IRAQ IS A DISASTER

[ledzep]

^

Well, had the Bush Admin. done their homework and given people the real info, or had they chosen not to hold back the real info (whichever one occured), I'm pretty sure most of those dudes (not just Democrats) would have voted not to go to war. It might be also worth noting the whole Patriotism Fever that was running rampant, and care to remember the whole filibuster thing that happened a short while ago? Had they voted against it, it probably would have been that, only a million times worse. Those dudes were under alot of pressure (once again, not just the Democrats).

 

The way your wording that almost makes it sound like it was the Democrat's fault that the war started. I personally do not get the logic behind that.

 

ok,

Originally posted by the ugly duckling+Jun 27 2005, 10:13 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (the ugly duckling - Jun 27 2005, 10:13 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>this is not what i said at all!

Quoted post

[/b]

 

"before this conversation i was against the war in iraq, but after talking with her i've some what

changed my mind."

 

"from what shes said the islamic religion is a bit more extreme than what a lot of americans think. in america its been sugar coated"

 

"not that they're all violent, thats not what im trying to say, but they're taught that they are the rightful 'rulers of the world', or what have you."

 

"they're taught that anyone outside of their faith is their enemy."

 

Judging from what you said in that post, I found this to be your basic argument: "I used to be against the war in Iraq, but after my aunt told me how the islamic religion, though not violent for the most part, is cocky and not to fond of other faiths, I changed my mind about the war."

 

Originally posted by the ugly duckling@Jun 27 2005, 10:13 AM

how many innocent people did sadam murder?  what, were we just supossed to sit back and let him do that?  were we just going to wait untill he was a real threat again, to go over there?  then how many people would we have lost?

Quoted post

 

:huh2:

 

Though I don't defend Saddam's use of Biological weapons (Lets face it, that shit is fucked up), I might be helpful to note the following:

 

A. Saddam used it on the Kurds.

 

Who are the Kurds?

 

"Comprising more than 30 million people, they are the world's largest ethnic group without its own state. For over a century, many Kurds have been campaigning (some through violence as well as political means) for the right to self-determination. The governments of those countries who have sizable Kurdish populations are actively opposed to the possibility of a Kurdish state, which would require them to give up parts of their own territories."

 

On the Kurds in the northern region of Iraq:

"However, for various reasons, including the siding of some Kurds with Iranian forces during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, the [saddam's] regime became opposed to the Kurds and an effective civil war broke out. Iraq was widely condemned, but not seriously punished, by the international community for using chemical weapons against the Kurds, which caused the death of thousands of Kurds."

 

Heres some more if you want it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds#In_Iraq

 

Kinda puts things in a different light, not to mention that this is something that happened in the 80s, Saddam, since his defeat in the Persian Gulf War, has not been doing this kinda shit. So as for "sitting back and letting him do that shit", too late, the USA already did.

 

B. It was the USA that gave Saddam these weapons to begin with, so this war is not to "Libarate" these people or anything like that.

 

Also, Saddam was never ever ever ever going to become a real threat again. Remember:

 

A. The USA has been sanctioning Iraq for a long long time, as well as bombing it occasionally (which killed innocent people).

 

B. No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, as well as no intentions to build or aquire them.

 

Less people, both Iraqi and Non-Iraqi would have been lost had this war not occured. Yea living under Saddam blowed, but it still sucks alot less than Political instability, a weak infrastructure, regular violence and being on the verge of civil war.

 

Originally posted by the ugly duckling@Jun 27 2005, 10:13 AM

if you honestly think that we have no legitamate reasons at all, to be over there, then i would like to see you go over and try and live in that area, and then tell me that theres no reason for us to be over there.

Quoted post

 

How about in N. Korea then? People under Saddam used to at least have food, water, electricity. N. Koreans, alot of them don't have that stuff (the army is given priority, everone else gets whats left, which is next to nothing).

 

The population of N. Korea is about 23 million people, the N. Korean army is just a tad over 1 million. So basically, around 22 are in extreme poverty, who have basically nothing.

 

If your going to use that reasoning, Iraq is not the place to use it.

 

<!--QuoteBegin-the ugly duckling@Jun 27 2005, 10:13 AM

i know know most people think differently and thats fine, this is just my opinion. if you dont like it, thats okay with me. im not one to argue but i will defend myself when people go putting words in my mouth.

Quoted post

 

If thats what you want to think thats cool or whatever, I'm not trying to put you down, I'm just providing some info to help you choose what you want to believe.

 

And now: the real reason I wanted to post:

This was on the last page, but right at the very end.

[angelofdeath]

"The way your wording that almost makes it sound like it was the Democrat's fault that the war started. I personally do not get the logic behind that."

 

no im not saying "the democrats took us to war." all i am saying is that they are just as guilty as bush and company. it pisses me off to no end to hear people flapping about the iraq war being unjust, then backing john kerry, clinton, kennedy and the rest. they are just as guilty as the congressional neo conservatives who supported the war. im not saying bush and his advisors are not at fault, im just saying that the democrats voted ALONG with congressional republicans to give GWB a blank check to invade. if no one realizes this, you need to get your head out of the sand.

i think the reason alot of democrats made sure they voted to go to war, is because they didnt want it to be like the first gulf war when the dems didnt want to back it and caught shit. just one other reason that most politicians are spineless peices of shit.

[ledzep]

^

Oh, alright.

 

I agree, they are guilty, but I wouldn't say just as guilty. The main burden of responsibility is on the Bush Admin., not because they're ultra conservatives or anything, but because they are the group that put this issue forward with incorrect info.

 

BtW: I thought you were Pro-Iraq war.

[angelofdeath]

well im not total anti iraq war and im not a war monger. i think its just about time to wrap the shit up as soon as possible, and get the shit back home. i do get tired of hearing a bunch of flap about being anti war and backing the democratic party. just gets me so mad when dealing with this two party system. if someone is truly anti iraq war they would be backing the libertarians or constitution party or the greens. every day the dems and repubs start looking more and more alike. different sides of a wooden nickel. issues like iraq, illegal immigration, trade, etc etc, they are all on the same page basically.

eh, stupid repubocrats.

[Salafi_Zahrah]

Originally posted by Armenhammer@Jun 27 2005, 04:56 PM

Though I don't defend Saddam's use of Biological weapons (Lets face it, that shit is fucked up), I might be helpful to note the following:

 

A. Saddam used it on the Kurds.

 

 

I would like to add that all the blame doesn't go to Saddam for that. It was US planes and US Biological weapons but Iraqi pilots. How do I know this, my ex-husband was there.

[ledzep]

^Oh yea thanks I forgot to mention that as well.

[tsuifuku]

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Jun 27 2005, 05:45 PM

well im not total anti iraq war and im not a war monger. i think its just about time to wrap the shit up as soon as possible, and get the shit back home. i do get tired of hearing a bunch of flap about being anti war and backing the democratic party. just gets me so mad when dealing with this two party system. if someone is truly anti iraq war they would be backing the libertarians or constitution party or the greens. every day the dems and repubs start looking more and more alike. different sides of a wooden nickel. issues like iraq, illegal immigration, trade, etc etc, they are all on the same page basically.

eh, stupid repubocrats.

Quoted post

 

The democrats and the republicans basically have the same interests. The interests of big business.

And i hear you on these anti war folks backing the democrats - the same people who voted for the war and the patriot act. And when they got shit about it, they said they didnt read it, isnt reading a proposed bill a part of your job?

[POIESIS]

blah

[GnomeToys]

Originally posted by tsuifuku@Jun 27 2005, 08:33 PM

And i hear you on these anti war folks backing the democrats - the same people who voted for the war and the patriot act. And when they got shit about it, they said they didnt read it, isnt reading a proposed bill a part of your job?

Quoted post

 

Nobody was allowed to read the patriot act before the vote for or against it because of "national security", and everyone was strongly pressured to vote for it. There was no vote, in this case, it was just pushed through.

[wiseguy]

Originally posted by SeezurSalad@Jun 27 2005, 10:21 PM

Iraq, however, is FUUUUUUUUUUUUCKED UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUP. And its been that way even BEFORE we got there. But it doesn't matter, thats their culture. That is how that certain part of the world has been for centuries now.

Quoted post

sure the middle east has had wars for centuries now, but dont you think that it is a little bit naive to put that down to islam? iraq was created by the british after the first world war to break up the ottoman empire's land. and yeah there have been various coups and wars (ie. to depose the british instated monarchy), these were to achieve political ends not just "because its their culture". What are you basing this assumption that it is a violent culture on?

I have plenty of friends who are muslim, and they have never tried to kill me, or beat anyone up in front of me. So personally i can say that islam is not inherently violent.

So yeah, iraq has had a tumultuous history (which goes back waaaayyy before islam), and saddam hussein was a prick, but youd have to be blind to think that they are better off now.

[wiseguy]

BTW SeezurSalad,

im defending Iraq because this war was a fucking bullshit lie to get at iraqi oil, and iraqis are worse off now than before. you asked why i was so quick to defend a country ive never been to, well why are you so quick to demonise a culture that you dont know shit about?

[SeezurSalad]

I'm fully aware that they're worse off now than before. And I'm not condemning Islam. I'm condemning Iraqi Islam. And I may not know much about the culture but I do know a little. Anyone that treats women and children the way they do is fucking disgusting.

[wiseguy]

treating women like how? like "making" them wear headscarves?

how do they treat children?

[angelofdeath]

Originally posted by GnomeToys+Jun 27 2005, 10:33 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GnomeToys - Jun 27 2005, 10:33 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-tsuifuku@Jun 27 2005, 08:33 PM

And i hear you on these anti war folks backing the democrats - the same people who voted for the war and the patriot act. And when they got shit about it, they said they didnt read it, isnt reading a proposed bill a part of your job?

Quoted post

 

Nobody was allowed to read the patriot act before the vote for or against it because of "national security", and everyone was strongly pressured to vote for it. There was no vote, in this case, it was just pushed through.

Quoted post

[/b]

 

i know Rep Ron Paul read that shit. and acted accordingly.

[Salafi_Zahrah]

Originally posted by SeezurSalad@Jun 28 2005, 03:37 AM

I'm fully aware that they're worse off now than before.  And I'm not condemning Islam.  I'm condemning Iraqi Islam.  And I may not know much about the culture but I do know a little.  Anyone that treats women and children the way they do is fucking disgusting.

Quoted post

 

Once again there is no such thing a Middle Eastern Islam or Iraqi Islam there is Middle Eastern CULTURE and Iraqi CULTURE. Islam is Islam no matter where you are. But there are different sects of Islam. Who told you they treated women that way? There are some individuals (just like those who are not Muslim) that beat their women etc. but that isn't an Islamic practice. Under the Taliban they were living under Islamic Law (Shari'ah) or close to it and woman no matter if you lived there or visiting you had to cover (if you don't understand why just ask I'll tell you). And the Taliban is another group they are being untruthful about they didn't beat there woman they didn't not allow their women to work. They were not involved in the drug trade (when they were in power they had that stopped). They were the US friend when they were fighting the Soviets now all of a sudden they are evil just because the refused to build the oil pipe line. Stop believeing what you hear on the news thats whats disgusting. They did do a few things that were not Islamic and the Iraqis too like suicide bombs but it doesn't refect Islam itself.

 

US Caused More Deaths than Saddam

[s.urkaleeno]

Scalia is what America needs.... are you out of your mind? The man has sided w/ corporate America over the American people in every case w/ the exception of the last ruling on eminant domaine. Scalia is a member of Opis Die ( spelling?) He does not believe in seperation of church and state, and is on the record saying that this country was founded by religious zealots. This statement couldn't be further from the truth. The founders of this country, for the most part, were Deits.

 

 

 

 

in regard to the Patriot Act, it was sonmething like 3000 pages and presented at 10:00pm the night before the vote. IT was used as a political tool, if you didn't vote for it you were for the "terrorists". Notice how none of the anthrax files have been released. Call me a conspiracy theorist but that shit was all day internal,orcatrated by some one in the administration., probably that scum bag John Boltons doing.

[POIESIS]

nah, boltons too stupid.

i was gonna get into a big scalia thing above, but i realized i don't have the energy to give a shit and articulate why he's a problem.

 

some suggested book reading for the ignant bickerers, by a legit author with

a deadly posse of researchers: http://www.bankingonbaghdad.com/

[s.urkaleeno]

yeah Bolton is toomuch of a meat head for that. I'm just sick of blaming everyhting on that criminal genius Karl Rove

[angelofdeath]

your talking about america being eroded as we know it. we are mere drops in the bucket compared to the rest of the history of this country. he is defending traditional america. period. john bolton hates the UN and he is what we need going to represent us. he wont let the UN impose its unconstitutional world wide gun ban, or let the UN take over america or be higher than america. fuck the UN. then again, we shouldnt be sending anyone to the UN we should be telling them to tongue shuck our corn cobs, we're pulling out.

[wiseguy]

Originally posted by Salafi_Zahrah+Jun 28 2005, 11:13 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Salafi_Zahrah - Jun 28 2005, 11:13 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-SeezurSalad@Jun 28 2005, 03:37 AM

I'm fully aware that they're worse off now than before.  And I'm not condemning Islam.  I'm condemning Iraqi Islam.  And I may not know much about the culture but I do know a little.  Anyone that treats women and children the way they do is fucking disgusting.

Quoted post

 

Once again there is no such thing a Middle Eastern Islam or Iraqi Islam there is Middle Eastern CULTURE and Iraqi CULTURE. Islam is Islam no matter where you are. But there are different sects of Islam. Who told you they treated women that way? There are some individuals (just like those who are not Muslim) that beat their women etc. but that isn't an Islamic practice. Under the Taliban they were living under Islamic Law (Shari'ah) or close to it and woman no matter if you lived there or visiting you had to cover (if you don't understand why just ask I'll tell you). And the Taliban is another group they are being untruthful about they didn't beat there woman they didn't not allow their women to work. They were not involved in the drug trade (when they were in power they had that stopped). They were the US friend when they were fighting the Soviets now all of a sudden they are evil just because the refused to build the oil pipe line. Stop believeing what you hear on the news thats whats disgusting. They did do a few things that were not Islamic and the Iraqis too like suicide bombs but it doesn't refect Islam itself.

 

US Caused More Deaths than Saddam

Quoted post

[/b]

 

THANK YOU!

salafi zahrah, with the knowledge.

[POIESIS]

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Jun 28 2005, 12:58 PM

or let the UN..be higher than america. fuck the UN.

Quoted post

 

the UN holds little authority to none over the US.

it's a convenient tool of legitimacy for the US, and a mere

annoyance everywhere else. the US does what it wants.

[angelofdeath]

Originally posted by POIESIS+Jun 28 2005, 08:31 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (POIESIS - Jun 28 2005, 08:31 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-angelofdeath@Jun 28 2005, 12:58 PM

or let the UN..be higher than america. fuck the UN.

Quoted post

 

the UN holds little authority to none over the US.

it's a convenient tool of legitimacy for the US, and a mere

annoyance everywhere else. the US does what it wants.

Quoted post

[/b]

 

your missing the big picture, it is a corrupt organization bent on world domination.

 

Can the UN Really be Reformed?

 

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

 

 

 

Congress voted last week to give the United Nations unprecedented new authority to intervene in sovereign states, under the guise of UN “reform.” The reform bill theoretically provides for Congress to withhold 50% of US dues to the UN, but this will never happen. The bill allows the Secretary of State to make the ultimate decision about payment, and the State department strongly opposes withholding our dues in the first place. In fact, the State department is the UN’s closest ally in the entire federal government. This talk about withholding our dues is nothing but hot air designed to dupe real conservatives outside Washington into believing Congress is getting tough with the UN. Nothing could be further from the truth. Both the congressional leadership and the Bush administration are firmly committed to globalism, as evidenced not only by their commitment to the UN, but also by their position on trade agreements like CAFTA. Mark my words, in five years nobody will be talking about UN reform and our dues payments will be higher than ever.

 

The supposed reform bill will not change the bureaucratic nature of the UN, nor will it transform the nations of the world into wise, benevolent, selfless actors. It will, however, expand the UN’s role as world policeman and establish the precursor to a UN army. If you don’t think American armed forces should serve under a UN command, you should know that the reform bill establishes a “Peacekeeping Commission” charged with bolstering the UN’s ability to respond with military force to conflicts around the globe – even in wholly internal conflicts that do not affect the US in the slightest.

 

Many conservatives have bought into the neoconservative dream of using the UN as a tool to advance an aggressive US foreign policy. But granting more power to the UN can only serve the interests of globalists, who see national sovereignty as an obstacle to their goals. The more we involve ourselves with the UN, the more we entangle ourselves in the affairs of other nations to our own detriment. America has nothing to show for our 60 years in the UN except for tens of thousands of dead or injured soldiers, and hundreds of billions of wasted tax dollars. The 20th century – the UN century – was the bloodiest in the world’s history. We must stop fooling ourselves that the UN is an instrument of world peace.

 

The problem is not that the UN is corrupt, or ineffective, or run by scoundrels. The real problem is that the UN is inherently illegitimate, because supra-national government is an inherently illegitimate concept. Legitimate governments operate only by the consent of those they govern. Yet it is ludicrous to suggest that billions of people across the globe have in any way consented to UN governance, or have even the slightest influence over their own governments. The UN is perhaps the least democratic institution imaginable, but both Democrats and Republicans insist on using it to “promote democracy.” We should stop worrying about the UN and simply walk away from it by withdrawing our membership and our money. We should demand a return to real national sovereignty, and respect other nations by rejecting our failed interventionist foreign policy. By doing so we would make the world a more peaceful place.

 

June 22, 2005

 

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

 

 

 

NeoCon Global Government

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

 

 

 

This week Congress will vote on a bill to expand the power of the United Nations beyond the dreams of even the most ardent left-wing, one-world globalists. But this time the UN power grabbers aren’t European liberals; they are American neo-conservatives, who plan to use the UN to implement their own brand of world government.

 

The “United Nations Reform Act of 2005” masquerades as a bill that will cut US dues to the United Nations by 50% if that organization does not complete a list of 39 reforms. On the surface any measure that threatens to cut funding to the United Nations seems very attractive, but do not be fooled: in this case reform “success” will be worse than failure. The problem is in the supposed reforms themselves – specifically in the policy changes this bill mandates.

 

The proposed legislation opens the door for the United Nations to routinely become involved in matters that have never been part of its charter. Specifically, the legislation redefines terrorism very broadly for the UN’s official purposes – and charges it to take action on behalf of both governments and international organizations.

 

What does this mean? The official adoption of this definition by the United Nations would have the effect of making resistance to any government or any international organization an international crime. It would make any attempt to overthrow a government an international causus belli for UN military action. Until this point a sovereign government retained the legal right to defend against or defeat any rebellion within its own territory. Now any such activity would constitute justification for United Nations action inside that country. This could be whenever any splinter group decides to resist any regime – regardless of the nature of that regime.

 

What if this were in place when the Contras were fighting against the Marxist regime in Nicaragua? Or when the Afghan mujahadeen was fighting against the Soviet-installed government in the 1980s? Or during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? The new message is clear: resistance – even resistance to the UN itself – is futile. Why does every incumbent government, no matter how bad, deserve UN military assistance to quell domestic unrest?

 

This new policy is given teeth by creating a “Peacebuilding Commission,” which will serve as the implementing force for the internationalization of what were formerly internal affairs of sovereign nations. This Commission will bring together UN Security Council members, major donors, major troop-contributing countries, appropriate United Nations organizations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund among others. This new commission will create the beginning of a global UN army. It will claim the right to intervene in any conflict anywhere on the globe, bringing the World Bank and the IMF formally into the picture as well. It is a complete new world order, but undertaken with the enthusiastic support of many of those who consider themselves among the most strident UN critics.

 

Conservatives who have been critical of the UN in the past have enthusiastically embraced this bill and the concept of UN reform. But what is the desired end of “UN reform”? The UN is an organization that was designed to undermine sovereignty and representative government. It is unelected and unaccountable to citizens by its very design. Will UN reform change anything about the fact that its core mission is objectionable? Do honest UN critics really want an expanded UN that functions more “efficiently”?

 

The real question is whether we should redouble our efforts to save a failed system, or admit its failures – as this legislation does – and recognize that the only reasonable option is to cease participation without further costs to the United States in blood, money, and sovereignty. Do not be fooled: it is impossible to be against the United Nations and to support “reform” of the United Nations. The only true reform of the United Nations is for the US to withdraw immediately.

 

June 14, 2005

[POIESIS]

another perspective..and honestly, i don't give a shit about ron paul's argument.

if you look, you'll notice the US has been the de facto leader in vetoing security council resolutions and rejecting general assembly resolutions on virtually all important issues. there happens to be a very telling record of fact.

to name just a fraction:

condemnation of US attack on a nicaraguan embassy in panama? vetoed by the US. condemnation of the illegal and brutal invasion of panama by the US? vetoed by you guessed it.

resolution to hold the US accountable to reparations for it's state terror operations in nicaragua and legitimize a world court guilty verdict? vetoed by the US.

israeli abuse in the occupied territories time and again? always vetoed by the US, without exception. general assembly resolutions calling on the US to observe international law, as it should? always vetoed by the US. and on and on and on.

the US has repeatedly vetoed security council resolutions and blocked general assembly resolutions and other UN initiatives on nearly every important issue, including aggression, annexation, human rights abuses, disarmament, adherence to internation law, terrorism, etcetera..

in the 90's the UN was lauded as finally fulfilling it's "function", which was, more or less, doing what washington wants. but it's not enough to have, god forbid, an

authority higher than that of the mighty land of the free.

bolton and the rest of them spew self-serving political ideology about the UN, and it's nothing new. the UN has been dominated and deceived by the US for 60 years. the problem isn't so much the UN.

now write back with more talking points from your fave conservative hero's.

i'm sure kabar will have some great things to add as well. yay.

[angelofdeath]

same rules apply:

i dont care about your argument. keep the liberalism to yourself. now write back with some moveon.org rhetoric.......;)

[POIESIS]

sweet bro..

but it's not my argument, and it has nothing to do with

liberalism. it's a lengthy record of fact.

now go back to thinking up some more lame, generalized jibes

that don't mean anything.

[s.urkaleeno]

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Jun 28 2005, 08:58 PM

your talking about america being eroded as we know it. we are mere drops in the bucket compared to the rest of the history of this country. he is defending traditional america. period. john bolton hates the UN and he is what we need going to represent us. he wont let the UN impose its unconstitutional world wide gun ban, or let the UN take over america or be higher than america. fuck the UN. then again, we shouldnt be sending anyone to the UN we should be telling them to tongue shuck our corn cobs, we're pulling out.

Quoted post

 

 

Stop listening to Rush.... he is missleading you. If anyone is going to take away your gun it's going to be someone who thinks like the Bushie/ Chenies of the world. Have you not noticed that they are disecting the bill of rights. Oh wait your probably a white suburbanite.... so they havn';t started coming for you yet. Don't worry they will. I guess you don't know about the merging of the C.I.A. ( foreign intellegence) and the F.B.I. ( domestick intellegance ), or the sneek and peek clause in the Patriot act. The Nazi's did the same thing. Take a peak at world history, pay very close attention to what happend in Post WW1 Germany, while Hitler was takiing power. I'm not saying that Bush is Hitler... so don't get all excited. Hitler had a pro-corporate mentallity, he was allies w. Muselini who invented Corporatism ( facism). Before Hitler started killing all the Jews and Gypsies, he "temporarilly" took away civil liberies, then he sized power for the good of the "homeland". Look into it dude.... Rove has taken all of this from the Gerbell play book. He killed all of those people becuase he thougt he was going to bring 1000 years of peace to Europe.

 

The world is getting smaller by the day, and you can't look at it w/ a blind nationalist approach. I'm not talking economically ( that;s a whole other argument ),but when it comes to the UN we need some one who will look out for our interestest without allianating our allies, and starting WW3.

[Stereotype V.001]

Originally posted by s.urkaleeno+Jun 30 2005, 05:18 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (s.urkaleeno - Jun 30 2005, 05:18 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-angelofdeath@Jun 28 2005, 08:58 PM

your talking about america being eroded as we know it. we are mere drops in the bucket compared to the rest of the history of this country. he is defending traditional america. period. john bolton hates the UN and he is what we need going to represent us. he wont let the UN impose its unconstitutional world wide gun ban, or let the UN take over america or be higher than america. fuck the UN. then again, we shouldnt be sending anyone to the UN we should be telling them to tongue shuck our corn cobs, we're pulling out.

Quoted post

 

 

Stop listening to Rush.... he is missleading you. If anyone is going to take away your gun it's going to be someone who thinks like the Bushie/ Chenies of the world. Have you not noticed that they are disecting the bill of rights. Oh wait your probably a white suburbanite.... so they havn';t started coming for you yet. Don't worry they will. I guess you don't know about the merging of the C.I.A. ( foreign intellegence) and the F.B.I. ( domestick intellegance ), or the sneek and peek clause in the Patriot act. The Nazi's did the same thing. Take a peak at world history, pay very close attention to what happend in Post WW1 Germany, while Hitler was takiing power. I'm not saying that Bush is Hitler... so don't get all excited. Hitler had a pro-corporate mentallity, he was allies w. Muselini who invented Corporatism ( facism). Before Hitler started killing all the Jews and Gypsies, he "temporarilly" took away civil liberies, then he sized power for the good of the "homeland". Look into it dude.... Rove has taken all of this from the Gerbell play book. He killed all of those people becuase he thougt he was going to bring 1000 years of peace to Europe.

 

The world is getting smaller by the day, and you can't look at it w/ a blind nationalist approach. I'm not talking economically ( that;s a whole other argument ),but when it comes to the UN we need some one who will look out for our interestest without allianating our allies, and starting WW3.

Quoted post

[/b]

 

That's crazy!!! The nazis merged the CIA and FBI, and all this time I was under the impression those were American agencies!

 

In all seriousness, the FBI and CIA (American versions) didn't merge. They, like all the other agencies after 911, corroborate various intelligence. For example if the CIA is hearing about a planned attack on the US in Il-de-France, they will tell the FBI who's door to knock down.

 

But remember people, whenever, and I mean WHENEVER you have a minor disagreement, difference in opinion, or just plain dislike of someone/something make sure you compare them to Hitler! Stalin is a good comparison too, but not as popular as Hitler (Stalin's mustache was totally weak. No wonder communism failed.). It doesn't even have to be relevent, don't think just do!

[angelofdeath]

think again dudes. i'll say it simply, in not a neo conservative, i dont like rush limbaugh, and your wrong, bush will not be grabbing our guns anytime soon. i dont like the patriot act, and your so worried about the constitution, you should be worried about how the UN is unconstitutional for the US. you should be worried about the founding fathers advice against entangling alliances. we should be out of NATO as well as WTO, etc etc etc. fuck real id. talk about back door gun registration.

your just a typical liberal thinking some form of government is the answer to all problems.

 

so again, there is no need to draw conclusions about me. because, as with your last post, you proved to be an asshead.

[s.urkaleeno]

I agree w/ you on WTO and NAFTA but those are economic issues not Democratic issues, and they are destroying our economy and our planet. And this new treaty that the Cons are trying to form w/ Mexico will send our econmoy further into the crapper. The corporate agenda is cheap labor at any cost, and we as Americans are putting up w/ it.

 

And for the record I wasn't comparing W to Hitler. Hitler was a crazy sociopath. Bush is just a Facist in the truest definition. He believes in merger of Corporation and State. He is all about making a few people insanely wealthy and a whole shit load of people extremely poor. Back to the days of Serfs and Kings.

 

 

The U.N. is in need of reform. But I really don't think it's going to happen w/ a jack ass like John Bulton. That guy is suspected of spying on his own bosses in the CIA, if his files are released and he is cleared of that charge then I stand corrected, but I think he is definatley wrong for the job.

[santa_claws]

osama bin forgotten.......