super_jayhawk: Misogynistic People I'm Sorry To Know

Super Jayhawk (

super_jayhawk) wrote,
@ 2003-03-19 02:42:00

Current mood:

pissed off

Misogynistic People I'm Sorry To Know
I just had to post a response to this in my LiveJournal tonight from someone I know who, well, I've known for quite some time, but didn't realize was quite the pro-war ignoramus that I thougth he was. His original comments are at http://www.livejournal.com/users/eakinj, at 5:57pm on Tuesday March 18, 2003, on the eve of our nation's preaparations of an unjustifiable war.

Like most right-wing regimes, he does not allow any comments in his posts, so I'm posting a reponse in mine, as follows.

Subject : Jerry, get a clue.
Response to : eakinj's LJ Entry on Tuesday, March 18th, 2003 5:57 pm.

Jerry, I try not to read your LiveJournal because I find it disturbing.
I generally try not to even respond to your comments because while it's
hard to squick me out, I have to take exception to your Limbaugh-esque
commentary on Tuesday March 18, 5:57pm.

Since you don't seem to encourage discourse or differing opinion on most
of your posts, I'm responding to a previous entry, but this one is
intended for a previous LJ comment of yours. Of course, you don't
allow me to even post there, so I'm going to E-mail this to you and
then splatter it all over my LiveJournal with a vengeance.

I am willing to let many things slide, Jerry, but this is something that
deeply needs clarification in such dark times for our nation.

>I mean really, all he did was butcher how many millions of people?
>how man jews? How many people were >tortured, how many people where
>experimented on?
>I suppose we should have sat with our thumbs in our ass there too?

Actually, Jerry, we as a nation DID sit with our thumbs in our ass, from
1938 to 1941. We pretty much let the Nazis rape, maim, torture, and wipe
entire towns off of the map. It wasn't until Roosevelt (DEMOCRAT)
actually got us into World War II because he dared the Japanese
to bomb Pearl Harbor, which they did.

If you go read some history books, you will find that the Republicans at
the time argued against even screwing with Hitler, or trying to stop
him. Most of the reports of maim, torture, death camps and "ethnic
cleansing" were entirely disbelieved as being too outlandish, too
impossible to ever happen.If you take some time to research this you'll
find the world looked the other way for much of WW II.

>Pro-"peace" is generally pro-murder. Most of the people protesting are
>doing it against bush, not because of war.

Oh, so killing people is not murder, but trying not to kill people isn't
murder? In the words of George Orwell, Freedom is slavery. While Saddam
is an evil dictator that does really nasty things is definitely true, we
have about 50 countries that have that problem. Should we invade them
all?

Even people that were willing to line up behind Bush after 9/11 are asking
questions, Jerry. Our own people, and people around the world are asking
whether it's right to perpretrate an unprovoked invasion against the will
of the majority of our own people.

>I find it amusing how people always say 'no blood for oil' yet they
>ignore the hundreds and hundreds of facts about crimes against his own
>people. They ignore the survivors who fled Iraq. The ignore the man who
>designed many of their torture devices including one that rains acid on
the captives.

Yes, and guess what, Jerry, we as the United States under Bush I
supplied the chemicals, the gas, the Weapons of Mass Desctruction (WMD)
that made all that possible. Donald Rumsefeld (our current evil
Secretary of Defense) delivered such things personally while on a mission
to Iraq in 1988. The Bush administration supplied billions of dollars for
"agricultural loans" to Iraq that they turned around and bought Scud
Missiles, VX Nerve Gas and yes, you guessed it, Weapons of Mass
Destruction. Because the whole Reagan/Bush policy was to try to destroy
Iran, we gave Saddam whatever he wanted.

If you stop and look at it, Jerry, we as a nation have done some pretty
terrible things in the name of propping up American interests and backing
brutal dictators in the name of fighting Communism, usually with evil
dictators that use rape, murder, torture and things that would make Hitler
proud. The list is a long one... Somoza, Marcos, Charles Taylor, Saddam,
Mobutu Sese Seko, Mussaraf, Botha, Pinochet, the list goes on. This is
because of the "Reagan Doctrine" we as a nation suffered from where we
basically said, if they're not Communist, we'll look the other way and
give them lots of cash to oppress their people.

Does this make it right? Absolutely not. But we need to fix our own
behavior before we think we can go out and beat other nations into
behaving correctly.

>It's funn how NONE of those people protested Clinton bombin iraq in 98.
>Oh but it's different because it's a republican. FUCK YOU.

Gee, Jerry, there's a BIG difference between bombing because they expelled
the UN inspectors (1998) and invading their whole country and killing
countless hundreds of thousands because you want their oil. America as a
nation is not in the business of invading countries to pillage their
natural resources, until we had Dictator Bush take over in a political
coup over two years ago. Also, please observe, there's a BIG difference
between doing things with UN approval (which Clinton did in 1998) and
doing things without permission from the entire world community (like
Generalissimo Bush is doing now).

>You chicken shit fucking idiots. Stop playing politics and actually LOOK
>at the facts. LISTEN to the people who are suffering.

>By saying we're doing something wrong in iraq right now, is EXACTLY like
>saying we should have done nothing in Europe when 6 million jews were
>slaughtered. It is EXACTLY like saying that the people who were living
>under oppression in Afganistan should STILL be suffering under the
>talaban.

Gee, Jerry, you bring up a good point there. Bush FORGOT to include any
funding for rebuilding Afghanistan after we trashed it in 2001 for this
year. This has Afghantaistan President Hamid Karzai out with his hat in
hand asking for funding before warlords, or worse yet, the Taliban (not
"talaban", Jerry... get a spell checker god damn it!) take the whole
country back over again. We did a shoddy job of rebuilding Afghanistan
after we "liberated it", what makes you think we'll do any better with
Iraq, once we piss off the entire Arabic world and have to deal with 7
different ethnic warring tribes? America as nation is not ready to deal
with that at all.

The funny thing about most ultraconservate right-wing sons-of-bitches is
that most of them didn't give a rat's ass about Saddam or any of the
things he was doing to his own people before our illegitimate so-called
President rolled out his new initiative to take out Saddam after Labor Day
weekend last year. Were YOU thinking about Iraq last summer? I bet
not. Here's a shocking relevation for you, Jerry, Saddam has been there
for over 20 years and Reagan and Bush both pretty much helped him get
where he was. The only reason that Bush now is pounding the War like he
is is because people like you, me, and Brad can't find jobs, and the
economy sucks. He knows that,and he's totally unable to deal with it, or
help in a way that Presidents are generally supposed to care. Rather than
give a crap about your situation, he's doing a big call to arms to take
the nation's mind off of the economic misery that we're currently mired
in.

Hitler did this once, too, in 1938. A German foreign minister under
Gerhard Schroeder even said this, and was forced to resign from her post
for saying it, but it doesn't mean it's not true. Nations, and tribes
before them have often resorted to war to take their minds off of the
problems at home. Kind of like going and beating up someone weaker than
you when you feel inadequate about yourself.

>By saying we're doing something wrong in iraq right now, is EXACTLY like
>saying we should have done nothing in Europe when 6 million jews were
>slaughtered. It is EXACTLY like saying that the people who were living
>under oppression in Afganistan should STILL be suffering under the
>talaban.

The Taliban took over Afghanistan in the 80's, Jerry, and put in an iron
rule that oppressed their people. Did YOU give a crap about who the
Taliban, or even know who they were before 9/11? Did Bush?
Probably not, most of the world ignored Afghanistan before then, and so
especially did our country. Is it right, or even just, to slaughter
millions of innocent people just because their nation is the Target de
Jour? Bush sets a dangerous precendent here... 2001, we invade
Afghanistan... 2003, we invade Iraq.. who next? Do you think the
world community will sit aside while we invade and take over whoever we
want? Under George Fucking W Prick-Ass Bush, we're acting like a little
kid that picks fights with everyone on the playground, and that's not what
America does. We finish wars, we don't start them.

Remember, Jerry, when you hear the Bushies cry, "He's gassed his own
people for crying out loud!", that it was George Bush the First that gave
him the gas cannisters to do gas 100,000 Kurdish rebels.

>Perhaps if the Democrat who was in office for 8 years had used it balls
>for something then pushing sperm on an intern we wouldn't be facing this
>issue now.

Perhaps, Jerry, if George Bush the First hadn't called off his troops when
they were "9 miles from Bhagdad" and told them to retreat and stand down,
we wouldn't be in this situation either. Schwarzkopf and his boys were
ready to take Iraq and kick Saddam's ass, and Daddy Bush told them to stop
and stand down, and walk away. Remember that. Schwarzkopf was so pissed
that he protested, and when he was told to shut up, retired outright. You
don't see him speaking out in favor of this pseudo-war, do you?

There's far too much attention given to the whole Clinton-Lewinsky affair
as a justification for the evil Republicans to destroy the world, take
away our rights, commit fraud and corporate scandal, and destroy the
international structures (NATO, the UN, the G-7) that have provided a
delicate balance of power in the world for the last 55 years. Just
remember, it's better to fuck over one intern than our whole nation.

(And just so you know, Nancy Reagan had an affair in the White House
too... the White House is no stranger to extramarital sex).

>I am so fucking sick to death of fucking petty ass people bitching and
>moaning about what's going on, simple because it's not their president.
>
>Fuck you. you'd better wake up.
>
>The only shame we face is if we do nothing.

Admirable, Jerry. I don't see your ass signed up and out in the Saudi
sand with a rifle in your hand. The fact that we've pursued this war
uniterally without the consent of anyone in the UN, the Security Council,
or even the American people makes it fundamentally wrong.

You believe in it that much? Great. Go sign up, impress me. Just
remember, they'll cut all your hair (facial and cranial) off.

>Fucking people and there "Well lets try this" 12 years. 12 fucking
>years. Iraq is what? 400 miles across? Jesus that's smaller the
>California? And you're telling me it takes 12 years to
>disarm? Bullshit. absolutely bullshit.

Gee, Jerry, for 4 of those years a Bush was in office, and he didn't
bother following up on any sort of disarmanment at all after Gulf War
I. For the first year and a half that George W Shrub was in office, he
didn't even pay attention to Iraq at all. He dind't even roll out his
product line of War until September 2002. Why? Corporate scandals, the
economic collapse, and the evil things that Bush II has been doing are
starting to get noticed! Hey! Look over there! Orange alert! War! War!
Don't look at Bush and Cheney humping Enron and Halliburton execs in
the Lincoln Bedroom!

Does Iraq have (WMD)? Sure. So does Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France,
England, China, N. Korea, and about 50 other nations on the globe. North
Korea even has NUKES! Bush has tried to ignore it, but they could launch
one if they wanted to. Don't you think it's a little odd, really, that
we're completely ignoring a country that actually has REAL nuclear
capability and trying to take down a country that only has imagined
nuclear capabilities?

Oh, wait! North Korea has no oil. Gee, you don't suppose that we'll
dodge a nation that has nukes, but no oil, to go after one that has no
nukes, but lots of oil, and is an easy target, by a Presidential
Administration that's owned by the Oil Industry? Nawww...

Be careful of being told what to think, and who to hate. George Orwell warned us
of this, over 50 years ago.

>What's next? Maybe we should stop hunting down killers. We should let the
>sniper from a few months ago lose and give him his gun and ammo back.
>Why not? It's about as smart and standing still on Iraq.

Reagan and Bush (I) stood still for 11 years on Iraq, Jerry. Does that
make it right? Not really. Does it make it right to piss off the entire
international community by going on a unilteral invasion of another
country without consent from most of the world? Not really.

There is dangerous precedent in a nation deciding it must invade another
nation without consent from the world community. Go look it up in the
history books, Germany invading Poland, the Soviets invading Afghanistan,
and the US invading the Phillippines in the early 20th Century. All three
of these events involved catastrophic destruction, the murder of thousands
of innocent people, and retaliation on a terrible scale, all in the name
of glory and cult-of-personality leaders. What makes you think this time
is any different?

"Liberation." "Invasion.". There's a big difference. Think about it.

>Now don't get me wrong. I hate *ALL* protesters. I hate anti-war pro war,
>anti arotion pro abortion. whatever. I hate protesters of all
>kinds. Sign toting assholes. All of them. Makes no difference what
>side or what cause.

BTW, it's "abortion" that I think you're trying to say here, not
"arotion". SPELLING!

Protesting, Jerry, is what makes America what it is. Do you think
there'd be a 40-hour work week (rather than a 96-hour work week) if
unions and protesters didn't rally and say that they weren't going to
take it any more? There was a time in 19th Century America that Irish
were told, "Irish Need not Apply" for jobs becuase of their race. Do you
think that the employers suddenly decided to be nice and hire them
later? Hell, no. Protests brought it to the forefront and made
oppressive people make deals.

If you were in the same situation, Jerry, where you had to fight to defend
what's yours, for example your way of life, your job or your home being
taken away, you bet your ass you'd be right out there with a picket
sign. Before your systematic disdain for protests of any kind, put
yourself in those people's shoes for a minute and try to understand their
point of view before you hate. Hate, like war, should be a last resort,
not the first option.

>I'm looking forward to the end of this war. I look forward at laughing at
>all the material they find with a french logo on it. Especially the
>chemical compounds.

There will be less material with a French Logo on it than the Ameican Flag
on goods that we sold Iraq from 1981-1991 that we not only sold them, we
financed with some pretty good interest rates. Nerve gas agents,
missiles, the same WMDs that we now accuse Saddam of possessing (well, we
kept the receipts at least). You know why we want to invade first,
before the international community can participate?

So we can hide the evidence. That's important for George W. Shrub as he
tries to get his sorry ass reelected. After all, it looks bad if BushCo
has their logo on the same weapons that he's speaking out so feverishly
against.

I've let you bitch and carp for a long time, Jerry, and I haven'y said a
thing, even if I fundamentally disagreed with it. I've generally
been able to let such things roll of my back. But this Limbaugh-esque
commnentary you offer tonight is over the top, and I think you need to at
least consider a few things...

- Did you give a crap about Iraq before Bush told you to in
September 2002? Think hard, it wasn't that long ago.
- If it was your ass sitting out there in Saudi Arabia in a tent,
would you be that eager to go rushing in and kill thousands of
innocemnt people in the name of Texaco, when they're not going to
give you anything for it?

If you got sick from Deleted Uranium weapons or our own chemical
agents, and got "Gulf War Syndrome", would you be OK that you
did it in the name of the oil industry, even if you were sick
for life like so many Gulf War Veterans now?

- Do you think Bush's war with Iraq will actually help you get a
job, in any way? Presidents are supposed to give at least half
a rat's ass about the economic well-being of their citizenry,
and he isn't doing that at all.

- How many people is it OK to kill just to get their oil?
A thousand? A million?

- If we attack other nations just because we want to, or want their
stuff, without permission from the rest of the world, how does that
make us any better than Saddam, who did that to Kuwait in 1989?
(Or Germany in 1939, the Soviets in 1980, or Japan in 1941).
Don't you think that encourages other nations to misbehave the
same way and take over other countries whenever they want to?

- Do you really think Bush would be trying to do this if the economy
wasn't in the toilet? Then why didn't wait nearly two years before
doing anything about Iraq at all? By that token, he should have
done it the day after he was inagurated in January 2001.
Think about all those oppressed people he turned a blind eye to
during that whole time.

- Do you think the Bushes REALLY give a rat's ass about the
Iraqi people, much less the American people? If that was the case,
wouldn't Daddy Bush have tried to "liberate" Iraq right after he
gassed his own people in 1988? That was 15 years ago, and we've had
six years of Bush opportunities to do something about it then.

Think about it. No, really, think about it. And then decide for
yourself, not what Karl Rove or Ari Fleischer tell you to think. The
truth will set you free.

But only if you want it to, and if you THINK.

(Post a new comment)

	diadexxus 2003-03-19 01:51 pm UTC (link)
	well fortunately, thats what we are lucky for, in America everyone CAN have an opinion. Unfortunately his doesn't match with a lot of others. -J (Reply to this)(Thread)

	purplecat 2003-03-20 01:30 pm UTC (link)
	The unfortunate thing is that his opinion does match with many others. It's a testament to the success of brainwashing and misinformation though the mass media. (Reply to this)(Parent)

I will have to post several times

bull
2003-03-26 07:12 pm UTC (link)

Well I'm always up for a good debate so .. here is my response to some of your points. Several are very valid and I think your opinions in most cases are well informed and have been very well written, but I would like to present the other side of this... this is opinion based on facts I have found, knew, or have been taught over the course of my life or as are happening in my current life this is not a personal attack and I hope that we can keep it that way I will have to break up my comments as LJ only allows a certain amount of characters per comment. I hope we can keep this from being a pissing contest

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Respose to first two paragraphs

bull
2003-03-26 07:20 pm UTC (link)

“Actually, The reason what we as a nation DID sit with our thumbs in our ass, from 1936 (when Adoff Hitler {Maybe you remember that guy} wrote his book) until late 1941 (We also helped to supply the allies before we committed forces to the war) was because before Pearl Harbor just about 90% of the people in our country were against our involvement in war, that is until A total of 2,400 Americans were killed and 1,200 were wounded in an unprovoked attack. President Roosevelt said it him self I quote "Yesterday, December 7, 1941--a date which will live in infamy--the United States of America was SUDDENLY and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan." (U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C., December 8, 1941) and going against public opinion lobbied since 1939 for a military alliance with Great Britain and when this vote was cast it was only given a since no and who may you ask make that great statement of peace and all that…. Well brace yourself it was “a right-wing regime” Republican Representative Jeannette Rankin, a Republican of Montana, cast the sole dissenting vote. An espoused pacifist, she had also cast a dissenting vote against the U.S. entrance into World War I. Let us not forget at that time America was very much an Isolationist country why because the public wanted it that way. Also the Japanese military command hoped that, in addition to disabling the U.S. naval fleet, the attack would depress American morale and push the isolationist U.S. deeper into a strictly defensive role in World War II, then and only then did the American public rally behind The President (As a foot note I will comment that I believe President Roosevelt to be the greatest Democratic president of the 1900’s).Keep in mind another organization that kept out of the holocaust was the catholic church and nobody did anything about Hitler when he annex Austria and lets not forget that the British and French gave Hitler most of Czechoslovakia in the Munich Pact(maybe you have heard of it)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Respose to first two paragraphs

bull
2003-03-26 07:21 pm UTC (link)

Only when he When Germany occupied (Mar., 1939) all of Czechoslovakia, and when Italy seized (Apr., 1939) Albania, Great Britain and France abandoned their policy of appeasement and set about creating an anti-aggression front, which included alliances with Turkey, Greece, Romania, and Poland, and speeding rearmament. Only when Hitler finally cruised into Poland did The French and British do anything and even then all it was, was a naval blockade. So I would have to say that your right but we were following world opinion and domestic opinion is that not what you are chastising Bush for not doing now… well I guess sometimes you don’t have to do what is popular you do what is right maybe if our American government and The British government had been as pro-active as President Bush and Prime Minister Blair maybe a few of those 6 MILLION JEWS that Hitler killed might still be alive. You seem to have a lot of pride in your Democratic officials but if I remember right Lyndon B. Johnson (DEMOCRAT) Committed America to the most hated and ill-fated conflict in the history of our country to help out of all people the French.” Also lets not forget the fact that after Pearl Harbor Roosevelt put the blame for Pearl Harbor on the commanders in Hawaii, Adm. Husband Kimmel and Gen. Walter Short. To quell protests the president appointed Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts to head a Pearl Harbor inquiry. It found Kimmel and Short the principal culprits. Rather than ending the dispute this stirred vigorous protests, which resulted in several minor inquiries followed by major army and navy inquiries in the summer of 1944. When a Naval Intelligence officer testified that key messages indicating a possible raid on Pearl Harbor had been destroyed, and two army officers revealed that they had been forced to change testimony concerning Gen. George C. Marshall, both the army and the navy courts concluded that the principal blame lay in Washington. These conclusions were kept from the public. After the war Congress held public hearings that convinced the majority of Americans that Kimmel and Short should carry the burden of blame and that Roosevelt and Marshall had done their best to prevent war with a nation run by bandits. Most historians agreed with these findings, but there was evidence to suggest that the truth had been distorted by reversions of testimony, cover-ups, and outright lies. There was evidence, for instance, that President Roosevelt knew as early as December 2, 1941, that Japanese carriers were approaching Pearl Harbor. According to the testimony of Capt. Johan Ranneft, naval attaché of the Netherlands in Washington, he was informed by U.S. Naval Intelligence on December 2 that two Japanese carriers were halfway between Japan and Hawaii. Four days later they were some three hundred to four hundred miles from Pearl Harbor. He reported this to his government and wrote the details in his war diary. Of course where the carrier’s were going, and for what purpose was unclear.
Roosevelt had been assured by Marshall that Oahu was the strongest fortress in the world and any enemy task force would be destroyed. The president, therefore, took a calculated risk and lost. This was understandable, but if he instigated a cover-up, as some evidence indicates, that was a serious offense

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: Respose to first two paragraphs -

super_jayhawk, 2003-03-26 07:47 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: Respose to first two paragraphs -

bull, 2003-03-26 08:15 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: Respose to first two paragraphs -

super_jayhawk, 2003-03-31 09:13 pm UTC (Expand)

Here we go again -

bull, 2003-04-03 02:18 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: Respose to first two paragraphs -

bull, 2003-04-03 02:27 pm UTC (Expand)

Next set of responses

bull
2003-03-26 07:28 pm UTC (link)

"Oh, so killing people is not murder, but trying not to kill people isn't
murder? "

So by that argument the American Revolution, World War II (which by your claim a democrat started), President Clintons bombing of Kosovo, Bosnia, Operation Desert Fox, and the effort to feed the people of Somalia were all wrong? Killing Pablo Escobar was wrong? Taking out Noriega was wrong, defending the Panama Canal like we promised we would was wrong, once in a while it’s time to put them up and this is one of those times.

"In the words of George Orwell, Freedom is slavery. "

In the words of Patrick Henry give me liberty or give me death.

"While Saddam is an evil dictator that does really nasty things is definitely true, we
have about 50 countries that have that problem. Should we invade them
all? "

"Well when Bosnia, Columbia, Kosovo, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwaitt, China, Russia, countless former Soviet Republics. and Somalia came around begging for help we were there, and of those fifty countries (please name at least a few) I’m sure the people who are hungry dying and denied small things like pluming, and simple medicine. As far as invading Iraq, ask a citizen of Kuwait, ask an Israeli, ask a Kurdish Muslim in northern Iraq whom which Saddam’s buddy Chemical Ollie(sp) gassed, ask an Iranian citizen who is not so afraid to speak his true opinion,ask a member of the Iraqi National Congress and I will bet better than even money most of those people will say that Saddam has got to go. The liberty that you have is something a lot of those people would kill for… but that would be wrong, right…. Since we had to kill for our liberty…are we not all killers?

"Even people that were willing to line up behind Bush after 9/11 are asking
questions, Jerry. Our own people, and people around the world are asking
whether it's right to perpretrate an unprovoked invasion against the will
of the majority of our own people."

With every major News media outlet and news channel in America reporting that The Presidents approval ratting is 67 percent or so, and the approval of the current war is hovering around 70 percent (yes even CNN) I would say that the Majortiy of our won people think that one this invasion is plenty provoked and two.. the will of the majority of our own people is to get that man out of his position. Even Prime Minister Blair’s approval numbers are up to almost 60% for the war, reported by British news sources. I got my info from KCBS news radio, Fox News, CNN, Sky News, MSNBC and other major media news outlets

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Next set of responses

super_jayhawk
2003-03-26 08:06 pm UTC (link)

In general, people shouldn't try to kill people. When kids can't get along and start fighting,
we call their parents. When nations can't get along and start fighting, we call it "war", and
sometimes it's for good reasons, and sometimes it's for bad.

There are times that war is justified, if your country's very soil is threatened (WW II), or if you're fighting for your freedom (Revolutionary War). There are times that when the UN and your nation feel that something must be done, like Milosevic killing millions a la Hitler, then you must do something. But it must be a last resort, not a first one, and saber-rattling and going after a nation against the world community isn't very smart.

Also, the US military didn't shoot Pablo Escobar, the Columbian military did. Somalia was a really bad idea, and our forces basically got out of there as best they could. Panama was another example of how we screw with Central America in ways that are counterproductive, and we gave the canal back anyway in 2000.

>In the words of Patrick Henry give me liberty or give me death.

That's the spirit, someone should start standing up for all our civil liberties that have been stripped away since the Patriot Act was passed in October 2001. Glad you agree with me on that one.
One of these days we're going to wake up and find out that Bush has been made military dictator-for-life, and when the Constitution gets shredded, the very things that we fight for as Americans are lost.

Regarding your poll of Kuwaitis, Israelis, Kurds, Iranians and Saudis, it's pretty well known that most of them despise Saddam, but they also despise an American occupitation and an arrogant, swaggering national bullying their way into an Arab country like they can whack whoever they choose. While the Kuwaitis are definitely on pro-war, since they have a specific history of being invaded themselves, most Arabs do not like the idea of us screwing with them, and the world tends to agree with them as well.

Regarding Bush's poll numbers, they are going down steadily, especially as our some of our soldiers are getting killed and captured (49 coalition casualties now) over something that most people thought would be nice, sanitary and quick. It's not going to be that way, and Bush's numbers are down about 20 points becuase of it.

Face it, Bush didn't even know where Iraq was on the world map in 2001 when he was sworn into office.
He paid no attention to them at all during the first year of his term, especially before 9/11, spending all his time trying to push a ridiculous tax cut and an energy plan that involved stripping the environment to a Texas desert. Does it ever make you suspicious that he never said boo about Iraq before September 2002 when he started his campaign of "regime change"?

Just rememember, "Regime change" begins in the home, starting next November.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: Next set of responses -

bull, 2003-03-27 02:30 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: Next set of responses -

super_jayhawk, 2003-03-31 09:20 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: Next set of responses -

bull, 2003-04-03 02:37 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: Next set of responses -

bull, 2003-04-03 02:41 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: I will have to post several times

bull
2003-03-26 07:40 pm UTC (link)

"Yes, and guess what, Jerry, we as the United States under Bush I
supplied the chemicals, the gas, the Weapons of Mass Desctruction (WMD)
that made all that possible. Donald Rumsefeld (our current evil
Secretary of Defense) delivered such things personally while on a mission
to Iraq in 1988. The Bush administration supplied billions of dollars for
"agricultural loans" to Iraq that they turned around and bought Scud
Missiles, VX Nerve Gas and yes, you guessed it, Weapons of Mass
Destruction. Because the whole Reagan/Bush policy was to try to destroy
Iran, we gave Saddam whatever he wanted."

"If you stop and look at it, Jerry, we as a nation have done some pretty
terrible things in the name of propping up American interests and backing
brutal dictators in the name of fighting Communism, usually with evil
dictators that use rape, murder, torture and things that would make Hitler
proud. The list is a long one... Somoza, Marcos, Charles Taylor, Saddam,
Mobutu Sese Seko, Mussaraf, Botha, Pinochet, the list goes on. This is
because of the "Reagan Doctrine" we as a nation suffered from where we
basically said, if they're not Communist, we'll look the other way and
give them lots of cash to oppress their people."

Does this make it right? Absolutely not. But we need to fix our own
behavior before we think we can go out and beat other nations into
behaving correctly

Yes we and the entire world made HUGE mistakes during the cold war, we as a nation are still very young I would get into the horrible things virtually every other nation on the planet has done that would be considered horrible but that would really take to long. It would have been President Regan that gave Iraq any weapons because the Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988 and President Bush Senior did not take office until 1989 but please keep in mind that The United States and several Western European nations became involved in the war in 1987, in response to Iranian attacks on Kuwaiti oil tankers traveling in the Persian Gulf. These attacks sullied Iran's international reputation considerably, making it difficult for Khomeini to obtain arms. Finally, in July, 1988, Iran was forced to accept a United Nations-mandated cease-fire. Estimates of the number of dead range up to 1.5 million. In its war effort, Iran was supported by Syria and Libya, and received much of its weaponry from North Korea and China, as well as from covert arms transactions from the United States. Iraq enjoyed much wider support, both among Arab and Western nations: the Soviet Union was its largest supplier of arms. In 1990 Iraq, concerned with securing its forcible annexation of Kuwait agreed to accept the terms of the 1975 treaty with Iran and withdraw its troops from Iranian territory as well as exchange all prisoners of war. An agreement was not signed, however, and both sides still hold thousands of POWs, despite several prisoner exchanges and releases since 1988, most recently in 2000.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: I will have to post several times

super_jayhawk
2003-03-26 08:13 pm UTC (link)

... and do you think we are done making HUGE mistakes? Looks like Shrub is getting started on a whole new set.

Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq to go cozy up and get in bed with Saddam (well documented) and deliver the arms and nerve gas that Hussein later used in anyone that opposed him. But it was Bush Senior that gave Iraq $1.2 Billion in "Agricultural Loans and Credits" so Hussein could go buy
weaponry. You didn't think he was going to misuse the money? Oh, no, a militaristic warlord would never do that..

Funny, how we try to bomb Iraq into the stone age for collecting "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (WMD) and potentially giving them to other countries when we do the exact same thing, with impunity. And also funny, how we bomb Iraq because they violated the UN Security Council Resolutions, when we do the same thing.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: I will have to post several times -

bull, 2003-03-26 08:25 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: I will have to post several times -

super_jayhawk, 2003-03-31 09:32 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: I will have to post several times [Part 2] -

super_jayhawk, 2003-03-31 09:34 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: I will have to post several times [Part 2] -

bull, 2003-04-03 02:51 pm UTC (Expand)

Next set of responses

bull
2003-03-26 07:44 pm UTC (link)

"Gee, Jerry, there's a BIG difference between bombing because they expelled
the UN inspectors (1998) and invading their whole country and killing
countless hundreds of thousands because you want their oil. America as a
nation is not in the business of invading countries to pillage their
natural resources, until we had Dictator Bush take over in a political
coup over two years ago. Also, please observe, there's a BIG difference
between doing things with UN approval (which Clinton did in 1998) and
doing things without permission from the entire world community (like
Generalissimo Bush is doing now)."

Gee, but by your own wording above killing people is wrong so that would make President Clinton wrong regardless of who’s approval he had…. This war is not about oil, it is not about oil it is not about oil, we have federal stock piles of oil we have Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and now we have countless AFRICAN nations which the Secretary of state Colin Powell is currently talking to about using there oil, why…. Because we are going to give the oil to the Iraqi people because it belongs to them, the only people using this war as leverage for oil is the countries that have the majority of the oil contracts in Iraq…. Like FRANCE GERMANY AND CHINA people whom have now been found to be supplying selling and equipping the Iraq regime with countless things that have been banned by there own resolutions, Russia is also guilty of this as well, but they have there own oil which by there own admission they want to sell us but we are not buying. Oh and last time I checked we have more countries supporting us this time around in Iraq than we did in desert storm when we were trying to tell someone that invaded another country to get the hell out. The French oppose our Iraqi policy not for any philosophical or moral reasons but because they are in bed with Saddam militarily and economically. Iraq’s atomic reactor Osirak, destroyed by an Israeli air strike in 1981, had been built and maintained by French technicians as part of a nuclear contract signed with Hussein in 1975. In exchange, the French were guaranteed a dependable supply of cheap oil. Amazingly, even after Hussein admitted the reactor was a means to obtaining nuclear weapons, France continued work on the Iraqi nuclear program.
The French also outfitted Hussein’s military with advanced Mirage aircraft and armaments. In March 1987 a Mirage F-1 fighter fired French Exocet missiles into the hull of the USS Stark killing 37 Navy seaman. Will U.S. troops encounter similar French-made weaponry in the forthcoming action to topple Saddam Hussein?
Today, the French maintain an increasingly lucrative trade relationship with Iraq. The so-called “Oil for Food Program” has enabled France to secure over $3 billion in import contracts with Iraq, and a French company has contracted with Baghdad to develop Iraq’s northern oil fields when sanctions are lifted. Iraq’s known oil reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia’s in size and future profitability.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Next set of responses

super_jayhawk
2003-03-26 08:32 pm UTC (link)

Killing people is something you definitely shouldn't try to do, unless there's no alternative.
There are lots of alternatives here.

The war is ALL about oil. You don't see us attacking North Korea, even though they HAVE nukes, (which Iraq could only wish they have). Why? Because there's no oil in North Korea! Funny, that.

The war is ALL about oil. About the control of it. Iraq has about a fifth of the world's oil supplies in its soil, and the right-wing hawks that have taken over the curren administration know that, and they want it. Bush is an oil man, and so is his Daddy. So is Cheney, and most of the people that are in Bush's cabinet. The reasoning goes, we can make the Middle East do what we want if we control Iraq's oil, and have more sway over the world's ecomomy.

This is similar to the imperialist arguments of the 19th Cenutry, that we should take over other nations for their natural resources and raw materials. Oh yeah, and to convert them to Christianity.
Doesn't work in the 21st Century, however.

As you say, Iraq's known reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia's in size and future profitability. Is Bush willing to invade a country to take such a prize? Absolutely! The war is ALL about oil.

The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve is at the lowest point that it's been at since being created during the fuel crisis of the early 70's (Remember that one? Gas lines and "Save gas.. fart in a jar" T-shirts). While the US Government officially says that they have lots of reserves, they're a drop in the bucket compared to the world market for oil. Our country is too dependent and addicted to oil, and our military actions show it. Just like an junkie is going to do anything, steal, cheat or maim just to get his fix, we have a real oil problem that we need to get over.

I do agree with your point that there are other nations than just the US that were involved in the surreptitious arming of Iraq, most notably the Nuclear Power Plant that the Israeli Air Force had to fly in and blow away. However here's a few points..

The French sold them Exocets, and the Soviets sold them Scuds, but we sold a lot of weapons too,
we can't claim any moral superiority here. We were selling Saddam the VX and Nerve agents, and
the delivery systems to send missiles into Tehran about the same time.

Although I wasn't surprised at all to hear about the Russian-made GPS-jamming devices around Bagdhad, I suspected that after GPS was used as such an effective weapon in Gulf War I that it would only be a matter of time before they would try something like that.

The Stark Attack in 1987 was a rather canny test on Saddam's part to see how vulnerable the US Navy was, most likely as a beta-test for his invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Funny though how the same guy that's screaming for war, Donald Rumsfeld, was cozying up with Saddam after he killed 37 of our guys in the Persian Gulf at the time.

Most of the French-made weaponry that Iraq bought during the 80's has been destroyed, and we'd be hard-pressed to find it after the U.N. sanctions have been in place for over 10 years. Sanctions haven't been lifted since, and so any Frency contract to develop Iraq's oil fields doesn't mean a whole lot, especially since a good chunk of them are on fire, as we speak.

One thing that does get me is the wholesale dispargement of the entire French culture by the right-wing Republicans in our country just for disagreeing with our Almighty View. Such abusive terms as "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys", and the wholesale Orwelling removal of the word "French" from our vocabulary, a la "Freedom Fries". How soon we forget, if it wasn't for France, we'd still be part of the British Empire.

Shooting down, ridiculing and deriding an entire culture, is not just wrong, it's racist.
We as Americans really should know better, and not tolerate such a thing, especially in the 21st Century.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: Next set of responses -

bull, 2003-03-27 02:44 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: Next set of responses -

super_jayhawk, 2003-03-31 09:38 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: Next set of responses -

bull, 2003-04-03 02:56 pm UTC (Expand)

a long one

bull
2003-03-26 07:46 pm UTC (link)

The funny thing about most ultraconservate right-wing sons-of-bitches is
that most of them didn't give a rat's ass about Saddam or any of the
things he was doing to his own people before our illegitimate so-called
President rolled out his new initiative to take out Saddam after Labor Day
weekend last year. Were YOU thinking about Iraq last summer? I bet
not. Here's a shocking relevation for you, Jerry, Saddam has been there
for over 20 years and Reagan and Bush both pretty much helped him get
where he was. The only reason that Bush now is pounding the War like he
is is because people like you, me, and Brad can't find jobs, and the
economy sucks. He knows that,and he's totally unable to deal with it, or
help in a way that Presidents are generally supposed to care. Rather than
give a crap about your situation, he's doing a big call to arms to take
the nation's mind off of the economic misery that we're currently mired
in.

Funny thing is about ultra-liberal (forgot the dash there) left wingers is that not only do they get personal quick but they think that unless we are dealing with a rational person, oh and lets not forget it was just over a year ago that Saddam was told of the new U.N resolution which the U.N. has seen fit to not enforce (and when Saddam uses those chemical weapons against our brave troops, I will see France China and Russia eat Crow)
And yes I was thinking about Iraq last summer since we patrol two no fly zones (imposed by the U.N. enforced by only the United States) one for Saudi Arabia and Turkey (whom has stabbed us in the back when there are supposed to be our NATO ally) and the brave men and women that patrol that area. Here is a shocking revelation (which you spelled wrong)
The Ascension of Saddam Hussein
In 1979, President Bakr resigned, and Saddam Hussein Takriti assumed control of the government. He immediately purged the Ba'ath party after an unsuccessful coup, killing leftist members. War between Iran and Iraq, primarily over the Shatt al Arab waterway, erupted full-scale in 1980 (see Iran-Iraq War). The eight-year war became a series of mutual attacks and stalemates, as both countries' oil production fell drastically, the death toll rose, and great mutual destruction was inflicted. Poison gas was reportedly used by both sides, and by Iraq on Kurdish villages as the Kurdish rebellion continued. Eventually, a cease-fire under the auspices of the United Nations led to the war's end in 1988. Iran and Iraq restored diplomatic relations in 1990.
Throughout 1989 and into 1990, Hussein's repressive policies and continued arms buildup caused international criticism, particularly in the United States, which had favored Iraq during the war with Iran. Hostility against Israel increased, particularly after Israel's bombing of the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981. Hussein accused neighboring Kuwait in July, 1990, with flooding world oil markets, causing oil prices to decrease and threatening Iraq's attempts to boost its war-torn economy. On Aug. 2, 1990, some 120,000 Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait, and Hussein declared its annexation (see Persian Gulf War). Foreigners in Iraq and Kuwait were held hostage but released after a few months.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: a long one

bull
2003-03-26 07:49 pm UTC (link)

The United Nations established international trade sanctions against Iraq, but Hussein did not withdraw his troops. U.S.-led coalition forces began air attacks on Iraq on Jan. 16, 1991, which led to a ground invasion to retake Kuwait. During this time, Iraq launched Scud missiles against both Israel and Saudi Arabia. Iraqi forces quickly succumbed to coalition troops and were forced out of Kuwait. While suffering heavy casualties, Iraq retained its elite Republican Guard, and Hussein remained in power. UN inspections imposed as part of the conditions for ending the war found evidence of chemical warheads and of a program to produce materials for nuclear weapons; Iraq destroyed at least some chemical weapons under UN supervision.
The war left huge amounts of wreckage in the country's major cities and ports and created hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees, who fled to Turkey, Iran, and Jordan. Iraq's major problems were feeding its population and rebuilding its war-torn country. These problems were aggravated by crippling trade sanctions. The Kurds again rose in revolt despite heavy-handed Iraqi military attacks, and in S Iraq, Shiites also lashed out against the government. In 1992 the Kurds established an autonomous region in N Iraq. Two rival factions, the Kurdistan Democratic party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, engaged in sporadic warfare during the 1990s; in 1999 the two groups agreed to end hostilities.
Confrontations with the United Nations and former coalition members, especially the United States, continued to flare. In 1993, after Hussein had repeatedly violated terms of the Persian Gulf War cease-fire, bombers from the United States and other coalition members twice struck Iraqi targets. In Oct., 1994, Iraq massed troops on the Kuwaiti border; the United States and other coalition members increased their forces in the area, and Iraq withdrew the troops.
In May, 1996, Iraq reached an accord with the United Nations allowing it to sell $1 billion worth of oil every 90 days, with the money set aside for food and medicine, compensation to Kuwaitis, and other purposes. The program has subsequently been renewed, and many restrictions on civilian trade have been removed. In Oct., 1997, the UN disarmament commission concluded that Iraq was continuing to hide information on biological arms and was withholding data on chemical weapons and missiles. U.S. weapons inspectors were expelled from Iraq in Nov., 1997, and a U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf ensued. As Iraq ceased cooperating with UN inspectors, the United States and Britain began a series of air raids against Iraqi military targets and oil refineries in Dec., 1998; raids against military targets have continued since then. In Jan., 1999, the United States admitted that American spies had worked undercover on the inspection teams while in Iraq, gathering intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs.
A new UN arms inspection plan that could have led to a suspension of the sanctions in place since the end of the war was devised by the Security Council in Dec., 1999, but Iraq rejected that plan and subsequent attempts to restore inspections. Efforts in 2001 to ease the sanctions on civilian trade further (in exchange for tighter controls on oil smuggling and a ban on weapons purchases) proved unsuccessful when Russia, which has close ties with Iraq, objected. Iraq continued to insist on an end to all sanctions, but in May, 2002, the UN Security Council agreed on revised sanctions that focused on military goods and goods with potential military applications, greatly expanding the range of consumer goods that could be readily imported into Iraq.
Suggestions by U.S. government officials that the war on terrorism might be expanded to include operations against Iraq as well as in Afghanistan were publicly rejected by Arab League nations in Mar., 2002, but increasing threats of a U.S. invasion to end Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction led Iraq to announce in September that UN inspectors could return. Iraqi slowness to agree on the terms under which inspections could take place and U.S. insistence on new, stricter conditions for Iraqi compliance stalled the inspectors' return.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: a long one -

super_jayhawk, 2003-03-26 08:46 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: a long one -

bull, 2003-03-27 01:07 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: a long one -

super_jayhawk, 2003-03-31 09:39 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: a long one -

bull, 2003-04-03 03:11 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: a long one -

bull, 2003-04-03 03:11 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: a long one

super_jayhawk
2003-03-26 08:43 pm UTC (link)

Well, just for the record, I'm actually middle-of-the-road, but Bush is so right-wing that he's trying to fundamentally shift the whole country about 8 steps right.

I'm not sure what you meant by the first opening sentence with regards to dealing with a rational person, or what your point about the U.N. Resolution last year, it kind of rambles. Can you clarify this one?

Does not allowing foreign military (in this case, us) not to fly over your country constitute "stabbing in the back"? Germany didn't approve a use of force and they sit on the security council with France, is that also a backstabbing?

It gets to be a dangerous world, indeed, if we piss off our allies and scream betrayal and go on our war plans unliterally. NATO and the UN Security Council exist to maintain the world peace and foster international understanding, and Bush and Powell have pretty much pissed all over them with insults, saber-rattling, and forged evidence. (BTW, if you forge evidence in a court of Law, you get charged with contempt of court, but if you're the State Department it's OK). When our nation acts like a paranoid, arrogant beast, how long do you think the world community will put up with it?

Yes, you did get me on the typo for "revelation", I was typing that whole thing up at about 3 AM.
Your history on Saddam is fairly well-known, but what's the "shocking revelation" here?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: a long one -

bull, 2003-03-27 01:26 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: a long one [ Part 1] -

super_jayhawk, 2003-03-31 09:48 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: a long one [ Part 2] -

super_jayhawk, 2003-03-31 09:49 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: a long one [ Part 1] -

bull, 2003-04-03 03:16 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: I will have to post several times

bull
2003-03-26 07:51 pm UTC (link)

"Hitler did this once, too, in 1938. A German foreign minister under
Gerhard Schroeder even said this, and was forced to resign from her post
for saying it, but it doesn't mean it's not true. Nations, and tribes
before them have often resorted to war to take their minds off of the
problems at home. Kind of like going and beating up someone weaker than
you when you feel inadequate about yourself."

So once again would you say that President Roosevelt (DEMOCRAT) got us into world war II to take our minds of the great depression, yes, yes I know all about the new deal, yet it is generally agreed that complete business recovery was not achieved and unemployment ended until the government began to spend heavily for defense in the early 1940s

The Taliban took over Afghanistan in the 80's, Jerry, and put in an iron
rule that oppressed their people. Did YOU give a crap about who the
Taliban, or even know who they were before 9/11? Did Bush?
Probably not, most of the world ignored Afghanistan before then, and so
especially did our country. Is it right, or even just, to slaughter
millions of innocent people just because their nation is the Target de
Jour? Bush sets a dangerous precendent here... 2001, we invade
Afghanistan... 2003, we invade Iraq.. who next? Do you think the
world community will sit aside while we invade and take over whoever we
want? Under George Fucking W Prick-Ass Bush, we're acting like a little
kid that picks fights with everyone on the playground, and that's not what
America does. We finish wars, we don't start them.

I personally was to young in the 1980’s to give much of a care about politics but I did learn of the Taliban before 9/11 in 1996 WHEN THEY ACTUALLY TOOK POWER BY TAKING KABUL and again in 1998 when U.S. missiles destroyed what was described by the Pentagon as an extensive terrorist training complex near Kabul run by Osama bin Laden and speaking of that international community you keep talking about (that “George Fucking W Prick-Ass Bush keeps” ignoring right?)

“The Taliban controlled some 90% of the country by 2000, but their government was not generally recognized by the international community (the United Nations recognized President Burhanuddin Rabbani and the Northern Alliance). Continued warfare had caused over a million deaths, while 3 million Afghans remained in Pakistan and Iran as refugees. Adding to the nation's woe, a drought in W and central Asia that began in the late 1990s has been most severe in Afghanistan.”

In early December a pan-Afghan conference in Bonn, Germany, appointed Hamid Karzai, a Pashtun with ties to the former king, as the nation's interim leader, replacing President Rabbani. By Jan., 2002, the Taliban and Al Qaeda were largely defeated, although most of their leaders and unknown numbers of their forces remained at large. Fighting continued on a sporadic basis, with occasional real battles, as occurred near Gardez in Mar., 2002. The country itself largely reverted to the control of the regional warlords who held power before the Taliban, and their forces again engaged in fighting each other at times. Britain, Canada, and other NATO nations provided forces for various military, peacekeeping, and humanitarian operations. Many other nations also contributed humanitarian aid; the United Nations estimated that $10 billion would be needed over the next five years to rebuild Afghanistan.

The former king, Muhammad Zahir Khan, returned to the country from exile to convene (June, 2002) a loya jirga (a traditional Afghan grand council) to establish a transitional government. Karzai was elected president (for a two-year term), and the king was declared the father of the nation. That Karzai and his cabinet face many challenges was confirmed violently in the following months when one of his vice presidents was assassinated and an attempt was made on Karzai's life. Meanwhile, some 2 million Afghan refugees have repatriated since the overthrow of the Taliban, with most of them returning from Pakistan.

But you know President Bush really did nothing to help the country

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: I will have to post several times

super_jayhawk
2003-03-26 08:59 pm UTC (link)

There's a rather large difference and a time delay of nine years, actually, between the time that Roosevelt was elected, and the start of World War II. The New Deal actually was the core of FDR's program, but you can't even pretend to claim that we're under any sort of "Complete business recovery" at this point. The war is designed to take the American populace's mind off of the fact that Bush is doing NOTHING about the economy, and that he doesn't give a rat's ass if you can't find work or not.

While you may have been too young in the 80's to care about politics, you might take a little more time taking a look at some of the lessons of history. The situation in Afghanistan with the Taliban was something that we (through the CIA) engineered, funding bin Laden and his Mujadeen and letting them wreak havoc on Afghanistan, while we looked the other way. Most of the stinger missiles that were used against our own troops in the fighting in Afghanistan were the ones we sold/gave them. How about that for proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Actually the missile attack on the terrorist complex you refer to in 1998 was initiated by Clinton, not George Fucking W Prick-Ass Bush. This was right after the Al Qaeda bombings at the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.

Your retyping of recent historical events is pretty much what the case is, but we didn't finish the job in Afghanistan, not by a long shot. Before we screw with a new country, we should try to do some of that "nation-building" that we promised we would do with Afghanistan. If, indeed, they need $10 Billion to rebuild their country, how come we as the US Government have no money allocated for them this fiscal year? Oh, Afghanistan is so 2001.. we're buying Iraq contracts now! How come you think Hamid Karzai is in Washington, with hat in hand, saying if he doesn't get any more funding, the warlords are going to take over the whole country?

Karzai only controls Kabul, and the rest of the country is under Dostum or a collection of other warlords that would like nothing more than to knock off everyone else and take the whole country over. And this is after we came in to "clean up this town"? I know we're much better at destruction than reconstruction, and it's a lot easier, but we as Americans that are supposed to provide an example to the world should finish what we started.

Did we really fix Afghanistan, yet? Or did we just kick the asses of the people that we wanted to kick, and then run off to fight the next adversary that Bush wants to rally the country against?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: I will have to post several times -

bull, 2003-03-27 02:53 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: I will have to post several times -

super_jayhawk, 2003-03-31 09:54 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: I will have to post several times -

bull, 2003-04-03 03:17 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: I will have to post several times

bull
2003-03-26 07:55 pm UTC (link)

Admirable, Jerry. I don't see your ass signed up and out in the Saudi
sand with a rifle in your hand. The fact that we've pursued this war
uniterally without the consent of anyone in the UN, the Security Council,
or even the American people makes it fundamentally wrong

I would be a United States Marine right now pushing my way to Baghdad to find that insane son of a bitch if I was not dealt a bad had and ended up very near sided at a very young age. Yes we have pursued this war unilaterally (which you spelled wrong) the UN has imposed countless resolutions on Iraq and left our Military to enforce them when it comes to Iraq, and the reason the UN Security Council balked at us is because --- France Build a Nuclear Reactor for Saddam which the Israel had to destroy when he started to use it for nuclear weapon and has a share of Iraqi oil contracts, China has given fiber optic cable to Iraq to operate there Anti-Aircraft guns and also has a share in Iraqi oil contracts, and Russia has been selling Iraq chemical weapons teaching them how to use them in addition to night vision goggles and radar jamming devices (found during this “pseudo-war”) and once again the American people do approve as a matter of fact about 7 in 10 due as reported by all major media outlets.

Gee, Jerry, for 4 of those years a Bush was in office, and he didn't
bother following up on any sort of disarmanment at all after Gulf War
I. For the first year and a half that George W Shrub was in office, he
didn't even pay attention to Iraq at all. He dind't even roll out his
product line of War until September 2002.
Well let’s see 4 years President Bush Sr. was in office its just a god damn shame that the war started 2 YEARS IN TO his presidency and the disarm sanctions that were laid on Iraq by the UN, were not violated in until 1993 during his last days in office and he did do something about it even though he had already lost the election (and you spelled disarmament and didn’t wrong in the above paragraph) Well last I checked President Bush went to war with the Taliban and Terror in 2001 (which was approved by congress)

well could it be that the reason why “For the first year and a half that George W Shrub was in office, he didn't even pay attention to Iraq at all” be because he was dealing with the worst terror attack this country has ever seen, and endless stream of recount bullshit form Vice President Gore, and during his speech to the country after 9/11

Since taking office, President Bush has signed into law bold initiatives to improve public schools by raising standards, requiring accountability, and strengthening local control. He has signed tax relief that provided rebate checks and lower tax rates for everyone who pays income taxes in America. He has increased pay and benefits for America's military and is working to save and strengthen Social Security and Medicare. He is also committed to ushering in a responsibility era in America, and has called on all Americans to be "citizens, not spectators; citizens, not subjects; responsible citizens building communities of service and a Nation of character."

Why? Corporate scandals, the
economic collapse, and the evil things that Bush II has been doing are
starting to get noticed! Hey! Look over there! Orange alert! War! War!
Don't look at Bush and Cheney humping Enron and Halliburton execs in
the Lincoln Bedroom!

Enron and Halliburton execs were indicted for fraud and sent to jail I guess they dropped the soap.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: I will have to post several times

super_jayhawk
2003-03-26 09:26 pm UTC (link)

If the UN "left our Military to enforce (UN resolutions) when it comes to Iraq", wouldn't they have given us the approval to use force, then? This argument doesn't make any sense. If they left us as the big mob Enforcer, they would have to have said OK. They didn't.

Bush's war on the UN, and on Europe, which he derides as being "Old World", is childish and stupid, especially for a President. How soon before other nations follow suit? When a big kid in the playground misbehaves and beats other kids up, and the adults ignore it, then all the kids start doing the same thing. Is this the example we want to set before the International Community?
(Before you say "To hell with the rest of the world", please keep in mind that we as Americans are only about 3.8% of the world's population).

If you take a look at the fine print of most of the approval polls during that "7 out of 10" rating, the question was contingent upon the US taking military action on Iraq contingent upon UN Approval. The number went down to about 35% if the US acted alone and without international approval, actually.
And that was before some of our boys started getting killed and captured, the numbers have been way down since then.

You say that Bush spent his entire first year dealing with the Terror Attack of 9/11, but actually he was inagurated in January 2001, eight months before. And he launched right into his War on The Environment, War on Education, War on the Poor, and War on California. (Remember the California energy gouging of 2001 where Bush was a willing accomplice in the fixing of energy prices to take all of California's money and give it Texas energy companies)? Iraq was a distant concern, not even worth mentioning, when all this was going on.

Even during the whole Hunt for Osama bin Laden thing in 2001, Iraq was ignored by the Bush Administration. Why? If Iraq truly was cooperating with Al-Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks, why didn't we bring it up when we submitted our evidence of bin Laden's involvement in 2001?

Gee, did you type in that paragraph about Our Glorious Leader directly from the GOP Website, or from William F. Buckley's National Review column? That looks way too quoted. Look, if you're going to grab from other sources, please acknowledge their origin, only the State Department can plagiarize.
(As with the CIA-produced evidence on Iraq plagiarized from the British Graduate student paper).

Bush has fucked education. Completely screwed it up the ass. Have you heard about Oregon losing five weeks of school because they don't have the funding? Have you heard about 15% of California's teachers getting laid off because the state and the feds don't have enough money? "Bold initiatives to improve public schools by raising standards..." Great. How about giving them some money so they can continue to operate? What about the President that said he cared so much about education that he said,
"Is our children learning"?

Funny, how we're chasing Turkey with $32 BILLION in aid money if they'll let us camp there to take out Saddam, and we can't afford to pay our teachers and keep schools open. Take a look around your local area and see how many schools are closed, consolidated and shuttered. This is something that has never happened, on this scale, to education.

While Bush has increased the pay for the Military, it's mostly gone to the top brass. Ask most of the enlisted men how much their pay has gone up since Bush took office, and you'll find it's only a few percentage points. Yep, you guessed it, same sort of deal that Bush's CEO buddies do, the CEO gets the spoils and everyone else gets the scraps. Really, look at the numbers, before you type mindless PR here.

"Enron and Halliburton execs were indicted for fraud and sent to jail I guess they dropped the soap"?
Oh REALLY. Name me one. Just one Enron or Halliburton exec that's been sent to jail. Being a rich-assed CEO means never having to say you're sorry, or do time. Not when you have Lawyers that bill out for $10,000 an hour. Not only that, they got off scot-free because they were in bed with the Bush Administration and their energy policy. Now THAT's corruption.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: I will have to post several times -

bull, 2003-03-27 03:09 pm UTC (