11 Sep 01, 5 Year Anniversary and Conspiracy Theories

Lefty,

The one person that I WON'T be thanking for freedom of speech is YOU, because you don't believe in it. You've already been exposed as a left-wing big government collectivist fanatic pretending to be a conservative American. But your statements in support of an all-powerful central government, wars of liberation around the globe, and supression of individual freedoms are right out of Lenin and Stalin's playbook. Your left wing philosophy has temporarily hijacked the republican party, and damaged the nation. My guess and hope is that after the next election cycle, the real conservatives will kick your butts out of the party and restore a real conservative alternative [i.e., small government, peace-loving, individualistic] for American voters.

 

Nice to see you Americans so busy fight each other instead of real enemy.:headbang:

 

Krasnaya,

It's sort of an American tradition. We fight each other, but then can instantly come together to fight an external foe. Unfortunately for us at the present time, the foe is in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan, while our "leaders" are busy with a different agenda in Iraq that serves no purpose and has no end. Until that gets straightened out, things won't be particularly polite between those who can see the error and those who will blindly support anything "their" political party proposes in the daily talking points. Politics are sport. Nothing will change before the November election except that the administration has convinced the Saudi's to open the oil floodgates to lower the price of gasoline for a little while, and the Federal Reserve won't change interest rates. It helps their party get re-elected with the illusion that everything is okay.

But you are an excellent observer of America and American behavior - a modern day internet Tocqueville - and I like your posts.

 

Cloudedass you are a joke. Go choke on your liberal vote and hopefully the pain is extraordarily long. Again, since you cant read, I AM A RIGHTY HARD CORE WAR HAWK! The more enemy we kill over there the happier I feel. One day your LIBERAL party will go the way of the Whips and a footnote in American History. That will be the best day of my life.

 

Lefty,

Of course you are a war hawk. If you study 20th century American history, the left-wing has traditionally be very hawkish. They were the original cold warriors. Conservatives were traditionally the noninterventionists. And it comes as no surprise that killing makes you feel happy. It made Stalin happy too. I'm sorry but you just don't have a conservative bone in your body. You're a war-loving ultra-lib who will do anything to make sure your favorite form of entertainment, war, continues. I hope you seek help from your local mental health clinic. Stay on your meds and good luck to you.

 

In case you did not know the 911 commission has disavowed their 911 report. The report that most of you swear by is an acknowledged fraud.

 

Really, now, that's definitely enough of that. You need to watch it, or the mods are definitely going to shut down this (I'll say it) interesting thread.

 

That's debatable. The Iraqi PM just last week received control of parts of his military (navy, air force, 8th ING Division). What this means is that (sorry, but I have to quote it) "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." - President Bush. I do still firmly believe that going into Iraq was for the betterment of all. Bin Laden is also still hiding out someplace, and we DO need to find him, but even if you don't want to support the Iraq War, I think it's foolish to think that leaving Iraq is a better thing than staying there and finshing what we started.

~AJM

 

Also keep in mind that on Sept 5th, the new Iraqi government voted to split the country into three semi-autonomous administrative sections for the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites. This might be the beginning of the disintegration of the country. The Kurds are flying the Kurdish flag now over the north in place of the Iraq flag. The invasion of Iraq has basically converted the country from a secular dictatorship into a budding new Islamic Republic with close ties to Iran. The administration considers this an accomplishment, and the opposition considers it a mistake. It has also been a recruiting magnet for all sorts of Islamic paramilitary groups. I tend to agree that staying in Iraq is no worse than leaving, but it is also no better. The irreversable mistake has already been made, and I don't know of any way to correct it. When both choices are bad, I'd vote for the choice that saves the lives of the American troops.

Bush will stay there and preserve the status quo until he leaves office. Any other course of action would be an admission of failure. His successor will have to clean up the mess, and whatever he/she does will be considered a mistake by the opposition because there is no solution to the problem we have created. It's a sad situation and will possibly be considered by historians to be the greatest foreign policy blunder in US history.

 

Cloud,
are you sure you're just one person. Some days your posts seem conservative and moderate, somedays they seem liberal and over the edge, and otherdays they just don't make sense I mean c'mon a war loving ultra-lib, who the hell is that? Really, communism and liberalism I can see together but jw, doesn't appear to be any more than a patriot.

 

In many ways I think it possible that there is less American influence in Middle East, and more of Middle East influence in America. USA *supports* Saudi Arab kingdom, a human rights oppressor, but Bin Laden, and most of terrorists of 9/11 attacks from Saudi kingdom. What you Americans not know is that you are not loved in Saudi, and in fact even less so than say in Egypt, or even Libyan Jamahariya. Saudi kingdom only kept in power by support of USA, but outside of royal family nobody likes Americans.

Saudi government only buy time, they know they are going out, not question of if, but when. They send young to Switzerland for education, and also the $$$ for Swiss banks for later when they no longer in power and reactionary government along lines of theocracy of Iran in power. Not if, when.

Saudi government has the power of spigot, to influence USA, they do it so that USA military *leaves* Saudi kingdom, but be back if needed. They could do more to influence policy of Palestinians, and Israel, but don't. With conflict of Palestine, they divert attention from their infidel government and people wanting to put Saudi government to exile.

Similar, Israel have much influence in USA policy, but same as Saudi it is fine dance to play parties against each other to stay in power.

So all these *enemies* without each other cannot survive.

So think, Castro, Ahmenidjad, Kim Jong Il, Bin Laden, etc, they cannot survive without their enemy - USA.

 

You are absolutely correct bqcoins. Cloudedass is all over the map on his ideas and positions. I am just glad someone besides me has the balls to point this out to all on here. I think Cloudedass, Danr and that idiot Islamic Coins are all the same person more and more after reading their posts on here.

And to Danr, I dont think many Conservative Republicans put much wieight into the 9/11 Commissions Report. I and most conservatives believe it is a huge JOKE!

For Cloudedass to try to convince all on here I am a LEFTY is rediculous even after I state my positions on the War on Terror and my political affiliations in just about every post I make. Again, for everyone to see, I am a true Conservative beating back the LIBERAL lies and accusations about our government during a war for the sole purpose of dividing our country in order to TRY to get back into power! That is pathetic and the voters will show who they really support during these difficult times. We have spoken already with our votes in support of our current President, which most idiotic LIBERALS cant seem to understand.

 

These points are where we disagree:
First, "semi-autonomous administrative sections" sounds a hell of a lot like "states" to me. I'm in Arizona, and we are a "semi-autonomous administrative section" of the United States.

Second, I disagree with the characteristic that putting democracy/republicanism (not Republicans) in Iraq has made it a "budding new Islamic Republic with close ties to Iran." There is absolutely no way anyone can say with certainty what will come out of Iraqi democracy after only three years. To parallel, keep in mind that the democracy of the United States was called into question way more than three years after the signing of the Declaration. The American Civil War was a question of whether our democracy would survive a major trial. I think it's too soon by far to tell what Iraq will turn out like in 5, 10, 25 years. Along with this, no one can say right now whether staying or leaving would be better for Iraq, though I would argue that leaving only upholds the American tradition of cutting and running in the Middle East from over the past century. And we've seen what that has done to the region - that's why it's so brutal over there. Would you really keep the devil you know (old Iraq) and shun the devil you don't - it could be an angel in disguise?

Third, everyone keeps on characterizing this as all President Bush's fault. The problem with that is that it really doesn't matter anymore. The fight over in the Middle East is not "Bush's fight" - it's every American's fight. I view this as the major ideological struggle of the 21st century: in 1800-1900, it was slavery - blacks versus whites; in 1900-1960, it was minorities - women versus "male oppressors" and blacks versus whites; now, I think, especially after 9/11/01 happened, the major ideological struggle is one of religions - Christianity versus Islam. That's not something that "Bush" did - he simply responded to crises. I think you are wrong when you characterize the war in Iraq as the greatest foreign policy blunder of US history. I think we'll eventually see that it is one of the greatest foreign policies of US history. I also firmly believe that, like Reagan who was despised during his time in office, George W. Bush will go down as one of the US's greatest presidents.

AJM

 

Okay, dude.... chill out and focus on the argument at hand - stick with the facts, and those that question your track record will only look silly later on. Attacking other people here is not helping MY cause of converting liberal opinions to conservative ones, much less yours.

 

ajm229,

We'll have to see how it plays out. I think the difference between someone from Arizona and someone from Nevada is a shade less than the difference between Kurds and Shiites. So the comparison to "states" doesn't ring true to me.

Regarding democracy, I don't think there is even a 1% chance that Iraq will ever emerge as a western-style democracy/republic. Something like that has to develop from within based on the local culture and history. But I would go a step further and say that even if it was possible to transplant democracy into Iraq, it isn't worth the life of one US soldier to do so. Would you sacrifice your brother or son so that an Iraqi could vote? I wouldn't. If the Iraqi people want liberty, let them fight for it.

Regarding Bush, you are basically correct that at this point it doesn't really matter that the Iraq situation is his fault. But I disagree that this is in any way an ideological struggle we should engage in or continue. The US will never resolve the Christianity vs Islam struggle, and it is a fool's errand to try. It's more important to me to focus on the struggle for the US to remain a republic in the face of a huge and growing militaristic/globalist federal government chipping away at the Bill of Rights and working to bypass the Constitution by integrating our government with a variety of international supra-governmenal agencies. That's the great ideological struggle for me.

At a more practical level, there is an old adage that the US can't win a ground war in Asia. The territory and population is too vast, and the cultural differences too huge. So far this has proven true in Korea, Viet Nam, Lebanon in the 1980s and now in Iraq and Afghanistan. How many tens of thousands of casualties are you willing to endure in the attempt to prove this wrong?

 

I think the actual adage was closer to "Never get involved in a ground war in Asia." and it's from The Princess Bride. Ponder this, one act of congress which helped us "to win" a ground war in Asia was the abolishment of Term Limits. Do we need that now? God what an uproar that would start, but if it will help us get out of Iraq a winner then I'm for it.

It's of little matter to me which political affiliation the President is, so long it's who's best for the nation and others we deal with as a whole, and will they get the job done with no belly-achin'. Keep in mind both parties have their extreme idiots who will lure you in. The trick is to keep a clear head (here talking coins too) and not get pulled into one of these corners where you will sell your soul for the party, lose your wife & kids, and get ulcers, LOL...

My little brother is like that and nobody in the family (extended) will have anything to do with him anymore. The always call me and I have to listen to his rants over the phone, LOL

Now let's talk about this 9/11 conspiracy you thread hijackers

Ben

 

This isnt your thread dude. I don't need you to tell me to chill out when I am defending myself and my country from the village idiots on here. I don't need to look back later on about what has been said about me, I will defend it now, over and over until he/she/it can comprehend that. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I dont need you trying to convert me either. You must not be able to read, I am a HAWK! I love it when Liberals label me like that. Makes me feel much safer.

 

Bonedigger,

I'm strongly in favor of term limits. The greatest danger to a republic usually comes from the belief that one man can save them from whatever the current threat is.

Rome lost their republic when they gave Marcus Licinius Crassus unlimited power to save them from Spartacus. The republic was first transformed into a Triumvirate, and then an empire, but the people never regained their republic.

Germany lost their republic when they gave Hitler unlimited power to deal with the perceived terrorist threat of having the Reichstag burned down. We know how that turned out.

It is unlikely that granting additional powers to President Bush or his successor will work any better than the lessons taught by history. Republics do not fare well under conditions of persistent war and the attitude that security must be attained at any cost.

The best way to keep a clear head is to recognize that the solution to the terrorist problem is not to concentrate power in one man, one party, or even to expand the power of the federal government in general. Personally, I'm not willing to sacrifice the American Republic for some sort of perceived "victory" in Iraq. Better to save the Republic and our precious Constitution and limited government and let Iraq straighten out their own mess -- even if we created it. Chasing down al Qaeda in Afghanistan to punish the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 was a noble goal. Nation-building in Iraq is lunacy.

 

(Cloud) I agree with a lot you say concerning term limits. They are an excellent pressure valve so to speak for the nation. When one influencential politician becomes inflexible and starts gumming things up and ****ing folks off, automatically eject him or her at a certain point. Adios, out of there! But, we're at war (with a religion of all things it seems) and changing horses in the middle of the stream isn't advised either. Strange things happen during times of duress.

If a Democrat is elected to the Presidency in 08 and takes office in 09 I seriously doubt there will be an unconditional withdraw from Iraq, people smart enough to get elected to the Congress and the Presidency are smart enough to see the big picture and understand consequences as a result of rash actions. I would hope the mission in Afghanistan continues and am relatively certain it will as it's now a regular 1yr tour for active duty personnel now. Bagram Airbase, Camp Civilian, Camp Cunningham, and Camp Albert are all unaccompanied 12-18 month tours. So as you can see we're not getting out of there anytime soon. Same deal in Iraq. Don't fool yourself, there will be NO pullout anytime soon.

My friend it's not out of the realm of possibility for the United States to have a couple of new territories like Puerto Rico in the next few years. Then again we could just give it all to Israel

Ben

 

Ben,

The phrase, "...but we're at war" could be added to the book of famous last words. The country felt confident enough in our political institutions to hold a presidential election in the middle of the Civil War. There isn't anything comparable going on today that should make people frightened of "changing horses in the middle of the stream." But you are correct that the prospects for a pullout are very small regardless of who wins. Don't be surprised if future history books mark 9/11 as the event that precipitated the transformation of the US from a republic to whatever it becomes.