JOHN KERRY IS A FLAMING PUSSY

[mugshot]

people should make an issue of kerry being a war criminal, he admitted to killing women and children, burning villages, hacking off body parts and other crazy shit. fuck that dickhead. ill vote for nader.

[Gunm]

Why not just burn your voting ballot?

 

Originally posted by crotch rot

ill vote for nader.

good job buddy. The only good voting for Nader will do is tilt the election in Bushs' favor like it did in the last election.

:idea:

[nomadawhat]

Originally posted by crotch rot

people should make an issue of kerry being a war criminal, he admitted to killing women and children, burning villages, hacking off body parts and other crazy shit. fuck that dickhead. ill vote for nader.

 

what the fuck do you think bush is presiding over right now as commander in chief??? women and childern dying, villages being blown the fuck up, people losing body parts, oh, and other crazy shit!!!!

[mugshot]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JOHN KERRY IS A FLAMING PUSSY

 

Originally posted by nomadawhat

why? because they are muslims? the chechen rebels are fighting for quite a differnet cause than the extremist in the middle east. there may be some small connections between the groups. but they are definatley not the same. the chechens are fighting for and independent checnya (sp/). other islamic extremist are fight agaisnt the western infidels.

 

for the record many chechens have known to have more then just small connections many have been known to be in al-queda training camps in afganistan and pakistan . also some of the terrorists found dead at the school fighting for chechnya were foreign fighters from arab countries so i dont think he is too far off.

[nomadawhat]

fuck the vietnam war era... that was 30 years ago, can anybody focus on today, the present... FUCK!!!

[mugshot]

^someone should tell kerry that, if i wont vote for bush for being a supoosed war criminal why should i vote for kerry who is the same fucking thing.

[nomadawhat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JOHN KERRY IS A FLAMING PUSSY

 

Originally posted by crotch rot

for the record many chechens have known to have more then just small connections many have been known to be in al-queda training camps in afganistan and pakistan . also some of the terrorists found dead at the school fighting for chechnya were foreign fighters from arab countries so i dont think he is too far off.

 

 

there are some connections, i agree... i don't know how deep or widespread they go, i need to look into the conections more. ... i was more focusing on that these are different battles aimed at different outcomes and starting from different casues.

[THE CORONER]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JOHN KERRY IS A FLAMING PUSSY

 

Originally posted by crotch rot

for the record many chechens have known to have more then just small connections many have been known to be in al-queda training camps in afganistan and pakistan . also some of the terrorists found dead at the school fighting for chechnya were foreign fighters from arab countries so i dont think he is too far off.

 

 

the people who took over that school, since most of them were actually arabs, probably were not fighting for chechen independence. they were there to kill infidels.pure and simple. chechen freedom fighters are a lot different, they are like the partisans in france during WWII, fighting against an amazingly strong force with a small army of people.

but yet they are not called partisans, like the nazis, they are deemed terrorists and killers...even though theyre hitting military targets.the freedom fighters i mean.

 

and they always videotape theyre attacks, so that shit can be shown like how it really is.my buddy has some of em off the net, and no theyre not hitting civilians (fellow chechens), theyre hitting russian military forces.

[heavyLox]

if you want a pres that discounts things like, science and the environment then Bush is your guy.

 

 

 

Im all for being able to make tuff decisions, I am for being able to make the unpopular decision, I can respect trying to do the right thing. I can not accept a president who has the audacity and naivety to believe that 'good' intentions alone justify the means employed to achieve a better, safer country. SO far, to date Bush has admitted zero flaws in his plan. I have even heard him quip that any mistakes to his plan wont be revealed until well after his death. This is unacceptable. If you plan on living beyond the next twenty years; have loved ones produce loved ones, you simply can not answer your critics accusations by repeating the Bush mantra of consistency, and staying the course. I need a leader who can adjust the approach to fit the changes in the situation. I can live with mistakes, I cant forgive one unable to be forth right about them and reevaluate the plan. One of the biggest mistakes in Vietnam, once involved, was an unwillingness to change the military approach to battle tactics. This is the common mistake of a cocky culture; Might will prevail. This is simply not true. I need a leader that wants the best for me weather I hold his god up or not. Science is not anti god, or anti the sanctity of life; but the study there of. Im bothered by the idea of "ownership", the new catch phrase for the right. Healthcare 'ownership', which loosely translates into if you cant afford it you wont get it. I am realistic; will radical changes happen the day Kerry is elected, probably not. But it will prevent several things. Bush will be unable to appoint new justices to continue his attack on science and a woman's right to choose. IT will allow the US a pause on the rapid erosion of civil liberties, to revaluate the plan of restructuring the security apparatus that failed us on and before 9/11; which Bush seems determined to move slowly on.

 

In many ways the media has dropped the ball. They allow politicians to duck questions and accept convoluted double talk. Why are we allowing Christian fundamentalism to be "right",while Islamic fundamentalism is wrong. This is a fundamentl poblem. They both do there damage. Extreme anything is dangerous. Why are we still using the electoral college. Who sent anthrax through the mail? How exactly has bushes leadership made my family safer? Where are the out of pocket suitcase nukes? IS are business with the saudis really worth sweeping there connection to 9/11. Why did we wait two months to start looking for Osama. Why did bush have more security personal in NY for the RNC then he has looking for Osama? whay is the sky blue?why is water wet? why did jesus sleep whiel judas crept?

________________________________________

 

Fuck please do not sell out Kerry to make Nader a failed player for the umpteenth time.

 

 

_______________________________________

 

The Chechen rebels are a separatist Islamic movement. So in that sense they are very much like other Islamic fundamentalists. They are just focused locally, while other groups are focused globally.

[MEROJUANA]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JOHN KERRY IS A FLAMING PUSSY

 

Originally posted by ihatefrunts

I'm going to keep it real and talk the way I talk. You claim that there isn't a war on terror, yet you said that you are scared of terrorism. That doesn't even make sense. 9/11 happened a few months after Bush got into office, so where was Clinton the 8 years before since 9/11 had been plotted since 96'? He himself admitted he paid them too little mind in retrospect, as did the 9/11 commission.

 

SCARED OF TERRORISM? NO. WORRIED ABOUT IT BECAUSE BUSH IS STICKING HIS NOSE WHERE IT DONT BELONG?, YES. AND WHAT I MEAN BY "THERE IS NO WAR ON TERROR" IS THAT BUSH MIGHT AS WELL INVADE ICELAND AND LOOK FOR WMD'S...IF ALL THESE NIGGAS THAT ARE BLOWING SHIT UP ARE COMING OUT OF SAUDI ARABIA WHAT THE FUCK IS HE DOING EVERYWHERE BUT SAUDI ARABIA? THATS LIKE ME GOING TO TEXAS TO TAKE OUT COPE FILLINS...THAT SHIT DOESNT MAKE SENSE, GO WHERE THE PROBLEM IS COMING FROM IF YOU'RE GONNA PUT SOLDIERS LIVES AT RISK ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING THE NIGGA DIDNT ACCOMPLISH SHIT BY BAGGING HUSSEIN, AND NOBODY LIKES US DOWN THERE ANYWAY...THE NIGGA IS JUST USING THIS SHIT AS A FRONT TO PICK UP WHERE DADDY LEFT OFF AND CONTROL THE OIL THAT MADE HIS FAMILY RICH, REALIZE THAT. FUCK BUSH.

 

 

MEROE.

[Nekro]

The conflict in chechnya is completely different from the global terrorist problem. Chechnya is a part of russia that wants to be independent. Al quaeda is a group that wants to impose medival islamic law over the entire planet.

 

Terrorism is a tactic. It's considered a dirty, dishonorable tactic, but the US won the Revolutionary war by fighting dirty and dishonorably (note: obviously the struggle for democratic self rule is not the same as the desire to impose islamic law on the planet, so don't jump in my shit).

 

And now to this ihatefruits character (if you're talking about gay people, we've got a problem):

 

First off, both candidates are rich white guys. However, JFK makes less money than GWB (about $450K/year versus about $700-750K/year).

 

Saddam Hussein lit the oil fields on fire so we wouldn't invade the country and take all of it.

 

Yeah, OK, british and russian intelligence suggested that he had WMD, just like how our awesome intelligence "suggested" he had WMD. The reality is that the cherry-picked, salacious tidbits were taken out of context and used to suggest the existance of Iraqi WMD. What are we doing relying on other people's intelligence anyway?

 

15 of the 19 september 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia. The saudi government has financed terrorism through its charities.

 

Iraq had no ties to terrorism. We have not found any WMD there.

 

Note: this reply box has been open for about 4 hours.

[heavyLox]

Originally posted by Nekro

The conflict in chechnya is completely different from the global terrorist problem. Chechnya is a part of russia that wants to be independent. Al quaeda is a group that wants to impose medival islamic law over the entire planet.

 

 

Im not sure they want the world to one big islamic state, it seems more an effort to re-gain or obtain Islamic states,in general. Chechens want to be an independant Islamic state. Osama has reportedly renounced the royal family in Saudi Arabia. It seems the real desire is to have islamic states that are not influenced by the west; or pressured into conforming with western idealogies.

[ClueTwo]

What? No Terror Alert to Herald the Osama Surprise?

by Harvey Wasserman

 

 

Surprise! Surprise!! There have been no official terror alerts to interfere with the much-hyped Bush Bounce following last week's Republican National Convention.

 

And after waiting through the Labor Day weekend, with trial balloons floating about the long-awaited Osama Surprise, it's easy to see why.

 

Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge has issued two terror alerts during the presidential campaign. One immediately followed John Kerry's choice of John Edwards as his running mate. The other immediately followed the Democratic National Convention.

 

The timing could not have been more obvious. Edwards' nomination generated a huge buzz for the Democrats. But the major media instantly turned to the intricacies of Ridge's bizarre, apocalyptic scare scam.

 

Then came a successful DNC. Again Ridge instantly screamed out breathless tales of a terrorist wolf, while the media slobbered at the door.

 

Ridge had only stale snippets, with no solid evidence for an imminent attack. There was no attack, and no arrests.

 

But both times, he negated crucial Democratic momentum. Fox and its cohorts made the lack of a Kerry bounce the one-note theme of their post-convention coverage--while never mentioning the Ridge rants. Mission Accomplished.

 

In fact, the weeks of the Edwards nomination and DNC were calm by global standards.

 

But actual terrorism defined the week of the Republican National Convention. Two Russian passenger liners crashed with only one obvious explanation. Then terrorists staged a horrific Russian hostage crisis, leaving at least 300 dead.

 

Meanwhile, a half-million protestors swarmed into New York. Yet the only terror alert came from the Mayor's office on behalf of the grass in Central Park. Ridge's stark silence was a backhanded confirmation that the American peace movement can be counted on to remain non-violent, even in the face of its most vicious opponent.

 

It also underscored the double-standard that has made this administration so deeply loathed. With no credible evidence, but for obvious political gain, the Department of Homeland Security twice played cynical games with public terror alerts at the expense of the Democrats.

 

But with passenger planes being blown out of the sky, hundreds of Russian children held hostage and hordes of protestors descending on New York, nothing could be allowed to disrupt media coverage of the Republicans' Hate Show.

 

Ridge gave the GOP had an alert-free Labor Day weekend to crow about the post-convention bounce that might have been Kerry's. Team Rove also floated its first notice of an election-timed "capture" of Osama bin Laden. As millions have predicted, after three years the Administration may have miraculously "tracked him down" just in time for the November vote.

 

So will the next Homeland hyperventilation come when there's an actual threat to the public safety? Or will it happen to coincide with, say, a presidential debate? A Kerry/Edwards bounce? Or a Bush faux pas?

 

We are all pink with curiosity.

 

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0907-02.htm

[Drunk Sober]

way more money was spent on clinton's dick sucking scandal than on the 9/11 investigation

 

there has never been a case in American history where a building collapsed from fire the way the twin towers did

[serum]

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040909/capt.pajl10109091829.bush_pajl101.jpg'>

 

 

A member of the audience pulls a demonstrator's hair as he forces her out of an auditorium where President Bush (news - web sites) was addressing a crowd of supporters at Byers Choice in Colmar, Pa. Thursday Sept. 9, 2004. (AP Photo/Jacqueline Larma)

[mugshot]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JOHN KERRY IS A FLAMING PUSSY

 

Originally posted by THE CORONER

the people who took over that school, since most of them were actually arabs, probably were not fighting for chechen independence. they were there to kill infidels.pure and simple.

 

 

theyre hitting military targets.

 

and they always videotape theyre attacks, so that shit can be shown like how it really is.my buddy has some of em off the net, and no theyre not hitting civilians (fellow chechens), theyre hitting russian military forces.

 

SO IF YOUR NOT AN ARAB YOUR AN INFIDEL HUH?? YOUR IGNORANCE AND HATRED IS CAUSED PROBABLY DUE TO LOW SELF ESTEME. BTW THE LAST TIME I CHECKED AN ELEMEMTARY SCHOOL WITH THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN ISNT A MILITARY TARGET OR HAD ANY MILITARY FORCES IN IT, STUPID.

[POIESIS]

Originally posted by ihatefrunts

Look, show me an exerpt in the 9/11 report that discusses a convoluted relationship between Bush and Osama Bin Ladin, and then you can criticize my reference to the book (Your right, I have not read it, but I have read its summary).

 

any reference in the report is not a prerequisite for legitimacy, and as i said earlier, you should actually read the report, becuz i believe you'll agree details are important, details you won't get reading about it, or it's summary. and as i said before, you can't base your opinions from a report you have not read.

becuz a relationship existed at some point does not by default mean that the bush family was conniving behind the scenes for a 9/11 attack. it just means that there's some explaining to do, and lends a sociological context to this president and the relationship US politicians and businessmen have to saudi's.

 

By the way, Israel does not produce terrorists. Israel loves the US - we ensure their survival over there. Look up the Bin Ladin Family and their present affiliation with Osama, and you'll see that he is not embraced by them.

 

no, israel engages state terrorist operations. i'm not going to get into this particular

topic due to time, but the recent bruhaha at the pentagon which seems to have extended well beyond it's five rings, coupled with america's undying and disturbing support of israel and various other things that have come to light in the last few years could make an interesting argument for what i said.

secondly, so if the bin laden family says they aren't down with osama, then okay, that's it? you know, maybe you're right, maybe the direct and peripheral information i've combed through on this is disinformation. entirely possible, but..i'm fairly sure there is a solid and corroborated link between members of his family, certain saudi royals, and power players in the monarchy that have funded bin laden, at least up to 9/11, perhaps beyond. if i can remember where the sources of this information are, i will post it.

 

I can see Bush's perspective as rational, where most people who oppose him won't give him that. If Bush walked on water, you would say he can't swim.

 

how is his perspective rational in any way? please explain.

his administrations persuasiveness rests on completely discredited claims, fear and garbage. everthing from here on out should be doubted and he and his executives should be held accountable.

most intelligent people do not give him this becuz his record clearly speaks volumes against his own rhetoric, which highlights what and idiot and a terrible president he is. interesting second sentence.

[ihatefrunts]

Originally posted by POIESIS

any reference in the report is not a prerequisite for legitimacy, and as i said earlier, you should actually read the report, becuz i believe you'll agree details are important, details you won't get reading about it, or it's summary. and as i said before, you can't base your opinions from a report you have not read.

becuz a relationship existed at some point does not by default mean that the bush family was conniving behind the scenes for a 9/11 attack. it just means that there's some explaining to do, and lends a sociological context to this president and the relationship US politicians and businessmen have to saudi's.

 

 

 

no, israel engages state terrorist operations. i'm not going to get into this particular

topic due to time, but the recent bruhaha at the pentagon which seems to have extended well beyond it's five rings, coupled with america's undying and disturbing support of israel and various other things that have come to light in the last few years could make an interesting argument for what i said.

secondly, so if the bin laden family says they aren't down with osama, then okay, that's it? you know, maybe you're right, maybe the direct and peripheral information i've combed through on this is disinformation. entirely possible, but..i'm fairly sure there is a solid and corroborated link between members of his family, certain saudi royals, and power players in the monarchy that have funded bin laden, at least up to 9/11, perhaps beyond. if i can remember where the sources of this information are, i will post it.

 

 

 

how is his perspective rational in any way? please explain.

his administrations persuasiveness rests on completely discredited claims, fear and garbage. everthing from here on out should be doubted and he and his executives should be held accountable.

most intelligent people do not give him this becuz his record clearly speaks volumes against his own rhetoric, which highlights what and idiot and a terrible president he is. interesting second sentence.

 

 

Bush's perspective for going into Iraq was entirely rational. Not agreeing with someone does not mean that their counter argument is not rational. For one, the most effective tool in combatting terrorism is to bring the war on the offensive, which is exactly what he has done. At the time, everyone, and I mean everyone, thought he had WMD's. What is conveniently left out in typical liberal jargon is the fact that Saddam has used WMD"s on his own people and US forces during Desert Storm, plans of his to purchase WMD's have since been unveiled, occupying forces have found the means and capability to make WMD"s, etc., etc. - His intentions are what is most important! In addition, why Iraq and not Saudi Arabia? Fair question...one answer obviously rests in the oil interests and established business relationships as you mentioned, but also in the remedial location of Iraq. With Iraq as our ally, we will be able to see certain "going ons" in the Arab world that we have been unable to see until this point. Saddam is not only despised by his own people and the Western world, but also by the neighboring Middle Eastern nations, including Saudi Arabia. Lastly, but certainly not least, by our doing this, we are liberating over a million oppressed people living under Saddam's vicious regime. Collaboratively, these are quite a few reasons suggesting that this was a good decision. At this point, a lesson John Kerry apparently had not learned from his serving in Vietnam, is the fact that the only way we can lose this war is by losing political support at home. After World War II, it took the US 7 years to democratize Japan when it anticipated taking only two. In my opinion, this situation is similar to the Japan Occupation as then, too, we received little help from the rest of the world (Russia, China, Germany, Italy then preoccupied with communism and fascism), and there existed a similar degree of resistence to the Occupation. Since, however, Japan has evolved to have a flourishing economy and a functioning democracy. Suppose we did not go into Iraq, what could we have done but wait...and wait for what, another attack? War is nothing pleasurable so the concept is difficult to sell, but war is an inevitable, necessary occurance. Patience is key. I guess I get most upset with political ambitions that attempt to tear down the commander-in-chief of our military during a time of war, as opposed to simply not voting for him but supporting his decisions in the meantime. That is pussy shit! Where is the patriotism? Putting partisan loyalties aside for one moment, do you really think that Bush is an evil individual who does not have the best intentions in helping the US and the world? Bringing America into a war that would not be beneficial in any aspect would be political suicide. Just like all politicians, his number one incentive is to get reelected, although he has remained visibly unshaken by staggers in public opinion polls. And as far as the 9/11 report, my having read a summary instead of the book was sufficient for the statement I made, which was as general as it gets. An example that illustrates my point is the Fahrenheight 9/11 film. I had read several articles about the film from both perspectives, but in discussions with opposition was said to not know what I was talking about because I had not seen it...so, I went and saw the film and to my discovery I learned nothing I didn't already know. And about intelligent people disliking Bush, and untelligent people liking him is really silly. Reagan used to be a Democrat, but during his campaign to the White House said that he was wrong about a lot of things in his youth.

[villain]

State of the Universe Address

 

GOD IS PUNISHING FLORIDA FOR ELECTION SCANDAL!

I'm about to stock up on automatic weapons.

And it is obvious to me that there are still some people on the board who have not read any of the political threads on here. Maybe it should be a requirement to lurk before ever posting. I, myself lurked for about a year before ever posting. Anyways enough of that ballyhoo.

 

It would seem that americans are suffering from a sort of Jonestown collective amnesia. Perhaps a media induced ADHD if you will.

 

For the sake of clarification and furthering the conversation, I would like to inform people about Bush's follow up justification of the Iraq War.

Bush says: He was a bad man, he killed thousands of people.

History says: He was encouraged to do that and supported and supplied by the U.S. in the Iran Contra affair. The mass graves were part of a U.S. proxy war made possible by the likes of Ollie North who somehow got let off on the charges and now is a republican talking head.

Bush says: He invaded Kuwait, he set the oil fields on fire.

History says: Kuwait was in favor of the U.S. and taking iraqi oil business. Factor #1 Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi soil. Factor #2 Saddam claimed that Kuwait was actually a part of Iraq. They were only divided into separate states when Britain colonized the region. Therefore, are we supporting colonization? Factor #3

There are, of course, other factors.

Bush says: They are making weapons of mass destruction. Oh wait he doesn't say that anymore.

History says: UNSCOM dismantled the last of the Iraqi WMD programs in 1998. If there were anything left, it would be no good now since the chemical and biological weapons generally only have a shelf life of about 5 years.

Bush says: They have connections to al queda. They are terrorists.

History says: There are no proven connections. There is a slight connection with Iran and a much stronger one with Saudi Arabia, but nothing on Iraq. Saddam actually staunched islamic fundamentalism. Saddam was secular. Now that he is no longer in power we are seeing a rash of extremism by wahabiists and other groups. It is quite obvious that Iraq is more unstable than ever now. I mean we have the al sadr army imposing shariah on entire towns now. And we have the nerve to say we are improving things. Hardly. It's all about oil for the umpteenth time people. Get it through your heads before the damn election.

 

Anything else?

[ihatefrunts]

Re: State of the Universe Address

 

Originally posted by villain

GOD IS PUNISHING FLORIDA FOR ELECTION SCANDAL!

I'm about to stock up on automatic weapons.

And it is obvious to me that there are still some people on the board who have not read any of the political threads on here. Maybe it should be a requirement to lurk before ever posting. I, myself lurked for about a year before ever posting. Anyways enough of that ballyhoo.

 

It would seem that americans are suffering from a sort of Jonestown collective amnesia. Perhaps a media induced ADHD if you will.

 

For the sake of clarification and furthering the conversation, I would like to inform people about Bush's follow up justification of the Iraq War.

Bush says: He was a bad man, he killed thousands of people.

History says: He was encouraged to do that and supported and supplied by the U.S. in the Iran Contra affair. The mass graves were part of a U.S. proxy war made possible by the likes of Ollie North who somehow got let off on the charges and now is a republican talking head.

Bush says: He invaded Kuwait, he set the oil fields on fire.

History says: Kuwait was in favor of the U.S. and taking iraqi oil business. Factor #1 Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi soil. Factor #2 Saddam claimed that Kuwait was actually a part of Iraq. They were only divided into separate states when Britain colonized the region. Therefore, are we supporting colonization? Factor #3

There are, of course, other factors.

Bush says: They are making weapons of mass destruction. Oh wait he doesn't say that anymore.

History says: UNSCOM dismantled the last of the Iraqi WMD programs in 1998. If there were anything left, it would be no good now since the chemical and biological weapons generally only have a shelf life of about 5 years.

Bush says: They have connections to al queda. They are terrorists.

History says: There are no proven connections. There is a slight connection with Iran and a much stronger one with Saudi Arabia, but nothing on Iraq. Saddam actually staunched islamic fundamentalism. Saddam was secular. Now that he is no longer in power we are seeing a rash of extremism by wahabiists and other groups. It is quite obvious that Iraq is more unstable than ever now. I mean we have the al sadr army imposing shariah on entire towns now. And we have the nerve to say we are improving things. Hardly. It's all about oil for the umpteenth time people. Get it through your heads before the damn election.

 

Anything else?

 

Anthing else...yes. Saddam's regime killed hundreds of thousands of people outside of that affair: he gassed his own people; cut off their tongues; his sons raped and tortured women and then fed them to lions. Are you saying that his regime was fair and just, and simply a victim of US imperialism?

 

Good perspective/p.o.v. about British colonization in regards to the Kuwait scenario. However, Saddam lighting the oil fields on fire is the epitimy of spite, immaturity, selfishness, and recklessness. I do not think such an action could ever be justified.

 

Shelf life or no shelf life...biological weapons are intimidating, but nonetheless, an interesting factor you introduced that I have not heard before as I am not an expert in the area of chemicals.

 

Iraq is really not as unstable as popular opinion suggests. Al Sadr and his clan make up 2,000 out of the total Iraqi population of over 25 million, and he is paying them for their services. Of course, the media will flock to concentrate on only the negative aspects of the war. One illustration of the media's obvious objective is my living in Florida and having experienced hurricanes. They will show footage of the one corner store that is in shambles for days at a time, but neglect to show the rest of the state, or areas down the street from the ruined corner store for that matter, that have minimal damage. I am not saying that Iraq is a tourist attraction by any means, about 1,000 Americans have died, but I am saying that failing to take into account media ambitions is a slippery slope. To say it all about oil, and only about oil, is asonine and painfully limiting in greater scope.

[villain]

Re: Re: State of the Universe Address

 

Originally posted by ihatefrunts

Anthing else...yes. Saddam's regime killed hundreds of thousands of people outside of that affair: he gassed his own people; cut off their tongues; his sons raped and tortured women and then fed them to lions. Are you saying that his regime was fair and just, and simply a victim of US imperialism?

 

Saddam was no saint, granted. I was merely providing an alternate perspective so the one you elucidated would not become the dominant view. But Saddam is also the very same madman that our CIA put in power, and G. H. W. Bush kept in power after the gulf war by supplying him with gunships to put down the very same rebellion that we incited. Following this train of logic why aren't members of the CIA and W's father incarcerated? This renders your argument moot.

 

Good perspective/p.o.v. about British colonization in regards to the Kuwait scenario. However, Saddam lighting the oil fields on fire is the epitimy of spite, immaturity, selfishness, and recklessness. I do not think such an action could ever be justified.

 

Surely igniting the oil wells was a tremendous environmental disaster. Was invading and devastating much of Iraq twice for oil also not spiteful, immature, selfish, and reckless? You cannot do one thing and say another.

 

Shelf life or no shelf life...biological weapons are intimidating, but nonetheless, an interesting factor you introduced that I have not heard before as I am not an expert in the area of chemicals.

 

Agreed. Also FYI, even after sanctions were imposed (which by the way killed a million innocent iraqis mostly children, which has been stated before.) Iraq still recieved chemicals from U.S. companies in the form of agricultural products. But we still dismantled their means to refine and weaponize these chemicals. Weaponized chemicals are easily distributed in a dusty texture when on a warhead. Some can even penetrate our best particulate masks.

 

Iraq is really not as unstable as popular opinion suggests. Al Sadr and his clan make up 2,000 out of the total Iraqi population of over 25 million, and he is paying them for their services. Of course, the media will flock to concentrate on only the negative aspects of the war. One illustration of the media's obvious objective is my living in Florida and having experienced hurricanes. They will show footage of the one corner store that is in shambles for days at a time, but neglect to show the rest of the state, or areas down the street from the ruined corner store for that matter, that have minimal damage. I am not saying that Iraq is a tourist attraction by any means, about 1,000 Americans have died, but I am saying that failing to take into account media ambitions is a slippery slope. To say it all about oil, and only about oil, is asonine and painfully limiting in greater scope.

 

I know the media is fucked up. That was one of my first statements in the original reply.

You are attempting to undermine a resistance of increasing vitriol. Not everyone are warfighters. But more and more of the average iraqi citizen are being mobilized due to deplorable conditions they are enduring. And often times these warfighters are acting on the opinions of a larger iraqi population.

Muqtada Al Sadr represents the Shiia religion in iraq. His ancestors were the founders of the Shiia religion in Iraq. His opinion is not to be taken lightly as some rabblerouser.

 

It is not asinine to say that this is about oil, crude as it may sound (pun intended). There is a time when I posted about when I was incarcerated in an Army jail, and part of our duties were to recycle papers. Look for it if you want. We destroyed boxes upon boxes of haliburton reciepts right around the time the enron scandal was in full swing in the media. These reciepts easily documented billions in transactions. I stuck a few in my pocket and posted them in that thread if you are interested. Bush also severed his ties with the company altough I'm sure he has plenty of stock in it. Why is haliburton granted the contract with no other bids? Why are they being audited for a misappropriation of funds?

Many of our troops are on pipeline patrols. Why did chaos break out after the invasion with all the looting? Because we were preoccupied.

There are countless statements from the past saying our major interests in Iraq are oil. Don't make me bust out the facts.

Saudi Arabia hit peak oil. Iraq is the second largest known deposit of oil in the world. Coincidence? I think not.

And why o why are we having such problems in Venezuela as of late? Because it is the third largest producer of oil? Nah couldn't be.

 

If I am limiting myself you are not showing me how. Rather it is you who are limiting yourself by denying the possibility that this could be about oil. Sure it is atrocious. Sure it is unthinkable. But it is true. And the truth is not always so pretty.

[THE CORONER]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JOHN KERRY IS A FLAMING PUSSY

 

Originally posted by crotch rot

SO IF YOUR NOT AN ARAB YOUR AN INFIDEL HUH?? YOUR IGNORANCE AND HATRED IS CAUSED PROBABLY DUE TO LOW SELF ESTEME. BTW THE LAST TIME I CHECKED AN ELEMEMTARY SCHOOL WITH THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN ISNT A MILITARY TARGET OR HAD ANY MILITARY FORCES IN IT, STUPID.

 

wow dude your ignorance to totally missing my point is so brutally obvious that it made me laugh at work. maybe you should get an adult to read it for you and then maybe you will understand it. i was sticking up for the chechen freedom fighters, NOT the men who took over the school.

 

get over yourself and stop trying to be big old CAPLOCKS WILL PROVE THAT I AM RIGHT kinda guy

 

because your a fuckin chump completely dude, learn something about the Chechen Liberation struggle bro

[THE CORONER]

Originally posted by ihatefrunts

Bush's perspective for going into Iraq was entirely rational. Not agreeing with someone does not mean that their counter argument is not rational. For one, the most effective tool in combatting terrorism is to bring the war on the offensive, which is exactly what he has done. At the time, everyone, and I mean everyone, thought he had WMD's. What is conveniently left out in typical liberal jargon is the fact that Saddam has used WMD"s on his own people and US forces during Desert Storm, plans of his to purchase WMD's have since been unveiled, occupying forces have found the means and capability to make WMD"s, etc., etc. - His intentions are what is most important! In addition, why Iraq and not Saudi Arabia? Fair question...one answer obviously rests in the oil interests and established business relationships as you mentioned, but also in the remedial location of Iraq. With Iraq as our ally, we will be able to see certain "going ons" in the Arab world that we have been unable to see until this point. Saddam is not only despised by his own people and the Western world, but also by the neighboring Middle Eastern nations, including Saudi Arabia. Lastly, but certainly not least, by our doing this, we are liberating over a million oppressed people living under Saddam's vicious regime. Collaboratively, these are quite a few reasons suggesting that this was a good decision. At this point, a lesson John Kerry apparently had not learned from his serving in Vietnam, is the fact that the only way we can lose this war is by losing political support at home. After World War II, it took the US 7 years to democratize Japan when it anticipated taking only two. In my opinion, this situation is similar to the Japan Occupation as then, too, we received little help from the rest of the world (Russia, China, Germany, Italy then preoccupied with communism and fascism), and there existed a similar degree of resistence to the Occupation. Since, however, Japan has evolved to have a flourishing economy and a functioning democracy. Suppose we did not go into Iraq, what could we have done but wait...and wait for what, another attack? War is nothing pleasurable so the concept is difficult to sell, but war is an inevitable, necessary occurance. Patience is key. I guess I get most upset with political ambitions that attempt to tear down the commander-in-chief of our military during a time of war, as opposed to simply not voting for him but supporting his decisions in the meantime. That is pussy shit! Where is the patriotism? Putting partisan loyalties aside for one moment, do you really think that Bush is an evil individual who does not have the best intentions in helping the US and the world? Bringing America into a war that would not be beneficial in any aspect would be political suicide. Just like all politicians, his number one incentive is to get reelected, although he has remained visibly unshaken by staggers in public opinion polls. And as far as the 9/11 report, my having read a summary instead of the book was sufficient for the statement I made, which was as general as it gets. An example that illustrates my point is the Fahrenheight 9/11 film. I had read several articles about the film from both perspectives, but in discussions with opposition was said to not know what I was talking about because I had not seen it...so, I went and saw the film and to my discovery I learned nothing I didn't already know. And about intelligent people disliking Bush, and untelligent people liking him is really silly. Reagan used to be a Democrat, but during his campaign to the White House said that he was wrong about a lot of things in his youth.

 

 

 

 

dude im not gonnna comment on everything you said but i will ask you one question which i guarantee you WILL NOT be able to answer. you seem to have all the facts about why we went into iraq (altho it just seems like all you are doing is towing the republican party line of bush being somekinda american saviour and demi-god buit nevertheless).

 

 

But why Iraq? why not any other country where genocide and torture are even worse and have been going on for longer?

you seem to have all the answers about why we went into iraq (altho the seem weak and frail: well we THOUGHT there were WMD...fuck that was the major reason you guys went in, yet nothing. sure saddam used him himself in the past, but so has the states on other countries so give up the ghost)

 

but back to the mattter at hand...

 

why no Sudan? North Korea (who we know HAVE GOT nuclear arms, who we KNOW hate the US, who want to destroy the US)?

Saudi Arabia? Syria? Sierre Leone? Chechnya? Georgia? Tajikastan?

 

why iraq then, when most of the countries above are way more of a threat to the us the iraq? i guarantee that you couldnt answer that question because i dont even think that bush could himself...

[heavyLox]

i would say not NK cause theres a good chance Kim would not hesitate to set it off.

 

 

Something else we seem to over look is bushes STRONG stance against nation building. which he repeated over and over as he was running in round one.

[bodice_ripper]

Originally posted by cloner

'yee-ha' is not a foreign policy.

 

 

 

 

 

I laughed so hard I wretched. classic

[THE CORONER]

oh yeah i totaly agree, you never hear about that, the defiecet (sic), the fact that he still HASNT CAUGHT OSAMA, etc. etc. etc.

[!@#$%]

naw, bush like nation-destroying!

 

or, he does hate nation-building, which shows why we left afghanistan in shambles, aren't bringing the pain to the iraq insurgency, undermined the elected governemnt in haiti, approve of the illegal wall in israel, and aren't doing anything about what is officially being called genocide in sudan..

[THE CORONER]

yeah i dont know what its like in the states, but the news stil covers afganistan every so often, but i never hear anyhting in the american media about it

does it show anything about it anymore or is it more out of sight out of mind?

[villain]

Originally posted by THE CORONER

yeah i dont know what its like in the states, but the news stil covers afganistan every so often, but i never hear anyhting in the american media about it

does it show anything about it anymore or is it more out of sight out of mind?

 

We are so desensitized that we need lots of death and explosions and celebrity drama and whatnot in order to draw more viewers. The thing... the Totality.... It feeds off negative energy!

[Poop Man Bob]

JOHN KERRY PLANS TO RAISE TAXES ON OUR TROOPS IN ORDER TO SUBSIDIZE FREE, GAY HEALTH CARE FOR TRIAL LAWYERS AND TERRORISTS.... THEN ABRUPTLY SWITCH TO THE OPPOSITE COURSE.