IF you want to read this, It's going to be FRIGGIN long. You might want to grab a drink before hand.
I've tried to keep my own typos to a minimum, but I can't help everything
Rollinredcavi: This isn't a personal attack on you, if you think it is, I apologise ahead of time... I really abhor poor thought process, and you've got some bad ones going on here. I'm not trying to espouse one political idea over another, but you're really missing a lot of the pieces here and until you are fully equipped with the full facts (ie, not "facts" or "talking points" from a right or left leaning editorial, but with actual journalistic and historical information) you're going to get a lot of these from me. Just a heads up.
Rollinredcavi wrote:^^
John Kerry even said that he was going to use "Diplomacy" to defeat the terrorists. If you can believe that "talking" the terrorist down would work... yeah ok. Nearly the whole middle east wants every other "Infidel" person killed in the name of allah. The general public the the middle east are not extremist but the powerful figures over there are, and they want to kill everyone in every way they can. And that is not my words, Its the words of the terrorists. Yeah great people to take a democrat's philosify on. They say " Why cant we just talk to them and stop all this fighting". HAHAHAAH, great idea... Come on bastardking, even you know that is an absolutely retarded idea. And that is exactly what the democrats are using as a party plan for upcoming elections.
Kerry had advocated using diplomacy to defeat terrorists, absolutely...
What you're NOT getting is that Al-Qaeda needs sympathetic Governments or failing Nation States to provide people and money for their cause. If a failing Nation gets money and other goods from Western nations, they know it'll have strings attached, and that will mean that they have to keep radical Islamic schools out of the country.
Kerry, unlike Bush, didn't need to be told this. It seems that bit of the message went over your head. To learn a little more about why a failing state is a breeding ground for terrorists read
THIS WILL BE OF SOME ASSISTANCE.
Quote:
And as for Osama, it would have been nice to put a piece of lead in his head, but the most important figure to take out in that region was Sadam. Dont believe me...well since you wanted to start about WWII, here is a little bit of info that you just might find a little interesting...
First off...
Osama Bin Laden actually carried out attacks on the USA itself, not just an arm of the military (Don't forget the USS Cole), but the actual 9/11/01 terrorist attacks... all his doing. Saddam Hussein, had nothing whatsoever to do with it. None. Nada. Don't believe me?
http://www.911commission.gov. <-- Read. There's a LOT of information there to get started on. Once you're done with that: read the other 2 books I posted earlier in the thread, maybe open your eyes to what actually happened, and what really is going on. To give you a run down: 911 commission didn't find any causative or substantial link with Saddam Hussein and Al-qaeda.
Quote:
It all starts back at the days of Hitler's party rising into power. Through a series of unfortunate events and politcal genious, Hitler became the leader of the Nazi party and Germany. At the start of WWII Germany aligned with Italy who was very near the middle east and just across a sea from Africa. The British and some American troops were stationed all over north africa and the middle east where Hitler definatly didnt not want them. He sent in troops in Africa (were the Africa Corp was coined) and enlisted certain "rebels" in the middle east who were did not like that other nations had military stations in thier "holy land". Hitler sent these rebel armies thousands of weapons to carry out attacks on small British military bases around the land. This group of rebels was actually a political party which was created in the early part of the century that was trying to get rid of the British control over the country. You may have heard of them, the Baath party. One member of this party, Khairullah Tulfah, Saddam's uncle, became an alliance with the Nazi party. After getting out of prison in 1947, for whatever reason Saddam moved in with his uncle, where he became a member of the Baath party. Where his uncle thought him the political views of his party, basically the nazi party. So after time what you have is a ruler who created is politcal agenda with nazi beliefs.
Interesting, except it's entirely myopic. I'm pretty sure you didn't come up with that yourself, so let me put it to in real terms:
- Saddam Hussein didn't give a damn about Islam, Allah, or any Terrorist's ideals (proof: Shariya was not implemented EVER in Iraq, Hussein only started the Islamic sham after 1993, and was never seen in a public mosque)
- Saddam Hussein wanted Iraq for HIMSELF, no-one else... This is why he is called a sociopath.
Now, for what was happening in WWII:
- Italy had an Armada in the Mediterranean in 1939, and it was penned up because the Brits had the Strait of Gibraltar laden with heavy guns, and Italian ship trying to leave the area would have come under heavy artillery and ultimately sunk. It's one of the reasons only U-boats and Nazi capital ships made it out onto the Atlantic: They used the Rhine.
- The whole of the Afrika Corps of the Wermacht was to root out the British and some Americans... they did well, but not good enough.
- Iraq was it's own nation in 1939 (you know, when WWII ACTUALLY started), independent of the United Kingdom.
- Saddam Hussein was born in 1937... so, I'm kind of interested to find out how it was that he became a Ba'ath party member when he was 10.
- BTW: Ba'athists are universally SECULAR. They do not espouse an Islamic ideology, and never have.
Quote:
That all came to be because of the Grand Mufti who was the leader of this rebal party that was actually in physical contact with Hitler, it is even reported that they became quite good friends. So in other words the Baath party, was kept running though a funding from the slaughterings of the Jews and Serbs in the middle east, and the endless amounts of military fundins from nazi germany itself. This group that commited to the holocost in the middle east was most of the members of the Baath party, was funded by Hitler and called the Hanzars (or somthing like that). This politial party grew into power exactly the same way that Hitler did. And out of that came the former leader of Iraq, Saddam.
Interesting, but ultimately wrong.
The Ba'ath Party started in Syria in the 50's (ie, about 10 years AFTER the Nazis were driven out of Africa), and was founded on nationalist, socialist, and pan-arab ideals. It wasn't a force in any country it was present in (namely Syria, Iraq and Jordan), until the 1960's when Syria under went a military Coup d'etat, and the Communist party in Iraq (and all others for that matter) were crushed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'ath_Party <-- for a better understanding.
Quote:
I dont car how Bush got intel from Iraq, or even if his advisors made it up, they did the right thing even if that is true, its not but it doesnt matter.
Actually, it does.
Acting without founded information (all reports of Iraq pursuing WMD from Russia's FSB and Her Majesty's Intelligence Service in the UK were retracted after they were all found to be from a person that had a vested interest in seeing Hussein deposed:
Ahmed Chalabi) endangers you and every other American. It wasn't appropriate in North Korea, it wasn't appropriate in the Cold War, and it is not appropriate in any other circumstance. When real lives are at stake, you must verify a real threat from a phantom threat.
The sabre-rattling began when Bin Laden evaporated into Pakistan... doesn't that seem rather opportune? Take out a political hurdle and gain a friendly and most importantly, oil-rich government in the middle of the middle-east? What's the downside? Only a couple Trillion dollars in the offing... no worries there.
Quote:
And this Baath party was basically the first muslim group that would kill themselves to kill others and the suicide bombing type stuff. Thus making Iraq the center of terrorist organization because it was the first extremist muslim state. So for anyone who thinks there is no link between Saddam and terrorism, you are sadly uninformed.
Whoa... whoa... whoa.
The only point that the Ba'ath party ever began to resemble a terrorist organisation was in 2003 when party members actually had to carry weapons during the invasion of Baghdad. Before that, entering the Ba'ath party was like entering the Communist party in Russia... it was something you did if you wanted to get ahead in life and not be either dirt poor, or resigned to owning a poverty level shop and ekeing out an existence.
The Ba'ath party under Hussein was basically a political machine to serve him, not a radical Muslim agenda. Simple point of fact (if you read anything about Nazis) is that they killed Communists, Catholics, Gypsies, Protestants and basically any political rivals. Hussein emulated this, but not out of devout idealism, it was because it was the most expedient way for him to solidify his grasp on the political reigns of the country.
Hussein killed other muslims (Iranians, Kurds, Kuwaitis, Saudis)... this would seem to bely any radical Islamic agenda, n'est pas?
Quote:
So for all of you saying that Iraq is wrong... plain and simple, your wrong.
What is being said is that:
- 1: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
- 2: Iraq had no connections with Al-qaeda
- 3: Iraq was handled.
BTW, the link to the book you're talking about is first and foremost, a self-published book. That's not to say anything bad about it, but, self-published books are that way because either: major publishing houses can't verify the veracity of what is being said (in this case, that's what I'm thinking) or, that the author is believed to be just enough of a crank that they're not going to expose themselves to Libel proceedings.
Now for something completely different:
Quote:
You wasted your time typing somthing that... well... wrong. Some stuff is true, like the spening money. So @!#$ what. I am glad he did.
Hey, prove I'm wrong.
I've referenced NEWS (*NOT editorial, learn the differences) publications, and government documents. You've referenced a single person's self published book, which has only been reviewed by one person who writes for the same editorial site (Newsmax, contrary to the name, is editorial. There is no on site reporting).
Here's a hint before I shred what you're saying: Go over what I wrote, read what I have referenced in this post and in others. I'm one of those few people that will admit when they're wrong. In this case, I'm not wrong, you need to bone up a little.
Quote:
Personal privacy, Bush didnt go any farther than Clinton did. Remember the Eschelon program.
Echelon is a myth.
There is no way to process the amount of signals intelligence being batted around the USA on a quiet night, let alone a full day... and have it interpreted, contextualised, condensed and recorded. There is just WAY too much of that happening.
Why is it nigh impossible? Well, here's the thing, most people that know about electronic eaves-dropping know about encryption. Be it PGP, point to point keyed encryption, strong encryption... whatever: it's there. Now, I'll give you a fer-instance: a Native speaker of Crou is talking to a native speaker of Crou on a digitally encrypted cellular phone from Norway to Brazil: even if the call is routed into the USA, it's functionally undecipherable because digital encryption they're using is appended to the GSM-1900 phones they're using, and Crou is spoken by about 40,000 people total. Same thing with arab dialects like Pashto. Add in the fact that throw-away phones are becoming more and more commonplace, and you have a very difficult problem: you can't track it all down, and you can't decipher it fast enough.
If you really believe Echelon exists, I have a few other things to tell you about, but they involve Goldilocks and the Three Bears, The three little pigs, and Hanzel and Gretyl.
Quote:
Which did they same thing, only president Bush had the decency to ask the public first. Yes thats right, Clinton was lying to you and spying in on phone lines and all sorts of stuff behind everyones back. Get over the phone line thing, even if they were listening to every person, you wont get arrested if you say " gun" or "bomb" on the phone. There would have to be beyond reasonable doubt for anyone to even assume your going to blow somthing up. It would be one of the best policies we could adopt. It's just the retarted people out there that think their lives are more important that anothers that keep complaining about privacy.
Anyone that sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither. Get used to that saying.
The phone taps are the beginning. Here's a
short list of the freedoms that are infringed upon by the USA PATRIOT Act.
That's not the end of it:
http://911review.org/Wiki/PatriotAct2.shtml <-- If you don't like the site, there's a link to a
WIRED Magazine article.
Quote:
Plus our economy is just as high as clintons was. Not only that but we are paying back national debt at the fastest rate our country has ever done so.
No, your economy is in the crapper. Thanks to the Republicans, you're adding trillions onto your national defecit.
Here's a fiscal lesson:
Debt - Money you've borrowed and must pay back.
Interest - Money that accrues on the money you've borrowed and haven't yet paid back.
DEFICIT- The difference between what you owe payment to payment and what you have paid, usually negative.
You're not even covering your interest payments. This is the reason that the Euro is going to overtake the US dollar as the main currency used in the world's transactions. Look at it like this: on Sept 10, 2001, the Canadian Dollar traded against the US dollar at 63.8 cents, basically it cost us 1.49 or so to buy a single US dollar. As of Saturday, October 28, 2006, the Dollar is trading at over 89 cents [url-http://www.oanda.com/convert/classic?date=10%2F28%2F06&expr=CAD&Convert.x=19&value=1&exch=USD&Convert.y=14]LINK... Canada has been doing the same thing for the last 5 years, and the US has been tossing money out the window at Iraq.
Quote:
You cant capture Bin Laden when you are being forced to stand down by other nations and retarded generals. Plus the fact that Bin Laden is definaly not doing to much right now. He has no more resources and no ability to call shots.
Do you
really believe that?
Did the bombings in
London and
Madrid not ring a little bell?
Quote:
Outsourcing of jobs is a direct relation to the corruption of Unions in the nation. If you allow every factory worker to get paid over $20 and hour for putting a steering wheel on a car your prices are driven to the highest levels in the world. And you wonder why it is attractive to move out of the country. Get rid of the selfish unions and you have companies that can produce goods for nearly half the price they are right now. This brings TONS of money back into the US system and will offer attractive oprotunities for other companies to move back in to the States, which creates more jobs and gives people incentive to rely on US companies. Oh yeah, and Unions are 99% Democrat, funny that they are the ones complaining about outsourcing the most. And the Demmies want to raise taxes even more, Wow, idiocy at its finest.
You know what's really interesting is that about 75% of the US is middle-class... I'm going roughly here. Do you honestly think that it was small business that brought the US out of the post WWII slump? Of course not. IT was the fact that you had a large group of skilled labourers that organised in order to deny large companies from arbitrarily dumping 2/3 of their workforce and working the other 1/3 to dust and bringing the rest in at dirt-cheap labor prices... which, if you'll note, is something that is done with aplomb in India, Malaysia and China.
Unions aren't the perfect solution, but removing tarriffs on companies (who don't pay nearly as much tax per dollar earned as the average american citizen) who willingly close up shop in the USA only to open up in a 3rd world country and then sell their goods to Americans who now have no way to pay for these goods... how is this making things better?
Blame Unions all you like, they have to operate under federal and state laws, and they are forced to look after their own, because big business won't unless they're pushed into it.
Before you come up with another Republicanist line, answer me this: why is it that the US economy hasn't gained back 100% of the jobs that were lost in the aftermath of 9/11/01?
While you're at that and explaining idiocy at its finest, explain to me the rationale behind dropping taxes at a time of WAR? The US has been through a few wars, and in none of them has the president, congress and senate been given to the foible of cutting out the ability to FINANCE the operations. You need money to make war in another place. This is a simple, unalterable, and immutable truth. If you start depleting your reserves of cash, you're going to ultimately limit your ability to win that war. At this point the US Government is hemorrhaging cash and red ink at rates unseen EVER.
At least under Clinton, you had a balanced budget... you know... they made it a LAW.
Quote:
Give me George W. as president any day of the week, he is one of the last true politicians who cares about the US, the rest might as well be considered terrorists or communist.
Really?
You keep thinking that if that what gets you through the day.
When you're ready to face the reality of things you'll notice:
- Bush only cares about Americans... and Saudis... That have a LOT of money.
- Bush and the republican party at large (either willingly or not) has created a new realm of class warfare
- You are no safer from terrorists today than you were on Sept 10, 2001.
- You are sacrificing long-term economic stability for short term patches in the economy that are NOT WORKING.
- You are going to be saddled with paying off the War in Iraq for at least another 40 years at the present rate of pay back
- Your children have a greater chance of being left behind because of "No Child Left Behind" targets not being met because of lack of funding.
- Your long-term safety is in greater jeopardy because of Iraq.
- You do not have the same freedoms or protections that you had before Sept 11, 2001 because Republican controlled Executive and Legislative branches have legislated them into obscurity.
When you're ready to digest these little factoids, you'll understand how "great" Bush was.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edited Saturday, October 28, 2006 10:24 PM
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
and they crafted it to show what they wanted. 
(j/k KOTL - I would never really blame Bush on you
, you would have been keeping the money you're now spending on higher costs for goods. 
