- Moderator
- #21
Trust me there will be a day when we no longer have to worry about them.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Who Is Our Enemy?
- Thread starter preemptingyou03
- Start date
Trust me there will be a day when we no longer have to worry about them.
K
kcmcdonald
Guest
Originally posted by Avatar4321
Trust me there will be a day when we no longer have to worry about them.
God willing. and country willing. May the side with the sword continue to flurish while the side with the branch do the honerable thing and allow the warriors to march.
preemptingyou03
Member
- Mar 18, 2004
- 369
- 4
- 16
- Thread starter
- #23
My point on not making the War on Terror political is just following the blueprint of the Cold War. Truman, JFK, were some of our best Cold War presidents. But when dealing with the Cold War, obviously Republicans were better.
The reason for this is, Republicans don't shy away from flaunting American values, even if it means stepping on people's feet. To liberals, flaunting American values on such a scale that Bush has done, suggests the very notion that we are unique in any way, when the reality of the situation is, America is unique in every way.
Think of the history of empires and kingdoms... then look at ours. There's a difference, and that difference will mean we shall live forever as free people. The past few centuries have shown the world a glimpse of world peace, oddly enough. Yes, I know... the World Wars, the nuclear build up, terrorism... doesn't sound like world peace, does it? Wrong. In 1917, there were 12 free nations (and even those nations were only free towards men). Today, there are over 120 free countires in a world of 192 nations.
In 5 years, look at Iraq. In 10 years, look at the threat of terrorism. In 15 years, look at every rogue state. In 20 years, look at terrorism as a whole. In 50 years, look at the Middle East and the world. In 75 years, look up Bush's name in a history book.
September 11th wasn't a one-time fluke. It was a wake up call. We cannot hit the snooze. We got out feet wet in Afghanistan, we took the dive in Iraq. We must remain vigilant and know that democracy will triumph over radicalism and terrorism much how it defeated totalitarianism, communism, Nazism, slavery, etc, etc.
The reason for this is, Republicans don't shy away from flaunting American values, even if it means stepping on people's feet. To liberals, flaunting American values on such a scale that Bush has done, suggests the very notion that we are unique in any way, when the reality of the situation is, America is unique in every way.
Think of the history of empires and kingdoms... then look at ours. There's a difference, and that difference will mean we shall live forever as free people. The past few centuries have shown the world a glimpse of world peace, oddly enough. Yes, I know... the World Wars, the nuclear build up, terrorism... doesn't sound like world peace, does it? Wrong. In 1917, there were 12 free nations (and even those nations were only free towards men). Today, there are over 120 free countires in a world of 192 nations.
In 5 years, look at Iraq. In 10 years, look at the threat of terrorism. In 15 years, look at every rogue state. In 20 years, look at terrorism as a whole. In 50 years, look at the Middle East and the world. In 75 years, look up Bush's name in a history book.
September 11th wasn't a one-time fluke. It was a wake up call. We cannot hit the snooze. We got out feet wet in Afghanistan, we took the dive in Iraq. We must remain vigilant and know that democracy will triumph over radicalism and terrorism much how it defeated totalitarianism, communism, Nazism, slavery, etc, etc.
R
Reilly
Guest
Interesting that you still conflate the September 11 terrorists with Iraq, which eschewed radical islamic belief.
preemptingyou03
Member
- Mar 18, 2004
- 369
- 4
- 16
- Thread starter
- #25
I "conflate" September 11th to terrorism and I conflate Saddam's record...
- He funded Hamas.
- He funded Islamic Jihad.
- He funded Abu-Sayyaf, a group with ties to al-Qaeda.
- He funded Hezbollah (the world's 2nd largest terrorist group).
- He funded Ansar al-Islam, (a group with direct ties to al-Qaeda).
- He sponsored the MEK, the ANO, the PLF, and the PKK.
- He sheltered Abu Nidal, a man who killed over 900 people in 90 attacks in 25 countries.
- He sponsored the ANO.
- He sponsored the PLO.
- He sheltered Abdul Yassin, one of the terrorists in the 1993 WTC attack.
- He sheltered one of the world's most wanted terrorists, and leader of the PLF, Abu Abbas.
- He sheltered al-Qaeda/Ansar operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
- According to Germany, Iraqi officials met al-Qaeda operatives in 1998.
- The man killed 750,000 of his own people at the least and 2 million at the most.
- Ayman al-Zawahiri met with Iraqi officials in 1991.
...to supporting terrorism.
I conflate inflaming radicalism on the short term, and establishing freedom in the long term, to defeating radicalism and the ideology of terrorism in the long term. Invading Iraq "fueled" radical Islam in your view. And it might have. But what about five years from now, when Iraq's a template of democracy in the region?
- He funded Hamas.
- He funded Islamic Jihad.
- He funded Abu-Sayyaf, a group with ties to al-Qaeda.
- He funded Hezbollah (the world's 2nd largest terrorist group).
- He funded Ansar al-Islam, (a group with direct ties to al-Qaeda).
- He sponsored the MEK, the ANO, the PLF, and the PKK.
- He sheltered Abu Nidal, a man who killed over 900 people in 90 attacks in 25 countries.
- He sponsored the ANO.
- He sponsored the PLO.
- He sheltered Abdul Yassin, one of the terrorists in the 1993 WTC attack.
- He sheltered one of the world's most wanted terrorists, and leader of the PLF, Abu Abbas.
- He sheltered al-Qaeda/Ansar operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
- According to Germany, Iraqi officials met al-Qaeda operatives in 1998.
- The man killed 750,000 of his own people at the least and 2 million at the most.
- Ayman al-Zawahiri met with Iraqi officials in 1991.
...to supporting terrorism.
I conflate inflaming radicalism on the short term, and establishing freedom in the long term, to defeating radicalism and the ideology of terrorism in the long term. Invading Iraq "fueled" radical Islam in your view. And it might have. But what about five years from now, when Iraq's a template of democracy in the region?
R
Reilly
Guest
Just checking. It is absolutely true that Saddam channeled money to more secular (as distinguished from pure Islamic fundamentalist groups like Al Quaeda) Middle East terrorist groups (i.e., Hamas) in an effort to interfere with his regional foes (Iran, Turkey, Israel, Kurds). However, no connection has been shown between Sept. 11 and Iraq. As for my views, don't presume to know what they are. I supported the invasion of Iraq and I hope that you are right, and that in 5 years Iraq will be a stable democratic state - although I am beginning to have my doubts.
preemptingyou03
Member
- Mar 18, 2004
- 369
- 4
- 16
- Thread starter
- #27
Who cares if Saddam had anything to do with 9/11? That's like not confronting Hitler after Pearl Harbor.
If we limit our war to those who did 9/11, we'll be in a world of trouble. When we get Osama, do you think this is over? Come on... we've been involved in MANY wars, losing MANY more casualties than we are today, for MUCH LESS of a reason, against people that DIDN'T attack us.
Was Saddam a terrorist? Did he support terrorism? Yes and yes.
We must ENDURE and have a SUSTAINED resolve. We cannot go back to the Somalia mindset where we can't stomach hard times.
We're the United States of America and we're changing the world. We're involved now in the world's most troubled region. We got more than our feet wet. We're in deep. We cannot shy away from this fact. We're going to let thugs and mobs change our policy?
If we limit our war to those who did 9/11, we'll be in a world of trouble. When we get Osama, do you think this is over? Come on... we've been involved in MANY wars, losing MANY more casualties than we are today, for MUCH LESS of a reason, against people that DIDN'T attack us.
Was Saddam a terrorist? Did he support terrorism? Yes and yes.
We must ENDURE and have a SUSTAINED resolve. We cannot go back to the Somalia mindset where we can't stomach hard times.
We're the United States of America and we're changing the world. We're involved now in the world's most troubled region. We got more than our feet wet. We're in deep. We cannot shy away from this fact. We're going to let thugs and mobs change our policy?
William Joyce
Chemotherapy for PC
Let me ask you a question, world-changer. Actually, a few.
1. Where in the Constitution does it say that the U.S.'s job is to "change the world"?
2. What founding father advised that the purpose of the U.S. would be, not to provide a place for its citizens to live in peace, but to "change the world"?
3. What conservative thinker has advocated "changing the world" as an advisable, profitable, or even achievable activity?
4. How, exactly, are we going to "change the world" in the middle east?
5. Are our efforts so far good?
6. If we have the right to "change the world", does the world have the right to "change" us?
7. If the world doesn't want to be "changed," should we persist in "changing" it?
8. If I would like to "change" you by burning your house down, should I?
9. What did we accomplish in Somalia? What was the problem there? Who is the "we" who is going to "stomach" the "tough times"? If not you, are you willing to conscript others for this stomaching activity?
10. What do you think is causing all of the trouble, really?
1. Where in the Constitution does it say that the U.S.'s job is to "change the world"?
2. What founding father advised that the purpose of the U.S. would be, not to provide a place for its citizens to live in peace, but to "change the world"?
3. What conservative thinker has advocated "changing the world" as an advisable, profitable, or even achievable activity?
4. How, exactly, are we going to "change the world" in the middle east?
5. Are our efforts so far good?
6. If we have the right to "change the world", does the world have the right to "change" us?
7. If the world doesn't want to be "changed," should we persist in "changing" it?
8. If I would like to "change" you by burning your house down, should I?
9. What did we accomplish in Somalia? What was the problem there? Who is the "we" who is going to "stomach" the "tough times"? If not you, are you willing to conscript others for this stomaching activity?
10. What do you think is causing all of the trouble, really?
Palestinian Jew
Member
Who cares if Saddam had anything to do with 9/11? That's like not confronting Hitler after Pearl Harbor.
Actually like Clarke already said, its more like attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor. The whole Hitler-Pearl Harbor thing has already been debated here, and your view lost. Hitler had declared war on the U.S., Saddam has never attacked the U.S. and probably never would have.
If we limit our war to those who did 9/11, we'll be in a world of trouble. When we get Osama, do you think this is over?
If we got Osama and the #1 man Zawahiri back at Tora Bora and if we weren't distracted by Iraq and instead dealt with Saudi Arabia, then the combat phase could be over. What we really need to do is change the ideology of the people and get to the point where muslims are as outraged by the fundamentalist as we are.
You have to keep something in mind here, we were ATTACKED ON 9/11 by a group of people that we could identify, al-Queda, that was supported by another country, Saudi Arabia, that we have left alone, NOT by Saddam, NOT by Iraq. The war in Iraq, was not necessary.
I don't agree with you that Hamas and the PLO is a terrorist group, unless you think that the Israeli army is also a terrorist group. They are confined to their little area and no real threat to the rest of the world.
N
NewGuy
Guest
Originally posted by William Joyce
Let me ask you a question, world-changer. Actually, a few.
1. Where in the Constitution does it say that the U.S.'s job is to "change the world"?
2. What founding father advised that the purpose of the U.S. would be, not to provide a place for its citizens to live in peace, but to "change the world"?
3. What conservative thinker has advocated "changing the world" as an advisable, profitable, or even achievable activity?
4. How, exactly, are we going to "change the world" in the middle east?
5. Are our efforts so far good?
6. If we have the right to "change the world", does the world have the right to "change" us?
7. If the world doesn't want to be "changed," should we persist in "changing" it?
8. If I would like to "change" you by burning your house down, should I?
9. What did we accomplish in Somalia? What was the problem there? Who is the "we" who is going to "stomach" the "tough times"? If not you, are you willing to conscript others for this stomaching activity?
10. What do you think is causing all of the trouble, really?
Wow. Not sure about what #10 means, but as far as the first 9, have you been reading MY VIEWS?
I would agree. The Constitution places no authority whatsoever in being a world cop.
preemptingyou03
Member
- Mar 18, 2004
- 369
- 4
- 16
- Thread starter
- #31
>>>Let me ask you a question, world-changer. Actually, a few.
1. Where in the Constitution does it say that the U.S.'s job is to "change the world"?
2. What founding father advised that the purpose of the U.S. would be, not to provide a place for its citizens to live in peace, but to "change the world"?
3. What conservative thinker has advocated "changing the world" as an advisable, profitable, or even achievable activity?
4. How, exactly, are we going to "change the world" in the middle east?
5. Are our efforts so far good?
6. If we have the right to "change the world", does the world have the right to "change" us?
7. If the world doesn't want to be "changed," should we persist in "changing" it?
8. If I would like to "change" you by burning your house down, should I?
9. What did we accomplish in Somalia? What was the problem there? Who is the "we" who is going to "stomach" the "tough times"? If not you, are you willing to conscript others for this stomaching activity?
10. What do you think is causing all of the trouble, really?<<<
Some of your questions are silly, while others are understandable. My answer to you, is this: if we don't try to use our values for the betterment of the world, what alternative is there?
In Saudi Arabia, when a girl's dorm building burned down, Saudi police locked the doors of the dorm, because the Saudi girls were running outside without their faces covered. Is that acceptable by the majority of Muslims? If so, then be it. Maybe it is not our job to step in. But what if that radical belief tries to impose itself on us?
Why do you see a problem with "changing" the world? Was it not changing the world by confronting communism for the sake of Europe? The fact that there was once 12 democratic societies at the end of World War I and today there are over 120, is that bad, by changing the world? Saddam Hussein would hang women upside down in front of their family, during their periods. (But Mrs. Clinton thinks women had it good under Saddam). The fact that these women now won't have to fear that, is that good?
Words such as "weapons of mass destruction" have become controversial while words such as "rape rooms" have stopped striking cords of fear and disgust with people. Think about it for a second. "Rape rooms." Uday Hussein would rape Iraqi brides on their wedding day, while the husband watched. Isn't it good that we changed that? Isn't it good that in due time, Iraq will be an example to the rest of the Middle East?
Take the blinders off.
As for not confronting Saudi Arabia, ahem... Saudi Arabia has captured 500 al-Qaeda members, (almost as much as Pakistan). Together, US/Saudi officials have cut $200 million dollars in terrorist assests. Yes, some Saudis fund terror. Yes, some institutions breed radicalism.
And we must confront that. But the reason al-Qaeda members are mostly Saudi, Egyptian, Kuwaiti, and Pakistani is because they DISAGREE with the Saudi, Egyptian, Kuwaiti, and Pakistani governments for siding with America. There's a reason BIN LADEN ATTACKS SAUDI ARABIA.
That's like saying, if 15 Americans that trained in Mexico, under the Mexican government's support, bombed China, China would have the right to attack America. No, China would attack Mexico. The ethnicity of terrorists has nothing to do with state sponsorship.
Clarke's anaology of attacking Iraq after 9/11 to attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor is sickening. If Mexico praised the attacks on Pearl Harbor, slaughtered its citizens, said they wish to do the same to America, and funded people who do Pearl Harbor-like attacks, then yes... it'd make sense.
Clarke lost all credability when he said the complete opposite thing as he did in August of 2002. It's funny. I mean, under Clinton, the World Trade Center was attacked. We did nothing. American interests in Saudi Arabia were attacked. We did nothing. We were attacked in 1998 and our battleship was attacked in 2000. We did nothing. OBL declared war on us. We did nothing. We were offered OBL. We did nothing.
Then, Bush comes in, sets a policy to DESTROY al-Qaeda in "5 years," (a rate that seems to be going well considering 8 out of al-Qaeda's top 10 are dead or captured) and Clarke gets fired from certain spots within the White House, and writes a book bashing Bush.
Clarke's a mule.
1. Where in the Constitution does it say that the U.S.'s job is to "change the world"?
2. What founding father advised that the purpose of the U.S. would be, not to provide a place for its citizens to live in peace, but to "change the world"?
3. What conservative thinker has advocated "changing the world" as an advisable, profitable, or even achievable activity?
4. How, exactly, are we going to "change the world" in the middle east?
5. Are our efforts so far good?
6. If we have the right to "change the world", does the world have the right to "change" us?
7. If the world doesn't want to be "changed," should we persist in "changing" it?
8. If I would like to "change" you by burning your house down, should I?
9. What did we accomplish in Somalia? What was the problem there? Who is the "we" who is going to "stomach" the "tough times"? If not you, are you willing to conscript others for this stomaching activity?
10. What do you think is causing all of the trouble, really?<<<
Some of your questions are silly, while others are understandable. My answer to you, is this: if we don't try to use our values for the betterment of the world, what alternative is there?
In Saudi Arabia, when a girl's dorm building burned down, Saudi police locked the doors of the dorm, because the Saudi girls were running outside without their faces covered. Is that acceptable by the majority of Muslims? If so, then be it. Maybe it is not our job to step in. But what if that radical belief tries to impose itself on us?
Why do you see a problem with "changing" the world? Was it not changing the world by confronting communism for the sake of Europe? The fact that there was once 12 democratic societies at the end of World War I and today there are over 120, is that bad, by changing the world? Saddam Hussein would hang women upside down in front of their family, during their periods. (But Mrs. Clinton thinks women had it good under Saddam). The fact that these women now won't have to fear that, is that good?
Words such as "weapons of mass destruction" have become controversial while words such as "rape rooms" have stopped striking cords of fear and disgust with people. Think about it for a second. "Rape rooms." Uday Hussein would rape Iraqi brides on their wedding day, while the husband watched. Isn't it good that we changed that? Isn't it good that in due time, Iraq will be an example to the rest of the Middle East?
Take the blinders off.
As for not confronting Saudi Arabia, ahem... Saudi Arabia has captured 500 al-Qaeda members, (almost as much as Pakistan). Together, US/Saudi officials have cut $200 million dollars in terrorist assests. Yes, some Saudis fund terror. Yes, some institutions breed radicalism.
And we must confront that. But the reason al-Qaeda members are mostly Saudi, Egyptian, Kuwaiti, and Pakistani is because they DISAGREE with the Saudi, Egyptian, Kuwaiti, and Pakistani governments for siding with America. There's a reason BIN LADEN ATTACKS SAUDI ARABIA.
That's like saying, if 15 Americans that trained in Mexico, under the Mexican government's support, bombed China, China would have the right to attack America. No, China would attack Mexico. The ethnicity of terrorists has nothing to do with state sponsorship.
Clarke's anaology of attacking Iraq after 9/11 to attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor is sickening. If Mexico praised the attacks on Pearl Harbor, slaughtered its citizens, said they wish to do the same to America, and funded people who do Pearl Harbor-like attacks, then yes... it'd make sense.
Clarke lost all credability when he said the complete opposite thing as he did in August of 2002. It's funny. I mean, under Clinton, the World Trade Center was attacked. We did nothing. American interests in Saudi Arabia were attacked. We did nothing. We were attacked in 1998 and our battleship was attacked in 2000. We did nothing. OBL declared war on us. We did nothing. We were offered OBL. We did nothing.
Then, Bush comes in, sets a policy to DESTROY al-Qaeda in "5 years," (a rate that seems to be going well considering 8 out of al-Qaeda's top 10 are dead or captured) and Clarke gets fired from certain spots within the White House, and writes a book bashing Bush.
Clarke's a mule.
Hobbit
Senior Member
No, the Constitution does not tell us to be world police. However, it is my belief that everyone try to change things for the better.
1. The Constitution also never says anywhere that the U.S. military can have airplanes, but we do. Just because the Constitution doesn't say it doesn't mean it's illegal.
2. I do believe Ben Franklin did a lot of diplomacy in Europe during his tenure as ambassador to France. However, it was WWI&II that showed that our classic isolationist policy didn't work. John Paul Jones, one of the greatest heroes in U.S. Naval history (and the first) thought America wasn't doing enough when they disbanded the Navy and left the Atlantic to defend us, so he went to Russia.
3. Many have tried to change the world. Reagen instrumented the fall of Soviet communism. Bush is trying to wipe out terror. Changing the world doesn't mean changing the whole world in a drastic way at once. If we change the world for the better, and people remember us for it, then it is indeed profitable.
4. By freeing several countries from oppressive, totalitarian regimes and wiping out the terrorists that hold everyone in fear.
5. Some are and some aren't. I'd say freeing Iraq from Saddam and kicking the Taliban out of Afghanistan were good. Bombing the apsirin factory and failing to turn up any WMDs were not.
6. Whether or not they have the right, they're trying to anyway. Might as well fight them on their own turf.
7. So far, most of the people whose lives we've changed like the change. Most Iraqis likes the change. Most Afghans like the change. The people who don't want change are the ones profitting off of the misery of others.
8. The only way that would be justifiable is if I was using that house to oppress and harm others. So far, those we have changed by destroying homes either had it done accidentally and are being compensated or were evil, bad people who needed to be stopped.
9. We ousted a few cruel warlords before Clinton's spine dissolved and we pulled out.
10. Terrorists and dictators.
1. The Constitution also never says anywhere that the U.S. military can have airplanes, but we do. Just because the Constitution doesn't say it doesn't mean it's illegal.
2. I do believe Ben Franklin did a lot of diplomacy in Europe during his tenure as ambassador to France. However, it was WWI&II that showed that our classic isolationist policy didn't work. John Paul Jones, one of the greatest heroes in U.S. Naval history (and the first) thought America wasn't doing enough when they disbanded the Navy and left the Atlantic to defend us, so he went to Russia.
3. Many have tried to change the world. Reagen instrumented the fall of Soviet communism. Bush is trying to wipe out terror. Changing the world doesn't mean changing the whole world in a drastic way at once. If we change the world for the better, and people remember us for it, then it is indeed profitable.
4. By freeing several countries from oppressive, totalitarian regimes and wiping out the terrorists that hold everyone in fear.
5. Some are and some aren't. I'd say freeing Iraq from Saddam and kicking the Taliban out of Afghanistan were good. Bombing the apsirin factory and failing to turn up any WMDs were not.
6. Whether or not they have the right, they're trying to anyway. Might as well fight them on their own turf.
7. So far, most of the people whose lives we've changed like the change. Most Iraqis likes the change. Most Afghans like the change. The people who don't want change are the ones profitting off of the misery of others.
8. The only way that would be justifiable is if I was using that house to oppress and harm others. So far, those we have changed by destroying homes either had it done accidentally and are being compensated or were evil, bad people who needed to be stopped.
9. We ousted a few cruel warlords before Clinton's spine dissolved and we pulled out.
10. Terrorists and dictators.
Z
zarquiekia
Guest
The cold-war was a lie. That is one of the reasons we are hated in the ME!
In the 60s and 70s, Americans found out that our government paralyzed America with fear that the 'Russians were coming' and that communist was a great evil. All the time, our government was deceiving Americans by stealing our taxpaying money and paying for their mistresses and other cover ups.
In December 1985, Reagan/Bush Sr., were in bed with Saddam and invited him to the white house. A picture of a very happy "I am glad to meet you" Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand. Funny it was not long after that meeting Saddam gassed the Kurds for their treasonist act against Iraq. The Kurds faught against their country (Iraq) on the side of Iran.
Now, Bush is planning to get back into office by paralyzing America with the scare of terrorism. We know Bush and his tycoon friends are stealing from the American taxpayers. Halliburton and Bretchel are stealing from Americans big time! Don't think Bush/Cheney and friends are not getting his percentage!
In the 60s and 70s, Americans found out that our government paralyzed America with fear that the 'Russians were coming' and that communist was a great evil. All the time, our government was deceiving Americans by stealing our taxpaying money and paying for their mistresses and other cover ups.
In December 1985, Reagan/Bush Sr., were in bed with Saddam and invited him to the white house. A picture of a very happy "I am glad to meet you" Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand. Funny it was not long after that meeting Saddam gassed the Kurds for their treasonist act against Iraq. The Kurds faught against their country (Iraq) on the side of Iran.
Now, Bush is planning to get back into office by paralyzing America with the scare of terrorism. We know Bush and his tycoon friends are stealing from the American taxpayers. Halliburton and Bretchel are stealing from Americans big time! Don't think Bush/Cheney and friends are not getting his percentage!
Z
zarquiekia
Guest
America don't have the right to police the world! God never gave the world to America! It is morally and just plain wrong to force democracy on other countries! Isn't this what Hitler, and the Japan's ruler 'Emperor of the Sun' did? They conquered, destroyed, and killed people during their quest for world domination. Bush claimed to liberate the people of Iraq and two things are to happen: force democracy and force rightwing conservative christianity on the people of Iraq! That is not going to happen! America will get nothing but bodybags being shipped home!
Comrade
Senior Member
Originally posted by zarquiekia
The cold-war was a lie. That is one of the reasons we are hated in the ME!
Decades short and a dollar late on your application for being a Soviet propagandist.
In the 60s and 70s, Americans found out that our government paralyzed America with fear that the 'Russians were coming' and that communist was a great evil. All the time, our government was deceiving Americans by stealing our taxpaying money and paying for their mistresses and other cover ups.
Then again our economy grew to double that of the Soviet Union in that same period. "Paralyzation" and "Corruption" is very well two of the effects they can statistically verifiy.
In December 1985, Reagan/Bush Sr., were in bed with Saddam and invited him to the white house. A picture of a very happy "I am glad to meet you" Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand.
The reason to link to such claims before establishing them is to avoid being personally exposed as either a liar or a fool.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.
Funny it was not long after that meeting Saddam gassed the Kurds for their treasonist act against Iraq. The Kurds faught against their country (Iraq) on the side of Iran.
Granted you have "Who" correct, but your flunked the essential "where" and "when" behind the facts. Acceptible if you didn't have the Internet or a link to verify first, but otherwise a foolish claim to make here, and otherwise simply one we all can search on and prove you as a neophyte worthy of little note.
And funny you actually blame the Americans and not Saddam Hussein himself for the act. Nor do you apply blame consistent with actual support given to him at that time, which you attempt to tie to responsibility. Otherwise one of Russian, China, or France would have been predominant. You just rant and rave against the USA because you have been taught to see nothing else.
Now, Bush is planning to get back into office by paralyzing America with the scare of terrorism. We know Bush and his tycoon friends are stealing from the American taxpayers. Halliburton and Bretchel are stealing from Americans big time! Don't think Bush/Cheney and friends are not getting his percentage! [/B]
All I wonder is where your own percentage is, as your words do not pretend to speak for me, only purely against my current government. Can you tell me why I should trust you?
JIHADTHIS
Active Member
<b>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by William Joyce
Let me ask you a question, world-changer. Actually, a few.
1. Where in the Constitution does it say that the U.S.'s job is to "change the world"?</b>
Nowhere. Maybe we should totally isolate ourselves and let the Islamists take over the world and finish us off last.
<b>2. What founding father advised that the purpose of the U.S. would be, not to provide a place for its citizens to live in peace, but to "change the world"?</b>
None of them. While their ideas on governance that built this country are unparalleled, I doubt they could have forseen current circumstances.
<b>3. What conservative thinker has advocated "changing the world" as an advisable, profitable, or even achievable activity?</b>
Its too late to change course. Like it or not, everything is global now.
<b>4. How, exactly, are we going to "change the world" in the middle east? </b>
The hopes is that the people in other countries (Iran, Syria, etc) will emulate a free Iraq not ruled by a dictator. Whether or not its going to work remains to be seen. Face it, the middle easterners are not too bright. They are sitting on most of the worlds oil which the rest of the world wants. It should be the richest part of the world with the most advanced population in terms of science, education, culture, etc. Instead they are living in piss poor surroundings and killing themselves and others because a book tells them to. :huh:
<b>5. Are our efforts so far good?</b>
Too early to tell. We'll know soon enough.
<b>6. If we have the right to "change the world", does the world have the right to "change" us?</b>
They already have. That's pretty obvious.
<b>7. If the world doesn't want to be "changed," should we persist in "changing" it?</b>
Why don't we close all of our embassies, tell all US companies to close their foreign offices, factories, etc. Stop all imports and bring home our military. Tell all US citizens to come home now and lock the door. Then what?
<b>8. If I would like to "change" you by burning your house down, should I?</b>
If I let you, shame on me.
<b>9. What did we accomplish in Somalia? What was the problem there? Who is the "we" who is going to "stomach" the "tough times"? If not you, are you willing to conscript others for this stomaching activity? </b>
We accomplished nothing in Somalia because we didn't finish what was started. The "we" would be the average citizen who only sees the small picture and "me, me me". I don't have a problem "stomaching" it. I do have a problem with people who don't open there eyes and see whats going on around them.
<b>10. What do you think is causing all of the trouble, really? </b>
It must be the US. Since everyone else is perfect and we're just meddling in there affairs for our own purpose.........
:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by William Joyce
Let me ask you a question, world-changer. Actually, a few.
1. Where in the Constitution does it say that the U.S.'s job is to "change the world"?</b>
Nowhere. Maybe we should totally isolate ourselves and let the Islamists take over the world and finish us off last.
<b>2. What founding father advised that the purpose of the U.S. would be, not to provide a place for its citizens to live in peace, but to "change the world"?</b>
None of them. While their ideas on governance that built this country are unparalleled, I doubt they could have forseen current circumstances.
<b>3. What conservative thinker has advocated "changing the world" as an advisable, profitable, or even achievable activity?</b>
Its too late to change course. Like it or not, everything is global now.
<b>4. How, exactly, are we going to "change the world" in the middle east? </b>
The hopes is that the people in other countries (Iran, Syria, etc) will emulate a free Iraq not ruled by a dictator. Whether or not its going to work remains to be seen. Face it, the middle easterners are not too bright. They are sitting on most of the worlds oil which the rest of the world wants. It should be the richest part of the world with the most advanced population in terms of science, education, culture, etc. Instead they are living in piss poor surroundings and killing themselves and others because a book tells them to. :huh:
<b>5. Are our efforts so far good?</b>
Too early to tell. We'll know soon enough.
<b>6. If we have the right to "change the world", does the world have the right to "change" us?</b>
They already have. That's pretty obvious.
<b>7. If the world doesn't want to be "changed," should we persist in "changing" it?</b>
Why don't we close all of our embassies, tell all US companies to close their foreign offices, factories, etc. Stop all imports and bring home our military. Tell all US citizens to come home now and lock the door. Then what?
<b>8. If I would like to "change" you by burning your house down, should I?</b>
If I let you, shame on me.
<b>9. What did we accomplish in Somalia? What was the problem there? Who is the "we" who is going to "stomach" the "tough times"? If not you, are you willing to conscript others for this stomaching activity? </b>
We accomplished nothing in Somalia because we didn't finish what was started. The "we" would be the average citizen who only sees the small picture and "me, me me". I don't have a problem "stomaching" it. I do have a problem with people who don't open there eyes and see whats going on around them.
<b>10. What do you think is causing all of the trouble, really? </b>
It must be the US. Since everyone else is perfect and we're just meddling in there affairs for our own purpose.........
:
JIHADTHIS
Active Member
Z wrote:
<b>America don't have the right to police the world! God never gave the world to America! It is morally and just plain wrong to force democracy on other countries! Isn't this what Hitler, and the Japan's ruler 'Emperor of the Sun' did? They conquered, destroyed, and killed people during their quest for world domination. Bush claimed to liberate the people of Iraq and two things are to happen: force democracy and force rightwing conservative christianity on the people of Iraq! That is not going to happen! America will get nothing but bodybags being shipped home!</b>
If you hate the US and what ist stands for so much, why are you in North Carolina and not in Iran or Syria or wherever you came from? You guys crack me up. If you all hate this country so much get the fuck out! No one is keeping you here. You'd love to see the body bags wouldn't you? I love immigrants who come here and don't want to be American.
<b>America don't have the right to police the world! God never gave the world to America! It is morally and just plain wrong to force democracy on other countries! Isn't this what Hitler, and the Japan's ruler 'Emperor of the Sun' did? They conquered, destroyed, and killed people during their quest for world domination. Bush claimed to liberate the people of Iraq and two things are to happen: force democracy and force rightwing conservative christianity on the people of Iraq! That is not going to happen! America will get nothing but bodybags being shipped home!</b>
If you hate the US and what ist stands for so much, why are you in North Carolina and not in Iran or Syria or wherever you came from? You guys crack me up. If you all hate this country so much get the fuck out! No one is keeping you here. You'd love to see the body bags wouldn't you? I love immigrants who come here and don't want to be American.
K
kcmcdonald
Guest
America don't have the right to police the world!
Yes we do. The US is the worlds sole supper power. We are the only nation that can astablish law and order through out the world. No other country has the personal or money to affectavally police the Globe. WE do and guess why every time something bad happens in the world the forst troops on teh ground to stop the violence are american. Because we can and we will. It is our responsabilty to maintain law and order. If you don't like it to bad guess you were born in the wrong period of history. It's called Pan-Americana!!!
It is morally and just plain wrong to force democracy on other countries!
Last time i checked Democarcy was a represiion free govt. Most people don't like to be killed over thier political, religiuos, personal beliefs. We free people there is no wrong in that only right. Mabey you don'y like to see a prospuruse world. I bet you'ld like nothing better than to see america fall. We give the world freedom and we pressure the criminals. WE are the Sheriff of the wild west.
Isn't this what Hitler, and the Japan's ruler 'Emperor of the Sun' did? They conquered, destroyed, and killed people during their quest for world domination
Yes but Germany invaded Europe for "Lebensborn(sp)" or living space. Hitler was trying to build an Aryan Empire. Not free a people from a dictator ship. Japan expanded for resoursces, not freeing an oppressed population. THe US is not impossing our culture on the Iraqies, we are imposing a democratic society, because it is in the best interest of the whole wrold. sorry a more peacful world pisses you off!!
America will get nothing but bodybags being shipped home!
Hey you know what if that's what you want just so your point will be proven then.... F-OFF!!! We will not lose this snad our soldiers will not wear thier coffins on thier backs. How bout some respect, at least, for the country you live in and the men and women who deffend it. If you hate bush and america so much then get the Fuck out. We don't want you here and I'm pretty sure you wont want to be here either because Bush will be in office for a while and the "LIBERATION" of Iraq will countinue and the WOT will be fought ill it is won. I'm sorry you're a peace loving pussy but sit down and let the men do thier work(and women)!!!
William Joyce
Chemotherapy for PC
In case anyone missed it, here's the real enemy:
http://www.vdare.com/francis/zelikow_and_the_threat.htm
http://www.vdare.com/francis/zelikow_and_the_threat.htm
preemptingyou03
Member
- Mar 18, 2004
- 369
- 4
- 16
- Thread starter
- #40
The only democracy in the Middle East, our strongest ally in the region, a nation that is attacked by terrorists weekly, is the real enemy?
Your opinion doesn't count anymore.
Your opinion doesn't count anymore.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 130
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 447
- Replies
- 35
- Views
- 302
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 118
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 261
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 301
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8092
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-