Where does John Kerry really stand in the War on Terrorism?

[Guest $iLk]

"As best I could make out, John Kerry proposed to better wage this 'wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place.' He would do it by forging a broader and effective 'coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and extorted.' The senator would have removed the threat of Saddam Hussein without removing Saddam Hussein, who represented no real threat. When he wasn't demanding the troops be brought home from Iraq, Mr. Kerry was urging more of them be sent. Our troops, who are engaged in a 'colossal error' and 'a grand diversion,' are not fighting in vain. Out on the campaign trail, the senator may believe this administration 'has lied to us, they have misled us,' but he has never accused his opponent of lying. It was only when one listened to the senator's words closely that questions arose. If you just drifted along with him, it all sounded good enough for government work. Besides, he's a lot taller than the president." --Paul Greenberg

[street228]

Maybe, just maybe, his idea of building a REAL coalition, among the world's more powerful and reliable countries, is his idea of effectively concerting the work necessary, in bringing a peaceful resolve, to this mess bush has created within iraq.

You know, a coalition, consisting of : OTHER THAN, 3rd world russia rejects, not capable of ANYTHING.

Maybe, his military experience, has taught him, as it has so many of us, who have gone into the field, that there are better ways of eliminating uncertain threats, and suspicions, than displacing 25 million people, where 12 million are radically against our interference, and 90% just want us to leave their country.

Maybe, just maybe, if the NEOCONS, would actually READ the john kerry plan, they would KNOW what he is proposing.......Maybe, but doubtful, I know

President George W. BushÔÇÖs ignorant and insulting speech to the United Nations General Assembly September 23 made clear that the US administration has all but written off any hope of obtaining significant international support for its colonial venture in Iraq.

Bush came before the body as an unrepentant war criminal, whose actions had violated the UN Charter and international law by waging a war of aggression as criminal and unprovoked as those carried out by the Hitlerite regime in Germany more than 60 years ago.

Having just last week publicly acknowledged there is no evidence of a link between the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington DC, Bush began his speech to the UN by invoking the ruins of the World Trade Center as the ÔÇ£symbol of an unfinished war.ÔÇØ

He likewise peddled yet again the now universally discredited pretext for the Iraq war, the claim that the Baghdad regime posed a grave and imminent threat because of its supposedly immense stockpile of ÔÇ£weapons of mass destruction.ÔÇØ

This, just one week after the chief of the United NationsÔÇÖ own inspection agency, Hans Blix, compared the US and British allegations about such weapons to the hunt for witches in the Middle Ages and amid reports that the unit set up by Washington to scour the country for the alleged tons of biological and chemical weapons materials has halted all searches.

Indeed, Bush himself referred to the supposedly urgent hunt for deadly weapons that were about to be handed to terrorists as a sort of archival pursuit. US personnel, he indicated, are ÔÇ£analyzing records of the old regime to reveal the full extent of its weapons programs.ÔÇØ In other words, there was not a trace to be found of the tons of nerve gas, anthrax, serin and other deadly agents alleged by Washington.

Did the US presidentÔÇÖs handlers believe that the international diplomats, foreign ministers and heads of state assembled in his audience at the UN building in New York are so gullible they donÔÇÖt even read the newspapers?

In reality, his speech was not written for them. Rather, his words were addressed over their heads to his political base among the extreme right-wingers and semi-fascists who dominate the Republican Party. He was promising them that there will be no turning back from global militarism and plunder. The US agenda of seizing by force the oilfields of Iraq and a strategic stranglehold over the Middle East remains in force.

Far from the attempt at reconciliation that had been predicted by many media pundits, BushÔÇÖs speech was every bit as provocative and bellicose as his 2002 State of the Union address declaring that ÔÇ£you are with us or against us,ÔÇØ and his address to the UN last year when he warned the international organization that it would become ÔÇ£irrelevantÔÇØ if it failed to subordinate itself to the US war preparations against Iraq.

Chaos and gangsterism

Bush told the General Assembly: ÔÇ£Events during the past two years have set before us the clearest of divides: between those who seek order and those who spread chaos; between those who work for peaceful change and those who adopt the methods of gangsters; between those who honor the rights of man and those who deliberately take the lives of women and children without mercy or shame.ÔÇØ

But a growing majority of world public opinion sees US militarism as the greatest force for chaos in the world and equates the Bush administrationÔÇÖs methods with out-and-out gangsterism. The US president unleashed a war that is widely acknowledged even within US establishment circles as unprovoked and unnecessary. By conservative estimates at least 10,000 Iraqi civilians were slaughtered and the number of young conscript troops who lost their lives may number tens of thousands more. To claim he acted to ÔÇ£honor the rights of manÔÇØ is obscene.

Bush appeared to gloat over the recent one-sided US military victories, while implicitly warning the assembled nations of the world that any one of them could be next.

ÔÇ£The former regimes of Afghanistan and Iran knew [the] alternatives and made their choices,ÔÇØ said Bush, sounding like an assassin bragging about his latest victims. ÔÇ£The Taliban was a sponsor and servant of terrorism. When confronted the regime chose defiance, and that regime is no more.ÔÇØ He improbably claimed that the US invaded Iraq to ÔÇ£defend ... the credibility of the United Nations,ÔÇØ which opposed and refused to authorize the invasion.

He then proudly pointed to the presence in the assembly of Hamid Karzai, the US-installed president of Afghanistan, as representing a ÔÇ£free people who are building a decent and just society.ÔÇØ Karzai heads a bankrupt regime whose authority fails to extend beyond the outskirts of Kabul and which is widely opposed even there. Meanwhile, US forces are still fighting a bloody counterinsurgency campaign against a resurgent guerrilla movement.

Bush likewise hailed the presence at the Iraqi delegationÔÇÖs table of ÔÇ£representatives of a liberated country.ÔÇØ The camera covering the speech dutifully panned the room to alight on the frog-like face of Ahmed Chalabi, the convicted bank embezzler and neoconservative ideologue who was airlifted by the US military back into Iraq after spending more than 40 years in exile.

In one passage, in which he claimed that the US occupation is ÔÇ£helping to improve the daily lives of the Iraqi people,ÔÇØ Bush recited a litany of indictments against the former Baathist government: ÔÇ£The old regime built palaces while letting schools decay... The old regime starved hospitals of resources... The old regime built up armies and weapons while allowing the nationÔÇÖs infrastructure to crumble.ÔÇØ

Bush could just as easily have been describing the US, where the gap between wealth and poverty has never been wider, resulting in palaces for the rich and a growing army of homeless; where schools are falling apart in districts across the country; where more than 40 million people lack any health insurance; and finally where a Pentagon budget of over half a trillion dollars to build up ÔÇ£armies and weaponsÔÇØ is starving the US infrastructure and basic social needs for funding.

While Bush pointed to a handful of minor aid projects as evidence of progress in IraqÔÇöunder conditions in which masses of people have been left without jobs, safe and reliable power or water supplies or even a modicum of personal securityÔÇöhe can only cite tax cuts for the rich as his remedy for the growing social misery confronting much of the US population.

A threat to the Palestinians

The US president reprised one of the more improbable justifications that has been given for the war, largely after the fact: the claim that it will inaugurate a flowering of peace and democracy in the Middle East. Instead, as US officials have been forced to acknowledge, Iraq has become a magnet for people from throughout the Arab world who are determined to fight against foreign imperialist domination and US military occupation. As for Middle East peace, the US aggression in Iraq has only emboldened the Sharon regime in Israel to carry out a wave of assassinations and repression culminating in the threat to murder the elected president of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat.

Bush had no words of criticism for Israel, which has defied United Nations resolutions demanding an end to its illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza for the past 36 years. Instead, he issued an ultimatum to the Palestinian people who are suffering under this occupation.

ÔÇ£The advance of democratic institutions in Iraq is setting an example that others, including the Palestinian people, would be wise to follow,ÔÇØ Bush declared. Is this advice or a threat? Given that the Iraqi ÔÇ£exampleÔÇØ was created with cruise missiles, cluster bombs and massed armor, it could well be interpreted as a warning that Gaza and the West Bank will be next if the Palestinians fail to halt all resistance to Israeli occupation and select ÔÇ£leadersÔÇØ acceptable to Washington.

BushÔÇÖs speech was greeted with stony silence from the majority of the UN delegates. Even UN General Secretary Kofi Annan, whose unctuous diplomacy and toothless criticisms in the period leading up to the US invasion of Iraq were aimed largely at smoothing the way to a UN-sanctioned war, found himself compelled to criticize the US administration.

Referring obliquely to the Bush administrationÔÇÖs national security doctrine, claiming WashingtonÔÇÖs right to wage a ÔÇ£preemptive warÔÇØ against any nation that it deems as a potential threat, Annan declared, ÔÇ£My concern is that if it were to be adopted, it could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without credible justification.ÔÇØ

Annan went on to point out that the UN Charter allows the use of force only in direct self-defense, or with the sanction of the international body. ÔÇ£Now some say this understanding is no longer tenable since an ÔÇÿarmed attackÔÇÖ with weapons of mass destruction could be launched at any time,ÔÇØ he said. ÔÇ£This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years.ÔÇØ

It was typical of both Annan and the UN that the secretary generalÔÇÖs speech contained not a single reference to the illegal US war. His elliptical language seemed to suggest that the problem was merely a difference of opinion leading to hypothetical acts, rather than a bloody war that claimed tens of thousands of victims and has led to the subjugation of an entire nation by armed force.

French President Jacques Chirac was somewhat more blunt in condemning the US war against Iraq. ÔÇ£No one can act alone in the name of all and no one can accept the anarchy of a society without rules,ÔÇØ he said. ÔÇ£The war, launched without the authorization of the Security Council, shook the multilateral system. The United Nations has just been through one of the most grave crises in its history.ÔÇØ

Chirac has demanded that the Bush administration cede political control to the United Nations in Iraq, while setting a speedy timetable for the handing over of power to an elected Iraqi regime. The French government, speaking on behalf of much the European ruling elite, has made clear it will not play the role of financing and reinforcing an occupation that is run from the top down by US administrators serving US corporate and financial interests. The French corporate establishment is not prepared to surrender the extensive financial interests it has in the region without a fight.

Bush dismissed the French demand, claiming that the transition would ÔÇ£unfold according to the needs of IraqisÔÇöneither hurried nor delayed by the voices of other parties.ÔÇØ And who shall determine the ÔÇ£needs of IraqisÔÇØ? This was spelled out the day before the speech by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who declared that the US would run Iraq as it sees fit ÔÇ£until such time as we allow the Iraqi people to determine how they wish to be governed.ÔÇØ

Blueprint for economic plunder

In the meantime, the gangster regime in Washington intends to carry out the systematic plundering of Iraqi wealth, while using military force to suppress a growing movement of national resistance.

The Bush administrationÔÇÖs plans were spelled out over the weekend, when WashingtonÔÇÖs handpicked finance minister in the Iraqi Quisling regime unexpectedly unveiled a blueprint for the countryÔÇÖs economic development.

This economic ÔÇ£reformÔÇØ packageÔÇömade public at the International Monetary Fund-World Bank meeting in Dubai and signed into law by WashingtonÔÇÖs proconsul in Baghdad, Paul BremerÔÇöamounts to a US plan for the wholesale privatization of the Iraqi economy. It imposes investment, trade and tax policies geared entirely to the interests of US multinationals at the expense of the Iraqi people.

The precedent for this plan is the kind of disastrous economic ÔÇ£shock therapyÔÇØ introduced in the former Soviet Union more than a decade ago, leading to the plummeting of living standards for the vast majority and the creation of a wealthy criminal elite. In Iraq, however, the process is to be carried out at the point of a US gun, with the assurance that the overwhelming share of profits will be reaped by politically connected American corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel.

The plan calls for the privatization of everything from electric power, to hospitals and a myriad of state-owned industries. This process would inevitably involve a form of brutal triage, in which those few industries considered profitable would be taken over by US corporations, with the rest shut down and their workers thrown onto the scrap heap.

It allows for 100 percent foreign ownership in all sectors, save natural resources, and reduces trade tariffs to a minimum. Foreign companies would be guaranteed full and immediate remittance of all profits, dividends, interest and royalties.

While the plan formally calls for IraqÔÇÖs vast oil reserves to remain under the control of the government, the takeover of the rest of the economy by US-based multinationals will effectively ensure control of oil as well.

Washington is using its military occupation of Iraq to enforce the kind of economic and trade relations it has sought to impose on countries throughout the world by means of financial pressure.

The right-wing cabal in the Bush White House is determined to conduct a social and economic experiment in Iraq to determine how far it can carry out policies of unrestricted ÔÇ£free marketÔÇØ capitalism backed by overwhelming military force. It sees in Iraq a field for unrestrained exploitation and outright looting aimed at bringing about a desperately needed rise in profits for corporate America.

The speech delivered by Bush at the UN represents a warning both to the Iraqi people and working people in the US. Despite the growing resistance to the US military occupation in IraqÔÇöresulting in escalating US casualtiesÔÇöand despite the mounting opposition of AmericanÔÇönot to mention worldÔÇöpublic opinion to the dirty colonial war being fought there, the administration intends to press on. No matter how much its strategy in Iraq has been discredited, it has gone too far in this criminal enterprise to turn back now.

There is no doubt that WashingtonÔÇÖs predatory economic plans for Iraq will provoke even broader and more intense resistance to the US occupation. Unlike the American people, the Bush administration is more than willing to accept the resulting increase in young American soldiers, reservists and National Guard members dying daily to secure increased profits for the administrationÔÇÖs corporate backers.

Neither the United Nations nor AmericaÔÇÖs erstwhile European allies will halt this deepening catastrophe. The only force that can bring an end to the war and occupation in Iraq and the growing global threat of US militarism is the international working class mobilized independently on a socialist perspective.

[LostInSpace]

You guys are not listening or reading. Could it also be you guys are just really totaly blinded by your Bush hatred. How many times do we have to give you direct evidence that no matter who was in office Al Gore, Kerry or Bush, you were not going to get a complete coalition. The crux of Kerry and the liberals/Democrats argument stems from the fact that Bush didn't get France, Germany, Russia on board for this coalition. Well boo hoo look around the other threads and you'll find out why. These countries should be brought before the world court themselves for criminal activites in Iraq. They have alot to answer for like undermining the U.N. sanctions for starters.

As for the U.N., I have less faith in them than I do Kerry.

[street228]

quote:

---

How many times do we have to give you direct evidence that no matter who was in office Al Gore, Kerry or Bush, you were not going to get a complete coalition. The crux of Kerry and the liberals/Democrats argument stems from the fact that Bush didn't get France, Germany, Russia on board for this coalition. Well boo hoo look around the other threads and you'll find out why. These countries should be brought before the world court themselves for criminal activites in Iraq. They have alot to answer for like undermining the U.N. sanctions for starters.

---

You are right, in that whoever is in office, the coalition will start initially weak. And you are right, in that each country in the world, have issues, in dire need of direct addressing.

However, you are incorrect, to ASSUME, how insignificant, their cooperation would be, with Kerry, reather than bush.

The whole point of this, is to putting a stop to irresponsible, and REACTIVE responses, to world woes, And to put a leader in office, who has the EMOTIONAL stability to handle the threats with rationale, and reason.....

Thus; putting a STOP to THE FOLLOWING:, IF and WHEN not ABSOLUTELY necessary... and Not condoning such action, at the whims of an immatuer coward, who uses FEAR, to incite OUR violence to meet his own ends.

**** WARNING- EXPLICIT PICTURES******

If the true picture of WHAT WAR IS, shakes you from the comfort the security, held within maintaining ignorant bliss.... DO NOT CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.js...temRank%3D1%26u serQuery%3Dhorror%2Bof%2Bwar%2Bpictures%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.informationclearinghouse.info%252Farticle2459.htm%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCPToolbarNS% 26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.informationclearinghouse.info%2Farticle2459.htm

[LostInSpace]

quote:

---

Originally posted by street:

However, you are incorrect, to ASSUME, how insignificant, their cooperation would be, with Kerry, reather than bush.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong but France, Germany and Russia already said they want nothing to do with the Iraq clean up even if Kerry is elected. So how is Kerry going to get them on board? Oh yeah his "I have a plan". Besides, Bush put a stop to their underhanded trading with Iraq when he ordered the attack that's why they are pissed off at him and these countries were left with holding an empty bag. Then Bush asked them to forgo Iraq's debt which was in my book illegal in the first place.

As for your War pics, those are nothing new that I haven't seen uncensored before from WWI to the first Iraq war. I've also seen the videos of the beheadings. We all here agree War is a nasty buisness. What would you rather have, seeing those pictures of the Iraq war or Iraq under the control of Saddam in just a few short years and showing pictures of American civilians in the same light as he perpetrates attacks here in this country. Those pics could easily have been us in the near future. Of course we will never know, because Bush took care of that issue.

While you are at it, why don't you dig up some photo's of the people hitting the ground at the World Trade Center as they either slipped or deliberately jumped from the towering inferno or the chared remains or any other pics of victims of other terror attacks (alot of children have died from those as well).

[street228]

quote:

---

in just a few short years and showing pictures of American civilians in the same light as he perpetrates attacks here in this country.

---

Not, to be offensive, but if you really believe, we have to murder the innocent civilians, and destroy MILLIONS of individual's lives, in another country, in order to keep a terrorist attacker, out of our own country, you MUST be confused.

Think about it rationally. Terrorist are eventually going to attempt killing some more people here REGARDLESS.

If we utterly massacre several million people, we merely suspect, are terrorist, or remotely connected to such, with NO regard to the catastrophic, effect it have on entire nations, will it not INCREASE those odds?

Besides, would it not be more rational, to actually abide by INTERNATIONAL rules of engagement, for declaration of war, and treatment of prisoners of war? REGARDLESS, of who are planning to attack the United States?

Your ANGER toward the Iraqi, and the Afghani populations, are entirely misplaced, and out of perportion, as to what REALISTICLY happened here on 9/11. You are not alone, in this battle for balance. And It is not the fault of the American People, but of an administration which has instigated a FALSE direction for this anger.

The consequence, is that the WRONG people are literally being SLAUGHTERED, right along side the guilty. This is NOT justice. While we americans sit in our living rooms and relax, in comfort and safety....WE are guilty of delivering HELL, of unimagined perportions, on MILLIONS of individuals who are absolutely GUILTLESS of any wrong doing.

War on TERRORIST organizations, is NOT wrong.

It's the DECEIT, and the METHODOLOGY, which is abhorrant, and utterly UNACCEPTABLE.

As far as France, Germany and Russia's intent on helping out in Iraq, They are NOT responsible for the mess, and should not be required to do anything. Their refusal is only evidence, of the present administration's inability to handle foreign affairs, at its most basic level.

No one can blame them for not intending to deal with Kerry. But that is the beautiful thing about having bilateral communication, and using diplomatic reason, to forge good foriegn relations. IT CAN be done. And mountains CAN be hurdled without murder in masse.

The present Administratiion, may as well NOT even have diplomats, as The only good relations, we have, are with a group of impoverished 3rd world countries who will inevitably learn to hate us as well.

Kerry may NEVER win those three countries support, But he has more of a chance, than bush will EVER have, in forming ANY good relations with ANYONE. All one must do is look over the bush record, throughout his term, to see he knows nothing of international interaction.

[ 10-12-2004, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: street ]

[LostInSpace]

quote:

---

Originally posted by street:

1:Not, to be offensive, but if you really believe, we have to murder the innocent civilians, and destroy MILLIONS of individual's lives, in another country, in order to keep a terrorist attacker, out of our own country, you MUST be confused.

Think about it rationally. Terrorist are eventually going to attempt killing some more people here REGARDLESS.

If we utterly massacre several million people, we merely suspect, are terrorist, or remotely connected to such, with NO regard to the catastrophic, effect it have on entire nations, will it not INCREASE those odds?

Besides, would it not be more rational, to actually abide by INTERNATIONAL rules of engagement, for declaration of war, and treatment of prisoners of war? REGARDLESS, of who are planning to attack the United States?

Your ANGER toward the Iraqi, and the Afghani populations, are entirely misplaced, and out of perportion, as to what REALISTICLY happened here on 9/11. You are not alone, in this battle for balance. And It is not the fault of the American People, but of an administration which has instigated a FALSE direction for this anger.

The consequence, is that the WRONG people are literally being SLAUGHTERED, right along side the guilty. This is NOT justice. While we americans sit in our living rooms and relax, in comfort and safety....WE are guilty of delivering HELL, of unimagined perportions, on MILLIONS of individuals who are absolutely GUILTLESS of any wrong doing.

War on TERRORIST organizations, is NOT wrong.

It's the DECEIT, and the METHODOLOGY, which is abhorrant, and utterly UNACCEPTABLE.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

2: As far as France, Germany and Russia's intent on helping out in Iraq, They are NOT responsible for the mess, and should not be required to do anything. Their refusal is only evidence, of the present administration's inability to handle foreign affairs, at its most basic level.

No one can blame them for not intending to deal with Kerry. But that is the beautiful thing about having bilateral communication, and using diplomatic reason, to forge good foriegn relations. IT CAN be done. And mountains CAN be hurdled without murder in masse.

The present Administratiion, may as well NOT even have diplomats, as The only good relations, we have, are with a group of impoverished 3rd world countries who will inevitably learn to hate us as well.

Kerry may NEVER win those three countries support, But he has more of a chance, than bush will EVER have, in forming ANY good relations with ANYONE. All one must do is look over the bush record, throughout his term, to see he knows nothing of international interaction.

---

1: No offense taken. I never said I was angry with the Iraq or Afghan population. In fact, I support them all the way to their freedom. Rather, the people that were in charge of their countries holding onto to power only by force and not the will of the people.

With your analysis you would not have gotten involved in WWII because too many innocents would be harmed. Our bombs pumbled germany from up high and on the ground. How many innocent from adults to children and anti-hitler germans were killed there or other countries we fought this way in order to rid them of nazi's? Many I can tell you that. All wars are this way. War is not a pin point clean affair. As much as we would like. Damn, no one can fight a war without collateral damage even to the point of not accidently hitting your own troops.

We abided by INTERNATIONAL rules actually bent over in many instances for years and what did that get us 9/11. So what's your point? It's time to take the bulls by the horn and deal with it ourselves. It's here you miss the point as well. It was the continued sanctions that fostered these terrorist even more so than I think this war ever will and that's Bush's point. The world ganging up on a muslim state with sanctions oh yeah that sat well with them.

Our attack on Afghanistan and Iraq has had many advantages that ripple throught the middle east and the terrorist should take heed not only will they be in our crosshairs but their families too.

We've seen lybia get off it's ass and hand over their WMD's and other nasties and finally get their heads screwed on straight and get back to what's important their people and economy.

2: Hmmm, you don't believe it's their mess? Who was undermining then U.N. sanctions? Allowing Saddam to thumb his nose up at years of U.N. sanctions while hording the cash to give new life to his WMD program. Seeing the U.N. in action in other countries leaves something to be desired. Unless the U.N. means what it says, they have absolutely no credibility whatsoever. France, Germany and Russia have added to this greatly their credibility is shot as well.

[y2kewel]

Street

quote:

---

Not, to be offensive

---

My ass, Street. You have been deliberately going out of your way to be as offensive as possible, and working hard to piss off as many people as possible. If you really want to avoid being offensive then bite your damn tongue.

I love my country with all of my heart. I would kill for it in a New York second, and die for it just as quickly. I believe everyone has a right to express their opinion no matter how misguided. If you are not willing to stand up for what you say and actually answer questions posed to you about your position, then shut your yap.

Until now I have been mildly amused by your willingness to believe every bit of garbage that floats into your view supporting your self-righteous sense of outrage about what America is doing in the world without the slightest bit of respectable support. So far you have sighted ÔÇ£ResistanceÔÇØ, a terrible rag of a magazine that spouts the most thinly veiled form of militant alarmism designed to excite only those that would easily be described as the ÔÇ£lowestÔÇØ common denominator of American society. You have also sighted among your sources a website that appears to be dedicated to the environment. Hey, thatÔÇÖs cool-- I have no problem with environmentalists at all, but when their report on the international court and President Bush canÔÇÖt be linked to any reputable journalistic or judicial sources, then perhaps another source for this ÔÇ£informationÔÇØ should be found. You also posted links, in one of your most recent tirades, to documents that threw you own arguments out the window. You did your oppositionÔÇÖs work for them.

In case you havenÔÇÖt noticed, there has been a drop off in the number of responses to your posts. ThatÔÇÖs because you are no longer amusing. You are perfectly free to disagree with our leaders; this is a right granted to us by the Constitution, but it is not your right to blatantly disrespect those that you are talking about or to. Just as the protesters of Vietnam had the right to disagree with the current events of the time, they did not have the right to spit on our soldiers and call them ÔÇ£baby killersÔÇØ and ÔÇ£criminalsÔÇØ. Your insistence that our Commander and Chief is a war criminal and that he is committing ÔÇ£genocidal crimesÔÇØ against humanity are utterly offensive. You compared President Bush to Adolph Hitler, or at least quoted someone who did. I find it hard to believe that you did not know that this would be offensive, so it is apparent that you deliberately tried to offend everyone on these boards.

Many of the people involved in these arguments are guilty of some minor name-calling and wanton bickering, but none have demonstrated the blatant disrespect and open loathing that you have for a country that you claim to have defended.

Your most recent posts in several different threads have proven my position regarding the above comment concerning your attitude towards America. If your claims of being a military man and seeing war first hand are true, then I hold you in the highest respect, despite my harsh words. At the same time IÔÇÖm ashamed that a fellow veteran would act and talk the way you do.

IÔÇÖll not ask you to prove your military history. I believe you to be a generally honest person, so I will take you at your word. Only you know the truth.

[street228]

quote:

---

My ass, Street. You have been deliberately going out of your way to be as offensive as possible, and working hard to piss off as many people as possible. If you really want to avoid being offensive then bite your damn tongue.

---

Actually, My intent is not to offend, but to awaken. Just because, I have no respect for present day neocon mentality, does NOT mean, I intentionally aim to offend; however, If it bothers you half, as much as the attacks toward my ideology, then I can relate to your impression, as misplaced, as it may be.

quote:

---

I love my country with all of my heart. I would kill for it in a New York second, and die for it just as quickly. I believe everyone has a right to express their opinion no matter how misguided. If you are not willing to stand up for what you say and actually answer questions posed to you about your position, then shut your yap.

---

I have answerd all the questions, asked me, in a respectful and objective mannor. I am not the DEMOCRATIC whipping dog, and have NO intentions on defending ALL their positions. So you NEOCONS, need discuss things rationally, and without the political RHETORIC responses, and then you may get the answers, you crave.

quote:

---

Until now I have been mildly amused by your willingness to believe every bit of garbage that floats into your view supporting your self-righteous sense of outrage about what America is doing in the world without the slightest bit of respectable support. So far you have sighted ÔÇ£ResistanceÔÇØ, a terrible rag of a magazine that spouts the most thinly veiled form of militant alarmism designed to excite only those that would easily be described as the ÔÇ£lowestÔÇØ common denominator of American society. You have also sighted among your sources a website that appears to be dedicated to the environment. Hey, thatÔÇÖs cool-- I have no problem with environmentalists at all, but when their report on the international court and President Bush canÔÇÖt be linked to any reputable journalistic or judicial sources, then perhaps another source for this ÔÇ£informationÔÇØ should be found. You also posted links, in one of your most recent tirades, to documents that threw you own arguments out the window. You did your oppositionÔÇÖs work for them.

---

It is tiresome, to put placed, in a catagory, that fits your NEOCON, verses LIBERAL perspective. I can understand your resolve, that I defeated my own arguement, but that is your perspective, of which is FLAWED. I am NOT, where you seem to place me, in respect to my POLITICAL views. Our opinions of what is important, are obviously at odds.(get over it) Neocons can call Kerry guilty of Treason, and thats ok? What? cant handle the same type of responses, I have been tolorating for months?

quote:

---

In case you havenÔÇÖt noticed, there has been a drop off in the number of responses to your posts. ThatÔÇÖs because you are no longer amusing. You are perfectly free to disagree with our leaders; this is a right granted to us by the Constitution, but it is not your right to blatantly disrespect those that you are talking about or to. Just as the protesters of Vietnam had the right to disagree with the current events of the time, they did not have the right to spit on our soldiers and call them ÔÇ£baby killersÔÇØ and ÔÇ£criminalsÔÇØ. Your insistence that our Commander and Chief is a war criminal and that he is committing ÔÇ£genocidal crimesÔÇØ against humanity are utterly offensive. You compared President Bush to Adolph Hitler, or at least quoted someone who did. I find it hard to believe that you did not know that this would be offensive, so it is apparent that you deliberately tried to offend everyone on these boards.

---

So what, if jag left, and the post have halved, or less..Why should that concern me?. I am not here to amuse you, and you neocons, total and blantant lack of respect, for TRUTH AND REALITY offend me as well. So believe what you will. It means nothing to me. I will maintain MY opinions and my post, as I see fit. Your accustation is a LIE in itself. MY only INTENT, is to PRESENT MY position....period. Why some of YOU feel the need to attack me for it, is not without due consideration. But if the SHOE fits...WEAR IT!

quote:

---

Many of the people involved in these arguments are guilty of some minor name-calling and wanton bickering, but none have demonstrated the blatant disrespect and open loathing that you have for a country that you claim to have defended.

---

Your opinion, of my regard for my country, is another of your misconceptions,My statements are obviously placed toward the ignorant NEOCON mentality. Not my problem, if this offends you. All there is to it.

quote:

---

Your most recent posts in several different threads have proven my position regarding the above comment concerning your attitude towards America. If your claims of being a military man and seeing war first hand are true, then I hold you in the highest respect, despite my harsh words. At the same time IÔÇÖm ashamed that a fellow veteran would act and talk the way you do.

---

I am ashamed, of the present ideology of this ADMinisration, and its ABORENT methodology. And even even REPULSED at what degree of APATHY my fellow americans have allowed to take root, concerning, this LYNCH MOB mentality, and how easily they IGNORE FACTS. If you feel airing our DIRTY laundry, is DISRESPECT, you are only afraid to face the TRUTH

quote:

---

IÔÇÖll not ask you to prove your military history. I believe you to be a generally honest person, so I will take you at your word. Only you know the truth.

---

I am not afraid of ANYTHING I say.

quote:

---

---

[ 10-13-2004, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: street ]

[Guest Shingen]

I'm beginning to think that some of you should go back and read this thread.

[street228]

quote:

---

1: No offense taken. I never said I was angry with the Iraq or Afghan population. In fact, I support them all the way to their freedom. Rather, the people that were in charge of their countries holding onto to power only by force and not the will of the people.

---

I understand this, full well. I also understand, there are ways in which democracy is promoted, and the security and FREEDOM of individuals, can be accomplished, without "BOMBING WHOLE cities, into the stone age. And without UNJUSTIFIABLE cause for interference.

quote:

---

With your analysis you would not have gotten involved in WWII because too many innocents would be harmed. Our bombs pumbled germany from up high and on the ground. How many innocent from adults to children and anti-hitler germans were killed there or other countries we fought this way in order to rid them of nazi's? Many I can tell you that. All wars are this way. War is not a pin point clean affair. As much as we would like. Damn, no one can fight a war without collateral damage even to the point of not accidently hitting your own troops.

---

I would say, ANY analogy, concerning WW2 and the casualties, is a little over reactive. That was a war between nations, which was Justified, within its SCOPE, concerning the casualties, and the type of war presented, by the AGRESSOR.

Who is the AGRESSOR today? ALQueda!!! that is WHO. I assure you, MORE civilians, and innocents have been killed, than the enemy today. Most of the victims, NEVER had any anomosity toward the united states, much less to have actually commited ANY atrocity toward us. Not a reasonable way to fight THIS KIND of war. Rediculously irradic, in it's methodology.

quote:

---

We abided by INTERNATIONAL rules actually bent over in many instances for years and what did that get us 9/11. So what's your point? It's time to take the bulls by the horn and deal with it ourselves. It's here you miss the point as well. It was the continued sanctions that fostered these terrorist even more so than I think this war ever will and that's Bush's point. The world ganging up on a muslim state with sanctions oh yeah that sat well with them.

---

Just because, the LAW did not work to your advantage, and at the speed you EXPECT, does NOT give ANY the right to ignore, and disregard LAW.

You think I am not being rational? Apply your disregard for law, within your own community, using your same rationale.

quote:

---

Our attack on Afghanistan and Iraq has had many advantages that ripple throught the middle east and the terrorist should take heed not only will they be in our crosshairs but their families too.

We've seen lybia get off it's ass and hand over their WMD's and other nasties and finally get their heads screwed on straight and get back to what's important their people and economy.

---

All advantage, to our Immoral actions, are mute, if it escalates the anomosity and division throughout the world. We are a WORLD, capable of complete self distruction. We have the technology to literally destroy all life on this planet. It is NOT sane, much less rational to promote, and create SEVERE instability, on such weak understanding, as to the ACTUAL outcome of such an act. Hell, if we didnt even have the FACTS right, when attacking the countries we have attacked, What makes you think, they could know the outcome of TOTAL INTERNATIONaL INSTABILITY, they have created?

quote:

---

2: Hmmm, you don't believe it's their mess? Who was undermining then U.N. sanctions? Allowing Saddam to thumb his nose up at years of U.N. sanctions while hording the cash to give new life to his WMD program. Seeing the U.N. in action in other countries leaves something to be desired. Unless the U.N. means what it says, they have absolutely no credibility whatsoever. France, Germany and Russia have added to this greatly their credibility is shot as well.

---

Now, you may wish to center on all the atrocities of france, germany or anyone else, involved in financial interaction with Iraq, but this does NOT, release our own irresponsible actions, in regard to this whole fiasco. And FRANCE, did NOT wage unprovoked, and total war, on a country who could NOT have hurt ANYONE of significance, without suffering adequate retribution.

[Guest]

Kerry wouldn't be able to build a coalition if they lined up and asked to join.

Problem is that they won't.

Wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time, oh yeah, THAT's gonna build a coalition, yeah right, sure thing.

Kerry can't pick his nose without help, and flip flops all day long if his contollers don't catch him and make sure he stays on his script.

Kerry's wife is just as bad, and they cannot control her at all.

This war is for ALL of the RIGHT reasons, and we have an ACTUAL coalition, that are actually doing the job, and the IRAQI's are coming online to take care of thier own security, so in the next 2 years or so, I believe that a majority of our soldiers will be out of there.

But thinking that Kerry can somehow build a better coalition is either A: wishful thinking, or B: someone has been drinking too much.

[y2kewel]

Thank you Shingen for pointing out the SC's thread. I did read it though before making my last post and believe it to be well within the guidlines. I do however apologize for my contribution to taking this thread further off topic.

Street, my response to you will be placed in its own thread.

[Guest Shingen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cmdr Damier:

Thank you Shingen for pointing out the SC's thread. I did read it though before making my last post and believe it to be well within the guidlines. I do however apologize for my contribution to taking this thread further off topic.

Street, my response to you will be placed in its own thread.

---

I wasn't directing that post at you, just everyone in general.

Surely we can make our arguements without engaging in further character assassinations and name-calling.

Leave all that for the politians.

[y2kewel]

quote:

---

Leave all that for the politians.

---

Indeed.

On second thought Street, I don't believe a response is necessary. If you'd like me to respond then I will. I believe my point has been made though.

[Kalshion]

quote:

---

how easily they IGNORE FACTS.

---

Follow you're own advice street, you've ignored a load of facts presented here by Jaguar and many other's.

Neo-con -

An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s: ÔÇ£The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era philosophy of the 1920sÔÇØ (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

[street228]

Kalshion, My statement was not directed directly to you. If you somehow feel it was, I would assume, you have taken the title of neocon. I would not have called you that, though you appear to be an avid supporter of such.

Contrary, to what you think of my rationale, and consideration of facts....I do take ALL the facts into consideration.

However, my views, as to what is rational reponse to the conglomerated effects of those facts, is based on rationale, in the prioritization of those facts. And with due consideration as to putting them into proper perspective.

I cannot control your perspective, only you can do that...unless, of course, you choose to allow another to do it for you. That is your choice. I will NOT apologize, for it NOT being mine.

[Kalshion]

You're right, you cannot control me

But, you claim you take all facts into consideration, if that was true. You'd have believed roughly 70% of what jaguar posts, which are from reliable locations and not from biased sources (like the main stream media)

Sorry Street, I worded my first a tad wrong but it's to late

Although, my diffiniction is listed for those who don't know what Neocon means

You want my views?

I support the past, I want America to go back to the way it USED to be, not the way it is NOW.

Do I blame bush for that? No I don't, I blame the federal government for butting into everyone's business.. EXPICALLY education, why do you think our schools are failing? Because the federal government is involved and wants our schools to perform to THERE specifications

There are problems with that though

For one, a school under federal funds, is not allowed to suspend or expel a student for any reason unless the student is a threat to the school itself

Another problem is this, most schools don't even BOTHER to check a student to see if there LEGITAMENTLY in this country LEGALLY, that mean's that roughly, possibly, 50% of our schools are teaching illigel immegrents our culture

My other gripe about this, is that our schools are allowing students and there familys who can't pay for school, to attend it. My opinion is this, if you can't pay for school then you don't deserve to go there

The "No Child Shall Be Left Behind" rule is rediculous, thanks to that, our schools are overcrowded..

Granted, my education came from both a private catholic school and a public magnet(career and technology) high school. So my idea's for the school district might be.. off, perhaps wrong, but that's how I see things

I don't want the federal government in my life, I want to take care of MYSELF. Not the fed's, who I consider a bigger threat than even the terrorists

It's our own government that will bring our down fall, not the terrorists, not the president, not Kerry.

Anywho, enough talk, I took this topic off topic a bit. Sorry about that

Edit: (sentence added)

[street228]

quote:

---

But, you claim you take all facts into consideration, if that was true. You'd have believed roughly 70% of what jaguar posts, which are from reliable locations and not from biased sources (like the main stream media)

---

It takes more than right wing presentation of tainted information, from one of questionable character, to convince me the pieces of truth, within a presented argument are reaching accurate conclusion.

Have no misunderstanding, I am fully aware, of the position of BOTH parties. My views reflect the consideration of the MORE relevant facts which surround the WHOLE of the issue.

If they appear to coincide with the left wing presentations...it would only be due to the bases, by which the presentation is established, has MORE merit, than the basis that the neocon argument holds.

quote:

---

I support the past, I want America to go back to the way it USED to be, not the way it is NOW.

---

In this, you and I , are in a good amount of agreement; however, I have to admit, i want my country to be even better than it was yesterday, and certainly not as regressed, as it has become today.

quote:

---

t's our own government that will bring our down fall, not the terrorists, not the president, not Kerry.

---

I agree with this statement. One cannot put the entire blame upon the president; however, In all my years of watching the politic game. I have never witnessed a president with such an illusion of reality conderning any givin situation; nor have I witnessed such irresponsible and reactive responses, in economics, and international relations.

To NOT hold him responsible for his actions, is even more irresponsible...in it's own right.

[Kalshion]

I hold Bush responsible for some of his actions, but not all.

Just like how I hold Kerry responsible for his actions in Vietnam, but I also hold the commitee who listened to him responsible for not looking into what Kerry said

[street228]

quote:

---

Just like how I hold Kerry responsible for his actions in Vietnam

---

I can not say anything, as to Kerry's actual performance, while in vietnam. I was not there. and the twisted presentations concerning his stand, are not at all reliable to any rational degree, but merely been used for political mud slinging. Therefore, I have no opinion on it, other than. He was most likely doing what he felt to be moral and right, upon his return.

Just as, NOBODY, but my IMMEDIATE team, have any TRUE understanding, as to what I did while in the service of this country. Therefore, nothing said, in reference to it, could possibly have much accuracy.