Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
seriously, what is with the hate for america? i am a liberal and i am so flabbergasted by the way lmany other iberals treat our nation.
I'm pretty liberal myself, but some geniuses around here like to spew so much hate it makes me look more centrist than i am. My favorite is when they get mad and call me a FOXnews O'reilly watching sheep. It never fails. if they knew me they would know thats so far from the truth.
"There is no way to peace, peace is the way."
- Gandhi
Ghandi was a man (in a certain situation in a certain time), not a god some of you make him out to be.
you think his tactics would have worked in Nazi Germany ? How did it work out in Bhurma, or Tianenmen Square? you are delirious.
Ghandi's 'weapon' is functional only against CONSCIENCE. If your oppressor has no conscience, nonviolent protest is virtually useless. There was no strong desire to hold on to India by the time Ghandi came around (due in no small part to various VIOLENT revolts, sabotage and terrorist attacks). The Indian colony simply wasnt "economically feasible".
the idea that the first gulf war was a conspiracy to weaken saddam and iraq and keep them that way for years until we decided to take him out is bullshit
we could have taken him out in 1991 when we had overwhelming national and world support to do so.
why would they wait? why take that chance? why wait for a future justification?
Overwhelming support? They were there to remove them from Kuwait….as Roland said earlier, public and world opinion would not have allowed them to continue into Baghdad after the highway of death turned that opinion firmly against taking the offensive. It took another ten years for your government to get brazen enough to start the ‘regime change’ bullshit and stop caring completely about popular opinion.
and if the CIA and the shadows of the US government are all controlling and dictate every world event, then how the hell did the former head of the CIA lose the election in 1992?
from what I can see…you are the one bringing up shadow governments. Can I call you a tinfoil hatter for towing the line that there was a military buildup on the Saudi boarder? Or because you’re ignoring the ‘conspiracy’ of a 15 yr old (daughter of the Kuwaiti embassador to the US) telling lies about Iraqi atrocities…and the fact that it was all over the media, and quoted in congress (and the UN?) multiple times while building support for the war. There is no shadow government, just shadow agendas. If you take all US foreign actions at face value, I don’t know what more to say…
To imply that Clinton being elected would have screwed up US foreign policy objectives in the middle east is no different than saying Obama will change the current situation. Clinton and Bush Sr. do speaking engagements together ffs….there are no major FP differences between the parties, then or now….
Overwhelming support? They were there to remove them from Kuwait….as Roland said earlier, public and world opinion would not have allowed them to continue into Baghdad after the highway of death turned that opinion firmly against taking the offensive. It took another ten years for your government to get brazen enough to start the ‘regime change’ bullshit and stop caring completely about popular opinion.
.
what kind of revisionist history is this? no one would have cared if we rolled right on in to Baghdad. Indeed, most people thought we should have.
the us could've easily have stopped the invasion of kuwait but did nothing b/c it gave them reason in a post-cold war era to increase the defense budget
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
the idea that the first gulf war was a conspiracy to weaken saddam and iraq and keep them that way for years until we decided to take him out is bullshit
we could have taken him out in 1991 when we had overwhelming national and world support to do so.
why would they wait? why take that chance? why wait for a future justification?
and if the CIA and the shadows of the US government are all controlling and dictate every world event, then how the hell did the former head of the CIA lose the election in 1992?
no, it wasn't a future plan, they thought it would cost too many lives and money to invade baghdad...it was all about having an enemy to justify increasing the defense budget which was slashed due to the cold war being over
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
wait wait wait... your whole argument is based solely on the fact that the ambassador basically said "we dont care about your petty squabbles" to Saddam? How in Gods name do you make the leap to say we were actively promoting Iraq invading Kuwait? IN WHAT WORLD IS THIS THE NEXT LOGICAL LEAP? How much conditioning does it require for this to make sense?
So you want me to believe Saddam had no idea anyone would notice invading Kuwait and moving on to Saudi Arabia, which collectivelly account for a massive percentage of the world's oil? Are you trying to convince me that because we said once that we didnt want to get involved, he would naturally assume no one would care about this? And you also expect me to believe that he wouldnt scream bloody murder about the US saying it was ok once we supposedly turn on him?
i think i like it better when you are posting links about ties between Columbine and Israel. That makes more sense than this shit.
but they could've stopped the war before it ever started!
things to keep in mind to put it in a better context:
-kuwait had been stealin oil from iraq as well as violating opec quotas. iraq went to their friends, the US, who told them we "do not wish to get involved in arab-arab affairs."
-Amnesty International and other groups had issued reports on human rights abuses of Iraq but Bush didn't care.
-w/ the cold war being over the defense budget was slashed, upsetting a certain sector who they are all pretty much working in now
-iraq starts a troop buildup on the border and congress asks the state dept in to answer some questions about our allies, iraq...asked if we would be committed to action if anything happens the answer is 'of course not'
-nothing is done and the next day iraq invades
-the AI and other reports are suddenly treated like scripture to help prove the justifications for action
-defense budget blows up as does war spending
also bear in mind we had told the iraqis we would support them if they rose up against saddam...which they did and we did nothing while they were massacred
^^^^^^
the reality of it
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
nevermind i quit. Its our fault because we didnt threaten war before anything happened. We did the pacifist thing and it was wrong. we should have rattled those sabres!!!
nevermind i quit. Its our fault because we didnt threaten war before anything happened. We did the pacifist thing and it was wrong. we should have rattled those sabres!!!
we are so evil
yeah, i guess talking to our ally at the time instead of telling them we didn't wish to get involved or we had no obligation to do anything is unheard of...?
the pacifist thing isn't to just stand by and wait for it to happen, the pacifist thing would've been diplomacy. not saber rattling or threats
we knew they were gonna invade and just sat and waited for it to happen
if i know a little girl is about to be kidnapped and murdered and i do nothing how is that the 'pacifist thing to do'??? especially when i use her kidnapping/murder to get an increased defense budget
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
wait wait wait... your whole argument is based solely on the fact that the ambassador basically said "we dont care about your petty squabbles" to Saddam? How in Gods name do you make the leap to say we were actively promoting Iraq invading Kuwait? IN WHAT WORLD IS THIS THE NEXT LOGICAL LEAP? How much conditioning does it require for this to make sense?
So you want me to believe Saddam had no idea anyone would notice invading Kuwait and moving on to Saudi Arabia, which collectivelly account for a massive percentage of the world's oil? Are you trying to convince me that because we said once that we didnt want to get involved, he would naturally assume no one would care about this? And you also expect me to believe that he wouldnt scream bloody murder about the US saying it was ok once we supposedly turn on him?
i think i like it better when you are posting links about ties between Columbine and Israel. That makes more sense than this shit.
are we saying it while they have troops building up on the border???
if we saw an ally building troops up on israel's border would we just wait for it to happen or would we try to talk to them before? what do you think the responsible thing to do would be?
congress obviously knew what was gonna happen that they asked the state dept about it
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
no, it wasn't a future plan, they thought it would cost too many lives and money to invade baghdad
thank you, thats what i have been saying. thats why i like you kabong. at least your arguments are actually rooted in some type of fatcs, not conspiracy spin
....it was all about having an enemy to justify increasing the defense budget which was slashed due to the cold war being over
so you believe saddam was "played" or "green lit" to invade Kuwait so we could expand the defense budget?
i think i like it better when you are posting links about ties between Columbine and Israel. That makes more sense than this shit.
what a major ding that was on my boy rolands cred, man did he stretch with that nonsense...
if you ask him the whole world is run by a zionist plot to dominate the globe and everything that happens in the world is connected to that agenda and zionist manipulation :rolleyes:
what a major ding that was on my boy rolands cred, man did he stretch with that nonsense...
if you ask him the whole world is run by a zionist plot to dominate the globe and everything that happens in the world is connected to that agenda and zionist manipulation :rolleyes:
Lots of people's cred around here seems to be slipping if you ask me. It all depends on your perspective, I suppose.
Why don't we stay on topic instead of attacking someone else's character?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
thank you for helping make my point with the help of Mr Zinn...
even he says the cause of getting Iraq to withdraw from kuwait was could be considered "just". he follows that by saying perhaps war as a means to get them to withdraw is unjust. which of course no one cheers on war or thinks thats the only answer, especially not me.
my question to Zinn, and the others in this thread the past 2 days has been the same. how do you get Iraq to withdraw from kuwait? sanctions via the UN were put in place, diplomacy via the UN took place, a threat of war was put in place via the UN, and none of that worked. they were given ample time to withdraw under pressure form the world. so how do you get them to withdraw without using force?
what kind of revisionist history is this? no one would have cared if we rolled right on in to Baghdad. Indeed, most people thought we should have.
You really think people would get behind that?
I can't think of one person at the time that would think that would have been necessary, and would have supported it.
The battle was already won. The conflict was over. People would have freaked out just like they are doing now.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
wait wait wait... your whole argument is based solely on the fact that the ambassador basically said "we dont care about your petty squabbles" to Saddam? How in Gods name do you make the leap to say we were actively promoting Iraq invading Kuwait? IN WHAT WORLD IS THIS THE NEXT LOGICAL LEAP? How much conditioning does it require for this to make sense?
So you want me to believe Saddam had no idea anyone would notice invading Kuwait and moving on to Saudi Arabia, which collectivelly account for a massive percentage of the world's oil? Are you trying to convince me that because we said once that we didnt want to get involved, he would naturally assume no one would care about this? And you also expect me to believe that he wouldnt scream bloody murder about the US saying it was ok once we supposedly turn on him?
i think i like it better when you are posting links about ties between Columbine and Israel. That makes more sense than this shit.
I like how you tossed in moving on to Saudi Arabia....lol gmab...
If he had a false sense of specific non intervention...do the math.
yikes..
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
what a major ding that was on my boy rolands cred, man did he stretch with that nonsense...
if you ask him the whole world is run by a zionist plot to dominate the globe and everything that happens in the world is connected to that agenda and zionist manipulation :rolleyes:
your fantasy world is frightening at times...
It's pretty damn sad when you can't bring up a topic for discussion without getting labeleed an adamant supporter of every last word in it.
Talk about ruining open discussion and inserting hatred and animosity.
bravo!
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
thank you for helping make my point with the help of Mr Zinn...
even he says the cause of getting Iraq to withdraw from kuwait was could be considered "just". he follows that by saying perhaps war as a means to get them to withdraw is unjust. which of course no one cheers on war or thinks thats the only answer, especially not me.
my question to Zinn, and the others in this thread the past 2 days has been the same. how do you get Iraq to withdraw from kuwait? sanctions via the UN were put in place, diplomacy via the UN took place, a threat of war was put in place via the UN, and none of that worked. they were given ample time to withdraw under pressure form the world. so how do you get them to withdraw without using force?
The part about the 'means' (war) was my main point in posting it and I agree with him.
The US only intervenes when it suits their purposes and like the Chomsky piece said, they waited until the could get the maximum gain out of the situation, avoided diplomacy and all talks that could have de-escalated the situation and used this to their advantage. I'm not about to act like I support
those actions....not for one fucking second. Especially when the US stands by and watches people get massacred all over this world and does fuckall to stop it but when they have some advantage to gain they sell it up to the people and jump right in. Fuck that!
I'm just gonna sit back and wait to see which war you'll be on here defending next.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Nope, peace stops tanks. People that believe in and spread peace stop tanks. Bombs and more tanks only ensures that more bombs and more tanks will be built to replace any of those tanks they may have momentarily stopped.
It's a perpetual cycle until people decide to stop it by accepting the way of peace over the way of war.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Oh but wait you wake up and one out of the blue no more than half a pico second later 150,000 troops pop up out of nowhere, and are inches away from attacking someone. You have 5 seconds to think or perish, and theres a big red button in front of you to press. What would you do????!!
lol..
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
edit btw ...did I actually read the phrase "fuck ghandi" somewhere in this thread?
I've never heard anyone mutter those words before in my life.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Oh but wait you wake up and one out of the blue no more than half a pico second later 150,000 troops pop up out of nowhere, and are inches away from attacking someone. You have 5 seconds to think or perish, and theres a big red button in front of you to press. What would you do????!!
lol..
Depends, who's answering the phone at 3:00 AM and does he or she have a tasty snack at hand?
Depends, who's answering the phone at 3:00 AM and does he or she have a tasty snack at hand?
hahahaa.. actually no tasty snack....your teddy is missing....you can't find your slippers on a cold floor, and my2hands is jumping up and down on your chest screaming ATTACK!!! ATTACK!!! at the top of his lungs...
now it's down to two seconds...
tick tock... big red button is now bigger and closer than ever before
see? war is necessary!!!...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
Really? Have you looked through this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie#Meetings_with_Saddam_Hussein
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I'm pretty liberal myself, but some geniuses around here like to spew so much hate it makes me look more centrist than i am. My favorite is when they get mad and call me a FOXnews O'reilly watching sheep. It never fails. if they knew me they would know thats so far from the truth.
Ghandi was a man (in a certain situation in a certain time), not a god some of you make him out to be.
you think his tactics would have worked in Nazi Germany ? How did it work out in Bhurma, or Tianenmen Square? you are delirious.
Ghandi's 'weapon' is functional only against CONSCIENCE. If your oppressor has no conscience, nonviolent protest is virtually useless. There was no strong desire to hold on to India by the time Ghandi came around (due in no small part to various VIOLENT revolts, sabotage and terrorist attacks). The Indian colony simply wasnt "economically feasible".
so fuck Ghandi
Overwhelming support? They were there to remove them from Kuwait….as Roland said earlier, public and world opinion would not have allowed them to continue into Baghdad after the highway of death turned that opinion firmly against taking the offensive. It took another ten years for your government to get brazen enough to start the ‘regime change’ bullshit and stop caring completely about popular opinion.
from what I can see…you are the one bringing up shadow governments. Can I call you a tinfoil hatter for towing the line that there was a military buildup on the Saudi boarder? Or because you’re ignoring the ‘conspiracy’ of a 15 yr old (daughter of the Kuwaiti embassador to the US) telling lies about Iraqi atrocities…and the fact that it was all over the media, and quoted in congress (and the UN?) multiple times while building support for the war. There is no shadow government, just shadow agendas. If you take all US foreign actions at face value, I don’t know what more to say…
To imply that Clinton being elected would have screwed up US foreign policy objectives in the middle east is no different than saying Obama will change the current situation. Clinton and Bush Sr. do speaking engagements together ffs….there are no major FP differences between the parties, then or now….
what kind of revisionist history is this? no one would have cared if we rolled right on in to Baghdad. Indeed, most people thought we should have.
the us could've easily have stopped the invasion of kuwait but did nothing b/c it gave them reason in a post-cold war era to increase the defense budget
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
no, it wasn't a future plan, they thought it would cost too many lives and money to invade baghdad...it was all about having an enemy to justify increasing the defense budget which was slashed due to the cold war being over
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
wait wait wait... your whole argument is based solely on the fact that the ambassador basically said "we dont care about your petty squabbles" to Saddam? How in Gods name do you make the leap to say we were actively promoting Iraq invading Kuwait? IN WHAT WORLD IS THIS THE NEXT LOGICAL LEAP? How much conditioning does it require for this to make sense?
So you want me to believe Saddam had no idea anyone would notice invading Kuwait and moving on to Saudi Arabia, which collectivelly account for a massive percentage of the world's oil? Are you trying to convince me that because we said once that we didnt want to get involved, he would naturally assume no one would care about this? And you also expect me to believe that he wouldnt scream bloody murder about the US saying it was ok once we supposedly turn on him?
i think i like it better when you are posting links about ties between Columbine and Israel. That makes more sense than this shit.
^^^^^^
the reality of it
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
we are so evil
yeah, i guess talking to our ally at the time instead of telling them we didn't wish to get involved or we had no obligation to do anything is unheard of...?
the pacifist thing isn't to just stand by and wait for it to happen, the pacifist thing would've been diplomacy. not saber rattling or threats
we knew they were gonna invade and just sat and waited for it to happen
if i know a little girl is about to be kidnapped and murdered and i do nothing how is that the 'pacifist thing to do'??? especially when i use her kidnapping/murder to get an increased defense budget
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
are we saying it while they have troops building up on the border???
if we saw an ally building troops up on israel's border would we just wait for it to happen or would we try to talk to them before? what do you think the responsible thing to do would be?
congress obviously knew what was gonna happen that they asked the state dept about it
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
how is that exactly? ask iraq nicely?
what a major ding that was on my boy rolands cred, man did he stretch with that nonsense...
if you ask him the whole world is run by a zionist plot to dominate the globe and everything that happens in the world is connected to that agenda and zionist manipulation :rolleyes:
purely for an increase in defense spending?
i see that as a HUGE stretch, to say the least.
That Chomsky piece I posted laid it out pretty clearly I thought.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Lots of people's cred around here seems to be slipping if you ask me. It all depends on your perspective, I suppose.
Why don't we stay on topic instead of attacking someone else's character?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
:(
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
thank you for helping make my point with the help of Mr Zinn...
even he says the cause of getting Iraq to withdraw from kuwait was could be considered "just". he follows that by saying perhaps war as a means to get them to withdraw is unjust. which of course no one cheers on war or thinks thats the only answer, especially not me.
my question to Zinn, and the others in this thread the past 2 days has been the same. how do you get Iraq to withdraw from kuwait? sanctions via the UN were put in place, diplomacy via the UN took place, a threat of war was put in place via the UN, and none of that worked. they were given ample time to withdraw under pressure form the world. so how do you get them to withdraw without using force?
You really think people would get behind that?
I can't think of one person at the time that would think that would have been necessary, and would have supported it.
The battle was already won. The conflict was over. People would have freaked out just like they are doing now.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I like how you tossed in moving on to Saudi Arabia....lol gmab...
If he had a false sense of specific non intervention...do the math.
yikes..
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
your fantasy world is frightening at times...
It's pretty damn sad when you can't bring up a topic for discussion without getting labeleed an adamant supporter of every last word in it.
Talk about ruining open discussion and inserting hatred and animosity.
bravo!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
The part about the 'means' (war) was my main point in posting it and I agree with him.
The US only intervenes when it suits their purposes and like the Chomsky piece said, they waited until the could get the maximum gain out of the situation, avoided diplomacy and all talks that could have de-escalated the situation and used this to their advantage. I'm not about to act like I support
those actions....not for one fucking second. Especially when the US stands by and watches people get massacred all over this world and does fuckall to stop it but when they have some advantage to gain they sell it up to the people and jump right in. Fuck that!
I'm just gonna sit back and wait to see which war you'll be on here defending next.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Nope, peace stops tanks. People that believe in and spread peace stop tanks. Bombs and more tanks only ensures that more bombs and more tanks will be built to replace any of those tanks they may have momentarily stopped.
It's a perpetual cycle until people decide to stop it by accepting the way of peace over the way of war.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
lol..
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://ramblingsofpassion.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/051201_tiananmen-square_ex.jpg
edit btw ...did I actually read the phrase "fuck ghandi" somewhere in this thread?
I've never heard anyone mutter those words before in my life.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
It was an amazing moment. If only we all possessed that kind of courage.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Depends, who's answering the phone at 3:00 AM and does he or she have a tasty snack at hand?
hahahaa.. actually no tasty snack....your teddy is missing....you can't find your slippers on a cold floor, and my2hands is jumping up and down on your chest screaming ATTACK!!! ATTACK!!! at the top of his lungs...
now it's down to two seconds...
tick tock... big red button is now bigger and closer than ever before
see? war is necessary!!!...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")