- Reaction score
- 9,343
- Points
- 1,260
Wow, I obviously wasn‘t paying attention to this thread...sorry Muskrat for leaving you on your own to try and keep the door to reality open.
Another Infanteer Quote Selection
September 11 was not merely an attack of terrorism per se - isolated and disgruntled individuals of a small clique mad at the state of their world, and so taking out their frustrations against the United States. Bin Laden is the ultimate representative of Islam‘s failure to come to grips with the dizzying and sometimes terrifying pace of globalization and the spread of popular Western culture. In that context September 11 must be seen as the opportunistic response of fundamentalists to funnel collective frustration against the US, which for most of the world represents the epitome of Westernism and modernism all in one.
There terrorists acted against America because of who we are, not what we did....
Victor Davis Hanson
Sounds like a war of ideas to me. Iraq and Afghanistan are parts of a larger conflict, one that represents a war that is being fought over ideals that are fundamental to Canada due to our shared cultural heritage with our Allies.
Can you explain with you dollar theory why else rich, educated Middle-Eastern men would willingly fly planes into buildings that symbolized the strength of Western culture.
Here is a little info on your hero.
A) You don‘t like Bush, but you‘d take a guy possessing catastrophic arrogance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/671495.stm
B) You got to love a guy who can‘t even lie very well
Two months ago Democratic hopeful Wesley Clark declared in a debate that he has always been firmly against the current Iraq War.
"I‘ve been very consistent... I‘ve been against this war from the beginning," the former general said in Detroit on October 26.
"I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I‘m against it now."
But just six month prior in an op-ed in the LONDON TIMES Clark offered praise for the courage of President Bush‘s action.
"President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark wrote on April 10, 2003. "Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled."
MORE
Even the most ardent Clark supporter will question if Clark‘s current and past stand on the Iraq war -- is confusion or deception, after the DRUDGE REPORT reveals:
TWO WEEKS BEFORE CONGRESS PASSED THE IRAQ CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION WESLEY CLARK MADE THE CASE FOR WAR; TESTIFIED THAT SADDAM HAD ‘CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS‘
Less than 18 months ago, Wesley Clark offered his testimony before the Committee On Armed Services at the U.S. House Of Representatives.
"There‘s no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense," Clark told Congress on September 26, 2002.
"Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He‘s done so without multilateral support if necessary. He‘s done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn‘ t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution."
Clark continued: "There‘s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He‘s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn‘t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."
More Clark: "And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that‘s longstanding. It‘s been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."
Clark explained: "I think there‘s no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It‘ s normal. It‘s natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They‘re going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That‘s inevitable in this region, and I think it‘s clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat."
C)...and he was relieved of duty due to ethical issues to boot...ya, you picked a winner here.
George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 50,459,624 47.87% 271 50.4%
Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democrat 51,003,238 48.38% 266 49.4%
Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke Green 2,882,985 2.74% 0 0.0%
Patrick Buchanan Ezola Foster Reform 449,120 0.43% 0 0.0%
Harry Browne Art Olivier Libertarian 384,440 0.36% 0 0.0%
Other - - 232,922 0.22% 1* 0.2%
Looks like a bunch of rednecks, eh? Look, Iowa voted for Gore. Get your **** straight before you start talking caca.
By the way, how many Canadians voted for Paul Martin?
--------------------
Second point, your right about the power politics...but is there anything wrong with the statement you made?
Well, thats a load of horse****; do you wish Saddam was still in power than? If you want to play the oil game, Jean Cretian‘s son-in-law was chairman of the largest oil conglamorate dealing with Hussein‘s regime, France‘s TotalFinaElf. So the only reason Canada DIDN‘T support our Allies was to appease our Prime Minister‘s buddies in the oil industry...how does that fit on your moral podium?So far there has been no justification for that war, the way the entire world see‘s it is that Bush sent american GI‘s to die in the sand only to appease his buddies in the oil industry.
Well, its too bad that you think that. I have spoken to many US soldiers who have fought in Afghanistan and Iraq and feel perfectly comfortable with the morality of their actions.Remember war is not naive ideals like "freedom", human rights or that type of bull, that the media loves to use, it‘s money. Pure and simple. Always has been and will be.
Another Infanteer Quote Selection
September 11 was not merely an attack of terrorism per se - isolated and disgruntled individuals of a small clique mad at the state of their world, and so taking out their frustrations against the United States. Bin Laden is the ultimate representative of Islam‘s failure to come to grips with the dizzying and sometimes terrifying pace of globalization and the spread of popular Western culture. In that context September 11 must be seen as the opportunistic response of fundamentalists to funnel collective frustration against the US, which for most of the world represents the epitome of Westernism and modernism all in one.
There terrorists acted against America because of who we are, not what we did....
Victor Davis Hanson
Sounds like a war of ideas to me. Iraq and Afghanistan are parts of a larger conflict, one that represents a war that is being fought over ideals that are fundamental to Canada due to our shared cultural heritage with our Allies.
Can you explain with you dollar theory why else rich, educated Middle-Eastern men would willingly fly planes into buildings that symbolized the strength of Western culture.
I love it when people base their criticisms on the current US administration soley on personal attacks on George W Bush.Oh, and by the way, that whole Bush character must be one of the worst presidents your country has seen, I truly feel sorry. I‘m a Wesley Clark supporter.
Here is a little info on your hero.
A) You don‘t like Bush, but you‘d take a guy possessing catastrophic arrogance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/671495.stm
B) You got to love a guy who can‘t even lie very well
Two months ago Democratic hopeful Wesley Clark declared in a debate that he has always been firmly against the current Iraq War.
"I‘ve been very consistent... I‘ve been against this war from the beginning," the former general said in Detroit on October 26.
"I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I‘m against it now."
But just six month prior in an op-ed in the LONDON TIMES Clark offered praise for the courage of President Bush‘s action.
"President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark wrote on April 10, 2003. "Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled."
MORE
Even the most ardent Clark supporter will question if Clark‘s current and past stand on the Iraq war -- is confusion or deception, after the DRUDGE REPORT reveals:
TWO WEEKS BEFORE CONGRESS PASSED THE IRAQ CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION WESLEY CLARK MADE THE CASE FOR WAR; TESTIFIED THAT SADDAM HAD ‘CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS‘
Less than 18 months ago, Wesley Clark offered his testimony before the Committee On Armed Services at the U.S. House Of Representatives.
"There‘s no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense," Clark told Congress on September 26, 2002.
"Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He‘s done so without multilateral support if necessary. He‘s done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn‘ t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution."
Clark continued: "There‘s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He‘s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn‘t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."
More Clark: "And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that‘s longstanding. It‘s been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."
Clark explained: "I think there‘s no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It‘ s normal. It‘s natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They‘re going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That‘s inevitable in this region, and I think it‘s clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat."
C)...and he was relieved of duty due to ethical issues to boot...ya, you picked a winner here.
Wow, a conspiracy theorist to boot...did someone steal your tin-foil hat?I think one of the main reasons for invading Iraq was to eliminate the threat that Sadam posed to Israel, as you know the war was influenced by Paul Wolfowitz, neoconservative of jewish origin, who convinced Washington that Sadam was an "imminent threat".
2000 Presidential Election ResultsI am not a long-haired lefty, more of a conservative military-enthusiast, but I do not like what is happening in the US becuase of the conflict. Actually the president is only strongly supported by rednecks from Iowa, Missouri, Alabama etc. This president is very "unique", he is the first illegal american president, a very unsophisticated man, Bush seems to be only a mere public relations character of Washington, the deciding left to Neocons.
George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 50,459,624 47.87% 271 50.4%
Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democrat 51,003,238 48.38% 266 49.4%
Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke Green 2,882,985 2.74% 0 0.0%
Patrick Buchanan Ezola Foster Reform 449,120 0.43% 0 0.0%
Harry Browne Art Olivier Libertarian 384,440 0.36% 0 0.0%
Other - - 232,922 0.22% 1* 0.2%
Looks like a bunch of rednecks, eh? Look, Iowa voted for Gore. Get your **** straight before you start talking caca.
By the way, how many Canadians voted for Paul Martin?
--------------------
You mean the same kind of democracy you live in as well? Try living in a cave in Afghanistan for a year, it‘ll probably wear down your cynacism a bit.Are we forgetting that the US is installing their kind of capitalism? YAY, salaries for doctors and teachers have gone up...what..so they can be as unaffordable to the average Iraqi as they are in the United States to the average American? Great, lets help create a great new consumerist culture that will further pollute and destroy the envrionment. Lets spread the kind of moral decency where people will do almost anything to make a buck. That‘s a bit too sarcastic though I think.
Yeah, that makes alot of sense. Did they get to watch Saddam‘s movies in class. The health care system was a bullet to the back of the head and a communal grave in the desert. If he was such a provider, why were Iraqi‘s celebrating the American troops overthrow of his regime.Note: Before the first gulf war, I have been told that Iraq had one of the best education and free healthcare systems in the world. (not confirmed but I have heard it from several professors when I asked about it) According to them, Saddam built that. Both they and I do not support anything else that man did however.
Well, that was quite ambiguos. Tell me, Thomas Hobbes, what is so wrong with our current society that is grounded upon the ideas of capitalism, liberty, democracy, and the rule of law?Oh, and I am not a communist either, I just don‘t like the way western society has become either.
First point, never boil a problem down to one reason...you leave yourself open to flanking attacks. WMD was only one of the selling points of the war.We have lost the original problems with the war as the US administration changed it‘s focus from WMD to freedom. That is a second run excuse and they did violate international law technically. (However, really technically, things like this have been done before but it is hotly debated whether or not it can be considered customary international law) The legitimacy of the invasion basically reverts back to power politics...nobody is going to do anything about it...so they can do it, have done it, and may very well continue to do it.
Second point, your right about the power politics...but is there anything wrong with the statement you made?