kuzadd

Your moronic postings make me laugh. It looks like you just joined, so why don't you just take the time and read the other 18 pages of 'Who Hates the US'. The whole issue certainly has been covered, you're a little late in the game. Get off your high horse and read them, and btw, the CN tower wasn't blown down, so where is your moral authority to huff and puff. As far as your 'simplistic' rant, you are a typical elitist who thinks they are something special. You're not. You take a crap the same as everybody else, just probably more often for the obvious reason. And talk about using ugly language to discredit a critic, what is "that is soley because those people making that type of 'equating', are simple minded, requiring simple , thought and statements, easy for there comprehension, I'll reword, "simple thoughts for simple minds" and that's all there is too it!" Go read a political book. You are probably not out of high school yet. I would presume it is your postings that keep'em laughing. Loaded with assumptions, and more. Like Your an 'elitist', BUT, then I am "probably not out of high school"??? Of course, you are certain, I think I am special? well which is it? Am I elitist, special, or not out of high school? Does it even matter, as long as you think you are insulting me? and you still play the 9/11 card wrt to Iraq, NO connection ok?? BTW: I like the "moral authority" questioning. Is that how you see your postings, having "moral authority'?? I thought we were all just exchanging opinions?? huh! who knew, it was all about "moral authority" percveived or otherwise?? BTW: thanks for the "warm" welcome. LOL!

whatever, same old smear. and you still didn't read the article obviously. Apparently you have blood pressure concerns? sorry to read that. maybe you could try, actually reading and discussing articles, rather then being intent on smearing/name calling, you may be able to keep your blood pressure down. Personally, I love to discuss the articles posted. Until then, I bid you farewell.

Did I write this article? Did you discuss the article? Did you discuss anything in the article? NOPE! I didn't write the article, Zbigniew Brzezinski did. I guess he is also not giving the individuals , he is writing about " credit, to sort things out for themselves." I guess he too, misses all the' rational' thoughts abounding, and the glaring lack of propaganda. lol! or maybe it was little tidbits like this "That America has become insecure and more paranoid is hardly debatable. A recent study reported that in 2003, Congress identified 160 sites as potentially important national targets for would-be terrorists. With lobbyists weighing in, by the end of that year the list had grown to 1,849; by the end of 2004, to 28,360; by 2005, to 77,769. The national database of possible targets now has some 300,000 items in it, including the Sears Tower in Chicago and an Illinois Apple and Pork Festival." (the more "terrorist" targets, the more profit making for the burgeoning "security" industry. read the article for that info) YES, the Illinois Apple and Pork Festival is an "important national target" for would be terrorists. more fear for the fearful. BTW: good attempt at a smear/name calling , always your specialty. How about a new tactic? Humour me! OH and Stay out of fear DOP!!!! I know I do! ;-)

That is factually incorrect. Possibly) The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other: Rank Death Toll Cause Centuries 1 55 million Second World War 20C 2 40 million Mao Zedong (mostly famine) 20C 3 40 million Mongol Conquests 13C 4 36 million An Lushan Revolt 8C 5 25 million Fall of the Ming Dynasty 17C 6 20 million Taiping Rebellion 19C 7 20 million Annihilation of the American Indians 15C-19C 8 20 million Iosif Stalin 20C 9 19 million Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C []10 18 million Atlantic Slave Trade 15C-19C 11 17 million Timur Lenk 14C-15C 12 17 million British India (mostly famine) 19C 13 15 million First World War 20C 14 9 million Russian Civil War 20C 15 8 million Fall of Rome 3C-5C 16 8 million Congo Free State 19C-20C 17 7 million Thirty Years War 17C 18 5 million Russia's Time of Troubles 16C-17C 19 4 million Napoleonic Wars 19C 20 3 million Chinese Civil War 20C 21 3 million French Wars of Religion 16C annhilitation of the Native Indians 20,000,000 There weren't 20 million Indians in North America, so that number isn't on. And most of the deaths were from smallpox. According to any viable history book, Stalin killed 30 million in the Ukraine alone, and God knows how many more million on both sides of the war, so claiming "20 million" is a bit suspect. Your right, there were'nt 20 million Native Americans in NA, there were even more then that.!!!

A class action suit initiated against the Ustashe is proof that Hitler was Christian? as stated in that very same post "I don't know what your understanding is, the facts are , he was raised Catholic, he was supported by the vatican, and he extolled religion/ious virtue for the populace. Also see Vatican 'rat' lines." I mentioned the Vatican rat lines, as an interesting aside, but, the Catholic institution continued to support the Nazi's, as the nazi's had supported them, a kind of " you scratch my back , I'll scratch yours" analogy.

That is factually incorrect. Possibly) The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other: Rank Death Toll Cause Centuries 1 55 million Second World War 20C 2 40 million Mao Zedong (mostly famine) 20C 3 40 million Mongol Conquests 13C 4 36 million An Lushan Revolt 8C 5 25 million Fall of the Ming Dynasty 17C 6 20 million Taiping Rebellion 19C 7 20 million Annihilation of the American Indians 15C-19C 8 20 million Iosif Stalin 20C 9 19 million Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C []10 18 million Atlantic Slave Trade 15C-19C 11 17 million Timur Lenk 14C-15C 12 17 million British India (mostly famine) 19C 13 15 million First World War 20C 14 9 million Russian Civil War 20C 15 8 million Fall of Rome 3C-5C 16 8 million Congo Free State 19C-20C 17 7 million Thirty Years War 17C 18 5 million Russia's Time of Troubles 16C-17C 19 4 million Napoleonic Wars 19C 20 3 million Chinese Civil War 20C 21 3 million French Wars of Religion 16C annhilitation of the Native Indians 20,000,000

I would urge you to discard the sources you cite and read real history. Try "Hitler", by Ian Kershaw. It's considered the foremost biography on Hitler. It's written by an academic. Hitler, at a very early date, long before consolidating his power, played politics and told people what they wanted to hear. Remember, he came to power through a democratic system. As for the truth of what he claimed vis a vis Christianity, it holds about as much worth as what he claimed about Austria, the Sudetenland, the rest of Checkoslovakia, Poland or anything else. He jailed communists, Jews and Christians with the same degree of zeal. I read plenty of REAL history, thanks! "As for the truth of what he claimed vis a vis Christianity," I said, he is as much a chrisitian as the fundamentalists of today, and GWB. But that is subjective, you see, since I see NONE of them as being 'christians' In my understanding of the word. I don't know what your understanding is, the facts are , he was raised Catholic, he was supported by the vatican, and he extolled religion/ious virtue for the populace. Also see Vatican 'rat' lines. Vatican wants U.S. to quash Holocaust survivors' suit JOE ESKENAZI Bulletin Staff The Vatican is asking the U.S. government to intervene against a suit filed on behalf of Holocaust survivors. So, although it probably won't be his first priority, whoever becomes president will find a letter on his desk from the Vatican requesting that the United States block a class-action suit filed on behalf of 28 Americans of Ukrainian and Yugoslavian descent. In a six-point note filed with the U.S. District Court in San Francisco in late October, the Vatican secretariat of state expressed "surprise and regret" over the pending case filed against the Vatican Bank and the Franciscan order. Among other claims, the suit charges the Vatican and Franciscans with accepting valuables plundered by Croatia's Nazi-backed Ustashe regime and using them to bankroll both the Nazi "Rat Line" to South America and various Western powers' anti-Soviet campaigns. etc., etc.,..........................................

" At home we can stop allowing children to be exposed to such nonsense. But abroad how do we convince Muslims of their abject insanity? How do we first get them to moderate and modernize their beliefs? - How do we release all religious people from the clutches of superstition and literal beliefs about god and heaven?" "But abroad how do we convince Muslims of their abject insanity? " by bombing them back to the stone age, killing , raping and torturing them. That should make it clear to them they are the insane ones! YA THINK?! "How do we first get them to moderate and modernize their beliefs?" Why we get them to follow a President , who says , God tells him what to do, and that GOD told him to attack Iraq, then when that same President surrounds himself, with end-times Christian followers,??? But, is sure to tell all others ,"them" to "moderate and modernize their beliefs"???? How do we release all religious people from the clutches of superstition and literal beliefs about god and heaven?" Well I would think largely, it would be to "walk the talk", but, that sure as heck isn't the case!!!

Absolutely untrue. Not even close. Even with a headstart, Christianity isn't anywhere near Islam in bodycount. Not even in the same league. The only religion that beats Islam is the atheism of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and assorted hangerson like Pol Pot and Che. Hitler was a christian! very much along the lines of today's 'fundamnetalist" christians I'll use some of his own words to demonstrate "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people. [Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933" supported religious schools!!! "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. " [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 46] Just like GWB! He belives 'god ' talks to him and guides him also! (?????) " What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator." [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 125] well America fights for the "homeland"! "Woman's world is her husband, her family, her children and her home. We do not find it right when she presses into the world of men. [Adolph Hitler, quoted in Lucy Komisar, The New Feminism]" women in their place, as second rate citizens, sound familiar, religious right????? Make no mistake Hitler was a christian! The citations you offer are all from the 1920s and early 1930s, and none of them mention Christ, who after all is rather central to Christianity. Hitler never pretended to be a Christian, and any serious study of his life is quite clear that he was if not an atheist, then a mystical humanist. Hence the 'master race' and the Aryan superman and all that. laughable, the "differentiation" does God, father of Christ, not figure into christianity? It certainly doesn't figure into atheism.! FYI: The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, by Richard Steigmann-Gall Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movement in the Third Reich Doris L. Bergen The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany Author:Guenter Lewy Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII Author: John Cornwell Relying on exclusive access to Vatican and Jesuit archives, an award-winning Roman Catholic journalist argues that through a 1933 Concordat with Hitler, Pope Pius XII facilitated the dictator's riseAand, ultimately, the Holocaust. and so forth and so on....................... and finally....................... "And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited.” ( Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered at Munich, April 12, 1922; )

Let's see, the Inquisiton, the Crusades, Slavery, American expansion, I believe the last figure was 19/20 Natives were killed off. Atheism didn't kill those people, despotic rulers did. And all those people add up to maybe...maybe...ten million people. Not 100 million. nope, it adds up to 100's of millions. 100's and 100's of millions.

Practically? Is that what he means in the second paragraph? That's where he writes "The damage these three words have done -- a classic self-inflicted wound -- is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves." Have you ever noticed how monsters under the bed disappear when you turn the lights on? "Have you ever noticed how monsters under the bed disappear when you turn the lights on?" that can be applied to so many, in so many ways............ I especially like this part "The culture of fear is like a genie that has been let out of its bottle. It acquires a life of its own -- and can become demoralizing. America today is not the self-confident and determined nation that responded to Pearl Harbor; nor is it the America that heard from its leader, at another moment of crisis, the powerful words "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"; nor is it the calm America that waged the Cold War with quiet persistence despite the knowledge that a real war could be initiated abruptly within minutes and prompt the death of 100 million Americans within just a few hours. We are now divided, uncertain and potentially very susceptible to panic in the event of another terrorist act in the United States itself. That is the result of five years of almost continuous national brainwashing on the subject of terror, quite unlike the more muted reactions of several other nations (Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany, Japan, to mention just a few) that also have suffered painful terrorist acts. In his latest justification for his war in Iraq, President Bush even claims absurdly that he has to continue waging it lest al-Qaeda cross the Atlantic to launch a war of terror here in the United States." perhaps it is time for people who eat this nonsense up, wholesale, and just take a look around...... to turn on the lights!

Absolutely untrue. Not even close. Even with a headstart, Christianity isn't anywhere near Islam in bodycount. Not even in the same league. The only religion that beats Islam is the atheism of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and assorted hangerson like Pol Pot and Che. Hitler was a christian! very much along the lines of today's 'fundamnetalist" christians I'll use some of his own words to demonstrate "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people. [Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933" supported religious schools!!! "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. " [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 46] Just like GWB! He belives 'god ' talks to him and guides him also! (?????) " What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator." [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 125] well America fights for the "homeland"! "Woman's world is her husband, her family, her children and her home. We do not find it right when she presses into the world of men. [Adolph Hitler, quoted in Lucy Komisar, The New Feminism]" women in their place, as second rate citizens, sound familiar, religious right????? Make no mistake Hitler was a christian!

That is not quite all there is to it. I am an American, and I understand the US needs to defend itself. End of story. I can understand that after 911, the US with some prodding, felt it necessary to check out what was going on inside Iraq. There was at best conflicting information, and many UN resolutions which went unanswered. Besides, it was time to kick some butt. At that time, people were critical, France, Germany, Canada. In my opinion, that was unacceptable. After it was found that there were no WMD, it was time to leave, period. At this time, the voice should be, "in your best interest, leave", however, the same antiUS crap, from the same mouths denotes the simple minds who spout it. This whole thing is not simple, it is complex. The who, why, what, where requires some thought, not the "simple thoughts for simple minds" knee jerk blabber expoused above. This whole 'who hates the US" thread which will not die is positive only to those who wish to continually twist the knife. "That is not quite all there is to it. I am an American, and I understand the US needs to defend itself. End of story. I can understand that after 911, the US with some prodding, felt it necessary to check out what was going on inside Iraq. There was at best conflicting information, and many UN resolutions which went unanswered. Besides, it was time to kick some butt. " "I understand the US needs to defend itself." If one is not being attacked ,one cannot defend. Your claiming the US was defending itself against Iraq, this is a false claim. to need to 'defend ' oneself, one needs to be attacked. You do understand that is symbiotic,, right? For if not attacked,there is nothing to defend against. "I can understand that after 911, the US with some prodding, felt it necessary to check out what was going on inside Iraq. " 9/11 had NOTHING to do with Iraq, Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 , only the excessive use of propaganda cojoined them in irrational minds. ( not trying to be personally insulting) why I use the term irrational is a rational mind would NOT have cojoined Iraq and 9/11, based on the fact that there was NO evidence, connecting them. " There was at best conflicting information, and many UN resolutions which went unanswered." There were plenty and I mean plenty of people, shouting from the rooftops those truths, including the US's own agencies. These people were intentionally slandered, and fear was used against the populace. "Besides, it was time to kick some butt. " blatant machsimo, also irrational, should not be the basis of foreign policy, and actually, it isn't!! it is blind rah-rahing. "In my opinion, that was unacceptable." criticism is unacceptable?? Criticism is necessary! Criticism keeps people rational! Criticism can encourage open-mindedness, the development of alternatives, etc., This whole 'who hates the US" thread which will not die is positive only to those who wish to continually twist the knife. In your own way, without realizing it, you demonstrated, exactly what I said. You went through a string of 'justifications of American actions, based on false reasoning inc 9/11, then again attacked critics, as twisting the knife.(being hateful) as a newer poster here, I thought I would put a thought here on the topic. I stand by what I said. The type of thinking displayed is simplistic and unrealistic. Like a child who needs criticism to correct and guide, when on the wrong track, criticism is valid. It is not an indication of hate, but an indication of concern. I will go further and say this use of ugly language to attack critics, is an attempt to censor opionions, that cannot be rationally (with reason) disputed. So the use of attacking, or negative labelling is a way to squelch criticism, without looking at the criticism, just discrediting, the critic. Therefore, one never has to acknowledge the possibility that one is mistaken, nor accept another's point of view, nor even consider another point of view, one can simply attack the critic as hateful and then dismiss them. again , simplistic!

In the first few minutes of the interview you posted, the guest mentions that lawyers defending alleged terrorists were being harassed. He then says that a stop was put to it. What!? A government who is planning to send people to the death camps had to stop defaming lawyers because it was deemed unconstitutional? That alone makes the far fetched death camp assertion nothing more than crying that the sky is falling. did you listen to the entire interview??

whatever he may hope for wrt Russia? he know all the ME stuff is nonsense, given his roll in the creation of the mujahadeen (OBL) to fight Russia, stand corrected here, to bait Russia, into invading Afghanistan, way back when. did you read the article , I also liked this part "Constant reference to a "war on terror" did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction." It stimulated, that means brainwashed, created, encouraged, a culture of fear. FEAR makes people incapable of rational thought, incapable of looking at a situation in a realistic manner, makes you pliable and easier to manipulate. That is all quite obvious! That is why, I stay our of fear.

That's right, no wusses there. Just big, beefy men in tight short shorts, all rock hard abs and rippling muscles. Real butch. The Bush doctrine is not "fighting for freedom". Shit, Bush certainly wasn't the first to articulate the concept, which is really quite a cliche. The fact that it appears in this film is actually quite laughable, given that Sparta was a brutal and repressive society, even by the standards of the ancient world. 300 had some serious homo-erotic flavours to it. Buff men in little underwear, WOW. huddled together, etc., btw: the movie was crap!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...613.html?sub=AR By Zbigniew Brzezinski "The "war on terror" has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us. The damage these three words have done -- a classic self-inflicted wound -- is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants." and that culture of fear is , oh so useful, to take full advantage of the fearful!!! Who want to be taken advantage of , for there 'safety'. so many governments who took care of the 'fearful', so they would be safe. wait a minute, those were tyrannies! How quickly and foolishly people forget, especially when fear is used, over and over as a "motivator" interesting article

Yes, but since the invasion of Iraq, some people keep equating that criticizing US government policies is equivalent to hating Americans. You can try to explain the difference again, but some people would just think that you're "a broken record". Yes, but since the invasion of Iraq, some people keep equating that criticizing US government policies is equivalent to hating Americans." that is soley because those people making that type of 'equating', are simple minded, requiring simple , thought and statements, easy for there comprehension, I'll reword, "simple thoughts for simple minds" and that's all there is too it! It goes without saying one can disagree with US foreign policy, but , there is no need to "hate Americans" Unless one thinks ALL America is , is their foreign policy, which is of course ludicrous! it's no different then not liking all the actions your kids take, BUT, no matter what , loving them just the same!! I'll assume that if these persons who espouse these simplistic thought, equates, disciplining there child (through restriction of priveleges, as an example) as meaning they hate there own kids, because certainly in disciplining your kids, you would have to be critical and criticism equals hatred, to the simple folk. simple thoughts for simple minds!

No, the Judge cuts off repetitive arguments. \They conduct alot of their business, in the hallways, been there , personally, it isn't always bad, sometimes, it help's move things along.

You are not going to respond to my numerous inquiries, why? How many permanent military bases is the US building in iraq? Afghanistan? How many??? have you missed the news on the very generous oil deal , big American and British companies worked out for themselves, with Iraq's oil??? Stealing the resources, right out from under the feet of the people, they are slaughtering. The obvious is only being ignored by yourself.

PN, can you defacate elsewhere? It is quite obvious what the intention or radical Islam is. Putting aside WTC, where your meds don't seem to be working, what about the London Subway? What were those riders doing to hurt Islam? Or train commuters in Spain, Or Aussie tourists in Bali? Why, PN, do these people have to die? When will you ever learn? Alqueda, had nothing to do with the Spanish bombings. Just to let you know. Is it??? IMO, it isn't. How is it, that it is so obvious to you? In reality, there are about 1 billion followers of Islam world wide, just going about there lives. Yet, you make the claim the CRIMINAL acts of a few men ,CRIMINALS, is evidence that Muslims are out to kill and control, the entire western world????? Is that rational?? or xenophobic??? isn't it the west, that has launched NUMEROUS WARS, against the arab populations, going back to Britian, and forward to the US??? If I recall my history correctly, and I am sure I can, YES, YES it was! Overthrowing governments, waging war , invading, occupying, all through the ME, has been done repeatedly by the west. You do know Britian invaded Iraq previously also??? You do know the US with the help of Britian overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran in the '50's? You do know that the US props up the despotic saudi regime, against the will of the populace? Just to cite a few instances. How do you think those hostilities, and others, have been interpreted by people in the ME? How do you think the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq are being interpreted by the people in ME?

The same terrorists who kill their own and does not accept the ELECTED BY THE IRAQI PEOPLE government. The "invading force" that topples a murderous thug and free the populace. The same "invading force" that makes it possible for Iraq to form a democratic government.Thereby eliminating the dictatorship that was under Saddam the butcher.The bloodbaath party disposed of. The same "invading force" that enforces the penalty for thumbing at all those U.N. resolutions over WMD for 12 years. Well at least better than you since you said even less than he did over it. LOL. At least he goes out of his way NOT to kill civilians including the children.The terrorists are killing civilians including children.They recently used children in a car bombing. The terrorists have broken the Geneva convention many times and care less doing so. I will skip the part where you attempt to divine what Ray thinks and go on to this last part: Estimates that vary considerebly. Meanwhile you seem willing to overlook the part where Saddam and his goons killed many HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS.Maybe as many as a MILLION (the high end of the estimates)Many with sadistic methods and bury them in sand.Already 100,000 + have been found in mass burials in the sand. That Saddam for 12 years running fights against the UNITED NATIONS resolutions for not complying with the agreed documentation and destruction of WMD he admitted having. That he and his sons and select goons raped women in rape rooms.Taking women from homes and killing the husbands.This went on for many years. Terrorising the populace. That Saddam was supporting terrorism with money and more. Shelters international terrorists. A menace to the region starting TWO wars. Do you remember how the Iraqi people cheered at Saddams death? Do you remember how the Iraqi people happily toppled his statue in Baghdad? Do you know that Kurdistan is very happy of being liberated by coalition forces? Do you realize that because he is gone Iraq could ELECT people into the government offices and that they have a constitution? The only terror going on these days are from the so called insurgents (terrorists).Lately even the regional shieks are tired of the Al queda's destructive ways.Recently a surge in recruitments in the police and army forces has been noted and may have been because the Shieks want to help stop the terrorists and make a lot more money with a stable nation being more attractive to the worlds investers. If they stop attacking and become part of a democratically elected nation. Then the coalition forces will leave. 'The "invading force" that topples a murderous thug and free the populace. oh, really??? not to be rude, but, when I read this type of stuff, irrelevant of who posts it. I seriously wonder, where , people get these nonsensical ideas? the "invaders topples a murderous thug and free's the populace?? what the heck is this, some form of delusion? the invaders ( America) toppled an uncooperative puppet, to take control of the oil, for a variety of reasons. war is NEVER fought to free people, I am going to say that again war is NEVER fought to free people. War is about control of geopolitical resources! that's it! Plain and simple! A piece of land, water, oil, etc., etc., If this poster would recall correctly the attack on iraq was about WMD's, "the smoking gun, in the form of a mushroom cloud, alleged ties to terrorism, propagandic ties to 9/11, ALL BOGUS. It was only SOLD as a exercise in 'freeing"a populace, when it was clear all the LIES of the Bush Junta , made the war a farce. In other words "freeing the iraqis" was but one of numerous sales pitches to the domestic populace to justify an illegal, unjust, unnecessary, misery , inflicted on 100,000's of thousand, possibly millions of people, in another country, who were attacked in a preemptive manner, for the same reasons war are always, have always , been waged! Control of geopolitical resources, whatever those resources are deemed to be "in the interests of " the invader/occupier.

aaahh, the "Bu*hit", never ceases. perhaps he is using that "conspiracy generator", scribblett, put a link to , far too often. LOL!

These folks insist that Soldiers and Marines are telling the truth when they protest against the war in Iraq or Afghanistan.....not so the other way around. And so it goes..... No one said he was lying, only you implied that was the case, why? In fact I quantified probable children's deaths based on this ONE man eye witness acount. Unfortunately based on ONE man's eyewitness account, on the number of deaths that he witnessed, he himself invalidates the claim made by the poster, that the people handing out the pamphlets were innacurate. the poster claimed "he says he saw very few children" which means he saw a few children killed by American fire, math above. Now to go back to my original question...... No one said he was lying, only you implied that was the case, why?

an obvious ASSUMPTION. Do you KNOW that to be accurate? "a decorated marine" , now, as we have seen "American soldiers would never lie, nor have they committed attrocities,????? facetious "Ray in a few drunk moments told me about being ambushed in Afghanistan by Terrorist " so an Afghani citizen, who ambushes the invader/occupier in his own country is the terrorist??? what kinda double speak are you actually into here??? " But other than that, he says he saw very few children killed as a result of US fire." he, personally, in one area, saw very few children killed as a result of US fire, NOTE: he said, very few, how much is very few???? is it 5, 10, 15, 20????? more??? How does he quantify very few??? Let's as an example , throw out a hypothetical scenario, if "Ray" in his little neck of the woods on his 3 tours of duty, saw an average of 5 kids,(very few) killed by American fire, multiplied by the number of American soldiers in Iraq/ afghanistan which I will guesstimate at 140,000. Now lets say 1/2 of those soldiers 70,000 of them ,saw 5 kids killed by American fire, how many kids have died by American fire power??? well I did the math, and it comes to 350,000 kids. Let's even low ball it more, and say , only 35,000 soldiers, just 1/4 of the deployed, saw 5 children killed by American firepower, that would still be 175,000 kids!!!! That of course doesn't include fire power from the British, the private mercenaries etc., In all likelihood, far more then 20,000 children have died since America invaded both countries, given both Afghnaistan and Iraq had millions and millions of people within their borders, and there populations consisted of very large segments of children/ opposite of US/Canada, where are population is older. In other words Ray story is very far from correct, as he has access to such limited information, strictly his own.