Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[maestro]

I don't think anyone should be in our crosshairs. I think we should leave people the hell alone and stop interfering in the operations of their governments.
The main reason other countries hate us is we constantly interfere, threaten and bully them into running their countries the way we want them run. Whether they're dictators or not is irrelevent. We have no business or right to tell other countries how to run their internal affairs.
We told Hussein in 1991 when he said he might have to invade Kuwait that it was an internal affair between Arab states and we were not concerned, then attacked him.
I think we should be armed to the teeth, but only use it as defense. We do NOT go around attacking and bullying people, but if we're attacked, we annihilate them.
We should get Al Quaida for 9-11, but we should finish that first, and let the UN do the job in Iraq. We agreed to allow the UN to be the international police force when we joined, and now we're breaking that agreement. That's b.s.

A-F, you better watch out what you say, you may get put on the "non-Patriotic" suspect list!  

In earlier times, we viewed communism as a viable threat to the US by its very existence.  We would attack nations and provide power to those who are attacking them, just because they were becoming communist.  Fundamentalism also seemed to have fallen into that category briefly for an unknown reason.  I think viewing the governmental system itself as a threat was not wise, but at the time, they thought that the Soviet Union was seriouosly close to obtaining enough power to conquer the world.

Now, we only attack countries when our interests (more commonly) or our persons (more rarely) are threatened.  There are known connections between al Qaeda and Hussein, and while you might not agree with the validity of those connections, if they exist, that's a serious threat.  Hussein in building WMD, and refuses to disarm as per the cease-fire agreement after the first gulf war.  Even if he has no connections with bin Laden, the Iraqi regime is known to be militarily hostile to our allies and trading partners.  To allow him to destroy our trading partners is ridiculous and entirely unneccesary.

the war on al qaeda is not weakened by the war on Iraq.  The war on terror is a war of espionage, followed by the use of a tomahawk or two to take out the camps and the leaders as we find them.  Not only that, but the war on terror will be benefitted by the removal of all regimes which openly support terrorists.  if we remove their support, terrorists will cease to be an institution, and degenerate into small groups lacking the power to recreate 9/11.

We never surrendered sovreignty to the UN, no matter what the other nations tried to do to get us to do so.  We kept out of the World Court.  the US is a sovreign nation, not subject to the whims of an anti-US United Nations

[DanTheTileMan]

Maestro, you are a bit tough on Emerson.  Quote - "Do you deny the Taliban were directly supporting and succoring al Qaeda?  Or that al Qaeda were the architects of the 9/11 attacks?"  First, let me ask you - Do you know the answer?....as a matter of Fact???   Our leaders have not proven it yet, and with all their lies, how do we know when to believe their story versus the lies and propaganda?  We still don't know the whole story about Bosnia - remember that one?  Strange how quietly it disappeared, although we never left the place.  What's going on there?  

Now, to the matter of Iraq - there are many issues there.  The US/UN is finished with Saddam.  He did his tour of duty to contain Iran.  Now we blame him with genocide (lies), even though the evidence points to Iran.  We blame him with pulling babies from their incubators (propaganda), we blame him with 9/11, even though the Saudi's were involved heavily, we say they have weapons of mass destruction, but haven't proven it beyond a reasonable doubt.  Israel has 200 nukes, but that's OK.  We will disarm all their neighbors for them, one at a time, so they can do their dirty work.  But, the good news is, it's not about oil.... Right!!!  Meanwhile, the price at the pump keeps going up.  The sheeple are stupid to think the price goes up immediately, even though there are reserves.  I don't care if it's the pre-fourth of July increase or the saber-rattling pre-war jitters.  It doesn't make sense.  I'll bet you one thing, though.  Once the war is over and/or regime change is in place, the oil will once again be sold on the US dollar standard, instead of the Euro dollar that Saddam had changed to.  To many of the American big boys are losing 10 cents on the dollar right now.  With our economy the way it is, 10 cents could look like nothing by the end of this year.  I could go on.  Remember, I said there are many issues.  To quote Truman, 'The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know.'  We don't even know what's happening today (Iraq) or yesterday (Afghanistan, Bosnia, Columbia).  So should we bomb Iraq?  We just did yesterday.  In fact we haven't stopped since the Gulf War I.  Don't believe me? - go to http://www.ccmep.org/usbombingwatch/2003.htm or http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

To help you with a little history regarding Saddam and the US, here's an article:  http://www.lsj.com/news/local/021018_drumbeat_1a-4a.html

I should note that I caught a few examples of the author in the above article, falling for some of the propaganda.  So, you may want to read this article about propaganda:  http://www.etherzone.com/2002/shie110102.shtml

My good friend, Bill Huff wrote a couple good articles, from the constitutionality viewpoint:
http://www.lexrex.com/articles/lawspeak/vol5iss1.htm
http://www.lexrex.com/articles/lawspeak/vol4iss3.htm

And Rep. Ron Paul wrote a couple good ones, too:
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul58.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul52.html

Enjoy your reading/education,

Dan the Man
******************************************************************************************
The Sacred Rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records.  
They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature,
by the Hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.  
 - Alexander Hamilton (An essay, "The Farmer Refuted," 1775)

More Good Stuff at www.lexrex.com

[maestro]

Check out this link.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28690

I'm glad there are some rational people out there.

So I am irrational, am I?

[Johnny Liberty]

There are known connections between al Qaeda and Hussein, and while you might not agree with the validity of those connections, if they exist, that's a serious threat.  Hussein in building WMD, and refuses to disarm as per the cease-fire agreement after the first gulf war.

These "known connections" are part of the Bush administration's "big lie" mass media propaganda campaign to link the 9-11 attack and Iraq.

The only credible connection involves links with a Kurdish Islamic guerilla group in Iraqi Kurdistan. This group battles the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, our allies under the "no-fly" zone in Northern Iraq. Yet we are not sending in Special Ops. teams to help the PUK fight these supposed Al-Queda allies.

Why? Because the Iraq war will not primarily be about 9-11 or WMD, nor particuarly about human rights (certainly not the Kurds'-they have no oil) or democracy. Instead, the US will sell out the Kurds once again and pursue their real goals: the destruction of the Baath regime and Hussein, it's replacement by a US military gov't. controlling all of Iraq, including Kurdistan, eventual transition to pro-USA "democracy" when stability permits (5-10yrs.), with permanent US military bases, entrenched US energy/commercial interests, and a US trained and controlled Iraqi military to make sure the wrong people (Communists, Islamists, Kurdish nationalists) don't gain power in the new "democratic" Iraqi.

These goals are not, in my opinion, in the spirit of a democratic constitutional republic. The are in the spirit of an global empire, but I guess our (USA) history has been one of tension and contradictions between these two ideals.  

[Emerson]

And those are some of the reasons I believe supporting a war with Iraq is irrational.

In the late 70s, I saw a Point-Counterpoint between some US Congressman, and a representative of the American Indian Congress.
The AIC refused to sever diplomatic ties with Libya. In their debate, the AIC representative brought up all sorts of evidence how the CIA tampered with Libya's internal government. Khadafy was a US ally when he first took power, then the CIA started messing with him. As the AIC guy brought more of this out, the Congressman got so mad he started using ethnic slurs against the guy, then talking about Indian massacres.
The AIC guy responded with a list of all the Indian tribes that went extinct at the hands of the settling of the US, and the Congressman went berserk. Flying off the handle into rage is a sure sign the guy on the other side of the table is telling the truth, striking a nerve.
The point is, there are very good reasons the rest of the world hates us now, and our methods must stop. We saw a program last night on Discovery International detailing how the CIA has tampered with countries, set up assassinations, etc.
That makes us no better than the people we report to oppose, in my opinion.

[Jim Sheridan]

[quote author=Emerson

Flying off the handle into rage is a sure sign the guy on the other side of the table is telling the truth, striking a nerve.
The point is, there are very good reasons the rest of the world hates us now,

There are things that you could say to me that would irritate me, and might endanger your health, but that doesn't make what you say the truth. Rage is not a sure sign of anything

But you're right, there are lots of reasons that people hate us. I'm putting envy in the top slot.

[DanTheTileMan]

Regarding war and foreign relations, I believe George Washington said it best in his Farewell Address:

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/writings/washington.htm

In these regards, you will find he says much toward the end of his address, but it is worth the complete read, in that you will find many pearls of wisdom, and gems of truth along the way.  I wish some one were here today to lead the Constitution Party as he led the nation.  I still think that the success of FSP will be much greater if we inlist the support and involvement of the Constitution Party.  We need all the allies we can get.  This is a war.  Getting to 20,000 is just preparing for the first battle.

Dan the Man

[Anti-Federalist]

But you're right, there are lots of reasons that people hate us. I'm putting envy in the top slot.

War is always about either 1) keeping your place; or 2) rising in the pecking order.  Thus, envy is always one-half of the equation.  Whether the war is just/moral or not does not alter this fact.  America went through it's expansion phase and rose to the top of the pecking order; now we just want "peace," meaning the status quo.  Other countries want their bite at the apple, and they will continually challenge us.  This has happened to all the "great" powers.  The question is whether this is inevitable or we can escape this destiny.

[johnstargel]

This is a war.  Getting to 20,000 is just preparing for the first battle.

Dan the Man

I agree that we need all the friends we can get.

However, to refer to the movement that we in the FSP are initiating as a war is misleading, and can be a negative in our recruiting efforts.

War implies violence! This movement has no room for anyone with violent intentions of any kind.

To imply that the initial move of the 20,000 FSPers to the chosen state is 'the first battle' is certain to ruffle some feathers of the locals.

This project is non-violent, absolutely. Our aim is to work in/with the system to bring back, or bring about, the freedoms of Americans promised in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[DanTheTileMan]

It is a war, albeit a 'NON-Violent' one.  The battlefield is education.  The enemy, ignorance and apathy.  The first battle is educating the elected state, as to the intentions of FSP and their new neighbors that are moving in.  It's not a "You're either with us, or against us" scenario.  It's more like, we'll lead and you follow at your own pace, if you like.

Next time I will be more verbose and define the usage of words.  Sometimes, my words have more meaning, in which one must go back to the 1928 Noah Webster dictionary to find it's richest meaning.  War - The primary sense of the root is to strive, struggle, urge, drive, or to turn, to twist.  War, in whatever form, can be offensive or defensive.  Defensively, we must hold back the encroachment of government over the people.  Offensively, we can later repel back the advances already made by the same.  BTW, to war is also to embroil.  I am glad I embroiled you enough to have this discussion.  I hope this argument has allowed me to evince you that I mean no harm.

Dan the Man

[DanTheTileMan]

Turkey Soup, Anyone?
Back to the violent type of war:  If we make a go on Iraq, we must concern ourselves with who jumps into the soup.  Let's not forget Turkey:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/opinion/11KRIS.html?th

Turkey, Iran, and Kurds - 'NO WHEY'!!!
And let's not forget Iran:  (remember that we no longer have Saddam to contain Iran for us.  Maybe that's why Israel is allowed to have 200 nukes!)
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iran-usa-nuclear.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00711F934580C708CDDAA0894DB404482

North Korea?  
(We should remember them like we remember the Alamo)
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-iraq-bush-axis.html

[mactruk]

  Violence - What do you call the FEDs - nice people.  Tax and spend is the worst form of violence.  When you vote for more taxes or people who raise taxes you support the worst kind of violence.  

[DanTheTileMan]

OK - so stop voting.......!