original post, so im wary of even trying. In fact i should just tell anyone reading your post to go one post up and read my post and see if your rebuttle even merits a response.
And Dec.25th is a stat holiday you twit. I'm as entitled to take it as im entitled to take Labour day or Canada day. Unless your telling me im not allowed my meager pitance of vacation time off i'd tell you to shove it.
Fri Jan 14 2005 9:26 PM
Email:
   
|
  
 |
