One step closer to tyranny

[clarky003]

but they didnt find any weapons you silly boy.. just old casings, that where supplied by the US in the first place. rofl. and your just single mindedly thinking of the US economy, which doesnt help the world situation.. how small minded can you get.

<slaps a kick me sign on seinfeldrules back>

ill leave it to anyone else who wants to post in this thread, toodles

 

[seinfeldrules]

Clarky are you blind, deaf, or both?

If you really need evidence, refer to paragraph 20 of UN resolution 1483, which was mostly used in the recent US resolution draft to the UN. Thank you for trying, next time dont assume without knowing the facts.

*Posted for the 3rd time now.

The US economy will announce zero growth this week, prolonging three years of sluggish performance. Cheap oil would boost an economy importing half of its daily consumption of 20m barrels.

But a cheaper oil price could have been reached more easily by lifting sanctions and giving the US oil majors access to Iraq's untapped reserves.

And Iraq's oil reserves, the world's second-largest, would become crucial to the operation of a new Iraqi government.

*Posted from clips from your articles, again posted 2nd time. Are you going to ignore them for a 4th time? Everyone of your posts will be followed by this evidence until you face the truth.

In response to your latest lie; those quotes proved that it wasnt Bush, but rather intelligence agencies that failed. God you're naieve, incredibly ignorant, and cant comprehend anything. Like to see you running from your defeat with your tail between your legs. Run Forrest! RUN!

 

[Pogrom]

What did we do to cause 9/11? We had even leant Osama support back in the 1980s to defeat the Communist invaders of his country. People can, and do kill for no reason. Look at Palestine v Israel for a perfect example. The Palestinians have children blowing up other children riding their bus to school. There is no rhyme or reason for most terrorist acts.

The terrorists are not killing for no reason. They have all the reason in the world to fight.

They are fighting an enemy that has been manipulating their politics for 50 years. Instead of supporting the beginnings of democracy, the US instead chose to fund tyrannical dictators.

Put very simply: US foreign policy in a nutshell is -
Fairly elected government that doesn't like the US = BAD
Tyrannical dictator who does what we want = GOOD

Moreover, the Arabic countries are angered/scared by the US support of Israel; a country engaged in many illegal breaches of international law. They also are an aggressive state, with the hardline Likud party voting in the 1990's to support a 'Greater Israel' ideal - leading to annexing of territory by the Israeli government.

Also, since you seem so fond of the UN:

The UN has been criticising human rights abuses by the Israelis for decades. The current debate about whether to withdraw from Gaza? A moot point; the Gaza settlements are ILLEGAL according to UN international law.


And just to show that I believe the current administration is misguided:

I firmly believed we should not march into Baghdad ...To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant, into a latter-day Arab hero ?...assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war.
--The first President Bush, 1998

Newsflash seinfeldrules! You can't defeat Terrorism by bombing the shit out of all the terrorists. Terrorism is not an enemy - it is a strategy.

 

[Pogrom]

He has sucessfully invaded and toppled two dicatorships bent on destroying our country and pulled our economy out of a recession.Seems decent to me...

I hardly think those two dictatorships were bent on destroying America. From what evidence has been gathered since the fall of both the Taliban and Saddam, it is quite obvious that both were not in any sort of position to aggressively attack anyone.

Saddam had killed 2 million of his own people and you call Bush a threat to world peace? Wow, only against an American I guess.

Ok now - Saddam had killed 2 million of his own people. OF HIS OWN PEOPLE! That hardly looks like tipping the balance of world peace. I mean things like that happen everyday. Just look at the Ivory Coast, the Sudan, Indonesia and East Timor a few years ago. The list could go on and on.

Bush now? Well, he has galvanised anti-American hatred in the Arab world.

He has strained relations with Europe, when they were at an all-time high.

He has left he most godawful mess in Afghanistan, which has picked up heroin production again.

He prompted North Korea to take a hardline stance on nuclear issues - just because he called them evil! The nerve of them!

He attacked Iraq - a country unaffiliated with terrorism. Security experts from America and elsewhere have since concluded the world is now more dangerous.

He disregarded international law in favour of unilateralism. Why disregard the rule of law?

 

[Mr-Fusion]

Lets hope there is a proper vote count for the next U.S election.....

 

[clarky003]

In response to your latest lie; those quotes proved that it wasnt Bush, but rather intelligence agencies that failed. God you're naieve, incredibly ignorant, and cant comprehend anything.

im ignorant, lol , when YOU think your right all the time, Lmao , arogant aswell ,<sigh>, sorry to be harsh m8 but your being some what of a W***er. and any sensible person can see your trying to get some kind of aggressive response out of me. :upstare: , not going to happen really.

 

[Korgoth]

Well seinfeld you jump to conclusions, you say that we are full of "conspiracy theories" with no proof to back up our claims. Yet we provided many un-biased (some biased) proper news outlets. Yet when confronted you quote the white house press room, now don't you think they have a little biased opinion of whats going on, considering its their asses.

EDIT) to continue from a previous post of mine quoting john ashcroft, may I remind everyone that Jesus wasn't born in America...

 

[Sprafa]

Open your eyes ppl!!

BB - What's privacy? nothing! it means nothing! You can get along with your life without it. It never affects you!!!

The only way a Total Informated State would be bad would be if there was generalized corruption. Because if not, the State will not interfere unless there is crime.


Bush - one of the worst presidents till day. I am informed ppl, and everything I've seen against Kerry was pure political propaganda by smacktards. He's belicist, ruined every economy he got into, and once said to his mom that "every non-cristhian is going to Hell".


on 9/11 - Certainly it's a suspicious act, but I do not believe the White House had anything to do with it. Maybe some officials inside the Gov. did, but not Bush or his close ones (now that I think about it, maybe Rusmfeld...). [sorry if I got the numbers wrong, I thought it was something close to 6 000]

On this thread - give me a smart coment and I shall respond. If not, consider me absent. This is useless.


Oh, and Bush is creationist. Now WhoTF is creationist in the XXI century???

 

[clarky003]

if you want a smart 'arse' comment ,, your gonna have to wait for Seinfeldreeks to come back. other than that I agree with you,, its most definately pointing somewhere along those lines

 

[CptStern]

EDIT) to continue from a previous post of mine quoting john ashcroft, may I remind everyone that Jesus wasn't born in America...

yes he was!!!!



bush:

"'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.'"



may or not have happened

 

[Pogrom]

Open your eyes ppl!!

BB - What's privacy? nothing! it means nothing! You can get along with your life without it. It never affects you!!!

The only way a Total Informated State would be bad would be if there was generalized corruption. Because if not, the State will not interfere unless there is crime.

Okay... A total lack of privacy = unlimited government power.

If there is unlimited government power, there will be unlimited government corruption. Just like that old maxim:

Just as power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely

Once you open that can o'worms, there's no telling where it will end. Once they say "No privacy, for your own good", then it is a short leap to governmental supervision of EVERYDAY LIFE!

Nope - can't see any upside in it at all.

 

[mrchimp]

I don't think the fact the US wants to get the oil production back on track is proof that they only went into Iraq for the oil, they would do it anyway.

However it makes sense for the US to secure Iraq's oil so in 50 years time one of the worlds biggest oil produceing country's isn't under a dictators control but instead a democratic goverment that doesn't keep the country under control through rutine torture and isn't likely to try invading surrounding country's.

It also inserts democracy into the middle east which may cause a snowball effect as people see the benefits of democracy closer to home and decide they want those benefits in there own country too. That may not happen but the Arab states would be much better places to live if they were all governed by democracy and were more liberal which is incouraged by democracy.

BTW where would you rather live North or South Korea? By some people's logic it would be North because they don't want American forces in there country.

 

[Pogrom]

I don't think the fact the US wants to get the oil production back on track is proof that they only went into Iraq for the oil, they would do it anyway.

However it makes sense for the US to secure Iraq's oil so in 50 years time one of the worlds biggest oil produceing country's isn't under a dictators control but instead a democratic goverment that doesn't keep the country under control through rutine torture and isn't likely to try invading surrounding country's.

It also inserts democracy into the middle east which may cause a snowball effect as people see the benefits of democracy closer to home and decide they want those benefits in there own country too. That may not happen but the Arab states would be much better places to live if they were all governed by democracy and were more liberal which is incouraged by democracy.

BTW where would you rather live North or South Korea? By some people's logic it would be North because they don't want American forces in there country.

So it's okay to pre-emptively invade a country if you've got an economic reason for it?

"Hmmm, we think the oil reserves should be managed by nicer guys. Let's invade them, topple their dictator, wage a guerilla war, then install a democratic government that will probably collapse into chaos just like that previous one in Afghanistan."

There already IS democracy in the Middle East - it's called Israel. But who says American-style democracy is the right type of democracy for the Middle Eastern socio-economic and cultural background?

And as for the Korea issue - maybe North Korea would be a nicer place to live if said American forces hadn't kept Nth Korea economically and physically isolated from the rest of the world.

Maybe if there were no sanctions, there wouldn't be millions starving and the government would have started opening up like the Chinese government has done.

 

[clarky003]

why arnt people as sane and broad minded as you Pogrom... very well said. I think you really hit the nail on the head,

 

[CptStern]

why arnt people as sane and broad minded as you Pogrom... very well said. I think you really hit the nail on the head,

it's not their fault..they've taken this pledge:

I promise to..

 

[clarky003]

Lol, we still have rights?

 

[Lordblackadder]

"Those who would trade essential liberty, for the promise of secuity, deserve neither liberty nor security."

Benjamin Franklin
American Founding Father

 

[CptStern]

you had rights... now you have the patriot act...my god have mercy on your souls

 

[CptStern]

found this little tidbit:

Since the Second World War
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
has bombed 21 countries

China 1945-46, 1950-53
Korea 1950-53
Guatemala 1954, 1960, 1967-69
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-61
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Lebanon 1983-84
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Bosnia 1995
Sudan 1998
Former Yugoslavia 1999
Iraq 1991-??
Afghanistan 1998, 2001-??


the US dropped more tnt on Cambodia in one year than they did throughtout ww2...even after hiroshima and nagasaki

 

[seinfeldrules]

Well seinfeld you jump to conclusions, you say that we are full of "conspiracy theories" with no proof to back up our claims. Yet we provided many un-biased (some biased) proper news outlets. Yet when confronted you quote the white house press room, now don't you think they have a little biased opinion of whats going on, considering its their asses.

EDIT) to continue from a previous post of mine quoting john ashcroft, may I remind everyone that Jesus wasn't born in America...

Show me evidence to back up your claims. Your 'news sources' have been nothing but jokes and sites to back up my claims so far...

 

[seinfeldrules]

I hardly think those two dictatorships were bent on destroying America. From what evidence has been gathered since the fall of both the Taliban and Saddam, it is quite obvious that both were not in any sort of position to aggressively attack anyone.

Where was Al Qaeda's man base of operation. It wasnt about the Taliban, it was about terrorism. Saddam had one of the largest armies in the MIddle East, how was he in no position to harm anyone?

 

[clarky003]

what do you expect a written confession from the US government and companies like OPEC?... jeesh. thats not going to happen, that evidence is as valid as it gets , now hush you .

Mr Biased,, .. oh please rename yourself to that. it would suit you so well .

Mr Biased.. contridicts everything you do, but doesnt that just make you a synical git?. rofl

 

[seinfeldrules]

Ok now - Saddam had killed 2 million of his own people. OF HIS OWN PEOPLE! That hardly looks like tipping the balance of world peace. I mean things like that happen everyday. Just look at the Ivory Coast, the Sudan, Indonesia and East Timor a few years ago. The list could go on and on.

Bush now? Well, he has galvanised anti-American hatred in the Arab world.

He has strained relations with Europe, when they were at an all-time high.

He has left he most godawful mess in Afghanistan, which has picked up heroin production again.

He prompted North Korea to take a hardline stance on nuclear issues - just because he called them evil! The nerve of them!

He attacked Iraq - a country unaffiliated with terrorism. Security experts from America and elsewhere have since concluded the world is now more dangerous.

Yeah, I vote for sitting by idlely and waiting for our enemies to encircle us to a point in which we have no choice but to lose millions of lives. Has WWII taught you people nothing! Appeasement doesnt work! It never has, never will.

 

[seinfeldrules]

what do you expect a written confession from the US government and companies like OPEC?... jeesh. thats not going to happen, that evidence is as valid as it gets , now hush you.

Respond to my statement clarky. How about the UN resolution. How about your own articles that contradict yourself. Respond to those posts if you have the guts.

 

[Lordblackadder]

Where was Al Qaeda's man base of operation. It wasnt about the Taliban, it was about terrorism. Saddam had one of the largest armies in the MIddle East, how was he in no position to harm anyone?

About the Teleban, I'll say fair enough.

About Saddam, I'll say the administration lied us into unnecessary war and occupation, for the benefit of trechareous special interest groups.

Not at all shocking, that can be said of half the wars Americans fought since the turn of the century.

It is unfortunate that Americans are so easily whipped up into a war fury by their political overseers. :x

 

[seinfeldrules]

Bush - one of the worst presidents till day. I am informed ppl, and everything I've seen against Kerry was pure political propaganda by smacktards. He's belicist, ruined every economy he got into, and once said to his mom that "every non-cristhian is going to Hell".

The economy has gained over a million jobs in three months alone and the stock market is booming. Remind me how it is bad again? Also, do some research on the natural progression of capitalistic economies. There is an inevetiable prosperity, recession/depression, and recovery. Finally, show me a link to back up that statement, unless it is, as usual, "common knowledge".

PS Have you even seen Kerry's ads against Bush? Obviously not. And all an advertisement is anyways is propoganda, everyone uses it in free elections bud.

 

[seinfeldrules]

About Saddam, I'll say the administration lied us into unnecessary war and occupation, for the benefit of trechareous special interest groups.

Read my quotes from BOTH Kerry and Clinton that proves it was the intelligence agencies, not the President that felt Saddam was a threat. Do I need to post everything 3 times? I am only upset because so much false information is being hurled at the President of MY country. 99% of this information is unfounded propoganda only used against any conservative elected President. Enough is enough.

 

[CptStern]

Yeah, I vote for sitting by idlely and waiting for our enemies to encircle us to a point in which we have no choice but to lose millions of lives. Has WWII taught you people nothing! Appeasement doesnt work! It never has, never will.

name one incident where an iraqi terrorist group attacked americans before the invasion?

 

[seinfeldrules]

And as for the Korea issue - maybe North Korea would be a nicer place to live if said American forces hadn't kept Nth Korea economically and physically isolated from the rest of the world.

How about if their leaders didnt spend over half of their budget on the military. Ever think that may have something to do with it? WOW what an shocker, lets blame the US, even though NK spends all its money on its military. Of course it is the US's fault!

 

[CptStern]

Read my quotes from BOTH Kerry and Clinton that proves it was the intelligence agencies, not the President that felt Saddam was a threat. Do I need to post everything 3 times? I am only upset because so much false information is being hurled at the President of MY country. 99% of this information is unfounded propoganda only used against any conservative elected President. Enough is enough.

who cares who said it, the last time I looked the president was the voice of the people. Bush is responsible for lying, he passed on faulty information and I propose he knew it was faulty

 

[seinfeldrules]

name one incident where an iraqi terrorist group attacked americans before the invasion?

Name one incident in which the Nazi army killed a Polish/USSR/French citizen before they invaded.

 

[Neutrino]

Hmm, there's a reason I don't like to get into political discussions on forums. However, I'll just say one thing here. It's kind of odd to me that some people seem rather sure that their own viewpoint is the "right" one. (Reminds me of religious discussions) I'm talking about both sides in this particular argument. It seems no one can ever concede to any kind of middle ground. It's either a "giant consipiracy by the evil american government", or the "perfectly benign American government that is just trying to help people."

Politics is rarely that simple; it is not a black and white matter. I imagine there is probably some validity to most of the points being made in this thread, but nothing has been really proven. Is it just not possible to realize that these matters are very complex and it's very likely that both sides of the argument probably have good points to make?

I'm not trying to pick on anyone in particular. Just a general observation.

 

[seinfeldrules]

who cares who said it, the last time I looked the president was the voice of the people. Bush is responsible for lying, he passed on faulty information and I propose he knew it was faulty

So how about Clinton, he had the same information and came to the same conclusion Saddam had WMD. You completely ignored the point that it has been the intelligence agencies over the last decade. Do you think Bush has some magical power in which he can see everything the Iraqis had? No. He needed to trust the CIA, just as Clinton did.

 

[CptStern]

yes but bush based his whole justification for invading around the WMD issue...even going so far as to suggest saddam had nuclear weaponms and was waiting to use them

 

[CptStern]

Name one incident in which the Nazi army killed a Polish/USSR/French citizen before they invaded.

not the same thing....they didnt declare war on germany until after the invasions. Answer the damn question stop sidestepping

 

[seinfeldrules]

yes but bush based his whole justification for invading around the WMD issue...even going so far as to suggest saddam had nuclear weaponms and was waiting to use them

And the intelligence he had said Iraq had that stuff! Clinton said the same thing when he was in office!

 

[CptStern]

Neutrino I can see your point but....this war is illegal, this occupation is illegal, so much of this war is called into question that you cant help but be on one side or the other because the lines were drawn when bush uttered these words:

"You're either with us or against us "

that doesnt leave any room for shades of grey

 

[seinfeldrules]

not the same thing....they didnt declare war on germany until after the invasions. Answer the damn question stop sidestepping

No, they are the exact same thing. If we had done somehthing against Germany while we had the chance, then millions of lives could have been spared. If Iraqi scientists had continued work on a nuclear bomb who knows how many lives could have been lost. And there are links between the Iraqi secret police and 9/11. Ill go grab the links.

 

[CptStern]

And the intelligence he had said Iraq had that stuff! Clinton said the same thing when he was in office!

you do know that according to the geneva accords a pre-emptive strike is illegal. Even if they had evidence that saddam had an ICBM strapped to his back and was headed to newyork in a row boat they couldnt do anything about it. Just possessing WMD does not give any country the right to invade. If that was true most of the western world would have been invaded a long time ago

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

You honestly think Iraq would have used a nuke given the chance?!


Not even saddam was that stupid/insane.

Nuclear weapons are used as threats these days. If you dont have one then you have very little political power compared to those who do. If sadam was developing them then it wouldnt be because he wanted to nuke someone. Well its highly unlikely anyway.