General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2294441

    President Bush – A Profile in Courage


    by maxwell edison ·

    This President put his political life on the line to do what four of his predecessors didn’t do, but should have done. Add a chapter to Profiles In Courage for President George W. Bush.

    How 9-11 Happened
    by Ann Coulter

    We don’t need a “commission” to find out how 9-11 happened. The truth is in the timeline:

    President Carter, Democrat:

    In 1979, President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah of Iran to be deposed by a mob of Islamic fanatics. A few months later, Muslims stormed the U.S. Embassy in Iran and took American Embassy staff hostage.

    Carter retaliated by canceling Iranian visas. He eventually ordered a disastrous and humiliating rescue attempt, crashing helicopters in the desert.

    President Reagan, Republican:

    The day of Reagan’s inauguration, the hostages were released.

    In 1982, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed by Muslim extremists.

    President Reagan sent U.S. Marines to Beirut.

    In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up by Muslim extremists.

    Reagan said the U.S. would not surrender, but Democrats threw a hissy fit, introducing a resolution demanding that our troops be withdrawn. Reagan caved in to Democrat caterwauling in an election year and withdrew our troops — bombing Syrian-controlled areas on the way out. Democrats complained about that, too.

    In 1985 an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, was seized and a 69-year-old American was shot and thrown overboard by Muslim extremists.

    Reagan ordered a heart-stopping mission to capture the hijackers after “the allies” promised them safe passage. In a daring operation, American fighter pilots captured the hijackers and turned them over to the Italians — who then released them to safe harbor in Iraq.

    On April 5, 1986, a West Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen was bombed by Muslim extremists from the Libyan Embassy in East Berlin, killing an American.

    Ten days later, Reagan bombed Libya, despite our dear ally France’s refusing the use of their airspace. Americans bombed Qaddafi’s residence, killing his daughter, and dropped a bomb on the French Embassy “by mistake.”

    Reagan also stoked a long, bloody war between heinous regimes in Iran and Iraq. All this was while winning a final victory over Soviet totalitarianism.

    President Bush I, Moderate Republican:

    In December 1988, a passenger jet, Pan Am Flight 103, was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, by Muslim extremists.

    President-elect George Bush claimed he would continue Reagan’s policy of retaliating against terrorism, but did not. Without Reagan to gin her up, even Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went wobbly, saying there would be no revenge for the bombing.

    In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

    In early 1991, Bush went to war with Iraq. A majority of Democrats opposed the war, and later complained that Bush didn’t “finish off the job” with Saddam.

    President Bill Clinton, Democrat

    In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.

    Clinton did nothing.

    In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.

    Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: “The youth … realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat.”

    In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.

    Clinton did nothing.

    In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.

    Clinton did nothing.

    Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.

    Clinton lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam’s forces.

    In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.

    Clinton did nothing.

    In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.

    On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.

    Clinton did nothing.

    On August 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.

    Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.

    On December 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.

    Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by The New York Times as “by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991.”

    The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 — when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.

    In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.

    Clinton did nothing.

    President George Bush, Republican:

    Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, he was “tired of swatting flies” — he wanted to eliminate al Qaeda.

    On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists.

    Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al Qaeda’s base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all — except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now Democrats claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do the very things the Democrats opposed doing after 9-11.

    What a surprise.

All Comments

  • Author
    • #2733224

      One soldier’s view from the front

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to President Bush – A Profile in Courage

      (Confirmed to be authentic – I blocked out his name)

      This is a letter from *** ********, a medic in the Iowa Army National Guard, serving in Iraq:

      As I head off to Baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in Iraq, I wanted to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the media. They have done a very poor job of covering everything that has happened. I am sorry that I have not been able to visit all of you during my two week leave back home. And just so you can rest at night knowing something is happening in Iraq that is noteworthy, I thought I would pass this on to you. This is the list of things that has happened in Iraq recently:

      (Please share it with your friends and compare it to the version that your paper is producing.)

      * Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.
      * School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.
      * Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur.
      * The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster.
      * The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.
      * Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.
      * The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.
      * 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war.
      * Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place.
      * Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city.
      * Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
      * Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.
      * Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.
      * Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.
      * Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs.
      * An interim constitution has been signed.
      * Girls are allowed to attend school.
      * Textbooks that don’t mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.

      Don’t believe for one second that these people do not want us there. I have met many, many people from Iraq that want us there, and in a bad way. They say they will never see the freedoms we talk about but they hope their children will. We are doing a good job in Iraq and I challenge anyone, anywhere to dispute me on these facts. So If you happen to run into John Kerry, be sure to give him my email address and send him to Denison, Iowa. This soldier will set him straight. If you are like me and very disgusted with how this period of rebuilding has been portrayed, e-mail this to a friend and let them know there are good things happening.

      *** ********, SFC
      Iowa Army National Guard
      234th Signal Battalion”

      • #2733196


        by nd_it ·

        In reply to One soldier’s view from the front

        This is exactly what my brother told us when we talked with him on the phone or he wrote in e-mails. He just recently returned home from Iraq and said that the people were very grateful for the things that they did. These insurgents are just a few “bad apples” that are spoiling it for the rest of the millions of Iraqi people who have an improved life now that Saddam is gone. I agree that we have many problems here at home we need to solve, but we can’t ignore the rest of the world either. “Love thy neighbor as yourself”. How many more Iraqi’s would have died because of improper medical facilities, no immunizations, contaminated drinking water. These are things that we take for granted everyday, but these people are starting to experience this for the first time and are very gratefull for it. These type of stories are boring for the media to put on the front page, but when we drop bombs or start shooting, nothing ever good comes out of it from the media standpoint.

      • #2733182

        That’s never been disputed I don’t think

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to One soldier’s view from the front

        I don’t think anyone has ever said that the US was not rebuilding a downtrodden country.
        That was also never the issue though, nor the reason for conflict,nor the reason so many are against the war. IN fact, I think that’s the only part of this invasion people DO agree on and feel positive about.

        Lets just not forget WHY they were sent there in the first place. To protect America from Saddam, NOT to protect Iraqi’s from Saddam, America. Just because you manage to lick your wounds well
        and try to save face by ignoring the initial issues and reasons for the invasion, doesn’y mean it goes away. We were all here watching everyone saying how we would let our children die and how you are saving your families lives, and the ever popular Texas based Marine saying that we don’t care about or families and would let them burn. Remember ? “help it burns it burns!”.

        These strongly supported comments and the people who made them have been not-surprisingly absent from TR for the last 6 to 8 months for wome reason.

        Do they represent mainstream or ‘common’ America or do you? Somehoe I would say that you are far more politically educated than the majority of US citizens, you take a great pride in your research and facts, even though I often call them slanted, even if one sided you seem to have a firm conviction and knowledge of your stand that would surpass most, including some of your soldiers opinions.

        So all in all, great job at helping Iraq rebuild. Thank you for helping and educating children. You did a fine job at capturing Saddam. Kudos to America, you guys really rock.

        It’s just too bad that your president didn’t sell his objectives that way, it would have probably been supported by ALL, except US ctizens. Why should we die for them?

        Well, you died for your own families instead, although not threatened. But you did do some good too. If I was you, I would oust the misguided president and find someone who wants to help America help others, not kill them out of fear.

        • #2733169


          by nd_it ·

          In reply to That’s never been disputed I don’t think

          The topic of the rebuiling process has never been debated because I think most will agree that there is improvement in the Iraqi’s way of life. You are right that the reason the US did you into Iraq was because they felt Saddam proposed a threat to the US. I do think he was a threat to his own people though. He has killed thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons and I believe he only did things to benefit himself, not his people, thus resulting in the poor quality of life of the Iraqi’s. Do I think that he had WMD? Honestly I don’t know, and there is a lot of speculation on whether the information was correct or incorrect on WMD. I don’t know what to believe, since what I see from the media is Repulicans and Democrats at each other’s throats over who is too blame for 9/11 and throw a presidential campaign in, and you have political chaos. I am neither a Democrat or Republican, so I couldn’t tell you as of this moment who I would vote for come November. All I know is regardless of the reasons of why we went to Iraq, whether they are wrong or right, we are there now, and our troops need to see the support from us, not the bickering of the goverment. I believe that brings down troop morale. Vietnam was run by politicians, not by the generals, thus the reason for us pulling out. I don’t want to see that happen now. We do need to finish the job whether we were right or wrong for going there in the first place. Who is the best for this, good question. Max did display some good points, nothing was done for fighting terrism for many years, however I do believe Bush was just a little too trigger happy after we kicked the Taliban out of power. But on the other hand John Kerry hasn’t appealed to me as a good leader during a time of war.

        • #2666865

          be glad your a canadian OZ –

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to That’s never been disputed I don’t think

          Well – here in america we have Bush and Kerry – Kerry who servered in Vietnam (maybe) won 11 ribbons – 4 purple hearts in 6 months of service. Now thats pretty dam good healing power he has.

          Then he said he returned his ribbons – then he didn’t they were someone elses – then he did – but the were the ribbons not the medals (medals are attached to ribbons) – then he didn’t return any of them an kept them …

          Voted to go to war – then vote against funding it –

          Kerry is no leader – has poor values and little if any integraty.
          Now theres a leader that stands his ground – not – be thankful your a canadian – I vote for BUSH –

        • #2727373

          I’m glad that I am Australian

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to be glad your a canadian OZ –

          Thanks firstly for making me feel better with your duplicate posting, which suggests that the problem is at the TR end, and not in my computer.

          Sometime this year, Australians will have to choose between John Howard and Mark Latham as their Prime Minister.

          Much as I personally dislike Howard (mainly in relation to his domestic policies) I will give him credit where it is due.
          With his Goods and Services Tax he has produced a surplus budget for the country.
          He is a decisive leader, sharing the same positive quality attributed to George Bush in this discussion, of following through with any decision he makes.

          As I mentioned in one of my little digressions in another discussion, I know through my personal contact with him that Latham is a man of integrity and vision.

          Currently the polls (which are of course for the entertainment of readers, and prove nothing) show Howard as the preferred Prime Minister, but Labor as most likely to win the election.

          So we have to choose between a strong leader and seasoned politician aged 64 (Howard has held various cabinet positions since 1975 (then aged 36) as well as being leader of the Liberal/National Coalition in Opposition) and has been Prime Minister since 1996). Latham is a newcomer to the scene but with age on his side (he is 42) it would seem certain that if he does not become Prime Minister at this election, he will inevitably do so in the future.

          So yes, I am glad that I am Australian because we have the choice of two viable leaders.

        • #2666863

          be glad your a canadian OZ –

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to That’s never been disputed I don’t think

          Well – here in america we have Bush and Kerry – Kerry who servered in Vietnam (maybe) won 11 ribbons – 4 purple hearts in 6 months of service. Now thats pretty dam good healing power he has.

          Then he said he returned his ribbons – then he didn’t they were someone elses – then he did – but the were the ribbons not the medals (medals are attached to ribbons) – then he didn’t return any of them an kept them …

          Voted to go to war – then vote against funding it –

          Kerry is no leader – has poor values and little if any integraty.
          Now theres a leader that stands his ground – not – be thankful your a canadian – I vote for BUSH –

        • #2666802

          I most certainly am

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to be glad your a canadian OZ –

          Well I am very furtunate to live in Canada. THese topics of discussion RARELY come up regarding Canadian politics, nobody like Canadian politics, it’s oring droll and mostly crap anyway. What do we have to talk about, we aren’t under attack or imminent threat from anyone, which is surprising as we border the USA, we don’t invade,we don’t tell the rest of the world how to conduct thier business. We don’t expect other countries to be like us or see eye to eye with us, infact most countries would be wiping out a HUGE portion of thier own race if attacking Canada. We don’t push religion on each other, we don’t use religion to justify our every move.

          We don’t care, bottom line and are simply left to live and enjoy it.

          If I had these same issues that you guys do occuring in Canada each day, I’d be moving home. I won’t support my government on such actions unless properly justified and imperative.

          Now this goes back to the origins of our coutries.

          I saw a comedian who was talking about our origins ad how our countries were established. IN short,

          America: the established USA was WON as a result of a nasty and very bloody battle between the North and the South.

          Delegates from Upper and Lower Canada requested an invitation to speak about the possibilities of a union of the British North American Colonies. They had soon won the attention of the entire conference and had proposed the Federal Union of Canada and the Atlantic Provinces.

          So while you have established yourselves as a nation by fighting for it’s freedom, we just signed a few papers and went for a cold beer and a lobster dinner.

          Just like many countries in the world, America will ALWAYS be at war and never existing in true peace.

          Canada will probably NEVER be at war again and we live daily in true peace.

          I guess your’e right, I AM jealous of America. I guess I’ll have to get that citizenship afterall.

        • #2666782

          As a student of Canadian history…..

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to I most certainly am

          Its not as simple as that comedian claimed.

          If you go back to the French and Indian wars, there was bitter fighting between the French and the English and their colonial armies(which included George Washington and Benedict Arnold).

          Upon winning, the crown granted Quebec extraordinary rights (google the Quebec Act of 1760) – the right to keep their own religion, education system(Roman Catholic) and Civil code (versus common law found in rest of colonies). This by the way became a bone of contention and drove a wedge between the thirteen colonies of America and Britain – many of the colonist who fought for the British were anti-french.

          We did have a minor rebellion in 1839, which resulted in democratic reforms.

          The reason for the timing of our “confederation”, the joining of the colonies into a country called Canada, was largely to do with the states. The US Civil war made us nervous, and even after the war was over there was some fear of invasion. In fact many who served in Irish regiments joined the fenian movement, and there were a few border crossing and battles with Canadian Militia.

          Canada would have come together anyway, but the US Civil War helped speed the process. And it wasn’t entirely smooth – one of the colonies did not join at the time of Confederation, but did join a few years later.


        • #2666778

          NOthing is simple on your world isn’t it?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to As a student of Canadian history…..

          Now normally I wouldn’t bother arguing with a fellow Canadian. You seem to feel that your historical knowledge has some bearing though.

          When the said American comedian told this “JOKE” it was not intended to be an indepth history lesson. Nor was it supposed to be a description of Canada’s history or Britain’s colonization.

          The difference is just that war resolves everything in the US whereas things are more passive in Canada.

          Now I’m sure it will be hard for you to accept such a simple blanket statement without showing your historical prowess but please try to just take things for what they are.

          It seems like we have a Canadian Maxwell too!

        • #2666773

          Make your choice

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to NOthing is simple on your world isn’t it?

          You were trying to show how superior Canada was by using a joke.

          I tried to tell you it wasn’t that simple.

          If you didn’t want to use it in an argument, then don’t use it in an argument. Tell it as a joke and then we will all have a laugh.

          But you can’t try it one way – use it to show some sort of moral superiority over americans and then when someone calls you on it, back away and say we take it too seriously.

          Guess if I make both you and Maxwell mad in one day I must be doing something right.


        • #2666769

          Mr. Linn

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to NOthing is simple on your world isn’t it?

          I was not using the joke to demonstate superiority.

          Most here know that I am proud to be Canadian in that we don’t get lumbered with leaders who make decisions of war. I live in Port Hardy now, after years in Vancouver and a few in the Maritimes.

          West coast living is like a permanent holiday, life is very laid back (as is the Maritimes) and in general we don’t take the government seriously with the exception of a few political protestors and hippies who want to free the weed, hell the government’s way over there! Sure we have parliment in Victoria but that’s just a nice building and tourist attraction to us, it isn’t like capitol hill or something.

          My point isn’t that we are superior to anyone, quite the opposite actually as we don’t feel the need to BE superior to anyone, nor should we.

          We don’t need to fight for our land, we don’t need to fight for ‘their’ land. We do help other countries as needed but we don’t invade them unless at war, which isn’t really a Canadian reality anymore.

          america on the other hand has ALWAYS fought for land, government, rights, policies and pretty much anytging else. It is a mentality and way of life, you fight for your freedoms.

          We don’t fight for our freedoms everyday, we aren’t constantly under threat by anti-Canadian terrorists. It is a completely different lifestyle.

          I have worked in America, I have spent countles hours in America on tour with acts I manage, on scouting ventures for the labels etc. I am quite familiar with Americans as a people, and no I don’t think they are bad people. Just a society I do not wiish to be a part of. Why you may ask?

          Because I don’t think everything has to be WON by a FIGHT.

          Please don’t see this as me saying we could have taken Iraq without a fight, that’s not even part of the topic here.

        • #2727458

          John Kerry

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to be glad your a canadian OZ –

          Well I wouldn’t know John Kerry from Donald Duck, because he rates barely a mention in the Australian media. Besides we have our own election coming up, and we DO have a viable alternative leader.

          However, just to get in the spirit of things, the following was sent to me by a Republican friend in America:

          From Don Bendell Canon City, Colorado, March 25, 2004

          My wife had rotator cuff surgery earlier this year, and the recovery is terribly painful. Then, she developed a staph-epi infection, and they had to cut the same scar open and operate on her again. Just thinking about the pain and anxiety of facing that painful surgery a second time in the same wound, makes me cringe. That experience, however pales in comparison to what I am going through right now, in my heart.

          The old hurts are surfacing and the feelings of betrayal by fellow citizens, and their leader stirring them up, are breaking my heart again. I am being cut in the same scar. How did we who served in Vietnam suddenly become cold-blooded killers, torturers, and rapists, of the ilk of the Nazi SS or the Taliban? Most of us were American soldiers who grew up idolizing John Wayne, Roy Rogers, and all the other heroes. That was why I volunteered.

          But for political expediency, John Kerry has rewritten history, again. After spending only four months in the country of Vietnam, John Kerry testified before Congress in 1971 with these exact words about incidents he supposedly witnessed or heard about from other vets: “They personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.”

          I was a green beret officer who volunteered for duty in Vietnam and fought in the thick of it in 1968 and 1969 on a Special Forces A-team on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, just for starters. We were the elite.. We saw the most action. Everybody in the world knows that. But we did not just kill people, we built a church, a school, treated illnesses, passed out soap, food, and clothing, and had fun and loving interaction with the indigenous people of Vietnam, just like our boys did in Normandy, Baghdad, Saigon, and everywhere American soldiers ever served. We all gave away our candy bars and rations to kids. Our hearts to oppressed people all over the globe.

          My children and grandchildren could read your words, and think those horrendous things about me, Mr. Kerry. You are a bold-faced, unprincipled liar, and a disgrace, and you have dishonored me and all my fellow Vietnam veterans. Sure, there were a couple of bad-apples, but I saw none, and I saw it all, and if I did, as an army officer, it was my obligation to stop it, or at the very least report it.

          Why is there not a single record anywhere of you ever reporting any incidents like this or having the perpetrators arrested? The answer is simple. You are a liar. Your medals and mine are not a free pass for lifetime, Senator Kerry, to bypass character, integrity, and morality. I earn my green beret over and over daily in all aspects of my life.

          Eight National Guard green berets, and other National Guard soldiers, have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you totally dishonored their widows and families by lumping National Guard service in with being a draft-dodger, conscientious objector, and deserter, just so you can try to sabotage the patriotism of our President who proudly served as an Air National Guard jet pilot. I have a son earning his green beret at Fort Bragg right now, and his wife serves honorably in the Air National Guard, just like President Bush did, and I am as proud of her as I am my son. I volunteered for Vietnam and have no problem whatsoever with President Bush being our Commander-In-Chief. In fact, I am proud of him as our leader.

          John Kerry, you personally derailed the Vietnam Human rights Bill, HR2883, in 2001, after it had passed the House by a 411 to 1 vote, and thousands of pro-American Montagnard tribespeople in Vietnam died since then who could have been saved, by you. Earlier, as Chair of the Senate Select Committee on MIA/POW Affairs, you personally quashed the efforts of any and all veterans to report sightings of living POW’s, when you held those reins in Congress. You have fought tooth and nail to push for the US to normalize relations with Vietnam for years.

          Why, Mr. Kerry? Simple, your first cousin C. Stewart Forbes, CEO, of Colliers International, recently signed a contract with Hanoi, worth BILLIONS of dollars for Collier’s International to become the exclusive real estate representative for the country of Vietnam.”Hanoi John,” now that it works for you, you beat your chest about your Vietnam service, but to me, you are a phony, opportunistic, hypocrite. You are one of those politicians that is like a fertilizer machine: all that comes out of you is horse manure, and you are spreading it everywhere. Medals do not make a man: morals do.

          [Don Bendell served as an officer in four Special Forces Groups, is a best-selling author with over 1,500,000 books in print, a 1995 inductee into the International Karate Hall of Fame, and owns karate schools in southern Colorado.]

        • #2727418

          To him with much honor

          by lostandfound3 ·

          In reply to John Kerry

          I want to personally extend a lot of gratitude to Jullian for this post. Most importantly, I want to commend Don Bendell for his service in Vietnam.

          My father-in-law served in Vietnam as well. He was an MP in Saigon and did two tours of duty before he came home. To this day, he will not even mention the atrocities that the VC committed against our military personnel, U.S. civilians, AND THEIR OWN PEOPLE.

          I find Kerry to be hypocritical and insulting to those who served their country with honor and dignity. They returned to the U.S. to fend off insults and disgraseful remarks made by a group ungrateful and vitriolic individuals of which the likes of Kerry and ‘Hanoi’ Jane Fonda. My father-in-law is an honorable and dignified individual who was terribly scarred by the events that took place while he was on duty. He returned to this country suffering from post-tramatic distress syndrome and became an alcholic, as a result of serving.

          I can say for wife and myself that we were not born until 1975, and we cannot imagine the horrors this individuals have gone through. What we realize is that at least they stood for something that was righteous, even when it was run by a bunch of blow-hard politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle.

          Kerry continues to insult my family and I because, we do have a family member serving. My uncle is a Cheif Petty Officer First Class in the Navy. His job is to service electonic guidance systems for Tommahawk missile systems. Last, I heard he was station in Baharain (spelling?). For all I know he could be back states side right now. His duty was not only ensure the weapon systems were function correctly, but he assisted with investigations when the missile systems suffered a malfunction. I am proud of my uncle, and Kerry’s comments, though made 30 years ago, are still an insult for the men and women who have served and those who are on active duty.

          This raises the issue of the individuals who ran the prison where charges were made on suspected tortures, mutilations, and the likes done on Iraqui P.O.W.s. These people do not represent the finest men and women the U.S. have to offer in service to others. These individuals, if found guilty, should be punished to the fullest extent of the law in front of the entire world.

          The U.S. has never acted on or condoned such criminal behavior and we are not about to start.
          In one of my postings I gave my rationale for supporting the war. The major point I had was the human atrocities that were taking place under Saddam’s regieme. If what is reported is true, and their culpability is determined to guilty of said crimes, I equate these individuals to that of Sadam’s regieme and place them amongst the animals we are trying to thwart.

          The sad thing is that a few bad apples have ruined the bunch. Our imaged is tarnished and we need to reedeem our selves in the eyes of the world community and the people we are trying to help. I would never back a leader who condones this action from his troops.

          Remember those who are serving honorably and faithfully. Those who are there upholding human rights laws and working to shed light on a people who have been in darkness for 40 to 50 years. They are the ones I am proud of. My uncle is one of them. For those who served in previous wars, I could never repay the debit for the sacrifice you gave. You are my heroes, everyone. In my family this would include both my grandfathers, who served in World War II and Korea, and my father-in-law, a battered but recovering Vietnam vet.

          God Bless, and God Keep All of them. I can only hope when my time will come, I can exhibit the same courage, strength and honor they had.

        • #3368180

          Not Vietnam. It was home (CO)

          by sbi-limited ·

          In reply to John Kerry

          I served in Vietnam and was there during the Tet Offensive. Lost a lot friends that year. But it was NOT Vietnam that ripped my heart out. It was the VFW (Veterens of Foreign Wars) in Denver that did that. I was refused admission and denied my request to join because I served in Vietnam. I took my heart and my pride an have yet to this day joined a veterns’ organization.
          I have gotten over the war, the killing, the stench, the horror (some therapy was used). But I have never found a way to get over having my military honor raped by the VFW back in ’68.
          I just live with it as old history. WE ALL HAVE SCARS!!! and not all of them came from the traditional “enemy”.

        • #2727457

          John Kerry

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to be glad your a canadian OZ –

          I wouldn’t know John Kerry from Donald Duck, as he rates barely a mention in the Australian media. Besides we have our own election coming up and we DO have a viable contender.

          Anyhow, just to get in the spirit of things, here is a document sent to me by an American Republican friend:

          From Don Bendell Canon City, Colorado, March 25, 2004

          My wife had rotator cuff surgery earlier this year, and the recovery is terribly painful. Then, she developed a staph-epi infection, and they had to cut the same scar open and operate on her again. Just thinking about the pain and anxiety of facing that painful surgery a second time in the same wound, makes me cringe. That experience, however pales in comparison to what I am going through right now, in my heart.

          The old hurts are surfacing and the feelings of betrayal by fellow citizens, and their leader stirring them up, are breaking my heart again. I am being cut in the same scar. How did we who served in Vietnam suddenly become cold-blooded killers, torturers, and rapists, of the ilk of the Nazi SS or the Taliban? Most of us were American soldiers who grew up idolizing John Wayne, Roy Rogers, and all the other heroes. That was why I volunteered.

          But for political expediency, John Kerry has rewritten history, again. After spending only four months in the country of Vietnam, John Kerry testified before Congress in 1971 with these exact words about incidents he supposedly witnessed or heard about from other vets: “They personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.”

          I was a green beret officer who volunteered for duty in Vietnam and fought in the thick of it in 1968 and 1969 on a Special Forces A-team on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, just for starters. We were the elite.. We saw the most action. Everybody in the world knows that. But we did not just kill people, we built a church, a school, treated illnesses, passed out soap, food, and clothing, and had fun and loving interaction with the indigenous people of Vietnam, just like our boys did in Normandy, Baghdad, Saigon, and everywhere American soldiers ever served. We all gave away our candy bars and rations to kids. Our hearts to oppressed people all over the globe.

          My children and grandchildren could read your words, and think those horrendous things about me, Mr. Kerry. You are a bold-faced, unprincipled liar, and a disgrace, and you have dishonored me and all my fellow Vietnam veterans. Sure, there were a couple of bad-apples, but I saw none, and I saw it all, and if I did, as an army officer, it was my obligation to stop it, or at the very least report it.

          Why is there not a single record anywhere of you ever reporting any incidents like this or having the perpetrators arrested? The answer is simple. You are a liar. Your medals and mine are not a free pass for lifetime, Senator Kerry, to bypass character, integrity, and morality. I earn my green beret over and over daily in all aspects of my life.

          Eight National Guard green berets, and other National Guard soldiers, have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you totally dishonored their widows and families by lumping National Guard service in with being a draft-dodger, conscientious objector, and deserter, just so you can try to sabotage the patriotism of our President who proudly served as an Air National Guard jet pilot. I have a son earning his green beret at Fort Bragg right now, and his wife serves honorably in the Air National Guard, just like President Bush did, and I am as proud of her as I am my son. I volunteered for Vietnam and have no problem whatsoever with President Bush being our Commander-In-Chief. In fact, I am proud of him as our leader.

          John Kerry, you personally derailed the Vietnam Human rights Bill, HR2883, in 2001, after it had passed the House by a 411 to 1 vote, and thousands of pro-American Montagnard tribespeople in Vietnam died since then who could have been saved, by you. Earlier, as Chair of the Senate Select Committee on MIA/POW Affairs, you personally quashed the efforts of any and all veterans to report sightings of living POW’s, when you held those reins in Congress. You have fought tooth and nail to push for the US to normalize relations with Vietnam for years.

          Why, Mr. Kerry? Simple, your first cousin C. Stewart Forbes, CEO, of Colliers International, recently signed a contract with Hanoi, worth BILLIONS of dollars for Collier’s International to become the exclusive real estate representative for the country of Vietnam.”Hanoi John,” now that it works for you, you beat your chest about your Vietnam service, but to me, you are a phony, opportunistic, hypocrite. You are one of those politicians that is like a fertilizer machine: all that comes out of you is horse manure, and you are spreading it everywhere. Medals do not make a man: morals do.

          [Don Bendell served as an officer in four Special Forces Groups, is a best-selling author with over 1,500,000 books in print, a 1995 inductee into the International Karate Hall of Fame, and owns karate schools in southern Colorado.]

        • #2727456

          John Kerry

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to be glad your a canadian OZ –

          Well I wouldn’t know John Kerry from Donald Duck as he barely rates a mention in the Australian media and besides, we have our own election coming up and we DO have a viable contender.

          Anyhow, just to get in the spirit of things, here is a document sent to me by an American Republican friend:

          From Don Bendell Canon City, Colorado, March 25, 2004

          My wife had rotator cuff surgery earlier this year, and the recovery is terribly painful. Then, she developed a staph-epi infection, and they had to cut the same scar open and operate on her again. Just thinking about the pain and anxiety of facing that painful surgery a second time in the same wound, makes me cringe. That experience, however pales in comparison to what I am going through right now, in my heart.

          The old hurts are surfacing and the feelings of betrayal by fellow citizens, and their leader stirring them up, are breaking my heart again. I am being cut in the same scar. How did we who served in Vietnam suddenly become cold-blooded killers, torturers, and rapists, of the ilk of the Nazi SS or the Taliban? Most of us were American soldiers who grew up idolizing John Wayne, Roy Rogers, and all the other heroes. That was why I volunteered.

          But for political expediency, John Kerry has rewritten history, again. After spending only four months in the country of Vietnam, John Kerry testified before Congress in 1971 with these exact words about incidents he supposedly witnessed or heard about from other vets: “They personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.”

          I was a green beret officer who volunteered for duty in Vietnam and fought in the thick of it in 1968 and 1969 on a Special Forces A-team on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, just for starters. We were the elite.. We saw the most action. Everybody in the world knows that. But we did not just kill people, we built a church, a school, treated illnesses, passed out soap, food, and clothing, and had fun and loving interaction with the indigenous people of Vietnam, just like our boys did in Normandy, Baghdad, Saigon, and everywhere American soldiers ever served. We all gave away our candy bars and rations to kids. Our hearts to oppressed people all over the globe.

          My children and grandchildren could read your words, and think those horrendous things about me, Mr. Kerry. You are a bold-faced, unprincipled liar, and a disgrace, and you have dishonored me and all my fellow Vietnam veterans. Sure, there were a couple of bad-apples, but I saw none, and I saw it all, and if I did, as an army officer, it was my obligation to stop it, or at the very least report it.

          Why is there not a single record anywhere of you ever reporting any incidents like this or having the perpetrators arrested? The answer is simple. You are a liar. Your medals and mine are not a free pass for lifetime, Senator Kerry, to bypass character, integrity, and morality. I earn my green beret over and over daily in all aspects of my life.

          Eight National Guard green berets, and other National Guard soldiers, have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you totally dishonored their widows and families by lumping National Guard service in with being a draft-dodger, conscientious objector, and deserter, just so you can try to sabotage the patriotism of our President who proudly served as an Air National Guard jet pilot. I have a son earning his green beret at Fort Bragg right now, and his wife serves honorably in the Air National Guard, just like President Bush did, and I am as proud of her as I am my son. I volunteered for Vietnam and have no problem whatsoever with President Bush being our Commander-In-Chief. In fact, I am proud of him as our leader.

          John Kerry, you personally derailed the Vietnam Human rights Bill, HR2883, in 2001, after it had passed the House by a 411 to 1 vote, and thousands of pro-American Montagnard tribespeople in Vietnam died since then who could have been saved, by you. Earlier, as Chair of the Senate Select Committee on MIA/POW Affairs, you personally quashed the efforts of any and all veterans to report sightings of living POW’s, when you held those reins in Congress. You have fought tooth and nail to push for the US to normalize relations with Vietnam for years.

          Why, Mr. Kerry? Simple, your first cousin C. Stewart Forbes, CEO, of Colliers International, recently signed a contract with Hanoi, worth BILLIONS of dollars for Collier’s International to become the exclusive real estate representative for the country of Vietnam.”Hanoi John,” now that it works for you, you beat your chest about your Vietnam service, but to me, you are a phony, opportunistic, hypocrite. You are one of those politicians that is like a fertilizer machine: all that comes out of you is horse manure, and you are spreading it everywhere. Medals do not make a man: morals do.

          [Don Bendell served as an officer in four Special Forces Groups, is a best-selling author with over 1,500,000 books in print, a 1995 inductee into the International Karate Hall of Fame, and owns karate schools in southern Colorado.]

        • #2727455

          John Kerry

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to be glad your a canadian OZ –

          Well I wouldn’t know John Kerry from Donald Duck as he barely rates a mention in the Australian media and besides, we have our own election coming up and we DO have a viable contender.

          Anyhow, just to get in the spirit of things, here is a document sent to me by an American Republican friend:

          From Don Bendell Canon City, Colorado, March 25, 2004

          My wife had rotator cuff surgery earlier this year, and the recovery is terribly painful. Then, she developed a staph-epi infection, and they had to cut the same scar open and operate on her again. Just thinking about the pain and anxiety of facing that painful surgery a second time in the same wound, makes me cringe. That experience, however pales in comparison to what I am going through right now, in my heart.

          The old hurts are surfacing and the feelings of betrayal by fellow citizens, and their leader stirring them up, are breaking my heart again. I am being cut in the same scar. How did we who served in Vietnam suddenly become cold-blooded killers, torturers, and rapists, of the ilk of the Nazi SS or the Taliban? Most of us were American soldiers who grew up idolizing John Wayne, Roy Rogers, and all the other heroes. That was why I volunteered.

          But for political expediency, John Kerry has rewritten history, again. After spending only four months in the country of Vietnam, John Kerry testified before Congress in 1971 with these exact words about incidents he supposedly witnessed or heard about from other vets: “They personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.”

          I was a green beret officer who volunteered for duty in Vietnam and fought in the thick of it in 1968 and 1969 on a Special Forces A-team on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, just for starters. We were the elite.. We saw the most action. Everybody in the world knows that. But we did not just kill people, we built a church, a school, treated illnesses, passed out soap, food, and clothing, and had fun and loving interaction with the indigenous people of Vietnam, just like our boys did in Normandy, Baghdad, Saigon, and everywhere American soldiers ever served. We all gave away our candy bars and rations to kids. Our hearts to oppressed people all over the globe.

          My children and grandchildren could read your words, and think those horrendous things about me, Mr. Kerry. You are a bold-faced, unprincipled liar, and a disgrace, and you have dishonored me and all my fellow Vietnam veterans. Sure, there were a couple of bad-apples, but I saw none, and I saw it all, and if I did, as an army officer, it was my obligation to stop it, or at the very least report it.

          Why is there not a single record anywhere of you ever reporting any incidents like this or having the perpetrators arrested? The answer is simple. You are a liar. Your medals and mine are not a free pass for lifetime, Senator Kerry, to bypass character, integrity, and morality. I earn my green beret over and over daily in all aspects of my life.

          Eight National Guard green berets, and other National Guard soldiers, have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you totally dishonored their widows and families by lumping National Guard service in with being a draft-dodger, conscientious objector, and deserter, just so you can try to sabotage the patriotism of our President who proudly served as an Air National Guard jet pilot. I have a son earning his green beret at Fort Bragg right now, and his wife serves honorably in the Air National Guard, just like President Bush did, and I am as proud of her as I am my son. I volunteered for Vietnam and have no problem whatsoever with President Bush being our Commander-In-Chief. In fact, I am proud of him as our leader.

          John Kerry, you personally derailed the Vietnam Human rights Bill, HR2883, in 2001, after it had passed the House by a 411 to 1 vote, and thousands of pro-American Montagnard tribespeople in Vietnam died since then who could have been saved, by you. Earlier, as Chair of the Senate Select Committee on MIA/POW Affairs, you personally quashed the efforts of any and all veterans to report sightings of living POW’s, when you held those reins in Congress. You have fought tooth and nail to push for the US to normalize relations with Vietnam for years.

          Why, Mr. Kerry? Simple, your first cousin C. Stewart Forbes, CEO, of Colliers International, recently signed a contract with Hanoi, worth BILLIONS of dollars for Collier’s International to become the exclusive real estate representative for the country of Vietnam.”Hanoi John,” now that it works for you, you beat your chest about your Vietnam service, but to me, you are a phony, opportunistic, hypocrite. You are one of those politicians that is like a fertilizer machine: all that comes out of you is horse manure, and you are spreading it everywhere. Medals do not make a man: morals do.

          [Don Bendell served as an officer in four Special Forces Groups, is a best-selling author with over 1,500,000 books in print, a 1995 inductee into the International Karate Hall of Fame, and owns karate schools in southern Colorado.]

        • #2727453

          The TR Gremlin …

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to John Kerry

          Sorry fellers: I tried unsuccessfully three times to post this item, so I went to another computer and LO! A quadruple posting first go!

          So in what little corner of cyberspace were those initial three attempts hiding?

          TechRepublic is obviously under the control of a Gremlin, who causes all manner of unexpected and annoying tricks. Well at least he didn’t turn my quadruple posting into bold type.

        • #2727450

          WOW – Did someone mention that Hell is freezing over?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to John Kerry


          Outstanding post. Thank you very much. I couldn’t have posted it any better myself. (Unless, of course, I posted it SIX times over.)

      • #2727447

        Pay attention

        by wrlang ·

        In reply to One soldier’s view from the front

        Send our people in Iraq all the love and support you can. And don’t forget Afghanistan.

        Anyone who has paid attention to the news has seen everything mentioned in the soldiers letter. We are doing good and bad things there, its a tough job and our people are doing their best.

        The facts are amazingly simple. The Iraqis who thank the soldiers want them there, and the Iraqis who shoot at them don’t want them there. Its a sweeping generalization to say they don’t want us there, and the same to say they do want us there.

        The glass is half empty, but it is also half full.

        • #2727442

          Can’t argue with that

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Pay attention

          What percentage, by the way, of Iraqis want us there versus the ones that don’t? I really don’t know the answer. Does anyone?

    • #2733218

      Profiles. . .For those who don’t know

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to President Bush – A Profile in Courage

      (To keep my previous comments in proper perspective)

      For those of you who may not know, Profiles In Courage is a book written by the late John F. Kennedy (written before he was President) about people who set aside political considerations, possibly putting their own political future at risk, to do, what they considered, the right thing. (Some suggest that it was more accurately edited by JFK, as many people contributed to the book.)

      As one book reviewer put it:

      The United States government has been plagued throughout its history with corrupt leaders, cowards, and politicians who would do anything for re-election. Some, however, did what they believed was right for the nation they proudly represented.

      John F. Kennedy’s Pulitzer Prize-winning Profiles In Courage tells the stories of some of the courageous, self-sacrificing people who have made our nation the great place it is today.

      Each man depicted confronts a serious issue where his conscience dominates his opinion, usually in spite of the views of his own party or of his constituency. Often, the decision made for the good of the country led to his political death.

      First, the reader hears of the unconventional, pessimistic John Quincy Adams and his many struggles on countless issues. Adams spent much of his political life with little support, yet still made a name for himself by voting his conscience rather than with popular opinion…….


      A very interesting and inspiring book indeed, for any student or enthusiast of politics or history (or both).

      • #2733190

        Just a quick observation

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Profiles. . .For those who don’t know

        Absolutely no interest in the thread itself as I’ve seen a thousand contradictory timelines going in both directions and nobody seems to have the same opinions. It’s an undebatable issue.

        You did say “…made our nation the great place it is today.” , which I somewhat admire and can accept ass your pride in your country.

        I have just never heard ANYONE ever describe their country as “the great nation it is today.” outside of America.

        Does this mean other people aren’t proud of their country’s history?

        Perhaps they don’t think they live in a great nation.(why live there then?)

        I know Rule Brittania was big during and after WWII but nobody says “our great nation…”

        Is it simple pride? Is it arrogance that you surpass others in how great you are? Is it overpatriotic (to outsiders) yet just simple patriotism for a US citizes?

        I think the last point may be close,what you see as patriotic support for your country, others see as blatant flag waving. We are all proud of our countries and where we live, we just don’t feel the need to reinforce it everytime we refer to our country perhaps.

        Seeing as that is a common way of life for US citizens, heavy patriotism (just look at July 4th!)it is baffling to US citizens that others don’t feel/show so much pride toward their own countries and therefore MUST be jealous for not living in the USA?

        If so, all I can say is that we DO have pride in our country, we just don’t see the need to express it as trumphantly as you do.

        There’s a good one for you, MANY Canadians don’t know when Canada day is. They know it’s the 1st but …”is it June or July? NO, July is the US holiday, when’s ours, is it June?” comes up all too often. I guess that July 4th is in the media so much that we forget our own Birthday.

        Maybe we need a movie like you guys had with Tom Cruise to help us remember. We could have the monosyllabic Keanu Reeves and Anne Murray as stars in it. Perhaps Michael J. Fox could co-star and Celine Dion, actually make that Brian Adams, write the soundtrack. (Celine’s still not sure if she’s Frankophone, French, Canadian or American).

        • #2733189


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Just a quick observation

          When I said ‘ass’ your country it really was a typo and not a tongue in cheek slam.

    • #2733146

      First Gulf War

      by thechas ·

      In reply to President Bush – A Profile in Courage

      Max, 1 point about the first Gulf war and President George H.W. Bush.

      General Schwartzkopf and our troops were over halfway across Iraq. Kicking the Republican Guard’s butt all the way.

      They stopped and withdrew not because of any lack of desire or conviction, but because our Middle East coalition partners demanded an end to the battle.

      President Bush, with his knowledge of both intelligence and diplomacy knew that it would be a fools mission to violate the trust of the coalition partners.

      Personally, I feel that the US is at a greater risk of another terrorist attack because we invaded Iraq.

      While we “may” have removed a funding source for terrorist activities, we have doubled or tripled the number of religious fundamentalists that are willing to sacrifice their lives to exact revenge against the US.

      As a history scholar, you know well that very seldom does a regime change caused by outside forces result in a lasting positive change.


      • #2666943

        Regime change by outside force not positive?

        by pgm554 ·

        In reply to First Gulf War

        So the forced regime changes in Germany and Japan after WWII didn’t result in lasting positive change?

        • #2666937

          Seldom, not Never

          by thechas ·

          In reply to Regime change by outside force not positive?

          Note, I did say “seldom”, not never.

          In the grand scope of human history, the changes of / after World War II are far outside of historical precedence.

          All of the worlds major powers took part in assuring that Germany and Japan would not become aggressor nations in the foreseeable future.

          Unlike the punitive measures taken against Germany after WWI, Western Germany was rebuilt as a vibrant productive country.
          The billions that the US sent to Germany via the Marshall Plan played a major role in that transformation.

          Keep in mind, that to make that regime change take hold, the US and Britain occupied Germany for decades after the war.
          The US still maintains bases in Germany and Japan. In part because both countries do not have significant military forces, or weapons.

          NATO along with the cooperation of our allies has played no small part in keeping Germany from reverting back to an aggressor nation.

          In Iraq, we do not have the support of Iraq’s neighbors to assure that the new government will be able to take hold and mature.
          Nor, do I believe that the US and Iraqi people will stand for a 20 year or longer occupation.

          Couple that with the strong anti-tax and anti-foreign aid sentiment in the US, and how do you fund a Marshall Plan style reconstruction of Iraq?


        • #2666804

          Difference between Iraq and Germany/Japan

          by nd_it ·

          In reply to Regime change by outside force not positive?

          Is that you have radical religous extremists in Iraq that are willing to die because they think God. In Germany and Japan you had radical political extremists who believed in domination of other countries. Is is possible to install democracy in Iraq, maybe, but at what cost?

        • #2666803


          by nd_it ·

          In reply to Difference between Iraq and Germany/Japan

          “radical extremists in Iraq are willing to die and become martys because they think it is God’s will”

        • #2666747

          Whose side is God on?

          by pgm554 ·

          In reply to Difference between Iraq and Germany/Japan

          The Germans and the Japanese certainly felt that God was on their side when they went to war.And so does everybody else wo goes to war.

          There is a saying that there are no atheists in fox holes.

          Religion, for better or worse, is an instrument of social control used by political leaders since the dawn of civilization.

          The religous folks willing to die in Iraq are no different than the zealots in Christ’s time to rid themselves of the Romans.

          Saddam used every pragmatic social tool at his disposal to rule Iraq(religious, historical, structural-functional,economic,and political).

          Good politicians know how to use these tools.
          Saddam might have been an a**hole,but you don’t get to where he was by not being adept at using these tools.

          The new religous leaders are just using one of these social tools to gain power.They are just being pragmatic,plain and simple.

        • #2666745

          Reply To: President Bush – A Profile in Courage

          by nd_it ·

          In reply to Whose side is God on?

          Religion does play on both sides of the campaign, but my point being that these insurgents in Iraq are a small (a couple thousand maybe) number trying to inflict as much damage as possible in the name of of “jihad”.

          The Germans and Japanese used massive armies to conquer smaller and weaker nations. Their motives were more political and true they did use religion as a tool to justify their cause. The Nazi’s murdered millions because they believed they were the master race and the Japanese Kamakazi pilots did inflict damage to our Navy

          The Germans and the Japenese tried to use their massive military to conquer victory, however these Iraqi isurgents know they can’t defeat the US military, they are going to try to use the same tatic the North Vietnamese used, that is to use the media against, have every American so against the war, that Washington will have no choice but to pull the troops out.

        • #2727561

          Not sure I’d agree on every point

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Reply To: President Bush – A Profile in Courage

          With regards to current conflicts, both Christianity and Islam have “golden” rules which say “do unto others, as you would have done unto you” and in both cases it isn’t restricted to those of your own faith.

          Germany and Japan in WWII didn’t particulary try and use religion per se. Germany revived aryan mythology to try and create a “master race” myth, but it was hardly an organized religion – no churches, holy books, deities etc. Japan’s major religion was Shinto – something the emporer followed faithfully, but the war was really run by the military elite. Shinto may have been used as a tool to recruit kamakaze but religion has been used that way forever.

          Religion is often used as an excuse for war. Saddam Hussein was not religious, and tried hard to keep the various religious leaders in line and powerless. He only used religion when he was desparate – desparate to try and get other Muslim nations onside or neutral, and desparate to motivate his own people when he lacked other means. He added the religious script to the Iraqi flag only recently.

          In Iraq, as in Yugoslavia, the dictator in place was the only thing keeping the rival religious factions from fighting. The dangerous thing to observe in Iraq is that some of the rivals have worked together in attacking a common enemy – the US. This isn’t to say that the partnership will hold of the US pulls out – it could end up in a bloodier situation than now.

          The main point is that religion is often used as a tool to manipulate people and opinions, but isn’t the thing that instigates wars.


        • #2727547

          Reply To: President Bush – A Profile in Courage

          by nd_it ·

          In reply to Not sure I’d agree on every point

          I agree with you on this point. I thought that my posts indicated that, I am sorry if it didn’t. Religion is a tool, not usually a justification in war. More times than none it is political.

        • #2666730

          Now Just Hold On There!

          by jackofalltech ·

          In reply to Whose side is God on?

          The Zealots fought against the Roman SOLDIERS, they didn’t go around killing innocent civilians. The Chechnian (spelling?) rebels fought against Russian SOLDIERS – they didn’t try to crash a plane into the Kremlin.

          Don’t you dare compare ANYONE else in history fighting for their freedom to these Islamic bastard cowards!


        • #2666666

          Reply To: President Bush – A Profile in Courage

          by nd_it ·

          In reply to Now Just Hold On There!

          I think you are missing what I am saying. I am saying we fought military armies during WWII. The difference being both the Japenese and the Germans surrendered. That being the key word here. These Islamic bastards, I do agree with you there, don’t know the meaning of the word, they will keep on fighting because they would rather die. I am not comparing anyone that has fought for their freedom, the Japenese and Germans weren’t fighting for their freedom, but for world domination. I don’t know where you are getting that at, besides the topic was religion, and I am saying that these Islamic extremists are going to make it more difficult for us to have the Iraqi’s govern themselves then it was for Germany and Japan post WWII.

        • #2727619

          What’s the difference between a terrorist and freedom fighter?

          by pgm554 ·

          In reply to Now Just Hold On There!

          Which end of the rope you?re on.

          War is by definition a controlled madness. So how far one side takes it throughout history can be described as cowardly and treacherous by the other side.

          In the US revolution, the British, tried to fight a war by European standards, while the US used guerrilla tactics. They were called cowards by the British.

          If you have no legitimate means of redressing grievences, then violence becomes a way to get your point across.

          Although nations have tried create a civilized war by setting up rules,the words “civilized” and “war” are the antithesis of each other.

        • #2727462

          Partly Agree

          by jackofalltech ·

          In reply to What’s the difference between a terrorist and freedom fighter?

          Yes, sometimes, violence is the only answer. BUT not against civilians! And what grievances do these cowards have against the US? That we support Israel? Until they attacked us, neither Israel nor we have EVER initiated agression. This is no different than if a man, because he hates another man, rapes that mans daughter instead of confronting the man himself.


      • #2666924

        Ask yourself the same question, but. . . .

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to First Gulf War

        ….only ask it in a different way.

        You suggested that, “very seldom does a regime change caused by outside forces result in a lasting positive change.”

        How about putting it this way, in the form of my question to you. When, in all of history, did a country’s change from a dictatorship to a democracy not result in lasting positive change? I can’t think of a single instance when it didn’t result in lasting positive change.

        • #2666874

          Assuming you can create a stable democracy

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Ask yourself the same question, but. . . .

          If you look at Britain’s attempts to create democracies from its colonial possessions, it has proved difficult.

          India went through quite a lot of bloodshed before things became stable.

          Kenya, Zimbabwe, South Africa, do I have to go into all of that?

          Take a look at the challenges in the former Yugoslavia.

          And though this might be controversial, I’d say in hindsight, Vietnam was much better off after the war, but gave up some level democracy(in the south) to do so.

          Creating a democracy in a political vacuum isn’t easy. In the case of Canada, we had political reform in the 1840s, leading to a democratic country in 1867. It stuck because it was slow and deliberate. South Africa had a flawed democracy, but at least had a model to work with that could be reformed through the end of aparteid.

          Iraq has no history of democracy, simmering religious tensions between Shia, Sunni and Kurd. Its a tough slog.

          The previously mentioned regime changes – Japan and Germany – were situations where both countries had soem sort of frgaile democracy, had a shift to an oligarchy. And frankly the justification for regime change in both countries was the end of external aggression. After the first gulf war, Saddam lost his power for overt exetrnal aggression – his army was devastated and he had no money to rebuild. Most people don’t connect the fact that the only uses of gas(which is a hideous crime) were BEFORE the first gulf war, when by the way the US, Iraq’s ally, said nothing.

          Saddam was no threat to anyone(unless you believe he had WMD). I am not saying he was a nice guy. But he lost the ability to even control his own areas – the kurdish areas in the north were running things on their own. That is the area, by the way, where the Al Queda cell was. Saddam, who by the way was NOT a devout muslim until it suited his interests, was not a friend of Al Queda(sp?) – they were in fact in many ways enemies. Al Queda would have liked nothing more than to overthrow Saddam and install something like the Taliban in Iraq. If the US is not successful in installing democracy this may indeed may be what happens – or more likely a bloody civil war.

          James Linn

        • #2666840

          Reply To: President Bush – A Profile in Courage

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Assuming you can create a stable democracy

          Taking the obvious examples of Germany and Japan off the table, since the circumstances were unique, and there’s probably no argument in those cases anyway, we’re left with your other examples. All of those examples were countries that broke away from British colonialism, not unlike America’s breaking away a couple of hundred years earlier. Perhaps not as “bloody”, but similar nonetheless. The difference between the United States’ attempts at instilling a democratic government and the British examples you cited is one of willingness. Britain gave up those colonies kicking and screaming, so to speak, and the establishment of an independent democratic government wasn’t their initial intention. Whereas America’s attempts have been an answer to another’s cry for independence from a more dominant and oppressive regime. Vietnam was, of course, a failed attempt (and that’s a unique example as well). But Poland, as well as numerous other Eastern European countries, was a successful attempt, as are some Central American countries. I would still suggest that where the installation of an independent and democratic government was the intention from the outset, there are very few, if any, that didn’t benefit in the long run.

          You said that, “Saddam was no threat to anyone (unless you believe he had WMD)”. Well, I believe he did, as did President Bush, as did President Clinton, as did the UN Inspectors, as did the U.S. inspectors, as did Al Gore, as did Sectary of State Colin Powell, as did former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, as did many Iraqi informants, as did John Kerry, as did……..the rest of the world. And besides, it’s still not been shown that he didn’t, which was a condition of United Nations resolution 1441. Moreover, with the revelation of the recent thwarted chemical weapons attack in Jordan, one that could have killed up to 80,000 people, we now have mounting evidence that the WMDs were indeed there, but taken out of the country just before the invasion, something U.S. inspector David Kay had earlier suggested as a strong possibility.

          How else was Saddam “not a threat”, you might ask? Well, people conveniently forget that Saddam offered $25,000 cash (U.S. cash, by the way) to the families of any terrorist who killed any “infidels”, Americans in particular.

          Or how about this. According to the presiding judge in the 1996 trial, the bombing of New York’s World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 was meant to topple the city’s tallest tower onto its twin, amid a cloud of cyanide gas. Had the attack gone as planned, tens of thousands of Americans would have died. Instead, as we know, one tower did not fall on the other, and, rather than vaporizing, the cyanide gas burnt up in the heat of the explosion. “Only” six people died. Few Americans are aware of the true scale of the destructive ambition behind that bomb, this despite the fact that two years later, the key figure responsible for building it, a man who had entered the United Stares on an Iraqi passport under the name of Ramzi Yousef, was involved in another stupendous bombing conspiracy. In January 1995, Yousef and his associates plotted to blow up eleven U.S. commercial aircraft in one spectacular day of terrorist rage. The bombs were to be made of a liquid explosive designed to pass through airport metal detectors.

          And for those who think that Saddam didn’t have ties with Al-Qaida, look into a civil case decided about a year ago in a U.S. Federal court. Judge Harold Baer ruled the plaintiffs had shown that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and his al-Qaida terror network. Baer granted a judgment to the plaintiffs against the Taliban, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and the Republic of Iraq. I could cite much more, but it’s there if you care to find it and consider it.

          I won’t even mention the hundreds of thousands of bodies recovered from mass graves.

          Saddam was not a threat? Well, If that’s what you choose to believe……

        • #2666831

          British colonies

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Reply To: President Bush – A Profile in Courage

          In all of those cases, Britain did willingly try to transition them to democracies.

          In the case of India there had been some rebellion, but there were also plans to hand them over. WWII interrupted the process, but the British, consumed with post WWII economic issues, accelerated it into a 4 year process. As a result, the Hindu Majority and Muslim minority, which had been united in calling for independance, fell on each other – and as a result Independance day saw riots and killing between the two.

          Similarly in the 50s and 60s Britain tried to peacefully transition the African colonies. With not too successful results.

          Using David Kay as a source is a two edged sword, he has also said that the weapons didn’t exist. As did many others of the inspections team. As for Colin Powell -doesn’t Woodward suggest a lot of doubt.

          I am well aware of Saddam’s bounty in respect to Isreal. I have never seen it in any other context.

          1993 was Al Qaida plain and simple. The fact that he had an Iraqi passport suggests nothing – he could have easily had a Saudi passport, as Osama does. Are you suggesting we take out Saudi Arabia?

          I’m not suggesting Saddam is a nice guy. I would have been happy to have seen the US support the Shia, as they had promised in 1991 just after the first gulf war. The US allowed Iraqi military helicopters to fly over restricted airspace and attack they Shia who they had promised to support.

          But it is one thing to respond to a clear and present danger, as in Afghanistan – they were clearly linked to Al Queda. I wouldn’t put Saddam in that catagory. North Korea would seem to pose a stronger threat.

          James Linn

        • #2666821

          Your question. . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to British colonies

          “Are you suggesting we take out Saudi Arabia?”

          Well, if I had my “druthers”……………..POW! (just kidding – kind of)

          Seriously, I think we need to find a way to stabilize the entire middle-east, not only in regards to the humanitarian issues, protecting human rights, and all that stuff, and, of course, world-wide terrorism has its roots in the middle-east, and that has to be stopped, but also in regards to how the middle-east oil has direct ties to the world economy. Like it or not, the world (note I said world, not just U.S.) economy is directly affected by all of them. And personally, I’d rather control them than the other way around. Instead of “taking out Saudi Arabia”, I’d like to “take out” OPEC, by peaceful means, of course.

          It’s a real tight-rope over there if you take everything into consideration. The United Nations has failed miserably; previous American administrations (of both parties) have failed miserably; left to their own devices, they’ve failed miserably; France and England have failed; every attempt has failed. Do we isolate them and sever all ties with them or intervene in some way? It seems like a lose-lose situation. About the only thing that hasn’t been tried is installing a true democracy with individual freedom and liberty, and free markets. I truly do think that’s the goal, one of the goals, of the Bush administration. And if it catches hold in Iraq, look out Iran and Saudi Arabia and Syria and……..

          On the rest of your message, no point in beating a dead horse. You see things one way, I see them another.

      • #2666752

        Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden plot against America

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to First Gulf War

        From The Weekly Standard:

        OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda–perhaps even for Mohamed Atta–according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

        The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America’s most determined and dangerous enemies.

        According to the memo–which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points–Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.

        The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent “emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials.” At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, “Iraq sought Sudan’s assistance to establish links to al Qaeda.” The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, “bin Laden wanted to expand his organization’s capabilities through ties with Iraq.”

        The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that “al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors.”

        One such confirmation came in a postwar interview with one of Saddam Hussein’s henchmen. As the memo details:

        4. According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting–the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.

        A decisive moment in the budding relationship came in 1993, when bin Laden faced internal resistance to his cooperation with Saddam.

        5. A CIA report from a contact with good access, some of whose reporting has been corroborated, said that certain elements in the “Islamic Army” of bin Laden were against the secular regime of Saddam. Overriding the internal factional strife that was developing, bin Laden came to an “understanding” with Saddam that the Islamic Army would no longer support anti-Saddam activities. According to sensitive reporting released in U.S. court documents during the African Embassy trial, in 1993 bin Laden reached an “understanding” with Saddam under which he (bin Laden) forbade al Qaeda operations to be mounted against the Iraqi leader.
        Another facilitator of the relationship during the mid-1990s was Mahmdouh Mahmud Salim (a.k.a. Abu Hajer al-Iraqi). Abu Hajer, now in a New York prison, was described in court proceedings related to the August 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania as bin Laden’s “best friend.” According to CIA reporting dating back to the Clinton administration, bin Laden trusted him to serve as a liaison with Saddam’s regime and tasked him with procurement of weapons of mass destruction for al Qaeda. FBI reporting in the memo reveals that Abu Hajer “visited Iraq in early 1995” and “had a good relationship with Iraqi intelligence. Sometime before mid-1995 he went on an al Qaeda mission to discuss unspecified cooperation with the Iraqi government.”

        Some of the reporting about the relationship throughout the mid-1990s comes from
        a source who had intimate knowledge of bin Laden and his dealings. This source, according to CIA analysis, offered “the most credible information” on cooperation between bin Laden and Iraq.

        This source’s reports read almost like a diary. Specific dates of when bin Laden flew to various cities are included, as well as names of individuals he met. The source did not offer information on the substantive talks during the meetings. . . . There are not a great many reports in general on the relationship between bin Laden and Iraq because of the secrecy surrounding it. But when this source with close access provided a “window” into bin Laden’s activities, bin Laden is seen as heavily involved with Iraq (and Iran).
        Reporting from the early 1990s remains somewhat sketchy, though multiple sources place Hassan al-Turabi and Ayman al Zawahiri, bin Laden’s current No. 2, at the center of the relationship. The reporting gets much more specific in the mid-1990s:

        8. Reporting from a well placed source disclosed that bin Laden was receiving training on bomb making from the IIS’s [Iraqi Intelligence Service] principal technical expert on making sophisticated explosives, Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed. Brigadier Salim was observed at bin Laden’s farm in Khartoum in Sept.-Oct. 1995 and again in July 1996, in the company of the Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti.
        9 . . . Bin Laden visited Doha, Qatar (17-19 Jan. 1996), staying at the residence of a member of the Qatari ruling family. He discussed the successful movement of explosives into Saudi Arabia, and operations targeted against U.S. and U.K. interests in Dammam, Dharan, and Khobar, using clandestine al Qaeda cells in Saudi Arabia. Upon his return, bin Laden met with Hijazi and Turabi, among others.

        And later more reporting, from the same “well placed” source:

        10. The Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti, met privately with bin Laden at his farm in Sudan in July 1996. Tikriti used an Iraqi delegation traveling to Khartoum to discuss bilateral cooperation as his “cover” for his own entry into Sudan to meet with bin Laden and Hassan al-Turabi. The Iraqi intelligence chief and two other IIS officers met at bin Laden’s farm and discussed bin Laden’s request for IIS technical assistance in: a) making letter and parcel bombs; b) making bombs which could be placed on aircraft and detonated by changes in barometric pressure; and c) making false passport [sic]. Bin Laden specifically requested that [Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed], Iraqi intelligence’s premier explosives maker–especially skilled in making car bombs–remain with him in Sudan. The Iraqi intelligence chief instructed Salim to remain in Sudan with bin Laden as long as required.
        The analysis of those events follows:

        The time of the visit from the IIS director was a few weeks after the Khobar Towers bombing. The bombing came on the third anniversary of a U.S. [Tomahawk missile] strike on IIS HQ (retaliation for the attempted assassination of former President Bush in Kuwait) for which Iraqi officials explicitly threatened retaliation.

        IN ADDITION TO THE CONTACTS CLUSTERED in the mid-1990s, intelligence reports detail a flurry of activities in early 1998 and again in December 1998. A “former senior Iraqi intelligence officer” reported that “the Iraqi intelligence service station in Pakistan was Baghdad’s point of contact with al Qaeda. He also said bin Laden visited Baghdad in Jan. 1998 and met with Tariq Aziz.”

        11. According to sensitive reporting, Saddam personally sent Faruq Hijazi, IIS deputy director and later Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, to meet with bin Laden at least twice, first in Sudan and later in Afghanistan in 1999. . . .

        14. According to a sensitive reporting [from] a “regular and reliable source,” [Ayman al] Zawahiri, a senior al Qaeda operative, visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi Vice President on 3 February 1998. The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul Aziz.

        That visit came as the Iraqis intensified their defiance of the U.N. inspection regime, known as UNSCOM, created by the cease-fire agreement following the Gulf War. UNSCOM demanded access to Saddam’s presidential palaces that he refused to provide. As the tensions mounted, President Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on February 18, 1998, and prepared the nation for war. He warned of “an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals” and said “there is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.”

        The day after this speech, according to documents unearthed in April 2003 in the Iraqi Intelligence headquarters by journalists Mitch Potter and Inigo Gilmore, Hussein’s intelligence service wrote a memo detailing coming meetings with a bin Laden representative traveling to Baghdad. Each reference to bin Laden had been covered by liquid paper that, when revealed, exposed a plan to increase cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda. According to that memo, the IIS agreed to pay for “all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden.” The document set as the goal for the meeting a discussion of “the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him.” The al Qaeda representative, the document went on to suggest, might provide “a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden.”

        Four days later, on February 23, 1998, bin Laden issued his now-famous fatwa on the plight of Iraq, published in the Arabic-language daily, al Quds al-Arabi: “For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.” Bin Laden urged his followers to act: “The ruling to kill all Americans and their allies–civilians and military–is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.”

        Although war was temporarily averted by a last-minute deal brokered by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, tensions soon rose again. The standoff with Iraq came to a head in December 1998, when President Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, a 70-hour bombing campaign that began on December 16 and ended three days later, on December 19, 1998.

        According to press reports at the time, Faruq Hijazi, deputy director of Iraqi Intelligence, met with bin Laden in Afghanistan on December 21, 1998, to offer bin Laden safe haven in Iraq. CIA reporting in the memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee seems to confirm this meeting and relates two others.

        15. A foreign government service reported that an Iraqi delegation, including at least two Iraqi intelligence officers formerly assigned to the Iraqi Embassy in Pakistan, met in late 1998 with bin Laden in Afghanistan.

        16. According to CIA reporting, bin Laden and Zawahiri met with two Iraqi intelligence officers in Afghanistan in Dec. 1998.

        17. . . . Iraq sent an intelligence officer to Afghanistan to seek closer ties to bin Laden and the Taliban in late 1998. The source reported that the Iraqi regime was trying to broaden its cooperation with al Qaeda. Iraq was looking to recruit Muslim “elements” to sabotage U.S. and U.K. interests. After a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with Taliban leader [Mullah] Omar, arrangements were made for a series of meetings between the Iraqi intelligence officer and bin Laden in Pakistan. The source noted Faruq Hijazi was in Afghanistan in late 1998.

        18. . . . Faruq Hijazi went to Afghanistan in 1999 along with several other Iraqi officials to meet with bin Laden. The source claimed that Hijazi would have met bin Laden only at Saddam’s explicit direction.

        An analysis that follows No. 18 provides additional context and an explanation of these reports:

        Reporting entries #4, #11, #15, #16, #17, and #18, from different sources, corroborate each other and provide confirmation of meetings between al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi intelligence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. None of the reports have information on operational details or the purpose of such meetings. The covert nature of the relationship would indicate strict compartmentation [sic] of operations.
        Information about connections between al Qaeda and Iraq was so widespread by early 1999 that it made its way into the mainstream press. A January 11, 1999, Newsweek story ran under this headline: “Saddam + Bin Laden?” The story cited an “Arab intelligence source” with knowledge of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. “According to this source, Saddam expected last month’s American and British bombing campaign to go on much longer than it did. The dictator believed that as the attacks continued, indignation would grow in the Muslim world, making his terrorism offensive both harder to trace and more effective. With acts of terror contributing to chaos in the region, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait might feel less inclined to support Washington. Saddam’s long-term strategy, according to several sources, is to bully or cajole Muslim countries into breaking the embargo against Iraq, without waiting for the United Nations to lift if formally.”

        INTELLIGENCE REPORTS about the nature of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda from mid-1999 through 2003 are conflicting. One senior Iraqi intelligence officer in U.S. custody, Khalil Ibrahim Abdallah, “said that the last contact between the IIS and al Qaeda was in July 1999. Bin Laden wanted to meet with Saddam, he said. The guidance sent back from Saddam’s office reportedly ordered Iraqi intelligence to refrain from any further contact with bin Laden and al Qaeda. The source opined that Saddam wanted to distance himself from al Qaeda.”

        The bulk of reporting on the relationship contradicts this claim. One report states that “in late 1999” al Qaeda set up a training camp in northern Iraq that “was operational as of 1999.” Other reports suggest that the Iraqi regime contemplated several offers of safe haven to bin Laden throughout 1999.

        23. . . . Iraqi officials were carefully considering offering safe haven to bin Laden and his closest collaborators in Nov. 1999. The source indicated the idea was put forward by the presumed head of Iraqi intelligence in Islamabad (Khalid Janaby) who in turn was in frequent contact and had good relations with bin Laden.
        Some of the most intriguing intelligence concerns an Iraqi named Ahmed Hikmat Shakir:

        24. According to sensitive reporting, a Malaysia-based Iraqi national (Shakir) facilitated the arrival of one of the Sept 11 hijackers for an operational meeting in Kuala Lumpur (Jan 2000). Sensitive reporting indicates Shakir’s travel and contacts link him to a worldwide network of terrorists, including al Qaeda. Shakir worked at the Kuala Lumpur airport–a job he claimed to have obtained through an Iraqi embassy employee.
        One of the men at that al Qaeda operational meeting in the Kuala Lumpur Hotel was Tawfiz al Atash, a top bin Laden lieutenant later identified as the mastermind of the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole.

        25. Investigation into the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 by al Qaeda revealed no specific Iraqi connections but according to the CIA, “fragmentary evidence points to possible Iraqi involvement.”

        26. During a custodial interview, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi [a senior al Qaeda operative] said he was told by an al Qaeda associate that he was tasked to travel to Iraq (1998) to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training. After the USS Cole bombing in 2000, two al Qaeda operatives were sent to Iraq for CBW-related [Chemical and Biological Weapons] training beginning in Dec 2000. Iraqi intelligence was “encouraged” after the embassy and USS Cole bombings to provide this training.

        The analysis of this report follows.

        CIA maintains that Ibn al-Shaykh’s timeline is consistent with other sensitive reporting indicating that bin Laden asked Iraq in 1998 for advanced weapons, including CBW and “poisons.”
        Additional reporting also calls into question the claim that relations between Iraq and al Qaeda cooled after mid-1999:

        27. According to sensitive CIA reporting, . . . the Saudi National Guard went on a kingdom-wide state of alert in late Dec 2000 after learning Saddam agreed to assist al Qaeda in attacking U.S./U.K. interests in Saudi Arabia.

        And then there is the alleged contact between lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. The reporting on those links suggests not one meeting, but as many as four. What’s more, the memo reveals potential financing of Atta’s activities by Iraqi intelligence.

        The Czech counterintelligence service reported that the Sept. 11 hijacker [Mohamed] Atta met with the former Iraqi intelligence chief in Prague, [Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir] al Ani, on several occasions. During one of these meetings, al Ani ordered the IIS finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office.

        And the commentary:

        CIA can confirm two Atta visits to Prague–in Dec. 1994 and in June 2000; data surrounding the other two–on 26 Oct 1999 and 9 April 2001–is complicated and sometimes contradictory and CIA and FBI cannot confirm Atta met with the IIS. Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross continues to stand by his information.
        It’s not just Gross who stands by the information. Five high-ranking members of the Czech government have publicly confirmed meetings between Atta and al Ani. The meeting that has gotten the most press attention–April 9, 2001–is also the most widely disputed. Even some of the most hawkish Bush administration officials are privately skeptical that Atta met al Ani on that occasion. They believe that reports of the alleged meeting, said to have taken place in public, outside the headquarters of the U.S.-financed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, suggest a level of sloppiness that doesn’t fit the pattern of previous high-level Iraq-al Qaeda contacts.

        Whether or not that specific meeting occurred, the report by Czech counterintelligence that al Ani ordered the Iraqi Intelligence Service officer to provide IIS funds to Atta might help explain the lead hijacker’s determination to reach Prague, despite significant obstacles, in the spring 2000. (Note that the report stops short of confirming that the funds were transferred. It claims only that the IIS officer requested the transfer.) Recall that Atta flew to Prague from Germany on May 30, 2000, but was denied entry because he did not have a valid visa. Rather than simply return to Germany and fly directly to the United States, his ultimate destination, Atta took pains to get to Prague. After he was refused entry the first time, he traveled back to Germany, obtained the proper paperwork, and caught a bus back to Prague. He left for the United States the day after arriving in Prague for the second time.

        Several reports indicate that the relationship between Saddam and bin Laden continued, even after the September 11 attacks:

        31. An Oct. 2002 . . . report said al Qaeda and Iraq reached a secret agreement whereby Iraq would provide safe haven to al Qaeda members and provide them with money and weapons. The agreement reportedly prompted a large number of al Qaeda members to head to Iraq. The report also said that al Qaeda members involved in a fraudulent passport network for al Qaeda had been directed to procure 90 Iraqi and Syrian passports for al Qaeda personnel.

        The analysis that accompanies that report indicates that the report fits the pattern of Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration:

        References to procurement of false passports from Iraq and offers of safe haven previously have surfaced in CIA source reporting considered reliable. Intelligence reports to date have maintained A that Iraqi support for al Qaeda usually involved providing training, obtaining passports, and offers of refuge. This report adds to that list by including weapons and money. This assistance would make sense in the aftermath of 9-11.

        Colin Powell, in his February 5, 2003, presentation to the U.N. Security Council, revealed the activities of Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Reporting in the memo expands on Powell’s case and might help explain some of the resistance the U.S. military is currently facing in Iraq.

        37. Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and close al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials. As of Oct. 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad. According to sensitive reporting, al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city, suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months. Such cooperation could include IIS provision of a secure operating bases [sic] and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible U.S. invasion. Al Zarqawi’s procurements from the Iraqis also could support al Qaeda operations against the U.S. or its allies elsewhere.

        38. According to sensitive reporting, a contact with good access who does not have an established reporting record: An Iraqi intelligence service officer said that as of mid-March the IIS was providing weapons to al Qaeda members located in northern Iraq, including rocket propelled grenade (RPG)-18 launchers. According to IIS information, northern Iraq-based al Qaeda members believed that the U.S. intended to strike al Qaeda targets during an anticipated assault against Ansar al-Islam positions.

        The memo further reported pre-war intelligence which “claimed that an Iraqi intelligence official, praising Ansar al-Islam, provided it with $100,000 and agreed to continue to give assistance.”

        CRITICS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION have complained that Iraq-al Qaeda connections are a fantasy, trumped up by the warmongers at the White House to fit their preconceived notions about international terror; that links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have been routinely “exaggerated” for political purposes; that hawks “cherry-picked” bits of intelligence and tendentiously presented these to the American public.

        Carl Levin, a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, made those points as recently as November 9, in an appearance on “Fox News Sunday.” Republicans on the committee, he complained, refuse to look at the administration’s “exaggeration of intelligence.”

        Said Levin: “The question is whether or not they exaggerated intelligence in order to carry out their purpose, which was to make the case for going to war. Did we know, for instance, with certainty that there was any relationship between the Iraqis and the terrorists that were in Afghanistan, bin Laden? The administration said that there’s a connection between those terrorist groups in Afghanistan and Iraq. Was there a basis for that?”

        There was, as shown in the memo to the committee on which Levin serves. And much of the reporting comes from Clinton-era intelligence. Not that you would know this from Al Gore’s recent public statements. Indeed, the former vice president claims to be privy to new “evidence” that the administration lied. In an August speech at New York University, Gore claimed: “The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all, much less give him weapons of mass destruction.” Really?

        One of the most interesting things to note about the 16-page memo is that it covers only a fraction of the evidence that will eventually be available to document the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. For one thing, both Saddam and bin Laden were desperate to keep their cooperation secret. (Remember, Iraqi intelligence used liquid paper on an internal intelligence document to conceal bin Laden’s name.) For another, few people in the U.S. government are expressly looking for such links. There is no Iraq-al Qaeda equivalent of the CIA’s 1,400-person Iraq Survey Group currently searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction.

        Instead, CIA and FBI officials are methodically reviewing Iraqi intelligence files that survived the three-week war last spring. These documents would cover several miles if laid end-to-end. And they are in Arabic. They include not only connections between bin Laden and Saddam, but also revolting details of the regime’s long history of brutality. It will be a slow process.

        So Feith’s memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee is best viewed as sort of a “Cliff’s Notes” version of the relationship. It contains the highlights, but it is far from exhaustive.

        One example. The memo contains only one paragraph on Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, the Iraqi facilitator who escorted two September 11 hijackers through customs in Kuala Lumpur. U.S. intelligence agencies have extensive reporting on his activities before and after the September 11 hijacking. That they would include only this brief overview suggests the 16-page memo, extensive as it is, just skims the surface of the reporting on Iraq-al Qaeda connections.

        Other intelligence reports indicate that Shakir whisked not one but two September 11 hijackers–Khalid al Midhar and Nawaq al Hamzi–through the passport and customs process upon their arrival in Kuala Lumpur on January 5, 2000. Shakir then traveled with the hijackers to the Kuala Lumpur Hotel where they met with Ramzi bin al Shibh, one of the masterminds of the September 11 plot. The meeting lasted three days. Shakir returned to work on January 9 and January 10, and never again.

        Shakir got his airport job through a contact at the Iraqi Embassy. (Iraq routinely used its embassies as staging grounds for its intelligence operations; in some cases, more than half of the alleged “diplomats” were intelligence operatives.) The Iraqi embassy, not his employer, controlled Shakir’s schedule. He was detained in Qatar on September 17, 2001. Authorities found in his possession contact information for terrorists involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 embassy bombings, the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, and the September 11 hijackings. The CIA had previous reporting that Shakir had received a phone call from the safe house where the 1993 World Trade Center attacks had been plotted.

        The Qataris released Shakir shortly after his arrest. On October 21, 2001, he flew to Amman, Jordan, where he was to change planes to a flight to Baghdad. He didn’t make that flight. Shakir was detained in Jordan for three months, where the CIA interrogated him. His interrogators concluded that Shakir had received extensive training in counter-interrogation techniques. Not long after he was detained, according to an official familiar with the intelligence, the Iraqi regime began to “pressure” Jordanian intelligence to release him. At the same time, Amnesty International complained that Shakir was being held without charge. The Jordanians released him on January 28, 2002, at which point he is believed to have fled back to Iraq.

        Was Shakir an Iraqi agent? Does he provide a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11? We don’t know. We may someday find out.

        But there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein’s Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans.

        – Stephen F. Hayes, staff writer at The Weekly Standard.

    • #2666923

      Think about it………

      by jackofalltech ·

      In reply to President Bush – A Profile in Courage

      This is worth a few minutes of thought no matter which “side” you are

      You know, it is easy to forget the ‘promises’ that Bill and Hillary made
      while in office. It strikes home when it is listed like this.

      After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured
      1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
      down and punished. BUSH COVERED IT!

      After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military
      personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
      and punished. BUSH COVERED IT!

      After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19
      and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those
      responsible would be hunted down and punished. BUSH COVERED IT!

      After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and
      injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
      down and punished. BUSH COVERED IT!

      After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39
      U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
      down and punished. BUSH COVERED IT!

      Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people in New
      York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today BUSH

      And, now that Bush is taking action to bring these people to justice, we
      have opponents charging him with being a war monger…

      AN INTERESTING QUESTION: This question was raised on a Philly radio
      call-in show. Without casting stones, it is a legitimate question.

      There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops software and
      gives billions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism. That
      being the case, why was it that the Clinton Administration spent more
      money chasing down Bill Gates over the past eight years than Osama bin

      Think about it.. It is a strange turn of events. Hillary gets $8 Million
      for her memoir. Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be
      written. This from two people who have spent the past 8 years being
      unable to recall anything about past events while under oath!

      Sincerely, Cmdr Hamilton McWhorter USN (ret)

      • #2666860

        I Like It

        by jimhm ·

        In reply to Think about it………

        I like the way you put those together sir – nice job …

        When you have a wimp in the white house the country will be attacked! They didn’t learn from WWII – Isolationizm just doesn’t work – Spain is gong to learn that the hard way as well – They caved once – now theres a track record –

      • #2666850

        Any clarifications?

        by cactus pete ·

        In reply to Think about it………

        Were there any clarifications of what Clinton did or did not do? I mean Specifically. And just how did Bush cover each of these items? I don’t see a conclusion to any of those above.

        • #2666632

          Learn then

          by lostandfound3 ·

          In reply to Any clarifications?

          Those who refuse to see will be eternally blind.

        • #2727581


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Learn then

          Those who follow blindly will become Republicans

          (couldn’t resist that one)

        • #2727575

          Here is another one

          by lostandfound3 ·

          In reply to And

          Those who provide no solution to a problem, but criticize those who make an attempt at a solution and when they don’t get their way EXACTLY (i.e. they do not compromise at all or bring to the table a set of comparable solution), and rather scare people into voting for them: are they Democrates and Canadian counterparts?

        • #2727529

          It’s got to be there somewhere

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Here is another one

          I think you’re digging in pretty deep now, but there’s got to be some point you are trying to make.

          You’ll shoot somebody, why don’t you just spit it out and say what you are implying?

          It’s obvious that you are a typical Republican and wish to bully the rest of the world’s population into submission that you are the high and mighty leaders of the world. You do realize your country has also been trying to do this without success since it’s fouding though right?

          Now you are either suggesting that Canadians are like Democrats or that Canadian ARE Democrats, in which case which neither could be farther from the truth. Now as for politics, canada does not play politics, we don’t look at one another or judge one another based on political preference. I couldn’t tell you what political patry ANY of my friends, family or associates support, it simply isn’t a topic of discussion as we don’t play political games all day. So while they may well be Democrats, Liberals, socialists etc. we don’t tag each other nor do we need to as nobody is welcome to discuss politics here, it just doesnt matter to us what or who you support. We just live instead of figuring out HOW to survive, we aren’t at threat and haven’t been raisied to fear others or their religious/political views.

          That said, prehaps you could elaborate on just which Canadians don’t support your war efforts? Is it the ones who fight beside you guys all the time or is it the parents who are sick of their kids being sent to war because YOU have gone to war again? Would it be the Canadians who went to battle in WWII several years before you were attacked and pushed to help out too? Do you think you’d have even turned up for WWII if you hadn’t been attacked yourselves? Now don’t get me wrong, the US provided many brave men who were willing to fight and help repress Hitler, including almost every country in the world.
          What really bugs me though is some people, usually with the ‘You are jealous of us” mentality as you have expressed feel that america won WWII. Failing to realize that Hitler had run up against a brick wall (The RAF), he was spread too thin and after the ‘Allied’ invasion of Normandy was pushed back until he finally had the Russians kicking his ass as he tried to backpeddle.

          You efforts were welcomed and appreciated, they were about four or five years later than needed and the whole mentailty that the US won the war must stop, but you did send a large number of troops to invade Normandy after you were attacked yourselves.

    • #2666922

      Couldn’t Resist

      by jackofalltech ·

      In reply to President Bush – A Profile in Courage

      Although I promised myself I wouldn’t log on here anymore, I do occasionally browse thru the discussions. I couldn’t resist responding to this one. Thanks Max!

      Along the same lines as this is my other post, Think About It.

      Take care everyone.


    • #2666800

      Rname the article Max

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to President Bush – A Profile in Courage

      As this discussion has turned into another justification of what Bush may or may not have said, I think it should be remnamed accordingly.

      President Bush – A profile instilling fear

    • #2666748

      Some OUTSTANDING results

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to President Bush – A Profile in Courage

      There were 44% fewer international terrorist attacks in 2002 than there were in 2001.


      There were fewer international terrorist attacks in 2003 than AT ANY TIME SINCE 1969.

      The war on terrorism is indeed, thus far, an astounding success. Stay the course….stay the course…..this CAN BE defeated.

      It’s about time America has a leader – no, make that a world leader – who FINALLY has the political onions to do something about it. And that’s not to take away from the soldiers on the line fighting it, without whom it would not be possible. They deserve the utmost respect and admiration.

      The results don’t lie.

      Yes indeed, a Profile In Courage.

      (Damn, just imagine the impact we could make if the other world leaders grew some onions.)

      P.S. The next time you see a G.I. in a restaurant, perhaps with his family, call the restaurant manager over and give him/her some $$ to pick up their bill.

      • #2666627

        Answer the WHY questions – ??????????

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Some OUTSTANDING results

        As mentioned, There were 44% fewer international terrorist attacks in 2002 than there were in 2001. And there were fewer international terrorist attacks in 2003 than AT ANY TIME SINCE 1969.

        Why did this happen?

        Another question:

        This is HUGE news. Why is this not the front page headline of my local paper, or the New York Times, or the SYdney Morning Herald, or……?

        • #2727611

          I’d like to take a shot at this

          by lostandfound3 ·

          In reply to Answer the WHY questions – ??????????

          Allow me to elucidate the facts to some of the ignorant and arogant. The reason for the decline in terrorist activities (hijackings and homocide-bombings) is because political leaders in Israel and MY president (and hopefully yours) George Bush stood up to the group of thugs, murderers, rapists, meglomainiacs, and just flat out psychopathological monsters and said that enough is enough. They brought the battle to these wicked demons. I don’t consider these individuals human beings anymore because of their actions.

          Through military action and assasination of key terrorist leaders, there is no one to plan and coordinate attacks–at least not the kind that we have seen in previous years. We summarily cutting the head off the snake. With out the head the snake cannot live. Others that attempt to take their place are so uneducated, senseless, and just flat out too stupid to execute any coherent, coordinated attack of the likes of previous years.

          While these vile perpatrators against mankind sit in relative comfort, they send out the young and easily brainwashed youth to do their dirty deeds, and of course, all in the name of merciful Allah. These men are cowards, not worthy to be leaders of their own people. They are not willing to put their own life on the line to advance thier cause. Instead, they send out the gullable, uneducated, and poor to do their dirty work.

          I hope they all rot in Hell.

        • #2727606

          Thanks for the contribution – and. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I’d like to take a shot at this

          By the way, if you don’t mind a suggestion, you should consider changing your TechRepublic alias to something other than your email address.

        • #2727582


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I’d like to take a shot at this

          Well your patriotism is strong, your hate for others is strong, I’d say you were American!

          You seem to be vastly underestimating your enemy though. UNlike a snake, terrorist are more of a wrom, you cut it in half and you have two terrorist regimes, don’t fool yourself by thinking they are below you or undereducated. Only an idiot can kill senselessly, it doesn’t take a friggin brain surgeon.

          Any moron can kill a few US soldier, and the a few more etc. etc. They aren’t exactly playing tactical warfare here, you’re not up against Hitler, you are up against people who die to kill.

          Make some sense and perhaps try again.

        • #2727576

          I make perfect sense, thank you

          by lostandfound3 ·

          In reply to Wow

          If people were more supportive of the goals of reducing conflict, maybe there can be better progress. What suggestion do you have, that will actually work? I am open minded, and as far as hatred of other outside my country.

          Your words remind me of saying we have down here in red neck, white trash country: “It’s like the pot calling the kettle black.” I know this is what you think of us and do not deny it. It is a fact that I do not worry myself with, because it is not worth it. Before you accuse me, have a look at yourself.

        • #2727521

          Pot and the kettle

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I make perfect sense, thank you

          I didn’t realize that old phrase was from Texas!
          Well I guess I owe, y’all an poligy.

          I didn’t accuse you of anything except underestimating your enemy which is a major mistake of any war or fight.

          You seem so happy to jump up and down for lady liberty and think you are up against a retarded opponent. If they are so pathetic, how do so many soldiers keep dying? According to your analogy of these terrorists, you seem to be inimizing the effectiveness of your own military. If they were that sad, you’d be done with it already and not a single life lost.

        • #2727506


          by thechas ·

          In reply to Answer the WHY questions – ??????????


          I suspect that the primary reason that terrorist attacks dropped in 2002 was that the September 11 and Bali attacks provided a wake-up call to all nations.

          Prior to these major attacks, the potential for a terrorist attack was not given the focus needed to prevent an attack. The US in particular had a belief that “it could not happen here”.

          Suddenly, the whole world felt VERY vulnerable.

          The intelligence organizations were kicked in the butt to find ways to intercept potential terrorists and prevent attacks from happening.

          Nations that previously ignored the terrorists within their borders suddenly cooperated with the US and our allies. Allowing access to terrorist strongholds, if not capturing the terrorists themselves.

          Individuals became willing to notice and report suspicious activities.

          Governments and security organizations became much more interested in investigating suspicious activities.

          The “true” war against terror in Afghanistan disrupted all aspects of major international terrorist operations.

          For 2003 and 2004, the war in Iraq has drawn Muslim extremists into Iraq to battle the infidel invaders, and attempt to prevent an open democracy from forming.

          We can also thank the fact that the terrorists misjudged the impact that their 2001 attacks would have on the world, and the US in particular.
          The fact that we did not cower and hide, or buckle under to their demands must have had a demoralizing impact on many terrorist sympathizers.

          As to media coverage.
          We have discussed before that the media has a greater interest in bad news than in good.
          Bad news sells papers and raises ratings.
          Good news just takes up time and space.

          I would argue that it would be a bad thing for the media to proclaim the news of reduced terrorist attacks.
          The US public is VERY fickle when it comes to matters that don’t have an immediate impact on their individual lives.
          Letting it be known that terrorist attacks are on the decline would make far to many US citizens believe that terrorism had been “handled”. They would become complacent and again ignore suspicious activity.

          We need to maintain a little fear if we wish to prevent another major terrorist attack.


        • #2727497

          Chas – outstanding reply

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Diligence

          I agree with absolutely everything you said. I might add some things (but I won’t), and perhaps others might as well. But very well stated indeed.

          Another related question. How long will it take, and what will it take, to defeat international terrorism and finally bring it to a hault? Twenty to thirty years, as GWB has suggested? Not that long? Longer than that? Or is it a futile effort? (And yes, I might also suggest that it will take more than just guns.)

        • #2727492

          In response to your question Max

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Chas – outstanding reply

          I don’t know if we can actually speculate how long it will take to halt terrorism as a whole.

          I think in essence there wil ALWAYA be terrorists on Earth just as there always has been. In respect to these organized regimes we are currently at war against, who can really tell ?

          Nobody REALLY knows what fuels such terror other than the obvious religion and dictatorship issues. So without understanding the enemy we really cannot predict or even begin to flatter ourselves by assuming how long it will take.

          As BUSH has said numerous times, we have no idea how long the Iraq situation will last.
          With that being only a miniscule part of the overall problem, even if narrowed down to only middle east terrorists, we cannot even begin to entertain the idea of ending terrorism on aglobal scale if at all.

          Perhaps in the present day it is futile. We can eliminate leades temporarily before another takes his place. We can push them out of a chosen country but sooner or later it will be like trying to cull together all the foam in a bathtub. Eventually it will run through your fingers and over your hands…..I think I’ll leave it there.

          Or trying to stop an oil spill, the oil can be trapped into a region but the lasting damage will be there for many more years than ever expected. You know they are STILL cleaning up the shores and wildlife from the Exxon Valdez spill. At the time, some were predicting 5-10 yearsm other said many more. We just don’t know without comparisson, it is pure specualtion.

          I’d like to say Monday, but I know it won’t be that pleasant. Now that you guys have dropped the second shoe, who knows when or even IF terrorism will be stopped and even then how long until it resumes. As long as we have recorded history, we have had people who want to dominate or destroy mandkind. NOw we have Bush vs Terrorism, again domination vs destruction.

      • #2727584

        OK Max

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Some OUTSTANDING results

        We all know that the terrorists are being slowed and that the war in Iraq is looking better each day, so what, there is still no jusitification for the president’s actions leading up to it and it could have been quicker, and more effective.

        Hanging on by the seat of your pants and hoping for the best is OK when you succeed, but what if you didn’t?

        Secondly, there are 30 countries that have become part of the liberation effort not just the USA. So I suposed you will be buying lunch for Polish, Danish, Spanish, Italian, Ukranian, Bulgarian, Tai, Estonian, Slavadoran soldiers and all the other too. Dig deep, we know you despise hand-outs.

        Profile in courage is correct but you seem to feel (just like WWII) that you are doing this by yourselves and winning without anyone else’s help AGAIN. This is the exact attitude that has people saying you are an arrogant and stuck up bunch while at the same time you thumb your nose at the rest of the world for not aiding your efforts. Sure America jumped in with both feet against everyone else’s wishes, but they STILL came and helped when you were in deep and needed support. Whatever you say, don’t say you didn’t need supoprt, there’s no way you could have done this alone, just lok at how thousands of Iraqi’s are helping for a start. Policing that your troops had no hope of doing themselves.

        I am not trying to defame your troops, nor am I saying that they are weak or ineffective. I think ANY soldier who goes to war when he is told to is a great citizens and brave defender of his country, just don’t forget the rest like you have done before.

        As for defeating ‘Terrorism’, well that’;s a chuckle in itself, it may be quiet and it may be somewhat peaceful now, but who’s going to stay behind for the next millenium to ensure it stays that way. There are many more terrorist organizations than those we have faced in the middle east, are they next? If so, how many more years do you expect to be at war? 50, 70, more?

        I will always respect a soldier, but it’s not JUST America as you always seem to credit yourselves and forget the rest.

        • #2727568

          You’ve got a point

          by lostandfound3 ·

          In reply to OK Max

          True, it is a bit overboard calling for a complete elimination of terrorism throughout the world (rhetoric for presidential campaign-perhaps). Likewise, it is a chuckle for me as well.

          The best we can hope to do is stem the problem as best as we can. Of course, also realizing that overzelous individuals, still have a possiblity of succeeding regardless of how good the intel is.

          I know what you are thinking, am I one of those overzelous morons. No. Overzelous, yes. Goofy and lovable yes. See, I can agree with you on something!

        • #2727520

          I am curious though

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You’ve got a point

          It has been rasied many times here that people in the US have different understandings of WHY the war began, why GWB refused to abide by his former allies wishes etc.

          What was it that you feel made this neccessary?

          You mentioned several times that you want to protect your family and not wait for an attack. Where did you get the idea you would be attacked? What were you protecting yourself from?

        • #2727509

          What Convinced Me

          by lostandfound3 ·

          In reply to I am curious though

          Let me establish what made my mind up. First, I will agree the WMD stuff was over board. Realistically, speaking the capability of WMD development is one point, but it was not the total selling point. Given Saddam Hussein’s (spelling?) past record on the international scene, it was evident to me that eventhough WMD was not found it is the knowledge of how to build such weaponry. Furthermore, his past track record has proven him unreliable in maintaining agreements to dismantle his programs fully. I can go into sources information, but we don’t have the time, nor it is not the point you asked me to make. This posses a serious security concern especailly when U.S. troops uncovered terrorist bases north of Baghdad and substantial evidence that the former Iraqi government had relations with this group and other Al’Qada (sp?-correct me please) connected organizations. This includes members of the cell that executed the 9/11 attacks.

          The point that convinced me was the inhumane treatment that members of the Baathist party was performing. You may call me a Republican bully, but I do not condone or come anywhere close to the thuggary and intentional brutality that he was responsible to protect. Furthermore this is the same regeime that its neighbors, other Arab states loathed and feared because of what I pointed out. Hussein’s and the Baathist Party’s crimes against humanity rank up there with Hitler and the Nazi’s. From some of the reading I have done, I would almost say that it surpassed it. This man had no moral or ethical standards, except for ones that provdied the greatest luxury for himself and his cronies. As someone of spiritual faith, I was taught to forgive others for their sins. Its difficult to do this with him because of the enormity of the atrocities that have taken place during the last 30 years he ruled the country.

          Lastly, the in action of the United Nations to enforce the very resolutions that it imposed on him and Hussein denied for the past 13 years prior to the war. What good is U.N. resolutions if ,the very body that is responsible to keeping all countries in check, does not back up what they say with extreme penalties (military conflict included) when resoultions are not followed through by ALL parties. What I found disgusting is reports coming from the Food for Oil scandal, in which the likes of France, Germany, and Russia (our very allies) were simply bought off by Hussein through exclusive and very lucrative oil exports. The very program established to make sure money to be used on medical supplies, food, and water never managed to make it to those who were in desperate need of it: Iraqi citizens. Saddam pocketed the money and used it to advance his weapons programs, leaving the country in serious state of depravity and poverty. Let’s not forget the suppression of the Shittes that are in southern Iraq and the Kurds in the north. Do the same humanitarian rights apply to them as well? Do we sit by when acts of atrocity take place on people by the very government that is supposed to protect them? You sound like a sensible person, can you deny the fact of these atrocities taking place? Knowing this would you allow this to happen? Can you accept the decision of in action by the very world body that is supposed to ensure such attrocities are averted or mitigated?

          Bottom line, I believe in and support my president because of these points. Declaring Saddam had WMD was a mistake and not put into proper context to begin with. Frankly, I do not think it was needed to press the point for going to war. Bush had enough rationale for going forward with this effort. Regrettably, I now believe he used a poor choice in a point to expand upon. There was enough evidence to support this conflict without it.

          What’s said is said, and what is done is done. It may be my feeble attempt at optimisim, but I really believe that the world is a better place since that monster was deposed.

          You have my rationale, you’ve seen my passion (and foot inserted in mouth on numerous occasions today), and you have seen my belief. If I have not adequately provided the answer to your question, please post and clarify.

          It would seem the goals of the world community are clear: a peacful and stable Middle East. Without this, there is a lot of hurt everyone feels (economically as well as personal). Bashing and individual who is taking action to achieve these goals are productive, just as previous remarks made by myself.

          As far as a narrow view of the world, I fully understand there are other countries involved as well, your country I believe has made some sort of contribution. That all is greatly appreciated. The one thing that I cannot help looking from my position, as small as it may be, and trying to understand the events that surround me. What may appear to be common sense to me may not be necessarily so to others. If it sounds as if I am backing down a bit, I am. Time to cool down and time for rational thought to occur has helped. But, continued insult after insult has caused my reaction. If I am respectful to you and others, I would expect a same level of respect in all our discourse. We can agree to disagree, but there is no reason to be insulting and disrespectful to others in the process.

          One last thing, it is Friday, lighten up some.

        • #2727498

          Couple of corrections

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to What Convinced Me

          Firstly. you are right in saying that this man needed to be stopped, that’s never been a topic od debate here. The INSTANT means in which Bush ignored the Allies after talks and then invaded hastily and without much needed support is the issue. His means for justifying that issue was fear, by telling the people of America they had reason to hate this man, that he had Weapons of Mass Destruction and would not think twice about using them against America (Yes Max, I DID find that info at the White House site if you want a link, but I’m sure you’ve read all that by now.).

          You also mention some recent findings of the US military since the invasion, yet that ws not known prior to the invasion so cannot be used as a means to justify prior action.

          As for the Oil For Food program, well that was feulled by America’s want for Iraq’s oil and Saddam not allowing the export. OFF was a means for other countries to import oil for export and a profit to the USA, although many say that the US never bought Iraq’s oil, you were buying it from the same people who you are accusing of exploiting th eOFF program, it is just hypocritical and doesn’t hold water.
          It’s not because you didn’t want it it’s because you couldn’t have it. Now what’s the worst thing you can say to someone? “No you can’t.”
          As for food NOT getting to Iraq, well that was a major fault of America’s. Saddam was pissed that these “needed” supplies were not being received, whether for his own resale or proper distribution is irrelevant at this point. The US government was in charge of inspecting the imports for ‘dual purpose’ goods. Supplies, needed supplies, were being held by American officials indeffinately, it started with a few months then a few more and so on.
          The US was doing this as they felt Saddam was playing the same game with weapons inspectors, Saddam was playing with the weapons inspectors because the US was holding off needed imports, touche’. This is all neatly detailed in The White House Report to Congress.

          If you are generally interested in reading more about the Oil For Food program, I have the 60+ page document that shows it all in detail that I am happy to email to you. (once I dig it out of my own archives of course:-P )

          Your points for supporting Bush are unneccessary, you are free to support who you wish without explanation in a democratic nation. The fact that you say he was wrong in talking about WMD and that the war was really needed anyway is not too sensible though.

          We ALL know saddam needed to e removed, the WORLD knew and was lookng at making a move. Bush seems to feel that everyone said NO WAY to his idea, the issue was that seeing as recent UN missions HAD been sucessful, they should be allowed to uncover more. If at that time they had found further destruction, which they ineveitably would, the woprld’s forces were prepared to remove him and continue the global fight on terrorism, which Bush has dcided is HIS war on terrorism and others will play by HIS rules. I know he’s YOUR leader but the rest of the world? Give me a break.

          He doubt he’d even know where Canada is, he has very little global knowledge which is no secret, and needs to rely on the experience andknowledge of those that do.

          for you to say “Bashing and individual who is taking action to achieve these goals are productive,” is a little arrogant itself.

          You want your leader to act alone and without support, yet you call others fat & drunk mouthed for not joining you? What is it, America’s war on terrorism or the world’s, or is that all the same thing to you?

          All I am saying, it was wrong for him to act alone and without the proper intelligence and support of his allies as they would respect of him. If the world was ready to go to war and Bush wasn’t they would most likely stop and at least hear him out, not slag America and then go at it anyway.

          He was wrong to use WMD as an excuse, you’ve admitted and yet e has done the right thing. Well you voted for him, you trusted him, you supported him, now you’re saying he lied to you but that’s OK as he is doing the inevitable anyway. If he hadn’t said WMD were an issue and simply waited for the next inspections to turn up more evidence in order for the entire Allied force to occupy Iraq and get it straight, would that have been so bad? I think not.

          There’s a saying we use in Canada, ‘haste makes waste.’

          I think his haste wasted your lives.

        • #2727428

          Hind Sight 20/20

          by lostandfound3 ·

          In reply to Couple of corrections

          Just as the saying goes. You make points I have trouble refuting, but I have a few that you have to admit, make you think a little.

          I sit here early Saturday morning, after reflecting on this whole mess and cannot help, but wonder. Why am I arguing this point? What you see as over-patriotic or over-zealous, I view as a deep concern of the direction of our place in the world and the responsibilities and how this all plays out on the world stage. Periodically, I have my doubts. My comment of in a previous posting has me feeling hypocritical after careful thought: “Those who refuse to see are eternally blind.” You can say I have been a bit rash, well okay a whole lot.

          It is amazing to me how much emotion can destroy a man’s sensabilities and warp facts. What you say can be true, and I will take you at your word. I have not fully read the report, regretably and have relied on other media formats to form my decisions.

          I still support this effort from begining in the end because it needed to be done. However, how much time did we really have before the next catastrophe? We probably will not know for sure. The fact this man had the capabilities is frightening in and of itself. The heinous acts this individuals carry out are totally unpredictable. I share the same setiments with what you said, “Haste makes waste,” but when dealing with uncertanties there are times you must take a leap of faith and hope the decision made was the right one given the existing values of the variables in play.

          I would be totally naieve to think that we were not using some of the Iraqi oil being funneled out of the U.N. program. That is just the way business happens. By the time that barrel of oil is traded about 20 to 30 times on the market, it is enitrely possible that the point of origin gets lost in the shuffle; or companies flat out by it, fudge the documentation, and process the material. All the same the oil made it to the market. The question that raises a specter of suspision over the whole program was, what happened to all that money? For those countries that were taking advantage of the program, it raises a conflict of interest when dealing with it on the international scene. The point that every interaction international politics is a conflict of intrest can be viewed as a conflict of interest, but what degree of conflict is involved.

          BTW: no need to send a 60 pg. document, I haven’t got caught up with documents I have to read already. Hence the reason I’ll will take you at your word.

        • #2727489

          A goofy lovable zealot

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to You’ve got a point

          Too bad Jim Henson bought the farm..woulda made a nice addition..

        • #2727499

          Yep – buy an international G.I. a meal

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to OK Max

          Disingenuous comes to mind to describe you, Oz, because you know as well as I do that I don’t, as you suggested, “despise hand-outs”. I despise a government seizing the personal property of one citizen who chooses to be responsible, for the purpose of redistributing that property to another citizen who chooses to be irresponsible.

          I love voluntary charity, and I love kind gestures, and I love the idea of buying a G.I. a meal. I live close to several military installations, both Army and Air Force (about 50 miles), and I’ve done it several times over the past month. The thought first came to me one night when we were having dinner at a Mexican restaurant with friends we were visiting. We spotted a young G.I. (two stripes) and his family (a wife and one little boy) in a booth across the aisle and a couple of spots down. Throughout dinner I kept noticing his little boy just crawling all over him, and I surmised that he was one of the soldiers who recently returned from Iraq. His bill was probably in the $30 – $35 range, so when I paid my bill, I gave the waiter an extra $50 with instructions to tell the G.I. that someone else picked up his tab, and for the waiter to keep the change. A nice tip for the waiter, a nice thing to do for a G.I., and a nice feeling for me. Well worth the $50 bucks.

          And how convenient of you for finally remembering that the USA isn’t doing this alone. After months of suggesting that we were indeed acting alone, you finally are admitting that you were mistaken (or lying or being disingenuous). The Germans, French and Russians were against the Iraq action because they were accepting bribes from Saddam (yes, it has been verified). But I suppose the Canadians are either cowards or are simply willing to sit by and do nothing but watch thousands of people die by the hands of world-wide terrorists. Keep sitting on your hands, Oz (and Canada). Others will take care of the terrorism problem for you.

          You acknowledged that, on one hand, the terrorists were being slowed, but on the other hand there was no justification leading up to it. Are you suggesting that the intention of slowing terrorism and ultimately stopping terrorism, i.e. the war on terrorism, isn’t justification? Oh yea, you think Iraq is all about oil, not about the war on terrorism. Well, believe what you want, Oz, but Iraq is stage two against the war on terrorism. And you suggest that it might take 50 to 70 years to defeat it? Well, you’re right in the sense that it will be a long time. President Bush, himself, suggested it might take 20 to 30 years, and indeed it might. Every country in the world and every American administration prior to this one has let international terrorism grow and fester, doing nothing about it, for at least that long, maybe longer. And it just shows that this is not something that just one US administration can do, or has to do, but will take the resolve of many yet to come.

          You may say that you are not “trying to defame our troops, or saying that they are weak or ineffective.” Well, I can certainly believe that. You do it on a regular enough basis without even trying, so it must come natural to you.

          By the way, Oz, buy a meal for a Polish, Danish, Spanish (even though they bailed out), Italian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Tai, Estonian, or Salvadoran soldier, or a British soldier the next time you’re in the UK. Unlike Canadians, they, too, are contributing to the international war on terrorism. I’m sure any one of them would appreciate the kind gesture. (By the way, when I suggested buying a meal for a G.I., I didn’t single out the American G.I, did I?)

        • #2727391

          Well Mr. Holmes

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Yep – buy an international G.I. a meal

          Your post really doesn’t warrant a reply because you know as well as I do you are simply trying to piss me off as always. I understand why you have this insecudirt and need to be correct i everything you say and can only shrug a response really.

          As for Canadian troops, we are still tied up in Afghanistan from the lasy mess. As Canada doesn’t have the numbers of expendable troops the Us seems to, it is no wonder we have stayed away from being involved in another conflict and therefore spreading our already minimal troops in Aghanistan even thinner than they already are and placing our existing efforts in further danger of failure.

          Every time someone generalizes your thoughts, feelings or statements (or those of your mentor WB) you o into a detailed description of the exact wording you used as if in an attempt to discount the generalization.

          I didn’t say you weren’t for charity, but it is VERY clear no matter how intricately you word it,you are strongly against ‘government’ handouts, you know as well as I do that these handouts are taken directly from your pocket and you are pissed that YOU can’t control your mone yand are forced to support a government that does. Welcome to Earth. If it sucks so bad, we’ll slow it so you can jump or you can quite and collect the handouts yourself if it is such a great and free way to live off of those who work.

          I dare say that you wouldn’t be imoressed with the pittance the government takes from rich people to help you and would soon be looking for more too.

          I have never said this wasn’t a coalition effort. The UK soldiers were there at the same tim eyou were. Others HAD to follow in the name of humanity, your own soldiers are incapable and untrained for policing, they do not have as much experiencein humanitarian efforts. Of course others will be needed for specialized work.

          YOU made the decision to invade, YOUR president wouldn’t wait for support. THAT is what I have always contested, not the need or he end result.

          Stop trying to constantly twist people’s words in order to create conflict so you can showboat your countless hours of time wasted following US politics from a US perspective. All you do is force me to reinforce my original points and aruments by constantly saying what I impled although I never said or impled such things to begin with, it’s YOUR comprehension issue, get help or move on. This same issue efects your ability to see a generalization of your expressed thoughts that mirrors your exact quotes.
          Perhaps this is why you love Bush so much, you constantly pick apart his sentences without seeing what is being implied.

          Your like a living Speak-and-Spell, ‘LACHINE. SPELL, LACHINE” Now you would spell it ‘Lachine’ and contest that is said L-achine not M-achine.

          As for your troops statement, I supose you are trying to say that I DO see your troops as weak or ineffective. Perhaps you should talk to others here and have them explain that I have supported your troops, not the idiot who jumped the gun and sent them to die.

          As for buying GI’s meals, I will buy anyone a meal that is hungry. I don’t ‘selectively’ choose people to reward with kindness, it just needs to be spread when possible. Yes it does feel nice to help people, I learned that the first time I helped someone at a very young age, nice to see you have reached this observation too.

          So regarding your comments as a whole, you have simply repreated yourself once again while TRYING to take another’s comments out of context, twist words and make yourself look righteous. Why don’t you go kill a bunny or a kitty or something and get your little superiority boost from someone else. Your starting to look very pathetic and insecure, your points are so redundant that all I can say is “No Sh*T Sherlock, is that really how you feel? Who’d have guessed?.”

        • #2734060

          Canada and Iraq

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Yep – buy an international G.I. a meal

          Thanks for insulting an entire nation.

          We see it differently.

          If the UN had been able to come to an agreement to go in, we’d be there. Despite the fact we are already in Afghanistan(do you want us to go home), Kosovo, Bosnia, Cyprus and other places.
          Our navy lead the patrols in the gulf to intercept weapons and people smuggling. We came back to Afghanistan, even though we were really stretched, and had 4 of our men killed by a US pilot. We contributed to the Haiti mission, even though we were stretched.

          We tried hard to bring the UN to an agreement – one that would satisfy both the US, France and Germany. The US rebuffed our efforts, killing any chance of an agreement(which by the way would have resulted in an invasion by the end of May anyway).

          And Canada is contributing funds to the rebuilding effort.

          We continue to co-operate on border security. We just committed billions to improve our ability to patrol our ocean borders. We work together on NORAD and are starting work together on missle defense.

          The US disagreed with us on WWI, WWII, Bosnia(we were there in the peace making stage, the US refused to get involved until an agreement between the parties was signed)and Rwanda(where the US used its veto power on security council to kill our proposal to intervene, even though we had troops on the ground).

          Perhaps you should ask the General of the 101st Airbone in Afghanistan who paid high tribute to the Canadian contribution if he thought the Canadians were cowards. Perhaps you should understand that by increasing our committment in Afghanistan last year, we freed up US troops who went to Iraq.

          James Linn

        • #2733891

          Although I knew. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Canada and Iraq

          …that my message would be read by others, it was really intended for only one person, a person, as you well know, that has made it almost a sport, and perhaps his personal mission, to insult an entire nation – my nation – in hundreds of messages, including the one to which I replied.

          If you keep my comment in that context, the “tit-for-tat” context of a discussion with that one person, and especially if it’s kept in the context of considering the hundreds of insults on my nation that I’ve had to endure at the hands of this one person, then perhaps you’ll understand.

          But I must say, if you really cared about such things, perhaps you should have been trying to prevent your fellow countryman from lobbing the hundreds of “insults” our way instead of just the one and only time I lobbed one your way.

          I offer that, not as an excuse, but as an explanation. No insult was intended. I apologize.

        • #2733878

          Then it MUST be me.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Although I knew. . . .

          Ok Max, you’ve upset everyone else but apparently you were replying to MY post?
          “…that has made it almost a sport, and perhaps his personal mission, to insult an entire nation – my nation – in hundreds of messages, including the one to which I replied.”

          Could you show me where in that post that I insulted an entire nation? You did say it was including the one to which you replied, which from what I see was my post titled. “OK Max”

          I have read it several times before posting this message and don’t see ANYWHERE where I have “insulted an entire nation”.

          IN fact I offered a very open response to your previous post to clarify that even though YOU see this as a US effort and everyone else is running away, the truth is it is an ALLIED effort as it should have been from the beginning. Not a US effort, you just invaded the front door while England invaded the back door. How is THAT an US effort and now that over 30 other countris have joined the Liberation attempt, how is that a US effort? I also explained very carefully that my post wasn’t to defame your troops or the brave men and women who serve your country.

          Where in the last post did I “insult an entire nation?”

        • #2733884

          Well Said…

          by sullyman ·

          In reply to Canada and Iraq

          Well said James…..

        • #2733890

          I was gone but not forgotten….

          by sullyman ·

          In reply to Yep – buy an international G.I. a meal

          I see that even after a six month hiatus from this board that you are still marching to the same tune. The war in Iraq has opened a whole can of worms that the US in now realizing they can?t close alone. Its mind boggling to me how a president who was so quick to shun the UN is desperately seeking its help to clean up the mess it has created in Iraq. The unfortunate and sad part is that lives are being lost on a daily basis, because of an unprovable reason for invasion. You say that Canadians are either cowards or simply willing to sit by and watch as thousands of people die by the hands of world wide terrorists. You Mister Maxwell are very uninformed, and I cannot believe that you are so close-minded that you do not know the impact Canadians and other non-coalition countries are having on the international fight on terrorism. The fight on terrorism does not only have the vested interest of the bought and paid for allies of the red,white and blue. Before you blanket TR with your anti-non American rants, inform yourself about what happens outside of your borders??

          It’s good to be back!!

        • #2733883

          See the message. . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I was gone but not forgotten….

          …that I posted for Mr. Linn.

          You know, a big problem with these messages is that one person, such as myself, might make some off-the-cuff comment, but in the context of, and considering the hundreds of other messages I’ve made. Then someone, such as yourself, might only read that one and only comment, not considering everything that has been said over time, and draw in incorrect conclusion. (And then there are the ones who “conveniently” forget what was written in the past.)

          It’s kinda’ like reading one paragraph out of a 600 page book and forming an opinion on the content and/or author, based only on that one paragraph. It’s not very telling.

          Good to see you again, Sully.

        • #2733856

          Here ya’ go

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to OK Max

          “….people saying you are an arrogant and stuck up bunch”……

          “Hanging on by the seat of your pants and hoping for the best is OK “…….

          I’m insulted.

          But leave it to you to AGAIN focus in on only one excerpt from one message.

          Do you deny that you have insulted my nation – EVER and often?

        • #2733834

          How about making some sense

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Here ya’ go

          Then perhaps my comments would be proven wrong.

          YOU were the one who said “…including the one to which I replied.”

          Now if you were referring to previous comments then perhaps you could also provide the venemous and personal attcacks on my character, country of origin and country I now live in that you have felt so inclined to offer in the past too.

          I don’t bite unless barked at.

          But as for the current, shall we say relevant, comments you are referring to;

          “….people saying you are an arrogant and stuck up bunch”……
          Now nobody will read this as a personal attack on the US even though you have stripped most of the context. So here it is in full.

          “This is the exact attitude that has people saying you are an arrogant and stuck up bunch while at the same time you thumb your nose at the rest of the world for not aiding your efforts.”

          Now can you disect and take that out of context to show that I have “personal mission, to insult an entire nation – my nation”
          I am speaking from experience, not personal feeling.

          As for;
          “Hanging on by the seat of your pants and hoping for the best is OK “…….

          Now to put that back in its full perspective.
          What I said was;
          “Hanging on by the seat of your pants and hoping for the best is OK when you succeed, but what if you didn’t? ”

          This is simply a figure of speech used to cause questioning of the worst case scenario. Again, this is not a slam on anyone or any country.

          You say you took offense, then perhaps your little rude and uncalled for email to my personal account was written by someone other than yourself, which I may say was far more offensive and in full context, don’t even go there unless you are ready to see both sides Maxwell.

          You also missed the part where I really laid into your country and it’s troops!

          ” I am not trying to defame your troops, nor am I saying that they are weak or ineffective. I think ANY soldier who goes to war when he is told to is a great citizens and brave defender of his country, just don’t forget the rest like you have done before. ”

          You’re no better in any way then your friend Michael Moore, you insist that he takes everything out of context and doesn’t show the true intent behind his comments. Well neither do you Maxwell, in fact there are MANY posts where you show this same narrow minded approach in an attempt to defame the opponent.

          Grow up, there are plenty of people over 7 years old here who can see right through such weak attempts at character degredation.

          NO I do not deny I have never insulted Americans or the US GOvernment. I have also been on the receiving end to. It’s called free speech, freedom of expression or freedom of the press.

          I seem to not be so upset when you bash Canada or England. Others were not offended by my comments you had said were so offensive, what is it with you? Are you really that different than a human?

          Next time, make some sense or at least have a leg to stand on.

        • #2732120

          You just play games

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to How about making some sense

          The “context” was there for all to see.

          I was insulted by them.

          You admit to lobbing your own insults.

          Why am I “called to task” for my one, but you are given a free pass on your hundreds?

          And your insults continue……

        • #2732114


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You just play games

          Well Max, I don’t seem to have much of an issue with other American peers here. Certainly there are disagreements but not the constant misquoting abuse that I and many others see from you when you don’t like what they have to say.

          I have had several people tell me they had NO idea until coming to TR whay Americans were said to be ignorant and arrogant. The racism begins here, the ‘we are superior’ mentality begins with you, the ‘you are all passive and don’t do anything to help the world’ begins with you, the constant denial of ANYONE’s posts (American or foreign) that don’t compliment yours begins with YOU. Others have a say, perhaps reiterate a point or two and generally can see both sides of a discussion.

          You twist and twirl words so that you can complain and discount their origin. You then provide your own sources and support as if it is a correction and not just another perspective on events. YOUR sources are the right sources and everything that doesn’t compliment it is Anti-American, Anti-Bush or just plain wrong. What I can’t get over is that with all your nit-picking, comprehensiion difficulties and slander that you don’t see this as coming from yourself. But then again, you have made it VERY clear that you stand firm in yuor convistions and beliefs while expecting everyone else to change or conform to YOUR idea of what’s going on.

          Yuo constantly post what Bush said in order to discount others reports, when those same people don’t buy a word Bush says anyway! So why would I even begin to entertain your ideas and theories if you refuse to accept someone else’s opinion, I think it’s called hypocrisy and bigotry.

          At one time, I thought you were a somewhat educated and well spoken person, the more I hear from you, the more I realize how wrong I was. You simply want everyone to agree with you yet refuse to accept anothers opinion.

          You see ONLY what others say to YOU, not what YOU say to others.

          You see only what Bush says and never look at the other side with an open mind or without even expecting SOME allegations against Bush to be correct. As Julain said before, if Bush was to meet you he would probably be incredibly embarrassed at the conviction with which you stand behind him. I have never met someone dumb enough to believe every word a politician says in my life.

          Why is it that you insist you are correct and anyone that contests your points is anti-american, or slamming your country and offending you?

          My suggestion is that if such innocent comments that when taken into a completely different context upset you, why are you here and not living in a protective bubble?

          Have others told me I offend them by saying that people outside of the USA often see Americans as arrogant? Not that I’ve seen, except from yourself.

          Have others told me I am anti-American and I am slandering their good name? Not that I’ve seen, except from yourself.

          So again Max, why is it that you insist you are correct and anyone that contests your points is anti-american, or slamming your country and offending you?

          Perhaps we need to have a bit of a sit down and rethink who we really are. I’ll help by saying you are NOT lady liberty, you are not GWB, you are not the White House administration.

          You are a mere man, a mortal. No different than myself, Julian, Colin, Mike or Joseph.

          You have an opinion, like myself, like Julian, Colin, Mike, like Joseph.

          You voice your opinion, like myself, like Julian, like Colin, like Mike, like Joseph.

          You defend your point like me, like Julian, like Mike, like Joseph.

          So how is it that you are being so offended or repressed, unlike myself, unike Julian, unlike Colin, unlike Mike, unlike Joseph?

          Here’s an idea, complain to GWB. He should offer you the same level of support that you offer him. Why he is you ’employer’ isn’t he? You chose him yourself didn’t you? If he showed you even small portion of the respect you show him, he would be happy to speak with you, and probably explain your devotion is just a tad overkill. He would probably also ask you to listen to both sies and actually understand why people say what they do and possibly how to read and understand a little better.

          YOU start these little rants, YOU don’t let them die, YOU fuel the hatred toward yourself, YOU ARE YOUR WORST ENEMY.

      • #2727493

        The old saying about statistics…

        by cactus pete ·

        In reply to Some OUTSTANDING results

        What was not included in the results were the terrorist bombings, etc in Iraq. They were considered aimed against an army, and therefore do not qualify.

        So, if the aim is to concentrate terrorists into non-civilian, non-Amirican areas, then I suppose it’s truly down. But you can count it however you wish…

        • #2727472

          And you can call an apple an avocado

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to The old saying about statistics…

          To attack a standing Army, in the sense as one exists in Iraq, is contrary to the accepted definition of terrorism.

          Some people may believe that the Earth revolves around the Moon, but that doesn’t make it so. And if you want to count an opposition in the armed conflict in Iraq as terrorist attacks, well, I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree.

          I can’t help but think, however, that you’re splitting hairs a dozen or more times.

          If you really believe what you suggest, why don’t you just come right out and say so, instead of playing some word game?

        • #2733877

          No games

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to And you can call an apple an avocado

          I’m just pointing out the other sides of things. You often do not include your personal beliefs when throwing out information – I think you can afford me the same luxury.

          That bit of information was, in my opinion, important for people to know when considering the facts and drawing their conclusions.

          It is easy to flood others with tons of information, but to argue your side of it within the bounds of context – why that’s how you can change minds.

    • #2666746

      His guts, our soldiers blood

      by worker bee ·

      In reply to President Bush – A Profile in Courage

      Well Hurrah, Hurrah. Bring it on. Mission accomplished. We will fight to the last man. We will choke their rivers with our dead, that’ll show em. After all those marines are just a bunch of expendable green plastic army men to our profile in courage president.

      Bush will have no more success in bringing democracy to Iraq than Clinton did in bringing democracy to Haiti. We should just pull out and let those savages have their dammned civil war, and since they don’t have any weapons of mass destruction we should give them some so they can kill as many of each other as possible.

      • #2666743

        Reply To: President Bush – A Profile in Courage

        by nd_it ·

        In reply to His guts, our soldiers blood

        These are the types of comments that hurts our military men and women, not Iraqi isurgents or other terrorists. These men and women are in harm’s way and do their duty no matter whether they agree with the politicians in Washington. As a brother of a Army Ranger, I am VERY proud or our military and resent the comment that they are just expendable green men. They need our support, DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY. Thank you US military!

        • #2666678

          Lets See Here

          by worker bee ·

          In reply to Reply To: President Bush – A Profile in Courage

          Ok, so continuing to shove our soldiers into that meat grinder is “supporting” them while pulling them out of that hellhole would be “not supporting” them. If you feel so grateful to the U.S. military perhaps you would consider allowing them to live? I personally believe that the “Iraqi people” are not worth one drop of American blood. How about you?

          This week I spent some time supporting a network in a rural area. Listening to the users talk about family friends and relatives serving in Iraq and comparing notes as to when they last heard from them really brought home to me that real people’s lives are at stake. It is too bad our president can’t seem to make the same connection.

        • #2666658


          by nd_it ·

          In reply to Lets See Here

          So we should have pulled out of Europe and the Pacific during WWII then? Because that was a hellhole too. No matter where war is waged, big or small, it is hell, and our troops need our support whether we agree with why we are there our not, they need to know we are behind them all the way.

        • #2727572

          In the middle

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Lets See Here

          I don’t think you could or should pull out now. THat would be the most detrimental move made by the US to date.

          I DO feel tht these people who bravely support the clown with the biggest shoes were being sent to die a little prematurely though, MANY less would have dies if this truly was an allied effort from the start and not just some hasty grudge the president boiled up. Can you imagine how successful this would have been with full Allied military at the door? It’s inevitable that less lives would have been lost, you were pretty much trading 1 for 1 for a while?

          I agree though that the pres need some help of institutional kind. How many Germans supported Hitler thinking he was the righteous one and was saving them from certain doom?

          A hitler refernece in the same paragraph with GWB always riles the masses, don’t miss that one next time.

        • #2727559

          Reply To: President Bush – A Profile in Courage

          by nd_it ·

          In reply to In the middle

          I also feel that pulling out now would by disasterous for the Iraqi people. I don’t think we could win either way. We are viewed as occupiers now by many, but if we just pack up and leave, they think we have abondoned them. Some people think it is okay for us to leave and let them fight themselves, how many more innocent Iraqi’s will die as a result? We need to stay the course no matter what kind of person is in the White House. I just wish one of one them would give me a clear cut plan for what they are going to do. Kerry has spent too much time debating something that happened 30 years ago, tell me how you are going to improve the economy. I wasn’t alive 30 years ago, could have cared less what Kerry did (unless it was some henious thing) I want to know what he is going to do for the next four years.

          I agree that an allied campaign would have been a better approach. I think Bush was looking for a fight after 9/11 and took his posse to the OK Corrall and beging to start shooting the bad guys. I am disappointed however with the UN. Not against it, just disappointed. I think they passed resoltution after resolution without anything getting accomplished, we had to act. I just wish we did have more friends, more of which are becoming our enemies, for which I am sorry for as well, to assist us.

        • #2727542

          For the war last year no….

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to In the middle

          In terms of a warfighting campaign, the American forces are the best equipped and best trained. I’m not sure what contributions other countries could have made. And as in Aghanistan, there are often problems when you have too many players involved, in terms of the efforts in co-ordination.

          Where more participation would have been helpful is in peacemaking/peacekeeping. Canada, for example, has been involved in every major UN peacekeeping initiative. Our troops have extensive experience in it, are well trained, and can and do train other forces in it as well. But right now, we are stretched with our deployment in Aghanistan.

          But its hard to go to the UN and ask for help when many in the Bush admin called the UN, and major players on the security council irrelevant. Hard to undo some of the things said and done.

          I don’t see a good way out here. If a rapid pullout happens, civil war may happen too, and we know from experience civil war is the bloodiest type of conflict. You have a Shia majority who have been out of power for decades, a Sunni minority who are used to controlling the country, and the Kurds who have been relatively independant since the first gulf war, and who would resist any attempts to impose a “Baghdad” government over them.


        • #2727537


          by nd_it ·

          In reply to For the war last year no….

          Now Bush is trying to lobby the UN into a peacekeeping role. I don’t know if the damage can be undone. Some US forces in Iraq are trained for warfare and combat, not so much peacekeeping missions, that is where the UN needs to be involved, and I think Bush said the hell with you, we are going it alone. We can obviously wage war by ourselves, but conducting peace is a whole another thing, more have to be involved.

        • #2727517

          I think that was the reason for the lack of support

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Peacekeeping

          A major reason others didn’t join the initial invasion was because they feared it would be a long resolve if not conducted properly.

          They KNOW they are going to be policing and occupying Iraq for a long time and simply wanted a more tactical aproach to the situation. GWB ignored the request and basically said ‘F all of you and the UN’ so he went in alone, with your family in front of him of course. THIS is the ONLY issue I’ve ever contestd regarding this war, the reason for the knee jerk reaction and the haste of the decision to invade unsupported. Well luckily everyone else has joined in now and things are getting better, from the mixed opinions that we hear anyway.

        • #2727518

          No sure what other countries could have done

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to For the war last year no….

          Well firstly, the US Army relies heavily on Canada’s Coyote recon vehicles. They are faster, lighter and better equipped for recon than what the US offers.

          The British have extremely talented and dedicated Special Missions teams that were carrying out covert operations as the US kicked in the front door to Iraq. Remember the UK forces uncovered the mass graves, not the US.

          Every army has it’s strenghts and weaknesses. The US has strength in numbers more than anything else as we have seen in almost every battle they have fought, not to say the Armour and Weaponry is substandard, but numbers have helped immensely over the years beginning with WWII. Other countries fear fighting the US because the US can replenish it’s soldiers in a rotation so that they aren’t all wasted and too tired to fight after a few months.

        • #2727540


          by lostandfound3 ·

          In reply to In the middle

          I see us engaged for at least 2 years after an elected government is put in place. The big problem is that Iraq has no way of adequately defending itself.

          If we are going to ensure peace there, their military needs rebuilding and support from everyone. I am skepitcal that the U.N. is competent in doing this (what a suprise there), but what is needed is a way for international involvement to take place with visibility into the operations of what ever conceived operations. Even if the U.S. is in the lead, I believe there should be no exception to us. Even when we demand it from others.

        • #2727504

          Finish what we started

          by thechas ·

          In reply to Lets See Here

          Now that we have invaded Iraq and deposed of Saddam Husein, we need to stay and finish what we started.

          I was opposed to this war before it started. But, if we leave now, all the lives that have been lost will have been lost in vain. We need to support our troops, and stay until the people of Iraq are capable and ready to govern and protect themselves.

          The US has created many of our enemies because we left other conflicts without finishing the job. Or, because we supported a “cooperative” dictator rather than take a chance with a group of freedom fighters.

          If we leave Iraq too soon, Iraq will become another Iran. Ruled by religious extremists bent on teaching their followers to hate the United States and ALL non-believers.

          We would then have a worse situation than we had before. A situation that we would never be able to recover from. As the people of Iraq (and the rest of the world) would never trust the US to help them get rid of a ruthless dictator.


        • #2727471

          Walk Away

          by worker bee ·

          In reply to Finish what we started

          I was originally in favor of the war. There was plenty of evidence that Saddam had a huge stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and it seemed plausible that sooner or later he would give or sell them to terrorists to attack the United States. Now it is time to admit we made a mistake and get out.

          As for as what happens to the Iraqi people, I say we just let them to back to torturing and butchering each other. After all that seems to be the normal state of affairs in that part of the world. I think that it is highly unlikely that Iraq would become another Iran. The Sunnis seem to know were all the weapon caches are and seem to know how to use them. Iraq would just go back to being what it was before the war, a backward country run by a bunch of murdering Sunni sociopaths but not a threat to the United States or the world as a whole.

          The mistake would be to stay and try to fix Iraq. Every day we stay there we spill more blood and treasure. Every day we stay our forces become more overstretched and fatigued and therefore our overall level of readiness goes down. Every day we stay our nation goes further into debt and therefore has less capacity to deal with future contigencies. Every day we stay we grow weaker. Our enemies all over the world see this and grow bolder. In other words, we are losing. The war on terror will be a long one and we cannot afford to squander our resources trying to bring peace and democracy to a people who don’t want it and won’t fight for it.

        • #2727293

          So, just make things worse?

          by thechas ·

          In reply to Walk Away

          A large part of the motivation behind many of the terrorist groups is the fact that the US has a record of getting things started and then leaving.

          If the US had stood consistently behind democratic regimes over the past 50 years, many of these terrorist groups would have little ability to incite a following.

          Yes, if we pull out now, the initial result will be a civil war in Iraq.
          Most likely followed by the neighboring countries coming in and grabbing border areas.

          The end result however would be renewed vigor for existing terrorist groups. And, a new group crop of terrorists from Iraq.

          Further, pulling out of Iraq would weaken our already fragile standing within the global diplomatic community.

          Another thought on the subject.
          If we pull out under the pressure of these small insurgent groups. We only serve to embolden the terrorist networks.

          I shudder to consider the consequences of having the terrorist groups believe that they forced us to leave Iraq.


        • #2727282

          Too late now

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to So, just make things worse?

          Well there’s no way that pulling out early would be a solution. You can’t simply walk away at this point.

          Pulling out early always leaves a mess to be cleaned up, usually not by the one who initiated it.

          With so many countries citizens in danger while still helping with the policing and providing aid to the starving and deperate in Afghanistan, (and that was somewhat successful as far as war goes I guess)can you imagine how many years of death and destruction such humanitarian efforts would face if left to finish up in Iraq?

          The fighting isn’t over yet and won’t be for some time. Hopefully the day will come where the numbers of troops needed will be fewer but at this point there is still an increasing demand for more troops and support from all those involved, which has now become a large allied force.

        • #2734067


          by nd_it ·

          In reply to Walk Away

          Regardless whether we made a mistake on WMD is irrelevant, we are there now, and pulling out would be a big mistake. Our troops need to stay focused at the task at hand, and don’t need to be told they are “losing”.

        • #2666639


          by lostandfound3 ·

          In reply to Reply To: President Bush – A Profile in Courage

          What is amazing to me is the amount people in the world that is apathic to the inherent evil that has spawned through out the world.

          I do not normally make any comments, rather I sit back and read. What I find is the incredible amount of ingnorance, arogance, and thoughtlessness that some of the individuals that are posting.

          I say kudos for those that are supporting Bush. I say kudos for those that are in the military that is over there fighting to keep to ensure that MY freedoms our secured.

          The only reason individuals outside of the US are against us is because they are jealous of our progress. They are jealous of our wealth. They are jealous of the abilities of a simple American citizen being able to work to achieve successes, when this individual can be anyone. This includes those that are the most berift of the luxuries that others have. They our jealous of our productivity. Most of all, they are jealous because we are the only reigning super power in the world that takes its responsibilities seriously.

          The reason why they are against us is because they want to see us fail. We have not failed. They want to see us become a poor third world nation. Our economy is in a recovery and we are stronger than ever.

          If everybody sees the United States as a country of decadence and debauchary, then why is it that millions of individuals seek to become citizens? Answer me that. This country has more opportunities to provide individuals with the basic freedoms that have been endowed by our creator to seek the necessities to establish a stable family that will prosper and continue in perpetuity without worry of any other country or even our own government envenerating the strength and courage of the American spirit.

          For those whose nations that were built on peaceful terms, I say that is fabulous that you and your countrymen were able to do this. However, we have had to continue fighting to earn our place in the world.

          When the day comes when your country faces the crisis that occured on 9/11, will fight to make sure that an incident like this again, or will you turn tail and run like cowards like the current Prime Minister of Spain. I am not saying that the Spanish people are not couragous in their own right, but their government is building a policy of appeasement that has never worked. This can be proved throughout history. Take more recent events: World War II. It was through appeasement by Chamberlin that Hitler became the menace to the whole of Europe and the world. Threating to wipe out entire populations of Gypsies, homosexuals, and, most of all, Jews. Do you honestly think that a radicall Islamist is going to be sane enough to negotiate peace with? Personally I think if they want to die for Allah, I say we help them along by taking the battle to them; rather than sitting our our hands, fearing the next attack.

          It is absolutely deplorable how even certain members of my own government don’t get it. Take Senator Ted “where’s my pants” Kenedy, House Rep Jim McDermmot, House Rep Nacy Pelosi, Senator Tom “little general” Daschel, Senator Robert “KKK” Byrd, and presidentail nominee Senator John “Mr. Heinz” Kerry (gigalo extrodinare). These people are doing more harm to our troops than ever by the statements they make that what is even realize. They are giving aid and comfort to our enemies, for whom swore to fight us to the bitter end. They lift the morale of our enemies by showing that there are those in our country who do not support the effort. This makes them more hardened and more determined to not surrender or negotiate. Kennedy said that this ware is, “George Bush’s Vietnam.” Well if that is the case I say to him that is because YOU are responsibile for turning the coflict that way by not shutting you fat, bloated, drunk mouth you hypocrite. These individual exemplify treason at its finest.

          I am I calling these fine (snicker) individuals treasonists. Yes I am. As long as they continue to give aid and comfort to our enemies, thereby putting our men and women in uniform in greater harms way, they are treasonists. And I am willing to expand this conjecture further by saying, that those that support these representatives are treasonists as well and should be ashamed of themselves.

          We fought for our freedoms. MY country has the tendancy to not realize how wonder full we have it here and are apathetic to the world around us. It is time we wake up and realize that in order for us to survive as a nation, we must fight for what is right, and support those who are oppressed, tortured, maimed, and killed because of the whims of a mad man.

        • #2727616


          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Kudos

          If an American does not agree with your views, they are a fat bloated drunk mouth hypocritical treasonist? So much for the freedom you speak of..

        • #2727605

          Not Exactly

          by lostandfound3 ·

          In reply to So…

          Just as you are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine. Mr. Kenedy is entitled to his, but because he is a public figure he should be more responsilbe for the words he uses.

          With freedoms comes responsiblities use those freedoms wisely. Exercising your rights to free speech is very important, whether or not you agree with my statements. The likewise is true, and I am willing to presume that individuals, such as yourself are careless about what you say.

          As human beings, we stand above all creatures on the planet because we have the abilities the think, show emotion creatively, logically reason (for most of us–in case you are to simple minded to understand the comment, this is an opinion), and the ability to manipulate the environment around us (for good or bad).

          As responsible individuals in a civilized society it is our duty AND responsiblity to act in a manner that overturns the barbarism that is pervasive through out the globe.

          If you refuse to acknowlege this simple fact, then I pray that one day that you will eventually get it.

          I do not force my opinions on others. I call it like it is. If you don’t like it tough. The same can be said to me, as well.

          I do not need government to how to run my life, and I rather not. If you have not guess, I am a contractor for the government, and I personally thank God on a daily basis for the inefficiencies inherent in the system. It is some members in our own goverenment, people apathetic as yourself, and other individuals through out the world that threatens this. To them, I rather see them defeated than to be in an area of influence. It is them that got us into this mess to begin with, like it or not.

          Take some responsiblity for the freedoms you exercise, or else one day freedoms that you are so condesending about, and freely exercise, will exist no more.

        • #2727594

          I want to make sure I understand this..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Not Exactly

          Okay, I am careless about my words, I am condescending about my freedom, yet you are the one who resorts to school yard name calling. Fat bloated drunk mouth..I’m not sure I know what a drunk mouth is? Wouldn’t the WHOLE person be drunk, not just the mouth? And another thing, you are a frightening person, you realize this, right? I sincerely hope you don’t own any weapons. (Although, I am willing to bet that you are a gun owner).

        • #2727587

          With people like you

          by lostandfound3 ·

          In reply to I want to make sure I understand this..

          As a matter of fact, I do not own a gun. I do not really like the things myself. However, people are entitled to defend themselves in the face of an attack, especially when they have not been provoked.

          We did not start this. But we sure are going to finish it. It is a terrible shame that the manner of resolution could not be accomplished by peaceful terms, but when you are dealing with psychopaths there is no negotiating. These monsters understand only one thing, brute force. If they will not negotiate, and I quote from a European general for who I cannot recall is name right now, “Kill them all, God will know his own.”

          Again, if you don’t like what I am saying tough.

          If you think I am going to sit idle and let like minded individuals destroy what we, as a nation, built for the last two hundred and twenty-eight (228) years, then you have another thing coming. You have hijacked this nation long enough and it is time the good people around the country stand up for the values that we all believe in. If you don’t like the country I live in, stay out I don’t want you here corrupting our way of life; or if you are current citizen, find a country that will you can better identify with your political beliefs and become a citizen there (good riddence).

          And with people like you in the world, I may just take you up on your suggestion of getting a gun. Simply to protect myself and my family and other people I care about from the likes of YOU.

          If I scare the Hell out of you, good. Be frightened. For the kingdom of God is at hand. Those who support wickedness will swept away with the rest of the chaffe in to the fire, while the grains will be collected and stored in His silo.

        • #2727558

          Can yuo at least try to make sense

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I want to make sure I understand this..

          It would really be helpful if you didn’t come across as a patriotic American and a sick individual at the same time. You raise some interesting concerns (nothing new but interesting all the same) and then screw it up by elaborating on your comments. If your post was shorter you might have some credibility left.

          You said “…defend themselves in the face of an attack.”

          Now which ‘attack’ are you referring to?

        • #2727570


          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Not Exactly

          And here I’ve always thought that I was an open minded, reasonably intelligent, kind person..when all along, I’ve been the corruptor of an entire nation, just because I may not (or may, I didn’t really say) agree with your particular point of view. As far as your suggestion that I leave the country, thanks..but I think I’ll stay. And vote and retain my opinions about the way I would like to see MY country progress.

        • #2727560

          On a lighter note

          by lostandfound3 ·

          In reply to Wow..

          Well you know my types: I like my 4 rods to a hogs head, and that is the way I likes them!

          I have stated in my other posts, I am a victim of letting emotion get the better of me, and I would like to apologize. Whether you accept this or not, thats up to you. Besides, instead of ridiculing each other ( I admitt I started it this time), we should both hope to that our country progresses.

          We both share a common ideal, we both have a love for our country (I tend to show mine bit more than others). So, I propose we start acting like a single people keeping the intrest of allowing progress to occur, and work together in providing solutions. Lets get rid of the scare tactics and develop an honest solution, with no regards to party affiliation. We should both share an interest of securing ourselves so that we both prosper and the world prospers. We cannot achieve this without some consideration for both our point of views.

          I started it and I’ll close it. I repeat my humble appologies. Since this gets read by everyone in this discussion, I cannot hide from it.

          I think many of the readers agree that our leaders, Democrat and Republican, should work to solving problems together. Those individuals should not shove things down another throat, while others should not breed fear and dissent that provides hope for those we are trying to we are trying to overcome.

          Working together good… (Your friendly neighborhood barbarian).

        • #2727556

          Don’t you know better by now?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Wow..

          C’mon maecuff! You are a free person who is allowed to express herlsef however she feels, that’s your freedom. Just make sure it coincides with everyone else’s opinion though or you will be a traitor.

        • #2727555

          well, you’re no fun anymore..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Wow..

          Apology accepted. Hopefully, you still don’t want to shoot me. I promise that I will never endanger your family.

        • #2727553

          Just living up to sterotypes

          by lostandfound3 ·

          In reply to Wow..

          BTW: I don’t want to shoot anybody. I can still be fun, I just need to stay in check!

        • #2727543

          Good to know.

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Wow..

          Good luck staying in check. I’d hate to see you end up in a fiery silo.

        • #2727496

          maucuff – May I have a word with you?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Wow..

          And the word is “too funny”. (Okay, two words.)

          Although you and I disagree on an issue or two (but we’re probably closer in principle than we might think), I sure do like your sense of humor.

        • #2727491

          You can have all the words you want

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Wow..

          Actually, I think we might disagree on many subjects, but I do respect your opinions, if for no other reason, they are well thought out and supported by mucho documentation..although, as we both know, supporting documentation can be dug up to support just about any arguement. And thank you for not wanting to shoot me. It’s a comfort.

        • #2727475


          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Wow..

          I don’t own a gun either.

        • #2727443

          That’s good

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Wow..

          I think they are terribly ugly. I know..I know..we have the right to bear arms. I don’t understand why, when sooo many people are killed by hand guns. It really isn’t necessary. We’re forced to wear seat belts, the government tries (and fails) to protect people against illegal drug use, smoking is banned in many public places because second hand smoke is bad for us.. but guns..go ahead, have a few. It doesn’t make sense. But then again, sometimes bare arms don’t make sense either..

        • #2727438

          maecuff – on guns

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Wow..

          As I said, I don’t own one, but I don’t think gun ownership should be prohibited. (Don’t want to get into the “gun” discussion, however.) But think of the overall lunacy connected with that issue. And Columbine is a perfect example of skewed and crazy thinking. (I live only a few miles from Columbine High School, by the way, and personally know the family of one of the victims.)

          On one hand, there’s a movement to restrict handgun ownership and/or the right to carry one. Let law enforcement protect you, they will say. And most law enforcement agencies, agreeing with that sentiment, support restricted ownership and/or carry laws. Okay, fine and dandy. Go ahead and protect us. But on the other hand, can they really “protect” us?

          Police call – shots fired at Columbine High School. First officers on the scene told to wait outside for backup to arrive (standard procedure, I suppose). Pow, pow – more shots fired. All officers on the scene told to wait for a field officer to arrive – wait who’s in charge here, the city or the county? Pow, pow, pow – more shots fired, students fleeing. Dozens of officers on the scene told to wait for an assessment of what they were facing. Pow, pow pow – more shots fired, still no officers inside the building. The lives of the officers must be protected. Pow, pow, pow – we don’t want any dead officers.

          Wait a minute, I thought they were there to “protect”? Why didn’t they enter the building, yes, putting their lives on the line, when they first arrived to “protect”? Why didn’t they “protect”?

          What if that dead teacher had a handgun instead? (Not that I’m suggesting guns in school is a good idea, but I’m not suggesting it isn’t either.)

          The next Columbine might be in a shopping mall or restaurant. If I’m in that restaurant, I’ll sure pray that the guy at the next table has a handgun, because I know that by the time “law enforcement” arrives, waits for backup, assesses the situation, decides who’s in charge, and protects themselves first and foremost, we may all be dead. We do indeed have a right, perhaps even an obligation, to protect ourselves.

        • #2727437

          so close..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Wow..

          We really almost agree. I agree that the police should have been there to PROTECT. I’d like to see more police do what they are paid to do, instead of using their power to intimidate. I think the only group that abuse their position more than the police are teachers. (And before I hear from the police and the teachers, I am not saying ALL or even MOST abuse their positions..but you have to admit, they are in a position to do so, and some do)

          Columbine was tragic, I can’t imagine living through that nightmare, but instead of hoping the guy next to me has a handgun to protect me in case some nutcase is shooting the place up, wouldn’t it be better for the nutcase to NOT have a gun in the first place?

        • #2727590

          “The Ugly American”

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Kudos

          I am of course referring to the excellent book and ok movie, but its amazing how it applies to this post.

          If you don’t agree with the last poster’s opinion you are either an apathetic ignorant foreigner who is jealous of the US or if you are an american you are a traitor.

          In a democracy, we have to have a certain level of respect for the opinions of others, else we end up with the “Tyranny of the majority”. Its a fool and a tyrant who believe that only they know the truth.

          I for one am happy to be where I am(Canada). I have had the chance to move to the states, and turned it down, despite the fact I would have been economically better off. This isn’t to say that I hate America or Americans. But I am glad they aren’t all of the same mindset as Aggie.

          Wake up and smell the coffee as Ann Landers would say. There are happy, economically prosperous people all over the world living in democracies. They have the right to have their own opinions. They may not share you point of view, but that doesn’t make them ignorant. The same for the democrats you and Anne Coulter call traitor. If you don’t have opposition you don’t have democracy.


        • #2727578

          How about the Tyranny of the Minority?

          by lostandfound3 ·

          In reply to “The Ugly American”

          With all due respect, forgive me if I insinuated that you were ignorant in any way shape or form. If you are responding obviously you have a clue as to what is going on.

          Respectfully, I agree, there must be a balance. Just because I hold the beliefs that I have, does not mean I do not want to hear the other side. It is good to have a check on the majority to ensure smaller groups are not simply railroaded.

          In previous posts, I have been seethingly angry and have let my emotions get the better part of me. After all I too am fallable. It is for that reason a check is good to make sure raving lunatics, such as myself (you can go ahead and laugh at this–I got a sense of humor too), in balance with the rest of society.

          I express deep concern that the majority is being squelched with the likes of the minority. There is no compromising going on to better things. Its frustrating as Hell when you believe you are doing the right thing and your next door neighbor kicks you in the teeth. Any further posts I make I will tone it down. I know it has gotten out of hand and I have cooled down a bit, please forgive me.

          When you sit and pay attention to all that is going around you. In your heart you believe you are doing right, when some body decides, instead of talking rationallay, goes on a series of diatribes against you (I am at fault for this). However, remember that the form of government that the United States has is not a PURE DEMOCRACY. We are a Representative Governement with a federalist system in place.

          With that said, I want to hear and I want to learn. Remember it goes both ways. The majority interest is the rule day, but that does not mean the minority, and at times, dissenting opinion will not be heard.

          Before I submit, I humbly (spelling?) appologize for words spoken in anger. But would you be angry too if some consistently described every effort, every action, and every move as being acts of evil? I think you would…

        • #2727569

          Thanks for the thoughful reply.

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to How about the Tyranny of the Minority?

          I understand where you are coming from. I am not perfect either, though often when I get angry, I find it helpful to comppose a scathing reply and then delete until I’ve calmed down.

          The challenge you raise is that you feel that you are right and the people who are wrong are wrong to challenge you. But this is the essense of democracy. Of course its bad when it degenrates into name calling and away from constructive discourse. Of course there are many issues where this happens – its not Iraq, its every war, and things like capital punishment, abortion, and other issues which tend to vear away from dialogue and move into rhetoric, and then into charecter assasination(and in the case of abortion, people assasination).

          There does come a time when you have to accept what is, and move on – especially if you are on the “losing” side. You can’t win every time, and you should try and pick your battles. Myself, I find sometimes I would rather abandon an argument where I am never going to change a mind than to frustrate myself battering my head against a wall.

          James Linn

        • #2727565

          I Concur

          by lostandfound3 ·

          In reply to Thanks for the thoughful reply.

          Let me make amends on this one point. I have people believing I am a gun totting luntatic from Texas. I really do not fit this profile at all. In fact, this has to be the first time I have let people know how I am feeling and thinking.

          You can’t win them all, but you sure as Hell can try!

        • #2727567

          I think what you meant..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to How about the Tyranny of the Minority?

          is.. I HAVE a sense of humor. You’ll sound less like an ignorant psychopath if you improve your grammar.

          (you can go ahead and laugh at this–I got a sense of humor too)

        • #2727557


          by lostandfound3 ·

          In reply to I think what you meant..

          You’re right. I generally read through the first time before I send things. I been, lets say, trigger happy?

        • #2727545

          Not Very PC Title

          by lostandfound3 ·

          In reply to “The Ugly American”

          Any way we can change that to:

          The Image-Sending Impaired American


          The Not-so-beautiful/handsome American

          ???? lol!

        • #2727531

          The book was written in the 50s

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Not Very PC Title

          I highly recommend it. Despite the non-PC title.

          The movie gets the point across , but less subtly.


        • #2727463

          A hearty welcome to TR, James Linn

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to “The Ugly American”

          Boy, is it hard to find objective statements in these political discussions. Please overlook my sarcastic posting to you in the “Iraqgate” discussion. I was just sick of the whole stupid thing, and I will refrain from reading all the postings in the current discussion.

          I just read yours, to see your views as a new contributor. I wouldn’t dignify this discussion by reading all of it.

          Once again: welcome and thank you.

        • #2727460

          Right – don’t read all of it – so you can. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to A hearty welcome to TR, James Linn

          …then comment on some more things you haven’t read.

          And on knowing what an objective statement really is, you are so far removed from being objective, that you wouldn’t know one if it jumped up and bit you in the derriere. Your definition of “objective”, in regards to Bush and the USA, is this. If someone says that Bush is a terrible president, you call that “objective”. If someone calls Bush anything close to a good president, you call them slanted.

          Go figure.

        • #2727411

          I can only attempt…

          by lostandfound3 ·

          In reply to Right – don’t read all of it – so you can. . . .

          …to be nearly as articluate as the supports of President Bush and the effort, even when I occasionally insert foot in mouth.

          But what can I say, I guess I will have to settle on being your lovable, over-patriotic, over-zelous, white trash, red neck (not gun toting) from the great state of Texas in what I think and believe is the greatest country on the face of the earth, the U.S.

          Living up to liberal sterotypes can be very exhausting. Do you guys mind if can take a few of these responsibilities off or combine them. For example, can I combine white trash and red neck for senseless arrogant hick. It kind of has a more catchy flare about it. Makes me feel more welcomed in political discussions. It helps me understand that my opinions have no weight because I am just as stupid as the president that I voted for, and will vote again for (oh well I am so fallible, when will this simple-minded Republican ever learn, gee whiz). I guess I lack gravitas, or some Frenchie world like that.

          Oh, Oh!!! Can I be a big fat liar also. I think my goal in life has changed. I want to be called a big fat liar by Al Franken. Why should Rush Limbaugh have all of the good sterotypes? Well, shucks.

          Don’t forget, us uneducated, salt of the earth, religious fanatics want to do nothing more than see the elderly die and starve school children. Another thing, I like my air and water filthy. I want to get cancer and die a painfull and horrible death. Gee, I cannot wait for that!!!

          Let me see what else did my simpleton mind leave out, hmmm…. Oh yeah, I want to make tax the poor out of existence, so that wealthy people can keep all of their money. Its not like they own businesses that provide jobs for the majority of middle class. Don’t forget the medical benefits too.

          I have erred, sorry Max, we have been blind and wrong for so long. We need a government that takes 100% of our paycheck, and gives us back what it thinks we can have. After all, its the governments money, not the peoples. How selfish of me, I am an insensitive goon.

          Well since I am stupid and uneducated, I need to be indoctrinated into programs that help me find myself, to better diversfy my outlook in life. I need SENSITIVITY TRAINING!!!!! I am too much male for anyone to handle, so I need to go and learn how to be a little girl. There I go again being insensitive!!! Gee whiz, when will us wascally wepublicalns evwer learn, he, he he.

          Oh yeah, just because I think abortion is murder of an unborn child, makes me an insensitive clod to women’s rights. Let me see, my wife has the same feeling I do on this. Does this mean my wife needs to be reprogrammed to think more like a feminist? And I need, again, more SENSITIVTY TRAINING???!!!

          I guess I should apologize for holding these deep seeded moral and ethical beliefs. Oh wait, fixed morals and ethics in a realtive moralistic and ethical world? What am I to do? Poor me. I guess I am victim of being a brain numb Republican robot who has the inability to make judgements for myself. OOPs did I say judgements, can’t be judgemental in society today, that could get me in trouble!!!!

          Besides why do I need to think when we have a bevy of leaders in the world and U.S. who would love to tell me how my life should be run. You now when I can or cannot use the facilities, and when I do what size toilet I can use. Can’t use those rusty trusty 1.6 gallon tanks anymore, its agains the law!!!!! :))

          I promise to do better at being my sensitive to others feeling. I also promise the first chance, I will strive to become a lock-step democrat voter, honest! That way I will never have to think for myself again, because BIG BROTHER will always be there to tell me how to think, what to do, how to do it, and what to do with (which can be painful at time without the astroglide).

          Does this make me a male prostitute? or as the kids call it now: manwhore? (for those who are older I think the term is gigalo, correct me if I am wrong, wait I am always wrong so correct me anyway).

          Oh BTW: I promise to twist the facts and help to cover up what might be potentially damaging for interest of the democrat party. After all we don’t want anyone to know we are so fractionalized because be literally became the party of all special interests. I will fight for the rights of the MINORITY TYRANNY. After all the majority of individuals just want us all to get sick and die from strange diesease that Repbulicans have been figthing against for years.

          Oh, don’t forget I too believe ex-cons that have violent felonies on their record should have the right to own guns. While Joe American should not own a gun and should not vote, the insensitive clod. After do we really want Joe American to defend himself or should BIG BROTHER save the day again!!

          I will convert promise, and when I do can I be trained to be a seminar caller for a lot of these wicked conservative talk shows? I really would like to give them an earful, even though its lying to them, but meerly looking at the issue from a different angle!!

        • #2727338

          Your SUBJECTIVE view …

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Right – don’t read all of it – so you can. . . .

          You’d better look it up in the dictionary Max, because this is the only type of viewpoint of which you appear capable.

          Perhaps you can explain why your blatantly subjective view has any more validity than my “objective” view?

          Now you have read lots of postings about Australian politics in many discussions. Perhaps you would care to present an objective view of the Australian political scene … without the help of your friend Google, that is. Are you actually capable of having an original opinion?

          Actually I think your President would be considerably embarrassed if he knew the vitriolic comments that you throw around in his defence.

          I have NEVER heard George Bush or anyone in the top echelon of the administration defend America with the kind of caustic comments on which you seem to depend.

          So why don’t you at least try and emulate the manners of your revered President?

        • #2727329

          Your SUBJECTIVE statement

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Right – don’t read all of it – so you can. . . .

          You’d better look it up in the dictionary, Max, because it appears to be the only kind of viewpoint of which you are capable.

          You might like to explain why your “subjective” viewpoint is more valid than my “objective” viewpoint.

          As there has been considerable input about Australian politics in many discussions, perhaps you would care to make an objective comment on the political scene in Australia — without of course the aid of you friend Mr Google. In fact, have you ever had an original thought?

          Actually I think your President would be embarrassed if he knew the type of vitriolic comments you throw around in his defence.

          I have never heard George Bush, or any of the top echelon of the administration, resort to the caustic comments which are your trademark. As I observe him on TV he is always positive, cheerful, optimistic and shrugs aside any criticism with ease.

          Perhaps the very least you could do would be to try and emulate the manners of your revered President.

        • #2727327

          Your SUBJECTIVE statement

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Right – don’t read all of it – so you can. . . .

          You’d better look it up in the dictionary, Max, because it appears to be the only kind of viewpoint of which you are capable.

          You might like to explain why your “subjective” viewpoint is more valid than my “objective” viewpoint.

          As there has been considerable input about Australian politics in many discussions, perhaps you would care to make an objective comment on the political scene in Australia — without of course the aid of you friend Mr Google. In fact, have you ever had an original thought?

          Actually I think your President would be embarrassed if he knew the type of vitriolic comments you throw around in his defence.

          I have never heard George Bush, or any of the top echelon of the administration, resort to the caustic comments which are your trademark. As I observe him on TV he is always positive, cheerful, optimistic and shrugs aside any criticism with ease.

          Perhaps the very least you could do would be to try and emulate the manners of your revered President.

        • #2727307

          Julian – To answer your questions

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Right – don’t read all of it – so you can. . . .

          I suppose you’re right, I do tend to be a bit more, shall we say, blunt in my ramblings or writings, or whatever it may be. Would President Bush be the same way, you ask? Absolutely not. He’s too much of a seasoned politician, and he’s a much better leader than I could ever hope to be. I couldn’t get elected to anything. If someone asked, for example, what will you do for me in exchange for my vote? I’d say not a damn thing. Get off your duff and take personal responsibility and stop expecting your elected officials to guarantee equality of outcome. If I had to say one thing that I’d do, it would be to get the government of your way so you can have life, liberty and pursue happiness, however that person may define it. No, I’d never be elected.

          But that is primarily in the context of domestic issues. In the arena of foreign policy, I don’t know any more about “the real story” than I read in the paper. Sure, a person can try to remain informed, as I try to be. Absolutely, a person can try to become educated in such matters, as I try to be. But I don’t meet foreign leaders. I don’t know what goes on behind the closed doors of foreign embassies. I’m not privy to intelligence information. And in the case of current circumstances, I trust President Bush and Secretary of State Powell to act on my behalf, and to make decisions that I am not qualified to make, and to do what they deem necessary to defend our Constitution ” against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. (And please don’t twist that into something that was not intended.) You and I are no different, I might suspect, as to our access to “inside information” in regards to foreign policy.

          On Australian politics, I’ll have to plead ignorance. Who would I support? Whichever person and/or party that believes in smaller government, less taxes, taking personal responsibility, individualism instead of collectivism, maintaining a strong national defense, and one who puts the interest of my country before the interests of another (or the collective and inept United Nations). That pretty much sums it up. If I was pretty sure that his or her core principles were in line with mine, as described above, even if I would happen to not personally like that person for whatever reason, that’s who I would support.

          In your current election, who would that be? I really don’t know. Perhaps you can tell me.

        • #2727302

          Objective – Subjective – Biased – Slanted – Whatever

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Right – don’t read all of it – so you can. . . .

          Whatever you think may be the case with you or me, or anyone else, for that matter, building one’s opinions based on a core set of principles can be the most telling. Believing in individualism instead of collectivism, for example, most generally puts me in support of the conservative (Republican) side, instead of the liberal (Democrat) side of an issue. Does that mean I’m biased, or does that mean that I’m true to my principles? Does that mean I can’t be objective? Everything I do, and anything I support will fall in line with those core set of values – those principles – and I’ll just let the chips fall where they may. (I’ve touched on what those are in a couple of other messages, so I won’t repeat them.)

          Whether we’re looking at Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, you or me, or whomever, it’s very telling to know where they’re coming from. Ann Coulter, for example, is as far to the right as Michael Moore is to the left. The difference, however, is that Coulter will admit it, while Moore dances around it. The same can be said for anyone.

          What are your core set of values, your principles? Be specific, but be brief, and we can all reveal our own “biases”. Admitted biases are good, but being evasive is not. And being true to your principles does not mean that you can’t be objective. Or does it?

        • #2727324

          For Aggie99LH

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to A hearty welcome to TR, James Linn

          I can see where you’re coming from, but I don’t think anyone has suggested that someone who is anti-Bush must then necessarily subscribe to all the Democrat policies.

          While the policies of the American Republican Party are closely mirrored in the Australian Liberal/National Coalition, such a comparison can not be made between your Democrat Party and our Labor Party.

          Believe me, I empathise with you in not having a viable alternative to vote for. As a centrist with a slight leaning to the left, I would certainly have a problem with choosing between the two major American parties.

        • #2734095

          For Jul646

          by lostandfound3 ·

          In reply to For Aggie99LH

          First a suggestion. You may want to change your profile name from your email to something else. Of course if you want people emailing you. I got this suggestion earlier and I thought it was a good idea.

          Next, what we in America are facing is the ‘lesser of two evils’ scenario. I do like Bush because of many of his policies, and I’ll admit bias in my decision. Kerry, on the other hand, has a suspicious voting record during his time in the U.S. Senate. He is for one thing, but against it in the next week. What I find in the Democratic contender for our Presidental elections is a seemingly waivering stance on hard issues in the face of opposition. Let’s face it people respect leaders that stick to their principles whether or not they agree with the solutions. For me this defines the leader I would support.

          I am pretty sure you would agree with the philosophy. I understand there are times when a leader must change his mind. All I would ask of a leader is that he provides a rationale for the decision. I may agree. I may disagree. As long as the decsion was based on some sound rationale.

          The thing is that one of the ‘lesser evils’ has exhibited great conviction in the face of criticisim. The other seems to waffle or chooses not to take a stand and make a decision. What one would be the more appealing candidate, putting aside petty politics?

          I see where you are coming from and being from one end of the spectrum (and trying not to fall off the deep end), govenrment must maintain a balance to ensure the rights of all people are not infringed upon. I would ask my fellows across the isle for constructive criticism, but I get vitriolic personal bashing.

          It is all in the best for one’s country. Bitter setiment leads to personal attacks. This is what I reflected on this weekend. We have gotten off the topic of discussing the merits and flaws of issues, and how leaders make decisions. There needs to be a refocus.

          Today there are those who are of the same mind and opinion those who despised Clinton when he was President. I didn’t like the guy’s character, leadership, moral principles, and most of all policies. I do not dislike the man, just his opinions. There were those who despised him regardless in the American Republican Party. Likewise, there are those in the Democrat party who are exhibiting the same behavior. All of this must come to an end in order to defend the interests of the country of the whole and promote progress.

        • #2734055

          Aggie FYI: First a suggestion.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to For Aggie99LH

          Not to nitpick but just to clarify.

          The issue with using an email address as an alias only really becomes a rpoblem if the website is bot crawled and addresses gathered for spam reasons.

          Julian actually has a couple of websites where he posts comment from these discussions as well as thought from many friends and members of TR. THe use of an email adderss is his way of providing as link for people to forward such information to, as many of TR’s members are also conributors to his various websites.

          The issue of gettnig peer mail is not a problem, they used to have a contact link for you to send a peer an email without knowing the recipients actual address. Well this, as with most of the useful portions of TR, has been screwed up and is no longer working, so many people will offer an email address for peer correspondence.

          I just wouldn’t use my primary domain’s email and open myself up to the junk. but, who cares?

        • #2727273

          My core set of values

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to A hearty welcome to TR, James Linn

          Firstly, thank your for your polite and thoughtful comments on my posting.
          I will try and list my core set of values:

          Ethically, I try to follow the teachings of Jesus, especially as outlined in The Sermon On The mount. This has been my goal for most of my life.
          I also borrow from Buddhism and Taoism to get different perspectives.
          I am totally open and honest, and will answer any question, no matter how personal, which anyone cares to address to me.

          This of course does not exclude me from giving sarcastic responses to anyone who casts unjustified aspersions on my character and integrity. While basically humble, I am certainly no door mat. ?God help anyone who puts s**t on Julian.? I will not accept other peoples? emotional baggage being projected onto myself.

          I try not to judge other people and to accept them as they are, and in no way attempt to impose my beliefs on them. One of my personal maxims is: ?nobody is perfect, least of all myself.?

          Politically I am not rigidly aligned to any ideology, however as the teachings of Jesus are primarily left-wing — looking after the poor and needy; sharing whatever I have with others; living one day at a time; not aspiring to accumulate material possessions ? and many other edicts, it would inevitably follow that my political leanings are towards the left.
          You would have to read the whole of Matthew chapters 5,6,7 and many other Biblical verses, to learn the extended set of ethics which I do my best to follow.

          Without giving a whole Bible lesson, while Jesus in no way condemns individual enterprise and wealth, he suggests strongly that attachment to material things is an impediment to spiritual growth. ?Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
          Matthew 6:34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day [is] the evil thereof.

          Politically, the two major parties in Australia cannot be compared directly with the American Republican and Democrat parties. The Australian Labor Party has produced many of Australia?s greatest Prime Ministers. While initially its primary goal was socialism, from the time Bob Hawke became Prime Minister in 1983, the party has moved so far to the centre that many people complain that you can?t tell one party from the other.

          Mark Latham is promising many radical changes to Labor policy which will distinguish it clearly from the Liberal Party, but without favouring the poor and disadvantaged over the wealthy. Howard has tried to turn Australia into an elitist society, with a marked division between rich and poor.

          So without posting a long essay I can say simply and accurately state that my core values come from the teachings of Jesus, St Paul, Gautama Buddha and Lao Tsu.

          While I may not live up to these precepts, these are the values which I try to follow.

        • #2734106

          Not really new…

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to A hearty welcome to TR, James Linn

          I will admit I’ve been away from TR for a while.

          I am back now because I have a new job leading a technical group, and I want to keep up with new issues.

          Maxwell was around back then.

          I did log on this morning to find my 5000 points have been reduced to 0.

          Not that the points mean anything to me anyway.



        • #2733957

          Yes, TR is really *%#@?$^ …….

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Not really new…

          I find it a very poor show when a website for computer professionals cannot produce a professional website.

          I happen to know that a certain TR member creates top-class websites, and I have suggested that he offer his serives to TR, with payment of, say, 100,000 tech points.

        • #2733895

          Points for technical contributions

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to Not really new…

          Fine, you want 100,000 to make this site sparkle? I’ll offer 100,000 of mine for it.

        • #2727562

          A live one!!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Kudos

          explain this comment please in detail.

          “…over there fighting to keep to ensure that MY freedoms our secured.”

          Look at this one Max, I told you these people wer here.
          “The only reason individuals outside of the US are against us is because they are jealous of our progress. They are jealous of our wealth. They are jealous of the abilities of a simple American citizen being able to work to achieve successes, when this individual can be anyone.”

          Perhaps you can explani to me exactly WHO is over there fighting YOUR war, don’t forget all the others.

          As for everyone wanting to become American citizens, you are speaking not of MOST of the world but most of the repressed world or thiose that have lived in poverty. I have never met a single Canadian that would rather live in America, most cringe at the thought.
          I COULD be an American citizen VERY easily, in fact easier than most but have no desire to.

          “rather than sitting our our hands, fearing the next attack.”
          Yes you ahve been listening to BUsh haven’t you, where did you get that sense of fear of attack from? Do you feel you were in line to be attacked? By what and whom? (you are simply digging a hole here you know)

          “or will you turn tail and run like cowards like the current Prime Minister of Spain.”

          “apatero vowed that fighting terrorism would be his first priority as he sets about creating an administration “that will work for peace.”

          “I am going to fight the violence that also is attacking other nations in this world,” he told reporters.

          For that he was asking for the support of the Spanish people, he said.

          “I want to create an alliance against violence and all kinds of terrorism,” he said. “I don’t want to create my own war.”

          So what for decideing that this should be a unified or alied effort and not a singular effort, Spain is now a bunch of “cowards”?
          What about the spanish military that is fighting alongside your own troops in Iraq?

          Conclusion, you have a very narrow and blind understanding that you are doing this alone and protecting yourself from ????? (you can fill in the blank) and yet blame those who ARE helping you in Iraq (30+ countries) for not showing up? Where were you in 1939 when the world went to war, without US support?

          Curled up in bed, hoping it never came your way.

          You are the exact type of typical Yank who gives the rest of Americans a bad name, you should not speak for your country if you are going to drag them in the mud as you do so.

          As for your “wonder full” country, it is a wonder how being constantly in harms way or going to war is considered freedom or wonder full.

        • #2727541

          I’m thinking a change of topic..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to A live one!!

          Would be a good thing.. so.. how ’bout them Giants?

        • #2727535

          I’m with you on that

          by lostandfound3 ·

          In reply to I’m thinking a change of topic..

          Don’t know, I am a Texans fan. Though we do kind of stink right now.

          Sounds like you are in New York. Don’t mean to light a fire over you (couldn’t help the pun), but with Roger Clemens and the rest of the pitching line up, I think the Astros may win something.

          Like we say here in Houston: If it get dreadfully cold and we see a blizzard the likes of the northeast, then Hell has frozen over and the Astros won the World Series!

        • #2727530

          Hell has frozen over I think

          by nd_it ·

          In reply to I’m with you on that

          I live up here in the Great White North, and it has been cold enough for hell to freeze, but the Vikings still haven’t won the Super Bowl 🙂

        • #2727528


          by maecuff ·

          In reply to I’m with you on that

          I’m not from New York and I don’t follow sports. I also enjoy Michael Moore. I am a democrat (although, I think we could have done MUCH better than John Kerry) and I would like nothing more than to see this war end. I have many opinions on many of these posts, however, taking the time to write them down wouldn’t change anyone’s views from theirs to mine and quite frankly, I wouldn’t want to. We’re different, we see things in a different way. That’s what makes us human.

        • #2727526

          Well what about

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I’m with you on that

          What about Vic Peters who’s Manitoba rink lost to Alberta in the Brier?

          Or those BC Lions (better still the BC Felions)?

          I can’t handle NFL my alarm keeps going off and waking me up, the hard part is when you have slept for an hour and they are still on the same down they were before, but the ball has changed hands 17 times in the process.

          Oh well, I won’t slag football I guess, you guys are pretty hooked on NFL there as well as the ‘Pumpkin slapping’ league.

          I don’t watch durling and lacross as many people would think but Lions games are fun and the babes are worth the price of beer (I wonder if they are or if it’s the price of beer that is justifies the women)? Nah, all the hotties are here that’s our one claim to fame.

          I guess nobody wants to talk kayaking or sailing. Golf is too personal. Baseball is too corrupt nowdays. I guess it’s the great GWB then, sigh. Oh well with any luck it won’t be for long. Then we can bitch about whoever the next moron is.:-)

        • #2727523

          Okay Oz

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to I’m with you on that

          Those topics are all boring too. Think of another one. Preferably one that won’t get me shot, deported or sent to the fiery silo.

        • #2727505

          End to War and Immigration

          by lostandfound3 ·

          In reply to I’m with you on that

          If you haven’t guessed (been sleepin’ or something :)) I am a Republican. And yes, you guys could have done better with your nominee, what does he stand for again? He changes his mind too much for my simple Angry White Male mind to follow. I guess I like my president like I like a lot of things in life: simple (lol). I too desire and end to this, but I would hope we can make the world a better place in the process. The very democracy that all of us here that gives us the right to ridicule each other, political figures, and other hair-brained morons (such as myself) should not be soley a right of the United States and most modern countries. Democracy, freedom, and liberty should be a right to everyone in the world regardless of ethnicity, nationality, or other reasons. Can we agree on that?

          What do you guys think about a homeland security plan that does not include effective controls on immigration? This is a big issue that I have against Bush, and I don’t mind B***hing about myself.

          I take the stance that illegal aliens, or as you guys call it now– undocumented workers, should be expelled and tighter security along our borders should be implemented. Furthermore, I would like to see a promotion for legal immigration and assisting and supporting those who want to follow the law. I am not an isolationist, beyond your belief. The world economy is far too in-grained with ours and it would be impossible to sever its ties without causing a world depression (then we become the real oppressors of everyone around the world). It would make sense to enforce and improve the laws we have, strengthen our border security taking sensible measures, and promoting the legal route to becoming a citizen.

          Let’s face the facts, the United States looses a lot of money each year to illegal immigration. Money that would be used for legal residents and U.S. citizens gets funneled into supporting programs that give the impression of supporting what should be an illegal activity.


        • #2727490


          by maecuff ·

          In reply to I’m with you on that

          unless your family name is Wandering Elk, we’re all immigrants. And if we want to stop the horrid flow of money out of our pockets, we should end corporate welfare before worrying about illegal immigrants. We should spend more money SAVING people instead of KILLING people. Now, please excuse me as I am going to hide under my rock where it is safe..

        • #2727487

          Immigration and isolation

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I’m with you on that

          Well although you do export a lot of resources, cutting off your imports would be just as detrimental to the US as your cutting off exports.
          Canada ships 10 Billion in softwood to the US. Major US corporations rely on logging our forests and fishing our coastal waters to stay productive and able to employ Americans.

          British Columbia :
          Canada has one third of the world’s fresh water supply, of which 1/4 is located in British Columbia.
          This is why we have the majority of North America’s energy-intensive industries relocating here.
          These same waterways deliver over 9,000 Gigawatts of electricity to California and coastal US cities.

          So it may be a little darker on your West coast and hydro costs a little higher without your neighbours.
          B.C. Hydro also provides 1500 jobs to Washington resident in Call center and customer services roles.

          90% of our oil comes from Alberta, and we are a MAJOR exporter of coal and natural gas to the USA.

          Now, we also receive MOST of our imports from other regions in Canada. We have a pretty self sufficient country.

          Cutting off your West coast from work, electricity, coal and natural gas may hinder and upset some of your coastal inhabitants.

          Perhaps a time to be thankful for your trade alliances and not looking to remove them.

          As for Immigration, now you actually touched on a few contradictory points, Immigration BUILT America and Canada, without it you simply would not exist.

          Illegal immigration is another story, we get tens of thousands immigrants claiming refugee status in BC each year,the majority Asian, and many often disappear to the US
          before facing any immigration boards as it is too hard to immigrate thre.

          Perhaps easing the ability for others to become citizens would reduce the number of illegal immigrants working under the table. I’m sure they would rathre be paid and recognized citizens than live iunder a veil of secrecy. Perhaps the tight laws actually promote illegal immigration or workers?

          Jst another view to consider, our economy has boomed since the masses of Asians wer allowed to enter Canada for several years, the numbers are being reduced now but for example:I was at a driving range in Richmond a few weeks ago (Richmond is THE chosen place for Asian immigrants to Canada) as walked past 75 stalls on two levels looking for a free tee, I finally found one next to another guy who said “Hey, I’m the token white guy here!” Well he was obviously somewhat racist and a resident of Richmond. THe FACT and I mean without any exageration at all, him and I were the ONLY two caucasians in the driving range. Now at an average of three people per stall, that is about 225 asians to 2 caucasians in the driving range, again I promise you this is NO exaggeration at all.

          iIf you stand on a corner ( used to be a field that’s now a mall where you can’t read a word of English ANYWHERE) there will be a line of say 30 cars at a light (most heavily populated part of BC that was once a few farmers and fishermen only)you would have to walk down the entire line of cars to find a single caucasian, IF you were lucky.

          So without souding racists, althouh some may feel I have been already, this mass population increase has also brought millions into our province, if not billions.
          The only frustrating part is that no matter how we choose NOT to be racist, the Asian population shows more racism than anyone.
          THey will NOT hire you unless you are also Asian. They will not SELL to you if you are not Asian. THey refuse to learn English and when they do, they refuse to use t. So in essence they segregte themselves, just the same as the East Indian community had until recently when they realized that they want to befriend ‘white’ Vancouver and join forces against the asian community. Its a VERYlong and complicated issue here but I just wanted to iterate how we can allow immigration to benefit ourselves financially, not really socially though.

        • #2727423

          Allow me to clarify some

          by lostandfound3 ·

          In reply to I’m with you on that

          I am not saying we should close off our boards. I am not saying we should halt all imports and exports into our country. I am not going so far as to say that the U.S. can sustain itself without the rest of the world (and we can pretty well, after all the U.S. policies up to World War I pretty much had an isolationist slant).

          Forgive me if I do not articulate this well (I think I have a running track record on this — there will be no need to hid behind rocks when hand grenades are involved, he, he, he), so let pose this conjecture. From general observations, a few articles here and there, the people I find suffer the most from illegal immigration are the ones are going through the process. I think we put too much emphasis on those who are here illegally than those who are following the law. Every human is entitled to basic necessities in life and I sure am not for a program that has those attempting to enter illegally be shot on site if they continue the egress from there country. There has to be some way that allows them to go about doing this legally that is rational and reasonable. We pay taxes to the government to provide services to us. As citizen’s we have the right to access these resources. If add illegal immigrants into the equation, who of course are not paying taxes for government services, there is an inequity for those that are citizens or are here legally.

          We have limited resources to fund government programs, and it can be argued that most of these services are not required under the U.S. Constitution. As a nation of generally good people, we provide these services to help the whole of community especially those who need the help.

          We need to do a better job on border security. If Bush was so gung-ho for making sure the country had better security, he should have focused on our porous borders. Mainly for the border in the southern portion of the U.S. Living in Texas for the past 14 years, I can tell you that there as been an overwhelming explosion of illegal aliens in my locality. It is so bad that many of the basic local resources, such as hospital districts, fire, police, and EMS services are stretched thin having to provide service to the citizens. The reason for this, by Texas State Law any individual who is need of emergency medical attention will not be denied such service regardless of insurance or immigration status. The last part of the clause is really eating our lunch. The localities are streched thin on the funding availble to keep up for the demand. Unlike most other areas of the U.S., Texas does not have an income tax. Much of the revenue recieved is through property taxes, sales taxes, and federal funds (which isn’t much). When mixed all together, we are figuratively and literally being taxed out of house and home.

          The one of the main purposes for our government is to provide protection along our boarder and enforce existing immigration laws. Our government is definitely not doing it down here. Granted, it would be ridiculous to believe we are going to have a mass migration of Canadians because the weather is too cold and the would like warmer climes. Sensibility, tells me that any form of border managment in the north does not have to be nearly as pervasive as it is really down here.

          As a side joke that is sad but true: We may have remembered the Alamo and won our independence from Mexico, but we have lost the Alamo again and the Mexicans are coming back to reclaim the territory that was once theirs–one illegal immigrant at a time.

          If you think this is xenophobic, I cordually invite you to visit my state, and go to San Antonio. The hispanic population makes up approximately 60% to 70% of the city. Can you guess how many are here legally and how many are here illegally?

          Not to be a bigot, which I am not (I do not like people in general, and this includes myself so I am not discriminatory in any way shape or form when it comes to insults — of course done mainly in jest), I have singled out hispanics mainly. However, the largest group of illegal aliens come mainly from Central and South America. Now this does not proclude people of other nationalities as well that are here illegally. I am for enforcing the law on all groups. If we have illegal aliens from the Czech Republic, I would expect them to be deported back to there country as well.

          We need to support those who are here legally because they suffer the sterotypes for the individuals who choose a route that is not legal. Furthermore, we need to hold ALL BUSINESSES ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE HIRING OF ILLEGAL ALIENS. I would not mind seeing a stiffer penalty against companies who break the law, since what is in place is not a good enough determent.

          If this means having to pay more for goods and services in my own country, I do not mind. I am supporting those who support the law.

        • #2727388

          That’s better

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I’m with you on that

          Yes that was a much better explanation and one I can pretty much agree with entirely.

          You mention tha companies that hire these immigrants should be held accountable and I couldn’t agree more, supply and demand.

          To segue a little, I have often voiced my hate for WalMart and the way that they do business by exploiting third world workers to obtain the lowest market price and highest margins but I won’t go into details here.

          This same policy of penalising a company for hiring an illegal immigrant should be applied to exploitation as well,well it sorta is but rarely enforced as it is easily masked by the local community gains as well as many other ‘thwating’ legal loopholes.

          So I guess we do aree after all, I respect your humbleness and personal observation and cannot say that I am not guilty of the same as many others are too. It is the ability to recognize and work with our own faults that makes us improve as a society though one day everyone will be aware of themselves and their weaknesses and perhaps that will be the day we finally see true peace in the world. Oh, my alarm’s going off, time to wake up.

    • #2666643

      same old story

      by jacko4 ·

      In reply to President Bush – A Profile in Courage

      thanks for the history of poor downtrodden america,of course we wont mention the atrocities and carpet bombing carried out by the US in Vietnam,Cambodia,most of central and latin america and of course the invasion of a little place called Grenada.

      • #2727618

        Would you care to elaborate?

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to same old story

        When did the U.S. “carpet bomb” anything in Central America? And will you please describe what you feel were the “atrocities” connected to, or lack of justification connected with the Grenada conflict? And please include a history of, and circumstances associated with Grenada at that time.

        (By the way, Grenada – if you blinked, you missed it.)

        • #2727591

          update max

          by jacko4 ·

          In reply to Would you care to elaborate?

          I did not say specifically that central america was carpet bombed,though we all know about vietnam and cambodia.Grenada was “invaded” because of bad intelligence reports and they were frightened a leader would get in that they didnt approve of,by the way,it doesnt matter how small grenada is the us shouldnt have been there,the same as the us shouldnt be poking its nose into lots of other countries business. About WMD,not only did us invent most of these weapons it actively sold the technology to anyone,there is only one country in the world that has used weapons of mass destruction on a large scale,yes you are right,usa,there is also only one country in the world that does not have to conform to any inpections for any of these capabilities and that is israel,why?
          oh but thats another topic us/israel v arabs

        • #2727588

          update update max

          by jacko4 ·

          In reply to Would you care to elaborate?

          I forgot, my information is from us websites,if I can post links on here you will be able too see for yourself

        • #2727546

          Fruitless effort

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to update update max

          If you showed proof in any form to support your beliefs, you will find th erepondent will either:
          A) Discount your sources
          B) Play on words
          C) Flame your own integrity if nothing can be contested

          You are being baited and there’s no end to it.

        • #2727507

          thanx oz

          by jacko4 ·

          In reply to Fruitless effort

          there is plenty of proof out there,Im afraid I just see the usual we are better than everyone else mentality,I think bush will go down in history as one of the worst leaders of all time,unfortunately for me mr blair seems to think the sun shines out of his a,@#e and he will take us down the same road,never mind im sure there will be some more flag waving when i come back on tomorrow !

        • #2727476

          Try something

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to thanx oz

          You said that, “(President) Bush will go down in history as one of the worst leaders of all time.”

          I, on the other hand, believe that President Bush will go down in history as one of the best leaders of all time.

          If possible, remove your biases. If possible, remove what others may have told you. If possible, look at every angle of every consideration. If possible, look at the BIG picture in a historical context. If possible, look at the desired outcome.

          (By the way, see my Abraham Lincoln message.)

          Why do you and I come to an exact opposite conclusion?

          If it’s possible for me to remove myself from those things, I would suggest that I may be right, but I may be wrong. I think that if democracy does indeed take hold in the middle east (in Iraq and Afghanistan), and I think that if the war on terrorism does indeed succeed, then I’ll be right. If those two things fail, then I’ll be wrong.

          However, and this is a BIG – A REALLY REALLY BIG however – I don’t think it will fail. Why? Because it shouldn’t fail. Moreover, I think that those who think that “President Bush will go down in history as one of the worst leaders of all time”, by definition, thinks that the effort will fail. Some even WANT it to fail. Why in the world would someone WANT those things to fail? If the desired outcome is preferable, which, presumably, it is, and if failure is not an option, which, presumably is the case, then how could it NOT succeed? Why SHOULD it not succeed?

          Keep focused on the desired outcome, and just let the chips fall where they may.

          Come on, be real here. What do we really want, and how do we get there. And regardless of who gets the “credit”, per se, what difference does it make? What’s your desired outcome, and how do YOU propose we get there?

          Just some food for thought.

        • #2727441

          ask yourself max

          by jacko4 ·

          In reply to Try something

          FACT the us govt has funded,armed and trained terrorist groups across the world for decades through the cia

          FACT thousands if not millions of ordinary americans have enthuiastically and openly supported a terrorist group for decades, the IRA

          talk about double standards and hypocrisy

          one final note,how did your hero dodge the draft for vietnam

        • #2727427

          jack04 – you asked

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Try something

          You asked, “how did (my) hero dodge the draft for Vietnam?”

          I hate to break this to you, but Bill Clinton isn’t my hero? By the way, did you vote for Clinton? Yea, I though so.

        • #2727386

          Such a bitch!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Try something

          Max you failed to answer yet another question that you couldn’t actually answer and segued into your Clinton statement and a pot shot at the previous poster.

          Well, I just want to ask why you are trying to be such a bitch in this thread?

          If I go down the list you have been a bicth to everyone here including myself. When cornered you simply flame the previous posters integrity to discount their claims, very common characteristic you show here that is getting so annoying to read.

          If you are having a tough week month or whatever, take a break or something. You show yourself to be polite sometimes and then come to bitching at everyone for their coments and discounting their intgrity.

          for a while things were pleasant again, even political and relifious discussions were okay again, but now it has reverted to this defensive crap alinging.

          Now it hasn’t all been YOU as everyone here including myself has had a little paddy (excluding maecuff and Chas of course who are just naturally cool).

          “Let’s agree to Disagree”

          It’s not supposed to be a cop-out as much as a way to cease a dead end argument.

          Count to five or have a glass of water or something.

        • #2727385

          Crap alinging ?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Try something

          Well that typos works two ways.

          Did I men Crap ‘aligning’ or crap slinging?

          I’m not telling.

      • #2727445

        I’ll elaborate myself

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to same old story

        (Oz was right. It was a setup question.)

        Let’s just leave that out of it. It’s a scar on America, no question about it. The whole experience just sucked pond water.

        Central America:
        Are most CA nations better off now than they were 50 years ago? The answer is yes, so I rest my case.

        This was the first real conflict after Vietnam, if you can really call it a conflict. (But 15 or so US soldiers died, so it was real enough.) However, it went by so fast, and it was relatively uneventful, and I don’t recall too much opposition to it, so today not many people know much about it.

        In a nutshell, here’s how I remember it. The government of Grenada was sitting there, fat, dumb and happy (just an expression), minding their own business, doing whatever they do on the island nation of Grenada, when all of the sudden (or perhaps not too suddenly) they were overthrown in a vicious and bloody coup, a coup staged by their very own army – and an army, by the way, which had been strongly influenced and supported by the Marxist government of Cuba and the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. Cuba was gaining a lot of influence with this new Marxist government, and began using the Cuban military to build an air base on the island. Moreover, there were a bunch of American medical students on the island, and it was thought that they may (emphasis placed on “may”) be in some sort of danger. Cuba, after all, doesn’t think too kindly of Americans, you know. I have no idea why the medical students were in Grenada. Perhaps the tuition was cheaper.

        So having set the stage, as I described above, President Reagan wasn’t too thrilled about the prospect of Cuba gaining influence in the Caribbean, not to mention the fact that we frown upon the indiscriminate take-over of a government without the will of the people taken into consideration. You know, we kinda’ prefer elections over coups. So we send in the Army Rangers (a couple thousand, I think), kicked a little Cuban butt, gave the government back to the people of Grenada, and we all lived happily ever after. Does that about sum it up?

        Besides, we needed a new story line for Clint Eastwood. Dirty Harry was getting a little old.

        • #2727415


          by jacko4 ·

          In reply to I’ll elaborate myself

          your hero is george w,he is the one who I asked you about
          as for clinton,I couldnt vote for him,not that I would have because im from uk
          these arguments could go on forever as pointed out but looking from the outside you would be surprised to know the level of anxiety and even anti american feeling in the wider world,it seems that anyone who doesnt do things your way is just set upon,apart from more powerful nations of course ie the old ussr and china

    • #2727481

      From another thread – but applies here as well

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to President Bush – A Profile in Courage

      (The other thread was a “tangent” discussing the American Civil War and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus ordered by Abraham Lincoln.)


      That really is a most interesting time in American history, a defining time, and it did indeed change the course of not only the American experience, but world history as well. The “what if” questions are really quite intriguing.

      What if the north simply said, “good riddance” to the south, there was no American Civil War, and a new nation was born – again? What if the British or the French, and especially the British, provided full support to the South, which was certainly plausible, as both European nations sympathized strongly with the Confederacy – so strongly, in fact, that with just a little prodding they might have been moved to intervene by lending full military support and bring about Southern independence, not too unlike American independence from England only 75 years prior. (And consider that 75 years was/is only one person’s lifetime). The South was, after all, an aristocracy, very similar to France and England (at the time), and the fact that it had a broad democratic base could have been easily overlooked at a distance of three thousand miles. Europe’s aristocracies had never been happy about the success of the Yankee democracy, and if America had broken into two halves, proving that democracy did not contain the wherewithal to survive, the monarchs of Europe would have been quite pleased. And after all, the most recent war with England was less than 50 years in the past and on the minds of many Americans – both the northern and southern variety Americans.

      Instead, President Lincoln pretty much acted with total disregard to the Constitution. (Why would he do that?) He wanted to stifle States’ rights to govern themselves, and he was against slavery, which was pretty much acknowledged as legitimate (as a compromise, by the way) in the original Constitution. The American Civil War was, in many ways, was an extension of the original negotiations between the individual and sovereign states to form a “perfect union”. (The Gettysburg Address, by the way, is the most incredible speech, in my opinion, ever delivered in the history of mankind.)

      Abraham Lincoln was really an incredible person, loved by many, but hated by just as many. And the notion of “destiny” or “divine intervention” is certainly reinforced by considering the way things could have been, and the way things all worked out in the long run.

      And I still suggest that the similarities between Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush are amazing. Put yourself, if possible, 150 years into the future, look back, and play the “what if” game. Look at what would have been if………and what actually happened because…….(And then include the time/universe/meaning-of-life considerations, and it’s mind boggling.)

      It truly is something to consider.

      • #2727439

        To know the mind of Lincoln and the Const. Congress

        by wrlang ·

        In reply to From another thread – but applies here as well

        Isn’t it amazing how people today can know what was in the mind of people long dead?

        Nothing in the constitution legitimizes slavery. The current opinion on the subject says that the framers of the Constitution did not outlaw slavery because of the free labor it provided to farmers – purely economical. Not outlawing slavery is a far cry from legitimizing it.

        As well with Lincoln, his foresight saw that America would be seriously harmed and each (Union/Confederacy) would become very vulnerable to the other colonial powers of the day by a split of states. Most people simply pick up on the slavery part because that’s what they’ve been taught. That’s the references most ascribed to Lincoln by teachers because kids wont understand sophisticated economic and governing principles.

        GWB will most likely be compared to his father and perhaps Reagan. I doubt he will rate the same status as Lincoln.

      • #2734111

        Only future generations will tell

        by nd_it ·

        In reply to From another thread – but applies here as well

        if GWB is in the status of those of Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt. I think it will all play out 50 years down the road and what has happened in Iraq and Afganistan to whether we can compare GWB to such a status.

        As to some of the comments about states’ rights. I do believe the states’ have their rights to govern it’s residents for the most part, but I think their needs to be a central core of the federal government to make sure things do run smoothly. We did try this before with the Articles of Confederation, which just gave the federal government no power at all, which we all know according to history did not work out, thus resulting in the creation of the Constitution. That is one of the main reasons why the Confederacy failed as well and there was not European intervention, because the Confederacy couldn’t establish itself as a power. It tried hard to copy the US Constitution, without trying to be the US government. The southern states couldn’t agree on anything other than “the cause”.

      • #2734101

        Britain, Canada and the US Civil War

        by jamesrl ·

        In reply to From another thread – but applies here as well

        The Canadian perspective is a little different on how both Canada and Britain felt about the US Civil War.

        It is true that many parts of the business class in Britain supported the South. Thats because many mill owners made their fortune from southern US cotton supplies. But many others in Britain, did not support the south because of slavery. You must remember that slavery was outlawed in Britain many decades earlier and the Royal Navy was even sent to stop slave ships off the coast of Africa.

        Here in Canada, we were a terminus for the Underground railroad and many former slaves were full citizens. While there were some Confederate sympathisers, if you look at the fact that over 50,000 Canadians joined the Union army, and less than 10,000 joined the confederate forces, you can see how the “common” Canadians felt.

        There were of course those who felt that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But the trade ties that bound the Northern US states with the Canadian colonies were deep. By that point there was as much trade with the Northern States as there was with Britain.

        As to the War of 1812 – Max I suggest you look for a book
        Great book with the Canadian perspective of 1812 – it was the southern states (jayhawks) who rallied for the war, while the New England states resisted. That also helps explain a few things.


    • #2727446

      Stand up comic

      by wrlang ·

      In reply to President Bush – A Profile in Courage

      Ann Coulter would make a great stand up comic.
      I love her rants, but I have sympathy for the people who take her seriously.

      How 9/11 happened only goes back to when they got the idea and started planning it. DUH!!!

      If you’re going to look at history through republican colored glasses, you could at least go back to the real beginning to give us some more to laugh about.

      • #2727444

        Do us a favor

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Stand up comic

        Look at history through the color of your glasses, Democrat colored glasses, I presume, and share your view of the events that led up to it. The difference in views will be interesting to compare.

        By the way, do you take Al Franken or Michael Moore seriously? You do? Well, enough said.

        • #2727440

          This is why..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Do us a favor

          These threads are nothing more than people talking at people. It’s a chance to post your particular belief, but no one will ever be REALLY willing to listen, and consider, what another person’s view may be. Ann Coulter is dismissed out of hand..Michael Moore and Al Franken are in turn dismissed. There really isn’t any room for change here, is there?

          The few times I’ve heard Ann Coulter, she has completely turned my stomach. What stood out was a comment that she felt the US should go into any country that wasn’t Christian and force them to be Christains (paraphrased). I would like to hear something from her that make sense to me, so I can understand HOW people can take her seriously. Same goes for Michael Moore and Al Franken..yes, many things they say are OUT there. But a lot they have to say makes all the sense in the world to me. Just watch Bowling for Columbine.

        • #2727383

          Yeah what she said!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to This is why..

          Well I’ll just stand well behind you on this one, or curl up in the fetal position, you mentioned BFC! uh, oh. 😛

          Yeah he’s pretty radical, pretty sensible too. I certainly wouldn’t fear him.

        • #2727372

          I don’t understand why BFC should be scary..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Yeah what she said!

          It won an academy award. Many people saw it. And I for one, am not going to apologize for enjoying it or for believing in the message. I’m tired of being made to feel like I am not patriotic (whatever the f*ck that means) because I can’t agree with the slaughter of humans whether they are from the US, Iraq or anywhere else on earth. I have a son who is almost 17 years old. As far as I know, he intends to be a computer geek his entire life and has no interest in the military. But what happens if that choice is taken from him?? The thought of either of my sons being a gazillion miles from me, be shot at, or shooting people makes me ill. It makes me more than ill. There would have to be a pretty goddamn compelling reason for him to risk his life and do you know what? As far as this whole conflict goes, I am not seeing it. I don’t believe it is worth the wasted lives. Of course I support the people who are there. I feel for them and their loved ones. I pray that they return home safely. (Well, I would if I actually prayed). I feel sorry for the Iraqi prisoners who were abused. I feel sorry for the kids who abused them. They’re kids forced in to a situation they cannot possibly handle. But who will be punished? Not the people who put them there.. You know..I don’t have the documentation that many of you have. I am willing to admit that I only have a little more than a sound bite knowledge of the who Iraq war. But I do feel very strongly about basic rights and wrongs. And I feel very strongly that sending young men and women (lets face it, they are BARELY adults) to their deaths is wrong. Send the old f*cks who want to fight to the war. As for me, I’m not willing to give up ANY of my children.

        • #2727370

          Hear hear

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I don’t understand why BFC should be scary..

          Do you feel better now ?

          I’ve agreed with your views since you started posting here pretty much . We share common religious and political views in many ways.

          The BFC issue has not feared well on TR, too many Americans discount Michael Moore as a hard left liar. Which I suppose is the easiets way to discount anyone hard left if you are not yourself.

          Unfortunately such a biased viewpoint offers no ability to evaluate both sides of an issue or hear some of the reality behind it.

          I know there were a couple of instances where BFC was said to have stretched the truth, an example would be Charlton Heston’s lawyers saying he was not of a sane mind when he was interviewed, that he wasn’t prepared to answersuch questions etc.

          Why would you have to be prepared to answer a question unless you intended to carefully word an answer to discount an accusation?

          I think he has covered some really positive ground in having WalFart remove ammo from the shelves, he has spread a message that even though many will say it is all lies, hopefully some of today’s children and tomorrow’s leaders will see another side to things and seek a different resolution to protection other than hasty or senseless violence.

          Have you ever heard any of Roger Waters solo albums since he parted from Pink Floyd? If not, find Radio Chaos, it is a really cool album and speaks volumes as all PF albums always have.

          For any younger members who happen to be reading, an album is an old version of today’s CD format. It consisted of a series of bumps etched into a vinyl disk to cause vibrations as a needle pased over them while trackng in a groove.

        • #2727312


          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Hear hear

          Oz, calling my husband a music buff would be an understatement. Anyone who listens, studies and collects the way my husband does should make money doing it. So yes, I’ve heard that album, in fact, my husband got it out after I read this post to him.

        • #2727294

          Thought you may

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Hear hear

          Judgin by previous posts about music and your political beliefs I figured you would either have it or heard it. I managed to get a prerelease when we met after a show he did during Vancouver’s World Expo ’86 (I did some local promo for his promo company).

          THe concert itself was so cool, taking on the Radio Chaos theme of a young crippled buy manipulating the airwaves and airing a fake neuclear attck over the radio. He was on a plain stage with his band and a DJ Booth on one side and a huge teletype style board above him. They place a phone booth at the back of the audience and had a liave call session. Where you could phone the onstage DJ and request a Floyd song that Waters and his band would then play on the stage. The call would be teletyped onto a long banner board above the stage while you spoke with the DJ, it was so cool.


      • #2727421

        Basis in Truth

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Stand up comic

        There’s more basis in truth in what Ann Coulter says than in what Michael Moore says. For example, in the article above, name one thing that’s not true. You may not like how she says it, but it’s pretty much on the mark.

        Michael Moore, on the other hand, manages to take an ounce of truth and spin it into a ton of lies.

        And not only that, but Ann Coulter is a lot easier on the eyes – a LOT easier.

        • #2727382

          …a lot easier on the eyes – a LOT easier

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Basis in Truth

          I dunno, Michael Moore’s got that whole “fat chipmunk” thing going on.

        • #2727371


          by maecuff ·

          In reply to …a lot easier on the eyes – a LOT easier

          I don’t know about you guys. I’m really just listening to the words of Michael Moore and Ann Coulter..the package the words come in doesn’t really matter to me.

          Unless it is Johnny Depp.. then it matters.

        • #2727369

          Johnny Dip

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Hmmm..

          Wen I was younger I worked on a few Jump Street episodes as they filmed in local schools arounf my neighbourhood.
          At one cast party, Johnny Depp was all pissed that he couldn’t get released from his contract and the writers were making him into a baby faced girl toy, when he wanted to be a tough guy.
          We were ALL playing volleyball and Depp threw a fit, took the ball and went home.

          He then took on the nickname locally as Johnny Dipsh*t, good thing he grew up and finally learned how to act, I actually like him as an actor now as he takes on challenging and very different roles, much like Dreyfus and Hoffman did.

          Now Keanu, the monosyllabic moron is another wannabe Depp story!

        • #2727367

          21 jump street

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Johnny Dip

          It all started with 21 jump street.. I’ve been hooked ever since. I didn’t even mind taking my little one to see Pirates of the Carribean 3 times last summer.

        • #2727366

          What if the words are false?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Hmmm..

          Anyone who thinks that Michael Moore is not extremely biased and slants his words and pictures, is really uninformed. Some of his “suggestions”, and I use that word lightly, are downright false. Now before you accuse me of just attacking the person because I disagree with him, let me give you an example.


          Here, look at all of them.

          Also, he’s a critic of corporate outsourcing, but his very own Web site was outsourced to a company in Canada.

          I could go on, but I won’t change any minds anyway, so what’s the point?

        • #2727339

          There is a point

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to What if the words are false?

          I think that the person who wrote the site out has some valid points but is just as guilty of playing on words or focusiing on the wrong point as Michael Moore is, just like our media coveregae of the war. Extremes that are colored to both sides.

          Michael Moore’s objective in this show was to show some facts about gun ownership and history in the US and then raise some questions, which he does quite well.

          Take what you want from it, but I don’t feel you can discount Michael Moore as an individual or a voice just because of colored truth.

          THe bank for instance is quickly discounted as not howing the ful process. Even with the FBI calls and bbackground checks, what is a bank doing using guns as a sales incentive? How is that a relevant offering that compliments the banks services?

        • #2727314

          youdidntreplyto your hero max

          by jacko4 ·

          In reply to What if the words are false?

          Im not carrying on this argument its a lose,lose situation,but it was george w who dodgede vietnam

        • #2727311

          It’s your false premise

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to youdidntreplyto your hero max

          When you ask a question based on a false premise, it’s easy to simply dismiss as nonsense. Besides, we’ve covered that kind of thing before, and going through it again won’t change anyone’s mind. Moreover, you are, in a way, attacking me, as well as GWB, with your presumptions and tone. However, I’ll play along.

          False premise number one: George W. Bush is my hero.

          I never said GWB is my hero, and you don’t know how I would even define a hero. No, he’s not my “hero”. Actually, I consider him someone who works for me. I “hired” him, so to speak, to act on my behalf, to make decisions that might be in my best interest, and to uphold the oath he took when he agreed to accept my vote. So no, George W. Bush is not my “hero”, but I do believe he’s doing an outstanding job acting on my behalf.

          Has he been perfect? No, he hasn’t. He’s made some missteps; he’s supported some legislation that I would prefer not to have passed; and he’s said some things that I may have said differently. But on balance, I’m quite happy with my choice of employee, er, I mean president. And just like any employee, when you hire someone to do a job, the job performance must be judged on balance, and the employer needs to place some trust in them, and get out of their way and let them do their job. In this particular position, we have a job review every four years, and we’ll let him know what kind of job he’s doing.

          False premise number two: George W. Bush was a draft dodger.

          You know as well as I do that GWB was not a draft dodger, and you’re either being disingenuous or simply trying to be cute. But being from England, you may not understand how we structure our military, and you may not understand the vital role our reserve forces play in the overall scheme of maintaining our standing military.

          During the Vietnam era, I served in the active duty Air Force, one of my brothers served in the active duty Marine Corps, and another one of my brothers served in the Air National Guard. President Bush also served in the Air National guard. There’s no dishonor in that, and it’s certainly not “draft-dodging”. To the contrary, it’s supporting the military; it’s supporting the military system; and it’s actually the foundation on which our military was initially conceived. To consider our reserve forces anything less, much less criticize them, is doing them a grave disservice and is a slap in the face to the reserve forces that were called up to serve in Afghanistan and Iraq; and it’s an insult to the families of the tens-of-thousands of reserve forces who were called into active duty, and the thousands who died in Vietnam. Yes, thousands of reserve soldiers died in Vietnam, including some from various Air National Guard units.

          Here’s how one person put it.

          “I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way…..The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation…..We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it.”

          “Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam? But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our….country over this issue today…..simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.”

          “To all those currently pursuing the presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence……..We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric…….I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our……country.”

          – John F. Kerry, Senator, 1992, Defending Bill Clinton, the actual draft-dodger

          The disingenuousness and hypocrisy is enough to make a person want to throw-up.

          I hope I answered your question.

        • #2727284


          by jacko4 ·

          In reply to youdidntreplyto your hero max

          no you didnt answer my question,same as you didnt anwer anyone elses,all you did was have another rant and twist everything I had said, you would make a good team with george w you are both full of shit

        • #2727281

          relax jacko

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to youdidntreplyto your hero max

          No need to become the next ‘wacko jacko’.

          We need to censor our comments here somewhat, thus all the evasive baiting instead of simply airing your trye feelings.

          Like I said last week.

          “Fruitless effort
          If you showed proof in any form to support your beliefs, you will find the respondent will either:
          A) Discount your sources
          B) Play on words
          C) Flame your own integrity if nothing can be contested

          You are being baited and there’s no end to it. “

        • #2727277

          A list of examples

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to Basis in Truth

          Here’s one person’s site which lists plenty of questionable statements by the author of whom you spoke.

        • #2727276

          Interesting and funny Web site

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to A list of examples

          I didn’t read all of it (there’s much too much rhetoric to read it all), but this site did suggest that allied bombing of Germany was tantamount to allied war crimes. I suppose that may tell you where they’re coming from.

          But you didn’t answer my question. I asked which one of the statements that were posted to begin this discussion were not true? Neither you or that Web site (or anyone else) has done that.

        • #2734182

          Oh, were you asking me?

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to Interesting and funny Web site

          I was just throwing in a contribution. I’ll go back and see if I even recognize the statements. If they came from that woman – I probably never heard them. I see her, I turn the channel.

          She’s ugly in so many ways to me.

        • #2734125

          she sells books

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Oh, were you asking me?

          The more outrageous, the more publicity..and that means higher sales..

        • #2734081


          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to she sells books

          Kinda like Janet Jackson, I guess.

    • #2727280

      The Air National Guard – Part One

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to President Bush – A Profile in Courage

      It was approaching six in the morning on what was to be a warm summer day in late June of 1971, at a small and isolated radar installation somewhere in the Southeastern United States, when a young Airman, who couldn’t have been more than twenty years old, approaching the end of an all-night shift, rubbed the tired out of her eyes to get a clearer look at the two faint blips that suddenly appeared on the radar screen she was monitoring.

      These weren’t the bright and distinct blips that would indicate a passenger airliner sending its transponder signal to an air traffic controller, but rather ones that were barley visible, ones caused by the radar signal being bounced back off of an object flying high over the Atlantic Ocean. Some quick calculations, for which the Airman had been well trained to perform, indicated that these two aircraft, or perhaps more, if they were flying in tight formation, were on a course that would take them directly over Charleston, South Carolina. And based on the aircraft speed, which the Airman calculated by determining the time it took to travel a given distance, it was estimated that these aircraft would enter United States airspace in thirty minutes, and be over Charleston in forty-five.

      The Airman, per standard operating procedures, called to her commanding officer who was sitting across the room reading a book to pass the time. He was a First Lieutenant, not really that much older than the Airman he was commanding, who was actually studying the regulation manuals to prepare for his upcoming promotions test, his first shot at making Captain. He’d much rather have the two silver bars on his shoulders than the single one, but at least his was silver, and not the gold of the lower ranking Second Lieutenant. “Unknown aircraft, sir, bearing two-seven-zero degrees, heading southwest at a speed of six hundred knots”. The Lieutenant quickly put down his book and looked over the shoulder of the Airman to verify what he had just heard. A quick look up to the flight board, the one that was constantly being updated by another Airman writing backwards from behind a large Plexiglas board indicating weather conditions and all FAA flight plans that had been filed for their particular monitoring area, revealed that no flights were scheduled for that location. The Lieutenant immediately called the regional FAA center, by using the “hot line” that was established to the facility, to verify that a passenger aircraft was not off-course, or perhaps experiencing some transponder malfunctions. “Yea, we see it, Lieutenant, but we don’t know who it is”, answered the seasoned controller.

      Twenty nine minutes until the aircraft would be over American airspace. “Keep me updated every two minutes”, the Lieutenant instructed the Airman as he picked up the other phone, the red phone that simultaneously sounded an alarm in both a ready room and the control tower at a regional Air Force base, as well as at NORAD, the North American Air Defense Command, which was located deep inside Cheyenne Mountain just west of Colorado Springs. NORAD would be monitoring the incident from this point on, and would be ready to assume full command of the situation should circumstances warrant such control. But for now, the identification of the incoming aircraft was in the hands of the young First Lieutenant, who just sat down in front of his own radar screen as he put on his headsets, and the two Air National Guard pilots who had just heard the horn blow – the horn indicating that they had just two minutes to get their F-102 Delta Dagger fighter aircraft into the air – and who would soon be following an intercept course as laid out by an Air Force officer yet to make the rank of Captain.

      The F-102 was not the newest fighter in the Guard, but it was a good one. They weren’t as fast and agile as their active duty counterparts, the F-4s, and they didn’t have the weapons capacity of the F-4, but they were certainly up to the job. Most of the Air Force’s F-4s were stationed in Southeast Asia, and the guard always had the “hand-me-downs”. And this hard-to-fly fighter jet, affectionately called The Deuce, America’s first delta-winged, all-weather interceptor, was the hand-me-down of the day.

      The F-102 ground crews, who had been engaged in a friendly game of pinochle, upon hearing the alarm, ran out of their own ready room, which was really no more than a 15 foot by 15 foot shack just off the runway, to quickly get the two aircraft ready to scramble. Two fighter aircraft were always parked at the end of the runway, ready to take off at a moment’s notice and be available in cases just as this. While one crew assisted the pilots with starting the single jet engine, removing the parking blocks, and helping the pilots get strapped in, the weapons crew pulled the safety pins from the pre-loaded weapons, a mixture of AIM-4 Falcon missiles on extendable launch rails, which would drop down when the weapons bay doors were opened, and two dozen 2.75 inch unguided rockets carried in pairs of tubes located in the bay doors.

      Two minutes exactly, and the orange glow of the after-burner shined brightly in the dawn sky, quickly disappearing as the pair of Delta Daggers, piloted by men of the Air National Guard, roared out of sight.

      To be continued (maybe)……..

      • #2731893

        I realize I’m no Tom Clancey

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to The Air National Guard – Part One

        But no one wanted me to continue my story?

        Although the story isn’t a verbatim tale of a particular incident, it is based on events that were more common than you might realize, and the details are portrayed fairly accurately – all the way down to airmen playing pinochle in a weapons crew shack.

        I guess no one was curious enough to ask.

        Tom Clancey, you have nothing to worry about.

    • #2734073

      Sorry to see folks who posted during…

      by onbliss ·

      In reply to President Bush – A Profile in Courage

      …the weekend. As somebody said such discussions were water-cooler discussions…you guys must have been working during the weekend. That is sad. Me did not have to…HA ha he he….LOL…

      In case you were telecommuting or stayed home, you still came here for spirited discussions. I commend your enthusiasm. Hope you got time to spend with family and other interests :-))

      cheers …and keep smiling….

      • #2734025

        Staying home is work

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Sorry to see folks who posted during…

        Staying home is work for me. I managed to get a midday paddle in and a barbeque or two though.

        If I sit at home and push a few updates over the weekend, visiting TR hardly means I’m working. While haveing a cold beer and waiting for updates to push down the pipe to a client network isn’t REALLY work thoughis it?

        I could be driving the kids to practoce, following the wife’s chore list or running around on errands. If I CHOOSE to get some work done, it isn’t work. Work is only when you’re doingsomething you wouldn’t normally choose to do I think.

        So hee hee, ha ha ha!! You’re at work now, I’m still at home with a cold beer.

        • #2733920

          No doubt TR is talking about productivity issues…

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Staying home is work

          ….looks like you get paid for enjoying life. Muuuuuummmmmmyyyyy :-(((( that is not fair……

          Can we trade? Wait a minute…my life is not bad either. I will keep mine and you keep yours…

          keep smiling :-)))))))))

        • #2733876

          Always smiling

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to No doubt TR is talking about productivity issues…

          Yes sir, you have a life (a good reason to be thankful for anything) and you are enjoying it and the country where you live, I do as well.

          Cheers and enjoy your day!


        • #2733857

          Your dispicable!!!

          by mrbill- ·

          In reply to Staying home is work

          ****SARCASIM ALERT****

          Is it any wonder we hate you? Getting to work from home while most, not all, have to trudge into work and spend the day with other people and socialize with folks who you only have work in comman with. `:[

          Drink a brew for me ok!

          ****SARCASIM ALERT ENDS****

          You may now resume your regularly scheduled rants and flames. Hey, Rants and Flames would be a great name for a Rock group (thanks Dave Barry)……..

        • #2733833

          Rants and Flames,

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Your dispicable!!!

          I like it!

          I am not really flaming anyone here though, just offering observations rather than personal feelings, unless you are Max of course.

          Rants and Flames! Yup, it works doesn’t it?

    • #2733854

      I don’t think anyone disputes…

      by mlayton ·

      In reply to President Bush – A Profile in Courage

      …the invasion of Iraq has resulted in some good for the country. However the methodologies used to get there were not exactly diplomatic, nor did they accomplish the mission of moving Americans out of harms way. To that end, I make the following points:
      -Declaring war on individuals has seldom resulted in a success story for America, look back through history even to the point of Castro, we either lose them or later they become allies
      -Declaring war on individuals in the case of religious zealotry will not eliminate the problem. If the individual goes into hiding, they become a folk hero – if they are effectively eliminated, they become a martyr to the cause. It doesn’t make sense, but what it does do is fuel the flames of anger and revenge even further. This doesn’t make us any safer
      -Violating a United Nations Charter that requires countries to exhaust all peaceful means of maintaining global security before taking military action, and permitting the use of force in self-defense only in response to actual or imminent attack puts this nation at risk. What are we going to do when someone violates that same charter against us? Try to prosecute through the UN?
      -Sitting back afterwards and blaming issues in the economy on the war – what, like that couldn’t have been predicted?
      -Having no real plan for reconstruction that the entire country of Iraq could get behind until after the invasion – well, that’s just poor planning.

      And finally, let’s not ignore that around the world, similar atrocities such as those Saddam inflicted on his people happen every day. We don’t invade those countries, and we don’t have large scale operations to protect those people involved. We chose Iraq to protect our fuel interests – at least, let’s be up front about it.

      • #2732123

        Nicely said

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to I don’t think anyone disputes…

        I wont ad to your comments in fear that it may detract from your honesty.

        Well done.

      • #2732121

        Your Points

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to I don’t think anyone disputes…

        On declaring war:

        We’ve never declared war, nor could we, on individuals, only nations, and no nation since WWII. And the formal “declaration of war” can only be sought against a nation, not individuals. That’s one of the difficult aspects of this whole thing.

        Contrary to what many people think, although there’s no denying that the USA was indeed attacked, Afghanistan, as a “nation” did not attack the USA on 9-11 . The perpetrators of that act did indeed seek safe haven in Afghanistan, at least some of them did. But not all of them. Should we have “declared war” on Afghanistan AND all those other nations who provided safe haven for anyone involved in 9-11? If we did, we would have “declared war” on a dozen or more nations, including ourselves. We didn’t “declare war” on any nation because not any particular nation was behind it. If that was the case, it would have been a pretty clear-cut decision. What we basically did was to say, okay terrorists, enough is enough, and we’re going to come and get you, no matter where you go, no matter how long it takes, no matter what anyone thinks about it, and no matter who supports us or opposes us. World-wide terrorism has to stop – PERIOD. To many nations, and too many “United Nations” have stood by and done nothing. How long should we stand by and do nothing?

        Ask yourself this question. Did Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime, either specifically or in general, support world wide terrorism? The answer is yes. Did Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime, either specifically or in general, support world wide terrorism targeted at America or Americans? Again, the answer is yes. (Don’t forget the $25,000 reward he offered to anyone, or at least their families, who killed Americans in terrorist attacks.)

        In my opinion, every nation on the face of the Earth should support this war on terrorism, because every nation has been hurt by it. Why did Russia, France and Germany oppose the Iraq phase of the war on terrorism? Because their leaders and/or representatives were financially benefiting from “under-the-table” deals with Saddam Hussein. Do you think they were supporting the World’s best interest? Do you think they were supporting Iraq’s best interest? Do you think they were supporting America’s best interest? The answer to those questions is no. They were supporting their own best interests, and to think otherwise is being naive’.

        On the United Nations:

        Please read and study all of the United Nations Charters that you are attempting to cite. We violated NO United Nations charters. In fact, the United Nations has violated its very own charters and resolutions. (As they have for years.) The United Nations is a corrupt and inept organization, and they certainly don’t look out for the best interests of the United States. And the United States can’t set aside its own best interests to simply pacify some foreign criminal posing as a leader. Read United States resolution 1441. We had all the authority necessary to do just what we did.

        On Having no real plan for reconstruction:

        Again, you are mistaken. There are more schools, more hospitals, more electricity, more clean water, more local elections, and on and on, than there was before Saddam’s fall. And you are also mistaken in thinking the whole country is in chaos or engaged in battles. To the contrary, most of the country is indeed rebuilding for a more hopeful future.

        As an illustration, I’ll point out that Iraq is about the size of the state of California. And all of “California” is not in a perpetual state of disorder and bedlam. The “insurgents”, as they are affectionately called by the media, but are really no more than a very well armed gang of thugs who are determined to prevent democracy from taking hold in Iraq, are holed up in a few locations. The hotbeds of violence, for example, are limited to Bakersfield and a couple of other cities. The rest of California, I mean Iraq, is trying to lift itself up and finally join the community of nations.

        Why not invade the other countries:

        Because it’s not practical for us to do so, that’s why. But consider this. If those countries deserve to be considered as similar to Iraq and Saddam as it pertains to various atrocities inflicted on its own people, where is the United Nations that you claim we should “rely” on to handle such things? That only proves the UN is inept. And that only illustrates that we can’t – and shouldn’t rely on them.

        • #2732067

          Sorry for the misunderstanding

          by mlayton ·

          In reply to Your Points

          …I did not mean we don’t have a plan for reconstruction now. What I meant by was at the time of the invasion there was not a plan for reconstruction that other countries could back. Had there been – or had it been properly presented as such – there would have been more support.

          And while “declaring war on individuals” was a poor choice of words, it is in fact what we did – and if that is just my layman’s view, then probably is the same view held by supporters of those individuals… and thus the folk hero and martyr roles will follow – and put more lives in danger. It is not questioned that in a conflict such as this, overzealousness can be found in all aspects – on the part of the insurgents out to harm the US, and on the part of our own US military, abusing their power over prisoners, according to the latest news. The good leader will seek the peaceful resolutions that cause the least amount of danger to all people, not just his own. The good leader would also be able to put the spin on to say that they sought those peaceful resolutions first, even if the ultimate result is the same.

          And if I also am doubtful the US exhausted all peaceful means before subjecting the people of Iraq to the war on terrorism, so are others. Including some of the people in those countries.

          A large part of leading a country is being diplomatic and playing the politics. While the UN may have issues (not denying that!) you need to first try to change the system, or at least rally others to your cause before bypassing the system, or you will be out leading a charge with nobody following, leading to the overwhelmingly global opinion that Americans are in it for themselves, and don’t have any sense of global awareness. Unfortunately, the world sees us in generalities, just as we see tend to generalize other countries. So our leader needs to project global awareness/sensitivity on our behalf. I don’t think that mission has been accomplished.

        • #2732050

          You gotta’ love these messages

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Sorry for the misunderstanding

          To understand the true intent behind most of these messages takes more than what’s probably possible within the confines of this forum. We’ve all been misunderstood and mischaracterized at one time or another, and believe me, as one of the most misunderstood and mischaracterized participants, at least in my estimation, I know all too well. (Let’s see, I’ve been accused of being closed-minded, biased, hypocritical, arrogant, one-sided, heavy-handed, intolerant, ……..) Interesting, my Boy Scout Troop wouldn’t describe me that way at all.

          On declaring war on an individual, or in this case individuals (plural), you’re absolutely right, that in a sense, it is indeed what we did. After almost 40 years of world-wide terrorism, almost exclusively at the hands of Islamic extremists, many people believe that enough is enough. It’s too bad that it took three thousand American deaths and a trillion dollar hit to our economy to open our eyes to it. This is bigger than just Afghanistan. It’s bigger than just Osama bin Laden. It’s bigger than just Iraq. It’s bigger than just Saddam Hussein.

          I won’t bother to post the numbers, but do an Internet search for subjects related to acts of terrorism and deaths caused by such acts. The numbers will astound you. Literally thousands upon thousands of acts, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths, and I don’t think any continent on the face of the Earth, except Antarctica, has been spared. The United Nations has been either ineffective or has been turning a blind eye. The numbers over the past 40 years bear that out.

          All of the things you think should have been tried first, have indeed been tried first – all of them. They have been tried and tried again, and then tried again. In the case of the Iraq, those “peaceful” means have been tried for more than a dozen years. In the case of containing overall terrorism, those “peaceful” means have been tried for almost four decades. How much longer should we have waited and tried? And how more many innocent people should have died? And it’s not realistic to think that Iraq and the bigger war on terrorism are not related. (Like I mentioned earlier, Saddam’s $25,000 bounty on all Americans – dead Americans – bears that out.)

          It’s difficult to sift through all the political rhetoric that’s being thrown around and reported. Especially this year, an election year, a person has to realize that political opponents will do whatever necessary to discredit their opponent, especially if that opponent is an incumbent. It might sound nice, for example, to attack President Bush with the charge that he should have waited for the UN. But people all over the world have been waiting for the UN to be effective against terrorism for over 40 years, and the people of Iraq have been waiting 12 years for the UN to enforce the resolutions that they, themselves, passed. How much longer should people have waited? All of the “waiting” and doing nothing is what convinced Osama bin Laden to call the American military a “paper tiger”.

          And here’s an ironic thing about the attacks on President Bush. On one hand, he is being attacked and criticized for acting to quickly, too carelessly, to unilaterally, too whatever against our enemies who sponsor and support world-wide terrorism. But on the other hand, they’re attacking and criticizing him for not acting effectively enough in the days before 9-11, and in a way that might have prevented it. Consider this. Do you think it was politically expedient of President Bush to circumvent the UN? Of course not. Here we have a politician who has put his political life on the line. Why would he do that if it wasn’t the right thing to do? (And please, don’t suggest it was to pacify his big oil buddies. That’s just nonsense.) And consider another thing. Perhaps his decisions and actions over the past 30 months have indeed prevented another 9-11. It’s not possible to know for sure, but another one hasn’t happened, and overall acts of world-wide terrorism is at a 40 year low. Personally, I think President Bush deserves a lot of the credit. And the only ones who won’t give him any credit are his political opponents or those who are swayed by them.

        • #2732046

          You made me giggle

          by mlayton ·

          In reply to You gotta’ love these messages

          do an Internet search for subjects related to acts of terrorism and deaths caused by such acts.

          Now surely you are not suggesting I take the information I find on the Internet as truth? 🙂

        • #2732039

          It should go without saying

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to You made me giggle

          Are you suggesting that none of the Information on the Internet is reliable?

          I realize that the Internet can be a source of misinformation. But if you use a little bit of good judgement, you’ll know which sites are reliable.

          Use the Internet, go to the library, read some books, or use any other source you deem reliable, and get the facts as I suggested in my previous message. That’s what I meant.

          Of course, some people operate where if any given “source” doesn’t support that person’s desired conclusion, it’s considered unreliable, so you may or may not believe anything. Are you working backwards from a predetermined outcome, believing whatever supports that desired outcome, or are you first establishing a basis of facts on which to form that outcome (opinion)?

        • #2732031

          I was just teasing…

          by mlayton ·

          In reply to It should go without saying

          …coming from an industry where I constantly have to convince people that just because it’s on the Internet doesn’t mean it’s true (i.e. no, Bill Gates is not going to send you a check just for forwarding this e-mail! or no, there’s a good chance that “Juanita” the hot babe you’ve been communicating with perhaps is not quite a hot babe!) I knew what you meant, it just made me giggle was all!

        • #2731974

          Not the real issue I don’t think

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You gotta’ love these messages

          You seem to feel that the requests for an Iraq invasion were blindly ignored and turned down, wheras what I think happened was there was a lot of hesitation regarding a quick invasion. This does not mean that others are planning on sitting idly by and lettnig these events continue, in fact it is quite difefrent than it used to be.

          There is a GLOBAL war on terrorism now that is understood and supported by the free countries of the world. The issue before was that terrorism was simply not recognized as a global threat. Now it is and people are willing to put and end to it. Nobody was planning on letting this type of terror continue and everyone was willing to see it put to an end, by an ALLILED and global war on terrorism, not “America want to attack these guys next so lets get to it so England can invade their targets too.”
          The issue was being addressed as it hasn’t been over many years, so to imply that this ignorance towards teerorism would just continue as it always HAS been in the past is completely absurd.

          There IS a recognized worldwide threat now AND a GLOBAL war on terrorism, they MAY have taken another 6 months, perhaps 1 month perhaps a year, but it would be done, probably MUCH more effectively than it has been so far and less US, UK, and other coalition members lives would have been lost.

          Well done America and thank you for saving us all from certain doom.

        • #2731978

          Reminds me of Old School

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Sorry for the misunderstanding

          I think it was Old School where Will Farell is streaking down the middle of the road as his wife and her friends drive up.
          When asked what he wa doing he said, “We’re streaking!” after looking behind him he realized he’s alone.

          So I guess the same would apply, “We’re invading!”
          “Who’s WE?”

      • #2732119

        Secretary of State Colin Powell’s answer

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to I don’t think anyone disputes…

        During an address to the World Economic Forum, Secretary of State Colin Powell was asked a somewhat long and involved question by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, which ended with the following interrogative:

        “And would you not agree, as a very significant political figure in the United States, Colin, that America, at the present time, is in danger of relying too much upon the hard power and not enough upon building the trust from which the soft values, which of course all of our family life that actually at the bottom, when the bottom line is reached, is what makes human life valuable?”

        Secretary Powell delivered a lengthy response to the former Archbishop’s question:

        The United States believes strongly in what you call soft power, the value of democracy, the value of the free economic system, the value of making sure that each citizen is free and free to pursue their own God-given ambitions and to use the talents that they were given by God. And that is what we say to the rest of the world. That is why we participated in establishing a community of democracy within the Western Hemisphere. It’s why we participate in all of these great international organizations.

        There is nothing in American experience or in American political life or in our culture that suggests we want to use hard power. But what we have found over the decades is that unless you do have hard power ? and here I think you’re referring to military power ? then sometimes you are faced with situations that you can’t deal with.

        I mean, it was not soft power that freed Europe. It was hard power. And what followed immediately after hard power? Did the United States ask for dominion over a single nation in Europe? No. Soft power came in the Marshall Plan. Soft power came with American GIs who put their weapons down once the war was over and helped all those nations rebuild. We did the same thing in Japan.

        So our record of living our values and letting our values be an inspiration to others I think is clear. And I don’t think I have anything to be ashamed of or apologize for with respect to what America has done for the world.


        We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we?ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works.”

    • #2732075

      From a Former Marine

      by lwoldt ·

      In reply to President Bush – A Profile in Courage

      You are a fool and an idiot. The hostages were released from Iran by Carter – he chose to let Reagan be sworn in and the hostages released because he was decent enough to know he was leaving anyway and credit was not what Carter wanted – he wanted the hostages freed.

      As for Beruit, Reagan did nothing and neither did Bush the elder even though we knew who did it and we knew where they were. It wasn’t the Democrats who got Reagan to flinch it was the Republicans who didn’t want to offend the Arab oil, I mean, Arab world.

      Just like 9-11, 19 Arabs, the majority of which were Saudis – seen George do anything to the Saudis? No and you won’t because the Saudis are good friends of the Bush family and have been for decades going back to George Herbert Walker Bush’s father.

      Try reading recent history before you tell an ex Marine who let us down in Beruit. Reagan swore he’d never rest until he brought the perpatrators to justice. Well, he can’t remember who he is and I’m still waiting for justice for over 240 of my fellow Marines. By the way, your precious Ronnie didn’t even allow the Marines ammunition in Beruit because we were ‘peacekeepers’.

      By the way, what branch of the service were you in and when? Just curious since most right wingers don’t bother to serve they just send somebody else to die for them. That includes Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Phil Gramm and Tom Delay (those last two are shining examples of Texas Republicans).

      • #2732060

        Iran Hostages Comment

        by sullyman ·

        In reply to From a Former Marine

        It’s funny how search upon search on the web regarding the Iranian Hostage crisis, only makes mention of Carter and Regan. Over 10% of the hostages were freed with the help of Ambassador Ken Taylor ( of Canada ). For some reason US hstory chooses to forget about those individuals. Another shining example on how might in some instances should take a back seat to creatve problem solving……

        • #2732047


          by mlayton ·

          In reply to Iran Hostages Comment

          …on how might in some instances should take a back seat to creative problem solving

          Well put.

      • #2732017

        A reply from a fool and an idiot

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to From a Former Marine

        You should really be careful about making such charges.

        Before you presume to suggest that I don’t know what happened in 1980 with the Iran hostages, or twist it to suit your own predetermined outcome, you should read President Carter’s very own biography. (Yes, I have read it. In fact, I have an autographed first edition that President Carter signed for me in person.)

        President Carter didn’t, as you suggest, choose anything. In his very own words (I’m paraphrasing, of course) he admits that the fact the hostages weren’t released on his watch was a huge disappointment. Of course the Carter administration was in negotiations with Khomeini; in fact, they had been negotiating for the previous 444 days. And it was Khomeini who intentionally waited for the transfer of power; it was his choice, not Carter’s. But my initial message only suggests they were released on the day of Reagan’s inauguration, not that Reagan brokered the deal. Just like the debacle in the desert (the failed rescue attempt) was a huge embarrassment for Carter and the USA, so was the inauguration day release. It was a slap in the face of Jimmy Carter for Khomeini to intentionally wait until he was formally out of office. Even President Carter thinks so.

        Did you know, by the way, that President Reagan actually sympathized with that “slap” to Carter? And as a way of showing President Carter how he really felt about it, President Reagan, on the day he took office, right after he was told that the hostages had been freed, called President Carter and told him that he was the one who did the work and credited him for doing so much to free those hostages – and should get the credit. He then gave the former president Air Force One and asked him to go to Germany to welcome the hostages, many of whom even returned to the USA on Air Force One with former President Carter. A very nice gesture indeed.

        On Reagan and Beirut, I agree, he did nothing. In fact, I’ve suggested that no former American administration, of either political party, did anything significant to fight world-wide terrorism. Where in my original message, or anywhere else, do you read that I suggest Reagan did much about it. To the contrary, it suggests he did nothing. Man, you should go back and S-L-O-W-L-Y read it so you can correctly comprehend it.

        By the way, I served in the Air Force from 1972 through 1978. And in case you’re wondering, in 1972 the draft “lottery” system was in place. My number was close to 300, so I would not have been drafted, but I joined anyway. And one more thing, thank you very much for your service to your country. My brother was a Marine in Vietnam in 1969 (returned wounded), and while I have the utmost respect for all who served, the Marines hold a special place in my heart for their courage and commitment. Thank you very much.

        • #2732012

          Shame on you!

          by mlayton ·

          In reply to A reply from a fool and an idiot

          …for titling your reply so strongly and then waiting until the end to recognize the courage and commitment of this Marine. Your ending statement was lost in the title, which I assume was meant to incite a strong response.

          To the marine: thanks from a grateful nation – no matter your political views, it takes courage, commitment, and honor to serve in the armed forces. I think I speak for many in our nation when I say your commitment to serve means you are anything but a fool or an idiot.

        • #2732001

          My title was based on. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Shame on you!

          the names I was called by the person posting the message to which I replied.

          (I was called the fool and the idiot.)

        • #2731937


          by mlayton ·

          In reply to My title was based on. . . .

          … I thought he was calling Ann Coulter the fool and the idiot, since your post was a quote from her, and he was responding to points in the post. Maybe I read it wrong!

        • #2731918

          Let me go back and read it again.

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Oops…

          Please wait………reading it again……….

          Still reading…….continue to wait……….

          Okay, he said, “You are a fool and an idiot”.

          Then he asked, “….what branch of the service were you in and when”?

          I think I can only surmise that I am the “you” to which he was referring, not Ann Coulter.

          But let me look at it one more time.

          Please wait………reading it yet again……….

          Still reading…….continue to wait……….

          Yep, definitely. I’m the fool and the idiot to which he was referring.

          Thanks for helping clear that up.

          By the way, I’m not necessarily agreeing with his “fool and idiot” assessment.

          But wait, on second thought……..I am, after all, wasting my time in these stupid discussions…….At least I’m in similar company.

        • #2731903

          Just goes to show you…

          by mlayton ·

          In reply to Let me go back and read it again.

          …How the same text can be read by two parties and be taken to mean two completely different things, or at least two separate contexts.

        • #2732009

          Interesting tidbit

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to A reply from a fool and an idiot

          The actual plane, serving as Air Force One, that former President Carter took to Germeny to meet the hostages – hostages that were in captivity for 444 days – flew 444 total missions from the time it was put into service to the time it was retired.

    • #2731901

      A bit more about Democtrat hypocrisy

      by jardinier ·

      In reply to President Bush – A Profile in Courage

      It is amazing how the facts are unimportant to so many, and how soon they forget! (Read through to the bottom!)
      “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” – President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

      “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” – President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

      Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” – Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

      “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983.” – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18,1998

      “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” – Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D – MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

      “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

      “Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” > – Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

      “There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” – Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

      “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” – Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

      “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

      “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

      “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

      “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” – Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

      “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

      “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

      “He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” – Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

      “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” – Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

      “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

      “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


      • #2731896

        Julian – The beers are on me

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to A bit more about Democtrat hypocrisy

        My goodness, are you trying to warm up to me, or what? Nonetheless, I’ll buy the beers.

        I’ve posted those quotes on quite a few occasions, but people “conveniently” forget them, and, as you say, claim that GWB “lied”. The real truth, at least in my estimation, is that everybody was fooled and Saddam played the biggest gotcha’ in history, or we have to ask ourselves a very troubling question. Where are they?

        • #2731857

          Pro Democrat postings

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Julian – The beers are on me

          Sorry Max, don’t take it to heart but my postings are not in any way intended to express agreement with you personally.

          I just feel for the Americans who don’t want to vote for Bush, because the alternative is so appalling.

          Once again I will say that the Australian “left” party, The Australian Labor Party, doesn’t seem at all like the American Democrats.

          We, however, do have a choice between two viable candidates to fill the role of Prime Miniser. We all know Howard pretty well, and we know what to expect from him.

          Mark Latham is a highly intelligent and principled man. Despite Howard’s stringent efforts, he has been unable to find any skeletons in Latham’s closet. Latham has promised a lot of lateral-thinking policies which will not favour any section of the populace over any other.

        • #2731818


          by mlayton ·

          In reply to Pro Democrat postings

          …with all of the politics here, you are seldom voting FOR someone as you are AGAINST another person. And quotes and actions can be spun to suit any argument for or against anything unless they are looked at in the exact time and context they are given – because even what the politician had for breakfast can affect what comes out of their mouth that day.

          Ten years from now,(if we are still around) all these quotes will be brought up again for or against something else – in order to say see, this is what you said.

          Many moons ago I worked for a candidate and I was responsible for building a database of everything their opponent had ever said that was documented – every article written, every speech taped, and reference it by keywords so that if any subject came up, my candidate could pull words from his opposition’s own mouth to contradict what he said. At the time, I thought it was a brilliant strategy. (I was much younger!)

          But now, I have realized that this can be done for every candidate, on almost every subject. It’s actually kind of disheartening. I don’t know how some of them even look themselves in the mirror – so I have decided that I vote the way my conscience tells me, the way I can vote and still sleep at night. If then the politics of the country go a different way, I work to change them in my own quiet way.

          At least, if I take action/responsibility for my own beliefs, then I can feel like I am supporting myself. Its the people who don’t vote, and then also don’t take action, and yet complain bitterly or try to influence those who do vote, who should be ashamed of themselves. If you actually care, do something. Anything.

        • #2732807

          There’s No Justification

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Unfortunately…

          To say “they all do it” is no justification. Moreover, the quotes listed by Julian, and the way those very people showed their hypocrisy, is uniquely Democrat. As an illustration, you could certainly find similar quotes by just about every Republican in Congress or in Cabinet positions. The difference, however, is that these very same Republicans aren’t criticizing anyone for it. What a golden opportunity, for example, for John McCain, who isn’t exactly the greatest fan of GWB. Why isn’t he using the same tactics as the Democrats as a way to win the Presidency? We know he wants it, as he ran against GWB in the 2000 primaries. The reason he doesn’t do it is that he knows that everyone thought (or still thinks) the WMDs were in Iraq, and to pretend he didn’t think so would be obviously disingenuous. But the Democrats have no problem with being obviously disingenuous.

          About the only thing I can think of where Republicans did a 180 on an issue was the term-limits cry of the early 90s. Many of them spoke out in favor of term limits as a way of unseating incumbent Democrats. But after they won on the issue, and were reelected a few times, and were facing term-limits themselves, they suddenly had a change of heart. My state has two such Republican representatives. One of them, as I said, did a 180, and violated his “term-limit pledge”. The other one, to his credit, decided to honor his pledge and not run for re-election. (Personally, I was always against term-limits. We can always vote the person out.)

          Here’s another disingenuous Democrats’ issue. The Democrats were all in favor of campaign finance reform. But they are now the ones abusing the spirit of the thing by taking advantage of all the loopholes that they, themselves, wrote into the bill.

          I could be blinded by own biases, but if anyone can show where Republicans, in general, and in lock-step, are so obviously hypocritical, I’d sure like to see it.

          And on this particular WMD issue, there really is NO justification for it. Absolutely NONE.

        • #2732782


          by itsecpro ·

          In reply to There’s No Justification

          Isn’t Kay a Republican?

        • #2731807

          Julian – I know

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Pro Democrat postings

          Yes, I do realize that you are not in any way intending to agree with me. This just happens to be one of those rare times when you do. Actually you would probably prefer that I say that your observation and I are in agreement. Okay, I’ll buy your observation a beer.

          I should become more familiar with the party politics of other nations, especially Canada, Britain and Australia. I will admit that it receives little, if any, mention in most of the US press.

        • #2732457

          Not quite …

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Julian – I know

          My “observation” is in agreement with your

          So let your opinion buy a drink for my
          observation, only because my observation is a
          teetolaller you had better make that a Coke or
          a lemon squash.

      • #2731891

        Bush didn’t lie Julian

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to A bit more about Democtrat hypocrisy

        Here’s some quotes from various speeches recorded by The White House:

        November 7th 2002
        “…the resolution is a disarmament resolution; that’s what it is. It’s a statement of intent to, once and for all, disarm Saddam Hussein. He’s a threat. He’s a threat to the country, he’s a threat to people in his neighborhood. He’s a real threat.”

        Jan. 2nd 2003
        “You know, Saddam Hussein — hopefully he realizes we’re serious, and hopefully he disarms peacefully. He’s a danger to the American people, he’s a danger to our friends and allies.”

        Jan. 31st 2003

        “I’ve told you the strategic vision of our country shifted dramatically, and it shifted dramatically because we now recognize that oceans no longer protect us, that we’re vulnerable to attack. And the worst form of attack could come from somebody acquiring weapons of mass destruction and using them on the American people, or the worst attack could come when somebody uses weapons of mass destruction on our friends in Great Britain.”

        Feb. 7th 2003
        “I have said that if Saddam Hussein does not disarm, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. And I mean it. ”

        March 16th 2003
        “The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations.”

        It just goes on and on and on, EVERY single speech or collection of press coments mentions Saddam’s WMD and how he is a threat to America that will be stopped. It isn’t ntil mid to late 2003 that his speeches STARTED to mention Liberation, I think it was mentioned OCNE in one speech that also mentioned WMD in EVERY paragraph.

        Prior to this turn of the tides, EVERY paragraph of every speech mentioned , WMD and Saddam had to be stopped by force if neccessary to protect America and her friends.

        I can not see how so many people actually came up with the bizarre idea that this invasion was to rid Saddam of WMD and protect America? GWB NEVER implied such hogwash and wouldn’t deceive America. I think The White House is just lying and the great and righteous G.W.Bush is just a nice guy with a bad rap when all he wanted was to help these people in Iraq.

        Even though in another comment he says that until now, the issues in Iraq have not been a great concern for America, since 911 it has become imperative to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein and remove the threat. So I guess all along he has actually wanted to help Iraqi people from harm, no it couldn’t be, he said that Iraq has not been a concern of America until 911. Well whatever, we’ll just believe him anyway, you can’t make heads or tails of most of his comments anyhow.

        • #2731819


          by nd_it ·

          In reply to Bush didn’t lie Julian

          I don’t think Bush necessarily lied about the WMD, I believe he was fed minimal evidence by the CIA and CHOOSE to believe it, another reason for him to go into Iraq. If this wasn’t an election year, you wouldn’t be hearing some many Deomocrats going back on what they said over a year ago about Saddam and WMD. Isn’t there anyone else running for President? I mean someone that we all know, not “Jerry Smith” who somehow got on the ballot because he got so many of his friends to sign a petition? No…Oh boy.

        • #2732801

          Consider the rest of the story

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to CIA

          To think that President “chose” to believe only what he wanted to, is to suggest that everyone else, including the previous administration, congress, and the United Nations, also “chose” to believe the very same thing. No one – literally NO ONE – denied the presence of WMDs, not ever.

          If anyone deserves “blame” – make that “BLAME” – for this WMD issue, you’re right in focusing in on the CIA. They either screwed up by providing false intelligence or they screwed up and lost track of them. (The second option is certainly reason for concern.)

        • #2732771

          The source isnn’t the issue

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Consider the rest of the story

          I don’t remember tha CIA telling us that we were under threat of WMD. It is their job to pass whatever intelligence they gather on to the President. It is the President’s job to ensure such information is confirmed beond a shadow a a doubt before informing the peope of America, especially in such a case as a threat upon the country from WMD.

          Now I know GWB doesn’t have the time to ‘double check’ these allegations, that is SUPPOSED to be the VIA’s job. I have heard allegations that SOME people (Iraqi informants to the CIA) were admittedly offering false information for the sheer purpose of creating this action from the USA, but again from what I know these are just allegations. What I found amusing was how soon after the initial invasion that it was found these people were full of it and had mislead the CIA. Was this due to a knee jerk reaction by the CIA and the President or was it just that after the invasion such stories began to leak.

          I belive Tony Blair had actually said something about bringing this person/people to justice over the isinformation. GWB hasn’t even recognized the issue and has simply pulled the general public’s focus in a different direction of a more humanitarian effort. Well I have no problem with such a basis for the invasion, if a humanitarian effort it is then lets all stay on the same page.

          CHANGING the focus was just sidestepping or backpeddling, not admitting or openly explaining the confusion (other than a couple of breif mentions that the allegations in the UK were being investigated)and allowing the people of America to believe one thing then another.

          >Was this to save face during election year?

          >Will the truth surface if he doesn’t get elected?

          >Will BUSH deny such ‘truth’ as it surfaces and claim it is Democratic propaganda to strengthen their ‘new’ position?

          Bush may have been mislead, he inturn mislead ALL of the American citizens and other country’s citizens around the globe.

          Bush has never corrected his original allegations or apologized to the people for the misleading information (that would most likely have lead to MUCH less support for the invasion by the Americans who were sending their sons and daughters overseas.) so therefore must still stand by his convictions.

          GWB is a corporate man, he has grown in an industry that has successfully deceived and mislead millions over the years and continues to do so every day, that’s just big business.

          How can we say that now he is in a position of even higher power that he would not automatically do the same thing? It’s in your blood.
          I was once a bloodthirsty and evil corporate drone. I would crocodile smile all the way to the bank, it took several years and a near death exoperience for me to see what I had become and start to find who I really was again. My brother runs a successful corporate law firm, I see such bottom feeder tactics used all the time by the ost ‘respectable’ corporations.

          We rarely hear how these guys get sued several times per week/month for unethical business practices.

          WalMart, Esso, TExaco, Chevron, K-Mart, Save-on-Foods, AT&T, Sprint etc. they ALL get sued so many times per month it is unbelievable. My brother has left one courtroom, walked down the hall and enetered another hearing against the SAME company, while another discovery is taking place for the same company AGAIN in another courtroom, it’s a fulltime job representing these guys., Yet we only hear of the biggest cases that provide god media fodder based on the political topic of the week.

          I just see so many people placing trust and faith in the most unethical and unfathful corporations each day and then being stung or simply not hearing what they really do behind the scenes.

          So coming from THAT background, it is no wonder BUSH is a master of deception and steering opinion, it is a learned art, a natural instinct that is focused on and strengthened over time purposely to create the desired outcome, not a personal trait as much as a learned trait.

          Bush must wear contacts, I’m sure his eyes are blue in press photos.

        • #2732645

          Unintelligent intelligence

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Consider the rest of the story

          We have the same problem in Australia, of intelligence collecting agencies not passing on information to the Government.

          In fact there’s quite a hoo-ha going on right now, as a couple of former intelligence agents have openly spoken out — the gist of their revelation being that the agencies only supply information which the Government (or Prime Minster) would like to hear.

          Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

    • #2731773

      George W – A Profile in Business Failure

      by tellangon ·

      In reply to President Bush – A Profile in Courage

      Basic Accounting 101 – You cannot spend more than you make without eventually driving the enterprise into the ground.

      Bush enters office and declares a tax break. Reduces income to the enterprise. Bush comments that the economy, which has been moving at great pace for 8 years, is in bad shape. In predictable reaction, the stock market tanks. Businesses cease to exist; therefore less taxes coming in.

      Less businesses = less taxes paid = less revenue for the government.

      9-11 occurs – Bush enters war on terrorism – increases spending. (Expenses go up). Takes control of Afghanistan – misses designated target Osama Bin Ladin. Bush declares victory. (Victory?)

      Bush announces that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. After failing to gain a coalition of forces through the channels established by this country, declares war on Iraq.

      Massive troop and equipment movements = increased expenses.

      Misses main target Saddam Hussein. Misses again. Misses again. Bush declares Victory. Bush announces war is over. Chaos breaks out due to lack of planning for management after victory.

      Increased weapon usage + bereavement benefits = increased expenses.

      Troops capture Saddam; Bin Laden still at large. Chaos in Iraq increases.

      More troops + longer stays + increased weapon usage + bereavement benefits = increased expenses.

      Side issue — Am I the only on that also thinks that our President apparently launched a war against a country that may have had a vicious leader, but also apparently was not doing anything that actually threatened the United States? Now, is forcibly taking over another country under false pretences be considered a “high crime” or is it more of a “misdemeanor”? I am never sure. Oh well, at least he did not have an affair with an intern, so I guess we can save the expense of an impeachment proceeding.

      Meanwhile on the home front, Bush supports reform that rewards businesses for sending jobs offshore. Jobs are lost. Taxpayers go bankrupt. Losses increase at financial institutions as they write off debt and lose interest income.

      Bankruptcies = lost business revenue = less taxes paid = less revenue.
      Jobs lost = less taxes paid = less revenue (potentially forever).
      Unemployment benefits paid out = increased expenses.

      So let’s recap — Expenses are WAY up / Revenue base is WAY down & deteriorating. Is this a profile in courage or a profile in failure? I guess we all get to decide in November.

      • #2732786

        Your message is dripping with falsehoods

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to George W – A Profile in Business Failure

        The premise of your whole tax-revenue argument was that a “tax break”, as you called it, “reduced income to the enterprise”.

        First of all, there were no “tax breaks”, but rather reductions in the rate of taxation.

        Moreover, I would be willing to wager that even though tax rates were reduced, that the total dollars collected by the government INCREASED. I would wager that the government collected more money in FY 2003 than it did in FY 2002, and that it collected more money in FY 2002 than it did in FY 2001, the year of the Bush tax RATE cuts.

        Therefore what?

        Therefore, tax rate reductions do not cause deficits. Increased spending is what causes deficits. Now if you want to argue that the war on terrorism caused an increase in spending, you might have a point. But even then, it’s insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Did you know, for example, that out of the almost TWO TRILLION dollars the government spends every year, than only about 15 percent is spent on the military? Did you know that more that 50 percent of that – over ONE TRILLION dollars is spent on money transfer programs every year, while only about 300 billion is spent on the military?

        So let’s recap.

        Contrary to what you suggest, revenues are UP, not down, and revenues are projected to increase even more, not decrease, as you also suggested. Spending is also up, but spending on social money-transfer programs has increased by not only a higher dollar amount, but at a higher rate than the increase in military spending.

        And here’s a scary thought. We’re spending (or will spend) more money on the new prescription drug give-away program than we’re spending (or will spend) fighting the war on terrorism.

        So we disagree, right? Who’s right and who’s mistaken? The proof in the budget.

        Budget of the United States for FY 2003:

        Budget of the United States 2002 (and previous years):

        There ya’ go.

        • #2732759


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Your message is dripping with falsehoods

          As I was reading your post I was shocked to see just how different the numbers you provided were with the numbers I heard reported here. I heard that you country is the ONLY country on Earth that spend MORE than 30% of it taxes on the Military funding, either directly or indirectly.

          I heard another source report that you spend 40% on military.

          Then I read all your information and realized how differebt the figures were. How could such figures be logical with the amount of military might you develop each year and the pay to the MASSES of soldiers who fight for the USA.

          Now i am ny no means saying my figuers are correct, in fact as with ANY corporation in history, the nubers always look good by the time they are publically reported, again my brother has spent COUNTLESS nights sitting with accountants trying to make a company’s books look as good as legally possible with a nip here, a tuck there a realocation here, an expenditure there etc.

          If you ask a guy in a bar how much he earns, do tyou REALLY think you ever hear the truth? No.

          SO declared income/expenses are ALWAYS inflated, I don’t care who you are or how great your integrity is, numbers are made to be manipulated.

          Now I looked at the source of the information itself, The White House, sigh.
          Well those numbers are pretty impressive I know, now again, I am not saying what I heard is any more OR any less accurate.

          Numbers LIE, there is NO truth in such statements by ANY government or corporation on Earth. People are paid immense amounts of money and even bigger bonuses when the numbers look good, there is no way in hell you can deny this, it is fact and for MOST it is common knowledge.

          Then again, some people believe a lot of things don’t they.

        • #2732744

          The real numbers are admittedly evasive. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Well

          …..and if you ever tried to read through one of those federal budgets, your eyes would glaze over, or glaze over some more, whichever the case may be.

          Depending on how the report is worded, the numbers could go all over the place. For example, The Bush Administration submitted a budget for FY2002 requesting $343.2 billion for defense, an increase of $32.6 billion over the previous year. This new budget will mean that military spending will consume more than half of all the discretionary spending by the federal government.

          You might say – WOW HALF the spending in on the military?

          However, “discretionary” spending amounts to about one-third of the total federal budget with the remainder going for mandatory spending on entitlement programs such as Medicare, Social Security, federal pensions, etc. The next largest item of discretionary spending is about $50 billion for education.

          So one-half of one-third equals one-sixth of the total. And one-sixth equals 16.5 percent (I think I said 15%).

          By the way, that’s a great example of how a “report” may be extremely misleading. Whether or not the report is intentionally misrepresented is another question entirely.

          (Link to source and more….)

          But for the most part, the general breakdown of where it comes from and where it goes can be illustrated by the pie charts at this site.

          (Don’t forget those pesky SPACES in the pasted URL.)

          There are certainly other sources that may be a little different. But within a few percentage points, these numbers are pretty close.

        • #2732632

          And where did the surplus go??

          by tellangon ·

          In reply to The real numbers are admittedly evasive. . . .

          I guess that answer is admittedly evasive as well. Maybe we shuld submit that question to the President so perhaps the answer can pop into his head?

        • #2732617

          Surpluses and Deficits

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to And where did the surplus go??

          The answer is really quite simple if you think about the federal budget in the same way as your personal budget.

          The money you take in minus the money you spend equals either a surplus or a deficit. If we spend more money than we earn, it’s usually reflected in the outstanding debt we carry such as a home mortgage, automobile loan, or credit card debt. If we spend less money than we earn, we see our personal savings account (or investment account, etc.) grow.

          When the government spends more money than they take in, it creates a spending deficit, and they, in essence, put it on their “credit card”. Their credit, however, is in the form of Treasury Bills, Savings Bonds, and so on. (The total of each years’ deficits equally the national debt.) When the government spends less money than they take in, they have a surplus of funds just sitting there. And just like yourself, when you suddenly have a little windfall that you weren’t expecting, a choice has to be made as to what to do with it.

          Some legislators would want to spend it, since they think spending almost two trillion dollars a year isn’t enough. Some legislators would want to use it to pay off the current debt load being carried, just like you might pay off your automobile loan. Some legislators would want to return it to the people – the tax payers – who paid too much in the first place. And I say they paid too much in the first place because, in theory, the government shouldn’t take more than they need. And since their spending is predetermined by the previously approved budget, there’s nowhere for that money to go.

          I could be wrong on this, but I believe that, by law, the government can’t keep a surplus. It doesn’t have a national “savings account”, so to speak. So if they take in more than they are allowed to spend, they must either create new legislation (pass an addendum to the budget) to spend it or they must give it back to the taxpayers. What happened to the past surplus, you ask? Well, I suppose it’s a combination of those two things – they spent some of it, and they gave some of it back. Didn’t you get your $400 check not too long ago?

          By the way, the President doesn’t control the national purse-strings. That function, by law and in practice, is the responsibility of Congress. The President can only request that they spend it a certain way, and whenever he wants extra money that’s not already allocated for a specific thing, he must ask Congress to approve it. For example, he recently asked Congress to approve an additional 86 billion for fighting the war on terrorism in Iraq. So if you have a question about where it goes, you should ask your Representative or Senator, not the President.

      • #2732780


        by mlayton ·

        In reply to George W – A Profile in Business Failure

        Let’s see, in fiscal year – I think it was 2001, the whole fiscal year vs. calendar thing always confuses me – we had a surplus of $127 billion. The following year, we had a deficit of around $159 billion, which some economists attributed to the smallest tax receipts in decades. The year after that, it was projected to be over $400 billion. Certainly, if I am launching military responses to a country, I might have thought about not granting all those tax breaks (I think you are talking about the refunds?) I might have said instead of giving my people this money, I will put it in a fund for the rebuilding of the nation I am about to launch military responses in – and I will establish a plan that projects costs at this much. These tax checks will cover x amount of that, and so where can I find the rest of the money? Then I might go over my budget with a fine tooth comb and try to find a way to get my well-thought out plan implemented without putting the nation in billions of follars of deficit. But that’s just how I would do it.

    • #2732738

      Look into a man’s heart. . . .

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to President Bush – A Profile in Courage

    • #2732609

      Nice Distortion of History

      by bobhog ·

      In reply to President Bush – A Profile in Courage

      A poor and narrow-minded recounting of history. You failed to mention the ties these brave republicans have to some of the people we are attempting to eliminate now. I’m sure Reagan has forgotten, Nixon will never tell, Bush sr. has too much at stake, and Bush jr. is in just as deep.

      Sure, democrats have to own up to responsibilities, too, but when Clinton was acting to snuf out genocide in Serbia, the same republicans railing for war against Iraq were railing for Clinton to move troops out of Serbia. Great defenders of freedom? I think not. Those Serbians being killed were Muslim.

      Why did dubya stay in that school in Florida so long after learing of the attacks on 9/11? Why did he pose for photos afterwards at that school? Why did he not speak on the attacks for two days?

      Courage, indeed!

      And now we know in hindsight that Iraq did not harbor terrorists or WMD. So why did we go in the first place?

      • #2732595

        Nothing is distorted

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Nice Distortion of History

        Throughout this thread, I’ve suggested that every administration prior to the current one has been either ineffective or unresponsive to world-wide terrorism. Those administrations include Reagan’s and the elder Bush’s. Nixon is going back a ways, but I suppose he was busy ending LBJ’s war in Vietnam, mending relations with China, and, unfortunately, destroying his own reputation by shifting the focus from his achievements to a cover-up of an unnecessary petty crime.

        Your attack on President Bush on 9-11 only shows your blind ignorance.

        And you are mistaken when you say that, “we know in hindsight that Iraq did not harbor terrorists or WMD”.

        On the WMD – old story. Will you never give up? Please read the previous messages and that question is answered in full.

        On Iraq and terrorism – again, old story.

        Saddam’s Iraq ties to terrorism:

        1. Saddam Hussein offered a $25,000 bounty to anyone who would kill Americans in a terrorist attack.

        2. Abdul Rahman Yasin was a member of the al Qaeda cell that was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that was intended to collapse the two towers amid a cloud of cyanide gas, planning to kill upwards of 20,000 people. He carried an Iraqi passport, and he fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam’s hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and a monthly salary.

        3. Osama bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq’s Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam’s son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam’s mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

        4. Osama bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.

        5. An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, Osama bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam’s men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

        6. In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq’s mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is “thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq,” the Guardian reported.

        7. In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane’s Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane’s reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s No. 2 man.

        8. As recently as 2001, Iraq’s embassy in Pakistan was used as a “liaison” between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

        9. London’s Independent reports that Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan — who is charged by a Spanish court with being “directly involved with the preparation and planning” of the Sept. 11 attacks — that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his “al Qaeda” name.

        10. An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as “Abu Mohammed,” told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden’s fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam’s Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives — on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: “We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: ‘You’ll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden’s group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'”

        11. In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam’s son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

        12. The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri’s bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.

        13. Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates “converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. From their Baghdad base, according to Secretary of State Powell, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaeda’s global network.

        14. In 2001, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering from Iraq.

        15. Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces in Afghanistan, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq.

        16. Zarqawi’s Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi’s cell in Iraq. His accomplice escaped to Iraq.

        17. Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed Ibrahim Makwai (aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003, according to intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post.

        18. Mohammed Atef, the head of al Qaeda’s military wing until the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to manufacture chemical weapons. Where did they go? They went to Iraq.

        19. Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was