bush declares war on iraq

that depends.... how many people in east timor were able to pleasure themselves because of me vs being shot at because of him?

Webby, keep your comments short and mostly in one syllable words ... it works better for some readers.

Porndoggy:

*Webby ... bad things have happened in the name of security all over the world. I'm still trying to figure out how you conclude that "because Country X gave weapons to Dictator Y", he is less of a threat. That's a whole seperate issue.

The U.S. stand on Kyoto has no relevance to the danger presented by Saddam. The U.S. attitude toward the International War Crimes treaty is completely irrelevant to the issue of chemical and biological weapons in the hands of the Iraqi government. You are making no more sense than the morons who believe all Europeans are socialists, or all liberals are moral degenerates.*

??? CountryX stuff? ... yea I agree! :-)

Kyoto? Who said it had fuck all to do with Saddam??? I didn't!

PleasurePays:

*that depends.... *

This something meaningful?? I don't think there is any remote comparison with either you or me when talking of some others - kinda past the flippant chat of a chatboard??

*Webby, keep your comments short and mostly in one syllable words ... it works better for some readers.*

*g* ... We having trouble.. sorry!

OK.. enough crap from me.. gotta work!

Talk radio brainwashing is alive and well in this thread.

Remember this guy?

I say we catch him instead. You dont hear much about him anymore. Just 4 or 5 wannabes getting nabbed for wanting to join up. Hooray for the war on terrorism.

Of course. He hides in a cave. US ultra technology is not designed for anti-cavehiding war.

The superior US bombs take out palaces, though. Bush will bomb any presidential palace, which houses a guy that Bush thinks might be a threat to the freedom of the great American nation. Saddam is the great evil that threatens your freedom, remember that Labret.

He could take away your freedom to live under a bridge, or your freedom to buy heroine that is imported via Afghanistan, now that Taleban is out of Afghanistan. You know, those bastards declined the opium fields, but fortunately the agriculture is working again. Thank's to the liberating forces of US army.

Besides, that Osama guy is just an individual. Saddam represents an independent country so Saddam must be taken out.

After all, everyone in Iraq hates Saddam so USA just does those Iraqis a favor.

I will call the President tomorrow and inform him that Mika has identified the true enemy and it is not Sadam it is the US. I am satisfied that being a moral and principled man he will see the error of his thinking and will inform the military to launch a Nuclear strike against ourselves.

this is where this type of flawed logic is taking us
hard to argue with it too.
i am digging a bunker right now in my back yard
we have no real choice but to take ourselves out
and its about fucking time!

i am planning to launch a full scale assault on myself
sometime next week.

What US will get even if they win a war over a small country like Iraq? The oil prices will drop. US defence arms will sell more in other part of the globe.

that is exactly what usa is doing, not mentioning economic weapon

labret, i wish the usa would catch him but that guy has dug himself a hole 100 feet under the sand

the usa dosen't want iraq just for the oil. thats a minor thing. george bush wants to finish what his father started thats all.

what do you guys think will happen?

I have only one firm belief about the American political system, and that is this: God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat.

God is an elderly or, at any rate, middle-aged male, a stern fellow, patriarchal rather than paternal and a great believer in rules and regulations. He holds men strictly accountable for their actions. He has little apparent concern for the material well-being of the disadvantaged. He is politically connected, socially powerful and holds the mortgage on literally everything in the world. God is difficult. God is unsentimental. It is very hard to get into God?s heavenly country club.

Santa Claus is another matter. He?s cute. He?s non-threatening. He?s always cheerful. And he loves animals. He may know who?s been naughty and who?s bee nice, but he never does anything about it. He gives everyone everything they want without thought of a quid pro quo. He works hard for charities, and he?s famously generous to the poor. Santa Claus is preferable to God in every way but one: There is no such thing as Santa Claus.

The American political system is like a gigantic Mexican Christmas fiesta. Each political party is a huge piñata?a papier-mâché donkey, for example. The donkey is filled with full employment, low interest rates, affordable housing, comprehensive medical benefits, a balanced budget, and other goodies. The American voter is blindfolded and given a stick. The voter then swings the stick wildly in every direction, trying to hit a political candidate on the head and knock some sense into the silly bastard.

When you looked at the Republicans you saw the scum off the top of business. When you looked at the Democrats you saw the scum off the top of politics. Personally, I prefer business. A businessman will steal from you directly instead of getting the IRS to do it for him. And when Republicans ruin the environment, destroy the supply of affordable housing, and wreck the industrial infrastructure, at least they make a buck off it. The Democrats just do these things for fun.

Democrats are also the party of government activism, the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn?t work, and then they get elected and prove it. One philosophy is not necessarily an improvement on the other, but if you want the tooth fairy to come, you?ve got to have some teeth under your pillow.

hehehe...

US in war with IRAQ?

that would be really nice

we would open a Billing Company in a Saddam Bunker so VISA would not fuck with us

One word - Prozac.

Our era is supposed to be the 1950?s all over again. Indeed, we are experiencing anew many of the pleasures and benefits of that excellent decade: a salubrious prudery, a sensible avariciousness, a healthy dose of social conformity, a much-needed narrowing of minds, and a return to common-sense American political troglodytism. But there?s one delightful and entertaining feature of the Eisenhower years which is wholly absent from the contemporary scene?old-fashioned red-baiting. Where?s our McCarthyism? Who?s our Tail-Gunner Joe? Why don?t we get to look for Communists under our beds or?considering the social changes of the past thirty-five years?in them? (?Good night, honey, and are you now or have you ever been a member of the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador??)

God knows the problem is not a lack of Commies. There are more fuzzy-minded one-worlders, pasty-faced peace creeps, and bleeding-heart bed wetters in America now than there ever were in 1954. The redskis have infiltrated the all-important exercise-video industry, not to mention movies and TV. Academia, too, is a veritable compost heap of Bolshie brainmulch. Beardo the Weirdo may have been laughed out of real life during the 1970s, but he found a home in our nation?s colleges, where he whiles away the wait for the next Woodstock Nation by pestering undergraduates with collectivist twaddle when they should be thinking about better car stereos.

We need some means of persecuting neuterers, nutters, and screaming greenies, some way to abuse entitlement tramps, participants in Gorby orgies, men who think the government is their mother, and women who think government can do the mothering for them. Let?s give a wedgie to the whiners, criers, and wet smacks in mortarboards. Let?s soap the windows of those who would beggar achievement, vandalize the lawn ornaments of magical thinkers, and heave rotten fruit at haters of beef, gin, and cigars. Let?s tell ghost stories to the mollycoddles who fear atomic power, military strength, and the very puissance of Western Civilization itself and turn the garden hose on the people who can?t bear their freedoms, their selves, or their society and want to vent those pathetic loathings on us, the betters.

-

i would have to agree inside the game

webby made some good points to

they need to eliminate saddam and anybody who poses a threat in the middle east. not knowing what they are up to is no good. if the UN is too pussy to step in and stand their ground then we should. the sad thing is, we couldn't even get bin laden hidden in miles of sand, so what makes us think we can topple saddam?

we can do some damage, but they have a strong military, and don't think for one minute they are as strong as the gulf war, they are probably 50x stronger because they know they had this coming to them again.

what do you think? taking action needs to be done, talking and agreeing to policies will just end up like it has now.

You seem to be missing an important point: america claims moral superiority, but fails to back it up. When a country says "We know what's best for the world, and even if the rest of the world doesn't agree with it, we will do it regardless", while at the same time that country supports dictators, refuses to use the same standards for itself as it does for others, and consistently shows huge errors in judgement (like giving weapons to Saddam and the Taliban), as well as a lack of willingness to act positively towards the rest of the world, it doesn't exactly create an environment of trust.

Imagine a person who says he knows what's best for you, and constantly tells you which things you should do. Now, this person keeps on telling you stuff that only leads to failure and disaster, and aside from that, he refuses to not smoke in your house, refuses to stop harassing your wife, and every once in a while punches you in the face.
Now, will you continue trusting this person, or will you eventually tell him to fuck off?

"these are things that big business and elected officials do in our name.. not things we have great control over."

Personally, I have more faith in democracy, and believe it <b>can</b> make a difference if you vote for the right person or party. However, if what you are saying now would be true, it would refute democracy as a good political system.

Aside from that, I absolutely agree that there are many more countries doing shitty things. That's why I don't limit my criticism to America. But, when people start shouting American-nationalistic nonsense, I will focus on America for that moment.

Let's hope he does.

And, a question to all those Americans who so strongly defend democracy, while at the same time stating that the US should act without the backup of the UN:

If you believe in democracy, why not on a global level? Why does America have the right to ignore the majority of the votes from other countries on international issues?
Are people from other countries somehow less intelligent, inferior, less important?

"america claims moral superiority" Would you expect the government to claim other wise? America is not a knight in shining armor. America does as it has always done, as all countries do, and that is, it does what it perceives to be in its best interests. Very simple principle to understand.

"Now, will you continue trusting this person, or will you eventually tell him to fuck off?" Any nation that tells America to fuck off, does it at their peril as there will be a price to pay, either economic or if push came to shove, a military price. Very simple principle to understand.

In answer to your last question. No, just economically, and militarily weaker.

Interesting intellectualizing, but how do you really feel? A go or no go?

I would like to take a moment to renew those institutions of civil society -- like families, schools, churches, and civic groups -- that clarify and correct some of the inaccuracies present in Saddam Hussein's rantings. First and foremost, Saddam's methods are much subtler now than ever before. Saddam is more adept at hidden mind control and his techniques of social brainwash are much more appealingly streamlined and homogenized. He is right about one thing, namely that fear is what motivates us. Fear of what it means when abominable sideshow barkers use scapegoating as a foil to draw anger away from more accurate targets. Fear of what it says about our society when we teach our children that he is a paragon of morality and wisdom. And fear of fatuitous psychics like Saddam who incite racial hatred. Incidentally, his ideologies are rife with contradictions and difficulties; they're entirely warped, meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited for a supposedly educated population. And as if that weren't enough, his vaporings rub me the wrong way. Now, I could go off on that point alone, but he is against everything and for nothing. That's self-evident, and even Saddam would probably agree with me on that. Even so, such conduct as Saddam's induced the despotism of Cromwell and the two Bonapartes. But the problems with Saddam's put-downs don't end there.

What I just wrote is not based on merely a single experience or anecdote. Rather, it is based upon the wisdom of accumulated years, spanning two continents, and proven by the fact that Saddam's intent is to prevent us from asking questions. He doesn't want the details checked. He doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts he presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of his "facts" are false. Saddam offers two reasons as to why public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. He argues that (1) the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points, and (2) the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel. These arguments are invalid for the following reasons: First, he says that merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications. That's a stupid thing to say. It's like saying that he has a "special" perspective on jingoism which carries with it a "special" right to trick our children into adopting unconventional, disapproved-of opinions and ways of life. It has been said that feelings of inferiority are characteristic of violent, perfidious radicals. That makes sense to me. I believe it's true. But it unquestionably implies that I disagree both with his point and with the way he makes it. To cap that off, he can't fool me. I've met irritating rubes before, so I know that Saddam doesn't want us to teach sick knuckle-draggers about tolerance. He would rather we settle for the meatless bone of sesquipedalianism.

We must face the fact that Saddam's anecdotes are complete and total offal. Why do I tell you this? Because these days, no one else has the guts to. This has been documented repeatedly. The same might be said of vile swindlers. Sorry for babbling so much, but Saddam Hussein is missing not only the point, but also the whole paradigm shift and huge sociological implications.

it's actually pretty funny.. it sounds like something a lefty-greeny wrote as a chariacature of loony far rightists.

More interesting intellectualizing but I ask you the same question. How do you really feel? A go, or no go?

This is to voice my dissatisfaction with Punkworld. By way of introduction, let me just say that in order to convince us that his doctrines can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality, Punkworld often turns to the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes. I want nothing more -- or less -- than to put an end to malicious, high-handed philistinism. To that task I have consecrated my life, and I invite you to do likewise. Already, some reprehensible, bleeding-heart reprobates have begun to waste our time and money, and with terrifying and tragic results. What utterances will follow from their camp is anyone's guess. Anyway, that's it for this letter. Let Punkworld read it and weep.

we don't have great control over them... in case you didn't notice the media is controlled by a few big players that cosy up to governments for business interests.. now you can't have a real democracy without the flow of real information.. sadly more often than not we're fed government/business propaganda in lieu of it.
a democracy actually isn't the best political system in terms of a pairing with capitalism... business and governments have to put up with whinging populaces when overtaking small countries for their resources.. thats why western governments aim for a apathetic/uninformed/misinformed populace.. so they can go about the "amoral" mechanisms of bettering their country in the capitalist system. Why do you think the US prefers to install dictators in their territories of interest? benign dictatorships function very well in the capitalist system.

All of this talk about Democracy. Lest anyone forget, the USA is not a Democracy, we are a Republic.

republic is the way to go

We are a democratic republic ... we have aspects of both forms of government. You guys didn't take high school civics?

And wtf ... who did he steal that shit from? Rush? How fucking lame.

A big difference between a Democracy and a Republic. "who did he steal that shit from?" Who are you referring to? If it is me I do not listen to Rush and do not like him.

That's right.

King, you are splittin hairs and you know it.

And no, you are not the one that appears to have cut and pasted (after a little search and replace action) somebody else's work. At least, it sure looks that way to me.

It is a very thick hair then. A Democracy would fail rather quickly and we as a Republic at least keep stumbling along.

First of all, I only point at one single cause in this argument: American screwups. The only thing I want to point out with that is that unilateral action is neither wise, nor appropriate.

Secondly, I am all for exterminating assholes like Saddam who slaughter minorities and violate human rights as if it were young luscious maidens. What I am not for is only exterminating those that happen to sit on oil fields or that are anti-American. I think we should consistently kill off all regimes that violate human rights, and try to make this world a better place (through force, if necessary). I also think the US should be critical of themselves as well, and not be afraid of changing the stuff they are doing that is hurting humanity at least as much as the things people like Saddam do.

And a quick glance at my own political theory (post-liberalism), for all those that think I'm a commie:
Every person should have as much freedom as possible, limited by the point that they may not hurt other people's freedom. A strong constitution should ensure continuation of that system, and a democratic government should manage it.
A strong social basis should exist so the disabled and those not able to find work (those not willing to work are <b>not</b> included) can live a normal life without poverty.
Everyone should have the same chances at a succesful life, that's why education and medical care should be free for all to use (no elitarian college system that only allows the rich to get a proper education). The poor should have the chance to become rich through hard work and talent.
The environment should be preserved as much as possible, ensuring the possibility of a long and prosperous life for our children.

Kinda like libertarianism with a social basis.

Maybe I'm naturally oversensitive, or maybe someone just slipped me decaf coffee this morning, but I, for one, surely find Punkworld's demeanor and pomposity downright apalling. Before I begin, let me point out that if Punkworld opened his eyes, he'd realize that authority without wisdom is mere noise against the music of eternity. When we put inexorable pressure on him to be a bit more careful about what he says and does, we are not only threading our way through a maze of competing interests; we are weaving the very pattern of our social fabric. The dominant characteristic of his crafty equivocations is not that they create some misguided, pseudo-psychological profile of me to discredit my opinions, but that, in the bargain, they commit senseless acts of violence against anyone daring to challenge his offensive smear tactics. At the risk of sounding hopelessly nettlesome, only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that Punkworld's victims have been speaking out for years. Unfortunately, their voices have long been silenced by the roar and thunder of Punkworld's emissaries, who loudly proclaim that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. Regardless of those beer-guzzling proclamations, the truth is that he parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, his ideas will change instantly, like a weathercock. Let me leave you with one last thought: I, for one, find Punkworld's fondness for inquisitions, witch hunts, star chambers, and kangaroo courts most self-deceiving.

Interesting reading...

Frank Olson was an American citizen, born in 1910 and murdered in New York City in 1953 by the CIA. Here's an outline of the case:


Fort Detrick is the U.S. Army's biowarfare facility, founded in 1943. Frank Olson was one of the first scientists to work there. From the final years of World War II through the Korean War and up to the present time scientists at Fort Detrick developed biological weapons including anthrax.

Following the end of World War II the U.S. conducted "Operation Paperclip", which scoured Germany for Nazi scientists who could be useful. It found some who had conducted experiments on prisoners in Dachau and other Nazi concentration camps, including one Kurt Blome. He was among the defendants in the Nuremberg War Trials, and would have been convicted and hanged but for American intervention. In return for agreeing to provide information to the Americans about his experiments in Dachau, and advice in the development of their own germ warfare program, an acquittal was arranged, and he escaped the gallows.

Frank Olson and Kurt Blome (who had become a protegé of the Americans) later met at Camp King in Germany in the early 1950s when Olson made several visits there to participate in "Operation Artichoke", in which the U.S. Army and the CIA experimented with the use of drugs (including LSD) in interrogation. Olson was present during brutal interrogations by the Americans of Soviet prisoners and suspected double agents, some of whom died under torture. Olson was deeply disturbed by what he had seen.

In the summer of 1953 Olson travelled again to Europe. In Berlin in August he witnessed several brutal interrogations involving torture and the use of drugs. On his return to the U.S. he confided to a friend and colleague at Fort Detrick, Norman Cournoyer, that he was disgusted with what the CIA was doing and was determined to leave.

In November 1953 Olson attended a meeting of a group of CIA agents at a country retreat where they discussed their work. Olson was suspected by the CIA of being a security risk. He was given a drink laced with LSD and when well under the influence of the drug he was subjected to interrogation using Artichoke techniques, probably a very unpleasant experience.

A week later Olson was staying in Room 1018A at the Hotel Statler in New York City under the supervision of a CIA doctor, Richard Lashbrook. The manager of the hotel, Armond Pastore, heard a thump outside and went out to find Olson dying on the pavement, having fallen from the 13th floor. The manager later found that a phone call had been made from Room 1018A to a number in Long Island and the caller had said only, "Olson's gone."

The CIA maintained that Olson had leapt through the closed window to his death. However, an autopsy conducted forty years later on the exhumed corpse revealed an injury to the skull most likely caused by a blow to the head and no evidence of any cuts to the body from broken glass. It seems that Olson, exactly as recommended in a CIA assassination manual, was struck on the head (possibly while drugged) and thrown from the window to his death thirteen floors below.

Olson was working at Fort Detrick during the Korean War and some have speculated that the U.S. developed germ weapons which it used against Korean and Chinese soldiers and civilians. If so then Olson would probably have known about this. The CIA believed that there was the risk that Olson would reveal what he knew about the activities of the CIA during the Korean war and about its brutal experiments in interrogation techniques, so he was murdered.

The fact that Frank Olson had died shortly after being given LSD in a CIA experiment came out in 1975 as a consequence of President Ford's Rockefeller Commission investigation into the CIA's domestic activities. Further investigation was called for, but in a White House memo advisers to President Ford stated that this would risk revealing state secrets (probably meaning, in part, the use by the U.S. of germ warfare in Korea); further investigation was suppressed and the whole matter covered up. The names of those White House advisers were Dick Cheney, current U.S. Vice-President, and Donald Rumsfeld, current Secretary of Defense. They have never been questioned as to what they knew about Olson's death.


A California history professor, Kathryn Olmstead, has discovered documents at the Gerald Ford library which were written by Cheney and Rumsfeld.


They show how far the White House went to conceal information about Olson?s death ? and his role in preparing anthrax and other biological weapons. ...
Cheney and Rumsfeld were given the task of covering up the details of Frank Olson?s death. At the time, Rumsfeld was White House Chief of Staff to President Gerald Ford. Dick Cheney was a senior White House assistant.

The documents uncovered by Professor Olmstead include one that states "Dr Olson?s job was so sensitive that it is highly unlikely that we would submit relevant evidence".

In another memo, Cheney acknowledges that "the Olson lawyers will seek to explore all the circumstances of Dr Olson?s employment, as well as those concerning his death. In any trial, it may become apparent that we are concealing evidence for national security reasons and any settlement or judgement reached thereafter could be perceived as money paid to cover up the activities of the CIA".

Frank Olson?s family received US$750,000 to settle their claims against the US government.

Alot of speculation in this article. It is a known fact that the USA has a large inventory of biological weapons, which we are supposed to be in the process of destroying. I seriously doubt that biological weapons were used in Korea, for multiple reasons, not the least of which is, our troops did not have any protection against biological weapons during the Korean war.

but crop circles were my idea!

"And a quick glance at my own political theory (post-liberalism), for all those that think I'm a commie"

--------------------------------

Punkworld,

I don't think you're a commie. I think you're a chicken. Probably taste like it too.

In short, you say you don't agree with me (in very pompous words), you accuse me of ideas I never said I have, and accuse me of following "political fashion". However, you fail to bring up even one solid argument.
Try refuting my argumentations, instead of trying to refute me as a person. I really don't care if you like the way I talk, I care if you can provide a solid argumentation for your opinions. It seems you can not.

I am not afraid to call someone wrong when he does something, says something, stands for something, or engages in something that violates the values in which are considered most common in the free world. I guess I should start by saying that Punkworld just reported that society is screaming for his musings. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on Punkworld's part? I don't. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to gum up what were once great ideas.

Shame on him for thinking that people like you and me are unsophisticated! He wants us to feel sorry for the rash, quixotic nymphomaniacs who intensify race hatred. I myself insist we should instead feel sorry for their victims, all of whom know full well that Punkworld's myrmidons have learned their scripts well, and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, but Punkworld has, at times, called me "peremptory" or "self-satisfied". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to tap into the national resurgence of overt absenteeism. Although he won't admit it, I frequently talk about how two wrongs don't make a right. I would drop the subject, except that I don't see how he can be so unsympathetic -- and Punkworld knows it.

Alot of speculation in this article. It is a known fact that the USA has a large inventory of biological weapons, which we are supposed to be in the process of destroying. I seriously doubt that biological weapons were used in Korea, for multiple reasons, not the least of which is, our troops did not have any protection against biological weapons during the Korean war.

I've seen original old video footage of american POW's claiming they were infected by chemical/biological substances sprayed and dropped from american planes while being held behind enemy lines.

The goverment i can understand wouldnt like them talking about and their stories soon changed.

[artichoke]

All I have seen said recently by american POW's from korea relating to this is that "there were chemical wepons in use at the time", nothing more specific and i think this man is now dead.

Anyway I just posted it b/c cheney and rumsfeld were involved, the boys running the US admin at the moment.

are we allowed to say "nettlesome" on this board???

Ahh.....I don't think so. I think the word falls into a wide range of words that are considered to be intellectualizing bull shit.