IRAQ IS A DISASTER

[Guest KING BLING]

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Jul 1 2005, 03:57 AM

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.

Quoted post

 

Not trying to be snide, but you do in fact realize we were the major architect of the U.N. right?

 

And you do realize that the purpose it was to serve was to ensure that nations out of step with a peace minded world would feel the pressure of one joint voice to stop, both in war and other global level issues. It was to be a place that would act much as our federal system was suppose to, regulating the broader issues <such as human rights, war, treaties> while repecting the sovereignty of the nation STATES on ther own issues <such as crime, commerce, and your gun rights - THEY ARE ALL COMING FOR MY GUNS!!!!AHHHHHHHHHHHH! Ahem...>. That it developed from the idea that nations always acting as if though they are competing corporations in an open market place does not account for the suffering and brutality of the conflicts that manifest themselves because of it - we learned this in World War II and forgot somewhere around Vietnam...

 

I have a hard time understanding your views, you are like Kabar, a contridiction that is draped in a veil of meat head politics and paranoia...it's lamost as if all right leaning thinkers can only see in black and white. Do you see no good in the U.N.? Do you even know anything about it besides opinions and rhetoric?

 

You do not like the Patriot Act, yet you would support to the death, it seems, the men who created it. You fear losing your rights to the U.N. but not to the men who already control you?

[KaBar2]

King Bling, you need to study the ACTUAL history of the period of time around the formation of the League of Nations, the United Nations' predecessor. Find out WHO IS COLONEL EDWARD MANDELL HOUSE? His family made millions during the War Between the States. He lived much of his life right here in Houston, Texas. His father, Thomas William House served as a secret, confidential agent for the Rothchild Bank in London, doing business with the Confederacy. The British government continued to trade with the CSA and sell them armaments, gunpowder and so forth. They smuggled cotton out to Great Britain through a sort-of-secret port just south of the Rio Grande river called "Cairo." The House family emerged from the War with a vast fortune, acquired by playing both ends against the middle.

Colonel Edward Mandell House was the man who CHOSE Woodrow Wilson as a presidential candidate. He lived IN THE WHITE HOUSE with Wilson and his family. He was "the power behind the throne." Among other things, he dealt directly with foreign governments and circumvented the actual Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan. House was in continuous contact with Sir William Wiseman, an attache' at the British Embassy in Washington D.C., and a secret intermediary between Colonel House and the British Foreign Office. Woodrow Wilson and House both dreamed of a One World Government, and had been working towards such a scheme since shortly after college.

House was instrumental in getting the U.S. into WWI, something to which the American people were ardently opposed. They had only returned Woodrow Wilson to the White House ten months earlier on a platform of "He Kept Us Out of War!" House and the British allowed the illegal shipment of munitions and war materiale' on a passenger liner, the Lusitania, and made no secret of it. The Germans almost certainly had agents both in the U.S. and Great Britain, and the U.S. and Great Britain essentially sacrificed the Lusitania, her crew and passengers in order to provide an excuse to bring the U.S. into the War on the side of Great Britain. The British had already overdrawn their credit in America by $450,000,000, and they desperately needed the Federal Treasury to join the fight and assume the financial burden of the Entente (the "Allies.")

J.P. Morgan & Co., through one of it's subsidiaries, the New Haven Railroad, controlled over one thousand newspapers. (The railroad was VERY profitable and successful. The newspapers were not, so J.P. Morgan had the New Haven Railroad quietly buy up the newspapers and bump everybody's salaries. Then they could control and manage the news to an extent.)

The Lusitania was owned by the Cunard Line, from Great Britain. J.P. Morgan used his railroads as leverage, and bought one of the two British steamship lines, the White Star Line. When the Lusitania was built, she was subsidized by the British government, and Cunard was required to specify military specifications, so that she could be switched from a civilian passenger liner to a Royal Navy troopship with twelve six-inch guns. Technically, she was a civilian-owned ship, but in reality, she was designed to haul military supplies, equipment and troops. She always sailed with a Royal Navy Reserve crew.

In October 1914, Churchill ordered British ships to stop surrendering to German U-boats. (Up until then, submarines of both sides would surface, order the enemy crews into the lifeboats, then sink the ship with it's deck guns, but sparing the passengers and crew.) When Churchill ordered the merchant ships to fight, especially the armed merchantmen, the German U-boats started sinking them with no warning. The British responded by running up the flags of neutral nations, especially the U.S., whenever they were threatened. The ship's names were removed from the hulls, to make it more likely that the Germans would attack a neutral ship, and involve the neutral nation on the side of the British. The Germans tried to publish warnings in U.S. newspapers, but House had the State Department squelch them. Eventually, the U-boats sank the Lusitania, and 195 American passengers perished along with the British. The newspapers owned by J.P. Morgan published repeated inflammatory articles and the American public was outraged against Germany. "War fever" swept the country. J.P. Morgan & Co. was the American agent for British and French war bonds, and also acted as purchasing agent for Great Britain and France for war material. Morgan benefited twice, once when the money was borrowed (Morgan made a commission on the sale of the war bonds to American investors) and again, when it was spent for supplies. When the Germans took control of the Atlantic with their U-boats, it started strangling the war effort, and bonds became harder to sell. If Great Britain and France defaulted (as they surely must, if they lost) J.P. Morgan would be ruined. They needed America IN the war, so that the U.S. Treasury could legally back the bonds. Essentially, American entry into WWI was orchestrated by Edward Mandell House and the J.P. Morgan & Co. banking firm. They hoped to create a One World Government after the war, and the Rothschild Bank (for whom J.P. Morgan & Co. was an agent) intended to become the One World Banker. They loaned money to BOTH SIDES of the war. Millions perished, but Rothschild Bank prospered enormously.

 

THAT is where the League of Nations came from, and almost the EXACT SAME PLAYERS were involved in the chartering of the United Nations. IT IS A SHAM AND A HOAX. The U.S. should get the hell OUT of the U.N., and we should shut down the PRIVATELY OWNED Federal Reserve System, which is NOT Federal and is NOT a system, it is a PRIVATELY OWNED CENTRAL BANK designed to pick the pockets of the American people.

 

Sorry about the long post. Much of this is paraphrased from a very good book, "The Creature from Jekyll Island," one of the best books I have ever read about how the Establishment actually works.

 

Please Google "Edward Mandell House."

[angelofdeath]

^^^ very informative. back then we had the sense not to enter into the league. there were still followers of the traditional foreign policy of friendship and commerce will all nations, entangling alliances with none. a policy of armed and vigilant neutrality. only to fight when attacked.

 

 

"we should shut down the PRIVATELY OWNED Federal Reserve System, which is NOT Federal and is NOT a system, it is a PRIVATELY OWNED CENTRAL BANK designed to pick the pockets of the American people."

 

agreed here as well. put congress back in the money making business and give us back a dollar equal to gold.

 

 

"You do not like the Patriot Act, yet you would support to the death, it seems, the men who created it. You fear losing your rights to the U.N. but not to the men who already control you"

 

no, i will not defend bush to my death. actually if you'll notice, i have been giving him a rash of shit recently on here. his immigration policies have got to go. among other things. as far as the patriot act, i dont like it at all. im not going to kill myself over it though. seriously, if clinton passed it, the liberals would of loved it. how come talk of impeaching clinton wasnt on the liberal agenda when he was defying the UN, didnt have war approval from congress but was bombing countries that werent a direct threat.

 

not only should we be out of the U.N. that wants to take over the world under one government, but we should be letting our old treaties lapse, stopping nato expansion, and bringing our boys home after victory in iraq. put them on the borders. build us back to super power status. armed and vigilant neutrality. entangling alliances with no nations.

 

talk about hypocritical, everyone wants to talk about bush being a facist, but then you want to support the biggest most corrupt facist organization on earth. and yes bling, your dead right, the U.N. "does want our guns!!@!#%$^"

[KaBar2]

If you don't believe this is true about the "UN wanting your guns," go onto the UN website, look up UN resolutions, etc, and READ IT FOR YOURSELF. What the UN calls "illegal traffic in small arms" the U.S. Constitution calls "The Second Amendment."

 

Worse than that (and that's going some, for me to say "worse than confiscating guns") is the UN plan to restrict human habitation to narrow avenues between densely populated cities, and to absolutely forbid regular citizens to go into the "uninhabited ecological preserves." Each one of these areas between cities will have avenues of communication between them, so that the animals and birds can move about from nature preserve to nature preserve without any interference from human beings. The vast majority of the surface of the earth will be completely natural and untouched, except you and I will be forbidden to go see it.

 

But you can bet your last goddamned Global Credit Unit that the ruling elite of the UN's One World Government will have to make frequent "fact finding trips" to the UN VIP camp in Eden, while rest of us suffer in the concrete jungle.

 

They used to have this up on their website too, but they took it down because of the HUGE, pissed-off world-wide reaction. Sorry motherfuckers.

 

FUCK THE UN.

 

When they decide to bring their sorry blue-helmeted asses to Texas, they won't even be able to get out of their LAV's to take a piss without getting sniped. We will be sending them home in aluminum boxes by the thousand.

[villain]

I think that is an undue fear of the UN. The UN is a coalition of sovereign nations. It is only as strong as the countries who support it, and has little to no authority autonomously.

The US has proven time and again recently just how much authority the UN has... which is very little. It has also proven to be the voice of reason in spite of it's lack of authority.

It has come far from it's origins and it's shadowy international conspiracy functions. With the nations within the UN it's improbable, if not impossible, to even imagine a grand conspiracy between them. Think about it... Europe can hardly get along, let alone China, Russia, Iran, US... etc. etc.

The US' recent animosity towards the UN may in fact be a reflection of a lack of imperial US control over the UN lately. That would be a good thing considering the US founded it for a type of dictatorial control over the world. We are far from that.

[Guest KING BLING]

Originally posted by KaBar2+Jul 2 2005, 07:12 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KaBar2 - Jul 2 2005, 07:12 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

When they decide to bring their sorry blue-helmeted asses to Texas, they won't even be able to get out of their LAV's to take a piss without getting sniped. We will be sending them home in aluminum boxes by the thousand.

Quoted post

[/b]

 

 

Remember when I said this in the Survivalist thread?

 

<!--QuoteBegin-KING BLING@Jul 2 2005, 03:24 PM

You seem to assert your willingness <sometimes with the polite, 'I hope it doesnt but..'.> to kill or how close we are to civil war in every long winded rant you present...that is why I can't take you seriously.

Quoted post

[Guest KING BLING]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Jul 2 2005, 04:20 PM

The British responded by running up the flags of neutral nations, especially the U.S., whenever they were threatened. The ship's names were removed from the hulls, to make it more likely that the Germans would attack a neutral ship, and involve the neutral nation on the side of the British.

Quoted post

 

 

While I don't beleive the developers of U.N. nor any actors in World War II were saints, and I will actually look into the things you said here, I wanted to point out something here...

 

The above quote describes a behavior, and than you pass off an assumption as fact. The behavior of the British could very easily be explained by the fact Germans might not want to attack, for instance, America and thus the British could survive the trade routes. I actually think them doing it for survival seems to make a lot more sense, can you show otherwise? This is one of the corner stones of your conspiracy, that the Germans wanted to warn us but the individuals you name would benifit from it not being known, and that the eventual torpedoing of an American craft began "war fever"...but I don't see the connection and and thus I see a major weakness in your explanation. Can you clear that up for me?

 

Also you gave a pretty rich explanation of the war profiteering these men did, but when you went into the whole "global bank" thing you provided no evidence...I'm a believer in the possibility of these types of conspiracies but you didn't connect the dots, you just said it like its fact...

 

That said, I recognize that many government level policies and institutions are the product of powerful capitalists, this country being one of them...that does not by default mean 2 men could control the hearts of the other actors who started the U.N...

[KaBar2]

King Bling---

 

Take me seriously or not, that doesn't change the truth.

 

For instance--Edward Mandell House was a member of Cecil Rhodes' Round Table organization. This was a semi-secret organization of college students that grew to be a tremendously powerful influence over world affairs. Cecil Rhodes was more or less an older contemporary of House. He went on to help found the countries of South Africa and Rhodesia, now callled Zimbabwe. Rhodes' ideas were largely responsible for apartheid. Rhodes made an enormous amount of money, he was rich on a par with Rockefeller, Morgan, Du Pont and Mellon. One of his many projects was the establishment of the Rhodes scholarship trust, to HELP MOULD THE EDUCATION AND CHARACTER OF PROBABLE FUTURE WORLD LEADERS. (Bill Clinton, for one.) Rothschild, Rhodes' sugar daddy, was the Trustee of the Rhodes Scholarship fund.

 

House was sent to Great Britain to go to school, where he met and became great friends with many of the members of Rhodes' Round Table organization. He absorbed many of his ideas from their philosophy of "furthering the English-speaking idea." This essentially meant "furthering imperialism and rapacious capitalistic exploitation."

 

House returned to the U.S. from Great Britain when his mother died, when he was 14 or 15.

 

House was the son of a very wealthy and influential Texas politician, but a poor student. He and his best friend (a U.S. Senator's son) were supposed to be attending Yale, but spent so much time involved in what House called "mischief" that they had to withdraw. They decided to go to Cornell, but the Election of 1876 came up, and they were so fascinated by the inner workings of the political process, they spent most of their time in Washington D.C. Rutherford B. Hayes, a Republican, was elected, and in an Electoral College compromise, agreed to end Reconstruction, which he did. (Democratic electors agreed to support Hayes by one vote, if he would agree to end Reconstruction.) This opened the door (in Texas, especially) for the ouster of the Republicans and Radical-Republicans from positions of power in the Southern States, and the resurgence of the Democratic Party in 1876. House was an ardent Democrat. The PRESENT Texas State Constitution was written during this period, in 1876.

 

In 1880, his third year at Cornell, his father died and he went home to Texas to take over his father's extensive plantations and business interests, which he ran for ten years. It is widely believed here in Texas that House held a high position in the Ku Klux Klan. I don't know if it's true or not (yet.) It's pretty clear that his father and some of his older brothers were Klan. I'm trying to research it. He was instrumentally involved in the gubernatorial campaigns of FOUR Texas governors, and became known as "Colonel House, the Texas Kingmaker."

 

In 1890, he sold his property in Texas and moved to New York, because he had aspirations to national power, not just power in Texas. Between 1890 and 1910 he made many powerful and influential friends in New York and Washington. He was acquainted with and did business with all of the powerful bankers and political figures. He wrote a novel, called "Phillip Dru: Administrator." It was similar to Jack London's "Iron Heel," in that it was an expression of a desire for an authoritarian, revolutionary "socialist" state, which did not yet exist anywhere in the world.

 

In "Phillip Dru: Administrator" House put forth a number of science-fiction-like proposals, NONE OF WHICH EXISTED AT THE TIME HE WROTE ABOUT THEM, including:

 

1.) an income tax on every citizen

2.) a central bank controlled by the most powerful men in society

3.)a "Central Intelligence Agency", whose job it is to control the citizenry by moulding their opinions with news and rumors.

4.) a One World Government very similar to the League of Nations.

5.) a Social Security System.

 

House met Woodrow Wilson, who was chancellor of Princeton, if memory serves, in 1911. They became fast friends. He convinced Wilson to run for president, and enlisted the wife of William Jennings Bryan to get Bryan to back Wilson within the Democratic Party.

 

The men who met at Jekyll Island (all friends of House) met and laid plans for the Federal income tax laws and the Federal Reserve System in 1911. It was passed during a secret session of Congress during Christmas break in 1913.

 

Wilson was elected in the Election of 1912. He was so exhausted afterwards that he immediately left for a vacation in Burmuda. HOUSE GAVE HIM A COPY OF "PHILLIP DRU: ADMINISTRATOR" TO TAKE WITH HIM. Wilson returned from Burmuda a complete convert. House was to be his closest confidant and advisor until Wilson's stroke in 1919. During the time they were in the White House together they accomplished almost everything that House put in his book, except Social Security. That came later, when House was involved in FDR's campaign and election.

 

The the institutions of the society we live in today, including the United Nations, were greatly influenced by Edward Mandell House, a man whose name 99% of Americans have never even heard. His authoritarian socialist plan has largely been carried out. His co-conspirators in Great Britain were working on a similar plan there. House got most of his inspiration from his father, who was a Confederate devoted to Great Britain, who despised the (Union)government of the United States, and who trained his sons to SERVE GREAT BRITAIN.

 

The Council on Foreign Relations was formed in 1919, about the time Wilson became ill and House withdrew from "active" politics.

 

In Great Britain, a similar organization was established, called something like the Royal Academy on Foreign Relations. Most of the original members of both organizations were members of Cecil Rhodes' "Round Table" organization.

 

Now you can say I'm someone whose credibility is non-existant, but you cannot change history, and what is written here is absolute fact. I am opposed to the UN and any form of One World Government, and so are most other Texans. The UN has made several attempts to TAX the U.S. citizen, one about seven or eight years ago by trying to have U.S. National Parks proclaimed UN Global Ecological Preserves. They were trying to establish their authority OVER U.S. National Parks, but the citizens visiting the parks were so outraged that the U.S. Parks and Wildlife Service took down the signs. (You see, if the UN has responsibility for and authority over the National Parks, they have justification for TAXING the U.S. citizens. No doubt, at first it would be a mere pittance, to allay fears of tyranny. But the U.S. Federal income tax started OUT as ONE DOLLAR PER YEAR ON ANYONE WITH AN INCOME OF OVER $100,000. It affected nobody but the richest, wealthiest, most powerful citizens. And look at the mother fucker NOW.

 

There will be no quiet acceptance of any UN attempt to extend it's authority and power to tax to the United States. I want them OUT of our country, OFF our soil. Let them go build a headquarters in Belgium or Switzerland or somewhere else. We should tear down the UN building in New York and raze it right down to the dirt. Not a single brick should be left here.

 

Edward Mandell House was a monster, and yet nobody has ever heard of him. He's buried in Glenwood Cemetery, about two miles from my jungle.

 

Don't take my word for it, go look it up for yourself.

[s.urkaleeno]

" the Planned Destruction of America" Is a book you should check out. Half of it is good, w/ a lot of economics and the ton of info on the Federal Reserve Act and taking the dollar off the gold standard. The second half of the book isn't worth reading as it turns into some weird Christian agenda crap. But There is definately some good info on the league of nations and how the great depression was caused by the U.S. not joining. I'm not sure if the evidence the book presents is strong enough to prove that the Rothchild's and Rockefeller's can be held accountable, but it's worth it for the conspericy theory. The book is out of print, but fairly easy to come by.

[Dawood]

 

 

yeah, 1 demonocracy extra cheese, hold the pepperoni and sausage please,

 

thanks.

[!@#$%]

some of the worst shit to come out of the hell-hole formerly known as Iraq.

(which reminds me, UNESCO has placed the entire COUNTRY of iraq on it's list of 'endangered sites', the first time in it's history a whole country has made the list)

 

 

 

Iraqis survey the scene Wednesday after a suicide car bombing in Baghdad. Officials said the bomber sped up to a U.S. military convoy while soldiers were distributing candy and toys to Iraqi children. Most of the dead were children, police said.

 

"The car bomber made a deliberate decision to attack one of our vehicles as the soldiers were engaged in a peaceful operation with Iraqi citizens," Maj. Russ Goemaere said in a statement. "The terrorist undoubtedly saw the children around the Humvee as he attacked. The complete disregard for civilian life in this attack is absolutely abhorrent."

 

:crying:

[hobo knife]

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Jul 2 2005, 09:03 PM

a policy of armed and vigilant neutrality. only to fight when attacked.

 

 

seriously, if clinton passed it, the liberals would of loved it. how come talk of impeaching clinton wasnt on the liberal agenda when he was defying the UN, didnt have war approval from congress but was bombing countries that werent a direct threat.

 

 

Quoted post

 

Only fight when attacked? yea, that would be great...except OUR ECONOMY REQUIRES US TO ENGAGE IN WAR EVERY SO OFTEN. Please realize that half of all the american tax money goes to the military. The military is big business, big gov't business. The truth is that no one has attacked us on our own soil(excluding pearl harbor/ 911) ...we are a school yard bully who gets into fights on a regular, and strong arms everyone else in the process. War profiteering is not something of the past, in fact a lot of the american economy is based on it. The people in power right now are rich b/c of it. So the international community (the UN) knows what we're doing everytime we start beating the war drums. The media is able to convince most of the american public we're going to war for other reasons. First it was WMD, then we're just over there to "remove a brutal dictator", now we're "spreading freedom"...now we're fighting terrorists, now we're defending democracy...it's a joke. the joke is on you. and the military. and bush and cheney are laughing all the way to the bank. So next time you guys feel like bashing liberals for whatever reason....don't. cause the jokes on you. and every time you try to bash "liberals" you're just feeding into the propaganda machine. but whatever...i'm sure you have your "ready made retort to defend your(bush's) agenda"

 

By liberal did you actualy mean democrat??? B/c theres a HUGE fuckin difference. I love the way "liberal" has become this universal insult for any democrat that doesn't suck republican dicks. It's liberal this and liberal that, when the definition of liberal is so fucking vague it seems to have lost it's meaning. I guess anyone that doesn't conform to the ideas of the neo-cons is liberal? Clinton was not that different from bush, thats not a big secret. But anyone who supported clinton is now known as a liberal, right?

[POIESIS]

actually, angelofdeath's cheap tactic of insulting and labelling all of us a

bunch of hippy 'liberals' is an old rhetorical strategy known as 'killing the

messenger'..it's employed by propagandist's all the time these days..

have a look around and you'll notice it being used by fucking loads of people

across the media spectrum, unfortunately the majority of them being

right wing turds.

instead of addressing the substance of ones claims, it tries to divert attention

away from the argument and focuses on allegations about that persons

character or personality..linking the person and/or idea to a negative symbol..

it's pretty slick..the left does it too, but it seems the right is huge on it these

days.

[angelofdeath]

typical hippy liberals.

 

 

i think a post a little bit up responds well to hobo's obvious ignorance.

allow me quote.

 

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."

 

 

the foreign policy of america, pre world war 1, was pretty simple. it followed the lines of washingtons advice and policies. armed and vigilant neutrality, entangling alliances with none. fight only when a vital us interest is attacked. it is pretty simple. it worked for over a century till the great liberal took us to world war 1. how did we survive super power status for so long? by staying out of wars until a vital US interest was attacked. the Americans didnt hit europe until the last months of ww1. we didnt go into ww2 until attacked. what is wrong with this? how is this foreign policy advocation on my part "defending bush" and the neo conservative agenda? obviously you dont know dick about anything. in your world of black and white "liberal and conservative" you do not know the differences of the far right, old right, paleoconservatives, libertarian conservatives etc etc, and neo conservatives.

 

allow me to explain. people who follow the lines of the old right believe that government is not the solution, but it is the problem. they do not believe in big government, or big spending. they believe in a small frugal government. they believe in no income tax, as stated in the constitution. our government, frugal as it was, was financed by tariff revenue until the first income taxes came about. they believe in no government handouts, no welfare states, etc etc. they believe in the rights of the sovereign states to handle all matters not specifically granted to the federal government in the US constitution. they dont believe in the federal judicial dictatorship. they are against any organizations that challenge US sovereignty. they are against open borders. they are about america first, and second and third and fourth. they are not concerned with wars to wage democracy across the world. they are socially conservative and loyal to the roots and principles this country was founded on. they are jeffersonian democrats. they believe in liberty.

 

the neo conservatives are essentially social conservatives with a hard on for big federal government. the neoconservatives took power after the cold war victory of ronald reagan in the late 80's. the cold war dictated our foreign policy for decades, after the war ended, staunch neoconservatives spoke up and wanted to wage global democracy. they wanted to create the "new world order."

 

the republicans, with thier first hero, Abe lincoln, is the neo cons role model. he was in favor of a strong arm federal government. he was a liberal. the democrat party at the time was the party of limited government and states rights. this basically remained unchanged until FDR came into play. the northern democrats began to gain influence and with the start of the 2nd world war in europe our economy started to boom after the evil "republican depression" or ummmm...i mean it started to boom after the new deal. :rolleyes: the republicans of the 20's or so, had some conservative members. think Taft and coolidge. the southern democrats were super conservative. the neoconservatives idolize Wilson. he was the first to talk of spreading the democracy around the world. wilson was also a liberal. FDR is another role model of the neoconservatives for he triumphed free trade. the neo cons also took FDR's socialist institutions otherwise known as the new deal as thier own. they also like the spending practices of LBJ, another liberal. let me remind you that Wilson drug us into world war 1 . a liberal. truman took us to korea, with out authorization from congress and called it a "police action." last time i checked the constitution, it gave congress the power to declare war. then of course we know that liberals took us to vietnam on shady evidence.

 

as for the term liberal...and throwing it around. liberal for many years now has become synonomous with political suicide. McGovern anyone? 49 state landslide to the conservative. Mondale? same thing. Kerry? lost. social liberalism does not mesh well with american voters. lets look at clinton. he got elected running as a centrist. he was pro death penalty, etc etc. these things matter. he ran as a centrist, but government to the left. one ironic thing to note is, most of the people i call "liberals" on this board, deny it. always. i find it funny how leftists deny the liberal label. atleast conservatives wear the label with pride. what is even more ironic, is a few months back everyone was taking those political quizes and posting the results, all the people who said "im not a fucking liberal..." all came back as liberals on the tests.

 

the neocons were leftists in the 60's. they rode the reagan revolution into power when they found out his beliefs were popular with voters.

[Stereotype V.001]

Originally posted by POIESIS@Jul 14 2005, 11:32 AM

actually, angelofdeath's cheap tactic of insulting and labelling all of us a

bunch of hippy 'liberals' is an old rhetorical strategy known as 'killing the

messenger'

 

right wing turds.

 

..it's employed by propagandist's all the time these days..

have a look around and you'll notice it being used by fucking loads of people

 

right wing turds.

 

instead of addressing the substance of ones claims, it tries to divert attention

away from the argument and focuses on allegations about that persons

character or personality..linking the person and/or idea to a negative symbol..

 

right wing turds.

 

it's pretty slick..

Quoted post

 

WHOA, THE IRONY, IT'S OVERPOWERING ME.

 

Do you mind if I ask you a question here? Are you so use to labeling people who have a different opinion politically than you that you use this label absentmindedly, even when describing how it is a cheap political trick, only used by those right wing turds? hmmmmmmmmmmm.

[Stereotype V.001]

Hobo knife, most of your post was describing that we use war as a financial tool, but you didn't really say how we are making money. Mind getting into specifics?

 

Thanks in advance buddy!

[POIESIS]

you soooo just got me..

 

it's impressive i have to make the distinction for you...

are you a big hannity fan? o'reilly fan? limbaugh? fox news? you know...

those right wing turds (in the media).

[Stereotype V.001]

You don't have to make the distinction, I fully understood your point. I was poking fun at the obvious irony in your post. Your even doing it now, by implying I'm a fan of the worst examples of "news" that is responsible for placating it's viewers and being overall douchebags, you are "diverting the attention" through "allegations about my character or personality." Sounds familiar, no?

 

Feel free to think of some other ways I may be inferior to your high HIPPY LIBERAL(that was an example of sarcasm. don't be alarmed. I do think your a hippy though) standards. adios!

[POIESIS]

once again, you seem to miss the point...and thanks for

the heads up on your poking fun..i completely missed that mr. captain

fucking obvious.

i haven't implied anything...the question stands to highlight

how you conveniently glossed over not 1 of my points, but 2 and

cherry picked my post to try and catch me with my foot in my mouth.

[tsuifuku]

Vital US interests were at stake in World War I. JP Morgan had loaned millions of dollars to France and England and if they had lost the war, JP Morgan wouldnt have seen that cheddar get returned. When you're dealing with capitalism, profits are always the motive.

The thing that irks me is when people on here bash Bush but dont say shit about Clinton bombing Kosovo or pharmacutical factories in Sudan.

Two heads of the same coin. Remember that.

[POIESIS]

clinton was a scumbag, as were many other 'liberal' presidents.

in the 90's clinton got shit talked too(albeit not with the same

fervor bush garners). besides, why stop at clinton?

[imported_grim540]

Originally posted by POIESIS@Jul 15 2005, 01:03 AM

clinton was a scumbag, as were many other 'liberal' presidents.

in the 90's clinton got shit talked too(albeit not with the same

fervor bush garners). besides, why stop at clinton?

Quoted post

 

 

Hasn't anyone realized that all of our president's have been pretty damn useless to us as a nation since Kennedy? He wasn't even that great either, things just happened to fall apart after he was killed. Johnson was a warmonger, and the reason we ended up getting stuck in Veitnam. Nixon....nuff said. The only thing Ford was good at doing was falling out of air force one. Carter bent over for the Iranian's. Reagan gave my family some kick ass government cheese.....Bush I... Clinton... W...

 

No wonder nobody votes anymore....

[angelofdeath]

2 heads of the same coin is right, on foreign policy. dont think for one second that the democratic congress and clinton administration didnt have their plans as well. remember it was a democrat majority who gave bush the blank check. people fail to realize that our GOVERNMENT took us to iraq, not just big bad bush. in my own opinion however, iraq should of been taking care of by the pussy ass UN when the first sanction was broken in the 90's. but as normal, they are about as good as tetes on a boar hog.

[hobo knife]

Originally posted by Stereotype V.001@Jul 14 2005, 04:28 PM

Hobo knife, most of your post was describing that we use war as a financial tool, but you didn't really say how we are making money. Mind getting into specifics?

 

Thanks in advance buddy!

Quoted post

 

 

"For years the U.S. has been the biggest economic power and has shared contested military dominance with the Soviet Union. Now we are alone at the top of the military heap with the biggest, best, and most numerous weapons of every conceivable type. Moreover, our economy is losing its ability to coerce international obedience. The U.S. is climbing down the ladder of economic influence as U.S. military stature rises without limit. Big guns and fewer dollars suggest a warfare state hiring out as the world's enforcer. Now we fight Exxon's wars and anyone else's, as long as they pay the proper fees, either because they want to or, if necessary, because we force them to. Have gun will travel. Destination: a warrior state domestically and internationally." -CHOMSKY

 

you're welcome buddy. But i guess you still believe we invaded iraq to spread freedom or bring about a better life for iraqis.

[Stereotype V.001]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you basically saying we make our money through the military in a mercenary type of role? And if we are fighting Exxon's wars, that would explain why the gas prices are so low?

 

I was always under the impression our military made it's money by selling weapon systems to various nations. An example of this would be selling a group of F-15's to a certain developing nation, then getting more mula from congress to build more advanced jets to retain our "air superiority", then eventually selling those. I also thought war would be costly for us.

 

P diddy- I could care less about your points, I was just pointing out the obvious flaw in your argument. I agree with the point that calling someone a name takes away from the opposing argument, but actually using this technique in a rant against others that use it might have slightly taken away from said argument. Just a tiny, tiny bit. Only a little!

 

Sincerely, always, and truly yours,

 

-Mr. Captain F. Obvious.

[hobo knife]

Well, I quoted Chomsky there b/c he was able to explain how our military spending is directly related to our economy and foriegn policy. We are definitely not a mercenary army. But we are the most powerful army in the world byyyy far (not the most number of troops)...which puts us in a position to intimidate other economies into doing business our way. So, if a country wants the US military on their good side, all they have to do is allow our banks and corporations have their way with the economy. (things like gov't contracts being awarded to US companies is a good example, ...think halliburton KBR and our vice pres).

 

Now, the reason we have to drop some bombs every 5-10 years is to remind the world just how powerful our military is...also... a lot of the powerful people in this country have big money invested in companies like boeing and halliburton and lockheed martin... every time we go to war it means payday for these corporations. War is also a real good reason to boost military spending. It's a win/win situation...defense industry gets paid and other american industries profit from new business over seas.

 

I'm not trying to bash bush here...or cheney. I'm notdefending any democrats here either. The two party system is a sham, it's a way for the go'vt to divide the country up 50/50. b/c a divided force is much easier to control than a united one. ...It's human nature to want to believe what you've been told your whole life is true. ie;(our country is free, land of the free, god bless america, we're good they are bad). So I don't fault anyone for wanting to "bring peace to the middle east" or as they put it these days "spread freedom"...it's hard not to be affected by the propagana machine. ....I also understand that this is just the way of the world..if it wasn't the US it would be someone else doing this shit. There has always been wars waged by people in power... who want to stay in power.

 

It just drives me crazy to hear people repeat this bullshit rhetoric about freedom and democracy. But i have nothing against anyone in the military...thats your choice to join...but anyone willing to put their life on the line should at least understand why we go to war and how our foriegn policy works instead of just letting uncle sam brain wash them into killing machines.

[Salafi_Zahrah]

http://www.dawah.tv/broadcast/iraq/iraq10.ram not for the weak hearted.

[KaBar2]

Hard for me to believe that you other 12 oz.'ers are not taking Salafi to task for this 12th century outlook. It's sort of bizarre, since the religion and philosophy she espouses contradicts just about everything you guys claim to hold dear. NOTHING is more anathema to Islam than modernity. Not that I have anything against modesty or faith, etc. But if a Christian fundamentalist came on here with the same bullshit line, you guys would EAT HIM ALIVE.

 

Amazing.

[Guest imported_Tesseract]

Poiesis hates me but he's the god of this thread.

[!@#$%]

Originally posted by symbols@Jul 20 2005, 09:36 AM

the denial still rampant in the world is pretty sad, really.

 

salafi, i recently read a great article by fareed zakaria in Newsweek

 

an excerpt:

 

The other important difference between the London bombings and 9/11 has been the response of the world of Islam. For months after 9/11, I kept writing that it was sad and disturbing that Muslims were reluctant to condemn the attacks. This time is different. Major Muslim groups in Britain have unambiguously denounced the bombings. Even "fundamentalist" organizations have condemned it. The Muslim Association of Britain, a hard-line group with alleged ties to militants in the Middle East, called the bombings "heinous and repulsive" and urged Muslims to help the emergency services and police. "We have faith in Britain and British people that we as a country will not be defeated by this," said its spokesman, Anas Altikriti.

 

The response outside Britain has also been much stronger than ever before. The grand imam of Al-Azhar, Sheik Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi, condemned the bombers but went further, rejecting the argument that this attack could be justified as an attempt to force Britain out of Iraq. "This is illogical and cannot be the motive for killing innocent civilians," he said. More striking have been the condemnations from radical groups like Hamas, Hizbullah and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, all of which have denounced the bombings. Many of them have, of course, coupled their attacks on the terrorists with denunciations of American and British policies in the Middle East, particularly regarding Iraq and the Palestinian territories. But that kind of rhetoric is old news. What is new here is the fact that no one, not even Hamas, can continue to condone or even stay silent about these barbarities.

 

September 11 shocked the Arab psyche. For months afterward, Arabs and many Muslims went through phases recognizable to psychologists: shock, denial, anger. (Remember those absurd claims that 9/11 was a Mossad plot?) They are finally, slowly, moving toward recognizing that there is a great dysfunction in the world of Islam, which has allowed Muslims to concoct wild conspiracy theories, blame others for their problems and, worst of all, condone grotesque violence.

 

Now things are changing. The day before the London bombs, a conference of 180 top Muslim sheiks and imams, brought together under the auspices of Jordan's King Abdullah, issued a statement forbidding that any Muslim be declared takfir‹an apostate. This is a frontal attack on Al Qaeda's theological methods. Declaring someone takfir—and thus sanctioning his or her death—is a favorite tactic of bin Laden and his ally in Iraq, Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi. The conference's statement was endorsed by 10 fatwas from such big conservative scholars as Tantawi; Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani; Egypt's mufti, Ali Jumaa, and the influential Al-Jazeera TV-sheik, Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Signed by adherents of all schools of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), it also allows only qualified Muslim scholars to issue edicts. The Islamic Conference's statement, the first of its kind, is a rare show of unity among the religious establishment against terrorists and their scholarly allies.

 

This hardly puts an end to the struggle within Islam. The same day the Jordanian statement was issued, Al Qaeda in Iraq said that Egypt's ambassador to that country, Ihab al-Sherif, would be killed as an apostate. The day of the London bombings, an Internet message purportedly from Zarqawi's group said the "ambassador of the infidels" had been killed.

 

These kinds of events will continue. There should be much, much greater condemnation from mainstream Islam. Moderates must adopt a zero-tolerance policy on terrorism, regardless of what they think of Iraq, Palestine or any other policy issue. But those clamoring for such condemnations should bear in mind that this will not solve the problem. Even if the moderates win and overwhelm the extremists, there will always be some number of unconverted jihadists, who either out of depravity or conviction seek to do evil. If 99.99 percent of the Arab world rejects terrorism, that still leaves 20,000 people to worry about. If 99.9 percent of the Muslim world is against the terrorists, there's 1 million people out there who are dangerous. And the technologies of destruction ensure that they will, on occasion, be successful.

 

 

**off topic, but oh well

Quoted post