The Downing Street Memo: Just another empty Anti-War Leftist canard by lynchaj

Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
****snore****zzzzzzzz*****

Anybody else sick of the hatemongering from both sides of the political spectrum? Most of us could give 2 shits anymore. They're all a bunch of power hungry control freaks. The National Review also had an article on Colin Powell, referring to him as a man of no character or principles.

National Review = Newsweek = NYT = Air America = aww christ who gives a gorram?! They're all propaganda machines for their paricular persuasion.

I'm a moderate conservative. I'm pretty much a Libertarian (though I'm beginning to hate labels altogether). Not that it matters anyway. Us little people lost our ability to make ourselves heard the day we started "electing" bigmoney to office.

In the last month , I made the mistake of having a political conversation with a couple folks. One called me a "Neo-fascist Bushie.." (I'm not)
One called me "Pinko-fag Liberal Democrat" (I'm not).
My discussions were based on these opinions:
1)The US should be focused on what Korea is doing and improve our intelligence in those regards, BEFORE we expend the lives of our yound warriors. We need to get the hell out of the Middle East period. Let them find their own freedoms when they are ready.
2)The Personal Retirement account fix for Social Security is Bullshit because it only widens the gap between the poor and the wealthy. 10% of nothing is still nothing.
3) The governement should work to better people's lives, not dictate how people live.
4) Big business should be watched like hawk Worldwide.
5) The EU is a joke. They bitch about how fast Iraq is forming a new government, yet the EU can't get everyone on board in regards to their "constitution".
6) Big Oil should be spending their TRILLIONS of dollars in PROFIT from last year ( What a crock of horseshit, this whole Oil Issue is) on developing alternative resources to help the environment long term. Unfortunately they are all greedy bastards.

Frankly neither gorram party or its mindless followers is getting anything done. So both Repubs and Democrats can pat themselves on the back and say how awesome they are. It's all bullshit.

I live in NY. I know and still feel the impact of 9/11. Because of it, I bought the Iraq WMD story hook, line and sinker. I was lied to, blatantly IMHO. Not by Bush (He's a big gigantic puppet ), but by Cheney and all the PNAC crony shitwads. I was lied to by the Dems as well. Ole Clinton decried similar philosophies during his tenure. I hate feeling like a big tool.

As far as I'm concerned I'm one of millions of disenfranchised voters who were forced to vote for one shitebag over another shitebag (both who were worldclass "C" students LOL) in the last election. My vote didn't count because I voted Libertarian. My father-in Law's vote didn't count (He's a Repub), because he lives in a "Blue" State LOL.

I'm not Anti-war..but I sure as hell know a real canard when I see it. Our government in general is a canard. Our media is a canard. Unfortunately, the folks who are paying for that canardness, if you will, are our men and women in the service.

If Bush ever does something right in regards to Iraq, it will be to bring our boys and girls home before he is out of office.

PS. - I wish they would not have the Real World topics come up on the front page. It's a real downer 90% of the time and has nothing to do with Firefly or The Whedonverse.

Wow, Connor. I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing 100% with a post in the Real World section. What the hell are we going to argue about??

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 6:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Good Lord! Knock me down with a feather! Connerflynn- I agree with you and the Sarge. What is this world coming to?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 7:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
The good guys can win occasionally.

LOL.. Not for nothing, but what do we win?

Good friend of mine rolls home from Iraq in a wheelchair. His prize? another 2 years of Rehab.
Another good friend of mine nearly misses being in camp when a suicide bomber blew himself up near the chow tent. What does he win? Another night with sand in his buttcrack and his family on his mind.

The Media portrays our soldiers as war criminals and malicious evil monsters.
What do they win? They get to put their lives on the line for a cause that was pushed by the PNAC behind closed doors. They get to have their situation become even more tenuous then it already was to begin with, because some shitebag of a reporter felt it was important to say somebody flushed a Koran down the toilet.

I get to listen to Madeleine Albright say, "we thought North Korea would follow our wishes about not seeking nukes. They still might." ROFLMFAO
What do we win?

We (the average Joe of the US and around the world) are the good guys, who have to pay for the philosophy of "Manifest Destiny" that our various world leaders and business leaders follow. What do we win?

The Patriot Act II will allow feds to search and seize without judicial warrants or oversight if something is classified as "possibly" terrorism related. What do we win?

MACs are going to start using the INTEL processors.
What do we win?

Big Government wants to legislate how many Big Macs I can eat.
What do I win?

Al Sharpton is going to start studying under Rush Limbaugh on how to run a talk Radio show.
What do we win?

Theresa Heinz Kerry is on some new meds that keep her from talking.

What do we win? HOLY CRIKEYS WE DO WIN OCCASIONALLY!!!!!! LOL

PS.. The "C" Student part above was a joke. The media keeps playing the whole John Kerry and George Bush got 7 "D" between each other in classes like "Coed Ball Scratching", Ancient Mythology and how sex played a part" ,blah blah blah... It's lame shit and I wish they ( CNN, FOX,CBS etc..etc..) would cease to exist. Bring me back the good old fashioned news paper journalist and No I don't mean the Enquirer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 8:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
The good guys can win occasionally.

LOL.. Not for nothing, but what do we win?

We have Saddam Hussein in a freely elected Iraqi government jail cell awaiting trial for his crimes.

Andrew Lynch

heh.. Sorta reminds me of the scene at the beginning of Serenity, when the crew has successively managed to salvage some old boxes of food rations...

Mal: Right, we win...

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 9:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
SignyM: Good Lord! Knock me down with a feather! Connerflynn- I agree with you and the Sarge.

Lynch: Oh really? Seems you had a LOT to say about it a few days ago. Change your mind? http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?

Your point is inscrutible, as usual. The Sarge and I had a great agreement in that thread- this seems to be one of the topics we actually mostly overlap. I never thought a leftie like me and libertarians like Sarge and Conner could find common ground. (You should see the go-rounds we've had on other topics!

) So- what's your point again?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 9:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:

We have Saddam Hussein in a freely elected Iraqi government jail cell awaiting trial for his crimes.

Andrew Lynch

What do we do if they "The Freely Elected Iraqi Government" find him "Not Guilty"?

An awful lot of lives IMHO lost to put one bad guy in jail.

I argued with a friend 4 years ago on a message board similar to this one about the reasons for going into Iraq and how it seemed like a smart tactical decision to free the Iraqi's while eliminating WMD's and putting the pressure on Iran as well. I wanted to see radical Islam crushed (will never happen..it's similar to radical christianity or any other form of radical doctrine,(True Liberalism or Conservatism)it's like a cockroach..it will always be around).

Hell, I even sided with Israel, until my eyes were opened.

He told me he felt that it wasn't up to us to bring "Our" brand of democracy to the rest of the world via the point of a sword. It would only cost us the lives of our servicemen and our country's reputation as "the Good guys". We could lead the world in other ways.. i.e. AIDS research, humanitarian aid, education (hell we need to improve our own education system). If we go into Iraq, it will be a big waste of American lives even if we only lost one life.

I argued that Saddam had WMDs and we needed to crush him to preventIraq from aiding someone in another attack like 9/11 and if we freed the Iraqis in the meantime, bonus. Our losses would be minimal for the effort.

Listen to me LOL,
"Our Losses will be minimal"

What a dumbass. The day my friend came home from Iraq, after being in Germany in a hyperbaric(sp?) chamber for 4 months recovering from Mortar burns and other wounds suffered in a roadside attack, and then hear Colin Powell say " I was wrong about the WMDs and that's something I'll have to live with". Screw this Manifest Destiny, God will lead the way bullshit. I want some GODDAMNED ACCOUNTABILITY!!!!

I was wrong. It's not up to us to be the great saviors of the world. We are just Americans who live, eat, sleep, love just like every other sane person in the world. People can only be "free" when they want to be "free". We can't bring freedom to someone who doesn't care to experience "our" brand of freedom. Though for the most part I happen to love our brand of "Freedom" because for the time being I can still see Moreena Baccarin or Jewel's beautiful faces whenever I pop in a dvd =) (who knows how long that will last if we give up all our rights and cede to idealogies in any extreme, i.e. Big Government/Big Religion/Big Business )

We were right to kick the Taliban's ass. We were right to be in Afghanistan. They brought the wrath of the US down on their fundamentalist asses when they backed Osamalamadingdong.

I nolonger believe we were right to go into Iraq. Not to bring one bad guy to "Justice" under the auspices of a lie. The fact is, we originally went to war in Iraq because Iraq supposedly HAD WMDs NOW that they could supply terrorists with NOW. When that didn't pan out, it was because we were bringing Democracy to the Middle East. What the F***! His own people should've bourne that responsibility.

I very much wanted them to find WMDs or at least something, just so I didn't feel like such a big freaking tool. Hell I even jumped the gun on this board once or twice when a bad story popped regarding them. The friends I have over in Iraq mean more to me then Saddam's head in a handbasket. So I admit it. I'm a tool. Not a tool for the reasons that the left (It's all about the Oil) and the right ( we are bringing Democracy and God to the Middle East) may lay claim to, but a tool nonetheless, because I believed my government.

If our men and women are going to die for our freedoms, then they should fight what TRUE threats face us. Not because our government is playing a big game of Axis and Allies. At this rate we are running out of double 6's.

What we are doing over in Iraq, ultimately may be good for the Iraqi people, but it sure as hell isn't good for OUR people. They shouldn't be in harms way any longer, just so some fat assed Mullah can enjoy spending his Oil money under American guard. Hell, Ole GW will probably have a statue erected in his honor over there someday in a Leninesque way. Good for him.

If there's one thing I can be accused of it's being a passionate supporter of my country and my countrymen. In this case, I support my countrymen, but my government (Both Repubs and Dems) can kiss my Yankee ass!

PS. The next time some dumb assed "Reporter" feels the need to "report" on how we are disrespecting Islam, he should get his ass kicked and then be tarred and feathered as an example. People's lives are at stake. No religion is more important then someone's life.

**No children or Animals were harmed in this production of As Connorflynn's world Turns**

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 9:46 AM

HKCAVALIER

Edited to add: I prolly shoulda kept my mouth shut. Since I started typing this post, this thread has veared into very interesting territory which has nothing (thankfully) to do with the Downing Street memo.

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Good Lord! Knock me down with a feather! Connerflynn- I agree with you and the Sarge. What is this world coming to?

Oh really? Seems you had a LOT to say about it a few days ago. Change your mind?

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=10019

Andrew Lynch

(WARNING: what follows is a mildly rude ad hominem attack upon the personal credibility of Lynchaj. Sometimes people are jerks and you just have to call'em on it. I just couldn't sit through another superfluous thread full of his put-downs and posturing and say nothing.)

Ah, so you do read old threads, eh Lynch? So you know that all this has been hashed and rehashed a hundred times. You say you don't want the Lefty Haters to go unaswered, so you heroically step up, but then you already know that the Lefties have been plenty answered in previous threads. Your ego just too big to post on an existing thread?

This is a discussion board, we all come here to discuss things. Most of us have been here for a while now. I've seen some of the most constructive and respectful political exchanges on this board that I've seen anywhere. I don't see you coming here for a discussion. You come here with your mind made up to put people down. When Signy posted the original Downing Street thread, it was news. You bring it up now only to gratify your malice. Posts like yours are the reason people find the Real World Event Discussion so onerous.

Since I'm here, I'll get something off my chest. Your loyalty to the sitting president is touching, but really, what is he, Pope? He's just a guy with more power than any of us will ever see. His policies affect the lives of billions worldwide. I don't believe he should have gone to war with Iraq. I hold the Commander in Chief responsible for the deaths of our troops and the tens of thousands of Iraqi combatants and civilians. The war was/is unjust and beyond our capabilities to "win." What should I call such a man?

Actually though, I don't need all these reasons to understand why someone would call him an "SOB." I just have to read a transcript of him making fun of Karla Faye Tucker to find the man hateful. (Oh no! I believed something I read on the internet! Save me from myself!)

And BTW, Signy was agreeing with Connor's remarks, and Connor said nothing about Downing Street except to imply that it was irrelivent in the face of the larger issue of the corruption of power worldwide (my apologies to Connor if I'm wrong--and btw Connor, excellent posts).

Personally, I don't find Downing Street particularly damning in itself. So much hangs on that one word "fixing" that I don't see it as conclusive evidence.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 9:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
And I'd rather have all these Jihadists dying in Iraq then crossing the Mexican Border or through an Isreali checkpoint.

Did you ever see the movie "Red Dawn" ? The Palestinains are living "Red Dawn".

Sure the extremists/terrorists are pushing a supposed religion based agenda (though it's really all about the money to the higher ups). To the Israelis, Palestinians are similar to what the Indians (*taps the center of his forehead, not patting his mouth and going woowoo) were like to the British Empire, lesser lifeforms. The Palestinian Men, women and children live in fear. They see their friends killed everyday, because the Israeli military follow an "Eye for an Eye" policy. The Palestinians are an Oppressed people. They lose land by the day. Their homes are bulldozed under the auspices of " A militant lived there", to make way for the walls/settlements. When they did find work in Israel, it was as second class beings. The terrorists can only benefit from the spreading of Israeli settlements and the walls and continual killings.

As one interviewer (arab woman, Saira Shah) asked a miltant about a small child who had joined them: "How does it make you feel , to know that he may die tomorrow, doing your bidding? - pointing at a small child"

The Militant's response - " You don't worry about that sister. If he dies tomorrow, he will die a hero and besides, there are 10,000 more just like him, waiting to take his place"

The reason the child joined the militants?
The Israeli army shot and killed his best friend while they were walking to school. "Eye for an Eye"

Oh and by the by: Israel is a Theocratic "democracy". As far as I know,only Jews can be in government. So any thought that Non jewish arabs may get a say or the idea that maybe the countries could all fall under one flag are moot.

Oh and more Palestinians have died then Israelis, since their battles began. I find that particularly telling.

Here's the writeup of a documentary that went a long way in shedding some light on the Israeli/ Palestinian issues for me, there's nothing like watching an innocent person get blown away in cold blood to open your eyes abit:

Death in Gaza
In spring 2003, filmmaker James Miller and reporter Saira Shah, following the success of their Peabody-winning films "Unholy War" and "Beneath the Veil," set out to take a first-hand look at the culture of hate that permeates the Middle East. They captured the lives of three Palestinian children growing up in the bullet-riddled streets of Gaza, indoctrinated in the creed of Jihad, and had planned to show the Israeli side next. But on May 2, in the midst of filming, Miller was shot to death by an Israeli tank, falling victim to the conflict he covered. The America Undercover special DEATH IN GAZA tells this tragic, eye-opening story.

DEATH IN GAZA begins in Nablas, where Miller and Shah witness an explosion that kills several Palestinians suspected of being suicide bombers. "We're trying to understand how people learn to hate so deeply that they're prepared to die in order to kill," says Shah. "So we're looking for the next generation, the children who will make either peace or war." In Nablas, that generation is playing dangerous games with the Israelis, as children shower the tanks that patrol their street with rocks, taunting the soldiers inside.

Leaving Nablas, the production team heads to Rafah, a border town in Gaza, where they become acquainted with three children: Ahmed, a soccer-loving 12-year-old; his best friend Mohammed, also 12; and Najla, a 16-year-old girl who lives in a particularly dangerous area that Israelis are attempting to turn into a security zone.

As Ahmed and Mohammed fire toy guns and play games of "Jews and Arabs" in the streets by day, the real-life militants come out in the streets of Rafah by night - as do the Israeli tanks and night-vision troops trying to track them down. Miller and Shah pay a visit to a paramilitary group that has enlisted Ahmed to do reconnaissance for them. Asked why they want to endanger the life of such a young boy, the men shrug that there are thousands more just like him. The cult of martyrdom runs deep in this region, as Palestinians celebrate each death by parading in the streets with freshly printed posters that turn the latest person to die into a new martyr.

After visiting Mohammed and his mother (who delivers a heartfelt plea for an end to talk of suicide and killing) and then watching the boys construct homemade explosives called "quwas," Miller's crew makes its way to Najla's region. They arrive in the midst of Israel's largest operation there in three years, with armored tanks and bulldozers blasting neighborhoods to rubble in search of militants, in the process leaving civilians homeless. Though vulnerable, Najla's house has been spared for now.

Around 5:00 p.m., boys gather near the border to throw stones at Israeli bulldozers. Later that night, attempting to leave the area by waving a white flag through the darkness, Miller assumes that the Israeli soldiers - actually Bedouin Arabs, equipped with night-vision gear, who had earlier been calling out to the journalists in Arabic - will recognize him as a journalist and let his team pass. Instead, shots ring out, killing Miller instantly. The tragedy is captured by a local film crew.

"We asked them not to print a poster of James," says Shah, "but they wouldn't listen. So, on May the second, 2003, the extremists gained another martyr. The rest of us lost James." Miller never got the chance to film the Israeli counterparts to Ahmed, Mohammed and Najla. And to date, no one has been held accountable for his death.

Six months after the shooting, Shah received a video message from Ahmed declaring how much he misses Miller. Ahmed has stopped working for the paramilitaries, and now wants to be a cameraman, as does Mohammed.

DEATH IN GAZA was directed and filmed by James Miller; written and reported by Saira Shah; edit directed by Misha Manson Smith; producers, James Miller and Saira Shah; co-producers, Daniel Edge and Belinda Morrison; film editor, Misha Manson Smith; field producer, Daniel Edge; production manager, Belinda Morrison. For HBO: supervising producer, Nancy Abraham; executive producer, Sheila Nevins.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 10:56 AM

TALLGRRL

hmmm....there's a MEMO containing the minutes of a meeting.
it's not someone's opinion, jackass.
IT'S THE FREEKING MINUTES OF THE MEETING.
Put down the Kool-Aid.
Get up off of your ass.
Go to a mirror.
Look at yourself and say outloud:
I was LIED to.
I have been LIED to OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
I wanted to believe what I was told.
Yes, I am embarassed. But facts are facts, and facts will not hurt me.
IF I'M WRONG, I WILL NOT DIE.
Now go READ the memo: http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

"Take me, sir. Take me hard." -- Zoe

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 11:15 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Conner- I am so sorry to hear about your friend. I feel, in a general way, the the military has been shamefully abused by the Bush administration by being sent into Iraq for.... what?? But when a friend comes back in a wheelchair, it's no longer general- it becomes deeply, personally pain-filled. In place of the GWB administration, which will never own up to their arrogance and greed, and in place of the Democrats who (mostly) took the spineless route, I offer my humble gratitude, sympathy, and deepest apologies to your friend.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 12:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
...Do you have any thing relevant to the topic?

Andrew Lynch

Do you?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 12:11 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You mean, do I have anything relevant to add to the topic? Above and beyond all the points I made in the previous threads? Nope. Why should I re-iterate my comments? But thanks for bringing up the previous thread, since that will allow people to read my comments in full. So, for those who want to read the back story, as it were, here it is

Bush LIED about WMD (posted by SignyM)
www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=10019

WMD in Iraq? Nah, nothing to see here, move along...(Posted by Lynch)
www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=10493

What We Do With Despots (posted by SignyM)
www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=9154

You missed a few links. I'll try to dig them up later.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 12:18 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The people of the world should recognise the role of the US Armed Forces and their voluntary PERSONAL contributions to keep the world safe from maniacal despots with WMD.

Starting with Bush, which is why he tried to cut veteran's benefits, I guess.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 12:51 PM

LOL

I thought I was pretty clear originally. It's horseshit. 100% unadulterated horseshit. Each side is playing off the other side trying to gain points, if you will, with the braindead populus (Myself included).

The memo is what it is. If you think it doesn't make total sense, well in the proverbial words of Bill Engvall: " Here's your sign"

It's pretty obvious now, Cheney and the founding fathers of PNAC wanted into Baghdad more then any other place on earth. To the point that intelligence was conveniently manipulated to meet those guidelines, with the hopes that we would win so fast and the Iraqis would bathe us in their cheers of undying gratitude that noone would care that there weren't WMDs anymore. They figured sentiment was high still regarding 9/11 (rightfully so) that they could play the terrorism card and get away with it.

GW fell for it (Though he may have been in on it..I'm suspicious though..he's not a PNAC member and the whole nukular thing). Powell fell for it. I think he values his reputation too much to have blatantly lied to the UN.

Nah..it makes total sense.

Don't get me wrong, I think those countries who fought against going into Iraq were against it for strictly greedy reasons ( Oil for Food Kickbacks etc..etc..). Those who went with us were in it for strictly Greed. As a Barry Goldwater Libertarian, I would think you would be sick of the out of control spending of the Administration and our Government as a whole over the last 5 years. The Iraq war being the biggest expenditure. It'd be hard to imagine how far we could go in AIDs relief and research with the money that was spent. /boggles the mind

No sane person who actually reads, or follows the news and can rub a couple brain cells together occasionally can still believe that we weren't bamboozled.

It's all bullshit. LOL. I hope I clarified it. The rest is answering questions posed to me or making statements that to me seem to have much more importance LOL.

PS: It's not up to us to free the world. It's up to us to figure out how the hell we can coexist peacefully, without giving up our sovereignty. The world doesn't appear to care about the sacrifices of our men and women. Hell we can't get the media to recognize that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 12:59 PM

DARKJESTER

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I see this whole "discussion" as yet another person posting something somewhat inflamatory (though the main source is written by someone else), then virtually puffing up their chest and daring anyone to try to prove them wrong. I occasionally check out the "political" threads, and just often enough I am surprised by intelligent and thoughtful discussion. But not this time.

I'm not disagreeing with lynchaj's point (necessarily), only with the predictable way his points are being presented; in broad, sweeping (and partisan) language, leading to quibbling about the meaning of words used. That's not debate or discussion, that's bickering.

MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 1:08 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
...Respectfully, I disagree. The previous thread on the TDM was so horribly slanted as to be not salvagable.

This thread is its exact opposite number.

Did you make the same complaints about fairness in that thread or do you save your complaints about fairness only for those threads which reflect an obvious conservative bias?

Think about it.

Andrew Lynch

"Fairness?" What made you think I was talking about fairness? Seriously, where did you get that? Your response bares only the vaguest relationship to what I actually wrote. Seriously, Lynch, read. Just read something without thinking that your bizarre assuptions are part of the text.

I'm not complaining about you being unfair, I'm complaining about you being an ill-mannered jerk (remember Ghoulman? I told him more than once to mellow out and he at least knew that's what I was doing!). I was amusing myself with the "ad hominem" remark because that term is only meaningful in a debate and I am not debating with you, Lynch. I'm not posting in your thread to debate with you. I'm posting in your thread to tell you to knock it off.

As a concerned member of this community I request that you cut to your last post now, you've proven your point, those who disagree with you are irrational and hopelessly biased, now go back to lurking for another year or so, k?

And don't tell me I'm censoring you because of your opinions, I have no problem with the likes of Geezer and Hero and all the other right-leaning members of this community posting, I've learned a thing or two from those folks. The whole reason you posted this thread was to bait SignyM, and that stinks.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 1:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Why yes, thank you for asking. The TDM is being falsely portrayed as a "smoking gun" piece of evidence that the US commited wrong doing prior to the war. That is factually incorrect and widely known yet it is still being carried about as meaningful.

I hadn't seen it til just now. I came away with somewhat the same impression. I do think it carries some significance, but not in the way the press is insinuating. From my reading 'fixed' didn't mean 'tampering' or 'rigging', but merely 'tightly focused' or 'steadily aiming' at a target. This does show that the administration was determined to find reason to go to war with Iraq. But that's not exactly news.

I agree the press hububb over this is kind of pointless. The people who have been paying attention know this stuff already, and the rest aren't going to be convinced by, well by much of anything, but definitely not by a memo.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 1:08 PM

Dude, your thread has been taken over by the Excellent ConnorFlynn, the Non-Bogus SignyM, and Bodacious SergeantX; the facts, firepower and brains of them combined mean one thing...
you lose.

*hands Andrew an ice bag* Here, this is for what HK did to ya.

They said it all Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 1:23 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Dude...the Excellent ConnorFlynn, the Non-Bogus SignyM, and Bodacious SergeantX...

You just watch Bill and Tedd's Excellent Adventure or what?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 1:33 PM

It's what I fall back on when I'm there to be silly.
This thread is the most entertaining RW one I've read in a long time.
HK, you said what I, and I suspect many others, were only thinkin' of sayin'.
I hope people take me down like that if I ever get sooooo serious, like I'm speakin' Gosple, or something.

Non, non non, non heinous Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 2:19 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Dude, your thread has been taken over by the Excellent ConnorFlynn, the Non-Bogus SignyM, and Bodacious SergeantX; the facts, firepower and brains of them combined mean one thing...

...I wanna be bodacious.! ME Make me bodacious, or I'll... I'll.... WHAAAAAHHHH!!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 2:44 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Lynch, didn't mean to make fun of your thread. I understand your passion, but I obviously think it's misplaced. I quite frankly don't understand why you would trust ANY President as deeply as you seem to. And I wonder- did you defend Clinton with the same passion that you defend Bush? (BTW- I didn't vote for Clinton either.) Are you defending the Presidency- as you claim- or the President?

One of the things I find curious about your appeal to us as "Browncoats" is that you also seem to misunderstand- as far as I can tell- what a Browncoat is and what the Alliance represents. Did you catch the fact that the USA is the paradigm for the Alliance? What would that make the President of the USA? Certainly not a Browncoat! Browncoats tend to disrespect a Great Authoritarian. Browncoats think for themselves. Browncoats mistrust Big Government. Browncoats are loyal to each other- not blindly loyal to an office. At least, that's how I understand it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 3:05 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by LynchAJ

Connorflynn,

Your post saddens me because it sounds like you've come to believe the misrepresentations so prevelant in the MSM and others. I can understand it though, they have been repeated so many times.

I ask you to questions the assertions, look for the canards, and not to give up hope. The US is a force for good in the world, President Bush is an honest man, and removing Saddam was the right thing to do regardless of the steady drumbeat of the naysayers pounding away.

I am not giving up.

Andrew Lynch

LOL.. Man, You don't know me very well. I've been visiting these boards for ages. I've gone around and around with just about every person on these boards at some point or another. I happen to be a politics junky. I was a Republican at one point in my life. That went out the window long ago, when I realized Dems and Repubs were EXACTLY the same (Politicians).

Points of interest :

1) You said : "The US is a force for Good in the world." - I agree. Every country can be a force for good in the world. Every country can make mistakes. I never said that We were evil. I said we were mislead by some serious people.

PNAC
June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Signees:
Elliott Abrams - Current NSC advisor (check!)
Gary Bauer - Head of FRC (Strange he should be a signee to this no?! LOL )
William J. Bennett - Heriatage Foundation Member (Another weird Signee No?! )
Jeb Bush - GW's brother and governor of Florida, home of the controvertial 2000 election (Check!)
Dick Cheney - VP of the USA ( I refer to him lovingly as, Brain) (Check!)
Eliot A. Cohen - Member of the Council on Foreign Relations (Check!)
Midge Decter - Heritage Foundation Member
Paula Dobriansky - Special Coordinator for Tibet (Council of Foreign Affairs)
Steve Forbes - Editor in Chief of Forbes Magazine (Another weird signee no?!)
Aaron Friedberg - Current Deputy National Advisor to Cheney (Check!)
Francis Fukuyama - President of Council on Bioethics (called for Rumsfelds resignation)
Frank Gaffney - President and CEO of CSP
Fred C. Ikle - Member of Defense Policy Board
Donald Kagan - Conservative Intellectual (Best describes him I think)
Zalmay Khalilzad - Trying to become Ambassador to Iraq (Check!)
I. Lewis Libby - Chief of Staff to VP Cheney (Check!)
Norman Podhoretz - Member of Committee on Present Danger
Dan Quayle - No comment LOL
Peter W. Rodman - Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Affairs (Check!)
Stephen P. Rosen - Harvard Professor of National Security and Foreign Affairs
Henry S. Rowen - Member on Commission on Intelligence Capabilities of the United States regarding WMDs (Check!)
Donald Rumsfeld - Current Sec of Defense (Check!)
Vin Weber Former Congressman and "Super Lobbyist"
George Weigel - Founder of National Endowment for Democracy
Paul Wolfowitz - Former Deputy Secretary of Defense, Head of World Bank( Hmm..too many things to count -CHECK!)

Now when you put that many People in positions of power in one administration, an Agenda is being Pushed. These guys want to pursue US global power totality. GW just doesn't appear to be that motivated (no offense to the President). That leaves VP Cheney.

2) You said Bush is an Honest Man. I have never disputed that. Personally I think he was just as much a tool as we were. In Mixed Martial Arts, they would refer to him as a "Can".

3) Removal of Saddam was a good thing regardless of the naysayers. I nolonger agree with that assertion. Again I reiterate my belief that a people as a whole will rise up when they are ready to overcome the Tyrant. It was up to the Iraqi people to do such, Not the US administration with a hidden or not so hidden agenda if you look at all the clues. These folks put our Peoples lives on the line for a Manifest Destiny agenda.

I have questioned assertions made by the political propaganda machines of both parties and whack job fringe. That doesn't mean I find anything other then what I have.

We are being played like a good game of Axis and Allies and the current administration is under the influence of some pretty ambitious people in terms of world domination.

The facts are the facts. Like all things they are open to interpretation and capable of being shown in any light if you apply the correct verbage. You are entitled to your opinion as am I. That doesn't mean yours is anymore informed then mine.

I guess my point is, I'm not a newbie to politics or the world. 9/11 caught me with my "proverbial shields down". The day I stop questioning assertions is the day I become the mindless numbnut who supported our going to war in Iraq in the first place.

We are not the world police. We are the United States of America. Personally I thought we were against Imperialism..the PNAC are Imperialists.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 3:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
We are not the world police. We are the United States of America. Personally I thought we were against Imperialism..the PNAC are Imperialists.

Once again, I couldn't agree more, Connor. But here's what confuses me. This information is all freely available to anyone who'll go to the PNAC's site. To their credit, they are forthright and open about their plans for world domination. But how come people con't care? Very few of us seem to be willing to recognize, much less question, the PNAC agenda or its methods. Have we really grown so cynical?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 3:39 PM

Actually the PNAC changed their initial Mission statement after a general outcry at how hawkish it was (borderline 3rd Reichish to be honest).

Not many people know about PNAC. I don't believe I've seen 2 people mention it on a message board other then myself and one other friend (debater LOL).

The PNAC's Mission statement at first glance seems almost honorable. It's when you start looking at what parts each signee has played and then read the various articles and letters. It's taken me the better part of 3 years to get through some of it. Again, I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist..but LOL

I'll leave the rest up to you to judge after you've read the papers and what not.

Here are a couple for your perusal:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm

This one I find particularly chilling:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Schmitt-112000.pdf

Another Strange one:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/indonesia-060700.htm

enjoy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 3:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I understand your passion, but I obviously think it's misplaced.

Bodacious SignyM, he is passionate. He really cares, and I get that.
Using the political structure of the Firefly universe to hopefully ignite a new point of view is an interesting choice.
In my twenties I saw a Steven Segal movie (yeah, that's right- don't laugh so hard) that flipped the switch in my head. For years images of the Vietnam war were stuffed into my young head. Buddist monks burning themselves to make a point, people running on fire in villages, daily counts on American soldier casualties, etc. In this simplistic film a line was said by the star: "We wiped out entire cultures-", and suddenly the movie fell away and I was left with the rather terrifying realization that people die needlessly in the world due to the small quick words spoken in private by leaders in governments around the planet. I cried as I sat there, but not due to Steve's brilliant performance. It wasn't that I suddenly knew anything new, a moment opened for me where truths came together to form a (somewhat) fearless world view; that small, but very important pieces of what you see and hear from Rich people running this world is well sculpted bullshit.
It's scary at first, but that's the game. Always has been, just more 'civilized' now than in previous centuries, thank the Supreme one.

Just in case anyone's interested.

Oh, to the topic! It's nothing new or world-shaking. Probably have little effect on much.

Long- winded Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 4:07 PM

Connorflynn, if history teachers in High School were as good as you are at breakin' it all down for the somewhat feeble-minded, such as myself, this would undoubtedly be a country of superior understanding and compassionate concern. Thanks for your words and links on these boards.

Oh! And to the topic, yeah, I saw 'em. Big woop.

Topic-minded Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 4:34 PM

Having had to do a thesis paper on the Yalta Conferences my senior year of highschool I learned quickly that the big players in government are the men behind the President. Determining how strong the President is, usually determines how much leeway the men have behind him. Roosevelt was a strong President initially until he became infirm. At which point Alger Hess gave away the farm to Russia.

Based on my readings and I watched this all unfold in the 80's and 90's as well, the people behind the 2000 administration and this one are trudging along at a pretty quick pace. Alot has been achieved in 4.5 years. Afghanistan is down. Iraq has fallen. Libya is toeing the line. Saudi Arabia is playing the game and Syria and Lebanon are unstable and in the sights. Pakistan seems to be playing along and kanoodling with India (albeit grudgingly). The Israelis and Palestinians only seem to be killing each other at a rate of 3 or 4 a day. Iran is developing Nukes..that is an unfortunate circumstance..perhaps they will be the next in the crosshairs, though I believe that we are now actively supporting the rebellion within Iran from Iraq.

A perfectly played strategy. The only question that remains is whether or not they can keep the US public playing along and whether or Not Russia makes a move to become a communist state again, a possibility.

My impression in regards to Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld is that they have had designs on Iraq for ages. It's the focal point for their Middle East Plan. They artfully used 9/11 to advantage. Why I believe this is of a more cynical nature is the shear obsession the PNAC has in regards to Iraq. After the findings came out that there were NO WMDs left in Iraq, there was no accountability. (Thats what floored me) Sure maybe a couple of firings on a low level, but the PNAC members seem to be getting promoted. That tells me right there, there is something fishy in smellville.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 4:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Like I could see President Bush in a western as a Sheriff. Maybe on Paradiso.

Sheriff Bush (to Mal):
What you boys got in that Firefly, anyway?

Mal:
Dry goods, medicine an' the like. For the Border Colonies.

Sheriff Bush:
Hear you spend time with a man named Niska, if I'm not mistaken.

Jayne (whispering to Mal):
Come on, Mal, this guy's a dumbass. Let's-

Mal (cutting Jayne off):
Niska was a...potential buisness partner. But we saw things different ways- you know how it sometimes gets...

Sheriff Bush:
Never liked the man myself, but we set him up to perform certain functions within the community. Hear he ain't quite himself these days, and word is you had something to do with that.

Jayne suddenly swings at Sheriff bush, who easily ducks it only to trip backward and fall into the intake of Serenity's right engine.

Jayne (turning to walk):
Well that saves time.

Mal (running into Serenity):
Ask Kaylee if we ever need to wash those intakes.

Thanks for the idea, Andrew. That was fun.

Off topic Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 4:43 PM

It seems promotions are achieved by LOOKING as if you do a good job, not necessarily DOING a good job. Hey, isn't that how corporations work...?

2 cents Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 4:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
So basically, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc were still in the background during the 1990's but I don't see them as a sinister cabal, only just waiting their turn when a Republican was elected in a bunch of thinktanks and companies like Haliburton.

There are literally thousands of think tanks representing every idea under the sun.

Thanks

Andrew Lynch

Here's the thing though. These guys have been in the game since Reagan and a couple before Reagan. They haven't really been required to "wait their turn" LOL. Plus, not many think tanks get to be the brains behind the President of the United States or help make policy.

Donald H. Rumsfeld
http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html
---------------------------------------------
Dr. Paul Wolfowitz
http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/wolfowitz.html

---------------------------------------------
Dick Cheney Bio:
http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/cheney.htm

These dudes have been around for a good while.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 5:51 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

ConnorFlynn

Quote:
Saudi Arabia is playing the game

I'm just curious what you mean by that.

It's not the 'freedom is on the march' game b/c they are no closer to democracy than before. They've got to support US currency b/c if it falls, they'll be flat broke. However, indications are that they've reached peak oil production (despite pressure to increase extraction, they seem unable to ramp up in any significant way). Military bases are being re-deployed or decommissioned. I read only 500 US servicemen remain there.

Do you mean that as long as they are not overtly, officially defying the US; and, so far as they participate in what at this point is a pretty toxic quid pro quo (your teetering dollar for our oil for your weapons) they are considered good guys by the admin?

Is the game called: Keeping your head down as you walk down the street ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 7:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Here's the thing though. These guys have been in the game since Reagan and a couple before Reagan. They haven't really been required to "wait their turn" LOL. Plus, not many think tanks get to be the brains behind the President of the United States or help make policy.

What I'm struck with as I read their info is a undercurrent of a weird kind of nostalgia for the cold war. That's just my own perception, so it could be bunk for sure, but when I also notice how much of their mindset and attitudes concerning diplomacy seem directly derived from cold war politics it makes me wonder.

The other thing that makes the whole thing kind of creepy is their unabashed eagerness for an openly imperial America. They even embrace the language of it - "Pax Americana". Now, I doubt they coined the term, but it's an unavoidable reference to the Roman Empire and underlines just how cozey they are with the notion.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 1:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
ConnorFlynn
Quote:
Saudi Arabia is playing the game
I'm just curious what you mean by that.

It's not the 'freedom is on the march' game b/c they are no closer to democracy than before. They've got to support US currency b/c if it falls, they'll be flat broke. However, indications are that they've reached peak oil production (despite pressure to increase extraction, they seem unable to ramp up in any significant way). Military bases are being re-deployed or decommissioned. I read only 500 US servicemen remain there.

Do you mean that as long as they are not overtly, officially defying the US; and, so far as they participate in what at this point is a pretty toxic quid pro quo (your teetering dollar for our oil for your weapons) they are considered good guys by the admin?

Is the game called: Keeping your head down as you walk down the street ?

Pretty much, that's exactly what I mean.

They are making arrests in the cause of the War on Terrorism (More likely, War on Opposition), but their true colors show through on many occasions. The facts are that Saudi Arabia is in trouble. Big trouble. The Royalty are trying desperately to maintain the status quo, whilst they shift their moneys off shore and prepare for their eventual overthrow. They don't want the US to come in so they will toe the line as well. Their youth have been brought up under fundamentalist Islam. I read a great article in the National Geographic (and before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, the NG still remains a pretty unbiased publication) on Saudi Arabia. The youth can't find jobs or become qualified for jobs because the "majority" only have education in and around Fundamentalist Islam. What has been happening because of this, is the influx of foreign workers. It's a tough shake. It's not going to get any better. Look at how various Democratic countries react when foreign workers come in and take jobs LOL. Extremists can use this to advantage.

Saudi Arabia is a country in which we would fail horrifically (not necessarily militarily, but it would be long and drawn out through guerilla fighting), if we tried to bring "Our" brand of democracy to them. It would be like forcing a bunch of Trailer park dwellers in the deep South to be Ghetto or force the Massachusett's Intellectual Elitists to be garbage men. Bad mojo, though I would love to have stock in KLEENEX, if the latter occurred LOL.

Saudi Arabia is the LEADING reason why I think we need to get out of the Middle East as fast as possible. When that storm occurs and it is Coming, I don't want our boys and girls in the path. The first people the Saudi Nationals will turn against are the foreigners and the "Infidels".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 2:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

What I'm struck with as I read their info is a undercurrent of a weird kind of nostalgia for the cold war. That's just my own perception, so it could be bunk for sure, but when I also notice how much of their mindset and attitudes concerning diplomacy seem directly derived from cold war politics it makes me wonder.

The other thing that makes the whole thing kind of creepy is their unabashed eagerness for an openly imperial America. They even embrace the language of it - "Pax Americana". Now, I doubt they coined the term, but it's an unavoidable reference to the Roman Empire and underlines just how cozey they are with the notion.

I agree. Though it is not Imperialism in the traditional sense. Right now we are basically the economic and military power of the world (If you don't count China..who is trudging quietly along). These guys want to do everything they can to maintain that, even if it is through Military means. Military means are the only way they know how to achieve anything. It's the Cold War mentality amplified. Becuase it is nolonger us against Russia..It's us against anyone who could be a potential threat to us.

Thats where the danger lies, not so much in the motive of maintaining our position as a World Leader, but in the means to that end.

The PNAC in general have a very elitist mentality. Elitism in general is counter productive to good relationships with the rest of the world, and like it or not..we are all in this together.

The difference between PNAC and for instance a group like MOVEON (aka fringe Leftwing Upperclass bored elitist whack jobs all of em), is that the PNAC isn't just a Right Wing Think tank waffling in the wind, they are much more focused, much more singular minded and have control of our Military. They have an Endgame in sight and they don't need the support of Hollywood or the "Intellectual Peacenik" mis-educated youth to meet their agenda.

The PNAC is also in a position of power for at least 2.5 more years.

Alot can be done in 2.5 years.

Interesting article by Kagan:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/kagan-20020520.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 1:26 PM

Note: To everyone, actually... Please read the article in the thread 'Politics is a Disease', it may help shed some light on what we're doing on these threads ( that is, if you haven't already read it, of course).

Too stoopid to drag the link here Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 1:42 PM

PIRATEJENNY

Quote:
Your post saddens me because it sounds like you've come to believe the misrepresentations so prevelant in the MSM and others. I can understand it though, they have been repeated so many times.

I ask you to questions the assertions, look for the canards, and not to give up hope. The US is a force for good in the world, President Bush is an honest man, and removing Saddam was the right thing to do regardless of the steady drumbeat of the naysayers pounding away.

I am not giving up.

Andrew Lynch

Oh geez...

I commend Connor Flynn for stripping himself of the labels that divide..and realizing he's been a tool, the man is waking up and opening his eyes...that doesn't mean he's giving up

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 5:43 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Just a brief digression up front regarding "China trudging along":

An analysis I heard the other day is that the world is at peak oil production now, and soon it will see a single digit (1 - 9%) but inexorable decline in oil production year to year. (Many data points re regional/continental oil production were given, which is where I got the earlier example that the Middle East has already passed peak oil.)

China, which is trying to ramp up as a dominant world-class manufacturing economy (an end I had previously thought as inevitable), will be caught short and unable to challenge established economies.

OTOH those economies (first world) will fall rapidly into disarray as national and international economic/social structures (those dependent on cheap transportation like export manufacturing, mega-chains and suburbs) implode. (The erstwhile middle class will of course become impoverished.)

So, when it comes to China's ascendancy, the analysis is that China will be too late to become a mfg economy vs oil production, and it will wither before its time.

Specifically re the minutes (DSM), I think it was clearly and consistently expressed that the US DID decide to go to war before evidence, and that intelligence was being slanted to support that conclusion. The reading isn't dependent on interpreting a single word ('fixed'), it's in the entire content of the minutes.

However, there is enough correspondance in this case between the British use of 'fixed' and the American use. To 'fix on' means to target or emphasize, but that's not what was in the minutes. The phrase was 'fix around' - ie fudge.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 11:51 PM

NEUTRINOLAD

The Americans and the British. Two great peoples divided by a common language.
Or something like that.
I found this passagefrom the article interesting,

Quote:
Dearlove’s comments include the intriguing passage noted above, “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” To the president’s critics, the meaning is clear — the WMD intelligence was being faked to support the rationale for intervention.

This passage needs some clarification. Maybe Rycroft or Dearlove could elaborate; by “fixed around” did they mean that intelligence was being falsified or that intelligence and information were being gathered to support the policy?

Either the author is being disingenuous, or he is in dire need of an Anglophile on staff, likely both. It doesn't take Sir Humphrey to explain the idiom "fixed around". Any reasonably intelligent Brit can tell you exactly what that means. Let me give an example that may clarify that meaning.

A judge at the Old Bailey said, "My favorite nephew is to be put on trial for embezzlement. Not to worry, I'm the presiding judge. I'll be sure that the evidence to be admitted is fixed around his alibi."

Hope that makes the meaning clear.

Quote:
There is nothing wrong with the latter — it is the purpose of the intelligence community to provide the information decision-makers need, and the marshal their resources accordingly.

But if Dearlove meant the former, he should be called upon to substantiate his charge.

Hate to be pedantic, but Dearlove never charged anyone with anything, he simply took a note.

It is interesting that so many analysts involved directly with analysis of the available intelligence, and subsequent verification, say that they did not, and know of no one in the community who did, support the assertions the administration made to justify war. Like this fellow,for instance,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml

Finally, is anyone else disturbed by the fact that we clearly engaged in warfare, yet never declared war? Shouldn't we demand that our government obey its own laws? Isn't this what is meant by, "A nation of laws not men"?
And no, I consider it acceptable for the Congress to abdicate their responsibilities by a trick of legislative sophistry.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2005 2:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Finally, is anyone else disturbed by the fact that we clearly engaged in warfare, yet never declared war? Shouldn't we demand that our government obey its own laws? Isn't this what is meant by, "A nation of laws not men"?
And no, I consider it acceptable for the Congress to abdicate their responsibilities by a trick of legislative sophistry.

"Technically", we were still at war, just under a "ceasefire", so there reallyw as no need to "Declare War" again. All "laws" were followed.

As for the memo, which I have elaborated on in my own way above, by showing how it makes sense because our government's foreign policy is is controlled by PNAC.

"Fixed", "Planned", "Manipulated", any way you want to word it, it still doesn't show anyone anything that wasn't already out there in the open for the world to see if they wanted to. That's why I call it horseshit.

RUE- I tend to disagree with the analysis that the world is about to fall apart once "Oil Production" declines. There are untapped resources around the world. Some of which we know about and some of which we don't. Big Oil won't stop until they've found and exploited every last one LOL. So I wouldn't worry about an OIl decline for ours or the next 2 or 3 generations life times anyhow. LOL

Right now the US reserves, I believe are at almost maximum capacity which blows my mind. This whole oil crisis is not so much about the oil, but the refineries. They (Big Oil-aka Big Business and Big Government), play it off like it's an oil crisis so they can continue to make Trillions of $'s. They (our government) have just recently approved the construction of a new refinery. This is something that takes decades to accomplish. Right now I believe we have 2 major refineries in the US..and hopefully the 3rd will come online by 2009.

China on the other hand IS going to become a MAJOR economic power in the world.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2005 6:53 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The memo belongs in context. The meeting took place and the memo written July 2002, well before UNMOVIC entered Iraq in November 2002, and obviously well before the UN had a chance to determine if Saddam was in substantial compliance with UN resolutions. Why couldn't Bush wait another three weeks to see if his dire assessment was true? The reason is simple- if Blix had been allowed to complete his report, it would have removed Bush's excuse for war.

In early 2001, both Rice and Powell declared that Iraq had no WMD. www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm (Just google_ iraq wmd 2001_ for a quick review of how NOT a problem it was) but the day after 9/11 Rumsfeld apparently pressed for an invasion of Iraq (according to Richard Clarke) and by May 2002 the US and UK increased their bombing rate apparently to degrade surface to air defenses, although the madate was only for bombing in "self defense". http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/UK_and_U.S._bombing_raids_against_Iraq_inc
reased_in_2002

Beginning about September 2002, Bush and the rest of his administration publicly began pounding the WMD drumbeat www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html becoming more insistent and horrific with time until we began hearing about mushroom clouds and huge stockpiles and WMD deployed around Baghdad and Tikrit (It was the orchestrated ramp up in rhetoric that clued me in to what was going on) until the national hysteria reached a fever pitch and nobody could even think of waiting for the UNMOVIC assessment.

It was all planned beforehand, and Bush lied.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2005 4:45 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey ConnorFlynn

http://www2.exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/outlook04_18.pdf

If you look at the chart, non-OPEC producers appear to peak for crude and condensate around 2011 - 2012, all OPEC and world natural gas liquids appear to plateau around 2015. "Non-OPEC production is expected to peak in the next 10 years or so, with 70% of production from seven areas: Russia, the U.S., the North Sea, Mexico, Canada, China and Brazil."

OTOH, with production plateaued, if I read the charts right total oil demand will grow from ~ 70MBD to ~145MBD by 2030, with transportation between 60% (developing) and 70% (developed) of total demand. http://www.exxonmobil.co.uk/files/pa/uk/energy_outlook2004_10.pdf

Transportation is the single largest demand: " http://www.exxonmobil.co.uk/UK-English/Newsroom/UK_NR_Speech_EO_150904
.asp As shown here, transportation end uses remain the primary use of oil and over time we expect a greater portion of the oil barrel to be used in the transportation sector."

Even though there is an extended discussion of oil and other reserves (tar sands, shale, deep water reserves), the end result is that ExxonMobil does not project large-scale recovery of those sources through 2030.

Rue

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 2:42 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

AJ,

Read the link. Talk about canards, that website presents and promotes on party lines. But none the less I was inspired so I signed the following:

http://johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/index.asp?Type=SUPERFORMS&SEC=%7
BFE949152-0CA1-4DC6-827B-B79533E7FE75%7D

Thanks. Any one interested just cut and paste the link.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 11, 2005 12:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Hey, if you honestly believe that the President lied and manipulated the US into the war with Saddam Hussein, then I'd say you are honor bound to sign the petition. More power to you.

I still do not believe it myself so I won't be signing but don't hesitate to do so yourself.

Personally, I think its political suicide to call for impeachment since many of the same democrats also supported the war resolution and at least didn't object strongly when President Clinton did similiarly for Desert Fox.

Let the games begin!

Andrew Lynch

I have to agree with you there. Impeaching the president would be a foolish gesture at best. There's no way the Dem's could actually remove him from office. It would only further polarize the electorate and would mostly likely become another circus of irrelevant bickering.

The Republican's tried such nonsense with Clinton. What good did it do? All it served to do was cause hatred and anguish on both sides over whether the president got his dick sucked or not. Granted, the accusations against Bush are bit more serious, but I doubt any kind of impeachment would deal with them in a substantial way. They'd focus on gimmicky emphemora, like the Downing Street Memo - it'd basically be a big television commercial.

The end result of the Clinton impeachment fiasco was a neutered presidency. It actually interfered with his ability to use his presidential power properly. It, arguably, interered with his ability to deal with the people and situations that led to 9/11. As badly as I want to see Bush and his goons out of office, I see no reason to make the same mistake again.

It seems to me the better course of action, for those of us who don't like where the president is taking us, is to try to wake people up. The fear and insecurity sparked by 9/11 are just now beginning to fade. If democracy is to work at all, people must be aware as a bare minimum.

From my personal experiency, most of the Bush supporters I've met don't even really have a clear picture of what he's been up to, much less where he's going. And I'm not saying they're stupid, just that the emotional appeal of the Bush message overwhelms their clarity. Nationalism is a powerful thing.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 11, 2005 2:09 PM

NEUTRINOLAD

Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
"Technically", we were still at war, just under a "ceasefire", so there reallyw as no need to "Declare War" again. All "laws" were followed.

Pardon me, but I think you may be incorrect on this point.I believe you'll find that the U.S. Congress has declared war on eleven occasions:

- War of 1812, against the U.K.
- Mexican-American War, against Mexico
- Spanish-American War, against Spain
- World War I, against Germany
- World War I, against Austria-Hungary
- World War II, against Japan
- World War II, against Germany
- World War II, against Italy
- World War II, against Bulgaria
- World War II, against Hungary
- World War II, against Romania (darn you, Axis minor allies)

And I think that's it.

Maybe being invited in by one recognized side in a local conflict, such as the former Yugoslavia, or Vietnam, is legal, maybe.
Maybe you get a pass for quelling insurrection, as Lincoln did, okay, there's some Consitutional support for that, although I'm not real comfortable with it.
But invading a country with the purpose of toppling a government long recognized, to say nothing of aided by, the U.S.?
No, sorry, that dog won't hunt.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 11, 2005 4:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
"Technically", we were still at war, just under a "ceasefire", so there reallyw as no need to "Declare War" again. All "laws" were followed.

Pardon me, but I think you may be incorrect on this point.I believe you'll find that the U.S. Congress has declared war on eleven occasions:

- War of 1812, against the U.K.
- Mexican-American War, against Mexico
- Spanish-American War, against Spain
- World War I, against Germany
- World War I, against Austria-Hungary
- World War II, against Japan
- World War II, against Germany
- World War II, against Italy
- World War II, against Bulgaria
- World War II, against Hungary
- World War II, against Romania (darn you, Axis minor allies)

And I think that's it.

Maybe being invited in by one recognized side in a local conflict, such as the former Yugoslavia, or Vietnam, is legal, maybe.
Maybe you get a pass for quelling insurrection, as Lincoln did, okay, there's some Consitutional support for that, although I'm not real comfortable with it.
But invading a country with the purpose of toppling a government long recognized, to say nothing of aided by, the U.S.?
No, sorry, that dog won't hunt.

Neutrino - I think You are focusing on the wrong points here. The US congress formally authorized Military action against Iraq (see below).

We were still "Technically" at "War" with Iraq, just under a conditional "ceasefire" with Iraq.

This is what drives me crazy. People spend more time worrying about whether it was " Legal" or "Not Legal" and play the word game. It muddies the water too much. No wonder we all get so freaking confused. The debates become more about Rhetoric than about facts.

Timeline from first "War with Iraq":

Nov 29, 1990 UN Security Council authorizes force if Iraq doesnt withdraw from Kuwait by midnight EST Janu. 15.
Nov 30, 1990 Bush invites Tariq Aziz to Washington and offers to send Secretary of State James Baker to Baghdad.
Jan 9, 1991 Baker and Aziz meet in Geneva. The meeting is 6 hrs, but no results.
Jan 12, 1991 Congress votes to allow for US troops to be used in offensive operations.
Jan 15, 1991 The deadline set by the UN Resolution 678 for Iraq to withdraw.
Jan 16, 1991 First US government statement of Operation Desert-Storm made.
Marlin Fitzwater announces, "The liberation of Kuwait has begun..."

The air war started Jan 17 at 2:38 a.m. (local time) or January 16 at 6:38PM EST due to an 8 hour time difference, with an Apache helicopter attack.

US warplanes attack Baghdad, Kuwait and other military targets in Iraq.

Jan 17, 1991 Iraq launches first SCUD Missle attack.
Jan 30, 1991 US forces in the Gulf exceed 500,000.
Feb 6, 1991 Jordan King Hussein lashes out against American bombardments and supports Iraq.
Feb 13, 1991 US Bombers destroy a bunker complex in Baghdad with several hundred citizens inside. Nearly 300 die.
Feb 17, 1991 Tariq Aziz travels to Moscow to discuss possible negotiated end to the war.
Feb 22, 1991 President Bush issues an ultimatum of Feb 23 for Iraqi troops to withdraw from Kuwait.
Feb 23, 1991 Ground war begins with Marines, Army and Arab forces moving into Iraq and Kuwait.
Feb 25, 1991 Iraqi SCUD missle hits a US barracks in Saudi Arabia killing 27.
Feb 26, 1991 Kuwaiti resistence leaders declare they are in control of Kuwait City.
Feb 27, 1991 President Bush orders a cease fire effective at midnight Kuwaiti time.
Mar 3, 1991 Iraqi leaders formally accept cease fire terms
Mar 4, 1991 Ten Allied POWs freed
Mar 5, 1991 35 POWs released
Mar 8, 1991 First US combat forces return home.

I'm more concerned about the motives and less about whether or not the Politicians used the proper verbage.

Now you may say we didn't "Officially" Declare war in '91 because Congress didn't have every politician sign a piece of paper saying "Hey we are at war!". However, it's bullshit. When you have over 500,000 troops actively participating in miltary action in a specific region, that my friend = a full on war which never ended, but was in a state of ceasefire, tenuous at best.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 11, 2005 5:19 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Jan 12, 1991 Congress votes to allow for US troops to be used in offensive operations.
Now you may say we didn't "Officially" Declare war in '91 because Congress didn't have every politician sign a piece of paper saying "Hey we are at war!". However, it's bullshit.

So is declaring war a 'mere' legal formality?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 12, 2005 1:11 AM