OT, attention god-fearing anti americans......

robtronik · Post by **robtronik** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:57 pm

good quote here. lets all run for office:

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." -Plato

rob.

disco45 · Post by **disco45** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:05 pm

Sorry, I just get so angry sometimes at the people in power sometimes (including over here).

Obviously I don't believe every American is automatically evil.

And hey I'm English, so I'm well used to being automatically hated by the whole world.

disco45 · Post by **disco45** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:15 pm

And I'd been listening to the late, great Bill Hicks this morning.

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:18 pm

subterFUSE wrote: And now let me surprise you with something else.... but I am not a dumb-ass, bible beating, fat, southern redneck, born-again christian (or whatever other stereotype you want to throw at me, or anyone else who voted for Bush).

I am 27 years old. I grew up in Washington, DC. I attended an excellent prep school. I got a 1470 on my SAT. I have since earned a Bachelor's degree in Physics, and a Masters degree in Business Administration. Had a 3.72 GPA. I'm in excellent phsyical shape. Play lacrosse, ice hockey, golf, snow ski, lift weights every day, and I don't own a deep-fryer.

My guess is you didn't grow up in the ghettos of DC?

Why would your upbringing be surprising for someone who is a Bush supporter in your mind? You attended a prep school, so you probably came from a fairly wealthy family, or at least one that desired wealth for their offspring. You play VERY european style sports even.
Life isn't full of surprises. I grew up on welfare until my mom got through college to become a real estate lady. My dad is a carpenter, and I'm a painter. I have no interest in the republican party, they simply do not represent me in the least. I like some of the values they purport to espouse, but I'm not OK with the cutting of funding for the poor, and the constant corporate welfare that they do. \

I'm not OK with the war, we simply have no business being there, except oil.

The UN was satisfied he had no WMD, we called the UN all kinds of names here in the states, people here changed the name of french fries of all stupid things? because the french thought we were wrong....... and guess what? we were wrong.

We can make all kinds of excuses, say that there was a hint of evidence that he moved the weapons etc... but in the end, there were none.

glu · Post by **glu** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:37 pm

I'll skip my favorite sports, cooking utensils, and SAT scores

, (just jokin Subterfuse, i understand your need to deflate the stereotype, it doesn't help either side of the arguement)

So....

I saw an interesting presentation from David Kay, former U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq. This was a few years back, at Trinity University in San Antonio, Tx. He said that "intelligence" made a mistake. They connected dots, that did not go together. In my opinion, they did (for some reason or another to be debated) make a mistake by falsly tying Saddam to 9/11. Otherwise, if we would have started a war with any country supporting terrorism, we would have launched a war on Saudi, hello!

Like many people, I am angry at the "marketing use" of 9/11. What a perfect way to mobilize a country. We have undermined (as stated on this thread and probably others over and over) the rest of the world with our involvement in Iraq. Even if I thought we should have gone to war (which i never thought...) , we didn't go through the appropriate procedures to keep good relations with many other countries. Bush said he didin't care about what other countries thought. i was embaressed. So, in otherwords, fuck you- world, we are the U.S.... we do things our way.

I have to disagree with the "6 years later we are better off" statement.
More low paying jobs aren't helping the lower class get educated at prep school homie... sorry

Education reeeaaaally sucks !!! College Tuiton has gone up, and states are charging more to compensate the federal government's $. If we want to remain the world leaders, we need to educate! The no child left behind program was a fucking underfunded joke...

We gladly pay to shoot missles towards arabs, and yet we make it harder for someone to get an education. This is worse, 6 years later...

In my opinion, education is the true measurement of future prosperity. So whatever the Dow Jones is now won't mean shit in X years when Saudi or India own it.

I don't necessarily blame Bush for the state of things... but I can say I have been let down by him and his inadequate leadership skills and way he has dealt with education, the environment, and events like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. Our version of democracy (or representational democracy) worked in colonial times. Today, things are far more complicated and the electoral college hasn't proven to work well. See, I am in Texas, I didn't vote for Bush, twice. Yet he got my vote, even though 1/4 of all Texans did not vote for Bush! Thats a lot of fucking people (houston,dallas, san antonio, el paso, laredo, austin!! etc etc) . But with the winner take all process...

subterFUSE · Post by **subterFUSE** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:42 pm

The UN was satisfied he had no WMD, we called the UN all kinds of names here in the states, people here changed the name of french fries of all stupid things? because the french thought we were wrong....... and guess what? we were wrong.

The UN was not satisfied, as you claim. Saddam was still in "material breach" of 1441. The difference was, the French and Germans were pushing for Inspectors to continue their work. They were not "satisfied" Saddam had no weapons. They were calling for different action.... but still action. So you are not being accurate.

And let's also remember that the French had a vested economic interest in Saddam holding power.... so of course they didn't want us to go in there. The French had huge oil contracts in Iraq (Under the Oil-for-Food program), amounting to billions of dollars of annual revenue for them. The French economy has not been doing so well over the past few years... they've seen unemployment levels in the 12-15% range. So go figure if they did not want to see Saddam ousted. The Iraq War has hurt France economically. They lost their deals with Saddam, and they have been excluded from resuming them after he was ousted.

Look.... you have every right to disagree with this war, and the reasons for going there. But, at least try to be accurate in your criticism of the reasons. It's absolutely fair game to say "We found no weapons." We have found some, but certainly not the huge stockpiles we were expecting.

But it is dishonest to say: "The French told us he had no weapons." The truth is the French were saying... "We want Iraq to disarm... but we want them to do it through weapons inspectors." They still thought he had them, they just did not want to use military action.

And changing the name of french fries is about the gayest thing I've ever heard, so I'm on your side with that one.

glu · Post by **glu** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:58 pm

please folks, see this movie http://www.iraqeye.org/ then lets talk about Iraq some more...

glu · Post by **glu** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:03 am

subterFUSE wrote:
And let's also remember that the French had a vested economic interest in Saddam holding power.... so of course they didn't want us to go in there. :

Word to that, though I still can't see it comparing to U.S. Corporate interest though. I think we had a much larger vested interest in Iraq. Halliburton anyone?

icedsushi · Post by **icedsushi** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:13 am

disco45 wrote:Sorry, I just get so angry sometimes at the people in power sometimes (including over here).

Obviously I don't believe every American is automatically evil.

Just seems an awful extreme way to express yourself. But hey, people say extreme stuff when they're angry.

Yeah I know it seems silly/overly simplistic but wouldn't it be easier if they put the people in power, these old guys in suits in a ring and let them duke it out each man for himself!

Then innocent lives wouldn't be lost over other people's urge to control the masses and hunger for power. The average citizen from one country doesn't hate the average citizen from another country enought to kill him, but inevitably that's what happens in war, the citizens (who don't even know each other) fight each other which they usually have no reason to do under natural circumstances. Always ends up being two guys on the battlefield face to face, and the fear of kill or be killed. If those same two guys met in a bar without being told to kill each other maybe they would have had bought each other a beer, exchanged a few jokes or realized they make great friends.

disco45 wrote:And hey I'm English, so I'm well used to being automatically hated by the whole world.

I don't see any reason to assume that. Even if so, hating someone simply because they hate you just ends up becoming a vicious downward cycle, a self fullfilling prophecy. I know, I sound way idealist...

disco45 wrote:And I'd been listening to the late, great Bill Hicks this morning.

I never heard of Bill Hicks. Checked out some of his videos online. Funny stuff! I'd be interested in hearing some of his stand-up about consumerism, etc. I'm becoming quite "green" the older I get so I'm sure I would get a quite a kick out of it.

astronmr20 · Post by **astronmr20** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 1:40 am

If I could just speak to the "less waste" debate;

America's waste and pollution is absolutely nothing near... NOWHERE near that of India or China. Those are the regions that, if the earth is getting affected, are TRULY doing it. Ant they TRULY don't give a shit. The Yellow River gets worse every day, and the Communist Chinese Government dosent give a rat's ass about the daily condition of it's peoples' health, let alone about the enviornment. Their use of fossil fuels DOUBLES every few years, and it won't slow down for a while. So why don't you criticize them? WE are the ones making an effort (Europe and the US).
The level of noise of the issue in the states is so high because we have people here who care enough to do somehting about it. Next to Europe, we have the most restrictions on waste here, and despite what the left says, it's actually getting better. In Bush's FIRST state of the union speech, I remember him pledging 4 BILLION dollars to fuel cell research. How is THAT helping his oil buddies (the same oil buddies who contribute EQUEAL AMOUNTS to every Democratic campaign as well)?

Eventually, we'll stop using internal combustion engines, because of the MARKET, not becaue of Al Gore's brand of totalitarianism. And right next to Europe, countries in the Americas (including the US) are leading the way on working towards cleaner ways to "make waste." Where the hell do you think all the R&D is coming from???

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 1:42 am

subterFUSE wrote:
The UN was satisfied he had no WMD, we called the UN all kinds of names here in the states, people here changed the name of french fries of all stupid things? because the french thought we were wrong....... and guess what? we were wrong.

The UN was not satisfied, as you claim. Saddam was still in "material breach" of 1441. The difference was, the French and Germans were pushing for Inspectors to continue their work. They were not "satisfied" Saddam had no weapons. They were calling for different action.... but still action. So you are not being accurate.

The UN was, in fact satisfied. Sure they wanted to make sure to continue the inspections. The purpose of the inspections wasn't to ever be "done" with it as you're sort of implying, and the objections the UN, (or the rest of the world so to speak) had towards Iraq were in no way significant enough in the minds of the UN to say that Iraq hadn't fulfilled their obligations under the terms of the surrender enough to consider military action!
I never said he didn't squawk and squeal did I? Why do you imply that I did? I said he had fulfilled his obligations enough, in everybody's eyes but ours.
That! is why we were angry at them. We considered his breaches enough reason to invade, they did not. In the end of the day, they were right.

And let's also remember that the French had a vested economic interest in Saddam holding power.... so of course they didn't want us to go in there. The French had huge oil contracts in Iraq (Under the Oil-for-Food program), amounting to billions of dollars of annual revenue for them. The French economy has not been doing so well over the past few years... they've seen unemployment levels in the 12-15% range. So go figure if they did not want to see Saddam ousted. The Iraq War has hurt France economically. They lost their deals with Saddam, and they have been excluded from resuming them after he was ousted.

Business deals with shady characters are NOT bellow US moral standards, Saudi Arabia for instance, or trading weapons with Iran while publicly condoning them. The list is large.
I give France credit for being consistent in their ability to stand up to us when they disagree, it's honorable at least compared to countries that just roll over no matter how shady what we are doing is. We were also very pissed at them for not allowing us to use their military air base to refuel our planes headed for Libya to bomb Omar Khadafi's headquarters. Assassinating a leader of a country is against the Geneva Convention BTW...

Look.... you have every right to disagree with this war, and the reasons for going there. But, at least try to be accurate in your criticism of the reasons. It's absolutely fair game to say "We found no weapons." We have found some, but certainly not the huge stockpiles we were expecting.

This doesn't make any sense? First you say I'm wrong, then you admit I'm right, but imply that we did find weapons???
Where? all I ever heard about was some papers mentioning WMD? How long after initial invasion? Finding regular weapons, or a few missiles is a lot different than finding Anthrax or poison gas IMO.

But it is dishonest to say: "The French told us he had no weapons." The truth is the French were saying... "We want Iraq to disarm... but we want them to do it through weapons inspectors." They still thought he had them, they just did not want to use military action.

I agree, I didn't imply otherwise, though the french thought he wasn't a threat, and that there were no WMD's, which is the gist of it all. Iraq was disarmed...... they had a standing military, that was allowed, but as far as I know, the US was the only country that openly was saying Iraq was harboring WMD weapons. Collin Powel even held up a satellite photo and stated that this was a WMD plant.....which honestly I think is the main reason he resigned. I don't think he liked being played like that.

And changing the name of french fries is about the gayest thing I've ever heard, so I'm on your side with that one.

yeah, that was pretty stupid. One thing though, in private conversation, I'll use all sorts of anti PC slang, no problem. I don't think it's appropriate in a hopefully educated discussion about world affairs on a public forum with a few gay and lesbian members however.

stinky · Post by **stinky** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:05 am

How long after initial invasion? Finding regular weapons, or a few missiles is a lot different than finding Anthrax or poison gas IMO.

this is the part where he states that the WMD were destroyed or given to Syria before we could ever get to them... Where is the proof of that? There has to be some proof that they were destroyed... either that, or our 'intellegence' (if you can call it that) should have known it's whereabouts.. the truth is, there were no WMD's, there hasn't been weapons significant to launch any kind of attack on the scale of Mass Destruction found... so please.. where is this proof?

subterFUSE · Post by **subterFUSE** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:16 am

This doesn't make any sense? First you say I'm wrong, then you admit I'm right, but imply that we did find weapons???
Where? all I ever heard about was some papers mentioning WMD? How long after initial invasion? Finding regular weapons, or a few missiles is a lot different than finding Anthrax or poison gas IMO.

If you watch the news, just last week it was announced they discovered Sarin gas hidden in Iraq.

But my point was... we have found SOME weapons, like missiles which were capable of flying farther than the UN allowed.... and the Sarin I spoke of... but even that doesn't live up to what was expected. THAT's what I meant when I said it was fair play to say we found no weapons. Because what few we have found certainly don't constitute the huge supplies which were expected.

stinky · Post by **stinky** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:41 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722255.stm

are you referring to this? "The substance was found in a shell inside a bag"... this hardly qualifies..

But, you're probably referring to this:

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040701203743.9i07uh3m.html

And i quote:

"While they showed that Iraq's pre-war declarations to the United Nations were wrong, Duelfer said he could not say Iraq had hidden a "militarily significant" stockpile of chemical weapons"

So you're saying that we went to war because Saddam failed in his obligations to disclose a weapons programme that's been proven as largely non-existent? And for harboring terrorists before the war, a claim that, again, hasn't completely been proven. But now that we're there, you better believe that place is a breeding ground for terrorism, just like afghanistan was.

nebulae · Post by **nebulae** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:53 am

subterFUSE, I never assumed you were some dumb hick. I leave the task of making assumptions to the Republicans.

Since you support the war, and you are an able bodied person in great health, I think you must enlist immediately. The more of you in Iraq, the sooner, we can get rid of all the poison gas, or whatever the threat of the week is. And when we're done with that, let's focus on Iran (who actually do have WMDs and are in league with terrorists). And when Rambo is done with Iran, let's get to Kim Jong-il. I may sound like I'm being facetious, but I do mean this. If you're so sold on the "material breach" then you must go to war, for god and country.

As for things being better, 6 years ago, I was making a six figure salary, and today, I'm competing with India, Mexico, China, and other countries that have taken away many of those jobs. I sure am relieved that my health insurance has gone up 100%, and the prescription drugs that Canadians and Europeans get for free are no longer supported by my carrier, so I have to pay full price. Oh and in another decade or two, my son will have to carry your President's debt. Cool. Party on.

As for admiting to mistakes, you proved my point, over and over again. I don't give a crap what party you signed on with, or how great your SAT scores were. It's too bad you're so closed-minded to see how much the rest of the world hates us for electing an asswipe like Bush. And for every one like you that would vote for Bush again...well, god help us, because we deserve every terrorist attack we have spawned.