Civil war ?

[K e r b e r o s]

I doubt even you understood that

If it came from my hands, then I think I know it better then you.

oh you mean like how thousands of people died for nothing more than lies ...terrorism you'll condemn but state terrorism that beyond your scope of understanding

Well, its not just Americans who die for lies, Stern. Of the Prophet Mohammed whose now having his words reinterepted by Palestinian Clerics to mean a subjective and bloody war against Jews is what will bring the second coming ... how many die for this?

my cat's breath smells like catfood

seriously that's about as much sense as your statement made

Then you proven the extent of martial intelligence. It must be difficult for you to debate when alls you can understand are black and white distinctions of logic, right and wrong, and of war.

is english your second language, because I can forgive that ..but man what the hell are you talking about?

I thought you were'nt a man of religion, CptStern. Going back on your word now?

ya that must be it

Probably is, Herr Stern. Probably is.

 

[VictimOfScience]

yes but when it comes to supporting a US agenda in the international scene nations will be weary of dealing with them for fear of being burned ..oh and bush received a larger percentage of voters than his first time around ..and privastely I too believe he won because of the rider bills against same sex marriage and the fear put into christians in general ..but it's not something I say publically for fear of being attacked by christians for "over generalizing"

Literally burned? Its more than possible as we all know. Indeed, he played the religion card even though he privately doesn't exactly practice what he preaches--that's just PR to get votes, like kissing babies(perish the thought!). I still don't see that many nations stopping dealing with us. I can understand what France tried to do with Europe before the war and I am glad it failed, but obviosuly they would have liked to see a strong united EU with France (and Gemany and Russia) running the show. Too bad they didn't consider the Eastern Europeans. Nations will continue to deal with us for the same reasons they always have. Things just won't change that much unless the situation in the Middle East gets somehow even worse. Don't worry about Iran though. They are loudmouths who have gotten plenty of attention and a seat at the table of world affairs at the expense of even the possibility of developing the technology capable of producing a nuclear device, let alone weapon. Still, we're keeping our ever watchful eye on them--don't forget, if the public is afraid, we can convince them to back anything! Yee-haw!

oh and I dont think americans have learned from iraq ..I'm willing to bet should the US make noise about invading iran/syria etc the majority of americans would support it

See above. If the administration can build up enough fear concerning these guys or anyone else for that matter, the people of most countries will follow them even now and especially if (talk of) nuclear weapons are involved because the public is uninformed and has trouble analyzing facts.

yes I realize that, I've been reading declassified documents for years now ..here

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

That is some great stuff. Too bad more folks can't find this stuff or don't care to look for it as it might help inthe decision-making process, political or not. There is so much more going on than people know and its all terribly interesting (and a little scary).

there is no such thing as liberal media in the US ..at least not mainstream media ..the NY times and Washington post BOTH apologized for overstating the build up to the war in iraq ...basically they all have fudiciary responsibilities to their shareholders and as a result were more than happy to self censor when it came to reporting on iraq

A bold statement, but unfortunately rather true. It is shameful that supposedly unbiased reporters (because that's what they are supposed to do: report in a completely unbiased way) always have to go one way or the other, however slighty, because what it comes down to is money. The emcee in Cabaret had it right when he said that, "Money makes the world go around." Just look at China and Google/Yahoo or that Merrill Lynch analyst and Sony--its all about $$$. Whores.

I dont think it'd be any different had the democrats won...I mean the US bombed kosovo during clinton's watch killing hundreds of civilians...the US under clinton bombed sites inspected by weapons inspectors soon after their visit in iraq. Carters administration was behind bloody coups in niceragua, el salvador etc. Kennedy had Bolivia, Operation Chaos, Uruguay, Indonesia, Dominican Republic, the Congo, Ecuador, Dominican Republic and the Bay of pigs ..it's foreign policy really hasnt changed that much from president to president

Very true. And the UN wasn't behind Kosovo either interestingly enough. Ugh...Carter...what a chump. Foreign Policy is always changing, but it underwent the most change in the 20th century thanks to WWI & WWII. After that, the US took up the role of the protector of pretty much everyone. The tennets of US Foreign Policy certainly mean well enough on the surface, but they can (like any other good notion) be perverted and used for ill.

yes but it may be too little too late

I don't think so. It will certainly take some time to effect some real change and clean-up the mess that the current administartion has made, but I am confident that we will be able to return the US to its proper place among the other law-abiding nations of the world (not on-top-of).

yes but bush wasnt either ..PNAC laid out bush's plan for invasion before bush took office


this document details their plan for global dominance

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

The problem is if they would spend more time and money trying to find alternatives to foreign oil, the "New American Century" would take care of itself (it really just has to continue being and it will be effected, thanks to the Pax Americana).

I guess you can't blame a group of rich elitists in whatever country trying to ensure their country's dominance over everyone else. They would obviously like to keep their wealth and their power and also keep their children out of wars that the lower classes have to engage in.

If al Queda would have known specifically about the PNAC's plans, do you still think they would have gone ahead with 9/11 thereby giving these neo- conservatives an even better justification than ever to initiate their plan and enforce their superiority?

I am still of the mindset that the invasion of Iraq was a very different scenario than simply "the PNAC planned it years ago and finally carried it out." It would almost certainly never have happened without 9/11 or some other momentous event. But after 9/11, everything changed. The plan had to change as well. Invasion of Iraq would serve the new goal of the administration at the time: to find and destroy al Queda, not to promote the PNAC's agenda necessarily, but we'll get to that when I write this other thread I keep threatening to write .

 

[CptStern]

Literally burned?

yes in a nuclear fire (pronounce nuclear like homer: nuke-lee-er)

Its more than possible as we all know. Indeed, he played the religion card even though he privately doesn't exactly practice what he preaches--that's just PR to get votes, like kissing babies(perish the thought!).

ya but his entire family is religious ..his father was commented that he doesnt think american aetheists are patriots:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush

I still don't see that many nations stopping dealing with us. I can understand what France tried to do with Europe before the war and I am glad it failed, but obviosuly they would have liked to see a strong united EU with France (and Gemany and Russia) running the show. Too bad they didn't consider the Eastern Europeans. Nations will continue to deal with us for the same reasons they always have.

yes but I meant excercises in militarism

Things just won't change that much unless the situation in the Middle East gets somehow even worse. Don't worry about Iran though. They are loudmouths who have gotten plenty of attention and a seat at the table of world affairs at the expense of even the possibility of developing the technology capable of producing a nuclear device, let alone weapon. Still, we're keeping our ever watchful eye on them--don't forget, if the public is afraid, we can convince them to back anything! Yee-haw!

I agree

See above. If the administration can build up enough fear concerning these guys or anyone else for that matter, the people of most countries will follow them even now and especially if (talk of) nuclear weapons are involved because the public is uninformed and has trouble analyzing facts.

yes I agree

That is some great stuff. Too bad more folks can't find this stuff or don't care to look for it as it might help inthe decision-making process, political or not. There is so much more going on than people know and its all terribly interesting (and a little scary).

yes, ok I dont expect people to know that site but they should because they're declassified documents that show the real agendas behind foreign policy making

A bold statement, but unfortunately rather true. It is shameful that supposedly unbiased reporters (because that's what they are supposed to do: report in a completely unbiased way) always have to go one way or the other, however slighty, because what it comes down to is money. The emcee in Cabaret had it right when he said that, "Money makes the world go around." Just look at China and Google/Yahoo or that Merrill Lynch analyst and Sony--its all about $$$. Whores.

ya I agree, but I think liberal media in the US and liberal media in the rest of the world is completely different ..too many americans "liberal" media is cnn or the nytimes ..but they're the same as any other mainstream media: they editorialize their news so as to fit a vision of what their shareholders/parent companies want

I guess to many liberal media means independent media

Very true. And the UN wasn't behind Kosovo either interestingly enough. Ugh...Carter...what a chump. Foreign Policy is always changing, but it underwent the most change in the 20th century thanks to WWI & WWII. After that, the US took up the role of the protector of pretty much everyone. The tennets of US Foreign Policy certainly mean well enough on the surface, but they can (like any other good notion) be perverted and used for ill.

ya I think us common folk would like to believe that our countries act out of humanitarian reasons or out of moral duty, but more often than not they act according to their agenda in spite of moral choices etc

I don't think so. It will certainly take some time to effect some real change and clean-up the mess that the current administartion has made, but I am confident that we will be able to return the US to its proper place among the other law-abiding nations of the world (not on-top-of).

ya but the supreme court, the head of the world bank, the ambassador to the UN ...all neo cons working for their own agendas ...I think elections are less about winning an election and more about winning an election so that they can fill all key positions with people who support their agenda ...so that even when they no longer hold the oval office they can continue to influence

The problem is if they would spend more time and money trying to find alternatives to foreign oil, the "New American Century" would take care of itself (it really just has to continue being and it will be effected, thanks to the Pax Americana).

yes but pax americana doesnt just refer to resources but all to seats of pwoer ..the neo-cons identified the middle east and eastern europe as problematic areas that need to be secured in order to to promote governments that are friendly to their interests

I guess you can't blame a group of rich elitists in whatever country trying to ensure their country's dominance over everyone else. They would obviously like to keep their wealth and their power and also keep their children out of wars that the lower classes have to engage in.

If al Queda would have known specifically about the PNAC's plans, do you still think they would have gone ahead with 9/11 thereby giving these neo- conservatives an even better justification than ever to initiate their plan and enforce their superiority?

I am still of the mindset that the invasion of Iraq was a very different scenario than simply "the PNAC planned it years ago and finally carried it out." It would almost certainly never have happened without 9/11 or some other momentous event. But after 9/11, everything changed. The plan had to change as well. Invasion of Iraq would serve the new goal of the administration at the time: to find and destroy al Queda, not to promote the PNAC's agenda necessarily, but we'll get to that when I write this other thread I keep threatening to write .

hehe funny that you mention that ..because in the document I provided it says that the only way the american people would support military action in those countries would be if there was a "pearl harbour-like" attack on the US

 

[SAJ]

This thread has a terror alert level rating of; " ERNIE "

 

[shortsite]

what happened to bert ?

But seriousley ther now having a curfew to try and stop the violence !
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4745520.stm

 

[Nat Turner]

It's a fact that 90% of the casualties in Iraq are civilians. We should have never gone. Even 5% civilian death rate is unacceptable for me in an offensive war.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Oh god thats bad. . I smell a controversy.