's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Bill Clinton better stay out of this town!!!!(16 posts)

Bill Clinton better stay out of this town!!!!ClydeTri
Mar 28, 2003 11:18 AM
He and many other politicians better stear clear!
Still blaming Clinton, huh?Silverback
Mar 28, 2003 11:25 AM
I'll admit, though, the economy and international relations have gone a LOT better since he left office....
Not just him...hycobob
Mar 28, 2003 12:18 PM
Just think; if we had only given the Afgans a bunch of money after 9/11 we wouldn't be in this pickle...would we? What is are few thousand of your fellow citizens lives worth? Maybe we should just forgive and forget? And all of those countries who support terror will see the error of their ways, huh? We may need to give the North Koreans, China, and Russia some more money too. Who's next to step up to the terrorism/blackmail express teller?
can you read?MJ
Mar 31, 2003 12:39 AM
by reading I mean actually understand things after you've moved your lips while passing your eyes across a page?

does all your news come from right wing talk radio shows - and what's his name at Fox "News"?

I do enjoy reading your posts because they're so reactionary they work as flame bait and indeed pure comedy

there's alot of conservatives (even (gasp) arch conservatives) who can intelligently put their views across - maybe you could buddy up and see what you can pick up for the next time you're allowed away from your carer

seriously - you're truly uninformed - it's a shame you can vote and breed
Maybe he didn't express himself well, but ...Live Steam
Mar 31, 2003 7:03 AM
he is correct about terrorist nations blackmailing the US. N. Korea did it during the Clinton administration. That is why they are becoming a threat now. Clinton sent billions to NK in exchange for their agreement to not further their nuclear efforts. He did this without requiring inspections to prove their compliance. GW stopped sending them money after it was determined that they were not in compliance with the agreement and that they indeed were developing WMD. This got the little maniac crazy and that is when he started rattling his sabre. Turkey effectively did the same when they prevented the coalition from using the Northern front. Our offer of 30Billion was not enough.
Maybe he didn't express himself well, but ...MJ
Mar 31, 2003 7:39 AM
since when is NK a terrorist nation? they have an army but don't use terrorist attacks - a big military with possible nukes and a maniac at the helm? yes - but no more a terrorist state than any other militarily able country... blackmailing the US for aid? yes - terrorists? no

Turkey are a NATO member and a US ally - they didn't want to let the US in (for probably very sensible domestic reasons) to Iraq - how can an ally reaching democratic decisions, even though the US may disagree with them, be considered an act of terorrism? blackmailing the US for aid? yes - terrorism? no

China, Russia - patently not terrorist states

if you keep throwing around the axis of evil cartoon arguments it lessens their impact should they ever be actually required - boy who cried wolf and all that

this is the way things work in the big bad world - it's the price you pay when you are forced to take unilateral decisions however necessary you deem them to be - to think that the US isn't responsible for even worse arm twisting in the diplomatic front is incorrect and pretty funny...

anyone find any WMD evidence in Iraq yet?

at least I get the feeling that you don't move your lips when you read...
thank is a shame what's allowed to breed.mealex
Mar 31, 2003 8:16 PM
It is pretty pathetic and rather tragic that ...Live Steam
Apr 1, 2003 4:42 PM
many of you leftists feel it is necessary to insult and denigrate those that have an opposing view to theirs. This appears to be very typical of the left, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

As for whether NK is or is not a terrorist state, well why don't we send both of you dimwits there to investigate this? Maybe you will discover something there other than poor starving people who live in fear of the ruling party and who are tortured for speaking out against a megalomaniac dictator that likes to sip Scotch and watch American movies.

You know I have been curious as to what swamp hole both you and MJ emerged from, but was too polite to ask :O) You both are a good argument for requiring a license to breed.
is there a point in your post?MJ
Apr 2, 2003 12:27 AM
yeah I took a shot at Hycobob - his reactionary neo-fundamentalist views are ill-informed and misjudged - attitudes like that don't do anyone any favours - the you're either with me or a traitor attitude coupled with a poor understanding of global events is shocking and truly un-American

NK isn't a terrorist state - end of discussion

if your criteria for targeting states is by poor starving people and dictator's I'm sorry to tell you the list is long and has been actively facilitated by the US et al for some time

your swamp hole joke is really funny - man you should be a comedian - seriously though - if you wanna insult me you should be able to do better than that

and as for everything I said above about Hycobob - I stand by it - perhaps you or he'd like to comment on the substance of my post...

BTW - anybody find any WMD in Iraq yet?
Why don't you define what is and what isn't , terrorism?Live Steam
Apr 2, 2003 7:49 AM
I believe the leader of a nation, that keeps it's population living on the brink of starvation, in a country that is ridden in pestilence and who provides little to no education for the people he rules over, is a terrorist. I believe that this person, who has the means to change the current conditions, but instead chooses to spend billions on a military machine, is a terrorist. I believe that person (the term is used loosely here), becomes an international terrorist when he threatens acts of aggression by means nuclear attack, unless certain demands are met to his satisfaction. To me, these are all acts of terrorism.

I would like to hear what you believe to be acts of terrorism.

As for the swamp joke, it was a sully response to mealex' post. As for commenting on the "substance" of your posts, they really have none. You basically parrot what many left wing liberals on this and many other boards do, such as the following, which are meant to insult rather than debate:

"by reading I mean actually understand things after you've moved your lips while passing your eyes across a page?"

"does all your news come from right wing talk radio shows - and what's his name at Fox "News"?"

"seriously - you're truly uninformed - it's a shame you can vote and breed"

"anyone find any WMD evidence in Iraq yet?"

"at least I get the feeling that you don't move your lips when you read..."

These are all words of wisdom you had to offer in this thread. Very typical of the left, to attack and denigrate those who opposes their own pompous views.
Why don't you define what is and what isn't , terrorism?MJ
Apr 2, 2003 8:18 AM
I'm gonna take shots when I see ridiculous arguments without substance made by someone who's facts are wrong - maybe you're prepared to tolerate ignorance in public debate - I am not - if you want a definition of lack of substance go back and review hycobob's post

NK, China, Turkey and Russia are not terrorist states - because you call someone a terrorist doesn't make them one

NK has a military and uses a military to influence foreign relations just like many other countries - US/UK included - look at Iraq

Oxford Dictionary:
terrorist - noun person using esp. organized violence to secure political ends. terrorism noun.

·assassin, bomber, desperado, gunman, hijacker

is the NK leader a bad guy? yes - is he a terrorist? no

your outline could be applied very unfavourably to a number of other present and former world leaders US/UK included - by your definition there's alot of terrorists about - are we gonna take them all out? Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Israel, US/UK, Iran should all be reviewed by your criteria

as the entire reason for intervention in Iraq is WMD's I think it's more than relevant to enquire if there's been any evidence found yet - I hope for our troops sake we don't find any...
Why don't you define what is and what isn't , terrorism?Live Steam
Apr 2, 2003 10:01 AM
"NK has a military and uses a military to influence foreign relations just like many other countries - US/UK included - look at Iraq"

We will just use this single example as to why your argument is as lacking in support as you deem hycobob's to be. Where is there any support for this statement? It is your opinion, but it is not supported. You believe that threatening the use of nuclear force against a non-aggressor is acceptable and not terrorism. I would venture to guess that many would not see it that way. If you want to use another term such as blackmail, well that is just parsing words. One is as bad as the next. However, even if we use your premise that he is not terrorizing the US and others with his saber rattling in order to extort money for his war machine - not for food and oil as you allege - you cannot deny that he is terrorizing his own population by bridling them in poverty and squalor. It would be unjustly blind to deny those poor people even that modicum of sympathy and understanding toward their plight.

As for finding WMD in Iraq, it is a strange and tragically funny to hear Jacques Strap and many who opposed this war on the basis that SH no longer had these weapons, state that they fear he may use them against us. I believe that they fear even more that the coalition will find them and thus will justify this action per Resolution 1441. Finding them will then make it clear to the World that the UN and NATO are no longer valid entities. The UN Security Council has not been able to enforce any of the sanctions against Iraq and NATO refused to protect Turkey, of which they are a member, should they be attacked as a result of their support of this coalition. Why isn't there any outrage directed against these acts of betrayal? Maybe they should call it the Un-security Council! :O)
Why don't you define what is and what isn't , terrorism?MJ
Apr 3, 2003 12:34 AM
that is a very western persepctive - I'm sure there's alot of Muslims who would deem Iraq to be a non-aggressor - they didn't invade or threaten anyone prior to the current war

anyways there's lots of people on the list who could qualify for US attention by the criteria you've set for NK

the US/UK made assertions there are WMD - no evidence was ever supplied - I have said before here that I do recognise there are things that can not be publicly disseminated - however, presumably this confidential information was shared with our allies and they decided there was not sufficient threat - British Cabinet members resigned who were privy to all available info. - in any event the fact that a large number of people (and a significant minority in the US) don't trust dubya does not lend an easy acceptance about justifications for a war without evidence

I think from NK/non-US perspective it's easy to see the US as an aggressor - have WMD been threatened? or have they just started their reactors again? there is a an implication (and it is sabre rattling - but as pointged out already - lots of countries rattle there sabres - especially the US/UK

Kim il Jong is a nasty piece of work - the NK population is suffering - he is still not a terorist (nor is China, Russia, Turkey... etc)

seriously - I truly hope we liberals in the US/UK and the majority of the rest of the world were correct when we questioned the validity of assertions re the existence of WMD - fact is that while most (in the west) who disagree with the war still disagree with the politics behind it - most are hoping for a quick and efficient resolution with a satisfactory outcome

the UN - some real problems in getting that dog to run - but hey that's democracy in action at a US formed institution - is the only answer to apparent UN obstinance US/UK unilateralism? won't working outside the (US) established global mechanisms only result in further alienation, negativity and perhaps conflict with the rest of the world?

outrage should also be directed at liberals and muslims who quicky overlook SH's bloodthirsty reign - who's killed more Iraqi's/muslims in Iraq? (not the US/UK)
you may not like the source on this oneMJ
Apr 3, 2003 12:45 AM
but is uses the US govt definition of terrorism

"The US state department officially defines it as "premeditated, politically motivated violence propagated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience" (my italics). A similar defence department definition adds that terrorist attacks are designed "to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives". Paul Pillar, former deputy chief of CIA counterterrorism, cites the key ingredient of terrorism: "It is aimed at civilians - not at military targets or combat-ready troops." ",2763,928433,00.html
GWB too.. Or he might have to be honest about his reasons for...PdxMark
Mar 28, 2003 1:35 PM
the war, tax cuts, oil drilling in the arctic... maybe we'd get him on 3 strikes and put him away for life, like he deserves...
How do you know they're telling the truth...Spoke Wrench
Mar 30, 2003 5:44 AM
when they say they are tired of the lies and exaggerations?