Where Do They Stand?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]rreckless wrote:
JeffR wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
If you are now going to swallow their “mushroom cloud” crap, then you are beyond saving.

What are you talking about? That’s exactly how this war was sold to us.

Iraq has/had WMDs, blah, blah, blah.

Intelligence, blah, blah, blah.

Just because I didn’t buy into it doesn’t mean the rest of the sheep in congress didn’t. I am a little more realistic than that.

Besides, you and every other neocon know we had nothing to fear from Iraq. It was a red-herring we were after all along. The fact of the matter is we had to be lied to in order for us to “buy it” because decorum dictates it. We beleived the lies because we wanted to and we allowed our selves to be fooled because we are. This does not mean any side is right or wrong. Both sides got it wrong.

liftus,

You have some serious problems. I don’t have the strength to list them all.

The only thing Bush didn’t get right is the amount of WMD on hand. The rest was correct. saddam was absolutely a threat. Firing on our planes, trying to assassinate former Presidents, actively working to reconstitute his weaponery, arming/harboring/encouraging terrorists, murdering, invading, threatening our allies.

You can go ahead and pin your opinion on one instance where things fell short. However, don’t come on here and pretend that there weren’t plenty of reasons to remove and hang that slime.

JeffR[/quote]

[quote]I must have missed something.
Could you give me a list of WMD?[/quote]

www.washtimes.com/national/20060710-123909-1428r.htm

British planes:

www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/12/31/wirq31.html

American planes:

www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/12/29/wirq29.html

www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

If you cannot stomach clinton echoing Bush’s later sentiments, please type in Bush in the search engine for that transcript.

[quote]How did he “actively worki to reconstitute his weaponery”. I’m quite sure I saw a report that there really was no program of WMD in action. But again, facts and fiction eh…
arming/harboring/encouraging terrorists. Again, got any credible links.[/quote]

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9790-2004Oct5.html

I certainly wouldn’t if I were you:

caxton.stockton.edu/hod/history

reckless, Please note the diversity of the sources. Futher, notice how many of these outlets are traditionally hostile to Republicans.

Oh, I hope you are large enough to admit error.

Alas, I’ll bet you dodge and weave.

I’d loved to be proven wrong.

JeffR

42

[quote]orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:
orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:
MisterAmazing wrote:
jumper wrote:
What people will say for a vote. The democratic party has no principal. They just oppose the other side no matter what it stands for as long as it gets votes.

And that differs from Republican strategy how? I’m assuming you forgot the lapse on the ‘National Contract’ from the 1994 off-year elections, where the Republicans took 27 seats by running under a generalized criteria and then in 2000 shit on it. I’m not trying to say I’m a democrat either, but don’t make a dumbass remark like that.

MisterAmazing (great name!!!)

The difference is war. The difference is the fact that our enemies look to the very waffling being shown by the democrats in order to sustain their war effort.

I can’t say it any plainer than that.

JeffR

Your enemies look to your presence in their Holy Land and your support of Israel.

Nothing else matters.

orion,

Thanks for chiming in. You speak with some authority about our enemies.

Are you an enemy of the United States?

I heard that you austrians are arming iran. You can’t claim to not know the nature of this person and his regime. Further, you know full well where and against whom these sniper weapons will be used.

Are you, orion, an enemy of the United States?

Thanks,

JeffR

Yup, we sold them some sniper rifles.

Good quality too.

Compared to pretty much their whole airforce that?s peanuts isn`t it?[/quote]

Answer the question. Are you hostile to the United States?

Please go on to say whether you approve of those weapons sales, circa TODAY.

Thanks in advance,

JeffR

43

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Cunnivore wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Wrong. Look at kerry. Look at the guys you voted for. They authorized FORCE. Are you seriously trying to contend that the dems were thinking that force DIDN’T include troops?

What a joke.

JeffR

I’m pretty sure they were thinking of “Force” in U.N. terms - i.e. “A very Forceful letter backed up by a forceful resolution which resolves nothing, without the resolve to back up their words with force.”

And what dit the use of “Force” in U.S. terms resolve?[/quote]

It resolved saddam.

Oh, three free elections. Their first.

JeffR

44

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Wrong. Look at kerry. Look at the guys you voted for. They authorized FORCE. Are you seriously trying to contend that the dems were thinking that force DIDN’T include troops?

What a joke.

JeffR

The truth is the Bush administration exploited the tragedy of 9/11 to take the country to war – and then had to lie, manufacture evidence and ‘out’ an undercover agent to make some vague connection.

The same neocons had been pressing Clinton over and over again to invade Iraq – what a stroke of “luck” they got their “new Pearl Harbor” right when Bush came to town. [/quote]

Wrong.

JeffR

45

[quote]MisterAmazing wrote:
JeffR wrote:
MisterAmazing wrote:
jumper wrote:
What people will say for a vote. The democratic party has no principal. They just oppose the other side no matter what it stands for as long as it gets votes.

And that differs from Republican strategy how? I’m assuming you forgot the lapse on the ‘National Contract’ from the 1994 off-year elections, where the Republicans took 27 seats by running under a generalized criteria and then in 2000 shit on it. I’m not trying to say I’m a democrat either, but don’t make a dumbass remark like that.

MisterAmazing (great name!!!)

The difference is war. The difference is the fact that our enemies look to the very waffling being shown by the democrats in order to sustain their war effort.

I can’t say it any plainer than that.

JeffR

The war effort for ‘the enemy’ is fueled by a bunch of hyped up religious fanatcism that has these assholes blowing themselves up to kill a bunch of innocents, not supporting a war that has been drawn out due to ignorant strategizing and miniscule force and has cost the lives of thousands of our brave men and women is not unpatriotic, this isn’t the fuel for their fire. I have the utmost love and respect for everybody fighting over there for us, and I know that we’ve gotten ourselves into something we must finish. So because I disagree with the war’s so called ‘principles’, the way we we went in half assed and got caught with our pants down and now decide to send more troops, and the fact that we really do have bigger fish to fry and now’s the time to move on, I’m the enemy’s war effort?
[/quote]

ma,

Thanks for the time it took to write your response.

Let me make sure I understand you, are you saying that you and your party’s opposition to the war effort isn’t being used as propaganda to keep up the fight?

In advance, what sources do you consider reliable. I want to make sure I respond with a source that YOU find unimpeachable.

As food for thought, imagine a United country circa December 8th, 1941. Are you telling me that that wouldn’t take some of the starch out of the Iraqi resistance.

Thanks in advance,

JeffR

46

[quote]JeffR wrote:
It resolved saddam.

Oh, three free elections. Their first.
[/quote]

Like you care!

When Lebanon and Palestine held their first transparent and free elections, the US backed Israel to bring their governments down on the knees.

Was the removal of Saddam worth 600.000+ Iraqi lives, 3000+ GIs, millions displaced? And don’t tell me any country can sustain an American military “storm”, more than a decade of economic strangulation and still manages to emerge as a threat.

47

[quote]EffR0 wrote:
… reckless, Please note the diversity of the sources. Futher, notice how many of these outlets are traditionally hostile to Republicans.

Oh, I hope you are large enough to admit error.

Alas, I’ll bet you dodge and weave.

I’d loved to be proven wrong.

JeffR
[/quote]

You’ll have to bring something bigger for me to admit error.

Here I go, dodging and weaving.

Ok, so you’ve got an article about some Republicans claiming WMD were found. The first line of the article: Congressional Republicans are at odds with Democrats – and the Bush administration – over the significance of 500 munitions found in Iraq since 2003 and recently disclosed by the Pentagon.

A couple of incidents from 1998, that’s nearly 10 years ago.

A statement on an assassination attempt on 1 president (not presidents), that would have happened in 1993. And which remains still highly disputed.

The link you gave on Saddam “actively working to reconstitute his weaponery” starts like this: [i]The government’s most definitive account of Iraq’s arms programs, to be released today, will show that Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, U.S. officials said yesterday.

The officials said that the 1,000-page report by Charles A. Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, concluded that Hussein had the desire but not the means to produce unconventional weapons that could threaten his neighbors or the West. President Bush has continued to assert in his campaign stump speech that Iraq had posed “a gathering threat.”[/i]
Thanks for proving my point.

There you go, you were proven wrong.

48

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
EffR0 wrote:
… reckless, Please note the diversity of the sources. Futher, notice how many of these outlets are traditionally hostile to Republicans.

Oh, I hope you are large enough to admit error.

Alas, I’ll bet you dodge and weave.

I’d loved to be proven wrong.

JeffR

You’ll have to bring something bigger for me to admit error.

Here I go, dodging and weaving.

Ok, so you’ve got an article about some Republicans claiming WMD were found. The first line of the article: Congressional Republicans are at odds with Democrats – and the Bush administration – over the significance of 500 munitions found in Iraq since 2003 and recently disclosed by the Pentagon.

A couple of incidents from 1998, that’s nearly 10 years ago.

A statement on an assassination attempt on 1 president (not presidents), that would have happened in 1993. And which remains still highly disputed.

The link you gave on Saddam “actively working to reconstitute his weaponery” starts like this: [i]The government’s most definitive account of Iraq’s arms programs, to be released today, will show that Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, U.S. officials said yesterday.

The officials said that the 1,000-page report by Charles A. Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, concluded that Hussein had the desire but not the means to produce unconventional weapons that could threaten his neighbors or the West. President Bush has continued to assert in his campaign stump speech that Iraq had posed “a gathering threat.”[/i]
Thanks for proving my point.

There you go, you were proven wrong.

[/quote]

reckless,

You are a terrible person!!!

Thanks for ignoring firing on planes and all the relevant information in the other links.

I realize that’s how you maintain your consistent air of error.

I have to admit, I do enjoy many a good laugh at your expense.

JeffR

49

[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
It resolved saddam.

Oh, three free elections. Their first.

Like you care!

When Lebanon and Palestine held their first transparent and free elections, the US backed Israel to bring their governments down on the knees.

Was the removal of Saddam worth 600.000+ Iraqi lives, 3000+ GIs, millions displaced? And don’t tell me any country can sustain an American military “storm”, more than a decade of economic strangulation and still manages to emerge as a threat.
[/quote]

lixy,

I could be wrong. However, I do believe the situations were slightly different.

We don’t care for terrorists post 9/11. I remember something about hamas and the total destruction of Israel. That’s genocide.

We aren’t cool with genocide.

Remind me who the palestinian’s elected again?

JeffR

50

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Answer the question. Are you hostile to the United States?

Please go on to say whether you approve of those weapons sales, circa TODAY.

Thanks in advance,

JeffR
[/quote]

Sure I do.

As I said they were good quality as well as the artillery guns and I think howitzers they got from us.

As a neutral country we have a hard time selling weapons as it is, we can hardly stop selling to every country the US might attack in the future.

51

[quote]JeffR wrote:
lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
It resolved saddam.

Oh, three free elections. Their first.

Like you care!

When Lebanon and Palestine held their first transparent and free elections, the US backed Israel to bring their governments down on the knees.

Was the removal of Saddam worth 600.000+ Iraqi lives, 3000+ GIs, millions displaced? And don’t tell me any country can sustain an American military “storm”, more than a decade of economic strangulation and still manages to emerge as a threat.

lixy,

I could be wrong. However, I do believe the situations were slightly different.

We don’t care for terrorists post 9/11. I remember something about hamas and the total destruction of Israel. That’s genocide.

We aren’t cool with genocide.

Remind me who the palestinian’s elected again?

JeffR

[/quote]

Terrorists.

Like Washington.

52

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I could be wrong. However, I do believe the situations were slightly different.[/quote]

Thanks for asking my opinion so nicely.

I am Moroccan. My grand-mother is Algerian. I have also Lebanese ties. Traveling and talking to the commons helps in getting insider’s perspective into issues. And I did my share in the Arab world. All of this to tell you that I know exactly what I’m talking about here.

Enough prelude and straight to the meat; If free elections are held in ANY Arab country, Islamists will win by a large margin. I don’t know if you’re aware of that fact, but it’s corroborated by every single survey or expert on the subject. Now, all the Arab countries (except Lebanon and Palestine) are dictatorships where Islamist parties are banned or where election are rigged.

Just to give you an idea of how bad it is, a few years ago a referendum was held in my home country about extending the king’s power (which was already pretty much like that of Louis XVI). It passed with 99.89%! I kid you not.

How does this relate to the issue at hand? Bare with me a moment.

Algeria was the first country to hold free elections in 1991 and it was clear in the first round that they were going to take every single seat. The military annulled the elections, forced the president to resign and banned the Islamist party. 160,000 people died because the Islamists fought back. Nobody budged because the military protected Western interests in the oil and gas rich territory.
The Islamists taking power would have meant the end of the pillage and a redirection of the wealth towards constructing the state. Granted, women might not have been free to wear mini-skirts under the Islamist rule.

Then came Palestine and Lebanon which have suffered all kind of abuses from Israel; Abductions, assassinations, riots triggered by agent-provocateurs, bombings and military incursions. All of which are properly documented if you bother to look, but never make it past page 9 on most US papers. Contrast with what happens when something happens in Israel. Anyway, it was only natural for those populations to support the party that was not willing to put up with that treatment anymore. Trust me, you would have done the same. It was ironic because anyone remotely following the issue could have predicted reaction of the US, and the US were actively involved in making sure the elections were free. The elephant in the room instantly lost its invisibility cloak.

The US’ unconditional support for Israel is certainly not the only reason for terrorism, but it’s certainly something one should think about when trying to understand its origins. The US issued dozens of vetoes to void UN security council resolution critical of the Zionist horrific actions. Is the whole world anti-Semitic or are the Arabs by some way secretly controlling the security council.

No matter how you turn it, Israel remains a criminal state. If you have the time or interest, try to read the following history of the conflict. The problem is definitely not going to be solved in our lifetimes, and it would therefore not be a waste of energy to try and learn about it.
http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html

53

[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I could be wrong. However, I do believe the situations were slightly different.

Thanks for asking my opinion so nicely.

I am Moroccan. My grand-mother is Algerian. I have also Lebanese ties. Traveling and talking to the commons helps in getting insider’s perspective into issues. And I did my share in the Arab world. All of this to tell you that I know exactly what I’m talking about here.

Enough prelude and straight to the meat; If free elections are held in ANY Arab country, Islamists will win by a large margin. I don’t know if you’re aware of that fact, but it’s corroborated by every single survey or expert on the subject. Now, all the Arab countries (except Lebanon and Palestine) are dictatorships where Islamist parties are banned or where election are rigged.

Just to give you an idea of how bad it is, a few years ago a referendum was held in my home country about extending the king’s power (which was already pretty much like that of Louis XVI). It passed with 99.89%! I kid you not.

How does this relate to the issue at hand? Bare with me a moment.

Algeria was the first country to hold free elections in 1991 and it was clear in the first round that they were going to take every single seat. The military annulled the elections, forced the president to resign and banned the Islamist party. 160,000 people died because the Islamists fought back. Nobody budged because the military protected Western interests in the oil and gas rich territory.
The Islamists taking power would have meant the end of the pillage and a redirection of the wealth towards constructing the state. Granted, women might not have been free to wear mini-skirts under the Islamist rule.

Then came Palestine and Lebanon which have suffered all kind of abuses from Israel; Abductions, assassinations, riots triggered by agent-provocateurs, bombings and military incursions. All of which are properly documented if you bother to look, but never make it past page 9 on most US papers. Contrast with what happens when something happens in Israel. Anyway, it was only natural for those populations to support the party that was not willing to put up with that treatment anymore. Trust me, you would have done the same. It was ironic because anyone remotely following the issue could have predicted reaction of the US, and the US were actively involved in making sure the elections were free. The elephant in the room instantly lost its invisibility cloak.

The US’ unconditional support for Israel is certainly not the only reason for terrorism, but it’s certainly something one should think about when trying to understand its origins. The US issued dozens of vetoes to void UN security council resolution critical of the Zionist horrific actions. Is the whole world anti-Semitic or are the Arabs by some way secretly controlling the security council.

No matter how you turn it, Israel remains a criminal state. If you have the time or interest, try to read the following history of the conflict. The problem is definitely not going to be solved in our lifetimes, and it would therefore not be a waste of energy to try and learn about it.
http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html[/quote]

You are conveniently forgetting that the Algerian and the Turkish military are part of their societies too, usually the educated bright ones who do not want to have the clock turned back to the 11th century.

Since it will be a dictatorship anyway I?ll take the one that is not based on superstitious nonsense but on the desire to stay semi-civilized.

54

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Since when did senators and politicians stop voting to make the lobb[yi]sts happy, [then placating] their [electorate]?

They haven’t.
[/quote]
We are in the presence of genius.
http://www.gop.com/DemFacts/ThenNow.aspx

55

[quote]Clinton continues to invoke the now largely discredited Bush administration claim that the government of Iran is supplying high-tech weaponry to Iraqi insurgents.
-Amy Goodman(libtard guru)[/quote]
http://www.theunion.com/article/20070221/OPINION/102210206
Wow! Amy Goodman doesn’t believe, “that the government of Iran is supplying high-tech weaponry to Iraqi insurgents.”
That means it must be true, right?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=2YQPVOGIW0TWHQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/02/13/wiran13.xml

56

[quote]Juan Blanco wrote:
Wow! Amy Goodman doesn’t believe, “that the government of Iran is supplying high-tech weaponry to Iraqi insurgents.”
That means it must be true, right?
Iraqi insurgents using Austrian rifles from Iran

I’m pretty sure she was referring to the (in)famous EFPs which Bush maintains come from iran. It’s a technology that’s as old as time and costs virtually nothing. They are not at all the sophisticated weapons that Bush makes a fuss about.
http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/sf/latimes212.htm

To go even further, and as pacifist as I am, I don’t see why the Iraqis couldn’t protect their country against a foreign invader with clear-cut imperialistic ambitions?

57

[quote]orion wrote:
You are conveniently forgetting that the Algerian and the Turkish military are part of their societies too, usually the educated bright ones who do not want to have the clock turned back to the 11th century.

Since it will be a dictatorship anyway I?ll take the one that is not based on superstitious nonsense but on the desire to stay semi-civilized.[/quote]

I specifically referred to Arabs in my post, so Turkey doesn’t belong in the discussion here.

The so-called “bright ones” that supported the army in Algeria are a small minority. You have a most distorted definition of democracy! What you are referring to is oligarchy, and while you’re Ok with it in the US, you have no right to impose to others.

58

[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
You are conveniently forgetting that the Algerian and the Turkish military are part of their societies too, usually the educated bright ones who do not want to have the clock turned back to the 11th century.

Since it will be a dictatorship anyway I?ll take the one that is not based on superstitious nonsense but on the desire to stay semi-civilized.

I specifically referred to Arabs in my post, so Turkey doesn’t belong in the discussion here.

The so-called “bright ones” that supported the army in Algeria are a small minority. You have a most distorted definition of democracy! What you are referring to is oligarchy, and while you’re Ok with it in the US, you have no right to impose to others.[/quote]

Sure Turkey belongs in here.

The Islamists want to take over, the military does not let them. Those soldiers are the laizist well educated ones that are oriented to the west.

You are saying that the unwashed masses in those countries have the right to put those countries back in the Dark Ages because of a magic ritual called “voting”.

Well, Hitler was voted into power to , so that voting things does not seem the magic bullet for all of mankinds problems.

According to Jefferson two wolves and one sheep is democracy. A heavily armed sheep contesting the vote is freedom.

The Algerian military is the heavily armed sheep.

My view of Democracy is pretty much intact. As soon as it becomes a collectivist tyranny of the majority I have little problem if someone pulls the plug.

59

[quote]orion wrote:
Sure Turkey belongs in here.[/quote]

I specifically referred to Arab countries in my post.

Nicely phrased.

I am saying that the US doesn’t support democracy unless the ballot winner is pro-American.

[/quote]Well, Hitler was voted into power to , so that voting things does not seem the magic bullet for all of mankinds problems.[/quote]

Germans in last century were no more “unwashed masses” than the Lebanese today. Their economy was ruined thanks to the allies’ harsh sanction. Lebanese are abducted and killed by Israelis. Their airspace is regularly violated by Israeli jets who terrorize the locals. Palestinians are…well, worse than what the Germans were back in the days. It took a Hitler for the west to realize that you can’t get away with expropriating and starving people indefinitely. They will fight back.

Same here. But Americans have to admit that they’re actions are not triggered by a desire to spread democracy.

One question though. Do you think Iraq will be better off under a collectivist tyranny of the Shii’tes (the wolves) than they were under Saddam (the armed sheep)? Is it for the US’s prerogative to decide on that or is it international bodies (read the UN) that should make such decisions?

60

[quote]lixy wrote:

One question though. Do you think Iraq will be better off under a collectivist tyranny of the Shii’tes (the wolves) than they were under Saddam (the armed sheep)? Is it for the US’s prerogative to decide on that or is it international bodies (read the UN) that should make such decisions?[/quote]

It will not be the US or the UN as it should not have been the UK in the first place.

There will be 3 entities, or 2 and a larger Iran.

The Kurds have Kurdistan AND oil (the really, really good stuff), which will bring Turkey around to the realisation that Kurds, in fact, do exist, maybe along with the Alewites and the massacred Armenians.

The Shi`ites have oil and the Iran and the Sunnis can unfortunately go fuck themselves, but with their own state if they want too.

Maybe they all decide on a confederation, but I doubt it.

To interfere with all of this is insanity, communities evolve and are not dictated from above.