Thought provoking....
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Vidal, nor any one else on the left, has any right to claim alligence with any principle Jefferson or the other founders ever advocated - they have willfully abandoned them all. Left and Right, imo. Libertarians need the White House to return the Government into a centralist state, imo. Maybe the Green Party could acheive this too? anyway I found this... ""Specifically, I will propose that, as we continue the critical work of rooting out our terrorist enemies militarily, we launch a long-term geopolitical and ideological initiative -- akin to the great campaign that won the Cold War -- to combat the despotism, poverty and isolation that terrorists exploit," Lieberman said in a speech at Georgetown University in Washington January 14, 2002. <snip> "In other words, while we drain the swamp, we must also seed the garden," Lieberman said." http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02011407.htm[^] :wtf::~ :suss: oh boy, Rome here we come. Later, JoeSox One thing vampire children have to be taught early on is, don't run with wooden stakes. --Jack Handy Deep Thoughts www.joeswammi.com ↔ www.humanaiproject.org
JoeSox wrote: In other words, while we drain the swamp, we must also seed the garden yup. and that's the PNAC/neo-con/reverse-domino philosophy in a nutshell. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
JoeSox wrote: In other words, while we drain the swamp, we must also seed the garden yup. and that's the PNAC/neo-con/reverse-domino philosophy in a nutshell. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: yup. and that's the PNAC/neo-con/reverse-domino philosophy in a nutshell. OK you disagree with that - what is your alternative? What is your idea for preventing another 9-11? Total American withdrawal from the Middle East? Let Israel die on the vine? Will that make them stop attacking? I sincerely doubt that. If you feel that the problem starts with America - American foreign policy, American imperialism, corrupt/decadent American culture - whatever - how do you change that? If that is the problem then America has to withdraw from the world and but up some big walls. The last time the Americans did that the world was plunged into the second world war. If the answer to that lovely question of "Why do they hate us?" is because you are free, rich and powerful - how do you change that? Give up freedom, wealth and power? - Fat chance. Spread the wealth around - Egypt has had 20+ years of American welfare and is still considered part of the third world and is constantly spew anti-American bile. I constantly see the 'Bush is doing it all wrong' mantra yet I never see a concrete alternative solution proposed. Give the American people one that they can see having a serious chance of working and they will jump at it. I just haven't seen one proposed. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
-
Chris Losinger wrote: yup. and that's the PNAC/neo-con/reverse-domino philosophy in a nutshell. OK you disagree with that - what is your alternative? What is your idea for preventing another 9-11? Total American withdrawal from the Middle East? Let Israel die on the vine? Will that make them stop attacking? I sincerely doubt that. If you feel that the problem starts with America - American foreign policy, American imperialism, corrupt/decadent American culture - whatever - how do you change that? If that is the problem then America has to withdraw from the world and but up some big walls. The last time the Americans did that the world was plunged into the second world war. If the answer to that lovely question of "Why do they hate us?" is because you are free, rich and powerful - how do you change that? Give up freedom, wealth and power? - Fat chance. Spread the wealth around - Egypt has had 20+ years of American welfare and is still considered part of the third world and is constantly spew anti-American bile. I constantly see the 'Bush is doing it all wrong' mantra yet I never see a concrete alternative solution proposed. Give the American people one that they can see having a serious chance of working and they will jump at it. I just haven't seen one proposed. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
OK. So, I'm president. I go to our allies and I say, "Terrorism affects us all. Right? Let's stand together and squash this right now. Here's my plan:" First step: a heart to heart talk with the Saudis, the Pakistanis, the leaders of any country who exports terrorism, in public (maybe on the floor of the UN, so everyone in the world could watch). And by "heart to heart" I mean they stand over there and we stand over here, we're all surrounded by TV cameras - the whole world is watching, no cutting away for Laci Peterson updates, and I say something along the lines of:
"Look, you fucking cocksuckers, this is the deal: clean this shit up or get used to living as nomads again. You want a clash of civilizations? This is it. And it's the civilized world against your fucked up terrorist philosophies, and we're calling the shots. If you want to run a country on the same world as the rest of us, you're gonna motherfucking behave. Got it ? You've got two months. Any shit out of you after those two months and that's the end of your regime. If you need some help completing this task, let us know and we'll help. But you're gonna solve it. The clock starts now. [tick tick tick...]"
"With us or against us", for real. None of this vague crap Bush spouted, no pussyfooting around the real sponsors of terrorism while waxing belligerent about non-threats like NK and Iraq. Start at the root of the problem. Call out the countries who produce this shit and let there be no doubt what or who we're talking about. Let them know the entire world is expecting results, not just one guy. And let there be no doubt about the consequences : you let this stuff grow, you lose your shit. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't care what kind of government you have, boil your people, roast them alive, whatever; no, we're here today to solve one problem and one problem only : you are not going to let your country breed terrorists. YOu know your people, you know your culture. Do what you have to do to fix the problem. If you don't do it, consider yourself at war with the whole fucking world. Clear goal, clear timeline, clear consequences. Maybe Bush has said this to these countries in private, i hope so. But I want it in public, I want the rest of the world involved, and I want it crystal-fucking clear that no matter how much oil you sell, or how poor you are, we are not gonna take shit from you. No special considerations, no back room deals: everything out front and in the open.
-
OK. So, I'm president. I go to our allies and I say, "Terrorism affects us all. Right? Let's stand together and squash this right now. Here's my plan:" First step: a heart to heart talk with the Saudis, the Pakistanis, the leaders of any country who exports terrorism, in public (maybe on the floor of the UN, so everyone in the world could watch). And by "heart to heart" I mean they stand over there and we stand over here, we're all surrounded by TV cameras - the whole world is watching, no cutting away for Laci Peterson updates, and I say something along the lines of:
"Look, you fucking cocksuckers, this is the deal: clean this shit up or get used to living as nomads again. You want a clash of civilizations? This is it. And it's the civilized world against your fucked up terrorist philosophies, and we're calling the shots. If you want to run a country on the same world as the rest of us, you're gonna motherfucking behave. Got it ? You've got two months. Any shit out of you after those two months and that's the end of your regime. If you need some help completing this task, let us know and we'll help. But you're gonna solve it. The clock starts now. [tick tick tick...]"
"With us or against us", for real. None of this vague crap Bush spouted, no pussyfooting around the real sponsors of terrorism while waxing belligerent about non-threats like NK and Iraq. Start at the root of the problem. Call out the countries who produce this shit and let there be no doubt what or who we're talking about. Let them know the entire world is expecting results, not just one guy. And let there be no doubt about the consequences : you let this stuff grow, you lose your shit. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't care what kind of government you have, boil your people, roast them alive, whatever; no, we're here today to solve one problem and one problem only : you are not going to let your country breed terrorists. YOu know your people, you know your culture. Do what you have to do to fix the problem. If you don't do it, consider yourself at war with the whole fucking world. Clear goal, clear timeline, clear consequences. Maybe Bush has said this to these countries in private, i hope so. But I want it in public, I want the rest of the world involved, and I want it crystal-fucking clear that no matter how much oil you sell, or how poor you are, we are not gonna take shit from you. No special considerations, no back room deals: everything out front and in the open.
So a heart to heart talk with the threat of consequences - just like the heart to heart with Saddam for a decade that left him just thumbing his nose at the world - with the complicity of a great chunk of the world because he was willing to talk great oil deals if they would just look the other way. And then the consequences would be what - invasion and regime change? What a horrible thought? Explain how the result of what you have described would be any differnt than it is now. Except that instead of having to invade Iraq with the rest of the region sitting pretty much on the sidelines we would have telegraphed the punch to all of the others despots and they would have decided to hang together instead of gradually coming to the realization that they have been sucker punched. The US now has a chance to try to build a functioning democracy into action in Iraq - I don't like their chances because they insist on not being as ruthless as they need to be to make Iraq an inhospitible place for terrorists (flatten Tikrit and then say - if you hide terrorists in your village the same happens to you - then see if there aren't a few more people willing to report on terrorist activites). You say your solution may be totally unrealistic - I will agree with you there. So I will ask again - give me a realistic solution. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
-
So a heart to heart talk with the threat of consequences - just like the heart to heart with Saddam for a decade that left him just thumbing his nose at the world - with the complicity of a great chunk of the world because he was willing to talk great oil deals if they would just look the other way. And then the consequences would be what - invasion and regime change? What a horrible thought? Explain how the result of what you have described would be any differnt than it is now. Except that instead of having to invade Iraq with the rest of the region sitting pretty much on the sidelines we would have telegraphed the punch to all of the others despots and they would have decided to hang together instead of gradually coming to the realization that they have been sucker punched. The US now has a chance to try to build a functioning democracy into action in Iraq - I don't like their chances because they insist on not being as ruthless as they need to be to make Iraq an inhospitible place for terrorists (flatten Tikrit and then say - if you hide terrorists in your village the same happens to you - then see if there aren't a few more people willing to report on terrorist activites). You say your solution may be totally unrealistic - I will agree with you there. So I will ask again - give me a realistic solution. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
Dave Huff wrote: just like the heart to heart with Saddam for a decade that left him just thumbing his nose at the world no. get this through your head:
fuck saddam
the problem is anti-western terrorism, not regional bad-guys, not oil deals, not any of that other shit. fix the real problem, quit fucking around with extraneous crap. Dave Huff wrote: then the consequences would be what - invasion and regime change? What a horrible thought? yes, that's exactly what the consequence of allowing terrorism to breed would be. Saddam wasn't doing that. Saddam was a different problem. Dave Huff wrote: The US now has a chance to try to build a functioning democracy into action in Iraq who cares. fuck Iraq. fuck democracy. fuck Saddam. none of those are in any way related to 9/11 or al-Queda. democracy? there are plenty of dictatorships in the world that don't sponsor terrorism. if you want to fix the problem of anti-western terrorism, then fix that problem. Saddam? regional bad guys are totally fucking irrelevant. sure, we have to put Iraq back together now, but that is a different problem. terrorism is the problem. Dave Huff wrote: You say your solution may be totally unrealistic - I will agree with you there. So I will ask again - give me a realistic solution. i gave you mine. it's your turn. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Dave Huff wrote: just like the heart to heart with Saddam for a decade that left him just thumbing his nose at the world no. get this through your head:
fuck saddam
the problem is anti-western terrorism, not regional bad-guys, not oil deals, not any of that other shit. fix the real problem, quit fucking around with extraneous crap. Dave Huff wrote: then the consequences would be what - invasion and regime change? What a horrible thought? yes, that's exactly what the consequence of allowing terrorism to breed would be. Saddam wasn't doing that. Saddam was a different problem. Dave Huff wrote: The US now has a chance to try to build a functioning democracy into action in Iraq who cares. fuck Iraq. fuck democracy. fuck Saddam. none of those are in any way related to 9/11 or al-Queda. democracy? there are plenty of dictatorships in the world that don't sponsor terrorism. if you want to fix the problem of anti-western terrorism, then fix that problem. Saddam? regional bad guys are totally fucking irrelevant. sure, we have to put Iraq back together now, but that is a different problem. terrorism is the problem. Dave Huff wrote: You say your solution may be totally unrealistic - I will agree with you there. So I will ask again - give me a realistic solution. i gave you mine. it's your turn. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: the problem is anti-western terrorism, You are right - now the question is - How do you fix it? Wiping out Saddam isn't an end in itself - it is a stepping stone in trying to get the entire f'ing region out of the middle ages. The are two ways to do that - provide the people of the middle east with a concrete example of an alternative to the f_cked-up death cult that they have managed to develop. You have to make it one they can't ignore or blame on outside interests ("Israel is successful because the JOOOOOOS control Amerikkka"). You need a functioning - successful - free example of the benefits to the ordinary guy of living without deathly fear of your leaders. The other alternative is to wipe them off the earth - lets not go there. So if you want to change you have to start somewhere. Pick a spot - your choice but it has to be major - Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Iran. Which one is the easiest? Again - give me an alternative. Chris Losinger wrote: the problem is anti-western terrorism, Chris Losinger wrote: none of those are in any way related to 9/11 or al-Queda. Saddams support of terrorism not al-Queda is well documented including payments to people who think sending their children out to blow themselves up in school buses is a good idea. He is also known to have allowed one the the men indicted in the original WTC bombing in ?1993? to live in Iraq. So the argument that Saddam has nothing to do with terrorism is pure BS. That he had nothing to do with Sept 11 - I totally agree. But this long ago went beyond the perpetrators of 9/11. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
-
Chris Losinger wrote: the problem is anti-western terrorism, You are right - now the question is - How do you fix it? Wiping out Saddam isn't an end in itself - it is a stepping stone in trying to get the entire f'ing region out of the middle ages. The are two ways to do that - provide the people of the middle east with a concrete example of an alternative to the f_cked-up death cult that they have managed to develop. You have to make it one they can't ignore or blame on outside interests ("Israel is successful because the JOOOOOOS control Amerikkka"). You need a functioning - successful - free example of the benefits to the ordinary guy of living without deathly fear of your leaders. The other alternative is to wipe them off the earth - lets not go there. So if you want to change you have to start somewhere. Pick a spot - your choice but it has to be major - Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Iran. Which one is the easiest? Again - give me an alternative. Chris Losinger wrote: the problem is anti-western terrorism, Chris Losinger wrote: none of those are in any way related to 9/11 or al-Queda. Saddams support of terrorism not al-Queda is well documented including payments to people who think sending their children out to blow themselves up in school buses is a good idea. He is also known to have allowed one the the men indicted in the original WTC bombing in ?1993? to live in Iraq. So the argument that Saddam has nothing to do with terrorism is pure BS. That he had nothing to do with Sept 11 - I totally agree. But this long ago went beyond the perpetrators of 9/11. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
IMO, in order to come up with any workable "plan", we need access to information, which none of us have. Till then it's nothing more than fantasizing. Maybe what Bush is doing is the best thing to do under the circumstances. We just don't know. It's too early to say anything, IMO. Give him some time. He's just started. Arm wresting with an entire region is not a joke. We don't want people to say 50 years down the line, "Look they f'ed it up, and that's why all this is happening," and someone else to respond, "Yeah, hindsight is 20/20". I mean, come on. This has to be played carefully. Like a game of chess. Not baseball. Maybe cutting off their source of funding will help? And arms and ammunitions? They'll be paralyzed without money and guns/bombs, won't they? This is how they operate, right? "Hey Ahmed, go blow yourself up, and I'll give your family a thousand dinars and a bucket full of water". But I'm sure people are already working on this. Regards, Rohit Sinha Browsy
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
-
Chris Losinger wrote: the problem is anti-western terrorism, You are right - now the question is - How do you fix it? Wiping out Saddam isn't an end in itself - it is a stepping stone in trying to get the entire f'ing region out of the middle ages. The are two ways to do that - provide the people of the middle east with a concrete example of an alternative to the f_cked-up death cult that they have managed to develop. You have to make it one they can't ignore or blame on outside interests ("Israel is successful because the JOOOOOOS control Amerikkka"). You need a functioning - successful - free example of the benefits to the ordinary guy of living without deathly fear of your leaders. The other alternative is to wipe them off the earth - lets not go there. So if you want to change you have to start somewhere. Pick a spot - your choice but it has to be major - Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Iran. Which one is the easiest? Again - give me an alternative. Chris Losinger wrote: the problem is anti-western terrorism, Chris Losinger wrote: none of those are in any way related to 9/11 or al-Queda. Saddams support of terrorism not al-Queda is well documented including payments to people who think sending their children out to blow themselves up in school buses is a good idea. He is also known to have allowed one the the men indicted in the original WTC bombing in ?1993? to live in Iraq. So the argument that Saddam has nothing to do with terrorism is pure BS. That he had nothing to do with Sept 11 - I totally agree. But this long ago went beyond the perpetrators of 9/11. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
Dave Huff wrote: How do you fix it? put the countries that allow it to breed in their borders on notice: specific, public notice. make every single country responsible for what it lets out into the world and back it up with the force of all the rest of the world. yes, you're right. Saddam supported anti-Israeli terrorism, as do half the other countries in the region. are we doing anything to them? of course not. Bush has failed to carry through on his "With us or against us" rhetoric. Saddam provided money and maybe explosives - but the mindset that created the demand for those things comes from other places. Bush went after Saddam because Saddam was weak and unpopular, but he's handling the real producers of terrorism like delicate little flowers. he's trying to do it backwards of how I think it should be done. Saddam's money is gone, but the places where a terrorist learns to hate the west are still out there. would taking out the leaders of countries cause massive unrest and economic troubles? yeah, probably. hopefully it would only take one or two before the message sank in. if poor or weak countries can't handle it, well, we could certainly give them some help. anyway... too worked up. need :beer: cheers. -c ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
IMO, in order to come up with any workable "plan", we need access to information, which none of us have. Till then it's nothing more than fantasizing. Maybe what Bush is doing is the best thing to do under the circumstances. We just don't know. It's too early to say anything, IMO. Give him some time. He's just started. Arm wresting with an entire region is not a joke. We don't want people to say 50 years down the line, "Look they f'ed it up, and that's why all this is happening," and someone else to respond, "Yeah, hindsight is 20/20". I mean, come on. This has to be played carefully. Like a game of chess. Not baseball. Maybe cutting off their source of funding will help? And arms and ammunitions? They'll be paralyzed without money and guns/bombs, won't they? This is how they operate, right? "Hey Ahmed, go blow yourself up, and I'll give your family a thousand dinars and a bucket full of water". But I'm sure people are already working on this. Regards, Rohit Sinha Browsy
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
Rohit Sinha wrote: They'll be paralyzed without money and guns/bombs, won't they? 9/11 clearly demonstrated they only need a good plan. the tools they used are practially irrelevant. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: They'll be paralyzed without money and guns/bombs, won't they? 9/11 clearly demonstrated they only need a good plan. the tools they used are practially irrelevant. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Yes. :sigh: Regards, Rohit Sinha Browsy
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
-
IMO, in order to come up with any workable "plan", we need access to information, which none of us have. Till then it's nothing more than fantasizing. Maybe what Bush is doing is the best thing to do under the circumstances. We just don't know. It's too early to say anything, IMO. Give him some time. He's just started. Arm wresting with an entire region is not a joke. We don't want people to say 50 years down the line, "Look they f'ed it up, and that's why all this is happening," and someone else to respond, "Yeah, hindsight is 20/20". I mean, come on. This has to be played carefully. Like a game of chess. Not baseball. Maybe cutting off their source of funding will help? And arms and ammunitions? They'll be paralyzed without money and guns/bombs, won't they? This is how they operate, right? "Hey Ahmed, go blow yourself up, and I'll give your family a thousand dinars and a bucket full of water". But I'm sure people are already working on this. Regards, Rohit Sinha Browsy
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
Rohit Sinha wrote: Maybe cutting off their source of funding will help? I would almost guarantee that this is happening in the background. Rohit Sinha wrote: "Hey Ahmed, go blow yourself up, and I'll give your family a thousand dinars and a bucket full of water". Yeah but what about places like the West Bank and Gaza - "Hey Ahmed, go blow yourself up, and I'll give you 72 virgins in the afterlife - and your family will be so proud of you" - and since Ahmed has been taught to hate since he was born that will be quite enough. Terrorism won't be stopped by force of arms but by changing a mindset. Force of arms will be necessary to set up the conditions for that change. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
-
Dave Huff wrote: How do you fix it? put the countries that allow it to breed in their borders on notice: specific, public notice. make every single country responsible for what it lets out into the world and back it up with the force of all the rest of the world. yes, you're right. Saddam supported anti-Israeli terrorism, as do half the other countries in the region. are we doing anything to them? of course not. Bush has failed to carry through on his "With us or against us" rhetoric. Saddam provided money and maybe explosives - but the mindset that created the demand for those things comes from other places. Bush went after Saddam because Saddam was weak and unpopular, but he's handling the real producers of terrorism like delicate little flowers. he's trying to do it backwards of how I think it should be done. Saddam's money is gone, but the places where a terrorist learns to hate the west are still out there. would taking out the leaders of countries cause massive unrest and economic troubles? yeah, probably. hopefully it would only take one or two before the message sank in. if poor or weak countries can't handle it, well, we could certainly give them some help. anyway... too worked up. need :beer: cheers. -c ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: are we doing anything to them? Not yet - at least publically. But the very thought of a successful free Iraq on their borders must be giving the House of Saud and the Baathist in Syria conniptions. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
-
OK. So, I'm president. I go to our allies and I say, "Terrorism affects us all. Right? Let's stand together and squash this right now. Here's my plan:" First step: a heart to heart talk with the Saudis, the Pakistanis, the leaders of any country who exports terrorism, in public (maybe on the floor of the UN, so everyone in the world could watch). And by "heart to heart" I mean they stand over there and we stand over here, we're all surrounded by TV cameras - the whole world is watching, no cutting away for Laci Peterson updates, and I say something along the lines of:
"Look, you fucking cocksuckers, this is the deal: clean this shit up or get used to living as nomads again. You want a clash of civilizations? This is it. And it's the civilized world against your fucked up terrorist philosophies, and we're calling the shots. If you want to run a country on the same world as the rest of us, you're gonna motherfucking behave. Got it ? You've got two months. Any shit out of you after those two months and that's the end of your regime. If you need some help completing this task, let us know and we'll help. But you're gonna solve it. The clock starts now. [tick tick tick...]"
"With us or against us", for real. None of this vague crap Bush spouted, no pussyfooting around the real sponsors of terrorism while waxing belligerent about non-threats like NK and Iraq. Start at the root of the problem. Call out the countries who produce this shit and let there be no doubt what or who we're talking about. Let them know the entire world is expecting results, not just one guy. And let there be no doubt about the consequences : you let this stuff grow, you lose your shit. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't care what kind of government you have, boil your people, roast them alive, whatever; no, we're here today to solve one problem and one problem only : you are not going to let your country breed terrorists. YOu know your people, you know your culture. Do what you have to do to fix the problem. If you don't do it, consider yourself at war with the whole fucking world. Clear goal, clear timeline, clear consequences. Maybe Bush has said this to these countries in private, i hope so. But I want it in public, I want the rest of the world involved, and I want it crystal-fucking clear that no matter how much oil you sell, or how poor you are, we are not gonna take shit from you. No special considerations, no back room deals: everything out front and in the open.
Chris Losinger wrote: "Look, you f***ing cocksuckers, this is the deal: clean this sh*t up or get used to living as nomads again. You want a clash of civilizations? This is it. And it's the civilized world against your f***ed up terrorist philosophies, and we're calling the shots. If you want to run a country on the same world as the rest of us, you're gonna motherf***ing behave. Got it ? You've got two months. Any sh*t out of you after those two months and that's the end of your regime. If you need some help completing this task, let us know and we'll help. But you're gonna solve it. The clock starts now. [tick tick tick...]" That is exactly what I have been thinking since the beginning of all this. I like that all or nothing gamble. However, I see no reason to blame Bush, et al, for not doing it. I don't think any politician around would have had the balls to do it that way. Threatening the Saudi royal family could leave the greatest oil reserve in the world in the hands of al quida (sp?). The chaos to world markets would be enormous. Also, an invasion of Saudi Arabia, if it came to that, would, in no uncertain terms, mean an invasion of the entire Muslim world, we would have no choice but to take out every significant Muslim nation because they would all rise against us.
-
"...Franklin understood the American people better than the other three. Washington and Jefferson were nobles — slaveholders and plantation owners. Alexander Hamilton married into a rich and powerful family and joined the upper classes. Benjamin Franklin was pure middle class. In fact, he may have invented it for Americans. Franklin saw danger everywhere. They all did. Not one of them liked the Constitution. James Madison, known as the father of it, was full of complaints about the power of the presidency. But they were in a hurry to get the country going. Hence the great speech, which I quote at length in the book, that Franklin, old and dying, had someone read for him. He said, I am in favor of this Constitution, as flawed as it is, because we need good government and we need it fast. And this, properly enacted, will give us, for a space of years, such government. But then, Franklin said, it will fail, as all such constitutions have in the past, because of the essential corruption of the people. He pointed his finger at all the American people. And when the people become so corrupt, he said, we will find it is not a republic that they want but rather despotism — the only form of government suitable for such a people.... So the corruption predicted by Franklin bears its terrible fruit. No one wants to do anything about it. It’s not even a campaign issue. Once you have a business community that is so corrupt in a society whose business is business, then what you have is, indeed, despotism. It is the sort of authoritarian rule that the Bush people have given us. The USA PATRIOT Act is as despotic as anything Hitler came up with — even using much of the same language. In one of my earlier books, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, I show how the language used by the Clinton people to frighten Americans into going after terrorists like Timothy McVeigh — how their rights were going to be suspended only for a brief time — was precisely the language used by Hitler after the Reichstag fire." http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/52/features-cooper.php[^] :| sorry for length, but a good read, imo Later, JoeSox One thing vampire children have to be taught early on is, don't run with wooden stakes. --Jack Handy Deep Thoughts www.joeswammi.com ↔
JoeSox wrote: The USA PATRIOT Act is as despotic as anything Hitler came up with — even using much of the same language I hear everybody whining about the patriot act, but I never here people citing which pieces of the act they think infringes on our constitutional rights. Not surprising - since the Patriot Act is also capable of being overturned by the judiciary and no such challenges have suceeded. Perhaps you should list which parts of this Patriot Act are so neferious? As for using the same language - no shit Sherlock. Any 2 documents that cover the same broad subject matter will contain similar phrases. Sheesh. Let me guess - you don't think we ever went to the moon do you?
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
-
OK. So, I'm president. I go to our allies and I say, "Terrorism affects us all. Right? Let's stand together and squash this right now. Here's my plan:" First step: a heart to heart talk with the Saudis, the Pakistanis, the leaders of any country who exports terrorism, in public (maybe on the floor of the UN, so everyone in the world could watch). And by "heart to heart" I mean they stand over there and we stand over here, we're all surrounded by TV cameras - the whole world is watching, no cutting away for Laci Peterson updates, and I say something along the lines of:
"Look, you fucking cocksuckers, this is the deal: clean this shit up or get used to living as nomads again. You want a clash of civilizations? This is it. And it's the civilized world against your fucked up terrorist philosophies, and we're calling the shots. If you want to run a country on the same world as the rest of us, you're gonna motherfucking behave. Got it ? You've got two months. Any shit out of you after those two months and that's the end of your regime. If you need some help completing this task, let us know and we'll help. But you're gonna solve it. The clock starts now. [tick tick tick...]"
"With us or against us", for real. None of this vague crap Bush spouted, no pussyfooting around the real sponsors of terrorism while waxing belligerent about non-threats like NK and Iraq. Start at the root of the problem. Call out the countries who produce this shit and let there be no doubt what or who we're talking about. Let them know the entire world is expecting results, not just one guy. And let there be no doubt about the consequences : you let this stuff grow, you lose your shit. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't care what kind of government you have, boil your people, roast them alive, whatever; no, we're here today to solve one problem and one problem only : you are not going to let your country breed terrorists. YOu know your people, you know your culture. Do what you have to do to fix the problem. If you don't do it, consider yourself at war with the whole fucking world. Clear goal, clear timeline, clear consequences. Maybe Bush has said this to these countries in private, i hope so. But I want it in public, I want the rest of the world involved, and I want it crystal-fucking clear that no matter how much oil you sell, or how poor you are, we are not gonna take shit from you. No special considerations, no back room deals: everything out front and in the open.
Chris Losinger wrote: But hoping these countries will willingly and peacefully turn into responsible democracies is, at best, a solution that will take too long, and at worst a fantasy. As long as you have whipped puppies in Europe like France secretly telling the countries over there that they will continue to thwart the US in it's just war on terror in exchange for no bombings in France then it will never happen. But I do like your approach because then it will shine the light on those gallic cockroaches and they won't be able to scurry under a crack in the wall. They will be exposed.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
-
Chris Losinger wrote: the problem is anti-western terrorism, You are right - now the question is - How do you fix it? Wiping out Saddam isn't an end in itself - it is a stepping stone in trying to get the entire f'ing region out of the middle ages. The are two ways to do that - provide the people of the middle east with a concrete example of an alternative to the f_cked-up death cult that they have managed to develop. You have to make it one they can't ignore or blame on outside interests ("Israel is successful because the JOOOOOOS control Amerikkka"). You need a functioning - successful - free example of the benefits to the ordinary guy of living without deathly fear of your leaders. The other alternative is to wipe them off the earth - lets not go there. So if you want to change you have to start somewhere. Pick a spot - your choice but it has to be major - Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Iran. Which one is the easiest? Again - give me an alternative. Chris Losinger wrote: the problem is anti-western terrorism, Chris Losinger wrote: none of those are in any way related to 9/11 or al-Queda. Saddams support of terrorism not al-Queda is well documented including payments to people who think sending their children out to blow themselves up in school buses is a good idea. He is also known to have allowed one the the men indicted in the original WTC bombing in ?1993? to live in Iraq. So the argument that Saddam has nothing to do with terrorism is pure BS. That he had nothing to do with Sept 11 - I totally agree. But this long ago went beyond the perpetrators of 9/11. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
Dave Huff wrote: Wiping out Saddam isn't an end in itself - it is a stepping stone in trying to get the entire f'ing region out of the middle ages Exactly. it is no coincidence that Iraq borders Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Syria, Lebanon. If Iran was where Iraq is and visa-versa then we would have invaded Iran instead of Iraq. The end result would be the same - a pro-western government with hundreds of thousands of coalition troops stationed within driving distance of the rest of the bad guys. This war is going to take time. We are laying out our chess pieces in a scale of years. If those morons in Europe would quit yelping and support us diplomatically by agreeing to large scale embargoes on the rest of those medieval ass-backward, warlord ruling freak nations then this entire problem could get cleared up within a decade.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
-
Dave Huff wrote: How do you fix it? put the countries that allow it to breed in their borders on notice: specific, public notice. make every single country responsible for what it lets out into the world and back it up with the force of all the rest of the world. yes, you're right. Saddam supported anti-Israeli terrorism, as do half the other countries in the region. are we doing anything to them? of course not. Bush has failed to carry through on his "With us or against us" rhetoric. Saddam provided money and maybe explosives - but the mindset that created the demand for those things comes from other places. Bush went after Saddam because Saddam was weak and unpopular, but he's handling the real producers of terrorism like delicate little flowers. he's trying to do it backwards of how I think it should be done. Saddam's money is gone, but the places where a terrorist learns to hate the west are still out there. would taking out the leaders of countries cause massive unrest and economic troubles? yeah, probably. hopefully it would only take one or two before the message sank in. if poor or weak countries can't handle it, well, we could certainly give them some help. anyway... too worked up. need :beer: cheers. -c ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: Bush went after Saddam because Saddam was weak and unpopular, but he's handling the real producers of terrorism like delicate little flowers. he's trying to do it backwards of how I think it should be done. He went after Saddam because of where Iraq sits geographically. If Syria or Iran were where Iraq is, we would have invaded them. We need Iraq as a place to safely mass troops so that when the time comes we can move against Syria and/or Iran.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
-
JoeSox wrote: The USA PATRIOT Act is as despotic as anything Hitler came up with — even using much of the same language I hear everybody whining about the patriot act, but I never here people citing which pieces of the act they think infringes on our constitutional rights. Not surprising - since the Patriot Act is also capable of being overturned by the judiciary and no such challenges have suceeded. Perhaps you should list which parts of this Patriot Act are so neferious? As for using the same language - no shit Sherlock. Any 2 documents that cover the same broad subject matter will contain similar phrases. Sheesh. Let me guess - you don't think we ever went to the moon do you?
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Perhaps you should list which parts of this Patriot Act are so neferious? section 802 is my favorite. it is the definition of "domestic terrorism". here it is, stripped of roman numerals:
The term `domestic terrorism' means activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State which appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
That covers a huge number of things. Abortion clinic bombings? Sure. Politically motivated killing? Yup. Plain ol' kidnapping? Yup. Reckless acts during an otherwise peaceful political protest? Yup. It's really too broad, IMO. =c ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Perhaps you should list which parts of this Patriot Act are so neferious? section 802 is my favorite. it is the definition of "domestic terrorism". here it is, stripped of roman numerals:
The term `domestic terrorism' means activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State which appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
That covers a huge number of things. Abortion clinic bombings? Sure. Politically motivated killing? Yup. Plain ol' kidnapping? Yup. Reckless acts during an otherwise peaceful political protest? Yup. It's really too broad, IMO. =c ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: Reckless acts during an otherwise peaceful political protest? Yup. "Reckless acts"? The acts are either criminal or they aren't. If they are criminal acts then let the axe fall where it may.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
-
Chris Losinger wrote: Reckless acts during an otherwise peaceful political protest? Yup. "Reckless acts"? The acts are either criminal or they aren't. If they are criminal acts then let the axe fall where it may.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
a bunch of kids protesting low wages at the amusement park knock over a tiki torch and cause a small fire, endagering the life of anyone dumb enough to stand in the middle of the fire. according to this, they're now "domestic terrorists". in-fucking-sane. there are already plenty of laws to cover this: vandalism, reckless endagerment, criminal mischief, trespassing, blah blah blah. but "terrorism" ? do you really want to dilute the meaning of the word "terrorism" to apply to situations like that? i know you get off on being a contrarian, but gimme a fuckin break. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle