For My Anti-War Friends...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

And when he is caught then it’s all over right?

And to the first point you tried to make, or was it an “Opinion”…the 911 scenario would not happen today, and yes someone needs to save the world from terrorism. Better US then France, or China, or Indonesia.

Would you feel better if it were another country saving everyone from terrorists who gives a rats ass about YOU and our overbearing American ways? We can not save all, but we can try, and we are.

We are in control of our destiny, nobody else, and I prefer it that way no matter what others “Think” about it.

I really can’t believe what some of you are saying…it makes no sense.
[/quote]

Terrorists are the ultimate “Phantom Menace” - they could be anyone, anywhere.

-They could be a 57 yr old grandmother http://www.komotv.com/news/printstory.asp?id=37150

-Or how about someone sharing a music file Terrorist Link to Copyright Piracy Alleged - Slashdot

-Or someone wanting to know why the terrorists hate us so much USATODAY.com - Librarian's brush with FBI shapes her view of the USA Patriot Act

-Maybe your 3 yr old son or daughter is ALREADY a terrorist in the making? (better to get em’ early) http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44733

Considering it’s “OK” to torture “terrorists”, it might be a good idea to think a little harder about where this “war on terrorism” is actually headed.

Some of the same people that told us we had no choice but to invade Iraq are not exactly “impartial” judges.

Nine Members of the Defense Policy Board Have Ties to Defense Contractors
The Center for Public Integrity
28 March 2003
Of the 30 members of the Defense Policy Board, the government-appointed group that advises the Pentagon, at least nine have ties to companies that have won more than $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and 2002. Four members are registered lobbyists, one of whom represents two of the three largest defense contractors.

The board’s chairman, Richard Perle, resigned yesterday, March 27, 2003, amid allegations of conflicts of interest for his representation of companies with business before the Defense Department, although he will remain a member of the board. Eight of Perle’s colleagues on the board have ties to companies with significant contracts from the Pentagon.
http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/articles/030328-dpb-advisors.html

Then again maybe they already have a “sure cure” for terrorism http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1313556,00.html

Smells like EUTOPIA…

162

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
We are making the world safer for YOU too. If we did not would you do it? Naa, you’ll wait for the big bad crappy US to do it right?..then tell everyone we are in others business.
[/quote]

Lots of propoganda here, but this statement just isn’t true—terrorism is up, actually way up last year, so much up they now hide the reports, so we aren’t making the world safer—if you were right they’d be releasing the terrorist data, see?

163

U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba
Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba
ABC News
Sep. 30, 2004 - In the early 1960s, America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban immigrants, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba’s then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America’s top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: “We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,” and, “casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.”

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy’s defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

“These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing,” Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

“The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants.”

Gunning for War

The documents show “the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government,” writes Bamford.

164

lumpy wrote:

“Lots of propoganda here, but this statement just isn’t true—terrorism is up, actually way up last year, so much up they now hide the reports, so we aren’t making the world safer—if you were right they’d be releasing the terrorist data, see?”

Really? Wasn’t world terrorism at a THIRTY YEAR LOW IN 2004?

Here is a wonderful give and take between some people who sound suprisingly like my pal lumpy and I.

www.deanesmay.com/archives/007198.html

lumpy, by the way, unless you have some new information, don’t just make shit up to convince everyone that the sky is falling.

It’s not like you can defeat W.!!!

JeffR

165

For those who are blind patriotic cheerleaders, that would be known as a precedent…

The point of having an “open” government is to keep it from having the ability to find ways to manipulate public opinion to it’s own ends.

If and when that occurs, you no longer have any reasonable “will of the people” being reflected… and you really don’t have a democracy in anything but name.

So, pray it never happened.

166

[quote]JeffR wrote:
lumpy wrote:

“Lots of propoganda here, but this statement just isn’t true—terrorism is up, actually way up last year, so much up they now hide the reports, so we aren’t making the world safer—if you were right they’d be releasing the terrorist data, see?”

Really? Wasn’t world terrorism at a THIRTY YEAR LOW IN 2004?

Here is a wonderful give and take between some people who sound suprisingly like my pal lumpy and I.

www.deanesmay.com/archives/007198.html

lumpy, by the way, unless you have some new information, don’t just make shit up to convince everyone that the sky is falling.

It’s not like you can defeat W.!!!

JeffR

[/quote]

Ok.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002243262_terror16.html

167

Oh so the Iraq war is about quashing terrorim? Oh right I missed that part in the dossier.

You do realise how many more terrorists will exist after this don’t you? You do realise a large number of these terrorist groups exist pre 9/11 mainly because of your foreign policies right? Terrorism isn’t this thing that just exists. It exists where their is cause for it. You are giving them a cause.

168

[quote]ConorM wrote:
You do realise how many more terrorists will exist after this don’t you? You do realise a large number of these terrorist groups exist pre 9/11 mainly because of your foreign policies right? Terrorism isn’t this thing that just exists. It exists where their is cause for it. You are giving them a cause.[/quote]

Nobody here realizes it. When you ask them about bin Laden they simply state that it won’t stop the terrorists if bin Laden is caught…they somehow equate it with “winning” the war against Iraq.

They don’t realize it’s our popular politics that creates terrorism; they don’t realize that it isn’t just decided instantly by these terrorists to hate. Although I do believe they are recruited with the same propaganda that the American people are “recruited” with.

169

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ConorM wrote:
You do realise how many more terrorists will exist after this don’t you? You do realise a large number of these terrorist groups exist pre 9/11 mainly because of your foreign policies right? Terrorism isn’t this thing that just exists. It exists where their is cause for it. You are giving them a cause.

Nobody here realizes it. When you ask them about bin Laden they simply state that it won’t stop the terrorists if bin Laden is caught…they somehow equate it with “winning” the war against Iraq.

They don’t realize it’s our popular politics that creates terrorism; they don’t realize that it isn’t just decided instantly by these terrorists to hate. Although I do believe they are recruited with the same propaganda that the American people are “recruited” with.[/quote]

Finland guy…Whatever. You seem like you like to piss all over us,…ok, go for it. Yes we sold WMD to get there, and rightfully… but we still STAY for terrorism. We did not GO for terrorism, we went for Saddam. Turned out that the terrorists did not like it…I wonder why???

Max-vs-a-brain:

We are PROTECTING the Iraqi’s not trying to win a war against Iraqi’s as you wrote. We were never in a war against Iraqis.

bring on some intellect…PLEASE.

Anyway, I’m off to lift, and Bless all of us here, we are all brothers in many ways…peace and be strong.

170

[quote]vroom wrote:
“The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants.”

For those who are blind patriotic cheerleaders, that would be known as a precedent…

The point of having an “open” government is to keep it from having the ability to find ways to manipulate public opinion to it’s own ends.

If and when that occurs, you no longer have any reasonable “will of the people” being reflected… and you really don’t have a democracy in anything but name.

So, pray it never happened.[/quote]

I appreciate your neutral-like position. I like how you state the view without rupturing yourself. I can tell you want to unleash, but you are educated.

I have one question though…can you drink like a Canadian??

Keep the views coming!!

171

Really I am off to lift…

172

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Max-vs-a-brain:

We are PROTECTING the Iraqi’s not trying to win a war against Iraqi’s as you wrote. We were never in a war against Iraqis.

bring on some intellect…PLEASE.

Anyway, I’m off to lift, and Bless all of us here, we are all brothers in many ways…peace and be strong.
[/quote]
Wow, “peace and be strong”…spoken like a real American hero. Funny how before we went to war it was because we were “against” Iraq and their evil empire and now that were there it’s to protect them.

“Bring on” some information that hasn’t been lifted from Rush Limbaugh.

173

Thank you all for making this thread smell like queef.

I honestly don’t know why I bother sometimes. I read through the recent posts since this morning and just shook my head in dismay. From the angry Anti-US Europeans trying to pass themselves off as indifferent, to the piss-poor attitudes of my fellow Americans; not a single one of you has figured this out yet.

You will find whatever you will look for.

What I mean by that is that you define your own reality by immersing yourself in things that reaffirm your beliefs and prejudices. You guys look at Iraq and see a disaster, a crime, a lie. Why do you do this?

Because you made up your mind before this even started. And I say this because I want to take an honest poll of the naysayers on this thread if you are still interested in contributing something besides bitter jealousy or anti-American bile. Any shmuck can follow behind a dog with a little baggie and throw shit. If you guys are so right and correct, then set the record straight with grown-up discussion here.

I started this thread asking two questions, and now I ask y’all a third:

How many of you were ambivalent about or supported the idea of invading Iraq before we went in, and then changed your minds when you saw the results that y’all trumpet so loudly that you now feel that this was a mistake? In other words, did you have your mind made up already before we even started this? Did you already have yourself convinced it was all a lie, all about the oil, all for the wrong reasons… even before we went and didn’t find that smoking gun WMD stash?

Be honest now. If not with me, at least be honest with yourselves.

I think this is the stumbling block here. You guys are unable to let go of something negative, whether it is against my country, my president, my way of life… something. And this negative thing is preventing you from seeing what good we have already done in Iraq, and you are unable to look even a paltry ten years down the road to imagine what a Saddam still in power will have gotten his hands on.

I ask all of you to think about this, and be honest.

174

So, let’s leave it alone… cuz we can’t see eye to eye… there aint no good guy… there aint no bad guy… there’s only you, and jerffy, and thunder, and me, and ProfX, and Vroom, and we just disagree… oh, oh, oh!

175

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
So, let’s leave it alone… cuz we can’t see eye to eye… there aint no good guy… there aint no bad guy… there’s only you, and jerffy, and thunder, and me, and ProfX, and Vroom, and we just disagree… oh, oh, oh![/quote]

But Elk, there is a bad guy… he’s called Islamofascist. Or Xenophobic Terrorist. And nothing would please him more than to see your blood on his hands. Or is that too metaphorical for ya?

So… am I wrong? Did you not have your mind made up already?

176

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
So, let’s leave it alone… cuz we can’t see eye to eye… there aint no good guy… there aint no bad guy… there’s only you, and jerffy, and thunder, and me, and ProfX, and Vroom, and we just disagree… oh, oh, oh!

But Elk, there is a bad guy… he’s called Islamofascist. Or Xenophobic Terrorist. And nothing would please him more than to see your blood on his hands. Or is that too metaphorical for ya?

So… am I wrong? Did you not have your mind made up already?[/quote]

Seriously, Loth, IMO you have an unreal view of the world. Wars, thousands upon thousands of wars, have been going on since the beginning of man, and they will continue to go on, well after were gone. You really think this war could end conflict between peoples?

Hey, I’ve got an untapped gold mine in Cripple Creek, Co. for sale and it’s a helluva steal. Interested?

177

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Seriously, Loth, IMO you have an unreal view of the world. Wars, thousands upon thousands of wars, have been going on since the beginning of man, and they will continue to go on, well after were gone. You really think this war could end conflict between peoples?

Hey, I’ve got an untapped gold mine in Cripple Creek, Co. for sale and it’s a helluva steal. Interested? [/quote]

I don’t think that Iraq is going to lead to world peace tomorrow, if that’s what you mean. I can’t help but think that we need to at least try to give the Iraqi people some choice in their own destiny, though. WMD’s, Saddam’s UN violations, maybe they burned pictures of Tara Reid back when she was hot like in American Pie 2… for whatever reason, and however you slice it, I support our war effort because it is in line with my ideals and what I want for us as one people.

My Dad was an ER physician before he retired several years ago, and he said something to me a long time ago that stuck with me:

“Dave, whenever I cut somebody open to get a bullet out of them, they all look the same on the inside. Black, white, Catholic, Hindu… all the same.”

We have a responsibility to our fellow man, Elk. For some of us, it is a small thing like going to work and helping sick people, and being there for my friends and family and any strangers who need assistance… like I try my best to do. For others, the burden is greater, and I am glad that some of those people like Bush have not shirked their duty to follow what may be a difficult road, but the one which will see us to the end. If that makes any sense.

Please do not call me a cheerleader for Bush now, just because I said one nice thing about him. There is plenty I disagree with about the man, but I have to give him his due when it comes to this one issue.

So are you going to answer my question or not? :slight_smile:

178

Loth, there is no answering your question.

You will only be satisfied if someone will agree with you. I hold a different view then you do and nothing you or anyone else on these forums has changed that.

Just as I have not changed the minds of you or your like minded friends. Shall we go to war over this disagreement?

Answer my question if the military would take you now,flat feet and all would you, not anyone else, but you be willing to go over there now?

Would the prospect of you dying tomorrow in combat, again you, push you to look for other alternatives?

If I was still serving and was called to go over there, I wouldn’t shirk my obligation and I would fight,like hell to survive and come home to my life, to my loved ones, but I wouldn’t feel like you,that I was participating in a great,just, battle, for freedom, I would be pretty pissed at the politicans who sent me over there on lies and bullshit!

179

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
If I was still serving and was called to go over there, I wouldn’t shirk my obligation and I would fight,like hell to survive and come home to my life, to my loved ones, but I wouldn’t feel like you,that I was participating in a great,just, battle, for freedom, I would be pretty pissed at the politicans who sent me over there on lies and bullshit![/quote]

I agree with this. I am amazed that so many can ignore what we were sold to get this war started. I have one guy in one of the other threads claiming that we went to war because Iraq attacked the world trade center. My guess is he is not alone in believing that. Why? Because that is what most were told in the media. Suddenly, it has become a “war for freedom”. We were told that “we won” this war a long time ago. More people have died after “we won”. There are more terrorists with new hatred (or re-energized old hatred) after “we won”.

Going in how we did has obligated us many years of being over there trying to guide their government and attempting to avoid civil war breaking out (which in my opinion is inevitable). It should be painfully apparent that very little (if any) thought went into what we would do after bombing the place. If this is the benefit of a “yee haw” attitude, I would prefer someone who thinks a situation through thouroughly over one who shoots first and asked questions later. Those questions could have saved quite a few of our own soldiers lives.

A noble war intiative would have taken into great account a plan after the attack. This mess looks like we are thinking shit up as we go.

180

Elk, I’m not trying to make you look bad or something. It’s a simple question, and you can answer it just fine:

Did you have your mind made up before we knew anything? Did you already assume it was lies and money and oil and our American Greed™ before we knew anything for sure?

Just tell me no. Tell me that you came to the conclusions that you have because you weighed both sides of the argument equally, and are able to say with a clear conscience:

“I am not biased. My other personal feelings which have nothing to do with the issue have not colored my perceptions, or led me to only listen to the things which reinforce my preconceived notions, and disregard the other contrary information available as lies or propaganda.”

Just tell me no.

I am not Republi-tastic like good ol’ Jeffy. I am a gay marriage-supporting, pro-abortion rights, pro-stem cell research, love as many people as you can, “Don’t Fear the Reaper”-singing liberal. And yet, here I am once again, in a thread arguing FOR a war? How much sense does that make?

It’s because I sat down and weighed both sides, and realized that not only was this the most responsible, although difficult, choice here, we should have gone in harder, stronger, and sooner (was that porn just now?). I didn’t even know the extent of the damage to the Iraqi nation under the UN sanctions until a few weeks ago when I really started digging for info about it.

Maybe I’m all wrong about this. It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been wrong.