Religion has nothing to do with it. Fanaticism at its best. None of the Holy books condone murder, and all condemn it. "Religion" is just a title to these bastages. >

Paxx..you are correct about the "French" thing...but I have to disagree with you about your long term assesment of the middle east.

It is true...the problems are just begining. But to say that Democracy is "impossible" in that region is simply not true. If they give up hope, if they decide to not take control themselves, if the general public lies down and takes it...then I would agree. But I have a greater respect for humanity and it's abilities to deal with oppression. How many countless dictators have been taken down, if not by the public then by other dictators, and have lost the long-term battle for control. People have stated your point of view in regards to many other situations. Change is inevitable. Change is the only constant. Things have been oppressive there too long. Don't underestimate the people there. They are not stuiped. They are certainly passionate about thier beliefs. Good or bad. There may (will?) be a significant amount of bloodshed...but that is nothing new either.

I really don't know if it was right for the US to go in there and stir things up. Typically it gets worse before it gets better. The one thing I do know is that now we're there and we better not bail and run after what we've started. We may not be able to finish it, but we better make damn sure we don't go until we've given all we can to make it a peaceful, democratic place. However, it is ultimatly up to the people of a nation to decide how that nation will turn out.

Now, if I could just learn to spell.

Thanks for the memories (Saddam Flash video)
http://www.politrix.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=434&mode=&order=0&thold=0

If america wasn't there in the first place these people wouldn't have been killed.

our people are over there fighting and dying because they joined the military, because they knew that being in a war meant you ran a risk of fighting and dying. the hundreds of thousands of innocent people suffereing in iraq did not have a choice to die. they died because some people in power wanted to get their kicks, or because of their ethnicity. sure, if you kept in line and didn't speak out of turn, you weren't 'dissapeared'. but it wouldn't stop you from being randomly ed for rape or for-fun murder, living in fear day to day.

people have a right to live and to be free. sure, their miseries may have been none of our buisness. sure, we went to war falsely. but you will not make me believe the war is not, in the end, worth while. that entire area (the middle east) is just waiting to expload. people fight people for the most rediculous reasons.

oh look, we have a chance to participate in a government, and have our goals and aims shared with other people freely - so lets BOMB the new government and ruin everything they are trying to do, so we can spawn chaos and more death.

does it sound like those people would ever get their act together and run a free, peaceful coutnry? no. these countries and provences would war each other till the end of time, and their fight would spread across other countrys and into other continents. these people fight because they HAVE NO AIMS. they simply want to destroy things because they beleive their god will reward them for murder. Fixing iraq is one large step towards stabalizing the area. even if that's a small benefit behind stuffing our faces with oil, it is something that has to be done.

when iraq emerges from this as a civilized and stable country, with its oil making it as wealthy as Saudi Arabia, it will be symbol of muslum pride in the mid east that will shine like nothing before. afganistan is already on its way to being a good country. why? because they have gotten a hold of security and are rebuilding a country that has been war ravaged for years. simply seeing that country working towards a better future makes it a better place then it was before, and makes it a symbol of what civilized, democratic choices can do. and it's one less place you have to worry about exploading later. its peace and security will spread in time.

as for our government being responsible for the loss of life... you can't blame anyone for their decision to be there but the soldiers. and they made that decision because they believed in something. so while you're sitting here in a peaceful area, listening to your mtv and playing on your computer, don't think for a second that ANY OF YOU know what these people are thinking, or believe that you know they are dying in vain. they are the ones who know. and if they didnt want to do it, they would leave. so support their decision to fight, and die, for the chance of making a better world, instead of mocking their sacrifice.


>

I can understand your thinking Paxx, but if that type of thinking prevailed in past conflict, the US would have never attacked imperial Japan. We wouldn’t have wanted to destabilize it. Sounds ridiculous right? It’s not far off in analogy.

After all, the people of Japan were all savages who could never live peacefully in a civilized society weren’t they? How could the savage Japanese become part of the international community? How could the Imperial Japan that once rampaged across Asia, and inevitably exported their violence to the Pacific coast on Dec 7 1941 a day which will live in infamy, become civilized? If the Paxx thinking prevailed, Japan, a nation that once trained its pilots to go on suicide missions against American military targets, could never have joined the international community, because they were all savages.

We could go on with the analogy the world should have left Adolph Hitler in power because after all, Nazi Germany was stable. The US, Britain, Russians, and a few others could have just lain around as a whole world blackened with Nazism and fascism because to fight it would have only destabilized everything. Unless you believe Hussein was not a threat, this is a valid analogy.

And why should Lincoln have destabilized America to free the slaves? He pitted brother against brother, and as a result 600,000 men died in battle during the bloodiest war in American history, but as history has proven, Lincoln was right, FDR was right, Truman was right, and I believe Bush is right.

Saddam Hussein was a threat. All indications from the first world trade bombing implicate Iraq in that plot. It is no coincidence that one of the first WTC bombers was an Iraqi cousin of Khalid sheik Muhammad, the Al Qaeda mastermind of the sept 11th attack. And one of the Iraqi bombers from the 1993 WTC attack fled back to Iraq where he received sanctuary from prosecution.

Saddam Hussein openly celebrated the sept 11th attack, and he was a sworn enemy of the United States. And In a post sept 11th world, he was a liability that we could not afford. After listening to first hand accounts of what happened on Sept 11th from my sister (who was at the scene) and others, I would have approved of Hussein’s removal just for the suspicion of his complicity in the attack.

Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait as mercilessly as Hitler invaded Poland. He gassed his own people who were indigenous to his own nation. Hussein possessed the same qualities of the Spaniards, who brutalized and murdered those who were indigenous to Spain.

The Moors lived peacefully in Spain for centuries. A day came when the fanatical and racially motivated Spaniards decided that the Moor no longer welcome. In short, the Spaniards were willing to brutalize their own people, so it was no surprise when they were willing to export their brutality in a much more virulent form. That is a phenomenon seen with Stalin, Hitler, and Hussein. Look at the pictures of the people recovering remains from Hussein’s mass graves and then ask yourself if that is just political rhetoric. The people claiming the bones of their loved ones will never forget Hussein’s brutality.

The US must prevail in Iraq, there is no other option. This is not Vietnam, where the US had the luxury of withdrawal. The Viet Cong had no interest in exporting their violence to American shores, the Islamo-Facists do.

The region has exploded in waves of car bombings and killings. Zarqawi is the key, he is a veteran of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and he is responsible for the organized attacks in this region. If they can kill or capture him and members of his network, they can begin to get this violence under manageable control and give the future of humanity a stable, non threatening Iraq.

Democracy is impossible in that region

Funny how Turkey which was the Ottoman Empire prior to WWI is now a democracy with a muslim population.

54% of Americans think so too now.

The American public is fickled, polls came be made to say whatever you want them to say, it's a numbers game and no one asked me my opinion and last time I checked I was still an American

Al Jazeera. They are no better than CNN, but certainly no worse

I agree 100 percent. All televsion media is biased.

what chemical weapons are found in iraq? NONE

I suppose Sarin and Mustard Gas are new salad dressings offered at the local Iraqi Burger King.

Bush has nuclear weapons...Bush has biological weapons

America has not used an atomic weapon against another country in over 50 years. Ask the Kurds and the Iranians about Saddam's use of chemical weapons or were those daisies he was carelessly tossing about.

so they just attacked. Even while the UN told them not to do so.

Can't remember when the UN became the all powerful world government. Didn't see it on the last ballot, during the last election.

He didn't get his power in the 'right way', he wasn't fairly elected by the people... (hint: florida)

Gore didn't get elected because he lost Tennessee. The mess down in Florida was straighten out by the US Judicial system and the American people don't elected the president the Electoral College does. Bush didn't win the popular vote and he wasn't the first elected US president not to win the popular vote.

So saddam killed people that didn't listen to him... as far as I remember bush is also killing people that didn't listen to him.

If that was the case why's Michael Moore still kicking. How long do you think an Iraqi version of Michael Moore would've lasted in Saddam's Iraq?

We all have this pro-american view on the things that happen there but if you go down to iraq you wont see the people celebrating, this is just a view that is created.

If I have a Pro-American view, probably 'cause I'm an American, kind of goes with the territory. Since I haven't been down to Iraq to see or not see people celebrating, I unfortunately have to rely on what the news media shows. Last time I looked all the news media was showing was car bombings, beheadings, air-strikes, terrorism, etc. My gut feeling is that if I was in that situation, I'd be with my head down low and moving, definitely wouldn't be dancing in the streets. I'm betting that most Iraqis are celebrating either.

This is my view and as much as you believe your view is right, I believe mine is right.

I don't believe my view is right....I just what I believe or know.

starting a war becuase you want to get rid of Saddam is rediculouse.

I agree with you there, we should've taken him out during the first war, when we had better international support, I mean German and French government support.

Speaking of the French Government....George Bush has proposed to the UN that we fund educating the 20 million illerate/uneducated people in that region. Train teachers, rebuild a fair judicial system, just some of the stuff that was not on the top of Saddam's Hit Parade. Three countries voted against it. Egypt, Iran and France. I easily understand Egypt and Iran, because a truly democratic Iraq, with an educated and free population is a threat to upheaval in their countrys, which are basically dictatorships. France you have to dig a little deeper to figure out why that government voted against this.....

Anthony R, why don't you tell Paxx what agency helped Saddam
to power through a very bloody coup back in the 60's?

While you are at it, maybe also tell Paxx that even the
FBI have admitted that they still "don't know" who the
"terrorists" behind 9/11 were?

That seven(7) of the 19 persons the FBI put up as
"suspects" of the 9/11 attack were found to be alive
and well in other parts of the world and not having
anything whatsoever to do with "terrorism"?

Isn't it strange that the FBI never bothered to revise their
list at least after the fact that Müller himself said that
they have no idea who the perpetrators were since they
all "probably used stolen or faked passports"?

And isn't it strange that the airlines passenger lists
didn't have any of the 19 names on them?

Now, if the 19 "suspected terrorists" never were real,
how could the government link them to "al-Qaeda" only
hours after the "attack".

Something for you all to read while pondering the questions...

From "The National Security Archive"

Operation Northwoods

"Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake "Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington," including "sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated)," faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a "Remember the Maine" incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods "may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.""

Download the pdf of the original documents at the link at the bottom
of the page saying:
"Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba [includes cover memoranda], March 13, 1962, TOP SECRET, 15 pp."
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

Then you just need to decide if you will "take the red pill or the blue pill" so to speak.



[Message Edited]

shamefull, regrettable, howeveR: that is like throwing someone in jail because they were thinking the thought of killing someone.

You mean like starting a war on another country because the "may do something bad"?

northwoods, luckily, never happened .. and for that, you can't use that in an arguement.

Operation Northwoods was scrapped because the president back then, JFK,
got wind of it and exposed the plot.

From ABC News article:

Friendly Fire
Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba

"America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.""

""The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants.""
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html


The reason I brought up Operation Northwoods was the similarities
between then and now.

In 1962 the "top brass" wanted a Remember the Maine" incident to
fool the American people into supporting an attack on Cuba.

In 2000 the blueprint "Rebuilding America's Defenses" was finished
by the group of people of whom many are now found IN the Bush administration.

The group goes by the name "PNAC" or "Project For The New American Century".

"PNAC" was formed back in 1997 and includes "security
advisors" going back to Nixon, characters from Iran-Contra,
the so called "Drug Wars", "Christian Values" groups, Jewish
and Israeli lobbyists. It features heads of Lockheed, Boeing,
and other military suppliers and contractors.
Included are senior editors of the major "right-leaning"
publications, as well as current staffers of the Bush administration
(including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz)."

PNAC completed the blueprint "Rebuilding America's Defenses"
in 2000 (before "W" was made "president"). It explains what
THEY wanted done in order to ensure what they call
"U.S. global domination".

"Rebuilding America's Defenses" was ordered by Dick Cheney,
Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush (yeah, George's brother,
also guvernor in FL) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's "chief of staff"):

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Among other things, you will find that they urge development of
"advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes"
and which "may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror
to a politically useful tool."

(This must mean that they give green light for the rest of the world
to bomb Washington DC in order to catch the Bush administration
"dead or alive", no?)

In the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" blueprint you will also find
"pre-emptive strikes", military presence in Gulf, "anti-terrorist" plans,
making up new useful "enemies" like North Korea, Iran, Syria etc. etc.

So far Bush's "big bully" policies are based almost verbatim
on the "policies" drawn up by PNAC.

A couple of enlighting links:

*The "New Pearl Harbor" and The Project for the New American Century*
"What was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world's resources, it said, was "some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The attacks of 11 September 2001 provided the "new Pearl Harbor", described as "the opportunity of ages"."
http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759

*Iraq 'regime change' planned before Bush "became" President*
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
(this is the article that put the spotlight on PNAC)

*"Five months before September 11, the US advocated using force against Iraq ... to secure control of its oil. Neil Mackay on the document which casts doubt on the administration"
http://www.sundayherald.com/28224

now, for the suspects.. i don't know where you're getting the fbi 'has no idea who is behind it' because from what i've been following of the 9/11 comission, the fbi has been defending themselves with the substantial evidence of who was communicated by what, and when the dates were that got delayed, and so on.

Yes, isn't it fascinating how they are still trying to spin those stories around and around.
It's like they think that the more times they repeat it the more credible it will become.
Maybe they are right, maybe people are too lazy to pay attention anymore.

Did you notice that they actually don't provide ANY evidence whatsoever on who were "actually"
behind the 9/11 atrocities? What people are told are only the same vague statements about
people who they say are "believed to be" or "suspected to be" or "alleged".

Funny how NORAD and the NRO were practicing "war games" on the morning of 9/11.
Yep, it's true, NORAD and the NRO said they were busy simulating responses
to a scenario in which hijacked planes were crashed into buildings.

Also funny about the audio tapes on which all of the flight controllers and
employees - who were on the job at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center
(ARTCC) in Ronkonkoma, N.Y., during the World Trade Center attacks -
"gathered several hours after to recall their version of events."

That tape, "which could have helped determine how the agency responded to clues
that four planes had been "hijacked", was destroyed before it was ever heard."

"In fact, officials at the ARTCC were never even told of the tape's existence. According to the report given to the 9/11 Commission by Department of Transportation Inspector General Kenneth Mead, the audiotape was crushed in the hand of the unnamed FAA employee, then cut into small pieces and tossed into different trash cans around the ARTCC building."
The 9/11 USAF Stand Down
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911stand.html

Some other interesting links:

Stand Down
http://standdown.net/

NEW Marrs' book on 9-11 Findings Burgeoning Citizens' Movement: "Official Story is Dead"
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/06/291284.shtml



[Message Edited]

Forgive me...I'm not going to get wrapped up in this. You all are entitled to your opinion and you are all allowed to post it here assuming an Admin doesn't say differantly. I, however, will not post in this thread again. Or the one about the Moore film. Enjoy yourselves. I'm usually real good about thinking before I post...but I got ahaed of myself.
[Message Edited]

just as many children have to trust the molester they are left in care of...


before anyone go spastic I am not calling anyone in this or any administration a child molester.
but the fact remains that if you ask any parent who is not party to such an act will almost always claim at first "I never saw anything to give me the idea they would do such a thing, or, I could never imagine anyone would do this to a child". but in time they will admit there where in fact signs which they did see, but ignored or did not take into deep enough consideration.

it is how people get away with things...

and no one wants to admit being party, even an inactive one, to such a thing.

people do need to think, they need to listen, read, see and not only that they need to come to their own conslusions.


[Message Edited]

Citizen ToeJo:
You are forgiven
I know myself how easy it can be to say things one later
regret when speaking in anger.


MGiff:

The "quotes" from lilstarfish (and I'm in NO way being critical of lilstarfish) sound like the underground conspiracy theories that we get a whiff of on occasion.

No worries MGiff
I completely agree that some of the stuff is quite hard
to swallow. Hadn't it been necessary I would probably have
taken the comfortable path and "taken the blue pill"
to stay in my old belief of how "things are".

The only advice I can give is to pay attention to
what is going on and also do a little "research" if you
would find that some things "don't feel right" or "odd".

One of my current "heroes" is the 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani
who have been struggling to get the administration to
answer the flaws in the "official" version of what happened on 9/11.
9/11 widow speaks in Rockland
http://rockland.villagesoup.com/Community/Story.cfm?StoryID=22231
911 Victim’s Wife Files RICO Case Against GW Bush
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0311/S00261.htm
Widow's Bush Treason Suit Vanishes in Blink of Media Eye
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0312/S00040.htm
911forthetruth.com
http://www.911forthetruth.com/

DesignCaddy:

you're spinning so much bullshit, star, it just just isn't worth going one by one through it all to dispell the peices.

Well, if that is how you want to feel about it I guess I can't
do much about it. I'm just sorry you feel it's better to attack
ME than the issues which are quite real and very important.



[Message Edited]

Its insane to compare hitler with saddam... last time I checked saddam didn't kill 6 MILLION PEOPLE!

I really don't care how you americans run your country but understand, that is YOUR country. America should stop acting like it is "the big mighty country that will fix it all". The people living in Iraq didn't ask for the war...

And again, the war was no good. Saying "yeah, but atleast saddam is away, inocent people died because of him" is another lame excuse.

In africa there are 11.000 children starving every day. Every day there die 11000 children because of hunger!!
I am not even a little bit better then you guys, I am not getting my lazy ass down there to do something about it, but while you americans are giving 167 billion dollar away just to simply 'free the country from saddam', you could also have used the money to help the childrens in africa....

This is just an example, but really, I don't care. I just can't stand people that are so certain about their opinion that they just will believe or dis-believe everything they hear...

Really, find someone who believes the earth is only 6000 years old and try to convince him, you will see how irritating it is.

But as I said, I don't care and I am not going to convince you of my opinion, simply because I can't. I am just here for the flame wars

No, I'm not a democrat or a republican. I'm just a guy who's tired of the bullshit. Am I the only one who has a problem with the fact that Bush has gone on record saying: "There ought to be limits to freedom"?

But okay, other question, who believes bush is indeed a good president? And while you are at it, give me some reasons why he is a good president...