|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
My kingdom for transcripts of all the message boards I attended right before and during the start of the war where all the bushies were declaring that we should "nuke them all into the stone age", "kill em all" and what not.
How nice to see that after months of fishing, the neocons finally discovered they were bringing democracy to the poor Iraqi's.
Was BUSH saying this? You know he wasn't. Quite the contrary, even in the wake of 9-11, he portrayed Islamic fanaticism as "hijacking of one of the world's great religions."
You've once again taken the most extreme statements of a few (who I don't recall identifying themselves as Democrats or Republicans when those comments were made, just angry AMERICANS) and twisted that to make a sweeping generalization of all Republicans.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
My kingdom for transcripts of all the message boards I attended right before and during the start of the war where all the bushies were declaring that we should "nuke them all into the stone age", "kill em all" and what not.
How nice to see that after months of fishing, the neocons finally discovered they were bringing democracy to the poor Iraqi's.
Was BUSH saying this? You know he wasn't. Quite the contrary, even in the wake of 9-11, he portrayed Islamic fanaticism as "hijacking of one of the world's great religions."
You've once again taken the most extreme statements of a few (who I don't recall identifying themselves as Democrats or Republicans when those comments were made, just angry AMERICANS) and twisted that to make a sweeping generalization of all Republicans.
.
um.... ![[gulp!]](gulp.gif)
psst, Dave.
As I recall, you think that ALL Muslims are a threat to your way of life.
As for Bush, yeah, he cooled off his "crusade" rhetoric for political reasons but i'm sure he still shares that "extreme" minority POV you mention.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
Bush doesn't give a shit about bringing democracy to the region. There hasn't been a single president who cared about bringing democracy to the region. If the oil wasn't there, we wouldn't be there. WMD and UN violations aren't justifications, they're execuses.
Again, Iraq is not even a source we need. We get plenty of oil from other sources. If oil production stopped entirely in Iraq, it might slightly affect the world price of oil, but it is far from the only oil-game in town.
While politics is a cynical business, I'd like to believe that the Bush administration is finally looking toward development of the Middle East, as opposed to containment under dictators friendly to U.S. interests, as has occurred for decades.
I have the feeling that if someone other than Bush had invaded and developed Iraq, the action would be given more credit for the bold move it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
Originally posted by Whomod:
um....
psst, Dave.
As I recall, you think that ALL Muslims are a threat to your way of life.
As for Bush, yeah, he cooled off his "crusade" rhetoric for political reasons but i'm sure he still shares that "extreme" minority you mention.
That is deliberate distortion and misinformation on your part, and distortion on many levels.
I believe, based on evidence, that Islam has a disproportionately high ratio of homicidal fanatics, who, based on scriptures of the Quran, think it's okay to wage war in the name of Allah, engage in suicide bombings in the name of Allah, beat women and deprive them of rights, treating women as property, perform "honor-killings" of women, and "put to the sword" those who convert from Islam or teach non-Muslim beliefs in Muslim countries. All based on the Quran.
I also believe that there are millions of peaceful Muslims in the world, but only because they don't adhere strongly to Quran teachings. The more true to the Quran, the more fanatic and dangerous.
Or as I already said it in my September 30th post, about two thirds down the topic page:
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Seven million Muslims in America. SEVEN MILLION. If only 1% were to be extremist, that's 70,000.
And dickheads out there question the detainment of 660 or so. Man, if I were were President... there'd be one hell of a lot more arrests and deportations.
I think I've been pretty clear that not all Muslims are hostile to America (as I quoted earlier, 30 to 50 percent of Muslim nations are boycotting American products, but as I've said elsewhere, a large percentage, even within the heart of Muslim extremism, Saudi Arabia and Iran, would like to see strict Islamic law abolished.)
As I've said before, not all Muslims are the enemy. But those who embrace Islamic fundamentalism seem hell-bent on our destruction, and the destruction of anyone else who disagrees with them.
And not just of the U.S., but destruction of the whole of Western culture. I feel the threat that these extremists pose --whether less than 1%, or 20 to 30%-- is dismissed too easily by liberal democrats and the liberal media.
I do feel all of Islamic fundamentalism is the enemy.
The more strictly Islamic law is practiced, the more dangerous it is to the rest of the world, even to other Muslim groups who disagree. There is a glamourization of holy war and conquest, and suicidally giving one's life for The Cause that, again, resembles that of the Nazis and Imperial Japanese, that had similar ideas about honor and code of the warrior, and extermination of all ideological opposition.
Maybe 50 or 100 years or more ago, Islamic Fundamentalism meant something else. But now, in its widely practiced present form, it is a fanatical and destructive belief system. Although the spread of Islam, and the continued enforcement of Islam, is pretty destructive from its beginnings.
And certainly, it is under threat of violence and death that many throughout the world remain Islamic today.
In other words, the more strictly Muslims practice fundamentalist Islam in its present form --the more true to the Quran-- the more dangerous they are to the rest of the world.
But changing Iraq, as a spearhead to change the entire Middle East, is about culturally shifting to a more educated and tolerant Muslim world. And hopefully a more tolerant and less dangerous form of Islam. If they have economic opportunities, then perhaps they'll be less inclined toward suicide bombings. Although, UNLESS THE IDEOLOGY ITSELF CHANGES, then economic development will just mean more economically empowered terrorists, with more resources to wage holy war on the West.
I might also add --as you well know, but are eager to misrepresent-- my views are clearly NOT the same as those of the Bush administration. Bush, at least in his public rhetoric, has a much more favorable opinion of Islam than I do, in his assertion that al Qaida represents the "hijacking" of one of the world's great religions. Whereas in contrast, I believe it is Islamic ideology itself that explicitly endorses violence against the perceived enemies of Islam.
And I see no basis for you to be so sure that Bush has an extreme view of wanting to "Kill 'em all", as you phrased it earlier, while making up quotes out of thin air.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
pssst..... Top of page 10 ![[DOH!]](graemlins/homerface01.gif) quote:
Originally Posted by Dave the Wonder Boy
And regarding the Islamic world, I firmly believe it's not a "radical sect" but the whole of Islam itself that is our enemy. As I've pointed out with articles to back it, a majority of Islamic world is hostile to us, and openly praises al Qaida terrorism.
Brutal governments, wars, suicide bombings, poor treatment of women, and other conditions that give pause to foreign investors and internally repress and stall economic growth, are all rooted in Islamic beliefs and culture, that is holding nations of the Islamic world down, and threatening other countries, as their gospel is spread through Islamic fundamentalism and terror (Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Sudan, Pakistan, Chechnya, The Phillipines, Indonesia, etc.)
The more true Muslims are to their beliefs, the more dangerous they are to the rest of the world, and to themselves.
Again, my eternal image of Islam is 9/11/2001. And more so the 90% of the Palestinian population cheering the deaths of 3000 Americans in the West bank and Gaza, rather than the fanatics who flew jets into buildings.
There was a cover story in TIME magazine a few months ago questioning whether Saudi Arabia is our friend or enemy. And discussing the Saudi sect of Islam called Wahabism, and how spread of wahabism through missionaries has brought terrorism to every corner of the Muslim world and beyond, including al Qaida, Chechnya and the Phillipines.
But please go on, chant your anti-conservative feel-good rhetoric, that muslims are all essentially good except for a few fanatics (but then, of course, we know America really deserved it and their murderous actions can be rationalized by past U.S. Middle East policy, right? )
And the true evil is republicans, right?. Play on, maestro.
And again, if the rhetoric you spew had been allowed in the 1940's, we would have lost World War II:
Hey, Hitler isn't a real threat, we should spend that money at home. It costs too much!
If your kind were around then, we'd be having this conversation now in German. If we were deemed racially pure enough to be allowed to live.
Yeah, it must be hard work trying to discredit me.
I'm going to quote the preceeding post just to ensure it doesn't go anywhere.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Whomod:
um....
psst, Dave.
As I recall, you think that ALL Muslims are a threat to your way of life.
As for Bush, yeah, he cooled off his "crusade" rhetoric for political reasons but i'm sure he still shares that "extreme" minority POV you mention.
That is deliberate distortion and misinformation on your part, and distortion on many levels.
I believe, based on evidence, that Islam has a disproportionately high ratio of homicidal fanatics, who, based on scriptures of the Quran, think it's okay to wage war in the name of Allah, suicide bomb for Allah, beat women and deprive them of rights, treating them as property, "honor-killings" of women, and "put to the sword" those who convert from Islam or teach non-Muslim beliefs in Muslim countries.
I also believe that there are millions of peaceful Muslims in the world, but only because they don't adhere strongly to Quran teachings. The more true to the Quran, the more fanatic and dangerous.
But changing Iraq, as a spearhead to change the entire Middle East, is about culturally shifting to a more educated and tolerant Muslim world. And hopefully a more tolerant and less dangerous form of Islam. If they have economic opportunities, then perhaps they'll be less inclined toward suicide bombings. Although, UNLESS THE IDEOLOGY ITSELF CHANGES, then economic development will just mean more economically empowered terrorists, with more resources to wage holy war on the West.
I might also add --as you well know, but are eager to misrepresent-- my views are clearly NOT the same as those of the Bush administration.
And I see no basis for you to be so sure that Bush has an extreme view of wanting to "Kill 'em all", as you phrased it earlier, while making up quotes out of thin air.
Y'know the 700 Club coupled with PBS is really giving you a case of political schizophrenia.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
fudge 4000+ posts
|
|
fudge 4000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205 |
In fact it has nothing to do with how true they are to the teachings of the Quran! It´s how the various factions interpret what the Quran says! Same thing with the bible, not all christians can´t agree on what the bible truly says. Islam has this problems aswell. Lemme see if I can remember what I was taught about the Islamic religion. There are a number of pillars, 5 I think (not entirely sure ) And the four first stands for various Islamic beliefs, prayers, Allah and so on. The fifth is supposed to stand for Jihad, although that is what some people believe. And some of these people take the base meaning of Jihad to heart, ei. Holy War. But Jihad doesn´t just mean Holy War, it also mean something like "to try hard" or "to work hard" like in trying to accomplish a deed by working towards that end. It is the muslims who interpret the meaning of Jihad as Holy War who are the problem. And then of course the people who are behind the terrorists groups. They preach that all enemies of Islam, be they women, children or soldiers must die. They do this whilst the majority of the priests of Islam preach that Holy War is not a part of the teachings of Islam and the Prophet! So basically it´s the real fanatics who believe that the fifth pillar is Jihad, and that Jihad is Holy War, who are the problem. Religious fanatiscm is in fact entirely different. Sure, virtually all of the terrorists are religious fanatics, as they are willing to die for their cause. But these peoples have been declared violators of the Muslim faith. Besides, you find religious fanatics everywhere, in all religions, although, most other religions don´t have terrorists. (except northen Ireland) So when it comes to the core of the problem, it´s how you interpret the Quran that is the problem. People don´t think alike! Is it about Oil in Iraq, I truly don´t know! I have no doubt it played apart in the decision to declare war, but if it was the main reason? I can only say this: I would much rather have it be for the sake of democracy than for the sake of oil!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Iraq Bids Ban Reopens Diplomatic RiftOh boy, Bush fails again at diplomacy. So I guess that means we'll be stuck with the cost of rebuilding Iraq as well as it's huge debt. Nice one Georgie. Bush just shot himself in the ass. why? well, the story reads; "Critics said a U.S. decision to bar opponents of the war in Iraq from reconstruction contracts could complicate American efforts to restructure Iraq's estimated $125 billion debt.." well, the countries that have historically been DOING THE WORK IN IRAQ FOR THE PAST 4 DECADES has BEEN Russia, Germany, and France. The united states is the new kid on the block. so, if bush and his cabinet/cronies want to exclude the real workers, then bush and cheney will AGAIN give illegal contracts to Halliburton who will charge us 500 to 1,000 PERCENT over cost! there you go. once again, the american taxpayers get screwed. thank you bush! thank you cheney! it's good to know that our president and vice president really care about the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES! bullshit. But then that's probably the idea. If halliburton/Betchel/Carlyle makes out like bandits, well then so do most of the neocon cabal. We get the bill, they get the profits! Genius. And anyone who thinks otherwise is an UnAmerican traitor! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ This just proves once again that the US regards Iraq as conquered territory, as a prize that is theirs to distribute. Shouldn't the Iraqis decide which companies they want to rebuild their country? Pretty naive of France and Germany though to point to WTO rules. Do they really expect a country that is ignoring basic human rights (Guantanamo) and international law to follow trade laws? Even Nobel Peace prize winners are now condemning US actions in the "war on terror"! And stop with that "Europeans hug dictators" crap. The Republicans installed Pinochet in Chili over a democratically elected government. In the seventies, the US helped the military junta of Greece to break up student demonstrations asking for democracy. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, the list of dictators supported or installed by the US goes on and on. Even Saddam was on the payroll of the CIA while he was gassing the Kurds in the eighties. Guatemala/United Fruit Co. How's that for "dictator hugging"? Speaking of gassing Kurds in the 80's, he then slaughtered them and buried them by the thousands after Bush Sr. told them to rise up and then failed to support them. Hows that for mass graves. The neocon right only cares about human rights and democracy when it serves their purposes. When human rights and democracy get in the way of US/corporate/military-industrial interests, they are thrown out the window like a used Kleenex! corporate mercenaries$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Bush is an idiot. quote:
Bush Seeks Help of Allies Barred From Iraq Deals
WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 — President Bush found himself in the awkward position on Wednesday of calling the leaders of France, Germany and Russia to ask them to forgive Iraq's debts, just a day after the Pentagon excluded those countries and others from $18 billion in American-financed Iraqi reconstruction projects.
As you can see, the neocons running things amounts to amateur hour with the American taxpaer paying as Cheney/Halliburton and the Bushes/Carlyle group get rich.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
A Typical NeoCon Day
10AM: Log onto an internet message board, make fun of soldiers who want to come home, calling them gay from the comfort of the computer in mom’s basement.
12:30PM: On the way to Dairy Queen for the hourly sundae, pass by the Veterans hospital, and not even give it a passing glance.
1:28: Steal the change out of the cup of a legless sleeping vet
2:35: Call in to the local fat and lonely radio conservative’s show and give the thumbs up to the president for the phenomenal job of cutting veterans benefits…while the “support our troops” sticker flakes off the back of the old 87 Dodge.
3:15: Mom brings down lunch. Down it with a milkshake and some oxy.
5:38: Tune into the Fox News channel for some fair and balanced reporting. Word has it 3 troops died in a roadside bombing in Fallujah, 7 injured. Being a patriotic news station, they aren’t showing the death and destruction and being all negative like those Commies over at the BBC.
6:40: Check out WorldNetDaily.com to read up on the plot between Yassir Arafat , Kim Il Jong and Princess Iranian Bomblady III, who are building a giant arab robot that can transform into a city and destroy all freedom loving countries within 45 minutes.
8:15: Mom calls out for dinner.
9:30: Reads about soldiers being disciplined for daring to criticize the great great war, and not having enough bullet proof vests to go around, and having their mail censored, and the constant stomach flu, and all other kinds of gay complaints only a liberal queer could make.
10:30: Fall asleep jerking off to fake Ann Coulter photoshop porn jobs.
Thank you, Neo Conservatives. Thank you for protecting our freedom and keeping us free from those who hate freedom. No, really, thanks! You guys are so tough.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
aw fuck it, i'm reprinting the whole article. It's just so tragic that it's funny. The level of incompetence, disrespect for basic diplomacy, and stupidity from this administration is staggering. quote:
DIPLOMACY
Bush Seeks Help of Allies Barred From Iraq Deals
By DAVID E. SANGER and DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: December 11, 2003
WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 — President Bush found himself in the awkward position on Wednesday of calling the leaders of France, Germany and Russia to ask them to forgive Iraq's debts, just a day after the Pentagon excluded those countries and others from $18 billion in American-financed Iraqi reconstruction projects.
White House officials were fuming about the timing and the tone of the Pentagon's directive, even while conceding that they had approved the Pentagon policy of limiting contracts to 63 countries that have given the United States political or military aid in Iraq.
Many countries excluded from the list, including close allies like Canada, reacted angrily on Wednesday to the Pentagon action. They were incensed, in part, by the Pentagon's explanation in a memorandum that the restrictions were required "for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States."
The Russian defense minister, Sergei Ivanov, when asked about the Pentagon decision, responded by ruling out any debt write-off for Iraq.
The Canadian deputy prime minister, John Manley, suggested crisply that "it would be difficult" to add to the $190 million already given for reconstruction in Iraq.
White House officials said Mr. Bush and his aides had been surprised by both the timing and the blunt wording of the Pentagon's declaration. But they said the White House had signed off on the policy, after a committee of deputies from a number of departments and the National Security Council agreed that the most lucrative contracts must be reserved for political or military supporters.
Those officials apparently did not realize that the memorandum, signed by Paul D. Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, would appear on a Defense Department Web site hours before Mr. Bush was scheduled to ask world leaders to receive James A. Baker III, the former treasury secretary and secretary of state, who is heading up the effort to wipe out Iraq's debt. Mr. Baker met with the president on Wednesday.
Several of Mr. Bush's aides said they feared that the memorandum would undercut White House efforts to repair relations with allies who had opposed the invasion of Iraq.
White House officials declined to say how Mr. Bush explained the Pentagon policy to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, President Jacques Chirac of France and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany. France and Russia were two of the largest creditors of Saddam Hussein's government. But officials hinted, by the end of the day, that Mr. Baker might be able to show flexibility to countries that write down Iraqi debt.
"I can't imagine that if you are asking to do stuff for Iraq that this is going to help," a senior State Department official said late Wednesday.
A senior administration official described Mr. Bush as "distinctly unhappy" about dealing with foreign leaders who had just learned of their exclusion from the contracts.
Under the Pentagon rules, only companies whose countries are on the American list of "coalition nations" are eligible to compete for the prime contracts, though they could act as subcontractors. The result is that the Solomon Islands, Uganda and Samoa may compete for the contracts, but China, whose premier just left the White House with promises of an expanded trade relationship, is excluded, along with Israel.
Several of Mr. Bush's aides wondered why the administration had not simply adopted a policy of giving preference to prime contracts to members of the coalition, without barring any countries outright.
"What we did was toss away our leverage," one senior American diplomat said. "We could have put together a policy that said, `The more you help, the more contracts you may be able to gain.' " Instead, the official said, "we found a new way to alienate them."
A senior official at the State Department was asked during an internal meeting on Wednesday how he expected the move to affect the responses of Russia, France and Germany to the American request. He responded, "Go ask Jim Baker," according another senior official, who said of Mr. Baker, "He's the one who's going to be carrying the water, and he's going to be the one who finds out."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Whomod, you have a pathological need to prove to yourself and everyone else that Republicans are evil.
It is increasingly clear with each new acid-filled post that there's something wrong with YOU, rather than the conservative Republicans you launch blanket attacks on.
I see you've also taken on a new tack, trying to paint me as a liar.
You quoted me from page 10, and from this page, to project the notion that there's some contradiction to what I'm saying.
But in BOTH quotes, I said that the whole of Islam encourages these things ( holy war, brutalization of women, sucide bombings, etc. ) and the only way that the Islamic world will change is through a cultural shift.
(And to clarify, cultural shift in this case means opening their world to non-Islamic ideas from Europe, India, Asia and other cultures, and hopefully cultivating a less violent and repressive form of Islam. )
Again, there ARE Muslims who aren't violent, but I'd say the prevalence of suicide bombings, wife beating, honor killing, etc., the high ratio that these things occur in Islamic culture, shows that the enemy is Islam itself.
~
Chant, I see your point, that it COULD just be the way Islam is TAUGHT, but again, verses from the Quran clearly state how to deal with non-believers of Islam:
"Kill them where you find them..."
"Lie in wait for them..."
"Put them to the sword. But if they convert, Allah is all-merciful"
I've posted the full Quran verses on several topics previously.
Certainly, there are other more peaceful writings in the Quran as well. But that doesn't whitewash Islam's Quran-specified brutal treatment and persecution of non-Muslims in their borders. Historically, non-Muslims pay higher taxes and are otherwise deprived of the freedoms that Muslims have in the Islamic world.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
"Again, there ARE Muslims who aren't violent, but I'd say the prevalence of suicide bombings, wife beating, honor killing, etc., the high ratio that these things occur in Islamic culture, shows that the enemy is Islam itself."
OMG.
You know, Dave, the Bible says a whole lotta shit in it too, about owning slaves, stoning people, cutting out your eye if it spites you...
Please, do us all a favor. You think Islam's the enemy? Go over and fight it. That way, with any luck, we'll get you out of the gene pool so humanity can move forward.
Merry Christmas.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Jackson:
"Again, there ARE Muslims who aren't violent, but I'd say the prevalence of suicide bombings, wife beating, honor killing, etc., the high ratio that these things occur in Islamic culture, shows that the enemy is Islam itself."
OMG.
You know, Dave, the Bible says a whole lotta shit in it too, about owning slaves, stoning people, cutting out your eye if it spites you...
Please, do us all a favor. You think Islam's the enemy? Go over and fight it. That way, with any luck, we'll get you out of the gene pool so humanity can move forward.
Merry Christmas.
Jim
That's about the level of ignorance I'd expect from you, Jim.
Your facts are wrong, and your insults are just unnecessary.
The Bible does NOT endorse slavery. There is a verse from Genesis, regarding the sons of Noah, that was misinterpreted for centuries by those who wanted to rationalize slavery. (Genesis 9: verses 20-27)
Because of the demonstrated virtue of Noah's sons Japheth and Shem, they were to be greatly blessed, with large numbers of descendants, who would establish great kingdoms.
As opposed to their less virtuous brother Ham (father of Canaan), whose actions cursed him and his descendants (who would follow in his pattern of immorality) to be less successful.
And prophetically, the kingdom of Canaan's descendants would eventually be conquered by the kingdoms of his brothers (the land of Canaan, that was conquered and became the land of Israel). That is the ultimate meaning of "cursed, the lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers".
The Bible in the New Testament describes being a "slave to one's desires". Similarly, Canaan is not enslaved by others, but by his own actions.
Because of the level of evil in the land of Canaan, when the Israelites conquered it around 1100-1000 B.C., the Israelites were ordered by God to leave no artifact of Canaan culture remaining to corrupt future generations of men.
The Canaanites were involved in the occult, drinking of blood, and other practices described in the Bible as exceptionally evil.
The verse about carving out your own eye (Matthew 5:29) is a self-explanatory verse about self-control, obvious to anyone who reads it.
Jews and Arabs are both Semites, descended from Noah's son Shem.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447 |
quote:
Again, Iraq is not even a source we need. We get plenty of oil from other sources. If oil production stopped entirely in Iraq, it might slightly affect the world price of oil, but it is far from the only oil-game in town.
Iraq has the second highest oil reserves in the world. Bush never really hid his objective, as I recall, we sent soldiers over to "secure" oil reserves. Read the article I posted, it was really enlightening.
"whoever controls the flow of Persian Gulf oil has a "stranglehold" not only on our economy but also "on that of most of that of the other nations of the world as well." This is a powerful image, and perfectly describes the administration's thinking about the Gulf area, except in reverse: by serving as the dominant power in the Gulf, WE maintain a "stranglehold" over the economies of other nations. This gives us extraordinary leverage in world affairs, and explains to some degree why states like Japan, Britain, France, and Germany--states that are even more dependent on Persian Gulf oil than we are--defer to Washington on major international issues (like Iraq) even when they disagree with us. "
"For all of these reasons, American leaders would like to reduce America's dependence on Saudi Arabia. But there is only ONE way to permanently reduce America's reliance on Saudi Arabia: by taking over Iraq and using it as an alternative source of petroleum. Iraq is the ONLY country in the world with sufficient reserves to balance Saudi Arabia: at least 112 billion barrels in proven reserves, and as much as 200-300 billion barrels of potential reserves. By occupying Iraq and controlling its government, the United States will solve its long-term oil-dependency dilemma for a decade or more. And this, I believe, is a major consideration in the administration's decisionmaking about Iraq. "
[qoute]And stop with that "Europeans hug dictators" crap. The Republicans installed Pinochet in Chili over a democratically elected government. In the seventies, the US helped the military junta of Greece to break up student demonstrations asking for democracy. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, the list of dictators supported or installed by the US goes on and on. Even Saddam was on the payroll of the CIA while he was gassing the Kurds in the eighties. Guatemala/United Fruit Co. How's that for "dictator hugging"?[/qoute]
Yeah, going over US history since Kennedy makes the humanitarian/seeds of democracy arguement seem funny. Just look at US history of trade and intervention in Iraq! We only care about democracy if it's in our interest.
quote:
The neocon right only cares about human rights and democracy when it serves their purposes. When human rights and democracy get in the way of US/corporate/military-industrial interests, they are thrown out the window like a used Kleenex!
Exactly
quote:
I have the feeling that if someone other than Bush had invaded and developed Iraq, the action would be given more credit for the bold move it is.
I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
quote:
The neocon right only cares about human rights and democracy when it serves their purposes. When human rights and democracy get in the way of US/corporate/military-industrial interests, they are thrown out the window like a used Kleenex!
Exactly
Well, here we go again, with "Blame it on the Republicans".
In that 40-year period, did Kennedy change that policy?
Lyndon Johnson?
Jimmy Carter?
Clinton/Gore?
That's right. No they didn't.
About 20 of those 40 years were under Democrat control.
Let's keep in perspective that there was a cold war going on for 50 years between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. And like it or not, that required some dire measures.
You can wax philosophic about how terrible it is that we (through the CIA) participated in these things. But at the same time, it contained Soviet expansionism, and undermined Soviet confidence until their empire finally collapsed. Better this alternative than complacently allowing Soviet expansion, in which case (with Mondale in office instead of Reagan, say) we might still be in the Cold War.
Regarding oil out of Iraq, and Iraq having the second largest reserve in the world, as I said, we're getting cheap oil from many other sources. We don't NEED Iraq. It's also speculated there might be far larger unsurveyed reserves in Russia's frontier, that would provide a reserve to match that of the Persian Gulf.
Certainly, oil is a valuable commodity, and a crisis in the Persian Gulf would drive up the price. But as I said, the U.S. has been utilizing other sources to avoid dependency on Arab oil. U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf just guarantees greater stability, and less potential for wild fluctuation in the market.
And if we wanted to control Iraq, we'd be setting up a benevolent dictator, not preparing to have an election in Iraq in six months. If the Iraqis are voting, where is the U.S. conquest and domination in that?
The argument of U.S. maintaining secret control of Iraq, based in some kind of oil conspiracy, is absolutely groundless, from the lack of evidence I see.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
quote:
Originally Posted by Dave the Wonder Boy
Regarding oil out of Iraq, and Iraq having the second largest reserve in the world, as I said, we're getting cheap oil from many other sources. We don't NEED Iraq. It's also speculated there might be far larger unsurveyed reserves in Russia's frontier, that would provide a reserve to match that of the Persian Gulf.
We're getting oil from Venezuela, to name one source....
U.S. Papers Hail Venezuelan Coup as Pro-Democracy Move
American navy 'helped Venezuelan coup
US investigates Venezuela coup role
Venezuela coup linked to Bush team
Specialists in the 'dirty wars' of the Eighties encouraged the plotters who tried to topple President Chavez
US Fingerprints on Venezuelan Coup
Like old days
U.S. role in Venezuela coup under scrutiny
THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED / ***1/2 (Not rated)
$ $ $ $ $ $
As for Russia's reserves, controlling Iraq (and the middle east's) oil might be a good counter-move to retard Russias influence in world affairs, eh? Nah, it's not about oil. it's about making the world a better place. Better living thru Halliburton.
Now you knew that talking about CIA/Right wing dirty tricks and undermining elections in Guatemala and Chile these past few days was leading somewhere, didn't you. So I guess it's not so easy to dismiss those things as abberations of the past.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398 Likes: 38
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398 Likes: 38 |
quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
A Typical NeoCon Day
10AM: Log onto an internet message board, make fun of soldiers who want to come home, calling them gay from the comfort of the computer in mom’s basement.
12:30PM: On the way to Dairy Queen for the hourly sundae, pass by the Veterans hospital, and not even give it a passing glance.
1:28: Steal the change out of the cup of a legless sleeping vet
2:35: Call in to the local fat and lonely radio conservative’s show and give the thumbs up to the president for the phenomenal job of cutting veterans benefits…while the “support our troops” sticker flakes off the back of the old 87 Dodge.
3:15: Mom brings down lunch. Down it with a milkshake and some oxy.
5:38: Tune into the Fox News channel for some fair and balanced reporting. Word has it 3 troops died in a roadside bombing in Fallujah, 7 injured. Being a patriotic news station, they aren’t showing the death and destruction and being all negative like those Commies over at the BBC.
6:40: Check out WorldNetDaily.com to read up on the plot between Yassir Arafat , Kim Il Jong and Princess Iranian Bomblady III, who are building a giant arab robot that can transform into a city and destroy all freedom loving countries within 45 minutes.
8:15: Mom calls out for dinner.
9:30: Reads about soldiers being disciplined for daring to criticize the great great war, and not having enough bullet proof vests to go around, and having their mail censored, and the constant stomach flu, and all other kinds of gay complaints only a liberal queer could make.
10:30: Fall asleep jerking off to fake Ann Coulter photoshop porn jobs.
Thank you, Neo Conservatives. Thank you for protecting our freedom and keeping us free from those who hate freedom. No, really, thanks! You guys are so tough.
Wow, talk about being obsessed. These "neocons" are sure inside your head.
LMAO!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
quote:
Originally posted by MisterJLA:
Wow, talk about being obsessed. These "neocons" are sure inside your head.
LMAO!
Nope. They're just inside my Government. i'd rather they fuck off.
I just hope "obsessed" means actually following what these criminals actually do rather than just beleiving their press releases and their propaganda apparatus.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
I just hope "obsessed" means actually following what these criminals actually do rather than just beleiving their press releases and propaganda apparatus.
...and bitterly insulting anyone who disagrees with you.
I could tolerate your opinion, or perhaps even agree with you on a few points, if not for all your personal venom.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398 Likes: 38
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398 Likes: 38 |
quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
quote:
Originally posted by MisterJLA:
Wow, talk about being obsessed. These "neocons" are sure inside your head.
LMAO!
Nope. They're just inside my Government. i'd rather they fuck off.
I just hope "obsessed" means actually following what these criminals actually do rather than just beleiving their press releases and their propaganda apparatus.
Wow. I didn't know that the "neocons" in our government had the freedom to wake up at 10 AM, and post on Internet messages boards, like you earlier claimed.
![[yuh huh]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
I just hope "obsessed" means actually following what these criminals actually do rather than just beleiving their press releases and propaganda apparatus.
...and bitterly insulting anyone who disagrees with you.
I could tolerate your opinion, or perhaps even agree with you on a few points, if not for all your personal venom.
Ok, can you pretty please explain this. With sugar on top.
quote:
Halliburton overcharged, probe finds
Defense firm denies price gouging in Iraq reconstruction
WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 — A Pentagon investigation has found overcharging and other violations in a $15.6 billion Iraq reconstruction contract awarded to Vice President Dick Cheney’s former company, a defense official said Thursday.
and more...
Army Corps weighs replacing Iraq gasoline contractor
Halliburton accused of fleecing US taxpayers by overcharging for oil
I guess that "liberal" media really has it out for Cheney. How dare anyone insinuate that Cheney or halliburton are crooks! Halliburton, like ALL major corporations, especially those in the military/industrial category, only serve to lift up America and employ people as so they can pay taxes and support things like (unionized ![[cool]](images/icons/cool.gif) ) Fire and police. After all there is no evidence of Halliburton or Cheney gouging the Government in the past. Um... let me rephrase that...
Kellogg Brown & Root settles federal lawsuit
quote:
Halliburton agrees to settle lawsuits with shareholders
HOUSTON - Halliburton Co. said Friday it has agreed to pay $6 million to settle 20 shareholder lawsuits that accused it of using deceptive accounting practices while Vice President Dick Cheney led the company.
Documenting the Halliburton / Cheney Crimes and Controversies
The War on Terrorism's Gravy Train
Cheney's Former Company Wins Afghanistan War Contracts
quote:
Halliburton Files for End of Lawsuit
DALLAS -- Vice President Dick Cheney and Halliburton Co. have asked a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit accusing them of defrauding investors by changing accounting methods at the oilfield-services company, The Associated Press reported Friday.
How unpatriotic of people to investigate Halliburton. It's all polirtically motivated anyways to embarass the President. These kinds of stories serve to embolden the enemy and undermine America and democracy itself!
There, am I more on your tenor now?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I could tolerate your opinion, or perhaps even agree with you on a few points, if not for all your personal venom.
Aw, you're just mad that I used your own posts against you.
By the way Rob, is there any way to make this an avatar?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Ok, enough foolishness. CROOKS  CROOKS CROOKS CROOKS  TRICKY DICK & UM... TRICKY DICK!!   CROOKS CROOKS CROOKS Halliburton May Have Overcharged MillionsAll you have to do is sit back and watch the Military/Industrial Complex fuck itself tru it's own arrogance and greed. Happens every time. And yet some voters never learn (nor remember).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398 Likes: 38
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398 Likes: 38 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Bush assured us WMD's were in Iraq. So why should we believe this lying b@stard's assurance that Halliburton will repay the money?  Just add this Halliburton statement to Bush's other lies: - "We'll find WMD's any day now." - "Iraq bought urnaium in Niger." - "The world is safer because of the War on Terror." - "They'll welcome us as liberators." - "We're making progress in Iraq."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398 Likes: 38
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398 Likes: 38 |
:lol: Might want to rework that list, whomod. :lol:  In the capital, radio stations played celebratory music, residents fired small arms in the air in celebration and passengers on buses and trucks shouted, "They got Saddam! They got Saddam!" Iraqi journalists in the audience stood, pointed and shouted "Death to Saddam!" and "Down with Saddam!" Celebrations in Baghdad Celebratory gunfire erupted in the capital, and shop owners closed their doors, fearful that the shooting would make the streets unsafe. "I'm very happy for the Iraqi people. Life is going to be safer now," said 35-year-old Yehya Hassan, a resident of Baghdad. "Now we can start a new beginning." Earlier in the day, rumors of the capture sent people streaming into the streets of Kirkuk, a northern Iraqi city, firing guns in the air in celebration. "We are celebrating like it's a wedding," said Kirkuk resident Mustapha Sheriff. "We are finally rid of that criminal." "This is the joy of a lifetime," said Ali Al-Bashiri, another resident. "I am speaking on behalf of all the people that suffered under his rule." http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3708151&p1=0
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826 |
quote:
Originally posted by MisterJLA:
:lol: Might want to rework that list, whomod. :lol:
heh.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
I notice a few items from Whomod's list above have mysteriously disappeared: quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
Just add this Halliburton statement to Bush's other lies:
- "We'll find WMD's any day now."
- "Iraq bought urnaium in Niger."
- "The world is safer because of the War on Terror."
- "They'll welcome us as liberators."
- "We're making progress in Iraq."
What happened to "We'll get Saddam Hussein any day now." ? :lol:
~
I noticed a change in this post of yours as well:
quote:
Originally posted by Whomod:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I could tolerate your opinion, or perhaps even agree with you on a few points, if not for all your personal venom.
Aw, you're just mad that I used your own posts against you.
You IMPLIED there was a contradiction, without demonstrating it. More smear tactics. There is no contradiction, as I made clear.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398 Likes: 38
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398 Likes: 38 |
quote:
What happened to "We'll get Saddam Hussein any day now." ?
Not surprising at all to see whomod taking my advice by editing his post.
Only a gutless punk like him would refuse to stand by his words.
:lol:
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
quote:
Originally posted by MisterJLA:
quote:
What happened to "We'll get Saddam Hussein any day now." ?
Only a gutless punk like him would refuse to stand by his words.
:lol:
Considering right now i'm getting ready to go to work to do my daily standing up to hardened gangbangers in the heart of so.central L.A. as I do every-single-day, I find you calling me gutless quite amusing.
I edited my post because obviously he was caught and that no longer applied. You act like if capturing Saddam somehow negates no bid contracts, overcharging the taxpayers, dodgy evidence of WMD's and on and on.
As with other conservatives on radio and other message boards at the moment, you choose to act as if this is somehow BAD news to so called "liberals". As if anyone who questions Bush is somehow on "saddaams side". It isn't. We aern't. Perhaps the attacks on our troops will lessen now and as an extention of that so will their deaths. And that is good news to me and to every American. Especially to me considering I have a relative (nephew) in Irsq.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
quote:
Originally posted by MisterJLA:
quote:
What happened to "We'll get Saddam Hussein any day now." ?
Only a gutless punk like him would refuse to stand by his words.
:lol:
Considering right now i'm getting ready to go to work to do my daily standing up to hardened gangbangers in the heart of so.central L.A. as I do every-single-day, I find you calling me gutless quite amusing.
I edited my post because obviously he was caught and that no longer applied. You act like if capturing Saddam somehow negates no bid contracts, overcharging the taxpayers, dodgy evidence of WMD's and on and on.
As with other conservatives on radio and other message boards at the moment, you choose to act as if this is somehow BAD news to so called "liberals". As if anyone who questions Bush is somehow on "saddaams side". It isn't. We aern't. Perhaps the attacks on our troops will lessen now and as an extention of that so will their deaths. And that is good news to me and to every American. Especially to me considering I have a relative (nephew) in Iraq.
So Mr. JLA, since you decided to get extremely personal, F**K YOU VERY MUCH.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398 Likes: 38
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398 Likes: 38 |
quote:
As with other conservatives on radio and other message boards at the moment, you choose to act as if this is somehow BAD news to so called "liberals". As if anyone who questions Bush is somehow on "saddaams side". It isn't. We aern't. Perhaps the attacks on our troops will lessen now and as an extention of that so will their deaths. And that is good news to me and to every American. Especially to me considering I have a relative (nephew) in Iraq.
I never wrote any of that. All I did was point the painfully obvious fact that you tried to cover one of your numerous "predictions".
It reeks of cowardice that you can't stand by your own words.
Nice meltdown, btw.
:lol:
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
To give them their credit, no one has deleted any of their posts about Bush's trip to Iraq in no way being a PR piece.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
You can rationalize that any President's trip to ANYWHERE is a P.R. piece.
I mean of course it's intended to be a public and symbolic event.
If the President, any president, from George Washington forward, didn't do public appearances, what kind of a public leader would he be?
His job is to act symbolically and lead the nation.
And for him to land on exactly the same airfield where a U.S. military helicopter was blown out of the sky just 10 days prior, is a bit more courageous that "just a piece of P.R.".
But hey, believe what you want.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
Hey, I never criticised the guy for going, it was certainly very good for the moral of the troops involved, I was just amused that some people couldn't accept that there was any PR incentive, a very naive viewpoint whatever your political leanings (I cannot remember who was blinkered and I have not got the will to look it up, I'm knackered and pissed off, some SOB broke into my car today).
I also never described it as "just a piece of PR" (if that was me you were quoting).
I was attempting to offend no-one there, just a bit of levity, not aimed in anyone direction. No need to get tetchy mate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826 |
quote:
Originally posted by Steve T:
I cannot remember who was blinkered and I have not got the will to look it up, I'm knackered and pissed off. No need to get tetchy mate.
![[eh?]](images/icons/confused.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Here's a very funny round-table discussion of the contracts in Iraq, and the stiffing of France and Germany for their obstruction of the U.N. vote: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/july-dec03/sb_12-12.html Moderator JIM LEHRER, syndicated columnist MARK SHIELDS (the resident liberal perspective), and DAVID BROOKS (the conservative perspective, formerly of The Weekly Standard, now a columnist for the New York Times.) quote:
Iraq reconstruction contracts
JIM LEHRER: Now the other issue that Mark raised, David, ...that it was announced that unless you were in the coalition going in, you are not going to get any contracts to reconstruct. What do you think about that?
DAVID BROOKS: I enjoyed it for three or four minutes. I felt it was honest. They were just terrible to us. The Germans, they promised they wouldn't run on an anti-American platform. Schroeder ran on an anti-American platform. It was terrible. I enjoyed my three minutes of gloating and revenge --
JIM LEHRER: Take that! Take that!
DAVID BROOKS: But then on mature reflection, which you know me for, I decided the hypocritical strategy would have been the best. It would have been better to say listen, all is forgiven. We've got a lot to do. Let's move on. And let's accept your bids. Privately, you would stiff them. You wouldn't give them anything, but publicly you would be genial because we've got relationships we're working on. So I endorse the mature hypocritical course at the end of the day.
JIM LEHRER: Are you still in the immature, unhypocritical -- where are you?
MARK SHIELDS: I went through the hypocritical quicker than David did. I want to quote Paul Martin, the new premier of Canada. Canada got stiffed. Canada on a per capita basis, probably the most generous nation in the world when it comes to foreign aid. I mean, it has been a stalwart ally of ours throughout thick and thin and difficult and everything else. They're getting dropped from consideration. He pointed out, he said, you know, what ought to be involved here is not giving out contracts and rewarding companies. I don't think that Halliburton is, to the best of my knowledge made any great sacrifices in this war. If we're talking about who sacrificed, what we ought to do is really give it to Halliburton. They were there. I didn't see the purple hearts they picked up, Jim --
JIM LEHRER: So there is no connection.
MARK SHIELDS: There's absolutely no connection. The logic is assailable and indefensible. But I think what he pointed out is that what ought to be under consideration is what is best for the Iraqi people.
And I don't see Uzbekistan, I don't see the Marshall Islands bidding for contracts. This is basically... we are going to do all the stuff ourselves and going to keep it in-house. And for expanding the whole effort to include other countries, to share that sacrifice, to share the burden, to provide the troops, eventually this is the way of cutting off, I think, America's best hope.
DAVID BROOKS: Some Halliburton people I think did die, have died in the reconstruction. I basically agree with Mark that we lost some of the moral high ground when we said let's do whatever is best for the Iraqi people. And it's a sham. Let's face it. Publicly we're punishing them [France and Germany]. Privately, first of all Bush and other people are calling around to these countries that are being allegedly shut out, giving them all sorts of reassurances. And second, companies from those countries can't win the primary contracts. They can win the subcontracts which is where a lot of the money is. So you'll have French and German companies building the phone system in Iraq. So it is just a public insult with no meat to it.
JIM LEHRER: So why did they do it?
DAVID BROOKS: I think they're straightforward, they're really bad at dealing with people they don't like. Their attitude is, we don't play games. If we don't like you, we tell you we don't like you. We are above board. There is such a thing as being too honest. They're sometimes a little too straightforward for their own good.
JIM LEHRER: Do you think there is any chance you feel that they could back down from this? Or are they stuck with it?
DAVID BROOKS: ...Some friends of mine wrote a memo for the Project for the New American Century saying Bush is going to back down. He didn't back down, so I don't think they will right now.
JIM LEHRER: What do you think?
MARK SHIELDS: I think two things, I think David gives them too much credit. It's campaign 2004. It has a nice ring to it. If you can put it on a bumper sticker, you can put it on a poster. They didn't help us, you know, screw the French. They weren't there, you know, that kind of... no [France] in the rebuilding and whatever else. I think, Jim, they went a mile too far when they inserted the national security provision so they would be exempt from the World Trade Organization rules. Suggesting that, you know, that France and Germany and Russia -- our great poody-poody, our great friend -- that they're somehow a threat to the national security of the United States...
DAVID BROOKS: France is.
MARK SHIELDS: But seriously, I mean, that was just such a specious and obvious and transparent political move.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
David Kay jumps ship. quote:
December 19, 2003
THE WORLD
U.S. Team Leader in Iraq Arms Hunt May Quit
By Paul Richter, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — The American team searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq may soon lose its chief and has been reassigning some personnel from the hunt to fighting the insurgency, U.S. officials said Thursday.
Although officials insisted that they remained committed to seeking the weapons, the developments raise new questions about the future of a $900-million effort that the Bush administration has hoped would corroborate one of its main rationales for invading Iraq.
David Kay, who has led the 1,200-member Iraq Survey Group since June, has told superiors at the CIA that he is considering leaving the team, which has yet to find stockpiles of banned weapons, a U.S. official said. The official said Kay, a former United Nations weapons inspector, had not made a decision but would discuss the issue with his superiors next week.
Kay, who was said to be spending the holidays with his family in the Washington area, could not be reached for comment. Despite his declarations that the alleged weapons of mass destruction surely existed, Kay has acknowledged to colleagues his frustrations that the search has not turned up such arms.
After nearly seven months in the dangerous country, he is under pressure from his family to return, another U.S. official said.
Kay didn't specify when hired how long he would stay, but the assignment has lasted longer than he expected, the first U.S. official said, noting: "His hope was that it wouldn't be a lifetime gig."
Officials willing to discuss Kay's plans and the weapons search requested anonymity.
Though Kay has not publicized his political views, he strongly believed that Saddam Hussein had a large weapons arsenal that made him an imminent threat. As a paid NBC News consultant, for example, Kay declared on television during the spring that mobile trailers seized from the regime could have no other use but to serve as biological weapons laboratories. The assertion has been disputed by many experts, and even Kay's group is in disagreement over the purpose of the trailers.
The first U.S. official insisted that the reassignment of personnel from the survey team was only temporary.
A defense official said recently that the Iraq Survey Group's composition has been changing to include more counter-terrorism specialists and fewer weapons experts. Another defense official said the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which had sent a team to Iraq to secure and destroy any banned-weapon materials that might be found, has refocused that group's work to aid counter-insurgency efforts.
Although U.S. officials did not discuss possible replacements, some experts said the search for weapons could be hurt if Kay's job is downgraded and given to a new team leader without the same clout within the administration. Kay reports directly to CIA Director George J. Tenet and has had some direct access to President Bush.
Experts said the diversion of resources to counter-insurgency efforts also was a setback to the weapons hunt.
In a report overseen by Kay, the team said in October that it had found no weapon stockpiles. It said it had found evidence of a rudimentary nuclear program, and a missile program at various stages of development. The group said the evidence indicated that the regime was capable of building some chemical and biological weapons.
But senior Bush administration officials no longer argue publicly that Hussein needed to be overthrown because he had weapons of mass destruction and the risk was imminent that he would use them against his neighbors or U.S. interests. They now emphasize that it was necessary to overthrow a dangerous tyrant and to open the way for democracy in the Middle East.
Only this week, Bush suggested that it didn't matter if Hussein didn't possess weapons of mass destruction — what mattered was that the deposed Iraqi leader wanted them and would be a menace if he acquired or developed them.
"So what's the difference?" Bush asked in an interview with ABC-TV. "If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger."
In his initial interrogation Sunday, the captured Hussein reportedly denied that his regime possessed banned weapons.
David Albright, a United Nations weapons inspector in the 1990s, said the widespread perception had been that the goal of the hunt was to prove that the Bush administration's war rationale was right.
Now, the government can focus the effort on the more important goal of "finding out what WMD assets Iraq had and making sure they're brought under control," said Albright, who is with the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington-based think tank.
Meanwhile, the State Department on Thursday announced a program to find peaceful civilian employment for Iraqi scientists and technicians who formerly worked on weapons programs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
....well one good trickle down effect of the war happened yesterday as Libya has renounced their WMD program.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Where our problems started. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/shakinghands_high.wmv Saturday, Dec. 20, will mark a week in custody for Saddam Hussein at the hands of our military and its boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Though that in itself is not significant, the date Dec. 20 is. Exactly 20 years ago this Saturday, Rumsfeld was a guest in Baghdad, his host none other than Hussein. As special envoy for President Reagan, Rumsfeld went to assure his host that he could count on America to be in his corner. This was done in spite of our knowledge of Hussein's use of chemical weapons against the Iranian military as well as civilians in both Iran and Iraq. With Rummy's help, Hussein received all the military equipment he needed, including chemicals that could be used in weapons. The Reagan administration removed Iraq from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, thus opening the doors to U.S. aid, as well as the ability to acquire sophisticated technology and equipment from us. In addition to this, we provided Hussein's government with lists that contained names of suspected communists. Many on these lists were hunted down and killed, jailed or tortured. I hope President Bush, Rumsfeld and the rest of you guys will take time away from your gloating and reflect upon this special anniversary.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Here's something I read recently. I was surprised to find it online still. The day I read it, it seemed like a pretty straightfoward letter to the ditor but it just kept on dancing around my head from all sorts of different perspectives, from historical to moral all the way to apolalyptic prophecy. As a christian, it also plays to questions about God's forgiveness. Quote:
When Hussein was pulled out of the ground like an animal, it reminded me of reports that he considered himself to be the reincarnation of the arrogant King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (circa 600 BC). Hussein spent over a billion dollars rebuilding parts of ruined Babylon and even had his name stamped on every 50th brick along with that of Nebuchadnezzar.
I wonder if he was aware that Nebuchadnezzar lost his throne and his kingdom and lived like an animal. But the story doesn't end there. In time, Nebuchadnezzar repented, saying: "I praise the King of Heaven, everything he does is right and just. And those who walk in pride he is able to humble" (Daniel 4:37).
Will Hussein play out this scenario, hoping to be restored to his throne, greater than before, as Nebuchadnezzar was?
Robin E. Simmons
Desert Hot Springs
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
....well one good trickle down effect of the war happened yesterday as Libya has renounced their WMD program.....
Yes, Britney. That occurred to me also, that (as reported) Libya wanted to get out of the WMD business, and that's certainly a response to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
It's also telling that Libya was much closer to completing a nuclear weapons program than anyone in the global intelligence community knew or believed.
Another convincing testimony for the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.
My only complaint is, if we're going to "drain the swamp" to wipe out the metaphorical terrorist mosquitos, we should vastly expand our standing army, and not tap into U.S. reserves for an indefinite period during a war.
But this Libya development certainly emphasises that Iraq (as well as Sudan, Syria, And Iran) are rightly regarded as a threat to the U.S., and could each quickly become a nuclear (or other WMD-variety) threat.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
