Another viewpoint of the war

Fuck,I cant’t take this.

The Mage wrote:

"What makes this war illegal? People keep throwing out this word, but never stating how it is illegal. I presume it is because we supposedly didn’t get a re-re-re-re-approval from the UN. Then again I didn’t get permission to wipe my ass, so I am violating these rules also. "

Are you kidding me? It’s illegal because it breaks the international laws that the USA also signed. I posted the exact law in the war protesting thread, but it seems everything I say, be it out of history books or straight out of UN resolutions is dismissed at your convenience.

I have a lot more to say but I’m discusing these things in places were there’s actually americans with a brain, contrary to most that post in political threads here.

As side note, BobT(AKA Avoidroids), no need to add insult to your attempt of injury. Do you really mean you wouldn’t call me a terrorist if I shot american children in a similar situation even when you called me one for being anti war? Nice.

United States=Good Guys,

Hope you don’t have bad dreams with the evil European that insists on bringing the facts here. :slight_smile:

The claims that “Halliburton will not profit from the war”, and that Cheney is uncconnected to Halliburton are wrong. This from MSNBC:

“THE VICE PRESIDENT hasn?t entirely severed his financial ties to the big defense contractor. Even while Halliburton is scoring Army contracts that could top $2 billion, Cheney is still receiving annual compensation from the company he led from 1995 to August 2000, NEWSWEEK has learned.”

“Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, complained to the Army last week about the contract Halliburton?s Kellogg, Brown & Root unit received in early March to fight Iraqi oil fires. The Army secretly awarded Halliburton the contract, which analysts say could be worth up to $1 billion, without receiving other bids.”

There are a lot of different arguments here, I will try to touch on the ones I remember…

To AvoidsRoids
We need to remain on good terms with Germany and France because they have the world’s 3rd largest and 5th largest economy, they are NATO members, and the US needs political allies. We should not be burning bridges with our allies in the West.

The Project for New American Century is a neo-conservative group that is embedded in the Bush Defense Cabinet. Prior to 9-11 the PNAC drafted a paper (signed by Cheney and Rumsefeld) saying that the US should go to war in the Middle East, and that Iraq was a good candidate because it was “brittle”. After 9-11, the PNAC sent Bush a memo signed by 40 people including advisors, threatening that they would pull their support if he did not initiate a war in the Middle East. The stated purpose of the PNAC is to establish US global domination. While I am pro-America, I do not believe that the proper role of America is “world domination”. I believe a balance of power is healthy.

http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/news-4/1048782393215650.xml

To get back to the original post I made (that the media is not covering the war in a fair and balanced way):

“FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) STUDY:
In Iraq Crisis, Networks Are Megaphones for Official Views”

http://www.fair.org/reports/iraq-sources.htm

The role of journalists is NOT to be puppets of their government. That is a dangerous situation.

To the poster who repeatedly referred to Clinton as “Billy Boy”: Thank God that President Bush has done away with all of that boring peace and prosperity, huh?

I agree that Saddam is an asshole, but getting rid of Saddam is just a nice “fringe benefit” of this war. This war is not about terrorism or weapons of mass destruction (The US has found none, and Iraq has not used them in this war…why not?)

Regarding the loss of freedom under Bush, no I am not talking about getting checked at the airport!!! Jeez! I am talking about the Patriot Act (1 & 2):

"Constitutional watchdog Nat Hentoff has called it “the most radical government plan in our history to remove from Americans their liberties under the Bill of Rights.”:

I have to disagree with you Restless. The war in Iraq is perfectly legal. United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 says that any member state can use military force to enforce the requirements of this OR ANY SUBSEQUENT RESOLUTION dealing with Saddam. Resolution 687 and 1441 ARE SUBSEQUENT RESOLUTIONS dealing with the disarmement of Saddam. All of the debates and pandering to foreign government were courtesy’s.

No more Mr. Nice Guy it’s time to kick some ass!

The UN resolutions do not give the US the power to declare war.

Also, the UN security council was clearly against the war. So it doesn’t make a bit of sense to say that the US is doing the will of the security council by ignoring it’s wishes.

"I have to disagree with you Restless. The war in Iraq is perfectly legal. United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 says that any member state can use military force to enforce the requirements of this OR ANY SUBSEQUENT RESOLUTION dealing with Saddam. Resolution 687 and 1441 ARE SUBSEQUENT RESOLUTIONS dealing with the disarmement of Saddam. All of the debates and pandering to foreign government were courtesy’s. "

The UN inspectors were still performing their job and could have have staied there untill they found something if it weren’t for Bush’s trigger hitchy finger. Those resolutions mean nothing since the USA didn’t allow the inspectors to finish the job. Onthe aother hand article 51 says:

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

And as the USA failed to present evidence of either Iraq’s involvement with Al-Qaeda or of his WMD arsenal that might endanger world peace you are breaking internatuional laws.

“No more Mr. Nice Guy it’s time to kick some ass!”

Sure is. I bet you are really proud of performing the same brutal actions against women and children as Saddam does. Congratulations cowboy. What makes me really sick is your attempts to pass this war as something clean and pretty. War is disgusting, innocent people always get killed. But hey, you have the perfect excuse, you can murder as much children as necessary as you can always blame Saddam for using them as human shields.

I support the war, although I see the argument from both sides. Let’s face it, we all have our individual prejudices or predispositions to seeing things in our own unique way.

I believe that the liberal argument against this war really boils down to the premise that many from the left don’t support any war - period. They don’t believe in war. I suppose if somebody attacked our mainland the liberals would support military action or reprisal (I hope). Many from the right argue that 9/11 constituted such an attack and that Saddam is directly or indirectly connected with the 9/11 attackers. Be that as it may, we’ve all heard the arguments going back and forth on this… there’s no definite proof… there doesn’t have to be, etc.

I have to tell you I am not a fool (at least I don’t believe myself to be one) and I certainly don’t believe that this country, the U.S.A., does things for wholly altruistic reasons. There is no doubt that it is in our best interest economically to have stability in the mid-east. However, many believe that the current Iraqi regime, if left unchecked, presents a threat to the safety of our citizens. This, also, can be debated from both sides. However, I have to tell you that it saddens me to see that some of us believe we have undertaken this war entirely for economic reasons. Dick Cheney still gets money from Halliburton. So what? Do you know anything about the corporate world? I can tell you that I do… I just got done preparing my company’s proxy statement and am well aware of what top executives, directors, etc. earn from their companies. And it makes me and everyone else sick. But, you think we went to war because of that? We’ve had plans on the table for quite some time for attacking Iraq. Man, I would hope so! What do you think our military does in peacetime? They better have contingency plans in place for every flashpoint in the world (North Korea, et al.). This is what the military does.

War and violence suck. Tell that to Saddam, maybe he’ll listen to you. Unfortunately, war AND violence are also a reality in the world we live in. I know that the liberals wished that this was not so, but unfortunately mankind has not advanced to a higher state of existence or just plain old conflict resolution. Because conservatives recognize this does not make them war mongerers, etc. This, my friends, is reality. One more thing, why the perverted talk from the liberals about killing babies, etc.? Do you think that conservatives who support this war take glee in seeing women and children killed in bombing runs? If so, you have deep-rooted issues and are far too emotional to be making clear arguments and drawing inferences from them on this and other complex issues.

Peace To All and Godspeed to ending this war quickly.

First off lets hope no no more British and American troops get killed, secondly I thought I’d bring some international perspective in here. OK some of you don’t give a crap whether France or Germany like the States or not but lets face it: superpowers don’t last for ever. In Britain now the war has started there is support for the troops but little else. It isn’t just France and Germany taking a dim view of ‘W’. Most people in Britain hate Blair for being the US’s butt monkey and hate Bush for dragging us all into this. One minute we all hated Bush for seeming to restart isolationalism, he then does a good job over 9/11 and then he starts a war (suddenly becoming intersted in the rest of the world?!). I think Saddam has to be got rid of but I think Bush shouldn’t have stepped on the world’s toes doing it. There is more than just one nation out there you know.

Kenmen said “We’ve had plans on the table for quite some time for attacking Iraq. Man, I would hope so! What do you think our military does in peacetime?”

What I was referring to was not the military making plans but bueraucrats and political strategists (the neo-conservatives in the Commitree for a New American Century) making plans for Iraq. Reportedly Iran may be the next step?

I agree that the business of the military is preparing for war, I have no problem with that. What I don’t agree with is the idea that the role of the US in the 21st century is to dominate world affairs.

Lumpy, you wrote:

“To AvoidsRoids
We need to remain on good terms with Germany and France because they have the world’s 3rd largest and 5th largest economy, they are NATO members, and the US needs political allies. We should not be burning bridges with our allies in the West.”

I think you may have me confused with someone else. I have not even posted on this thread. However, it is nice to be in your thoughts. :slight_smile:

i c

I totally agree with the comments on the distastefulness and irresponsibility of this “gee-whiz” presentation of war. Instead of showing “how cool” weapons are, and how much fun it is to press buttons, the networks should be showing the true nature of what war is. It’s easy to support just about any war if you are so thoroughly disconnected from it that it becomes as abstract as playing a video game, but it becomes substantially more difficult if you are confronted with the bloodiest and nastiest pictures available. Consider it a test of belief, if you will. If a person still supports the war after seeing daily pictures of dead, maggot infested corpses of Iraqi soldiers and civilians, as well as dead and mangled Americans, then they’re depth of support for the war is demonstrably greater. If a person could accept the though of losing a father, brother or son to a conflict, then their support for the war in question is limitless. Many wars in American history have inspired this level of commitment and resolve, and these are the wars which are almost universally accepted as having been “just”. Media coverage like this (the American coverage) makes support of war (in general) too easy. If people really believe that this war or any other is in fact “just” and worthwhile then they should have no compunction about viewing the consequences in a realistic manner.
This statement is not meant to be a judgment on this war or war a general concept, rather it is a meant as a protestation of ineffective and irresponsible media, which displays actions without consequences. There is something quite wrong with an embedded reporter giving play by play commentary of a fire fight, as if it were merely an exciting game, not realizing that the fire on one side or the other just stopped because a man’s body was turned to mush by a grenade; that a mother and father somewhere just lost a son, a wife a husband, and sons and daughters a father. All I want is some perspective, war is fucking serious stuff.

“But war is no pastime; no mere passion for venturing and winning; no work
of a free enthusiasm; it is a serious means for a serious object.”
Carl von Clausewitz

Every time I look at the TV in awe of the asinine commentary, I just remind myself that these “talking heads” (and newspaper writers for that matter) are not political scientist, nor are they economists or engineers. In fact, they really aren’t too well educated at all. Yet these are the people represented as informational authority figures. Oh well, who needs accurate information anyway?

“I feel like chicken tonight, chicken tonight!”
-Popular mid ?90s chicken advertisement

Restless: I had to search for what you were talking about, and found your mention of resolution 51, which seems to state that we can take action until we are told not to. And Longsnapper correctly disputes your argument. The actions of the US are perfectly legal.


It states “RECALLING that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,?”

“RECALLING that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,?”

Proof of the US not being engaged in an “illegal” act. I found this copy at: http://australianpolitics.com/news/2002/11/02-11-08.shtml

I am sorry if you consider anyone who disagrees with you as having no brain. As people find they are losing their arguments, they degrade into such attacks. I remember making no such attack against you, or anyone else. Like I stated in the war protesting thread, we can debate this issue without getting personal. (Paraphrased.)

Lumpy: Nice selective editing. You forgot the part of the article that states “Cheney, through spokeswoman Cathie Martin, contends he has no financial ties to Halliburton because of an insurance policy he took out for the value of his deferred compensation, which means he?ll get paid even if the company goes under. ?He has no financial interest in the success of the company,? says Martin, who adds that Cheney has no say in awarding defense contracts. Indeed, NEWSWEEK learned last week that Halliburton is not a finalist for a $600 million reconstruction contract in Iraq.”

On your next link, I expected to be taken to the document, but instead was taken to an article where protesters claimed to have a document. What document is this? How do I know it even exists, and if it does that it is not having it’s meaning twisted as is often done by political groups? If you get a copy of this document, post a link so I can verify its information. Not just a link to an article by a reporter repeating what protestors are saying about their interpretation of a document that might or might not exist. (4 degrees of separation?)

As far as the fairness of the US media, I don’t ever remember it being fair, but to imply that any other media is fair is being foolish. Again I ask what pro-American articles did the website you mentioned link to? Also I often find the American media very critical of the American government. Again getting information and news from a variety of sources is a good thing, as long as you know and understand the bias of the media in question.


Glad to find out that we didn’t have any military action during Clinton’s entire presidency. We didn’t bomb Iraq, and Kosovo. Didn’t we send troops to Haiti? And other military actions by the Clinton administration. Don’t act as if the second Clinton became the prez there was peace on earth, and the second he was gone the world suddenly exploded. It is not fair to look at any leadership with rose colored glasses.


What do you mean we found no banned weapons? These inspectors found precursors of mustard gas, and missiles have been fired that exceeded the range allowed by the UN. Iraqi defectors have told of working with chemicals and biological weapons, as well as a nuke program.


As far as the patriot act, actually I am a little worried about it. It does seem to be more of a quick overreaction to 9/11, but experts say that the biggest problems won’t survive a Supreme Court challenge. Something this broad should have been thought through a little more.


As far as the Security Council being against it, resolution 1441 already gave approval, and final date, which the US generously allowed a delay of attack. We could have easily attacked earlier. May have had to delay ground forces a little bit, but we could have gotten troops there quicker. We were hoping that the fear of attack would be enough to make him give up his weapons. But if we don’t follow through with threats, then the threats become worthless. And Saddam begins to ignore threats. If we don’t act on our threats, why worry about them?


One last thing, does anyone know that before the first Gulf war America had to eliminate Iraqi sleeper cells it was tracking before we started the war? By the way, what is a NEO-conservative?

Iraq - Al Qaeda link:


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83047,00.html


http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/abs_news_body.asp?section=World&oid=19500


USATODAY.com - Raid links Iraqi group, al-Qaeda


http://www.itv.com/news/1888086.html

Mage: I’m a Brit and I thought I’d take up a few points from your mail - its good rather than ranting or raving you gave some logical arguments, nice to people can argue without acting like children.

First of this link gives the arguments on the legality of pre-emptive attack on Iraq, you can argue semantics on the UN resolutions as much as you want but the corpus of legal opinion is that the Britain, US, and Australia contravened ‘International Law’.

Halliburton indeed missed out on the bid however other companies tied to the Bush Administration may have struck gold.

Being a Brit I don?t really have to say much about the American media seeing as how as I don’t actually watch any of the channels.

I also don’t understand all this French and German bashing from the states,The French and Germans weren’t actually arguing one should not fight but rather the inspectors should be given more time. If indeed the world had waited for twelve years (and successfully if you believe people like Scott Ritter) to control Saddam then why not wait another few months for the inspectors to finish their work?.

I think the problem that people have is that the Bush Administration had made its mind up about attacking the Iraq regardless, Dick Cheney stated that the US were going to attack Iraq regardless of what the inspectors found. So in that case why play the game of the UN even if the time lines had already been set?.

Neo-Conservative literally means ‘New Conservative’ … I suppose in layman language it means conservative values updated for current times.

I read most of those link and at least two of them refer to Northern Iraq which is effectively autonomous from Baghdad and regulated by the United States. None of the links conclusively prove anything. In fact Al-Qaeda had issued a fatwa for Saddam death because he is deemed an apostate because he believes in a secular state.
Check this link about disinformation.

"
I am sorry if you consider anyone who disagrees with you as having no brain. As people find they are losing their arguments, they degrade into such attacks. I remember making no such attack against you, or anyone else. Like I stated in the war protesting thread, we can debate this issue without getting personal. (Paraphrased.)
"

No, not everyone. You know about who I’m talking about.

Jeru72: Hello, great to have you here. Your link gives the best information about the possibility of the war against Iraq as being an illegal action. At least compared to previous arguments. I know I can find links to other legal analysts who can “prove” the opposite, but I think this might be a better link:


http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4296646,00.html


It is a copy of an article that appeared in the London Observer shortly after the September 11 attack. I consider this to be a strong link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And probably a better link then suggested in the articles I posted previously. While the Al Qaeda forces were in a part of Iraq that was not fully in Saddam’s control, they were still in Iraq. Circumstantial I know, but the Observer article spells out specific intelligence about Iraqi officials meeting with Mohammad Atta five months before he flew a plane into the World Trade Center. And mentions training camps run by Iraq used to train terrorists to hijack planes.


Here is a quote from the article: In an interiew with The Observer, he echoed Zeinab’s claims: ‘The foreigners’ training includes assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking. They were strictly separated from the rest of us. To hijack planes they were taught to use small knives. The method used on 11 September perfectly coincides with the training I saw at the camp. When I saw the twin towers attack, the first thought that came into my head was, “this has been done by graduates of Salman Pak”.’


I know that Bush has changed the mind of a few Americans, and foreign dignitaries, who were unsure of action against Iraq until Bush showed evidence of a link. I don’t know why this evidence is kept secret, but I trust that it exists, otherwise I don’t think minds would have been changed. It is possible that the evidence would have revealed important Iraqi’s working for our intelligence. Betraying them would be wrong.


America being convinced that Iraq had a hand in the attack on the US is enough for us to legally attack Iraq. I don’t know why this information seems to be falling by the wayside.


The other two links are opinion, and not news, though are good arguments. Al Qaeda is a group of loosely based cells of terrorists. I believe that not all call themselves Al Qeaea, and Saddam could be fighting with one cell while training another. They could also have made peace temporarily just to fight the “Great Satan.” As it is said, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.


As far as any financial links between the Bush administration, I wouldn’t doubt some links. Having friends in high places is a benefit to business. But I still do not believe that they are going to war just to make money. They are already wealthy. Also the second Bush retires, he can make $100,000 or more per speech. And that is a low estimate. Dick Cheney will also command big fees for speeches. The best financial decision they could make is to not run in the next election so they can get to making speeches, or other public appearances. Clinton probably made more in his first year out of office then he made the entire four years as president. I believe he made one speech where he was paid one million.


On the term neo-conservative, I was actually trying to find out what he was trying to mean by the statement. I doubt it was a positive comment, but new conservative ideas sounds positive. Probably not what he meant.


I will readily admit that I generally have conservative views, and I also have some obviously liberal views, but I do lean conservative. Regardless I am independent. I often find that both parties tend to believe that they are trying to save the world, and the other is an evil organization that they are bent on trying to stop from destroying the world. I personally believe that most of the people in these groups are there for good reasons. And definitely there are those that, unfortunately in their zest to “save us from the other evil party” will do the wrong thing, not realizing that doing the wrong thing means that they are wrong.


I try to never forget that the person I am debating believes that what he is arguing for or against is better for the world. It would be nice if everyone kept that in mind when debating. By deciding that the other belief is evil, and the person you are debating has ulterior motives leads to a weakened debate, and personal attacks. That bias is obvious, and very easy to discredit. You even have people turn to events in the 1800’s to substantiate their argument about 2003. An analogy or example is acceptable, but stating that what a person, country, or religion did in history substantiates a current action, or lets somebody off the hook is nothing but hot air.

As we go into the war we learn more and more about Sadamm Hussian and I hate him more as the war progress. Who in the right mind and how brainwashed are the people in Iraq are a pregnent women drives a car and blows herself up killing 3 soilders in process.

Do you really want to live in that type of country under that type of goverment? Bush is doing the right thing in IRAQ SADAMM needs to go.

And what about Iraqi soilders carry gas mask and shots for protecting themsevles against chemical or biological warfare. Whats up w/ that. Leads me to believe the Iraqi goverment is trying to hide something from the world that they in fact do have chemical and boligical weapons where they shouldn’t.Eventhough they haven’t use it yet. We’ll find them its a matter of time.

As for France and Gremany, they’ll come around after the war is over begging to be a part of the rebuilding of Iraq. Because in the end its all about money. The only really true relation that the US needs to focus on is China. We need to keep go relations w/ that country.

The Mage
Even the head of the CIA said there was no credible evidence tying 9-11 to Iraq.

The training camps you discuss are in a part of Iraq where diisidents want to kill Hussein. So how could he be sponsoring them?

And if Hussein is such a threat, how come he was unable to secure territories in the North and South, in his OWN COUNTRY?

Some threat to world peace, he doesn’t even have his own country under control.

“But I still do not believe that they are going to war just to make money. They are already wealthy”

I’m sorry but that is funny! Nothing personal but LOL.

The war is complicated, it’s not just about one thing like “oil”. Getting rid of Saddam is a legitimate factor and argument, but it goes deeper than that, a lot deeper.

I think you should look at some of the news stories at whatreallyhappened.com, just look at the stories you are interested in. If you don’t think it comes from a credible source, don’t read it. Many of the links there are from UK newspapers and local US papers. You might learn something? For example did you know that only hours after drafting a “support the troops” resolution, the House of Reps voted to slash veterans’ benefits by 10 BILLION dollars? How does that “support the troops”?

Luckily Democrats in the Senate pressured Republican majority to override the budget cuts. Look it up… do a Google search on veterans budget cuts.

Lumpy: If you read my link, it talked about Mohamed Atta meeting with Colonel Muhammed Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani, “one of Iraq’s most highly decorated intelligence officers?” It also states: “Senior US intelligence sources say the CIA has ‘credible information’ that in the spring of this year, at least two other members of the hijacking team also met known Iraqi intelligence agents outside the United States.”


I haven’t seen an article about what the head of the CIA said. What is his name? What was the source of his quote?


As far as the regions he “does not control,” there has been fighting in those areas with Saddam’s troops. Regardless of whether or not he is officially in control of those areas, he obviously has troops there. The biggest reason he is not in control of the north is because of the UN declaring that Iraq north of the latitude 36 degrees north be a safe haven for the Kurds. With American forces monitoring the no fly zones, he has less power, and any attack would bring immediate reprisal. So that is the only reason he is not really in control of the northern part of his country, not because of a weakness in his military.


Salman Pak, the location of terrorist training in plane hijacking using the exact method used by the 9/11 hijackers, is located 38 kilometers southeast of Baghdad. UN inspectors have seen the plane defectors said was used in the training.


Nice idea of saying something is funny to avoid having to come up with an intelligent argument. LOL.


This war is actually quite simple. Regardless of anything else, America has ignored the terrorist problem for too long. Once America was attacked it was shown that we were not immune to this threat. Realizing this we came to our senses and now know that terrorism must be eliminated from the world. Terrorism is the single biggest threat to the world. Intelligent people have been saying this for years, but now more people are willing to listen. If we can eliminate, or reduce this threat then the world is a safer place. Other countries that sponsor terrorism now know we mean business. Anyone can see that the destruction of the terrorist networks, and stopping countries from sponsoring terrorism is good for the world.


Ok, I checked out their fair reporting and found this link: 'No Sign' Of US In Baghdad


Obviously we never were in Baghdad even though I watched them live on TV driving around Baghdad. I was interested when I found the link to “NY Times Confirms US Troops Not In Baghdad.” When I clicked it I thought it would take me to the NY times. But it took me to overthrow.com. This link was posted April 5. I then looked at the NY times website which is now updated to April 6, and their front-page article is about the US being in Baghdad. Some links are to good sources of information, but anything giving a positive view of America, or giving information that could support the American position on this war is filtered out. This site should be called “I Hate America dot com!”


Once again I ask what link do they have about anything positive about America?


And as far as the story about the Veteran benefits, I did a little searching, noticed a lot of biased websites were brought to the top, and switched to the news search. I couldn’t find as much information as I had hoped. But what I found seemed to be more like $15 billion. But one news story mentioned $13 billion in increased benefits. I don’t know if that was something else. Another article talked with a Republican who was against it, and discussed the GOP had decided to remove it. Another article mentioned that wealthy people would have their benefits reduced because they can more easily afford it, and yet another article mentioned the possibility of a $250 fee each year for anyone who makes over $30,000 a year.


I am not here to defend the Republican Party. I am not a member of it. I also don’t know if it might have been put in just to cause a political negotiation. Political parties do that. Put something in that they don’t actually agree with, but use it as a negotiating tool. But I don’t know if that is what happened here. I don’t think it should have been part of the budget regardless. There are a lot of other areas that could be easily cut. I personally disagree with Bush’s major increase in spending, and expansion of the government. I have to budget my money, I don’t see why the government doesn’t do the same.

I posted this collection of my thoughts last night in the wrong thread. It belongs in here…

(posted on April 6th)
An interesting thread. I was tempted to join in early on, before it descended into name calling. Well, I have a few thoughts I have been tossing around and I will throw them out here.

Let me preface my thoughts on the war by saying that I do NOT have any disrespect for anyone in this forum. I will not call any of you names, and I will read any replies and answer respectfully. My post may not be all that controversial, but I just want to make sure that you all understand that I am not attacking anyone who has posted in here. These are my thoughts and opinions.

About the war…

I am not an “anti-war protester” type… I just like to keep my eyes and my mind open to the possibilities, and it is possible that we are in over our heads right now. Things are pretty mixed where I live (in the South). Half of the people think we should be there, the other half do not. Of the half that think we should be there, about a third of those are filled with jingoistic “America - right or wrong!” pride, the rest just sincerely believe that Saddam is a threat to their white bread suburban little lives.

Personally I am amazed that we are following a man whose college IQ tests
placed him at a whopping 97 (the national average, tip of the bell curve), and in his college phase accrued 9 DWIs! But then again, he wouldn’t be a good puppet if he had too much independent thinking skill. Thankfully for him neither does the rest of the country. Appropriate I suppose. This has been a convenient smoke screen for his agenda, which is to open up the federal coffers to his Wall Street buddies so they can steal as much as they can take while he is in power. It distracts America from the failing economy and from his Enron dealings (the only guy at the top who was going to be a “whistle blower,” a young man with a family and no history of depression, conveniently committed suicide). I guess that they have forgotten that GW was in bed with ENRON from the very beginning, even before the election, and that they actually wrote his energy policy.

I guess that they forgot that his, daddy George Sr., had to put a stop to
the jailing the criminals, whose failed S&L’s cost this country pver 300 billion, when it came time for his own son GW to face charges for his failed S&L, which by itself incidentally, cost taxpayers 11 billion dollars!

I guess that they have forgotten that this started as the war on terrorism,
and we were manipulated in our anguish, fear and rightly felt horror and indignation over Sept. 11th. When the short attention span of Americans
became bored with hunting down the elusive Osama, it conveniently
transformed into the war on Iraq and subsequently the rest of the “axis of
evil.” Now the entire region is destabilized. Once the rest of the countries on our “watch list” realized that the “little bully” had power and was willing to use it, they all began to rush to arms, and soon we will have a very good reason to defend ourselves. He (or the people who control him) wants to push us into a world war from all outward appearances. They are nationalists (isolationists), and they are succeeding in destroying what is
left of the stability in that region, and losing all of our allies in the
process. Murdering innocent civilians to enhance elitist oil accounts has a
way of planting seeds and creates more TERRORISTS.

I guess that they have forgotten that this is how Hitler’s power grew… he
inflamed national pride and struck a nerve with his message of hatred. He
was a populist. Have you seen any of the news where the officials have “warned” Americans that they need to stock up on water and duct tape to seal their homes because of the eminent bio-terrorist attack on
suburban America? It was by far one of the greatest INSULTS to my
intelligence that I have ever had to bear. It harkened back to the “Red
Scare” of the '50s… as if dropping and covering could save anyone should a nuke be dropped on his or her town! If they had the capability of launching such an attack, duct tape won’t save me. In fact, if I were to successfully seal my house as they recommended, I would suffocate! I just can’t believe that people can’t recognize this for what it is… a PATHETIC attempt to create fear in the masses, to make us beg to be protected by our brave leaders, hence clearing the way for them to pass legislation that will whittle away yet more of our personal freedoms and privacy.

The only thing the Bush’s new Gulf War will accomplish is making arms
manufacturers and oil companies even richer and will create MORE terrorism… which maybe is what the Bush’s and Rumsfeld’s want so the can
continue this so-called “state of emergency” for as long as they want. Thus further eroding our constitutional rights… making it safer for global markets to get away with further abuses. After all, a frightened populous kept in their kennels and obedient to business and the state by a heavy duty, run amok POLICE STATE is the most easy to manipulate.

I guess that they have forgotten (or never even knew) that we CREATED
Saddam! We gave him money and arms (gave him power basically) so that he
could help us with our common enemy, Iran. Which, incidentally, is yet
another situation that we created for ourselves. The U.S. thought is was a
great idea to overthrow the democratically elected Mohammed Mossaday government and replace him with The Shaw, who was so brutal towards his own people that he literally killed off moderate opposition so that the only
other option was NOT so moderate opposition in the form of Iatollah
Homeaini, at that point violent Islamic fundamentalist uprising skyrocketed all over that part of the world, and to this day we still have the problem CAUSED BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. I wonder if things would be different today if we had left the people of Iran ALONE in the 1950’s and NOT eliminated their democratically elected government. The sleaziest aspect of this move was that we only did this because Mossaday wanted to nationalize the oil export business when he realized how much they were being raped by America and
Britain. The CIA even filmed propaganda newsreels showing Iranians
overthrowing their own government. We did similar actions with Osama,
Noriega, almost to Castro (Bay of Pigs) and others. We are solely responsible for the anti-American
sentiment that is prevalent across the world right now. But thank GOD for
lower prices at the gas pump though, right? I wonder if the son of the
former head of the CIA can clean up his daddy’s messes, just like his daddy helped clean up all of his.

I am sick about this war. I have a cousin over there that is in the 101st
airborne who is undoubtedly in the thick of the action right now. I just
found out less than an hour ago that my brother-in-law is shipping out in
two more hours. His sister, my wife, is distraught. If they really do
possess any weapons of mass destruction and they decide to unleash it on the troops over there, I lose two family members. Despite my feelings toward the administration, I do support the troops and hope they make it back safely. They are just being good soldiers, doing what they are told to do and doing it well. It is really amazing to me when I realize how YOUNG the majority of the people in the armed forces really are. It is a lot of responsibility and they handle it extremely well.

Outside of my selfish reasons
for being upset about this war, I am disgusted with our intrusion… It
holds the same satisfaction for me that beating up my four-year-old son
would. In fact, it is going to have similar results. It wouldn’t be
difficult for an adult to beat up a four-year-old child, but anyone who
witnessed it would become enraged, and would quite possibly step in. We are
just asking for it, if you ask me!

Let’s not forget all of these NEW countries that became independent
countries after the fall of the Soviets…Uzbekistan, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan; ALL of them with Islamic fundamentalist movements, and thanks
to the training by the U.S. of all these warriors for the Jihad during the uprising against the Soviet Union, not only did the CIA but Pakistan’s ISI and intelligence recruit them train them, Saudi Arabia and U.S. Taxpayers FUNDING them, they took their Jihad back to their native countries with them and now we also have this also going on in Indonesia, the Philippines, stretching all the way to Egypt, and Algeria…THAT is the KIND OF FIRE WE ARE PLAYING WITH over there. NO regard for the long-term consequences. I quote the CIA in an address bulletin to the Bush administration: “Thanks to further economic globalization, regions, countries and groups feeling left behind will face deepening economic stagnation, political instability, and cultural alienation… they will foster political, ethnic, ideological and religious extremism. along with the violence that often accompanies it.”

They don’t even listen to the CIA in the Bush administration apparently. The longer we blow people up indiscriminately, the more these fires of rage will keep growing and growing against the U.S., as well as a permanent state of emergency at home. If you read what’s in the recent “anti-terrorism legislation”–Most of those laws can be in turned used on people Bush, Ashcroft and Ridge don’t happen to like. To me that’s very UN-PATRIOTIC.

Most of the people who are in favor of the war that I personally come in
contact with get most of their opinions from what is reported on TV.
Surprisingly though, many of the people here in the very buckle of the Bible belt are against the war. Not so much that they would openly protest it, but when given the chance to vent their disgust with someone who is “safe” like me, they really let it out! When BUSH says things like “you are either with us, or with the terrorists,” I don’t feel that he is looking out for our constitutional rights as people of the U.S. Instead of addressing the ROOT causes of terrorism, our government is merely succeeding in making it worse
by the continuing the kind of imperialist behavior that got us into this mess in the first place.

Sorry for the rant. I have been storing up thoughts over these issues for while, and tonight I have been sipping on a delectable single malt scotch (yeah, great for the physique!), and waxing political. Hope all this makes sense tomorrow morning when I am sober.

Roy Batty: I am confused. What name calling? There was a little cussing, and a rude comment about brains, but I don’t think there was any name calling. Both sides seem to have kept this discussion relatively civil.


I don’t understand what is wrong with an average IQ. That would make him a person of normal intelligence. There should be nothing wrong with only one point below the US average (median) of 98. Regardless, an IQ test is just a snapshot. Any number of factors can influence IQ tests. Lack of sleep,being upset, not actually caring about the test you are taking, being sick, etc…


The validity of IQ tests has been debated repeatedly. While IQ tests might give a general idea of a person’s intelligence, it cannot be looked upon as an indicator of a person’s success, or abilities in a specific field. IQ tests are also supposed to measure a person’s potential. Everyone has seen a person who has natural talent get his ass kicked by a person who does not have natural talent only because that person was not willing to apply themselves.


At this point everyone who has been arguing against me is about to disagree with my statement about IQ. But let me mention that I tested at 152 years ago. Now in order to disagree with me they would have to say that I am highly intelligent. I don’t think that will happen.


I searched for the “9” DWI’s that Bush supposedly got, but I could only find the one. Even on some anti-Bush sites. Although I found something about him stealing a Christmas tree.


From reading your post I can see that you hate rich people. Politically correct hate. The Democrats were trying to tie Bush to Enron, but once it came out that many people from the Clinton Administration moved to jobs with Enron, the attempts to connect stopped. You should be very interested in the website that started this thread, it connects to a lot of conspiracy theories, plus UFO information.


Damn Jessica Alba is hot, especially in a bikini, she… Oh wait, I got distracted. Sorry.


Lets see, connections to Hitler, a police state, connections to beating up a four year old son? Sorry but I think you need counseling. In the meantime please avoid any websites about the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the chupacabra, or the Pokemon brainwashing conspiracy.


If you have any accurate and verifiable sites that confirm anything you have said, please post them. I respect people’s beliefs, including those that oppose the war, and some that might be unconventional, but you are leaning into a fantasy world. Don’t make things bigger then they are.


Sorry if this offends you, but I am not expecting you to post a good link about anything you have said, although I do expect an angry response. But please give proof before just quoting conspiracy nuts. It is easy to hate people who disagree with you and just believe anything you hear, or read.