Jump to content

Political Discussion


Recommended Posts

Guest BaBaBooey

You really want me to feel sorry for the Saudi King and show him RESPECT as a human being? You have got to be kidding me. Read below... then do a search for saudi terrorism and read the boat loads more:

SAUDI ARABIA TERROR 1

MORE

The Saudi regime are a bunch of pagan scoundrels that are beholden to their radically militant religious populace. The revenues they have made from oil have been used to fund terror camps ALL OVER THE PLACE. They appease these clerics etc., and if we did not KNEEL to this KING's request it would have undermined the King's power. He was not so concerned for THEIR safety as he was FOR HIS OWN.

Look, plain and simple in addition to oil the Saudis are exporting hatred fueled by fundamentalist religious organizations. When things started to get hot at home they funneled money out of the country to send the most militant of these people away from the kingdom but they did not exile them NO THEY INSTEAD SAID, here is some cash go fight your war my son. Cowardly, absolutely because if you had the power and the will of the people you could call these people what they are and arrest them. This is no different then Wallace supporting racism in Alabama. Hey if that's what the people want right? Whatever keeps ya in power baby. There was no condemnation, hell no, why LEAD when you can APPEASE. Militant is militant and the truth is the truth. We should be sending our supposed "righteous might" against those that support TERRORISM... and these guys do.

End of story.

BaBa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No, I don't. I merely explained the background of why the Bin Laden family members were flown out of the USA, or did you forget that you asked that question, implying some kind of Bush-Bin Laden conspiracy.

The Saudi ruling family have become isolated from their people. They allowed fanatic radicalism to breed inside their country, and were paying off the terrorists to leave them alone. They are only now starting to complain about terrorism because the War on Terror shut down the rest of the world as potential targets so Al Qaeda are left to attack where they can, like in Saudi Arabia, Baghdad, Turkey, etc.

But like I said, the Bin Laden family was not involved with Osama's terrorism. They were sent away for their own protection. You wouldn't want to go after Ted Kaczynski's family because Kaczynski was the Unibomber, you wouldn't want to go after Timothy McVeigh's family because he blew up the Federal Bldg in Oklahoma, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BaBaBooey

You bet your ass I would want all of the family members of McVeigh and Kazynski questioned... which they were. Terry Nichols' brother was also apprehended and dealt with whilst investigating the Oklahoma City bombing. I just find it highly convenient that these circumstances exist and the questions are not allowed to be asked and those that do get shrugs, smirks and little in the way of answers.

DON'T GET ME WRONG... today is a GREAT day with Saddam being nailed.... I just want Osama nailed... and NOW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to congratulate bababooey on his enlightenment. the justification for the war on Iraq? There is NONE. Tell one of the mothers who lost her son in recent months that her son died fighting for his country. I DARE you. Her son died so that vice president dick cheney's Haliburton company could profit...and profit they did!!!! I am a military veteran. How many more must die before the WORLD says ...enough...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by BaBaBooey:

You bet your ass I would want all of the family members of McVeigh and Kazynski questioned... which they were. Terry Nichols' brother was also apprehended and dealt with whilst investigating the Oklahoma City bombing. I just find it highly convenient that these circumstances exist and the questions are not allowed to be asked and those that do get shrugs, smirks and little in the way of answers.

DON'T GET ME WRONG... today is a GREAT day with Saddam being nailed.... I just want Osama nailed... and NOW.


I would say that questioning the family is the RESPONSIBLE thing to do, however arbitrarily punishig the FAMILY simply because of relationship is wrong. I think that is what both you and Steve are saying, though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

@el Che

1. Iraqi violation of the terms of the 1991 cease fire closing the hostilities of the first gulf war is pleanty enough justification to invade.

Anyone who joins the military takes an oath to defend our nation. By your reasoning tell any mother who lost her son in Vietnam or Korea that he was dying for our contry. These men did die for our nation. They sought to contain Communism which is viewed as a threat to our way of life as such they were defending our country.

Since you served in the military you should know that these men and women signed onto a force that was created to go in harms way, as such they knew that they might lose their lives yet they joined anyway. While the loss of one soldiers life is a tragedy, such loss of life is to be expected in war and I consider it a miracle that the casulaty rate has been so low in the current conflict.

I also see no more proof that the war was fought for Iraqi oil than for your statement about it being fought to line Chenny's pocketbook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by El Che:

I would like to congratulate bababooey on his enlightenment. the justification for the war on Iraq? There is NONE. Tell one of the mothers who lost her son in recent months that her son died fighting for his country. I DARE you. Her son died so that vice president dick cheney's Haliburton company could profit...and profit they did!!!! I am a military veteran. How many more must die before the WORLD says ...enough...

You need to come back to reality, WTF is that.

You spout propaganda REALLY well, too bad the facts are against you in every way.

Hate Bush all you want, but don't lie.

And a lot of us are military veterans as well, why that should make your opinion any more special is beyond me.

I am a military veteran, and if I had gotten the opportunity, I would ahve been over there, gun in hand.

There were a MYRIAD of reasons we went to war, too bad you have ignored ALL of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Eclipse:

I also see no more proof that the war was fought for Iraqi oil than for your statement about it being fought to line Chenny's pocketbook.

The following links were all on the first page of a very long Google search list:

CNN Story -- Halliburton accused of stonewalling

CorpWatch -- Halliburton Makes a Killing on Iraq War

NewsMax -- Halliburton Iraq ties more than Cheney said

For some background material, you can read a rather long article (with a few extra links) at the following website:

Washington Post -- A Halliburton Primer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Marvin:

quote:

Originally posted by Eclipse:

I also see no more proof that the war was fought for Iraqi oil than for your statement about it being fought to line Chenny's pocketbook.


The following links were all on the first page of a very long Google search list:

CNN Story -- Halliburton accused of stonewalling

CorpWatch -- Halliburton Makes a Killing on Iraq War

NewsMax -- Halliburton Iraq ties more than Cheney said

For some background material, you can read a rather long article (with a few extra links) at the following website:

Washington Post -- A Halliburton Primer


I commend you on actually posting links for this, but these links only make statements reguarding the monies Halliburton expects to make or past contracts it had. These have no tie to the statement that the war was fought to line chenny's pockets.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Eclipse:

I commend you on actually posting links for this, but these links only make statements reguarding the monies Halliburton expects to make or past contracts it had. These have no tie to the statement that the war was fought to line chenny's pockets.

For the most part, I added them to argue against the first part of your statement. But they also argue an old standing rule for public servants: If there exists a conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest, then resign. We don't need another Spiro in the White House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have stayed out of these debates as of late as they tend to be devisive and I like Jag and Steve too much to get into pissing contests with them. But I have learned a few things that I feel shed some light on this subject. Granted these are only my opinions but check em out anyway.

1. Bush did lie about the real reason we went to war. I feel he realized the public would not buy his real argument or thought the public too dumb to understand or worse didnt give a shit.

2. We went to war with Iraq to establish a beachead in a hostile unstable part of the world. A recent breifing from Stratfor.com implied the US wished to go from being viewed as hated and impotent to being hated and feared by Islamic fundamentalists. Though I disagree with that policy it is clear by Khadafi's action we were successful.

3. The oil was a secondary concern in this effort. It is the Republican way to make profit but in this case it was simply an ancillary benefit. Again the US felt it had to exert some control over this region as it has been the staging ground for terrorist attacks for years.

4. This new policy of preemption has been around for years and the White House finally decided to sign on after 9/11. Bush had been resistant to this policy that was long supported by Paul Wolfowitz and the SECDEF. While I dont think much of Bush as a leader it appears this wasnt a premeditated move but a reactionary one.

5. As a true dyed in the wool liberal this is really hard to say but if Libiya's capitulation is any indication this may have some level of success. However this will not pay immediate benefits in ending terrorist attacks, will be prohibitively expensive and cost a number of american lives. The White House obviously anticipated those eventualities and find them acceptable.

6. Finally I still think Bush is vulnerable and beatable in 2004, but not if Democrats drop the ball and attempt to run on Iraq. The appalling domestic situation is more than enough but they will have to give credit where it is due and attack the Pres. on the issues he is most vulnerable.

Then again that's just me....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have stayed out of these debates as of late as they tend to be devisive and I like Jag and Steve too much to get into pissing contests with them. But I have learned a few things that I feel shed some light on this subject. Granted these are only my opinions but check em out anyway.

1. Bush did lie about the real reason we went to war. I feel he realized the public would not buy his real argument or thought the public too dumb to understand or worse didnt give a shit.

2. We went to war with Iraq to establish a beachead in a hostile unstable part of the world. A recent breifing from Stratfor.com implied the US wished to go from being viewed as hated and impotent to being hated and feared by Islamic fundamentalists. Though I disagree with that policy it is clear by Khadafi's action we were successful.

3. The oil was a secondary concern in this effort. It is the Republican way to make profit but in this case it was simply an ancillary benefit. Again the US felt it had to exert some control over this region as it has been the staging ground for terrorist attacks for years.

4. This new policy of preemption has been around for years and the White House finally decided to sign on after 9/11. Bush had been resistant to this policy that was long supported by Paul Wolfowitz and the SECDEF. While I dont think much of Bush as a leader it appears this wasnt a premeditated move but a reactionary one.

5. As a true dyed in the wool liberal this is really hard to say but if Libiya's capitulation is any indication this may have some level of success. However this will not pay immediate benefits in ending terrorist attacks, will be prohibitively expensive and cost a number of american lives. The White House obviously anticipated those eventualities and find them acceptable.

6. Finally I still think Bush is vulnerable and beatable in 2004, but not if Democrats drop the ball and attempt to run on Iraq. The appalling domestic situation is more than enough but they will have to give credit where it is due and attack the Pres. on the issues he is most vulnerable.

Then again that's just me....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

there exists a conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest, then resign.

You are aware that Cheney divested all his interest in Halliburton during the 2000 campaign when the press raised the issue of conflict of interest, right? Are you also aware that the press then tried to make an Enron-like claim against Cheney when they reported that he sold his stock just before the share price fell, even though they hounded him into selling it in the first place?

Any money that Cheney still receives is in the form of deferred compensation as CEO, in other words, retirement pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

quote:

there exists a conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest, then resign.

You are aware that Cheney divested all his interest in Halliburton during the 2000 campaign when the press raised the issue of conflict of interest, right? Are you also aware that the press then tried to make an Enron-like claim against Cheney when they reported that he sold his stock just before the share price fell, even though they hounded him into selling it in the first place?

Any money that Cheney still receives is in the form of deferred compensation as CEO, in other words, retirement pay.


It was a catch 22 from the beginning, the press hounded him until he gave the stock up, then blamed him for the timing, because it went down after that, and now people are hounding him because that company is now getting a lot of government contracts, well, guess what, it has always gotten a LOT of government contracts. The press are just concentrating on it to slam the administration. AS USUAL!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

The press are just concentrating on it to slam the administration. AS USUAL!!

Think it's time for everyone to read Jules Verne's "The Diary of an American Journalist in the Year 2890." Very scary stuff. The lead character is so powerful in the story that just with the nod of his head could he make or break a political career or scientific endeavor etc... Not to mention the prophetic aspects of the then yet to be invented technology. Is today's news media heading in that direction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BaBaBooey

Oh, the poor government, so mistreated in the media. I think little by little it is coming out that we had less to do with Saddam's capture than we had to do with "rescuing" Jessica Lynch. However, it does keep the masses waving their flags cheering on the slow crawl to fascist oligarchy. Yeah we were attacked, yeah it was horrible. Did we know for some time that our planes could be used as weapons? Sure we did. Have we won anything when our kids are just as fearful walking around airports and major cities watching men dressed in flack suits with machine guns running around as they were watching those buildings fall? When is the assault on the Constitution going to matter to some of you? When it affects you? By then it's too late.

What about this madcow mess. Did you know that United Press International hasn't been able to obtain copies of USDA reports on the beef industry since July? Did you know they found this infected cow on December 9th? Who was the government protecting? The beef industry or your kid who was happily chomping on a Happy Meal on December 10th. Yeah we shouldn't question anything that the government does. No instead we should squash adverse opinion and call people uninformed and dare I say unpatriotic! Yeah that sounds really American to me. I find it funny that the biggest of the flag wavers are the least concerned about the deterioration of freedom and what this country was based on. To be a patriot is to question the motives of the government that represents you, to be a consciencious and objective viewer of the facts, all facts; not just the facts that support your way of thinking. This isn't Ali vs. Frazier this is America and the last time I checked I was a citizen AND Republican. Just because the guy has an R after his name doesn't mean he's a Conservative. No REAL Conservative would find the state of this nation to be in league with Conservative values... but then that's my opinion and like it or not I am free to express it.

BaBaBooey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by BaBaBooey:

What about this madcow mess. Did you know that United Press International hasn't been able to obtain copies of USDA reports on the beef industry since July? Did you know they found this infected cow on December 9th? Who was the government protecting? The beef industry or your kid who was happily chomping on a Happy Meal on December 10th.

CNN:"According to the department's Web site, the beef subject to this Class II recall was produced December 9 and shipped to several establishments, where it was further processed. The inspection agency is investigating to ensure that all distribution of the beef products was correctly identified."

Mad Cow Disease

I don't see anywhere that the government even knew about this until the meat was well into production and seems to have been caught by a beef inspector. They did not find out about it on December 9th that's when the target beef in question entered production.

Place the blame where it belongs with that farmer who alowed this infected cow to go to market. And don't tell me he didn't know that this cow was infected. From what I heard on CNN but seems to be missing from that link I gave is that only the meat not the brain and spinal cord was processed. I myself would like to know if this farmer is a democrat. With the U.S. economy and Jobs at an all time 20 year high makes you wonder. This would damage the economy so bad and guess who will get the blame BUSH that's who. I got that from watching CNN also last night along with the mad cow article. Funny, I don't see that being flaunted on CNN's web site I wonder why. Impartial media. My a$$.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

that's my opinion and like it or not I am free to express it.

I sense a tone of defensiveness in your style of writing (maybe it's just me). I just want to tell you that it isn't necessary here. If you read the prior topics in the archives, you will find many, many divergent opinions expressed and debated. Sometimes passions get high, but there is no need to start off with an expression of defiance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BaBaBooey

Sorry I did not mean to be defensive.

The economic growth is up I will give you that. Jobless claims still remain high... indications are that the job market is also increasing but is still the most lagging (as is historical) indicator of economic growth. That said there is still an abundant reduction in technical and manufacturing jobs with the US economy becoming almost entirely service oriented. I don't find this to be comforting given we are a sole super power.

As for the madcow, I do find it ironic that the government for the last six months has refused to turn over USDA records as pertains to beef. Hopefully we will all be brought up to speed be the news good or bad as to whether or not they've had more then this single case arise. I don't think it is relevant as to whether or not the farmer is a Democrat or a Republican.

It is a bit shocking that segregation in this country now seems to center around party affiliations. It has become venomous and these are not simple questions that are tackled on the political front. As I said I am a Republican, I voted for Bush that however does not make him immune to scrutiny by me. If anything I feel more of a responsibility to watchdog the guy I helped put in there then the guy I did not. I think that there have been some shady dealings and backroom agendas, I don't approve of that kind of government even if it is at times necessary.

Let's hope Tom Kean (also a Republican) doesn't have to subpoena half of the administration to get down to business on the 9/11 inquiry. However he like me is irked by the stonewalling. Condi Rice should be in a jog to get there and tell her side of the story but now I hear rattlings of her wanting to testify during a closed door session that will not be made public. This is no more reassuring to me than the 28 pages that were redacted from the report on Saudi Arabia. This is still America we deserve to have access to this information as citizens of this nation. In short bigger government, increased federalism and a reduction in personal freedoms are not Conservative ideals. My beef is not with Bush but the new Republican party as a whole, which is nasty and acts in defiance of the core values that the party was formed on. DeLay, actually had the nerve to say on Meet the Press that Bush had reduced the government. I just want the real scoop and not the talking points mixed with a hill of BS.

I'll temper my remarks from here on out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BABAbooey,

I have no problem with your position at all.

I am registered Republican, but I am a devout Constitutionalist, which makes me more liberal then some, and more conservative then most others.

90% of the Republicans are now what I would consider left of center, Bush is spending like there is no tomorrow, he has grown government excessively, and that I will pound on him for, but I am also a realist, LIKE YOU!! I voted for him, but I would MUCH rather have someone who is a real conservative.

You vote for what's available, and who is closest to your values, and who can win. I voted for Bush, Gore was a nightmare to me, and Hillary is the worst nightmare I have ever seen.

You keep watchdogging, but be very careful the assumptions you make. The mainstream media is NOT to be trusted in anything they say. They have an agenda, and they push it hard.

I just wish that there were an actual constitutional agenda out there, but, sadly, it does not exist yet, and may never exist.

Too many people expect Mommy government to take care of them, and that will continue until A: we are bankrupt, or B: the producers in this country get tired of being taxed to death and revolt against the politicians, which I do not see happening either. Sad, but true.

Politics is a vote buying scheme, use OUR money to give to those that will elect them for another term. They are drunk on it, and EVERYONE of those senators and congresscritters are guilty, except maybe Ron Paul of Texas.

Anyway, MERRY CHRISTMAS, we are a lot closer in mind then you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

...only the meat not the brain and spinal cord was processed.

That is correct. The brain and spinal cord are processed elsewhere, combined with other materials, and fed back to the cattle. During the BSE epidemic in Great Britain, the use of this type of feed was supposed to be banned.

Consequently, American cattle ranchers have denied using "offal" and it wasn't until watching an interview on CNN yesterday that I heard otherwise. If it turns out our cattle are being fed brain and spinal cord, ranchers have nobody to blame but themselves. Unfortunately, taxpayers will most likely be forced to bail them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BaBaBooey

Merry Christmas to you as well Jag... and Marvin you're right we will have to bail them out and I believe we should. Unfortunately we have no choice because after all we are talking about a huge industry and one that, let's face it most of us here would die without (pass me that filet with a burger on the side baby!). What really sucks is that if they have fed the cattle these potentially infected bi-products we have destroyed our position in an industry we had a pretty decent strangle hold on. We had a nice edge with Europe having the misfortune of madcow and now look at all the nations halting our exports. I would not want to be reading this at this time of the year if I was involved in business that related to any kind of food service. If this does reach an epidemic proportion it will touch a lot of people indirectly. Canada had one incident (I believe it was around a year ago) and I knew quite a few people laid off from jobs associated with the food industry there. Here's to hoping they caught it, that they erradicate it and that we can all fire up the grills in peace and prosperity come the spring!

BaBa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...