|
|
 |
|
Getting Real : Speak your peace
Now That the War is Over | from Wolf - Thursday, April 24, 2003
accessed 2149 times OK, so the war with Iraq is over with a quick US victory as expected (thanks in part to three Iraqi generals who realized they were in a lose-lose situation and ordered the entire Republican Guard to lay down their weapons and go home) I hear there’s going to be a victory parade soon. So why don’t we take a quick moment to ponder what the US and rest of the world gained or lost by this war: GAINS:
The US gained a plentiful supply of cheap oil, which should be a boost to the US economy about three years from now when it starts flowing steadily.
The US gained a certain amount of respect and fear. The rest of the world knows they mean what they say and will use force if necessary to have their way.
Saddam Hussein is dead or out of action. Though I dont believe he sponsored terrorists or did half the wicked things attributed to him, he did the other half which is reason enough to rejoice over his departure.
The Iraqi people (those who are still alive after the horrors of bombing, shooting, looting, vandalism, armed robbery, complete breakdown of public utilities and infrastructure, etc.) may have a shot at democratic rule for the first time in many years. Though there isnt any proof that democracy is universally the best system of government, Im including this in the gains because it seems to work pretty well in a lot of countries.
LOSSES:
The list of people who hate the US and will readily give their lives to see even a few Americans killed has grown by at least several hundred thousand. Dont let those pictures of smiling Iraqi fool you into thinking that the majority of Iraqis are glad to be a conquered people. And dont think the rest of the Arab world loves the US for saving them from Iraq. The children who are born in Iraq today are the 9/11s of the future.
The war against Iraq did nothing to diminish the prospects of world terrorism. If Iraq had any terrorist connections there wouldve been at least some terrorist activity during the war. And to those dumb enough to think they were sponsoring terrorists, where would they have gotten the money? Theyve had sanctions slapped on them for the past 12 years! The terrorists real financiers are hiding out among the US's bosom buddies like Saudi Arabia, which by the way has a government much less tolerant than Saddams was.
The prospects of world peace just went down by about 200%. Every government official with half a brain is currently contemplating the best ways to stock up on weapons, which would render them less vulnerable should the States decide to attack them next. This goes for some of the worlds stronger countries, such as Russia and China, as well. And dont let photos of starving Russians and Chinese fool you: thats a lot of media hype.
Sure, most Russians and Chinese arent as well off as the average American, but the economies of both these countries have started to do better in the last few years and they do have enough purchasing power to improve their military hardware, with the added advantage of cheap labor that can produce stuff for a fifth of what the States has to spend. Most Americans have let this quick victory blind them to the real reason behind the September 11th attacks: Remember all those bombs the US dropped on Lebanon in the 80s? They werent even smart bombs, they just fell wherever the hell they happened to land.
Before your time? What about the attacks on Libya? The Arab world also knows that every time Israel attacked them they used US weapons and money. Those bombs may just be blips on a screen to you, but they maimed parents, killed children and paralyzed old ladies. The kids who were born back in the 80s are now adults who lost their parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts or all of the above to US bombs and now they are coming back for revenge. Blowing up more innocent people is not going to change this situation; its just creating more angry children who will do more damage 20 years from now. And you better believe next time they will be even smarter and more efficient; maybe in 20 years they wont even have to rely on terrorist methods, they might just develop sufficiently to get some real weapons together and blow the shit out of the States.
This is not by any means a threat, its the reality that US citizens should be facing.
Thepersoniamnow was right when he said somebody always has to be the top dog. But for Christs sake, cant the top dog ever learn from the downfall of the previous top dogs? History shows that as the top dog gets more oppressive, the under dog always finds a way to outsmart them, eventually leading to a change of the guard.
If the US was really smart they would consolidate their power peacefully instead of bullying the rest of the world. If they did that maybe they could break historys cycle and stay on top for a change. In the end its peaceful countries like Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, etc. who are really the top dogs. They just sit there enjoying their peace and wealth while the rest of the world kills each other off fighting over scraps. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from
Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 13:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
Some of the comments here are categorical in stating the lack of Iraqui support for 9/11. While this is not intended as a defense of American foreign policy, I would beg to note the following.
A U.S. Federal Judge yesterday as reported in an article from a Law Journal (and yes, I know that some of the commenters here give absolutely no weight to such sources as judges, but I personally give them some, howbeit in varying degrees):
"Judge Baer then turned to the heart of the matter: whether the World Trade Center attack was perpetrated by al-Qaida with the aid of material support from Iraq.
He reviewed the testimony of Woolsey and terrorism expert Dr. Laurie Mylroie on alleged links between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaida, including whether lead hijacker Mohammed Atta met with a high-ranking member of Iraqi intelligence in Prague before Sept. 11, and whether Saddam Hussein ran a hijacking training camp in Salman Pak, just outside of Baghdad.
"Although these experts provided few actual facts of any material support that Iraq actually provided, their opinions, coupled with their qualifications as experts on this issue, provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences which could lead to the conclusion that Iraq provided material support to al Qaeda," he said. "In particular, Mylroie testified about Iraq's covert involvement in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and about the proximity of the dates of bin Laden's attack on the U.S. embassies and Hussein's ouster of weapons inspectors.""
Wolf, I agree that "The terrorists real financiers are hiding out among the US's bosom buddies like Saudi Arabia," and I also think that many of the financiers are actually taking refuge in the US and profiting from our system and from the generousness of Americans who can't resist sending money to charities that claim they sponsor orphans in far-flung lands, which they may do, but they also siphon cash to a second, hidden enterprise and its honchos (kind of like Family Care Foundation).
However, when it comes to claiming that the US will never find chemical weapons unless they plant them, well, I am reminded of a certain group that constantly claims that no evidence of abuse was found, yet those of us who grew up in their early days vividly recall highly aberrant practices that most people probably find it easier to disbelieve.
Pharmaboy, since you think that all Americans are government loving, I have one word for you: Montana. In general, maybe you could visit middle america and see how it matches up to the image that you have seen projected of Americans. Not that you care, but it could help you fine-tune your portrayal of them. On the other hand you could check out some of the cosmopolitan areas and you might find that some Americans are not even "ignorant bullies!"
(reply to this comment)
|  From Wolf
Thursday, May 08, 2003, 15:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
I find it disturbing that a federal judge believes opinions alone, if presented by qualified experts, would provide sufficient basis for a jury to come to conclusions. After reading judge Warden’s judgment on the Family I have nothing but respect for judges who do their homework and get the facts straight, but I have no respect for judges who think an expert opinion is enough to indict someone.
“I am reminded of a certain group that constantly claims that no evidence of abuse was found, yet those of us who grew up in their early days vividly recall highly aberrant practices that most people probably find it easier to disbelieve.”
So what are we to do? Assume guilty until proven innocent? Many evil doers get let off the hook, but then again almost everybody gets accused of doing evil by somebody. We cannot leave behind the “innocent until proven guilty” principle, or else none of us will be safe from unjust punishment.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From
Thursday, May 08, 2003, 15:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks for the response, Wolf, and I apologize for disturbing you. Our legal system does indeed work in what may seem to the layperson "mysterious ways." This judge however could be overturned by a higher court and accountability exists (i.e., the judge wrote an opinion laying out his reasoning, which we are now able to take issue with as you have). A zealous advocate for the other side now has every opportunity to out-argue the judge; with the caveat that the law is the law and certain rhetorically great-sounding arguments will lose to the established law of the land.
And no, we sould not assume guilty until proven innocent. However, do keep in mind that a "not guilty" verdict, in the US at least, does not mean the defendant was proven innocent. OJ for example was not proven innocent in criminal court. Rather, the prosecution was simply unable to carry, to the satisfaction of that particular jury, its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (not "any possible doubt"). I get really annoyed when the Family claims, as they have in the recent response to abuse, that courts have "found" that excommunication is the extent of their duties in the case of abuse. Set aside the fact that none of these supposed courts was in the US and that the jurisdiction say, of a LJ Ward was a child custody case, not a case where he was ruling on criminal charges for abusers or damages for survivors; this TF statement is either in really bad faith or it shows they don't know about law and whoever is working on seeking justice is dealing with a very uninformed defendant that apparently feels the Lord's miracles are enough and it doesn't need legal advice.
Ta ta. (reply to this comment) |
| | from PompousJohn
Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 13:59
 (Agree/Disagree?)
I have a couple of things to say that I don't think anybody's brought up yet, and I am not proposing these points as gospel truths, I am just throwing them out to see how they whether the hoots and jeers of this very mixed forum.
1) For those who think the Iraqi conflict was about terrorism: I don't think there is any such thing as terrorism. It is a completely subjective term that depends almost exclusively on who is talking about whom. To the Muslim extremists, they are waging all out war, and simply because their enemy refuses to acknowledge them as a legitimate army with a legitimate country and a formal declaration of formal was has not stopped them from attacking, but to a large degree it has stopped the western countries from counterattacking, maybe because they have no established traditional way of dealing with a non-traditional problem like this.
When we are attacked by a country we counterattack that country, take control of its land and assets, subject its civilian population to whatever we feel they should do for us and either kill or disarm that countries fighting force. However, when the enemy has no land, no civilian population, no visible government and seemingly no country then the issue becomes very confusing, and the only wars we know how to wage are wars on countries, so like a dog trying to get a thorn out of his paw by biting it we do all we know how to do even if it’s completely ineffective and does a lot more damage to the paw than it does to the thorn.
2) For those who think the Iraqi conflict was about oil: Oil is the lifeblood of our society, not just American society but all of it. For that matter, even if only the American way of life was threatened by the oil supply, this alone should be sufficient for all the peoples of the world to band together and protect it, since a very great portion of the world is dependant on the US to maintain its lifestyle.
A lot of people talk about the war being just about oil as if it were a trivial thing, but try to imagine western society coming to a grinding halt for lack of oil and the consequences this would have in the rest of the world. Even if you don’t live in the United States the effects would be massive. The casualties from the events in Iraq would be trivial by comparison.
Yeah it’s sad that we’ve all gotten so rich and fat that we have to have our SUV’s and our air conditioning and it’s too bad we don’t live in a Spartan society where anybody too weak to survive without modern technology is left on a hillside somewhere to die, but think about how many countries you know of that produce enough food to feed their local populations without importing food from other countries in oil powered ships, think about all the children in families that have forgotten how to farm who wouldn’t be able to feed their children without keeping food in refrigerators (A good portion of household electricity is provided by diesel generators) not to mention simply transporting the food from where it is produced to where it will be consumed. We need the oil. It’s too bad if we have to kill for it, but since we can’t live without it, we will.
If anybody has some scenarios of how they think the world would get along without middle-eastern oil with a transition time of say, two weeks then I would be interested to hear them but as I understand it it’s not a pretty picture.
(reply to this comment)
| From Joe H
Wednesday, May 07, 2003, 20:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
John's very right about the oil, but here's an idea: the war cost what, $200 billion, maybe less? With that money we could buy everyone in the world (or at least everyone in the US) an electric car and then the oil republics would have no power and we could safely ignore them and the terrorist whom they would no longer be able to support.
Now obviously, that's an extreme idea, but try to see my point: instead of spending all this money on securing the oil supply, why not invest in moving away from oil into something that could make our lives better, our air more breathable, our children healthier, and Saddam poorer? I've been told that there isn't even enough oil reserves to last into the next century. Shouldn't we be thinking about the long term? Am I making sense?
Bikes not bombs!! Yeah! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From PompousJohn
Wednesday, May 07, 2003, 20:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
Buying electric cars for everybody would reduce the need for oil but not eliminate it Joe, for example how would we charge the cars batteries? Most likely most of them would need to be charged with diesel generators. Solar and hydroelectric power are still inadecuate and too expensive to provide a real solution, and you'd still need electric freight ships, electric trains, and I guess electric airplanes in order for life as we know it to continue.
Alternative energy sources are in developement, and at the rate they are going they will probably be ready right about the time we run out of oil, but untill then alot of people would die if the oil supply was suddenly cut off. (reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Thursday, May 08, 2003, 14:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
How 'bout Geothermal Electricity Generation? Environmentally friendly, requiring only existing technology, and quite efficient.
More info: http://www.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/geopowerdepths.html
Electric trains are quite common actually, and not just in the erector set sense either :) With more R&D dollars, fuel cells could power ships quite nicely. You've got me on airplanes though. :) All that is really necessary is investment. If anywhere near the resources that are currently being used in oil/gas exploration (any idea what drilling, testing and pipelining the average fossil fuel deposit costs? I do, having worked in the industry for a couple of years. The figures quite commonly run into tens of millions of dollars PER WELL, depending on geology, bore size, depth, et cetera.) were to be diverted to the development of cheap, efficient, and environmentally-friendly sources like Solar, Wind, Geothermal & Wave electrical generation, a lessened dependance on fossil fuels would not be unfeasible.
The real problem is that Exxon, Shell, BP and that ilk would be hard pressed to sell you sunlight, breezes, surf and natural hot water in the place of where they charge you an arm and a leg for gasoline and diesel. Let's also not forget that just about 50 cents of every dollar you spend on gas goes into the Government's treasury in the form of taxes. It just isn't in Governmental interest to lessen dependance on fossil fuels, no matter what the Kyoto Accords have to say. It's not that alternative energy isn't feasible, or that it's "too expensive", it's just not profitable for the high mucky-mucks that make the decisions and receive the campaign dollars.
L.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | from sarafina
Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 12:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree Jules, Can't you all just calm down a bit. It's obvious a lot of you are intelligent people full of opinions and information. I like reading what all you have to say in your debates. I think you all can be mature enough to present your case without calling each other "dumb, fucking moron, and stupid". Just because someone sees something different or differs from your opinion doesn't make them any of the above.I think we can also refrain from swearing at each other. It really makes us all look bad and it takes away from the points you are trying to present. It would be nice to keep this website reputable and not turn it into an embarrassment full of trashy talkers.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from Mack
Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 15:00
 (Agree/Disagree?)
You are a MORON!
If you really think that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks then how is it that 5 of the 7 terrorists on 9/11 were Iraqis. I taught Home Land Security the first year after the attacks, so I know a little bit about World Terrorism. I also spent 7 years in the Military and held a Security Clearance, I was in Korea on the DMZ and spent a year and a half in other areas of the world where battles are being fought that you don’t and cant see on your little TV. But to get to the point in my rebuttal to your ignorant article. I want you to know there is documented proof of Iraqi (Sadoms Iraq) supporting Terrorist cells around the world. So get a clue and next time you write an article do some research on the subject.
Oil has nothing to do with why we went to War with Iraq. Quite running your mouth about an issue, you have no clue. I suppose you think it would have been right for our President to sit back and let the US get attacked again and again like that piece of shit Clinton did for 8 years.
I’m going to give you a quick class on Terrorism although think you know it all. Terrorism is not new it didn’t start on 11 September 2001. It has been here since the begging of our time in the last 25 years there have been over 1000 Terrorist attacks on the U.S. and U.K. some of these were the 1982 bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut Lebanon and several High-jacking’s of U.S. and Israeli jets in the 1970's - 1980's. Our government took great measures to reduce these threats. Some of the Measures are listed as follows; increased numbers of CIA Field Agents, Air Marshals, Screening of applicants during Immigration, and better informed hardened Military Targets around the world (where U.S. forces are stationed) these measures helped reduce our deaths caused by Terrorist Attacks over 80% and the number of Attacks greatly declined altogether.
However as you might not know we had a Liberal self centered Presidential Administration, for the last 8 years. That Administration down sized and over worked the Defense bringing it to its knees. Dissolved the Air Marshal program, and closed CIA field Offices around the world. When we (the U.S.) were attacked the Attacks were either undermined or a brief ill planed ill-informed retaliation was put into action. Only worsening the situation and bringing hatred toward the U.S. greater.
Now that our Country finally has a President who is willing to fight for our lives and not sit down and get a blowjob while innocent Americans are slaughtered. He is doing his job whether it is considered popular or not. Unlike the Liberals who will change their ideas and views at the drop of a hat as soon as a few people protest or when they think they will loose some of their voters.
One thing I will agree with you on is the fact that innocent civilians lost their lives, there is no excuse for that and I do not believe in accidents, only negligence. The U.S. and U.K. Military Leaders who are responsible for those deaths should be tried and punished the same way, as the Iraqi Military Leaders will be for their crimes.
I would like to see an end to all war but we know that will never happen. My final point is this; Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom did save lives even though several hundred were lost the end number is far less than if there wasn’t a War, and that includes Iraqi lives. Maybe we are fighting the wrong people we should probably be killing domestic dissidences like you who can’t see the whole picture and would allow more innocent Americans to die at the hand of Radical Religious Terrorists.
Don’t be a simplistic minded Moron like the author of this article if you can see the whole picture you may understand why the U.S. did what it is doing. And for the author maybe some day he will see the light if not I hope he will be the next one getting blown away by some Terrorist fruit who thinks he’s saving the World from the great Satan but sadly enough it wont be.
(reply to this comment)
| From Mack needs a lobotomy
Wednesday, May 07, 2003, 08:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
You're the fucking moron, if anything, it's people like you that make the rest of the world hate the US.
look ,the US has a new demon to fight, TERRORISM, doesn't this all sound vaguely familiar to that other demon, drugs?
Do you find let's say, French terrorists, or some huge terorism movement in France, no. Why? Because people have food to eat, decent housing, free education for their children, and free medical assitance. They have the government they choose, not some foreign-funded puppet government. Does palestine all this no, and neither does Afghanistan now.
Terrorism is a symtom, it's not the real problem. Fighting drugs and terrorism is like having hepatitis and your doctor gives you pills to prevent your skin from turning yellow, while ignoring the cause of the yellow skin(liver disease).
Mack, fuck you & fuck your government, why should the rest of the world really give 2 shits about US problems? I'm waiting for the next horrible terrorist attack to happen, and it will be your own fault!
You americans are a bunch of over-weight, ego-centric, megalomaniacs & hearing about your endless problems really gets annoying.
Pharmaboy (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From pharmaboy
Thursday, May 08, 2003, 02:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's the new demon to blame everything on, or to scare the masses with, america loves these demons: communism, drugs, terrorism.
You are just as much terrorists as any Arab kamikaze bomber.
Many politicians(non US also), are howling: "we need to fight terrorism", and translated, that phrase means absolutely nothing.
Mack if any european country got involved in a war against the US, I would drop everything and volunteer for that army, I can't wait to see you ignorant bullies begging on your knees for mercy. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Mack
Friday, May 09, 2003, 20:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well keep dreaming boy. The Europe you love some much knows better than to go against the U.S. in fact they hate Europe so bad they are flooding this country with Immigration the Russians and even the other former Eastern Blockers. What Country are you from any way?
What European Country would you think can even come close to giving the U.S. a challenge? If there is one I would like to hear about it, but you did say any European Country so that just shows how uneducated you are, considering that several former Eastern Block Countries would be starving now if it wasn’t for the U.S. aid they get.
But if you really want Ill give you a fight. You seem like the type of person who has never been in a real fight in their lives. You tell me that you would join that Army to go against the U.S. so what’s stopping you join the Serbian Army. But I’m sure your not man enough to be in any Army.
Later freak! (reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Monday, May 12, 2003, 11:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Mack, you are a stereotypical “dumb American” in that you consistently demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of world affairs. There is no former “Eastern Block” country that is dependant on US aid for survival. There were a few years (in the early 90’s) when Russians and citizens of other formerly communist countries had very little food, but US food aid never accounted for more than 1% of any former eastern block country’s food intake.
Not only do most former “eastern block” citizens have plenty to eat, they also shop in supermarkets remarkably similar to the ones in the States, the average city-dweller owns a cell phone, and the average family owns an apartment, car, TV and stereo. Though the standard of living is definitely below the US, the only hungry people are bums, alcoholics and drug users.
USAID continues to allocate money to projects in the former soviet block, but it is a tiny fraction of the Gross National Product of any of these countries, and nobody would notice if it stopped coming, except maybe a few USAID grant recipients. Americans love to feel good about themselves, thinking they’re feeding the rest of the world, but this is just another misperception of reality.
In reply to your accusation that anyone who takes a stance against American stupidity is “brainwashed” (note that I’m not talking about every American, just those who think like you), obviously no cult leader would have a following if none of the things he said were true. If everything David Berg said was bullshit nobody would’ve paid any attention to him, he got his audience by mixing some truth with a lot of nonsense. Some of the things he said about the US just happen to be true.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From I disagree with 1 point
Monday, May 12, 2003, 20:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
I wouldn't say cult leaders need to say things that were true. I'd say (and I have my childhood experience from whence to draw on) they just need truisms. Cliches plus charisma, then people overlook the things that shock the conscience -- because somehow the hackneyed statements they spew validate a slew of more alarming pronouncements. I have to say, the people who listen because of the things you are saying are "true" are real dummies, or disturbed enough that it doesn't matter if they're smart, this bill of goods being sold by convincing (because convinced) charlatans fits a need, or they want to believe it will. The proffered solution claims to be ne-size fits all
I am open to hearing you give an example of a solid truth from Berg that goes beyond clichedom. (reply to this comment) |
| | From I disagree with 1 point
Monday, May 12, 2003, 20:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
I wouldn't say cult leaders need to say things that were true. I'd say (and I have my childhood experience from whence to draw on) they just need truisms. Cliches plus charisma, then people overlook the things that shock the conscience -- because somehow the hackneyed statements they spew validate a slew of more alarming pronouncements. I have to say, the people who listen because of the things you are saying are "true" are real dummies, or disturbed enough that it doesn't matter if they're smart, this bill of goods being sold by convincing (because convinced) charlatans fits a need, or they want to believe it will. The proffered solution claims to ne-size fits all
I am open to hearing you give an example of a solid truth from Berg that goes beyond clichedom. (reply to this comment) |
| | From I disagree with 1 point
Monday, May 12, 2003, 20:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
I wouldn't say cult leaders need to say things that were true. I'd say (and I have my childhood experience from whence to draw on) they just need truisms. Cliches plus charisma, then people overlook the things that shock the conscience -- because somehow the hackneyed statements they spew validate a slew of more alarming pronouncements. I have to say, the people who listen because of the things you are saying are "true" are real dummies, or disturbed enough that it doesn't matter if they're smart, this bill of goods being sold by convincing (because convinced) charlatans fits a need, or they want to believe it will. The proffered solution claims ne-size fits all
I am open to hearing you give an example of a solid truth from Berg that goes beyond clichedom. (reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Wednesday, May 07, 2003, 12:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hey Pharma, I like your comparison of France versus the US, though to be fair, the French *have* had (still have? I'm not an expert here) their share of problems with Terrorism (though the terrorists in their case are usually Algerians, Moroccans, et cetera instead of Afghanis and Saudis). It is also fair to point out that the French enjoy somewhat fewer civil liberties especially in regards to Law Enforcement than do Americans.
I absolutely agree that alleviation of symptoms does not equal treatment of the causative disease. Well said.
L.
>Gee Dick, what we gonna do tonight?
>>Same thing we do every night, George: Try to TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Mack
Wednesday, May 07, 2003, 09:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hey if you don’t agree with me then make your case. What point's were wrong? It sounds like these comments are coming from current TF members and not EX-TF, its probably still the indoctrination that America is evil as you were raised with in TF. I would like to know where or when you would make war if its not a good idea to attack people who are responsible for killing innocent Americans and have violated a peace agreement we made with them over a decade ago then when do we as a nation fight back? Or should we sit by and do nothing until we are no longer a nation and in complete anarchy?
You have all the answers what are they?
A question for the author is why are you posting Political Articles on here anyway you should send your Article to the New Day News or write for the GN's. I’m sure they and there little moron followers would love to have it. Peace out freaks. (reply to this comment) |
| | From K.
Monday, May 12, 2003, 19:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
If you are genuinely interested, I'd recomend reading Micheal moore's best seller; "Stupid white men" [and John Pilger.]
Just a thought..The majority of our parents were aware that they wanted to change the status quo of living in the U.S and the west, and what that mean't for humanity, after Vietnam.["Heart of darkness" is the book, "Opocalipse Now" was based on.] The anti American retric was already in full swing in the 60's, writen about by many left thinking critics,and writer's ie. Charles Dickens. It does seem convienient now I think about it, that all the "dropouts" were funneled into religous cults.[out of the way and not voting] Most had rejected religion and it was free love drugs and rock n role. Listening to adults testimonies, some were clearly there as a substitute for the drug they were on. Instead of seeing it as a phaze of adolesence, they believed the cult version of "we saved your lives", and boy did we hear about it.
Anyway, I guess the point is , before they got side tracked/waylaid/led up the garden path/fucked on, they seemed to have had a general idea that the west was corrupt beyond measure, and they didn't want to be a part of it. They just took the more familiar,[and less of a shock by parent's/socities measures] religious routes.Because pleeeeessse, what part of the COGs teaching were truly godly? If they persist in that then we need to compile a new revised "MEMORY BOOK AND QUOTES for adults"
Proverbs 15;v33 " The fear of the lord is the instuction of wisdom;and before honour is humility"
Ecclesiastes 4;v13 "Better is a poor and wise child than an old and foolish king who will no more be admonished"
I know you won't mind me "sharing" a little verse i got for Zerby pervy while I was on the loo the other day,
Revalations 2;V20 "I have a few things against thou[TF]because thy sufferest that woman jezabel[or zerby]which calleth herself a phrophetess[she did sleep with him, and some how caught it?...]to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication[I think we can include, child abuse,rape etc etc etc]and I gave her room to repent[during the court case? or after turds death?- if seeing a child in pain wasn't enough]and she repenteth not.Behold[that words not scary enough nowadays is it?]Beware;I will caste her into a bed and them that commit adultery with her[the abusers who haven't left the cult]into great tribulation except they repent from their deeds."
A verse they probably overlooked is"When a mans ways [and that goes for moms as well]pleaseth the lord, he maketh even his enemies at peace with him"[we are not at peace with most of our parents and they themselves call systemites and backsliders their enemies. Maybe they should check out Proverbs 16 v7 "Debate thy cause with thy neighbour himself"]
Anyhoow we can't throw the baby out with the bath water[ i woudn't spit on turd berger if he were on fire],we need to be more aware socially and look after the world while remaining critical and informed yet openminded. Peace (reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Thursday, May 08, 2003, 09:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
Mack...that’s the name of one of the main characters in a horror novel...I can’t remember the title. It’s about post war America...and Mack is the eccentric commander of a survivalist shelter. He starts killing everyone else in the shelter off...
Funny, in Bush’s mind everyone that dislikes the US government is a terrorist, in your mind they’re ex family members...what makes you think the Family’s brainwashing is more effective than the US military’s?
Your case is full of holes and I addressed them already...but it looks like you’re too much of a coward to answer me.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Mack
Friday, May 09, 2003, 20:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
So you got me on the number of high-jackers I’m glad to see you can do research that was the first number that came out. I admit that but why are you saying it has to do with oil? And don’t say its to boost the economy either because there are several scenarios which will prove that wrong.
My question to is why are you discussing politics on here any way? What does it have to do with this site? (reply to this comment) |
| | From War No More
Wednesday, May 07, 2003, 19:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Mack, you are a bully. It isn't your opinions I disagree with (I kinda like america) but the way you shove your opinions on others. There are a lot of people in the US like you right now and I'm getting sick of it.
Terrorism is the new Communism, the "one-size-fits-all" allegation to tar your opponents with: "He's supporting terrorism". When ever we need to invade a country for economic or strategic reasons, all of a sudden it's: "We need to save the world from Communism/Terrorism and anyone who doesn't support us is a liberal punk who hates america...blah, blah.."
Didn't America learn anything from the Mcarthy era? It seems not, otherwise why would we have Ashcroft. You say you hate "people who are responsible for killing innocent Americans" Bush is responsible for killing innocent Americans, he sent them into harms way for no good reason.
The peacenicks are the only ones who really support the millitary, the Neocons are your enemies. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From pharmaboy..
Wednesday, May 07, 2003, 10:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
You sound like a deluded cult member, and your cult is your government.
So you go and attack 2 countries on flimsy evidence that they may have been responsible for a terrorist attack which you should have been expecting anyways and which you might have been able to prevent. But no, 11/9 was the best thing to happen to you, now you can go around and do your own thing & nobody dare say anything or they risk being labelled a 'terrorist'.
I've been out of the cult years now,and have heard more anti-american sentiment voiced from non-members than exers or current members. Hell, I'll rarely meet a deluded american like you, usually people think with their head and come to the same conclusions i do, this includes my boss, girlfriend, relatives, and buddies, all non-members.
If you need to bring in TF issue every time we talk politics, it means you still have serious issues, if you want i'll post some links to nonfamily related forums this threads that voice similar views to mine.
Your fanatical way of defending your government's fucked up decisions, is a sign you maybe are a tad deluded yourself. (reply to this comment) |
| | From sailor
Wednesday, May 07, 2003, 18:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Your own defense has proven you guilty pharmaboy. You stated that "usually people think with their head and come to the same conclusions i do, this includes my boss, girlfriend, relatives, and buddies, all non-members". You condemn yourself with your own words. You are in your own little cult in which you only associate with people who think like yourself and you think that most people think like you do. Your cult is comprised of only those who are anti-american and support each other by assuring each other that what believe is correct. I am a Liberal but I have friends who vote Republican, Green, etc. Perhaps it is time that you stop adamantly asserting your correctness, and consider varying viewpoints. (reply to this comment) |
| | From pharmaboy..
Thursday, May 08, 2003, 02:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's not my own little cult, no one that happens to agree with me on politics does so because I'm such a great motivational speaker, we just express our opinions & discover that we've come to similar conclusions. I listed my boss, friends, etc only as an example of non-TF having anti-US ideas. Realy, you think I choose my friends by their political views? WTF!!
I have communist, extreme right wing, anarchist friends, so leave out the counselling...
And it's not a matter of varying veiwpoints, as we could discuss abortion, for example. It's a matter of personal freedom and every state's right to rule their own country, not have bullies meddling self-appointing themselves judges of the world.
American foreign policy is a comedy of errors, and MANY innocent people paid the price. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Anamorph
Monday, May 12, 2003, 06:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hey Nick,
I think perhaps I made that comment too short, as what I mean is that people in the US have supported the IRA for years, with the government looking the other way. I really don't have a problem with the US taking on dictators and horrific governments. What I dislike is the hypocrisy that says one set of people are freedom fighters and these others terrorists. If the US is going to do this then it will have to take on more then just countries who happen to have a huge reserve of oil. Also it would help if they could find those huge quantities of chemical weapons.
I am not saying I did not want Saddam out as he was obviously a cruel dictator it just doesn’t look good to the rest of the world when there is one rule for one set of people and another for the rest.
Here is a web address to support what I said about the IRA receiving support from the US.
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/ira2.html#Q13>
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/ira2.html#Q13"> >(reply to this comment) |
| | From Mack
Wednesday, May 07, 2003, 18:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
They don’t have evidence for any of their allegations. They are just trying bad mouth the U.S. like they were programmed to do in The Family. Its pointless in even arguing with these idiots. They have no clue what their saying I served in Satan’s Army so at least I have some idea what the U.S. is up to these liberal punks just don’t get it you can read the ignorance in their replies.(reply to this comment) |
| | From comment for Mack
Thursday, May 08, 2003, 19:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
Mack, don't you remember which presidential candidates Berg (usually) supported? Conservatives!!!!! At least he usually called them the "lesser of two evils."
Just a thought: Maybe some liberal ideas are more "Familyish" than others, such as not using pre-emptive strikes when human life is at stake. But more often than not the Family would back conservative ideas, such as those of the Christian rights like those against pro-choice, etc.
Just because someone disagrees with the current administration does not make them unpatriotic or anti-American. I did not support going to war with Iraq because I was not convinced that it was the best solution to the problem, and I feared that it would set a negative precedent of preemptive policy (not to mention a negative example to the rest of the world). I admit that I am relieved the war was quick and I am EXTREMELY happy to see the end of an abusive regime (talk about a cult...the Sadaam Cult), but could it not have been achieved with a diplomatic solution? Or ended the way the Cold War did with internal collapse? (The Soviet Union was a greater threat than Iraq ever was, but there was never a war because of they had the capability to retaliate with equal force.)
I am glad the Iraqis are free of that tyrant, but I am skeptical of all the arguments the Bush administration and Britain used to go in the first place. I mean, where are all the weapons of mass destruction? It just shows the power of rhetoric to persuade.
Sorry this is such a fragmented comment. I am too busy with finals to sound coherent, but I had to comment on your comparasion of liberals with the cult not only b/c I always remembered Berg supporting conservatives, but because I am as anti-cult as you can get, a liberal, and a patriot.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Mack
Friday, May 09, 2003, 20:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
What does the Army have to do with any thing? I’ve had these views before I ever joined the Army. The argument I’m having with you here sounds like the same arguments I had since I was 14 with my parents on these same issues during the first Gulf War. They are stupid and you are as stupid. Your argument is what TF has programmed you to believe, so admit it.
I don’t agree with everything the U.S. does I don’t think they should give out food and clothing to any country that doesn’t either provide a service or a good to us, unless it’s a disaster relief. I also don’t agree with the U.S. being in South Korea we should let them fight their own battles. They don’t want us their any way, so why shed another Americans Blood for those indigents. I saw the signs “G.I. GO HOME” when I was ridding from the Airport in Soul S. Korea to my replacement Barracks, and I told one of the guys I was sitting next to that we should be out their with signs saying “Send us Home” since we didn’t want to be their any way.
Have you ever served in the Army? Do you know what your talking about when you say brain washing I received in the Army? Soldiers in the Army don’t even agree on these issues its just a job. So until you know what your talking about keep your accusations to yourself. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Jules
Wednesday, May 07, 2003, 02:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
I totally agree Ant.
Just a suggestion, but perhaps we could leave the "moron" name calling to Canadian politicians (an oxymoron if there ever was one). IMO, if someone researches any issue and comes to their own conclusion about it, isn't that the point of why we left? To have the freedom to do so? People who have differing opinions (who have done their homework) are not morons, or terrorists, but simply opinionated and, I believe, have hard earned their right to their own opinions.
Personally this is what I most cherish about being on the "outside"; the ability to question anything and debate any topic freely and logically without being shut down with statements like "well, if you don't like it, just leave the US/The Family" or "if you think that you are crazy" or "this is a war, we have little time for nursing our wounds/hurt feelings/civil rights, we must fight on".
I am probably opening myself up totally for attack here, but sometimes some extreme nationalism I read here totally triggers the extremism that was shoved down my throat constantly in the Family. Why can't people ask questions or research something for themselves? To say that: "you may not understand it all, but wrap it in a bundle of faith. We are your leaders and we have intelligence/prophecy/divine guidance that you could never comprehend. We know best, so trust us." is anathema to me.
I research everything myself. I want to know what is true based on what I can discover myself. I take no one's word for anything. Perhaps that is cynical, but given what we have experienced, I think that is wise. If the logic is flawed, point out the flaws. There is really no need to stoop to name-calling. IMO, that is the basest form of debate.
Actually, on this topic, I was wondering about invoking our own Godwin Law (http://www.advicemeant.com/flame/04psych.shtml#Godwinhttp://www.advicemeant.com/flame/04psych.shtml#Godwin">http://www.advicemeant.com/flame/04psych.shtml#Godwin>) I propose that, instead of Nazi's, when someone mentions Berg and how their opponent is just like him, the debate is lost and it goes to the other side.
J. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Wolf
Tuesday, May 06, 2003, 22:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dude, you’ve been smoking some bad shit…..
Speaking of research, perhaps you should do some yourself. Let’s start with the 9/11 attack.
“There are indications that the identity of at least some of the hijackers may have been assumed based on stolen identity documents. Given the fact that all of them died in the terrorist attack, their true identities and their nationalities may never be verified.”
That aside, 14 of the 18 terrorists were to the best of our knowledge from Saudi Arabia, the other 4 from other Arab countries, but NONE from Iraq. Take a look at this page for a detailed description of the known information on each terrorist:
http://www.fairus.org/html/04178101.htm
Is anybody talking about going to war with Saudi Arabia? Why not? Is their government democratic?
Now that I’ve proven you wrong on that count, I think the onus is on you to find some proof that “there is documented proof of Iraq (Saddam’s Iraq) supporting Terrorist cells around the world.”
My guess is it’ll take you about as long as it’s taking the US army to find some chemical weapons (and they never will unless they plant them). I can, however, find you proof that terrorists have been funded by people in Saudi Arabia. Why isn’t the US invading Saudi Arabia?
Now I know how the US army gets people to fight for them. They find dumb-ass morons like you, fill them with bullshit stories and say “go kill some Goddamn terrorists son”.
About one of the “terrorist attacks” you mentioned, the “the 1982 bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut Lebanon”, what were the marines doing in Beirut, may I ask? Did the Lebanese government invite them in? NO! They were therefore invaders, and this was a kamikaze military operation, not a terrorist attack. The US responded by dumping dozens of not very well guided missiles on Beirut, which added to the already horrific death toll of civilians.
You can do one of two things, Mack. You can wake up and realize you’re being led around by the nose like a zombie, and that your government acts in its own self interest, most “public servants” don’t give a damn about you or the rest of the US population, except when it’s election time. Or you can keep your head up your butt and keep believing the lies you’re being spoon fed.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Tim R
Tuesday, May 06, 2003, 19:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
It is ironic that you would try to condemn anyone for being a terrorist, Mack.
You say: "..we should probably be killing domestic dissidences like you who can’t see the whole picture.."
That sounds like inciting terrorism to me. Also you say: "..and would allow more innocent Americans to die at the hand of Radical Religious Terrorists.." You mean like Ashcroft? Jerry Falwell? Or those religious crusaders who want to use this "Golden opportunity" to kick the muslims while they're down and convert as many as possible?
BTW, I didn't like Clinton either, he was a cowardly draft dodger, just like Bush. When his turn came to serve, he slipped away and let some one else do the dying. Now Bush wants to send our little brothers to die for his oil buddies. Damn Coward!
You need to realize that virtually everything you hear on American talk radio is complete bullshit, those people are living on another planet. I can't believe anyone actually gets their news from FOX either, FOX news is owned by the same guy who runs all the tabloids, that should tell you right there how high his journalistic standards are.
It's funny to hear right-wingers try to blame this whole terrorism thing on Clinton, while at the same time taking credit for the economic progress that was also made under his leadership. (They do in fact deserve much of this credit.)
Remember, the Republicans had a majority in the house and senate for the last 6 years of his "reign" and they could have overruled anything he did. (The Democrats will try to hand you the same bullshit about the Vietnam war being Nixon's fault, when in fact they had the majority in both houses the whole time.)
What you call a "class" on terrorism was a just a regurgitation of the typical, badly biased briefings I got in the army. "The Muslims are attacking us because they hate our freedom" HA! This is what passes for wisdom these days? God help us. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Wednesday, May 07, 2003, 03:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
Tim, you have some very interesting points.
You can build the wall as high as you can, but if there are people who hate you enough, they will find a way to get through. The question that no one really asked, (apart from stupid dissidents like Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein) was why?
CBC (Canadian TV) had an interesting interview with the widow of the former King of Jordan (I cannot remember his name, but she is American, and it was a fairly big deal when she married him.) She talked about the Middle East, and she said that her husband had said, and she quoted, "there can be no peace without justice".
"Might is right" may be true for right now, as far as the western media (and therefore those of us who suck it up) are concerned, but that is not what the world in general believes. Think about it. The world faced 2 world wars in the first half of the last century, and these cost millions of lives, crippled economies and devastated the world community. What came out of this is that we need a global body to mediate conflicts, the UN. The concept is that all nations are equally held accountable. While the US was key in establishing the UN, they have increasingly balked at being held accountable to the same standards as everyone else (where have we seen that before?).
Is this the new world order we want for our children? Whatever nation is the super-power can do whatever it wants and invade whatever country it chooses, with or without backing from the global community? What if the USSR had survived and the US had not? Think about it. Some pesky small country like the UK is acting up, so they invade, and "you are with us or with the terrorists" (and next on the axis of evil).
The issue is, IMO, that Bush is setting a precedent, and a very frightening one.
Thankfully, the US is rooted in basic humanitarianism and human rights, however, what happens when China's economy reaches critical mass? 1 billion people are not going anywhere, and they have the potential, with the right leadership, to be expansive. Is the UN "irrelevant" then? If a single nation can act unilaterally, and bully other countries into following suit, then the last 50 years of global communication are indeed irrelevant. (reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Tuesday, May 06, 2003, 16:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
First of all, while "that piece of shit Clinton" was president we never had an attack on US soil like 9/11. Second, he came closer to getting Bin Laden than Bush with all his billions of dollars spent has ever come. Notice how after he couldn't get Bin Laden he now never even mentions him? Funny when before it was "dead or alive". Instead, he turned to Sadaam who he knew he could get, just in time for the '04 elections I might add.
Any president could have gone to war against Iraq and won, it doesn't take some smartass conservative with shitblinders on to see that. The only good thing now is that maybe Bush will realize, that if he doesn't pay more attention to the economy like he should have done in the first place he's goona go the way of his dear old dad.
While Clinton was president he did more to solve the problems in the middle east than any president ever has at the same time he kept our economy going without giveing the richest 1% all the tax breaks. The reason the Arab world hates America all boils down to our governments support of Israels continued terrroist acts against the palestineans. Now, I'm definetly not in support of suicide bombers, so don't go getting your panties all in a wad. It's just that Israel invaded Palestine because it wanted the land for itself but when Sadaam invades Kuwait, who BTW paid us a shit load of money and are still paying us, we go tp war with him. It's a double standard and that's what pisses the Arab world off. But, of course, mack, you already know all this seeing as how you're so smart and all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And about Iraq's support of terrorism, yes, they give money to terrorists against Israel, which I'm in no way defending, but there has never been evidence to link them to 9/11. It looks like you're the one who needs to get your facts straight. Don't you think if Bush found that evidence it would be blasted all over the media? Instead he had to make up shit about chemical and biological weapons which to date have never been found. They had them once but where are they now? Isn't that the whole reason this war was fought in the first place??? (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from frmrjoyish
Monday, May 05, 2003 - 18:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
Saddam Hussein can never be accused of being a nice guy, but we need to remember who helped him in the first place, way back in the day we gave him money, weapons ( yes, chemical ones), and training to fight the Iranians who hated us and still hate us today. They are Shii'a muslims while Saddam was Sunni who generally tolerate the US better. Now that Saddams gone, Iraq will more than likely elect a Shii'a leader and we'll have another Iran on our hands. The US does alot of good in the world, but it does a lot of bad as well. The US government says they stand for democracy but have no qualms about installing dictators around the world when it suits them.
If they were so concerned with democracy then why did they reinstall the dictator of Kuwait after the first Gulf war? The Saudi's are no democracy either, neither is Jordan, Egypt, Quatar.....need I go on??
(reply to this comment)
| From Joe H
Tuesday, May 06, 2003, 18:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
I keep hearing all the whining, and I know I've done some myself, but why don't we all look at the big picture: The world is an evil place, full of evil people and evil nations. Aren't you glad the "Great Satan," the one with the most guns is on your side? I'm not trying to excuse the actions of anyone, just trying to get us to lighten up.(reply to this comment) |
| | from Anthony
Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 14:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
SARS ATTACK:
I'm glad this little war's over and I hope Bush and his administration find less destructive ways of amusing themselves in the future. That being said, I hope it's clear that I'm general opposed to war. However, if ever there was time for the "Democracy Imperialist," as I like to call them, to further their cause of universal "government by the people," that time is now.
With China being the world's last stronghold of claustrophobic communism, its government's collective theories and gross human rights violations, if a war need be waged, it should be against them and their bastard side-kick: The North Korean government. And now that the SARS epidemic is all but shutting down and crippling China, what better time than now to engage them in a combat of noblest cause? We could do it and help restore China to the great nation that it once was, making its current population proud heirs of a great civilization.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | from Jerseygirl
Friday, April 25, 2003 - 14:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
That was well written Wolf. Not sure where you live, but it's beginning to look like scraps is definitely what we'll be left with here in the US thanks to Bush and his brilliant economic proposals.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | From Anthony
Friday, April 25, 2003, 14:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
Jers, are you trying to get yourself "Dixie Chicked?" LOL! Just kidding. Isn't that a rather shameful situation... the way the Dixie Chicks were treated because of an "anti-Bush" statement? I mean, for crapsake, those country music fans who claimed to support the fight for Democracy in Iraq seemed quite reluctant to practice it at home.
I only heard about this story last night, and for those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, follow this link:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/Entertainment/dixiechicks030423.html http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/Entertainment/dixiechicks030423.html">http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/Entertainment/dixiechicks030423.html>
It's pretty clear from this story and from the comments of various movingon.org participants, that Americans could use a little more education on the meaning of patriotism. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Yram
Saturday, April 26, 2003, 14:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Could you cite a few facts to support your assertion that Americans could use a little more education on the meaning of patriotism?
Are you an authority on the meaning of patriotism?
Perhaps I'm wrong, and I hope I am, but does your definition of patriotism mean that you can't express any disagreement with the president, or any disapproval of his actions?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From sarafina
Friday, April 25, 2003, 15:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
Actually Jerz she did stand by what she said she just says she should have worded it better. In a recent interview with Diane Sawyer .. "Dixie Chicks' lead singer Natalie Maines says she spoke against President Bush and war with Iraq last month out of frustration and regrets her choice of words, but she makes no apologies for thinking critically."
``I'm not truly embarrassed that, you know, President Bush is from my state, that's not really what I care about,'' Maines says in an interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer for ``Primetime Thursday,'' airing 10 p.m. EDT Thursday. ``It was the wrong wording with genuine emotion and questions and concern behind it. ... Am I sorry that I asked questions and that I just don't follow? No!" (reply to this comment) |
| |
|
|
|
|
(
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]