← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · halibot22
Thread ID: 13483 | Posts: 16 | Started: 2004-05-01
2004-05-01 22:09 | User Profile
I don't understand all this America bashing. If it wasn't for Bush the Iraqi people would still be killed, raped and tortured by Saddam. We liberated Afghanistan. We liberated Iraq and both Afghands and Iraqis love us for this. I think Bush is a giant amongst us little men. He has a vision. He wants to see a free and democratic Middle East. How can you be against that? If you want to read a fair and balanced account of US policies, visit my blog: [url="http://ilovejennabush.blogspot.com/"]http://ilovejennabush.blogspot.com[/url]
2004-05-01 22:14 | User Profile
Listen, troll, you won't get what you're looking for here.
So crawl back under whatever rock you oozed out from under, and hit the road.
2004-05-01 22:20 | User Profile
I'm not looking for trouble. I just think you guys need to see our point of view. Discussion is always healthy.
2004-05-01 22:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=halibot22]I'm not looking for trouble. I just think you guys need to see our point of view. Discussion is always healthy.[/QUOTE]
Don't worry, I see your "point of view" every time I turn on the televitz. A Republic, not an Empire.
2004-05-01 23:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=halibot22]I don't understand all this America bashing. If it wasn't for Bush the Iraqi people would still be killed, raped and tortured by Saddam.
Instead, they get the noble privilege of being killed, raped and tortured by American imperial janissaries from the Third World ghettoes of our cities. Aren't they ever so lucky!
We liberated Afghanistan.
Perhaps we "liberated" that portion of the Afghani people who didn't care for Taliban rule, but for most of the majority Pashtuns and perhaps an absolute majority of all the Afghani people, the Taliban was a regime that had their full confidence, as it was the best they'd seen in decades. Most people who live in Afghanistan ARE Islamic Fundamentalists, after all, so living under an Islamic Fundmentalist regime was no great hardship for them and certainly not one requiring us to "liberate" them. I'm not sure how "liberated" they feel under our puppet dictator, Hamid Karzai. I guess we'll find out about two minutes after our imperial mercenaries stop guarding him from his own beloved subjects....
We liberated Iraq and both Afghands and Iraqis love us for this.
According to the most recent survey, 71% of Iraqis regard us as foreign conquerors, not liberators. When you discount the biased Khurdish minority, the figure rises to 81%. Perhaps the other 19% do love us, but its probably closer to one-tenth of the Iraqi population which feels that way.
I think Bush is a giant amongst us little men. He has a vision. He wants to see a free and democratic Middle East. How can you be against that?
Because its a silly, school boy fantasy that will never come true, despite however many soldiers such brave young samurai of the sofa like yourself are willing to pay to do your fighting for you, with the tax dollars forcibly extracted from the American people....
If you want to read a fair and balanced account of US policies, visit my blog:
No thanks. I've no need to vomit anytime soon. Frankly, sir, you are an idiot. Either that, or an all-too-subtle parody. I'm guessing the former. If you support the war so much, then join the military. Otherwise, shut the Hell up, you piece of suburban, middle class, privileged yuppie trash; nobody is interested in the opinion of a chickenhawk. And don't try and tell me you're above the military acceptance age of 34, because only a kid could have written that drivel.
2004-05-01 23:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=halibot22]I'm not looking for trouble. I just think you guys need to see our point of view. Discussion is always healthy.[/QUOTE]
To who's point of view do you refer? Those of retired police officers in Tel Aviv? As has been said, the point of view represented by degenerates such as yourself is the one we see every time we turn on the television, read a newspaper, attend a class, listen to the radio, hear a church sermon, attend a city council meeting, etc. I come here in order to get away from people like you and your diseased "perspective." If you want to have a discussion, lets discuss what to do with the neo-"conservative" traitors who brought us this insane, imperialist misadventure in mesopotamia. On the one hand, we could employ lethal injection in order to be more humane. Contrarily, I tend to support the idea of public hanging, in order to establish a certain esthetic tone for the future. Which method of execution do you favor for you and your ilk?
2004-05-02 00:11 | User Profile
I think Bush is a giant amongst us little men. He has a vision. He wants to see a free and democratic Middle East.
halibot22 --
Is Bush a conservative? If so, what is he conserving?
Also, is Israel a democracy?
2004-05-02 00:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=halibot22]I don't understand all this America bashing. If it wasn't for Bush the Iraqi people would still be killed, raped and tortured by Saddam. We liberated Afghanistan. We liberated Iraq and both Afghands and Iraqis love us for this. I think Bush is a giant amongst us little men. He has a vision. He wants to see a free and democratic Middle East. How can you be against that?If you want to read a fair and balanced account of US policies, visit my blog: [url="http://ilovejennabush.blogspot.com/"]http://ilovejennabush.blogspot.com[/url][/QUOTE]
If the US, in their current state, reign supreme for even 200 years, there will be nothing left worth preserving on this planet. Sad that 3 millenia of human civilization have to end like this...
Well, it was nice while it lasted.
[I]"If it wasn't for Bush the Iraqi people would still be killed, raped and tortured by Saddam." [/I]
I thought if it wasnôt for Bush we would now be occupied by Saddam and Osama, with their weapons of mass destruction and all. :blink:
But I see your point: We canôt allow Saddam to kill, rape and torture all the Iraqis, giving us no part in the action. We want to kill, rape and torture Iraqis, too, thatôs why we had to intervene.
Makes sense to me.
[I]"He wants to see a free and democratic Middle East. How can you be against that?" [/I]
Because we want to see a free and democratic West?
2004-05-02 02:35 | User Profile
MORE JACOBIN EVIL FROM 'EL PRESIDENTE BUSH'--AKA, the Shrub...
Subject: Selective Service eyes women's draft !!!
Today's Seattle-Post article, about Drafting women is the last part of this post.
I do not think the Draft will happen in a void. It will go something like this:
By The Associated Press
April 21, 2004, 3:28 PM EDT
WASHINGTON -- President Bush said Wednesday that those Americans who expect another terror attack in this country have reason for such fears. "This is a hard country to defend," he conceded.
"Our intelligence is good. It's just never perfect, is the problem," Bush told executives of more than 1,500 Associated Press.
Some time in the next year:
With tears streaming down his face, today Emperor Bush, standing in the rubble of what was once (say maybe) Louisville, KY, announced the reinstitution of the **Draft. "We must have every available young American, to prevent another Louisvile. The Terrorist will not take our freedom away. We are here to protect your democracy."
The Sheeple will shout: "Anything Ceasar, anything, just keep us safe." Or maybe "Hail Ceasar! Our children who are about to die, salute you."
**The Draft will include the option of Forced Public Service for COs and women, like picking up trash in LA for two years.
(Iam not a libertarian, but this Lew Rockwell article contains a important point. Think you are gonna flee with the family out of the Forced Union aka US? Will not happen once the Draft starts. Read about the "Smart Border Declaration" below.)
[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/tuccille5.html[/url] Gearing Up For the Next Military Draft by Jerome Tuccille
While most of us are preoccupied with the latest tales of mayhem and destruction emanating from Iraq, the Bush administration is quietly paving the way for the re-imposition of the ultimate form of slavery: a military draft to provide additional fodder for the so-called War on Terror. Without much fanfare, $28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. SSS is charged with reporting back to Bush by March 31, 2005 (conveniently after the election), that the selective service system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. If libertarians and traditional conservatives, who continue to regard Bush as the lesser of the major party evils, needed a convincing argument that it is long past time to get rid of this latter-day emperor in the making ...
If Bush is reelected in November and succeeds in his quest for a new military draft, it will surely be even more odious in its implementation than the one that existed before 1970. For one thing, the loopholes that allowed Bush to escape service in Vietnam during his own youth will be tightened nearly to extinction. Canada will no longer be a safe haven for Americans seeking refuge from this latest incarnation of American slavery as it was in the late 1960s, thanks to the "Smart Border Declaration," the Orwellian name given to a treaty signed by Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge. This insidious document calls for a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country and, in an effort to make the draft more "equitable" along gender and class lines, also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Itââ¬â¢s as though Bush examined the escape hatches that were available when he was threatened with enforced military duty and is determined to make sure they are no longer an option for the latest generation of draft-age Americans.
Perhaps Iââ¬â¢m being paranoid. Perhaps it will never come to pass. But paranoia has always been my first line of defense, and itââ¬â¢s beginning to seem like déjàvu all over again.
April 22, 2004
Jerome Tuccille is the author of 21 books, including It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand, It Still Begins With Ayn Rand, and most recently of Alan Shrugged, a biography of Fed chairman Alan Greenspan. In 1974 he was the Free Libertarian Party candidate for governor of New York.
#
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER [url]http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/171522_draft01.html[/url]
Selective Service eyes women's draft The proposal would also require registration of critical skills
Saturday, May 1, 2004
By ERIC ROSENBERG SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- The chief of the Selective Service System has proposed registering women for the military draft and requiring that young Americans regularly inform the government about whether they have training in niche specialties needed in the armed services.
The proposal, which the agency's acting Director Lewis Brodsky presented to senior Pentagon officials just before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, also seeks to extend the age of draft registration to 34 years old, up from 25.
The Selective Service System plan, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, highlights the extent to which agency officials have planned for an expanded military draft in case the administration and Congress would authorize one in the future.
"In line with today's needs, the Selective Service System's structure, programs and activities should be re-engineered toward maintaining a national inventory of American men and, for the first time, women, ages 18 through 34, with an added focus on identifying individuals with critical skills," the agency said in a Feb. 11, 2003, proposal presented to senior Pentagon officials.
Brodsky and Richard Flahavan, the agency's director of public and congressional affairs, reviewed the six-page proposal with Pentagon officials responsible for personnel issues. They included Charles Abell, principal deputy undersecretary for personnel and readiness, and William Carr, deputy undersecretary for military personnel policy.
The agency officials acknowledged that they would have "to market the concept" of a female draft to Congress, which ultimately would have to authorize such a step.
Dan Amon, a spokesman for the Selective Service System, based in Arlington, Va., said that the Pentagon has taken no action on the proposal to expand draft registration.
"These ideas were only being floated for Department of Defense consideration," Amon said. He described the proposal as "food for thought" for contingency planning.
Navy Lt. Cmdr. Jane Campbell, a spokeswoman for the Defense Department, said the Pentagon "has not agreed to, nor even suggested, a change to Selective Service's current missions."
Nonetheless, Flahavan said the agency has begun designing procedures for a targeted registration and draft of people with computer and language skills, in case military officials and Congress authorize it.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, say they oppose a revival of the military draft, last used in 1973 as the American commitment in Vietnam waned, beginning the era of the all-volunteer force.
Mandatory registration for the draft was suspended in 1975 but was resumed in 1980 by President Carter after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. About 13.5 million men, ages 18 to 25, currently are registered with the Selective Service.
"I don't know anyone in the executive branch of the government who believes that it would be appropriate or necessary to reinstitute the draft," Rumsfeld said last month.
At present, the Selective Service is authorized to register only young men and they are not required to inform the government about any professional skills. Separately, the agency has in place a special registration system to draft health care personnel in more than 60 specialties into the military if necessary in a crisis.
Some of the skill areas where the armed forces are facing "critical shortages" include linguists and computer specialists, the agency said. Americans would then be required to regularly update the agency on their skills until they reach age 35.
Individuals proficient in more than one critical skill would list the skill in which they have the greatest degree of competency.
é 1998-2004 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Rev.3:2 Wake up! Save what is left. That which is about to die Daniel 3:17-18 ...BUT IF NOT...
:saddam:
2004-05-02 03:47 | User Profile
Among other things, G.W. Bush has violated the intent of the signers of the U.S. Constitution by recognizing the validity of Israel's religious claims. Also, by his feckless kow-towing to Sharon's, and the state of Israel's collective, targete assassinatin of opposeing leaders.
2004-05-02 04:15 | User Profile
A dictator will always kill X plus plus whenever they take power, after that X plus for a clean up operation and then X to pick those who are still against him,,,,,,Saddam was at the X point when the US took over Iraq and now the US is at X plus plus or the beginning of a dictatorship.
All out young people will be kill in the incoming war and it will be up to old farts, like myself, to keep the USA a free country.
Our only hope is to vote King George out of power and hope the next dictator, for he also will be a dictator, will be a semi normal person for as you know the now president is not normal, I can see it in his eyes.
2004-05-02 06:07 | User Profile
If your questions are sincere, then I'm going to go against the grain here and apologize for the flak you've received. You have to understand, though, that emotions about this subject run high at OD, as people here know that America has been totally suckered into this latest war by the Israeli political mafia, and the real patriots here are tired of the Israelis always having their way with the US.
[QUOTE=halibot22]I don't understand all this America bashing. It's not bashing America per se; it's bashing what America is being perverted into. Don't confuse a country with its government or even with the majority of its population -- those things can change. A country is defined by its founding principles -- which, in the case of the USA, are expressed in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution. It's lamentable and pathetic that the US has replaced those principles with utter hypocrisy.
If it wasn't for Bush the Iraqi people would still be killed, raped and tortured by Saddam. There are people all over the world who have it even worse than the Iraqis did under Saddam. Why is there no concern for them? The answer is that Bush's concern for the Iraqis is phony as hell. If Bush is so worried about oppressed populations, then why does he wholeheartedly support the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian refugees?
If Saddam was so bad -- and I'll grant you that he probably wasn't a very nice guy -- then the onus was on the Iraqis to free themselves. They had weapons (AKs and hunting rifles were everywhere in Iraq even before the invasion) and could have taken down Saddam's regime. It would have been messy and there would've been a lot of casualties, but that turned out to be the case anyway when we (the US) went in there, killing civilians left and right with our "precision bombs."
We liberated Afghanistan. We liberated Iraq and both Afghands and Iraqis love us for this. I'm no fan of the Taliban and their woman-beating shenanigans, but the war in Afghanistan was never declared by Congress and, hence, was unconstitutional. The situation with Iraq is far worse, though -- it's an unconstitutional war that was initiated on a foundation of lies about WMDs. The true reason for the US takeover of Iraq was simply that Israeli loyalists/plants in the US government wanted it. And if the Iraqis are showing us their "love" for occupying their nation, I hate to think about what their hate would be like.
I think Bush is a giant amongst us little men. Bush is a giant idiot, and so are most Americans. They're all brainwashed by the boob tube and phony conservatives like Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter. Don't be like them.
He has a vision. He wants to see a free and democratic Middle East. How can you be against that? Bush does not want a "free and democratic" anything. He and the Israeli loyalists who pull his strings want a Middle East that's completely controlled by the criminal state of Israel, and they're willing to sacrifice American blood and money to get it. The Iraqis have not been "freed"; they have simply had their nation taken over by ZOG, and the intent is to set up a puppet government to rule over them.
If you want to read a fair and balanced account of US policies, visit my blog: [url="http://ilovejennabush.blogspot.com/"]http://ilovejennabush.blogspot.com[/url][/QUOTE]I suggest you learn more about Israeli control of the US by visiting the following links:
[url]http://www.acpr.org.il/publications/policy-papers/pp141-xs.html[/url] (on the real reason the US invaded Iraq)
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html[/url]
[url]http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=2430[/url]
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html[/url]
[url]http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/[/url] (a website owned by survivors of the 1967 Israeli assault on the USS Liberty, which was an earlier attempt by the Israelis to sucker the US into a war against the Arab world)
2004-05-02 16:50 | User Profile
I confess that this post has obsessed me. Dropped out of the blue on this, of all boards, without even nodding to its center of gravity (neocon/Jewish connection to Bush, US policy. Patent formula-ized pitch to the forever-just-fell-off-the-truck-yesterday election '04 round up.
The structure and dynamics of the formalized sign-use is built entirely around the double-reverse negative pattern identified under "philosophy: how the Jews use Signs."
2004-05-02 17:45 | User Profile
The war in Afghanistan was not 'unconstitutional' in the sense of that the Supreme Court could find it such. If one wants to just read the Constitution, then the Supreme Court is also unconstiutional. You have to specify what you mean.
For example, if I say a law banning anti-Semitic speech in unconstitutional, I mean that it violates Constitutional principles as these have been interpreted and 'refined' over the centuries. I am saying that the Court should go ahead and rule such a law non-valid on Constitutional grounds, and that the Court would be staying true to its core principles in doing so.
I can't say this about Vietnam or Afghanistan. The Court ruled that Lincoln and thus all Presidents have certain 'war powers,' which include the power to wage war. This is a long-standing precedent.
Now I agree that this was a crazy thing for the Court to do, just as was accepting the 14th Amendment, or Roe v. Wade. But these are all on the books, and they need to be corrected not through courts ruling them un-constitutional, but through legislative action. Here I would say that the Court strayed from 'original intent,' or 'what the Constituion actual says,' or 'the spirit of the Constution,' etc. But the term 'unconstituional' is too confusing here.
2004-05-03 04:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=halibot22] I think Bush is a giant amongst us little men. He has a vision. He wants to see a free and democratic Middle East. How can you be against that? [/QUOTE]
Like Angler, I think this deserves a reasoned response. Our military's purpose can be summed up as follows:
"...Stage III...would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively stregthened U.N. peace force... The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited... All other armaments would be destroyed..." -Department of State publication number 7277
The goal of the new world order is a globe populated by small, weak, mutually interdependent states. Self-sufficient nations will breed self-sufficient communities and individuals which are a threat to international finance. The only difference between Clinton and Bush in regard to this issue is that Clinton and his kind would like to see the UN preside over the weakened nations of the world whereas George Bush would rather have the US military directly handle the role of global police force.
This is why we arm one nation and then turn around and arm its enemy; Our government cares nothing for freedom, only for preventing any one nation from becoming a regional superpower. This is nothing new, the Persians tried the same thing against the Greeks, aiding Sparta and Athens at different times to keep them weak and divided through war. Of course the weakened city states paved the way for Alexander the Great and the policy blew up in Persia's face.
The British later adopted this policy. Why was Britain defending Turkey in the Crimean War and stirring up the Arabs against it in World War I? The War of Spanish Succesion was fought for the same reason; to keep the continent divided for the advantage of British Merchants(Who were well connected with the Jews of Holland.) Napolean and the Kaiser were attacked for the same reason. This policy of keeping one's neighbors weak and divided is the source of most conflict in Europe since at least the War of Spanish Succession. If the greedy British government had tended its own Empire, Europe would have united and I believe, experienced a new renaissance.
In 1750 British Agent John Campbell published [I]The Present State of Europe[/I] in which he writes, "There is a distinction often made, chiefly by foreigners, between the interest and commerce of Great Britain; but in reality this is a distinction without a difference...For commerce is that tie, by which the several, and even the most distant parts of this empire, are connected and kept together...Whatever therefore assists, promotes, and extends our commerce, is consistent with our interest, and whatever weakens, impairs or circumscribes it, is repugnant thereto.... ...The first point dictated by our interest is the maintaining of others in their rights, or to make use of a more known term, to support the Independency of the powers of Europe; because the engrossing , subjecting , or subduing of several countries under one potentate, naturally and even necesarily contributes to lesson the number of inhabitants, to extinguish industry amongst them..."
In other words, as I understand it, a united Europe would present British merchants the challenge of having to market goods to continental Europeans who had enough land to live self-sufficiently. A divided Europe was mutually interdependent and consequently more urban, thus rendering populations dependent on international merchants and financeers.
As the British Empire crumbled(exactly what you get when you tear down other nations instead of ceating excellence in your own.) The internationalists hijacked America as the new vehicle for their schemes. Now America keeps the globe weak and divided. It's work is so near complete, the military only rarely need get involved; most of the time sanctions work fine since small nations cannot be self-sufficient. Conventional warfare is the tip of the iceberg.
So what is the problem with this? First, we must constantly be ratcheting up tensions between competing states. Secondly we must export technology and jobs to pathetic third world countries to keep their economies progessing industrially. We cannot have an Ethiopia near an Italy or history has shown what will happen; we cannot ever allow a power vacuum to develop. As China develops, we must strengthen India. Third, and most relevant to your question, we must tolerate a certain amount of regional warlords, drug traffickers, gangsters etc. In other words terrorists. Only strong centralized governments can resist ethnic warlords; this is why there were no terrorists in Iraq prior to our occupation. Allow one strong central Arab leader to unite the Middle East and guess what... no more terrorism. If George Bush was serious about ending terrorism we would not be wasting our time building democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would have split them up along ethnic lines and divided them amongst their neighbors. This would have sent a much stronger message of resolve post 9-11 and would give the neighboring countries a vested interest in making sure Al-queda never rises again. Less countries means less war(think pax-romana vs the dark ages). But Bush cares more about the prevailing International vision than he does about America or its people. We will support Iraq and Afghanistan's continued existence even though they are Frankenstein states made up of an artificial ethnic patchwork which no one would really miss if absorbed by their neighbors and American troops will needlesly die to do it. But of course if we allowed even a few great Arab nations to emerge European nations and others would soon be merging to form a common defense and that would be a no-no. So we must keep all nations weak and divided, ensuring that terrorism will be a pereniall challenge. Not even Orwell could have guessed. This is why I consider Bush a shallow patsy, international terror will not end until internationalists do not hold the ultimate power. Give control of each region to nationalist governments and terrorists will only feel oppresed by these governments. Bush knows this and doesn't give a damn, his "solution" to terrorism shows an exceptional lack of vision to me.
-Llen.
2004-05-03 04:25 | User Profile
"War Is A Racket" to quote General Smedley Butler. Especially if not for blood and soil, but this war has had the worst lie's told for it of all the filthy lies for getting U.S. in a war in the last 106 years. I am sick the the draft dodger 55-65 hippy's in Oregon who listen to Sean Handjob, and Rabbi,Mike, Rush fece, and all the rest idiot paid whores. Perhaps 98% of the posters of O.D. were readers before the internet, and the supporters of the war are the willfull ignorant man children, who really never cared to read history and books. The idiots who support the war ARE TV/Radio talk show idiot CULTISTS. The left will call every Patriot a Nazi, as I have read leftist fece who have called Vdare.com a Nazi site etc.. There are no Moderates in a battle, perhaps...