Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List Edit Profile Register  
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Archive through August 4, 2003

Sepulchritude Forum » The Absinthe Forum » The Monkey Hole » La tour d'Eiffel est sur le feu!!!! » Archive through August 4, 2003 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Strom Thurmond (Mogan_david)
le Duc
Username: Mogan_david

Post Number: 324
Registered: 4-2002


Posted on Monday, August 4, 2003 - 12:45 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

LH,

I have to pretty much agree with your first paragraph. All else being equal we probably shouldn't have attacked Iraq. However when viewed from a larger perspective we know that if Sadam had WMDs he would once again pose a threat to his neighbors. We know that our enemies are anxious to provide him either with the WMD themselves or with help in their construction. Taken in the larger perspective of the puppet masters pulling the strings, we had no choice but to attack Iraq.

I agree that it's sickening the way we coddle up to our true enemies as if nothing were amiss. Unfortunately with the destructive power of today's weapons we now fight war by proxy. It ain't pretty, but it beats blowing each other to smithereens.
Out of curiosity what do you think of SARS? Natural phenomenon, US attack, or Chinese accident? Maybe Iím just a paranoid bastard, but I find the timing rather suspect.

Iím very surprised that you label Blair a US lackey. Iíve not known you to use bumper sticker philosophy very often. You paint Blair as a man who is indifferent if not hostile to parliament, obsessed with his place in history, and behaves as if he has powers he doesnít actually possess. You describe a man very much in love with power. A man who sees himself as a divinely chosen leader. A man like that is no oneís lackey. To call Blair Bushís lackey may be good bumper sticker politics, but it flies in the face of your previous description of the man. I can tell from your previous posts that you are a smart guy, though maddeningly to the left. So be honest with me, what do you feel is the real reason Blair put everything heís ever worked for and hoped to achieve on the line to attack Iraq?

I agree with your assessment of Bush. He is a lot smarter than he looks. He has the good sense to put very talented and smart people around him. No one alive is smart enough to be president of the USA, it takes a team effort and Bush has a hell of a team working for him. Still I would favor Blair in a chess or card game.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1147
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Monday, August 4, 2003 - 12:45 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

I said before, we are limited by what is possible, and our only possible move at this point was to attack Iraq.




We could have not attacked ANYBODY.
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 830
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Monday, August 4, 2003 - 9:35 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Mogan David,

Saddam Hussein does pay the families of suicide bombers, nevertheless this does not exactly make him a major sponsor of terrorism. There is certainly no evidence that he sponsors anti-western terrorism. The US government pays for Sharon (who is guilty of war crimes) to carry out a campaign state-terror against the Palestinian people. The US government also sponsored terrorism, surely this makes the US a legitimate target for attack in the 'war against terrorism'? Halbja was every bit a henious as 9-11 and the US (and Britain) were at least as guilty in involvement in that attrocity as the Taliban were in 9-11. And what about US funding for IRA terrorism? What about Irish-American politicians collusion with that? What about Noraid? By its legal existence in the US, surely the US is guilty of harbouring the sponsors of terrorism? This is an issue that ordinary British people have not forgotten (even if Blair seems to have).

As to the Saudis, I am aware of the difficulties in starting a war with them but considering the likely Saudi involvement in 9-11 and their harbouring of Omar al-Bayoumi its a bit sickening to carry on sucking up to them, pretending they're our friends while they sponsor radical Islamic terrorists to attack us. Covering up all the pages in the report relating Saudi involvement in 9-11 speaks for itself. Also if you're looking for a backer of anti-Israeli terrorism then look to Saudi Arabia rather than Iraq.

Blair certainly does seem to have a better image on your side of the pond. You may view him as a forthright individual with a strong character and moral centre as seems to be the general consensus of opinion in the USA. Why do I dislike him? He's certainly an intelligent man who works the media well, but he's a devious, back-stabbing, two-faced, opportunist more concerned about his 'place in history' than the people he is supposed to represent. He may be the leader of the Labour party but Blair is not 'Labour', he's a centre-right liberal and he is not certainly not representative of the party he leads. He's more like an American Democrat than British Labour Party. Unlike your President, Blair does not have any Presidential powers (even though he behaves as if he does) and he is supposed to act in accordance with the wishes of Parliament. However Blair is contemptuous of Parliament, rarely visits it and generally acts according to the advice of his own chosen small circle of un-elected sycophantic advisers.

What were his motives for going to war? I suppose only he can answer that? Blair increasingly acts like a lackey to the US President. He seems to take his orders from Washington rather than the British Parliament. Perhaps Blair likes the trappings of power and you don't get much more powerful that the President of the USA? Perhaps it was this 'special relationship' thing that US Presidents use to keep certain British Prime Ministers on-side with them? Your President might act and sound stupid but it'd be foolish to under-estimate his powers of influence. I believe Bush is a whole lot more intelligent than he sounds.

Incidently opinion polls over here show that over 50% of the population don't believe a single word he says. I suspect polls in the US would give him a more favourable rating, but then he's not your leader (I guess if Bush was acting like a lackey to the British government I suppose we'd give Bush a good rating).
Strom Thurmond (Mogan_david)
le Duc
Username: Mogan_david

Post Number: 323
Registered: 4-2002


Posted on Monday, August 4, 2003 - 5:36 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

LH
You put Bush and Blair in an impossible position. They simply can't give you all the facts, and you will accept nothing less.

The WMDs were real, the threat was real, if things were exaggerated, then that's politics. I believe much of the moral outrage over this war, though real is a bit exaggerated too.

I'm curious as to what you believe Blair's motivation was in attacking Iraq. Do you believe he was acting in the best interests of his country? Did he at least think that he was acting in it's best interest?

Blair strikes me as a very forthright individual with a strong character and moral center. He seems more intelligent than Bush and certainly more politically savvy. I honestly can't understand why you are so strongly against him, particularly since he's Labor.

"Well then where is this evidence? Or was Bush right when he said that the WMDs were looted?"

Who knows what happened to the WMDs. I can think of quite a few scenarios that would explain their disappearance. Bio weapons are small and easily destroyed. Chemical weapons could have been released into the desert or otherwise destroyed. They could have been sold or removed from the country. I'm sure there is evidence we haven't heard yet, this is the political season after all.

You can't expect your leaders to be omnipotent and all knowing. The best you can hope for is that they make responsible decisions with the information available at the time.

"The threat of terrorism to your shores did not hail from Iraq."

I don't know that to be a fact and neither do you. I do know that Sadam paid the families of suicide bombers. He sponsored terrorism and that makes him a legitimate target.

"If the Saudi government has clean hands then why the cover-up? "
I doubt anyone over there has completely clean hands. As to why the cover-up, obviously it is their oil. They have an enormous influence over the Arab world. Any overt action against the Saudi's would be a disaster for us. You know this as well as I do. Why do you act so morraly offended when we don't go after the Saudi's when you know that its simply not an option?



Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 829
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Monday, August 4, 2003 - 1:32 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Mogan David,

"Yes Bush and Blair misled their electorate, not because they would have been rejected by their countrymen, but that our enemies would have been better able to block such a move."

With regard to the UK the opposition to the war was massive, a majority of the population opposed it, 3% of the entire population marched in London on a particular day. Blair deliberately over-exaggerated the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein and lie about WMDs. Eventually enough of the public here (and only marginally so) reluctantly gave Blair the benefit of the doubt based on the immediate threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein's WMDs. In Parliament Blair face a huge revolt from his own MPs and he narrowly gained Parliamentary support for war based on the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein's WMDs. Blair misled the UK public and his own MPs because it was the only way he could gain our authority to send our troops into war.


"...but my guess is money was offered for evidence of WMD's..."

Well then where is this evidence? Or was Bush right when he said that the WMDs were looted? Are these WMDs propped up in someone's living room in downtown Baghdad next to their looted television, fridge-freezer and generator? Maybe we could have a WMD amnesty in Iraq asking members of thye public to hand in their looted WMDs at the nearest police station in return for immunity from prosecution?

"I donít believe the royal family had anything to do with the attacks on 9-11."

If that is the case then why is the section of the report into 9-11 regarding Saudi Arabian involvement in 9-11 being specifically withheld? Why is Omar al-Bayoumi, an associate of the 9-11 hijackers and an employee of the Saudi government, being harboured by the Saudis? Why has he not been extradited to face trail in the USA? Why has Bush not made a fuss about this? If the Saudi government has clean hands then why the cover-up?

"If we can accomplish that, we will have removed a tyrant, we will have ensured the prosperity of the Iraqi people, and the removed of the threat of terrorism from our shores."

The threat of terrorism to your shores did not hail from Iraq. There was no link between Saddam Hussein and 9-11 (although a poll by CBS and the New York times just before the war showed 45% of Americans polled believed Saddam Hussein was 'personally involved' in the 9-11 attacks and 50% believed that most of the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqis). Saddam Hussein was not backing anti-Western terrorism. The war against Saddam Hussein is not about terrorism.

Saddam Hussein's terrorism was against his own people and against Iran and we assisted him in this. The helicopters used to gas the Kurds at Halabja were supplied by the US. Unweakened (i.e. capable of reproduction) West Nile virus, anthrax and clostridium botulinum were sent to Iraq in the 1980s with US Commerce Department approval. Western governments were aware of what Saddam Hussein was doing and continued to supply him with the tools to do so. We were the biggest backers of Saddam Hussein's terrorism. The massacre at Halabja (5,000 dead innocent civilians) was every bit as attrocious as the 9-11 massacre and we backed Saddam Hussein, supplied him with the tools to commit such an act of terrorism, turned a blind eye when he did so and carried on backing him after the event. Our governments in the West are guilty of willingly supporting heinous acts of terrorism.
Carl Guderian (Bjacques)
le Duc
Username: Bjacques

Post Number: 280
Registered: 4-2001
Posted on Sunday, August 3, 2003 - 10:34 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Being serious in Iraq means actually listening to what the Iraqis have to say. Of course they want stability and water and electricity, but they also want economic as well as political self-determination. Their country is not going to be turned into one big maquiladora or a testbed for PNAC theories if they can help it.

Force isn't everything. Shooting at terrorists takes out the ones stupid enough to stick their heads up. Terrorists these days hardly need any coordination at all. One guy with a fuel truck and a grudge can do a lot of damage. Leaders can only be picked off or co-opted, so why have them at all. Every terrorist is bin Laden. So force isn't the answer.

Nor can we pull guns or sanctions on our allies, either. If bin Laden or Hussein were to surface in, say, France, the US couldn't force Chirac to hand them over for military trial and execution. And of course you can't threaten a suicide bomber.

We need the world's cooperation to make any real headway against global terrorism. We could start by acting for reasons other than revenge or profit, or stop insulting friends who disagree with us. But the damage is pretty much done unless Bush is kicked out in 2004. Even if he has a change of heart, nobody will believe it.
Strom Thurmond (Mogan_david)
le Duc
Username: Mogan_david

Post Number: 322
Registered: 4-2002


Posted on Sunday, August 3, 2003 - 9:30 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

You could get Bin Laden, instead of wasting energy on this expensive sideshow in Iraq



I disagree completely.

Bin Laden was and is a pawn in this game. If all you do is kill Bin Laden another, nastier version will pop up somewhere else.

Because of the threat of mutually assured destruction, our enemies can't strike at us directly. They must use third parties like Bin Laden to do their dirty work.

The only way to counter the threat of terror is to prove to the world that the sponsors of terror will be destroyed.
We can't directly attack China for the same reasons I stated earlier, but we can give their allies in the Middle East a compelling reason to leave us the fuck alone.

Iraq is no sideshow, it's deadly serious.

.
Pataphysician (Pataphysician)
Elitist Bastard
Username: Pataphysician

Post Number: 643
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Sunday, August 3, 2003 - 7:54 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"My question to you would be, how would you prevent more attacks on the order of 9-11..."

You could get Bin Laden, instead of wasting energy on this expensive sideshow in Iraq.
Strom Thurmond (Mogan_david)
le Duc
Username: Mogan_david

Post Number: 321
Registered: 4-2002


Posted on Sunday, August 3, 2003 - 7:01 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

What can I say LH you are very much on target.

I'll agree with you on a lot of what you say about Iraq's WMD's except that I do believe they were actively involved in possessing and developing them. You seem to ignore the fact that what Bush and Blair tell their electorate they also tell the world. There is only so much you can say about your intentions on the world stage. The terrorists have very powerful allies.


quote:

And why did Saddam not use these WMDs against coalition troops if he had them? What exactly would he have had to lose by doing so?



Sadam didn't use them because he didn't trust his generals and other officers. Why? Because his generals and high ranking officers were receiving calls from the CIA on their cell phones and at their homes. We'll never know exactly what was said, but my guess is money was offered for evidence of WMD's and threats were made in regard to their use.
Since Sadam couldnít be sure his WMDís would launched when he gave the order, he fell back to the only sensible alternative, he got rid of them.

Sadam would know his only option would be to ride out the first phase of the war and come back later to discredit his enemy. I expect the WMD's were removed to a neighboring country, or to China, or they were destroyed.

Yes Bush and Blair misled their electorate, not because they would have been rejected by their countrymen, but that our enemies would have been better able to block such a move. This is a chess game, you simply can't telegraph all of your moves.

LH, I apologize for labeling you a pacifist, I see that we simply disagree on the justification of the war on Iraq. My question to you would be, how would you prevent more attacks on the order of 9-11 without a serious military presence in the Middle East?

quote:

9-11 is not a justification for going to war aginst Iraq



I agree with almost everything you said. We simply canít go to war with Saudi Arabia, and I donít believe the royal family had anything to do with the attacks on 9-11. I said before, we are limited by what is possible, and our only possible move at this point was to attack Iraq. Is that fair, maybe not, but will it be effective? Yes, if we donít screw it up. The big task now is to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi citizenry. If we can accomplish that, we will have removed a tyrant, we will have ensured the prosperity of the Iraqi people, and the removed of the threat of terrorism from our shores. I believe this is enough to justify the war, and it was certainly worth trying.

Raschied-- I very much agree with numbers one and eight. Number 2, I believe he supported terrorists, but donít know if he harbored them. The rest is complete bullshit. The reason I believe this is that anyone who would be president of the USA, is only interested in one thing, Power. The acquisition and maintenance of power, money is not important except in its capacity to retain power. Revenge is a non-issue, power is everything.

BJ,

quote:

Um, we get most of our oil from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela.



It really doesnít matter where we get our oil, if the supplies in the Middle east dry up the price of oil everywhere skyrockets. A loss of middle east oil would mean a complete destruction of western economies. Is that worth protecting? Hell yes!

.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1145
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Sunday, August 3, 2003 - 5:29 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

I'm not talking about stealing oil, I'm talking about maintaining the ability to buy oil at market prices without interference from those who seek to destroy us.



Um, we get most of our oil from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1144
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Sunday, August 3, 2003 - 5:23 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

Are you trying to make me believe that once the inspections started he secretly destroyed his WMDs, when he could have turned them in and ended the sanctions?




Of course he HAD WMD's. We SOLD them to him (or much of the technology to produce them...)

But UNSCOM DID destroy several thousand tonnes of chemical weapons and precursor chemicals, not to mention missiles and other banned weapons, post-Gulf War I. If anything remained at that point, it was minor. The contention of the administration was never that he still had many WMD's left over from the '80's, but that he had started making new ones after '91. There has yet to be dick substantiating that claim...
Raschied Britannica (Raschied)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Raschied

Post Number: 354
Registered: 3-2002


Posted on Sunday, August 3, 2003 - 4:48 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I posted this listing back in March on my blog. The first two are looking a bit suspect, but the rest hold true:

1. He does have chemical and biological warfare agents.
2. He is harboring terrorists.
3. America needs the oil supplies.
4. Bush Jr. is avenging the sins of the father.
5. Bush Jr. is a fundamentalist Christian, and defeating Bagdad has biblical implications.
6. Cheney hopes to make a lot of money from the cleanup operations.
7. America, bitter over not getting bin Laden, needs to go in and do a little ass-kicking, and it might as well be Saddam.
8. By invading one country in the Middle East, it puts everyone else (Jordan, Saudi Arabia in particular) that America will invade your ass if they even think you're harboring Al Qeda.


Anyone who thinks this invasion was done for one simple, clear-cut reason is fooling themselves.
Rock over London, Rock on Chicago.
Pontiac - We build Excitement.
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 828
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Sunday, August 3, 2003 - 2:08 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Mogan David,

Yes Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds and just who supplied him with the means to do it? We did and we turned a blind eye when he did it. In the UK Blair told us that Saddam Hussein had missiles that he could launch in 45 minutes at British bases in Cyprus. Where are these missiles. can you deny that Iraq had WMD's? There's a big difference between possessing missiles with nuclear and biological warheads and surrounding a Kurdish town to launch bombs and spray nerve gas using helicopters.

So where are all these WMDs then? Have they vanished in a puff of smoke. Blair, and now Bush, are saying that they are confident that 'evidence of programmes for WMDs' will be found. A short while ago they were saying that 'WMDs' will be found. What was all that imminent danger we were facing about? Were we in danger of heavy dossiers of paper being launched within 45 minutes and and landing on our heads causing us serious injuries? Oh and what about that uranium George Bush told us that Saddam was obtaining from Africa? More bullshit.

And why did Saddam not use these WMDs against coalition troops if he had them? What exactly would he have had to lose by doing so? What about this 'red ring' around Baghdad which coalition troops were in danger if they crossed? Why didn't he launch WMDs on Rihyad or Tel Aviv?

"I'll say again that the US needed a stronghold in the Middle East and that Iraq was the most strategic, and the best target of opportunity"

I will agree with you that this indeed was the real reason for the war. However Blair and Bush lied to their electorate by over-exaggerating the threat posed from Saddam Hussein and in the UK anyway Blair repeatedly maintained that the reason and justification for sending troops into war was the immediate threat posed by Saddam Hussein's WMDs. Why didn't he state the real reasons for the war (which were I believe as you stated)? Because the British public (whom he is supposed to represent) wouldn't view that as a valid reason to go to war. So instead he lied to us and the electorate no longer trust him.

And for your information I am not a pacifist, but I don't view giving the USA a base in the middle-east as sufficient reason to start a war in order to invade and occupy another country.

9-11 is not a justification for going to war aginst Iraq, it is an excuse. What involvement did Iraq have in 9-11? Is 9-11 now to be used as a justification to attack anyone you don't like? What about the Saudi's involvement in 9-11? Up to they're fucking necks in it they were, but any evidence that points to Saudi involvement is hushed up. If there'd been 1 Iraqi 9-11 hijacker that's be enough to implicate Iraq, but a whole plane load full of Saudi hijackers and the Saudis are still on our side. 9-11 is being used as a convenient excuse to attack any Arab nation (except the Arab nation where the bulk of the hijackers came from).
Spoon Boy (Absinthespoon)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Absinthespoon

Post Number: 343
Registered: 7-2001


Posted on Sunday, August 3, 2003 - 10:35 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Yep, I check Salam Pax every day.
Raschied Britannica (Raschied)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Raschied

Post Number: 353
Registered: 3-2002


Posted on Sunday, August 3, 2003 - 9:49 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

http://www.geeinbaghdad.blogspot.com

http://www.dearraed.blogspot.com
Rock over London, Rock on Chicago.
Pontiac - We build Excitement.
Strom Thurmond (Mogan_david)
le Duc
Username: Mogan_david

Post Number: 319
Registered: 4-2002


Posted on Sunday, August 3, 2003 - 7:15 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

BJ,

Thanks for the laugh about Regan.

You raise some good points about Iraq, but I believe the situation will stabilize once we capture Sadam.
He seems to be the center of gravity for the resistance. Iraqi people are like anyone else, they want freedom and prosperity. We can help them achieve that in measures far greater than any of their neighbors. We won't be needing the French to help protect our bases,
The Iraqi people will see the American and British presence as a stabilizing force. People enjoy peace, freedom and prosperity, and normally fight to protect it.

While you may disagree, I see terror as war. If you think Afghanistan was the end Iím afraid you missed the boat. The destruction of Al-Qedea was necessary only to show the US resolve to destroy those who aid and train terrorists. The single act of war with Afghanistan is meaningless unless the world knows we are serious and will act again as soon as we detect terrorist activities in other parts of the world. Iraq showed the world that we intend to be proactive rather than reactionary.

The big picture of course is that people with nothing, have nothing to loose. By bringing stability to the region people will be able to build their lives back and have something to protect rather than something to hate. In the end this will be the answer to terrorism.
Carl Guderian (Bjacques)
le Duc
Username: Bjacques

Post Number: 279
Registered: 4-2001
Posted on Saturday, August 2, 2003 - 11:05 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Regan was no hero. Her ingratitude (and that of Goneril's) led to the ruin of her father King Lear and to the death of the only good sister Cordelia. Hope this helps.

The 9/11 attack was not war, but a spectacular instance of terrorism, along the lines of IRA bombings but, well, worse. Al-Qaeda are destroyed as a group--almost the entire world pitched in to catch the bastards--and what's left are terrorist fanboys. There's no shortage of those, nor of deadly toys (thanks to the global arms trade).

Iraq's not gonna be much of a Middle East base with our troops being shot at (or the nucleus of a Middle East Free Trade Agreement zone, since businessmen are targets). Granted, at a rate of only one or two a day, it'll take a thousand years to get 'em all, but the Iraqis have been around 10,000 years. They're not going anywhere. As relief, the Dutch just rotated peacekeepers in. Maybe they'll do a better job than they did in Srebrenica (at least if the US and UK support them this time). After that, "coalition of the willing" occupational capability drops off sharply. France has troops and experience, but--oops--we let the idiot mobs mock them as congenital cowards even though they helped us in Afghanistan.

Read Ann Coulter's "Treason" and watch Fox's daily litany of self-justification all we like, but the rest of the world's just going to stand and watch after the diplomatic tantrums we threw. (World opinion subject to change 20 January 2005).
Strom Thurmond (Mogan_david)
le Duc
Username: Mogan_david

Post Number: 317
Registered: 4-2002


Posted on Saturday, August 2, 2003 - 8:56 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Oh LH, I've been away, but now I'm back.

I know it's futile to argue with you because you never address anything I have to say and continue with your rants, but I'll give it a try anyway.

How can you deny that Iraq had WMD's? They used them on the Kurds, remember? What do you suppose happened to the chemical weapons Sadam had? Are you trying to make me believe that once the inspections started he secretly destroyed his WMDs, when he could have turned them in and ended the sanctions?

While WMD's were our excuse for going to war with Iraq, I'll agree that they weren't the underlying cause of the war. I'll say again that the US needed a stronghold in the Middle East and that Iraq was the most strategic, and the best target of opportunity.

The money flowing into the Middle East has created an opportunity for zealots to wield power on the world stage. Coupled with support from the former Soviet Union and China there is a threat that these zealots could disrupt the flow of oil from the region and wreck severe damage on western economies.

I don't know about you, but I enjoy living indoors and being able to provide food for my family. I would fight and be willing to put my life in jeopardy to protect my way of life. I'm not talking about stealing oil, I'm talking about maintaining the ability to buy oil at market prices without interference from those who seek to destroy us.

9-11 was a wake-up call to many Americans and though you pacifists would love to ignore the carnage or seek to justify it, it was an unprovoked act of war.
Bush and Blair stood up to an incredible amount of opposition from their countrymen and the world to do what they thought was the right thing for their countries. I find that heroic. Just as Regan's heroism destroyed the Soviet Union, Bush and Blair will win peace in the Middle East. Not through talk but through action and the power of will. They have proved themselves to be leaders.
The Levitating Grin Salesman (Rimbaud)
le Duc
Username: Rimbaud

Post Number: 243
Registered: 12-2001


Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 11:02 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

>"Eiffel Tower burning news probably belonged
here in the first place. It has nothing to do with absinthe."

Shut your dirty hole, Georgie boy. I will vaporize you.
"Please pardon our appearance while we are levitating..."
Alphasoixante (Alphasoixante)
le Duc
Username: Alphasoixante

Post Number: 131
Registered: 9-2001


Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 2:45 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

oh, and: this is not directly relevant, but very interesting.

according to a USA Today/CNN/Gallop poll, 46% of all Americans are now certified assholes (6% are uncertified assholes):

"Asked whether same-sex relations between consenting adults should be legal, 48% said yes and 46% said no."

Things are working out quite well: Americans don't want a democracy, don't deserve a democracy, and --soon enough--won't have one.
Alphasoixante (Alphasoixante)
le Duc
Username: Alphasoixante

Post Number: 130
Registered: 9-2001


Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 1:11 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

That's my Wolfie(witz)! Good thing irony's dead.

"'The United States is willing to assist, but Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, and the UN should take the lead in dealing with the complex political problems of Liberia,' US Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told Fox News Sunday...'The US role is to assist the United Nations and West African countries stabilize the situation, to avert a humanitarian disaster,' he said."

"Wolfowitz accused Al-Jazeera, based in Qatar, and Dubai-based Al-Arabiya of bias in their reporting.
Wolfowitz told Fox News that the networks incite violence against American forces with slanted reports that he asserted are funded by Middle East governments. 'These governments should stop and realize that this is not a game, that they're endangering the lives of American troops,' he said."
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1136
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 11:30 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

Deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz warned Iraq's neighbors not to meddle with the American occupying forces, proclaiming, "I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq."


Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 821
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 10:09 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Talk about Blair and Bush having courage is horse-shit. What did they risk? Other peoples lives that's what. As to risking their careers, big deal, lots of people lose their jobs everyday, Blair and Bushn(unlike most ordinary people) would certainly not suffer financial hardship as a result.

I'm sure it'd be a very different story if they had to risk their own lives leading their troops at the front of the first onslaught into battle.
Mssr. Kallisti (Head_prosthesis)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Head_prosthesis

Post Number: 3760
Registered: 1-2001


Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 7:33 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Hobby,
When you are "da Bomb" people
stand back and make way.
GO LIVE !!!
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 820
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 2:27 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Head,

Have you ever thought what it might be like if you owned a few nukes? Be careful, Uncle Sam might just start bombing you.

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page