jbg Posted August 21, 2007 Report Posted August 21, 2007 (edited) Right now I suspect that rational people like JBG and Sulaco are bonking their heads against their monitors as they read Dick's past couple of messages.You're quite right. I'm amazed by what I'm seeing from two posters I've previously admired, though one of them clearly comes out as more rational than the other. Perhaps using settings to block all PM's is a sign of something. I don't know. Edited August 21, 2007 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
kuzadd Posted August 22, 2007 Report Posted August 22, 2007 Hey BC, question, in your opinion wrt US foreign policy, Kerry or Bush, would the policy have changed, Iraq? Afghanistan? ME oil ? Now I am not referring to the "security" perceived or otherwise, that Americans may or may not have felt, from Bush vs Kerry as president. I am referring to US foreign policy wrt ME geopolitically/strategically speaking. Would that foreign policy have changed under Kerry? Cause from what I have read, it hasn't ever changed. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
kuzadd Posted August 22, 2007 Report Posted August 22, 2007 (edited) I am also not getting why Kimmy assumes Iraq 2 is a fiasco under Bush 2 as opposed to the holy hell wrought by Iraq 1, under Bush the first? Weird? perhaps Kimmy does not understand the damage that was brought onto the Iraqis with GW1? That she somehow see's the years of sanctions as "acceptable" despite the massive deaths that emanated from it? I guess she assumes the war on Iraq actually ended, when most of the troops left?? Regardless of the sanctions and the almost continual bombings??? Feb. 28, 1991: 'Cease-fire' in the Persian Gulf War. 'cept the missiles kept right on firing! April 10, 1991: The United States and Britain impose a no-fly zone to protect three Kurdish provinces in northern Iraq. Aug. 26, 1992: U.S. and British forces begin patrolling a second no-fly zone south of the 32nd parallel, over territory populated mainly by Iraqi Shiites. Jan. 7, 1993: A U.S.-led coalition attacks missile sites and a nuclear facility in Iraq. 1999-2000: U.S. flyovers and missile strikes continue. inc pre-attacks by Britian and the US on Iraq, prior to the attack "official" start date of "shock and awe" or Iraq attack 2. I guess if the war ended in the media, (no news coverage)it must have ended for 'real' eh? as for Iraq2 under Bush, IMO, a smashing success, look at the military bases built there! The justification for further occupation. Perfect for further warmaking! Edited August 22, 2007 by kuzadd Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 22, 2007 Report Posted August 22, 2007 I guess if the war ended in the media, (no news coverage)it must have ended for 'real' eh?as for Iraq2 under Bush, IMO, a smashing success, look at the military bases built there! The justification for further occupation. Perfect for further warmaking! I agree with your more direct assertion....hard to figure out why anyone would point to Bush Sr. and Gulf War + aftermath as a smashing success when it comes to the impact on Iraq compared to the present invasion / occupation. Not to mention the direct relationship for infidel bases and the rise of Islamic jihadism (Usama et al) that led to the current situation. All I can figure is that they think it is more acceptable to pound a sovereign back into the stone age with UN permission. Such has been my contention all along, that there is a continuum of US foreign policy (right or wrong) that didn't begin with Bush Jr. Accordingly, I will answer your Kerry question by opining that not much difference would be expected for protecting US interests, Israel, etc. Indeed, Iran endorsed President Bush because their experience with Democrats was far more negative. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kuzadd Posted August 23, 2007 Report Posted August 23, 2007 The consensus amongst the people I am in touch with is that, as you concurred, Kerry , Bush, other then domestic rhetoric, foreign policy, would have stayed the same. From the time of the Carter Doctrine 1980, The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on 23 January 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. it has not deviated.it in all actuality has gone on longer, then this, but, I will use the Carter doctrine as a base point, to demonstrate, how the policy carried on. The US has not deviated from this agenda, of use of military force in the ME, in fact it has expanded on this, under every President, Republican or Democratic! While at the time of the Carter Doctrine , the US was also breeding the the mujahadeen in Afghanistan/Pakistan, as part of that doctrine. As the US has expanded on the fomentation of Islamic radicalization since the Carter Presidency. Through the use of USAID, propagating brainwashed kids, right in the school systems of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Quite well documented , if I may add! Therefore I quite never understand this Bush vs kerry Repub vs Democrat wrt Foreign policy. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 23, 2007 Report Posted August 23, 2007 ...From the time of the Carter Doctrine 1980, it has not deviated.it in all actuality has gone on longer, then this, but, I will use the Carter doctrine as a base point, to demonstrate, how the policy carried on. The US has not deviated from this agenda, of use of military force in the ME, in fact it has expanded on this, under every President, Republican or Democratic! True, and it predates the Carter Adminstration as well. While serving Presidents Nixon and Ford in the US armed forces, I personally witnessed the "use of military force" in the ME. Quite simply, the Americans picked up where the British and French left off. Seemingly dramatic contortions just over current Bush Administration policies is easy for poor students of history. As an aside, it was Carter who paid the price for specifically not pursuing ME matters with more aggressive (military) measures (that, and a very high domestic misery index). Bush Jr. would not fall into that trap. Or as Madeline Albright would later say in the 90's, what's the use of having a $500 billion military if you can't use it? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kuzadd Posted August 23, 2007 Report Posted August 23, 2007 I agree with your more direct assertion....hard to figure out why anyone would point to Bush Sr. and Gulf War + aftermath as a smashing success when it comes to the impact on Iraq compared to the present invasion / occupation. Another point to make wrt the alleged smashing success of GW1. If GW1 was such a job well done, a won war, why in the heck would we be witnessing a GW2????? See if GW1 would have been 'won' ,Saddam would have been removed at that time, puppet installed, and the beat would go on. In fact, because of the invasion of Kuwait, the US had probably more support to actually get the 'job done' as opposed to the lack of support for GW2. Therefore.....GW1, was not a war, WON. Perhaps it was just the first battle? Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 23, 2007 Report Posted August 23, 2007 Therefore.....GW1, was not a war, WON.Perhaps it was just the first battle? Gulf War I was a case of battle interruptus, because "UN sanctioned" objectives had been met, specifically the "liberation" of Kuwait. Such logic would have had the Allies stopping at Germany's border in 1945. Little did Bush Sr. know that his policy decision would begin a series of events and subsequent re-actions leading to current day affairs. I'll bet that Dubya turns to his father often and says, "thanks a lot, Dad". The thin veneer of UNSC sanctioned intervention has always been evident, as it is just a tool for US foreign policy. The UN can't / won't do squat without American muscle, and the Americans have never really needed permission to act unilaterally. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jbg Posted August 24, 2007 Report Posted August 24, 2007 The thin veneer of UNSC sanctioned intervention has always been evident, as it is just a tool for US foreign policy. The UN can't / won't do squat without American muscle, and the Americans have never really needed permission to act unilaterally.Perfectly said. I think we should drop the veneer immediately, and invite the UN to find new digs in a city more coincident with its ideology like Havana, Pyongyang, Riyadh or Mecca. Oh, but the privileged elite assigned by the tinpots to be the UN Ambassadors probably don't want to spend their entire year in Mecca. They should. Mecca's nice this time of year. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
kimmy Posted August 24, 2007 Report Posted August 24, 2007 Another point to make wrt the alleged smashing success of GW1. If GW1 was such a job well done, a won war, why in the heck would we be witnessing a GW2????? See if GW1 would have been 'won' ,Saddam would have been removed at that time, puppet installed, and the beat would go on. In fact, because of the invasion of Kuwait, the US had probably more support to actually get the 'job done' as opposed to the lack of support for GW2. Therefore.....GW1, was not a war, WON. Perhaps it was just the first battle? The first Gulf War achieved the objectives it had set out to achieve. It ended the occupation of Kuwait, permanently crippled Saddam's military capability and ended Iraq's ability to pose a military threat to any other Gulf state and thereby maintained the stability of the supply of Middle East oil. Other objectives ("Free the Kurds!" "Depose Saddam!") were not part of the mission and were not intentions of the US administration of the time (see Dick Cheney explain why in that YouTube video that's been going around.) To argue that the second invasion of Iraq was necessary because they failed to remove Saddam the first time misses the mark in two different ways: -it assumes it was an intention of the first invasion to remove Saddam, which it was not. -it assumes that it was somehow necessary to remove Saddam at all. Why? What was so all-fired important about removing Saddam from power that they had to cook up fake intelligence to justify it? "Al Qaeda's there!" "They're making WMDs!" Both fake from day one, both invented expressly for the purpose of selling the American public on the idea of fighting a war that didn't need to be fought. What was so crucial about deposing Saddam? What was in it for the average American? 3000 soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars, not to mention hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians. The death toll from the current violence, in just 4 years, already meets or exceeds all but the most outlandish claims of deaths resulting from the 12 years of sanctions. And that does not even factor in deaths that have resulted from the civil authorities' inability to prevent the insurgents from destroying water and electrical facilities. There were bigger fish to fry than Saddam. There still are bigger fish to fry, but now the US is stuck in Iraq for the foreseeable future. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
kuzadd Posted August 24, 2007 Report Posted August 24, 2007 The first Gulf War achieved the objectives it had set out to achieve. It ended the occupation of Kuwait, permanently crippled Saddam's military capability and ended Iraq's ability to pose a military threat to any other Gulf state and thereby maintained the stability of the supply of Middle East oil. Those were objectives laid out by the UN, and were not necessarily ever the objectives of US foreign policy. The objective of US foreign policy has long been the removal of Saddam. Cheney calls it a 'battle interruptus '?! I call it the first battle in the war. whatever. To argue that the second invasion of Iraq was necessary because they failed to remove Saddam the first time misses the mark in two different ways: -it assumes it was an intention of the first invasion to remove Saddam, which it was not. -it assumes that it was somehow necessary to remove Saddam at all. It misses the mark in your opinion only. If you look at US foreign policy, Saddam's removal has long been a goal, and that it was necessary, for strategic reasons of dominance in the region by the US. Again look at the history of the US's foreign policy and there agenda wrt ME oil. Why? What was so all-fired important about removing Saddam from power that they had to cook up fake intelligence to justify it? "Al Qaeda's there!" "They're making WMDs!" Both fake from day one, both invented expressly for the purpose of selling the American public on the idea of fighting a war that didn't need to be fought. again US foreign policy and their agenda with regards to dominance in the ME region. One can ask the same question in a number of manners, and the answer is the same. There were bigger fish to fry than Saddam. There still are bigger fish to fry, but now the US is stuck in Iraq for the foreseeable future. -k and they are exactly where they want to be! Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
buffycat Posted August 24, 2007 Report Posted August 24, 2007 READ: A Clean Break: New Strategy for Securing the Realm Pretty much sums the whole Iraq mess up. And btw that was the intention - breaking up Iraq. Which is what is happening - so this particular war is heading right on track according to her architects. here is a link I found to the entire piece to download, oddly I can't seem to find a whole outline online anymore. http://www.hoanewsnetwork.com/media/resear...clean-break.php though I did find this: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1438.htm It seems that this paper along with PNAC's New American Century share much in common and both IMO can be considered foriegn policy smoking guns. (Strange though that last year I could type in the names of both docs and find them easily in their entirety) looks like someone is doing some web cleaning. I guess I could use the way back machine. Oh well, the above links should suffice. Quote "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" ~ Ghandi
GostHacked Posted September 7, 2007 Report Posted September 7, 2007 ..... and JUST in time for the anniversary of September 11, September 11, September 11, September 11,September 11, terrorism, terrorism, September 11, terrorism..... A NEW OSAMA VIDEO !!!! And might I add, he looks quite dapper after using that box of 'Just For Non-Vain Terrorizing Men' Why would Osama colour his beard? I know cutting the beard conflicts with his Islam religion, but colouring??? Hmmm. He has one hell of a make over team!!! http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/07/binladen.tape/index.html A videotape from al Qaeda would be nothing more than propaganda, said National Security Adviser Fran Townsend, speaking on CNN's "The Situation Room." No way!!! Propaganda? "I just think people have got to be clear that we're being manipulated every time that they issue a statement, because they're trying to use the media as a way to terrorize us," she said. "After all, we haven't seen an attack, and this is one way that they try to terrorize the American people." Oh and BushCheney Bin Laden's last video appearance came days before the 2004 presidential vote and was widely credited with giving a boost to President Bush's re-election campaign. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296065,00.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6984102.stm More talk about the beard and he will give Wolf Blitzer a run for the moniker. No this tape's released was not timed, and had nothing to do with scaring or influencing Americans. Not convenient at all. Lots of beard talk. Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 7, 2007 Report Posted September 7, 2007 ..... and JUST in time for the anniversary of September 11, September 11, September 11, September 11,September 11, terrorism, terrorism, September 11, terrorism.....A NEW OSAMA VIDEO !!!! And might I add, he looks quite dapper after using that box of 'Just For Non-Vain Terrorizing Men' Britany is releasing a video too. Now I know some will same that I just playing the moral equivilency card, but terrorism is terrorism and that gal scares me. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
GostHacked Posted September 7, 2007 Report Posted September 7, 2007 Britany is releasing a video too. Now I know some will same that I just playing the moral equivilency card, but terrorism is terrorism and that gal scares me. The Olsen Twins scare me more. But i'd still hit it. Quote
gc1765 Posted September 7, 2007 Report Posted September 7, 2007 Well, apparently the tape mentions recent events such as the election of Sarkozy. So, I guess that means bin laden is either: 1. Alive 2. Died recently 3. Dead, and that is someone acting as him 4. Fake - and that videotape was made by the CIA Any other possibilities I missed? Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
Topaz Posted September 8, 2007 Author Report Posted September 8, 2007 (edited) I, for one do not believe its OBL and I won't until this guy holds up a newspaper and shows the date!!! It seems everytime someone says in some forum that he's dead , that one of these tapes are brought out again. Good going CIA!!! I've read that the CIA has friends in the Middle-East that can produce these messages from the dead OBL. They even have a guy that looks like OBL. Since OBL knows enough about the American-style, I DON'T think he'd ask the people of the US to change to Muslim and I don't think he dye his beard! We never hear what he is saying, we just have to take the word of the US gov't. Edited September 8, 2007 by Charles Anthony merged from "BinLaden tape, Real or not????" Quote
kuzadd Posted September 8, 2007 Report Posted September 8, 2007 (edited) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/natio...arkin020199.htm When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing By William M. Arkin Special to washingtonpost.com Monday, Feb. 1, 1999 "Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government." So begins a statement being delivered by Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special Operations Command.At least the voice sounds amazingly like him. But it is not Steiner. It is the result of voice "morphing" technology developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile. Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy of the tape. so that was eight years ago, I am willing to say, the technology has come alot further since then. Once you can take any kind of information and reduce it into ones and zeros, you can do some pretty interesting things," says Daniel T. Kuehl, chairman of the Information Operations department of the National Defense University in Washington, the military's school for information warfare.Digital morphing — voice, video, and photo — has come of age, available for use in psychological operations. PSYOPS, as the military calls it, seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations to pursue national and battlefield objectives. what a valuable asset, at a time of war.! Of course if this technology is being used, strategically/militarily, it would most obviously have to be denied, but, it's too useful, as a manipulative tool, to dismiss it. Edited September 8, 2007 by kuzadd Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
betsy Posted September 8, 2007 Report Posted September 8, 2007 (edited) ..... and JUST in time for the anniversary of September 11, September 11, September 11, September 11,September 11, terrorism, terrorism, September 11, terrorism.....A NEW OSAMA VIDEO !!!! And might I add, he looks quite dapper after using that box of 'Just For Non-Vain Terrorizing Men' Why would Osama colour his beard? I know cutting the beard conflicts with his Islam religion, but colouring??? Hmmm. He has one hell of a make over team!!! Is it L'Oreal? I'd say he IS dead. His followers are desperately trying to keep him alive. Too bad with the hellish make-over. Dressing him in all black would've been much cooler, ala-Matrix, Darth Vader - Arabian Nights-style! Oh and BushCheneyhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296065,00.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6984102.stm More talk about the beard and he will give Wolf Blitzer a run for the moniker. No this tape's released was not timed, and had nothing to do with scaring or influencing Americans. Not convenient at all. Lots of beard talk. If this was a US-conspiracy like some anti-Bush would like to sell, Germany must be in on it? They were saying that they've been surveilling those guys recently arrested for sometime and that they knew something was up. Yep, these terrorists are heavy on symbolism. So it's only sensible to assume that Sep 11 could be a good target. I'd say this new tape reduced Bin Laden to a caricature - a fodder for lots of late-night shows' laughs and stand-up comic wannabes. Hmmmm....maybe, that's the plan.... Edited September 8, 2007 by betsy Quote
buffycat Posted September 8, 2007 Report Posted September 8, 2007 Is it L'Oreal? I'd say he IS dead. His followers handlers are desperately trying to keep him alive. There that's better!! Quote "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" ~ Ghandi
kimmy Posted September 8, 2007 Report Posted September 8, 2007 The CIA go to painstaking effort to create this sophisticated fake... but forget to digitally turn his beard grey? Why would he color his beard? Maybe they were hoping it would hide how old and feeble he is looking. Would they create a fake video to try and convince internet conspiracy buffs? I doubt it. These people are clearly beyond convincing. The generally blase response to the video does suggest that Osama's no longer the big deal he was a few years ago, though. People are like "yeah, whatever. Go back to your cave, old man." -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Higgly Posted September 8, 2007 Report Posted September 8, 2007 I thought he looked pretty snappy in that lovely yellow and cream outfit on CNN. I see he finalyl cleaned the hummous off his beard. Quote "We have seen the enemy and he is us!". Pogo (Walt Kelly).
kuzadd Posted September 8, 2007 Report Posted September 8, 2007 There that's better!! I see Osama is a book buff now, Noam Chomsky, yet! bah! Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 8, 2007 Report Posted September 8, 2007 The generally blase response to the video does suggest that Osama's no longer the big deal he was a few years ago, though. People are like "yeah, whatever. Go back to your cave, old man." That's what we told you several threads ago. Osama who? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kuzadd Posted September 8, 2007 Report Posted September 8, 2007 That's what we told you several threads ago. Osama who? Osama bin forgotten? Osama bin longa dead? Hey if Osama is "addressing" America, why doesn't he speak English?! The rich Saudi, can't speak English? The CIA operative, covert boy, from Afghanistan to Kosovo. That's quite non-credible isn't it? I am sure he would have picked up lots of English , working hand and glove with the US, Britian etc., Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.