Nuke Iran

No doubt, xingu... cjhsa is a crybaby. But I totally agree with his post.

pachelbel--
Whose side are you on? Or better, what would you like to see happen? You make a lot of good points, but then you say things like Americans "got a taste of our own medicine". (something like that)
You seem to be a bit conflicted, here. On one hand, you condemn the US military for targeting civilian populations, then you seem to cheer when American civilians are hit. What gives? Do you simply blame the American voters for the acts of terror committed by the US government?

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I thought this thread was locked? It should be.

Pachelbel's postings and rants aren't so much opinions as they are attacks.

Coming from someone so concerned about attacking anything or anyone, I find it very disengenous.

I see no point in communicating with people like pachelbel.

If such people turn their hatred into action, the police or military will kill them.

If not, the only appropriate response is to roll your eyes at them.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

No doubt, xingu... cjhsa is a crybaby. But I totally agree with his post.

pachelbel--
Whose side are you on? Not the neocon BushAdm.

Or better, what would you like to see happen? Pull out of Iraq and the Middle East. Americans aren't bringing democracy. They are bringing death and creating more terrorists. Don't you know?
You make a lot of good points, but then you say things like Americans "got a taste of our own medicine". They did. On Sept. 11. Have you no knowledge of America's domination over other countries under the guise of democracy/freedom/saving the world from terrorism? America has not experienced a war in their country since the Civil War, but the rest of the world has experienced war right in their backyard. Those towers going down in NY is what people in Iraq see EVERYDAY. And saw BEFORE the towers went down in the 1990's. America has been pummeling them for some time. How dare you people whine! How about Afghanistan, or Palestine, Lebanon? These people are human beings. They have children and families that they love, too. If you call this a rant, so be it. Truth about what America is doing is hard to bear I guess?

(something like that)
You seem to be a bit conflicted, here. Not at all. It is America that is conflicted. They have gotten themselves into a mess and started something that they can't stop. Rummy created Frankenstein. On one hand, you condemn the US military for targeting civilian populations, then you seem to cheer when American civilians are hit. What gives? Read below. Do you simply blame the American voters for the acts of terror committed by the US government?

'Simply blame'? Who would YOU blame? Americans voted to attack Iraq even though weapons inspectors found no WMD's. You were all whipped up to a patriotic fever and didn't care who you hit as long as someone paid. It was about revenge, but you got the wrong country. The US attacked Iraq for no reason. Now, I know some of you will whine and say 'oh, but Iraq had WMD's.' They didn't. Obviously. None have EVER been found. It was a pre-emptive war. Iraq had NOTHING to do with Sept. 11. The pilots of those planes were 99% Saudi Arabians. Why didn't the US attack them? Ask your politicans that question. Simply put, the Middle East-(Israel aside, who loves US aid & has Jerry Falwell on their side) is plainly sick and tired of being dictated to by America (wouldn't you be?). The US's game is to install puppets in regimes, surely you know that. Pakistan is an example, so is Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Quatar. Israel wants these countries to disarm, while they continue to pile up WMD's via American money, or anywhere they can buy weapons. The fact that America got slammed back is not a surprise. The WTC was hit in 1992-3 by binLaden, who is close friends of the Bush family through the Carlyle Group. That's a fact. (Smell something fishy here?) The current Adm. had plenty of warning that it was going to happen again - yet they ignored intelligence reports and scrambled the info so effectively that all Americans know from listening to Fox TV and CNN is: We were attacked on Sept 11 by Iraqis and we don't know why they hate us. We've never done a thing to them. So, you attack Iraq, then you say you're bringing 'democracy'! My god, do any of you have any idea what hell people in Iraq are going through on a daily basis? For what? America ignores/refuses to recognize the World Court, they refuse to treat prisoners like human beings or even give them a fair trial - yet the world is supposed to be in perpetual mourning over 3000 people killed Sept. 11? When I said 'a taste of your own medicine' unless you're a complete ignoramus I should think you know what I'm talking about. Stop crapping on the world and expecting them to thank you.

If you interpret discussing facts about what America has done and is doing as an 'attack' and you're pro Bush, I have nothing futher to say. America's solution is to attack first. The notion of trying to peacefully settle disagreements doesn't sell arms, and America is the biggest arms dealer in the world.

cjhsa, I could care less if you communicate with me or not. Wrap yourself in your little bubbleworld. You assume much about me that is incorrect. You're confusing hatred with frustration and anger at a country that is so naive. I would not waste my time with hatred/attacks. I leave that to your leader, Bushie.

0 Replies

Published on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 by the Inter Press Service
Iraq, Overstretched Army Bring Bush New Grief
by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - With the U.S. intelligence community agreed that the invasion and occupation of Iraq have made this country less safe from terrorist threats, President George W. Bush appears now to be facing a growing revolt among top military commanders who say U.S. ground forces are stretched close to the breaking point.

According to Monday's Los Angeles Times, the Army's top officer, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, has called for nearly a 50 percent increase in spending -- to nearly 140 billion dollars -- in 2008 to cope with the situation in Iraq and maintain minimal readiness for possible emergencies.

To convey his seriousness, Schoomaker reportedly withheld the Army's scheduled budget request last month in what the Times called an "unprecedented... protest" against previous rejections by the White House of funding increases.

The news of Schoomaker's action, which is almost certain to intensify the growing debate over what to do in Iraq just seven weeks before the Nov. 7 mid-term Congressional elections, comes just days after the New York Times reported that the Army is considering activating substantially more National Guard troops or reservists.

Such a decision, which would run counter to previous administration pledges to limit overseas deployments for the Guard, would pose serious political risks for the Republicans if it was taken before the elections.

Unlike career soldiers, the Guard consists mainly of "citizen-soldiers" with families and jobs and deep roots in local communities. When the Pentagon last called up substantial numbers of Guard units for service in Iraq and Afghanistan in late 2003 and 2004, the move elicited a strong backlash in communities across the country.

With the war even less popular now than it was then, any major new call-up is likely to trigger renewed protests, particularly in light of the growing sense both among the national security elites and the general population that the administration's decision to invade Iraq was a major mistake and that the war is unwinnable.

Recent public opinion polls have shown that the public has become increasingly pessimistic about the war's outcome and its impact on the larger "global war on terror".

Earlier this month, for example, a New York Times/CBS poll found that nearly two-thirds of respondents believed the war in Iraq was going either "somewhat" (28 percent) or "very badly" (33 percent).

For most of the past year, a majority of respondents in various polls have said they believe the decision to go to war in Iraq was a mistake and that it has made the United States less, rather than more, safe from terrorism.

The fact that a similar conclusion was reportedly reached by the 16 agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that make up the U.S. intelligence community last April in a rare National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is likely to add to the public's pessimism.

The NIE, some of whose contents were leaked to the New York Times and the Washington Post over the weekend, found that the Iraq war has invigorated Islamic radicalism worldwide and aggravated the terrorist threat faced by the United States and other countries.

While the director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, insisted Sunday that the newspaper accounts of the report's conclusions were partial and selective, they nonetheless backed up what a number of former senior intelligence analysts -- most recently, the recently retired head of the CIA's Political Islam Strategic Analysis Programme, Emile Nakhleh -- have been saying individually for much of the past year.

While Democratic lawmakers called Monday for the administration to immediately declassify the NIE, "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States", so that the public could decide for itself, it is certain to intensify the debate about whether to begin withdrawing from Iraq or whether to "stay the course" there, despite the growing sectarian violence and the wear and tear on U.S. ground forces.

For most of the past year, the administration and senior military commanders expressed hope that they could reduce U.S. forces in Iraq from the approximately 140,000 troops who were there last December to help protect the parliamentary elections by as much as 30,000 by the end of this year.

But, with the rise in sectarian violence, particularly in Baghdad, that followed the bombing last winter of a major Shiite shrine in Samarra, Washington has been forced to abandon those hopes. Last week, the senior U.S. Middle East commander, Gen. John Abizaid, made it official when he told reporters here that he needed at least 140,000 troops in Iraq through next spring.

Even this number of troops, however, has not proved sufficient to curb the violence in Baghdad, while a recent report from the senior Marine intelligence officer in Anbar province, which comprises about one-third of Iraq's total territory, warned that the 30,000 U.S. troops deployed there could not defeat the Sunni insurgency without the addition of at least 13,000 troops and substantially more economic assistance.

Adding to the burden on the army and the marines, the resurgence of the Taliban has forced Washington to cancel plans to reduce forces in Afghanistan from 19,000 earlier this year to around 16,000 by this fall.

Instead, Washington currently has more than 20,000 troops deployed there amid signs that more may be needed if NATO fails to provide more troops of its own or if, in light of the retreat of Pakistani forces from neighbouring Waziristan, the Taliban mount an even bigger offensive from across the border next spring after the snows melt.

These commitments have taken a huge, unanticipated toll on U.S. land forces, not just in manpower, but in equipment and money, as well.

Before the war, the Pentagon's political appointees confidently predicted that Iraq's oil production would very quickly pay for the invasion's financial costs and that Washington could draw down U.S. forces to as few as 30,000 by the end of 2003.

In fact, about 400 billion dollars -- almost all of it for military operations --has been appropriated for both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars since September 2001, and current operations there are running at about nine billion dollars a month.

The Army, which has some 500,000 active-duty soldiers, has been allocated 98 billion dollar this year, and the White House has cleared it to receive 114 billion dollars for 2008. But Schoomaker has reportedly asked for 139 billion dollars, including at least 13 billion dollars needed to repair equipment. "There's no sense in us submitting a budget that we can't execute, a broken budget," he warned recently in a speech here.

In addition to strains on both the land forces and their equipment, senior military leaders are also worried about attrition among mid-ranking officers, in particular, and the quality and cost of new recruits.

The military has greatly intensified its recruitment efforts, relaxed its age and education requirements for enlistment, and offered unprecedented bonuses and benefits packages -- worth thousands of dollars -- to enlistees and active-duty soldiers who re-enlist.

It has also increased enlistments by individuals with "'serious criminal misconduct" in their records," and eased requirements of non-citizens -- of which there are currently about 40,000 in the armed services -- and made them eligible to citizenship after only one day of active-duty military service.
Copyright © 2006 IPS-Inter Press Service

What I said.

Reminds me of Rome. They had to offer Germans or non-Romans Roman citizenship to get them to enlist.

Do any Americans think this money could be put to better use? Such as medical insurance that is affordable for all citizens, for example?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

pachelbel--
Whose side are you on? Not the neocon BushAdm.

Or better, what would you like to see happen? Pull out of Iraq and the Middle East. Americans aren't bringing democracy. They are bringing death and creating more terrorists. Don't you know?

I do know. Many Americans know.

Quote:

You make a lot of good points, but then you say things like Americans "got a taste of our own medicine". They did. On Sept. 11.

Those people were not soldiers. They were not policy makers. They were civilians going about their daily lives. Their deaths are no less tragic than civilian deaths in other parts of the world.

pachelbel wrote:

Have you no knowledge of America's domination over other countries under the guise of democracy/freedom/saving the world from terrorism?

Yes, I do. Sadly, too many Americans do not. I don't know where you live (Canada?), but in the US we live under a heavy blanket of propaganda, which drives us to work ourselves to death and leaves little time for anything else. Our media is such that it takes real skill to separate the news from the tabloids.
The fact is that propaganda works very well. The voters are partly to blame, I agree. We remain willfully ignorant. BUT, you must understand, we don't know what we don't know. Our leaders benefit from our ignorance, and they invest in it, heavily.

pachelbel wrote:

America has not experienced a war in their country since the Civil War, but the rest of the world has experienced war right in their backyard. Those towers going down in NY is what people in Iraq see EVERYDAY. And saw BEFORE the towers went down in the 1990's. America has been pummeling them for some time.

A lot of Americans would be genuinely surprised to find that out. See above.

pachelbel wrote:

How dare you people whine! How about Afghanistan, or Palestine, Lebanon? These people are human beings. They have children and families that they love, too. If you call this a rant, so be it. Truth about what America is doing is hard to bear I guess[/color]?

echi wrote:

You seem to be a bit conflicted, here. Not at all. It is America that is conflicted. They have gotten themselves into a mess and started something that they can't stop. Rummy created Frankenstein. On one hand, you condemn the US military for targeting civilian populations, then you seem to cheer when American civilians are hit. What gives? Read below. Do you simply blame the American voters for the acts of terror committed by the US government? 'Simply blame'? Who would YOU blame? Americans voted to attack Iraq even though weapons inspectors found no WMD's.

American politicians voted; the American people had no say, whatsoever. I trust that you are not so naive as to think that the representatives in Washington are primarily representing the American people. Their true allegiance is to corporate power (funny you have not mentioned that, yet).

pachelbel wrote:

You were all whipped up to a patriotic fever and didn't care who you hit as long as someone paid.

Yes, many were "whipped up". Why don't you concentrate on who was doing the whipping?

pachelbel wrote:

It was about revenge, but you got the wrong country.

You think we should have slaughtered civilians in some other country?

pachelbel wrote:

The US attacked Iraq for no reason. Now, I know some of you will whine and say 'oh, but Iraq had WMD's.' They didn't. Obviously. None have EVER been found. It was a pre-emptive war. Iraq had NOTHING to do with Sept. 11. The pilots of those planes were 99% Saudi Arabians. Why didn't the US attack them? Ask your politicans that question.

(I'll call Bush in the morning.) I think you know why we haven't attacked the Saudis. Why don't you follow that lead, instead of blaming it all on the American people? Do you think we live in a democracy?? Come on, now.

pachelbel wrote:

Simply put, the Middle East-(Israel aside, who loves US aid & has Jerry Falwell on their side) is plainly sick and tired of being dictated to by America (wouldn't you be?). The US's game is to install puppets in regimes, surely you know that. Pakistan is an example, so is Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Quatar. Israel wants these countries to disarm, while they continue to pile up WMD's via American money, or anywhere they can buy weapons. The fact that America got slammed back is not a surprise.

I wasn't surprised one bit. In fact, quite a few of us were not surprised.

pachelbel wrote:

The WTC was hit in 1992-3 by binLaden, who is close friends of the Bush family through the Carlyle Group. That's a fact.

Is it a proven fact?

pachelbel wrote:

(Smell something fishy here?) The current Adm. had plenty of warning that it was going to happen again - yet they ignored intelligence reports and scrambled the info so effectively that all Americans know from listening to Fox TV and CNN is: We were attacked on Sept 11 by Iraqis and we don't know why they hate us. We've never done a thing to them.

(See above.) Americans' reactions to 9/11 and questions about "why they hate us" surprised me (surprisingly). I still find it hard to understand, and I live right in the middle of it. The situation here is much more complicated than you realize.

pachelbel wrote:

So, you attack Iraq, then you say you're bringing 'democracy'! My god, do any of you have any idea what hell people in Iraq are going through on a daily basis?

No. We're too busy.

pachelbel wrote:

For what? America ignores/refuses to recognize the World Court, they refuse to treat prisoners like human beings or even give them a fair trial - yet the world is supposed to be in perpetual mourning over 3000 people killed Sept. 11? When I said 'a taste of your own medicine' unless you're a complete ignoramus I should think you know what I'm talking about.

I don't know you, dude. For all I know, you're a complete ignoramus.

pachelbel wrote:

Stop crapping on the world and expecting them to thank you.

Stop thinking that everyone in the US is named George Bush. Have you ever been to America? Maybe you should come on down for a little meet and greet. In the meantime, though, if you want do something productive with your frustration, you might consider funneling it elsewhere... [EMAIL THE BUSH]

0 Replies

People who are not frightened by Bushie tell the truth. Here is what the President of Venezuela has said--

Aug. 25th

"The United States has imposed a universal dictatorship; the greatest threat to democracy in the world is the United States.

July 18th

"His( Bush's) cynicism,his class and his fascist personality were unmasked before the world. He doesn't care about the world, whether everyone dies"

March 19th

"You are a donkey, Mr. Bush"

April 28th''"The one who has a deep affinity with terrorists is George W. Bush. He is a terrorist, a terrorist who became head of state and wants to terrorize the whole world"

Nov. 17th, 2005

"The planet's most serious danger is the government of the United States...The people of the United States are being governed by a killer, a genocidal murderer and a madman."

Chavez is not afraid to tell the truth.

0 Replies

Crybaby?

I call out Pachy and you call me a crybaby?

The reading comprehension on this site sucks.

0 Replies

MarionT wrote:

People who are not frightened by Bushie tell the truth. Here is what the President of Venezuela has said--

Aug. 25th

"The United States has imposed a universal dictatorship; the greatest threat to democracy in the world is the United States.

July 18th

"His( Bush's) cynicism,his class and his fascist personality were unmasked before the world. He doesn't care about the world, whether everyone dies"

March 19th

"You are a donkey, Mr. Bush"

April 28th''"The one who has a deep affinity with terrorists is George W. Bush. He is a terrorist, a terrorist who became head of state and wants to terrorize the whole world"

Nov. 17th, 2005

"The planet's most serious danger is the government of the United States...The people of the United States are being governed by a killer, a genocidal murderer and a madman."

Chavez is not afraid to tell the truth.

Chavez doesn't understand truth. He is a complete communist douchebag.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Chavez doesn't understand truth. He is a complete communist douchebag.

Chavez never tells the truth, is an aspiring Hitler, and the CIA should assassinate him for the good of the world.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
Chavez doesn't understand truth. He is a complete communist douchebag.

Chavez never tells the truth, is an aspiring Hitler, and the CIA should assassinate him for the good of the world.

Your patina of reasonableness appears in need of a reshellac.

0 Replies

Let's all sing along with one of America's contemporary popular music geniuses...

Political Science
by Randy Newman

No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us

We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too

Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now

0 Replies

Randy was only joking....

0 Replies

Echi

echi wrote:

echi wrote:

pachelbel--
Whose side are you on? Not the neocon BushAdm.

Or better, what would you like to see happen? Pull out of Iraq and the Middle East. Americans aren't bringing democracy. They are bringing death and creating more terrorists. Don't you know?
I do know. Many Americans know.
Quote:

Then why don't you DO something about it? Are protests illegal? A good majority of Americans still think Bush is right about the war in Iraq.

You make a lot of good points, but then you say things like Americans "got a taste of our own medicine". They did. On Sept. 11.
Those people were not soldiers. They were not policy makers. They were civilians going about their daily lives. Their deaths are no less tragic than civilian deaths in other parts of the world.

Oh so true. But Americans are led to believe that lives in the Middle East (with the exception of Israel) are worth so much less than an American lives. People being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't soldiers either, they are just civilians trying to live their lives.

pachelbel wrote:

Have you no knowledge of America's domination over other countries under the guise of democracy/freedom/saving the world from terrorism?
Yes, I do. Sadly, too many Americans do not. I don't know where you live (Canada?), but in the US we live under a heavy blanket of propaganda, which drives us to work ourselves to death and leaves little time for anything else. Our media is such that it takes real skill to separate the news from the tabloids.
The fact is that propaganda works very well. The voters are partly to blame, I agree. We remain willfully ignorant. BUT, you must understand, we don't know what we don't know. Our leaders benefit from our ignorance, and they invest in it, heavily.
pachelbel wrote:

Echi, that's a cop-out. There is information on the 'net (yes, you have to be careful about sources) there is information in books - read the Collapse of Globalization and the Reinvention of the World by John Saul. There is no excuse for ignorance these days, unless it is willful. The book that the 'evil' Chavez was holding up was conveniently not talked about in any news souce, ie Fox, CNN, etc, but it was a book by Noam Chomsky- Hegemony - Chavez is no dummy. You say you 'remain willfully ignorant'. Why? That is precisly what the world sees as America's condoning what is happening.

America has not experienced a war in their country since the Civil War, but the rest of the world has experienced war right in their backyard. Those towers going down in NY is what people in Iraq see EVERYDAY. And saw BEFORE the towers went down in the 1990's. America has been pummeling them for some time.
A lot of Americans would be genuinely surprised to find that out. See above.
pachelbel wrote:

Then they should go to their public libraries, if that is still permitted in the land of the free, and read some books about South America and the Middle East, and how America has villified and dominated these countries. Did most Americans sleep through history classes?

How dare you people whine! How about Afghanistan, or Palestine, Lebanon? These people are human beings. They have children and families that they love, too. If you call this a rant, so be it. Truth about what America is doing is hard to bear I guess[/color]?

echi wrote:

You seem to be a bit conflicted, here. Not at all. It is America that is conflicted. They have gotten themselves into a mess and started something that they can't stop. Rummy created Frankenstein. On one hand, you condemn the US military for targeting civilian populations, then you seem to cheer when American civilians are hit. What gives? Read below. Do you simply blame the American voters for the acts of terror committed by the US government? 'Simply blame'? Who would YOU blame? Americans voted to attack Iraq even though weapons inspectors found no WMD's.

American politicians voted; the American people had no say, whatsoever. I trust that you are not so naive as to think that the representatives in Washington are primarily representing the American people. Their true allegiance is to corporate power (funny you have not mentioned that, yet).
pachelbel wrote:

I have mentioned corporate power on other threads, Echi. Isn't it America, Inc.? I have mentioned on other threads how Rupert Murdoch owns much of the press-radio, newspapers, as do other corporations who donate much to the Repubs. Americans DO have a say - you can choose yor representatives. Too many Americans are too lazy and expect someone else is going to 'fix' the problem. The government is YOU - and YOU fix the problem. The Electoral College functions so that electors are chosen by voters of each state. Some are chosen without their names appearing on the ballots-by the indirect method of allowing voters to indicated their choice for president and VP and then allowing the winning party's electors to cast the states' votes for the candidates chosen. Since the winning candidate in each state receives all that state's electoral votes, it is mathematically possible for the losing presidential candidate to receive more popular votes than the man elected by the college. This has happened several times (Bush Gore). I think this system sucks, but it still survives. It's up to you voters to get something on a ballot to get rid of the Electoral College. Didn't you have a war because you had no representation? Wasn't it the Revolutionay War? You have no representation now.

You were all whipped up to a patriotic fever and didn't care who you hit as long as someone paid.
Yes, many were "whipped up". Why don't you concentrate on who was doing the whipping?
pachelbel wrote:

Whoever was doing it (your propanganda machine) was quite successful. Small American flags were flapping from cars for quite some time in America. Now it isn't so trendy to be gung-ho for war. But, you created Frankenstein so now you must deal with him.

It was about revenge, but you got the wrong country.
You think we should have slaughtered civilians in some other country?
pachelbel wrote:

I think if you were going to slam a country, it should have been Saudi Arabia, being as 99% of the pilots on those planes were from there. But first you should ask the question: why did they slam America? No, they don't want your way of life and they don't want your way of life infecting their way of life, which isn't about consumerism. Not all people on the planet treasure 'things'. Certainly not enough to die for them.

The US attacked Iraq for no reason. Now, I know some of you will whine and say 'oh, but Iraq had WMD's.' They didn't. Obviously. None have EVER been found. It was a pre-emptive war. Iraq had NOTHING to do with Sept. 11. The pilots of those planes were 99% Saudi Arabians. Why didn't the US attack them? Ask your politicans that question.

(I'll call Bush in the morning.)

Your flippancy is common with Americans. It makes you all so endearing.

I think you know why we haven't attacked the Saudis. Why don't you follow that lead, instead of blaming it all on the American people? Do you think we live in a democracy?? Come on, now.
pachelbel wrote:

No, I don't think most of you know why you didn't attack Saudi Arabia. Why don't YOU follow the lead. I DO blame it on the still 40% or higher who still believe Bush is right. That's a fair amount of your almost 300 million population. And yes, Echi, most of you sadly believe you still have a democracy. Your media has not told you otherwise and you (generally speaking) are too apathetic to discover what is really going on. So long as you have your credit cards and cheap food everything is grand. It's the 'american way of life' that you people wrongly assume the world aspires towards, and to which you send off your young people to die for. Maybe the 'american way of life' needs to be more in touch with reality.

Simply put, the Middle East-(Israel aside, who loves US aid & has Jerry Falwell on their side) is plainly sick and tired of being dictated to by America (wouldn't you be?). The US's game is to install puppets in regimes, surely you know that. Pakistan is an example, so is Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Quatar. Israel wants these countries to disarm, while they continue to pile up WMD's via American money, or anywhere they can buy weapons. The fact that America got slammed back is not a surprise.

I wasn't surprised one bit. In fact, quite a few of us were not surprised.
pachelbel wrote:
Really? Wasn't the nation in shock & running in fear? What I saw/heard.

The WTC was hit in 1992-3 by binLaden, who is close friends of the Bush family through the Carlyle Group. That's a fact.
Is it a proven fact?
pachelbel wrote:

YES. I'm surprised you don't already know this info. It's available to people who like to look for the truth behind the BS. I would like your opinion on it. It would be good if you could take the time from your busy life to read at least this small article below. If you can find evidence elsewhere to debunk it, please share it. Here:

Directors of one of the world's largest armament companies are planning on meeting in Lisbon in three weeks time. The American based Carlyle Group is heavily involved in supplying arms to the Coalition forces fighting in the Iraqi war.
It also holds a majority of shares in the Seven Up company and Federal Data Corporation, supplier of air traffic control surveillance systems to the US Federal Aviation Authority. The 12 billion dollar company has recently signed contracts with United Defence Industries to equip the Turkish and Saudi Arabian armies with aviation defence systems.
Top of the meeting's agenda is expected to be the company's involvement in the rebuilding of Baghdad's infrastructure after the cessation of current hostilities. Along with several other US companies, the Carlyle Group is expected to be awarded a billion dollar contract by the US Government to help in the redevelopment of airfields and urban areas destroyed by Coalition aerial bombardments.
The Group is managed by a team of former US Government personnel including its president Frank Carlucci, former deputy director of the CIA before becoming Defence Secretary. His deputy is James Baker II, who was Secretary of State under George Bush senior. Several high profile former politicians are employed to represent the company overseas, among them John Major, former British Prime Minister, along with George Bush senior, one time CIA director before becoming US President.

The financial assets of the Saudi Binladen Corporation (SBC) are also managed by the Carlyle Group. The SBC is headed up by members of Osama bin Laden's family, who played a principle role in helping George W. Bush win petroleum concessions from Bahrain when he was head of the Texan oil company, Harken Energy Corporation - a deal that was to make the Bush family millions of dollars. Salem, Osama bin Laden's brother, was represented on Harken's board of directors by his American agent, James R. Bath.

The connection between the Bush and bin Laden families can also be traced to the collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) in the 1990s. Members of the Anglo Pakistani bank's board of directors included Richard Helms and William Casey, business partners of George Bush senior and former CIA agents. During their time at BCCI both Helms and Casey worked alongside fellow director, Adnan Khasshoggi, who also represented the bin Laden family's interests in the US.

The Portugal News has been told by a reliable source that the Carlyle Group meeting in Lisbon will discuss the relationship between the Saudi Binladen Corporation (SBC) and Osama bin Laden. Many US officials claim that the SBC continues to finance his political activities, and has done so for many years. If true, this would place George Bush senior and his colleagues at the Carlyle Group in an embarrassing position. As managers of SBC's financial investments they might well be accused of indirectly aiding and abetting the United States' number one enemy.

Copyright http://the-news.net/ 2003. For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement .

(Smell something fishy here?) Of course, we know who controls the presses and I would be surprised if anything is done. They know about American apathy. Who stands to benefit from a war(s)? See above.

The current Adm. had plenty of warning that it was going to happen again - yet they ignored intelligence reports and scrambled the info so effectively that all Americans know from listening to Fox TV and CNN is: We were attacked on Sept 11 by Iraqis and we don't know why they hate us. We've never done a thing to them.
(See above.) Americans' reactions to 9/11 and questions about "why they hate us" surprised me (surprisingly). I still find it hard to understand, and I live right in the middle of it. The situation here is much more complicated than you realize.
pachelbel wrote:

See article above. It's not that complicated or convoluted. It's all about money, not democracy in Iraq. You can find the truth if you look.

So, you attack Iraq, then you say you're bringing 'democracy'! My god, do any of you have any idea what hell people in Iraq are going through on a daily basis?
No. We're too busy.
pachelbel wrote:

Paying off the huge defence budget?

For what? America ignores/refuses to recognize the World Court, they refuse to treat prisoners like human beings or even give them a fair trial - yet the world is supposed to be in perpetual mourning over 3000 people killed Sept. 11? When I said 'a taste of your own medicine' unless you're a complete ignoramus I should think you know what I'm talking about.
I don't know you, dude. For all I know, you're a complete ignoramus.
pachelbel wrote:

I'm not asking you for info, Echi. You seem to be happy with your 'busy' and unaware lives Are American sleeping with their eyes open, like Bush?

Stop crapping on the world and expecting them to thank you.
Stop thinking that everyone in the US is named George Bush. Have you ever been to America?

Yes. I am an ex-pat living in Canada, happily. Of course I don't think everyone is named George Bush! However, 40% of you actually agree with this idiot. I was born there as were my relatives -since the early 1700's. I have Revolutionary War and Civil War patriots. It's sad to see what is happening in America, and it's certainly not what my ancestors died for. I chose 'love it or leave it'. So I left. At this stage of my life I do not have the energy to stand and protest. I leave it to the younger generation to do what we did in the 60's. Question authority!

Maybe you should come on down for a little meet and greet.

I have family in the States, thus my interest. Thanks for the invite anyway. I also have little desire to go to America. Canada is a gentle place and quite beautiful. I may go to Cuba for holiday, though.

In the meantime, though, if you want do something productive with your frustration, you might consider funneling it elsewhere... [EMAIL THE BUSH]

Echi, I suggest you and your fellow Americans EMAIL THE BUSH.
Don't worry about me, I have many other interests & hobbies, other than educating Americans about America. Is not my job, man Laughing

0 Replies

Instead of making dumb suggestions about assassinating Chavez, attention ought to be paid as to whether he is telling the truth about Bush.

0 Replies

Chavez calls Bush devil

MarionT wrote:

Instead of making dumb suggestions about assassinating Chavez, attention ought to be paid as to whether he is telling the truth about Bush.

I suggest that what Chavez said here has the ring of truth.
I hijacked this article from my thread "Bush called the devil" #2272253
**********************************************************

Chavez takes verbal battle with Washington to UN; calls Bush 'the devil'
46 minutes ago

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took his verbal battle with the United States to the floor of the UN General Assembly on Wednesday, describing U.S. President George Bush as "the devil."

"The devil came here yesterday," Chavez said. "He came here talking as if he were the owner of the world."

The South American leader, who joined Iran last week in an alliance against U.S. influence, accused Washington of "domination, exploitation and pillage of peoples of the world."

"We appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our head," he said.

Chavez held up a book by American writer Noam Chomsky "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance" and recommended it to everyone in the General Assembly.

He also said the UN as currently constituted "doesn't work" and is "anti-democratic."

For example, Washington's "immoral veto" had allowed recent Israeli bombings of Lebanon to continue unabated for more than a month, Chavez said.

"Venezuela once again proposes today that we reform the United Nations," he said.

He drew tentative giggles at times from the audience, but also some applause when he called U.S. "imperialism" a menace.

Chavez lambasted the Bush administration for trying to block Venezuela's campaign for a rotating seat on the UN Security Council.

The council currently consists of five permanent members with veto power - the United States, Britain, Russia, China and France - and 10 non-permanent members who serve two-year terms and have no power to veto resolutions.

The 10 elected members do have the right to propose resolutions, chair committees and hold the rotating council presidency for one-month periods.

Five countries from different regions are elected every year by the General Assembly to replace five retiring ones.

The U.S. government contends that Chavez, a close ally of Iran, Syria and Cuba, would be a disruptive force on the council.

"The imperialists see extremists everywhere. No, we aren't extremists," Chavez countered in his speech. "What's happening is the world is waking up."

Holding a rotating Security Council seat would bring Chavez a higher profile and a platform to challenge the U.S. on its stances in regions from the Middle East to Latin America.

The campaign is shaping up to be a formidable diplomatic test for Chavez, gauging his ability to lobby head-to-head against Washington.

In the last few months, Chavez has criss-crossed the globe collecting promises of support, visiting about a dozen countries including Russia, Belarus, Iran, Vietnam, Qatar, Mali, Benin, China, Malaysia and Syria. His diplomats also have been busy, while top Guatemalan officials and U.S. diplomats also have been doing their own lobbying.

Chavez said he has the solid backing of the Caribbean Community, the Arab League, Russia, China and much of Africa, in addition to his allies across South America.

But winning a Security Council seat requires a two-thirds majority - 128 out of 192 UN members - and Guatemala says it has 90 votes secured. If neither side wins the necessary two-thirds, there could be more rounds of lobbying and voting next month, possibly followed by a search for an alternate candidate.

The Venezuelan leader, a close friend and admirer of Cuban President Fidel Castro, has sought to be a voice for poor countries and has warned that if the U.S. tries to block UN reform, Venezuela and others may eventually create a separate "United Nations of the south" to rival a body they no longer find democratic.

Chavez also said it might eventually be necessary to move the UN headquarters out of the United States.

0 Replies

Please move the U.N. out of the USA. We don't want it here, we don't want to finance it.

Chavez is toast. He's trying to make himself into the next Castro to keep it from burning so badly.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Please move the U.N. out of the USA. We don't want it here, we don't want to finance it.

Quote:
The U.N. has always had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations Charter. But the most significant refusal in recent times has been that of the U.S. For a number of years, the U.S. Congress refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force U.N. compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment.

After prolonged negotiations, the U.S. and the U.N. negotiated an agreement whereby the United States would pay a large part of the money it owes, and in exchange the UN would reduce the assessment rate ceiling from 25% to 22%. The reduction in the assessment rate ceiling was among the reforms contained in the 1999 Helms-Biden legislation, which links payment of $926 million in U.S. arrears to the UN and other international organizations to a series of reform benchmarks.

U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion. Of this, $612 million is payable under Helms-Biden. The remaining $700 million result from various legislative and policy withholdings; at present, there are no plans to pay these amounts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_Nations#The_U.S._arrears_issue

Chavez is toast. He's trying to make himself into the next Castro to keep it from burning so badly.

Huh?? I see you've lost that 4th grader who was helping you with your postings.

0 Replies

The UN would do a better job in Venezuela without the USA to bully it into submission.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
Please move the U.N. out of the USA. We don't want it here, we don't want to finance it.

Quote:
The U.N. has always had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations Charter. But the most significant refusal in recent times has been that of the U.S. For a number of years, the U.S. Congress refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force U.N. compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment.

After prolonged negotiations, the U.S. and the U.N. negotiated an agreement whereby the United States would pay a large part of the money it owes, and in exchange the UN would reduce the assessment rate ceiling from 25% to 22%. The reduction in the assessment rate ceiling was among the reforms contained in the 1999 Helms-Biden legislation, which links payment of $926 million in U.S. arrears to the UN and other international organizations to a series of reform benchmarks.

U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion. Of this, $612 million is payable under Helms-Biden. The remaining $700 million result from various legislative and policy withholdings; at present, there are no plans to pay these amounts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_Nations#The_U.S._arrears_issue

Chavez is toast. He's trying to make himself into the next Castro to keep it from burning so badly.

Huh?? I see you've lost that 4th grader who was helping you with your postings.

Your lack of political understanding doesn't surprise me. We shouldn't give the U.N. a friggin dime of what we "owe" them. We owe them nothing. Kofi and his boys are just a bunch of thug-crooks.

0 Replies

It is typical of the CIA to try to solve problems by suggesting assassinations of anyone who is against Bushie. It won't work with Chavez, though!

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know