good article on "illegal" wiretaps

[BioHazzard]

If its forming without military intervention then thats even more of a reason to just leave everyone the hell alone.
btw, condi rice is a **** head...

At least their country's unelected officials dont tell them to die as frequently as our elected ones do. And what country's are you refering to btw

Wow! Imagine that! Thankgod you were not in charge when Hitler and Dojo were on the rampage. Imagine America saying to the world," just leave everyone the hell alone". What would the world be today?

 

[Whiskey Steve]

Wow! Imagine that! Thankgod you were not in charge when Hitler and Dojo were on the rampage. Imagine America saying to the world," just leave everyone the hell alone". What would the world be today?

Ummm...
why are we comparing apples and oranges?


im going to bed....talk to ya tomorrow

 

[MaynardMeek]

There are many members of the House and Senate from both parties that support/supported entering Iraq. Simply blaming George Bush is foolish. This isn't a dictatorship, one man is not the reason for everything that happens with our country.


just a few tid bits


BILL CLINTON (February 17, 1998): Or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made.

HILLARY:2003 I can support the president. I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interests of our national security.

JOHNNY EDWARDS (January 7, 2003): Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple.

 

[BioHazzard]

....Perhaps if our intelligence infrarstructure wasn't so crappy we'd have had more accurate information on Sadaam's weapons programs. Without even considering any intelligence though, keeping UN inspectors out for a decade isn't something to ignore. Trust a madman or go in and find out. Not a difficult decision IMO.

The WMD materials were trucked to Syria and were buried in the desert. Assad conspired with Saddam to hide WMD from being discovered by Coalition forces.

 

[brogers]

There are many members of the House and Senate from both parties that support/supported entering Iraq. Simply blaming George Bush is foolish. This isn't a dictatorship, one man is not the reason for everything that happens with our country.


just a few tid bits


BILL CLINTON (February 17, 1998): Or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made.

HILLARY:2003 I can support the president. I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interests of our national security.

JOHNNY EDWARDS (January 7, 2003): Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple.

Interesting how their stance changes with the polls isn't it?

 

[BioHazzard]

There are many members of the House and Senate from both parties that support/supported entering Iraq. Simply blaming George Bush is foolish. This isn't a dictatorship, one man is not the reason for everything that happens with our country.


just a few tid bits


BILL CLINTON (February 17, 1998): Or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made.

HILLARY:2003 I can support the president. I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interests of our national security.

JOHNNY EDWARDS (January 7, 2003): Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple.

Don't forget Democrate Senator Lieberman, who staunchly and unwaveringly supports Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Didn't John Kelly support the war too? I am sure he must have, at least once, or twice. LOL

 

[MaynardMeek]

Ummm...
why are we comparing apples and oranges?

it would be apples to apples if we wated as long as we did to enter ww2. We could have saved over 29,000 lives that were taken in the first few days of our envolvment if we just went in when Hitler's government was not so set and structured.. but.. many people said.. "this war (ww2) is a war of option" then blamo it became a war to save generations and races... the same would have happend with saddam

 

[Rogue Drone]

I agree that i am giving them way too much credit.. it makes for better debate.. however.. i do say that illegals, identity thieves, drug sales and use, tax evasion, etc, etc. are important for creating jobs.. so they allow some.. i do truly feel that if the government wants to find you.. it can in a heart beat. But you or the people you have been trying to find are not important enough to get that special treatment

One can make the argument that crime is, to a degree, necessary for distribution of wealth that's unfairly distributed in a society, but that's for another thread.

As a former US Marshal, I could/can locate 85% of fugitives. The other 15% have knowledge of manhunting technique and the tools (ID, cash, etc.) to counter them. That's the ability that terrorists have.

IMO, it's like this. If Al-Q gets a dozen small teams into Mexico or Canada, 7 will make it across the boarder, and 4 will be undetected as they go about their operations, my off the cuff estimate.

Point being - You cannot stop trained and equipped operatives constantly, to claim so is a lie. If they try, some absolutley will succeed.

 

[BioHazzard]

Ummm...
why are we comparing apples and oranges?
im going to bed....talk to ya tomorrow

How is it an "apples and oranges" issue?

 

[BioHazzard]

One can make the argument that crime is, to a degree, necessary for distribution of wealth that's unfairly distributed in a society, but that's for another thread......

And that coming from a lawman? You don't even believe in the rule of law.

Cry for the Republic indeed.

 

[MaynardMeek]

Point being - You cannot stop trained and equipped operatives constantly, to claim so is a lie. If they try, some absolutley will succeed.

very very very true.. but you can stop them.. you go into their country, you displace their government... give the people hope, and power.. and over time their wants to bring harm to others may end... it takes a LOOOONG time but it is worth it in the end

 

[MaynardMeek]

One can make the argument that crime is, to a degree, necessary for distribution of wealth that's unfairly distributed in a society, but that's for another thread......

There is no set wealth to be distributed that is only a liberal catch phrase.. we are a free and open market economy ( except for oil) your economic status is spelled from the work you wish to put in.. Currently there are more programs in place to help those get the money via loans to get to that better level with education, more so these programs are for minorities.

 

[Rogue Drone]

And that coming from a lawman? You don't even believe in the rule of law.

Cry for the Republic indeed.

I've seen too much to believe in simplistic notions of absolute black and white right and wrong and not to challenge the status quo.

Half the people in prison should be executed, the other half should be freed and replaced by the corporate and political elite who have gotten immorality legalized with their money.

 

[MaynardMeek]

Half the people in prison should be executed, the other half should be freed and replaced by the corporate and political elite who have gotten immorality legalized with their money.



I agree however...The only beef Enron employees and alike have with top management is that management did not inform employees of the collapse in time to allow them to get in on the swindle. If Enron executives had shouted, "Head for the hills!" the employees might have had time to sucker other Americans into buying wildly over-inflated Enron stock. Just because your boss is a criminal doesn't make you a hero.

 

[Rogue Drone]

One can make the argument that crime is, to a degree, necessary for distribution of wealth that's unfairly distributed in a society, but that's for another thread......

There is no set wealth to be distributed that is only a liberal catch phrase.. we are a free and open market economy ( except for oil) your economic status is spelled from the work you wish to put in.. Currently there are more programs in place to help those get the money via loans to get to that better level with education, more so these programs are for minorities.

Right, a criminal is employing his skills in the free market to secure wealth, he's just less constrainted by other people's concepts of and codified morality.

 

[MaynardMeek]

i agree, but tho the market is free... there are rule you have to follow inorder to be in the game

i cant really say anything more because i agree with you too much on this issue and cant figure out what to say that could negate it lol

 

[BioHazzard]

Umm last time I checked Bush was not a founding father...
But he is doing his best to violate all the rights our founders gave us.


Can you honestly not see the wisdom in having a variety of governments in the world?...
If we had one government we would be in very serious trouble.

I might be wrong, but I doubt you would scream bloody murder if it was a Democrat President who did what Bush did.

If you want to talk about tearing down what the Founding Fathers have created, look no further that that pervert Clinton. He has single handedly soiled the Presidency of the Republic, made USA into an international mockery, weakened our military/intelligence, sold out to foreign intelligence services, encouraged Al Qaeda to murder over 2000 men, women and children.

Bush restored the Presidency to its statue, rebuilt America's supremacy, protected its citizen, encouraged, promoted and created democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq. He has turned Libya from a beligerent rogue state into a friendly county that volunteerily gave up its WMD program. He worked with Chirac to kick the Syrians out of Lebanon. Thank to Bush, the Afghans, the Iraqis, and the Lebanese have their countries and their destinies back on their hand.

Bush and Cheney confronted Al Qaeda head on, and plotted and executed the global strategy to wipe out the threat to America's survival. They have the clear and unambigous understanding that terrorists must not be allowed to possess WMD. And they set out to do something about it. And today, aside from some fringe elements of crazies, Al Qaeda is considered by all as the world's enemy.

Whether you like it or not, Bush will go down history as the President who lead the free world to victory in its war against terrorism. That is how history will remember men like Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and the Americans who bleed and die in this global war.

You can whine and distort and complain. It wouldn't change a thing.

As far as one type of government being bad, that is a baseless argument.

There is no redeeming value in barbaric systems like Nazism, Facism, Communism, dictatorship, Muslim fanatism etc

The only viable system is a democratic system that follows the rule of law.

 

[MaynardMeek]

I am not 100% sure that Bush wants to rebuild supremacy he just wants to use our nation along with other westernized democracies to be accountable for freeing people from the small but powerful ( usp labs plug)group of islamists that found shelter in the middle east

. but you are correct about him restoring the Presidency to what it is suppose to be.. as well as the judiciary.

 

[Rogue Drone]

I think you must have me confused with somebody. Because I know for a fact that Al Qaeda has been systematically hunted down and liquidated since 9/11. Terror cells have been systematically dismantled. Thousands are in jails all over Europe and the Middle East. Thousands have been killed. Just b/c you are clueless, does not mean it is not happening, Mr."I need to get a fucking clue".

Police state? Dude you need to, as you put it, get a fucking clue. This is no police matter. The war on terrorism is not a police matter, Mr."I need to get a fucking clue".

Back to school, Slick, "Police State" is the commonly accepted term used to describe a Totalitarian regime, the countries you think we should emulate.

So, you know for a fact that our borders are impenetrable, that we can find anyone within the US, they've tried but we're just so damn effective that they can't hit us in the US?

 

[MaynardMeek]

good night every one.. dont blow each other up in here... remember.. when all is said and done.. we are all apart of one government anyway! lol and then when the aliens come to eat our brains.. we will just be.. EARTH!

even the Ausies mindgames... And PS please take back steve irwin and we will give you.. uhmm.. one of the Olsen twins..

 

[MaynardMeek]

impenetrable except for that 8 football field long paved and lighted tunnel thing... yeah..... can someone say WALL with a large body of water around it with evil seabass with frikin lasers on their heads


good night for real!

 

[BioHazzard]

I've seen too much to believe in simplistic notions of absolute black and white right and wrong and not to challenge the status quo.

Half the people in prison should be executed, the other half should be freed and replaced by the corporate and political elite who have gotten immorality legalized with their money.

It doesn't matter how much you have seen or not seen. The fact is, you cannot on one hand claims you are for the rule of law and that your rights are inalienable, and on the other hand claims that it is okay to use criminal skills for the sake of wealth distribution. That is having your cake and eat it too.

Somethings are indeed black and white. You don't want to make the mistake of seeming all shades of grey that you can no longer see black and white. There are people like that. They are no longer able to tell right from wrong, because all they see is ambiguity. And they become bitter cynics in life.

 

[Rogue Drone]

Point being - You cannot stop trained and equipped operatives constantly, to claim so is a lie. If they try, some absolutley will succeed.

very very very true.. but you can stop them.. you go into their country, you displace their government... give the people hope, and power.. and over time their wants to bring harm to others may end... it takes a LOOOONG time but it is worth it in the end

I agree with this, the issue I have with the long term strategy of nation building is at what cost?

If we continue to implement more survelliance and security domestically, and drop a billion dollars a day in deepening our defecit while many , many domestic challenges are being, IMO, inadequaltely funded, and raise more and more international resentment and opposition, will it ultimately be worth it?

Time will tell. I'm highly skeptical of both the ethics and competence of our leadership as it applies to the long term quality of life for me and mine.

 

[mindgames]

The WMD materials were trucked to Syria and were buried in the desert. Assad conspired with Saddam to hide WMD from being discovered by Coalition forces.

OMG!!!!

And you think the left are paranoid. That statement of yours ranks with the 9/11 didn't happen argument.

I don't know a far right nazi who would agree with such utter rubbish

 

[mindgames]

"Whether you like it or not, Bush will go down history as the President who lead the free world to victory in its war against terrorism. That is how history will remember men like Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and the Americans who bleed and die in this global war."

Biohazard, he IS the terrorist. He is the instigator. He is a fundamentalist who attacked Iraq because "God told him to." He is mediochrity personified.
If he wasn't so recklessly dangerous and contemptuous of democratic process he would hardly rate a collective yawn in the context of world history.

 

[BioHazzard]

Back to school, Slick, "Police State" is the commonly accepted term used to describe a Totalitarian regime, the countries you think we should emulate.

So, you know for a fact that our borders are impenetrable, that we can find anyone within the US, they've tried but we're just so damn effective that they can't hit us in the US?

Back to school yourself. Did I say we should emulate those regimes? I was talking about how to deal with fanatical terrorists who think nothing of blowing up women and children at the cafe, supermarket, hospitals etc etc. Read "TERRORISTS". Against these fanatics, there can be no compromise. You got to hunt them down and kill them off, like their home countries are doing to them.

You are either having a reading problem or you are an expert in putting words in people's mouth. Did I say anything about "you know for a fact that our borders are impenetrable, that we can find anyone within the US, they've tried but we're just so damn effective that they can't hit us in the US"?

Those are your words. Not mine. Don't come to me to whine about them.

 

[BioHazzard]

"Whether you like it or not, Bush will go down history as the President who lead the free world to victory in its war against terrorism. That is how history will remember men like Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and the Americans who bleed and die in this global war."

Biohazard, he IS the terrorist. He is the instigator. He is a fundamentalist who attacked Iraq because "God told him to." He is mediochrity personified.
If he wasn't so recklessly dangerous and contemptuous of democratic process he would hardly rate a collecitive yawn.

I am sure 80% of the Iraqis who recently enthusiastically voted for their new government, do not share your view. But I am sure, Saddam, his Sunnis butchers, and Al Qaeda would agree with you wholeheartedly.

Doesn't your conscience bother you that you are willing to see Saddam and his cohort of mass murderers, torturers and rapists continue to torment the millions of inocent men, women, young children? Do you honestly condone the mass murder, mass torture and mass rape of women and children and men? Because that is EXACTLY what you are condoning when you deny the successful liberation of the Iraqi people.

 

[BioHazzard]

OMG!!!!

And you think the left are paranoid. That statement of yours ranks with the 9/11 didn't happen argument.

I don't know a far right nazi who would agree with such utter rubbish

Really? Did you know that we have a former Saddam general coming forward with information regarding the number of shipment of WMD materials transferred? Did you know that we even have the coordinates of where the materials are hidden?

Do not presume that everyone gets his information the same way you do, ie via pure imagination, my friend.

 

[BioHazzard]

Here is a score card on terrorist scum.


http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/terroristscorecard/index.html

 

[mindgames]

I don't need 'pure imagination' to know that America has more WMD's than any nation on earth, and has the gall to think it has the right to dictate who may or may not have them as well.
Who died and made America moral guardian of the planet?

And as far as torture etc by Saddam i have only 2 words to say .. Abu Grahib

This link may interest you also.

http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/

 

[Whiskey Steve]

I might be wrong, but I doubt you would scream bloody murder if it was a Democrat President who did what Bush did.

Dead wrong.... I belong to no party

 

[BioHazzard]

I don't need 'pure imagination' to know that America has more WMD's than any nation on earth, and has the gall to think it has the right to dictate who may or may not have them as well.
Who died and made America moral guardian of the planet?

That is just so lame and you know it. Argument like that is just 7th grade.

The Uk has enough nukes to blow the earth up 10 times over, but no one cares about that. Do you know why? Because everybody knows that England is not going to go beserk anytime soon. But the same cannot be said about your beloved wacko terrorist states/organizations.

And as far as torture etc by Saddam i have only 2 words to say .. Abu Grahib

This link may interest you also.

http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/

LMAO! I am sorry, but you are totally clueless !! You wanna compare what happened at Abu Graih to what Saddam and his cohort of mass murderers, torturers and rapists have done for decade??? Have you seen the mass graves the Shites and the Kurds have dug up??

ACLU??? Purrrleeeeaaase!! The organization that defends NAMBLA, the gay organization that teaches gay men how to solicit boys for sex??? http://216.220.97.17/ You got to be joking!! Yeah, that is the kind of organization that ACLU is !! ACLU is a perverted organization that has historically devoted to undermind the American society and culture.

 

[CDB]

Right, a criminal is employing his skills in the free market to secure wealth, he's just less constrainted by other people's concepts of and codified morality.

Private property is the cornerstone of a free market. A free market does not mean everyone does what they please and to hell with anything and everything else. It means government does not regulate, hinder or try to encourage voluntary exchanges between parties, which does not include the prosecution of laws against theft, fraud or aggression.

 

[BioHazzard]

Dead wrong.... I belong to no party

But you didn't say if you would whine and complain and cry bloody murder if it was a democrat president who was doing what Bush is doing.

 

[mindgames]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Nor do these atrocities give the US carte blanche to lob on in to any nation and take over.
They ignore China, Zimbabwe, Burma etc - all ARE worse than Saddam's Iraq - I ask you, why Iraq and not these..........oil perhaps????????????/

 

[BioHazzard]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Nor do these atrocities give the US carte blanche to lob on in to any nation and take over.
They ignore China, Zimbabwe, Burma etc - all ARE worse than Saddam's Iraq - I ask you, why Iraq and not these..........oil perhaps????????????/

That is also the same old, tried and failed argument the lefties have when they get caught defending mass murderers, torturers and rapists. You can't defend your pro murderers, pro torturers and pro rapists stance. So you twist the argument around.

Oil? How many barrels of oild have we taken from Iraq? None? Zero? Zippo? Nada?

 

[CDB]

"Whether you like it or not, Bush will go down history as the President who lead the free world to victory in its war against terrorism. That is how history will remember men like Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and the Americans who bleed and die in this global war."

Biohazard, he IS the terrorist. He is the instigator. He is a fundamentalist who attacked Iraq because "God told him to." He is mediochrity personified.
If he wasn't so recklessly dangerous and contemptuous of democratic process he would hardly rate a collective yawn in the context of world history.

Ah, now I get this debate. Bush policy against terrorism. Time to dive in.

Off the bat I'm opposed to Bush and this war on ideological and practical grounds. Ideological opposition is easy, practical opposition isn't quite as easy. Much as I hate Bush he could still quite possibly be remembered as one of our greatest presidents by future generations. Since ideology is too easy, lets go with practicality.

On a practical level Bush may be on to something with democratizing the middle east. It's likely to be a long and hard process with mixed results. If it succedes the middle east will likely fall into the same mediocrity of behavior as other democratic systems. On a practical level that would be more desirable than what we have now, even if the women have to wear veils.

On a practical level we are at war. We're at war with a decentralized force whose competence and overall capacity probably have been quite hyped up. There have been a lot of terrorist attacks by AQ over the years, only two on American soil that I know of, and the people in AQ have hated us for a long time so their record as a direct and present threat isn't all that impressive. The problem is when they do manage to pull their heads out of their asses long enough to accomplish something, their desired end result is to kill as many of us as they can, combatants and noncombatants alike.

That's not good, and maybe the hype is worth it for the little extra attention they get. It's like protecting ourselves from a comet impact. It's not likely to be a threat anytime soon, but if and when it does happen, we're fucked. We're fucked and stupid if we could have done something to prevent it.

On a practical level this wire tapping will likely not go anywhere issue-wise. Where will the power grab end? Who knows? If it is helping disrupt terrorist activities, who cares? The civil liberties that could possibly be threatened by this action of Bush's have already been thrown into the shitter far more effectively by the War on Drugs. The WoD is a far more effective means with which to destroy civil liberties than the WoT. And, given the nature of the enemy and their preferred method of planning and attack, Bush is probably within his constitutional powers with this move on a practical level, and also on a practical level, it's not a bad idea.

As for Bush being a terrorist, well one person's terrorist is another person's hero. Ideally all unnecessary killing is bad bad bad. That said, Bush isn't planting bombs on our own interstate system on the off chance he might kill an arab. In practical reality to not see a difference between Bush and Bin Laden is cow twinkies.

Our government has brought this upon us with its endless meddling in other country's affairs. But there is the matter of motives. Generally our government has meddled with the hope of making the world a bit safer for us and others if possible. That they haven't achieved this and don't realize their own complicity in this failure puts their intelligence in doubt, not their motives, which is crucial I believe for defining a terrorist. The guys we're fighting against want to hurt us and they don't care about who gets in the way. And were we to pull out and give them everything they wanted, they'd likely still hate use. These guys are still fighting wars amongst themselves that started over a thousand years ago. These are not people who are going to accept the live and let live, I'm sorry you're sorry, doctrines.

Comparing the civilian death toll of 9/11 with the civilian death toll in Iraq is ridiculous. They're two totally different operations on completely different scales and with different objectives. You can bet that if the US and AQ both had access to the exact same military means, all else being equal and the same there would be a lot more than 30,000 dead Americans right now, because we'd likely have been nuked a few times. 30,000 dead Iraqis? I call it land fill. Rights are universal and their enforcement should be local, but I don't doubt many more of them would be dead if they tried this themselves. That we're better off without Saddam doesn't answer the questions: did we have a right to do this?; was it worth it to do this?; worth aside, should we have done this?; etc. Lot's of questions could be asked still, but they're largely irrelevant now because we're there, and we're not leaving until whatever the **** it is we're trying to accomplish is accomplished.

Bush changed the status quo. He doesn't give a **** what other people think once he's decided on the right course of action, and he seems to do what he thinks is right regardless of the cost. Looking at the middle east some people say Look how shitty it is, others say It wasn't always that shitty, others say it wasn't always shitty. Bush asked What might it be like? That's visionary. Foggy vision but visionary all the same. He's Forrest Gump with a little elan and I like that on some level.

And, like it or not, some serious prodemocracy changes took place in the middle east after Saddam fell. In Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman and other countries, post Saddam-is-fucked democratic reforms of varying degrees have either happened or gained momentum. Maybe some of them would have happened anyway. But, it's naive to think images of a defeated Saddam in his underwear didn't make some of the guys around the world who were seriously considering being the next guy-in-a-funny-hat-who-hates-America pursue a more moderate course of action.

All in all, I don't like Bush's policies. I don't like a lot of objections to his policies either though, because they seem off base to me. Bush fucks up one way, and all Democrats and critics in general seem to be able to say is, "he's fucking up the wrong way! This is the way you **** up..."

I don't grant rights under the US Constitution to AQ members calling into the US. It's my constitution too, I say **** 'em. I'm not losing any rights I haven't effectively lost already, and it actually stands a chance of making me safer. Why fight against one of the few things Bush has done with his power that makes sense? A little positive reinforcement might go a long way. And it's possible that if he turns out to be right, and if democracy takes hold in the middle east, more or less liberal democracies, that will lower the threat of terrorism. So would a stop to all our government's endless meddling, but being realistic that's not going to happen, certainly not any faster than Iraq would take to become a moderately tolerable democracy. Balance the reforms needed at home to make us safer against those needed abroad. Balances the costs.

If it works Bush goes down in history as a great president. He's just continuing the policies of Wilson, his own father and Clinton anyway. And yes, I said Clinton. It was during the years of Bush the Elder and Clinton that neoconservatives really got ahold of the Wilsonian baton of foreign policy and ran with it like a mother fucker. I think Clinton sent troops into foreign countries an average of once every few weeks, and into areas just to help people, to keep the peace, to make the area better, but not even for us just for the people who were there! At least Bush the Dumber has troops in an area where some kind of case for getting involved could be made. All Democrats want to do is send troops into areas where we have no vital interests. According to them if no American interests are at stake, that's when you send in troops to kill and die, as long as they're part of a nice diverse UN team with colorful helmets. Then when our soldiers are dragged dead through the streets by the people we went there to help, well it's not a **** up in the same way that Bush's war is a **** up.

Bottom line: everyone wants to make the world better with someone else's money and by spilling the blood of someone else's kid. Everyone except me, that is. I happily sit aside and watch you guys argue about how best to insert the barb wire wrapped dildo into your asses. Reminds me of my brother and his friends arguing about how best to fix an old VW Beetle. When they asked me the best way I said, "Buy Honda." You have to think outside the bug.

 

[CDB]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Nor do these atrocities give the US carte blanche to lob on in to any nation and take over.

No, they don't. However, if the world would kindly keep its fuckedupedness to itself, likely so would we. I am a noninterventionist at heart and always will be. But I'm not a relativist either, and many of these societies in the middle east are dogshit and deserve to be destroyed. If one of my friends held a grudge for more than a week I'd write them off. These guys have been holding grudges against each other for over a millenia and generally making everyone else's life unpleasant with their endless squabbling. Eventually someone had to take a 2x4 and bat these assholes into the 21st century. Just turned out to be our turn.

They ignore China, Zimbabwe, Burma etc - all ARE worse than Saddam's Iraq - I ask you, why Iraq and not these..........oil perhaps????????????/

Yes and no. If we wanted the oil we could just take it. The counties you mention have some things in common. Some of them could put up a credible fight. Not to call the US cowards, it's just that if a wimp is giving you problems and it comes to that, you pummel him. A big guy you want to review your options more carefully, it's just common sense. Or, the countries are stable enough or if not, they pose no threat to us. There is a case, a weak case but still a case, that Iraq was and could have been a threat. There is a much stronger case that a democratic force for moderation in the middle east, a society based on liberal western values there would tend to pacify the region a bit.

 

[mindgames]

CDB - I don't agree with all you say but I totally admire your reasoning, logic, intelligence and detail - a pity pith heads like BioHazzard aren't in the same league as you.

Anyhow, one thing I really disagree with that you say is about the democratisation of the middle east.

Both you and bio talk about it. Well, look at the result of the Palestinian election. If the US believes their presence in the middle east will bring democracy or even an appreciation of it it appears to be very mistaken.

Also Bio - get it into your head that not everyone who does not agree with you is a leftie...I am an advocate of democracy and that's why I really dislike Bush.

 

[BioHazzard]

CDB - I don't agree with all you say but I totally admire your reasoning, logic, intelligence and detail - a pity pith heads like BioHazzard aren't in the same league as you.

Anyhow, one thing I really disagree with that you say is about the democratisation of the middle east.

Both you and bio talk about it. Well, look at the result of the Palestinian election. If the US believes their presence in the middle east will bring democracy or even an appreciation of it it appears to be very mistaken.

Also Bio - get it into your head that not everyone who does not agree with you is a leftie...I am an advocate of democracy and that's why I really dislike Bush.

You are calling me names b/c you have lost every argument you have with me. The reason you lost is because you failed to get your facts straight and you argue based on venom spilled by the usual left wing sources.

I think it is insulting that you presume to be an advocate of democracy when you blatantly ignored the democracy the Iraqi people are fighting to build and you blatantly oppose to their liberation from Saddam and his mass murderers and rapists. Don't you think that basically made a mockery out of the concept of being a democracy advocate?

Your hatred for Bush is irrational. You cannot cite any fact to back that up. Every excuse, explaination you have presented so far, has come up empty. You may be a good guy in person, but you let this irrational hatred of a person you have never met, polluted your logical and rational thinking. That is may be why you come down on the side of supporting mass murderers like Saddam and his butchers and rapists.

As for the Palestinian electing Hamas, that has nothing to do with the USA. You are totally ignorant of the dynamics of the political reality in that part of the world. The reason Hamas got elected, is b/c the Palestinian Authority is corrupted and ineffective. The Hamas, on the other hand, is not as corrupted and unlike the Palestinian Authority, has managed to provide some basic social services to the Palestinians. Therefore, the Palestinians voted according what is best for their neighborhood. They certainly neither give a raging **** nor know much about US Middle East Policy or the Global War On Terror blahblahblah.

To claim that as a rebutt to the USA, is like saying Moonmen hates America. LOL

 

[mindgames]

Sorry about name calling. Fair comment

The Iraqis have had democracy forced upon them.......not the best recipe for success. Also, democracy is not the panacea for all countries.
I have yet to see you counter any point I have made, so I wouldn't be too cocky about who's winning what argument.

What you say about why Hamas won is pretty true, but rather than supporting your views it supports my view of an essential problem underlying the middle east. Nothing there is easy, there are a morass of values and aims, and democracy is very unlikely to work in the short or long term.

Forcing freedom is a contradiction.

 

[Bean]

It's the same in Australia and it always confounds yet amuses me...whenever the status quo is challenged, some presume it only comes from 'lefties', or 'hippies.'

That is completely untrue. It just seems that way because all the lefty ideas are pushed and pushed on national and international news channels; why? because they are almost all biased towards the far left.

Even the crazy righties that are challenging the status quo with idiotic ideas are getting shot down. Did you read up on the showdown between Evolution and Intelligent Design? ID is nothing but a reformed creationism to make it sound more scientific. There are crazy people on both sides of the fence, in their ditches, lobbing bombs at everyone else. Trouble is, these crazy people are the ones that are heard.

Currently, in the US, the left-wing (FAR LEFT actually) democratic party is so out of touch with reality that they are truly struggling for some identity. From what I've seen and read, the more moderate democrats are getting sick and tired of the Ted Kennedys, John Kerrys, and Hillary Clintons that are taking the party on the straight march to Marxism. I'm actually a moderate democrat/libertarian in my political views; but IMO current democrat party ideals are just so far out there and so ANTI-RIGHT; that I find the conservative groups more closely mirror my own opinions.

 

[CDB]

Anyhow, one thing I really disagree with that you say is about the democratisation of the middle east.

Both you and bio talk about it. Well, look at the result of the Palestinian election. If the US believes their presence in the middle east will bring democracy or even an appreciation of it it appears to be very mistaken.

The point of difference there though is I don't expect every democracy to elect a government I like. I don't even expect my own democracy to do that. I just expect democracy will do in the middle east what it has done here, encourage in large part a mellow sort of government corruption and enough of a semblence of a free market to allow its citizens to get well off enough that they can't suicide bomb because they're taking the kids to soccer practice. There are people all over the world, including this country, who if conditions were right would give their own lives to annihilate their perceived enemies. They're just too damn busy and well fed to reach that point of lunacy.

 

[MaynardMeek]

people need to understand that the democratic party ISN'T Clinton, and Kerry and Kenedy. Much like the islamists, only a small group with the most money and press get all the attention..... these people like kerry, clinton are making themselves out to be their own funny papers... The majority of the democratic party supports the presidents stance on the war against islamists...


Forcing freedom is a contradiction

sure.. in a black and white world forcing anything is not free.. but we are in a very colorful world today... we dont force the election.. yes there are governments that were selected until an election could take place.. but just watch iraq.. they will have a democracy with a stronger backing on true islam.. saddam was the ideal secular muslim.. but he also had a thing about ripping people toes off, having his sons rape teen age girls, put thousands of people in pits because they didn't choose to vote either "saddam ,or Saddam" in their elections...

 

[BioHazzard]

.....The Iraqis have had democracy forced upon them.......not the best recipe for success. Also, democracy is not the panacea for all countries.

So who died and made you god now? Are you lefties specially vested with supreme power to decide WHO gets to live free and WHO gets to live under tryanny?

Who are you to decide who deserves democracy and who does not? Isn' that just absurd as well as arrogant?

I have yet to see you counter any point I have made, so I wouldn't be too cocky about who's winning what argument.

That may be b/c you don't read very well.

It is not about who wins and who loses an argument. Rather it is about the absurd, tried but failed, irrational left wing extremist positions that you have put forth. Like I said, you may be a good person in real life, but you subscribe to this illogical, failed ideology that runs on blind hatred for Bush alone. I am not shredding your integrity and character as a person. I doubt you would condone mass murder, torture and rape. But blinded by your illogical and irrational left wing extremist hatred for a decent and determined leader Bush, you are willing to betray your allegiance to the ideal of democracy and freedom, and instead align yourself with barbaric murderers and rapists of Kandahar and Baghdad. To me, that is the biggest disaster the left wing extremists have inflicted onto themselves. They lost the last pretention of having any credibility.

What you say about why Hamas won is pretty true, but rather than supporting your views it supports my view of an essential problem underlying the middle east. Nothing there is easy, there are a morass of values and aims, and democracy is very unlikely to work in the short or long term.

Forcing freedom is a contradiction.

Forced freedom is an oxymoron. Every single person, yearns to live free from tyranny and oppression. Noone needs YOU to force freedom upon him. Everyone wants to be free.

In the old days, the excuse of the tyrants was that people needed to be governed. The modern day excuse of the tyrants is that democracy and freedom are not for everyone. The arrogance and absurdity go hands in hands.

Again, a self proclaimed advocate of democracy championing the cause of tyranny, is nothing but a mockery of what he claims to represent.



S

 

[CDB]

What you say about why Hamas won is pretty true, but rather than supporting your views it supports my view of an essential problem underlying the middle east. Nothing there is easy, there are a morass of values and aims, and democracy is very unlikely to work in the short or long term.

Forcing freedom is a contradiction.

This is all quite true, but what I think needs to be realized to put this into context is the freedom and liberty are rhetoric. Bush and his cronies do not share the common definition of those terms that others hold. They aren't forcing freedom on people, which is a contradiction in terms. They are trying to force a form of government on them, a form which is likely to lead to moderation if adopted, if only because the strong men in the area find it a more secure and agreeable form of tyranny, as do the people. That's not as unlikely as Iraq spontaneously turning into a US clone country.

 

[MaynardMeek]

iraq will turn into a kuwait

 

[Whiskey Steve]

But you didn't say if you would whine and complain and cry bloody murder if it was a democrat president who was doing what Bush is doing.

fine... yes i would wine and complain and cry bloody murder...happy?


It doesn't matter who you want to call the "terrorist" when we're all on the same team. America is all convinced that there is two sides and one is fighting the other. It's a more like a play. Every role and political/military move was planned out years ago. Thats where I'm comming from. And I have concrete sources.

I'm out
-peace, whiskey

 

[CDB]

So who died and made you god now? Are you lefties specially vested with supreme power to decide WHO gets to live free and WHO gets to live under tryanny?

This charge is just as easily and more accurately leveled at the right in their choice of which countries to help toward freedom and which not to help, and to what degrees. They are making the decision, taking it away from the people who arguably have a better claim to it: the subjugated people themselves.

Who are you to decide who deserves democracy and who does not? Isn' that just absurd as well as arrogant?

The Republicans are the ones actually making the choice in selecting a country to do it in. Erring toward uses of soft power as opposed to hard power is what the Democrats want and that puts them in the same boat. Both parties are making that choice, they just have different means they prefer to use to achieve the end.

Noninterventionists like myself are the only ones not making the choice, because we leave the choice up to the people in those countries: revolt and enforce your own rights or suffer.

But blinded by your illogical and irrational left wing extremist hatred for a decent and determined leader Bush, you are willing to betray your allegiance to the ideal of democracy and freedom, and instead align yourself with barbaric murderers and rapists of Kandahar and Baghdad.

As numerous Republican administrations did when they felt it was in the US interest to do so. As did Democratic administrations...

Forced freedom is an oxymoron. Every single person, yearns to live free from tyranny and oppression. Noone needs YOU to force freedom upon him. Everyone wants to be free.

How do you know this? Granting it's true, do we have the right to help them? Because, the standard for the longest time in the world was essentially universal rights with local enforcement. It was only after Wilson that the idea of using military power to advance the interests and well being of noncitizens became a widely accepted policy. Staying out of foreign wars was given much more weight in matters of policy and honor. Granting we do have the right, should we exercise that right? Granting we should, are we in a position to exercise that right at a reasonable cost to us? Granting that, what's the best option or method to help the people in question?

In the old days, the excuse of the tyrants was that people needed to be governed. The modern day excuse of the tyrants is that democracy and freedom are not for everyone. The arrogance and absurdity go hands in hands.

Saying the world would be better without all tyrants doesn't negate the serious questions that arise when discussing how they are to be removed and democracy promoted. Denying that is basically saying the ends justify the means.

Again, a self proclaimed advocate of democracy championing the cause of tyranny, is nothing but a mockery of what he claims to represent.

That's an entirely false dilema, denying the myriad of questions and options surrounding the issue of a tyrannical state. Not supporting one particular means of removing a tyrant does not translate to supporting that tyrant, just as not buying one brand of bread doesn't mean a wholesale rejection of all bread by a consumer. There are other options, and trying to fit the debate into a one or the other decision doesn't provide anything useful and isn't a true reflection of reality. And that false presentation of this situation is something I've heard far more often from the right than the left.

 

[mywetnightmares]

I'm not gonna pretend to be at the same intellectual level as CDB(who I gotta give some props to) and some others in this thread. I'm not gonna lie, when it comes to foreign policy I base my views on my emotions. I think the best analogy for me as to what I believe should be done about terrorists and rogue governments can be learned from a certain movie(no it's not Team America, though I think the Dicks, Pussies, Assholes speech is absolutely flawless), and that movie is Boondock Saints. I hear about **** happening around the world; Darfur, China, Somalia, the Middle East, the Balkans, the list goes on, and I think to myself somebody needs to just kill 'em all. All those repressive regimes that rape, kill and murder their own citizens and don't suffer the consequences, somebody needs to put a bullet in their collective heads. The UN ain't going to do anything, it's too slow and too corrupt. Something needs to be done now and some people need to die. I don't think that we should only kill the regimes of the countries that are a thorn in our side, I think we need to take them all out, one at a time.

That's just my opinion though and I'm not a pragmatist.