RE: A nation out of control (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

darkinshadows -> RE: A nation out of control (5/7/2005 2:45:32 PM)

quote:

quote:

The CIA, along with the intelligence services for France, Russia, the UK and Germany all said they thought Saddam had a WMD program and might well already have WMDs. That's what the intelligence services were saying.

hmmm.... I would have to review what intelligence services of France, Russia and Germany were saying. But all three countries opposed the invasion of Iraq, so perhaps it wasn't considered to be too much of a threat. You might recall that the UN weapons inspectors said there wasn't anything going on.... and they were right.




I am going to swing a slightly different take on this, because many people view the UN as corrupt and anti USA anyway (see previous posts)

Documents released this past week show that the USA, England and Germany (at least, their presidents and priministers) understood that the WMD was a null and void scenario and were warned that their reasons for going to war would be deemed as illegal and so decided to push the WMD defense as the reason. That comes from the own lips of the governments of the country. They have refused to deny the accusations, yet skim around them with the 'we did what we thought was right'...

Now - it may have been right... they may have been justified in going to war on the grounds of the human atrocities of the kurds and their own people alone. If they had been open and said
 'we don't like sadam, we don't like what he does or what he stands for and he may be a bigger threat to the world in the future - we made a mistake in funding him in the first place and now we have a duty to clean up this mess'
then fuck, I am 100% sure they would have had more support for going to war than they got.

Instead, they tried to weave deceit - and thats the bottom line.

Peace and Love



Youtalkingtome -> RE: A nation out of control (5/8/2005 8:47:53 AM)

onceburned,
Bin laden was trained by the CIA.
Saddam used chem.and bio weapons that were sold to him by the CIA.
This is public knowledge.It is in a senate report from senate hearings from the 90s.
I think Bin Laden will be found when the CIA wants him to be found.
And if they really wanted to find WMDs in Iraq they would have planted them to be found.
That would have made G.W. Bush look good.
The CIA has done many,many bad things.
Did you know about the Senate hearings about drugs??
The CIA is the reason we have cocaine in the U.S..
They introduced it into California and sold it for gun money.
This is public knowledge in the senate report hearings.
Now that I have said this I would assume all Countries do these bad things that most people know nothing about.Unless they decide they want to know the truth as to what is going on.
My point is that you don't like the war and don't know all their is to know about it or why it happened.
With all that I know I don't claim to know why it happened.I don't like or dislike because I don't know all the facts.
I should add that I am not picking on onceburned.
I am saying this to all that are against the war or any war.
We don't have all the facts as to why governments do what they do.
Sometimes it is bad and sometimes it only seems bad because we don't know.And sometimes it may be good things they do but we don't know.
To sum it up be informed ......




CTclay -> RE: A nation out of control (5/8/2005 11:34:08 AM)

Chris,
I'm trying to make points here that are relevant to the decisions we made about going to war and those that we should make, and when I do, you're responding by drifting off into points about what you think we should have done in different areas.

For instance, if we're talking about whether we needed to go to war against Saddam, or didn't, in this decade, it's irrelevant whether or not we supported him in the 1980s or 1970s. I made this point before and you ignored it.

When I bring up the fact that Saddam was a threat to the U.S., you wander off into what amounts to trivia about us firing at his forces when he was violating the peace agreement from the first Gulf War. He was a threat because he is provably ruthless, was consorting with terrorists and obviously had the intention of getting weapons of mass destruction. It really isn't that hard to understand.

You call the scenario that terrorists might get WMDs from him "hypothetical" as if no one had brought it up, or as if it were some complicated conspiracy theory or something. It involves two elements. One is terrorists having WMDs. That's been one of the central concerns of our times for the past several years. Have you been paying attention to current events since 2001? Newsmagazine cover stories have been written about that. Television programs have explored it. Is it so far-fetched a concept?

The second element is that the terrorists get the WMDs from him. Whenever WMDs come up in relation to Saddam Hussein and what he might have done with them, either missiles or terrorists have been discussed as the delivery vehicles. His missiles wouldn't reach us. Terrorists obviously already have. Does it really strike you as so odd that we would want to get rid of a possible source of WMDs for terrorists?

I'm not the only person who worried about the scenario of Saddam giving WMDs to terrorists. I'm not even the 10,000th person who brought it up. It was one of the major points brought up in the debate about going to war.

I think you've got your head in the sand about it.

You talk about scenarios as if no serious person thinking about whether to go to war would bother with them, but they're almost always central to the debate -- we always ask ourselves what will probably or possibly happen if we don't go to war and what will or may happen if we do.

The problem with our government's fight against terrorism before 9/11 was partly that we didn't think about scenarios enough and then act to prevent the most likely ones. If we had, we could have prevented the 9/11 attacks.

You also seem to think it's foolish for the U.S. to ever support some government we view as a lesser evil in order to prevent greater evil. You should think about that.

Actually, the wake-up call for me was when the World Trade Center was attacked, but not on 9/11. I became very concerned about the issue after the first terrorist attack on the WTC in the early 90s and constantly wondered what our government was doing about it and about WMD proliferation.

You haven't provided any alternate proposal that would protect us against this threat, which you classify with asteroids from space. Perhaps you'd just wait for the next terrorist attack, which appears to have been the U.S. government's policy before 9/11. Enjoy the interval.




darkinshadows -> RE: A nation out of control (5/8/2005 12:27:11 PM)

quote:

For instance, if we're talking about whether we needed to go to war against Saddam, or didn't, in this decade, it's irrelevant whether or not we supported him in the 1980s or 1970s. I made this point before and you ignored it.


The fact that it isnt irrelevant is the point you are not getting and are ignoring.

Just imagine - if the US did not fund/support Him - then His presence wouldn't be around, therefore Sadam would not be a threat. Maybe some other country may have supported Him, sure - but as it stands - It was the US - and to ignore and claim it is 'irrelevant' is why people who belive as you do, do not have the support you desire.

quote:

You haven't provided any alternate proposal that would protect us against this threat, which you classify with asteroids from space. Perhaps you'd just wait for the next terrorist attack, which appears to have been the U.S. government's policy before 9/11. Enjoy the interval.


I have a wonderful alternative. Governments - either do not sponser people who may be an eventual risk to world peace in the future, or Governments take full responsiblity for what has occured with assistance from any funding they gave or support. Pretty simple when you think about it.

Peace and Love



darkinshadows -> RE: A nation out of control (5/8/2005 12:36:38 PM)

quote:

We don't have all the facts as to why governments do what they do.Sometimes it is bad and sometimes it only seems bad because we don't know.And sometimes it may be good things they do but we don't know.
To sum it up be informed ......


Sorry - double take here.

How can we (as a peoples) be informed, if as you say we don't have all the facts?
By your tone, even you do not have them all - yet your prepared to follow someone blindly?*confuzled

Now THATS blind faith.

I may be against war - but If I was informed with truth and not with misinformation, like numerous others I would support it. It's because I am informed, I couldn't support the war against Iraq with a clear conscience. I will respond over and over - if I had been told the truth (which was against Internation Law admittedly, but was the truth) - then I would have supported my government. But I don't support lies.

Peace and Love



Youtalkingtome -> RE: A nation out of control (5/8/2005 2:27:26 PM)

dark~angel,
I am not following blindly! I am not a follower at all!!!!
I always choose my own path.
As I said before, I am not for or against the war.
As far as we as peoples being informed or not informed.All anyone can do is be informed as much as possible so that when we vote we vote for people that will do the right thing.The big problem is that most people are not informed and vote.So they put people in power that shouldn't be.Then they complain about how things are and turn around and vote for the same bullshit the next time.
I don't see that war is the problem.I see it as a non-informed voter problem.
As I said before I like the U.S. government before WW2.It has been going down a slippery slope since.
One of the problems we have is secret sub agencies with in the agencies.They have their own agenda and because of black ops they get funding and don't have to show the money trail.All governments are like this.
I am sure that some people like the way we are headed and that is because they are not informed.They don't see the big picture.They only see a few things that they like.





onceburned -> RE: A nation out of control (5/10/2005 2:57:39 PM)

CTClay,

I think you and I actually agree on quite a bit. For example,

quote:

The problem with our government's fight against terrorism before 9/11 was partly that we didn't think about scenarios enough and then act to prevent the most likely ones. If we had, we could have prevented the 9/11 attacks.


Yes, our foreign policy has been focused on the here and now and not focused enough on what will be or might be. This myopia is what led us to support Saddam and bin Laden back in the 1980's - and it came back to haunt us.

We do disagree with the interpretation of some facts.

quote:

He was a threat because he is provably ruthless, was consorting with terrorists and obviously had the intention of getting weapons of mass destruction. It really isn't that hard to understand.


I think you exaggerate on the first of those points. The second point is moot because the sanctions and weapons inspections had neutralized Saddam's ability to gain or develop such weapons.

quote:

You call the scenario that terrorists might get WMDs from him "hypothetical" as if no one had brought it up, or as if it were some complicated conspiracy theory or something. It involves two elements. One is terrorists having WMDs. That's been one of the central concerns of our times for the past several years. Have you been paying attention to current events since 2001? Newsmagazine cover stories have been written about that. Television programs have explored it. Is it so far-fetched a concept?


No, not far-fetched. A bit sensationalistic, that's all. I think you will find that newsmagazines have done cover stories on rather odd topics in the past, including asteroids striking the earth. The same is true for television.

quote:

The second element is that the terrorists get the WMDs from him. Whenever WMDs come up in relation to Saddam Hussein and what he might have done with them, either missiles or terrorists have been discussed as the delivery vehicles.


Being that Saddam didn't have WMDs, or the means of obtaining them, I think this element is the truly implausible point.

quote:

I'm not the only person who worried about the scenario of Saddam giving WMDs to terrorists. I'm not even the 10,000th person who brought it up. It was one of the major points brought up in the debate about going to war.


And of course, it has been shown that Bush and Blair (and their associates) were lying through their teeth. And many people, including you I guess, believed them.

quote:

You also seem to think it's foolish for the U.S. to ever support some government we view as a lesser evil in order to prevent greater evil. You should think about that.


And I think our government needs to consider that if we feed a baby tiger, eventually it will grow up. And adult tigers (such as bin Laden and Saddam) may do things that we don't like.

CTClay, I really do think we both agree on the fundamental points. Terrorism is a real threat, and the government needs to be more thoughtful in its foreign policy in order to curtail it.

We do disagree about how big a threat Saddam really was, and about the real motive for the invasion of Iraq. But maybe we should just agree to disagree. [:)]



Youtalkingtome -> RE: A nation out of control (6/21/2005 10:17:50 AM)

New Bin Laden news.On 6/17/05 I heard an interview with Curt Weldon not sure on the spelling might be Kurt Welden republican congressman from Penn..He is on the Senate intelligence commitee.He wrote a book called count down to terror.He said that from what he has found Bin Laden is in a city( he named the city but I forgot the name) in Iran.He told the C.I.A. and they set up a time and place to meet with a C.I.A. asset.He went to the meeting place and was met by French intelligence and they said not to deal with the C.I.A. in any form.He keeps telling the C.I.A. and they ignore him.
On 6/20/05 the chief of the C.I.A. gets on television and says that Bin Laden might be in Iran.
Now that the book is out it is hard to cover up and they need to look like they are doing something.
As I said before in this thread it is my opinion that Bin Laden will be found when and if the C.I.A. wants him to be found.I think that the C.I.A. won't find him in Iran.But will say that they found evidence that he had been there.Maybe use this for another reason to invade Iran.



Youtalkingtome -> RE: A nation out of control (6/24/2005 9:19:53 PM)

6/23/05 The U.S. supreme court took a big chunk of the 5th amendment and tossed it into the trash can.Now any Fed,State,County or City Government can claim emanant domain for profit.Before it was for roads,pipelines and such.Now they can take personal property and resell it to a developer that will net them more tax revenue.
The Liberals/Socialists have destroyed a little more of the U.S.A. and what it stands for.



Ssilver -> RE: A nation out of control (6/24/2005 9:55:36 PM)

Liberals and socialists...

Hmm...Do me a favor, and count how many of the 5 judges that voted for that were appointed by Republican presidents.




Pavel -> RE: A nation out of control (6/25/2005 12:02:18 AM)

I think we need to lay off on the invadeing places until we've got the situation in Iraq under control. Afganistan would be nice too, but the Taliban folks there are provieng to be much less effective than the jihad monkeys (not intended as a slander against Muslims, as much as I just despise the idea of a "holy war") in Iraq. Iran actually might just be better off as letting the situation handle itself. There's growing discontent with the current leadership, along with the fact that the people who represent the Islamic hardline are chiefly of the much more aged group. I can a regime change without the need for US troops (although perhaps supporting assets like intelligence, airpower, and some troops might speed the effort).

I think the liberals and socialists line might be out of place as far as who put them there, but to be fair the judgment was very anti-conservative/non-business republican (both of which tend to hold individual ownership as sacred). I'm personally disgusted at the idea of Goverment and Business interests working togther so closely in a manner that ultimately steps on people's lives. My property should only be taken for the clear public good (read public works, and the like). While I realize bringing in new money for taxation is good, at the same time I have to wonder if the public would be better served by an efficent and lean goverment, rather than simply letting the current overloaded one find somthing new to feed on.



Youtalkingtome -> RE: A nation out of control (6/25/2005 9:11:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ssilver

Liberals and socialists...

Hmm...Do me a favor, and count how many of the 5 judges that voted for that were appointed by Republican presidents.



Being appointed by a Republican President doesn't make them conservative.And being Republican doesn't make someone conservative.
The Republican and Democratic parties are not all that different from one another.At one time they were different.Example.Most older people still vote for the Dems because they still think that the Democratic party is the party for the working men and women like it was 100 years ago.



Ssilver -> RE: A nation out of control (6/25/2005 12:25:45 PM)

I don't think that it is an anti-business judgement at all. This enables local cities to seize property and turn it over to developers. Anti-private property, yes.

The "liberals and socialists" whine is out of place here because this ruling is neo-corporatist to the core, and nothing more, like you pointed out.




Youtalkingtome -> RE: A nation out of control (6/25/2005 6:11:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ssilver

I don't think that it is an anti-business judgement at all. This enables local cities to seize property and turn it over to developers. Anti-private property, yes.

The "liberals and socialists" whine is out of place here because this ruling is neo-corporatist to the core, and nothing more, like you pointed out.



In a pure socialist or Communist society the governmet controls or owns the property that we now own.We have personal property rights that are being eroded away.When Clinton was President the Supreme court decided that cars were not personal property and could be taken from people and searched without a search warrant.
It is a control issue.The Government controling more and more of our lives.That is big Government=Socialism!!!!
I wanted to add that in a socialist society what is mine is mine and what is yours is mine.




Ssilver -> RE: A nation out of control (6/25/2005 6:44:54 PM)

That's simply not correct. Big government does not necessarily equal socialism. In this case here, if you don't like corporatism, fascism (the economic side of it) seems to be the closest label that fits, but even that isn't a good description. Remember, this doesn't take away the right to own private property. The developer that gets the block of houses to put up a mall owns the property, correct?

So, any way you slice it, this is not a socialist ruling, unless you redefine all common meanings of the word.



Youtalkingtome -> RE: A nation out of control (6/25/2005 7:07:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ssilver

That's simply not correct. Big government does not necessarily equal socialism. In this case here, if you don't like corporatism, fascism (the economic side of it) seems to be the closest label that fits, but even that isn't a good description. Remember, this doesn't take away the right to own private property. The developer that gets the block of houses to put up a mall owns the property, correct?

So, any way you slice it, this is not a socialist ruling, unless you redefine all common meanings of the word.

Redistribution of property or money by it being taken from you is socialism!!!
Even if you are paid for the property that you didn't want to sell in the first place.Most of the time that they do this they offer you what they concider to be the fair market value of the property.Sometimes it can never be a fair market value because it can not be replaced or duplacated.And that is why they want the property.It can't be duplacated in that area.
I know the Supreme decision didn't take away the right to own personal property.But if the elitists Socialists had their way that is what would happen.
And big Government does = socialism!In order to have big Government they need more and more money in the form of raising taxes.And when they do this you get hand outs for people and business. ( redistibution of money)



Ssilver -> RE: A nation out of control (6/25/2005 7:33:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Youtalkingtome

Redistribution of property or money by it being taken from you is socialism!!!



Not in this case, it isn't. Corporatism, not socialism.

Zimbabwe recently would be another case of this happening on a much larger scale that wasn't socialism. That was a more simple case of cronyism, to a large degree.



Lordandmaster -> RE: A nation out of control (6/25/2005 8:02:01 PM)

Having a township take over your land so that a developer can put in a shopping mall is hardly socialism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Youtalkingtome
Redistribution of property or money by it being taken from you is socialism!!!




Pavel -> RE: A nation out of control (6/25/2005 10:41:46 PM)

I really don't care what you call it. A load of feces would smell just as foul by any name, or presumed poltical alignment. I certainly don't see the socialist end to it, as it in a conveluted way benifits the state, but it's primarily an alliance between corperation and the local government. At the same time though, I think liberal and conservative is misleading here. When compared to parties around the world, American Liberals and Conservitives are actually just a slight shift left or right somewhere towards centrist. This is partly why we often have two very similar candiates running for the same office from the two major parties, they're really not comeing from that different a platform.



darkinshadows -> RE: A nation out of control (6/26/2005 2:49:56 AM)

LaM - I love your example - (The rest of the post isn't directed to you, just wanted to admire your example)


It isn't socialism, thats just a misuse of words.

In truth, it is more capitalist. But either way you decide to label it, it is still an act against humanity.

When a country is forced into a position that is maybe ok for trade for the few, but is against people basic human rights, that is democracy at it's worst.

If it's being taken to build a shopping mall or to make a profit for a larger organisation, that is essentially, capitalist.

quote:

Redistribution of property or money by it being taken from you is socialism!!!


But it isn't a redistribution of wealth by any stretch of the imagination. It's to line the pockets of the few, in the name of the many. Capitalism, not socialism.

However if it were to be taken for say, housing other people, that could be socialist.
So, for example, Mugabees policies could be seen at socialist, (but that wouldn't sit very well with some, would it?)

Peace and Love



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875