General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2257642

    Confused about War on Terror


    by jdclyde ·

    If you were to listen to some news reports, or very liberal people both in and out of the US, you would think that the terrorist problems in the world today are all President Bushs fault.

    This show a complete ignorance as the final straw of 9/11 had NOTHING to do with Bush, his policies, or anyone in his administration.

    Do we say it was President Clintons fault that the terrorists hated the US so much that they took the trade centers down? Or do we recognise our crime was being alive and that they are quite insane?

    Yes, I get it. Liberals world wide are full of hate for President Bush. Does that make everything wrong in the world his fault?

    Did he make mistakes? Of course he did. Not using ENOUGH force in Iraq was his main mistake, provided he would still go in if he knew that once Saddam was not there to force rule of law, the different flavors of Islam would go right back to killing each other for nothing more than being the wrong flavor?

    Where do we go from here? Do we let the Democrats pull us out and let Iran and Syria take over Iraq, or do we continue to assist them in building a country of their own?

All Comments

  • Author
    • #3202071

      the WTC was attacked in the clinton era

      by mjwx ·

      In reply to Confused about War on Terror

      Just not successfully and terrorism has been alive since the Napoleonic days (probably before). Also we seem to get Republicans that are full of hate for anything not republican (not you JD, but I think we all know which one here I am referring to). And I will say before I start, of course bush had nothing to do with 9/11 wrong place wrong time (but really people he shouldnt have kept reading that book, time to stand up and say “sorry kids but I have important president stuff to do”).

      Disclaimer [b]you’re not going to like what I have to say but it is most unfortunately true[/b]

      The mistake was going to Iraq in the first place. Not to place blame on a specific president but fear of WMD’s was drummed up to gain popular support for an invasion of the most powerful secular state in the mid east. WMD’s are yet to materialise and other not-so-western-friendly-states are taking advantage of a power vacuum left by Saddam?s departure in the region. no matter what people thought of Saddam (I don?t have fond opinions of him) he was an integral part of the balance in that religion, secular Iraq managed to cancel out fundamentalist Iran, both states had their own agendas which pushed against one another with no help what so ever from the outside. Now that Saddam has been removed we are seeing that fundamentalist Iran is pushing its own agenda with little interference from local sources and as always foreign interference is ineffective.

      The US has no chance of fixing the problems over there now. All you can hope is that foreign powers not US can manage to stabilise the region. The EU and AU (African Union not Australia in this case) hold more sway over the Middle Eastern states than the US especially after what is perceived over there as the backstabbing of Iraq (yes most Arabs and Persians considered Saddam to be western friendly). You’ll have to rely on your allies if you expect any kind of a victory. Not every state is against the west, Turkey is trying to get into the EU, Jordan is a very forward thinking state (king Abdullah seems to love the BBC) what we (as in the not US world) need to do is to first show that we are not the imperialist Christian US puppets that we are perceived of being and then work to separate the other middle-eastern states from fundamentalist Iran.

      Somalia and Syria are good places to start, Somalia especially is a good place to start as the Islamic council is trying to separate themselves from the terrorist stereotype. Hearts and minds, we have to work to convince the Middle East that there is only madness and destruction coming from Tehran. This can only be done if the US buts out, proving that you can put the most powerful state in the back seat for the greater good (for anyone who has failed to catch on this is what we need to get the Middle Eastern states to do to Iran)

      On Iraq, the US has really got no choice now. Iraq is in a civil war and neither side really want US forces there. You’re just going to have to let them fight it out and hope that fundamentalists don?t take over. It will keep costing you lives, just like Vietnam did. As for not using enough force, it’s like a rubber band the harder you pull the more resistance the rubber band puts out. The US is yet to encounter a “Hezbollah” style civilian militia in Iraq, you have only encountered light resistance compared to that the Lebanese threw at Israel during the 22 year occupation. Accept it, the Iraqi’s want an American ruler as much as Americans want an Iraqi ruler.

      I said you wouldn?t like this and I suspect you haven?t. But the facts are the facts, in the Middle East You’ve Failed.

      Now to the naysayser?s that would call this “chamberlain style appeasement” I would say that we have tried your way for the last 30 odd years first with the Roosevelt style “ignore it because it doesn?t concern us” and then the for the last 4 and a half years “bomb the crap out of it and try to turn it into an US democracy”. You’ve been trying to stabilise Afghanistan for 4 years and to date, women are still forced to wear burquas, Sharia law has been reinstated and the Taliban are gaining strength because the only way for people to make a living is via poppy farming, which is deemed illegal by the US. Iraq is in the middle of a bloody sectarian war. You’ve failed, now sit back and let someone else work on it.

      Now as for fighting terror, I don?t want to live in terror so I support it. I say we start with the fear mongers in Australia, Europe and America? I have spoken to some Arabs and Persians who have moved here to the great land of Australia, they have varying opinions of back home in the Middle East but they will always tell me how pleased they were to be able to immigrate to Australia.

      • #3201997

        It wouldn’t be much of a discussion

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to the WTC was attacked in the clinton era

        if we all agreed right off the bat, now would it?

        I figured it would take a few posts at least to make you see the error of your ways? B-)

        As for not liking what you said, I do agree with a lot of it. I think the US should get out of other countries, and cut off ALL aid to anyone that is not considered a close ally. Want to hate America? Fine, get your funds from your comrades in Russia and China. Can’t buy friends, and we should stop trying.

        Would be nice if there WERE other groups stepping up to try to resolve the issues in Iraq, but that just doesn’t seem to be happening. Everyone would rather the place turned to a pile of rubble just so they can gloat on a failure of the US, instead of worring about helping people. Global politics sucks, and so do the people that practice it.

        • #3199330

          Think of this

          by tryten ·

          In reply to It wouldn’t be much of a discussion

          Think of how many BILLIONS of dollars the American government would only aid close allies. The numbers that keep popping in my head are astronomical.

          Others did try to help the US in Iraq. I dont want to go into it, but I will say that most of those “Friendly Fire” incedents inflicted on allied solders by US solders were probably not accidents, they probably deserved it.

        • #3199264

          I was expecting

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to It wouldn’t be much of a discussion

          A scathing “Maxwell Edison” libertarian style response to my somewhat scathing post. Who was it that said “expect the unexpected”.

          In Iraq the damage is already done, the people have to want help and after living under Saddam, they don?t know what they want only what they don?t want.

          We can?t force the Iraqi people accept a specific way of governance, they have to choose for themselves. If they can?t choose they will get another dictator, be they a traditional or religious dictator.

          Like Tony said, I don?t want to blame the US (we’ve told you before we [b]are not[/b] democrats, so if you expect democrat like responses you will be disappointed) but it would be good if they would take some damned responsibility and stop blaming other nations/political parties about the situation in Iraq.

          Diplomacy is a game that nobody wins but war is a game that everybody loses. I think that is a good description, requires a bit of semantics to understand.

      • #3205641

        Clinton wanted 9/11 on his watch

        by too old for it ·

        In reply to the WTC was attacked in the clinton era

        So he could have a legacy beyond “getting a Lewinsky”.

      • #2618002

        Will the “not-US” countries please step up?

        by sn53 ·

        In reply to the WTC was attacked in the clinton era

        mjwx wrote, “…what we (as in the not US world) need to do is to first show that we are not the imperialist Christian US puppets that we are perceived of being and then work to separate the other middle-eastern states from fundamentalist Iran.”

        I really would like to see the “not-US” parts of the world step up. It is not likely or it would have happened already. In Afghanistan NATO has taken over much of the responsibility. How is that working out? Are the “not-US” countries actually doing anything or are they operating at minimal levels as a political sop? I cannot tell.

        It is still too early to tell but I believe the US has already seen the turning point in the Iraq area of operations. That occurred when the people selected their own government. Turning points are tricky. It is hard to see them until long after the fighting is over.

        But then, I believe we are winning.

    • #3202046

      Well as a member of the socialist

      by tony hopkinson ·

      In reply to Confused about War on Terror


      If we allow them to pull out, ie vote in another set of scum bag politicians with that policy, then we are saying we are as bigger set of assholes as they are., both lots !

      I’m a died in the wool socialist, I’ve voted labour since I got my majority. I want Tony Blair’s epitaph to be, ‘Wish I hadn’t gone into Iraq’.

      Those responsible can’t be allowed the option to escape the painful consequences of their own ignorance.
      The iraqi people can’t, our troops and their families can’t either.

      Keep them in power until they say they are sorry, and keep them there until they mean it.

      Oh, and enlist all their kids, it’s only fair.

      Try not to annoy me by lumping me in with those democrats, I do believe in fighting terrorism.

      However unlike the nipple heads who authored this stupidity, I realise I’ve got to find my enemy before I can give him a slap.
      Hitting someone who looks him, might make me feel better, but all I end up with is at least one more enemy.

      • #3201994

        I tried to work this

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Well as a member of the socialist

        in a way that was not a attack on anyone who is a non-republican.

        What would be your solution from today forward on how to handle Iraq? Do we throw all of our soldiers on a boat and bring them home today, or do we continue to TRY to train their own forces to be able to protect themselves? Or is there another option that isn’t on the table yet?

        Right now, I don’t CARE about blame, I care about solutions. I see the Democrats in the US right now going down the “pull them NOW” path, but that seems to be more to try to hurt Bush than to do what is good for Iraq or us.

        • #3201986

          If you broke the eggs

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to I tried to work this

          You make the omlette. You can’t put it back in their shells no matter what wonderful hindsight you have.

          If you pull out too soon, you leave a power vacuum and civil war ensues. Groups that are allied today to fight the US will fight each other. If there weren’t a high probability of massive civilian casualties, I wouldnt care so much.


        • #3201968

          in a nut shell

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to If you broke the eggs

          I don’t CARE if the different groups kill each other off, but because by nature it seems the followers of Islam are cowards that attack civilians regardless of men,women and children, instead of military or militia groups, it would get real ugly, real quick.

          Evacuate the citizens and let the other groups kill each other. Who ever is left alive, try to make them a trade partner.

        • #3199412

          Now…that was funny…

          by jck ·

          In reply to I tried to work this

          “Liberals world wide are full of hate for President Bush.”

          Nah…that’s not attacking anyone…nah…not in the least…not even their character 😀

          Dubya for Czar 2008! 😀

        • #3199385

          stating a fact is an attack?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Now…that was funny…

          Saying your 6’6″ is not an attack, nor is it an attack to clearly state what YOU have been saying all along.

          How is this FACT an attack? Please explain?

          Now if I had said “Everyone that hates Bush is a doodie head”, THAT would have been an attack. I await your clarification on how this is an attack.

        • #3199344

          It’s because you stated:

          by jck ·

          In reply to stating a fact is an attack?

          “Yes, I get it. Liberals world wide are full of hate for President Bush. Does that make everything wrong in the world his fault?”

          Labelling someone as full of hate because of a belief is an attack on their character. Just like if I said “Muslims world wide are full of hate for Jews.”, that would be an attack on the character of peace-loving Muslims who are (whether you want to believe it or not) the majority in their religion.

          You and others have reprimanded me time and time again…for generalising. And now, your statement is such that I am returning the favour. 😉

          Fact is, you addressed it in words that liberals are full of hate for Bush. That *is* a very vague, weakly-worded, and inaccurate generalization of liberals. I can introduce you to liberals whom I work with in government who do not hate him. I can introduce you to people whom you’d deem as liberal from several countries that don’t hate him. Therefore, your generalisation is not fact.

          Not even a more specific generalisation of “Congressional liberals” or “Democratic liberals” would have been accurate. Therefore again, that makes it not a fact.

          I know of conservatives that hate Bush.
          I know of Republicans that hate Bush.
          I know of a Libertarian who hates Bush for his policies (namely, Tucker Carlson from MSNBC who calls Bush a liberal…and he’s right).

          Therefore, your vaguely worded generalism was not fact….it was your [b]opinion[/b]. Big difference.

          BTW…who said everything in the world that was wrong is Bush’s fault?

          Just the weak result in Iraq and gross overspending of American taxpayer dollars is Bush’s fault. After all, he approved of and signed the orders for all those things to happen as President. Do you disagree?

          Have a nice day.

          Comrade Bush for Czar 2008! 😀

        • #3199342

          I did notice your list of hates

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to It’s because you stated:

          but didn’t see you list ANY liberals that don’t HATE Bush.

          Regardless of if this is a fact (which in my opinion it is) or if it is just my opinion (which IS a fact), does not change if this is an insult or not.

          You are only insulted if you choose to be. Me saying out loud about you and yours Hating Bush was not an insult. It was just you looking to be arguemenative and distract from the point that liberals are the hateful creatures that they are. :p

          So there!


        • #3277266

          you and yours?

          by jck ·

          In reply to I did notice your list of hates

          yours? are you referring to my family? my political party affiliation? my ham radio club? my computer society?

          If you mean my own family, I have no wife and children. Hence, there is no “yours” in that aspect. That is a fact, so you’d be wrong in that case.

          If you are referring to party affiliation, I’ve been a registered Republican for 19 years. Hence, you’d be inferring that Republicans hate Bush, if that is the case. Again, you’d be wrong in that case too…really wrong…unless you’re willing to prove that Rove and Cheney and Lott hate Bush. hehe.

          If you’re talking about me being liberal again, I’m a lot less liberal than comrade Bush (whom you support so much) in the fact that I didn’t think we belonged in Iraq in the first place, imposing our government, it’s structure, and political ideologies on another country… which is about as governmentally liberal as you can be. So if I’m liberal, Bush must be a socialist leftist wingnut in comparison. And if he’s a conservative, I must be an ultra-conservative libertarian.

          Again, I point you to Tucker Carlson of MSNBC who is about as conservative as they come. I agree with almost everything the man says. He points out that Bush is truly a liberal. He is not only pushing more and more governmental control into American lives, but he’s also pushing our governmental ideologies and policies and societal standards into another country, i.e.- Iraq.

          And I’m not insulted by you simply because I know you’re wrong about the “full of hate” presumption you’ve made…especially in respect to [b]me[/b]. And, that is an attack on my character… stating I am “full of hate for Bush” or that i’m a “hateful creature”. There is one person in this world I hate…and, he’s not a politician at all. He works for FedEx.

          You’d think you work for Psychic Friends or something, with you telling me what I think and how I feel. Or have you been dating Ms. Cleo or something? 😀

          Because I call him stupid because he can’t pronounce and enunciate words, can barely read his telepromptered speeches, and beats around topics because he has no answers unless his advisors give them to him…it’s not hate for Bush…it’s an assessment (and rather accurate at that) of his inadequacy as an individual who is not well-read or articulate enough to be leader of our country. Watch him stammer, stutter, pause until he can go back to the teleprompter because he can’t remember more than 5 words, and can’t remember what word expresses his thought properly. It’s quite evident.

          Once again, you’re wrong … both about “liberals” in general…and especially about me…being “full of hate” for Bush. I don’t hate Bush. I hate his policies. I hate the fact he is the person that the world associates with “American leadership”. He gives us a bad image amongst people of all ethnicities, religions, and means.

          But, I don’t hate Bush at all. If anything, I pity him.

          As for me being a “hateful creature”, at least I don’t sit and make negative attacks about your being a hate monger of liberals. I just let your words and attitude speak for itself 😀

          OK…well…here…Terrorists are stupid, hateful, misguided people. There…I’ll generalise for you. Now I’m wrong for making broad, inaccurate generalisations right along with you. I’m sure that there is or has been one intelligent terrorists somewhere 😀

          Wait…I just figured it out! I bet you just don’t like my assessment because you’re bucking to get something from the Republican party, aren’t you? You wanna be state senator jdclyde or something? Keep playin that party line like a good puppet 😉

          Anyway, keep thinking like that about me if you like, with your overzealous, distorted “I must support our leader and our system no matter what or I’m not a real American” attitude of patriotism. You’ll fit right in when you go to retire in Idaho or Montana.

          BTW…just so you know. An insult is an attack of negative implication on an aspect of someone’s being…whether it is racial, physical, or religious.

          OK…wanna join my bumpersticker campaign now??? gotta think of the future!!! Say it with me, jdclyde!!!

          Comrade Bush for Czar 2008!!! 😀

          Oh P.S. – My parents…registered Democrats and liberal people…for over 50 years…they don’t hate Bush. So, there’s my liberals you demand me to point out that don’t hate Bush.

          Now you gonna tell me I’m wrong and that my parents aren’t liberals? 😀

          “…or if it is just my opinion (which IS a fact),…”

          God, you are a riot. Now go eat a croissant and play golf and get ready for the 2016 election…I’m sure you’ll make a good politician someday. 😀

          Oh…one last thing…about “looking to be argumentative”:

          Who started this argumentative thread in the first place looking for political argument?? :p

        • #3229463


          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Now…that was funny…

          Clearly zoned after retirement?

          Until I see evidence otherwise, I am convinced that Dubya had personal reasons for invading Iraq and used WMD and an alQaida connection as fear factors to justify it.

        • #3199329

          We cannot pull out

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to I tried to work this

          The only way forward is to persuade the iraqi’s that the terrorists are the bad guys.

          They cannot operate unless they can hide among the general public.
          To do that and have any resources left to attack their enemies, they have to have sympathisers. So kicking Ali’s door in because he might have a terrorist in his house pretty much guarantees there will be one in there the moment we leave the building.

          It’s a waste of time talking about our military resources compared to theirs, it’s that imbalance that made them choose to ‘fight back’ using terrorist and guerilla tactics in the first place.

          As far as the most committed are concerned, it’s their only possible way to win.

          Drain the enemy, make it too expensive. A pull out would be a victory for people who manipulate, purposely created victims of ignorance, to kill themselves and others to further their aims.
          The mere idea makes me want to puke.

          It’s not about blame for me either, it’s about accepting responsibility for your actions. That’s everybody, because to fail to act, to refuse to act and to act incorrectly are all decisions with consequences.

        • #3199249
          Avatar photo

          We are responsible for destroying that country

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to I tried to work this

          So we have to stay there to help rebuild it so it can function by itself without being invaded and taken over the moment that we pull out.

          We have made a total mess in the Middle East that looks impossible to unmake at the moment and have fuelled the seeds of Discontent in Afghanistan again. No matter what everyone thought about the Talaban they actively tried to prevent the Poppies Cultivation that the COW willing approved of to get control of the land at the expense of the Talaban in the last days of the Rule of the Talaban. Now that money is coming back to haunt us all as it is going to feed the enemy. It’s even better they are accepting foreign junkies into the place and feeding their habit for 50 cents per day and still making a massive profit on the deal and that money is being used against us now. Previously it was used against the Talaban as they where attempting to wipe out the Poppies Plantations but now they will do everything possible to push the cultivation of this useless crop on to gain money for their own ends.

          Lets face facts this is a [b]Mess[/b] with no current solution. Sure here is no combat situation now but just like the Germans found in France and other occupied lands it’s one thing to take control and it’s entirely another thing to keep control, in a position like we have in both of these countries we are fighting the wrong people. Was Saddam a nasty piece of work? [b]Hell Yes[/b] but so is everyone else in that area.

          Did the Talaban accept money & support from Alacadia? [b]Hell Yes[/b] but they needed the money to keep on in their attempts to close down the poppies fields in Southern Afghanistan and they got their troops trained for free as well. Unfortunately neither of these countries where directly involved in the events of 9-11 but because this is an enemy that is intent on capturing hearts & minds not land we are unable to fight it with the means at out disposal as we have never had to fight a [b]Stateless Enemy Before.[/b]

          Every time previously we where fighting for Land and this time there is no Land to fight for only to defend from others coming in and taking it away from our control.

          Sorry to say this but I think that [b]We’ve Lost This One.[/b] sure we can roll in and capture the place but to date we have proved incapable of keeping control and on many occasions we have sunk to their level the ones that we where supposed to be fighting to free them from this oppression so we are causing a [b]Self Creating Enemy[/b] so we are currently making a [b]Rod for our own Backs[/b] that is going to defeat us eventually and be the undoing of us all.

          Through whatever we have brought this on ourselves and currently I can see no way out. If we where to walk away now they win and we are subject to attack at their whim. If we stay put trying to put in place some form of stable Government we are training our enemies to fight us eventually and again when through pure economics we have to pull out we are again subject to attack at their Whim.

          Lets face it we’ve lost this one so maybe it’s better to just get the Hell out and try to make our own borders safe so we can minimise the attacks when they do come. If we get very lucky we may be able to stop 1 in 3 attacks that are coming but that’s about the best that we can now hope to achieve.


    • #3199224

      Pullout = chaos in Middle East

      by mark miller ·

      In reply to Confused about War on Terror

      Worse than now.

      I can’t help but think that when politicians talk about a pullout that it’s just a political ploy to satisfy their base. I can’t imagine that they would be so stupid as to actually go through with it. In fact, when the Republicans have brought forward resolutions to get the Democrats to put up or shut up, to say whether they want a pullout of Iraq, most of them vote no. Yet they keep coming forward in the media saying, “We’ve got to get out of there!” It’s hard for me to say if even Lamont in CT is the real deal, or if he’s just pandering, too.

      The worst case scenario I can imagine if we were to pull out is that Iran throws its support behind the Shia to take over Iraq totally. Al Qaeda gets behind the Sunnis (they’re Sunni). Saudi Arabia may do the same (the royal family is Sunni), and the Kurds decide “fuck it!” and secede from Iraq, causing Turkey to go to war with the Kurds. Turkey has said from the beginning they will not tolerate an independent Kurdish region right next door to them.

      What’s such a joke is the “plan” put forward by some liberals (note I did not say all) that we should get out “and monitor the situation”, and “intervene if things get too dicey” (oh, like a wholesale slaughter a la Pol Pot???), and “we’ll let them know that we will be there to help with reconstruction.” Sheah, right! And monkeys might come flying out my butt! There won’t be any reconstruction because anyone who tries to rebuild anything will be murdered on the spot.

      At least right now the violence is somewhat contained. Some people want to imagine it’s horrible now. It could be worse.

    • #3277333

      Wrong mistake.

      by nighthawk808 ·

      In reply to Confused about War on Terror

      His mistake was pulling troops out of Afghanistan, where we were searching for the person responsible for 9/11, in order to have the resources to invade Iraq, which had nothing to do with it.

      Why is it OK to leave a job half-finished in Afghanistan, yet when Rummy et al. have demonstrated their complete failures as human beings or as leaders in Iraq, suddenly “stay the course” is so important?

      You do bring up a good point about Iran and Syria. However, if Bush hadn’t destabilized Iraq, Iran wouldn’t be nearly as brave as it is now.

      People hate Bush because he has made them, and the world, much less safe. Just because people hate him doesn’t mean he’s on to something. Somehow the White House has created the doublethink that having people hate you is a good thing. It’s not when there are dozens of perfectly good reasons for it.

      • #3277280

        perfectly good reasons

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Wrong mistake.

        Funny, but much of the HATE talk has been floating around since the First election run, and it never let up.

        The mindless masses hate him because they were told that they should, period.

        Now as for staying the course, are you saying we should NOT stay the course?

        What is the solution? Lets hear you post what we SHOULD do. Show that there are people of your political mind set that are FOR SOMETHING, instead of simply the obstructionists that are against anything Republicans say or do.

        I suppose in a separate post, you might list your “dozens” of perfectly good reasons. You didn’t specify how many dozens, so I will only look for a simple 24 reasons that are “perfectly good reasons to be so full of hate.

        And please do not confuse reasons to disagree, with reasons to HATE.

        • #3277269

          jd, you CAN be against the war in Iraq

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to perfectly good reasons

          and not have the slightest idea what to do about it now.

          Those of us who have been against the invasion from the outset are not the reason that the region is now going to hell in a handbasket. The fault lies with the politicians who engaged in such a gamble as was the invasion without any valid reasons. Those politicians are the leaders of BOTH our countries. I don’t hate them, though, I despise them for what they have done.

          We now have to stay there at whatever the cost in lives and hatred and just [b]hope[/b]. In that we agree.


        • #3277233

          From what I have heard for about a decade now

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to jd, you CAN be against the war in Iraq

          I find it hard to believe your absolute of “without ANY valid reasons”.

          Since the late 90’s, very liberal and non-warmongering people have been saying what a threat to the world Saddam is.

          Since Desert Storm, Saddam has broken every sanction against him.

          I am more worried right now, today, about the weapons the every country in the world knows he had, that we have not been able to find. To stupidly say we didn’t find them so he was a grand old fella that we should have left along drives me nuts. (I am not refering to you, Neil) I think we have more to fear of those weapons than ever before.

          If more forces would have been in place to lock down Iraq right off the bat, Iran would not be in the stronger position they are in now. Should have been overwhelming force, and a door to door, removing every weapon found.

          As for against the war, it does not improve anyones position or situation to just cry about how someone is doing something if you are not willing to step up and help to find a solution. The ONLY thing that does is undermine all efforts to that date, AND gives scumbag terrorists hope that all they have to do is wait us out and they will win just by surviving, like they are claiming in Lebanon right now. The Lebanese are going down a bad road, and the next time because of their embracing of Hezballah NOW, will not be innocent bystanders next time around.

        • #3277214

          We’ll have to agree to disagree

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to From what I have heard for about a decade now

          I think that the UN’s sanctions and weapons inspectors backed up with the [b]threat[/b] of force had Saddam Hussein pretty much checked. I accept your contempt for the UN and agree with some but by no means all. But I do think that it would have been good for the world in general to see that Saddam was down – he was – and was being kept down – he could have been [b]by the UN[/b]. In invading, we destroyed the last bit of hope that the UN was worth anything (most of the UN’s credibility already having been destroyed by Israel). That is by no means “leaving Saddam alone”.

          Iran just might have taken notice if Saddam were held down by UN sanctions and weapons inspectors and the spotlight then turned on her.

          As for Iraq, you don’t have sufficient forces on your own and, because of the near-unilateral action, few allies so that “overwhelming force” and “door-to-door” is not and was not an option.

          Hezbollah were – until recently – no threat to me. My country had not declared Hezbollah as a terrorist organistaion. Hezbollah were less of a threat than the IRA are now and certainly less of a threat that the IRA used to be.

          I know we’ve done this to death but you’ve really got to separate out these groups and understand them because, as both you and the Israelis have so eloquently demonstrated in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, force won’t do it. Hezbollah are still there. The Taleban are still there – see Col’s excellent post! – and Al Qaeda are still there. As for Hezbollah, a significant part of the Lebanese army are Shia and therefore sympathetic. ALL Lebanese now, courtesy of US-supplied cluster bombs, hate the Israelis and are therefore more sympathetic towards Hezbollah.

          The Lebanese army will [b]not[/b] be successful against Hezbollah. A multi-national force will [b]not[/b] be successful against Hezbollah. Ten years time and the whole thing will kcik off again.

          I still say that you can’t keep on asking me and people like me for a solution to a mess caused by something that we wouldn’t have done. Especially as you’re not going to like and would very probably ignore what I’ve got to say anyway.

          Three questions to be answered as you would have done June 1st 2006.

          What on earth have Hezbollah done to you?

          What business is it of yours that allows you to act in the way you do?

          Given that the failure of munitions to explode, around 15%, creates an “instant minefield” and given that the use of cluster munitions against civilians is arguably against the Geneva convention, do you consider it acceptable for the US to supply such weapons to the Israeli Defence Force given their track record in other wars?


          p.s What [b]would[/b] I say?

          Well, for a start, we’d have to go to the UN and say “Sorry, guys, but we f*cked up”. Just like an alcoholic on the road to recovery once he admits that he has a problem. We [b]have[/b] f*cked up, you know but theres sod-all chance of [b]that[/b] scenario.

        • #2617995

          Hope and the UN

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to We’ll have to agree to disagree

          neil wrote, ” In invading, we destroyed the last bit of hope that the UN was worth anything…”

          What is your opinion of the Oil for Food scam the UN had going on with Iraq aided and abetted by France, Russia and others? What impact did that corruption have on your “last bit of hope”?

        • #3277190

          But whose sanctions did Saddam disobey?

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to From what I have heard for about a decade now

          They were UN sanctions, not US sanctions. So why should our leaders in the US have felt that it is their duty to enforce those sanctions? Why don’t we then go ahead and try to enforce every UN resolution? Why didn’t we take it upon ourselves to enforce UN resolutions regarding Hezbollah and Lebanon?

          A country’s armed forces are typically referred to “defense” forces, not “offense”. To defend something usually means to protect something. This means that armed forces should only be used to defend a country’s possessions, not to take another’s country’s. If one nation goes on the offensive and attacks another unprovoked, then overwhelming force is hardly justified. However, the attacked nation has every right and obligation to use overwhelming force to defend themselves and to expel the offender. Same principal applies to an intruder breaking into your home. If someone threatens to break in to your home, you have no right to use force of any kind against that person. However, if he does physically enter your home without your consent, you have much more legal right to defend yourself and your property, and to use overwhelming force and all means necessary to throw the ba$tard out.

        • #3277179

          Hey M_a_r_k (notice I got the _ this time)

          by jck ·

          In reply to But whose sanctions did Saddam disobey?

          I liked it better when you were saying something about just nuking them all 😀

          That was you, right? 😉

        • #3277128

          The nuke-’em guy was me

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Hey M_a_r_k (notice I got the _ this time)

          I say nuke the crap out of anyone who attacks us without provocation. Terrorists have attacked us so they and their ilk are fair game for obliteration, annihilation and decimation.

        • #3277058

          Terrorists have attacked us

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Hey M_a_r_k (notice I got the _ this time)

          You are right, terrorists HAVE attacked you werew backed globally by your allies and supported by voices al over the world. I don’t think ANYONE objected to yuor retalition against the terrorists who attacked you, nobody is so dense to permit such things to hapen to allies. You since removed your vericious attack and went on to invade some other country based on questionable evidence (quiestionable all the time not just in hindsight), terrorists have tried to attack you again, but failed because other intelligence was focused elsewhere.

          You are right though, nuke the terrorists that attacked you, why invade Iraq then?

        • #3277051

          I hate to do this, but I agree with you, Oz ;)

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Hey M_a_r_k (notice I got the _ this time)

          I was making the same point here:

          Iraq didn’t do anything to the US. He
          thumbed his nose at the UN (i.e, the entire world), not at the US. BTW, that’s a goofy idiom…”thumb your nose”. For some reason, sticking your thumb in your nose is a sign of rudeness. Who in the world came up with such a thing?

        • #3166842

          M_a_r_k, i think it was the british

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to Hey M_a_r_k (notice I got the _ this time)

          that coined the phrase to “thumb your nose”.

        • #3166763

          You dont stick your thumb in your nose

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Hey M_a_r_k (notice I got the _ this time)

          To thumb your nose, you place your thumb on the tip of you nose (like you would to wiggle your fingers and say NAH NAH NA NAH NAH!! like a kid) then flick upward. It’s like the Italian ‘fongulo!'(sp?) when you flick your thumbnail off your upper teeth.

          It’s just a little kids thing.

        • #3277070

          So why should our leaders in the US have felt that it is their duty to enfo

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to But whose sanctions did Saddam disobey?

          Because they were dead set in invading long before the inspectors turned up nothing, that’s why they were removed in order to invade, they reportedly had found nothing that the US administration WANTED ot find.

          Sanction breaches my a$$, the US was breaching them too and so were many other countries. Snactions, Liberation, WMD, Repression, Democracy, they tried everything, fortunately we didn’t ALL buy into it, UNFORTUNATELY, Bush never listened to the people of the world, afterall it IS America’s place to police the globe isnt it?

        • #3277055

          A few points of rebuttal, Oz

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to So why should our leaders in the US have felt that it is their duty to enfo

          Unless you can read people’s minds, you do not know what Bush, et. al. were thinking or what they may have been dead set on doing.

          Second, name one UN sanction that “the US and many other countries” were breaching. I’m sure have been some, though I don’t know of any off the top of my head. (And be sure to name one or two that dear old righteous Canada was breaching, too.) If so, it just proves the point that everyone already knows. The UN is toothless and spineless and it is just a forum for chicken-shit nations to skirt around important issues by hiding behind meaningless resolutions so they won’t have to step up and take charge and try to resolve a problem on their own. Look at what the UN “peacekeepers” did in Bosnia and Lebanon. Absolutely nothing.

          Third, Bush is not supposed to be listening to the people of the world. His first priority is Americans’ needs and opinions. He was elected by American citizens to listen to American citizens.

        • #3166764


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to So why should our leaders in the US have felt that it is their duty to enfo

          Any good leader would take heed of intelligence gathered by allied county’s. Any good leader would think twice when almost unanymous opinions request further investigation. Yes he is supposed to listen to teh people of America. Perhaps you werejust lucky that you agreed with the resolution they chose, if not you would be the one saying government doesn’t listen to the people. That’s pure crap in this caes anyway. The people didn’t request this action, they were told how to fear lack of action, by the government.

          As for breaching sanctions, you’ve been here long enough to have been shown the US Embassy’s report to congress that states how sanctions were being breached.

          The US was supposed to inspect inbound goods and hold any ‘dual purpose goods’ from import. This resulted in the questionable holding of many shipments needed as essential food and medical supplies. They were aqccused of holding goods up to a year, in which time many woul dbe perished or past usage date, thus destroyed and never shipped to Iraq. They were playing tug of war with it.

          Other nations that were purchasing oil from Iraq and trading for dual purpose goods banned by the sanctions, were also doing so in inceased numbers. This was mainly due to America’s need for oil that they couldn’t purchase directly from Iraq.

          As for playing “he didn’t know any better”.. someone who was given information from a source KNOWN to have an ulterior motive and then completely ignoring it (while allies suggest it be confirmed), only to go to war and find it WAS false, is definitely not fit to lead the world’s super power. Unaware and innocent? Everyone else suggested what was going on, the plan was set out LONG before action was taken, the plan to use force to complete inspections IF NEEDED was not followed.

          How you can still vehemently defend someone who has been proven to be a putz and even admitted to being wrong about his motives on public TV, is just ridiculous.

          He f****d up, they tried to stop him, he is not worthy of such a position of power. Either fight terror where it exists like everyone else is doing (sans invading anyone) or hang him by the nads and elect a bimbo to focus on building more supermalls and funding beauty pageants instead.

        • #3282443


          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to So why should our leaders in the US have felt that it is their duty to enfo

          You are free to criticise the US. But, you like the wind are impotent to change US opinion.

          Since you really don’t have a horse in the race, bet on it, but don’t tell the jockeys how to ride it. Go read a good book. May I suggest Terry Goodkind sword of truth series?

          Read them all, and then I want you to discuss FOTF with me. I am sure you can read all of them in just a couple of hours…

        • #3277073

          You highlighted the wrong word in that sentence.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to From what I have heard for about a decade now

          [i]I find it hard to believe your absolute of “without ANY valid reasons”.[/i]

          You should have highlighted VALID not ANY. there were dozens or reasons given, they seemed to changes almost daily to hush public outcry over the last questionable reason. The problem is, it takes a lot more thqn a REASON to go to war, you need VALID reasons and UNQUESTIONABLE JUSTIFICATION. EvERY reason cited raised questions of vlidity and importance LONG before the desicion to go to war was even made. Aliles and the UN all cited such questions based on the supposed ‘evidence’ that was provided.
          YOUR president ignored those questions, YOUR president was dead set on invading Iraq (most likely LONG before any meetings took place and the republicans were most likely set on invading Iraq long before Bush took on presidency, signs show this was coming for a long time).

          So before you play dumb and suggest there was no way of knowing what the truth was, remember that you were all here discounting such comments and swearing that you had it right from teh onset and that you WOULD succeed in finding these imminent threats upon the US. While attackes were being planned in another country as expected by OTHER alied intelligence the whole time.

          Any valid reason? DOZENS of valid reasons. CIA reports, UN reports, Allied intelligence, questionable sources of inteligence etc. There were far too many IGNORED signes for anyone to agree that it was a mistake anyone could make.

          You guys are all tryig to play simple and innocent now, whiel you were all running around ganbusters and slamming anyione questioning the intelligence you were acting on.

          I call bulls*t, you guys are just being caght with your pants down and innocent backpeddling doesn’t cut it. You chose to use your fantsatic intelligence that nobody else could top and invade a country, you had no JUST reason to invade, why should anyone else be providing a ‘solution’ beyond ‘told you so you idiots!’?

          I guess your ‘grand pooh bah’ should have thought about that while rallying the troops to follow his BS to war and their almost certain death.

          Smart assed dummies now looking for answers from those they scolded for opposing the conflict to begin with, how ignorant can you get?

        • #3229626


          by crabbyabby86 ·

          In reply to perfectly good reasons

          I take offense to anyone being labeled an obstructionist, every since my home state was suckered by republican mudslinging of the word and voted Thune over Daschle. They called Daschle an obstructionist, and, I suppose, they were right.

          He was the Democratic party leader in the Senate. As the minority leader, it was his JOB to question the majority. And I think EVERY citizen should have taken the same cue. You at least have to THINK about what your leaders are telling you, no matter how you vote in the end.

          Because of the negative spin on a word that describes what we ALL should do, we rejected a man with the power to do great things for us (and who HAD done great things for us in his fifty-some years of service) in favor of the Republican party’s new assistant whip.

          Questioning the majority is GOOD for democracy. That’s just how it works.

        • #3282440

          Tom and Linda do all right

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to obstruction

          They had been bilking the Govt with her as a lobbyist for years, and him getting bills passed to help her airline buddies…

          He was very lucky to have been in a position to head off most inquiries into the ethics violations…

          The funny thing is that the all the Dems on the ethics committee walked out and refused to look at any evidence in his investigation. That way they could say they never saw any evidence of wrong doing…

          Just like no Democrat except Joe Lieberman looked at either The report on Bill Clinton or on the Whitewater affair… However, only 16 Senators in total signed into the room to examine the evidence. 84 Senators didn’t do the job they were elected to do…

        • #3200103

          missed my point

          by crabbyabby86 ·

          In reply to Tom and Linda do all right

          So, that has a whole lot of nothing to do with what I just said.

          It doesn’t really matter what you or I think of Daschle himself. He was an example. The real point is people scaring us (with labels like ‘obstructionist’) into thinking it’s BAD to question the majority, when that’s EXACTLY what we should be doing.

        • #3198941

          He was your Senator.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to missed my point

          You know the kind of people who are being obstructionist. Harry Reed is grafting from Nevada faster than I can dig up the scandals that he is involved in.

          Howard Dean–> no Republican has ever done a hard day’s work.

          You are standing up for the worst of the crooks, kid. You sound like my 21 year old daughter.

          If you aren’t a liberal at 20, then you have no soul, but if you aren’t conservative by 30 you have no brain…(slight paraphrase)

        • #3227109

          crooks. yeah. thats pretty much given for any politician.

          by crabbyabby86 ·

          In reply to He was your Senator.

          im not saying the system works. but would you honestly prefer a system where a bunch of rich white guys all actually agree on how to run our lives?


        • #2617991

          Are you a democrat?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to missed my point

          crabby wrote, “crooks. yeah. thats pretty much given for any politician.
          im not saying the system works. but would you honestly prefer a system where a bunch of rich white guys all actually agree on how to run our lives? scary.”

          Wow! Support for graft and corruption plus racism all in one post. I perceive that you are a democrat.

        • #3198940

          As Ronnie Reagan would say:

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to obstruction

          Trust but verify.

          You cannot trust a crook near the public till.

      • #3277174


        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Wrong mistake.

        Meanwhile Aghanistan has returned to the a repressive, downtrodden state it once was. Taliban are still in control of Kandahar, the one strong female representative of government, who was there to support women’s rights was tossed out and sought refuge with the UN.

        As everyone was saying before, AlQaeda is still your key enemy to target and expend resources on, not Iraq. The Republican zealots scoffed and stated how much mroe important Iraq was. Meanwhile AlQeda sects have been rebuilding and plotting to attack the US in over 60 different countries.

        but that’s all BS, it’s the Liberals and Democrats that are the problem, the ones who don’t get it etc.

        No I am not suggesting pullin gout or Iraq, at this point that would be just as stupid as invading Iraq in the first place. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

      • #2617997

        Pulling troops out of Afghanistan

        by sn53 ·

        In reply to Wrong mistake.

        night wrote, “His mistake was pulling troops out of Afghanistan, where we were searching for the person responsible for 9/11, in order to have the resources to invade Iraq…”

        How many troops do you believe we had in Afghanistan before the invasion and defeat of the Iraqi dictator’s military? What types of troops were they and where were they used in the invasion of Iraq?

        I am eager to see your assessment. In the meanwhile I will do some additional research myself.

    • #3277040

      Re: Confused about the terrorism

      by crashoverider ·

      In reply to Confused about War on Terror

      To understand the terrorism of today we need to look back in to the world history and our part in that history. The terrorism of today has been born from the foreign policy of the United States. For the past 100 years the United States has been moving ahead with a foreign policy of removing other countries leaders and installing despotic rulers, and funding our approved terrorists (like Bin Laden who was associated with the CIA)

      If the US would keep our noses out of other countries business, station our troops inside the United State, and stop funding terrorist groups we would not be attacked. This is the punishment for the foreign intervention that the US has started.

      If you need to blame a group for the 9/11 attacks it should be the federal goverment they began this ball rolling a long time ago.

      Please remember Violence breeds violence.

      • #3166802

        not quite right

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Re: Confused about the terrorism

        the US government is not to blame for everything that has gone wrong for the last 100 years, and there have been terrorists not of our making, around for a long time. Care to try that again?

        • #3166695

          Not quite ?

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to not quite right

          Total bollocks is the way I’d put. Various leaders have been putting ‘like minded’ people in power somewhere else since Ug the cave man got annoyed by his brother.

          As for causing 9/11, well ….

        • #3166647

          Looking for simple solutions

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Not quite ?

          I consider it a human failing (one to which, as a human, I am guilty of as well from time to time) that we seek simple solutions to complex problems.

          We’d like to blame a President, a Government organization, a race a religion, for what is in reality a complex set of interactions that bring us to where we are today.

          They have been times in history when Muslim countries not only tolerated Jews and Christians but welcomed them into the highest ranks of the government (except for the ruler itself).

          There have been times where Jews and Christians have been persecuted by Muslim states.

          How we get from one state to another is not by throwing a switch. Its a series of events, done by many different people, on both “sides” over the course of decades and centuries. Little happens overnight.

          Hitler may have been the primary “cause” of WWII, but what caused Hitler to be able to gain power. It took him over a decade from the time he started. Initially he was seen by most Germans as a thug. He was thrown in jail, and his book was dismissed by many leading Germans. Was it the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles? Partially. Was it the collapse of the German governmental system? Partially. Did the world wide economic depression have an impact? Yes.

          Similarly, causing 9/11 – it can’t be one thing. The US didn’t really meddle in the Middle east that extensively until after WWII. Certainly the Arabs who fought for the Allies in WWI felt betrayed by the West, but their focus of anger was on Britain. How far back do you want to go?

          To blame it on Bush, or Clinton or the CIA or the FBI or any individual, single organization, or one event, is simplistic nonsense and simply intellectually dishonest.

          It must be something in our collective psyche that makes us demand a scapegoat. But we would all be better off without spending so much time and effort looking for one.


        • #3166596


          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Looking for simple solutions

          and if there was a simple solution, even us stoopid buggers would have found it by now.

          Actually scapegoats are provided by the ruling elite to distract the plebs from the real culprit. Every now and then they provide one of their own so uncontrolled statisticians won’t come up with a number that could be an indicator of the truth.

          Any ‘foreign’ group who doesn’t think there will be payback for being needed now, should have read a history book or talked to the last poor buggers in that position.

          I’m on tenterhooks waiting for the american goverment to do us again, as soon as they don’t need us anymore.

        • #3166593

          LOL. Love the last line

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Indeed

          I’ve got some anaesthetic cream ready…

        • #3229473

          Maybe they’ll lend lease

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to LOL. Love the last line

          some of their olds PCs to test Vista.

        • #3229461

          Cream not allowed

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to LOL. Love the last line

          It will be done, as always, without grease or mercy. :^0



        • #3229415

          Amazing, most americans

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to LOL. Love the last line

          get completely non plussed over that point of view.

          We said we want our colony back, not you back up our colon.

      • #3166606

        Even I will contest that

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Re: Confused about the terrorism

        To suggest that your government caused terrorism on it’ sown soil is a bit ridiculous. Certainly the acts of the US government over MANY years have increased the hostility these fanatics hold upon the ‘free world’, often represented/paraded as the USA.

        Terrorists are insane by western standards, the train of thought is not one we can accept nor consider rational or sane. In the middle east, it is not so bizarre, this is not really ‘terrorism’ but war or revenge as they deem it. We consider behaeadins=gs to be barbaric, they consider it a way of expressing a point.

        So nobody CREATED terrorists but the terrorists seem to have been pushed toward attacking the USA as the major of ‘The Free World’.

        As far as who is responsible for Iraq, well we all know that is 110% the fault of the current Bush administration and their failure to recognize or heed other information before taking decisive and rash action based on a false premise.

      • #3209311


        by protiusx ·

        In reply to Re: Confused about the terrorism

        You must really try to post something original or something that you thought of and considered carefully. This dribble comes straight from the Barbra Boxer sound bite closet and doesn’t help much at all. I am not refuting the fact that the US has made mistakes in international diplomacy over the past two hundred years but can you detail some? Are you a student of history or are you merely regurgitating what you hear from the leftist media and the DNC? Our dependence on oil is not something that can be overcome easily as our entire economic infrastructure is dependant upon not only for the fuel that drives your car but the clothes that you wear and to the food you eat. Alternative fuel cars are a great idea but it is a drop in the bucket relative to our total consumption. How will you provide electricity and heat? How will you replace the oil used in the manufacture of plastics and other synthetics?

        So I would ask you not to throw out simple sound bites and instead truly stop to consider your comments.

    • #3166732

      I don’t know of any on Left that think

      by tryskadec ·

      In reply to Confused about War on Terror

      Terrorist Problems today are Bush’s fault at all.

      Matter of fact if you talk to any for a period of time, you learn that they believe British and American Imperialism going back many decades are the root of our terrorist problems.

      • #3166690

        And spanish, italian, french, chinese, greek

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to I don’t know of any on Left that think


        Terrorism is an out growth of guerilla warfare, it’s been around since humans came up with the concept of more. As in they’ve got more fighters than we have, so a stand up fight is not on the cards.

        British imperialism, otherwise known as the cunning use of flags definitely annoyed some people in recent history. American imperialism as in the cunning use of big mac’s is even more recent and has annoyed people with at least an interest in a balanced diet.

        You can’t go far enough back in history to not find terrorists, in current definitions Jesus would be arrested under the patriot or the prevention of terror acts.

        Both the british and americans as points in history would have been defined as terrorists by their enemies.

      • #3229901

        What rock do you live under?

        by protiusx ·

        In reply to I don’t know of any on Left that think

        I happen to live in the Peoples Republic of Seattle where I am constantly hearing my leftist/socialist/communist fellow Americans blaming GWB for everything from Global Warming (which is a load of granola in any event) to Israel?s assault on Lebanese women and children (that was sarcasm in case you missed it). On the other hand the Republicans are saying he hasn?t done enough on protecting our boarders from the massive influx of illegal immigrants (I mean come on ? even France is beginning mass deportations) to going to lightly on the war on terror. As far as I am concerned I wouldn?t want the job. No way, no how!

      • #3282438

        Re-read Howard Dean and Al Gore’s, and George Soros’ statements.

        by x-marcap ·

        In reply to I don’t know of any on Left that think

        That means you haven’t been listening to the Left’s rhetoric. Jerry Springer, Dennis Kucinich, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry have all made assertions that the issue is Bush’s fault…

    • #3229628

      Who’s Confused?

      by yobtaf ·

      In reply to Confused about War on Terror

      I’m not confused. I never was.
      Iraq had nothing do do with 911. We could have gone after Bin
      Laden but Chaney had some reason for invading Iraq instead.

      If you’re confused stop watching FOX News and use your own

      • #3229472

        As a brit I always wondered what this

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to Who’s Confused?

        talk of Fox news was about.
        So I watched it.
        It’s very informative, did you know it’s -17 celsius in siberia ?

        Other than that it seemed to be complete bollocks to me. Not for it’s regurgitation of a particular ideology, but because it was completely free of any requirement for thinking. Makes you wonder what their agenda actually is. Not f’ing news that’s for sure.
        Course CBS isn’t much better, and the BBC, well that’s gone to rat ****

        • #3229459

          Fox Network

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to As a brit I always wondered what this

          Rupert Murdoch is the ]:)

          Does that answer your question? B-)

        • #3229458

          Re: FOX

          by yobtaf ·

          In reply to Fox Network

          I don’t know about what the UK or the rest of the world gets for
          new, but in the USA a news network or program delivers very
          little in the way of news. But FOX is in a league all by it self. Very
          interesting that when Dick Chaney finally decided to be
          interviewed, who did he give the privilege to? You guessed it.
          And when the administration needed a new press secretary,
          where did they get one? You guessed it again.

          As far as I’m concerned, the only place I can get the real news is
          ‘The Daily Show’ and that’s on ‘Comedy Central’. How fitting at
          this time in history.

          It probably doesn’t air in the UK but I’m pretty sure it’s
          downloadable from iTunes. Spend a couple of bob and see what
          I mean.

        • #3229443
          Avatar photo

          Yes Rupert was one of our more :^0

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Fox Network

          Successful Exports to the Land of the Free. Hows it feel to have a failed Aussie running that network? His empire here is nothing more than a joke and from what I’ve seen of Fox that’s no better. 😀

          But [b]Please Keep Him we don’t want him back![/b] :0


        • #3229409


          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Yes Rupert was one of our more :^0

          But we may chase him away yet. I’ve heard that 20th-Century Fox is not doing too well, and with Fox News a laughingstock outside conservative circles…

          I can always hope.

        • #3229394
          Avatar photo

          Fox News a Laughing Stock

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Darn!

          Is badly putting down the [b]Laughing Stocks[/b] that abound Fox news doesn’t reach those great heights they are just a [b]Bit Player[/b] on the side of nowhere trying to make themselves credible by presenting Drama and calling it [b]News![/b] 😀

          If you want feel free to chase him away but if he comes this way we’ll just mark on the envelope [b]Return To Sender[/b] we got rid of him and don’t want it back under any circumstances ever. :p


        • #3229412

          Yes, definitely

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Fox Network

          Man’s an arse.

      • #3229457

        like a real twit

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Who’s Confused?

        you neither answer the questions, nor make a point.

        Blame Bush AND Fox news is the answer to events that went on before Bush even got in office.

        I think your more confused than you realize.

        • #3229450

          I’m Out Of Here!

          by yobtaf ·

          In reply to like a real twit

          A wise man once said “you can’t argue with a crazy person”.

          I’m out of here.



      • #2617988

        Nice try

        by sn53 ·

        In reply to Who’s Confused?

        robert wrote, “Iraq had nothing do do with 911.”

        Only those on the left say this. It is not relevant. It has never been relevant. Repeating it will not make it relevant. We did not defeat the Iraqi dictator’s military, depose him, try him and execute him because of any supposed role in the unprovoked attacks on the US and the murder of 3000 of our citizens.

        Nice try though.

    • #3229905

      “War of the Worlds” reply

      by bamabrad ·

      In reply to Confused about War on Terror

      Watch the last 5 minutes of the movie “War of the Worlds”-Let that be an answer to any and all terrorist- Plus throw in a few of the attitudes of “Swordfish”

      • #3229895

        That was the bit

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to “War of the Worlds” reply

        where all the martians got a cough and crashed their spaceships wasn’t it ?

        No doubt a freak mutation of the common cold caused by cracking off nuclears explosion here there and everywhere.

        WTF it’s got to do with this issue I have no idea.

        Or was this another film where american action hollywood hero saved the pluton.

        Call the governator !.


        You do know you are absolutley stark staring mad don’t you ?

        Not a problem for me I’m british we’d simply diagnose you as eccentric and put you in charge.

        • #3229830

          I’m Really Starting To

          by yobtaf ·

          In reply to That was the bit


          I’m really starting to like you.

          I promised myself not to come back to this ‘discussion?’ but the
          temptation to see your reply was too great.

          It’s reassuring to know that there are a few people that see
          what’s going on. Everybody seriously involved in this
          ‘discussion?’ is as mad as a hatter.

          This forum is more about insanity than confusion.

          The problem is, it’s like watching a car wreck, it’s hard not to
          look at it in perverse fascination.

        • #3229792

          The thing that gets me

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to I’m Really Starting To

          is the one thing any IT professional should know, is that assumimg people know what you are talking about is a fast track to disaster.

          Maybe the guy will come back and we can say
          Oh that’s what you meant !
          It’s not a cup holder !

          There are some good posters here, some confused ones and outright loons. Strangely as we change topics, we can change which group we are judged to be in as well.

    • #3229875

      What a title!

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Confused about War on Terror

      It’s missing a word though.

      “BUSH: Confused about the War on Terror.”

      LOL 🙂

      What a maroooooooon!!!!!

      • #3229827

        You’re Pretty Funny Too

        by yobtaf ·

        In reply to What a title!

        You and Tony are great.

        Love you babe.

      • #3229787


        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to What a title!

        all was just fine until the evil Bush Administration took over, right? Marooooooooooooooon is right, for anyone that believes that.

        • #3229770

          Confused People

          by yobtaf ·

          In reply to yeah

          There are other people, besides IT specialists, who have a solution
          to the terror problem.

          Here some very ‘confused’ people:

          Confusion is contagious.

        • #3201950

          They have their confusion

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Confused People

          We have ours. The only thing different is the medication. 😀

          Anybody want a Sam? Psshh! B-)

          Edit: typo

    • #3283754

      War on Terror

      by hsd229 ·

      In reply to Confused about War on Terror

      The only way America is going to get itself out of this mess is to be come a totally neutral nation (such as Sweden or Switzerland), and to butt of out of other countries’ internal affairs. Similarly, we should do everything in our power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and develop alternate sources of energy. In this world there are about 75 dictatorships (including our good friends Saudi Arabia). We do not have neither the right nor the resources to be a world policeman.

      • #3283702

        And there would be no more complaints?

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to War on Terror

        If the US were to do as you say, and become as neutral as Sweden and stop giving billions in aid to other nations (in an attempt to buy influince), we would hear it all the same.

        Also, if you had actually been paying attention, Radical Muslims hate the US because of their WAY OF LIFE. All the sex and evil as they see it is a bad influince. And the more we drift to a “no judgements/no morals/no standards” way of life, the more they will hate us. (see, it IS all the liberals fault! ;\ )

        • #3283690
          Avatar photo

          NO it’s not JD

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to And there would be no more complaints?

          It’s all the fault of GWB! 😀

          You said so yourself above. :p

          Col ]:)

        • #3283662


          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to NO it’s not JD

          I keep forgetting the single reason everything is going wrong over the last 20 years. It was all Bush’s fault, via proxy!

          He has been pulling the strings for decades now, and is a crimial mastermind that is positioning himself to rule the world! BWAAHAHAAAHHAAAAAHAHAHAHHAAHAAAA!
          “The fools! I shall destroy them all!”

        • #3209188
          Avatar photo

          No you’ve got it wrong JD

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to DOH!

          Bubba been responsible for everything that has ever gone wrong since the beginning of recorded history and possibly even before that. 😀

          If you believe in [b]Time Travellers[/b] it’s him popping in to wreak Havoc every several hundred years or so. Or if like me you believe in [b]Reincarnation[/b] he constantly messes things up and causes all the problems and will continue to do so until he gets it right which judging from history is going to take a very long tome and many more lifetimes to do. :^0

          Sorry I just couldn’t resist. :p

          Col ]:)

        • #3283687


          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to And there would be no more complaints?

          Radical Muslims hate the US for, nominally, lots of different reasons but most of it is because you’re an easy target for their hatred. Their political masters can whip up ant-US feelings and you become a scapegoat for all of their ills and a distraction from the [b]real[/b] reason that all the oil-rich Muslim countries are crap, unjust and cruel.

          Your reason is a very valid but it’s just something that the politicians can get the Imams to use to whip up anti-US feeling. Israel is obviously another reason. I would give odds that the majority of Syrians, for example, don’t really give a rats bum for their Palestinian Muslim brothers but it’s something that their leadership can use against you.

          Remember also that most Muslims know [b]nothing[/b] about the US as most of them don’t even see the works of Hollywood – though that’s probably a good thing.

          I don’t know what you can really do about it now. Even if you did adhere to a moral code, it wouldn’t be [b]their[/b] moral code.

          I really don’t know the answer to this question. I tried to prod another peer about it but didn’t get an answer. “Who DO you give money to?” It would give me an interesting insightinto US foreign policy. I reckon, though, that you haven’t got much that doesn’t go to Iraq and Afghanistan now.

        • #3283682

          Why middle eastern Muslims hate the US

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Hatred

          First of all, don’t presume that all Arabs or Muslims hate the US and the lifestyle.

          After 9/11 we all heard about a few incidents where Palestinians celebrated. Did you know that hundreds of thousands Iranians held a candlelight vigil in Tehran (wouldn’t happen today with their new leader). Did you know that Fatah, the group that used to rule Palestine (replaced by more radical Hamas) condemmed the attack and by some estimates up to a million Palestinians also did a candlelight walk to show support.

          Many Iranians blame the US government, and the state department for the brutal regime of the Shah, who was every bit the dictator and tyrant that Saddam Hussein was, except he was a US ally.

          Many Arabs are upset with what they see is a one sided support of Israel by the US.

          Its just way to simplistic to parrot the Fox new line of “they hate us because of our freedom”.


        • #3283659

          Actually James

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Why middle eastern Muslims hate the US

          “way of life”. Even if we were to completely withdraw from the region, the ever more decadent way of life in the West is growing like a cancer. Standards are lowering, morals are fading, and it is becoming an “anything goes” mentality.

          Read that France was going to close some beaches to being topless. Did the French suddenly devolope a sence of modesty? I don’t think so.

          Yes, there is more to it that just this, but it is still a piece, even if all other factors were gone. Hate, as the Democratic party has learned, is a powerful unifier. Villify someone else and get people that normally don’t care about politics suddenly scared that evil republicans want the elderly to have to eat dog food. there are actually people of very limited intellegence that believe that. Sad.

          And I DO refer more to the people in charge of the brain washing of the masses, not the average Muslim that has never seen an American in his whole life and finds they have no bearing on his life.

          That is a Fox news line? If they are saying the same thing I am, they must be pretty smart! 😀 Wonder if they are reading my postings to get their material? I haven’t watched ANY news in some time now. Can’t bring myself to turn the TV on anymore except to watch a DVD or play on the xbox with my boys.

        • #3283675

          Wrongo! Afghanistan and Iraq are Military pocket.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Hatred

          We give foreign aid to Isreal,S. Korea, Iman, Kuwait, and 63 other countries from the Federal budget. 67 countries in total get billions in aid…

          The US Congress is too generous with Max’s and my money…

        • #3283664

          Pack It In

          by yobtaf ·

          In reply to And there would be no more complaints?


          You’re the last person in the bunker. Even Hitler knew when to pack
          it in.

        • #3209305

          By the power invested in me

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Pack It In

          As someone whose been active on the net since 1992, I invoke Godwin’s law:

          “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one”

          The usenet tradition, one I think we should adopt here, is that once Godwin’s law is invoked, the thread ends.


        • #3209233

          I Agree

          by yobtaf ·

          In reply to By the power invested in me

          This is really a forum for IT related issues.

          The real abuse comes when someone decides to use it to
          express their own personal beliefs.

          The first amendment allows us freedom of speech but maybe
          there is a better place for it.

          Further more, I’m self employed, if I want to waste my time on
          this forum, it’s my money that’s wasted. I just wonder how many
          of the participants, in particular, the guy who started the
          discussion, are doing it on company time.
          If I was their boss I’d be pretty upset that they were spending
          company time expressing their political positions, whether I
          agreed or not.

          And I still think it’s time to pack it in. Hitler, Hitler, Hitler. If you
          prefer the invocation of Richard Nixon’s name better, then, even
          Nixon knew when to pack it in. I’ll bet Mike Godwin would agree.

        • #3209160

          Wrong part of forum

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I Agree

          This is the Miscellaneous topic; usenet vets might know it better as alt.

          There are 23 other topics in this forum reserved for IT-related issues.

          Guilt accepted. I’ve been stretching my lunch breaks and typing while driving. :p

        • #3209089

          Watching people cry

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Wrong part of forum

          is always a wonder, don’t you think Nick?

          First, if the previous poster has a problem with the topic of a discussion, seems like the intellegent thing would be to not come into it, instead of going on about how this isn’t a tech topic. It IS a topic that affects techs though, so it turns out to be a good fit.

          As for wasting time, I don’t see how someone could be wasting time and have their boss not know it. Is there job getting done or isn’t it? Simple.

          I can’t speak for anyone else here, but my job gets done every day.

        • #3209087

          One of the bennies of being hardware oriented

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Wrong part of forum

          We can point to the PC, network, or whatever and say “That’s done.” 😀

          I spent three years as a FoxBase coder a couple of decades ago, and learned that coding is like giving birth. Your program is your child, and it’s hard to let go. :_|

          But you’re correct. It is impolite to complain about others’ work or lack thereof. Not that we’ve ever been concerned about politeness here… 😉

        • #3205669


          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Wrong part of forum

          Hmmm, I do not know if I have heard or seen about it and then forgot. After doing some programming in dBase III, I moved to FoxPro. Was FoxBase available for DOS/Windows systems?

          I knew there was dBase IV, but by that time I had switched to FoxPro (2.5 if I remember correct).

        • #3282616


          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Wrong part of forum

          Yes, there was a Foxbase. My shop actually started out with Condor on DOS 2.0, went to dBase II, then to Foxbase (2.0, I think), which was much better than dBASE II. Syntax was more clear, Foxbase was full relational with at least one-dimensional arrays in v2 (Ashton-Tate didn’t provide arrays until dBASE III+), and the search & sort algorithms ate dBase’s lunch. A pack & reindex on a 1,000-record table in Foxbase usually took less than half the time it took in dBase II. V2.5 was the first FoxPro release.

          It’s truly a pity that the only way Ashton-Tate could find to compete with Fox was to try to sue them out of existence. It’s even more a pity that Fox got caught short when Win95 was released. I think v1.0 of FoxPro for Windows was the only piece of work Fox Software did that didn’t set the standard.

        • #3282484

          Foxbase, Clarion, dBase…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Wrong part of forum

          God, you’re making me tech-horny!!! ]:)

          (The swill is back!)

        • #3282465


          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Wrong part of forum

          Nick: Wow, you do remember lot of stuff 🙂

          I might have seen Foxbase on somebody’s machine or maybe I might have used it couple of times. Can’t say for sure.

          Hey you bring memories when you mention pack and reindex. I remember those days. I like the DOS versions of FoxPro always better than the Windows version. Though I did not work on FoxPro 2.6a for Windows, I had seen my friends using it. But I moved to PowerBuilder and Oralce Forms by that time (albeit for a short time).

          FoxPro was fun. I remember two events “When” and “Then” for a field where we could write code, that I used to tout or argue with the PowerBuilder programmers, when they came up with their event based programming. I was the second best FoxPro programmer in a small band of programmers who had split into FoxPro and PowerBuilder camps 🙂

        • #3282450

          Foxbase— that takes me back

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Wrong part of forum

          To lying in the Sun with a redhead…

          To working when I felt like it in Perrysburg…

          To the ancient days from BGSU and the comp sci department implementation. I was one of the faceless drones who helped put the package together. One of our gifts to the IT world…

          Back when DG Nova equipment was where it started…

          Senility may be starting to set it. It seems like it was yesterday…

        • #3284871


          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Wrong part of forum

          DO WHILE X <> 0
          GO AWAY

          That enough tech for ya? :^0

          Actually, I was the only Foxbase programmer there, and I had zero programming experience whe I got there, unless a couple of Cobol classes 10 years earlier count. There were two others on board, one working Microsoft Pascal to its limits and the other trying to do the same with Borland C. Both eventually succeeded, as I recall.

        • #3284693

          Oh God…OH GOD!!! YES YES!!!

          by jck ·

          In reply to Wrong part of forum

          DATA DIVISION…

          uh uh …. uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


        • #3283559

          And to finish it off, Jck

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Wrong part of forum


          Funny, that. IBM’s part number for those stinkin’ cards was 1500. Each military service assigned it as a form without changing the number; there was the AF Form 1500, the DA Form 1500 (Army), the DD Form 1500 (DOD), and I think even the Navy had their 1500, too.

          Just a regular font of now-useless information… 🙂

        • #3282446

          Robert go find a sheep. Maybe you can lead it…

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to I Agree

          Anytime people equate Hitler to anything it is time to stand up and fight. Either against a Hitler or against the idiot who invoked his name.

          You want to use Hitler as a reference to control others.

          That is really Hitlerian. Or, rather currently Liberal.

          This happens especially when libs can’t seem to control where socially, or discussions are going. Out comes Hitler. BTW, Hitler was a socailist. National Socializm. Lefties in the US really though he was turning Germany around…

          Really he was dragging all of us into a Hell of his creation.

          So crawl in hour hole and clam up. If you don’t like it, yell loudly at me. I’ll chew your ears off via PM.

          Go find a sheep. If it follows you have a support group of two…

          JamesRL may qualify, but I don’t know if that’s wool growing out of his ears, or hair? Hi JamesRL… Long time no clash!

      • #3283666

        Why Isolationism on the part of the US will not work.

        by x-marcap ·

        In reply to War on Terror

        1. Our oceans no longer mean we are unassailable.

        2. Airplanes and boats, radio transmissions cross borders as do Mexicans…

        the results of isolationism.

        Our policy of Isolationism had the US enter WWI and WWII way too late.

        Let me be clear. I would love to close our borders and say “sod off” to the rest of the world. What that would entail is opening wells in OH, PA, TX, FL, and processing the oil to remove the sulfur rather than not using it… Then we go on a Nuclear, and coal Diet for electricity production.
        (Buy McDermott Stock, and Alstrom Stock if the Congress is ever this smart.) Then we start using the excess heat for additional power generation…

        Sooner or later Congress will be smart enough to forget the movie, The China Syndrome. Jack Lemmon did earn and get a Best Actor Oscar, and ruined an entire industry. In the US that is…

      • #3283641

        A world policeman?

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to War on Terror

        Disclaimer: I’m not offering opinion one way or the other.

        Out of curiosity, if the USA has neither the right nor the resources to be a world policeman, does anybody? If so, who? And why them? And how will they get their resources? And what would give them the right?

        If not, what would be some of the potential consequences of a world without a “policeman”?

        • #3209086

          The only difference

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to A world policeman?

          between the world police and the regular kind is the size of the doughnuts 🙂

          [edited for typo]

      • #3209340

        totally neutral?

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to War on Terror

        Disclaimer: I’m not offering opinion one way or the other.

        Out of curiosity, when was the last time the United States took a neutral position in world affairs? What was the outcome of that position?

        And what would the world be like today if, for example, the United States remained totally neutral in the years between 1948 and 1978? Of course, your answer would be nothing short of a guess, but based on your obvious immense experience and expertise in world affairs, what is your educated guess?

        • #3209309

          Let’s see…

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to totally neutral?

          Western Europe dominated by the threat of Soviet occupation (if not already occupied).

          The Asian continent and Indian subcontinent completely dominated by China and the USSR.

          Continuous border wars between the rival Communicst regimes in China and the USSR.

          Essentially, I don’t believe that the majority of technological advances of the last 50 years would have occurred as fast as they did. No moon landings, no SR-71, no videotape, no CDs, no cable, no cell phones, ICs were only “discovered” last year.

          A constant troop presence is required along the Mexican border to keep internal strife from spilling over into the United States.

          And the majority of Americans are even more insular, provincial, and arrogant than they already are.

          Just speculation of course…

      • #3209335

        everything in our power?

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to War on Terror

        Disclaimer: I’m not offering opinion one way or the other

        If we should, [i]”do everything in our power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and develop alternate sources of energy”, [/i] exactly what steps would have to be taken? What are those things that fall under the category, [i]”everything in our power”[/i]?

        • #3209323


          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to everything in our power?

          We are all going to start living in caves, stop driving cars, and live off of the land.

          What we WON’T do is drill and process our own oil, replace oil and coal use with nuke plants and windmill farms.

          Actually, what we WILL do is talk about what a problem it is, and how we should get the government to do something about it.

        • #3209085

          You can bet your sweet a$$

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to everything in our power?

          that “our power’ would be mostly be made up of someone else’s money!

      • #3209059

        Typical Emotional Rant

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to War on Terror

        Yours is a typical emotional rant, using the same, silly old platitudes, not offering any depth or substance at all — evidenced, in part, by your failure to answer my simple (or not so simple) questions.

    • #3209321


      by protiusx ·

      In reply to Confused about War on Terror

      You do like stirring the pot!  I will say that I agree with your perspective though.

      My take ?
      There has been a slow growing fundamental shift growing from the UK?s occupation of Arab lands dating back to the nineteenth century. History will show that a group of Islamic fundamentalists in Egypt began organizing and terrorist activities in the 1920?s. The movement which was not confined to Egypt but spanned Sunni dominated lands such as Syria (Bathist), and Iraq. Throughout the early twentieth century this movement was responsible for growing terrorist activities and government destabilizations.
      I must clarify here that while the members of these factions are zealous in their resolve I don?t not believe them to be pious to any degree. They have no problem with murder, maiming, rape and other forms of terror for their political cause which they mask behind religious rhetoric. The early Catholic Church did the same thing prior to the Reformation. Italian history is rife with examples of this. In any case Islamic Fascism is nothing new to the world at large but it is new to the US as we have not played in this arena until the 1950?s onward where we became mass consumers of the regions oil supply.
      Most Americans don?t understand the many dynamics that make up the conflict that we find ourselves in today. There are many players who call themselves Sunni, Shiite, Kurds, Persians, Palestinians, Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, Christians, Iranians, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Israelis and Jews. Notice that I mixed religious monikers with clan or national monikers. That is because of the multiple levels of allegiance that spans the area. In Lebanon one might find groups of Lebanese Christians, Lebanese Shiites and other groups, one might also find Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs, Palestinian Christians, Iraqi Shiites, Iraqi Sunni and Iraqi Kurds. Each group, family, clan, religious sect and nation wants something different and most all of them are willing to murder in mass to get it. Life is worth very little in this part of the world.
      Many westerners wonder if things would get better if we just left the area and I believe that if not for our dependence of foreign oil from that region the answer would be yes for the near term. No nation that wishes the US or her allies harm have the capability of launching long range attacks that would reach the US, the UK or Europe for that matter. What I think would happen is that the area would suffer under the weight of a collapsing economy for a number of years until one nation after another collapsed into civil war and chaos. Understand this is all predicated on the world freeing itself of its dependence on Middle East oil.
      So, like it or not the world needs oil and a stable oil supply. The US is the world?s largest consumer of Oil second only to China who is fast approaching our consumption rates. As the largest consumer of oil the US has a vested interest in establishing stability in the region. So, yes, one might conclude that all this mess is over oil but before you rage against the president or the prime minister contemplate where you would be right now if oil was not available or was $120 or more a barrel. The economies of the the US and the UK would be crippled and that is no laughing matter.

    • #3205779

      A lesson in History

      by itgirli ·

      In reply to Confused about War on Terror

      Think back a couple hundred years. Our American Revolution. Yes, we were a new country just beginning to take shape, but we were ruled by England. We wanted our freedom and had to fight the English and those loyal to the crown in our own colonies. The french came over to help us (a great and miraculous thing) repel our oppressors, just as we are in the middle east. They helped us fight for our freedom, not for even a terrorist issue.
      The war in Iraq has taken over 3 years.
      Our American Revolution took over 7 years.

      Bush’s popularity has taken a rather steep dive in the past couple of years.
      During the Revolution, Washington (who was not yet president, but commander in chief) had one of the worst popularity ratings of all time, mostly as a result of the loss of New York City in the first part of the war.
      Washington continued to fight and lead even as his own troops were running out on him in the dead of night. In the end, he never gave up and led us to our American freedom.
      If he had given up, where would we be?
      If we leave Iraq now, what chance do they stand?

      • #3205769

        A lesson in history (II)

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to A lesson in History

        The difference is that they [b]asked[/b] the French for help. In fact, Benjamin Franklin [b]begged[/b] the French for help. The French, in their turn, although acting purely out of animosity towards Britain but, to give them their due, they were good allies to you and did not attempt to mould the fledgling America in their image.

        I do not believe that the Iraqi people requested any part of the invasion, “shock and awe” and what followed. I do not believe that the Iraqi people are ready for democracy and that your attempts to foist US political and economic hegemonisation upon them is doomed to make things worse.

        George Bush is [b]not[/b] Washington. Not in any way.

        If Washington had given up, the revolution lost and you had remained a British colony then you may have ended up like Canada, New zealand or, God forbid, Australia; possibly one of the most repressive and evil regimes on the face of the planet. (Nice beaches, though)

        Only in your last sentence do you make a valid point and if you hadn’t gone into Iraq for no good reason then you wouldn’t need to make it.


        Neil 🙂

        • #3205760

          The problem with that Neil

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to A lesson in history (II)

          We had no way of knowing that Britan was going to desolve their world wide empire.

          And everyone knows it was all fought over taxes anyways, just like our “civil” war was.

          As for Iraq, I don’t see good things coming from anywhere in the middle east as long as people with nothing to live for except to die are in the region.

        • #3205746

          I don’t disagree with you

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to The problem with that Neil

          But, although I don’t know the exact split, I would guess that your population was not all in favour of the Revolution and your neighbours to the north obviously disagreed with it so it can’t have been [b]that[/b] bad. The next change of UK government would have probably have made stuff better.

          Anaother day, another thread we can get into how much the Revolution and the subsequent constitution was for Rich White Men. Taxes pretty much sums it up.

          I really don’t know how much of Iraq is due to politics, how much is due to money (Oil) and how much is really done for “better” reasons such as self-preservation or altruism. I would really like to know so I can stop being so cynical.

          I think that ITGirli and I just have different perspectives on history as we’ve clashed before on the Irish issue but I definitely see few comparisons between The US Revolution and Iraq and Washington and Bush. In fact, I see none.

          Neil 🙂

          p.s. Today is the last “Bank Holiday” day off until Christmas and I’m trying to get out but every fifteen minutes, it’s sunny for ten and rains for five! Seems to be getting better though.

        • #3205720

          taxes and rich white guys

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I don’t disagree with you

          They even teach that in our schools.

          “Taxation without representation” as the reason we went to war for our “freedom”.

          Our “civil” war is not as widely known, as it doesn’t sound good that we went to war because of tarrifs placed on goods from the South coming into the North. sounds much more NOBEL to say we fought to “free the slaves”. There are brainless wonders around that STILL think that is why we went to war, even though Lincoln was quoted as specifically saying that was NOT why we were at war. Sad.

          Iraq and all other worldly dealings. People look for a humanitarian excuse to do what they want. If we were to execute the top 10 people from every country in the world, it would be a much more peaceful place. That and make it like days of old where the King got out in front and lead the charge. To glory? We would find out real quick just which conflicts they REALLY feel conviction for, huh?

          Again, too much to go into here and still working on my coffee. Not sleeping well again and so I am just not in the mood right now, ya know?

          You mean you actually got 10 minutes of sun? All at once? Wasn’t the record in the UK something like 7 minutes before this? :0

          Enjoy your holiday!

        • #3205707

          Who at the time…

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to taxes and rich white guys

          ….Had taxation with representation? France was still ruled by a King, with a parliament more feeble than Britain’s. Did any colony have more independance than the 13 colonies – highly doubtfull.

          As for the US Civil War and slavery. It was fought over the principle of State’s rights versus the rights of the Federal Government, but the principle state’s right being protected was the right to allow slavery. The southern states were upset that new states were predicted to be more anti slavery than pro slavery, and there was a concern that eventually there would be enough anti-slavery states to ban it.

          Read some of the Lincoln biographies. Of course Lincoln’s concern was more pro union than anti-slavery. He thought that the slavery issue would be resolved over time. Read the Gore Vidal biography which attempts to get into his head. He was hoping to keep the country together and delay tackling the slavery issue. But deep down he feared there was no compromise and that war was inevitable.

          So you are correct that at the outset of war, Lincoln was not pushing for freeing the slaves, and that he only did the emancipation proclamation when he was certain that there would be no negotiated peace. Certainly up until that point, Lincoln hoped that the south would negotiate coming back into the union, and he resisted bringing slavery into the argument as that would mean that the south would never agree.


        • #3205713


          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to I don’t disagree with you

          Those that left America during the revolution were the “United Empire Loyalists”. There were more of them from the south than from New England. Suprisingly, they not only included English but German and Dutch immigrants, natives, slaves and black freemen as well.

          Some loyalists wanted to stay in America, some of them were burned out, tarred and feathered and/or run out on a rail. This is not to say that there were atrocities on both sides. It is somewhat suspicious that the loyalists most likely to be treated that way were the large landowners.

          The first significant black immigration into were Loyalists. Many of them came to Nova Scotia at the time. They were granted their freedom, but it would be a stretch to say that they were “accepted”.

          Canada (colonies of Upper and Lower) did have rebellions in 1839. At that time they were being ruled as colonies by small aristocracies(Family Compact). After the rebellions, Royal commissions were held, and parliamentary assemblies were set up, which lead to the inevitable formation of the country we know as Canada.


        • #3284852

          Not necessarily

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I don’t disagree with you

          [i]The next change of UK government would have probably have made stuff better.[/i]

          Not necessarily. How long were the even-more-restrictive-than-usual Corn Laws of the Napoleonic Era in effect? Even as an American, I can think of at least three different governments during that period.

          You are correct about the dissent within the American population. Although the numbers were small (not more than 20%), Loyalists tended to be richer and older.

          Politicians the world over are the same: never admit a mistake until the effects are so obvious you have no choice. This explains why so many legislative actions are not undone, but only redone (amended).

        • #3282615

          The “civil” war was about slavery

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to The problem with that Neil

          Read the “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union”.

        • #3282435

          Read the whole page

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to The “civil” war was about slavery

          Georgia – For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. (second sentance)

          Missouri – Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.

          South Carolina – The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

          Texas – . She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery– the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits– a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

          Lincoln clearly hated slavery, and said so as early as the 1830s. But Lincoln, and many Republicans, though committed to the eventual end of slavery, were not committed to an active program of eradicating it in existing states. The conflict really came to a head when Kansas was reaching statehood and the issue of whether it would be a slave or free state was at issue.

          Here is a good from Lincoln in 1862, a year before the proclamation:
          I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

          Hope that helps.


        • #3284866

          I was already convinced!

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Read the whole page

          That’s why I posted the link. 🙂

        • #3205702

          Dad: please…

          by jck ·

          In reply to A lesson in history (II)

          Don’t disrespect Australia.

          If someone in Ireland won’t hire me, I might head for Adelaide.

          Actually…in particular…the beaches south of there. My friends down there already told me they could get a friend of theirs to sell me a nie beach house…cheap.

          And they don’t have hurricanes in Adelaide!!! 😀

          Hope the ear’s healing proper.


        • #3205675


          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Dad: please…

          Except for the fact that EVERYTHING is poisonous and that they keep beating us at sports that we invent, there’s not a lot wrong with them really. I was just using a little irony.

          I’ve been told the ear is doing OK but I haven’t seen it yet. My goddaughter, who says she saw it before the dressing went on, reckons it was “cool”. I have a feeling that she was peering round the door of the treatment room watching. There’s a plaster on it now and this comes off on Thursday when I visit the guy who did the original stitching.

          You take care with Ernesto although it looks like it’s going up the West side of Florida as a Cat 1 once it’s trashed Eastern Cuba.

          Dad 😀

        • #3205671

          poison, stitches and Ernesto

          by jck ·

          In reply to Australia

          Eh…I can live with poisonous animals…plenty of them here…snakes, fish, plants, spiders…

          Good to hear about the ear…post some pics 😉

          Ernesto is currently predicted to plow right through Key West and up the middle of the state and come out around Jacksonville Beach.

          However, it was predicted to landfall on top of my house yesterday morning…hahahaha…

          I am staying put…so…if it landfalls north of Tampa…and you don’t hear from me within a month…I’m probably shark food. I got no money to run thanks to the 65% insurance increase I had to cover, and right now the house and stuff in it are all I have since the fecking Irish companies can’t hire me cause of EU regulations…damn rules.

          Anyways…i’m getting bitter…work has sucked today…and I’m ready to go live with my parents again and work at Best Buy until I can figure out how to illegally emigrate to Ireland and live in a cave and eat self-grown food and drink stream water.

          Oh well…til then…another beer, bartender!

          Slainte 🙂

        • #3205660

          Latest NHC

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to poison, stitches and Ernesto

          says it’s skipping straight North over Miami, just inland and then back out over the East coast again. But, as you say, the track as of yesterday was over your backyard.

          It’s making the news bulletins here as we’re all pretty interested in voyeuring another Katrina…


        • #3205652

          to be honest

          by jck ·

          In reply to Latest NHC

          I wish the damned thing would hit my house and destroy it…so I could collect all of that $250k+ the house and its contents are insured for.

          I have enough room to put the important things in the back of my car…if I knew it was cat 3-5 and gonna hit here…I’d load em up…and head to Tennessee and wait it out.

          Well…everything except the piano 🙁


          Depending on my available time, I might be back on tomorrow…gotta wait and see what happens…my parents are on the east coast…they had 2 storms hit over there last year.

          See ya later…

          (p.s.- new major map updates are out at 4am, 10am, 4pm and 10pm BT…just in case you wanted to know 🙂 )

        • #3282426


          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Latest NHC

          Shifts further West every bulletin. Doesn’t look like there’ll be too many people at Disney tomorrow. Probably a good time to queue for the rides!

          Neil 😀

        • #3282419


          by jck ·

          In reply to Latest NHC

          it’s shifting back west…all the hourly workers here are praying for a direct hit…means overtime working extra shifts to get things going again…

          I’m still looking to work at Home Depot or something…

        • #3205701

          Neil, not entirely true

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to A lesson in history (II)

          Th US had 1000s of Iraqi nationals here in the US who had been petitioning our government for regime change.

          One of them is an oncologist I know very well. He is moving back to Iraq. He no longer has a price on his head, so it isn’t suicidal.

        • #3205664

          Regime change

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Neil, not entirely true

          Your 000’s of Iraqi nationals just don’t cut it. Regime change occurs when we’re talking majorities 000,000’s – and not disaffected very much minorities who just happen to say what you want.

          What it all boils down to is whether the US had the [b]right[/b] to do it. If you do believe that you have that right then you also have the obligation to forcibly effect a regime change in other countries that fit the pattern – North Korea, China, Zimbabwe, and so on.

        • #3282456

          Flawed comparison

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Regime change

          North Korea, China, Zimbabwe, and so on, do not export terror, therefore the comparisons don’t apply. In my estimation, any nation that exports terror, harbors terrorists, or allows them to reside within their borders, might all be comparable. You could make an argument for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and so on, but not the ones you mentioned. Even at that, there are other factors to consider. Also, in my estimation, the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and other such nations, not only have a right to deal with those kinds of nations, but an obligation to do so.

          I do agree with you, however, when you suggest that a force of ,000s isn’t sufficient, but rather ,000,000s is necessary. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. The nations (and others) that I mentioned should assemble an overwhelming force of ,000,000s, just like we did in the 1940s, and finally force change in the region. Anything short of that is, most likely, not enough.

        • #3282437

          Not the size of the force

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Flawed comparison

          I was commenting on X’s “thousands of US-based Iraqis” used for justification for regime change in Iraq.

          I don’t see that my logic is at all flawed. In fact, you make my point for me and that is that the US was being [b]extremely[/b] selective in “teaching a lesson” to the entire Middle East by kicking the crap out of the one regime that even the Muslims disliked and this despite the obvious fact that Al Qaeda’s links with Iraq were tenuous to the pint of invisibility. “Shock and Awe” was intended to say “you next, pal” to the whole Middle East but, unfortunately, it’s all gone pear-shaped on the ground.

          If you really think that the English speaking world would be allowed to march into all of the regimes in the Middle East that you mentioned without sparking some sort of major World War III with China and just about everyone else against us then you are mad. Whatever humanitarian reason you could give for such an action, no-one would believe you. It’s always been about oil and always will be.

          “The War on Terror” is too simplistic. For example, Syria may arm and harbour terrorists in Hezbollah and but these terrorists have not targeted you since you got out of their country. They’ve killed fewer of my countrymen than has Israel. Hezbollah leader Nasrallah: “If there are American tourists, or intellectuals, doctors, or professors who have nothing to do with this war, they are innocent, even though they are Americans, and it is forbidden. It is not acceptable to harm them.” This is a man who condemned Al Qaeda for their attack on the WTC.

          If your country could just back away from it’s fixation on “Israel as the Good Guy” you might just be able to rethink your strategy back from that of a club-weilding caveman.

        • #3282391

          On World War III

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Not the size of the force

          Neil, we’ve been seeing World War III for some time now. The problem is, however, not a lot of you chaps realize it. (Not all Americans realize it either.)

          It’s been going on against the west for some time now, and the United States didn’t even respond in-kind until 9-11. These people have declared war against us, Neil; and they’ve been waging this war for years. The sooner you realize that, the sooner we can collectively kick their collective asses and finally put an end to it. How many times have you heard me compare today’s sentiment to 1936? It’s happening, Neil, whether you admit it or not, and whether you want it or not. And the longer you sit on the sidelines, the longer it will take to end it, and the more difficult it will be. I fear that nothing short of a nuclear device, or something similar, being detonated in London will convince you.

          It’s no wonder we can’t agree on the proper course of action. We apparently don’t even agree on the severity of the threat. I see this as being at least thirteen years into World War III, at least as the USA is concerned, while you, on the other hand, are still trying to prevent it. (I choose thirteen years because that’s how long ago the first attack on U.S. soil happened, although there were earlier ones against U.S. citizens and U.S. interests.)

        • #3283602

          You are brilliant, Max!

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Not the size of the force

          It is amazing how easily you can recognize someone eles brilliance when they agree with you! We even picked the same year without me reading your post…

          Hmm. Did you read Churchill’s autobiography?

          One of my favorite Quotes from Churchill:

          One ought never to turn one’s back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.”

        • #3282424

          Max, I fear you are right.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Flawed comparison

          But not because the force we have can’t do the job, but because we need the whole world to put a foot on the neck of the terror minded.

          Until France,Spain,Russia,China, and the rest of the world gets fed up with terrorism and they allow the US and GB to fight the terrorists, there will always be a safe harbor for the extremists. Only when there is no safe harbor, enough force will be brought to bear.

        • #3282416


          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Max, I fear you are right.

          I would rather that GB not be involved.

        • #3283611

          Neil, Does that mean that you don’t want GB to deal with terrorists at all?

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Max, I fear you are right.

          Bury your head in the sand, and it is 1936 all over again. Appeasement is not the answer.

          Only when the people currently committing terroristic acts (muslim extremists) love life more than they hate others will terrorism not be considered a valid action in the world.

        • #3283565

          X: There’s nothing you can teach my country about terrorism

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Max, I fear you are right.

          We dealt with the Israelis when they were bombing us. We dealt with a large number of terrorist organisations in the countries that comprised the Empire over the last coupl of centuries- Mau Mau, Malaya, Thuggi,…

          We dealt with the Irish. Without your help, thank you.

          What I want us to do is to deal with Middle East terrorism intelligently rather than steam in with NO IDEA WHAT WE ARE DOING. It is NOT World War III. At least, not as we understand war.

          I want the UN to mean something.

          Hezbollah were not my enemy ad my country did not recognise them as a terrorist organisation. Israel has never been my friend. I could go on – but I can’t be bothered to argue against this gung-ho attitude that applauds the use of US-supplied cluster bombs by the Israelis in Lebanese cities and has the gall to label Hezbollah as the only terrorists.

        • #3283384


          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Max, I fear you are right.

          [i]comprised the Empire over the last coupl of centuries- Mau Mau, Malaya, Thuggi,… [/i]

          Neil, are you referring to Thuggees of India? If you are, were’nt they robbers? I did know they were involved in freedom fighting.

        • #3283343


          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Max, I fear you are right.

          I certaily don’t think they were “freedom fighters”. 🙂

          It was a late-night posts. I just grabbed a couple of random organisations of people in history with their own agenda who were renowned for introducing fear and that interacted with Britain. I’d always understood that there was a religious element to the Thuggee but I’m willing to be corrected.

          Anyway, Britain dealt with the Thuggee by good intelligence leading to executions – no questions asked. They dealt with the Mau Mau in Kenya by kicking the crap out of them militarily and yet conceded nearly all of the demands made by the rebels back when the whole affair kicked off. So here we had a carrot and stick and Kenya was born peacefully in 1963. On July 28, 2005, the Provisional IRA Army Council announced an end to its armed campaign. We managed that one without invading Ireland.

          The “War on Terror” as popularised and described by Bush is total bollocks. All of the terrorist groups, Islamic and otherwise, are different and most have different targets for different reasons. All I’m asking for is a bit of intelligence in working out the different ways to mitigate the effectiveness of these groups and not invading countries seemingly at random.

          What I see is a totally different agenda.

          Neil 🙂

        • #3283321

          oops on Thuggees

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Max, I fear you are right.

          Pardon me. I missed the crucial “not” in my statement, though I was thinking about it. Infact I had googled before making my post to check if they were at all involved in some kind of freedom fighting. It should have read “I did not know….”

          Blasted typo…changed the entire meaning of my post 🙁

          You are correct, they had religious elements. Infact thuggess were mostly some kind of Kali worshippers, there were muslims who were thuggees too and were involved in all the cult worship.

          I agree with your last paragraph just above the last line.

        • #3282467

          We did it once for Britain also, at least locally!

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Neil, not entirely true

          We’ll get around to it.

          You’ll just have to be patient, Neil.

        • #3283564

          I don’t know

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to We did it once for Britain also, at least locally!

          what you mean!

        • #3283348

          Oh I can’t wait !

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to We did it once for Britain also, at least locally!

          How much is it going to cost us this time ?

          When one country helps another out, it’s coz they had a sh**ty stick and needed someone to hold on to it.

          Always, no exceptions. Course your past ‘help’ was so effective us brits are just grateful to have something to do.

          To be fair, we did need something out of GWB’s ‘war on terror’, the poodle wanted a walk.

        • #3284294

          Glad you’re back Tony.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Oh I can’t wait !

          My poodle is a Rottweiler.

          But she thinks she is a poodle (lap dog).

          The big issue is do you see this as WW III.

          If you do not, I say look again. If you do, tell me how to fight it “smarter”.

        • #3282447

          No, Neil, you are terribly mistaken

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to A lesson in history (II)

          Benjamin Franklin, perhaps my favorite of all the American founders (for a variety of reasons), did not [b]BEG[/b] the French for anything. He was a master statesman, perhaps the best America has ever seen (not to mention the first), and he convinced the French to enter into a win-win arrangement. Benjamin Franklin did not have to resort to [b]BEGGING[/b]. He was much to smart and savvy, he was very charming, which played right into the French persona, and he would never have had to resort to such a thing as begging. Please, Neil, don’t make light of Mr. Franklin’s brilliance just to support another one of your flawed points.

        • #3282429

          Please don’t

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to No, Neil, you are terribly mistaken

          fixate Benjamin Franklin and ignore the point of my post which was that ITGirli’s favourable comparisons of your Revolution and Iraq and Washington and Bush are just not on.

          Other than my dissing of your hero, please indicate which point you consider to be flawed.

          You might also like to comment on the fact that the French were your good friends for a considerable period of your history. Considering the – mostly unjustified – crap that you, as a country, heap on them now, perhaps your current (only) friends should watch their backs?

        • #3282401

          Ben Franklin…master statesman…

          by jck ·

          In reply to No, Neil, you are terribly mistaken

          as well as known drunkard…and unfaithful womanizer.

          Actually, Thomas Jefferson was considered to be a better statesman and far more literate than Franklin. However, Franklin had an established rapport with the French (as he’d been essentially ambassador and lived in France for years).

          I would tend to think our best statesmen who came to this country from England would have been the pilgrims who managed to live with the natives here and not run them off their own land and/or shoot all of them.

          The pilgrims didn’t beg…they didn’t harm…they learned to live in peace with the existing inhabitants.

          Brilliant? Perhaps somewhat. Charmer? Yes.

          I wonder if Franklin ever drank Guinness?? ]:)

        • #3282296

          Thomas Jefferson also

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Ben Franklin…master statesman…

          Thomas Jefferson was Washington’s choice to serve as the nation’s first Secretary of State, a position in which he performed magnificently. I don’t disagree that he is arguably the best “statesman” out of the group of founders, as he is another one of them that I admire and study a great deal (and one that Neil would call my “hero” in his usual condescending attempt to minimize any comment I might make about him).

          As far as your disparaging comments about Franklin, I suppose you could find cause to ridicule any of them, derived from one source or the other, for whatever reason you might have. Personally, I believe it’s not only in poor taste, but also reveals a bit of ignorance about the man. By the way, how much have you studied Franklin, and from what source have you drawn your simplistic and narrow-minded conclusion?

        • #3282287


          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Thomas Jefferson also

          “Two nations divided by a common language”

          I was in no way being condescending. Believe it or not I merely use the word to indicate someone that you admire. Give me a “better” word to use in the future.

          Please address the points of the original post. I think we’re going really off track with Franklin.

          Edit: Actually, don’t bother. Unless you do think ITGirli’s comparisons are apt.

        • #3284676

          still in form, I see

          by jck ·

          In reply to Thomas Jefferson also

          Because I don’t concur with you and hold your limited opinion, you consider me ignorant. How smug and egotistical.

          Go research some historical books. It is well-known:

          a) Franklin was indeed a heavy drinker and eater.
          b) He often was in the (as quite a number of texts and programs have documented it) “intimate company” of many well-known French socialites.

          Franklin, as well as Jefferson, were known to be men who desired the company of women. Just look at Jefferson. It was genetically proven he fathered children out of wedlock with one of his servant women. It’s been documented Franklin was quite the ladies’ man too, especially during his time in France.

          Perhaps it’s only being desparaging to you, but it doesn’t change that it is factual.

          Where have I drawn my conclusions? From sources other than you apparently. I don’t have time to go find every source I’ve ever heard it from or read about it.

          Needless to say, it’s only narrow-minded because you don’t like it. But, at least I’m not a political lemming.

          Evidently, you need to learn to read different books other than what you have read. You’re learning a very sheltered concept of the nation’s history.

        • #3284947

          And of course

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to still in form, I see

          you have to remember that not everything you read is true.

          I would say that your discription of Franlins drinking matches very closely to your own described drinking? does that make you a drunkard? Of course not. Reading in a book somewhere that he was a heavey eater and drinker does not equate to drunkard.

          Liking woman. Maybe he could have borrowed the oval office (now offically called the oral office…).

          The biggest part that was disparaging was your assertion that a man credited with as many inventions as Franklin was, was not “briliant”.

          Yes TJ was “doing” his slave girl, but from everything I have ever read, he loved her and she was very well taken care of, working in the main house, not some ignorant slave raped at his whim.

          Conclusion, you can praise the good works of a man that has done great things in his life, or you can concentrate on the negative things that everyone has in their lives. We seem to see how you look at things.

        • #3283436


          by jck ·

          In reply to still in form, I see

          [i]you have to remember that not everything you read is true.[/i]

          Then perhaps you should quit believing so much in the Bush political propaganda and develop your own political beliefs?

          I didn’t base it on one source…or even just a couple. I’ve read several books, magazine articles, and even watched television programs (if I remember right, one on The History Channel quoted diaries of French people around Franklin) that talked of his regular drinking…even while he was working with the Continental Congress.

          Maybe drunkard isn’t a politically correct enough term for you.

          How’s “functional alcoholic”? Does that make you feel better? Bush was a functional alcoholic too 😉

          [i]I would say that your discription of Franlins drinking matches very closely to your own described drinking? does that make you a drunkard? Of course not. Reading in a book somewhere that he was a heavey eater and drinker does not equate to drunkard.[/i]

          Again…not *a* book. I’ve read and seen information on it several times in my life. I’m sorry you have lead the same less-educated life I did.

          Franklin did it on a daily basis. It was well know that, in France at least, he was out at the local pubs nightly.

          As for me, even in my heaviest drinking times I did not go out nightly or drink nightly…well, except while I am on vacation.

          [i]Liking woman. Maybe he could have borrowed the oval office (now offically called the oral office…).[/i]

          Indeed…hence…why do you ride Clinton’s case for it, but not Franklin?? Bias? Ignorance? Chosen shading of history based only on what you’ve learned? Chastise and make fun of Franklin now as you have Clinton in the past (and your last post) for infidelity, jdclyde. Prove your unbiasedness in this aspect at least.

          [i]The biggest part that was disparaging was your assertion that a man credited with as many inventions as Franklin was, was not “briliant”.[/i]

          I did not say he was NOT brilliant. There you go misquoting me again. I said “Perhaps somewhat”. And, that is based on the fact a) he did have great inventions, and b) he did contribute to the founding principles of this country.

          But to say he had brilliance (and, it was specifically in Max’s implication about his ability) in statesmanship was a stretch. If you want to say someone had truly brilliant statesmanship, head for Richard Nixon. He wasn’t buddy-buddy with the Chinese for over a decade when he went to communicate with them. It’s easy to go ask your buddy for a favor…not a total stranger.

          [i]Yes TJ was “doing” his slave girl, but from everything I have ever read, he loved her and she was very well taken care of, working in the main house, not some ignorant slave raped at his whim.[/i]

          TJ was doing more than her. He had several women between visits from his wife while he was at the Continental Congress too. As I suggested to Max too…you should go read more.

          [i]Conclusion, you can praise the good works of a man that has done great things in his life, or you can concentrate on the negative things that everyone has in their lives. We seem to see how you look at things.[/i]

          How do I look at things? Well, I give praise for the good. However, I equally give scorn for the bad. So, are you going to tell me that womanizing and infidelity and alcohol abuse is not worthy of scorn and disdain?

          The fact is, you want only to praise the good attributes of those you like and bring out only the bad in those you don’t.

          I won’t deitify someone for one aspect of their person…whether Clinton, or Nixon, or Martin Luther King Jr., or Bush, or Franklin.

        • #3283229

          I hardly think

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to still in form, I see

          That it was that easy for Franklin to “court” the French.

          Read enough about Franklin and you will realise he was an Anglophile. Many of his lifelong friends were British aristocracy. His son was the last loyalist governor of Jew Jersey – a post that Franklin no doubt lobbied the British Monarchy/aristocracy for. Franklin spent years in London, as a printer, as an agent for US states. He liked the way that the British Parliament had democratic (for the times) power that at that time no other country had given.

          France on the other hand, was being ruled by a ruler who had brought back the notion of the absolute right of kings. Franklin had supported the British in throwing the French out of Canada (Washington was a general in that war for the British).

          As to Franklin’s drinking, the pub was often in those days much more than it is today. There was no TV, radio, and people went to socialise, debate, discuss the news and events.

          Seems you like to eat and drink too – what does that say about your charecter? Nothing to me. And if I hear about it third hand, I look at it sceptically.

          Intimate company. Well what can I say. I suspect if we knew the truth, we would find many presidents (and prime ministers) who have had affairs. Certainly evidence that Kennedy, Eisenhower exists and some rumours about Roosevelt.

          Franklin may have even had affairs to gain access to information or to court favours on behalf of his country.

          To me, Jefferson’s transgression is not only with Sally Hemmings, who may or may not have had much of a choice, as a slave can’t easily turn down an owner, but with Sally’s offspring. Given that Jefferson would have strongly suspected or know that the children were his, how could he not free them and their mother?

          As for the jdclyde/jck slugfest a pox on both your houses, I think both of you start the slide into irrational mudslinging when you “debate” each other, and you go from facts to opinions about each other.


        • #3200161

          oh JamesRL…

          by jck ·

          In reply to still in form, I see

          It is a well-documented fact that Franklin had an illegitimate son state-side that lived with him for some time before he went off on his duties to England, while he disowned him later over a disagreement.

          Fact is, no one knows if he has any other illegitimate children here or in France. However, there is documented proof that Franklin was quite the ladies’ man while in France, even at the point he was there and his wife was dying from strokes in the United States and he was promising her he would return home.

          Think what you like. I know that I’ve read a lot about the topic from a young age. In fact, Franklin was one of my favorites as a kid and I read Library of Congress book series incessantly on the founding fathers before I was even in kindergarten.

          As for the eating and drinking bit, you seem not to get the understanding that Franklin was drinking regularly to excess. He often was heard using “gaut” as his reason for drinking so much, but he was known to be a heavy drinker before the gaut ever affected him in his later years.

          Just because you discuss both the good AND the bad aspects of a person’s life doesn’t mean you think they are a scumbag.

          However, putting someone on a pedestal for only the positive fraction of their life as some kind of supreme statesman is just hero worship.

          Give the man his due for his positive actions, but also give him the proper due for his negatives as well.

        • #3200098

          Dwelling on the negative vs disparaging

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to still in form, I see

          A few quick notes, as I only have a few minutes.

          You can dwell on your negative aspects of people who made more of a difference to the world than you ever will if you want, but it doesn’t take a single thing away from their accomplishments.

          Were they gods to be placed up on high and worshiped? Of course not, and no one ever implied such a thing.

          You have written more negative things about Franklin alone here than you ever have about people in positions of political power, that just happen to support your political ideals. No matter how much Franklin drank, to my knowledge he was never allowed to legally kill anyone.

          The great spiritual leader of the Democratic party has at least one love child, and has used charity funds to support both her and the mother. So what.

          I am confused here. You have never made a point of slamming Franklin here before, so why start now? If you felt so strongly against Franklin as a person, you would have brought this up at some time over the last year or so.

          You have only jumped up now so you can argue with Max? That is a pretty sad way to go. Max likes someone so we had better find something bad to say about them and focus only on that. No no, we don’t care of how many ways this single person improved the entire world, we will find something negative and dwell on that same thing over and over and over and over and…..

          What have you gained by your “factual” slam on Franklin? Drinking everynight, liking women, inventing things that improve our lives, get the French to help in the war. Yeah, I can see why you would focus on it like that. What a terrible person he was….

        • #3200072


          by jck ·

          In reply to still in form, I see

          Whine on, you crazy diamond… 😉

          I’ve said…time and time again…Clinton was a pig for cheating on his wife…and that she should be allowed to cut his penis off if she wished. Same goes for Jessie Jackson, Warren Sapp, Ben Franklin, FDR, and any other cheating pig. Don’t try to pin me as politically partisan on the cheating thing. I don’t condone it for anyone.

          BTW…I love at the end of your post how you validate his excess drinking and sleeping around with the fact that he went to the French and got them to help and phrasing sleeping around as “liking women”. That’s really upstanding of you and a fair expression of his sleazy act of infidelity.

          Getting the French to help: Good, cause it helped us win.

          Sleeping around, especially when he was married: sleazy (or do you think it okay?)

          Drinking to excess on a nightly basis: poor example of representative leadership (or do you think that okay to as he was a representative of our country?)

          By the way…there is a difference between *liking* women and being *promiscuous* with them…especially when your married. Thought you’d especially know the difference.

          Did I do it to argue with Max…no.

          Did I do it to prove a point that he was not a “great statesman”? Yes. There were several others of the period who were considered a far better statesmen…Jefferson was considered the best of that era. And, there have been more since. As I pointed out, Nixon being one of them. And yes, Nixon did illegal crap.

          And, notice I pointed out too that Jefferson slept around. So, your argument that it was just against Franklin is proven absurd.

          I said it once…I’ll say it again.

          It’s fine to give people their due for the positive, but give them their due for the negative.

          Besides. If Clinton had gone and openly been affectionate with aristocratic socialites in England and gotten the English favour that way, you would have screamed about what an insult to our nation that is.

          Why is my bringing up that Franklin committed infidelity too so offensive to you, yet berating Clinton for it is okay?

          And just remember, jd…that if you only tell posterity of the rose-colored things:

          To forgive a man for he acted is honourable. To forget how he acted perpetuates stupidity.

        • #3200053

          Yes, you should be crying after that….

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to still in form, I see

          First of all, you have yet to date show any examples of Franklin NOT being a “great statesman”.

          Womanizing and drinking are not proof of that.

          So besides CLAIMING that he isn’t a great statesman AND going on about his womanizing and drinking EVERYNIGHT which you claim to be fact dispite James pointing out that EVERYONE went to the pub nightly because that was the social gathering place, you really haven’t said much. Have you in this discussion given him credit for ANYTHING POSITIVE? Sorry, but if you did, I missed it.

          Do I care if he drank a lot at the pubs each night? Not at all, as he still performed his duties the next day and accomplished great things. Can you say the same?

          Do I excuse affairs? Of course not, and I never claimed I did. Just because I didn’t DWELL on that topic does not mean I condone it. I am just not in a position to do anything about his affairs, now am I?

          No proof to back up that he wasn’t the great statesman, only tears him down, AND only right after Max says something positive about him? If you would have EVER said anything negative about Franklin before, your claim that it coming out now isn’t just because Max said something would ring true. You didn’t and it doesn’t.

          You are a very shallow person sometimes. Sad.

          Go back to your crying.

          I am off before that pox James set comes in.

        • #3200022

          they were…

          by jck ·

          In reply to still in form, I see

          for you.

          wah…there’s another for good measure…just for you :p

          Now…you say that…I only brought out Ben Franklin now cause Max commented…sorry I was gone for a few months and busy with work, and that I didn’t have time to parse through 10,000s of posts to go back and find Ben Franklin being represented as “great”.

          But you will notice…I said NOTHING about Max’s comment about his being “…a diplomat, perhaps the best the USA ever had…”.

          Because…what’s a diplomat? Someone who is skilled in negotiations. Was he a great negotiator? Yeah…I can agree there. Diplomacy involves schmoozing. Franklin was a great schmoozer.

          But…what is a statesman? A statesman is someone who is highly knowledgable in the principles of government, especially in terms of running government or setting its policies.

          I guess the desireable qualities of a statesman … especially one who is running or shaping government…includes infidelity and heavy drinking? Yeah…GREAT qualities for a statesman. We’ll make Andy Dick the ambassador to Greece next. 😀

          Yes…fine statesman there.

          BTW, I do believe I complimented him. Better go back and read where I said:

          [b]I did not say he was NOT brilliant. There you go misquoting me again. I said “Perhaps somewhat”. And, that is based on the fact a) he did have great inventions, and b) he did contribute to the founding principles of this country.[/b]

          Thanks for missing the fact I complimented his inventions and his contribution to the founding principles of the country. The gift certificate is waiting for you at LensCrafters. :p

          And too again, underplaying what I said is what you are good at. There’s a difference between going to a pub to visit and socialize…and…going in there and drinking heavily every night. Not everyone goes to a bar and gets sloshed to have fun…not everyone now or then had to get drunk nightly to socialize.

          Guess they’d get drunk nightly on a golf course if they were around now, eh? That’s how everyone socializes today…right?

          Again…if it was Clinton who’d gone out and got drunk every night in his role in government, you’d have bashed him. At least I can admit when Clinton was a screw-up and not fulfilling his role to a respectable level.

          And, evidently you only care when someone is a poor representative of your country based on whether or not you like them. And, you seem even less concerned about teaching full truth about things in this world…including the not-so-complimentary facts about historical figures in the country’s past.

          Oh…another thing…I’ve never seen you comment on Franklin here before either. Does that mean you shant be able to reply to my comment on Franklin either?

          Sorry you disagree with me and that you haven’t read all the material I have.

          But, I won’t put rose colored glasses on just to make you happy.

          Now…go get busy working…I’m going home sick. Payroll gal gave me a cold or something.

        • #3284731

          The way I see ITgirli’s point:

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to A lesson in history (II)

          Are there people in Iraq who do want to live in a free society? Absolutely yes. In fact, the majority of them, I might surmise, want that very thing. Look at the recent voter turnout as proof. And these same people want an end to the terrorist activities in their country. I dismiss Neil’s objection that all, or even most, Iraqis see America as the bad guy in this fight. I also dismiss Neil’s objection that America is the occupying force, per se, in the sense of trying to get the indigent population to capitulate. Neil apparently has an extremely warped sense of who the bad guy really is. I see ITgirli’s point (in her first paragraph) as only observing that an effort in creating a free society is taking place, most Iraqis want it, and there are forces who are trying to prevent it.

          She then observes that, [i]”The war in Iraq has taken over 3 years. Our American Revolution took over 7 years.”[/i]

          This is also true. Drastic change will not happen overnight. Nobody in the Bush administration claimed it would happen overnight. In fact, to the contrary, the Bush administration has been very clear from the beginning, that this would take a very ling time. The instant gratification mentality of the detractors is blinding their long-term vision.

          ITgirli goes on to say the, [i]”Bush’s popularity has taken a rather steep dive in the past couple of years”[/i].

          This is true.

          She goes on to say, [i]”During the Revolution, Washington (who was not yet president, but commander in chief) had one of the worst popularity ratings of all time, mostly as a result of the loss of New York City in the first part of the war”[/i].

          This is also true.

          The only comparison to G. Washington that is being made with G. Bush is that in the heat of the present, support for both of them waned. History has proved G. Washington to be _________ (well, Neil, I won’t presume to speak for your lessons in history in this regard. I’m not sure how the bulk of you Brits see G. Washington.), and history will also judge G. Bush with a similar benefit of hindsight.

          And then she asks, where would the cause of 1776 gone had they quit and given up? Speculate all you’d like, but I’m glad they didn’t. She subsequently asks the same thing about the efforts in Iraq, what if we quit and give up? It’s all speculation, of course, but fast forward ten or twenty years and try to guess. Personally speaking, I don’t like the answers that come to my mind.

          Which all brings us to Neil’s reply

          Neil says, [i]”The difference is that they asked the French for help. In fact, Benjamin Franklin begged the French for help. The French, in their turn, although acting purely out of animosity towards Britain but, to give them their due, they were good allies to you and did not attempt to mould the fledgling America in their image….. I do not believe that the Iraqi people requested any part of the invasion, ‘shock and awe’ and what followed. I do not believe that the Iraqi people are ready for democracy and that your attempts to foist US political and economic hegemonisation upon them is doomed to make things worse.”[/i]

          You suggest that there were no Iraqis asking for help? There weren’t? None? None at all? On what basis is this claim made? And I already challenged your view of Franklin’s dealings with the French, a point you conveniently side-stepped.

          You also suggest that the Americans are trying to, [i]”mould the fledgling (Iraq) in their image” [/i]. What a stupid and silly thing to say. No such thing is taking place, and you know it. Your emotions are getting the better part of your reason. You have a way if stretching things to the absurd, just as you also did with your follow-up comments about ‘shock and awe’. Get a hold of yourself, Neil, and try to sound rational instead of spewing silly emotional rhetoric.

          And I would venture to guess that many Iraqis ARE ready, willing, and able to handle living in a free democracy, and they might vehemently disagree with your dismal view of their ability to do just that. Just because YOU don’t believe they’re capable of handling a democracy, I suppose we should just forget the whole thing? Okay, Iraq, Neil says you’re stupid and incapable of self-rule. That about says it all.

          Neil went on to say, [i]”George Bush is not Washington. Not in any way.”[/i].

          The only comparisons she made were listed and addressed above. For you to streeeeeeeeeeeeeetch anything more out of it is only, what has become, typical of Neil stretching a small point to the absurd.

          Neil said, [i]”If Washington had given up, the revolution lost and you had remained a British colony then you may have ended up like Canada, New Zealand or, God forbid, Australia; possibly one of the most repressive and evil regimes on the face of the planet. (Nice beaches, though)”[/i].

          Well, we’ll never know, will we? But the comment is ridiculous, nonetheless. In the context of this exchange, we’re discussing what would happen if we give up today in Iraq. If you can show that the outcome would make Iraq similar to Australia, you’ll convince me to change sides and agree with you. Otherwise, you’ve just make another meaningless and silly comment.

          By the way, my “lesson in history” is ALSO being ignored by Neil and his ilk – 1936.

        • #3284958

          Thank you

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to The way I see ITgirli’s point:

          Thank you for expounding on my points. I really didn’t think it was that hard to see my points, but I’m glad you saw them and were able to explain in logical terms for neil and his ilk.
          I can’t believe that there are people who can so easily twist and warp things completely out of context to support their own theories.

        • #3284951

          Ilk? Twist? Warp?

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Thank you

          Just because I totally disagree with your overly romantic, simplistic, [b]obvious[/b] comparisons (yes, I saw them) and with Max’s expansion of them – him I will answer when I have the time – there is really no need to come back with the ad hominem attack. Not unexpected, though, and I guess that I’ll survive it.

          If you want to debate, then debate. Or you could try cluster bombs…

        • #3283393

          Dad…they’ll never get it right…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Ilk? Twist? Warp?

          we’re not ilk…

          we’re SWILL!!! ]:)

          Here’s another beer…forget them…they just can’t face the facts of life…they want everything to be peaches and cream…even though there is some spoiled cream and rotten peaches in the picnic basket.

          Learn from Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder, Max…

          “There is good and bad…in everyone…we learn to live…and we learn to give each other…what we need to survive…”

          Hahahahah 😀

          I’m twisted…I love it… 😀

        • #3283362

          You’ve grown up well, son

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Dad…they’ll never get it right…

          and I’m proud of my part in it!


        • #3283359

          And you’re a great Dad!

          by jck ·

          In reply to Dad…they’ll never get it right…

          Not only because you have class and taught me well to rebel against lemmingistic standards, but…

          because you didn’t try to put your “part” in my “it” 😀

          Now I have Stevie Wonder songs buzzin around in my head…where’s my sunglasses!!! ]:)

          I just called…to say…I love you…I just called…to say how much I care…

          Yes…twisted swill…that’s me…

          Any ladies need a date? ]:)

        • #3283349


          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Dad…they’ll never get it right…

          Your twisting your love? :0

          MAN would that hurt! 😀

        • #3283337

          jdclyde: I adopted jck last year

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Dad…they’ll never get it right…

          This was so that I could go and stay with my boy in Florida until we could get him over to the UK. The problem is that, firstly, my local council don’t consider me a good mother (why NOT?) and secondly, after seeing the SIZE of him, they won’t believe that he’s only ten!

          At the moment, they won’t release the adoption papers.

          Neil 🙁

        • #3283283

          yes jdclyde

          by jck ·

          In reply to Dad…they’ll never get it right…

          I twist my love EVERY NIGHT ]:)

          Thought I’d give you that mental picture…as punishment…SWILL RULES 😀

        • #3283276

          I think Neil

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Dad…they’ll never get it right…

          that you need to crawl down into the gutter with the rest of us and then re-read my post! :0

        • #3283272

          I was remaining aloof

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Dad…they’ll never get it right…

          I didn’t want to get into discussions about “twisting my love” in case anyone assumed that I’d brought Junior up badly.

          The Swill that he has become is all his own work.


        • #3283247


          by jck ·

          In reply to Dad…they’ll never get it right…

          I did it on my own. Dad is not at fault.

          New Swill saying:

          “I’d rather my Dad be aloof than a poof!” ]:)

        • #2617981

          Not ready for democracy

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to A lesson in history (II)

          neil wrote, “I do not believe that the Iraqi people are ready for democracy…”

          And yet 20 million of them showed us by their act of bravery as they voted for their government just how wrong your belief is.

      • #3284926

        Who said Iraqis want democracy?

        by m_a_r_k ·

        In reply to A lesson in History

        I think we need to have a better understanding of Islam. I admit I know little about it but from I have read, democracy and Islam are not exactly compatible. There are many aspects of “freedom” that are opposite of the teachings of Islam. So, did anyone ever take a poll of the Iraqi people to ask them if they really wanted a Western-style democracy?

      • #3283286

        I’m not sure I understand the lesson

        by jck ·

        In reply to A lesson in History

        1)George Washington was fighting for the freedom of his own country from an oppressive monarchy, including his own freedom.

        Bush’s fight for freedom in Iraq was based on false pretense of WMDs being present, and the premise that removing Saddam would free the Iraqi people.

        2) Once Washington’s goal was achieved, we ran our own government as we saw fit in a form we chose.

        Bush did not leave the Iraqi people to determine their own form of government. Democracy was pushed upon them.

        3) Washington defeated the British and we were free from the tyranny and taxation.

        Bush defeated Saddam and his regime and the Iraqi people are now free from it, but now are being killed by terrorists.

        So…why isn’t Iraq free to run themselves and choose their own form of government now that Saddam is in prison, if Bush and Washington were so much alike and fighting for the same principle , i.e.- freedom from oppressive government rule?

        Why did the Iraqis not get to decide on their own government structure?

        If Bush wants them to have our freedoms, perhaps the Iraqis should have their own civil war to determine their future as well?? After all…we had one…maybe they should too? 😉

        I don’t understand any commonality other than they were both leaders and proclaimed they were fighting for the cause of freedom in regards to their campaign.

        Other than that…I see no other common links at all.


        Washington retreated from NYC to regroup…maybe Bush should retreat from Iraq too? 😉

    • #3205637

      The Islamic fascists hate the west because

      by too old for it ·

      In reply to Confused about War on Terror

      … we do not blindly accept Islam, and have made a steller financial success of things without paying tribute to the Islamo-fascist caliph-du-jour.

      Kill them all, let God (or Allah, or Cathulu) sort them out.

    • #3200050

      The real truth no one will hear.

      by rknrlkid ·

      In reply to Confused about War on Terror

      Pertinent facts:

      1. The liberal politicians in America, which really is the Democratic party for the most part, and the liberal media, are wrong. They are pursuing a dangerous course. Not because they are stupid, IMO, but because they blindly only want to defeat the Republican party. Hatred of Bush is a convenient scapegoat. There are more problems with the liberal viewpoint in America, but that is outside the scope of this post. (In case you think I am biased, I hate the Republican party too. I think both should be abolished.)

      2. The real issue almost everyone misses. And that issue is that these militant islamic types HATE THE WEST and want to see our form of civilization eradicated, along with Israel. You cannot negotiate or argue with a mentality like that.

      3. The best FACTUAL explanation of what is happening is probably found here:

      This is the web page for “Obsession – Radical Islam’s War Against the West.” I have seen this movie, and it is quite powerful. Using actual footage from middle-eastern television broadcasts, we in the west can see how they really think about us.

      This is the web page for the Middle Eastern Media Research Institute. Go there and see real middle eastern television and how they view the world.

      3. America is a nation of selfish sheep. We would rather have someone else do our thinking, and would rather follow fads than what is logical or right. We want our comfort and entertainment NOW, completely effortless. The political party that lies errr promises the most to meet these two areas will be the popular choice, regardless of their real motivation or character.

Viewing 13 reply threads