America's Role.

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Menchise:

quote:

---

It's Safe To Assume that Saddam is getting WMDs

---

Is that all? The article has absolutely nothing substantial to say about WMD. It's just a bunch of baseless and inane opinions that the writer has pulled out of his ass. His idea of "evidence" is one ambiguous reference to "many experts". Experts in what? Archery?!

---

The main thing that matters from that article is that he knows the US is after him, and the references to the amount of time Saddam has had to prepare, anywhere from 4-11 years to get WMDs. If he knows the US is against him and is/was going to attack, as contended before, he would logically be trying to GET WMDs right now to defend himself. If not, it'll be a easy victory for the US when we invade.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Iraq Wouldn't even let Weapons Inspectors back after 9/11

---

Pencils News for Kids? Are you serious? That article leaves out so much it's not even regarded as real news.

---

That article isn't there to draw a conclusion, it's there to support the paragraph below that you quoted. Saddam *HAS* to have something to hide if he STILL refuses to let weapons inspectors in when it's OBVIOUS that the US is going to mark him as supporting terrorism (whether he does or not), and invade.

quote:

---

quote:

---

One special note with that fact and the connecting article, is that Saddam deserves to get bombed out of STUPIDITY. Ok, the US is attacked on 9/11. We declare a war on terrorism. We ask Saddam to let in weapons inspectors. Saddam, while probably being able to guess that if he doesn't, the US is going to attack him, says "no". It's his own fault for the consequences if he's stupid enough to try to stand up to a country that really, really, really wants to kill some terrorists.

Blair Believes Iraq is trying to get WMDs

---

You seem to have completely ignored the parts of the Banfield-Aziz interview to which I referred. Why should I bother responding to your sources if you're going to ignore mine?

---

---

I've read that article/interview multiple times, and I haven't ignored it. I'm sorry for my choice in wording as Saddam "supporting terrorists", because there is no proof that he is supporting Al Quieda. All i'm saying is that it was obvious that the US was going to attack, your INTERVIEW even says that Saddam knows the US has been trying to get rid of him and is probably going to attack, and then Saddam is STUPID enough to not let weapons inspectors back in? I doubt he has THAT little concern for his own life. He's hiding something.

You still have a good number of sources to go through. Responding to the weakest two doesn't prove much, and Jaguar is still piling em on.

[ 07-28-2002, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

I do believe that Draconisrex needs to back up what he is saying with some uncontrolled/unbiased news stories. I am waiting....

Sorry Draconis, but if your gonna try and play with the Big Dogs.....

Sorry Draconis, there is really no middle ground here. Either Saddam is trying to get WMD'd, as we have been saying or he isn't, like Menchise is saying. Either Saddam is creating a want for suicide bombers by paying their families like I believe or he's not creating a need like Menchise is saying. There is NO middle ground. Either Dredd and I are correct, or Menchise is correct.

This PC meet in the middle is NOT a part of a debate. Either We are correct, or Menchise is. We can agree to disagree, but neither is gonna give unless duly convinced.

---

Ah, you like beating a dead horse -- there is no such thing as unbiased reporting. Everything has a religious and/or political slant. Period. I'm not asking either side to give -- I don't believe in standing in the way of people wanting to waste their time. Unless you have complete access to all concerned country's records (as no one actually does, although there are few real secrets in existance on the intelligence level), you only see what you're permitted to see. That applies to both sides of your little "war" here.

As for "Playing with the Big Dogs", I am a bigger Dawg than you know about...

[DraconisRex]

Okay, Guys, there is something to remember here. Crism Jihad tends to play dirty. Saddam can be easily suspected of either having WMD's or supplying it with money. A suspicion isn't enough to justify an attack. They need proof.

Period.

Do any of you *KNOW* what INTEL we have on Iraq? Or what we're doing? It's a safe bet that we will invade her (again) to make sure, but until that happens..... (You may get to wait 25 years until the Freedom of Information Act kicks in. That's assuming it doesn't remain Classified....)

[Guest]

quote:

---

As for "Playing with the Big Dogs", I am a bigger Dawg than you know about...

---

I'm not even going to go there, not even a millimeter.

I have given fair warning, I have played nice, are you going to jump into the ring?

I can't believe there is someone with the cahunas to literally jump in the middle. I thought being jumped by Menchise was bad, it's fun debating with him, and he gives as good as he gets. But now you want to jump in the middle and get jumped by us both? Are you NUTS?

This could get real interesting, yo, Dredd, we have a possible Gammulan here. What do you think?

[DraconisRex]

I said in an earlier post (same forum), and I quote: "The problem is, the entire Middle East, to include Egypt and Lybia, and even parts of Africa, has this "Family" mindset. It works like this: If I'm fighting my brother(s), it's cool and what God wants. However, if any outsider interferes, most of us are gonna jump him."

Ah, such is life. I've been the Chief of Operations with the "Colonial Space Force" for the past six years, and been an officer of the fleet for the past seventeen. I know combat, intelligence gathering, cross-training operations, computer science, general management, cryptography procedures, and "misinformation management" (aka Counter-Intelligence).

My rank is Grand Admiral in that fleet, and I've earned it. I feel quite qualified to claim that "I am a Big Dawg..." Now, siddown, take a pause, and think about this....

[ 07-28-2002, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: DraconisRex ]

[Guest]

quote:

---

My rank is Grand Admiral in that fleet, and I've earned it. I feel quite qualified to claim that "I am a Big Dawg..." Now, siddown, take a pause, and think about this....

---

I hope to god that you are joking...

There are people here on this forum, I won't tell you who they are, that are Counterintelligence, military attaches, high ranking military members. REAL military, US military.

I hope to god that you are not trying to say that you have the right to run with those big dogs. Because if you are, your credibility is now shot to hell.

I spent 4 years in the US army, made the rank of E-4 in 18 months. Had a CTS clearance, have done things that I am not allowed to talk about, and I don't even have the cahunas to say that I have the right to run with those BIG dogs. Because they are pretty big dogs.

So, shall we back up the tape, and try again?

If you want to play, that's just fine, but I am giving you fair warning, because you are new, that there are some REAL big dogs on this forum.

That's all that I will say about that.

When I said "big Dogs" I meant going up against a few of the more politically savvy people that are on this forum. Menchise has a bit of a left lean to him, but he is well educated, and actually believes what he says. Dredd, myself, $ilk, Steve and a few others are very well versed in the government, the constitution and are pretty much what I would call political wonks. That is what I meant by big dogs. So, shall we continue, now that the meanings are clear?

I forgot about Lothar, he seems to lean in the same direction as Menchise. I of course lean right of center, but just a little, I am a strict constitutionalist and therefore politics and the idiotic things our politicians do is important to me.

[ 07-28-2002, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

This could get real interesting, yo, Dredd, we have a possible Gammulan here. What do you think?

---

Well, he's gutsy enough.

quote:

---

Okay, Guys, there is something to remember here. Crism Jihad tends to play dirty. Saddam can be easily suspected of either having WMD's or supplying it with money. A suspicion isn't enough to justify an attack. They need proof.

Period.

Do any of you *KNOW* what INTEL we have on Iraq? Or what we're doing? It's a safe bet that we will invade her (again) to make sure, but until that happens..... (You may get to wait 25 years until the Freedom of Information Act kicks in. That's assuming it doesn't remain Classified....)

---

Proof isn't needed, the suspicion of him trying to get WMDs and his refusal to cooperate fully in proving he doesn't have them is enough, since (getting back to the original topic of the thread), it's in America's best interest to attack. We may not be POSITIVE, but the huge impact of waiting (such as nuclear, chemical, or biological attacks against the United States or it's allies, or destabilization of the region by Iraq becoming a hedgemony protected by WMDs), far outweighs the disadvantage to it (some of our troops will be at risk).

Also, one point we have seemed to been ignoring in our discussion is the time frame. Even IF Menchise is right (which he's not) about him not currently being a threat right NOW, there's no reason to expect him not to be a threat in the future once he is able to rebuild his military and WMD program (which even if he's not doing it NOW, he would when he's not under scrutiny).

It'd be irresponsible of the United States to be pretty sure that Iraq is a threat *or* will become a threat, and then WAIT for them to do it before attacking. That just puts MORE lives in danger, American and foreign, both military and civilian.

International politics is not run by the US court system where PROOF is needed, and Iraq and Saddam need to be treated "fairly". The dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, is percieved as an evil ba$tard, and he is going to suffer for it by a US invasion. International politics is run by a very simple cost-benefit analysis (the way it should be until there is a time when there are no competing cultures/religions/etc), usually factoring in, marginally, democratic values of the other country in the analysis. The way it works in this scenario is the following:

Cost of attacking Iraq:

1. American troops at risk.

2. Money.

3. Other countries, who *CANT* and *WONT* DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT get "annoyed" at the US. (here's a dime, call someone who cares)

Benefit:

1. Long standing regional threat (neighbors in danger if Iraq military becomes powerful) removed.

2. Long standing international threat removed (he gets WMDs, it's bad, also funding stops for suicide bombers families).

3. Future threat removed (it's a dictatorship and he's aggressive. no reason why he would change since the gulf war)

4. Threat to US oil removed.

5. Civilians rights in Iraq become respected more due to the destruction of a dictatorship.

6. Sanctions would be removed, helping the population.

7. The Kurds don't need to worry about getting killed by Saddam anymore.

Oh yeah, and just in general, our argument is based on the concept of using the information we know. Sure, we don't know EVERYTHING, but from what we do know, Iraq should be bombed to hell and invaded. If there was a lot of important information "hidden" from US, i'm sure there would be *a lot more* leaks and protests from in the CIA saying that Iraq ISNT a threat. Unclassified CIA report link a few posts ago too. It may be doctored, but you can't doctor it THAT much. Also, that was presented to congress. They don't typically edit the stuff that is sent to Congress enough to change the entire MEANING (ex. They didn't change "Iraq is not building chemical weapons" to "Iraq is building chemical weapons" for when they released it. There's has to be SOME degree of trust, since EVERYONE gets their information somewhere, and the actual intelligence collection agencies are the best you can usually get)

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally by Dredd

3. Other countries, who *CANT* and *WONT* DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT get "annoyed" at the US. (here's a dime, call someone who cares)

---

Indeed, call someone who cares, Saddam is going down, one way or the other. The US will and has to do something before he creates a disaster that we cannot stop. He is stoppable now, NOW is the time to take him out.

Whether his Middle Eastern Brethren think so or not. They are as afraid of him as anyone else, especially because of the fact he's right next door. I promise they will complain about the invasion or killing him, just in case he wins, but once we take him out, there will be a huge gratified sigh of relief.

Publicly they HAVE to tell us not to invade or assassinate Saddam, but priivately, they are beggin us to take him out. I have heard this from quite a few sources. Saudi Arabis, the House of Saud is absolutely panic stricken. Somehow a new group has formed from fundametalists, theya re well financed and fanatical. It is believed that Saddam is backing this group that wishes to overthrow the House of Saud. They want him GONE, and sooner the better.

[ 07-28-2002, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

quote:

---

Originally by Dredd

3. Other countries, who *CANT* and *WONT* DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT get "annoyed" at the US. (here's a dime, call someone who cares)

---

Indeed, call someone who cares, Saddam is going down, one way or the other. The US will and has to do something before he creates a disaster that we cannot stop. He is stoppable now, NOW is the time to take him out.

Whether his Middle Eastern Brethren think so or not. They are as afraid of him as anyone else, especially because of the fact he's right next door. I promise they will complain about the invasion or killing him, just in case he wins, but once we take him out, there will be a huge gratified sigh of relief.

Publicly they HAVE to tell us not to invade or assassinate Saddam, but priivately, they are beggin us to take him out. I have heard this from quite a few sources. Saudi Arabis, the House of Saud is absolutely panic stricken. Somehow a new group has formed from fundametalists, theya re well financed and fanatical. It is believed that Saddam is backing this group that wishes to overthrow the House of Saud. They want him GONE, and sooner the better.

---

Oh, yeah, I'll play; just understand that I *WILL NOT* believe spoon-fed media sources (are there any that aren't?!?) Saddam must fall. Period. As for when we *SHOULD* have taken him out, I'd say 1991 would have been nice. But we screwed up.

National Security interests would include such things as preventing radical lunatics from using Dirty Nukes on downtown NYC. Since, with all MSD's, there are no second chances, it would be a good idea to do some "preventative maintenance." You know the idea, you have a car that needs its dirty oil changed (raving lunatic in charge of a nation), so you empty out the old oil (recommend M-16A2 on semi-automatic), and put in new oil (democratic leaders). Car (nation) works better, gets better milage (capitalism), and the nose complains less (other nations.)

I would say invade. Now. No waiting.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Oh, yeah, I'll play; just understand that I *WILL NOT* believe spoon-fed media sources (are there any that aren't?!?) Saddam must fall. Period.

As for when we *SHOULD* have taken him out, I'd say 1991 would have been nice. But we screwed up.

National Security interests would include such things as preventing radical lunatics from using Dirty Nukes on downtown NYC. Since, with all MSD's, there are no second chances, it would be a good idea to do some "preventative maintenance." You know the idea, you have a car that needs its dirty oil changed (raving lunatic in charge of a nation), so you empty out the old oil (recommend M-16A2 on semi-automatic), and put in new oil (democratic leaders). Car (nation) works better, gets better milage (capitalism), and the nose complains less (other nations.)

I would say invade. Now. No waiting.

---

I would agree with just about everything you said, including the fact that we should have taken him out in 1991, but Bush Sr. was afraid that his coalition would fall apart and we would go beyond the mission stated by the UN. Whoopdee fricking doo as far as I am concerned. WHO CARES what the UN says, they're all a bunch of pinhead dictators that sit around and talk about how terrible the US is anyway. I say we kick that sorry excuse of an organization out of our country and into the Hague where they belong.

It is time to invade and take over that sick little country, KILL Saddam, publicly and with extreme prejudice. Then move on with allowing Turkey to come in and creating a secular republic from the remains. For payment, Turkey gets to control the oil fields, and the Kurds get employment right NOW!! Tell the Kurds that in exchange for thier cooperation and giving up any dreams of their own country, they get 30% of the revenues from the oil fields to rebuild thier lives in that area, under Turkish control. And of course they are given representation in the Turkish government just as if they were a state of that country.

But I am getting way above and beyond what the original topic was. It is time to take Saddam out and now is the time. Because he is working on and getting WMD's, and the longer he has, the worse it becomes.

[DraconisRex]

Oh, Saddam is a threat; make no mistake about it. It is in our nation's best interest to invade now, while there is still a possibility of control over our interests in Middle Eastern affairs. When I say "control", I don't mean become Imperial tyrants, I mean having something *TO* control.

That whole area has fought over the same pieces of dirt since long before Christ. They *WANT* to fight, and unless something is done that removes that desire, someone is going to get the upper hand and eliminate his neighbors.

WMD's make the whole thing extremely volatile, and nobody is going to actually win.

Assume that Iraq decides to invade Jordan. Now, the Jordanians try to be neighbors to everyone, which means there would be an outcry from other countries. However, since that's on Israel's border, it wouldn't be long until Israel would be right in the middle of it.

That would leave Israel open to attack from Egypt, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. Short of nuclear intervention by Israeli forces, it is doubtful they would win in this 4-sided war. Actually, it's 5-sided, as there is also the Palestinian element, which would be hard-pressed not to take advantage of the situation.

That's where it is headed, in my overview of the Middle Eastern situation. The scenario I just stated is unlikely, but it will be a multiple country strike that will eliminate Israel, if something isn't done soon to put out the fires.

Iraq is the next logical target for anti-terrorism attacks. And then we need to mop-up the other countries that harbor terrorists, one strike-team at a time. Don't bother attacking the countries directly (Afghanistan was totally supporting it, which is different from letting it happen), just go in, and destroy their ability to wage war. Period.

As for an invasion, the US military has been reducing its size for much too long now. We don't have the manpower (right this minute, short of the draft) to match half of what we did in 1991. Our weapons might be better, but after the intial fireworks, that will become a land-war. And this time, no stopping at the city gates. Screw that. Kick them down. Ground them down to powder if need be, but kick Saddam's rear, then arrest him and toss him in jail.

We need to stop pussy-footing with these anti-Americans. They have a right to their opinion, but the minute they pick up a weapon or load their truck with explosives on their way to the States, they instantly become an enemy soldier. Thank the Lord we have enough dirt to bury them...

(Favorite military quote: "Kill 'em all! Let God sort 'em out!")

[Menchise]

So many posts, so little time (this is getting familiar). I think I'll resign from this thread before I start sleeping on the keyboard.

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Menchise:

So many posts, so little time (this is getting familiar). I think I'll resign from this thread before I start sleeping on the keyboard.

---

VICTORY!!!!!

[Guest]

dredd, draconis!! We won!!!

We'll start another one, shan't we Menchise?

Gotta love these discussions....

[Guest $iLk]

Sorry for letting you get gang-banged on this one Menchise. I kind of said what I wanted to say with my first couple of posts.

If someone is going to attack America, or is planning to, or is wanting to, and we have *proof* of this (not the editors at Newsmax screaming about "sadaam's nuclear scientist and hairbarber confidant says sadaam just set you up the bomb!"), then we should attack them.

If Iraq wants to invade... anyone. Let them. Unless the country they are invading provides a vital and fundamental resource for the United States.

We like to think we police the world because we are the only one's with the manpower. Actually we are just the only one's arrogant enough to think we have a right.

Iraq is a sovereign nation, recognized by the international community. If Iraq commits an act of war, it's party time. By act of war I don't mean not succumbing to some treaty that wasn't our right to impose anyway, I'm talking about Sadaam blowing up a bunch of Americans.

If GWB wants to even the score for daddy, call it what it is. Iraq hasn't threatened us LITERALLY. Sadaam has made comments about retaliation, but he will let the USA make the first move. And no matter what happens, we lose.

Either Sadaam or the International community is able to halt our attack, or the scope and size of America's Empire continues to grow.

I'm Isolationist damn it.

George Washington knew well enough to let alone, why can't George W.?

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $iLk:

If Iraq wants to invade... anyone. Let them. Unless the country they are invading provides a vital and fundamental resource for the United States.

---

Anyone Iraq would invade would hurt us cause of the oil. I know it's bad, but we need the stupid oil that the Middle East provides. If we would only use OTHER fuel sources, we'd be able to leave them TOTALLY alone, let em all kill each other off, and say that if they ever bother us we'll just nuke em.

quote:

---

We like to think we police the world because we are the only one's with the manpower. Actually we are just the only one's arrogant enough to think we have a right.

---

I like to think we do it to make America big and strong...which is a good thing. Also, no one else does have the manpower. Also, we do have a right...might makes right, and we do have the most powerful military on the face of the Earth.

quote:

---

Iraq is a sovereign nation, recognized by the international community. If Iraq commits an act of war, it's party time. By act of war I don't mean not succumbing to some treaty that wasn't our right to impose anyway, I'm talking about Sadaam blowing up a bunch of

Americans

.

---

Well, the treaty sort of was our right to impose, since we DID win the war. I guess we were naive to believe that Saddam would follow through if he stayed in power, as opposed to managing to disagree with us so much that we invade him AGAIN.

quote:

---

If GWB wants to even the score for daddy, call it what it is. Iraq hasn't threatened us LITERALLY. Sadaam has made comments about retaliation, but he will let the USA make the first move. And no matter what happens, we lose.

---

I fail to see how we are going to lose. Saddam is going to be sliced and diced and then dragged through the streets of Baghdad. The people of the country will be freed from a regime of fear, and we'll have a new ally (since we'll be the ones setting up the new government and helping them rebuild after we bomb em to hell).

quote:

---

Either Sadaam or the International community is able to halt our attack,

---

quote:

---

or the scope and size of America's Empire continues to grow.

---

quote:

---

George Washington knew well enough to let alone, why can't George W.?

---

I've read part of his farewell speech and papers, he only left alone because he knew that if we didn't leave alone, we'd get destroyed by the bigger powers at the time. Now we're the bigger power, and we're already deep into international relations. There are a lot of areas where I agree we should be isolationist, but in some instances, doing nothing will come back and hurt us.

[Lotharr]

Been out of the net sorry.

quote:

---

Would that 20 year old kid still do it if there was no money involved? I think so.

The bombings are motivated by vengeance more than anything else. I think the money only has a marginal effect.

---

I don't agree. Israel has been waging a war on these people for a long time. No need to get into why. They choke them economically and pat themselves on the back. Oops.

Right after the "great success" of a bombing mission, their government is in disarray...talk about giving jobs etc. They know that this is one issue of primary concern. When you grind a population under your boot you had better be careful.....like us a few hundred years ago.

Life and liberty are everywhere and if you beat a person they will only grow stronger.

Israel is torn....they are starting to look like the forces that created them....dance with the devil....look into the abyss....

quote:

---

Look, the Controlled Information Association, er, CIA, isn't in the habit of releasing unbleached intelligence reports. And, because of the Israeli/Muslim feud (note that word) over a piece of property, you really can't take anything they say at face value either.

---

Yep. The truth of a given situation is tied to greater truths. I don't think anyone wants to collapse the house of BS just yet.

quote:

---

I forgot about Lothar, he seems to lean in the same direction as Menchise. I of course lean right of center, but just a little, I am a strict constitutionalist and therefore politics and the idiotic things our politicians do is important to me.

---

You forget your history while you claim to cherish it. This county was founded on oppression and now we contribute....that kinda like father like son thing going on....

But thanks for thinking of me....

My bottom line is this:

Our country was founded on the principals of liberty and democracy.

We act in accordance with that on a limited scale.

Everyone likes to sing the praises of our so called democracy when we are far from a place where THE PEOPLE govern themselves. If you cannot see the system wide interference of this objective then I bet you just change the channel.

Business as usual needs to change. We are not a righteous force alone in the dark.

Read the UN development report..I dare you.

Why aren't we in Iraq right now? Because it is complicated and it will be bloody. I've heard it said that invasion plans leaked from the Pentagon were done so by American officers that realize this is not going to be easy. Their civilian counterparts just don't want to realize this...job security is a mother at that place eh?

You talk of threats and lack of security when lack of thinking is the real issue. Lack of clear thought and understanding of a situation.

But what the hell. It has got a lot of people this far right?

Of course you could just turn to the channel that has the station logo in front of the American flag for some good hard investigative journalism.

Or is that all of them?

[CommanderJohnson]

I'll respond to anything that I disagree with later, just wanted to refer to a site.

Iraq is going to get Nukes

If you read the other stories on MSNBC, you'll realize they have or will get other WMDs. Sure, some people say "just contain em" if they have WMDs, but that's what this whole discussion has been about. Taking em out BEFORE they become a threat. G.W. has it right!!!

[Lotharr]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/01/hagel.cnna/index.html

I like this

[Guest]

And exactly why do you like this?

It didn't answer any questions at all, as a matter of fact it left me with more questions.

THe fact is, Saddam is into the Palestinian thing up to his bushy eyebrows, and at the same time is doing his best to get hold of nuclear material to build a nuclear weapon.

He's gotta go, one way or another, Saddam needs to meet his maker and quick. Before he lobs a nuke at Israel and the whole middle east becomes a field of radioactive green glass.

[DraconisRex]

Side Comment: You guys do realize that we have enough oil *HERE* to run us for at least 20 years, right? Every year, with the oil we buy, we write Saddam a check for $20 billion, which is ludicrous. The U.S. is paying the owners of oilwells good money to *NOT* produce oil. Something wrong with that picture...

We need to pull out of the U.N., realize that there are *NO* hyphenated Americans (meaning Native-American; British-American; African-American; Islamic-American; etc.) -- You are either an American or you are not. It's okay to be proud of your heritage, just don't take it to the point of being caught in the international war game...

Since we are probably going to invade Iraq, I say let's not stop at the gates this time -- tear them puppies down. We taxpayers will have to pay for the repairs anyway -- let's build it the way we want it.

Another Side-note:

It's time to understand that "Taking Stock in America" means being responsible enough to quit electing politicians, and either become or elect a coordinator (we don't need leaders -- we need part-time coordinators that are responsible for their actions -- we have 270 million owners, time for a change, I'd say) for our region. Term-limits would be a good idea (there are congressmen right now that were in office long before I was born -- I'm 37, so that's telling you something -- too much power and influance to any one man is dangerous to a country.)

WE THE PEOPLE need to reclaim our right to be, well, people instead of "numbers" being taxed to death. Come on, all we have to do is get 75% (or is it 2/3rds?) of the American people to sign a petition to force Congress to hold a Congressional Convention, where WE THE PEOPLE can decide what's right and wrong about what THEY did to the Constitution and the resultant unjust laws.

Based on world events, the image I'm seeing is horrific. The United States, unless something is done soon, may fall prey to its own weight. The government has been left up to itself, more or less, because the general populace is barely voting. The IRS (an illegal entity, in that the 16th Amendment never gave Congress any power to collect direct taxes -- apportionment laws are still a part of the Constitution, yet are basically ignored by Congress), has the power of a police force, able to shut down companies at the drop of a hat, with no warrants being needed.

And the cutest thing of all: I guess you guys have heard about the Feds having Truckers, Teachers, etc. reporting suspect activity to them, right? Well, John Ashcroft said last Thursday, that this program asking millions of Americans to spy for them, would not create an Orwellian government.

Guess he never read 1984.... (Actually, I'm finally doing that this week myself...) Big Brother, Thought Police... The U.S. is beginning to have a familiar ring to it, huh...?

[ 08-01-2002, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: DraconisRex ]

[Guest]

ah, Dranonis, Draconis, Draconis.

You speak my kind of language, we are gonna get along just fine!!!!

[Lotharr]

quote:

---

And exactly why do you like this?

It didn't answer any questions at all, as a matter of fact it left me with more questions.

---

That's the whole point...this entire situation is complicated. We need to think this one over. We the people. Not, we the executively managed, flag waving, righteous regulators.

quote:

---

THe fact is, Saddam is into the Palestinian thing up to his bushy eyebrows, and at the same time is doing his best to get hold of nuclear material to build a nuclear weapon.

He's gotta go, one way or another, Saddam needs to meet his maker and quick. Before he lobs a nuke at Israel and the whole middle east becomes a field of radioactive green glass.

---

Im not sure but I think any use of WMD on Israel is kind of a long shot even for this guy. Arab and Israeli are all mixed up over there I think.Ill check some maps. But I think it is clear (even to nut job) that if anyone starts shooting that crap around everyone in the region will be affected. That is not to say this guy needs those kinds of weapons.far from it. But the whole dire threat angle is not there yet.

Yes he's a serious problem. No argument there. However I am concerned about the way we conduct our foreign policy and ultimate motives all around. We give sick F's like Saddam ammo by endorsing oppressive regimes and violating international laws. We have to walk the walk....bottom line. No one said doing the right thing is easy. True leaders are that because they lead from the front and by example.

Iraq is being held together by this nut. You have three factions that want to be separate. You have other nations in the area that are moving to a more moderate position. If we go in and set up a Vichy (sp?) government it could be potentially devastating to our long term involvement in the region.

We are screwing up in Afghanistan....phase one accomplished it's objective. Phase two is not going so hot...it's what we leave behind that really counts. Polo Step is probably going to be successful but five to ten years later we could still be paying the price for lack of foresight.

I'm not saying there is nothing to be done but I do believe that we need to rethink our entire approach. I donÔÇÖt know about you, but I donÔÇÖt want to be fighting terrorism for the rest of my life.

[ 08-02-2002, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

[Guest $iLk]

John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, and dare I say George W Bush are turning this country into 10 times worse than what Clinton and Reno attempted to do.

Kind of makes me wonder, I thought I voted for and supported these guys to create smaller, less oppressive government.

They do these things in the name of "security" but in the end the most secure place in the world is inside of a locked jail cell.

How much freedom are you willing to trade?

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $iLk:

John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, and dare I say George W Bush are turning this country into 10 times worse than what Clinton and Reno attempted to do.

Kind of makes me wonder, I thought I voted for and supported these guys to create smaller, less oppressive government.

They do these things in the name of "security" but in the end the most secure place in the world is inside of a locked jail cell.

How much freedom are you willing to trade?

---

I see your point, but I think this is just a brief phase and isn't a threat to our long term freedoms. During all major wars/threats to the country, the government (especially the executive branch) gets a lot of power, then it all disappears once the threat is gone and congress realizes "How the HELL did they get so much power?".

Part of my thinking is I don't see Bush as a threat. Was it just me, or when he was elected, did he seem sort of harmless? Like he was just some guy who happened to have a Presidential father, and be rich, and won? His speeches immediately following the 9/11 attacks seemed like he took them personally, and I may be wrong, but any sort of "infringements on freedoms" aren't because the government wants to directly increase it's power, but because Bush wants to kill some terrorists.