Dude, Where's My Tank?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

Anti-war Protestors Target Supply Units
Thursday, March 08, 2007

This is a partial transcript from “Hannity & Colmes,” March 7, 2007, that has been edited for clarity.

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Demonstrators lined up Monday evening in the port of Tacoma to show support for a growing anti-war effort in the northwest. Protestors were attempting to block the shipment of equipment and vehicles headed for Iraq.

Four people were arrested for what officials are describing as trespassing and pushing through police lines. But Tacoma Port Militarization Resistance members paint a different picture. They say police used unnecessary brutality.

Joining us now are two of the protesters and members of the Port Militarization Resistance group, Caitlin Esworthy and Jeff Berryhill. Welcome to both of you."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257728,00.html

2

A) If you keep quoting Hannity I’ll start quoting the Daily Show and Bill Mahr.

B) The protesters are douche bags, and I disagree with their methods 100%. I also disagree with cutting off funding for the soldiers in Iraq. But I also think the President of the United States should be listening to the people. And when a GREAT majority of his congress wants him to do something, he should at least acknowledge they exist.

3

[quote]Fox wrote:
HANNITY: … to win the war. And they want America to win the war.
As a matter of fact, the latest Gallup survey showed that, by nearly two thirds the American people want to win the war, and they want to finish. And they want to come out victorious, so you’re factually wrong.
[/quote]

Man, Sean is an imbecile!

He plays word games with a very serious issue. The argument presented by the opponent wasn’t if Americans wanted to win or not but if they wanted the troops to be there in the first place. I mean, how fcsked up do you have to be to bully a couple of kids and twist the results of of the gallup poll to support your viewpoint.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N13496111.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070213/us_nm/usa_iraq_poll_dc

There is no way in hell you can win this war. Well, not unless you kill every single Iraqi.

4

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
A) If you keep quoting Hannity I’ll start quoting the Daily Show and Bill Mahr.

B) The protesters are douche bags, and I disagree with their methods 100%. I also disagree with cutting off funding for the soldiers in Iraq. But I also think the President of the United States should be listening to the people. And when a GREAT majority of his congress wants him to do something, he should at least acknowledge they exist.[/quote]

Its an interview with real people, not Sean’s opinions. True, he doesn’t like hippies and flower children, but that’s another matter…

We damnned well better try to win! For an example of what happens to the world when a Great Power doesn’t/can’t win anymore, look at history after 1918 (when Britain fell).

Truly though, when our huge debts and deficits make it impossible for us to police the globe, the shit is REALLY going to hit the fan. Yikes!!! (Sharia law across much of the globe, for ex! OMG!)

5

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
A) If you keep quoting Hannity I’ll start quoting the Daily Show and Bill Mahr.

B) The protesters are douche bags, and I disagree with their methods 100%. I also disagree with cutting off funding for the soldiers in Iraq. But I also think the President of the United States should be listening to the people. And when a GREAT majority of his congress wants him to do something, he should at least acknowledge they exist.

Its an interview with real people, not Sean’s opinions. True, he doesn’t like hippies and flower children, but that’s another matter…

We damnned well better try to win! For an example of what happens to the world when a Great Power doesn’t/can’t win anymore, look at history after 1918 (when Britain fell).

Truly though, when our huge debts and deficits make it impossible for us to police the globe, the shit is REALLY going to hit the fan. Yikes!!! (Sharia law across much of the globe, for ex! OMG!)

[/quote]

Let them experience Sharia law, and then rebel against it themselves.

6

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
A) If you keep quoting Hannity I’ll start quoting the Daily Show and Bill Mahr.

B) The protesters are douche bags, and I disagree with their methods 100%. I also disagree with cutting off funding for the soldiers in Iraq. But I also think the President of the United States should be listening to the people. And when a GREAT majority of his congress wants him to do something, he should at least acknowledge they exist.[/quote]

Yeah

7

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We damnned well better try to win![/quote]

To quote general David Petraeus, a chief US commander in Iraq: “Right now, we do not see other requests (for troops) looming out there. That’s not to say that some emerging mission or emerging task will not require that and if it does then course we will ask for that.”

General Petraeus went on to say there is no pure military solution to the Iraq war and that the US will eventually be forced to negotiate with Iraqi militant groups.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/09/1442259

8

[quote]orion wrote:

Let them experience Sharia law, and then rebel against it themselves.[/quote]

Exactly.

What happened to arab socialism? To pan-arabism?
Answer: They tried them and they solved none of their problems. As a result they moved on to different ideologies like radical Islamism. The biggest threat to radical Islamism over the long term is success paradoxically. It won’t go away until it’s discredited through its impotence in solving the region’s underlying problems.

9

[quote]etaco wrote:
orion wrote:

Let them experience Sharia law, and then rebel against it themselves.

Exactly.

What happened to arab socialism? To pan-arabism?
Answer: They tried them and they solved none of their problems. As a result they moved on to different ideologies like radical Islamism. The biggest threat to radical Islamism over the long term is success paradoxically. It won’t go away until it’s discredited through its impotence in solving the region’s underlying problems.[/quote]

Unfortunately they are sitting on much of the worlds energy and the chaos that will follow if radical Islam is given time to take over the region and then fail will be far worse for the world than the current chaos due to fighting the war.

10

[quote]etaco wrote:
What happened to arab socialism? To pan-arabism?[/quote]

I believe the fight against Arab socialism was part of a global classwar.

The most charismatic and prominent figure of Arab socialism was Mehdi Ben Barka, and by the look of it, the CIA had a hand in his death. He fought the occupation in Morocco and was a key figure in the independence of the country. Ben Barka was the leader of the tricontinental. He mysteriously disappeared in 1965 a few weeks before he could hold the first conference of the organization in Havana.

To quote the Wiki:
"Ben Barka is exiled in 1963, becoming a “committed-voyageur of the revolution”, according to the expression of the historian Jean Lacouture. He leaves initially for Algiers, where he meets Che Guevara, Amilcar Cabral and Malcolm X. From there he goes to Cairo, Rome, Geneva and La Havana, trying to federate the revolutionary movements of the Third World for Tricontinentale having to be held in January 1966 in La Havana and where he affirmed in a press conference, “the two currents of the world revolution will be represented there: the current emerged with the October Revolution and that of the national liberation revolution”.

As the leader of the Tricontinental Conference, Ben Barka was a major figure in the Third World movement and supported revolutionary anti-colonial action in various states, provoking the anger of the United States and France. Just before his death, he was preparing first meeting of the Tricontinental, scheduled to take place in Havana, Cuba - the OSPAAAL (Spanish for “Organization for Solidarity with the People of Africa, Asia and Latin America”) was founded at this occasion."

But let’s analyze the year in which he disappeared, 1965;

  • 13 Feb. assasination of Humberto Delgado.
  • 21 Feb. assasination of Malcolm X.
  • 21 May. assasination of Ernesto Molina.
    …

The Che was killed in 1967, Luther King in 1968, Cabral in 1973 and the rest is history.

Call me paranoid or conspiracy theorist, but the patterns and circumstantial evidences are there.

11

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
A) If you keep quoting Hannity I’ll start quoting the Daily Show and Bill Mahr.

B) The protesters are douche bags, and I disagree with their methods 100%. I also disagree with cutting off funding for the soldiers in Iraq. But I also think the President of the United States should be listening to the people. And when a GREAT majority of his congress wants him to do something, he should at least acknowledge they exist.

Its an interview with real people, not Sean’s opinions. True, he doesn’t like hippies and flower children, but that’s another matter…

We damnned well better try to win! For an example of what happens to the world when a Great Power doesn’t/can’t win anymore, look at history after 1918 (when Britain fell).

Truly though, when our huge debts and deficits make it impossible for us to police the globe, the shit is REALLY going to hit the fan. Yikes!!! (Sharia law across much of the globe, for ex! OMG!)

[/quote]

He still gets his opinion across. The questions an interviewer asks are just as important as the answers they get.

You do know that when they leave, they’re not going to magically all be friends and unite against us…

Admitting this is a war on Islam, you must also admit that our reasons for going there were complete lies and that Bush should be immediately removed from office and imprisoned.

12

If anyone said anything below Gina’s butt, I’m sorry but I didn’t read it.

At this point I’m not sure that anything really matters…

I’m just

What was I saying?

Oh yeah, Gina’s butt.

13

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
…
We damnned well better try to win! For an example of what happens to the world when a Great Power doesn’t/can’t win anymore, look at history after 1918 (when Britain fell).

Truly though, when our huge debts and deficits make it impossible for us to police the globe, the shit is REALLY going to hit the fan. Yikes!!! (Sharia law across much of the globe, for ex! OMG!)

[/quote]

What? You don’t think Bush’s masterplan will kick in anytime soon and democracy will spread throughout the middle-east like bush fire ? ? ?

When did you get from: “this war is the greatest thing since sliced bread” to “we can’t afford to police the globe and Sharia law will spread like bush fire” ? ? ?

Wasn’t there some kind of transition period where you would have been forced to acknowledge that perhaps invading Iraq wasn’t such a great idea ? ? ?

And that your precious Bush lied to get his war going.

DUDE, WHERE’S MY MUSHROOM CLOUD ? ? ?

14

[quote]orion wrote:

Let them experience Sharia law, and then rebel against it themselves.[/quote]

Solid plan. We save them from a brutal but secular regime, replace it by a brutal and fundamentalist regime and let them rebel against it.

Sounds like a great way to conduct the war on terror. And I bet we can even spin this to blame it on Clinton, preferably Hillary.

15

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
orion wrote:

Let them experience Sharia law, and then rebel against it themselves.

Solid plan. We save them from a brutal but secular regime, replace it by a brutal and fundamentalist regime and let them rebel against it.

Sounds like a great way to conduct the war on terror. And I bet we can even spin this to blame it on Clinton, preferably Hillary.[/quote]

I do have to admire President Bush for going against the tide: Because its becoming easier for small groups to defend themselves (Stinger missiles, suitcase nukes, IEDs, and so forth), it becomes harder for governments to project power.

The idea of governments retaining order in the world is ebbing. Therefore, religion is rising throughout the world, to attempt to maintain some sort of order. The world’s future though probably looks something like Afghanistan today.

Think of the 1990’s and today as the ‘Indian Summer’ of the modern era.

Nice try, Mr. President, but the Western Mind has turned against trying to retain order — witness Wreckless. When his country is overrun by Moslem fanatics, he’ll scream: “But I didn’t know it!! Please send the US Army to rescue me!!” Nope. We already did that twice, so now you’re on your own.

16

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
orion wrote:

Let them experience Sharia law, and then rebel against it themselves.

Solid plan. We save them from a brutal but secular regime, replace it by a brutal and fundamentalist regime and let them rebel against it.

Sounds like a great way to conduct the war on terror. And I bet we can even spin this to blame it on Clinton, preferably Hillary.

I do have to admire President Bush for going against the tide: …

and a load of crap.
[/quote]

So you admire President Bush for going against the tide?

Did you admire the Dixie Chicks for going against the tide? Because that’s what they did.

Did you admire Osama for going against the tide, because he also did.

Probably not. You just admire Bush for going against the tide.

Now hundreds of thousands of corpses later, the coalition in shambles, the war on terror side tracked, the moron HH thinks that it’s very likely that the future of the world might look like Afghanistan now.

Does this mean I don’t wait any longer for democracy to spread throughout the middle-east? Because I was holding my breath you know. Is that what you’re saying? Bush’s masterplan failed. It didn’t only fail, it backfired horribly.
Regime change has returned home, and instead of shaping Iraq to its own image, the US has succeeded in shaping the world after Iraq?

I think the idiot in charge should be shot for that.

Not so HH. He admires the man that made this all possible. His precious president Bush.

Bush didn’t go to 'Nam when he had the chance. He went AWOL from his champagne unit. But he sure went against the tide. Not himself mind you. No, he sent others against the tide.

100.000’s of people died. And the future looks bleak.

But he went against the tide. And HH admires him for that. Well that’s just fucking great.

Just like a couple of 100 of morons admire Hitler. He also went against the tide you know.

That about sums it up I guess.

Bush fucked up horrible. But hey, he gave it his best shot. We got to admire him for that.

And isn’t that Hillary a horrible bitch?

Dude, where’s my sniper rifle?

17

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
…
When his country is overrun by Moslem fanatics, he’ll scream: “But I didn’t know it!! Please send the US Army to rescue me!!” Nope. We already did that twice, so now you’re on your own.

[/quote]

Hey HH, you warned me about a mush room cloud a while back, remember? And other wmd. Now you warn me that my country will be run over by Muslim fanatics.

Do I look worried?

18

[quote]etaco wrote:
What happened to arab socialism? To pan-arabism?
[/quote]

“In 1958, President Eisenhower puzzled about ?the campaign of hatred against us? in the Arab world, ?not by the governments but by the people,? who are ?on Nasser’s side,? supporting independent secular nationalism. The reasons for the ?campaign of hatred? were outlined by the National Security Council: ?In the eyes of the majority of Arabs the United States appears to be opposed to the realization of the goals of Arab nationalism. They believe that the United States is seeking to protect its
interest in Near East oil by supporting the status quo and opposing political or economic progress.?
Furthermore, the perception is understandable: ?our economic and cultural interests in the area have led not unnaturally to close U.S. relations with elements in the Arab world whose primary interest lies in the maintenance of relations with the West and the status quo in their countries,? blocking democracy and development.”

http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:7URgyi71-yYJ:www.chomsky.info/talks/20060118.pdf+chomsky+arab+nationalism+eisenhower&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&client=firefox

"At a hemispheric conference in Chapultepec, Mexico in February 1945, the United States laid down the law. It imposed what was called the Charter for the Americas, which banned “economic nationalism” – meaning development along national lines. So, for example, Brazil would be allowed to pursue what they called “complementary development,” but not competitive development. In other words, Brazil could develop its steel industry, but not produce anything of high quality such as specialized steel, which the United States was producing.

On the matter of resources, the United States was concerned with what it called the “philosophy of the new nationalism,” which it saw as spreading throughout Latin America, which holds – I’m now quoting – “that the first beneficiaries of the development of a country’s resources should be the people of that country.” The U.S. government decided it couldn’t allow that because the first beneficiaries of the country’s resources had to be U.S. investors. And it decided it had to knock out of their heads the idea that the people of these countries should be primary beneficiaries of their countries’ resources. We have to “protect our resources,” as George Kennan, the head of the State Department planning staff, put it – referring to “our resources” that happen to be located somewhere else. The United States opposed state control of industry, fearing it might be responsive to public interests."

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19990312.htm

"The US, along with other traditional Empirialistic powers, assassinated Nationalism in the Arab world and in Latin America. It’s recently exprienced a revival in Latin America, but has been permanently replaced by Islamism in the Arab world. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict definitely played a role in the emergence of the latter.

19

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
orion wrote:

Let them experience Sharia law, and then rebel against it themselves.

Solid plan. We save them from a brutal but secular regime, replace it by a brutal and fundamentalist regime and let them rebel against it.

Sounds like a great way to conduct the war on terror. And I bet we can even spin this to blame it on Clinton, preferably Hillary.

I do have to admire President Bush for going against the tide: …

and a load of crap.

So you admire President Bush for going against the tide?

Did you admire the Dixie Chicks for going against the tide? Because that’s what they did.

Did you admire Osama for going against the tide, because he also did.

Probably not. You just admire Bush for going against the tide.

Now hundreds of thousands of corpses later, the coalition in shambles, the war on terror side tracked, the moron HH thinks that it’s very likely that the future of the world might look like Afghanistan now.

Does this mean I don’t wait any longer for democracy to spread throughout the middle-east? Because I was holding my breath you know. Is that what you’re saying? Bush’s masterplan failed. It didn’t only fail, it backfired horribly.
Regime change has returned home, and instead of shaping Iraq to its own image, the US has succeeded in shaping the world after Iraq?

I think the idiot in charge should be shot for that.

Not so HH. He admires the man that made this all possible. His precious president Bush.

Bush didn’t go to 'Nam when he had the chance. He went AWOL from his champagne unit. But he sure went against the tide. Not himself mind you. No, he sent others against the tide.

100.000’s of people died. And the future looks bleak.

But he went against the tide. And HH admires him for that. Well that’s just fucking great.

Just like a couple of 100 of morons admire Hitler. He also went against the tide you know.

That about sums it up I guess.

Bush fucked up horrible. But hey, he gave it his best shot. We got to admire him for that.

And isn’t that Hillary a horrible bitch?

Dude, where’s my sniper rifle?[/quote]

Should I send this last line to the FBI?

Anyway, all the people you mentioned (osama, the dixie whores) were going WITH the tide toward disorder. Is that not obvious? Wow, you are dumb.

20

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
…
When his country is overrun by Moslem fanatics, he’ll scream: “But I didn’t know it!! Please send the US Army to rescue me!!” Nope. We already did that twice, so now you’re on your own.

Hey HH, you warned me about a mush room cloud a while back, remember? And other wmd. Now you warn me that my country will be run over by Muslim fanatics.

Do I look worried?[/quote]

No, you look like an idiot. You want to hide your head in the sand while the evil forces creep closer to your door. The USA went bankrupt trying to protect and bring order to the world. What’s going to happen to your precious Belgium when we have our final economic collapse? We’ll probably get a Police State and you’ll be fucked.