How has YOUR freedom been limited by the Bush Administration? [Archive] - Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards

Ballbustah

11-09-2004, 04:30 PM

Preserving Life & Liberty Home
Major Speeches
Dispelling Myths
Passed by Congress
Congress Speaks
Support of the People
Stories and Articles
Responding to Congress
Text of the Patriot Act
Anti-Terror Record
Department of Justice Website

Just Released: Delayed Notice Search Warrants: A Vital and Time-Honored Tool for Fighting Crime

Field Report on the PATRIOT Act

The Department of Justice’s first priority is to prevent future terrorist attacks. Since its passage following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Patriot Act has played a key part - and often the leading role - in a number of successful operations to protect innocent Americans from the deadly plans of terrorists dedicated to destroying America and our way of life. While the results have been important, in passing the Patriot Act, Congress provided for only modest, incremental changes in the law. Congress simply took existing legal principles and retrofitted them to preserve the lives and liberty of the American people from the challenges posed by a global terrorist network.
PDF version

The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty
(Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism)

Congress enacted the Patriot Act by overwhelming, bipartisan margins, arming law enforcement with new tools to detect and prevent terrorism: The USA Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357–66 in the House, with the support of members from across the political spectrum.

The Act Improves Our Counter-Terrorism Efforts in Several Significant Ways:

1. The Patriot Act allows investigators to use the tools that were already available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking. Many of the tools the Act provides to law enforcement to fight terrorism have been used for decades to fight organized crime and drug dealers, and have been reviewed and approved by the courts. As Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) explained during the floor debate about the Act, “the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy! What’s good for the mob should be good for terrorists.” (Cong. Rec., 10/25/01)

* Allows law enforcement to use surveillance against more crimes of terror. Before the Patriot Act, courts could permit law enforcement to conduct electronic surveillance to investigate many ordinary, non-terrorism crimes, such as drug crimes, mail fraud, and passport fraud. Agents also could obtain wiretaps to investigate some, but not all, of the crimes that terrorists often commit. The Act enabled investigators to gather information when looking into the full range of terrorism-related crimes, including: chemical-weapons offenses, the use of weapons of mass destruction, killing Americans abroad, and terrorism financing.

* Allows federal agents to follow sophisticated terrorists trained to evade detection. For years, law enforcement has been able to use “roving wiretaps” to investigate ordinary crimes, including drug offenses and racketeering. A roving wiretap can be authorized by a federal judge to apply to a particular suspect, rather than a particular phone or communications device. Because international terrorists are sophisticated and trained to thwart surveillance by rapidly changing locations and communication devices such as cell phones, the Act authorized agents to seek court permission to use the same techniques in national security investigations to track terrorists.

* Allows law enforcement to conduct investigations without tipping off terrorists. In some cases if criminals are tipped off too early to an investigation, they might flee, destroy evidence, intimidate or kill witnesses, cut off contact with associates, or take other action to evade arrest. Therefore, federal courts in narrow circumstances long have allowed law enforcement to delay for a limited time when the subject is told that a judicially-approved search warrant has been executed. Notice is always provided, but the reasonable delay gives law enforcement time to identify the criminal’s associates, eliminate immediate threats to our communities, and coordinate the arrests of multiple individuals without tipping them off beforehand. These delayed notification search warrants have been used for decades, have proven crucial in drug and organized crime cases, and have been upheld by courts as fully constitutional.

* Allows federal agents to ask a court for an order to obtain business records in national security terrorism cases. Examining business records often provides the key that investigators are looking for to solve a wide range of crimes. Investigators might seek select records from hardware stores or chemical plants, for example, to find out who bought materials to make a bomb, or bank records to see who’s sending money to terrorists. Law enforcement authorities have always been able to obtain business records in criminal cases through grand jury subpoenas, and continue to do so in national security cases where appropriate. These records were sought in criminal cases such as the investigation of the Zodiac gunman, where police suspected the gunman was inspired by a Scottish occult poet, and wanted to learn who had checked the poet’s books out of the library. In national security cases where use of the grand jury process was not appropriate, investigators previously had limited tools at their disposal to obtain certain business records. Under the Patriot Act, the government can now ask a federal court (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court), if needed to aid an investigation, to order production of the same type of records available through grand jury subpoenas. This federal court, however, can issue these orders only after the government demonstrates the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a U.S. person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment.

2. The Patriot Act facilitated information sharing and cooperation among government agencies so that they can better “connect the dots.” The Act removed the major legal barriers that prevented the law enforcement, intelligence, and national defense communities from talking and coordinating their work to protect the American people and our national security. The government’s prevention efforts should not be restricted by boxes on an organizational chart. Now police officers, FBI agents, federal prosecutors and intelligence officials can protect our communities by “connecting the dots” to uncover terrorist plots before they are completed. As Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) said about the Patriot Act, “we simply cannot prevail in the battle against terrorism if the right hand of our government has no idea what the left hand is doing.” (Press release, 10/26/01)

* Prosecutors can now share evidence obtained through grand juries with intelligence officials -- and intelligence information can now be shared more easily with federal prosecutors. Such sharing of information leads to concrete results. For example, a federal grand jury recently indicted an individual in Florida, Sami al-Arian, for allegedly being the U.S. leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, one of the world’s most violent terrorist outfits. Palestinian Islamic Jihad is responsible for murdering more than 100 innocent people, including a young American named Alisa Flatow who was killed in a tragic bus bombing in Gaza. The Patriot Act assisted us in obtaining the indictment by enabling the full sharing of information and advice about the case among prosecutors and investigators. Alisa’s father, Steven Flatow, has said, “When you know the resources of your government are committed to right the wrongs committed against your daughter, that instills you with a sense of awe. As a father you can’t ask for anything more.”

3. The Patriot Act updated the law to reflect new technologies and new threats. The Act brought the law up to date with current technology, so we no longer have to fight a digital-age battle with antique weapons—legal authorities leftover from the era of rotary telephones. When investigating the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, for example, law enforcement used one of the Act’s new authorities to use high-tech means to identify and locate some of the killers.

* Allows law enforcement officials to obtain a search warrant anywhere a terrorist-related activity occurred. Before the Patriot Act, law enforcement personnel were required to obtain a search warrant in the district where they intended to conduct a search. However, modern terrorism investigations often span a number of districts, and officers therefore had to obtain multiple warrants in multiple jurisdictions, creating unnecessary delays. The Act provides that warrants can be obtained in any district in which terrorism-related activities occurred, regardless of where they will be executed. This provision does not change the standards governing the availability of a search warrant, but streamlines the search-warrant process.

* Allows victims of computer hacking to request law enforcement assistance in monitoring the “trespassers” on their computers. This change made the law technology-neutral; it placed electronic trespassers on the same footing as physical trespassers. Now, hacking victims can seek law enforcement assistance to combat hackers, just as burglary victims have been able to invite officers into their homes to catch burglars.

4. The Patriot Act increased the penalties for those who commit terrorist crimes. Americans are threatened as much by the terrorist who pays for a bomb as by the one who pushes the button. That’s why the Patriot Act imposed tough new penalties on those who commit and support terrorist operations, both at home and abroad. In particular, the Act:

* Prohibits the harboring of terrorists. The Act created a new offense that prohibits knowingly harboring persons who have committed or are about to commit a variety of terrorist offenses, such as: destruction of aircraft; use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons; use of weapons of mass destruction; bombing of government property; sabotage of nuclear facilities; and aircraft piracy.

* Enhanced the inadequate maximum penalties for various crimes likely to be committed by terrorists: including arson, destruction of energy facilities, material support to terrorists and terrorist organizations, and destruction of national-defense materials.

* Enhanced a number of conspiracy penalties, including for arson, killings in federal facilities, attacking communications systems, material support to terrorists, sabotage of nuclear facilities, and interference with flight crew members. Under previous law, many terrorism statutes did not specifically prohibit engaging in conspiracies to commit the underlying offenses. In such cases, the government could only bring prosecutions under the general federal conspiracy provision, which carries a maximum penalty of only five years in prison.

* Punishes terrorist attacks on mass transit systems.

* Punishes bioterrorists.

* Eliminates the statutes of limitations for certain terrorism crimes and lengthens them for other terrorist crimes.

The government’s success in preventing another catastrophic attack on the American homeland since September 11, 2001, would have been much more difficult, if not impossible, without the USA Patriot Act. The authorities Congress provided have substantially enhanced our ability to prevent, investigate, and prosecute acts of terror.

Privacy Policy

townes

11-09-2004, 06:18 PM

Despite encouragement from several members of this board i haven't tried to fly lately, but i wouldn't be surprised if i ended up on a no fly list for anti-war activities over the next few years, as that's where i'm spending my "political capital," all 2 cents of it.

The primary impact that W has had on me over the past few years is that it's harder to go surfing in Kennebunkport when he's on vacation; which we all know is "rarely." Also, I refuse to sign the LOYALTY OATH, so I don't get to go see the president, which is obviously a great disappointment to me. I may never get to tell him he's a war criminal to his face, and that would suck.

Imo the true impact of their policies are only starting to be felt, and the worst is definitely yet to come. They are trying to create a Fascist theocracy imo, and the effect that will have on everyone's freedom will be chilling. The Patriot Act allows the government powers they were never intended to have, and I simply don't trust them with those powers. In support of this i would cite the five thousand mostly muslim men the Justice Department arrested and held without reason in the month's after 9-11, none of whom were ever convicted of ANYTHING. NOT ONE!

That's pretty frightening, and, if it can happen any member of society it can happen to all of us, which was exactly what the founders of this country tried to prevent in structuring our Constitution.

I agree that they have had little effect on Choice so far, but that will change in the second term, how people view that is dependent upon the individual.

The scariest thing, in relation to "freedoms, " that I see is the move toward theocracy. I support everyone's right to their own faith, and believe 100% that this was a cornerstone of the society that this was intended to be, and I see a rapid move toward state sponsored religion (Christianity) with a subsequent marginalization of other faith's in the future. Those hardest hit initially have been american muslims, who can no longer safely donate to charities of their own faith, at the exact time when society is putting more emphasis on faith based charity, and the government is sponsoring such a move with the Faith Based Initiative. Again, if one denomition can be targeted, why not others? It's wrong, and it's un-american imo.

The second scariest is once removed from the actual issue of freedoms, but impacts it significantly, and that's the move towards media consolidation which this administration supports 100%. The media is being bought up and concentrated into the hands of the few with the cash to pull off such a feat, and most have decidedly ideological motivations in doing so. That Disney could squash F-9-11, and other anti-government movies during election season defintely impacts our freedom to make informed decisions imo, and that scares the hell out of me.

Thanks alot,This was a really good question and I'm going to give it more thought because it really is interesting, and it's really important to understand it fully.

townes

11-09-2004, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by spiderman

As I stated in another thread, I have many liberal friends (MANY), and I've heard their arguments, and in many cases I can see to a certain degree where they are coming from. This board cracks me up, because if most of you knew me you would describe me as "barely leaning right" at most, but somehow I've been portrayed as a right wing nut.

Wow, how ironic, i have the exact same problem from the other side.:eek:

O_P_T

11-09-2004, 06:57 PM

People might want to read this (http://thehistorynet.com/mhq/blfreedomsundersiege/) article for some historical perspective on the civil liberties pendulum in this country.

There is a long tradition of things swinging to the right and the left in response to outside forces and previous behavior by the government.

Even if one views the present situation as a big swing to the right, there is no reason to believe that it won't swing back to the left before too long.

townes

11-09-2004, 08:43 PM

Long article, don't have time to read it all tonight, but, regardless of the premise, which i agree with, isn't always right to support real liberties over measures designed to ease insecurity?

Our reaction to 9-11 is exactly what the religious extremists wanted, repression within our societies, military aggression that would foment islamic extremism, and an insecure approach to security that would bankrupt our society by outspending them a billion to one.

spiderman

11-10-2004, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by townes
Wow, how ironic, i have the exact same problem from the other side.:eek:

I have a hard time believing (based on what you write) that anyone would ever describe you as "barely leaning left". When you post, I'm picturing you sitting in a dark office in the basement of the FBI building with pictures of UFO's around you...

...it was the NEOCON's I tell you, and the cigarette smoking man!!!

:D

Flagg the Wanderer

11-10-2004, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by townes
That Disney could squash F-9-11, and other anti-government movies during election season defintely impacts our freedom to make informed decisions imo, and that scares the hell out of me. Question: does it scare the hell out of you that the Anti-Kerry movie got squashed, too, or did you want that to hit the airwaves a week before the election as was planned?

O_P_T

11-10-2004, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by townes
Long article, don't have time to read it all tonight, but, regardless of the premise, which i agree with, isn't always right to support real liberties over measures designed to ease insecurity?

Our reaction to 9-11 is exactly what the religious extremists wanted, repression within our societies, military aggression that would foment islamic extremism, and an insecure approach to security that would bankrupt our society by outspending them a billion to one.

There is always a balance between individual rights and public safety.

If you move to far to support one, you limit the other.

Let's take one simple thing as an example. Air travel.

If you conduct a full body cavity search on every person boarding the plane, then you will have a very safe flight since no one will be able to smuggle any type of weapon on board.

This however, is a very extreme level and we don't impose such a limit on the general public.

However, by settling for a lower inspection method, we increase the risk that someone will get a weapon on board an airplane.

Where is the right balance point?

That is a question for society to decide.

The article I linked to provides examples of how the balance point swung back and forth through the history of this country.

There have been those who have argued (not necessarily anyone here) that the present admisistration will impose a permenant police state.

The article shows that based on historical trends, that is unlikely.

#1Patsfan_chica

11-10-2004, 03:20 PM

Nope.
:rolleyes:

townes

11-10-2004, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
Question: does it scare the hell out of you that the Anti-Kerry movie got squashed, too, or did you want that to hit the airwaves a week before the election as was planned?

They sure as hell didn't squash it here. Sinclair went right ahead with it, and dressed it up as breaking news to boot.

To answer the question on a larger scale, i'm appalled at all efforts at censorship.

townes

11-10-2004, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by spiderman
I have a hard time believing (based on what you write) that anyone would ever describe you as "barely leaning left". When you post, I'm picturing you sitting in a dark office in the basement of the FBI building with pictures of UFO's around you...

...it was the NEOCON's I tell you, and the cigarette smoking man!!!

:D

The neo-cons are sitting right there for all to see, if you don't pay enough attention to understand who they are and what their goals are that's your problem, as it's your party getting hijacked.

BTW-Your the only one who has described yourself as "barely leaning right," and i picture you trying to intimidate elderly black voters in an effort to scare them away from the polls.

Also, I lean wayyyyyyy left, but at least i acknowledge it. I don't try to pretend i'm a moderate when I am clearly not.

townes

11-10-2004, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by O_P_T
There is always a balance between individual rights and public safety.

If you move to far to support one, you limit the other.

Let's take one simple thing as an example. Air travel.

If you conduct a full body cavity search on every person boarding the plane, then you will have a very safe flight since no one will be able to smuggle any type of weapon on board.

Not if one of those 4000 missing shoulder fired surface to air missiles is hanging around you won't.

townes

11-10-2004, 05:51 PM

OPT-I already agreed with the historical premise that society moves back and forth between the poles of any issue, however, I still side with freedom over security. The greatest danger to this country is itself.

dchester

11-10-2004, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by townes
That Disney could squash F-9-11, and other anti-government movies during election season defintely impacts our freedom to make informed decisions imo, and that scares the hell out of me. Disney squashed F911??? I could have sworn it was playing in theaters all across the country. I can understand them not wanting to be associated with a propaganda film masquerading as a documentary, but to say they squashed it, seems to be a bit of hyperbole.

Sorry for going off topic Oed,

My liberties have not been infringed since Bush became President. Now under Clinton, I was always selected for the "Random" checks at airports, Minneapolis in particular (of course this was all before 911 and the increased security). I'm sure my being a black man was purely coincidental to my being selected. Although I don't fly that often in my current position, I actually get selected less often (I suppose because I don't look particularly Arab).

BTW, I'm not really blaming Clinton for this, just making a point (maybe).
________
green crack pictures (http://trichomes.org/marijuana-strains/green-crack)

townes

11-11-2004, 07:05 AM

DC, Disney did all they could to keep it from getting out, but the Weinstein brothers had the balls to step up and get it distributed. When it opened in maine it was in one tiny cinema that couldn't handle even a fraction of those who wanted to see it. The major theatre chains were in bed with the major distributors and refused to show it until the clamor became so great they couldn't ignore it anymore. This story was repeated all over the country. Had it been "The Passion" receiving such treatment I am certain we would have heard a huge outcry from the right.

BTW-Everything in F-9-11 was 100% true, it was an editorial based on fact, not propoganda. If you want pure bullsh*t propoganda you need look no furhter than the scumbag slimeball swift boat LIARS.

Spinal Tap

11-11-2004, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by townes
DC, Disney did all they could to keep it from getting out, but the Weinstein brothers had the balls to step up and get it distributed. When it opened in maine it was in one tiny cinema that couldn't handle even a fraction of those who wanted to see it. The major theatre chains were in bed with the major distributors and refused to show it until the clamor became so great they couldn't ignore it anymore. This story was repeated all over the country. Had it been "The Passion" receiving such treatment I am certain we would have heard a huge outcry from the right.

BTW-Everything in F-9-11 was 100% true, it was an editorial based on fact, not propoganda. If you want pure bullsh*t propoganda you need look no furhter than the scumbag slimeball swift boat LIARS.

those "scumbag, slimeball swift boat LIARS" fought in vietnam so that ugrateful peices of sh*t like you could question their integrity on internet message boards. townes, you such a fu*king loser. i cannot comprehend what it is like being such a dirty hippie freak like you. i'm seriously disgusted by you and your views. please leave this country NOW!

bideau

11-11-2004, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Spinal Tap
those "scumbag, slimeball swift boat LIARS" fought in vietnam so that ugrateful peices of sh*t like you could question their integrity on internet message boards. townes, you such a fu*king loser. i cannot comprehend what it is like being such a dirty hippie freak like you. i'm seriously disgusted by you and your views. please leave this country NOW!

Sorry Spinal, but the integrity of the swift boat group is open to question. Their story directly contradicts those that were with Kerry during the events in question. Additionally, the leader of the group was recuited by Nixon to discredit Kerry's testimony before Congress. Being a Vietnam veteran does not put them beyond question.

Also, townes is exercising his right to express dissent against the current administration. One of the problems that many people have with the right wing of the Republican party is exactly what you just demonstrated. When all arguments have been exhausted, the reply is "leave the country now". Why should he? If the conservatives were in the minority, you would certainly want to voice your dissent just as you voice your support now.

Dissent is the most American of rights and it's always been the main tool for the minority party.

Spinal Tap

11-11-2004, 08:25 AM

bideau, nobody ever said that townes, the hippy freak, doesn't have the right to express his "opinion", no matter how disfigured they it might be. my beef with this a-hole is his disrespect for military veterans that risked their lives for HIM. i told him to leave the country because that's what he's been spouting off about ever since the election. he says he's gonna move...........then f*cking move already.

the bottom line is, have some respect for people that put their lives on the line for YOUR freedom. that's what i have a problem with.

and let's get one thing straight. i am NOT a right wing conservative republican. i consider myself a moderate who leans towards the right. i'm just a regular guy that has taken an interest in the politics of this country. i'm also someone who has respect for our leaders, whether they be john kerry or george bush. i have respect for the men and women who are fighting overseas, regardless of whether or not their cause is "justified". the bottom line is that they have more heart and integrity than someone like "townes" could ever dream of having.

so cut the sh*t with this "typical right wing respones" bullsh*t. i'm getting real sick of the stereotypes. townes is a self proclaimed radical left wing lunatic, so i'll address him accordingly.

townes

11-11-2004, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Spinal Tap
the bottom line is, have some respect for people that put their lives on the line for YOUR freedom. that's what i have a problem with.

Like you and the swifties did for John Kerry?????

What a f*cking hypocrite!

You respect the chickenhawks who refuse to fight, but trash those who put their lives on the line and later questioned their government's motivation.

Let me know when you can put a consistent line of logic together, so far all i have seen is right wing spew from you.

townes

11-11-2004, 09:56 AM

I'm a self proclaimed left winger because i;'m honest. You, on the other hand, consistently arghue from the Fox News Talking points and, like Bill o'Reilly, then proclaim yourself a "moderate."

I am thinking about leaving the country, to go surf and enjoy life in someplace that doesn't represent fascism. My choice, and i'll do it when i please. In the meantime, I pay my taxes and provide employment, so I will say whatever I please.

I haven't told anyone to leave the country, you have repeatedly, demonstarting your complete lack of tolerance for dissenting opinions, just like your fascist pals.

You support the swifties attack on a war hero, then go ballistic when someone trashes the swifties for the lies they put out there. Again, what a f*cking hypocrite.
Go practice up on your german so you can read the patriot Act in it's original language.

Flagg the Wanderer

11-11-2004, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by townes
Also, I lean wayyyyyyy left, but at least i acknowledge it. I don't try to pretend i'm a moderate when I am clearly not. I'm not a moderate. I tend to be an extremist. It's just that my positions don't even come close to gibing with either political party.

I'm sort of a Moral Libertarian Internationalist.

Flagg the Wanderer

11-11-2004, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by townes
OPT-I already agreed with the historical premise that society moves back and forth between the poles of any issue, however, I still side with freedom over security. The greatest danger to this country is itself. Agreed.

townes

11-11-2004, 10:02 AM

From what I can see flagg, you also support Polish violence against incredibly rich hispanics:eek: :eek: :eek:

Pats247

11-11-2004, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by townes

BTW-Everything in F-9-11 was 100% true, it was an editorial based on fact, not propoganda. If you want pure bullsh*t propoganda you need look no furhter than the scumbag slimeball swift boat LIARS.

The Swift Boat Veterans are anything but "scumbag, slimeball liars" - what they are are over 200 men that fought in Vietnam that think John Kerry is a POS. When John Kerry rolled into Boston Harbor on a ferry (Swift Boat?) and announced at the Fleet Center that he was "reporting for duty" - he made his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign. The Swift Boat veterans either served with him, at the same time as him, or after him and are pretty familiar with what he is all about. For you to paint them all as "slimeball liars" is despicable.

John Kerry deserves credit for serving in Vietnam, and he gets/got a ton of it from the mainstream press. But the facts are (as the Swift boats vets see them), is that he received 3 purple hearts for wounds that were not serious enough to warrant him to miss 1 day of duty, he used those 3 purple hearts to get out of Vietnam after only 4 months, and he proceeded to trash the government and his fellow veterans by testifying that the war had created millions of atrocity committing "monsters" that were ready to be unleashed on society.

Some of his testimony was based on information he heard at the Winter Soldier Meeting in Detroit - this is where he heard the brutal stories of soldiers raping and pillaging, cutting off ears, cutting off heads, trashing the countryside in a manner similar to "Genghis Khan". Many of the individuals that told these stories were later shown to be frauds, some never saw atrocities, some were never in Vietnam, and some never even served in the military. Yet their words were repeated by Kerry in a way that trashed the reputations of all who served.

We could go back and forth on this all day. I agree with you that it is ironic/pathetic that a guy like Dick Cheney (who received countless deferrals to avoid service) can question the patriotism of John Kerry. And you are right, a lot of these republican "tough guys" never served a day in their life (Tom Delay etc.). But I think other veterans have every right to question and criticize the actions of Kerry both during and after the war, his words hurt a lot of veterans and this was probably their way of "paying him back". His supporters (his Swift Boat crew) were trotted out at every turn and they certainly got plenty of face time talking about his heroics, the Swifties presented a different side.

townes

11-11-2004, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by townes
I haven't told anyone to leave the country, you have repeatedly, demonstarting your complete lack of tolerance for dissenting opinions, just like your fascist pals.

Townes, you lying leftwingmushroomswillingfascisthatingdirtynoisyarg umentitiveunappreciativeof theswiftiesradicaldopesmokingantichrist, this is simply not true.

In fact, you have repeatedly told everyone in the entire state of maine to secede from this country and join up with the Maritimes.

Haven't you?

townes

11-11-2004, 10:38 AM

Townes,

you're right, i have.

My mistake.

townes

11-11-2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Pats247
The Swift Boat Veterans are anything but "scumbag, slimeball liars" - what they are are over 200 men that fought in Vietnam that think John Kerry is a POS. When John Kerry rolled into Boston Harbor on a ferry (Swift Boat?) and announced at the Fleet Center that he was "reporting for duty" - he made his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign. The Swift Boat veterans either served with him, at the same time as him, or after him and are pretty familiar with what he is all about. For you to paint them all as "slimeball liars" is despicable.

John Kerry deserves credit for serving in Vietnam, and he gets/got a ton of it from the mainstream press. But the facts are (as the Swift boats vets see them), is that he received 3 purple hearts for wounds that were not serious enough to warrant him to miss 1 day of duty, he used those 3 purple hearts to get out of Vietnam after only 4 months, and he proceeded to trash the government and his fellow veterans by testifying that the war had created millions of atrocity committing "monsters" that were ready to be unleashed on society.

Some of his testimony was based on information he heard at the Winter Soldier Meeting in Detroit - this is where he heard the brutal stories of soldiers raping and pillaging, cutting off ears, cutting off heads, trashing the countryside in a manner similar to "Genghis Khan". Many of the individuals that told these stories were later shown to be frauds, some never saw atrocities, some were never in Vietnam, and some never even served in the military. Yet their words were repeated by Kerry in a way that trashed the reputations of all who served.

We could go back and forth on this all day. I agree with you that it is ironic/pathetic that a guy like Dick Cheney (who received countless deferrals to avoid service) can question the patriotism of John Kerry. And you are right, a lot of these republican "tough guys" never served a day in their life (Tom Delay etc.). But I think other veterans have every right to question and criticize the actions of Kerry both during and after the war, his words hurt a lot of veterans and this was probably their way of "paying him back". His supporters (his Swift Boat crew) were trotted out at every turn and they certainly got plenty of face time talking about his heroics, the Swifties presented a different side.

Good points, but Kerry never trashed his fellow veterans, and the stories he recounted were actually true. Kerry never suggested that all soldiers were committing atrocities, only that atrocities were being committed. Kerry stood by soldiers in taking the government to task and saved lives by helping the war end earlier than it would have had he not worked for the anti-war movement.

I respect the service of the swift boat vets, but not their behavior during this campaign, which was an attack against a fellow soldier based on lies and conjecture.

Had the swift boat veterans been telling the truth i would agree that they had a right to speak on it, but they were lying, and that's what separates them.

Spinal Tap

11-11-2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by townes
I'm a self proclaimed left winger because i;'m honest. You, on the other hand, consistently arghue from the Fox News Talking points and, like Bill o'Reilly, then proclaim yourself a "moderate."

I am thinking about leaving the country, to go surf and enjoy life in someplace that doesn't represent fascism. My choice, and i'll do it when i please. In the meantime, I pay my taxes and provide employment, so I will say whatever I please.

I haven't told anyone to leave the country, you have repeatedly, demonstarting your complete lack of tolerance for dissenting opinions, just like your fascist pals.

You support the swifties attack on a war hero, then go ballistic when someone trashes the swifties for the lies they put out there. Again, what a f*cking hypocrite.
Go practice up on your german so you can read the patriot Act in it's original language.

i can tolerant "people" that have views that are different than my own. what i cannot tolerate are "people" who show a complete lack of respect for those who have died so that they can have the freedom to express their warped opinions. i told you to leave the country because that is what you've said that you'd like to do. if the united states is such a terrible place, why don't you leave? put your money where you mouth is and get the fu*k out!

go practice your fu*king french because that's exactly where you belong.

Spinal Tap

11-11-2004, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by townes
Townes,

you're right, i have.

My mistake.

you're a fu*king delusional freak.

townes

11-11-2004, 10:46 AM

Your bigotry knows no bounds, does it?

I take it back, you are logically consistent in your hate.

Aside from that----go f*ck yourself.

townes

11-11-2004, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Spinal Tap
you're a fu*king delusional freak.

You're a "moderate."

townes

11-11-2004, 10:54 AM

Whew Tap, by the tone of your last comment i would have to say it's time for your diaper change.

Where is the stinky smiley when you really need it?

Spinal Tap

11-11-2004, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by townes
Your bigotry knows no bounds, does it?

I take it back, you are logically consistent in your hate.

Aside from that----go f*ck yourself.

pray that we never meet, because i will fu*king hurt you badly. do you understand that? yes, i do hate you. there is not doubt about that. i hate ungrateful peices of sh*t that try to defame those who serve in our armed forces. so in turn, i hate you.

Spinal Tap

11-11-2004, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by townes
Whew Tap, by the tone of your last comment i would have to say it's time for your diaper change.

Where is the stinky smiley when you really need it?

that's big talk from someone who has no problem enjoying the freedoms that other people fight for. what a pu$$y.

townes

11-11-2004, 11:02 AM

Who was it that said?????

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

Trust me when i say, i am not concerned in the least. I'm completely capable of taking care of myself.

BTW-Your not angry about my defamation of the armed services, because i never defeamed the armed services, only those who lied about a war hero for their own ideological purposes.

You are pissed because you haven't been able to make a coherent argument, and your getting your clock cleaned in these threads.

Flagg the Wanderer

11-11-2004, 11:07 AM

Time for a meditation break, guys.

Spinal Tap

11-11-2004, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by townes
Who was it that said?????

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

Trust me when i say, i am not concerned in the least. I'm completely capable of taking care of myself.

BTW-Your not angry about my defamation of the armed services, because i never defeamed the armed services, only those who lied about a war hero for their own ideological purposes.

You are pissed because you haven't been able to make a coherent argument, and your getting your clock cleaned in these threads.

Like I said, you're delusional. Getting my "clocked cleaned"? Ok townes, you got me. :confused:

Anyways, the swift boat vets were war heros. john kerry was a war hero. the only difference to you is that the swift vets are republicans while kerry is a democrat. that is how you see the world, and it's sad. You are a sad person whom I actually am beginning to feel sorry for. My anger has turned to pity.

So now you can carry on and "clean my clock". :thumb:

Spinal Tap

11-11-2004, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
Time for a meditation break, guys.

you're right, i'm done with this. my bigotry, facism, and bible thumping have clouded my judgement. my bad.

townes

11-11-2004, 11:19 AM

Does puffing the cheeb count as meditation? If so, i'm all good.

The swift boat veterans were lying, that's my problem with them.

Nice try though.

Flagg the Wanderer

11-11-2004, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by townes
Does puffing the cheeb count as meditation? If so, i'm all good. :thumb: As long as you share.

Sometimes I miss it.

townes

11-11-2004, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
:thumb: As long as you share.

Sometimes I miss it.

lmao

i always share, it's part of the deal.

smellie bastahd that i am.

townes

11-11-2004, 11:29 AM

For the record, the people i consider fascists are those who believ in neo-conservative ideology and policies. If you share their worldview then yes, i consider you a fascist, because their ideology is that of fascism. Also, you can't be a moderate and a neo-conservative, as the two concepts are not mutually compatible.

Undertaker #59

11-11-2004, 11:33 AM

Here is a question for you, townes. And I am not trying to be insulting or sarcastic in asking this. Please do not take offense, I am curious as to what your honest answer would be. Do you consider yourself socialist?

Spinal Tap

11-11-2004, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by townes
For the record, the people i consider fascists are those who believ in neo-conservative ideology and policies. If you share their worldview then yes, i consider you a fascist, because their ideology is that of fascism. Also, you can't be a moderate and a neo-conservative, as the two concepts are not mutually compatible.

townes, i have calmed down now and realize the err of my ways. i should not have threatened you or called you silly little names. i apologize for that. seriously, i do.

i really do consider myself a moderate who leans towards the right. tell me what you consider to be "neo-conservative ideology" and what their world view really is. i'm curious to know because you seem to lump everyone that doesn't support liberals as being neo-conservative facist pigs.

i lost my temper because i have a deep respect for those who serve in our armed forces. whether or not you agree with the swift boat vets, you should still have enough respect for their service in vietnam. that's just my opinion.

there, i'm better now. :)

Pats247

11-11-2004, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by townes
Good points, but Kerry never trashed his fellow veterans, and the stories he recounted were actually true. Kerry never suggested that all soldiers were committing atrocities, only that atrocities were being committed. Kerry stood by soldiers in taking the government to task and saved lives by helping the war end earlier than it would have had he not worked for the anti-war movement.

I respect the service of the swift boat vets, but not their behavior during this campaign, which was an attack against a fellow soldier based on lies and conjecture.

Had the swift boat veterans been telling the truth i would agree that they had a right to speak on it, but they were lying, and that's what separates them.

Kerry didn't just say that atrocities were being committed, he said that they were being committed on a "day to day basis" with the approval of officers at all levels of command. He also said that the government had created a "monster" in the form of millions of men who knew only how to trade in violence, and were angry and betrayed.

What if you were a Vietnam veteran who was proud of his service, who was happy that he served his country, who committed NO atrocities, and who didn't feel like he was a "monster"?. How would you feel when a fellow veteran is testifying before congress saying that you only knew how to trade in violence and that you were a member of this monstrous machine, and maybe committed atrocities because they were committed every day? Maybe you would apply for a job when you returned, but the guy across the desk would look at you as a "monster" and not want to hire you. You probably WOULD feel betrayed, by John Kerry and people like him.

All I'm saying is that for every veteran that feels that John Kerry was a hero for testifying and that he possibly saved lives, there is probably another veteran that hates him and feels that he betrayed his country and emboldened the enemy by his words.

As for the claims by the Swift Boat vets - they are NOT all lies. Some of their claims have been refuted but some have not - I have neither the time nor energy to go through every one of their
points (maybe some other time) but to dismiss over 200 hoorably discharged veterans as liars is ludicrous.

Ballbustah

11-11-2004, 11:59 AM

My brother went to Vietnam...

There was no overriding evidence that every soldier was a monster. You are taking things out of context.

There were atrocities committed but by and large all soldiers were not thought of as monsters.

I lived through that period and I remember.

townes

11-11-2004, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Undertaker #59
Here is a question for you, townes. And I am not trying to be insulting or sarcastic in asking this. Please do not take offense, I am curious as to what your honest answer would be. Do you consider yourself socialist?

No offense taken undertaker.

Tough question, as i believe in aspects of both socialism and libertarianism. I can only answer that it depends upon the issue, as i'm not dogmatic, and that, imo, is a defining aspect of extremism.

I see plenty of conflict within myself over most issues, and spend a good deal of time trying to reconcile these conflicting views and emotions.

Example-Abortion. As my discussion with Flagg pretty much demonstrates, i'm conflicted over the moral and practical issues involved. I see a woman's right to choose as a practical necessity of modern life, but I can't argue that abortion is acceptable on moral grounds, as i believe a fetus is human life. Where i am at now is a position where i don't believe in it personally but don't want it outlawed for practical reasons. Flawed logic? Absolutely, but the best i have come up with yet.

Moral absolutism is a quagmire in and of itself imo.

Next example-Pacifism. Again, morally i am a pacifist, but practically it is impossible to say that there aren't times when force is required, usually for the same moral reasons that promote pacifism, ironic as that may be.

Next example-the death penalty. Emotionally i support it 100%, but morally and rationally i see no acceptable argument for it. I would love to see O.J. shackled and on his way to a newly refurbished Old Sparky, but that is emotionally based, and there is no practical necessity for the death penalty, so i can't support it for moral or practical reasons. Furthermore there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that innocent people are being executed, and that is absolutely unacceptable for any society which places any value on human rights. Therefore i oppose the death penalty on all grounds.

As for social programs, I believe they are absolutely necessary to protect the most vulnerable members of society. I spent 9 years running foster homes for special needs teenagers, and i see programs like these as both a moral imperative and a practical necessity, so i fully support all efforts to protect and provide for those in need. However, I have also worked my @ss off my whole adult life and take serious offense at people scamming the system because they are lazy. I know of people who do it , i think it's disgraceful, and i would love to see them held accountable for taking resources intended for those in need, when they clearly aren't. i disagree with getting rid of these safety nets because many need them, and prefer abuse of the programs to eradication of them.

That's a sample of how I see things, but doesn't touch on the libertarian aspects of my belief system. I'll have to come back to those because i now have to get off my lazy @ss and get some things done. First full day off i have had in month's, and i have stuff to do.

townes

11-11-2004, 12:09 PM

I believe the swift boat veterans were lying, and have seen nothing to change that. I respect their service, but not their behavior in this election

John Kerry told the truth about Viet-Nam, and he never condemned the soldiers, only the behavior, some of which was "monstrous."

Tell me, is the soldier who reported Abu Ghraib insulting the entire military through his actions, or is he standing against behavior that can only be considered un-american and disgraceful?

I believe he acted appropriately in reporting the behavior, and also believe that it is the civilian leaders of the military who are most repsonsible for what occured there and elsewhere.

The "Blue Wall of Silence" response thatso many americans seem to believe is appropriate in response to allegations of U.S. human rights abuses is both shocking and appalling to me. Standing against torture and abuse and for Human Rights is far more important than rally round the flag perverted nationalism imo.

townes

11-11-2004, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Spinal Tap
townes, i have calmed down now and realize the err of my ways. i should not have threatened you or called you silly little names. i apologize for that. seriously, i do.

i really do consider myself a moderate who leans towards the right. tell me what you consider to be "neo-conservative ideology" and what their world view really is. i'm curious to know because you seem to lump everyone that doesn't support liberals as being neo-conservative facist pigs.

i lost my temper because i have a deep respect for those who serve in our armed forces. whether or not you agree with the swift boat vets, you should still have enough respect for their service in vietnam. that's just my opinion.

there, i'm better now. :)

Spinal Tap, apology accepted and one proffered, as i'm every bit as much to blame when it comes to inflammatory remarks and partisan bickering. I'm also responsible for insinuating that everyone who voted Bush is a fascist because they supported what i believe is a fascist administration. It's not true and was more result of my anger over the election. To all it offended, my apology (unless they are neo-cons, in which case----SHOT......SCORE!!!)

Believe me when i say, i'm still seriously pissed off about the election. Haven't watched the news since, in fact, and probably won't for quite a while.

I'll have to get back to you with a lengthier response later, but my belief that neo-cons are fascists is due to their hard core support for the marriage of government and major corporations ( e.g..halliburton and the secret energy policy meetings of dick Cheney). I also believe that they are international expansionists who wish to open free markets where they don't exist by way of force. The neo-cons roots are in Leninist ideology of one world order, the only difference being the nature of that order. I also believe that they support racist policies that disenfranchise large segments of society solely on racial grounds, and willfully demonize those elements to create an enemy to rally their cause against, as Hitler did with the Jews the neo-cons do so with muslims (e.g.. the arrests of thousands of muslims who were never tried aftwer 9-11, and anti-muslim policies they espouse throughout the world.) Believe it or not, my use of "fascism" is completely in accordance with the accepted understanding of the concept-check it out, see if it holds up.

I believe the entire neo-con ideology is antithetical to american values, and even more anti-thetical to traditional conservative beliefs, especially those related to libeties and the deficit. The policy makers in this adminsitration are primarily the neo-cons, starting with cheney and going on to Wolfowitz, rumsfeld, feith, Bolton, and their advisors, both inside and outside of the government, such as perle and Adelman, who are profiteering off of the very policies they endorse (e.g..Triereme)

More later,

I'm starting to calm down from the election, so hopefully i won't infuriate those who disagree quite as much in the future.

Cheeb anyone?

Later,

townes

Go Patriots!

townes

11-11-2004, 12:33 PM

One last thing, i really believe that real conservatives should study closely the views and polcies of neo-conservatives, as their party has been taken over by them. they don't make up the popular support for the party, conservatives and Christains do, but they have taken over policy for the party completely. they have used flowery language to disguise policies that have nothing to do with the beliefs this country stands for imo.

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's an actuality.

Go look up the history of the neo-conservatives, they really do have their roots in marxist-leninist ideology, which, last i knew, was a far cry from american conservatism.

jesus it can be hard to step away from the computer at times.

O_P_T

11-11-2004, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by townes
BTW-Everything in F-9-11 was 100% true, it was an editorial based on fact, not propoganda.

Christopher Hitchens (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723) would disagree with you.

BTW, he used to work for The Nation, so he's certainly left of center.

townes

11-11-2004, 01:36 PM

That was every bit as disengenuous as he accuses Moore of being. The issues are not nearly as black and white as either would have you believe, but the fact is that he didn't knock down any facts from the film.Whether he effectively disputes Moore's editorializing depends upon perspective, but he at least does a better job at this than he does disproving the actual facts that Moore presents.

As an example of a FACT look at the relationship between the Carlyle group and the Bin laden family, that is well documented and absolutely true, what is actually in dispute is the significance of it, but the relationship exists, and that is indisputable. hitchens can challenge moore on the nature of the relationship, but not it's existence. Basically, Hitchens is editorializing on an editorial, not disproving the actual facts presented in 9-11.

Hitchens is a conservative, not a liberal, regardless of where he once stood, and his commentary and previoous dispute with Moore demonstrate this quite clearly.

townes

11-11-2004, 02:11 PM

The Swift Boat Veterans had every right to challenge kerry's fitness to be President on the grounds of his anti-war activities and opposition to the Nixon adminsitrations policies. I disagree with them about this, and, in fact, believe it made Kerry even more fit for the office, but at least it would have been honest. What wasn't honest was the characterization that he was attacking the soldiers, and not the civilian leadership. Just as people accuse micheal Moore for being intellectually dishonest in his characterization of the bush adminsitration, the swifties deliberately misrepresented the moral arguments and points that Kerry was making in his anti-war activities. they did so because attacking kerry for attacking the soldiers made him appear far worse than the reality of his position did.

Kerry was opposed to the Nixon administration's handling of the war and opposed to immoral behavior by the U.S. Military, and he was right on both counts imo.

The swifties were also guilty of lying about kerry's service, and this has been proven imo, and they disgraced themselves in doing so.

The swifties had every right to be hurt by Kerry's opposition to a war they undeniably served honorably in, what they didn't have a right to do was smear his service because he disagreed with them. They should have stuck to the truth instead of trying to smear him with lies, imo they dishonored every purple heart recipient when they attacked the legitimacy of his medals decades after the fact.

Flagg the Wanderer

11-11-2004, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by townes
That was every bit as disengenuous as he accuses Moore of being. The issues are not nearly as black and white as either would have you believe, but the fact is that he didn't knock down any facts from the film.Whether he effectively disputes Moore's editorializing depends upon perspective, but he at least does a better job at this than he does disproving the actual facts that Moore presents.

As an example of a FACT look at the relationship between the Carlyle group and the Bin laden family, that is well documented and absolutely true, what is actually in dispute is the significance of it, but the relationship exists, and that is indisputable. hitchens can challenge moore on the nature of the relationship, but not it's existence. Basically, Hitchens is editorializing on an editorial, not disproving the actual facts presented in 9-11.

Hitchens is a conservative, not a liberal, regardless of where he once stood, and his commentary and previoous dispute with Moore demonstrate this quite clearly. Horsehockey.

1) Hitchens *is* a liberal, though a more moderate liberal. The fact that he disagrees with more and dared to criticize the current sacred cow of the left doesn't indicate that he's a conservative, it indicates that he isn't afraid to disagree with his party.

2) A lot of truths can still stack up to make a lie. Engaging in this logical fallicy is a great trick of propagandists throughout the ages. Hitler described the process of propaganda as telling someone a full truth to gain their confidence, followed by a half truth that they wanted to be a whole truth to win them over. By knowingly taking a stack of half-truths and ignoring anything that contradicts his narrative thesis, Moore is lying. The audience targeted doesn't have the resources or ability to counteract or research his claims, which are presented rapidfire with no real sourcing. This isn't a book, it is a film.

3) You keep calling it an editorial. It's simply a fact that Moore called (and continues to call) it a documentary. As such, it is held to a totally different standard than an editorial film would be. I still think that it is propaganda. Something doesn't have to contain technical untruths to be propaganda, it just has to be fundamentally dishonest. F 9/11 is fundamentally dishonest, and rife with contradictions in the intimations Moore makes. It is propaganda.

4) You state that the issues aren't as black and white as either Hitchens or Moore claim. Only Moore claimed it was black and white. Hitchens, throughout his entire article, acknowedges Moore's facts but adds others that were not considered. Throughout, he acknowledges the nuances and complexity of the situations painted in F 9/11.

This is bogus argumentation.

townes

11-11-2004, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
Horsehockey.

1) Hitchens *is* a liberal, though a more moderate liberal. The fact that he disagrees with more and dared to criticize the current sacred cow of the left doesn't indicate that he's a conservative, it indicates that he isn't afraid to disagree with his party.

2) A lot of truths can still stack up to make a lie. Engaging in this logical fallicy is a great trick of propagandists throughout the ages. Hitler described the process of propaganda as telling someone a full truth to gain their confidence, followed by a half truth that they wanted to be a whole truth to win them over. By knowingly taking a stack of half-truths and ignoring anything that contradicts his narrative thesis, Moore is lying. The audience targeted doesn't have the resources or ability to counteract or research his claims, which are presented rapidfire with no real sourcing. This isn't a book, it is a film.

3) You keep calling it an editorial. It's simply a fact that Moore called (and continues to call) it a documentary. As such, it is held to a totally different standard than an editorial film would be. I still think that it is propaganda. Something doesn't have to contain technical untruths to be propaganda, it just has to be fundamentally dishonest. F 9/11 is fundamentally dishonest, and rife with contradictions in the intimations Moore makes. It is propaganda.

4) You state that the issues aren't as black and white as either Hitchens or Moore claim. Only Moore claimed it was black and white. Hitchens, throughout his entire article, acknowedges Moore's facts but adds others that were not considered. Throughout, he acknowledges the nuances and complexity of the situations painted in F 9/11.

This is bogus argumentation.

I agree with some of that, but i disagree that it is funadamentally dishonest. Probably because of the way i see the world, this adminsitration, and how the FACTS fit into that worldview, but honest nonetheless. I read House Of Saud/House of Bush, and R. Baer's "Sleeping with the Devil," and both back Moore up 100% in his characterization of the Bush administartion and our dealing's in the middle east. If you accept the facts and premises of those books then you accept moore's version of events, if not you probably won't. I obviously do, but i won't pretend i was unbiased before i read them, or before i bought them for that matter.

What I agree with is that it is not a documentary, although I don't agree that it's propaganda. It's an editorial, and a biased one at that, but it's not a series of lies and misrepresentations, as people who find it offensive believe.

Moore is hardly a sacred cow, in fact, I would accuse most liberals of running scared from someone who was standing up the very principles they believe in. I also find hitchens more of a conservative than you do, but I'm interested to know what his liberal leanings are, as i haven't witnessed them.

Did you really say "horsehockey?"

townes

11-11-2004, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
2) A lot of truths can still stack up to make a lie.

Are you referring to F-9-11, or Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N.?

townes

11-11-2004, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
This is bogus argumentation.

Is not!

Ok, that was childish, but it was the best i could come up with.

later,

townes

i will return and respond, i promise, but my dog is going to gnaw my leg off if i don't get him out to the beach for a walk.

Flagg the Wanderer

11-11-2004, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by townes
Did you really say "horsehockey?" Col. Potter and I, yes.

Anyway, if you're backing up Moore with Bush/Saud and Sleeping with the Devil, then it sounds to me like you're learning in an echo chamber more than anything else. That's not any better than a righty who "learned about the candidates" before the election by reading "Unfit for Command" and the Ann Coulter book of your choice, and corroborating it by listening to Shawn Hannity and Howie Carr.

The fact is that the Bin Ladens are a family of international power, and most of those families know each other and deal with each other. But it is equally true that Osama is the black sheep of that family, and they all think he's a nutball.

As far as the Bush/Saud connection goes, that's only natural between an oil family and the royal family of the largest source of oil in the world. And yet still Saudi Arabia wouldn't lend its support to Bush's aims in the middle east. What do you make of that?

Flagg the Wanderer

11-11-2004, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by townes
Are you referring to F-9-11, or Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N.? Both are good examples.

O_P_T

11-11-2004, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by townes
but the fact is that he didn't knock down any facts from the film.

Really?

What about who authorized the Bin Laden family to leave the US after 9-11?

What about the assertion that "Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened any American."?

dchester

11-11-2004, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by O_P_T
Really?

What about who authorized the Bin Laden family to leave the US after 9-11?

What about the assertion that "Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened any American."? Another lie was in claiming that Bush didn't win Florida, when the independant recounts clearly showed he did.

Several other points were brought up in the original Farenheit 911 Thread, so I bumped it.

http://www.patriotsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6532
________
iolite vaporizer review (http://iolitevaporizer.net/)

townes

11-12-2004, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by O_P_T
Really?

What about who authorized the Bin Laden family to leave the US after 9-11?

What about the assertion that "Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened any American."?

Bush authorized those flights, and none of the obfuscation by the adddministartion has changed that.

As for the second assertion, define "lie" for me. There is a good chance I will actually agree with you, but i want to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

Flagg the Wanderer

11-12-2004, 08:48 AM

O_P_T

11-12-2004, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by townes
Bush authorized those flights, and none of the obfuscation by the adddministartion has changed that.

As for the second assertion, define "lie" for me. There is a good chance I will actually agree with you, but i want to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

So Clarke was not telling the truth when he said he was responsible for authorizing the flights?

He makes that exact statment here (http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx)

What is your evidence that GWB authorized it?

As far as the second assertion is concerned, you claimed "Everything in F-9-11 was 100% true"

Is the sentance "Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened any American" an accurate statement?

If you think yes, then how do you counter the examples cited by Hitchens?

If no, then how can everything in F-11 be 100% true?

townes

11-12-2004, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by O_P_T
So Clarke was not telling the truth when he said he was responsible for authorizing the flights?

He makes that exact statment here (http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx)

What is your evidence that GWB authorized it?

As far as the second assertion is concerned, you claimed "Everything in F-9-11 was 100% true"

Is the sentance "Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened any American" an accurate statement?

If you think yes, then how do you counter the examples cited by Hitchens?

If no, then how can everything in F-11 be 100% true?

Richard Clarke was put in charge of the government on 9-11 while W was experiencing a meltdown and Cheney was figuring out which hole to hide in until the smoke cleared, something the rabid right has never given him credit, instead opting to trash him to make W look competent, which he clearly wasn't.

Two days later, when the flights took off, W was supposedly back in charge, and there is absolutely NO WAY those flights take off without his permission. Did Clarke authorize them, absolutely, did Cheney and W sign off on it, absolutely.

Are you saying that Richard Clarke authorized the flights on 9-13 without support from the White House (i.e..Bush/Cheney)?

townes

11-12-2004, 05:31 PM

When you define what you believe a lie is I will address the second part.

townes

11-12-2004, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
Col. Potter and I, yes.

Anyway, if you're backing up Moore with Bush/Saud and Sleeping with the Devil, then it sounds to me like you're learning in an echo chamber more than anything else. That's not any better than a righty who "learned about the candidates" before the election by reading "Unfit for Command" and the Ann Coulter book of your choice, and corroborating it by listening to Shawn Hannity and Howie Carr.

WHISTLE BLOWS!!!!!!!

"50 Yard Penalty on Flagg Wanderer for unsportsmanlike use of an analogy. Flagg invoked the name of Richard Perle's Transylvanian Death Snake in a discussion that wasn't about toxic waste. Flagg penalized fifty words and cautioned never to invoke ........'s name again. "

The next penalty will be far more severe. Possibly as much as 100 words!

Flagg-invoking ...............'s name to delegitamize Unger and Baer is downright foul. It's, It's, It's.........................It's like comparing George Will to Randi Rhodes.

I read both books and didn't think either were hyperbolic, and saw both as well documented. I don't know if you have read them, but I would love to know what problems you have with their documentation. Both were well written, well researched, and well supported imo.

As for the "echo chamber," ignoring the other side of any real issue is a defining aspect of ignorance imo. I read both sides and discuss both sides because you aren't informed if you don't. I obviously buy more, read more, and back my point of view up more with literature that leans left than i do literature written and disseminated from the right, and I would be lying to suggest otherwise. However, i feel that is pretty normal, and what really matters is the ability to read through it and arrive at your own conclusions. I'm satisfied i do that, and never viewed abject neutrality as the goal.

I won't suggest that I am unbiased, i'm not.

O_P_T

11-13-2004, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by townes
Richard Clarke was put in charge of the government on 9-11 while W was experiencing a meltdown and Cheney was figuring out which hole to hide in until the smoke cleared, something the rabid right has never given him credit, instead opting to trash him to make W look competent, which he clearly wasn't.

Two days later, when the flights took off, W was supposedly back in charge, and there is absolutely NO WAY those flights take off without his permission. Did Clarke authorize them, absolutely, did Cheney and W sign off on it, absolutely.

Are you saying that Richard Clarke authorized the flights on 9-13 without support from the White House (i.e..Bush/Cheney)?

So you're saying that every single decision made requires GWB's approval. That no one at any other level of authority makes any decision but simply passes it up the chain of command for GWB to decide.

Sounds like an awful lot of work for someone you argue is an idiot.

Do I believe that Clarke could have authorized the flights on 9-13 all by himself?

Yes.

There were no doubt thousands of decisions made by various individuals in the governement over those days.

Normally, if someone asked their superior what to do and are given an answer, they don't double check with the next most senior person to confirm this is what they should do, they follow their instructions.

Yes, I fully realize there are exceptions to this, but they are just that, exceptions, not the normal thing that happens.

Is it possible that Clarke could have exceeded his authority (from GWB's point of view) in making that decision?

Yes.

It is quite possible that GWB had a different opinion on the subject and wasn't happy with the decision Clarke made.

If that is what happened, it wasn't the first time an underling made a decion that a superior disagreed with.

I don't understand your fixation with the definition of the word "lie"

Is the sentance "Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened any American" an accurate statement?

Yes or no?

townes

11-13-2004, 05:09 PM

It was 2 days after 9-11 and you are saying that Richard Clarke authorized the bin ladens and saudi royals flying out of the country without the approval of the White House? When the country was in complete lockdown of flights.

And the administration opposed this action?

Then why wasn't he fired.

1)You act like it was just any other decision, business as usual, when it clearly wasn't.

2) Why would the administration go to such great length's to cover up actions they opposed?

3)When you define what you mean by "lie" i'll, answer the second part, not before.

How come you won't answer such a simple question? Especially when i am going to great length's to answer yours?

W signed off on it. But you are welcome to believe what you want.

townes

11-13-2004, 05:21 PM

I take it you are also going to argue that W meeting with Bandar Bush at the same time this was all taking place was mere coincidence, and that the subject of their leaving never came up. (I'm pretty sure Woodward discusses the 9-13 meeting with W and Bandar out on the Truman Balcony smoking cigars, I know for certain it's in House of Saud.)

Or are you going to tell me that W told his buddy Bandar to go talk to Dick Clarke about it ? And that Clarke then went against W's wishes and aided Bandar and the Bin Laden's without WH approval.

Your version of events makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Why don't you simply admit that Bandar used his influence with W to secure the flights?

O_P_T

11-14-2004, 12:05 PM

Townes,

I never said that GWB opposed the flights.

I said that it is possible that Clarke made the decision on his own initative and that it was possible that GWB would not have approved had he been asked.

Snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm) has a summary of the whole topic and they simply say the "government" approved the flights.

There is no evidence, other than Clarke's statements, as to who were the individuals who amde the call.

As far as a definition of lie, I'll go with Webster's (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)

1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

However, I never made a claim that anyone lied. I simply contested your claim that everything in F-11 was true.

Now so we can avoid any further kerfuflle on definitions I'll again use Webster's (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=true&x=18&y=19) .

being in accordance with the actual state of affairs

townes

11-15-2004, 07:23 AM

By that definition I would say Moore lied, but would want to make sure that's actually what was said.

Also, by that definition, Bush and his adminsitration LIED repeatedly about the reasons to attack Iraq, and he should be impeached immediately for lying to the american people about the most important action any adminsitration can undertake.

O_P_T

11-15-2004, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by townes
By that definition I would say Moore lied, but would want to make sure that's actually what was said.

Also, by that definition, Bush and his adminsitration LIED repeatedly about the reasons to attack Iraq, and he should be impeached immediately for lying to the american people about the most important action any adminsitration can undertake.

Well, I'm not sure I'd describe his work as a lie.

There are two parts to a lie.

The essence of a lie is to present something you know is wrong as the truth.

I don't know what MM's thought process was in preparing any of his books or movies.

He may genuinely believe what he's saying is the truth, as such he is simply wrong and not a lier.

By the same token, for GWB to have lied over Iraq, he would have to have presented information he knew was wrong.

Rreview the Senate (http://intelligence.senate.gov/) Intelligence Committe report on Iraq.

They are criticle of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) presented to the President.

They also conclude that the administration did not pressure anyone in the Intelligence Coimmunity to reach a certain conclusion (Conclusions 83 and 84, page 25 of the summary).

Under these circumstances the worse thing one can say about GWB's presentation of the the NIE on Iraq is that it was wrong.

GWB believed what the CIA told him, he was not presenting information that he knew to be wrong, therefore he did not lie.

townes

11-16-2004, 07:36 AM

This what kills me, the complete unwillingness of people on the right to hold the administration accountable for their asctions.

They told us that Iraq had WMD-"Guaranteed." Which is IMPOSSIBLE, because they didn't, and you can't "guarantee" something that isn't true.

They repeatedly claimed Iraq was behind 9-11, and 70+% of bush supporters still believe this. OUTRIGHT LIE.

I'd go on, but i'm out of time.

F*ck it. There is no such thing as a lie, and there is no such thing as accountability. Night is day and rain is shine.

Whatever!

spiderman

11-16-2004, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by townes
This what kills me, the complete unwillingness of people on the right to hold the administration accountable for their asctions.

They told us that Iraq had WMD-"Guaranteed." Which is IMPOSSIBLE, because they didn't, and you can't "guarantee" something that isn't true.

They repeatedly claimed Iraq was behind 9-11, and 70+% of bush supporters still believe this. OUTRIGHT LIE.

I'd go on, but i'm out of time.

F*ck it. There is no such thing as a lie, and there is no such thing as accountability. Night is day and rain is shine.

Whatever!

This is inaccurate. I don't ever remember this administration saying that Iraq was behind 9-11. Furthermore, Bush has stated since day 1 that this is a war against terror, not just a war about 9-11. 9-11 was the catalyst.

I also don't remember them "guaranteeing" that Iraq had WMD's, they argued that there was a preponderance of evidence that suggested so, and that if Saddam wasn't willing to turn his pockets inside out, so to speak, we could ill afford to wait and find out for sure. At that point your "guarantee" would have been a mushroom cloud over NYC.

The reason you can't find anyone to criticize this administration is because you are making false claims, your view point is severly skewed, and you are blinded by ideology.

I have PLENTY of criticisms of this administration but I tend not to agree with any of these points that you posted.

Not only are you being very simplistic with these statements, which address very complex issues, but your bias is glaringly obvious. If you want to be admittedly left wing that's fine, but don't say that someone like me doesn't hold this administration accountable for their actions just because I don't see things the way you do.

Ballbustah

11-16-2004, 12:21 PM

I remember Powell making a statement before the UN that Iraq had WMD. I remember him pointing out the trucks and bunkers.

There were a bunch of people that were confused over Iraq and Afghanistan. I posted somewhere on this MB were some thought Saddam was responcible for 911.

spiderman

11-16-2004, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Ballbustah
I remember Powell making a statement before the UN that Iraq had WMD. I remember him pointing out the trucks and bunkers.

There were a bunch of people that were confused over Iraq and Afghanistan. I posted somewhere on this MB were some thought Saddam was responcible for 911.

I'm not disagreeing with this, but my point is that Powell did not stand up and say, "I guarantee they have WMD's". He made a case built on the intelligence that he had. Any of number of things could have happened...those trucks and bunkers could have in fact been WMD sites and they were removed by Saddam before war, or they could have been decoys in an attempt to fool the US, or they may have been completely misinterpreted by CIA analysts, the fact is we don't know. Powell was obviously looking at something. Townes is suggesting that the administration knew for a fact that none of this stuff existed, yet went ahead and fabricated everything in an effort to further their agenda.

As far as Saddam being responsible for 9-11, I'm sure there are many people who feel that way, but I don't ever remember the Bush administration saying that we were going into Iraq in order to get those responsible for 9-11. The war on terror is actually much larger then 9-11 and Bush & Company have been very consistent in making this point clear.

My point is this, just because I don't share these particular views doesn't mean I'm not critical of the administration.

Ballbustah

11-16-2004, 12:33 PM

I ask you this....
How come the United States of America could be so wrong about the real facts?

I found the post.

"72 percent who cast votes for George W. Bush, according to a University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and Knowledge Networks poll, believe that Iraq (news - web sites) had weapons of mass destruction or active WMD programs. 75 percent think that a Saddam-Al Qaeda link has been proven, and 20 percent say Saddam ordered 9/11. Of course, none of this was true."

spiderman

11-16-2004, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Ballbustah
I ask you this....
How come the United States of America could be so wrong about the real facts?

I found the post.

"72 percent who cast votes for George W. Bush, according to a University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and Knowledge Networks poll, believe that Iraq (news - web sites) had weapons of mass destruction or active WMD programs. 75 percent think that a Saddam-Al Qaeda link has been proven, and 20 percent say Saddam ordered 9/11. Of course, none of this was true."

Fox News :D

townes

11-16-2004, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by spiderman
This is inaccurate. I don't ever remember this administration saying that Iraq was behind 9-11. Furthermore, Bush has stated since day 1 that this is a war against terror, not just a war about 9-11. 9-11 was the catalyst.

I also don't remember them "guaranteeing" that Iraq had WMD's, they argued that there was a preponderance of evidence that suggested so, and that if Saddam wasn't willing to turn his pockets inside out, so to speak, we could ill afford to wait and find out for sure. At that point your "guarantee" would have been a mushroom cloud over NYC.

The reason you can't find anyone to criticize this administration is because you are making false claims, your view point is severly skewed, and you are blinded by ideology.

I have PLENTY of criticisms of this administration but I tend not to agree with any of these points that you posted.

Not only are you being very simplistic with these statements, which address very complex issues, but your bias is glaringly obvious. If you want to be admittedly left wing that's fine, but don't say that someone like me doesn't hold this administration accountable for their actions just because I don't see things the way you do.

This is total B.S., the clip of Cheney GUARANTEEING that Iraq had WMD has been run repeatedly, it comes from a CBS News program. Rumsfeld even said that "We know where they are."

Also, the adminsitration repeatedly made the claim that Iraq was behind 9-11, and went further by consistently calling it "the central front in the War on Terror," a f*cking flat out LIE.

I am so f*cking fed up with the nuanced crap that comes out every time these issues are discussed.

Their position was clear and so were their statements, to revise history to suggest this was not what they were saying and doing is so f*cking disengenuous it makes me sick.

spiderman

11-16-2004, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by townes
This is total B.S., the clip of Cheney GUARANTEEING that Iraq had WMD has been run repeatedly, it comes from a CBS News program. Rumsfeld even said that "We know where they are."

Also, the adminsitration repeatedly made the claim that Iraq was behind 9-11, and went further by consistently calling it "the central front in the War on Terror," a f*cking flat out LIE.

I am so f*cking fed up with the nuanced crap that comes out every time these issues are discussed.

Their position was clear and so were their statements, to revise history to suggest this was not what they were saying and doing is so f*cking disengenuous it makes me sick.

Keep shouting louder and try swearing some more!!! Throw in a few more claims about how sick and tired you are, I haven't heard that enough yet. It's a great way to make your point.

Apparently you must work for NSA and you've reviewed all of the intelligence, you've been briefed on everything that has been found and reported on over there, and you've been sitting in on meetings between Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, and Rice.

If they fabricated the intelligence...WHERE IS YOUR PROOF!!! You keep saying that WMD's do not exist, but just because large stockpiles haven't been found doesn't mean that they didn't or don't exist!!! So in reality you can't even say with definitive proof that Rumsfeld & Cheney were lying can you???

I'm so f-ing sick of people like you claiming to know everything and saying that there was absolutely NO connection between Saddam and Osama despite having absolutely NO proof that they didn't have a connection and that there are no WMD's when you have NO proof that they DON'T exist.

Works both ways! :D

townes

11-16-2004, 04:06 PM

The Bush administration admitted they don't exist, and they also admitted there was no connection between 9-11 and Iraq. This was when they made their "gathering storm" argument, and said they really went in for humanitarian reasons, and to establish democracy. I.e..more lies, as they had no plan for either.

Do you even read the news or watch it? Because you sure as hell don't know what you are talking about.

Ever heard of the Duelfer report?

Obviously not.

Tell me, why do 70+% of Bush supporters believe that Iraq was behind 9-11? Is it because that's what they were led to believe by the adminsitration? Or is it because they are totally deluded?

Do you even understand the nature of religious extremism? Definitely not, otherwise you would know that Saddam and Bin Laden were mortal enemies.

What a dipshit.

spiderman

11-16-2004, 04:22 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by townes
The Bush administration admitted they don't exist, and they also admitted there was no connection between 9-11 and Iraq. This was when they made their "gathering storm" argument, and said they really went in for humanitarian reasons, and to establish democracy. I.e..more lies, as they had no plan for either.

Apparently you missed the whole point of my post...

Do you even read the news or watch it? Because you sure as hell don't know what you are talking about.

I was making fun of you!!! That was my version of the right wing Townes....

Ever heard of the Duelfer report?

Obviously not.

Tell me, why do 70+% of Bush supporters believe that Iraq was behind 9-11? Is it because that's what they were led to believe by the adminsitration? Or is it because they are totally deluded?

Gee, I think the U of M poll has been cited about 10 times today, let's see how many more times you people can hold up the same poll by the same group...

Do you even understand the nature of religious extremism? Definitely not, otherwise you would know that Saddam and Bin Laden were mortal enemies.

I fully understand the history between Saddam and Bin Laden. Apparently you've kept in touch with the two of them over the years...

What a dipshit.

And this sums you up in a nut shell. You're a SPAZ...

:thumb:

spiderman

11-16-2004, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by spiderman
Keep shouting louder and try swearing some more!!! Throw in a few more claims about how sick and tired you are, I haven't heard that enough yet. It's a great way to make your point.

Apparently you must work for NSA and you've reviewed all of the intelligence, you've been briefed on everything that has been found and reported on over there, and you've been sitting in on meetings between Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, and Rice.

If they fabricated the intelligence...WHERE IS YOUR PROOF!!! You keep saying that WMD's do not exist, but just because large stockpiles haven't been found doesn't mean that they didn't or don't exist!!! So in reality you can't even say with definitive proof that Rumsfeld & Cheney were lying can you???

I'm so f-ing sick of people like you claiming to know everything and saying that there was absolutely NO connection between Saddam and Osama despite having absolutely NO proof that they didn't have a connection and that there are no WMD's when you have NO proof that they DON'T exist.

Works both ways! :D

For anyone looking to respond to this post, please understand that I was trying to prove a point to Townes by doing my impression of a right wing version of him. It was lost on him...

Ballbustah

11-16-2004, 04:53 PM

May be it was lost on everyone?

townes

11-16-2004, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by spiderman
For anyone looking to respond to this post, please understand that I was trying to prove a point to Townes by doing my impression of a right wing version of him. It was lost on him...

I don't see anything different in that response than every other political post you have made. In fact, that's the reason i respond to you the way i do.

You don't think for yourself, you simply echo the Faux News talking points as they fit your argument, nothing more. You claim to be a moderate, yet consistently support the most extreme points of view available. "some people say...........that slavery never happened and the NAACP is behind the creation of the myth so they can get reparations.......At least that's what some people say..."

I'm glad i don't have to have cable to understand what i believe in.

townes

11-16-2004, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by Ballbustah
May be it was lost on everyone?

Good point!

townes

11-16-2004, 06:58 PM

1) The Administration guaranteed that Iraq had WMD and would use them against the U.S.

Lie They didn't have WMD)

2)The administration said Iraq was behind 9-11.

Lie (Iraq had NOTHING to do with it, by every finding)

3) The administration said that Iraq and Al Queada were working together.

Lie (Bin Laden had declared Jihad against Saddam, and Iraq was the only country in the ME that did not harbor al queada *by the State Dept.'s own map in 2003)

4)The adminsitration declared they attacked Iraq for humanitarian reasons.

Lie--They had absolutely no plan for creating a better Iraqui society.

5)We are in Iraq to establish democracy.

Lie (we will never accept a government that is opposed to U.S.)

The administration attacked Iraq for purely ideological reasons. They want to establish free markets in the middle east, and cement ties between the government and the largest players in industry. They don't care about democracy, only about access and control over resources they deem vital.

There were no WMD

There was no humanitarian plan for a better Iraq.

There were no ties to Al Queada.

There was no significant threat from Iraq.

We are there for free markets, not real democracy.

We have long term interests, and no plan for exit in Iraq and the Middle east. (That's why 10 military bases are being built in Iraq as we speak.)

spiderman

11-16-2004, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by townes
I don't see anything different in that response than every other political post you have made. In fact, that's the reason i respond to you the way i do.

You don't think for yourself, you simply echo the Faux News talking points as they fit your argument, nothing more. You claim to be a moderate, yet consistently support the most extreme points of view available. "some people say...........that slavery never happened and the NAACP is behind the creation of the myth so they can get reparations.......At least that's what some people say..."

I'm glad i don't have to have cable to understand what i believe in.

Apparently our discussion has taken a seriously nasty tone, my only point was that you tend to "flip out" in your posts, and I think you lose a great deal of your effectiveness when you do so.

I site as proof your response to my post, when I tried to imitate you...you called me a dipsh*t...

I'm not sure when I've come across as a raging right wing lunatic, most of the time I simply raise issues, without giving much of my own input. Sometimes I actually agree with the left wing views expressed on this message board, but I think they are supported by weak arguments, so I ask questions. If my behavior bothers you so much, just keep in mind that I'm sure your "rants" bother others just as much, if not more.

Not me of course...:thumb:

spiderman

11-16-2004, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by townes
Good point!

Are you guys going to hug & kiss now?

I'm sorry that was a cheap shot, I know but I couldn't let it just hang out there like that. o:-)

O_P_T

11-16-2004, 09:34 PM

Townes,

In the imortal words from "Cool Hand Luke", We have a failure to communicate

The whole purpose of my post was to disagree with your characterization of GWB's Iraq policy as a lie.

For someone to lie there are two parts.

The first part is to tell something that is not true.

The second part is to have a priori knowledge that the statment you are making is not true.

My point was that GWB did not meet the second criteria in his assertions about Iraq.

I am not saying that his claims were wrong.

I am not saying that he should be held accounatable for these claims.

I am simply saying that he did not lie as the word is defined.

Now if you wish toalter the discussion to address the question of Iraq, then fine, I will also alter my resposnse.

The question of Iraq and WMD's can be summed up as follows.

Iraq did have them in the 1980's. They used them against the Kurds and Iranians.

After the 91 Gulf War, UN inspectors found a significant WMD program and stockpiles.

They undertook efforts to eliminate these stockpiles.

The 14 various UN Security Council resolutions required Iraq to do variuos things, inculding eliminate its WMD program and demonstrate that it had complied.

During the decade of the 1990's Saddam played various games to try and avoid meeting the requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions.

Things came to a head in 1998 when he threw out the UN inspectors and Clinton ordered bombing raids.

Clinton (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/22/lkl.00.html) had the following to say about this on larry king Live in July of 2003.

Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.

The key point of this is that GWB didn't simply wake up one day and say "gee willickers I think Saddam may have WMD's"

The idea that he still had WMD's had been floating around for quite some time.

What was the evidence for this?

I have no idea.

Clearly Saddam's behavior didn't do anything to disprove this assumption.

Iraq was under sanctions until it complied with the various UN Security council resolutions.

If all the WMD's were gone, he could have gotten the sanctions lifted simply by letting the inspectors prove that.

He didn't do that.

Yes, nationalistic pride is one possible reason for this, but having something to hide is another.

The simple fact of the matter is that he had a long history of trying to dodge inspection protocols and there was no reaon on earht to give him the beneifit of the doubt, especially since the Security Council resolutions required him to demonstrate complance.

Suggesting that Iraq had no involvement in any terrorist acts is simply wrong.

Iraq gave money to relatives of suicide bombers (http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/2002-04-03/usw_iraq.asp) .

Various well known terrorists were given sanctuary in Iraq, including Abu Abbas form the Aquili Loro affair and Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi who moved to Iraq after the Taliban fell in Afghanistan.

I personally am not convinced that Iraq played a signifcant role in 9-11, however a federal judge (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-05-07-911-judge-awards_x.htm) thought there was sufficent evidence to find Iraq libel for damages.

I happen to think that the removal of Saddam was a necessary thing to do.

Go back and read UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement)

They accuse Iraq of being in "material breech" of all the previous resolutions.

Had the situation been allowed to continue to fester, the world community faced the real risk of being seen as helpless as the League of Nations was in the 1930's.

The Western Democracies and the UN had stated clearly what was required by Iraq, and Saddam had defied these requirements for over 12 years.

Had action not been taken, the credibility of the UN and the Western Democracies would have been shattered.

Now before you scoff at credibility as being nothing but a word, go back to the analogy I mentioned: The League of Nations in the 1930's.

What happened then?

Italy invaded Ethiopia and ignored a League mandate to stop her agression.

Was the capture of Ethiopia all that big a deal?

Taken in isolation, no.

However, Japan, Germany, and the USSR took note of the world's reaction and judged that the Western Democracies were weak and didn't have the backbone to stand up against their aggression.

So these countries kept pushing and pushing until WWII happened.

You say Iraq is not threat.

By the same token Italy was no threat, but had the League of Nations taken action, would this have prevent action by Hitler?

Ballbustah

11-17-2004, 08:48 AM

When are you going to get off the homosexual talk?

Late last week you admonished me for using Bukaki... I wish you would take some of your own medicine.

Originally posted by spiderman
Are you guys going to hug & kiss now?

I'm sorry that was a cheap shot, I know but I couldn't let it just hang out there like that. o:-)

spiderman

11-17-2004, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Ballbustah
When are you going to get off the homosexual talk?

Late last week you admonished me for using Bukaki... I wish you would take some of your own medicine.

So now you are comparing homosexuality with Bukaki??? Real nice! :thumb:

I'm just saying that there is a serious love-fest going on between the two of you, and I find it cute how you come to his defense and vice versa...it has nothing at all to do with homosexuality.

Ballbustah

11-17-2004, 01:19 PM

I guess you missed the point.

I guess the same could be said of you, Spinal Tap and Flag kissing and hugging. You look so cute together. I guess you got quite a tag team going on.

Sorry to Spinal and Flag for including you.

Your innuendo's are insulting.
You try to bury people under a layer of insults even though you try to pass it off as innocent banter.

townes

11-18-2004, 07:21 AM

OPT-I just saw your post and i'll try to respond to it this evening when i get home.

O_P_T

11-18-2004, 01:02 PM

Townes,

Look forward to your response.

I did notice I had a brain cramp in part of my post.

I said

I am not saying that his claims were wrong.

I am not saying that he should be held accounatable for these claims.

I meant to say the following.

I am not saying that his claims were not wrong.

I am not saying that he should not be held accounatable for these claims.

freak

11-29-2004, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by townes
Wow, how ironic, i have the exact same problem from the other side.:eek:

townes, I've never read anything political from your keyboard that is remotely moderate. :D

Part of the problem, is that so many people who identify themselves as moderate are not. And thus anybody to the right (or left) is viewed as an extremist. And who wants to, or thinks an extremist can be reasoned with?

The studies show that the media and academia are overwhelmingly liberal. This is no surprise. However, the most recent numbers I saw for the media, actually shows a decrease in the percentage of journalists who consider themselves "liberal."

This, at first glance, would appear to show a trend towards more objectivity in the news. However, if you look at the numbers, you see that the decrease is basically just from a number of former "liberals" now identifying themselves as moderate.

I think there are 2 reasons for this. First, "liberal" has been made a bad word, particularly if you are a member of the media. So people, especially in the media, choose not to identify themselves as such. Second, and probably the truth in most cases, is that many "liberals" (and conservatives) don't recognize that they are in fact liberal (or conservative).

Bernard Goldberg, the author of "Bias" and "Arrogance" describes it perfectly. He says the bias is NOT intentional. It is just a result of many journalists only interacting with people who believe as they do. They live and work with these people, they socialize with them, and so their common beliefs seem perfectly normal and moderate. Again....the anything to the right (or left) of such people is seen as extreme.

Two examples that Goldberg gives is that of Pauline Kael, a film critic, who in 1972 stated "I can't believe it. I don't know a single person who voted for him," in regards to Nixon winning the election. Nixon won 49 of 50 states. The other example, is Dan Rather stating the the NY Times editorial section is merely "middle of the road."

freak

11-29-2004, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by townes
You, on the other hand, consistently arghue from the Fox News Talking points and, like Bill o'Reilly, then proclaim yourself a "moderate."

Typical.

When will people understand that Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity ARE NOT JOURNALISTS? They do not pretend to be unbiased. Their shows are NOT marketed as such. Yes, both shows will repeat the tag line "Fair and Balanced." That is marketing. It is the Fox News slogan. These are PRIME TIME shows, designed to get RATINGS. They are NOT straight news programs, and do not pretend to be.

O'Reilly's personal opinions are irrelevant as it relates to his show. The "No Spin Zone" refers to how O'Reilly won't allow partisans on the left OR the right to spout their propaganda on his show. And if you watch him, you know that this is true. He challenges both sides when they try to do it.

Hannity is a self proclaimed conservative political commentator. He views it as a good thing. And Colmes is there to provide the liberal viewpoint. The show is not meant to be unbiased, but to provide biased viewpoints from both sides.

And yet those who constantly claim Fox News is right wing, consistently point to O'Reilly and Hannity as their evidence. Rarely do Fox haters point to their straight news programs as evidence of "right wing" bias.

Neil Cavuto is the most openly conservative journalist at Fox, but even his show is not strictly a news program. He specializes in financial matters, and often his show(s) use the bi-partisan "round table" format. Only in his 'final thoughts' segment, does he really let his personal opinions show. But that's the point. The meat of his show provides the facts, and at the end he merely gives HIS opinion.

Oh, and Bill O'Reilly actually IS a moderate who leans to the right. If you've actually read his books, you would know this.

spiderman

11-29-2004, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by freak
Oh, and Bill O'Reilly actually IS a moderate who leans to the right. If you've actually read his books, you would know this.

O'Reilly just wrote a column defending Dan Rather.

freak

11-29-2004, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by townes

Tough question, as i believe in aspects of both socialism andlibertarianism.

Sounds like "Iverson" at KFFL. ;) Basically he's extremely left wing, but calls himself a Libertarian. The only real portion of the Libertarian perspective he shares is on individual liberties. But even then, he's hinted that his primary concern is over his being allowed to "smoke" whenever he wants.

freak

11-29-2004, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by townes
1) The Administration guaranteed that Iraq had WMD and would use them against the U.S.

Lie They didn't have WMD)

2)The administration said Iraq was behind 9-11.

Lie (Iraq had NOTHING to do with it, by every finding)

3) The administration said that Iraq and Al Queada were working together.

Lie (Bin Laden had declared Jihad against Saddam, and Iraq was the only country in the ME that did not harbor al queada *by the State Dept.'s own map in 2003)

Don't assume that because WMD haven't yet been found, that they won't be found. Not saying they will, but not finding them up until now, does not preclude it in the future.

The admin did not say Iraq was behind 9/11. They've said there was a connection. In other words, what your point #3 was saying.

And having worked at high levels of government, don't assume that everything we've been told publicly is the whole story. The 9/11 Commission report is not the be all, end all of the debate, nor is the Dulfer (sp?) report.

Let me ask you this. Were the Rosenbergs guilty?

Ballbustah

11-29-2004, 03:43 PM

Bush's own man came back and said that there were no WMD in Iraq.
How can you argue with that?

Look I am not saying that the Bush administraition knew exactly what was going on... But they may have jumped to conclusions that didn't turn out to be true.

The Bush administraition was misinformed on all of what is below.
Who knows what else they have been misinformed about?

quote:Originally posted by townes
1) The Administration guaranteed that Iraq had WMD and would use them against the U.S.

Lie They didn't have WMD)

2)The administration said Iraq was behind 9-11.

Lie (Iraq had NOTHING to do with it, by every finding)

3) The administration said that Iraq and Al Queada were working together.

Lie (Bin Laden had declared Jihad against Saddam, and Iraq was the only country in the ME that did not harbor al queada *by the State Dept.'s own map in 2003)

freak

11-29-2004, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Bush's own man came back and said that there were no WMD in Iraq.
How can you argue with that?

Political expediency.

As of yet, there have not been any WMD found in Iraq. The evidence that has become public does not suggest we will find it.

But suppose that the most credible source of their information, is something that cannot be made public. Suppose it is a source that we cannot afford to lose. This is especially true when you consider that Al-Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations, are hard enough to penetrate and track as it is.

Does the administration continue to insist that there are WMD, without providing the evidence to support this, in the face of the lack of WMD thus far?

They'd look ridiculous. It is better politically to admit they were wrong, rather than insist they were right and the public will just have to take it as a matter of faith.

Farfetched, you may say.

Well, the reason I ask about the Rosenbergs, is because they were a very similar situation.

Most people grew thinking the Rosenbergs were innocent, and that they were railroaded as part of Red Scare. And part of the reason for this, was because historians were looking at all the available information, and it just didn't add up. The government didn't seem to have a legitimate case against the Rosenbergs.

It wasn't until around '95 that the truth came out. Turns out, that we had broken Soviet diplomatic codes. These messages were the clear evidence against the Rosenbergs.

But we couldn't make that public. What sense would that make? Given the nature of the intelligence, it would be like telling the Soviets "HEY, WE'RE READING YOUR MAIL!!!"

If we had made that information known, the Soviets would have changed their codes, and we would have lost a vital source of intelligence.

In this case, the government remained stubborn, which fostered this doubt as to the Rosenbergs' guilt. It is very possible that given a similar situation, the Bush administration chose otherwise.

This is also the reason that we never pursue the death penalty in espionage cases, such as Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen. To pursue the death penalty, would mean a long public trial. In this, information would HAVE to presented relating to what was compromised, as well as other agents we may have operating elsewhere, or agents we're keeping tabs on here (as part of the investigation into Ames/Hanssen, etc).

It is in the government's interest to accept a plea for life in prison, in order to keep this information under wraps.

I'm not saying that this IS the case. But it isn't always as simple as "they admitted it" or the "9/11 commission proved it", etc.

For instance, there are some things that I know about 9/11 that have never become public. Yes, I got out 2 months before, but I still had buddies down in DC. And I worked, remember, at the White House Communications Agency, and with the National Security Council.

Just saying the "9/11 Commission," etc, is not the be all, end all. It COULD be, but not necessarily.

Ballbustah

11-30-2004, 11:56 AM

Show me the proof.

spiderman

11-30-2004, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by freak
Political expediency.

As of yet, there have not been any WMD found in Iraq. The evidence that has become public does not suggest we will find it.

...

Just saying the "9/11 Commission," etc, is not the be all, end all. It COULD be, but not necessarily.

I have actually thought this as well, but for another reason...how safe is it to have WMD's unaccounted for, and a bunch of terrorist roaming around the country. From that standpoint the US is better off saying that they aren't there, so that Al Qaeda and other groups don't go looking for them. It also wouldn't surprise me if they've discovered WMDs, but kept it under wraps as well for the exact same reasons. They'd be better off just taking the hit politically, saying the WMDs aren't there, and then just operate under the radar (so to speak).

I've refrained from posting something like this, because it's much more constructive for us to argue things we know and can try to prove, this is total speculation, but you brought it up so I figured I'd add my 2 cents. Also, if Michael Moore can insinuate and imply all the things about Bush, the Bin Laden's, and Halliburton without any proof...why can't we :D !

Ballbustah

11-30-2004, 01:51 PM

Because you might be hallucinating?

You should not pay so much attention to Micheal Moore.

The chances that WMD were found is about as true as Martians on Mars.

freak

11-30-2004, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Show me the proof.

Proof of what? The Rosenbergs? Or Iraq?

I already said that I am not saying that Iraq IS a similar situation to the Rosenbergs. Just that you cannot discount the possibility that it is. All those people who grew thinking that the Rosenbergs were innocent were wrong. Who is to say Iraq is not a similar case?

Or are you asking me to show you the "proof" of where I worked while in the Marine Corps? Or the "proof" of what I know about 9/11 that hasn't been made public?

freak

11-30-2004, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by spiderman
I've refrained from posting something like this, because it's much more constructive for us to argue things we know and can try to prove, this is total speculation, but you brought it up so I figured I'd add my 2 cents

You're correct that it is speculation, but I have two things on my side; history and personal experience.

History gives us a prime example in the Rosenbergs, of what I am talking about, so it isn't like I'm dreaming this up.

And my personal experiences regarding 9/11 support the idea as well, even though I cannot "prove" it on this board.

dchester

11-30-2004, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Because you might be hallucinating?

You should not pay so much attention to Micheal Moore.

The chances that WMD were found is about as true as Martians on Mars. I just knew there were Martians. That could explain where Michael Moore got some of his conspiracy theories from. He sure doesn't seem to be from planet Earth.
:D
________
William Clay Ford, Sr. history (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/William_Clay_Ford,_Sr.)

Ballbustah

11-30-2004, 02:35 PM

I agree.

spiderman

11-30-2004, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by freak
where I worked while in the Marine Corps...

OOH RAH!

Ballbustah

11-30-2004, 03:03 PM

Proof of what you know about Iraq.

Originally posted by freak
Proof of what? The Rosenbergs? Or Iraq?

I already said that I am not saying that Iraq IS a similar situation to the Rosenbergs. Just that you cannot discount the possibility that it is. All those people who grew thinking that the Rosenbergs were innocent were wrong. Who is to say Iraq is not a similar case?

Or are you asking me to show you the "proof" of where I worked while in the Marine Corps? Or the "proof" of what I know about 9/11 that hasn't been made public?

freak

11-30-2004, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Proof of what you know about Iraq.

Excuse me, but I never said I had any "proof" about Iraq.

I simply put forth the idea that Iraq/WMD could be a similar situation to the Rosenbergs.

I said I know certain things about 9/11 that has never become public, but I never implied it was connected to Iraq.

And, sorry, but "proof" of even that is pretty much impossible. Whether you believe me or not, I really don't care. But, let's just say that my buddies kept me informed in the days after 9/11, despite the fact that I no longer held an SCI clearance. Given where we were stationed, and the clearances we had, I am satisfied with the accuracy of the information I have.

Ballbustah

11-30-2004, 03:33 PM

I used to have a top secret clearence myself.
I worked with microwave calibration in the mountians of Europe.
I understand that you can not devulge your secrets.

I doubt that there are WMD in Iraq.
What are the chances that a reporter would not have stumbled upon the site had the government discovered it?

I talk regularly with Army soldiers over in Iraq. They say it is a real mess.

freak

11-30-2004, 03:55 PM

As I said repeatedly, I'm not saying there is evidence of ANYTHING in Iraq. Just pointing out that "sometimes the facts that are staring us in the face are wrong" (kudos to anybody who gets the reference).

dchester

11-30-2004, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by freak
As I said repeatedly, I'm not saying there is evidence of ANYTHING in Iraq. Just pointing out that "sometimes the facts that are staring us in the face are wrong" (kudos to anybody who gets the reference). How about in Syria or Iran?
________
Ferrari America specifications (http://www.ferrari-wiki.com/wiki/Ferrari_America)

spiderman

11-30-2004, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by freak
As I said repeatedly, I'm not saying there is evidence of ANYTHING in Iraq. Just pointing out that "sometimes the facts that are staring us in the face are wrong" (kudos to anybody who gets the reference).

You're wasting your energy with 'bustah, he never stops, and only 5% of his posts make sense. He's been buzzing around my threads for months now. Just give him the last word, it's usually pretty funny.

Ballbustah

11-30-2004, 04:07 PM

After all the Powell UN facts and Bush's own man saying there is no WMD in Iraq I find it hard to believe.

But you guys can believe what ever it is you want to believe. Far be it for me to tell you any different.

Ballbustah

11-30-2004, 04:12 PM

5% huh...
Maybe you can't get even that far.
Your mind is so jumbled up with cloak and dagger that you can't decipher what is right and wrong.

It might be that you are too stupid to figure out for yourself what is wrong and what is right. You have no common sense.

Originally posted by spiderman
You're wasting your energy with 'bustah, he never stops, and only 5% of his posts make sense. He's been buzzing around my threads for months now. Just give him the last word, it's usually pretty funny.

freak

11-30-2004, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by dchester
How about in Syria or Iran?

How would I know? There very well COULD be, but that is irrelevant as to my original point.

freak

11-30-2004, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Ballbustah
After all the Powell UN facts and Bush's own man saying there is no WMD in Iraq I find it hard to believe.

But you guys can believe what ever it is you want to believe. Far be it for me to tell you any different.

Yeah, and all the historians and books said the Rosenbergs were innocent too. And those far outnumber the "sources" saying no WMD in Iraq.

I'm NOT denying the conclusion. Just saying it isn't that simple.

dchester

11-30-2004, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by freak
How would I know? There very well COULD be, but that is irrelevant as to my original point. I just thought maybe you had been tipped by your contacts (ie. I was looking for some "insider information"). Nothing more than that.

I've read some rather speculative articles about the stockpiles being movedfrom Iraq to Syria, and I was curious if you heard anything from your "buddies", that you were willing to share.
________
herb scales (http://www.vaporshop.com/scales)

freak

11-30-2004, 11:18 PM

Nope, nothing in regards to that. The only thing I know about Iraq/Syria is the same reports that we've all heard. Allegedly there is credible intelligence about this, but short of going into Syria, it is rather tough to prove.

My info is related simply to 9/11 in this country. Basically, I immediately thought "Bin Laden" when I saw it on the TV at the dining hall........didn't even think "accident." We'd been at higher alert levels from '99 onward. The millenium was considered high risk, depending on which crazies thought '00 or '01 was the year. And the USS Cole incident made Bin Laden a prime interest. So I called my buddies, just to keep myself informed of the situation. They gave me some info, but not much, as they were admittedly dealing with seriously classified info at the time. It was more for my reassurance, as I had friends in NYC and Boston (who knew if there were more flights out there?).

RayClay

01-25-2005, 12:07 PM

Osama and 75% of hijackers=Saudi Arabian

When Are we going to overthrow the Totalitarian government there and give the average Saudi Arabian freedom and Democracy.

Then we can kill or capture the actual terrorists.

Just asking?

Ballbustah

01-25-2005, 12:21 PM

Yeah... Let's take over the entire planet....

RayClay

01-25-2005, 12:26 PM

Oh, and by the way, the Army McCarthy hearings were within some of our lifetimes.

Guilty until proven innocent, tell on you friends and you get off.

Every entertainer who ever expressed a thought was subject to having their livelyhood taken away.

If you not old enough, you might want to look this period up, you could be shocked.

Once Govt starts using rights the've transferred from individuals to the state, you might star complaining only to find out your rights no longer exist once you need them.

freak

01-25-2005, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by RayClay
Osama and 75% of hijackers=Saudi Arabian

When Are we going to overthrow the Totalitarian government there and give the average Saudi Arabian freedom and Democracy.

Then we can kill or capture the actual terrorists.

Just asking?

So you're saying the actions of individuals is sufficient to attack their country of origin?

I'm not defending the Saudis, but your reasoning is severely flawed.

RayClay

01-26-2005, 04:42 PM

Why did we attack iraq again? The actions of an individual. Or the attack on U.S soil.

I am merely citing the 2 reasons our fearless leader now cites for waging war. Remember he gets a Mulligan for WMD's.

Fight terrorists, end tyranny and spread freedom and democracy to people who don't have Democratic governments.

It's not my fault that a ridiculous example fits these qualifications more than the actual unilateral actions in Iraq.

freak

01-26-2005, 06:03 PM

Excuse me, but I am not arguing for or against the President's decisions.

I am arguing against your ridiculous reasoning, to indict an entire country simply because some evil men happened to come from there.

RayClay

01-26-2005, 09:20 PM

I am applying the President's reasoning. He decided to invade Iraq, then used these reasons to justify it in hindsight.

If the same reasoning in another context seems ridiculous, it is not my fault.

By the way, whatever happened to the hunt for Osama?

spiderman

01-27-2005, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by RayClay
I am applying the President's reasoning. He decided to invade Iraq, then used these reasons to justify it in hindsight.

If the same reasoning in another context seems ridiculous, it is not my fault.

By the way, whatever happened to the hunt for Osama?

I think you need to elaborate a bit more.

I'm hearing:

Many terrorists are Saudi Arabian by origin, so we should overthrow the Saudi Government.

I don't think that is what happened with regards to Iraq. Iraq had to do with the Regime in power, not its citizens.

The last I checked we still had a presence in Afghanistan searching for Osama, so you're welcome to disagree with the way we are handling business over there, but to suggest that the Bush Administration has abandoned the "hunt for Osama" is inaccurate.

RayClay

01-27-2005, 11:48 AM

simply;

Bush wanted to invade Iraq all along.

The Bush family has had a cozy relationship with the Saudis for years.
(the Bush family is in the oil business, by the way).

The Saudis are a leading oil producer.

Iraq was a leading oil producer and rival of the Saudis.

The World Trade center was attacked by a member of one of the richest and most powerful Saudi families.

Most of the attackers were Saudi Arabians.

None, 0, nada of the attackers were Iraqis.

All of the Billions (Trillions?) spent in Iraq were resources not spent hunting Osama Bin Laden and the terrorist network.

Although there are now terrorist fighting in Iraq, the Iraqis themselves cannot be considered terrorists because they are actually defending their own country against invasion.

By the way, I was originally in favor of invading Iraq to gain a foot hold against
al qaeda, since we didn't have a base of operations in the middle east.

I am no peacenik, by any means, but neither am I part of the ignorant crowd that now seems to believe Saddam Hussein attacked the World Trade center.

I don't mean to call people ignorant, but if the shoe fits wear it, (I'm not referring to posters here, but to the results of polls I've seen).

Bush didn't find wmd's, knows Iraq was never a threat to us so he says we had to invade to promote freedom and democracy. A very high amount of our friends and business partners also stifle freedom and democracy and we aren't planning to invade them.

My satirical point is, he could say I am invading because leaders with moustaches are suspicious and his point would be equally valid and equally applied with prejudice in this one case.

Let's make a sillier, but apt, analogy. I think your mistreating your wife, so I attack you and rescue her and elope to Las vegas.
Next door neighbor's wife is also mistreated, but she's ugly and 300 lbs.

Although mistreatment is a reason for my actions, perhaps I was looking for an excuse to do what I wanted to do anyway.

Thank You.
:harumph:

spiderman

01-27-2005, 01:04 PM

RayClay are you NEM?

O_P_T

01-27-2005, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by RayClay
simply;

Bush wanted to invade Iraq all along.

The Bush family has had a cozy relationship with the Saudis for years.
(the Bush family is in the oil business, by the way).

The Saudis are a leading oil producer.

Iraq was a leading oil producer and rival of the Saudis.

........

A very high amount of our friends and business partners also stifle freedom and democracy and we aren't planning to invade them.

I don't follow your oil allegation.

Before the invasion Iraq was under UN sanctions and could not sell oil excpet for limited amounts under the oil for food program.

After the invasion, the sanctions are lifted and the Iraqis are free to sell as much oil as they want.

Or if you prefer, Haliburton is free to sell as much oil as it wants.

In either case, Iraq will be selling more oil.

How does this benifit Saudi Arabia?

As far as treating Saudi Arabia (SA) differently than Iraq consider the following.

Has SA invaded any of its neighbors?

Has SA been held in "material breech" of 16 odd UN Security Council resolutions.

Has SA defied attempts of the international community to use diplomatic efforts to resolve problems for over 12 years?

Has the stated public policy of the US, since 1998, been to achieve regime change (http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm) in SA?

Has SA used chemical weapons?

Has SA ever had a WMD program?

RayClay

01-27-2005, 11:23 PM

I suppose subtlety is lost here.

I am not proposing invading Saudi Arabia.

I am just saying the war on Iraq is the war on Iraq, period.

If you think it's justified, that's fine.

OPT, you stated some reasons.

It is not a war on terror, nor is it to promote Democracy and freedom.

The terrorist are mostly from other countries and the U.S. is perfectly happy dealing with undemocratic dictatorships all around the world except in Iraq.

As I've stated, I supported invading Iraq as a way to gain a foothold in the middle east to fight al qaeda.

Since, by Bush's own admission, he is not concerned about Bin Laden, I wonder what we as a country gain by our presence in Iraq.

I don't see it furthering our country's progress.

So I wonder, what groups, or individuals stand to gain from this.

We know who will sacrifice, the question is why?

spiderman

01-28-2005, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by RayClay
It is not a war on terror, nor is it to promote Democracy and freedom.

How do you define terror? We know that Saddam Hussein was paying the families of Palestinian bombers. We know he had an assassination plot out against Bush Sr. He used WMDs against his own people. He invaded his neighbor. He launched scud missiles into Israel. I could go on and on.

And I could be mistaken, but isn't the country of Iraq holding elections in a few days? Could they do this under Saddam? If that isn't spreading freedom and democracy, then I don't know what is.

Originally posted by RayClay
The terrorist are mostly from other countries and the U.S. is perfectly happy dealing with undemocratic dictatorships all around the world except in Iraq.

"perfectly happy", you're joking right? Obviously we can't go around overthrowing every government we disagree with, but should that country a.) Invade a neighbor b.) Set up WMD programs with plans to employ them or c.) Fail to comply with numerous UN resolutions, then I would say that those actions put them in a league of their own.

I'm getting tired of people like yourself conveniently failing to mention the first gulf war and the 12 odd years in between then and now. A friend of mine patrolled the no fly zone for years and was shot at on a daily basis. Is that complying with UN resolutions??? Are those the actions of a defeated, cooperating regime? Why do you want to act like Iraq was just like everybody else? They weren't.

Originally posted by RayClay
Since, by Bush's own admission, he is not concerned about Bin Laden, I wonder what we as a country gain by our presence in Iraq.

If I'm not mistaken, the way you are interpreting what he said is incorrect.

If you paid attention you would've realized that our plan going into Afghanistan was NOT to deploy a large amount of troops, but instead to deploy mostly special forces and use the Afghani forces as the bulk of our units. Why? Because the Soviets got smoked everytime they deployed large numbers, and had much more success using special forces. This was the most significant "lesson learned" from that war, and one that we paid attention to.

Now Iraq, is a different animal all together. Iraq has a multitude of different factions all of whom would like to assume the power void. Therefore, we needed large numbers of troops in order to "keep the peace" for lack of a better term. I would say this was the most significant mistake Donald Rumsfeld made with regards to Iraq. He failed to realize just how volatile and unstable Iraq would become.

My point is, I'm tired of people saying that we aren't serious with regards to the hunt for Bin Laden because we don't have enough troops in Afghanistan. First off, more troops would just mean more targets, and second we aren't going to catch him by setting up checkpoints on every corner, we need human intel and good old fashioned investigative work.

Originally posted by RayClay
I don't see it furthering our country's progress.

So I wonder, what groups, or individuals stand to gain from this.

We know who will sacrifice, the question is why?

You can wonder all you want. I already feel like we live in a safer world without Saddam. Back in 2001, we had no intelligence with regards to what was going on over there. At least now we KNOW that there are no WMDs, and I sleep much better at night knowing that. Hopefully we will start pulling our troops out soon, and the Iraqi's can enjoy some semblance of a republic, without the threat of a crazed dictator.