when is the TRUTH gonna be known....

Message boards : Politics : when is the TRUTH gonna be known....
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 10 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Paul D. Buck
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Jul 00
Posts: 3898
Credit: 1,158,042
RAC: 0
United States
Message 733030 - Posted: 1 Apr 2008, 0:32:22 UTC - in response to Message 732961.  

An improvised explosive device (IED) is a bomb constructed and deployed in ways other than in conventional military action. They may be partially comprised of conventional military explosives, such as an artillery round, attached to a detonating mechanism.

As the Viet Nam war and others. A quick glance at history shows that this is the basic methodology of the local population against what they consider an ocupier. The Romans had similar issues with many of the peoples they conquered.

IEDs may be used in terrorist actions or in unconventional warfare by guerrillas or commando forces in a theater of operations. In the 2003–present Iraq War, IEDs have been used extensively against coalition forces and by the end of 2007 they have been responsible for approximately at least 40% of coalition deaths in Iraq.

Simply put, what you deem as "militarily ineffective", the enemy deems as "utilizing the tools at hand" or improvising, as in Improvised Explosive Device (IED).

The point of a WMD is in the key word mass which you want to ignore or wish away. Those weapons were not in a state that allowed them be used as a WMD. COuld they cause large amounts of casualties? Sure, no question. BUt not as originally intended or designed thus rendering them militarily ineffective. Can they still blow up one truck, sure, but that is not what that round was intended to do ... it was intended to incapacitate hundreds to thousands ... deny area ... and other similar military tactics.

Try this... if you have ever seen the footage of the USS Forrestal fire it looks awful. However, every weapon that "cooked off" exploded as a low order detonation. In other words, not as intended, militarily ineffective as individual weapons. The fact that so many went off in so small a space along with mistakes by the damage control crews is what made things so bad.

....and of course, we've already concluded that the WMD's did exist and they were still in fact quite capable of causing harm, or considered to still be "unsafe" to say the least. How much higher do you reckon that percentage of coalition deaths would be if 800 or so of those IED's contained sarin and/or mustard gas even in an assumed deteriorated condition?

It is just as easy to get common chemicals and make a bigger bomb or to attempt to use industrial gases like chlorine to increase the fear factor. And that group in Japan proved that making some other gasses is not all that hard if you know the formulation.

And you continue to confuse military effectiveness with inducing fear or causing casualties.

Again a historical digression, every army that the Germans attacked up through the invasion of the Soviet Union the Germans were fighting with inferior numbers and quality equipment. What they had were superior doctrine and training. LATER came the "Tiger" and "Panther" tanks that we seem to think existed from the wars start. The French armor tank for tank was better armored and had a better gun, but they did not have the range nor the doctrine because the tanks were tied to the infantry.

Which brings me to my next point, the "lost inventory" comment. If there's no record of their existence, then there's no record of their purchase either, and therefore no way of verifying a "deteriorated" state without someone coming into contact with said chemical....and call me crazy, but I have my doubts about the effectiveness of chemical analysis in the middle of a war zone.

I did not say purchase, I said we sold them the precursor chemicals so that they could make the weapons. We also gave them the intelligence so they could use these weapons against the Iranians. As far as a War Zone... Every time a Republican talks the country has been at peace since day two of our invasion. "Last Throes", "greeted as liberators" ... I could go on...

Nobody wants war, but many of us are unwilling to simply "assume" we are safe and disregard the potential danger...especially in a post 9/11 world.

Actually, the history that emerging now is that the Bush administration wanted war from day one in office. It was just who and when and how to sell it ...

The problem is that you will not get this story in the US Main Stream Media, you have to cast a wider net and not go to only one source for your information.

Just to digress a moment, did you listen to the longer version of the sermon of Rev. Wright? You know, the one that they played a clip of 10 seconds out of? Probably not ... because then you can continue to ignore the Syphilis expiriements that the US GOvernment performed on a group of black men in the south and watch while they died. Or, the CIA LSD expiriemnets... or the ones where soldiers were marched through areas right after a nuclear weapon was detonated (these veterans usually were denied cancer care in their later years because it was not "Service Connected")

In Palastine, the Israli government is building "separate but 'equal'" roads.

Forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in at least 10 other fire bombing raids against cities like Nagoya, Tokyo, and others we killed more people on those nights than with the atomic weapons.

No one knows how many Iraqi citizens have died because the US does not do body counts ... of course not, Iraqi's don't matter ... and, by the way, there was not a single Iraqi involved in 9/11, pre or post ... almost all of them were of Saudi nationality ... so, why did we not invade Saudi Arabia?
ID: 733030 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN Ekky Ekky Ekky
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 May 99
Posts: 944
Credit: 52,956,491
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 733138 - Posted: 1 Apr 2008, 8:54:12 UTC - in response to Message 732900.  

I'll have to keep that in mind the next time buzz bombs start flying over London.


Yes, well. Pearl Harbour was in 1941. Doodlebugs started to be used in 1944. At least you were somewhat more involved in the war by then!

The one conspiracy theory that I'm sure you will love is that Churchill may well have known about the attack on Pearl months before the event thanks to breaking German codes. He knew that it was the only way to stop you merely sitting back on fat capitalist posteriors and profiting from selling arms as usual and actually bothering to do something about protecting the more civilised world.

The World Trade Centre attack was nothing to do with Saddam Hussein, incidentally. You just wanted a go at him because George Senior chickened out on the job at the time of the Kuwait war. Late as usual but still unjustified all those years later.

That's another fine mess you've got us all into. Moxy 'n Freem - I don't think so.

ID: 733138 · Report as offensive
Brian Silvers

Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 99
Posts: 1681
Credit: 492,052
RAC: 0
United States
Message 733160 - Posted: 1 Apr 2008, 11:55:41 UTC - in response to Message 733138.  
Last modified: 1 Apr 2008, 11:56:12 UTC


The one conspiracy theory that I'm sure you will love is that Churchill may well have known about the attack on Pearl months before the event thanks to breaking German codes. He knew that it was the only way to stop you merely sitting back on fat capitalist posteriors and profiting from selling arms as usual and actually bothering to do something about protecting the more civilised world.


Am I the only one that finds this discussion ironic? Somewhere around these same message boards, various individuals (I think Thorin was one) were berating involvement with Japan and perhaps with involvement even in Europe, comparing it to the world today when "nobody asked" us to "play super-cop" (or words to that effect), but then on the flip side, here we have someone griping about the fact that this country didn't come to Europe sooner. The 1939 "Neutrality Act" actually benefited the Allies more than Axis because of the "cash and carry" clause, since the UK and France were in more control of the Atlantic then... That's what got the Germans (and perhaps Japanese) pissed...

Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't...

Like I said, it's trendy to bash the United States...
ID: 733160 · Report as offensive
jim little

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 112
Credit: 915,934
RAC: 0
United States
Message 733182 - Posted: 1 Apr 2008, 13:23:16 UTC - in response to Message 732835.  

Of course there WMD.
Of course there weren't. (Exactly what was ever found?????)

The only WMD found were about 800 rounds of militarily ineffective, deteriorated shells that were as well known to Saddam's supply system as the US AIr Force is showing that it tracks our nuclear weapons...

In other words, yes they used to be WMD (Chemical weapons).

No, they were not usable as weapons.

They were "lost inventory" so that they could not have been used, and we found them by accident.

And just to keep the history straight, they were likely made from the chemical precursor materials we sold them during the Iraq-Iran war ... there is an unforgettable photograph of one of Bush's top guys and Saddam treating each other like bosom buddies ...

And remember, the WMD threat was a "mushroom cloud" and they did not mean the kind that you get from a drug overdose. And if you go back and look a the speeches on the white house site (if they have not taken them down in embarrasement) the president spoke of tens of thousands of tons of these weapons ...

Sorry, 800 or so rounds does not even come close ...


As I clearly stated in my previous post, WMD's were found, just not in the quantities we expected.

As for their lethality, would you be willing to lock yourself in a closet full of nerve gas you "assume" to be 20+ years old and therefore "assume" to be non-lethal, or is your little bit of propaganda laced with a great big thread of hypocrisy?

Oh, BTW, we know what happened to the fuses mistakenly shipped to Taiwain (it was a shipping error, not "lost" and therefore unrecoverable inventory), so if Saddam kept track of his inventory as well as the U.S. Air Force, then he in fact knew of their existence and was trying to hide them rather than dispose of them, correct?

Funny how that work, huh?



<<<<<<<<<<<
As for their lethality, would you be willing to lock yourself in a closet full of nerve gas you "assume" to be 20+ years old and therefore "assume" to be non-lethal, or is your little bit of propaganda laced with a great big thread of hypocrisy?
>>>>>>>>>

Your conclusion is not the only decay that makes munitions unserviceable: i.e. decomposed active agent only.

Minor maters like rust on the containing shell, broken rotating bands for hard tube projectiles, electronic arming circuits for VT fuzes, etc. Even inept handling that put dents where dents should not be.

An analogy would be a round of rifle that had a case that was corroded halfway to the powder. In a rifle it might fire, with some of the fire in ones face. I have one clip of world war one ammo that I would never think of firing even though it is in really good shape. I would not trust the 90 year old smokeless powder to burn at the rate when it was loaded.



ID: 733182 · Report as offensive
Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1772
Credit: 384,573
RAC: 0
United States
Message 733185 - Posted: 1 Apr 2008, 14:02:00 UTC

An improvised explosive device (IED) is a bomb constructed and deployed in ways other than in conventional military action. They may be partially comprised of conventional military explosives, such as an artillery round, attached to a detonating mechanism.

As the Viet Nam war and others. A quick glance at history shows that this is the basic methodology of the local population against what they consider an ocupier. The Romans had similar issues with many of the peoples they conquered.

IEDs may be used in terrorist actions or in unconventional warfare by guerrillas or commando forces in a theater of operations. In the 2003–present Iraq War, IEDs have been used extensively against coalition forces and by the end of 2007 they have been responsible for approximately at least 40% of coalition deaths in Iraq.

Simply put, what you deem as "militarily ineffective", the enemy deems as "utilizing the tools at hand" or improvising, as in Improvised Explosive Device (IED).

The point of a WMD is in the key word mass which you want to ignore or wish away. Those weapons were not in a state that allowed them be used as a WMD. COuld they cause large amounts of casualties? Sure, no question. BUt not as originally intended or designed thus rendering them militarily ineffective. Can they still blow up one truck, sure, but that is not what that round was intended to do ... it was intended to incapacitate hundreds to thousands ... deny area ... and other similar military tactics.


Well which is it, can they "cause large amounts of casualties" as in "mass" or not?

Your feeble attempts at justifying this double speak is a JOKE at best.

Try this... if you have ever seen the footage of the USS Forrestal fire it looks awful. However, every weapon that "cooked off" exploded as a low order detonation. In other words, not as intended, militarily ineffective as individual weapons. The fact that so many went off in so small a space along with mistakes by the damage control crews is what made things so bad.

Comparing an accident to an intentional action is again, a feeble attempt at justification.

....and of course, we've already concluded that the WMD's did exist and they were still in fact quite capable of causing harm, or considered to still be "unsafe" to say the least. How much higher do you reckon that percentage of coalition deaths would be if 800 or so of those IED's contained sarin and/or mustard gas even in an assumed deteriorated condition?

It is just as easy to get common chemicals and make a bigger bomb or to attempt to use industrial gases like chlorine to increase the fear factor. And that group in Japan proved that making some other gasses is not all that hard if you know the formulation.


Of course, with the knowledge, deadly bombs can be created...you seem to forget what the I stands for in IED.

And you continue to confuse military effectiveness with inducing fear or causing casualties.


I didn't forget it...just didn't think YOU needed to be told we aren't fighting an organized military

Again a historical digression, every army that the Germans attacked up through the invasion of the Soviet Union the Germans were fighting with inferior numbers and quality equipment. What they had were superior doctrine and training. LATER came the "Tiger" and "Panther" tanks that we seem to think existed from the wars start. The French armor tank for tank was better armored and had a better gun, but they did not have the range nor the doctrine because the tanks were tied to the infantry.

Which brings me to my next point, the "lost inventory" comment. If there's no record of their existence, then there's no record of their purchase either, and therefore no way of verifying a "deteriorated" state without someone coming into contact with said chemical....and call me crazy, but I have my doubts about the effectiveness of chemical analysis in the middle of a war zone.

I did not say purchase, I said we sold them the precursor chemicals so that they could make the weapons. We also gave them the intelligence so they could use these weapons against the Iranians. As far as a War Zone... Every time a Republican talks the country has been at peace since day two of our invasion. "Last Throes", "greeted as liberators" ... I could go on...

Yes, you have indeed demonstrated your capacity to ramble on...yet you still haven't shown conclusive evidence that the chemicals in question were 20+ years old and in a deteriorated form. I agree this IS the most likely conclusion, however, if it was my life on the line in the middle of a war zone, I wouldn't accept that assumption as fact....and I seriously doubt you would either.

Nobody wants war, but many of us are unwilling to simply "assume" we are safe and disregard the potential danger...especially in a post 9/11 world.

Actually, the history that emerging now is that the Bush administration wanted war from day one in office. It was just who and when and how to sell it ...


Actually, that's just more of your liberal propaganda

The problem is that you will not get this story in the US Main Stream Media, you have to cast a wider net and not go to only one source for your information.


An overwhelming LACK of creditable sources should have been your first clue

Just to digress a moment, did you listen to the longer version of the sermon of Rev. Wright? You know, the one that they played a clip of 10 seconds out of? Probably not ... because then you can continue to ignore the Syphilis expiriements that the US GOvernment performed on a group of black men in the south and watch while they died. Or, the CIA LSD expiriemnets... or the ones where soldiers were marched through areas right after a nuclear weapon was detonated (these veterans usually were denied cancer care in their later years because it was not "Service Connected")

So your implication is that past mistakes justify current hate speech? Man, you really ARE screwed up in the head and obviously a waste of my time.



ID: 733185 · Report as offensive
Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1772
Credit: 384,573
RAC: 0
United States
Message 733191 - Posted: 1 Apr 2008, 14:18:14 UTC - in response to Message 733138.  
Last modified: 1 Apr 2008, 14:19:27 UTC

I'll have to keep that in mind the next time buzz bombs start flying over London.


Yes, well. Pearl Harbour was in 1941. Doodlebugs started to be used in 1944. At least you were somewhat more involved in the war by then!

The one conspiracy theory that I'm sure you will love is that Churchill may well have known about the attack on Pearl months before the event thanks to breaking German codes. He knew that it was the only way to stop you merely sitting back on fat capitalist posteriors and profiting from selling arms as usual and actually bothering to do something about protecting the more civilised world.


A lack of evidence is specifically why they are called "theories" and not "fact".

The World Trade Centre attack was nothing to do with Saddam Hussein, incidentally. You just wanted a go at him because George Senior chickened out on the job at the time of the Kuwait war. Late as usual but still unjustified all those years later.

That's another fine mess you've got us all into. Moxy 'n Freem - I don't think so.


Who said Saddam had anything to do with the attacks on the WTC? He was in direct violation of UN orders to disarm. Bush didn't "chicken out", he tried diplomacy and Saddam agreed to the terms of the cease fire...he just intentionally failed to uphold his end of the agreement.


ID: 733191 · Report as offensive
Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1772
Credit: 384,573
RAC: 0
United States
Message 733192 - Posted: 1 Apr 2008, 14:21:14 UTC - in response to Message 733160.  



Like I said, it's trendy to bash the United States...


Yes, jealousy does tend to bring the worst out in people :)



ID: 733192 · Report as offensive
Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1772
Credit: 384,573
RAC: 0
United States
Message 733195 - Posted: 1 Apr 2008, 14:25:55 UTC - in response to Message 733182.  
Last modified: 1 Apr 2008, 14:27:11 UTC



Your conclusion is not the only decay that makes munitions unserviceable: i.e. decomposed active agent only.

Minor maters like rust on the containing shell, broken rotating bands for hard tube projectiles, electronic arming circuits for VT fuzes, etc. Even inept handling that put dents where dents should not be.

An analogy would be a round of rifle that had a case that was corroded halfway to the powder. In a rifle it might fire, with some of the fire in ones face. I have one clip of world war one ammo that I would never think of firing even though it is in really good shape. I would not trust the 90 year old smokeless powder to burn at the rate when it was loaded.



Agreed, but the question is, without conclusive knowledge as to the age and condition of said round, would you be willing to pull the trigger with the gun pointed at your own head...which is more or less what some individuals here are suggesting that the military should have done with the recovered WMD's.

Sorry, not willing to risk my life on an "assumption" and not one single person on this thread has suggested they would take that risk with their own life either....

funny how that works, huh?


ID: 733195 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN Ekky Ekky Ekky
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 May 99
Posts: 944
Credit: 52,956,491
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 733199 - Posted: 1 Apr 2008, 14:31:54 UTC - in response to Message 733185.  

[quote]Actually, that's just more of your liberal propaganda[quote]

I find it terribly sad that some citizens of a country founded on a belief in tolerance of religion, politics etc. can now equate "Liberalism" with some form of extremism. It shows how little you actually know of the wider world and how little you appreciate the terror - yes that IS the word - with which your country's government and policies are now viewed by the majority of peoples.

The opposite of Liberal is actually Totalitarian.
Would you rather me call you a Communist or a Fascist?

If the answer to Communism was the victory of unbridled Capitalism, then we have all been asking the wrong question. Just look where your ghastly Capitalist mismanagement has landed the entire financial community now.

Of course, that is just Liberal propaganda to a closed mind with dark glasses and blinkers.



ID: 733199 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 733367 - Posted: 1 Apr 2008, 23:11:57 UTC - in response to Message 733192.  
Last modified: 1 Apr 2008, 23:14:03 UTC

Like I said, it's trendy to bash the United States...

Yes, jealousy does tend to bring the worst out in people

Vanity of vanities saith the preacher boy to the blind man... ;)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 733367 · Report as offensive
Profile Paul D. Buck
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Jul 00
Posts: 3898
Credit: 1,158,042
RAC: 0
United States
Message 733395 - Posted: 2 Apr 2008, 0:29:37 UTC

The posts seem to be getting too long to quote and rebut.

In military terms, mass casualties are of such a magnitude that they cannot be handled by the available facilities. A bomb in a market, though it may cause hundreds of casualties does not lead to a collapse of the entire social system, or in the case of military operations, swamping the medical system to the point that many that could be saved will not because there are not enough survivors to treat or evacuate the wounded.

In this case, the market bomber, though creating large numbers of casualties, did not detonate a WMD. And again, militarily ineffective does not imply safe, or completely ineffective, or anything else ... at the end of the first gulf war General Schwartzkopf made a comment similarly about a division of Iraqi troops that they had been rendered militarily ineffective ... the hapless reported doing the math said something like there are still "n" numbers of soldiers out there ... well, there were ... but a mob of troops is not militarily effective. One of the few armies that maintained military effectiveness in the face of high levels of casualties was the German Army of WWII ... though as the war neared the end even this broke down. Historical parallels never work perfectly, but the unit of WWII that sustained the highest casualty levels and still managed to function was the U-Boat service with a 75% fatality rate ... more normal is where a unit will sustain 20% or so casualties and the problem mount ... too many files are incomplete (missing bodies), too many levels of command are missing, who reports to who ... so, even though there may have been 60% of the troops there, the structure of the unit is shattered and the unit is militarily ineffective ...

That does not mean that if attacked they would not inflict casualties on the attacker ... they will just not be at the level of a WMD ...

As far as the comparison it was to show/denote the difference between the effectiveness of weapons. Now how horrific the event was. You are placing YOUR emotions on the events in question instead of looking at the comparison intended. And I am not sure what you think i have attempted to justify. All I have said is that the whole rationale for going to war was WMD, specifically, atomic weapons, what was found, although technically WMD were not, in fact, weapons that would function as WMD.

Again, as far as improvised, what is to ignore? I pointed out that in wars going all the way back in history this is one of the patterns of the oppressed against an oppressor. Occupy a county that has a population that does not want you there ... well, Mao had some famous words to say about that ...

Should I provide sources that document the condition of the weapons found you would then rebut that those sources cannot be "trusted". In this case, it appears that the only sources you trust for information are those that agree with your position. Again, if you look at the hyperbole in the White House speeches given by president Bush we should have found so much WMD that we would still be taking it apart. The fact that we found no significant quantities in and of itself is significant.

Again, I could dig up sources that are republican or non-partisan in nature, but, would you accept them? Or only if they are on the Fox news approved list?

Anyway, the sad fact of american history and our understanding of it and the world is that we think we are good people and good people don't do that ... only now, it turns out, that the collective we is doing those things ... only we rename them to salve our conscience ... The "Ticking bomb" torture scenario ... ever were I or my family members were to die because we did not torture ... I would still say that the decision to not torture was the RIGHT decision ... I did not serve my country to be party to what we have, as a nation, become in the name of our personal safety.

Anyway, I can see that this is going nowhere, I think we can agree with that ...

"You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts ..."



ID: 733395 · Report as offensive
Profile thorin belvrog
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 06
Posts: 6418
Credit: 8,893
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 733479 - Posted: 2 Apr 2008, 6:15:09 UTC
Last modified: 2 Apr 2008, 6:20:31 UTC

In my opinion, the claim that there were WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION in Iraq as a reason to invade this country was actually a WEAPON OF MASS DISTRACTION, hiding the real reason to start a next war: to stop the decreasing of the profit rates of the military industrial complex.

When I called the USA the world's wannabe uber-sheriff it was not because of "trendy USA-bashing" - it was because I was criticizing the disability of the US government to keep the military industry out of the government's decision-making.

Have you ever seen the documentary "Why we fight"? The tenor is: you fight (and lose your health or lives in foreign countries) only because selling (and the need to use always new) weapons is producing huge profits for the companies involved. Huge profits for companies that stick on nothing but profit, led by people who would sell their own grandmother if this gave them even more profit.

By the way: Did you know that arms trade is almost as profitable as drug dealing?
Account frozen...
ID: 733479 · Report as offensive
Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1772
Credit: 384,573
RAC: 0
United States
Message 733530 - Posted: 2 Apr 2008, 11:41:08 UTC - in response to Message 733199.  
Last modified: 2 Apr 2008, 11:55:38 UTC

[quote]Actually, that's just more of your liberal propaganda[quote]

I find it terribly sad that some citizens of a country founded on a belief in tolerance of religion, politics etc. can now equate "Liberalism" with some form of extremism. It shows how little you actually know of the wider world and how little you appreciate the terror - yes that IS the word - with which your country's government and policies are now viewed by the majority of peoples.


Hate to break it to you buddy, but there is no, and there never was, a law on the books which states I have to tolerate points of view which don't reflect my own...the law stipulates I can't discriminate against those individuals or cause them harm...and guess what, I really don't care what people who do not put America's interest first think about our foreign policy

The opposite of Liberal is actually Totalitarian.
Would you rather me call you a Communist or a Fascist?


Either is fine with me because I know the definition of both terms and neither apply to me....try looking up the term Nationalism

If the answer to Communism was the victory of unbridled Capitalism, then we have all been asking the wrong question. Just look where your ghastly Capitalist mismanagement has landed the entire financial community now.

Hate to burst your bubble, buddy, but those of us who live on the money we earn rather than credit we are given are not having any financial difficulties at all

Of course, that is just Liberal propaganda to a closed mind with dark glasses and blinkers.


It really is...you don't deserve financial security simply because you exist.


ID: 733530 · Report as offensive
Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1772
Credit: 384,573
RAC: 0
United States
Message 733532 - Posted: 2 Apr 2008, 11:49:55 UTC - in response to Message 733479.  

In my opinion, the claim that there were WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION in Iraq as a reason to invade this country was actually a WEAPON OF MASS DISTRACTION, hiding the real reason to start a next war: to stop the decreasing of the profit rates of the military industrial complex.

It was a reason, not "the" reason

When I called the USA the world's wannabe uber-sheriff it was not because of "trendy USA-bashing" - it was because I was criticizing the disability of the US government to keep the military industry out of the government's decision-making.

If that's what helps you sleep at night, then it's ok by me...as I've indicated before, the opinions of those who don't have a vote don't matter to me.

Have you ever seen the documentary "Why we fight"? The tenor is: you fight (and lose your health or lives in foreign countries) only because selling (and the need to use always new) weapons is producing huge profits for the companies involved. Huge profits for companies that stick on nothing but profit, led by people who would sell their own grandmother if this gave them even more profit.

By the way: Did you know that arms trade is almost as profitable as drug dealing?

Capitalism is not against the law no matter how much you'd like for it to be...


ID: 733532 · Report as offensive
Brian Silvers

Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 99
Posts: 1681
Credit: 492,052
RAC: 0
United States
Message 733548 - Posted: 2 Apr 2008, 13:15:32 UTC - in response to Message 733479.  
Last modified: 2 Apr 2008, 13:15:54 UTC


When I called the USA the world's wannabe uber-sheriff it was not because of "trendy USA-bashing" - it was because I was criticizing the disability of the US government to keep the military industry out of the government's decision-making.


Regardless of your reasons, can you not see that other foreign nationals actually expect involvement from this country in world politics, even militarily? You complain about perceived "over-involvement", yet someone else will complain about "under-involvement" / "isolationism"...

That's a "Damned if you do. Damned if you don't." scenario....
ID: 733548 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 733604 - Posted: 2 Apr 2008, 17:47:54 UTC - in response to Message 733530.  
Last modified: 2 Apr 2008, 17:56:04 UTC

I really don't care what people who do not put America's interest first think

I'm still trying to figure out how this 'recent attack on the Abrahamic faiths' is benefiting the American population as a whole... Of course, there IS a biblical explanation which IS good enough for me... ;)

(Remember: The day we're gone, is the day the game ends for everyone... such as the story goes.)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 733604 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN Ekky Ekky Ekky
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 May 99
Posts: 944
Credit: 52,956,491
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 733654 - Posted: 2 Apr 2008, 20:10:42 UTC - in response to Message 733530.  
Last modified: 2 Apr 2008, 20:11:54 UTC

[quote]Actually, that's just more of your liberal propaganda[quote]

I find it terribly sad that some citizens of a country founded on a belief in tolerance of religion, politics etc. can now equate "Liberalism" with some form of extremism. It shows how little you actually know of the wider world and how little you appreciate the terror - yes that IS the word - with which your country's government and policies are now viewed by the majority of peoples.


Hate to break it to you buddy, but there is no, and there never was, a law on the books which states I have to tolerate points of view which don't reflect my own...the law stipulates I can't discriminate against those individuals or cause them harm...and guess what, I really don't care what people who do not put America's interest first think about our foreign policy

The opposite of Liberal is actually Totalitarian.
Would you rather me call you a Communist or a Fascist?


Either is fine with me because I know the definition of both terms and neither apply to me....try looking up the term Nationalism

If the answer to Communism was the victory of unbridled Capitalism, then we have all been asking the wrong question. Just look where your ghastly Capitalist mismanagement has landed the entire financial community now.

Hate to burst your bubble, buddy, but those of us who live on the money we earn rather than credit we are given are not having any financial difficulties at all

Of course, that is just Liberal propaganda to a closed mind with dark glasses and blinkers.


It really is...you don't deserve financial security simply because you exist.


I just wonder if this sort of totally self-absorbed, selfish, ignorant, careless, devil-take-the-hindmost attitude may just hold a grain of the reasoning behind what happened on 11th September a while back? If you don't care for your fellow men and women, then keep your attitudes to yourself or some other maniac just may attack you physically rather than just verbally.

I pity anyone who betrays such a bigotted set of beliefs. I knew such people existed (remember that our countries got together to get rid of Hitler) but try looking in the mirror some day. Hitler was a Nationalist and so was Mao Zedong. Every dictator throughout history has been a "Nationalist". Nationalism is the single greatest enemy of the family of humankind.

Greetings from one of the untermenschen to a uber being!

ID: 733654 · Report as offensive
Profile Paul D. Buck
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Jul 00
Posts: 3898
Credit: 1,158,042
RAC: 0
United States
Message 733693 - Posted: 2 Apr 2008, 21:24:56 UTC - in response to Message 733654.  

Hitler was a Nationalist and so was Mao Zedong. Every dictator throughout history has been a "Nationalist". Nationalism is the single greatest enemy of the family of humankind.

You forgot Tojo ...

Also, the Original movement in VIet Nam was also nationalist on only peripherally communist in the beginning when they were trying to get the French out before WWII, they then switched to the Japanese when they occupied the country, then the French when we betrayed our promise to them for elections post WWII, and then of course, the US ...

Just a few footnotes ...

There was a saying that had to something to do with forgetting history ... I forget how it goes ..
ID: 733693 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 733725 - Posted: 2 Apr 2008, 22:38:19 UTC - in response to Message 733693.  

There was a saying that had to something to do with forgetting history ... I forget how it goes ..

'Those Who Forget History Are Doomed To Repeat It'... ;)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 733725 · Report as offensive
Profile Paul D. Buck
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Jul 00
Posts: 3898
Credit: 1,158,042
RAC: 0
United States
Message 733736 - Posted: 2 Apr 2008, 23:10:25 UTC - in response to Message 733725.  

There was a saying that had to something to do with forgetting history ... I forget how it goes ..

'Those Who Forget History Are Doomed To Repeat It'... ;)

You know I was kidding ... right? :)
ID: 733736 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 10 · Next

Message boards : Politics : when is the TRUTH gonna be known....


 
©2025 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.