# President Bush



## min0 lee (Dec 18, 2005)

President Bush admitted he authorized a secret program allowing a spy agency to eavesdrop on Americans, calling it a "vital tool" against terrorists. How does this sit with you?

 Fine, As long as it helps to keep Americans safe 


 Not well, I don't approve of this at all 
 Not really sure


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 18, 2005)

there's really nothing new with this and Bush isn't where it began. police monitor people they suspect without warrants all the time without being able to use the info against them. 

not to mention...made a wireless call in the last 15 years or so? well guess what -- good chance someone/somewhere was monitoring it.


----------



## GFR (Dec 18, 2005)

Do you have a link to this information??


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 18, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Do you have a link to this information??


no i don't. are you really not aware that this goes on? ever heard of satellite systems as a form of survaliance?


----------



## GFR (Dec 18, 2005)

The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> no i don't. are you really not aware that this goes on? ever heard of satellite systems as a form of survaliance?


I ment a link to min0 lees propaganda


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 18, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I ment a link to min0 lees propaganda


whoops, sorry.

here ya go then:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/na...,0,607348.story?coll=sns-newsnation-headlines


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 18, 2005)

Besides, the gov't has been spying on folks long before Bush was Pres.  He's just been on a spilling his guts spree lately.  Really trying to raise his approval level, I reckon.  But it's good that he's coming out and admitting the administration's mistakes.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 18, 2005)

It's all over the place......here


----------



## Nick+ (Dec 18, 2005)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/16/echelon_in_your_backyard/

this?????


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 18, 2005)

The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> whoops, sorry.
> 
> here ya go then:
> http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/ats-ap_top11dec18,0,607348.story?coll=sns-newsnation-headlines


 
Not only is she a Mod but she happens to be my PR lady.


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 18, 2005)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> Not only is she a Mod but she happens to be my PR lady.


anything for you min0 ...


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 18, 2005)




----------



## BigDyl (Dec 18, 2005)

She's mine!


----------



## SuperFlex (Dec 18, 2005)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> President Bush admitted he authorized a secret program allowing a spy agency to eavesdrop on Americans, calling it a "vital tool" against terrorists. How does this sit with you?
> 
> Fine, As long as it helps to keep Americans safe
> 
> ...


 
Bush is a simple minded idiot. Again, I can't decide if he's more of an idiot or I am for voting for his stupid ass twice!

But as far as this issue goes I say have at it. As long as spankin it to lesbos is legal I'm cool. I hope they find what/who they're looking for!!!


----------



## BigDyl (Dec 18, 2005)

SuperFlex said:
			
		

> Bush is a simple minded idiot. Again, I can't decide if he's more of an idiot or I am for voting for his stupid ass twice!




Please seek help, for the sake of yourself and your family.


----------



## SuperFlex (Dec 18, 2005)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Please seek help, for the sake of yourself and your family.


 
Why's that? Worst president I ever seen to date. Hopefully we improve from here...


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 18, 2005)

SuperFlex said:
			
		

> Why's that? Worst president I ever seen to date. Hopefully we improve from here...


right....cause james buchannon was better. come to think of it, harding and harrison were better too right? mmmkay, go with that. 

i don't agree with all of the president's decisions but i think he's doing a DAMN GOOD JOB...

let the can of worms be opened


----------



## BigDyl (Dec 18, 2005)

The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> right....cause james buchannon was better. come to think of it, harding and harrison were better too right? mmmkay, go with that.
> 
> i don't agree with all of the president's decisions but i think he's doing a DAMN GOOD JOB...
> 
> let the can of worms be opened


----------



## SuperFlex (Dec 18, 2005)

The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> right....cause james buchannon was better. come to think of it, harding and harrison were better too right? mmmkay, go with that.
> 
> i don't agree with all of the president's decisions but i think he's doing a DAMN GOOD JOB...
> 
> let the can of worms be opened


 
A DAMN GOOD JOB OF WHAT EXACTLY  Picking fights he had absolutely no fucking business in? Or bankrupting our country? Or maybe of catching Bin Laden?... Yeah he's doing super...


----------



## BigDyl (Dec 18, 2005)

Or maybe... LYING about reasons for going to war...


----------



## SuperFlex (Dec 18, 2005)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Or maybe... LYING about reasons for going to war...


 
Hey! He did give the rich more tax money!!!


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 18, 2005)

And the military.  Our pay raises have been better since Clinton was done.    So see, your extra taxes have been worth it.  Paying me.


----------



## SuperFlex (Dec 18, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> And the military. Our pay raises have been better since Clinton was done.  So see, your extra taxes have been worth it. Paying me.


 
You should get paid more! 

I mean after all you have the most dangerous job in the entire world now that Bush is president!!!

But truly God bless and kept you ladies and gentlemen safe.................


----------



## BigDyl (Dec 18, 2005)

Where's decker at when you need him?


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 18, 2005)

SuperFlex said:
			
		

> You should get paid more!
> 
> I mean after all you have the most dangerous job in the entire world now that Bush is president!!!
> 
> But truly God bless and kept you ladies and gentlemen safe.................



Nah, I think there are more dangerous jobs out there, personally.  But I do appreciate the compliment.


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 18, 2005)

SuperFlex said:
			
		

> A DAMN GOOD JOB OF WHAT EXACTLY  Picking fights he had absolutely no fucking business in? Or bankrupting our country? Or maybe of catching Bin Laden?... Yeah he's doing super...


right, because there's a chance of our national dept ever getting paid off. why is this a fight we had no business picking? #1 - fight off terrorism. #2 -we go into other countries because they ask us for help. it's a lose/lose scenario regardless. we don't go in....people get pissed off, we go in....people get pissed off. there are a whole lot of men and women fighting to protect our asses from terrorism that GWB has taken better care of than any president in history. when was the last time they got a pay raise? about damn time we had a leader that stood firm and steadfast for what he believes in. he's also done a damn good job of protecting our borders. 

and how bout Saddam? does he count for anything?


----------



## Stu (Dec 18, 2005)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> President Bush admitted he authorized a secret program allowing a spy agency to eavesdrop on Americans, calling it a "vital tool" against terrorists. How does this sit with you?
> 
> Fine, As long as it helps to keep Americans safe
> 
> ...



its fine i never go outside without a tinfoil hat on my head, that way the government cant read my thoughts


----------



## BigDyl (Dec 18, 2005)

"the smoking gun, that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud"


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 18, 2005)

Stu said:
			
		

> its fine i never go outside without a tinfoil hat on my head, that way the government cant read my thoughts



Armadillo shells are good for this too.


----------



## BigDyl (Dec 18, 2005)

Stu said:
			
		

> its fine i never go outside without a tinfoil hat on my head, that way the government cant read my thoughts




Yeah because trampling on freedom's can be justified by likening it to outlandish conspiracy theories.


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 18, 2005)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Yeah because trampling on freedom's can be justified by likening it to outlandish conspiracy theories.


read post #2...


----------



## BigDyl (Dec 18, 2005)

The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> read post #2...




Yeah, and...?


----------



## P-funk (Dec 18, 2005)

Yea, it happens.  I am all for anything that protects us.  To quote the movie "a few good men".

"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way."

-Col. Nathan R. Jessep (Jack Nicklson). "A Few Good Men"


----------



## SuperFlex (Dec 18, 2005)

The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> right, because there's a chance of our national dept ever getting paid off. why is this a fight we had no business picking? #1 - fight off terrorism. #2 -we go into other countries because they ask us for help. it's a lose/lose scenario regardless. we don't go in....people get pissed off, we go in....people get pissed off. there are a whole lot of men and women fighting to protect our asses from terrorism that GWB has taken better care of than any president in history. when was the last time they got a pay raise? about damn time we had a leader that stood firm and steadfast for what he believes in. he's also done a damn good job of protecting our borders.
> 
> and how bout Saddam? does he count for anything?


 
You're wrong, I'm right. So just shut up and kiss me...


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 18, 2005)

SuperFlex said:
			
		

> You're wrong, I'm right. So just shut up and kiss me...


LMAO


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 18, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> Yea, it happens.  I am all for anything that protects us.  To quote the movie "a few good men".
> 
> "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way."
> 
> -Col. Nathan R. Jessep (Jack Nicklson). "A Few Good Men"



Really - did this character write the Constitution?


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 18, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Really - did this character write the Constitution?


i don't remember seeing Jack's sig but that was a damn good movie quote...


----------



## BigDyl (Dec 18, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Really - did this character write the Constitution?




Constitution, Shmonstitution, as long as we have freedom, we don't need a Constitution!


Oh... wait...


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 18, 2005)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Oh... wait...


Get. Over. It.


----------



## BigDyl (Dec 18, 2005)

The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> Get. Over. It.




Over what?  You?  Never.


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 18, 2005)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Over what?  You?  Never.


cute


----------



## ZECH (Dec 19, 2005)

The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> right....cause james buchannon was better. come to think of it, harding and harrison were better too right? mmmkay, go with that.
> 
> i don't agree with all of the president's decisions but i think he's doing a DAMN GOOD JOB...
> 
> let the can of worms be opened


Damn she's sexy isn't she??


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 19, 2005)

SuperFlex said:
			
		

> A DAMN GOOD JOB OF WHAT EXACTLY  Picking fights he had absolutely no fucking business in?



My only real complaint with GWB is that he didn't have the balls to tell the truth about why we invaded Iraq.  IT WAS ABOUT THE OIL!!!  It's always been about the oil and it always will be, so what?  He's sworn an oath to do what's right for THIS country.  By getting rid of Saddam he stabalized that region and kept the oil flowing freely.  That is good for the USA.  If he only had the balls to come out and say that in the first place we'd all be a hell of a lot better off and his approval rating would be through the roof. 

That bull about only the rich getting a tax break is just that, BULL.  It was a flat percentage tax cut across the board.  Sure, I got more back than some because I PAY MORE.  What part of that don't people understand?


----------



## BigDyl (Dec 19, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> My only real complaint with GWB is that he didn't have the balls to tell the truth about why we invaded Iraq.  IT WAS ABOUT THE OIL!!!  It's always been about the oil and it always will be, so what?  He's sworn an oath to do what's right for THIS country.  By getting rid of Saddam he stabalized that region and kept the oil flowing freely.  That is good for the USA.  If he only had the balls to come out and say that in the first place we'd all be a hell of a lot better off and his approval rating would be through the roof.
> 
> That bull about only the rich getting a tax break is just that, BULL.  It was a flat percentage tax cut across the board.  Sure, I got more back than some because I PAY MORE.  What part of that don't people understand?




The only problem is the 2000k dead americans and 50k dead Iraqi's.


----------



## Decker (Dec 19, 2005)

The Government is spying on its citizens to keep them safe from terrorists.  Where to begin?  It is illegal and unconstitutional.  How much of the Constitution and Bill of Rights should this president gut to ???keep us safe????  Living in a free country is to live somewhat dangerously.  Prophylactic avuncular government types???like Bush???always, and I mean always, end up in fascism or totalitarianism.  

Let me rephrase, I don???t need or want Big Government Bush breaking the law (again) and fucking with my liberties and right to privacy so he can protect me???just the way he???s protected the US up to 9/11/2001 and currently the way he???s helping the Iraqis.  You do not give a complete fuck-up like Bush more power to cut across constitutional lines bypassing Congress???you take that power away or minimize it so he can do little or no harm.  And for those of you who don???t have a problem with government spying on its citizens, well, you???re right, this type of behavior has gone on before, especially in the Viet Nam era but it was illegal then and it is illegal now.  So, grow some spine and stand up for your rights???it???s your country.  Bush is not a king nor should he behave like one.


----------



## Decker (Dec 19, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> My only real complaint with GWB is that he didn't have the balls to tell the truth about why we invaded Iraq. IT WAS ABOUT THE OIL!!! It's always been about the oil and it always will be, so what? He's sworn an oath to do what's right for THIS country. By getting rid of Saddam he stabalized that region and kept the oil flowing freely. That is good for the USA. If he only had the balls to come out and say that in the first place we'd all be a hell of a lot better off and his approval rating would be through the roof.
> 
> That bull about only the rich getting a tax break is just that, BULL. It was a flat percentage tax cut across the board. Sure, I got more back than some because I PAY MORE. What part of that don't people understand?


In this case, the truth is that GWB could not invade Iraq for the oil b/c that is illegal. That's why he bullshitted the country about WMDs. That's ok, it's not his family that's dying. So you're part of the, "the attack was for oil" crowd...well, you're at odds with your president and the vast majority of the republican party.

Getting rid of Hussein stabilized the region? How? Terrorism numbers are through the roof, civil war is threatening and american soldiers are dying daily.

Why are we in Iraq? What business is it of the US what goes on in Iraq?

I mean it's not like Iraq wouldn't sell its oil to the largest consumer in the world.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 19, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> The Government is spying on its citizens to keep them safe from terrorists.  Where to begin?  It is illegal and unconstitutional.  How much of the Constitution and Bill of Rights should this president gut to ???keep us safe????  Living in a free country is to live somewhat dangerously.  Prophylactic avuncular government types???like Bush???always, and I mean always, end up in fascism or totalitarianism.
> 
> Let me rephrase, I don???t need or want Big Government Bush breaking the law (again) and fucking with my liberties and right to privacy so he can protect me???just the way he???s protected the US up to 9/11/2001 and currently the way he???s helping the Iraqis.  You do not give a complete fuck-up like Bush more power to cut across constitutional lines bypassing Congress???you take that power away or minimize it so he can do little or no harm.  And for those of you who don???t have a problem with government spying on its citizens, well, you???re right, this type of behavior has gone on before, especially in the Viet Nam era but it was illegal then and it is illegal now.  So, grow some spine and stand up for your rights???it???s your country.  Bush is not a king nor should he behave like one.



Look up.  Smile, because the spy satellite is taking your picture right now.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 19, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Why are we in Iraq? What business is it of the US what goes on in Iraq?



How about Saddam financing terrorist and allowing them to base, and train, in Iraq?

Personally, I think we should have rescinded Jimmy (the dumbshit) Carter's law about the US not assassinating other leaders.


----------



## NeilPearson (Dec 19, 2005)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> The only problem is the 2000k dead americans and 50k dead Iraqi's.



2 million dead Americans so far?


----------



## DOMS (Dec 19, 2005)

Don't mind BigDyl.  He's not good with numbers...or words...or facts...or women...or...


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 19, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> In this case, the truth is that GWB could not invade Iraq for the oil b/c that is illegal. That's why he bullshitted the country about WMDs. That's ok, it's not his family that's dying. So you're part of the, "the attack was for oil" crowd...well, you're at odds with your president and the vast majority of the republican party.
> 
> Getting rid of Hussein stabilized the region? How? Terrorism numbers are through the roof, civil war is threatening and american soldiers are dying daily.
> 
> ...



You and BigDyl share the same sentiment about our troops not dying for oil, how touching.  Having been one of the aforementioned troops, I can say your concern isn't warranted.  I/we all know what's going on and why we're there.  

Did GWB lie about WMD's to hide the truth, we did it for the oil?  Maybe.  If he did it's only because a few bleeding hearts can't handle the cold reality that we need that oil and the job of securing the oil needed to be done.

At odds with the majority of the Republican party?  Bull$hit!  Both the Republicans AND Democrats know full well this was about oil, they just couldn't come out and say it for fear of not getting reelected.  I'm pretty sure I remember the vote being almost unanimous on BOTH sides for going to war.  "Oh but he gave us false intelligence.  We only voted for war because the President lied about the WMD's."  Bull$hit again!  Congress saw the exact same intel as the President.  They knew what he knew and they voted to invade.

Yes, we stabalized the region.  Translation:  the oil is still flowing.  Terrorism through the roof?  I count what Saddam was doing to his own people as terrorism, therefore the numbers are DOWN.  The only other difference is that it's getting more press coverage now.  Civil War?  Where are you getting THAT from?  Every day the new Iraqi government and security forces get stronger and better trained.  Civil war is NOT going to happen. 

Why are we there?  I already said that.  Saddam was a psychopath.  Sure, common sense says he'd sell oil to the Devil himself, but he didn't use common sense.  Also, even if he did sell us oil, at what price?  Face it, we ousted a maniac that threatened to cut off some of our oil supply.  I'm OK with that.  Some American soldiers lost their lives in the process.   I'm OK with that too.  The President sets policy.  The DoD enforces it.  We know what we're in for when we sign up.  I'm still OK with it.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 19, 2005)

As another soldier speaking about the losses, we know full well what we risk.  But yet, we are still here fighting the good fight and doing what we do.  So in all honesty, it's not for you to worry about the possibility of us dying, it's our choice.  Just like those parents all bent out of shape because their son/daughter died over here, it was their son's/daughter's choice to be here.  We know the risk, and we also know of our commitment to our country and to those people in need world wide.  It is unfortunate that people have died, but we are not going to let them die in vain, because others are impatient and expect immediate results.  It goes along with the way everything else is in society, "right here, right now" crap.  Noone has the patience to actually wait for something, hence fast food, express lanes, remote controls (my fav), and other luxuries set up to make life easier and faster for us.


----------



## Decker (Dec 19, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> How about Saddam financing terrorist and allowing them to base, and train, in Iraq?
> 
> Personally, I think we should have rescinded Jimmy (the dumbshit) Carter's law about the US not assassinating other leaders.


Hussein was never the threat he was painted to be by this administration. Saddam financing terrorists,bases and training? Bush's own hand-picked 9/11 commission found no substantive tie btn Hussein and Al-Qaed (the people that attacked on 9/11). In fact, Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda (religious nuts) have a history of antagonism toward Hussein (secular nut). I suppose it goes without saying that the US trained and armed Bin Laden for the Afghan escapades.

Democracy cannot be created at the end of a gun barrel. The US's own impulse for democracy was native to the US citizenry. What and whom are some of the major players, akin to Madison, Hamilton, Washington etc.? These guys really wanted it, sacrificed for it and earned it. The French didn't come along and grant independence and democracy to the US.

And anyway, democracy is merely a reflection of the will of the people. What happens when the will of the Iraqi people jibes more with the religious nuts akin to OBL?

The business of Iraq is up to the Iraqis...not us.

As you can see, I have alot of time on my hands today.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 19, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> And anyway, democracy is merely a reflection of the will of the people. What happens when the will of the Iraqi people jibes more with the religious nuts akin to OBL?
> 
> *The business of Iraq is up to the Iraqis...not us.*
> 
> As you can see, I have alot of time on my hands today.



You hit the nail in the head right there.  That is why we are here, helping them to have a country of their own again.  Sure, there's always a possibility of a civil war.  But that's in any country, especially with a new political based system.  But I feel that they really want to make things work.  You can't say that the insurgents way is how everyone in their religion feels, as the leaders are wanted to learn and find a way to coexist.  It will happen, people just don't have hope or faith in Middle Eastern countries.


----------



## BigDyl (Dec 19, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Hussein was never the threat he was painted to be by this administration. Saddam financing terrorists,bases and training? Bush's own hand-picked 9/11 commission found no substantive tie btn Hussein and Al-Qaed (the people that attacked on 9/11). In fact, Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda (religious nuts) have a history of antagonism toward Hussein (secular nut). I suppose it goes without saying that the US trained and armed Bin Laden for the Afghan escapades.
> 
> Democracy cannot be created at the end of a gun barrel. The US's own impulse for democracy was native to the US citizenry. What and whom are some of the major players, akin to Madison, Hamilton, Washington etc.? These guys really wanted it, sacrificed for it and earned it. The French didn't come along and grant independence and democracy to the US.
> 
> ...


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 19, 2005)

BigDyl said:
			
		

>



Ninjas don't have a hero...


----------



## DOMS (Dec 19, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Hussein was never the threat he was painted to be by this administration. Saddam financing terrorists,bases and training? Bush's own hand-picked 9/11 commission found no substantive tie btn Hussein and Al-Qaed (the people that attacked on 9/11).


So, Saddam didn't host Ayman al-Zawahiri of Egyptian Islamic Jihad in 1992?  This guy became one of Osama's lieutenants.  

How about Ahmed Hikmat Shakir?  This guy was a lieutenant colonel in Saddam's elite Fedayeen.  Six days after 9/11, he was detained in Qatar and had possession of the contact information for major Al-Qaeda linked terrorists.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> In fact, Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda (religious nuts) have a history of antagonism toward Hussein (secular nut).


Saddam was more of an opportunist than a secularist.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> Democracy cannot be created at the end of a gun barrel.


Really?  Because that's how the USA started.  We ceased to be a vassal state and became a democracy (democratic-republic, for the nit-pickers) at the end of a rifle barrel.  As for creating democracy in Iraq, were simply trying to keep the wolves at bay long enough for the Iraqis to get things started. Personally, I don't give it much hope.  Democracy and the Middle East go together like sardines and peanut butter.

 The US's own impulse for democracy was native to the US citizenry. What and whom are some of the major players, akin to Madison, Hamilton, Washington etc.? These guys really wanted it, sacrificed for it and earned it. The French didn't come along and grant independence and democracy to the US.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> And anyway, democracy is merely a reflection of the will of the people. What happens when the will of the Iraqi people jibes more with the religious nuts akin to OBL?


You'll have Iran?



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> As you can see, I have alot of time on my hands today.


Idle hands, idle hands...


----------



## DOMS (Dec 19, 2005)

BigDyl said:
			
		

>



One day, you too will master the use of words.

Who the fuck am I kidding?  It's amazing that you haven't swallowed your tongue yet.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 19, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> The business of Iraq is up to the Iraqis...not us.



And they can do all the business they want..............as long as it doesn't interfere with us getting our oil.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 19, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Democracy and the Middle East go together like sardines and peanut butter.



You don't like PB&S?


----------



## Decker (Dec 19, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> You and BigDyl share the same sentiment about our troops not dying for oil, how touching.


Thank you. Thank you very much.



			
				ALBOB said:
			
		

> Did GWB lie about WMD's to hide the truth, we did it for the oil? Maybe. If he did it's only because a few bleeding hearts can't handle the cold reality that we need that oil and the job of securing the oil needed to be done.


The US is the world's largest consumer of oil, by far. To whom would the Iraqis sell the oil in question...Tonga??? The US private oil interests/Dick Cheney want Iraqi oil subject to Opec and oppose any sort of privatization (let oil prices go where they may)...it was the other Iraqi infrastructure that was sold off to the high bidder.



			
				ALBOB said:
			
		

> "Oh but he gave us false intelligence. We only voted for war because the President lied about the WMD's." Bull$hit again! Congress saw the exact same intel as the President. They knew what he knew and they voted to invade.


Wrong again. The Bush people went out of their way to point out to 'trust us, we know some very sensitive scary stuff' also, it was Bush etal. that kept hammering the 9/11 ties to Hussein, the nuclear reconstitution, the wmd drones, etc. Bush took a policy statement--WMDs should not be possessed by Hussein--which everyone agreed with, and brought in all of the above horseshit. It was not the Congress that issued the order to attack Iraq before weapon inspections were concluded. That was Bush.



			
				ALBOB said:
			
		

> Yes, we stabalized the region. Translation: the oil is still flowing. Terrorism through the roof? I count what Saddam was doing to his own people as terrorism, therefore the numbers are DOWN. The only other difference is that it's getting more press coverage now. Civil War? Where are you getting THAT from? Every day the new Iraqi government and security forces get stronger and better trained. Civil war is NOT going to happen.


The oil never stopped flowing. Hussein was a bastard no doubt--armed by the US and British. The puppet government in Iraq will survive as long as the US has a military presence over there. Once gone, the civil war, which technically is already underway, will flourish. Factions amongst the Sunnis and Shi'ites are already going at it:

The academic thumbnail definition of a civil war is a conflict with at least 1,000 battlefield casualties, involving a national government and one or more nonstate actors fighting for power. Source CSM. That criteria wa met a long time ago. Bush needlessly created a shitstorm in Iraq and now the US citizens must sacrifice life and limb, not mention billions of dollars, to keep the fiasco alive. That's all right, I believe our government when it says, "stay the course"...all is well.



			
				ALBOB said:
			
		

> Why are we there? I already said that. Saddam was a psychopath. Sure, common sense says he'd sell oil to the Devil himself, but he didn't use common sense. Also, even if he did sell us oil, at what price? Face it, we ousted a maniac that threatened to cut off some of our oil supply. I'm OK with that. Some American soldiers lost their lives in the process. I'm OK with that too. The President sets policy. The DoD enforces it. We know what we're in for when we sign up. I'm still OK with it.


I'm sorry you feel that way. Would you feel the same if it were Bill Clinton issuing the order? I just ask b/c the illegality of the invasion doesn't phase you nor does the loss of life. So I wonder if there is something else driving your thoughts on the matter.


----------



## brogers (Dec 19, 2005)

Ok, this will be concise:

After 9/11, we had to take a proactive approarch. We took the stand that threats to our country be taken care of BEFORE they attacked, not after (especially when they are attacking civilians). Intelligence indicated they did have chem/bio programs. Bill Clinton believed it before Bush, the CIA believed it, the majority of congress and the senate believed it, and British intel confirmed it.  I suppose the him keeping inspectors out for so long didn't seem at all suspicious.

Sadaam himself was not the problem, it was the potential of him providing chem/bio weapons to terrorists to use in America. Take the alternative, that the intel was correct, but we didn't act. The same people bitching about the war would be bitching about him NOT taking action.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 19, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> I'm sorry you feel that way. Would you feel the same if it were Bill Clinton issuing the order? I just ask b/c the illegality of the invasion doesn't phase you nor does the loss of life. So I wonder if there is something else driving your thoughts on the matter.



Clinton didn't have the testicular fortitude to go to war.  It was evident that he was not a military pres. by the fact that he cut our money yearly, and was not an advocate of quality of life issues for us.  He was more interested in taking care of those sucking welfare checks for years, and helping them continue to do so.  Other then that, he did a good job.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 19, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> You don't like PB&S?


You sir are a sick, *sick *man!


----------



## DOMS (Dec 19, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> Ok, this will be concise:
> 
> After 9/11, we had to take a proactive approarch. We took the stand that threats to our country be taken care of BEFORE they attacked, not after (especially when they are attacking civilians). Intelligence indicated they did have chem/bio programs. Bill Clinton believed it before Bush, the CIA believed it, the majority of congress and the senate believed it, and British intel confirmed it.  I suppose the him keeping inspectors out for so long didn't seem at all suspicious.
> 
> Sadaam himself was not the problem, it was the potential of him providing chem/bio weapons to terrorists to use in America. Take the alternative, that the intel was correct, but we didn't act. The same people bitching about the war would be bitching about him NOT taking action.




 

Straight and to the point.   Simply put: if someone is attacking the US, or aids those attacks, they should be removed as a threat.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 19, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> Clinton didn't have the testicular fortitude to go to war.  It was evident that he was not a military pres. by the fact that he cut our money yearly, and was not an advocate of quality of life issues for us.  He was more interested in taking care of those sucking welfare checks for years, and helping them continue to do so.



So, in other words, he was a Democratic President.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 19, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> So, in other words, he was a Democratic President.



Yea, you know, kissing ass world wide, that kind of thing.


----------



## Decker (Dec 19, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> So, Saddam didn't host Ayman al-Zawahiri of Egyptian Islamic Jihad in 1992? This guy became one of Osama's lieutenants.
> 
> How about Ahmed Hikmat Shakir? This guy was a lieutenant colonel in Saddam's elite Fedayeen. Six days after 9/11, he was detained in Qatar and had possession of the contact information for major Al-Qaeda linked terrorists.


 Swell, two isolated incidents over the last 13 years. What the 9/11 Commission concluded, and here's why WMD was so important to this line of justification, was that Iraq had no WMDs w/ which to threaten the US by giving them to any terrorists, that and the 2 incidents you mention show no serious substantive ties to international terrorism. They didn't say there were no ties, just nothing rising to the level of 'substantive.' I'm sure Hussein was supplicated by many international figures...but nothing came of the ones you mentioned.




			
				cfs3 said:
			
		

> Really? Because that's how the USA started. We ceased to be a vassal state and became a democracy (democratic-republic, for the nit-pickers) at the end of a rifle barrel. As for creating democracy in Iraq, were simply trying to keep the wolves at bay long enough for the Iraqis to get things started. Personally, I don't give it much hope. Democracy and the Middle East go together like sardines and peanut butter.


 
What I meant by 'end of a gun barrel' was that the US citizens wanted independence and democracy--they were pulling the trigger, it wasn't imposed upon them by someone else's pulling the trigger--King Louie didn't suggest independence to the colonies and took out the British on our behalf. I suppose I could have phrased it better. Such as, the colonists were the initiators, there hearts were in the movement for independence/democracy. We imposed those things on Iraq w/out really asking. I fear the same conclusions you do...democracy is the will of the people--the iraqis have beliefs/social stratas that predate christianity. I don't see how you inflict democracy on that kind of history.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 19, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> Yea, you know, kissing ass world wide, that kind of thing.



Too true.  My prediction for what's going to happen from 2008-2012:

We will likely elect a Democratic president who, like most of thier kind, will be a spinless little pussy.  He'll have no good ideas on how to defend the US against it's various threats and end up making the US look toothless.  Many US citizens will be killed and each attack will generate a U.N.-like response.  Which is to say, each attack (and the subsequent deaths) will be answered with harsher and harsher letters of rebuke.

Then after four years of attacks, the US will elect a Republican president who will go after the sources of the attacks. 

Much like the years 1996-2004.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 19, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Too true.  My prediction for what's going to happen from 2008-2012:
> 
> We will likely elect a Democratic president who, like most of thier kind, will be a spinless little pussy.  He'll have no good ideas on how to defend the US against it's various threats and end up making the US look toothless.  Many US citizens will be killed and each attack will generate a U.N.-like response.  Which is to say, each attack (and the subsequent deaths) will be answered with harsher and harsher letters of rebuke.
> 
> ...



You forgot about the reduction and/or removal of troops in foreign nations with any conflict ongoing.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 19, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> What the 9/11 Commission concluded, and here's why WMD was so important to this line of justification, was that Iraq had no WMDs


This information was only availabe *after we had defeated Saddam and had full access to the country*.  Think about that. Up until the second Gulf War (when many pussies back-peddled) everyone was clamorring about Saddam having WMDs.  Clinton, the lead U.N. weapons inspector, and many others.  

I swear, if it wasn't for hindsight, liberals would have no opinions.

*The liberal credo*: We will make no decision until after its time has passed.




			
				Decker said:
			
		

> What I meant by 'end of a gun barrel' was that the US citizens wanted independence and democracy--they were pulling the trigger, it wasn't imposed upon them by someone else's pulling the trigger--King Louie didn't suggest independence to the colonies and took out the British on our behalf



And here your anaology falls apart.  The, then, colony in the Americas wasn't a threat to King Louie.


----------



## Decker (Dec 19, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> Ok, this will be concise:
> 
> After 9/11, we had to take a proactive approarch. We took the stand that threats to our country be taken care of BEFORE they attacked, not after (especially when they are attacking civilians). Intelligence indicated they did have chem/bio programs. Bill Clinton believed it before Bush, the CIA believed it, the majority of congress and the senate believed it, and British intel confirmed it. I suppose the him keeping inspectors out for so long didn't seem at all suspicious.
> 
> Sadaam himself was not the problem, it was the potential of him providing chem/bio weapons to terrorists to use in America. Take the alternative, that the intel was correct, but we didn't act. The same people bitching about the war would be bitching about him NOT taking action.


If we were so proactive, why didn't we attack Korea (an axis of evil country w/ WMDs) or Saudi Arabia--proven to sponsor terrorism--or Pakistan (another safe harbor for terrorists)? When UNSCOM left Iraq in '98, they estimated that 95% of Hussein's WMDs were destroyed. Yes, you are correct that the majority of US politicians believed Hussein had some sort of WMD. It was not Bill Clinton, Congress, nor the CIA that pushed the Nuclear stories that Bush et al. did---the reconstituted nuclear weapons program(courtesy of Dick Cheney), drones that could deliver WMDs to the US, the mushroom cloud, and whatever you may think of the yellowcake affair--all fabrications of the Bush people. The Intel was still in its formative stage w/ the admission of the the UN inspectors to Iraq prior to the invasion. Bush forced them out w/ the invasion so that the intel would necessarily be incomplete...the WMD Inspectors were finding no evidence supporting WMDs.


----------



## BigDyl (Dec 19, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> One day, you too will master the use of words.




If you're lucky, maybe one day you will too.


----------



## maniclion (Dec 19, 2005)

I really don't like the fact that I can be eavesdropped on without the consent and knowledge of a higher court with full documentation as to why, how and when I was eavesdropped on.  I don't think any of you who support this kind of complete infringement on our rights know how easily abused this new "freedom" of invasion of privacy will become.  Do you guy's even realize that our founding fathers fought a war to secure these rights for us and now you scared bunch of fools are going to sit idley by and let them be stripped from you.  What's next let illegal search and seizures of your private property happen with out just cause just to make sure terrorists aren't hiding in your attic?  One gun and one bullet per household, no alarm clocks in your homes anymore since they can used to trigger a bomb instead there will be a Federal  revellie blared over large loud speakers and everyone will have to pop out of bed and come outside for morning inspection and exercise as well as a full inspection of your homes then you'll catch the public transport to work so that the gov. has full control of all means of transportation so no terrorist has access to a potential bomb delivery device.  Yeah you'll all end up dupes in a controlled society, good night and good luck.


----------



## Decker (Dec 19, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> This information was only availabe *after we had defeated Saddam and had full access to the country*. Think about that. Up until the second Gulf War (when many pussies back-peddled) everyone was clamorring about Saddam having WMDs. Clinton, the lead U.N. weapons inspector, and many others.


 
Pre-invasion intelligence was coming up blank as far as the presence of WMDs were concerned. The UN weapons inspectors were finding nothing. Instead of waiting for the inspectors to finish their jobs, Bush attacked. That was the best evidence available at the time...not what Clinton or Congress thought.



			
				cfs3 said:
			
		

> I swear, if it wasn't for hindsight, liberals would have no opinions.
> 
> *The liberal credo*: We will make no decision until after its time has passed.


After reading the above, do you still think that I'm resorting to hindsight?






			
				cfs3 said:
			
		

> And here your anaology falls apart. The, then, colony in the Americas wasn't a threat to King Louie.


All analogies break down. Put simply, the iraqi people did not initiate independence/democracy, nor did they request it. We imposed it upon them.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 19, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Thank you. Thank you very much.
> 
> The US is the world's largest consumer of oil, by far. To whom would the Iraqis sell the oil in question...Tonga??? The US private oil interests/Dick Cheney want Iraqi oil subject to Opec and oppose any sort of privatization (let oil prices go where they may)...it was the other Iraqi infrastructure that was sold off to the high bidder..



As I stated, he may well have sold us oil but, at what price?  He could have crippled our economy.  The invasion was needed.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> Wrong again. The Bush people went out of their way to point out to 'trust us, we know some very sensitive scary stuff' also, it was Bush etal. that kept hammering the 9/11 ties to Hussein, the nuclear reconstitution, the wmd drones, etc. Bush took a policy statement--WMDs should not be possessed by Hussein--which everyone agreed with, and brought in all of the above horseshit. It was not the Congress that issued the order to attack Iraq before weapon inspections were concluded. That was Bush.



I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  Yes, Bush told "us", the American people, to trust him.  To try and say Congress had NO access to the pertinent intel is absurd.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> The oil never stopped flowing. Hussein was a bastard no doubt--armed by the US and British. The puppet government in Iraq will survive as long as the US has a military presence over there. Once gone, the civil war, which technically is already underway, will flourish. Factions amongst the Sunnis and Shi'ites are already going at it:
> 
> The academic thumbnail definition of a civil war is a conflict with at least 1,000 battlefield casualties, involving a national government and one or more nonstate actors fighting for power. Source CSM. That criteria wa met a long time ago. Bush needlessly created a shitstorm in Iraq and now the US citizens must sacrifice life and limb, not mention billions of dollars, to keep the fiasco alive. That's all right, I believe our government when it says, "stay the course"...all is well..



Nope, the oil never stopped flowing.  We didn't let it.  Yay for us.  Definitions of civil war be damned, the new government is in place and will stay there. 



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> I'm sorry you feel that way. Would you feel the same if it were Bill Clinton issuing the order? I just ask b/c the illegality of the invasion doesn't phase you nor does the loss of life. So I wonder if there is something else driving your thoughts on the matter.



Illegal?  Says who?  The U.N.?  Sorry, as you can probably surmise, I'm not a big supporter of theirs.  Call it situational ethics if you will,  but if it's good for this country I don't give a damn WHO thinks it's illegal.  What is driving my thoughts are very clear.  I'm not a politician, if I say it I mean it.  It was about the oil.  I don't have a problem with that.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 19, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> I really don't like the fact that I can be eavesdropped on without the consent and knowledge of a higher court with full documentation as to why, how and when I was eavesdropped on.  I don't think any of you who support this kind of complete infringement on our rights know how easily abused this new "freedom" of invasion of privacy will become.  Do you guy's even realize that our founding fathers fought a war to secure these rights for us and now you scared bunch of fools are going to sit idley by and let them be stripped from you.  What's next let illegal search and seizures of your private property happen with out just cause just to make sure terrorists aren't hiding in your attic?  One gun and one bullet per household, no alarm clocks in your homes anymore since they can used to trigger a bomb instead there will be a Federal  revellie blared over large loud speakers and everyone will have to pop out of bed and come outside for morning inspection and exercise as well as a full inspection of your homes then you'll catch the public transport to work so that the gov. has full control of all means of transportation so no terrorist has access to a potential bomb delivery device.  Yeah you'll all end up dupes in a controlled society, good night and good luck.



You started out with a good opinion, then sounded more like an extremist.  Relax, everything is not going to go south......yet.


----------



## brogers (Dec 19, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> If we were so proactive, why didn't we attack Korea (an axis of evil country w/ WMDs) or Saudi Arabia--proven to sponsor terrorism--or Pakistan (another safe harbor for terrorists)? When UNSCOM left Iraq in '98, they estimated that 95% of Hussein's WMDs were destroyed. Yes, you are correct that the majority of US politicians believed Hussein had some sort of WMD. It was not Bill Clinton, Congress, nor the CIA that pushed the Nuclear stories that Bush et al. did---the reconstituted nuclear weapons program(courtesy of Dick Cheney), drones that could deliver WMDs to the US, the mushroom cloud, and whatever you may think of the yellowcake affair--all fabrications of the Bush people. The Intel was still in its formative stage w/ the admission of the the UN inspectors to Iraq prior to the invasion. Bush forced them out w/ the invasion so that the intel would necessarily be incomplete...the WMD Inspectors were finding no evidence supporting WMDs.


 
Sadaam used chem weapons.  N Korea hasn't nuked anyone.  Saudi Arabia sponsers terrorism?  They don't present the same threat of willingness (or capability) to arm them with WMDs.

Clinton did not "push" the nuclear argument, but he told the nation sadaam was trying to develop a program.  He pushed the chem/bio weapons.  Clinton said "The UN inspectors have not disarmed Sadaam, Sadaam has disarmed the inspectors" referring to his deception.

You can't trust a madman, the democrats agreed with this when Clinton was president, and while Bush was asking for authorization.  As causalties pile up, they try to distance themselves.  It's disgusting.  And anyone who buys that the democrats tried to keep us out, is a moron.


----------



## Decker (Dec 19, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> ...Do you guy's even realize that our founding fathers fought a war to secure these rights for us and now you scared bunch of fools are going to sit idley by and let them be stripped from you. What's next let illegal search and seizures of your private property happen with out just cause just to make sure terrorists aren't hiding in your attic? ....


Well put. It just confounds me how people, who largely consider themselves patriots, can be such dupes for 'big government.'

Here are some quotes from the hero of the right:

???I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.???;

???The hard evidence of totalitarian rule has caused in mankind an uprising of the intellect and will.???rejection of the arbitrary power of the state, the refusal to subordinate the rights of the individual to the superstate.... ???;

???Well, we ask only that these systems begin by living up to their own constitutions, abiding by their own laws, and complying with the international obligations they have undertaken. We ask only for a process, a direction, a basic code of decency, not for an instant transformation.??? (referring to demise of Communism)

--Ronald Reagan

Additionally, didn???t Ronald Reagan warn us about those evil Commies....that they torture people and lock them up forever without trial! They send them to gulags from which they might never return! They spy on their own people!...sound familiar....or are you people that trust your government implicitly?


----------



## Decker (Dec 19, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> Sadaam used chem weapons. N Korea hasn't nuked anyone. Saudi Arabia sponsers terrorism? They don't present the same threat of willingness (or capability) to arm them with WMDs.
> 
> Clinton did not "push" the nuclear argument, but he told the nation sadaam was trying to develop a program. He pushed the chem/bio weapons. Clinton said "The UN inspectors have not disarmed Sadaam, Sadaam has disarmed the inspectors" referring to his deception.
> 
> You can't trust a madman, the democrats agreed with this when Clinton was president, and while Bush was asking for authorization. As causalties pile up, they try to distance themselves. It's disgusting. And anyone who buys that the democrats tried to keep us out, is a moron.


I can't trust a madman, but I can trust the findings of the UN Weapons Inspectors...or as I call them, world-class scientists....they were finding nothing...best evidence available I might add.

It does my heart well to see you endorse the views of Clinton, but he was wrong. History has proven him wrong. The WMD inspectors have proven him wrong. What more needs to be said?

Yes, Hussein used the WMDs (which he got from Britain) against the Kurds(using our satellite technology) with our wholehearted support. So what. He never made any overtures toward attacking the US...that was pure fiction.


----------



## Decker (Dec 19, 2005)

Gotta go guys.  See you all tomorrow.  It's been rewarding.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 19, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Pre-invasion intelligence was coming up blank as far as the presence of WMDs were concerned. The UN weapons inspectors were finding nothing. Instead of waiting for the inspectors to finish their jobs, Bush attacked. That was the best evidence available at the time...not what Clinton or Congress thought.



The UN weapons inspectors were made a laughing stock!  They were given the runaround and the head inspector, and the US, were complaining about it.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> After reading the above, do you still think that I'm resorting to hindsight?



Yes.  Very much so.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 19, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> I can't trust a madman, but I can trust the findings of the UN Weapons Inspectors...or as I call them, world-class scientists....they were finding nothing...best evidence available I might add.
> *Eh, the UN is a joke.  Always has been, always will.*
> It does my heart well to see you endorse the views of Clinton, but he was wrong. History has proven him wrong. The WMD inspectors have proven him wrong. What more needs to be said?
> 
> Yes, Hussein used the WMDs (which he got from Britain) against the Kurds(using our satellite technology) with our wholehearted support. So what. He never made any overtures toward attacking the US...that was pure fiction.



Too much emphasis on what was.  Fact of the matter is, that we are here, now, helping this country start anew.  And much to your dismay, that is not going to change.  So learn to deal with it, or run for office next election.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 19, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Gotta go guys.  See you all tomorrow.  It's been rewarding.



Later.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 19, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> I really don't like the fact that I can be eavesdropped on without the consent and knowledge of a higher court with full documentation as to why, how and when I was eavesdropped on.  I don't think any of you who support this kind of complete infringement on our rights know how easily abused this new "freedom" of invasion of privacy will become.  Do you guy's even realize that our founding fathers fought a war to secure these rights for us and now you scared bunch of fools are going to sit idley by and let them be stripped from you.



Guess I got so wrapped up in the invasion argument that I forgot about the original questoin.

Well, here's my answer.  Are you ready?  You'll be shocked.
























I agree with maniclion and Decker.  Told you you'd be shocked.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 19, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Guess I got so wrapped up in the invasion argument that I forgot about the original questoin.
> 
> Well, here's my answer.  Are you ready?  You'll be shocked.
> I agree with maniclion and Decker.  Told you you'd be shocked.



Not shocked at all.  Most folks don't like this at all.  I personally, don't give a crap, mainly because I'm in the military and am watched 24/7 anyways.  Guess I'm used to it.  That, and I have nothing to hide, therefore, it's not like they will be spending a lot of time monitoring me.  Just something to think about.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 19, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> Not shocked at all.  Most folks don't like this at all.  I personally, don't give a crap, mainly because I'm in the military and am watched 24/7 anyways.  Guess I'm used to it.  That, and I have nothing to hide, therefore, it's not like they will be spending a lot of time monitoring me.  Just something to think about.



That's exactly why I'm so against it.  I spent 23 years in, protecting "us" from "them".  Now I come to fine out that "them" IS "us".  A bit disheartning.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 19, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> That's exactly why I'm so against it.  I spent 23 years in, protecting "us" from "them".  Now I come to fine out that "them" IS "us".  A bit disheartning.



Pbbt, I've always figured it was that way.  It's just a matter of the lesser of evils in this world.  Everywhere you look, there is something that you're not going to agree with, and it's a matter of choosing what to live with.  It's just the way humans are, it can't be helped.  We are paranoid of ourselves to that level.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 19, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> Pbbt, I've always figured it was that way.  It's just a matter of the lesser of evils in this world.  Everywhere you look, there is something that you're not going to agree with, and it's a matter of choosing what to live with.  It's just the way humans are, it can't be helped.  We are paranoid of ourselves to that level.



Can't argue with you there, but it still gripes me a bit.  I'm a walking talking contradiction.  In certain ways I think the government should be so small as to be almost non-existant.  In other ways I don't think I can be big enough.  Oh well, like you said, you just choose to live with it.


----------



## maniclion (Dec 19, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> That's exactly why I'm so against it.  I spent 23 years in, protecting "us" from "them".  Now I come to fine out that "them" IS "us".  A bit disheartning.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 19, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Can't argue with you there, but it still gripes me a bit.  I'm a walking talking contradiction.  In certain ways I think the government should be so small as to be almost non-existant.  In other ways I don't think I can be big enough.  Oh well, like you said, you just choose to live with it.


Pretty much.  I mean , why spend your life worrying about something that isn't going to change.  It's like that Serenity prayer you always see.  The words are so true.  It's something that I really have learned a lot about while being in Iraq the past 4 months.  Lots of time to think and put things in perspective.


----------



## maniclion (Dec 19, 2005)

I remember one time in the Navy they had the drug dogs come on board while I was on watch, when I got off of watch I found the lock on my rack was cut(probably hit on my Thermadrene I guess) and they had simply put a plastic zip-tie on it.  Anyone could have snipped it off and stolen my stuff, they didn't even notify me nor have me present.  It's not a fun feeling to have your privacy invaded even if you have nothing to hide.


----------



## BigDyl (Dec 19, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> I remember one time in the Navy they had the drug dogs come on board while I was on watch, when I got off of watch I found the lock on my rack was cut(probably hit on my Thermadrene I guess) and they had simply put a plastic zip-tie on it.  Anyone could have snipped it off and stolen my stuff, they didn't even notify me nor have me present.  It's not a fun feeling to have your privacy invaded even if you have nothing to hide.




It's for freedom commie!


----------



## maniclion (Dec 19, 2005)

Who does Bush think he is?  The love child of J.Edgar and Dick Nixon?

Honestly, even if they do learn somethings going to happen are they going to act on it or let it occur so they can steal more of our civil liberties?

How far above the law can the gov. get?


----------



## maniclion (Dec 20, 2005)

You know what the real sad thing is about this?  That if a band of underground vagrants with no uniform military nor advanced weaponry can put this much fear into your hearts that you would freely give up rights that men and women before laid down their lives for.  What would you do when a giant army decided to march upon us?  Would you run and hide in your bomb shelters while they ransacked your nation or would you stand and fight bravely along side those of us who won't back down to a threat on the nation and our freedom?  Cause that's basically whats happening now your hiding behind a fog of false security, thinking that giving up a small piece of your privacy is really doing good for the country but it's not it's dividing us even further which is all that this fucking Bush Administration has been good at from day one.


----------



## Decker (Dec 20, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> The UN weapons inspectors were made a laughing stock! They were given the runaround and the head inspector, and the US, were complaining about it.
> 
> Yes. Very much so.


 
You have some dissonance over the linear passage of time and what ???hindsight??? means. The UN weapons inspectors were inspecting Iraqi sights _prior_ to Bush???s ordered invasion in contravention of UN authority. Clinton and the administration were both wrong about the results from the ???98 and ???02 inspections and the WMD inspectors were right all along???no WMDs???that???s not hindsight, that???s ongoing fact. What is truly pathetic was Bush???s plea for ???time and patience??? in finding the WMDs _after_ the invasion. What a fucking hypocrite. As for the ???laughingstock??? criticism, that began and ended w/ the ridiculous ???Clousea??? comments. I reread the WMDs report and it seemed pretty convincing to me.

As for this administration???s initiatives, you know, pre-emptive action let???s see:

*an illegal invasion of a sovereign country???the US, Communists, Nazis
*imprisonment w/out a trial???the US, Communists, Nazis
*torture???Nazis, Communists, Salvadoran/Nicaraguan/Colombian Death Squads and, oh yes, the US.

A good indication of character is the company one keeps. A morally bankrupt plan is better than no plan. Right?

ALBOB made a statement that I???ll carry with me for some time:
???That's exactly why I'm so against it. I spent 23 years in, protecting "us" from "them". Now I come to fine out that "them" IS "us". A bit disheartning.???

That???s very sobering.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 20, 2005)

So what's your point?


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> As for this administration???s initiatives, you know, pre-emptive action let???s see:
> 
> *an illegal invasion of a sovereign country???the US, Communists, Nazis
> *imprisonment w/out a trial???the US, Communists, Nazis
> *torture???Nazis, Communists, Salvadoran/Nicaraguan/Colombian Death Squads and, oh yes, the US.



Hold on a second there.

Illegal invasion?  Again, you're siting the UN as being a legal authority.  F__K the UN.  They have no LEGAL authority over anyone.

Imprisonment w/out a trial?  That's called war.  In war, you take prisoners.  Prisoners are held in prison camps until the end of the war.  Deal with it or don't go on the battlefield.

Torture?  Oh for God's sake.  What you call torture is less than I went throught in AIR FORCE basic training.  And everybody knows what a joke that is.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> You have some dissonance over the linear passage of time and what ???hindsight??? means. The UN weapons inspectors were inspecting Iraqi sights _prior_ to Bush???s ordered invasion in contravention of UN authority. *Clinton and the administration were both wrong about the results from the ???98 and ???02 inspections and the WMD inspectors were right all along???no WMDs*???that???s not hindsight, that???s ongoing fact.


The weapons inspectors were not in Iraq from 1998 - 2002.  The ispectors left due to Saddam's refusal to cooperate.  It wasn't until the US started to gear up to finish the conflict with Iraq that Saddam made promises to work with the inspectors.  Again which he started to play his old games.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> What is truly pathetic was Bush???s plea for ???time and patience??? in finding the WMDs _after_ the invasion. What a fucking hypocrite.


How so?  Up until the US defeated Saddam there was *no way to know if WMDs existed* *in Iraq*. Saddam liked to act as if he had them, and up until the US decided to finish the war, many people (some of which I named in a previous post) believed that he had them too.





			
				Decker said:
			
		

> As for this administration???s initiatives, you know, pre-emptive action let???s see:
> 
> *an illegal invasion of a sovereign country???the US, Communists, Nazis
> *imprisonment w/out a trial???the US, Communists, Nazis
> *torture???Nazis, Communists, Salvadoran/Nicaraguan/Colombian Death Squads and, oh yes, the US.


Many liberals, such as yourself, choose to "forget" that technically, and legally, the there was only one war between the US and Iraq, though there were two conflicts.  The first conflict (1991) ended with various conditions, one of which was the unconditional access of the UN weapons inspectors.  Which was never really honored (and too late at that).  An if the the imprisonment with out trial is in fact illegal, where are the international sactions?  Lastly, I haven't read the "report" about torturing the terrorists, but if it's true, then good. 



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> A good indication of character is the company one keeps. A morally bankrupt plan is better than no plan. Right?


Sometime, yes, it is better.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> ALBOB made a statement that I???ll carry with me for some time:
> ???That's exactly why I'm so against it. I spent 23 years in, protecting "us" from "them". Now I come to fine out that "them" IS "us". A bit disheartning.???
> 
> That???s very sobering.


I'm pretty sure is not "us" that's beheading aid workers.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 20, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Torture?  Oh for God's sake.  What you call torture is less than I went throught in AIR FORCE basic training.  And everybody knows what a joke that is.



Hey, I resemble that remark.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 20, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure is not "us" that's beheading aid workers.



Nah, we just take away your lunch money.


----------



## Nick+ (Dec 20, 2005)

While double standards continue to prevail with the US (and Western) attitude (and indulgence) towards Israel, there will never be any "solution" or peace in the Middle East.


----------



## brogers (Dec 20, 2005)

Nick+ said:
			
		

> While double standards continue to prevail with the US (and Western) attitude (and indulgence) towards Israel, there will never be any "solution" or peace in the Middle East.


 
You are a moron.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 20, 2005)

Nick+ said:
			
		

> While double standards continue to prevail with the US (and Western) attitude (and indulgence) towards Israel, there will never be any "solution" or peace in the Middle East.



Don't kid yourself.  Double standards prevail the world over.

I find it rather telling that you mention Israel.  I'm curious as to what you believe the US' role in Isreal is.

Lastly, I find the US' support of Irseal to be more acceptable than France's support of Saddam's Iraq.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 20, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> You are a moron.



Now, be nice.


----------



## Decker (Dec 20, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> The weapons inspectors were not in Iraq from 1998 - 2002.


I know that. They left after destroying an estimated 95% of iraq's weapons.


			
				cfs3 said:
			
		

> How so? Up until the US defeated Saddam there was *no way to know if WMDs existed* *in Iraq*. Saddam liked to act as if he had them, and up until the US decided to finish the war, many people (some of which I named in a previous post) believed that he had them too.


The weapons inspectors were inspecting Iraq for WMDs up until the invasion started. Bush warned the weapons inspectors to get out or be part of the bombing. Bush did not let the inspectors complete, in any substantial way, their inspections. So we did know to an extent, but b/c of Bush's premature attack we could not completely verify




			
				cfs3 said:
			
		

> Many liberals, such as yourself, choose to "forget" that technically, and legally, the there was only one war between the US and Iraq, though there were two conflicts. The first conflict (1991) ended with various conditions, one of which was the unconditional access of the UN weapons inspectors. Which was never really honored (and too late at that). An if the the imprisonment with out trial is in fact illegal, where are the international sactions? Lastly, I haven't read the "report" about torturing the terrorists, but if it's true, then good.


I'm more of a socialist than a liberal but why play with semantics. Right-wingers, like yourself, generally argue w/ straw arguments...such as 'Hussein was not complying all along.' True enough but not compelling. After the '98 inspections, we knew the wmds were largely gone. Hussein fucked around keeping the inspectors at bay until 2002 when he let them in. They were finding nothing. http://www.un.dk/doc/SC.7696.pdf#search='un%20weapons%20inspector%20report' Bush attacked anyway.


			
				cfs3 said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure is not "us" that's beheading aid workers.


No but here is what torture gave the US:
Consider the case of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al-Qa???ida operative captured in Pakistan and questioned by CIA agents in Afghanistan, then secretly sent to Egypt for exposure to the tender mercies of that Arab nation???s intelligence agents. Al-Libi, whose identity was never in doubt, later said that he was coerced to tell his captors exactly what they wanted to hear, which turned out to be exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted them to believe : that his enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, was actually his friend. 
If the Great Satan attacked the Lesser Satan, so much the better. 
Al-Libi conjured up stories about Saddam???s agents supposedly training bin Laden???s terrorists to use explosives and chemical weapons???imaginary tales straight out of the ???Arabian Nights. ??? They so lacked verifiable particulars that analysts at the U. S. Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that they were fabrications designed to appease Egyptian interrogators. 
Nevertheless, al-Libi???s make-believe made it directly into a speech by Bush, who claimed in October 2002 that ??? we???ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qa???ida members in bomb making and poisons and gases.??? Secretary of State Colin Powell also gave credence to al-Libi???s falsehoods, which he has since recanted. So did Vice President Dick Cheney. 
If history teaches anything, it???s that ???intelligence??? agencies in authoritarian regimes like Egypt???s???also Stalin???s Russia and Pinochet???s Chile and, for that matter, the Spanish Inquisition???aren???t about compiling accurate information at all. They???re about securing phony confessions and telling Big Brother exactly what he wants to hear. --Source: Gene Lyons

We lose the high ground. But hey, torture works in the movies.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> We lose the high ground. But hey, torture works in the movies.



Don't kid yourself, torture works in the real world too.  The "high ground" doesn't win wars.  Killing your enemies wins wars.   If people don't have the stomach for that little reality, they should move to France.  Nothing gets killed by them.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> No but here is what torture gave the US:
> Consider the case of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al-Qa???ida operative captured in Pakistan and questioned by CIA agents in Afghanistan, then secretly sent to Egypt for exposure to the tender mercies of that Arab nation???s intelligence agents. Al-Libi, whose identity was never in doubt, later said that he was coerced to tell his captors exactly what they wanted to hear, which turned out to be exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted them to believe : that his enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, was actually his friend.
> If the Great Satan attacked the Lesser Satan, so much the better.
> Al-Libi conjured up stories about Saddam???s agents supposedly training bin Laden???s terrorists to use explosives and chemical weapons???imaginary tales straight out of the ???Arabian Nights. ??? They so lacked verifiable particulars that analysts at the U. S. Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that they were fabrications designed to appease Egyptian interrogators.
> ...



So, where's the prove that the US tortured them.  No proof.  So, they sent them to Egypt, but was it the US that actually tortured them?  Not only that, but your example doesn't actuallt site that there was torturing going on.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 20, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Don't kid yourself, torture works in the real world too.  The "high ground" doesn't win wars.  Killing your enemies wins wars.   If people don't have the stomach for that little reality, they should move to France.  Nothing gets killed by them.



Hey, the French used to be a country to be feared, back in the days of Napoleon.


----------



## Decker (Dec 20, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Hold on a second there.
> 
> Illegal invasion? Again, you're siting the UN as being a legal authority. F__K the UN. They have no LEGAL authority over anyone.


Our Constitution provides that treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are part of the Supreme Law of the Land (i.e., the constitution). The United Nations Charter, which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, provides that???_except in response to an armed attack_???nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council. President Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet he advocates a right to ignore our treaty obligations and to visit the scourge of war upon Iraq, without the approval of the United Nations.



			
				ALBOB said:
			
		

> Imprisonment w/out a trial? That's called war. In war, you take prisoners. Prisoners are held in prison camps until the end of the war. Deal with it or don't go on the battlefield.


War on Iraq was never declared by Congress. Officially, there is no war.



			
				ALBOB said:
			
		

> Torture? Oh for God's sake. What you call torture is less than I went throught in AIR FORCE basic training. And everybody knows what a joke that is.


So you had your nuts hooked up to a car battery? They do that in Egypt...where we send detainees.


----------



## Decker (Dec 20, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> So, where's the prove that the US tortured them. No proof. So, they sent them to Egypt, but was it the US that actually tortured them? Not only that, but your example doesn't actuallt site that there was torturing going on.


I hate analogies but here it goes. If you are a parent and you permit a child molester to watch your kids...and he molests them, how guilty are you the parent? In other words, you give a monkey a gun and it shoots someone, you don't blame the monkey. The US is condoning torture.


----------



## Decker (Dec 20, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Don't kid yourself, torture works in the real world too. The "high ground" doesn't win wars. Killing your enemies wins wars.  If people don't have the stomach for that little reality, they should move to France. Nothing gets killed by them.


How do you know torture works? Have you tortured someone? The US had other countries torture for us and the information yielded was worthless. Other than in the movies and tv, show me an example of torture working.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> I know that. They left after destroying an estimated 95% of iraq's weapons.



95% of how much?  When you don't know how much you have, how can you know the percentage taken away?  This is the point where I dare you to say that the inspectors had a thoruogh inventory of Saddam's weapons.  After six years of games and four years of absense.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> The weapons inspectors were inspecting Iraq for WMDs up until the invasion started. Bush warned the weapons inspectors to get out or be part of the bombing. Bush did not let the inspectors complete, in any substantial way, their inspections. So we did know to an extent, but b/c of Bush's premature attack we could not completely verify



They had had 12 years to do thier job and hadn't. So, you're saying that the could accomplish a job in a few months which they had failed to do in 12 years?




			
				Decker said:
			
		

> I'm more of a socialist than a liberal but why play with semantics. Right-wingers, like yourself, generally argue w/ straw arguments...such as 'Hussein was not complying all along.' True enough but not compelling. After the '98 inspections, we knew the wmds were largely gone.



"True enough, but not compelling"?  It true that Saddam was toying with the inspectors, but it doesn't matter that they somehow, magically, knew what he had anyway?  And didn't you say that Bush hadn't let the finish their job?  How could they have known if they hadn't finished their job?!



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> No but here is what torture gave the US



So, this guys says two different things and you get pick which is true?  And it's pathetic that the "tender mercies" wasn't described.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> We lose the high ground. But hey, torture works in the movies.



It's funny how liberals, and socialists apperantly, think that wars are some sort of fights in a school yard.


----------



## Decker (Dec 20, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> 95% of how much? When you don't know how much you have, how can you know the percentage taken away? This is the point where I dare you to say that the inspectors had a thoruogh inventory of Saddam's weapons. After six years of games and four years of absense.


Why don't you direct your attention to someone that was there:

*Scot Ritter:* It's not black-and-white, as some in the Bush administration make it appear. There's no doubt that Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the UN security council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability has been verifiably eliminated. This includes all of the factories used to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles; the associated equipment of these factories; and the vast majority of the products coming out of these factories. 


			
				cfs3 said:
			
		

> They had had 12 years to do thier job and hadn't. So, you're saying that the could accomplish a job in a few months which they had failed to do in 12 years? "True enough, but not compelling"? It true that Saddam was toying with the inspectors, but it doesn't matter that they somehow, magically, knew what he had anyway? And didn't you say that Bush hadn't let the finish their job? How could they have known if they hadn't finished their job?!


The WMD inspectors weren't using magic, they were using science. That's anathema to most right-wingers, but it works. Iraq was never a "threat" or "pressing problem" until Bush et al. invented the threat. The inspectors know they did not conclusively finish there job b/c Bush started bombing the country. You and your ilk choose war as a first option instead of last resort. I doubt that you read the inspector's report that I linked. 

As far as torture goes, check out Egypt's history of torture:
Political detainees have been blindfolded, stripped of their clothes and suspended from their wrists, bound or handcuffed together, sometimes in contorted positions, from the tops of doors or from barred windows. Victims have described how they have been forced to lie on their backs, their hands and feet bound together, a chair forced up under their armpits, another keeping their knees apart to restrict the body's involuntary spasms as electric shocks were applied repeatedly to their nipples and genitals. Between torture sessions they have been made to stand in unnatural positions, often with arms and legs outstretched, for hours on end and beaten if they moved. Some have been sexually abused. In addition to physical torture, they have been threatened with murder and rape, told that they would become insane or sexually impotent as a result of their torture, and in some cases threatened that their wives would be tortured or raped in front of them. They have been placed in cells where they could hear the screams of others being tortured, and kept blindfolded throughout in order to prevent them from identifying their torturers. http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/egypt/document.do?id=AC9BB39D02E5199C802569A6006018A0

Hooking genitals up to car batteries is what the mafia permits, not the USA. Those that support torture do not have dignity, honor or nobility. I can't say it any more plainly than that.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> I hate analogies but here it goes. If you are a parent and you permit a child molester to watch your kids...and he molests them, how guilty are you the parent? In other words, you give a monkey a gun and it shoots someone, you don't blame the monkey. The US is condoning torture.



But there still is no evidence in your story of torture.  They may be known for the ability to torture prisoners, but does that automatically make the prisoners the US sent there, tortured?  Who knows, they could have been sent there as a scare tactic.  Psyops is just as useful for interrogation, which is completely legal.  Hell, it goes on, every day.  Nothing better then using indirect ways to get into the head of your captives.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Our Constitution provides that treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are part of the Supreme Law of the Land (i.e., the constitution). The United Nations Charter, which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, provides that???_except in response to an armed attack_???nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council. President Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet he advocates a right to ignore our treaty obligations and to visit the scourge of war upon Iraq, without the approval of the United Nations.
> 
> War on Iraq was never declared by Congress. Officially, there is no war.
> 
> So you had your nuts hooked up to a car battery? They do that in Egypt...where we send detainees.



He was following the UN mandate that Saddam no interfere with the weapons inspectors or face severe penalty.  He interfered, he got penalized. 

Oh man, you really know how to split a hair, don't you.  _Battlefield combatants_ then.  If you are captured on a battlefield you are taken prisoner.  You don't go to trial, you get held prisoner until the battle is over.  Sheesh. 


They do that in Egypt?  Good for them.  We could learn a thing or two from them.


----------



## Decker (Dec 20, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> But there still is no evidence in your story of torture. They may be known for the ability to torture prisoners, but does that automatically make the prisoners the US sent there, tortured? Who knows, they could have been sent there as a scare tactic. Psyops is just as useful for interrogation, which is completely legal. Hell, it goes on, every day. Nothing better then using indirect ways to get into the head of your captives.


You're right. The US sent them there for a falafel luncheon. When the detainees saw the "Welcome to Egypt" sign, they probably shit bricks.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> How do you know torture works? Have you tortured someone? The US had other countries torture for us and the information yielded was worthless. Other than in the movies and tv, show me an example of torture working.



Colonel Thomas White.  Upon learning that a detainee had knowledge of an impending strike against his troops, Colonel white held his service pistol next to the head of the detainee and demanded the info.  The detainee remained silent.  The Colonel then discharged his weapon inches from the detainees head, sending hot gasses all over his face.  The Colonel again asked for information about the planned strike and was told the exact time and place.  All the information proved to be accurate and saved the lives of at least two dozen American soldiers who were to patrol that area that morning. 

P.S.  Upon hearing about how the information was gathered a bunch of liberal pieces of shit decided to try to court martial Colonel White.  He was within two years of retirement.  His career is ruined and he may still lose his retirement.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 20, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> But there still is no evidence in your story of torture.  They may be known for the ability to torture prisoners, but does that automatically make the prisoners the US sent there, tortured?



I think the members of this board, including myself, feel quite tortured that this thread is still going.


----------



## Decker (Dec 20, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> He was following the UN mandate that Saddam no interfere with the weapons inspectors or face severe penalty. He interfered, he got penalized.


The US cannot legally attack another country unless attacked first (or subverting an imminent attack), or pursuant to UN authorization.


			
				ALBOB said:
			
		

> They do that in Egypt? Good for them. We could learn a thing or two from them.


No honor. No dignity. But torture is entertaining. Anyway you assume the detainee is guilty and deserving of cruel and unusual punishment. All detainees are guilty until proven innocent. Torture is just another tool. This from a man of your advanced years and experience. tsk tsk.


----------



## Decker (Dec 20, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I think the members of this board, including myself, feel quite tortured that this thread is still going.


That thought has crossed my mind too.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> As far as torture goes, check out Egypt's history of torture:
> Political detainees have been blindfolded, stripped of their clothes and suspended from their wrists, bound or handcuffed together, sometimes in contorted positions, from the tops of doors or from barred windows. Victims have described how they have been forced to lie on their backs, their hands and feet bound together, a chair forced up under their armpits, another keeping their knees apart to restrict the body's involuntary spasms as electric shocks were applied repeatedly to their nipples and genitals. Between torture sessions they have been made to stand in unnatural positions, often with arms and legs outstretched, for hours on end and beaten if they moved. Some have been sexually abused. In addition to physical torture, they have been threatened with murder and rape, told that they would become insane or sexually impotent as a result of their torture, and in some cases threatened that their wives would be tortured or raped in front of them. They have been placed in cells where they could hear the screams of others being tortured, and kept blindfolded throughout in order to prevent them from identifying their torturers. http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/egypt/document.do?id=AC9BB39D02E5199C802569A6006018A0
> 
> Hooking genitals up to car batteries is what the mafia permits, not the USA. Those that support torture do not have dignity, honor or nobility. I can't say it any more plainly than that.



I read your little link.  It talks about tortures done pre-1991.  When were these US prisoners sent to Egypt?  It states nothing about these detainees, but talks about prisoners scars that "could have" resulted from tortures.  The doctors didn't actually say for sure, so their testimony would be considered inconclusive.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 20, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I think the members of this board, including myself, feel quite tortured that this thread is still going.



 Then don't read it. j/k  We're having a good clean discussion with no name calling.  Besides, it's a good way for me to pass time.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> No honor. No dignity. But torture is entertaining. Anyway you assume the detainee is guilty and deserving of cruel and unusual punishment. All detainees are guilty until proven innocent. Torture is just another tool. This from a man of your advanced years and experience. tsk tsk.



You are in NO position to make character judgements about me.  You have no idea who I am, where I've been or what I've done.  Take your "tsk tsk" and shove it up your ass.

We were on battlefields.  The enemy was shooting at us.  We took them as prisoners.  If you want to celebrate their innocence then by all means, do so.  But you'll get no support from me.


----------



## Decker (Dec 20, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Colonel Thomas White. Upon learning that a detainee had knowledge of an impending strike against his troops, Colonel white held his service pistol next to the head of the detainee and demanded the info. The detainee remained silent. The Colonel then discharged his weapon inches from the detainees head, sending hot gasses all over his face. The Colonel again asked for information about the planned strike and was told the exact time and place. All the information proved to be accurate and saved the lives of at least two dozen American soldiers who were to patrol that area that morning.
> 
> P.S. Upon hearing about how the information was gathered a bunch of liberal pieces of shit decided to try to court martial Colonel White. He was within two years of retirement. His career is ruined and he may still lose his retirement.


I asked for it and got it. Thanks. Can you provide a link?....I'd like to see the facts. If, and that's a big 'if', that story is credible, it still does nothing to change the fact that state sanctioned torture is earmark of Nazis and Communists. What you mention is more akin to actions in the battlefield, i.e., war crimes. What we are looking at is state sanctioned torture. But I would still like to see that link nonetheless...you know, right-wingers tend provided absolutist pictures of events. There's always at least 2 sides to every story.


----------



## Decker (Dec 20, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> I read your little link. It talks about tortures done pre-1991. When were these US prisoners sent to Egypt? It states nothing about these detainees, but talks about prisoners scars that "could have" resulted from tortures. The doctors didn't actually say for sure, so their testimony would be considered inconclusive.


You are correct, here's the proper link:  http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2775

So we provide an all-expense paid trip to egypt for what reason again?


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> You are correct, here's the proper link:  http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2775
> 
> So we provide an all-expense paid trip to egypt for what reason again?



What else?  The Great Pyramids of course!


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 20, 2005)

To see the pyramids?


----------



## Decker (Dec 20, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> You are in NO position to make character judgements about me. You have no idea who I am, where I've been or what I've done. Take your "tsk tsk" and shove it up your ass.
> 
> We were on battlefields. The enemy was shooting at us. We took them as prisoners. If you want to celebrate their innocence then by all means, do so. But you'll get no support from me.


Sorry ALBOB but when you support state sanctioned torture, (we were discussing the US shipping detainees to Egypt) such as the kind I alluded to in my comment, you are showing no dignity or honor or nobility. 

I'm not railing on your battle field moment above at all b/c I don't know you or your history, nor is it germane to the topic at hand.  which is Bush's approval of spying on US citizens.  How in hell did we end up here?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Sorry ALBOB but when you support state sanctioned torture, (we were discussing the US shipping detainees to Egypt) such as the kind I alluded to in my comment, you are showing no dignity or honor or nobility.
> 
> I'm not railing on your battle field moment above at all b/c I don't know you or your history, nor is it germane to the topic at hand.  which is Bush's approval of spying on US citizens.  How in hell did we end up here?




Prolly whitey.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Sorry ALBOB but when you support state sanctioned torture, (we were discussing the US shipping detainees to Egypt) such as the kind I alluded to in my comment, you are showing no dignity or honor or nobility.
> 
> I'm not railing on your battle field moment above at all b/c I don't know you or your history, nor is it germane to the topic at hand.  which is Bush's approval of spying on US citizens.  How in hell did we end up here?



I believe you brought up torture at one point.  Instigator!   
Oh, btw, I read through some of the links through the one you just posted, funny stuff.  Prisoners complaining about loud rap music.  The best part was they knew the artists' names!  Propaganda goes both ways.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Why don't you direct your attention to someone that was there:
> 
> *Scot Ritter:* It's not black-and-white, as some in the Bush administration make it appear. There's no doubt that Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the UN security council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability has been verifiably eliminated./quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## DOMS (Dec 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> You are correct, here's the proper link:  http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2775
> 
> So we provide an all-expense paid trip to egypt for what reason again?



He finds that your link doesn't say what you purport that it does, so you produce another.  I'm sure that you can a link stating that Iraq is populated with cuddly bears.

I followed your link and read the article.  It references a "report" by a human rights group, to which it doesn't link.  How convient.  I'd like to see how this group created...I mean, found these facts.


----------



## Decker (Dec 20, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> First off, you need to pick a better source. Ritter is nothing more than a glory hound. After he resigned he flopped on his standed (ala, John Kerry) and said whatever it took to keep him in the lime light.
> 
> First he states "It's not black-and-white" then proceeds to say "Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations." Either Iraq has, or has not, mets it's obligations needed to prevent the return of the US and the end of the Saddam's government. That sounds black-and-white to me. After 12 year, many UN resolutions (ha!), he still had not met his obligations.


Wrong again. Iraq was grudginly meeting it obligations under UN requirements...but that's not fast enough so let's bomb the shit out of them...they are only Iraqis.
So Ritter is a 'glory hound' even though his work is proven credible. Well, how about these guys, are they 'glory hounds' too. Please read the following b/c it's a synopsis of the inspector's findings:

*"I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward (BY BUSH)was rapidly falling apart,"* Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer." Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. "I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to CNN from IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria.
ElBaradei said he had been "pretty convinced" that Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which the IAEA dismantled in 1997.
Days before the fighting began, Vice President Dick Cheney weighed in with an opposing view.

*"We believe [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong," Cheney said. "And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency in this kind of issue, especially where Iraq's concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what Saddam Hussein was doing."*(VERY CREDIBLE, DON'T YOU THINK?)

Now, more than a year later, ElBaradei said, "I haven't seen anything on the ground at that time that supported Mr. Cheney's conclusion or statement, so -- and I thought to myself, well, history is going to be the judge." *No evidence of a nuclear weapons program has been found so far. *Blix said the *Bush administration tended "to say that anything that was unaccounted for existed, whether it was sarin or mustard gas or anthrax."*

Blix specifically faulted Powell, who told the U.N. Security Council about what he said was a site that held chemical weapons and decontamination trucks. *"Our inspectors had been there, and they had taken a lot of samples, and there was no trace of any chemicals or biological things*," Blix said. "And the trucks that we had seen were water trucks."

The most spectacular intelligence failure concerned a report by ElBaradei, who revealed that *an alleged contract by Iraq with Niger to import uranium oxide was a forgery*, Blix said.

"I think they (USA) lost their patience much too early," Blix said.
"I can see that they wanted to have a picture that was either black or white, and we presented a picture that had, you know, gray in it, as well," he said. 

"We should not forget that," he said. "For a couple of months, their cooperation was not by any way transparent, for whatever reason."(SEE GRUDGINGLY)
ElBaradei said he hoped the past year's events have taught world leaders a valuable lesson.
"We learned from Iraq that an inspection takes time, that we should be patient, that an inspection can, in fact, work."


			
				cfs3 said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware that claravoyance was a science. Since the inspectors were never allowed to see all of Iraq, when they needed to, how could they know for certain? The liberal definition of science is a little odd.


The point is that they could not finish their inspections b/c Bush bombed the country. The inspectors were finding no evidence to support Bush's rationale for invasion so Bush just ordered the attack in spite of the evidence.


			
				cfs3 said:
			
		

> As for the Egyptions torturing people: welcome to how the world really works. If the US played it the way liberal would like, we would end up being attacked and then they would stand around bitching about how the government failed to protect them. Liberal love to take the "moral high ground"...unless it costs them money or places them in harms way.


I certainly agree. In fact let's take the children of the detainees and torture them until their parents talk--sexual torture, water boarding, elctro-shock etc. B/c, you know, since they are detainees by definition they are guilty and just chockfull of valid useful facts. And if that doesn't work let's workover their spouses or parents. You see, you think that torture is doing what it takes to get the job done. Torture is a path bullying cowards choose--Nazis/Commies/death squads. The only job your doing with torture is satisfying petty vindictive bloodlust regardless of facts/truth. To beat a monster you must become a monster?


----------



## Decker (Dec 20, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> He finds that your link doesn't say what you purport that it does, so you produce another. I'm sure that you can a link stating that Iraq is populated with cuddly bears.
> 
> I followed your link and read the article. It references a "report" by a human rights group, to which it doesn't link. How convient. I'd like to see how this group created...I mean, found these facts.


Why look at all. You just wrote that this (torture) is how the world works. Either it does or does not work that way. Egypt has a long standing reputation supporting torture. If my links are not good enough, then by all means, find your own, b/c you know how the real world works. Torture. Right? Would you support torture if proferred by Clinton? Reagan was not a supporter of the type of blackbag operations practiced by the Bush administration...his quotes re such practices, in reference to the SU, were all negative. 

Cuddly bears. Ha good one. No, but I can find many many links supporting the assertion that GWB is a war criminal and, thanks to his recent foray into spying on americans, he is now in Nixon redux subject to more talk of impeachment.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 20, 2005)

Now come on, noone is insinuating that we torture everyone including children.  Besides, you keep saying that the Nazis, and commies are the only ones who used torture.  Do you honestly believe that to be true.  Torture has been going on forever.  Heck, if you're a Bible thumper, there is plenty of torture in it as well.

As far as the whoel debate about whether or not we should have waited to move in on Iraq and Saddam, it's retrospect.  You can't really prove that it would have went smoothly if we didn't go the route we did.  Nobody can predict the future, no matter how smart they claim to be.  (ie UN Inspectors spouting there mouth off, like they are some kind of Psychic)


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 20, 2005)

I think we should start a new thread, "What would Kerry do?"  I mean, if Bush wasn't reelected, that's who would have been running the show, right?  I figure you guys must think he would have done a hundred times better of a job.  I mean, who better then a guy who changes his mind on a weekly basis?  That's a leader I want leading me in the military, indecisive.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Why look at all. You just wrote that this (torture) is how the world works. Either it does or does not work that way. Egypt has a long standing reputation supporting torture.



You're confusing task and it's application.  Yes, torture does work, but I've yet to see definitive proof that the US is using it.  I'm not saying the US does or doesn't, but the proof is lacking.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 20, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> You're confusing task and it's application.  Yes, torture does work, but I've yet to see definitive proof that the US is using it.  I'm not saying the US does or doesn't, but the proof is lacking.



Don't worry, we torture ourselves first, to make sure that they work effectively.    I just got done getting tortured.  It was great.


----------



## Decker (Dec 20, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> Now come on, noone is insinuating that we torture everyone including children. Besides, you keep saying that the Nazis, and commies are the only ones who used torture. Do you honestly believe that to be true. Torture has been going on forever. Heck, if you're a Bible thumper, there is plenty of torture in it as well.
> 
> As far as the whoel debate about whether or not we should have waited to move in on Iraq and Saddam, it's retrospect. You can't really prove that it would have went smoothly if we didn't go the route we did. Nobody can predict the future, no matter how smart they claim to be. (ie UN Inspectors spouting there mouth off, like they are some kind of Psychic)


I reference Nazis and Communists b/c they are most likely to be identified by anyone and they provide good examples of the evil they had done. 

Reasonable conclusions based on valid evidence is really the only elightened way of proceeding through geopolitical relations. If you equate the inspectors's rational methodical scientific inquiry with divination...that's a mistake. The inspectors' use of scientific analysis and educated opinion was leading to the conclusion that Iraq had no WMD capabilities. They were confirming that Iraq was no threat to the USA.

Maybe I'm taking the wrong tact with this. Did Bush's saber rattling help Hussein decide to capitulate to WMD inspectors? I believe the answer is Yes. Did Bush goto far by initiating an invasion? Yes. War as a last resort means last resort.


----------



## Decker (Dec 20, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> You're confusing task and it's application. Yes, torture does work, but I've yet to see definitive proof that the US is using it. I'm not saying the US does or doesn't, but the proof is lacking.


I understand.  It's just that the US is shipping detainees to Egypt for a reason.  I haven't had time to research particular cases of torture yet...damn interruptions at work.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Wrong again. Iraq was grudginly meeting it obligations under UN requirements...but that's not fast enough so let's bomb the shit out of them...they are only Iraqis.



"Fast enough"?  It was twelve years!  And only then because the US had already started to gear up for war.  If the US didn't finish the war then I find it unlikely that Saddam would have complied.  It was the US' move to finish the conflict that makes your half of the debate real.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> I certainly agree. In fact let's take the children of the detainees and torture them until their parents talk



Who said anything of the prisoner's children?  We'er talking about the prisoner themselves.  You're trying to combine war captives, terrorists, and _*innocent children*_.  Nice try.




			
				Decker said:
			
		

> To beat a monster you must become a monster?



No.  Torturing a captive is leagues different from raping injured captives, beheading aid workers, and killing thousands of non-military related civilians.  Let's assume for the moment that the US does, in fact, torture specific captives for information.  A few out of how many captives?  Every prisoern that the (Saddam's) Iraqis/terrorists get the hands on are tortured and often killed.  And not all of their captives are combatants.  The last round of kidnapping involved pro-Middle East/Anti-American people.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> I understand.  It's just that the US is shipping detainees to Egypt for a reason.  I haven't had time to research particular cases of torture yet...damn interruptions at work.



I feel your pain. 

Honestly, I wouldn't put it past the US to do that.  Hell, that's what I would do!  And I assume that the US will, in some way, scratch Egypt's back.


----------



## Decker (Dec 20, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> "Fast enough"? It was twelve years! And only then because the US had already started to gear up for war. If the US didn't finish the war then I find it unlikely that Saddam would have complied. It was the US' move to finish the conflict that makes your half of the debate real.


Read my above post, I do agree w/ you that the saber-rattling worked. But by the same token, invasion was not warranted.


			
				cfs3 said:
			
		

> Who said anything of the prisoner's children? We'er talking about the prisoner themselves. You're trying to combine war captives, terrorists, and _*innocent children*_. Nice try.


My argument was a rhetorical device called the slippery slope argument. If you ok torture in one fashion, why not extend it to others...where do you stop with the barbarism?


			
				cfs3 said:
			
		

> No. Torturing a captive is leagues different from raping injured captives, beheading aid workers, and killing thousands of non-military related civilians. Let's assume for the moment that the US does, in fact, torture specific captives for information. A few out of how many captives? Every prisoern that the (Saddam's) Iraqis/terrorists get the hands on are tortured and often killed. And not all of their captives are combatants. The last round of kidnapping involved pro-Middle East/Anti-American people.


Some of those things you described are really war crimes. My response is, are we not that shining city on the hill? Do we not lead by example. Are we not the greatest nation on earth for a reason? Why? B/c we don't stoop to the level of our enemies. We've been kicking ass for over 200 years w/out taking on the hue of fascist torturers. Why start now?


----------



## DOMS (Dec 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Read my above post, I do agree w/ you that the saber-rattling worked. But by the same token, invasion was not warranted.



The problem is that sabre-rattling _*did not*_ work.  It wasn't until the US committed to battle that Saddam changed his mind. 



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> My argument was a rhetorical device called the slippery slope argument. If you ok torture in one fashion, why not extend it to others...where do you stop with the barbarism?



This is why I like to debate with you.  Not only do you bring of (generally accepted) facts, but you understand the mechinisms of debating as well.  You are truly The Master Debator.

As for your point, the lines are to hard to find.  We don't torture innocents, just to name one.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> Some of those things you described are really war crimes.



True, but when no one who plays the game plays by the rules, neither should you, not if you want to survive.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> My response is, are we not that shining city on the hill? Do we not lead by example. Are we not the greatest nation on earth for a reason?



Because we the *least *corrupted and the most generous. What has made the US "great" is it's people's hard work.  The world respects power and money first and foremost.  The idea of morals has little to do with it.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> Why? B/c we don't stoop to the level of our enemies. We've been kicking ass for over 200 years w/out taking on the hue of fascist torturers. Why start now?



The world has changed.  The enemy has more opporotunities and better weapons and we have to change with it.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Some of those things you described are really war crimes. My response is, are we not that shining city on the hill? Do we not lead by example. Are we not the greatest nation on earth for a reason? Why? B/c we don't stoop to the level of our enemies. We've been kicking ass for over 200 years w/out taking on the hue of fascist torturers. Why start now?



What makes you think that this is the only time that there might be torturing going on?  The media will get people to believe anything if they talk about it enough.


----------



## Decker (Dec 20, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> The problem is that sabre-rattling _*did not*_ work. It wasn't until the US committed to battle that Saddam changed his mind.


 
I disagree with you. It was after Bush threatened force that Hussein gave in and let the inspectors do their jobs. That was in late 2002. When the US committed to battle in early 2003, the inspectors were still hard at work and requesting more time but unfortuneately, they had to leave the country or get bombed.

Speaking of getting bombed, as always cfs3, it has been fun...It's Tuesday nite, the Socialist Rotaries are serving pretzels, caviar, and vodka...I'm off to adventure.


----------



## Decker (Dec 20, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> What makes you think that this is the only time that there might be torturing going on? The media will get people to believe anything if they talk about it enough.


Yes, I am a media drone.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Reasonable conclusions based on valid evidence is really the only elightened way of proceeding through geopolitical relations. If you equate the inspectors's rational methodical scientific inquiry with divination...that's a mistake. The inspectors' use of scientific analysis and educated opinion was leading to the conclusion that Iraq had no WMD capabilities. They were confirming that Iraq was no threat to the USA.
> 
> Maybe I'm taking the wrong tact with this. Did Bush's saber rattling help Hussein decide to capitulate to WMD inspectors? I believe the answer is Yes. Did Bush goto far by initiating an invasion? Yes. War as a last resort means last resort.



Saddam was giving the inspectors trouble long before Bush was around.  He just happened to be the one who called Saddam out on it, unlike the wishy-washy UN.  Besides, we gave Saddam a chance to willingly give up.  He choose the hard way.  Look where it got him, hiding in a hole in the ground, like the coward he truly is.  Now he is playing to coward card again in court, refusing to take part in the revealing of the truth of his reign.  The truth hurts.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Yes, I am a media drone.



 I knew it.  You're one of them.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 20, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Speaking of getting bombed, as always cfs3, it has been fun...It's Tuesday nite, the Socialist Rotaries are serving pretzels, caviar, and vodka...I'm off to adventure.



That's a good spread, but I hear it's Bring Your Own Exploding Fundementalist Muslim Night.

Have a good one pal, it's been fun.


----------



## Nick+ (Dec 20, 2005)

It's nice re-living the 1930's.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 20, 2005)

Nick+ said:
			
		

> It's nice re-living the 1930's.



You're that old, huh?


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 20, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> I think we should start a new thread, "What would Kerry do?"  I mean, if Bush wasn't reelected, that's who would have been running the show, right?  I figure you guys must think he would have done a hundred times better of a job.  I mean, who better then a guy who changes his mind on a weekly basis?  That's a leader I want leading me in the military, indecisive.




as opposed to having an inexperienced dry drunk commander-in-chief who hasn't shown an ability to assess a situation, but holds the line anyway as long as it ain't his butt or his kid's butts on the line? A man who shows so much courage that he is both unable and unwilling to speak directly to the American people and depends on making questionable partisan speeches in front of his imperial army to bolster his support? A commander who ignores military protocol that prevents personnel from attending outright political rallies while on duty, yet conducts his own? A President who has declared himself above the law, the constitution, and everything the wingnuts claim we are fighting to nurture in other countries? A leader whose party regards other Americans who disagree as "traitors" and eligible for domestic spying? Dictators are well-known for their ability to lead a nation without wavering. . .straight into hell.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 20, 2005)

I know, he has absolute control of all there is that is gov't.  I can't believe that the Judicial and Legislative branches aggreed to surrender all their power to the all mighty dictatorship of Dubya!  All hail Lord Dubya!


----------



## DOMS (Dec 20, 2005)




----------



## ALBOB (Dec 20, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> I know, he has absolute control of all there is that is gov't.  I can't believe that the Judicial and Legislative branches aggreed to surrender all their power to the all mighty dictatorship of Dubya!  All hail Lord Dubya!



Makes me that much more glad I voted for him.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 20, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> A commander who ignores military protocol that prevents personnel from attending outright political rallies while on duty, yet conducts his own?



Of everything you just spewed, this has me the most curious.  What, exactly, are you talking about?


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 20, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> I know, he has absolute control of all there is that is gov't.  I can't believe that the Judicial and Legislative branches aggreed to surrender all their power to the all mighty dictatorship of Dubya!  All hail Lord Dubya!


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA    

great post.


----------



## brogers (Dec 20, 2005)

Libs will simultaneously state that Bush is a moron and that he is an evil genius-mastermind.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 20, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> Libs will simultaneously state that Bush is a moron and that he is an evil genius-mastermind.



That's alright, the Repubs. like to call them cowards.


----------



## maniclion (Dec 20, 2005)




----------



## brogers (Dec 20, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

>


 
relevancy?


----------



## J'Bo (Dec 20, 2005)

SuperFlex said:
			
		

> Bush is a simple minded idiot. Again, I can't decide if he's more of an idiot or I am for voting for his stupid ass twice!



 Well i just watched Ferenheit 9-11 again last night. Everytime i think about moving to the states i watch it....then i think how wonderful it is to be Canadian. This time after i saw the documentary i wanted to vomit. 

I admire the fact that you have admitted to voting for Bush. Would you do it again?


----------



## brogers (Dec 20, 2005)

J'Bo said:
			
		

> Well i just watched Ferenheit 9-11 again last night. Everytime i think about moving to the states i watch it....then i think how wonderful it is to be Canadian. This time after i saw the documentary i wanted to vomit.
> 
> I admire the fact that you have admitted to voting for Bush. Would you do it again?


 
Do you think Fahrenheit 9/11 was a good source of true information and not a biased piece of work by the hack known as Michael Moore?

I'm not a big fan of George Bush, but people's hatred of him borders on lunacy.


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 20, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> I know, he has absolute control of all there is that is gov't.  I can't believe that the Judicial and Legislative branches aggreed to surrender all their power to the all mighty dictatorship of Dubya!  All hail Lord Dubya!




The history of dictatorial governments is full of rubber-stamp legislatures and crony-packed courts.


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 20, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> Libs will simultaneously state that Bush is a moron and that he is an evil genius-mastermind.



I doubt anyone will ever consider him an evil genius-mastermind at all. It's quite difficult to imagine him being able to construct an entire sentence of thought in his head and then be capable of transmitting that to the public. Figureheads often have their puppeteers.


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 20, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> That's alright, the Repubs. like to call them cowards.



Yeah...that's why the Republicans use stop-gap, and the young ones run whenever Operation Yellow Elephant shows up on campus with recruiting information for them...


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 20, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Of everything you just spewed, this has me the most curious.  What, exactly, are you talking about?



Get the video clips from his last couple of speeches in front of a military audience.


----------



## SuperFlex (Dec 20, 2005)

J'Bo said:
			
		

> Well i just watched Ferenheit 9-11 again last night. Everytime i think about moving to the states i watch it....then i think how wonderful it is to be Canadian. This time after i saw the documentary i wanted to vomit.
> 
> I admire the fact that you have admitted to voting for Bush. Would you do it again?


 
Canadian!?! Ah hell... I feel so dirty now. And no I wouldn't Ms. Bo...





Where's Anna when you need her?...


----------



## DOMS (Dec 20, 2005)

J'Bo said:
			
		

> Well i just watched Ferenheit 9-11 again last night. Everytime i think about moving to the states i watch it....then i think how wonderful it is to be Canadian. This time after i saw the documentary i wanted to vomit.
> 
> I admire the fact that you have admitted to voting for Bush. Would you do it again?



It sad that you fell for Moore's propaganda.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 20, 2005)

DOMS said:
			
		

> It sad that you fell for Moore's propaganda.


 
Why the new name?


----------



## DOMS (Dec 20, 2005)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> Why the new name?



Of all the times that people have written my name (not quoted), it's only been spelled correctly a handful of times.  It usually gets written cfc.  I categorically state that I, at no time, have harmed the ozone layer.  I got tired of the bum wrap, so I changed my name.


----------



## SuperFlex (Dec 20, 2005)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Of all the times that people have written my name (not quoted), it's only been spelled correctly a handful of times. It usually gets written cfc. I categorically state that I, at no time, have harmed the ozone layer. I got tired of the bum wrap, so I changed my name.


 
I feel you MODS...


----------



## DOMS (Dec 20, 2005)

SuperFlex said:
			
		

> I feel you MODS...



Once again, I'm looking all over my browser for the button that kills you, but I cant find it...


----------



## SuperFlex (Dec 20, 2005)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Once again, I'm looking all over my browser for the button that kills you, but I cant find it...


 
I guess it's SDOM then... MODS could ban me.


----------



## brogers (Dec 20, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> I doubt anyone will ever consider him an evil genius-mastermind at all. It's quite difficult to imagine him being able to construct an entire sentence of thought in his head and then be capable of transmitting that to the public. Figureheads often have their puppeteers.


 
The moron argument is played out and pathetic.  He isn't Einstein, but he is a smart man.

The man holds degrees from Yale and Harvard Business College, spare us the ridiculous exagerrations please.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 20, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> The moron argument is played out and pathetic.  He isn't Einstein, but he is a smart man.
> 
> The man holds degrees from Yale and Harvard Business College, spare us the ridiculous exagerrations please.



But that's what gets people like him through the day.  That and being martyrs in their own minds.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 20, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> The moron argument is played out and pathetic.  He isn't Einstein, but he is a smart man.
> 
> The man holds degrees from Yale and Harvard Business College, spare us the ridiculous exagerrations please.



Perhaps if the man could get through a speech without mispronouncing 25% of the words the argument could be considered played out.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 20, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Perhaps if the man could get through a speech without mispronouncing 25% of the words the argument could be considered played out.


If an accent is an idicator of intelligence, then 100% of all Welsh are retarded.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 20, 2005)

DOMS said:
			
		

> an idicator of intelligence,




Haha, gotcha bitch.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Dec 20, 2005)

Yale is difficult to get into, but once you're there, it ain't so hard.  Other Ivey leagues schools are more competitive.

Having an MBA from Harvard:  GWB is the first President to ever have had an MBA.  And, he runs the White House in similar ways to a corporation: secrecy.  

Whether he's smart or not, whether you like him or not:

He'll be in the White House for 3 more years.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 20, 2005)

*"Vroom, vroom!" Look, Mr. Putin, I'm driving! Wheeeeee!*


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 20, 2005)

I am indifferent now, just hoping for one candidate worth voting for in 2008, at least it won't be him.  At least now that he has been re-elected he is finally admitting he fucked up.


----------



## SuperFlex (Dec 20, 2005)

min0 lee said:
			
		

>


 
True story

I had to try it once...


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 20, 2005)

min0 lee said:
			
		

>




You should photoshop Bob Kraft's Super Bowl ring onto Putin's finger in that pic, that would be sweet.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 20, 2005)

*George Bush was about to say something really stupid (how unusual), but Laura stopped*


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 20, 2005)

*no caption needed*


----------



## DOMS (Dec 20, 2005)

I dig that video clip. Damn funny!


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 20, 2005)

*Do a little dance, make a little love, get down tonight*


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 20, 2005)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I dig that video clip. Damn funny!




I know, that was funny.  I also found it humorous when he wiped his glasses with that tarp that woman was wearing.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 20, 2005)

*I believe.....*


----------



## SuperFlex (Dec 20, 2005)

What vid? Anybody have a link to share?


----------



## SuperFlex (Dec 20, 2005)

min0 lee said:
			
		

>


 
There you go. Dragging Christians names through the mud...


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 20, 2005)

*At least he reads*


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 20, 2005)




----------



## SuperFlex (Dec 20, 2005)

min0 lee said:
			
		

>


 
Nice...


----------



## brogers (Dec 20, 2005)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> Yale is difficult to get into, but once you're there, it ain't so hard. Other Ivey leagues schools are more competitive.
> 
> Having an MBA from Harvard: GWB is the first President to ever have had an MBA. And, he runs the White House in similar ways to a corporation: secrecy.
> 
> ...


 
I wish the government was ran more like a corporation:  Less waste=less income tax


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 20, 2005)

*I wonder if his taste better....*


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 20, 2005)




----------



## J'Bo (Dec 20, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Perhaps if the man could get through a speech without mispronouncing 25% of the words the argument could be considered played out.



Amen brotha. 

I did not fall for propaganda nor am i brain washed by your hitler like president. Sometimes it is eaasier to see what is happening when you are not in the midst of the chaos. You tend to be a little less biased. However, i am biased to the fact that everytime i have heard Bush speak he sounds like a 2 year old who needs some warm milk. 

Bush is a smart man....if you compare him to Gumby or Goofy. 

KBM, SuperFlex, and Dale: You three should run the country.


----------



## Nick+ (Dec 20, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> You're that old, huh?



Feel it sometimes.


----------



## Nick+ (Dec 20, 2005)




----------



## brogers (Dec 20, 2005)

J'Bo said:
			
		

> Amen brotha.
> 
> I did not fall for propaganda nor am i brain washed by your hitler like president. Sometimes it is eaasier to see what is happening when you are not in the midst of the chaos. You tend to be a little less biased. However, i am biased to the fact that everytime i have heard Bush speak he sounds like a 2 year old who needs some warm milk.
> 
> ...


 
J'Bo, do you have a mental handicap? Perhaps if I got my information from Fahrenheit 9/11 my views would be skewed. However, there is no excuse whatsoever to compare George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler. George W. Bush was responsible for the removal of a murdering-madman dictator, Sadaam Hussein. Adolf Hitler was responsible for the slaughter of 6 million Jews and for starting WWII, in which millions of soldiers died.

If you disagree with what the US is doing in Iraq that is fine, but how dare you compare our President to Adolf Hitler. You need a reality check, and some perspective, really, really badly.

It really pisses me off when dumbass foreigners make comments like this. Hold your ignorant, hate-spewing tongue for your own sake, before you destroy what little credibility is left after that ridiculous post.

What the fuck is wrong with you.


----------



## brogers (Dec 20, 2005)

If those living outside the US wonder why some Americans have a "fuck them" attitude towards other nations, this moron making light of the holocaust is a clear example.


----------



## GFR (Dec 20, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> J'Bo, do you have a mental handicap? Perhaps if I got my information from Fahrenheit 9/11 my views would be skewed. However, there is no excuse whatsoever to compare George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler. George W. Bush was responsible for the removal of a murdering-madman dictator, Sadaam Hussein. Adolf Hitler was responsible for the slaughter of 6 million Jews and for starting WWII, in which millions of soldiers died.
> 
> If you disagree with what the US is doing in Iraq that is fine, but how dare you compare our President to Adolf Hitler. You need a reality check, and some perspective, really, really badly.
> 
> ...



Dude you really need some pussy. Your post is uncalled for and very offensive, try to acty like an aduldt for once.


----------



## Nick+ (Dec 20, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> If those living outside the US wonder why some Americans have a "fuck them" attitude towards other nations, this moron making light of the holocaust is a clear example.



Read this about the holocaust:     http://www.rense.com/general69/short.htm

(not saying that I agree with that article totally.)


----------



## Nick+ (Dec 20, 2005)

As a 'dumbass foreigner' living in Europe, it's me and others here who are going to pay the final price , when the U.S. fuck up in the Middle East, really explodes......


----------



## brogers (Dec 20, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Dude you really need some pussy. Your post is uncalled for and very offensive, try to acty like an aduldt for once.


 
More offensive than making light of the murder of 6 million Jews, and deaths of millions of Allied soldiers?


----------



## brogers (Dec 20, 2005)

Nick+ said:
			
		

> As a 'dumbass foreigner' living in Europe, it's me and others here who are going to pay the final price , when the U.S. fuck up in the Middle East, really explodes......


 
Don't you live in France?

Have you heard of Normandy?  Our soldiers paid the "price" for your freedom.


----------



## GFR (Dec 20, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> More offensive than making light of the murder of 6 million Jews, and deaths of millions of Allied soldiers?


She didn't do that, your twisted mind imagined that insult.


----------



## Nick+ (Dec 20, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> If those living outside the US wonder why some Americans have a "fuck them" attitude towards other nations, this moron making light of the holocaust is a clear example.



Some of you Americans live on a planet of your own.  (That's why I found the US unreal when I lived there.)

Harold Pinter put it rather nastily(but succinctly) recently about the Americans in his Nobel Speech:

"I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner. Listen to all American presidents on television say the words, 'the American people', as in the sentence, 'I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people.'

It's a scintillating stratagem. Language is actually employed to keep thought at bay. The words 'the American people' provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You don't need to think. Just lie back on the cushion. The cushion may be suffocating your intelligence and your critical faculties but it's very comfortable. This does not apply of course to the 40 million people living below the poverty line and the 2 million men and women imprisoned in the vast gulag of prisons, which extends across the US."

http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html


----------



## GFR (Dec 20, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> Don't you live in France?
> 
> Have you heard of Normandy?  Our soldiers paid the "price" for your freedom.


Nick is not French


----------



## GFR (Dec 20, 2005)

Nick+ said:
			
		

> Some of you Americans live on a planet of your own.  (That's why I found the US unreal when I lived there.)
> 
> Harold Pinter put it rather nastily(but succinctly) recently about the Americans in his Nobel Speech:
> 
> ...




brogers and people like him make it hard to be proud of being American, when I travel I tell people I'm from Canada.....I'm treated much better because of that.


----------



## Nick+ (Dec 20, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Nick is not French



Maybe I should pretend to be one.........  (Wouldn't make much of a difference!)
Surely there are quite a few people of other nationalities living in the U.S.


----------



## Nick+ (Dec 20, 2005)

I lived in New Jersey for 5 months in 1999, used to go to NY at the weekends by train. Met loads of really nice Americans , Black ,White, Hispanic. Only problem was they kept on thinking I was Australian.....


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 21, 2005)

J'Bo said:
			
		

> Amen brotha.
> 
> I did not fall for propaganda nor am i brain washed by your hitler like president. Sometimes it is eaasier to see what is happening when you are not in the midst of the chaos. You tend to be a little less biased. However, i am biased to the fact that everytime i have heard Bush speak he sounds like a 2 year old who needs some warm milk.
> 
> ...


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 21, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> The moron argument is played out and pathetic.  He isn't Einstein, but he is a smart man.
> 
> The man holds degrees from Yale and Harvard Business College, spare us the ridiculous exagerrations please.



I think the Freepers spell that as "moran." There's nothing smart about being unable to articulate a complete sentence. But then, he's an actor - perhaps its difficult for him to maintain that fake Texas accent and remember his script at the same time.


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 21, 2005)

DOMS said:
			
		

> But that's what gets people like him through the day.  That and being martyrs in their own minds.




Ahh...written like a truly victimized supremacist.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 21, 2005)




----------



## ALBOB (Dec 21, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Get the video clips from his last couple of speeches in front of a military audience.



Now THAT is rich.  GWB is the only president in history to give a speech in front of a military audience and try to bolster support for whatever military agenda he's pushing that day.  You, sir, have an amazingly narrow view of history.


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 21, 2005)

_"This is a different era, a different war," the president said at a year-end news conference in the East Room. "People are changing phone numbers and phone calls, and they're moving quick. And we've got to be able to detect and prevent. I keep saying that, but this . . . requires quick action."

um...just like the "culture war" and the "war on Christmas."

"I want senators from New York or Los Angeles or Las Vegas to go home and explain why these cities are safer," Bush said. "It is inexcusable to say, on the one hand, 'connect the dots' and not give us a chance to do so."_

And is this the first American president who actually had to make this kind of statement?

_While generally relaxed and sometimes joking, Bush grew testy when asked if he is presiding over the expansion of "unchecked power" by the executive branch. "To say 'unchecked power' basically is ascribing some kind of *dictatorial* position to the president, which I strongly reject," he responded sharply, waving his finger._

Of course, this is supported by a bit of doublespeak by the Attorney General, whose respect for representative government was expressed as lip service in this statement: 

_"This is not a backdoor approach," Gonzales said at the White House. "We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance." He acknowledged that the *administration discussed introducing legislation explicitly permitting such domestic spying but decided against it because it "would be difficult, if not impossible" to pass.*_

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121900211.html

Those pesky "freedoms" that our soldiers fought so hard to protect.


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 21, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Now THAT is rich.  GWB is the only president in history to give a speech in front of a military audience and try to bolster support for whatever military agenda he's pushing that day.  You, sir, have an amazingly narrow view of history.




Uh...no...apparently you haven't watched those clips. Or you don't remember that military personnel are not supposed to engage in partisan political rallies while on duty and in uniform. So when the commander-in-chief uses a speech delivered in front of our military as a platform for partisan attacks, it raises a question of holding them captive for the Party's agenda. The military doesn't serve the President or is the explicit tool of the Republican Party -  it serves the whole country.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 21, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Ahh...written like a truly victimized supremacist.



It's liberal whiners such as yourself that try thier hardest to be martyrs.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 21, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Uh...no...apparently you haven't watched those clips. Or you don't remember that military personnel are not supposed to engage in partisan political rallies while on duty and in uniform. So when the commander-in-chief uses a speech delivered in front of our military as a platform for partisan attacks, it raises a question of holding them captive for the Party's agenda. The military doesn't serve the President or is the explicit tool of the Republican Party -  it serves the whole country.



As if to prove my point about you having a VERY narrow view of history.  Hello, he's called the Commander in Chief for a reason.  Yes, the military DOES serve the President.  That's why they exist.  He sets policy, the military enforces it.  And to make it out like GWB is the only President in history to use a military setting as a back drop for a politically motivated speach is naive, at best.  Completely dishonest at worst.


----------



## Decker (Dec 21, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> . . .If you disagree with what the US is doing in Iraq that is fine, but how dare you compare our President to Adolf Hitler. You need a reality check, and some perspective, really, really badly. . .


Wow, hey it's an open chat and J'Bo is just voicing an opinion. She said, 'Hitler-like' not that he is Hitler. I found this article that supports her rhetoric. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles3/Jayne_Hitler-Bush.htm

Like Hitler, President Bush was not elected by a majority, but was forced to engage in political maneuvering in order to gain office.

Like Hitler, Bush began to curtail civil liberties in response to a well-publicized disaster, in Hitler???s case the Reichstag fire, in Bush???s case the 9-11 catastrophe.

Like Hitler, Bush went on to pursue a reckless foreign policy without the mandate of the electorate and despite the opposition of most foreign nations.

Like Hitler, Bush has increased his popularity with conservative voters by mounting an aggressive public relations campaign against foreign enemies. Just as Hitler cited international communism to justify Germany???s military buildup, Bush has used Al Qaeda and the so-called Axis of Evil to justify our current military buildup. Paradoxically none of the nations in this axis--Iraq, Iran and North Korea--have had anything to do with each other.

Like Hitler, Bush has promoted militarism in the midst of economic recession (or depression as it was called during the thirties). First he used war preparations to help subsidize defense industries (Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, etc.) and presumably the rest of the economy on a trickle-down basis. Now he turns to the very same corporations to rebuild Iraq, again without competitive bidding and at extravagant profit levels.

Like Hitler, Bush displays great populist enthusiasm in his patriotic speeches, but primarily serves wealthy investors who subsidize his election campaigns and share with him their comfortable lifestyle. As he himself jokes, he treats these individuals at the pinnacle of our economy as his true political ???base.???

Like Hitler, Bush envisages our nation???s unique historic destiny almost as a religious cause sanctioned by God. Just as Hitler did for Germany, he takes pride in his ???providential??? role in spreading his version of Americanism throughout the entire world.

Like Hitler, Bush promotes a future world order that guarantees his own nation???s hegemonic supremacy rather than cooperative harmony under the authority of the United Nations (or League of Nations).

Like Hitler, Bush quickly makes and breaks diplomatic ties, and he offers generous promises that he soon abandons, as in the cases of Mexico, Russia, Afghanistan, and even New York City. The same goes for U.S. domestic programs. Once Bush was elected, many leaders of these programs learned to dread his making any kind of an appearance to praise their success, since this was almost inevitably followed by severe cuts in their budgets.

Like Hitler, Bush scraps international treaties, most notably the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Convention on the Prohibition of Land Mines, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Kyoto Global Warming Accord, and the International Criminal Court.

Like Hitler, Bush repeats lies often enough that they come to be accepted as the truth. Bush and his spokesmen argued, for example, that they had taken every measure possible to avoid war, than an invasion of Iraq would diminish (not intensify) the terrorist threat against the U.S., that Iraq was linked with Al Qaeda, and that nothing whatsoever had been achieved by U.N. inspectors to warrant the postponement of U.S. invasion plans. All of this was false. They also insisted that Iraq hid numerous weapons it did not possess since the mid-190s, and they refused to acknowledge the absence of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq since the early nineties. As perhaps to be expected, they indignantly accused others of deception and evasiveness.

Like Hitler, Bush incessantly shifted his arguments to justify invading Iraq--from Iraq???s WMD threat to the elimination of Saddam Hussein, to his supposed Al Qaeda connection, to the creation of Iraqi democracy in the Middle East as a model for neighboring states, and back again to the WMD threat. As soon as one excuse for the war was challenged, Bush advanced to another, but only to shift back again at another time.

Like Hitler, Bush and his cohorts emphasize the ruthlessness of their enemies in order to justify their own. Just as Hitler cited the threat of communist violence to justify even greater violence on the part of Germany, the bush team justified the invasion of Iraq by emphasizing Hussein???s crimes against humanity over the past twenty-five years. However, these crimes were for the most part committed when Iraq was a client-ally of the U.S. Our government supplied Hussein with illegal weapons (poison gas included), and there were sixty U.S. advisors in Iraq when these weapons were put to use (see NY Times, Aug. 18, 1992). U.S. aid to Iraq was actually doubled afterwards despite disclaimers from Washington that our nation opposed their use. President Reagan???s special envoy Donald Rumsfeld personally informed Hussein of this one hundred percent increment during one of his two trips to Iraq at the time. He also told Hussein not to take U.S. disclaimers seriously.

Like Hitler, Bush takes pride in his status as a ???War President,??? and his global ambition makes him perhaps the most dangerous president in our nation???s history, a ???rogue??? chief executive capable of waging any number of illegal preemptive wars. He fully acknowledges his willingness to engage in wars of ???choice??? as well as wars of necessity. Sooner or later this choice will oblige universal conscription as well as a full-scale war economy.

Like Hitler, Bush continues to pursue war without cutting back on the peacetime economy. Additional to unprecedented low interest rates bestowed by the Federal Reserve, he has actually cut federal taxes twice by substantial amounts, especially for the top one percent of U.S. taxpayers, while conducting an expensive invasion and an even more expensive occupation of a hostile nation. As a result, President Clinton???s $350 billion budget surplus has been reduced to a $450 billion deficit, comprising an unprecedented $800 billion decline in less than four years. At the same time the U.S. dollar has steadily dropped against currencies of both Europe and Japan.

Like Hitler, Bush possesses a war machine much bigger and more effective than the military capabilities of other nations. With the extra financing obliged by the defeat and occupation of Iraq, Bush now relies on a ???defense??? budget well in excess of the combined military expenditures of the rest of the world. Moreover, the $416 billion defense package passed last week by Congress will probably need to be supplemented before the end of the year.

Like Hitler, bush depends on an axis of collaborative allies, which he describes as a ???coalition of the willing,??? in order to give the impression of a broad popular alliance. These allies include the U.K. as compared to Mussolini???s Italy, and Spain and Bulgaria, as compared to, well, Spain and Bulgaria, both of which were aligned with Germany during the thirties and World War II. As a result of their cooperation, Prime Minister Blair???s diplomatic reputation has been ruined in England, and a surprising election defeat has produced an unfriendly government in Spain. The Philippines have withdrawn their troops from Iraq to save the life of a hostage, and other defections can be expected in the near future.

Like Hitler, Bush is willing to go to war over the objections of the U.N. (League of Nations). His Iraq invasion was illegal and therefore a war crime as explained by Articles 41 and 42 of the U.N. Charter, which require two votes, not one, by the Security Council before any state takes such an action. First a vote is needed to explore all possibilities short of warfare (in Iraq???s case through the use of U.N. inspectors), and once this has been shown to be fruitless, a second vote is needed to permit military action. U.S. and U.K. delegates at the Security Council prevented this second vote once it was plain they lacked a majority. This was because other nations on the Security Council were satisfied with the findings of U.N. inspectors that no weapons of mass destruction had yet been found. Minus this second vote, the invasion was illegal. Bush also showed in the process that he has no qualms about bribing, bullying, and insulting U.N. members, even tapping their telephone lines. This was done with undecided members of the Security Council as well as the U.N. Secretary General when the U.S.-U.K. resolution was debated preceding the invasion.

Like Hitler, Bush launches unilateral invasions on a supposedly preemptive basis. Just as Hitler convinced the German public to think of Poland as a threat to Germany in 1939 (for example in his Sept. 19 speech), Bush wants Americans to think of Iraq as having been a ???potential??? threat to our national security--indeed as one of the instigators of the 9-11 attack despite a complete lack of evidence to support this claim.

Like Hitler, Bush depends on a military strategy that features a ???shock and awe??? blitzkrieg beginning with devastating air strikes, then an invasion led by heavy armored columns.

Like Hitler, Bush is willing to inflict high levels of bloodshed against enemy nations. Between 20,000 and (more probably) 37,000 are now estimated to have been killed, as much as a ro-1 kill ratio compared to the more than 900 Americans killed. In other words, for every U.S. fatality, probably as many as forty Iraqi have died.

Like Hitler, Bush is perfectly willing to sacrifice life as part of his official duty. This would be indicated by the unprecedented number of prisoners executed during his service as governor of Texas. Under no other governor in the history of the United States were so many killed.

Like Hitler, Bush began warfare on a single front (Al Qaeda quartered in Afghanistan), but then expanded it to a second front with Iraq, only to be confronted with North Korea and Iran as potential third and fourth fronts. Much the same thing happened to Hitler when he advanced German military operations from Spain to Poland and France, then was distracted by Yugoslavia before invading the USSR in 1941. Today, bush seems prevented by the excessive costs of the Iraqi debacle from going to war elsewhere if reelected, but not through any lack of desire.

Like Hitler, Bush has no qualms about imposing ???regime change??? by installing Quisling-style client governments backed by a U.S. military occupation with both political and economic control entirely in the hands of Americans. It is no surprise that Iyad Alawi, Iraq???s current temporary prime minister, was once affiliated with the CIA and has been reliably reported by the Australian press to have executed six hooded prisoners with a handgun to their heads just a day or two before his appointment a couple weeks ago.

Like Hitler, Bush curtails civil liberties in captive nations and depends on detention centers (i.e., concentration camps) such as a Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and any number of secret interrogation centers across the world. Prisoners at the camps go unidentified and have no legal rights as ordinarily guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions. They have also been detained indefinitely (for 2 ½ years already at Guantanamo Bay), though there is mounting evidence that many are innocent of what they have been charged--some, for example, having been randomly seized by Northern Alliance troops in Afghanistan for an automatic bounty from U.S. commanders. Moreover, many Iraqi prisoners have been tortured, in many instances just short of death. Recent U.S. documents disclose that as many twenty have died while being tortured, and twenty others have died under unusual circumstances yet to be determined.

Like Hitler, Bush uses the threat of enemies abroad to stir the fearful allegiance of the U.S. public. For example, he features public announcements of possible terrorist attacks in order to override embarrassing news coverage or to crowd from headlines positive coverage of Democratic Party activities. He also uses the threat of terrorism to justify extraordinary domestic powers granted by the Patriot Act. Even the books we check out of public libraries can be kept on record by federal agents.

Like Hitler, Bush depends on a propaganda machine to guarantee sympathetic news management. In Hitler???s case news coverage was totally dominated by Goebbels; in Bush???s case reporters have been almost totally ???imbedded??? by both military spokesmen and wealthy media owners sympathetic with Bush. The most obvious case is the Fox news channel, owned and controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Not surprisingly, recent polls indicate that the majority of Fox viewers still think Hussein played a role in the 9-11 attack.

Like Hitler, Bush increasingly reduces the circle of aides he feels he can trust as his policies keep boomeranging at his own expense. Just as Hitler ended up isolated in his headquarters, with few individuals granted access, Bush is now said to be limiting access primarily to Attorney General Ashcroft (who also talks with God on a regular basis) as well as Karl Rove, the Vice President, Karen Hughes, and a few others. Both Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld are now said to be out of the loop.

Like Hitler, Bush has become obsessed with his vision of conflict between good (U.S. patriotism) and evil (anti-Americanism. Many in contact with the White House are said to be worried that he is beginning to lose touch with reality--perhaps resulting from the use of medication that seriously distorts his judgment. Possibly symptomatic of this concern is the increasing number of disaffected government officials who leak embarrassing documents.

Like Hitler, bush takes pleasure in the mythology of frontier justice. As a youth Hitler read and memorized the western novels of Karl May, and Bush retains into his maturity his fascination with simplistic cowboy values. He also exaggerates a cowboy twang despite his C-average elitist education at Andover, Yale, and Harvard.

Like Hitler, Bush misconstrues Darwinism, in Hitler???s case by treating the Aryan race as being superior on an evolutionary basis, in Bush???s case by rejecting science for fundamentalist creationism.
Do I agree w/ all that stuff? No. I'm just showing that J'Bo is not the only person that holds a bush-hitler opinion. Let's be reasonable, Bush is not Hitler....he's the Devil. Why anyone can see that!


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 21, 2005)

When he functions as a commander-in-chief, his purpose in speaking before the military is not to make partisan attacks on other segments of the American public. There is a difference between making policy statements and openly attacking the other political party. 

He isn't the commander-in-chief of the Republican Party when he speaks before a captive military audience. The military is not a branch of the Party.


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 21, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> As if to prove my point about you having a VERY narrow view of history.  Hello, he's called the Commander in Chief for a reason.  Yes, the military DOES serve the President.  That's why they exist.  He sets policy, the military enforces it.  And to make it out like GWB is the only President in history to use a military setting as a back drop for a politically motivated speach is naive, at best.  Completely dishonest at worst.



Nope. The military of the United States does not exist to serve the President. It exists to serve the United States. He isn't a generalissimo or a military dictator. He's a commander-in-chief as the representative and leader of the entire country, not as a monarch employing a private army to enforce his personal will. 

There is a difference between a political speech about policy and a speech directly attacking the other party before a captive audience of our military troops.


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 21, 2005)

DOMS said:
			
		

> It's liberal whiners such as yourself that try thier hardest to be martyrs.



You have a strange definition of "whiner"....particularly when wingnut supremacists are constantly blaming everyone else for their own issues.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 21, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> When he functions as a commander-in-chief, his purpose in speaking before the military is not to make partisan attacks on other segments of the American public. There is a difference between making policy statements and openly attacking the other political party.
> 
> He isn't the commander-in-chief of the Republican Party when he speaks before a captive military audience. The military is not a branch of the Party.



You make 2 mistakes in this.  One, you assume that us military are naive, and incapable of making decisions on our own.  He can say whatever he wants in front of us, but it's still our ability to vote that matters.  Two, you have some how assumed (once again, that is too funny) that we are somehow "forced" to go to his speeches.  Believe me, that is so far from the truth, it isn't even funny.  Have you been to one his speeches on a military installation?  I have, and that is not how it works.

I may not agree with everything he says or does, but that is my right.  Just as it is all of yours arguing on this thread.  But nonetheless, he is the President, and he was voted in (or whatever political BS of the week, the liberal sore losers want to use) by us as Americans.  So who should you guys really be blaming if you don't like what he is doing?  Probably that person in the mirror you look each morning, or maybe the guy in front of you at the checkout at Wal-Mart, or maybe even your best-friend.

And you what the best part about this all is?  Everyone is blaming Bush directly.  Last time I checked, he does not, let me repeat that for the dim-whitted, he does not have absolute control over everything there is out there.  Think about the way most of think, if he is that unintelligent as you claim, how would he be able to do all of this on his own?  And if he is that unintelligent, how intelligent does that make the US for voting for him?


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 21, 2005)

Oh, and I almost forgot, for all those non-Americans throwing their 2 cents in; you are entitled to your opinion as well.  That is your right, based on the fact that you are posting on a Forum enabled by the freedom of speech that America has.  And I would never deny anybody that right, as long as a serve this country.    And God bless Canadian beer!


----------



## DOMS (Dec 21, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Do I agree w/ all that stuff? No. I'm just showing that J'Bo is not the only person that holds a bush-hitler opinion. Let's be reasonable, Bush is not Hitler....he's the Devil. Why anyone can see that!



I know I shouldn't, but I really looking forward to having a Democrat for President.  He'll be similar to John Kerry and all that that implies.  He'll be a kind, gentle soul.  He'll say all the politically correct things.  He'll talk about how he abhors war and how he plans to pull out, and stay away, from all conflicts.  He'll do whatever the UN tells him in the spirit of global cooperation.  He'll kiss the babies and shake hand with the disabled.  In short, he'll be the perfect, and superfluous, liberal president.

Then the attacks abroad will start.  American's on vacation will be killed and the president will use harsh words on television.  More Americans will be killed and the president will write a letter to the UN asking what to do.  Serious words will be traded back and forth about what to do and the killings will go on.

Emboldened by their success, the enemy will, once again, will launch an attack on American soil.  Many Americans will die, perhaps in the thousands.  The attack may be poison in the drinking system, a chemical weapon used at a large gathering, a dirty bomb, or maybe just the tried and true flying a plane into building.  Whatever the weapon, many Americans will die.  The liberal president will call for calm and say things like, "If we only reach out with love to these misunderstood people, the attacks will end."  The politicians at the UN will harrumph for many days.  Europeans will laud the US for it's moral fiber by not retaliating.

One can only hope that when an attack does come, that it will happen in one of the bastions of liberalism.  

I hear San Francisco is a nice place to visit.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 21, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> Oh, and I almost forgot, for all those non-Americans throwing their 2 cents in;



In Europe, the equivalent of $.02 USD doesn't buy you as much as it does in America.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 21, 2005)

DOMS said:
			
		

> In Europe, the equivalent of $.02 USD doesn't buy you as much as it does in America.



Okay, then how about my 2 Euros?


----------



## Decker (Dec 21, 2005)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I know I shouldn't, but I really looking forward to having a Democrat for President. He'll be similar to John Kerry and all that that implies. He'll be a kind, gentle soul. He'll say all the politically correct things. He'll talk about how he abhors war and how he plans to pull out, and stay away, from all conflicts. He'll do whatever the UN tells him in the spirit of global cooperation. He'll kiss the babies and shake hand with the disabled. In short, he'll be the perfect, and superfluous, liberal president.
> 
> Then the attacks abroad will start. American's on vacation will be killed and the president will use harsh words on television. More Americans will be killed and the president will write a letter to the UN asking what to do. Serious words will be traded back and forth about what to do and the killings will go on.
> 
> ...


Interesting scenario. Let's see, the terrorists succeeded in attacking the US on our native soil under Bush's watch--(what a colossal failure by the administration). What is Bush's prime reaction? To attack a country that did not attack us. To attack a country that had no ability to attack the US; even if WMDs existed. What has Bush's command wrought? Exponential growth in worldwide terror attacks, a damaged national reputation, and a destabilized middle east. Other than that, he's done a 'great' job.

In December of 2005, the 9/11 Commssion issued a report card for the Bush administration re measures taken to prepare the US for defense against future terrorist attacks. The grades were all Fs, Ds, and incompletes. Does that sound like a president that is tough on terrorism?


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 21, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> You make 2 mistakes in this.  One, you assume that us military are naive, and incapable of making decisions on our own.  He can say whatever he wants in front of us, but it's still our ability to vote that matters.  Two, you have some how assumed (once again, that is too funny) that we are somehow "forced" to go to his speeches.  Believe me, that is so far from the truth, it isn't even funny.  Have you been to one his speeches on a military installation?  I have, and that is not how it works.
> 
> *Interesting. Just like the V.P.'s recent surprise visit to Iraq, where the soldiers were just told to assemble without any idea who was going to appear.*
> 
> ...



He isn't alone. He has close, unelected advisers. And he has (the office of the President) responsibility for actions caused by the executive branch of government, whether he is a propped up muppet or not.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 21, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Interesting scenario. Let's see, the terrorists succeeded in attacking the US on our native soil under Bush's watch--(what a colossal failure by the administration).



Because of events that transpiried under _*Clinton's watch*_.  There were increasing attacks abroad and culminated in an attack on American soil. Sound familiar?




			
				Decker said:
			
		

> What is Bush's prime reaction? To attack a country that did not attack us.



One that harbored terrorists.  You know, the people that attacked us.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> In December of 2005, the 9/11 Commssion issued a report card for the Bush administration re measures taken to prepare the US for defense against future terrorist attacks. The grades were all Fs, Ds, and incompletes. Does that sound like a president that is tough on terrorism?



Perhaps if Bush really did have the dictatorsihip that so many liberals fantasize about, it would be easier to get the job done.  Case in point, So many Mexicans in this country are fighting to keep the border with Mexico open, even though it's a major security hole.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 21, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> He isn't alone. He has close, unelected advisers. And he has (the office of the President) responsibility for actions caused by the executive branch of government, whether he is a propped up muppet or not.



You mentioned the V.P.s visit over here.  It's called OPSEC and COMSEC.  In other words, security.  You know what would happen if they announced he was here or was coming here?  There would be the chance that someone would call home and then the rumors would spread.  And we don't want that.  After all, he is the Vice President, and was in a hostile environment.  So we are not going to to just publicize his presence.  And who told you we were "forced" to assemble?  The media?  I bet you believe everything they tell you don't you?  Don't assume anything they say to be true.

You mention all Bush's people under him.  Are you a manager or supervisor?  How many people work under you?  As many as Bush?  Probably not.  Try keeping track of everything that is going on in the entire free world, let alone the whole world.  I know, you probably think it's easy don't you?  So before you go casting the first stone.....


----------



## Decker (Dec 21, 2005)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Because of events that transpiried under _*Clinton's watch*_. There were increasing attacks abroad and culminated in an attack on American soil. Sound familiar?


Sorry, but the buck stops on the President's desk; he was at the helm for the attack. It wasn???t Clinton who had the ???Bin Laden determined to strike in US??? briefing on his desk weeks before the attack, now was it?


			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> One that harbored terrorists. You know, the people that attacked us.


What about Pakistan or India or Saudi Arabia? The attackers were by and large Saudi as was Bin Laden himself. Oh yes, the remarkable 2 meetings w/ al Qaeda???why that means that Iraq was snug as a bug w/ OBL and helped him mastermind the attack. No substantive ties w/ al Qaeda and no WMDs.





			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> Perhaps if Bush really did have the dictatorsihip that so many liberals fantasize about, it would be easier to get the job done. Case in point, So many Mexicans in this country are fighting to keep the border with Mexico open, even though it's a major security hole.


What is DOMS..it's easier to type? 
Check the distribution of power in the government: House???republican, Senate???Republican. If Bush can???t drive through sound legislation to protect the country when his own party controls the government, what does that say about his competence as a leader?


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 21, 2005)

> What is DOMS..it's easier to type? /QUOTE]
> You are posting on a bodybuilding forum and don't know what DOMS means?


----------



## Decker (Dec 21, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> > What is DOMS..it's easier to type? /QUOTE]
> > You are posting on a bodybuilding forum and don't know what DOMS means?
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 21, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> dougnukem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## DOMS (Dec 21, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Sorry, but the buck stops on the President's desk; he was at the helm for the attack. It wasn???t Clinton who had the ???Bin Laden determined to strike in US??? briefing on his desk weeks before the attack, now was it?



So, the stock crash of 2000 was bushes fault too?  Even though the bubble grew during Clinton's terms?

One briefing out of how many?  Again, it's that liberal hindsight in action.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> What about Pakistan or India or Saudi Arabia? The attackers were by and large Saudi as was Bin Laden himself. Oh yes, the remarkable 2 meetings w/ al Qaeda???why that means that Iraq was snug as a bug w/ OBL and helped him mastermind the attack. No substantive ties w/ al Qaeda and no WMDs.



Yes, the attackers were largly Saudi, with training camps in other countries.  But I'm all for sactioning the Saudis though.




			
				Decker said:
			
		

> What is DOMS..it's easier to type?



DOMS = Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness.  Few people ever spelled cfs3 correctly, so I made it easier for people to remember.  I chose a bodybuilding term.  Plus, I like DOMS.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> Check the distribution of power in the government: House???republican, Senate???Republican. If Bush can???t drive through sound legislation to protect the country when his own party controls the government, what does that say about his competence as a leader?



If he were truly a a dictator, perhaps, but he's not.  Each Republican has his own constituents and personal preferences.  What if the new security protocols required and increased spending of 20% in your police force?  You'd have to pass this bill on to your people in the form of higher taxes or budget cuts elsewhere.  You'd be worried that you might not get re-elected.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 21, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> > What is DOMS..it's easier to type? /QUOTE]
> > You are posting on a bodybuilding forum and don't know what DOMS means?
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Decker (Dec 21, 2005)

DOMS said:
			
		

> So, the stock crash of 2000 was bushes fault too? Even though the bubble grew during Clinton's terms?
> 
> One briefing out of how many? Again, it's that liberal hindsight in action.


You have a preoccupation w/ hindsight. I'm concerned w/ accountability..before the fact--after the fact--is not really relevant when you look at the bottom line. We were attacked on Bush's watch where prior notice was given--that could indicate misplaced priorities on Bush's part. He didn't heed the warning properly. 

Tell me, when the world trade center was attacked only 37 days after Clinton's inauguration in 'Feb. '93 (w/ no warning mind you) and the republicans burned his ass endlessly, were you concerned about hindsight?


			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> DOMS = Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness. Few people ever spelled cfs3 correctly, so I made it easier for people to remember. I chose a bodybuilding term. Plus, I like DOMS.


Thanks for the change, but I get some odd looks from those at work who see your avatar. I'm not asking you to change that too...in fact, I rather like it.


			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> If he were truly a a dictator, perhaps, but he's not. Each Republican has his own constituents and personal preferences. What if the new security protocols required and increased spending of 20% in your police force? You'd have to pass this bill on to your people in the form of higher taxes or budget cuts elsewhere. You'd be worried that you might not get re-elected.


Bush is not a dictator. But like I said, he has Congress in place to support him. Plus he said that he would do whatever it takes to protect us. Once again, priorities show that his heart is not in the right place: multiple tax cuts and attacking Iraq. Now the US likely cannot afford it's own protection b/c of monstrous tax cuts and billions pouring in Iraq. Do you feel any safer? I don't.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 21, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Now the US likely cannot afford it's own protection b/c of monstrous tax cuts and billions pouring in Iraq. Do you feel any safer? I don't.



Don't worry my friend, I'll protect you. I'll gladly take a bullet to save another person's life.  It's what I'm paid to do.


----------



## Decker (Dec 21, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> Don't worry my friend, I'll protect you. I'll gladly take a bullet to save another person's life. It's what I'm paid to do.


Thanks. 'Superman' in the avatar and selfless protector in statement....who was that masked man?


----------



## maniclion (Dec 21, 2005)

George Bush doesn't care about Upper-middle class people.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 21, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Thanks. 'Superman' in the avatar and selfless protector in statement....who was that masked man?



I don't know, but he just ran off with my lunch money and my Superman Underroos.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 21, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> George Bush doesn't care about Upper-middle class people.



I know, that's why I'm lower middle-class.   Military paychecks rule!


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 21, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> Don't worry my friend, I'll protect you. I'll gladly take a bullet to save another person's life.  It's what I'm paid to do.



Another advantage of being retired:  I get to pick and choose who I'd take a bullt for.   Don't worry Decker, we may have different political views, but you still seem like a decent person.  I think I could take one in the shoulder for you.    (Vital organs are out though.  I don't like you THAT much. )


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 21, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> I know, that's why I'm lower middle-class.   Military paychecks rule!



I went straight from lower middle-class into upper class.  I was nice though, I waved at all the wretched rabble as I hopped over them.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 21, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> You have a preoccupation w/ hindsight. I'm concerned w/ accountability..before the fact--after the fact--is not really relevant when you look at the bottom line. We were attacked on Bush's watch where prior notice was given--that could indicate misplaced priorities on Bush's part. He didn't heed the warning properly.



Do you have any idea how many such reports are generated and passed up the chain of command?  Neither do I, but it's safe to assume that there are many such reports.  This report was in no way singled out.  I read about it years ago.  So it takes hindsight to pull it out of the pile with all the others.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> Tell me, *if* the world trade center was attacked only 37 days after Clinton's inauguration in 'Feb. '93 (w/ no warning mind you) and the republicans burned his ass endlessly, were you concerned about hindsight?



Yes, when I came to accountabilty.  You're trying to pin 9/11 on Bush when if fact it was Clinton that set the stage for it by not going after Osama after all the attack he had made against the US abroad.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> Thanks for the change, but I get some odd looks from those at work who see your avatar.



"Thanks for the change"?  BTW, what do you do for a living?



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> Bush is not a dictator. But like I said, he has Congress in place to support him. Plus he said that he would do whatever it takes to protect us... (cut)



Again, he can set the agenda, but it takes money, which requires cooperation from federal and local authorities.  A cost has to be paid, but not everyone is willing to pay it.


----------



## Decker (Dec 21, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Another advantage of being retired: I get to pick and choose who I'd take a bullt for.  Don't worry Decker, we may have different political views, but you still seem like a decent person. I think I could take one in the shoulder for you.  (Vital organs are out though. I don't like you THAT much. )


hahahah, thanks man, likewise.  

Actually, you're beginning to sound a little like my older brother--he says I'm only entitled to one of his kidneys, for everything else, I'm on my own.  Guess I better work on my people skills.


----------



## Decker (Dec 21, 2005)

DOMS said:
			
		

> "Thanks for the change"? BTW, what do you do for a living?


I'm an inhouse lawyer and junior partner for a thirdparty retirement plan administration firm.  I have my own office, but people sometimes forget to knock.  So they see me looking at stuff you wrote and the knockers that accompany all of your posts.  I think it's pretty funny b/c nobody gives a shit what I do internet-wise...as long as the work gets done.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 21, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> I'm an inhouse lawyer and junior partner for a thirdparty retirement plan administration firm.  I have my own office, but people sometimes forget to knock.  So they see me looking at stuff you wrote and the knockers that accompany all of your posts.  I think it's pretty funny b/c nobody gives a shit what I do internet-wise...as long as the work gets done.



I'm a computer consultant.  I get the same sort of treatement here.  Pretty easy going, with the exception of taking my music away.  No more Trick Daddy...

"So they see me looking at stuff you wrote and the knockers that accompany all of your posts."

Why _yes_, those are conservative titties.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 21, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> I'm a lawyer




 

 You KNOW you've absolutely blown the lid off that can of worms, don't you?  


Let the jokes fly. 

This is an area in which I disagree with Shakespear.  We shouldn't kill all the lawyers.  It's more fun to pick on them while they're still alive.


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 21, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> You mentioned the V.P.s visit over here.  It's called OPSEC and COMSEC.  In other words, security.  You know what would happen if they announced he was here or was coming here?  There would be the chance that someone would call home and then the rumors would spread.  And we don't want that.  After all, he is the Vice President, and was in a hostile environment.  So we are not going to to just publicize his presence.  And who told you we were "forced" to assemble?  The media?  I bet you believe everything they tell you don't you?  Don't assume anything they say to be true.
> 
> _They didn't get the audience out of thin air._
> 
> You mention all Bush's people under him.  Are you a manager or supervisor?  How many people work under you?  As many as Bush?  Probably not.  Try keeping track of everything that is going on in the entire free world, let alone the whole world.  I know, you probably think it's easy don't you?  So before you go casting the first stone.....



How irrelevant is this? The guy doesn't have to be held responsible for his job because. . .gosh. . .everyone else in the country hasn't been president and walked in his horse-milking shoes? This Administration is well-known for playing their cards real tight to the chest - which means he doesn't appoint someone to a chair position that he doesn't know already. If the job is too difficult, he knows where the door is. . .


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 21, 2005)

You have yet to comment on your belief about us military folk and our ineptitude to think on our own.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 21, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> You have yet to comment on your belief about us military folk and our ineptitude to think on our own.


 
He famous for that.  What's really fun is if you bring up a fact that he doesn't like and can't easily dismiss, he'll simple say, "That doesn't matter."


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 21, 2005)

DOMS said:
			
		

> He famous for that.  What's really fun is if you bring up a fact that he doesn't like and can't easily dismiss, he'll simple say, "That doesn't matter."



You know, I just went back and reread a few posts, and I see that.   Oh well, wouldn't be the first time I've come across that.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 21, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> This Administration is well-known for playing their cards real tight to the chest - which means he doesn't appoint someone to a chair position that he doesn't know already.




Bwaaaaaaaaa  Stop it!  Pleeeeeeeease!!!  Yer' killin' me here.  Stopppppppppp!  

You've just crossed from the sublime to the rediculous.  Oh God, I can't breathe, I'm laughing too hard.  

Yep, I'm gonna grow up to be just like you.  I'm only going to vote for a President who appoints people HE DOESN'T KNOW to Cabinet level positions. 

**GACK**  Make him stop.  I can't breeeeeeeath.


----------



## maniclion (Dec 21, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> You have yet to comment on your belief about us military folk and our ineptitude to think on our own.


Aren't you supposed to be on watch or something?  I'm sure you could use the nap.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 21, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Aren't you supposed to be on watch or something?  I'm sure you could use the nap.



Only someone who was in the Navy would say something like that.


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 21, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Bwaaaaaaaaa  Stop it!  Pleeeeeeeease!!!  Yer' killin' me here.  Stopppppppppp!
> 
> You've just crossed from the sublime to the rediculous.  Oh God, I can't breathe, I'm laughing too hard.
> 
> ...



Apparently your sense of patriotism doesn't include paying much attention to the workings of this particular government and their long-interwoven relationships.  Ya kinda missed half of that post. . . let's try it this way. . .cronyism. 

But nice try. . .


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 21, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> You have yet to comment on your belief about us military folk and our ineptitude to think on our own.



Why would I comment on something you are projecting?


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 21, 2005)

DOMS said:
			
		

> He famous for that.  What's really fun is if you bring up a fact that he doesn't like and can't easily dismiss, he'll simple say, "That doesn't matter."




I'm actually famous for a few things. But if you really want to have some fun, let's talk about your expert media analysis skills.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 21, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Apparently your sense of patriotism doesn't include paying much attention to the workings of this particular government and their long-interwoven relationships.  Ya kinda missed half of that post. . . let's try it this way. . .cronyism.
> 
> But nice try. . .



Gaaaaaak-------AGAIN???  My God you know how to make me laugh.   Patriotism???  Get a dictionary dude.  What does my being loyal to this country (Just in case you're interested, that's what being patriotic means.) have to do with you not having a clue how the government works?  Cronyism IS how the govenment works.  Jeeze man, get a clue.   But keep the jokes coming.  Yer funny.


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 21, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Gaaaaaak-------AGAIN???  My God you know how to make me laugh.   Patriotism???  Get a dictionary dude.  What does my being loyal to this country (Just in case you're interested, that's what being patriotic means.) have to do with you not having a clue how the government works?  Cronyism IS how the govenment works.  Jeeze man, get a clue.   But keep the jokes coming.  Yer funny.



As you should have learned from your grade school civics class, a free country is dependent upon the vigilance of the citizenry and their willingness to safeguard their constitution. That's loyalty. Is your loyalty to the country or to a government full of cronyism that intentionally violates the Constitution?

A patriot doesn't justify his laziness by saying "Cronyism IS how the government works," and move along as if he can cloak himself in the flag and cross without any responsibility. 

Do I need to rolleyes...express surprise....type laughter...here that a grown man and a veteran thinks so little of his nation that he not only accepts cronyism as the highest standard but expects a culture of corruption?


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 21, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Gaaaaaak-------AGAIN???   Yer funny.




Keep in mind that it was you who indicated the military exists to serve the PRESIDENT, not the country.


----------



## brogers (Dec 21, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that it was you who indicated the military exists to serve the PRESIDENT, not the country.


 
Militaries serve their commanders, they obey orders.  The President is their commander-in-chief.  His job is to serve the country, and the military is one of his tools.


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 21, 2005)

The President is supposed to represent the country - but then he's supposed to uphold and defend the Constitution as well. In the spying situation, abrogating the constitution is the primary question.

Obeying orders in a chain of command is one thing; but in free countries, militaries fight for their country, not their President.They are in service to their country. The military is not the exclusive domain of the executive branch of government, even when the president is commander-in-chief. If the President was declared unfit for office by Congress or constitutional trial, is the military bound to rebel to keep the President installed?


----------



## DOMS (Dec 21, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> If the President was declared unfit for office by Congress or constitutional trial, is the military bound to rebel to keep the President installed?



The he's no longer the President and can no longer command the military forces.


----------



## J'Bo (Dec 22, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Dude you really need some pussy. Your post is uncalled for and very offensive, try to acty like an aduldt for once.



I dont hold it against him, its his opinion and obviously he has been brain washed to believe that killing innocent people is the way to solve problems. 

I did not say that what hitler did was acceptable and what Bush has done isnt either. 

With the comments you made above it shows that you are a racist anyways so what you say from here on in doesnt bother me a bit. 

Sorry to hear that you have been effected by this mess....that your leader has created. Perhaps he was the one that created the 9/11 mess in the first place....ever thought of that?


----------



## Big Smoothy (Dec 22, 2005)

J'Bo said:
			
		

> Sorry to hear that you have been effected by this mess....that your leader has created. Perhaps he was the one that created the 9/11 mess in the first place....ever thought of that?



After "remember the Maine" - false

Pearl Harbor _suprise_ attack - f alse

Gulf of Tonkin - false

Gulf War I - U.S. said 'OK' when Saddam asked to invade


Who benefitted from 9/11?

National government, corporations, and the Military.

For the benefit of the state.


----------



## J'Bo (Dec 22, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> More offensive than making light of the murder of 6 million Jews, and deaths of millions of Allied soldiers?



I was not making light of the death of anyone. how about the death of millions of people from Afghanastan? Ever thought of that?


----------



## maniclion (Dec 22, 2005)

Don't worry J'bo some day we'll be a unified Earth and will have gung-ho Earth Pride folks who have terrible fears of outsiders like the Venutians or Jupiterians or whatever alien race will show up.  It's a never ending thing with some folks, fight first then try to fix things up nice and democratic like.

"I SAID A MESSAGE OF LOVE
DON'T YOU HIDE AWAY
FACE THE MIRRORS OF YOUR MIND
FACE THE TRUTH TODAY"


----------



## J'Bo (Dec 22, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Don't worry J'bo some day we'll be a unified Earth and will have gung-ho Earth Pride folks who have terrible fears of outsiders like the Venutians or Jupiterians or whatever alien race will show up.  It's a never ending thing with some folks, fight first then try to fix things up nice and democratic like.
> 
> "I SAID A MESSAGE OF LOVE
> DON'T YOU HIDE AWAY
> ...



I realize we cant all be lovers....perhaps if we went back to bartering instead of using currency, eliminated testosterone, and all held hands and sang we would could try


----------



## maniclion (Dec 22, 2005)

Just saying something like sadly we have to go through the dark ages to realize a renaissance.


----------



## Nick+ (Dec 22, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Just saying something like sadly we have to go through the dark ages to realize a renaissance.



Thought we had a 'rennaissance' several hundred years ago.......


----------



## DOMS (Dec 22, 2005)

J'Bo said:
			
		

> Sorry to hear that you have been effected by this mess....that your leader has created. *Perhaps he was the one that created the 9/11 mess in the first place....ever thought of that?*


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 22, 2005)

I think she meant to say that it's because of the hatred they have against Bush's that we were attacked...if there was another President in office this may have never happened.

Am I right J'Bo?

Those are not my words but they have been floating around.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 22, 2005)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> I think she meant to say that it's *because of the hatred they have against Bush's that we were attacked...if there was another President in office this may have never happened.*
> 
> Am I right J'Bo?
> 
> Those are not my words but they have been floating around.



I reiterate:


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 22, 2005)

I think that's what she meant.........maybe instead of trying to be a *mind* reader I should *mind* my own business..


----------



## DOMS (Dec 22, 2005)

"mind"?  Is that some kind of new fangled slang word for "tranny sex"?


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 22, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Obeying orders in a chain of command is one thing; but in free countries, militaries fight for their country, not their President.They are in service to their country. The military is not the exclusive domain of the executive branch of government, even when the president is commander-in-chief.



And YOU are telling ME to go back to school???  You keep trying to blow smoke with your high and mighty attitude and trying to lecture me about patriotism when you don't even have a clue how the government/military runs.  Yes, I'm laughing.  It's my only defense against crying.  I'd cry just thinking about the fact that people as uninformed as you have the right to vote.  YOU are the one who needs to go back to grade school civics class.  

P.S.  You don't like cronyism?  Name one elected official in any level of government; federal, state or local, that doesn't practice cronyism.  You vote for a candidate because you like his views.  You SHOULD also know you're trusting his judgement when it comes to appointing his staff and making nominations to other positions.  Hell, the darling of the entire Democratic Party even took it a step further.  He practiced nepotism by appointing his brother as the Attourney General.  If you don't know who I'm talking about they'll fill you in during civics class.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 22, 2005)

Funny you say that but kids now say "got brain" instead of got head.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 22, 2005)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> Funny you say that but kids now say "got brain" instead of got head.



What does getting a blow-job have to do with being smart?


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 22, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> What does getting a blow-job have to do with being smart?


 
I have no idea, these kids nowadays have like a thousand new slang words.

I once heard a kid say he "got spit".....I looked at him with disgust.
It  means that he can rap.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 22, 2005)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> I once heard a kid say he "got spit".....I looked at him with disgust.
> It  means that he can rap.



How ironically appropriate.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 22, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> The President is supposed to represent the country - but then he's supposed to uphold and defend the Constitution as well. In the spying situation, abrogating the constitution is the primary question.
> 
> Obeying orders in a chain of command is one thing; but in free countries, militaries fight for their country, not their President.They are in service to their country. The military is not the exclusive domain of the executive branch of government, even when the president is commander-in-chief. If the President was declared unfit for office by Congress or constitutional trial, is the military bound to rebel to keep the President installed?



Um, yea, have you ever served in the military?  Because if not, then you honestly have no real clue of what we do, who we work for, or why we do it.  So PLEASE stop talking about a subject that are not warranted on.  We have this little swearing in oath, that states something of interest in this little debate.  I'm thinking maybe something along the lines of obeying the orders of the officers appointed over me and the orders of the President of the United States.  So while you say we work for the people, keep in mind, your President is YOUR representative (whether you like it or not) as a nation.  You mentioned if he is outed, impeached, whatever, then we would fall under the next in the chain of command.  And you know who that is.  And if the VP is "unfit" for office as well, then we fall under the next one, and so on, and so forth.  Catch my drift?


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 22, 2005)

Oh yea, I was thinking about this, I don't recall ever taking a Civics class in elementary school.  Maybe my memory isn't so good, or my schooling was just not at your level of esteemed knowledge.  Just curious.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 22, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> Um, yea, have you ever served in the military?  Because if not, then you honestly have no real clue of what we do, who we work for, or why we do it.  So PLEASE stop talking about a subject that are not warranted on.  We have this little swearing in oath, that states something of interest in this little debate.  I'm thinking maybe something along the lines of obeying the orders of the officers appointed over me and the orders of the President of the United States.  So while you say we work for the people, keep in mind, your President is YOUR representative (whether you like it or not) as a nation.  You mentioned if he is outed, impeached, whatever, then we would fall under the next in the chain of command.  And you know who that is.  And if the VP is "unfit" for office as well, then we fall under the next one, and so on, and so forth.  Catch my drift?



You swore that oath too?!?!?  Wow, you'd think somebody as smart as kbm8795 would know about something as common knowledge as that.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 22, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> You swore that oath too?!?!?  Wow, you'd think somebody as smart as kbm8795 would know about something as common knowledge as that.



yea, but it's like the Pirate's Code, you know, more of guidelines.


----------



## Decker (Dec 22, 2005)

I found this piece written by a Conservative Libertarian.  He states my concerns, especially w/ this spying business, better than I could.  He is referring to conservatives in the Republican party:

"I almost feel I don???t know these people anymore. It seems now they feel government cannot have nearly enough power. Secret courts, secret warrants, secret prisons, suspect torture, massive data gathering on all aspects of US citizens including medical records, library records, and financial records are all wonderful things. . . . 

I truly and honestly do not understand. People who once proudly quoted Franklin???s *???Those who give up essential liberty for a little safety deserve neither??? *(my emphasis) now cheerlead the executive branch on in removing any judicial oversight, congressional oversight, and in fact ANY oversight (as most of these laws are secret) from the land. Far from the transparent government the founders imagined, we are now entering a system where laws are kept secret, prosecutions are kept secret, and national security is a password to removing any and all liberty that stands in the way of anything government wishes to do." --Mark Earnest  http://www.markearnest.net


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 22, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> yea, but it's like the Pirate's Code, you know, more of guidelines.



Think we could invoke the right of parlay on someone?  Nahhhhhh............torture is much more fun. 

(Good movie.  Just watched it again on Tuesday. )


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 22, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> I found this piece written by a Conservative Libertarian.  He states my concerns, especially w/ this spying business, better than I could.  He is referring to conservatives in the Republican party:
> 
> "I almost feel I don???t know these people anymore. It seems now they feel government cannot have nearly enough power. Secret courts, secret warrants, secret prisons, suspect torture, massive data gathering on all aspects of US citizens including medical records, library records, and financial records are all wonderful things. . . .
> 
> I truly and honestly do not understand. People who once proudly quoted Franklin???s *???Those who give up essential liberty for a little safety deserve neither??? *(my emphasis) now cheerlead the executive branch on in removing any judicial oversight, congressional oversight, and in fact ANY oversight (as most of these laws are secret) from the land. Far from the transparent government the founders imagined, we are now entering a system where laws are kept secret, prosecutions are kept secret, and national security is a password to removing any and all liberty that stands in the way of anything government wishes to do." --Mark Earnest  http://www.markearnest.net



I went ahead and read your link.  He makes some valid points, although I'm not sure about the military spying, but I'm not a part of everything that is going on.  One thing that he does say that's interesting and relevant to this discussion, is this; he believes the gov't started acting this way during the 90's, in the Clinton years.  So basically, the folks in gov't then were doing similar if not, the same types of things they are still doing today.  I can't really say spying, for instance, but the push for more executive power was growing, as it seems to be today.  Interesting stuff.  But then I scrolled down to the bottom of his website and noticed something.  A little disclaimer statement basically telling the reader that this blog consists of his OPINIONS.  So how credible would this actually be then?


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 22, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Think we could invoke the right of parlay on someone?  Nahhhhhh............torture is much more fun.
> 
> (Good movie.  Just watched it again on Tuesday. )



I couldn't resist.  It was just on AFN last week.


----------



## Decker (Dec 22, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> . . .One thing that he does say that's interesting and relevant to this discussion, is this; he believes the gov't started acting this way during the 90's, in the Clinton years. So basically, the folks in gov't then were doing similar if not, the same types of things they are still doing today. . .


This type of behavior, spying on citizens, predates the Clinton years. Nixon, LBJ and others spied on americans. The difference w/ Bush is that he is claiming and exercising a presidential constitutional power without Congressional or Judicial review. That is a very serious offense in a government predicated on 3 equal branches of government--checks and balances too.

I support the Constitution and this type of spying is antithetical to a transparent/ gov. by and for the people.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 22, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> This type of behavior, spying on citizens, predates the Clinton years. Nixon, LBJ and others spied on americans. The difference w/ Bush is that he is claiming and exercising a presidential constitutional power without Congressional or Judicial review. That is a very serious offense in a government predicated on 3 equal branches of government--checks and balances too.
> 
> I support the Constitution and this type of spying is antithetical to a transparent/ gov. by and for the people.



Well then, what are the other 2 branches doing about it?


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 22, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> The difference w/ Bush is that he is claiming and exercising a presidential constitutional power without Congressional or Judicial review.



If memory serves me correctly, the Executive order allowing this practice was signed by Jimmy Carter in 1979.  Admittedly, that's a couple of years ago, so don't take it to the bank just yet.  I'm still checking.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 22, 2005)

Here ya' go.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

Now, I'm not getting into a debate about whether I think this is right or wrong.  I'm only pointing out that GWB is acting WITHIN the law and is NOT doing anything illegal.


----------



## Decker (Dec 22, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Here ya' go.
> 
> http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm
> 
> Now, I'm not getting into a debate about whether I think this is right or wrong. I'm only pointing out that GWB is acting WITHIN the law and is NOT doing anything illegal.


The statute you linked permits the gov. to do electronic surveillance if it obtains an order from the foreign intelligence surveillance court (a secret court). The gov must show probable cause (thank you 4th amendment) that the monitored party is a foreign power or agent thereof. 50 USC §1801. If the monitored party is a US citizen, the gov. must establish probable cause that the party???s activities imminently involve a criminal violation.

But one might say, ???Aha, FISA provides for surveillance W/OUT a court order.??? And it does. But that surveillance must be solely directed at gathering intelligence from FOREIGN POWERS and there must be ???no substantial likelihood" that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a US person is a party. 50 U.S.C. § 1802(a).

Big deal, the Pres is following that law. Right? No he is not. Bush is authorizing surveillance of US citizens, therefore 50 USC §1802(a) is not afforded to Bush.


But one might say, ???what about Sec.1844 of FISA which allows the Pres., via the Atty. Gen., to authorize the use of tracing devices or wiretaps w/out a court order to acquire foreign intelligence for a period not to exceed 15 days following a declaration of war by Congress.??? 50 USC §1844. ???War??? has not been declared by Congress. This ain???t available to Bush either.

So GWB is violating the very statute you say authorizes him to spy on Americans.


----------



## Nick+ (Dec 22, 2005)

Just look at the UK  where they are going to now log by camera and keep on record everyone's car number places (license plates). Bush's little poodle is sure screwing up that little island up fast........

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece


----------



## DOMS (Dec 22, 2005)

Nick+ said:
			
		

> Just look at the UK  where they are going to now log by camera and keep on record everyone's car number places (license plates). Bush's little poodle is sure screwing up that little island up fast........
> 
> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece



First off, the Brits have been losing their privacy long before Tony Blair took office. Secondly, it wouldn't happen if the UK wasn't a dictatorship.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 22, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> But one might say, ???Aha, FISA provides for surveillance W/OUT a court order.??? And it does. But that surveillance must be solely directed at gathering intelligence from FOREIGN POWERS and there must be ???no substantial likelihood" that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a US person is a party. 50 U.S.C. § 1802(a).
> 
> Big deal, the Pres is following that law. Right? No he is not. Bush is authorizing surveillance of US citizens, therefore 50 USC §1802(a) is not afforded to Bush.




That doesn't fly.  Just because a person is a US citizen does not mean he's not working for a foreign government.  re: the Walker family, Aldrich Ames, Harold Nicholson, etc.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 22, 2005)

How cheap!  Blaming Bush for another country's government's ineptitude.  They are their own country with their own faults.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 22, 2005)

DOMS said:
			
		

> it wouldn't happen if the UK wasn't a dictatorship.



Sarcasm, right?


----------



## Decker (Dec 22, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> That doesn't fly. Just because a person is a US citizen does not mean he's not working for a foreign government. re: the Walker family, Aldrich Ames, Harold Nicholson, etc.


Correct. But because a person is a US citizen, Bush damn well better have probable cause to secure a court order. The law is pretty clear on that measure.

Anyways, why does Bush want to bypass the (secret) Court that issues these warrants? From what I understand, the Court almost always complies w/ the request. What is Bush's true motive? I don't know. But I have serious reservations that such surveillance is for the protection of our country. 

By no means am I an expert on national security law. But this guy is:

Peter Raven-Hansen, a professor at George Washington University Law School who is an authority on national security law, said that previous congressional resolutions on the use of force had focused on powers to be exercised by the president on the battlefield or in close conjunction with military action.

"They are not an authorization for the homeland where law enforcement agencies are available and the courts are open to permit the surveillance of Americans that the president might think necessary," he said.
In addition, Raven-Hansen said, *the monitoring operation conflicted with provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act*, which allows surveillance of suspected terrorists in the United States for three days without prior approval from a special court, as long as the approval is obtained later. "*This completely transcends these statutory limits*," he said.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 22, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Correct. But because a person is a US citizen, Bush damn well better have probable cause to secure a court order. The law is pretty clear on that measure.
> 
> Anyways, why does Bush want to bypass the (secret) Court that issues these warrants? From what I understand, the Court almost always complies w/ the request. What is Bush's true motive? I don't know. But I have serious reservations that such surveillance is for the protection of our country.
> 
> ...



Two thoughts here:  #1, You're straying from the legality of the issue into whether it's right or wrong philosophically.  I said earlier I wasn't presenting an opinion on that.  

#2  If all these "experts" are right, why haven't charges been brought?  Admittedly, that doesn't prove anything.  But it does make me wonder.  It seems that the Dems will scream for impeachment at the drop of a hat these days, but nary a word has been spoken about this being persued in the courts.  Curious.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 22, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Sarcasm, right?



Damn straight.

The liberals love to believe that Bush & Blair make all deicsions for their countries without having to adhere to the checks and balances.  It makes them feel warm and fuzzy as martyrs.


----------



## Decker (Dec 22, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Two thoughts here: #1, You're straying from the legality of the issue into whether it's right or wrong philosophically. I said earlier I wasn't presenting an opinion on that.


 I think that I'm addressing all the legal elements of the statute in question. The plain language of the statute, on its face, shows Bush's use of authority as illegal. It's a very compelling case. I inject the speculation about motives only b/c compliance w/ the statute is still a 'secret' known only to Bush and the secret Court. Naturally you ask yourself, "What does this guy have to gain by avoiding the Court?"



			
				ALBOB said:
			
		

> #2 If all these "experts" are right, why haven't charges been brought? Admittedly, that doesn't prove anything. But it does make me wonder. It seems that the Dems will scream for impeachment at the drop of a hat these days, but nary a word has been spoken about this being persued in the courts. Curious.


Impeachment is a quasi-legal proceeding. Unless there is political will in Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings, nothing will happen. Due to the fact that Congress is republican, it is unlikely that the rule of law will carry the day...partisan politics will win out. But there are those trying: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051221/POLITICS/512210433/1022/POLITICS


----------



## DOMS (Dec 22, 2005)

You've got to love it.  Liberals take exception to Bush's drinking problem, but will quote Sen. Edward Kennedy, who killed a woman.

Bravo.


----------



## Decker (Dec 22, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> Well then, what are the other 2 branches doing about it?


Nothing.  Congress is controlled by Republicans and the Judiciary only reviews cases.


----------



## maniclion (Dec 22, 2005)

Even if in some twisted legal way Bush has done nothing wrong, he did do this...He just told a big national secret, how good is that for security?


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 22, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> I think that I'm addressing all the legal elements of the statute in question. The plain language of the statute, on its face, shows Bush's use of authority as illegal. It's a very compelling case. I inject the speculation about motives only b/c compliance w/ the statute is still a 'secret' known only to Bush and the secret Court. Naturally you ask yourself, "What does this guy have to gain by avoiding the Court?"



You just trumped me there.  I and the rest of the world speak plain language and I don't read it as being illegal.  Now you, being an experienced lawyer, can obviously read more into it than I can.  That being said I should trust what you're telling me..........................NOT.  Like I said, you're a lawyer. 



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> Impeachment is a quasi-legal proceeding. Unless there is political will in Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings, nothing will happen. Due to the fact that Congress is republican, it is unlikely that the rule of law will carry the day...partisan politics will win out. But there are those trying: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051221/POLITICS/512210433/1022/POLITICS



Come on counselor; Kennedy, Clinton, Schumer, Pelosi, Dean, Boxer, et al. would be screaming from the mountain tops if they thought they had a snowball's chance in hell of ousting him.  What's the rest of the story?


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 22, 2005)

Exactly.  There is always more to the story then what the media puts out there.  Just like whats going on over here in Iraq.  Always a skewed view.


----------



## Decker (Dec 22, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> You just trumped me there. I and the rest of the world speak plain language and I don't read it as being illegal. Now you, being an experienced lawyer, can obviously read more into it than I can. That being said I should trust what you're telling me..........................NOT. Like I said, you're a lawyer.


 
Plain language of the statute: You can't spy on US citizens w/out a warrant. Bush is spying on US citizens w/out a warrant.



			
				ALBOB said:
			
		

> Come on counselor; Kennedy, Clinton, Schumer, Pelosi, Dean, Boxer, et al. would be screaming from the mountain tops if they thought they had a snowball's chance in hell of ousting him. What's the rest of the story?


The people on the side of the rule of law are in the minority ALBOB. Not enough votes to initiate impeachment proceedings. There're more Rs than Ds on the House Judiciary Committee. The Dems are reduced to nagging voices w/ only a filibuster as a club.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 22, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> The people on the side of the rule of law are in the minority ALBOB. Not enough votes to initiate impeachment proceedings. There're more Rs than Ds on the House Judiciary Committee. The Dems are reduced to nagging voices w/ only a filibuster as a club.



Yea, but it's already been proven that the 2 party Congress has a lot of grey area in the recent years, especially during Bush's second term.


----------



## Decker (Dec 22, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> Exactly. There is always more to the story then what the media puts out there. Just like whats going on over here in Iraq. Always a skewed view.


Bush admitted in an address to the nation that he personally authorized domestic spying. How do you spin that?


----------



## bludevil (Dec 22, 2005)

As far as I'm concerned, I'm fine with it. I, nor anybody I know has been affected by this. I feel as long as you keep your nose clean their's nothing to worry about and if you have the goverment tapping into your calls, then your probably doing something illegally anyway.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 22, 2005)

bludevil said:
			
		

> As far as I'm concerned, I'm fine with it. I, nor anybody I know has been affected by this. I feel as long as you keep your nose clean their's nothing to worry about and if you have the goverment tapping into your calls, then your probably doing something illegally anyway.



I'm certainly not a one of the rabid Bush haters, but this is a _very _poor line of reasoning.


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 22, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> And YOU are telling ME to go back to school???  You keep trying to blow smoke with your high and mighty attitude and trying to lecture me about patriotism when you don't even have a clue how the government/military runs.  Yes, I'm laughing.  It's my only defense against crying.  I'd cry just thinking about the fact that people as uninformed as you have the right to vote.  YOU are the one who needs to go back to grade school civics class.
> 
> *Military service for the President doesn't translate automatically to patriotism for your country. The only smoke that's blowing here is your laziness as a citizen who would easily surrender the constitution to serve a President.*
> 
> P.S.  You don't like cronyism?  Name one elected official in any level of government; federal, state or local, that doesn't practice cronyism.  You vote for a candidate because you like his views.  You SHOULD also know you're trusting his judgement when it comes to appointing his staff and making nominations to other positions.  Hell, the darling of the entire Democratic Party even took it a step further.  He practiced nepotism by appointing his brother as the Attourney General.  If you don't know who I'm talking about they'll fill you in during civics class.



I think it's your turn to get a dictionary. You are doin' a heckuva job, Bobby.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 22, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Plain language of the statute: You can't spy on US citizens w/out a warrant. Bush is spying on US citizens w/out a warrant.



Again, as a layman, that's not how I read it.  And obviously I'm not alone.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> The people on the side of the rule of law are in the minority ALBOB. Not enough votes to initiate impeachment proceedings. There're more Rs than Ds on the House Judiciary Committee. The Dems are reduced to nagging voices w/ only a filibuster as a club.



So?  That didn't stop them from calling for his impeachment over "illegally" starting the war.  That didn't stop them from calling for his impeachment over "falsified" WMD intel.  That didn't stop them from calling for his impeachment for raising the national debt.  That hasn't stopped them from calling for his impeachment over any number of issues.  Why now aren't they screaming for his impeachment?


----------



## Decker (Dec 22, 2005)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I'm certainly not a one of the rabid Bush haters, but this is a _very _poor line of reasoning.


You're dead on...The "I have nothing to hide" justification is horrid. It's as bad as the "give up your rights for your own protection" argument. And you don't have to be a Bush hater to see the unconstitutional and illegal aspects of warrantless spying on american citizens.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 22, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Military service for the President doesn't translate automatically to patriotism for your country. The only smoke that's blowing here is your laziness as a citizen who would easily surrender the constitution to serve a President.



Nice, try to duck the issue by stating the obvious.  No, military service does not automatically make you a patriot.  Wow, how profound.  Your parents must be so proud.   The problem is, I never said it did.  Now, care to take a crack at my actual points and/or questions or, are you too busy trying to hide the fact that you don't have a clue what you're talking about?  Here's a hint, it's already obvious.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 22, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> You're dead on...The "I have nothing to hide" justification is horrid. It's as bad as the "give up your rights for your own protection" argument. And you don't have to be a Bush hater to see the unconstitutional and illegal aspects of warrantless spying on american citizens.


I believe that certain circumstances can warrant pushing the limits of the law, but on for a special circumstances, such as 9/11.  I do not condone this for everyday life.  Otherwise, we'll end up like Britian, where nearly everything you do outside of your house is monitored.  On a side note, they also monitor whether or not you have a television.

Also, I don't think that Bush did break the law.  If he did, there would be more a fuss made about it.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 22, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> You're dead on...The "I have nothing to hide" justification is horrid.




Yayyyyyyyyyy!!!!!  Common ground.  Something we can actually agree on.  We should get together and have a drink to celebrate.................................................. You're buying.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 22, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Yayyyyyyyyyy!!!!!  Common ground.  Something we can actually agree on.  We should get together and have a drink to celebrate.................................................. You're buying.


So a retired soldier, a lawyer, and a nerd walk into a bar...


----------



## Decker (Dec 22, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Again, as a layman, that's not how I read it. And obviously I'm not alone.


 
Yes, I'm familiar w/ Bush's supporters. I've read Alberto (I make this shit up as I go along) Gonzales' argument that the grant of authority to use force in the Iraqi invasion is equal to a declaration of war by Congress giving the president almost plenary/absolute authority to apply wartime protections to US citizens. The respective grants of authority are most assuredly not the same thing.


			
				ALBOB said:
			
		

> So? That didn't stop them from calling for his impeachment over "illegally" starting the war. That didn't stop them from calling for his impeachment over "falsified" WMD intel. That didn't stop them from calling for his impeachment for raising the national debt. That hasn't stopped them from calling for his impeachment over any number of issues. Why now aren't they screaming for his impeachment?


Look at the link I provided above. Conyers has called for an impeachment investigation.

I'd be happy to buy the first round...could you imagine doing this stuff shitfaced? I would think those packing heat would be at a distinct advantage.  hahaha


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 22, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Nothing.  Congress is controlled by Republicans and the Judiciary only reviews cases.



Senator Arlen Spector (R-PA) has called for hearings early next year. The Patriot Act only has a temporary extension partially because of the issues raised by this situation. Though one wonders why the Patriot Act is even necessary now - after all, the Prez believes he do anything he wants whether supported by law and the Constitution or not. 

Wingnuts love that kind of activist absolute executive power.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 22, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Bush admitted in an address to the nation that he personally authorized domestic spying. How do you spin that?



But why didn't anyone throw the BS flag in the first place?  You can't honestly tell me, that noone knew what was going on?


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 22, 2005)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I'm certainly not a one of the rabid Bush haters, but this is a _very _poor line of reasoning.



Thank you. You beat me to it.


----------



## maniclion (Dec 22, 2005)

I bet there was less spying on Americans during the Civil War than there is today, remember the FBI's Carnivore system who knows what's recording and scanning all of our Internet, Email, Digital voice comms.


----------



## maniclion (Dec 22, 2005)

The issue isn't whether you are or plan on doing anything wrong we have our freedoms to ensure that no single group can take over our government and use it's powers to keep us from ever moving them out of office, so right now the President is using his powers to make sure there are no domestic Terrorists, whats next he believes only he can secure the Nation so he starts spying on anyone who will oppose him in a coming election or his parties next candidate, then abuse after abuse and we are no longer the same Nation and some ones taken all of our rights away for our own safety.  *Isn't that what the British were doing when they started taking away our Guns, searching our homes shortly before the American Revolution?*


----------



## Decker (Dec 22, 2005)

dougnukem said:
			
		

> But why didn't anyone throw the BS flag in the first place? You can't honestly tell me, that noone knew what was going on?


It was a secret concerning national security, I guess.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 22, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Look at the link I provided above. Conyers has called for an impeachment investigation.



Oh come on, I'm not talking about some little pissant from Michigan.  I'm talking about the big boys (and girls).  Kennedy, Clinton, Kerry, Schumer, Pelosi, Boxer.  If they really thought they had something on him they'd be coming out of their skins fighting for press coverage.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> I'd be happy to buy the first round...could you imagine doing this stuff shitfaced? I would think those packing heat would be at a distinct advantage.  hahaha



Oh HELL no!!!  If I'm sitting down enjoying some good whiskey I will NOT talk politics.  Gorgeous women with big tits is the topic of the day.   (With a generous dose of sports thrown in just for variety. )


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 22, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> It was a secret concerning national security, I guess.


 Exactly my point.  You never know who is a part of anything when it comes to politics.  Bush is just the obvious one, but I know he isn't the only one behind all this.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 22, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Oh HELL no!!!  If I'm sitting down enjoying some good whiskey I will NOT talk politics.  Gorgeous women with big tits is the topic of the day.   (With a generous dose of sports thrown in just for variety. )



Is there any other topic to be talking about at a bar?


----------



## Decker (Dec 22, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Oh HELL no!!! If I'm sitting down enjoying some good whiskey I will NOT talk politics. Gorgeous women with big tits is the topic of the day.  (With a generous dose of sports thrown in just for variety. )


You are man among men ALBOB.  

. . . jeez, do I miss scotch whiskey.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 22, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> I bet there was less spying on Americans during the Civil War than there is today, remember the FBI's Carnivore system who knows what's recording and scanning all of our Internet, Email, Digital voice comms.


 
There was no point to it.  Back in those days, people didn't abuse their email.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 22, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Thank you. You beat me to it.


 
NP


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 22, 2005)

Well boys and girls, I think it's that time.  This seems to be one of the most heavily trafficed threads so I'll use this venue to bid you farewell.  Have a Merry Christmas and I'll pick up where we left off next week.  Glad we could end on a positive note; whiskey, boobs and sports.  See ya'


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 22, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Well boys and girls, I think it's that time.  This seems to be one of the most heavily trafficed threads so I'll use this venue to bid you farewell.  Have a Merry Christmas and I'll pick up where we left off next week.  Glad we could end on a positive note; whiskey, boobs and sports.  See ya'



Cya.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 22, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Well boys and girls, I think it's that time. This seems to be one of the most heavily trafficed threads so I'll use this venue to bid you farewell. Have a Merry Christmas and I'll pick up where we left off next week. Glad we could end on a positive note; whiskey, boobs and sports. See ya'


 
As usual a pleasure Albob. Merry Xmas!


----------



## joshp (Dec 22, 2005)

The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> there's really nothing new with this and Bush isn't where it began. police monitor people they suspect without warrants all the time without being able to use the info against them.
> 
> not to mention...made a wireless call in the last 15 years or so? well guess what -- good chance someone/somewhere was monitoring it.




Wow someone else realizes this has gone on prior to Bush.  But I say we use our present day common sense and blame Bush for it.  I can't wait until there is a democrat in office, I'm going to do the same thing they've been doing to Bush.  I'll blame them for everything negative that exists. No I'm not a republican although they do piss me off less than the democrats.

Also why would I care what people hear me say on the telephone?  I'll just make sure I don't take part in any terrorist plots.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 22, 2005)

Several years ago I was called to install a Motorola 2-way radio in a New York Telephone (Anyone remember Ma Bell) van, this was for the Secret Service. Inside this van they had a shit load of surveillance equipment...the roof vent was actually sort a periscope, it had 3 recorders and this was before I ever knew such a thing existed...one of those devices that lets you listen from far distances.
On the outside it looked like a regular work van but inside it looked like a 007 car.

The agents job was to screw with your phone from where ever and then he would go to your house and "repair" your phone....he was actually tapping the perp's phone. This was in 1986.


----------



## dougnukem (Dec 23, 2005)

You know, I really didn't want to bump this thread, as it's getting to be a stale topic, but I couldn't help but post this.  I had done some reading on this topic this morning, and realized something.  A lot of folks, especially one's that have posted here, are under the wrong assumption.  This whole spying thingis not something they are doing to everybody, which a few of you have made it clear that's what is happening.  From what I gathered, the only people they are "spying" on are folks who have already been established as possible links to terrorists and the like.  With that being said, it now makes much more sense as to their reasoning for doing so, and it's relativity to the War on Terror.  So they're not going around tapping everyone's phone, or watching you via satellite, unless of course, you happen to be connected to Bin Laden or the like.  Just some food for thought.


----------



## CowPimp (Dec 23, 2005)

Bush is a poopie head.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 23, 2005)

So...uhhh...you don't like bush?


----------



## CowPimp (Dec 23, 2005)

DOMS said:
			
		

> So...uhhh...you don't like bush?



Well I like poop, but no, I don't like Bush.


----------



## maniclion (Dec 23, 2005)

George Bush licks marshmallows and then sticks them to his naked body.


----------



## maniclion (Dec 23, 2005)

Sometimes George Bush likes to wear rubber underwear filled with tapioca pudding.  The lumpier the better so he claims.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 23, 2005)

Hey manic, that's not the TV, that's the _*mirror*_.


----------

