Lotharr

Who needs too? They have an opinion and a camera shoved in their face....there are plenty of thinkers, previous admin, soldiers, and private citizens who oppose this conflict that are more than a match for personnel who had their family buy their way into school and dodged serving their country in previous conflicts... I don't get it....most of these people didn't go out of their way to make a statement....criticize the corporate media for doing what they do best....providing poor journalism.

quote: But the reason for war now can't only be morals No it isn't check it out: http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templa...licationID=1214 Learn more about our neocon crusaders who reject notions of pluralism, debate, the democratic process, and historic realities of democratic formation.

quote: how could anyone,........anyone possibly even think and conceive to think that this is or would be an interesting movie... quote: Yeah, right, like I am actually going to watch this piece of excrement? quote: next time ill take 7$ and wipe my a$$ with it and i would probably get better use out of my cash... sheesh Michael Moore wins an Oscar for Best Documentary Feature....and the emoticon community freaks out! Well not all.... Hear the interview after.... http://www.oscar.com/oscarnight/winners/win_32297.html

quote: those veterans who backstab as much as the politicians in washington do Who might that be?

Good coverage of this whole situation can be found on C-Span...they show all kinds of different perspectives....really good stuff.

quote: and ppl say our nation cares bout our troops and those who have served. in the military ur expendable and looks like ur about the same even when ur out When you sign up you understand your expendable...that's part of the job. I didn't want to believe the hypocrisy could get this bad....but they did cut VA benefits by 25 billion.... Republicans make me sick, along with their Democratic co-conspirators.... What sorry times.

A brief history of Empire: http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,914925,00.html

You know where you can stick your fish

I love our war party.... http://capwiz.com/dav/issues/alert/?alertid=1691076&type=CU

quote: im all for that, but any smart person knows that the US wont believe them anyways, and that we want war so we can put a democratic puppet govt in power. Hey we got puppets right here! Now you can have one too and it won't even cost you millions of dollars! http://www.pocketpresident.com/front.html

Sorry been out gaming quote: What would you expect? Gore wrote a book calling for an end to the combustion engine. If you were an auto manufacturer, whom would you give to? Yup....and our elected officials should always go to the highest bidder right? quote: Corporations split their money between both parties, playing both sides of the table. Owning the table you mean. Sorry I don't think our elected officials should deal in one dollar one vote politics...it tends to devalue the typical citizen and ruin a country....but I realize that in the conservative analysis the country is only as strong as its weakest business partner. quote: If you think Bush is beholden to the oil community, then you'd love the links that Clinton had to the lawyer community and tort-reform legislation. I never supported Clinton....and I won't support anyone who is the lesser of two losers....sorry my vote is going to mean something....at least to me. People can only pick between the worst this country has to offer for so long before they want something better....only bad things can happen when a system makes the crap rise to the top. The rest only proved the point that business and politics don't mix. quote: They didn't knock him off, they caused him to flee (after two failed attempts) and installed the Shah who was later ousted by Khomeini. It was over Iranian nationalization of the oil fields fomented by the USSR after WWII. Why are you quibbling? The point is clear. We have been involved in this region for one reason. It is as clear today as yesterday.

quote: I think that common sense has the final say on what is a material breach. No you don't or you would side with the majority of the free world....who at this point have that market on lock. Also, you should stop using arguments that claim ligitamicy via UN regulations. Your belief in America's imperial prirogative to dictate international law while being free from the same do not strengthen your position. quote: Personally, I think that the oil money isn't as tainted as the banking money (Robert Rubin of Citibank/Enron was Clinton's Treasury secretary) or the labor money (taken from union dues) or teacher money that went to Democrats (but that's a topic for another thread). I'll disagree on this point...there's enough filth for both parties....that's why I am not a democrat. Please don't lump the AFL-CIO in with corporations. FEC in election 2000: Labor gave a total of: 91,000,000 Business gave: 970,044,515 Just dont do it. quote: It's disengenuous to imply that Bush won because of money from the oil lobby, while ignoring how close Gore's lobby money got him to the White House I have no illusions as to the "nobility" of the Democrats. But here are the facts: Auto industry gave Bush 1,272,497 and Gore 114,790. Oil and Gas gave Bush 1,889,206 and Gore got 139,514. When you factor in the dominating role oil personnel play in critical administration positions....the link is clear. This provides a solid foundation for blood for oil arguments.....sorry that CNN is too busy blabbering away about nothing to investigate, but that's what they're paid so well for. quote: but Iran had taken Americans hostage for 444 days and were enemies of the USA at the time Yeah and if the CIA hadn't knocked of the democratically elected president in '53 that never would have happened. Funny how the most expedient and "pure" imperialist actions never work out in the long run. [ 03-11-2003, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

quote: No it isn't, if the USA isn't interested in ruling the Iraq as a colony, and I don't believe that it is. I believe the USA is interested in setting up a self-rule system in Iraq. As the old saying goes, Democracies don't start wars Clearly we are about to start a war. Most likely we will be doing it in violation of international law as well. By 1441 the security council has the final say on what is or is not a material breach. If you want to claim that Saddam didn't do a belly dance for Bush and now we can invade I'm not buying it....as most of the free world agrees. Your right we have no interest in occupying the region for an indefinate period of time. It's much easier to let the transnational corporations pull out the wealth supported by an indigenous government who may or may not care about the people. We do it all over the world for "free" trade, why should this be any different. But I bet we keep bases after the new regime is fully established....let em know who is really running the show.... quote: Why should anyone be surprised that an oil company would benefit from stability in the biggest oil region in the world? You think big oil is some neural or benign force. I don't agree. Big Oil bought Bush the presidency and most of his chicken hawks have major ties to oil.....even "condy". quote: France supplying experimental equipment and Germany supplying chemicals. It is already known that we provided WMD material and information....shame on them for following our lead.

quote: Today's "big oil" includes companies like British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell. If the "friendly regime" comes from the country itself, who cares? As long as that regime sets up a process where the Iraqi people can oust the regime if they don't like them, then what's wrong with that? The biggest are Exxon-Mobil American based the next is Royal-Dutch-Shell British based....The two pushing the hardest for war. The Bush Blair regime will install business aristocrats and they will most likely dominate the political process.probably by claiming instability issuesand the normal routes of privatizing everything, dominating the media, and smashing unionshey we could rename it Lil America. The point is that most likely any interference between the post Saddam regime and big oil will be crushed and the issues manipulated like the current Venezuela situation.... Anyway, I checked the eight ball: Democracy not likely. quote: Again, look at Saudi Arabia. America "made" that country and then the royal family turned it over to Islamic extremists without America intervening -- what history leads you to believe that America won't take a hands-off approach in Iraq after their regime change? Look at the current administrations business backgrounds and future employment plans and type that again with a straight face. We couldn't directly intervene in 1960 we had just established the anti-Soviet "Baghdad pact" and the red scare was more than enough to force us to behave civilly....and anyway OPEC was a result of ARMCO slashing prices to increase big oil profits....oops. quote: From where I sit, that's a good thing. As far as a "buck fifty" at the pumps goes, have you priced a gallon of milk lately? Do you drive an SUV? No really...gas prices for the affluent can be exorbitant when your making that kind of mileage....anyway many Americans feel that cheap gas is an imperial entitlement of sorts...that may be changing slowly. The bottom line is that these two oil conglomerates stand to gain huge revenues from "liberation"....and when you factor in the staggering big oil donations to the Bush campaign it should be clear..on one level this is a smash and grab jobon another it is something else. The neocon position is clear. They want to reorder the Middle East into something happy and shiny in American format. This is the definition of imperialism. Did anyone notice that the Tigris Euphrates is a fresh water source.by WTO-IMF regulations the new Iraq will have to liberalize their economy and privatize the water to be entitled to economic benefits..blue gold.I smell profit! Ooooooits all a conspiracy..oooooo..until you do some research.

quote: That's why I can't support Hussein, because he IS lying and because he IS hiding things. Then he's running the inspectors around in circles making the entire damn UN look like a bunch of fools, which makes me wonder what we have use of them for I don't support Saddam and that is not the message of the anti-war people. Blix has said that the process is working but there are snags that start and end with Saddam. The only reason Saddam is compliant at all is threat of force. I believe that, and I think it is a good thing. It means that he is rational and can be manipulated into accomplishing the right thing without killing thousands of innocent people. It seems like a harder and more frustrating avenue but what good things ever just happen? I have always believed in muscular disarmament but Bush didn't even try that. You can match force and consequence with the behavior displayed (like with North Korea) and you see positive effect....and you don't use up all the political capitol, you don't damage the idea of international law, and you don't accrue all those negative things that come from a blind charge through an extremely complicated situation. The point is that Bush is not even considering these other options. The notion of international law is an extension of law in general. Rules make civilization possible. The UN has serious issues but the majority of people believe that it is much better than having nothing at all and I agree. This is where I think any administration should be focusing. I think America should be leading the way in building a fair and just organization to settle international disputes. We would have to let go of some power but that is only natural when trying to build a just community. If we were to continue building a strong and flexible international organization that serves to strengthen justice we ultimately are only serving and protecting ourselves. I believe human instinct is to rebel against unlawful authority. If we are viewed as unlawful any peace we try to force upon others will be fought against. That is why Bush needs to admit that Saddam is not an immediate threat and can be contained. We should not stop there and we don't have to. There are many options available to support regime change without digging up the ant colony and we should be working on those options rather than declaring empire for the sake of expedience. In the end even if Saddam were to fully cooperate inspectors would still stay in Iraq....that was part of the deal after Gulf I. So what Blix has said is that he is making good progress and should be allowed to continue his work and I agree. Other evidence suggests that behind all this happy happy humanitarian rhetoric is another agenda. This agenda is concerned with oil, power, and empire. Why is it so hard to believe that people who buy their way into office, and count themselves as one of Gods chosen, would have any other aspirations but to save the world and make a few bucks in the process?

quote: Except Lotharr, that in New York a mall is considered private property and has been considered that way since Shad Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall in 1985 if not for longer. So they can curtail free speech, and change their minds on restricting speech if they desire. What is legal and what is right are two different things. So if I want to get around free speech I buy something and outlaw the first amendment? No way....private property of a private citizen is one thing. Corporate ownership is something else entirely. To institutionalize the right of wealth to control public spaces at the expense of civil liberties, community or individual expression is tyrannical and destructive. quote: If the Guilderland mall is sufficiently entangled with the state(ie a large enough a spectrum of municipal authority excersized there), then in New York it constitutes a public forum. Unfortunately I do not agree with this. Just because a corporate entity buys a physical space, it is not relieved of accountability to the local community and the greater society where it operates. Property rights are allegedly a corner stone of liberty, however when this single principle overruns the rest of the ideals of a society it becomes a problem.as it is now. Examine any social problem and you will find evidence of corporate interference and influence. Corporations are not people they are not entitled to bill of rights protection and they most definitely should not be free to redefine societal norms arbitrarily. I will not sacrifice my rights and liberties to an ultimately small group of non elected personal who feel they know what's best for me.

Got coke?

quote: Lotharr, if you'll remember my original position on the Iraq situation, you'll remember that for the longest time I didn't support one bit invading Iraq's national sovereignty I remember that's why I give your points substantial consideration. quote: so my position changed to one of resignation. i.e. "if we're going to go, let's do it right this time." Here we all agree. However if you are against it from that start than I believe you have to continue the dissent. Just my opinion. quote: but the sacrilege that ensues should a Democrat ever harm another Democrat's reputation is a sight to see. I don't really know about that....but I don't doubt it. I can't stomach the sell out democrats. quote: My current opinion now is forcing compliance to disarm, by whatever means necessary. As to the rest.... The people were content to let democracy to be subverted until Bush started threatening to start a war with one liner arguments that leave even strong supporters embarrassed. These days people are content to let things slide as long as a standard of living can be maintained...now with Bush talking about killing thousands of innocent people for a resolution that can be worked out in other ways some are moving out of their comfort zone.....others see the real possibility for blow back as something that can't be justified. This is the age of sound byte arguments fostered by the corporate media. So they protest the same way. The issues are complex but there are real arguments behind the slogans. People are concerned with what's best for America...that's why they are pointing out the serious implications of allowing a non elected person to take high office. They are showing what overt imperialism is all about and why they don't want that for this country. Many in that camp believe that what is good for the free world is not Pax Americana. As far as Clinton....well....the media chewed him up....but he wasn't going to kill thousands of civilians when other methods could eventually achieve the same results. quote: My current opinion now is forcing compliance to disarm, by whatever means necessary I can't agree but I respect your opinion.

quote: Yes Lotharr, look in the mirror, you'll see exactly whom I am talking about. When I look I don't see a person who advocates final solutions by labeling an entire people as animals....I keep forgeting you have so much in common with osama bin laden. quote: Security and stability in the region is in everyone's interest -- we're just the one's with the ability to do something about it. Than the President needs to stand up and make that case. Otherwise he'll stick with what he has and anyone who examines the facts can see the hypocrisy and partial answers that do not satisfy the critical observer. If everyone is involved than everyone needs to work it out. I think it is going to be ugly for America when Bush saunters out of the UN. The system is not perfect but we could have used our influence it an entirely different way and most likely achieved outstanding results....Bush turned this entire scenario into a lose lose from a criminally inept foreign policy. quote: what will the United States do with control of the region They did answer that. Conquer the country, install a friendly regime, privatize the oil, big oil wins, the ousted aristocracy can return and become part of the new aristocracy as business men and everyone wins....we keep bases to insure that any self determination that Washington finds questionable can be "shaped and molded" into something pleasing to the corporate lobbyists. The revenues, as always, stay in the hands of local elites and the big oil share holders for whom the world turns. Share holders get their hard earned cut and the world is saved from inefficiency and any economic hiccups..we all know what happens when our normally docile middle class finds over a buck fifty at the pumps. [ 03-07-2003, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

Well a bunch of people wearing anti-war shirts descended on the mall the following day and they weren't arrested. Utter hypocrisy. As we see our public spaces squeezed further from what is reasonable I think we will start to see some very reasonable backlash. A mall, while private property, is still a gathering place of citizens and as such should be open to anyone wanting to express an opinion in a reasonable and non-threatening way. The private sector dominates too many aspects of our public lives and we need to take them back.

******* socialist....put him against the wall with the rest of those who dare question (G)ods (O)rdained (P)lutocrats. Just kiddingtake him out back and give him a good beatingwhats wrong with a little brass knuckle political reeducation?

quote: AHH, another clueless one, well, they seem to come out of the woodwork Does anyone have a mirror handy... Anyone wanting to examine the details behind the oil for blood slogan check it out: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/20.../ma_273_01.html I'll respond to the rest if I get a chance.

This game shines in multiplayer if you have the time.... When I went on vacation I played multiplayer with my father and a friend....all axis.... We were nuking the Soviets in 1942. Invaded America in 1945....freakin awesome... It did take about six days...ave six hours every day..... Next game we are all enemies.....that should be even better....

quote: But that sure as heck doesn`t mean that either has no value. When every evaluation is made in terms of military power it does....but ultimately it never works out....basic rule of Empire.it never sinks in... quote: Do you think that the Civil War would have been concluded as such had the U.S. government been required to fight on the front lines? We saw the North get its *** chewed in the beginning...by political appointments to general that looked for the best *** kisser rather than the best soldier..... Nowwhen we have professional generals they are muzzled by the insidious chicken hawks and their brave business partners. quote: Someone has to make the decision to stand up to petty dictators and despots around the world. And people need to stand up to power so insulated from normal life that their decisions have lost all perspective on the consequences of war. quote: The UN will be irrelavant, France, Germany, and mmost likely NATO will become irrelavant, and the EU will become so as well. Delegating the industrialized world to the state of irrelevance will not work.hubris and greed might work for people who go to Yale with crappy grades and skip out on war.that might get you elected and help to lead a normal trust fund lifebut it doesnt lead to intelligent decision making or inspiring leadership.

quote: The trump card is that anyone is free not to listen, or to speak against you. With corporate media we are all free to hear something unpopular to the CEO's.maybe once....at 3:00 in the morning.and than sing songs about freedom and liberty....or answer to DSEA quote: I am not violating their freedom of speech by calling them a dumb A. Personally attacking someone doesn't really move a conversation forward...