Topic: WOW! (Read 14521 times)

Vespertine · « **on:** September 11, 2004, 12:00:15 AM »

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/25/chill.political.speech/index.html

So, I read this the other day and then fumed about it for days. I'll give you guys a chance to read it before I climb up on my soapbox, because I'd hate to give away the ending.

Rico · « **Reply #1 on:** September 11, 2004, 01:39:46 AM »

As for the most of that, I'll have to let my silence express my opinion.

I would like to point out, however, that the increasingly violent protests in the last several years have allowed things like this to go through. When people become more concerned with getting noticed than making a point, you end up with idiots doing nothing more than causing trouble.

avalanche · « **Reply #2 on:** September 11, 2004, 07:53:31 AM »

The few have ruined it for all.

The article points out, (paraphrase) "in those days, you knew if you caused a disruption, you would be escorted out by the SS". That doesn't seem to be much af a deterrent these days.

I'm not saying I agree with the "Free Speech Zones", but the right is to speak, not to be heard. The right is to peacably assemble, not to disrupt those who are peacably assembled... at will.

xolik · « **Reply #3 on:** September 11, 2004, 11:53:16 AM »

Department of pre-crime ahoy!

**knock knock**

Mr. Xolik, we learned on Teh Intraweb that you may be prostesting the return of the McRib at McDonalds. You need to come with us.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #4 on:** September 13, 2004, 08:29:46 AM »

This is still pretty far over the line.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #5 on:** September 13, 2004, 03:23:40 PM »

Reminds me of the Bad Brains song, the Big Takeover.

avalanche · « **Reply #6 on:** September 13, 2004, 03:38:02 PM »

Rico · « **Reply #7 on:** September 13, 2004, 11:58:57 PM »

Quote from: avalanche

The few have ruined it for all.

The article points out, (paraphrase) "in those days, you knew if you caused a disruption, you would be escorted out by the SS". That doesn't seem to be much af a deterrent these days.

I'm not saying I agree with the "Free Speech Zones", but the right is to speak, not to be heard. The right is to peacably assemble, not to disrupt those who are peacably assembled... at will.

I both agree and disagree with you. I believe you have every right to be heard. Not even right, really, but duty. If you feel something is wrong, it's your responsibility to stand up and say so.

I also believe that people tend to get so wrapped up in themselves that they forget the other side feels they're right, too. Just because they disagree, doesn't mean they're wrong, stupid, or even misled. Respect for the opposition would mean that you could both assemble and not cause trouble. No one respects anything anymore, though. That's why Democratic demonstrators will make fun of Bush, ridicule and interfere with his supporters. Republican demonstrators turn around and do the same. Just because I support Bush does not mean that I think Kerry is a horrible person. He's done some good things, and some bad ones. There are a few Kerry supporters that'll sayt the same of Bush. Unfortunately, the majority on both sides feel that the other is intellectually challenged for not sharing the same opinion. Their opponent is somehow sub-human and not worth being respected.

Those believes and feelings are what have allowed public disobedience to become Jerry Springer Goes to Washington.

ho0ber · « **Reply #8 on:** September 14, 2004, 01:51:20 AM »

Quote from: xolik

Department of pre-crime ahoy!

**knock knock**

Mr. Xolik, we learned on Teh Intraweb that you may be prostesting the return of the McRib at McDonalds. You need to come with us.

ITS GONNA BE BACK!!!!?!?!?!?

(ho0ber buys stock).

Anonymous · « **Reply #9 on:** September 14, 2004, 07:34:02 AM »

Quote from: Rico

I also believe that people tend to get so wrapped up in themselves that they forget the other side feels they're right, too. Just because they disagree, doesn't mean they're wrong, stupid, or even misled. Respect for the opposition would mean that you could both assemble and not cause trouble.

In principle that's fine, but it doesn't always work that way in the real world. The actions of two parties go beyond words. It's not just a debate or a bunch of "what if" scenarios. The opposition responds to the specific actions of their counterpart.

Let's take that principle beyond borders. The Bush administration didn't agree with what was going in Iraq. They tried to talk and get a resolution, they tried to involve the international comunity. But when they didn't get the support they wanted, what they they do? Exactly what you're criticizing people of doing in the statement above.

The principle of respect for the opposition isn't always practicle. Sometimes, you need to make a scene to get attention. That's just reality. It's like that in politics, it's like that when you're trying to figure out who fucked up your credit rating by accident.

I don't like Bush. I think he's wrong. I think he's stupid. It's not because I don't agree with his philosophies ( I don't, but that's irrelevant), it's because he acted on them. It's the actions I have a problem with. He can think what ever the hell he wants. I don't give a damn about that. But he can't just act of his own will without considering the will of others. That's what he did. He'll do it again when the occasion presents itself. That's what makes him so dangerous. To be frank, I think the greater threat in this whole war against terrorism is the Bush administration. I am more fearful of what they will do next than what any other terrorist group may do next.

The irony is that the actions of the Bush administration have an impact on the entire world. It impacts me. Yet I can't go and vote against him. I can't do anything to get rid of him. I could try to assasinate him if I was desperate. I'm not at that point yet. But seriously, what are my options? It's awful that my voice cannot be heared while the actions of this individual may just puts me and the ones I love at risk while he's hiding beyond a fricking border. Are there borders in his actions? Not really. They go against democratic principles an dagainst what your country is suppos to be all about.

The Bush regime must be stopped.

Rico · « **Reply #10 on:** September 14, 2004, 08:40:52 AM »

People always bring up the fact that we went to war without UN support. No one ever really thought we'd get it in the first place, and anyone who says otherwise, read Kerry, is fooling you. Key people in the UN, people with veto power, were known to be selling Iraq weapons and ammunition. There's no way that Fance, Russia, China, and to some extent, Germany, were going to allow us to kill their cash cow.

Everyone else can sit back and say, "hey, I voted for the war on the grounds we got UN support." That's straight BS. It's a politically sound position. You KNOW we won't have support but are going to go to war anyway. If we win, you can say you voted for it, and if we loose, you say you said only if we had UN support.

Look, going to war wasn't the greatest idea, but we did it. Don't sit there and try to make out like it's all Bush's fault. EVERYONE was gunning for us to go to war up until we actually did it. Yeah, some folks were misled because they never stopped to think about the fact that we'd never have UN support. Do you realize that we had TONS of evidence to show they had WMD there? It wasn't even in doubt that they were violating who-knows how many other sanctions, and had been for the whole 10 years. The UN was NEVER going to do crap about it either.

So, don't go blaming crap on Bush just because he was president at the time. It was an idea that had appeal on both sides of the House. I'm not saying Kerry's a bad guy either. He'll probably make an okay president if he wins, but don't let the commertials mislead you. He's playing this just as much as anyone else.

Anonymous · « **Reply #11 on:** September 14, 2004, 09:07:05 AM »

I never said I supported the K man. In fact, I don't know much about him so it would be stupid on my part to offer him my support. All I said is I don't support bush and his administration. Not JUST Bush.

I don't know if you recall, but I made threads way back when, supporting the war in Iraq. Why did I make those threads? Because I supported Bush and his administration. I did back then. Because they lied to me and I failed to see it until it was too late.

You are correct about the UN. The Veto thing sucks and I don't like it. So France and others had some beneficial relationships with Iraq. Do you think that's really the reason why this whole thing was never approved? France has even more lucrative relationships with the US!

I'm not saying there's no political reasons why you didn't get the support you wanted, but the main reason still is that you didn't make a strong enough case, you failed to provide solid evidence, you didn't wait for the UN inspector to finish his work. Even Clinton said that was a dumb thing to do. Getting UN support isn't straight BS. It's democracy on a world wide scale. Like anyother system, it can be improved. There are flaws in the Canadian democracy, the American democracy, and any democracy. But you don't just bypass the system, you fix it.

I don't beleive your TONS of evidence anymore. You had TONS of suspicions, but LITTLE evidence. The public may have been supportive until the days when you took action, but what the hell does the public know? they were lied to. In fact, I was watching a news report this weekend and I was shooked to see that nearly 50% of the American population still beleive Iraq had anything to do the with 9-11 attacks. Even after their own government clearly said it wasn't the case. The Bush administration has done such a great job at brainwashing the population that they have a hard time to bring them back to reality!

I don't blame crap on Bush just because he was the President at the time. I blame him for the actions he took.

Who is the number one enemy in the war against terror? Who is responsible for the planning and the execution of 9-11? I'll give you a hint. It starts with "B" and it ens with "in Laden".

Where is Bin Laden beleived to be at this time? In the area between the Afganistan/Pakistan border.

How many troups are in that area? About 15 000. How many troups were sent to Iraq? About 140 000.

So if Bin Laden is the number one priority in the war against terror, why the fuck is everyone in Iraq?

This is the result of the Bush administration. They fucked up big time.

Rico · « **Reply #12 on:** September 14, 2004, 09:27:09 AM »

Judge, that's not entirely true. While Al Queda has certainly been a thorn in our side, it's not the only organization out there. It's just the most famous one, made so by the media. Most people think that the war in Iraq was because of their link to Al Queda because it was misrepresented as such in the media. Yeah, that was a really bad move by the administration. They should have just came right out and given the real reasons for invading. The problem, though, is that when you say we're attacking because they're funding terrorists, but not the ones that just dropped the towers... It's not likely they would have had much support. Yeah, we went to war for entirely the wrong reason, and a lot of people were misled. If you vote against Bush, that's a good reason. We still took out a huge threat to our security, though. Iraq was training a lot of terrorists, and funding even more.

France has pretty good relations with us, yes. China has even better ones. Most of France's connections with the US, as far as I've ever seen, aren't the kind that could be severed over politics, though. Tourists will still visit, and companies can chose who ever they want to work with. We're certainly not going to kick French buisnesses out of the US over something like that.

There are plenty of good reasons not to like Bush. I'm only shooting down the ones that I see as inaccurate. I've done the same with Kerry. Granted I've attacked him on some pretty goofy stuff, too.

Anonymous · « **Reply #13 on:** September 14, 2004, 09:46:24 AM »

There's no doubt that there are other terrorist group, and that some where based in Iraq. But of all of them, Al Queda poses the most threat to the US. They have great support in their cause in the middle east. They have funding, they are intelligent and disciplined. They mean business and they've clearly stated that they were going to continue attacking the US. They will continue attacking civilians.

I just don't see any justification in focusing on secondary objectives when the primary one isn't accomplished. You're a military man. Surely you can see that this isn't a good strategy. Why not start by getting the greatest threat under control and then focus on the lesser threats? That's what I don't get.

Don't get me wrong, I think some of the things that were done in Iraq is great, but this secondary objective shouldn't be the priority. I think you'll find that you'll soon run out of ressources and you may have just missed the opportunity to complete what should be the primary objective. You should fight those who attacked you.

What's going to happen to Iraq now? Your guys are worned out. They're tired. They need to come home. So what happens? The US turns to the UN for support. "Please help us make Iraq a democracy because frankly, we're running out of ressources and we just can't do it on our own". It's ironic.

And what of the primary objective? You're in no shape to deal with it now! Al queda is regrouping, reforming. This is only going to get worse, I assure you. To wote Bush, "Make no mistake about it". You can smoke them out of their caves all you want, but you don't just standing there watching them run out to a bigger cave.

Vespertine · « **Reply #14 on:** September 14, 2004, 09:30:17 PM »

Quote from: Rico

Look, going to war wasn't the greatest idea, but we did it. Don't sit there and try to make out like it's all Bush's fault. EVERYONE was gunning for us to go to war up until we actually did it. Yeah, some folks were misled because they never stopped to think about the fact that we'd never have UN support. Do you realize that we had TONS of evidence to show they had WMD there? It wasn't even in doubt that they were violating who-knows how many other sanctions, and had been for the whole 10 years. The UN was NEVER going to do crap about it either.

So, don't go blaming crap on Bush just because he was president at the time. It was an idea that had appeal on both sides of the House. I'm not saying Kerry's a bad guy either. He'll probably make an okay president if he wins, but don't let the commertials mislead you. He's playing this just as much as anyone else.

You should know that EVERYONE wasn't gunning for us to go to war. I, for one, was dead set against it from the beginning.

As far as not "blaming Bush just because he was president at the time"...well who the hell else should I blame? The president of this country wanted (for reasons that are still unknown) take down Saddam Hussein. Was he avenging his daddy? Was he trying to one-up his daddy? Did he believe with all of his heart that Saddam was planning an imminent attack on the US? The answer to all of those questions is, "Who the hell knows?" Regardless of the answer, George Bush pushed for this war, and pushed for Congress to approve it. Hypothetically, if Bush had never once mentioned invading Iraq, do you really think that Congress would have come up with this declaring war thing on their own? I place the blame for the mess in Iraq solely on the shoulders of that nitwit. As the leader of this country, as the person that presented false evidence, and as the person that pushed for congressional approval, he deserves 100% of the blame for the clusterfuck in Iraq (and the resulting bad feelings the rest of the world towards America).

Rico · « **Reply #15 on:** September 15, 2004, 01:04:08 AM »

True, pushing into the war has spread us a little thin. We were thin to start with, really. It's not entirely causing the problems you'd think with our hunt for Al Queda. That war is fought with Special Forces, not regular Army. Also, the war in Iraq has stirred things up and given us the chance to get some great intel.

Why did we go? That's really pretty simple. Iraq is known for aiding terrorists. They were suspected of having WMD, and it was a very strong suspicion. I know, we didn't find any. Maybe they didn't even have it. We still had top Iraqi officers talking about it, records of material imported into the country that could be used to create it, plenty of Human Intelligence indicating it's presense, and the fact that it had been used in the past. With the attacks of 911, the dangers posed by Iraq became a clear and present danger to the US. Keep in mind, nearly everyone was under the impression that they had WMD. The majority of the UN felt they had it, they just didn't want to go to war because of it. Former President Clinton had spoke on a number of occasions concerning Iraq. Several members of the House, on both sides, had mentioned the samething. Everyone was worried about it. So, we went to war. The idea that we were going for oil, or that this was some sort of vendetta is really pushing the bounds of reason. Those are silly ideas thrown out to cloud the real situation. No, nothing was entirely as it was represented, but there are enough reasons to be unhappy with the war without coming up with bogus ones. To be honest, I'm fairly certain that Clinton would have done the samething. He might have stalled long enough for us to get more intel, but in the end, there was too much reason to do it, and not enough not to. Especially when you consider the mindset of the country when the idea started being discussed.

Law · « **Reply #16 on:** September 15, 2004, 08:39:06 AM »

Prior to 9/11 Iraq was accused of aiding one terorrist group, the Abu Nidal faction of the PLO, a group that hadn't actively participated in a organized attack in years (according to CIA and Mossad). Abu Nidal died prior to our invasion of Iraq.

In that same time period Iran and Syria actively promoted both Hizbullah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Syria made nice with HAMAS and supposedly started aiding them as well. Unlikely beside logistics, but anyway.

Iran was known to have WMD from the Iran-Iraq war, the same weapons that Iraq had, both chemical and biological. Iran had an active nuclear weapons program and was rapidly approaching spinning up a reactor to create weapons-grade plutonium. Syria entered a contract with Germany to build a nuclear power plant, the waste product of which could be easily converted into a so-called "dirty bomb." Syria made reference in certain speeched that if Israel engaged a nuclear strike against Syria or Lebanon that they "had the appropriate weapons to respond." Israel acknowledged that Syria had imported certain chemical and biological weapons.

Iraq's nuclear capability was destroyed in 1981 when Israel rushed the Osirak 1 reactor while it was still under construction.

In this same time frame, American trained mujahideen from Afghanistan were organizing in two distinct places Yemen and Afghanistan. The former as what would become Al Qaeda, the latter as the Taliban. Yemen began cooperating with groups in Sudan and Somalia on training and weapons logitics for "freedom fighters." The USS Cole was attacked in Yemen. Our embassies were attacked by groups who were traced back to Yemen and Afghanistan. The World Trade Center was attacked by Saudi citizens trained in and travelling from Yemen and Afghanistan.

Now comes 2001. Our worst attack ever. Saudi and Yemeni citizens, trained in Yemen and Afghanistan and equipped in the latter.

The US launches an attack on the Taliban, years after they siezed power from a weak government that received no international support.

Of course, our next clear target was...

Iraq?

You can spin it however you want (except claiming we were reacting to WMD attacks on the Kurds, because 12 years had gone by without a response on that front) but Iraq was not a "clear and present danger to the security of the United States." They broadcast threats against Kuwait on the radio and the messages became the subject of parody and ridicule in Kuwait and Saudi. If Kuwait was not afraid of Iraq, what the hell was our excuse?

I have no idea what truly led the administration to decide Iraq was the next proper target. Maybe because so many of its neighboring countries hate them, we figured there wouldn't be too much response. Maybe we wanted a country we assumed would be easy to take. Maybe we thought after 13 years of sanctions they were ripe for the picking. Maybe we ignored every single goddam warning from the State Dept. that an attack on Iraq would lead to a flare up of sectarian violence and the creation of multiple militias in Iraq and figured everyone in Iraq would love us for bombing them.

But, please. It's really high time to retire the excuse Iraq had WMD and was harboring terrorists and was therefore a direct threat to us. I can name five countries that pose deeper and more terrifying threats to us who we coddle and negotiate with.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #17 on:** September 15, 2004, 08:49:41 AM »

Quote from: Vespertine

As the leader of this country, as the person that presented false evidence, and as the person that pushed for congressional approval, he deserves 100% of the blame for the clusterfuck in Iraq (and the resulting bad feelings the rest of the world towards America).

I'm sorry, Vespertine, but you're just plain dead wrong on that.

The blame ALSO belongs squarely on the shoulders of every single member of Congress that did nothing to stop their president from overstepping his Constitutionally granted powers.

Other than missing that little tidbit, you're right, of course.

Vespertine · « **Reply #18 on:** September 15, 2004, 01:19:48 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

Quote from: Vespertine
As the leader of this country, as the person that presented false evidence, and as the person that pushed for congressional approval, he deserves 100% of the blame for the clusterfuck in Iraq (and the resulting bad feelings the rest of the world towards America).

I'm sorry, Vespertine, but you're just plain dead wrong on that.

The blame ALSO belongs squarely on the shoulders of every single member of Congress that did nothing to stop their president from overstepping his Constitutionally granted powers.

Other than missing that little tidbit, you're right, of course.

Demo, you're absolutely right. Congress should also get the blame. When I point the finger directly at Bush, I'm thinking in terms of the hypothetical I previously posted. I firmly believe that if Bush hadn't pushed for it, no one in Congress would have just come up with this idea on their own.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #19 on:** September 15, 2004, 02:01:05 PM »

Well that's true.

Nobody in Congress is really capable of independent thought of that nature.

reimero · « **Reply #20 on:** September 15, 2004, 02:07:33 PM »

And that's all I'm going to say on this subject.

Rico · « **Reply #21 on:** September 16, 2004, 03:07:10 AM »

Law, you're right. There are plenty of other countries that pose just as much, or more, of a threat than Iraq did. There were a lot of factors in volved though. Iraq wasn't just helping a single terrorist group. Granted only one of them may have made the news or even been mentioned by name. Several terrorist groups never even make it to the public eye thanks to the efforts of the international community.

I certainly agree that Iran is a serrious threat as well. That's why we tried to give Iraq arms and training in the 80's, it was an attempt at bringing them both down. Saudi has contributed their share to the problems we're facing, too. There's blame all around, and I'm pretty sure plenty of it falls in countries you'd never guess. Basically, just because there are other countries that are more of a threat, doesn't mean that Iraq WASN'T one. It was just one that we thought we could take care of. I'm not sure that anyone thought it would be an easy war, I certainly didn't, but it's still been more trouble than most probably expected.

Most of my public reasons for supporting Bush come down to one fact. Engaging in the war in Iraq was political suicide, and I'd be very suprised to hear that Bush didn't know that when he gave the order. So, why did he give that order? Our president isn't an idiot. There are certainly more capable people in the world, but no one makes it far in politics without having SOME intelligence. Also, he flew a jet. I've known a couple pilots, and they were goofy as hell, but extremely intelligent. You have to be smart to fly a jet, I don't really think that a dumb person could do it. It's just too unlikely that niether Bush, nor a single one of his advisors had the common sense to know that this would probably kill his chances of re-election. Then we're left with the question of why. It's the answer to that question that I think earned him my support. Of course, Kerray's said a few things that certainly got my attention, but I just haven't heard enough out of him that I liked to sway my vote yet.

Anonymous · « **Reply #22 on:** September 16, 2004, 07:08:39 AM »

Quote from: Rico

Basically, just because there are other countries that are more of a threat, doesn't mean that Iraq WASN'T one.

The point isn't that Iraq wasn't posing any kind of threat to anyone. The point is that the threat they posed was insignificant compared to other regions. It's like this: The timing belt in your car is about to burst, resulting in serious engine damage. Do you get a mechanic to fix it or do you put air in your tires because the pressure is a little off?

Quote from: Rico

Most of my public reasons for supporting Bush come down to one fact. Engaging in the war in Iraq was political suicide, and I'd be very suprised to hear that Bush didn't know that when he gave the order.

That makes no sense. If I was president and ordered the destruction of every gun in America, that would be political suicide and I know it. For that reason you would support me? that's not even rational.

Quote from: Rico

Our president isn't an idiot.

The more I think about it, the more I tend to agree. You're president isn't dumb. He's a smart man. His problem is ethics.

Quote from: Rico

Also, he flew a jet.

Vote for me! I can fly a jet! Big deal Rico. There's no corellation between the ability to fly a plane and the ability to lead a country so againt, you're being irrational. Jesus Christ! You're turning into a woman!

/kidding

Law · « **Reply #23 on:** September 16, 2004, 08:12:30 AM »

Quote from: Rico

Basically, just because there are other countries that are more of a threat, doesn't mean that Iraq WASN'T one. It was just one that we thought we could take care of.

See, that's just it. If we're going to "fight a war on global terror," I'd like to think that we would commit 100,000 troops to something meaningful, not the easiest mark on the block. Iraq was a mistake, more planning and actual intelligence from the field could have made a world of difference.

The Bush administration promised that it wouldn't be a quagmire. It is a quagmire, and we are in the shit as far as an exit strategy now. We were supposed to make a better Iraq. With the exception of not fearing the Muqabarat showing up in the middle of the night, most Iraqis see no difference in Iraq under Saddam and Iraq now. Many Iraqis talk about how, under Saddam, at least they had electricity and water. And jobs. We have created a "democracy" full of people who resent us. Awesome.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #24 on:** September 16, 2004, 04:44:58 PM »

I'm just wondering why everyone is so happy that we are "bringing democracy to Iraq" when this is almost the same thing missionaries thought when trying to convert natives in foreign lands (realitive to Europe).

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: WOW! (Read 14521 times)

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous