[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[Wardad]

The war was about....

http://www.funny-funny-pictures.com/dp/1-287.htm

and...

http://www.funny-funny-pictures.com/dp/1-290.htm

[ April 22, 2003, 20:14: Message edited by: Wardad ]

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by Loser:

Bash U.S., they _do_ make mistakes. Go ahead. They can't seem to do anything right in Central and South America. It's true.

But no that no other country, including yours, has fixed Japan or Germany. No other country, including yours, has saved the world from fascism or statist communism.

It is my fervent hope that the U.S. finds more men like Marshal. If they do not, we are all in a world of trouble.

Loser, I admire you, you are my heroe of the week!
This is exactly the way I feel, with the addition that I firmly believe that the current president is taking the US to a dark hole of an unholy mix of christian fundamentalism, corporate dominance and dictactorship.
He only need a massive terrorist attack, to ask for especial powers to fight terrorism, and thus take away the constitutional rights, and many Americans will agree for the sake of security. It will not be the first popular Presidential Dictactorship.
I will always remember the US as it was under Clinton. For me that was the Golden Age.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Just out of interest I did a google search for PNAC+"mein kampf".

Got some interesting results, although everything on the first page seems to be quoted from the same source.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...2mein+kampf%22

---
Edit: fixed link

That was cool.
I always new something was very, very wrong with the current administration.

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by Roanon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Why would you expect less of the US now?

Lol. Because the president now is Bush and his prime interest is money. Thats pretty obvious.

---

It amazes me that people think they can so easily guess at a man's motivation without knowing the man himself. I do not know President Bush personally, so I can only guess at his motivations. I find my guesses to be quite different than yours. I have seen a man who is willing to make a stand on principles, even when his stand is unpopular. I do not agree with every stand he takes, but I always know where he stands. That is a very rare thing in a politician, and welcome to me.

Many in this forum have stooped to calling him names, like kids in grade school. I do not understand that. This forum has always struck me as much more mature than that. I can understand disagreeing with his policies, especially about this war. But to pile childish insults on a man who is not even here to defend himself is hardly productive.

[Loser]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Loser, I admire you, you are my hero of the week!
...
I will always remember the US as it was under Clinton. For me that was the Golden Age.

First, thank you. That thanks does mean something to me.

Second, you need not worry about a dictatorship of any sort in the U.S., not any time soon. I will not, can not happen because of a few very important features of the U.S. government.

While all U.S. citizens learn about the structure of the government, the reason for the maddening division of power is rarely dwelled upon. The manifold splintering of power in the U.S. government ensures that absolute control is difficult to grasp, and impossible to keep for very long.

The divided legislature keeps both population-type majorities and incumbent-type conspiracies at bay. The frequency of elections makes maintaining unpopular power impossible. The democratic manner of executive appointment is certain to keep isolated individuals from consistent power; anyone who has participated in Real Democracy knows that it is anarchical: it makes no better decisions, but its chaos keeps power from any one person.

Add to this the scarcity of actual members of the military, and you have a dictator's nightmare. He cannot hold power though the system. He cannot hold power though brutish means. And he cannot consistently manipulate the legislature to his ends.

I would like to suppose that your fixation on the Clinton Years is an issue of age. When I was younger I idealized the Reagan Terms. I see better now, but I would like to point out that Reagan won the Cold War, Clinton's best feature was his ineffectuality, and that he was 'cool' of course. Reagan could never have been cool.

In short, you do not need to worry about the U.S. Government: others are worrying for you and doing a better job of it. Everyone please take a few deep breaths, it is going to be okay.

[Phoenix-D]

Getting away from the "my president can beat up your president" remarks..

To everyone who says we invaded for oil: think for a moment. If we invaded for humanitarian reasons, is that -better- in the long run? My answer would be no. How much of the world has oil? Compare that to how much of the world the US could justify invading for humanitarian reasons.

Not that I consider invading for either all that justified, but..

Phoenix-D

[TerranC]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Fyron... I believe that you must factor in Chilie, Panama , D.R. , Nic. , Columbia, Vietnam ,Granada etc... for the full picture of U.S.'s involvement in this issue on their support and helping with the development of 'Democracy'.

General Marshall was what I would call a visionary. He will be forgotten by history, which is wrong, but desk jockies do not make great hero's i guess.

P.S. guess the number of spelling mistakes in this post and win a prize

Chile
Colombia
Space after the coma
Grenada
"is" should not be attached on words that end with "s"; instead, only an apostrophe should be attached.
Used What instead of Who
Jockeys
Heroes
I

Spelling and Grammar errors in total: 9

I hope I get extra credit for grammar

[ April 23, 2003, 05:26: Message edited by: TerranC ]

[dogscoff]

I do not know President Bush personally, so I can only guess at his motivations.

Except that we have quite a few big clues about his motivations. For example, the tens of billions of dollars' worth of work for the rebuilding of Iraq, all contracted out to his corporate friends. And all of this arranged and planned even before he even came to power.

Also remember that half the 'justification' for this war was based upon Saddams intention (ie motivation) to launch nuclear weapons at the US or some such crap. If Bush can start a war and kill thousands on the basis of what he thinks someone else's pmotivations might be, I feel perfectly justified in slagging him off for what I think his are.

[primitive]

[quote]Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:

Many in this forum have stooped to calling him names, like kids in grade school. I do not understand that. This forum has always struck me as much more mature than that. I can understand disagreeing with his policies, especially about this war. But to pile childish insults on a man who is not even here to defend himself is hardly productive.

When I have called GWB a moron, it was a reference to his foreign policy which is moronic. I have no idea if he truly is a moron or if he just gets bad advice.

And I would love to se him get a chance to defend himself. A war crime tribunal in The Hague would be a suitable venue. There is a cosy cell available next to Slobodan’s.

[tesco samoa]

Wow Thanks guys.

I believe my spelling is down to a grade three level now....

Primative perhaps the question that should be asked is this.

With reguards to the the issue of WMD.

Is the current administration and those in charge of the Intel agency dishonest or incompetent? Or both? It is a question that should be asked in U.S.A. and here in the forum.

If their dishonest they should be removed. If their incompetent then they should be removed due to the fact they do not have the ability to oversee the organizations they run.

Just some thoughts.

And Yes I am a fan of Marshell,,, I thought my post gave that impression.