IF I were in the same shoes as the Senators.

Why, because the intelligence given to the Senate was from the White House. The White House cooked the fuck out of it and lied. How as a senator would I know that they are lying until after the fact.

Now yes war is wrong but...they were saying some AWFUL things about what Uncle SADDY had. I would have been afraid that it could have come here.

Now hindsight being 20/20 Uncle Saddy didn't have it. Rumsfeld didn't have a plan.

Looking back my vote would have been wrong. I would lay awake nights knowing that my vote cause the innocent deaths and maiming of 100's of thousands of innocent Iraqis and 10's of thousands of our own soldiers.

I would apologize to the American people for my mistake and make sure that intelligence given to the senate comes directly from a non politicized source like the CIA under a non-partisan leader.

I'm just being honest. I know there are those who will say with impunity that they wouldn't have done it. But what if it were true. And we didn't and your kids got blown up @ a mall you'd wish you had. There are no winners in this thing only losers and losers.

I'm not afraid to say if I were fed the same shit I would have voted for the war. I can't knock anyone who did because I'm only human and so are they. BTW so are you.

Yeah but here's the thing. Those who voted for this war, should have KNOWN what was and what wasn't. All types of information flowing in the halls of power. To think that the majority of those who voted "yes" to war took the Neocons at face value seems, well, stupid.

Information about what Saddam had or didn't have was well known. How many UN inspections was Iraq subjected to? What was found in all those years? Nothng - NADA - ZIP...

To think that the people who are suposse to add balance to the power of the executive branch had no idea what was going on in the world and had to come by whatever information from G.Dubba.B is more than scarey - it's down right criminal.

Now, as the average US citizen fed a daily dose of propoganda and lies - yeah - I can see you voting for war but it would help to find the facts before you took anyone at face value.

so the warmongers are up to their usual tricks begging for forgiveness
you will not get that from me

what concrete steps are being taken to rectify your mistakes?
will you go help the iraqi's?
pay for hospitals bills?
build a house?
what?

i know........i'm sorry...so sorry....

/sneer
/contempt

mikasa11 thats fair enough except for 3 things

1) apart from what they were telling you did or would you have looked for other sorces of infomation and checked the consistancy of what you were being told

2) would you have lissened to the 1000's of voters protesting against it in your own country and the world wide desent rembering that going against world opinion can hurt you in the long run

3)Now that you have found out you were lied to so blatently would you vote to impeach those who did the lying?

I had the info on the Niger Yellow cake fraud before Colin Powell went to the UN repeating same the disinformation. The Democrats could have tried to repeal their war authorization after they learned that Bush administration had lied to them. It seems that I may have had better information than Powell had but that is sick and I don't want to believe it.

My feeling was that Democrats like John Kerry should have or could have known better than to believe the Bush administration's bogus case on WMD. My best guess is that the Democrats were gutless cowards rather than ignorant fools.

Did the world's governments believe Saddam had WMD or were they pretending they believed Saddam had WMD? Cheney said we know where the WMD are. Did nobody ask to see the evidence? Cheney lied. The only evidence that they ever showed us was evidence that Cheney already knew was bogus before he claimed that he knew where the WMD was.

Cheney and Rumsfeld showed no sign of caring when Saddam used WMD on Iran and on Iraqi Kurds so how credible were their prewar claims that the war was based on WMD? Our media is so lame.

I never thought I would be defending the CIA but they did not screw up the intelligence. Their intelligence said that we had no credible evidence of Saddam having WMD prior to our invasion. Tenet was not the CIA, he was one man at the head of the CIA who understood that to keep his job he must misrepresent the CIA's findings.

Now that you have found out you were lied to so blatently would you vote to impeach those who did the lying?
Looking back my vote would have been wrong. I would lay awake nights knowing that my vote cause the innocent deaths

Now, as the average US citizen fed a daily dose of propoganda and lies - yeah - I can see you voting for war but it would help to find the facts before you took anyone at face value.
We have an electoral college that gave Bush Florida when Gore won the popular vote.
We have an electoral college that gave Bush Ohio despite hundreds of thousands of democratic voters being turned away at the polls.
We had close to 60 thousand voters disqualified from voting in Florida, a state run by your president's brother , because their names just so happened to be on a list that just so happened to be published weeks before the election by a governer who just so happened to have close ties to the presidential incumbent.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=2
Your presidential debates are regulated by either Democrats or Republicans and that's it.

We knew Bin Laden was behind 9-11, the whole nation agreed to it, but your president gets on national television giving Saddam Hussein 48 hours to surrender.
And you still think your vote counts?

None of you count. Sure you show up nice and early at the libraries and civic centers with patriotism in your undies, serving that country of yours, but truly I tell you whatever evil your country is guilty of is through no fault of your own. As soon as you punched that chad in 4 years ago or pressed your eager little index finger on the screen last year that won't leave a paper trail, they were laughing at you because you don't.fucking.count.

I hear that in firing squads they make sure to leave blank in at least one gun so the soldiers can trick themselves into committing technical murder with a clean conscience:

In some cases, one member of the firing squad is issued a gun containing a blank cartridge instead of one with a bullet, without telling any of them whom it was given to. There are two theories supporting this practice. First, each can hope beforehand that he will not be one who contributes to the killing. This is believed to reduce flinching and to make the execution proceed more reliably. Second, it allows each of the soldiers a chance to believe afterward that he did not personally fire a fatal shot. While an experienced marksman can tell the difference between a blank and a live cartridge based on the recoil (the blank will have much lower recoil), there is a significant psychological incentive not to pay attention and, over time, to remember the recoil as soft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_squad

See that blank?
That's you in the system. You shoot, or in this case vote, but its a blank so why all this feeling guilty over sending your boys to Iraq for no reason? These soldier can tell themselves they didn’t kill anybody because of that blank so you can tell yourself that Iraq, Rwanda, Venezuela, Palestine, Haiti or whatever other nation that YOUR country has its greedy little hands is not your fault because, really, it isn’t when you don’t count.

gendanken we arnt talking about the average voter, he said that if he was a SENITOR he would have voted to go to war based on what he had been told. I said having found out that it was a lie what would you have done about it. What does that have to do with a firing squad?

What about the senate? Does it count or only counts when its vote is what the politburo wants it to be?
The senate was was opposed to Bolton being appointed to the UN and Bush overrdode it.

If the senta had voted against war, we'd still be in Iraq.

What does that have to do with a firing squad
That you're all shooting blanks, Imaginative One.

I predicted an invasion prior to W's first election.

By the way, that piss way stinks. only 4:23 more minutes to go.

gendanken can the president overule his own impeachment?

Goes to show you why you MUST go to great lengths to avoid supporting the start of a war. Once you're into it, no matter how badly your reasons turn out to be wrong, you're kind of stuck. Not to mention you've killed a whole lot of people and you can never undo that.

Let me say this one more time: This country is 229 years old. We have absolutely no sense of history. The conflicts in the Mideast have been brewing for centuries, some of them for more than 2000 years. It is absolute, unforgivable hubris for a country like the USA to presume that it can solve problems that we can't possibly understand.

Suppose we tell the Palestinians that Israel is the Jews' historical homeland, going back three or four thousand years, and we're terribly sorry that they just happened to be on holiday in Egypt running away from the Roman tax collectors when the Philistines landed there, but even though they made their homes there they have to give it back.

The Palestinians say, "Fine, then you have to give Arizona back to the Navajos."

Then we say, "Wait a minute, lets think this over a little longer. You guys really did make your homes there in good faith, and possession is nine points of the law. I guess the Israelis will have to concede this one."

Then the Israelis walk in and say, "Okay, then you have to give Arizona back to Mexico."

Published: 5/11/2005, 07:11 (UAE)

Zionist lobbies are turning the wheel of US foreign policy

By As'ad Abdul Rahman, Special to Gulf News

"You tell me America will do this and will do that ... I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America and the Americans know it." - Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001

What made the Israeli prime minister make such utterance without fearing any adverse reactions is the presence of powerful Zionist "lobbies" in the US capable of influencing the actions of politicians and of conditioning public opinion.

In the US, where more than 6 million Jews live, (less than 2 per cent of the total population), the Jewish vote can be an important factor in determining the electoral majority where victory can often be achieved with a very narrow margin.

The strength of the Zionist lobby in the US is so great that US President George W. Bush's speech regarding the need for "Palestinian reforms" was sent to Occupied Jerusalem for final proofing and corrections not less than 28 times.

This shows how biased, or forced to be, the present administration is when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

For all the turmoil in the Occupied Territories, the US and Israel are in agreement that the Palestinians are to blame, which was aptly demonstrated during a news conference in which Bush proclaimed, "the signal to the Palestinians is to stop the violence. I can't make it any more clear".

The fact that Israel's colonial occupation has continued for almost four decades is irrelevant to Bush. Instead, he seems intent on blaming the Palestinians for disrupting the peace.

This is vital to Israel's public relations campaign. Of course, the Bush administration's support for Israel is more than just verbal.

The president will continue to push for economic and military aid to Israel which has been estimated between $3 billion (Dh11 billion) and $5.5 billion (Dh 20.18 billion) a year.

American vociferous support for Israel and its indifference in the face of Palestinian suffering are a direct result of an "ideological" support that has gripped the US government.

This occupation is based on the internalisation of Israel's arguments vis-à-vis the current conflict.

The success of this ideological occupation is partly the result of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), considered one of the most influential lobbying organisations in the United States.

The influence of this lobby could be seen by the sheer number of policy makers who attend its annual policy conference.

Its last conference of March 2004 was attended by 103 members of the House of Representatives, 43 senators and 15 officials (including secretary of state Colin Powel).

AIPAC's ongoing mission is to nurture and advance the US-Israeli relationship by advocating strong US economic, military and political support for Israel.

The organisation uses its formidable lobbying abilities to maintain the US governments' unwavering support for Israel and to make life difficult for any public official who dares to challenge the statue quo.

In addition, AIPAC is very active on college campuses throughout the US. It has a Political Leadership Development Programme (PLDP) whose goal is to get college students involved in pro-Israel activity.

Basically, AIPAC not only tries to strengthen ties between the US and Israel, its activists also work to intimidate and defame those who are critical of Israeli policy.

Other Zionist lobbies operate in the US albeit less influential than AIPAC.

Involved in espionage

more:
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/OpinionNF.asp?ArticleID=190220

There is still a strong legacy of distrust of Jews among America's upper economic class where all the power lies. That's not to say that it's unanimous but it's there. Notwithstanding the occasional headline-making exception such as Bill Gates's recent trip to Israel, industrialists know that if we want to avoid a real war over the Mideastern oil supply, we have to avoid royally pissing off the Muslim nations. Our own President was photographed in public holding hands with his Arabian boyrfriend. (Hey I don't care about Arab customs, that's exactly what it looked like to us.) And it was one of the guys who was instrumental in providing both the finances and the manpower for 9/11. The only plane that was allowed to fly out of a U.S. airport after the 9/11 attack was a Saudi plane that was probably carrying members of the extended family to which Osama belongs. When a Saudi royal airplane uses an American airport, our authorities quietly send all the female air traffic controllers off on an extended lunch and let the Saudi flight be handled by male ATCs.

Sure there's a Zionist lobby here. This is America, even child molesters have their own lobby. But what's this drenn about the Zionist lobby being powerful?

This is pure BS and revisionism. Bush neither lied nor manipulated the intelegence reports. This was proven by the bipartisan Silberman-Robb commission which found no evidence of political manufacture and manipulation of intelligence. On the contrary, the manipulation and lying was on the other side as evidenced by this quote re: the famous "yellow cake".
Five days after Wilson's NYT op-ed, Tenet put out a statement describing how the person the CIA sent to check out the Niger story found that the Iraqis had indeed tried to open up trade talks, which were interpretted by government officials in Niger as an attempt to purchase uranium ore. Tenet left the name of the person the CIA sent to Niger out of his statement, possibly to avoid running afoul of secrecy laws, but since Wilson had already outed himself as the person the CIA sent to Niger, it was perfectly clear who Tenet was talking about.
Wilson's article directly contradicted his previous oral report to the CIA immediately following his trip to Niger.

Another point, much of Hussain's chemical and biological weapons were, in fact, found. There existence was just ignored. After the first gulf war and the destruction of much of his chemical and biological weapons, Hussain made sure his new weapons would be "dual use". There is little difference between pesticides and chemical weapons, so large stockpiles of "pesticides" hidden at ammo dumps indicates either we are looking at a chemical weapons depot or Iraq had a big problem with insects at it's weapons depots!
When coalition forces entered Iraq, "huge warehouses and caches of 'commercial and agricultural' chemicals were seized and painstakingly tested by Army and Marine chemical specialists," Hanson writes. "What was surprising was how quickly the ISG refuted the findings of our ground forces and how silent they have been on the significance of these caches."
Caches of "commercial and agricultural" chemicals don't match the expectation of "stockpiles" of chemical weapons. But, in fact, that is precisely what they are. "At a very minimum," Hanson tells Insight, "they were storing the precursors to restart a chemical-warfare program very quickly." Kay and Duelfer came to a similar conclusion, telling Congress under oath that Saddam had built new facilities and stockpiled the materials to relaunch production of chemical and biological weapons at a moment's notice.
At Karbala, U.S. troops stumbled upon 55-gallon drums of pesticides at what appeared to be a very large "agricultural supply" area, Hanson says. Some of the drums were stored in a "camouflaged bunker complex" that was shown to reporters - with unpleasant results. "More than a dozen soldiers, a Knight-Ridder reporter, a CNN cameraman, and two Iraqi POWs came down with symptoms consistent with exposure to a nerve agent," Hanson says. "But later ISG tests resulted in a proclamation of negative, end of story, nothing to see here, etc., and the earlier findings and injuries dissolved into nonexistence. Left unexplained is the small matter of the obvious pains taken to disguise the cache of ostensibly legitimate pesticides. One wonders about the advantage an agricultural-commodities business gains by securing drums of pesticide in camouflaged bunkers 6 feet underground. The 'agricultural site' was also colocated with a military ammunition dump - evidently nothing more than a coincidence in the eyes of the ISG."
Near the northern Iraqi town of Bai'ji, where Saddam had built a chemical-weapons plant known to the United States from nearly 12 years of inspections, elements of the 4th Infantry Division found 55-gallon drums containing a substance identified through mass spectrometry analysis as cyclosarin - a nerve agent. Nearby were surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles, gas masks and a mobile laboratory that could have been used to mix chemicals at the site. "Of course, later tests by the experts revealed that these were only the ubiquitous pesticides that everybody was turning up," Hanson says. "It seems Iraqi soldiers were obsessed with keeping ammo dumps insect-free, according to the reading of the evidence now enshrined by the conventional wisdom that 'no WMD stockpiles have been discovered.'"
Again, this January, Danish forces found 120-millimeter mortar shells filled with a mysterious liquid that initially tested positive for blister agents. But subsequent tests by the United States disputed that finding. "If it wasn't a chemical agent, what was it?" Hanson asks. "More pesticides? Dish-washing detergent? From this old soldier's perspective, I gain nothing from putting a liquid in my mortar rounds unless that stuff will do bad things to the enemy."http://www.insightmag.com/media/paper441/news/2004/05/11/World/Investigative.Reportsaddams.Wmd.Have.Been.Found-670120.shtml

This is pure BS and revisionism. Bush neither lied nor manipulated the intelegence reports. This was proven by the bipartisan Silberman-Robb commission which found no evidence of political manufacture and manipulation of intelligence. On the contrary, the manipulation and lying was on the other side as evidenced by this quote re: the famous "yellow cake".

ummmmmmmm, I see you "word for word" repeating Bill Kristol. It is not a good idea to pass along Neocon justifications-considering every other word out of their mouths are lies or misstatements.

Bill Kristol, 11/04/2005: "After all, the bipartisan Silberman-Robb commission found no evidence of political manufacture and manipulation of intelligence."

Silberman-Robb Commission Report, 3/31/05: "[W]e were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community. Accordingly, while we interviewed a host of current and former policymakers during the course of our investigation, the purpose of those interviews was to learn about how the Intelligence Community reached and communicated its judgments about Iraq's weapons programs--not to review how policymakers subsequently used that information."

Check out the Silberman-Robb report. Technically Kristol is right, they didn't find any evidence. Of course, they weren't allowed to look for evidence.

http://www.wmd.gov/report/report.html

Remember to double check everything and anything whenever a neocon is talking. Lying is their middle name and Kristol is a hardcore neocon.

Asguard:
gendanken can the president overule his own impeachment?
Allright, we're on.

Yes, I believe that he can override his own impeachment. All the houses are controlled by his party and the Nixon name, which was impeached, was nowhere near as powerful as the Bush one.

I stand by this statement and will suffer impeachment if someone more knowledgeble on U.S. history and legislation can convince me othwerwise. I don't really know what I'm talking about, really.

All I know is money=influence=power.

Fraggle:
Let me say this one more time: This country is 229 years old. We have absolutely no sense of history. The conflicts in the Mideast have been brewing for centuries, some of them for more than 2000 years. It is absolute, unforgivable hubris for a country like the USA to presume that it can solve problems that we can't possibly understand.
Personally, I think its even more 'hubris' to expect a nation as powerful as the U.S to at least try to 'understand' them.

America is not trying to solve or understand anything and I don't blame them for not trying the impossible. For one, history is littered with nations that existed via the only means that make their existence possible- political ingenuiity and military might. American did not become a nation by going to a seminar to "understand" the Royal's feelings, its impossible.

For two, would you try reasoning with a childiish, emotional midget who has nothing? Not unless he's sitting on pot of gold and could ruin you financially- and that's the Jew. And the Saudi Arabian. And the Kuwaitian, and the few other small sovereign nations holding our blood supply.
Saddam was just in the way, I suppose, and got played by his own game which makes him no better than the childish, emotional midget you can't reason with. Which he clearly was.


If only the Palestenian were as cunning and organized as the Jew.

i agree pookie

Speak softly and carry a big stick

Gendanken,

Yes, I believe that he can override his own impeachment. All the houses are controlled by his party and the Nixon name, which was impeached, was nowhere near as powerful as the Bush one.

1.) Overriding an impeachment is unnecessary. What you're really thinking of is 'removal from office.' Impeachment is merely the bringing it to a vote. Nixon was impeached. But he wasn't removed from office. He resigned.

2.) I don't think the president would be able to override his own removal from office. Not without overriding the constitution itself (not saying that this is impossible.)

3.) You make a good point about the party's power. To be removed from office, there must be a majority vote in the house and senate (I think... I'm not entirely certain) and in the case we have with a Republican dominance, then removal from office would be unlikely. Impeachment itself would be unlikely.

However, the Republican party is beginning to show some backbone with amendment 1977 introduced by McCain. I forget the bill that it's tacked onto, but it's an anti-torture amendment. Very simple. Very pure. And Bush has made it clear that he wants no such laws being passed. And yet the Senate passed the amendment with a vote of 90 to 9. I haven't kept tabs on this. Bush threatened to veto and wants the amendment dropped. I wonder if the Repub's are standing strong or if they're falling in line?

All I know is money=influence=power.

Quite.
Our government has yet to stand such a blatant disruption of checks and balances, but the outcome of such an encounter is definitely in the air.
The 'war on terror' has definitely empowered the administration. The signs are in the air that the empowerment is almost at an end though. Either more terror must be imbued or strong-arm tactics must be introduced to maintain the hold.
Let's hope that America withstands the temptation to enter imperialism.

American did not become a nation by going to a seminar to "understand" the Royal's feelings, its impossible.

Ha!
I'm brought to mind of George Washington psychoanalyzing King George.
"Vat do you think of your mother?"
Muaha!

However, understanding one's enemy is a rather important element of modern warfare. And one in which we seem to be very poor at... If you understand your enemy enough, they can be induced to defeat themselves.

If only the Palestenian were as cunning and organized as the Jew.

Give them time. Monkey see, Monkey do.

.) Overriding an impeachment is unnecessary. What you're really thinking of is 'removal from office.' Impeachment is merely the bringing it to a vote. Nixon was impeached. But he wasn't removed from office. He resigned.

Gotcha.

2.) I don't think the president would be able to override his own removal from office. Not without overriding the constitution itself (not saying that this is impossible.)


Well, he's just appointed a personal suckling to chief justice.
Think about that one- the U.S. Supreme Court had enough power to overrule a majority and stop a voting count that would have taken the presidency from Bush.

However, understanding one's enemy is a rather important element of modern warfare. And one in which we seem to be very poor at... If you understand your enemy enough, they can be induced to defeat themselves.


True, but are fleas your enemy or just annoying?
Mark Twain wrote this neat little story about Satan coming to earth among humans. Satan being so powerful tried explaining to a little boy how he saw humans as bugs:

Here is a red spider, not so big as a pin's head. Can you imagine an elephant being interested in him--caring whether he is happy or isn't, or whether he is wealthy or poor, or whether his sweetheart returns his love or not, or whether his mother is sick or well, or whether he is looked up to in society or not, or whether his enemies will smite him or his friends desert him, or whether his hopes will suffer blight or his political ambitions fail, or whether he shall die in the bosom of his family or neglected and despised in a foreign land?

These things can never be important to the elephant; they are nothing to him; he cannot shrink his sympathies to the microscopic size of them. Man is to me as the red spider is to the elephant. The elephant has nothing against the spider--he cannot get down to that remote level; I have nothing against man. The elephant is indifferent; I am indifferent. ....

"The elephant lives a century, the red spider a day; in power, intellect, and dignity the one creature is separated from the other by a distance which is simply astronomical. Yet in these, as in all qualities, man is immeasurably further below me than is the wee spider below the elephant.

Ok, so we're not indifferent since America has this habit of fondling other countries but the Palestanian, the Chechnyan, and the angry little liberal shaking their fist at the governemt are like a spider to an elephant.
Now we do make mistakes- Vietman is one. We saw it as this small thing we could squash without blinking when it was really an organized army of black widows focused on one thing, and that was its power.

The Jew is another instance of mistaking your enemy for a bug when it isn’t. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/six-day_war)
This is what the Arab's intifada (sp?) lacks.

However, the Republican party is beginning to show some backbone with amendment 1977 introduced by McCain. I forget the bill that it's tacked onto, but it's an anti-torture amendment. Very simple. Very pure. And Bush has made it clear that he wants no such laws being passed. And yet the Senate passed the amendment with a vote of 90 to 9. I haven't kept tabs on this. Bush threatened to veto and wants the amendment dropped. I wonder if the Repub's are standing strong or if they're falling in line?

Well, well...
Where have I been?
Never heard of this....

I can't believe how riled people got over naked Arabs being 'tortured' with a poloroid camera.
They get hot meals, air conditioning, a psychologist- JESUS CHRIST, I'd have to sell my body to pay for a shrink and I need it more than some mujahadeen who's rightifully pissed off at your foreign policy.

You call that torture???? Ever heard of Nanking? Stay with a Japanese for a day and then come back to talk about torture. Its ironic how such a strong nation as this one is filled with such pussies.

Well, he's just appointed a personal suckling to chief justice.
Think about that one- the U.S. Supreme Court had enough power to overrule a majority and stop a voting count that would have taken the presidency from Bush.

Yeah. What's up with that? It went ahead then? That woman who was never a judge? His buddy or whatever?
Lovely cronyism. Well. That is one of the President's main powers. Appointing judges.
And then you have the old-timer judges who hang onto life with a fingernail so that they will only retire during the watch of their particular party.

Anyway. Not sure if the Supreme Court would have any say in an impeachment... Hmm. I would have thought it was congress all the way.

Well. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States), the procedure would be as follows.

The House of Representatives would make the vote for impeachment.
The Senate would make the vote for removal from office.
In the case of presidential impeachment, the Chief Justice would preside over the proceedings... Wonder what that means? What kind of power would he have?

Ok, so we're not indifferent since America has this habit of fondling other countries but the Palestanian, the Chechnyan, and the angry little liberal shaking their fist at the governemt are like a spider to an elephant.

The problem being that they're not really fleas. They might be primitive in many ways. And they sure don't have their shit together like the jews do. But, they are learning. And they are dangerous.

They are dangerous in terms of technology, for one. Not that they are technological themselves. But they can aquire technology which could cause devastation. That they haven't is either luck or thanks to vigilance from certain agencies. (Probably both.)

Also, speaking of understanding your enemy. I won't say that they truly understand us. But, they do have more insight into us than we have into them. They're winning this war because they have us by the short hairs. They topple a couple of buildings with jets and America goes stomping around the world like a wounded elephant. We're losing the moral high ground. The world is looking down on us. The administration is using the terrorist's cues to consolidate power and to settle scores.

They're manipulating us.
They've manipulated us into entering another war like Vietnam. A war with no clear enemy. And no clear objectives.
We'll see just what these fleas are capable of in the long run. They have fanaticism on their side. Americans get bored too easy.

Well, well...
Where have I been?
Never heard of this....

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=49217

I spent some time bashing partisans.
As to what you're saying about weak definitions of torture. I'll agree to that. I don't think that's the issue though. I haven't actually rounded up the definitions of torture and inhumane treatment, but they were made in the Reagan presidency and I doubt that kicking a Koran or taking naked pictures is included. Could be wrong on that though.

However, in that thread I objected not to torture itself. I can understand the efficaciousness of torture. But, rather, I objected to allowing our government to take torture into its repertoire. Chickens come home to roost and I'd prefer to not be tortured. How about you?

Puh-lease-

They're manipulating us.
They've manipulated us into entering another war like Vietnam. A war with no clear enemy. And no clear objectives.
We'll see just what these fleas are capable of in the long run. They have fanaticism on their side. Americans get bored too
Come on, Verty, you buy it?
They're 'manipulating' us or is your country's administration manipulating you into thinking so?

You think its only a matter of time before they get it together, well consider the amount of time that the Middle East has been bickering.
Its always been a hornet's nest that can't get its shit togehter. Then your country suddently gets all involved for a scant 60 years or so and then suddently it becoms a 'real' problem when its always been one? And you think its a matter of time before they get it together?

Want to know the reason why your good ol boys and girls were able to invade a country that had NOTHING to do with the terrorist attacks?

Because you are all so afraid and suspicious and angry and misinformed if not informed at all- in other words, emotional little bitches that believe everything people tell you so long as you're scared- that making Hussein pay for something Osama did to you makes perfect sense.

And I love the way you pussies ran to Wal Mart and stripped its shelves of its survival gear, I've got this clippping from the Times of this Wisconsin family all in gas masks trying to stuff their two year old into one about 3 times his size. Hillarous- you put a little baby powder in an evelope, stick it in the mail, or scare your precious herd with pretty colors orange, yellow and *snap* you can stop Manhattan just like that.

I wonder then who is manipulating who. I highly dobut its Ahmed.
Sorry, Vert, nothing personal (actually, I'm lying..it is personal, You Americans Are Hillarious) but Georgy's even got you calling them 'dangerous'.
That's one step away from "Evil Doers".

HA!


In the case of presidential impeachment, the Chief Justice would preside over the proceedings... Wonder what that means? What kind of power would he have?

I'm telling you man, keep an eye out. Conthpirathy, conthpirathies!!

They're 'manipulating' us or is your country's administration manipulating you into thinking so?

A bit of both, perhaps.
The fact of the matter is that the US is stomping around the world like an enraged bull elephant because 19 people crashed some jets into a couple of buildings.
Period.

Now. Are you saying that the administration merely used that as an excuse to do what they wanted?
Maybe. Probably.
The results are the same.
And the manipulation is the same.
Terrorism empowered the administration in the same way that the.. (uh oh. Beware Godwin's Law) the Reichstagg Fire empowered the Nazi's. The difference being that the Reichstagg Fire was staged specifically for the purpose while 9/11 wasn't (maybe.)

You think its only a matter of time before they get it together, well consider the amount of time that the Middle East has been bickering.
Its always been a hornet's nest that can't get its shit togehter. Then your country suddently gets all involved for a scant 60 years or so and then suddently it becoms a 'real' problem when its always been one? And you think its a matter of time before they get it together?

Well. Until recently, they were fleas. Oil kinda expanded their importance.

As to the constant warfare over there. I'm not an expert on the middle east, but I don't doubt that the statement is relatively correct. It is at a crucial junction. Meeting of Asia, Europe, and Africa. Plus, the desert conditions cause people to fight over resources. But, it's only recently that relatively small groups of people are able to affect the global scale.

The shrinking world and all that.

I never said we'd be able to fix it. In fact, I don't think we can. My original point on understanding the enemy was more general. I think understanding this enemy would merely entrench us into their strife even more.

Want to know the reason why your good ol boys and girls were able to invade a country that had NOTHING to do with the terrorist attacks?

Because you are all so afraid and suspicious and angry and misinformed if not informed at all- in other words, emotional little bitches that believe everything people tell you so long as you're scared- that making Hussein pay for something Osama did to you makes perfect sense.

And I love the way you pussies ran to Wal Mart and stripped its shelves of its survival gear, I've got this clippping from the Times of this Wisconsin family all in gas masks trying to stuff their two year old into one about 3 times his size. Hillarous- you put a little baby powder in an evelope, stick it in the mail, or scare your precious herd with pretty colors orange, yellow and *snap* you can stop Manhattan just like that.

Exactly.
That's what I'm talking about.
And. Yes. I agree the manipulation comes not only from the terrorists. It comes from our very government. Witness George breaking out his 9/11 speeches everytime things start getting tricky.

I wonder then who is manipulating who. I highly dobut its Ahmed.

Ahmed toppled the WTC.

You Americans Are Hillarious

I love you break out the "You Americans" at times like this. I still think you're more American than not. Where were you raised?

Georgy's even got you calling them 'dangerous'.
That's one step away from "Evil Doers".

Ah. But I'm calling them dangerous because of what they're allowing George to do.
There's a difference.

(And Yes. I did mention technology as well. But, they've not had much success so far. I'm not too worried.)

I'm telling you man, keep an eye out. Conthpirathy, conthpirathies!!

It's all Shirley Temple's fault.
Nasty little bitch.

I can't believe how riled people got over naked Arabs being 'tortured' with a poloroid camera.
They get hot meals, air conditioning, a psychologist- JESUS CHRIST, I'd have to sell my body to pay for a shrink and I need it more than some mujahadeen who's rightifully pissed off at your foreign policy.

You call that torture???? Ever heard of Nanking? Stay with a Japanese for a day and then come back to talk about torture. Its ironic how such a strong nation as this one is filled with such pussies.
Exactly.

Don't know who said tey dont understand how people can get riled by naked Arabs being "tortured by a poloroid camera..." quoted from te poster that may be above tis--unless aoter poster posts teir meeage in between.....-cause a name was't given. but who ever you are, i dont know if or trying to be funny or are serious. if funny--it ISN@T funny at all, and if serious, then you are a completely vile piece of shit, and i hope from te heart what happened to the people being tortured will one day happen to you. only then will you actually know the horror of such a that! for at the mo your depth is that of a cartoon cut out.

Don't know who said tey dont understand how people can get riled by naked Arabs being "tortured by a poloroid camera..." ..<snip>...
....and i hope from te heart what happened to the people being tortured will one day happen to you.....

Yeah, hopefully! I'd much rather be "tortured" like those Arabs in the pictures than have my fuckin' head cut off!!!

Baron Max

(actually, I'm lying..it is personal, You Americans Are Hillarious)

pookie
you are not american?

Looking back my vote would have been wrong. I would lay awake nights knowing that my vote cause the innocent deaths and maiming of 100's of thousands of innocent Iraqis and 10's of thousands of our own soldiers.


in addition to the body count, iraq's infrastructure lies in ruins as a consequence of the invasion. $16 billion has been allocated by the iraqi govt for reconstruction thru the year 2007.

so ahh...we bomb the shit out of them for no reason at all and they have to pay for the damage?

i demand that you write to your rep and insist that war reparations be payed. there is a an easy precedent. iraq is paying kuwait a total of $52 billion for damage done during the kuwait invasion

go on. make amends

Come now folks.

Saddam Bluffed and had his ass handed to him.

All he had to do was say, "hey! Im sooo innocent! Come on down with all your cameras! Look at all my bases!"

And what did he do? He played games with the UN. He played games with the coalition. He took pop shots at U.S. Planes every chance he got.

He screwed himself.

Saddam could still be in power.

Come now folks.

Saddam Bluffed and had his ass handed to him.

All he had to do was say, "hey! Im sooo innocent! Come on down with all your cameras! Look at all my bases!"

And what did he do? He played games with the UN. He played games with the coalition. He took pop shots at U.S. Planes every chance he got.

He screwed himself.

Saddam could still be in power.

All that stuff didn't make damn bit of difference. The Bush 2 team deciced that Iraq should be invaded in the mid 1990s and tried to sell Clinton. They never cared whether or not Saddam had WMD except that it would make their invasion more difficult if he had them. They wrote that they needed a new Pearl Harbor to get America right politically for them to do what they wanted to do which was invade Iraq. 9-11 gave them that new Pearl Harbor. It was all over for Saddam the moment 9-11 happened despite the fact Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.

Now Saddam is gone, good Riddance. Now, if only we do a regime change on these neocon creeps. I don't care how rotten Saddam was or why the neocons wanted Iraq, lying to America to get us into a war is not forgivable.

All he had to do was say, "hey! Im sooo innocent! Come on down with all your cameras! Look at all my bases!"

UMMMMmmmmm....check your history...Saddam did let the inspectors back in. And they found nothing except those rockets with a range of 40 or 50 KM beyond the restrictions. And then, the US warned the UN to remove the inspectors so they could invade and they did.

Except for a few deadenders, I think most now realize the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with WMD.

Duendish:
but who ever you are, i dont know if or trying to be funny or are serious.
Serious as a heart attack.

Are these POWS guinea pigs freezing in a vat of ice with 'scientists' testing the effects of anthrax on the human brain when its almost freezing? Are they being amputated, starved, burned with acid, zapped with lethal x-rays, cholera, TB?
Why, no! They're getting their naked pictures published in the newspapers and soldiers flush their precious Korans down the toilet, more or less.

Any form of imprisonment is torture, I'll give you that.
But I guarantee you the day that you're ever caught in a battlefield- and let's hope you are with your panties down- you'll be praying to God its Americans who caught you and not a Pakistani official or a Japanese one.
Ever seen "Karachi Cops"? It’s a show, comes on Wordlink. They slap women bloody on live television in full view over there and that's just for complaining.
Here you couldn't lay a finger on a prostitute without risking a lawsuit so quit getting so emotional calling me a piece of shit and booga booga for hurting your little feelings.
I don't buy that you're offended.

Vert:
But, it's only recently that relatively small groups of people are able to affect the global scale.
Did you hear they're teaching Japanese students how to say "Duendy’s a whiny little bitch" and "Quinzubro" in forum English?
We’ve been global *grin*
The fact of the matter is that the US is stomping around the world like an enraged bull elephant because 19 people crashed some jets into a couple of buildings.
Period.

But can't you see the US "stomps around the world" like one FAT elephant, wounded or not, irregardless of due cause?

The US wanted the South Americas and it took them by killing them with debt, look at Mexico and Guatemala and Colombia. It wanted Haiti and it took it, it wanted Vietnam and Afghanistan and it got the one and got its ego checked with the other.
I'm telling you that something as big as this country doesn't get manipulated into anything...... that's not as cunning as the Jew, of course.

And look how effective Bush is, its got you, invert nexus, talking about them evil doers being 'dangerous'




Now. Are you saying that the administration merely used that as an excuse to do what they wanted?
Maybe. Probably.
The results are the same.
And the manipulation is the same.
Terrorism empowered the administration in the same way that the.. (uh oh. Beware Godwin's Law) the Reichstagg Fire empowered the Nazi's. The difference being that the Reichstagg Fire was staged specifically for the purpose while 9/11 wasn't (maybe.)


How are they the same if you're simply retaliating?
Given a whole day of me intimidating you into kicking me and on the 11th hour you finally tire and kick me back, how is you kicking me back manipulating me?

There's a report called "Downing Street" which covers a meeting between Blair and Bush (at some place called Downing Street) more than half a year before the U.S. declared war. Bush is not only already talking about plans to go there, inspectors or not, but in it you'll find a letter from the Iraqi official already complaining about U.S military action intimidating his country to war:


Iraq complained about the air raids to the UN Secretary-General May 27, 2002. Iraq’s Minister for Foreign Affairs Naji Sabri wrote:
On instructions from my Government, I have the honour to transmit to you herewith a letter dated 27 May 2002 from Mr. Naji Sabri, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Iraq. The Minister calls attention to the ongoing wanton aggression against Iraq by United States and British aircraft in the unlawful no-flight zones and to the fact that in the period from 16 April to 16 May 2002 they carried out 844 armed sorties, 52 of them from Saudi Arabia, 656 from Kuwait and 136 from Turkey, as shown in the statement enclosed with the letter. On 19 April and 1 May 2002, United States and British aircraft bombed civilian and military sites in Ninawa Governorate, killing one citizen and wounding five others and damaging a number of civilian and military installations.
The Minister reaffirms the Government of Iraq’s position that the United States of America and the United Kingdom must bear full international responsibility for these acts of aggression and terrorism, and he further states that Iraq reserves its right, as established by the Charter of the United Nations and international law, to defend itself against this ongoing hostile, terrorist activity. He expresses the hope that you will perform the duties assigned to you under the Charter, that you will urge the governments of the countries in question to halt forthwith their constant aggression against Iraq and that you will call upon the regional parties to desist from providing the necessary facilities.”

Who's pitching for a fight? When there are U.S bombers dropping bombs over Iraqi no-fly zones more than half a year before the so called 'war' and the good old media doesn't even squeak about it so that you never know that your country is lying to you, YOU, sir are being manipulated by your humongous government and not its so called 'enemies', in my opinoin.


Gustav:
pookie
you are not american?
Absolutely not.

i demand that you write to your rep and insist that war reparations be payed. there is a an easy precedent. iraq is paying kuwait a total of $52 billion for damage done during the kuwait invasion

go on. make amends
Seconded, and its paid not payed.

Gendanken,

Are these POWS guinea pigs freezing in a vat of ice with 'scientists' testing the effects of anthrax on the human brain when its almost freezing? Are they being amputated, starved, burned with acid, zapped with lethal x-rays, cholera, TB?
Why, no! They're getting their naked pictures published in the newspapers and soldiers flush their precious Korans down the toilet, more or less.

Fact is we don't exactly know what's happening to them.
And a point to consider is that they're not POW's. They're noncombatants and that's where the rub is.

Think about all the people being held down at Guantanamo for what... Is it three years yet?
Without any form of trial.
Without any form of oversight.

This is what's so fucked about Bush wanting to veto that anti-torture amendment. The bill doesn't accuse anyone of torture. The amendment merely reasserts the old standard of practices before Bush sidestepped them by taking all the prisoners down to Cuba.

Why would Bush object to that?
No one can say what's going on, but I do know that Bush doesn't want oversight into interrogation procedures.
He's even willing to threaten to veto an amendment that passed with an overwhelming 90-9.

Did you hear they're teaching Japanese students how to say "Duendy’s a whiny little bitch" and "Quinzubro" in forum English?

Maybe next they'll start teaching about Nan King.
Stranger things have happened.

We’ve been global *grin*

By recent, I mean the past hundred years or so.

But can't you see the US "stomps around the world" like one FAT elephant, wounded or not, irregardless of due cause?

The US wanted the South Americas and it took them by killing them with debt, look at Mexico and Guatemala and Colombia. It wanted Haiti and it took it, it wanted Vietnam and Afghanistan and it got the one and got its ego checked with the other.
I'm telling you that something as big as this country doesn't get manipulated into anything...... that's not as cunning as the Jew, of course.

Yes. But most of these are done subtly.
Vietnam was sort of a different story. Communism and all that. Also trying to fix up our mistakes for leaving France in the lurch when we pulled out of Korea.

Haiti. I don't know much about. Corrupt government, yes? Cia maybe?

Afghanistan was America's 'freebie'. After 911 we were given carte blanche. We used it on Afghanistan.

Iraq is pushing the good will of the world.

Now.
Do we care about the good will of the world?
Not necessarily.
Is that a good thing?
I'm torn.

As to manipulation.
I think, as I've said before, they feed each other.
Bush's administration would have passed with nothing to make it incredible (unless he had invaded Afghanistan and Iraq anyway which scuttlebutt says was in the works pre-911 anyways.) He would have just dicked around and made himself and his buddies richer and we'd have forgotten all about him.

911 gave them leeway to do a lot more than they could have without it.

Consider the old war on drugs. This was (and is) a pure violation of civil rights. So many of your personal rights under the constitution have been removed because of the war on drugs. Because of the terror inspired by the propaganda.

The war on terror is modeled on the war on drugs.

I'll say this, we're doing a lot better than I thought it would be when it first happened. I think that if Bush had wanted, he could have easily enacted a form of martial law after 911 and no one would have blinked. We expected it.

And look how effective Bush is, its got you, invert nexus, talking about them evil doers being 'dangerous'


You're repeating yourself, dear.

Anyway. Aren't they dangerous? Not to the extent to which they're hyped up. But they have done things. Dangerous things.

I think you're envisaging me saying dangerous a bit too strongly.



You really don't understand?
That's a tactic.
They're striking back. Yes. I don't deny it. I have no problems saying that in many ways they are vindicated in hating America. We've stirred far too many pots since WWII.
But, they can't strike directly.
They attack as they did.
Bring down the WTC and scare the piss out of everybody.
Cause the government to react. Stomping around like the proverbial bull elephant. And to further increase the injustices to various muslim nations as well as cause us to lose face in the eyes of our allies.

You really can't see that?
Girls.... Ha!

[quote]There's a report called "Downing Street" which covers a meeting between Blair and Bush (at some place called Downing Street) more than half a year before the U.S. declared war. Bush is not only already talking about plans to go there, inspectors or not, but in it you'll find a letter from the Iraqi official already complaining about U.S military action intimidating his country to war:

Yeah. I know.
But, the thing is that without the 'terror' the US public wouldn't have much stomach for it. Maybe Iraq.... with the support of the UN. But, not Afghanistan. And I've heard that Afghanistan was in the works as well. In fact, that it pretty much went ahead right on schedule.

These kind of things do make one consider the old conspiracy theories. It's 'dangerous' to fall prey to a conspiracy mindset though. Once the line is crossed, the conspiracies are everywhere.

The Minister calls attention to the ongoing wanton aggression against Iraq by United States and British aircraft in the unlawful no-flight zones and to the fact that in the period from 16 April to 16 May 2002 they carried out 844 armed sorties, 52 of them from Saudi Arabia, 656 from Kuwait and 136 from Turkey, as shown in the statement enclosed with the letter.

Hardly unlawful. It was sanctioned by the UN.
Saddam did reap what he sowed. He was pulling a huge bluff and he was called on it.

Or he was a patsy (along with Osama) ala conspiracy theory zero.

Who's pitching for a fight? When there are U.S bombers dropping bombs over Iraqi no-fly zones more than half a year before the so called 'war'

These were all public and were caused by Saddam kicking out the inspectors. His tough luck for invading Kuwait. (Or course, ala conspiracy theory zero, he was given the go ahead by... someone. I forget who. Some women in the Bush Sr. administration.)

and the good old media doesn't even squeak about it

That's not true. The bombings were on the media quite a bit. Of course, they got boring after a while and had to be replaced with something that would bring better ratings.

so that you never know that your country is lying to you, YOU, sir are being manipulated by your humongous government and not its so called 'enemies', in my opinoin.

Of course my government is manipulating me. Absolutely. I'm being manipulated from several directions. Government, media, corporations, you (kidding.) It's inescapable. One can only try to remain skeptical and keep a balanced viewpoint. And realize that every story has more than way to spin.

Absolutely not.

Liar.

Seconded, and its paid not payed.

Heh. On the way to work this morning, I heard an interview of Sulu (from Star Trek) where he talked about his youth in a Japanese interment camp. He said that his family was given 20 grand in restitution in 87. His father was dead already and it hit his father the hardest. Sulu thought it was like summer camp because he was so young.

What would you think of being held in an interment camp, Gendanken? It was summer camp, right? So you'd have no problems with it? They're not even kicking your Qu'ran.


Baron Max,

Yeah, hopefully! I'd much rather be "tortured" like those Arabs in the pictures than have my fuckin' head cut off!!!

Got a point there, but the thing is that getting your head cut off is relatively fast. Especially when they've had practice.

The worst thing you can do to someone is leave them alive.


Duendy,

UMMMMmmmmm....check your history...Saddam did let the inspectors back in.

Yeah. He did. At the 11th hour.
That's why we didn't have UN support for the invasion.

Good on you invert_nexus for countering the bullshit spouted by the retards here...

It's funny how the retards claim that what Allied soldiers did to Iraqis in Abu Gharib didn't constitute as torture.

Funny, the US State Department has a different opinion:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511452004

Each year the US State Department issues reports on human rights practices in other countries. Under each entry there is a section on "torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". These entries show that the USA has been practicing what it condemns in other countries. Examples from the latest report(759) include:
· China: "prolonged periods of solitary confinement, incommunicado detention, beatings, shackles, and other forms of abuse."
· Egypt: "Principal methods of torture reportedly employed by the police and the SSIS included victims being: stripped and blindfolded…"
· Indonesia: "psychological torture cases reportedly included food and sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation".
· Iran: "Some prisoners were held in solitary confinement or denied adequate food or medical care to force confessions."
· Jordan: "The most frequently reported methods of torture included beatings; sleep deprivation, extended solitary confinement, and physical suspension."
· Burma (Myanmar): "They routinely subjected detainees to harsh interrogation techniques designed to intimidate and disorient. There were reports in past years that prisoners were forced to squat or assume stressful, uncomfortable, or painful positions for lengthy periods."
· Pakistan: "sexual assault; prolonged isolation…denial of food or sleep…public humiliation."
· Turkey: "Human rights observers said that, because of reduced detention periods, security officials mostly used torture methods that did not leave physical traces, including repeated slapping; exposure to cold; stripping and blindfolding; food and sleep deprivation; threats to detainees or family members..."

Some of the entries reveal a breathtaking level of hypocrisy. The State Department’s entry on Cuba, for example, includes:
Prisoners sometimes were held in "punishment cells", which usually were located in the basement of a prison, were semi-dark all the time, had no water available in the cell, and had a hole for a toilet. No reading materials were allowed, and family visits were reduced to 10 minutes from 1 or 2 hours. There was no access to lawyers while in the punishment cell.


I guess sleep deprivation, stripping, sexual humiliation, forcing prisoners to assume uncomfortable positions, beatings, and solitary confinement only qualify as torture when Westerners carry out the acts. Because we all know that Westerners carry out sleep deprivation and beatings 'humanely'.

I wish people bitching about invading Iraq due to human rights abuses would STFU and invade China, or even better, America.

vert

you dare contradict my gendy? ;)

These were all public and were caused by Saddam kicking out the inspectors.

saddam kicked out unscom cos of infiltration (http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jan1999/iraq-j07.shtml) by cia agents

no fly zones were illegal
for instance....

The US and Britain have drawn increasing international criticism for the military raids, which according to Iraqi government sources have left more than 300 dead since 1998. The Russian foreign ministry condemned the August 10 strike, commenting: “Such action, carried out in circumvention of the UN Security Council, is a blatant violation of the norms of international law and does nothing but complicate the search for a solution to the Iraqi problem.” link (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/aug2001/iraq-a17.shtml)

"It did not take very much to work out that the increase in bombing bore no relation to the protection of Iraqi citizens in the north or the south of the country," Sir Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said referring to the ostensible reason for the "no-fly" zones. He told the Guardian: "The obvious explanation was that air defenses were being degraded deliberately and that any provocation by the Iraqi military would be met with a disproportionate response". link (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0621-06.htm)

incursions were violations of iraqi airspace
iraqi's were provoked into defending themselves
iraqi air defenses capabilities were then degraded
shock and awe could commence

you deal with unrelated issues and attempt to assert a causative link
justify
or apologize to gendy
the temerity! :mad:

Hardly unlawful. It was sanctioned by the UN.

yeah? citations please

link (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/flyindex.htm) link (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/flyindex.htm)