RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


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


Where's Saddam?(88 posts)

Where's Saddam?Jon Billheimer
Apr 24, 2003 9:25 AM
The somewhat breathless reporters at Debka claim he's in Belarus. A couple of weeks ago they swore up and down that he was in Syria. Chalabi says he's wandering around Iraq? The speculation that he's dead seems to have died down a bit. Wherever he is, if he's alive does anyone think he'll be caught and/or assassinated?
and where are the WMD'sMJ
Apr 24, 2003 9:32 AM
I thought we had 'hard evidence' that such things existed - if we did, and this assertion isn't the lie it appears to be, maybe the military could go pick them up without 'revealing their sources'

on the other hand if it is all a lie re WMD's is anybody gonna hold Bush/Blair responsible?
Let's seeSteveS
Apr 24, 2003 9:52 AM
There was quite a bit of discussion of there being mobile labs prior to the beginning of the war and Saddam and pals had weeks of advance warning that we were coming. Let's see, where could any mobile (and camoflagued) labs have gone? Possibly next door to their fellow Baathists party, to whom they were connected philosophically, linguistically, culturally, and religiously. Or, maybe he sold them to allied terrorists groups who will bring them as a surprise some day to your neighborhood. Since we have found vast amounts of American currency hidden in various places in Iraq, Saddam and crowd certainly had ripped-off multi-millions in "oil for food" sales. That should provide them plenty of wherewithal to grease the wheels of escape, just bribe any number of struggling nations. Heck, he might even be with the French, Germans, or as stated above,the former Soviet Union. (Saddam definitely got offered asylum in North Korea and Bahrain among others. How 'bout with ol' cousin Muammar Gaddaffi?)

My guess is that the socialist protestors of Europe along with the Greens, and maybe France, PETA, Amnesty International, and Michael Moore would love to hold Bush/Blair responsible, that is, if they had the power to do so, but they don't, so I don't think B&B will sweat it. I do look forward to some of the groups mentioned above in their next riotous protest march.
Let's seeMJ
Apr 24, 2003 11:26 PM
talk about conspiracy theories

if we had hard evidence then WMD's should turn up - if US intelligence with all their equipment can't follow and track down this hard evidence that seems negligent

are you saying Syria has WMD's - or that Germany/France are conniving with SH? do you have any info. or evidence for any of your hysterical allegations? - or is it just right wing bile?

I think it's funny when Americans label Euro's socialist and fail to see any of there own federal provisions and subsidies as the exact same thing - it reminds me of that Aerosmith song 'Dream On'

and I look forward to the next theft of an election by Dubya and pals - it's nice to konw that you appear to have swallowed everything that they've told you...

BTW - we expect the Mayday protest here in London-town to be a real cracker this year - so you should get your wish soon enough - plenty of anarcho-weirdo-Euro's tearing stuff up and battling the police
Conspiracy theoriesSteveS
Apr 25, 2003 7:53 AM
Oh, look, today's news says that Farouk Hijazi has been arrested in Iraq near the Syria border. He must have missed a turn in Tikrit to end up there. Surely he wouldn't have gone to his brother Baathist party members with whom he shares, ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious affinities for asylum.
Right.

I don't know if Germany/France are conniving with SH, but I do remember that German engineers were building the bunkers for SH prior to the first Gulf War, rumored to have helped with the tunnels under Baghad (along with Chinese), and Chirac was instrumental in the sale of a nuclear reactor to Saddah Hussein in the '80s. Remember, your socialists in the street like to argue that this war was for the U.S. to steal Iraqi oil. So, here was Iraq with some of the greatest oil supplies in the world, building a nuclear reactor for peaceful purposes. And Jacques Chirac helped out.
Uh,huh.

Sudsidies do exist. Yes.

Obviously you are ignorant of the Electoral College, but so are many Americans, usually liberals. See, the English that created America decided that they didn't want a tyranny of the majority and worked out a plan to assuage the concerns of the smaller, less populous original 13 colonies. The Electoral College determines the outcome of elections in America, carping and complaining notwitstanding.

May Day? Wasn't that a most favored holiday of the failed system known as Communism? Actually, in terms of your 'anarcho-weirdo-Euros', it is not my wish that they tear up anything. It is, however, my lowest common denominator of expectation from this crowd.
Enjoy.

Finally, here is a conspiracy theory for you, a British Member of Parliament, a socialist liberal, on the payroll of Saddam Hussein, and a vociferous screamer for "peace." Surprised you hadn't heard of it. Here, to help you out, I will reprint it from below, since vingo couldn't comment.

Now this is a conspiracy theory, and right there in your own city and country:

LONDON — Documents found in Iraq show that Saddam Hussein took steps to protect the reputation of a British legislator who vehemently opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq, a British newspaper reported Thursday.

The report in The Daily Telegraph came on top of a story earlier this week by the same paper that sparked investigations into connections between George Galloway and the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Law enforcement officials have begun a preliminary investigation into whether Galloway misused money from an Iraqi aid charity he runs. The governing Labor Party is investigating separate allegations that Galloway also received money from Saddam's regime through the oil-for-food program.

Galloway has dismissed the allegations as lies and has instructed his attorneys to sue the Telegraph for libel.

On its Web site Thursday, the Christian Science Monitor reported that officials of Saddam's regime authorized six payments to Galloway, totaling more than $10 million, between July 1992 and January 2003, according to documents the newspaper obtained.

The Monitor said an Iraqi general had discovered the papers in a house outside Baghdad that was used by Saddam's son Qusay, who it said appeared to have authorized at least one of the payments.

One document, dated January 2003, reportedly authorizes a check of $3 million and says the money was in return for Galloway's "courageous and daring stands against the enemies of Iraq, like [Tony] Blair, the British prime minister, and for his opposition in the House of Commons and Lords against all outrageous lies against our patient people."

In a Baghdad-dated story, The Telegraph reported Thursday it found a letter dated May 6, 2000, in files of the looted Iraqi Foreign Ministry showing Saddam sought to protect Galloway by severing his contacts with Mukhabarat, the Iraqi intelligence and secret police service.

"It is better not to engage the Mukhabarat in the relationship with George Gallo
Conspiracy theoriesMJ
Apr 25, 2003 8:30 AM
brother Baathists in Syria - perhaps - but there's no evidence that Syria (or anyone else) has conspired with SH re WMD's - furthermore I understand the Syrians have closed their borders - anyways aren't the Marines and US special forces preventing entry to Syria?

Germany, France and the US all helped Iraq with military equipment and infrastructure before GW1 - are you denying US involvement in Iraq? or just overlooking it and focusing on Germany and France? what's the point?

subsidies are welfare - welfare is socialism - because it's often to business rather than individuals doens't change the nature of the financial aid provided by the federal government - it is 'socialism' as you woudl define it

thanks for the lesson on the EC - but I'm up to speed on that - the electoral college votes from Florida were stolen - Bush didn't win - the SC decided a recount wasn't necessary despite evidence Bush would have lost the state - it was election theft

Mayday was a big commie party - but its traditions are somewhat older than that - spring festival etc. - small portions of protest crowds often misbehave - I agree it is often the LCD - but Mayday is particularly difficult - I work in the banking/financial district where the protests are usually focused - we always have extra security on site - I often get mistaken for one of the protesters out and about (pre-change into my suit) as I'm always on my bike commuting to work - it's not good for me with the Police or the protesters - but such is life...

yeah Galloway looks like he's in trouble - it'll be interesting to see how it pans out for him - BTW he's far too left for me and far too much of an appeasing whiner - the funny thing is that, if it's true, it indicates what poor judgment SH had - nobody important would ever listen to that guy - on anything - he's reactionary

I don't think "liberal socialist" is a dirty word - I also think you fail to see the same policies in the US - anyways western Europe isn't exactly a terrible place with a low qualityof life - in fact quite the opposite - things work and plenty of people are happy living in socialist democracies here - too bad you don't recognise you have the same policies in the US
Conspiracy theories2SteveS
Apr 25, 2003 9:22 AM
Iraq is as large as California, I am told, with plenty of border length. Special Forces are not border patrol. Marines have plenty of functions to take care of, so it would be fairly simple to miss a few escapees. Still, you ignored that Hijazi was caught near the border with Syria, not Iran with whom he would NOT have shared a common political party, ethnic effinity, language, religion, etc. Or Kurdistan for the same reasons. Plus, I have no proof that the Assad dictatorship has closed it's borders, just their 'word.'
Imagine that.

Let's see, the U.S. assisted Iraq in it's war with Iran subsequent to the Revolutionary Guard taking U.S. diplomats hostage in 1979. So, we are selling arms to the enemy of our enemy in the 1980s. Germany is building bunkers for Saddam just prior to GW1 in 1990 or so. France was selling repair parts to Iraq via little tricks of the trade, a few months ago.
Imagine that.

Glad to hear you are up to speed on the Electoral College, maybe you don't remember that Al Bore wanted a recount in Dade County only, a Democrat stronghold, but not the entire state. Maybe he changed his mind subsequently. After action accounts differed on whether Gore would have won overall or not. Feel free to 'prove' the election was 'stolen', as opposed to protest that it was, and then even without proof it would make a great movie for Michael Moore, or even better Monty Python revisited.

Galloway is your guy, represents your country, was vociferous in his protestations. I don't know if he is guilty or innocent, I do know that it backs up a previous post of mine to another individual as to why I have no trust in Euro politicos in general. Socialist or not, I do respect Tony Blair, he has courage.

It would be easy for someone to take up the debate over whether the U.S. is a socialist country in the manner of Norway or the European ideal. I have my own idea how the debate would turn out. Do note that the U.S. has Social Security for the elderly. No one would mistake the philosophy of America for that of the socialist countries of Europe.

I have been in Britain three times, the last being there in September of 2001, thats right, I was in Chester when I first heard of the Muslim attack on New York. Britain is beautiful in the country side. Several of the people who approached me after 9/11 were obviously of the 'stiff upper lip' generation that survived the Battle of Britain. They earned my respect and they were quite belligerent in America's defense. They were allies of longstanding. But their generation doesn't seem to be raging in the streets of Europe.

I don't have the same feelings towards your socialist protestors and for me, it is a word that doesn't engender warm fuzzy feelings.. These people don't deserve the sacrifices of the 300,000 to 500,000 Americans killed in WWII, in a European war. (numbers vary due to sources consulted) The Japanese were the enemy of America, possibly today's Euro-Socialist protestors and their parents should have been left to work it out between themselves and the Nazis. Then you would have had National Socialism all over Europe.
Oh, and your borders would have been very secure against illegal immigration.
Conspiracy theories2MJ
Apr 25, 2003 10:17 AM
and the only proof you have are your assertions that Syria has Iraq's WMD's - quick call the CIA and let them know your big scoop

either the US aided and abetted SH or didn't - it appears we agree - justify it however you need to

Galloway represents the average guy here as much as Michael Moore represnts you personally, or Dan Quayle represents the Republicans - not at all - if you want to base your opinion of an entire generation of Euro-politicos (left or right) on one person you could do alot better than Galloway for a yard stick

the fact that there remain so many questions re the elections is disturbing - counts in other counties wouldn't have upped the Bush position only Gore - Gore only needed Dade and he'd be president

the philospohy that America is a free market is a spurious lie - look at rampant protectionism and agricultural subsidies - it's socialism whether you want it nor not...

America had everyone's good will post 9/11 - it appears to have been squandered

WW2 again! change the record - re socialists - the Soviets beat the Germans (with American aid) and would have turned their attention to the Japanese shortly thereafter - so should everyone be thanking Jo and his Soviet commie crew? - there's a huge leap in logic there - but I'm glad you enjoyed Band of Brothers...
Conspiracy theories3SteveS
Apr 25, 2003 10:50 AM
You were the one who brought up conspiracy theories when I suggested that the dullard Saddam Hussein shifted some of his assets to his brethren in Syria in the weeks and months prior to the war. Still seems logical to me, but I don't think there is need to prove it. Maybe Farouk Hijazi (remember him, captured near the Syrian border yesterday) will tell us something.

Yep, as a by-product of Iranians storming the American Embassy in 1979 and taking American diplomats as hostages, so as a result, we used Iraqis as surrogates to kill Iranian Republican Guard types. Sounds witty to me. (by the way, it looks like the Islamic Republic of Iran is about to fall from within.How nice.)

It doesn't appear that Dan Quayle was being bribed by Saddam Hussein at any time, including Gulf War I. My point was, whatever their body language, I neither respect nor trust Chirac, Schroeder other like-minded Euro leaders.

In my opinion, there were any number of Democrat shenanigans in Florida and Dady County. Remember the democrats sent all kinds of attorneys to block the absentee ballots of our militray personnel. A clear disenfranchisement since they knew the majority of the military detested the Clinton administration. (hey, did you note that Al Gore didn't carry either his home state of Tennessee or Clinton's Arkansas? No favorite son there.) However, to be fair, I do think Gore should be the Democrat candidate for president in the next election. Get him a new Naomi Wolf-approved "alpha male" look and go for it. He deserves it.

Good luck on America as a bastion of socialism. Note the previous discussion about national health care. (which, odd as it may seem, I support. Somehow)

Obviously you didn't see the various joyous celebrations of 9/11 in the Islamic world, including statements by a high Kuwaiti official. Or Prince Abdallah of Saudi Arabia. Maybe the BBC and Channel 4 censored them from UK viewing.

Yeah, WW2 again! You got it right, without our support, the Soviet Union would have fallen. Western Europe was already basically defeated. Without our deaths on European shores and lands, there would not have been a successful Western front to weaken the Germans, and the U.S.S.R. would have ultimately tasted the benefits of German engineering; missiles, jets, and ultimately atomic bombs. Good luck, Stalin.

I retain my belief that your European street protestors are probably not worth the deaths of so many American boys and young men in World War II. It was a European problem, not ours. Let the chips have fallen where they may. Besides, we didn't gain any North Sea oil wealth for all those lives and money spent. You know, the war-for-oil theory.

But as I said previously, there was have been a completely socialized Europe, National Socialism- Nazi style. Maybe with great dental care in Britain. Hey, what do you think the Germans/Nazis would have done to the Arab/Semite immigrants that desired to come to Europe today?

Now I have to go work in the yard. I am going to practice my body language while I mow.
Conspiracy theories3MJ
Apr 28, 2003 12:34 AM
you're right there's no need to prove anything - you can just make up wild hysterical assertions and never have to back them up - you should really call the CIA and let them know your scoop

it's not very witty when they (allegedly) keep the WMD's and plan to use them against the US is it? no I did not think so

my point is that you can't base your assessment of Euro-politicos on one person - if you insist then why not T Blair? - as for Shroeder and Chirac it seems they were giving voice to the overwhelming opinion of their constituents - sounds like democracy - but you don;t have to like that - in fact

with your rather skewed view of Bush's theft of the presidency it sounds like you'd rather not get in to the details of democracy at all

and continuing with the head in sand theme - the funny thing is about socialism and welfare in the US is that they often don't call it that - particularly when it pertains to large corporate interests and special interest groups - water, steel, agriculture all come to mind - it must be those single black ghetto mothers that upset you so much?

you may be surprised to know that mainstream UK media is light years ahead of US media - there's no censorship - but even better there's no patriotic self-censorship either - you can keep Fox - I'll keep BBC thanks

sure there were celebrations on 9/11 - by a small minority - what did you expect? - is there a point to your point?

the western front had no bearing on the outcome of the war - the US helped Soviets with aid - but it did not change the outcome either - go read a history book about it these are very basic points and facts...

you may also be surprised to know that most Euros are not anarcho-street protesters
Conspiracy theories4SteveS
Apr 28, 2003 12:04 PM
Hysterical assertions? That Saddam might well have moved his WMD to his next door neighbor, of the same political party, same ethnic group, same language group, and same religious group... all with the weeks and months of advanced warning he had the our coming. My my, if this is hysteria, the 'stiff upper lip' generation in Britain is indeed extinct. Actually, it is a quite plausible action. (I noticed you ignored the reality of Farouk Hijazi's capture near the Syrian border)

Speaking of advance warning, looks like your boy Jacques Chirac (remember, the French leader who aided Saddam in getting the nuclear reactor for oil rich Iraq in the '80s) seems to have had French governmental officials apprise the Saddam Hussein regieme of private conversations the French had with Americans and British officials.

Like I am going to really trust these French officials. If Chirac is giving voice to the French people, then it backs up my previous assertions even more strongly. They are of no value for the security of me and mine, but of great help to Saddam and his family's dictatorship.

I believe that there is some connection between the legal systems of Britain and America, if so, then 'theft' is a punishable crime in both. All one needs to do is file charges proving the guilt of the 'thief' and more times than not the jury will find the defendant guilty as charged. Feel free to do so against George Bush. Since even Michael Moore can't pull that one off, it appears that you are repeating the losing party line. Prove the crime of 'theft.'

Here ya' go, oh yeah, America is the newest member of world socialism. There now, do you feel all better. (Hey, the Welsh told me that there was now a secondary private medical coverage in Britain, guess that socialized system had too many flaws. Hey, its not me, blame this info on the English immigrants to Wales for having told me this.)

Since it was widely reported a couple of weeks ago that the British Navy in the Gulf had dropped the BBC for it's slanted Pro-Saddam coverage, I tell you what, I will take the Royal Navy and Fox News and you keep the BBC. (Note that I put more credence in your country's Naval officers than does your socialized media, the BBC)

"the western front had no bearing on the outcome of the war - the US helped Soviets with aid - but it did not change the outcome either - go read a history book about it these are very basic points and facts..."

This assertion is beyond stupidity. Dunkirk showed clearly the direction the Euros were going, down in defeat to Nazi Germany. Some countries feel about as rapidly as the Taliban or Iraq. Others fought better, but victory was not in the cards, that is until Uncle Sam appeared on the scene. When Churchill heard that America had declared war on Germany, he stated that the war was already won. Guess he knew that DeGaulle wasn't worth a damn in the war. Long live Vichy France and quislings.

Your really assinine concept that the war in Western Europe did not weaken Germany really is beyond revisionism. I realize Gibbon is long dead,but where are you getting your information, from MP Galloway? (hey, I do think the claims against that guy are hysterical, but he is your guy not mine)

However, America would have defeated Japan had the U.S. never assisted the defeated of Europe against the Germans, but Europe would have definitely been under the Third Reich's thumb with the help of the U.S.,not us. And, ultimately the Soviet Union would have fallen to a Germany that had not been weaked by the battles in the West and the loss of men and materiel.

Here is an easy one for you, who was left that was going to defeat Nazi Germany in Europe after Dunkirk, without America's assistance? (Really, Hitler wouldn't have been too tough on the English at that time since they were primarily a Germanic population, but Charles and crowd would have lost their crowns)

"
the above post is an example of the failure of the US educational systemMJ
Apr 28, 2003 11:54 PM
what WMD? where are they? you don't know - neither does the government who asserted they had 'hard info.' on it - nothing has been moved - evidence and fact - evidence and fact

lots of people have been captures in Iraq - there is no corrolary (I know a big word - look it up) with WMD

stiff upper lip - what the hell are you talking about? - you really shouldn't post when you've been drinking

plausible? - no insane - really you should let the CIA know re your hunch - I'm sure they'd appreciate it

how exactly is Chirac 'my boy'?

any thoughts on US supplying Iraq WMD's in the 1980's?

you've really lost the plot on your theft point - there shouldn't be any disagreement ab out elections in the leading democracy - that there is is a scandal in itself - keep you head in the sand and pretend everything is ok

what are you talking about re Wales and secondary medical coverage?

the socialised media is no more socialised than the military - you truly don't have a clue - I think the relevant story concerns one particular report on the BBC rather than the entire network - maybe you could comapre that to Geraldo announcing the battle plans?

seriously though if you're questioning the integrity of the BBC you have a damaged perspective of the world - 1950's is over stop looking for commie plots

any remedial WW2 history book will give you an accurate appraisal of the Soviets - the argument (which I can make for you as you are clearly ignorant to basic history) is that we in western Europe would have been dominated by the Soviets and speakign Russian without US military intervention - otherwise you are absolutely wrong - fact is all of western Europe fell except the UK - none of this had any bearing on the Soviets or the conduct of their war which was run without reference to the wetsern front - truly you are not in possession of the facts - you need to do some reading - start with Antony Beevor's books 'Stalingrad' and 'Berlin' - perhaps then we can have a discussion that surpasses your fifth grade assertions and errors - you're wrong on almost every level

how is Galloway 'my guy'? is David Duke yours? - really you're an idiot

you should really stop posting this stuff as you're actually embarassing yourself and displaying ignorance on a grand scale
Happy May Day, pinkySteveS
Apr 29, 2003 9:41 AM
By the end of 1940, Western Europe was defeated, the offensive that ended with the retreat and removal of upwards of 300,000 troops from Dunkirk was a failed offensive that saw the fall of the Netherlands, Belgium, and France to Nazi Germany. Then there was the failed allied offensive in Norway. I think I am far better versed in history than your loser-version revisionism.

Now something different happened after December 8, 1941, which was the U.S. entered WWII. The Europeans had failed at virtually every major conflict to stem the German tide. (Battle of Britain a temporary exception) There was no major increase in men or materiel coming from the European allies remaining prior to the U.S. entry into the war. The increase came from American men and materiel and additional supplies provided by us to you guys. Lend lease was already in existence before this happened, as you no doubt remember.

The seige of Stalingrad was in 1942-1943, subsequent to the entry of the U.S. into your failed European war and did force the Germans to divide their forces and attention to different fronts. Without the combination of American and allied action in the West and the U.S. supplying the Communists with equipment such as the Bell AeroCobra (to atttack those naughty Panzer divisions), the Soviets would have been defeated as had been the Europeans allies before them.

You are correct on one thing though, nothing the Europeans were doing on their own would have affected what was happening on the Eastern front. The Europeans, the parents and grandparents of your common socialist street protestors, were the defeated losers to the German war machine.

Galloway,apparently the Iraqi's paid lackey in Britain, is one of the most vociferous voices of your anti-war/anti-Bush faction in Britain. He ain't Tony Blair, but he does represent your crowd and the may day street protestors.

Really, you do seem to be a teensy bit hyper in your post above. I can almost see your upper lip quivering. Don't be afraid, you don't have to face those nasty Nazis and the Wehrmacht in your generation, or even a Soviet led armoured invasion from the East. (You know, the kind that crushed the democratic uprisings against Communism in Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968)

There is so little in your post that is pithy, it seems to be a common problem with people who share your outlook, especially when faced with reality that all I can do is say:

Thanks to Tony Blair and happy May Day demonstrations to the untrustworthy street socialists of Europe.

(I hear there is some demand for the return of Communism to Russia; the USSR may rise again. Try telling that good news of 1950s Communism as being no threat to the people of Poland, Czechoslovakia, 'Yugoslavia', Romania, Bulgaria,Albania, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia...you get the picture. Speaking of pictures, I remember the picture of the former Communist premiere and his wife being excecuted by the freed people of Romania a little over decade ago. They didn't seem to have the warm and fuzzy feelings toward Communism that you do)
HEHEHE - trollMJ
Apr 29, 2003 11:42 PM
you're espeically funny when you try to use 'facts' to make your point - it's like you went to the Disney school of history - no need to bother with what really happened when fiction is much more convenient...

you're wrong on your WW2 points - but high marks for the the History Channel version - you have to read (non-fiction) books to really get a grasp of these things - I realise that's probably not something you do very often - as I mentioned read some Beevor then we'll talk

what about grandparents and protesters?

I think they are going to resurrect communism just so you can have something to feel is conspiring against you

you really are very incoherent
HEHEHE - dwarfSteveS
Apr 30, 2003 5:36 AM
No need for us to "talk" further, MJ. You have nothing to offer and it's readily apparent to anyone who reads your posts. You got sunk somewhere between Dunkirk and Czechoslovakia.

I can handle any of the World War II facts you want to put forth, but I am not obligated to agree with presumed air of enlightenment followed by failed efforts at proof nor do I need to read your favorite revisionist historian.

You really are a street socialist, just admit it and enjoy the parade. No need to say 'hi' to your boy Galloway for me.
factsMJ
Apr 30, 2003 5:43 AM
aren't revision

nor is Beevor revisionist - who is admirably 'right wing' - http://www.antonybeevor.com - he did a history of the Spanish Civil War so you can read up on your favourist fascists of the 20th century

if it makes you happy I'll be whatever you want me to be...

England is nowhere near the axis between Dunkirk and the Czech Republic - but then you'd have to look at a map and understand it - you may note there aren't any large bodies of water along that axis, auser dem Bodensee - what is Czechoslovakia anyways? - unsurprisingly you're at least a decade out of date

I'll tell G-dog hi - pass on my regards to David Duke in Big Spring

there is no presumed enlightenment - just facts from me and hysterical ignorance from you
I'll help 2SteveS
Apr 30, 2003 11:37 AM
The battle of Stalingrad was over 60 years ago, the history is well-known and researched for GENERATIONS, so though this may be a great book, it is totally unnecessary in order to find out who won and lost.

"Divide and Conquer"--an ancient war dictum maybe lost on Euro-pacifists. The Germans had to fight on at least two fronts,which weakened them in their battles on the Eastern front. The only reason the Western Front was viable was because of the U.S., the rest of your neighbors had been defeated and capitulated. (I noticed you ignored the failures of the offensives leading to Dunkirk or the failed Norway offensive. You aren't ignorant as you proudly proclaim, so I guess your silence is assent on the Euro losers.)

And since you ignored my references to the failed patriotic efforts for democracy against Soviet Communism (which you have disdained as having been a threat to the world) in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, I will point out that the only reason that your European bretheren didn't get a chance to experience the same was..Ta Da!, the U.S. and that nasty "nuclear umbrella" it spread over western europe. The Euros couldn't, wouldn't, and didn't have whatever it takes to have defended their right to riot/protest on the streets on May Day.

Do so show us your great European education since you have ignored these facts in your previous non-answers.
I'll help 2MJ
May 1, 2003 12:17 AM
asking me (or anyone else in the UK to take responsiblity for Hungary and the Czech uprisings is like asking you to take responsibility for Mexican poverty or Canadian SARS - believe it or not - there's alot of different countries here I don't know what you're on about - do you really want me to assume responsiblity for the continent?

it's not about who won or lost is it? is that the question? - you can't even concentrate on the post much less established history - I'm not gonna debate WW2 with you (after this) because your facts are wrong - your relying on a made up version of history - and believe it or not - plenty of histories have been written without the benefit of NKD and other Soviet archives - Beevor's are not - he's the first to have access - but clearly as you lack understanding of even the basic points the finer points will simply be lost on you - you really should read a bit - education is worth it (I guess you'll just have to trust me)

Dunkirk - Norway and the entire western front have absolutely nothing to do with the eastern front where the war was decided - it was a side show that had no bearing - I acknowledged the fact that all western Europe excepting the UK had fallen which is precisely why the western front was a mere sideshow to where, again, the war was being decided without any reference to what was being done, or not as the case may be, by the US in France

these points aren't crazy revision - these points are facts - before you post again - you should read something or speak to someone who is knowledgable

you need to work on your drafting - what was a threat to the world? democracy or communism? er, I side with democracy if that makes you feel better... why would you assume otherwise?

the Cold War happened and we (the west) won - of course the US protected Europe throughout - your point is?

is your point the 'socialists' (which, the way you define things includes everyone in every western country including the US) don't/didn't 'deserve' US protection because of the street protesters? - if it is then I'm glad you feel that way - perhaps we could make equally asinine assertions about small minorities of people somehow corrupting entire populations, societies and institutions - of course we should start with the US in this excercise as your grasp of all things Euro is more than a little lacking

OBL is a dissident - of course he bombed stuff all over the place - the fact is he's a dissident as he has huge public support in SA - just look at the make up of the 9/11 hijackers (or should we Euros assume responsibility for that too)

I think you are the first poster here who has shown themselves to be this consistently ignorant... it's very entertaining - I'm pleased that people like you can type and presumably feed yourself...
I'll help 3SteveS
May 1, 2003 9:16 AM
Since your self-puffery likes to present yourself as supremely witty and educated while on several occasions you have posted to make light of the threat of Communism in the '50s, I have at least twice pointed out the crushing of the patriotic democratic impulse in Hungary and Czechoslovakia ('56 and '68 respectively)..crushed by the armed forces of the Soviet Union. You have run and hid in avoiding discussion of these as responses to your casual disdain of a communist threat in the past. If you like first hand accounts, I feel certain that there are many Hungarians and Czechs who could crush your wimpy leftish sympathies with many first-hand accounts of the actions of the Soviet Communists to these people. The reality is that they knew the threat and the follow through from communism was very real and harsh.

Whether Beevor gained insights from other sources does not change the history of the battle of Stalingrad not one whit, the tactics, players and outcome remain the same as they were 60 years ago. So don't try the arrogant crap unless you can produce something but an author's name. Here is the reality, despite your efforts of condecension, you can't produce anything on this topic that changes the battle or it's outcome one whit.

Here is another tidbit of reality for you, the Russians destroy 25 per cent of Hitler's forces at Stalingrad. However, without the very serious, and first successful efforts on the Western front after the entry of the U.S., Stalin's forces would have had to face 3 times the forces they destroyed at Stalingrad as they moved west against the Germans. Uh, we might debate the war, but I personally doubt the U.S.S.R. would have prevailed against a Germany that was unweakened by North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and Normandy, etc. Germany was divided and conquered, there was no such thing as a sole defeat of the Nazis by the Soviets only. Reality.

You are right on two points, the defeats at Dunkirk and Norway did not affect the Soviet success in the Battle of Stalingrad.

Since you like the side-show of the West idea, the only reasons the Russians stopped at Germany in their great military moves of WW2 was one thing only, fear of the U.S. and the atomic bomb. The main attraction of the "side-show" terrified them enough to stop them dead in their tracks, that is until they 'died' officially after 1990.

So, whether I show myself as consistantly ignorant or not is up to other readers to determine for themselves. Your efforts are usually based upon a pretension of arrogant self-importance followed up by nothing concrete to back up your words. In other words, another stereotypic weak Euro liberal.

Yes, indeed I can type and feed myself but since you like it really personal, then I do hope you have learned to floss and brush your teeth as 3 trips to Britain have proven to me those jokes about British dental care to be true. The worst teeth I have ever seen on any populace, despite what I would assume would be a government provided dental care. The tooth fairy must have gone broke in that place unless subsidized by the government.

Hey, that explains why your non-arguments are so 'toothless' while lisping a claim to self-superiority. No bite, all bark.

Enjoy the May Day riots.
TKOMJ
May 2, 2003 12:18 AM
how many posts did it take you to get to the argument I spoon fed you further up? - US intervention stopped Europe from speaking Russian and commie domination - well done - are you gonna claim you thought of that all by yourself or admit you read my post above?

why are you assuming I am English? - because I live here? - you shouldn't make assumptions - I can report that my teeth, and those of my English friends are up to US orthodontic standards - I guess you were mixing with the common folk... but that's funny if that's the best you can do - you sure your carer isn't typing for you?

the commie threat of the 1950's? - you've lost the plot of this thread or at least the points I'm making - maybe if you had someone read it aloud, very slowly and then explain it you'll do better on this

anyways - it's not arrogance it's education - I'm only reporting facts that any basic history book will detail - you've not referred to anything remotely academic or authoritative and I can only assume my references to your Stephen Ambrose Band of Brothers History Channel sourcing is accurate - enjoy the infotainment - in the meantime if you consider accuracy to be condecension please let me know what field you are in and company you're with so I can make take appropriate risk management steps

no riots to report of really - it rained yesterday - anarcho-socialists prefer sunshine

you ready to stop embarrassing yourself?
Not quiteSteveS
May 2, 2003 10:58 AM
Sorry, Monty, your vaunted education failed in your reading comprehension. What I said was (and I will do this by steps so that you can't miss it):
1. The history of Stalingrad was well known GENERATIONS before Beevor ever wrote his book, and there has been no substantive change to who won or lost since the book was published. (knocked you out on that one)
2. The Soviets destroyed 1/4 of Hitler's armies at Stalingrad. Had there not been a successful Western Front after the U.S. entered the war, it is extremely doubtful the Russians would have succeeded against the Nazis' forces that were 3 times stronger than what had been destroyed, especially since there would have been no Russian winter to assist in the Germans defeat. (a debatable point)
3. The only reason, after the successful efforts of the Allies defeated the German forces in the West, that the Russians didn't try to extend their empire further was because of fear of the U.S. nuclear power. (you had better read number 2. above so you don't get lost here)I knocked you out here also, of the ring even.
4. You continually avoid the problem destruction of the democratic forces in Hungary and Czechoslovakia either because it doesn't fit your world-view or you have no intelligent argument, despite your self-proclaimed vaunted education. (You just ran and hid during this round)
5. Finally, in every reading and response, you have failed to produce anything of substance for an argument, just a pompous air, hot and empty at that. Nothing but puffery that is.
6. So, my original point was that I didn't think the Euros were worth the American effort in lives and money in World War II, that I didn't trust Chirac and Schroeder for my well-being, etc. Your very best response is that you mention the name 'Beevor'..thats it, you mention a name and that that empowers you. Must be taking lessons from the French. Sorry, old chap, best go back to your advanced schooling, you have produced not ONE fact to help yourself out, so whatever your nationality is, you probably have swayed no one but your pals.
7. Oh, yeah, two British 'dissidents' (BBC euphemistic lingo here) were involved in a terrorist act in Israel yesterday. Not sure how many people they murdered in their demonstration of dissident thought.
OUT.
For MJ's education- Osama, the 'dissident' per the BBCSteveS
Apr 29, 2003 3:14 PM
Here is an excerpt from your 'light years ahead' BBC which has the tremendous courage to call the terrorist master-mind-murder of thousands by the rather inoncuous term of "dissident." How liberal. (the article is dated 4/29/03 and deals with the withdrawal of most U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia):

"Saudi Arabia is home to some of Islam's holiest sites and the deployment of US forces there was seen as a historic betrayal by many Islamists, notably Osama Bin Laden.


Bin Laden used American presence to justify anti-US attacks

It is one of the main reasons given by the Saudi-born dissident - blamed by Washington for the 11 September attacks - to justify violence against the United States and its allies.

But news of the US pull-out does not mean the campaign is over for Bin Laden and his followers, according to the BBC's Arab affairs analyst Magdi Abdelhadi."
clearly you're an ignorant trollMJ
Apr 29, 2003 11:30 PM
Bin Laden is a dissident in Saudia Arabia - he is a terrorist in the US

to understand this you need to review current societal issues in Saudi Arabia

after you have we can talk
You ignoredSteveS
Apr 30, 2003 11:12 AM
You ignored the fact that Osama or his minions blew up the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, so this 'dissident' appears to have actively espoused terrorism in his own country. Oh, and general news says that Osama has other plans for violent dissent (terrorism, for those who choose to ignore what they can't answer) even today in Saudi Arabia.

Osama's dissident/terrorist pals blew up the night club in Bali killing 180 or so Australians. Didn't they also demonstrate their 'dissent' with a number of deaths in Africa a few months back? (No need to answer, I know the facts..without even listening to the BBC)
Conspiracy theoriesSteveS
Apr 25, 2003 7:55 AM
Oh, look, today's news says that Farouk Hijazi has been arrested in Iraq near the Syria border. He must have missed a turn in Tikrit to end up there. Surely he wouldn't have gone to his brother Baathist party members with whom he shares, ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious affinities for asylum.
Right.

I don't know if Germany/France are conniving with SH, but I do remember that German engineers were building the bunkers for SH prior to the first Gulf War, rumored to have helped with the tunnels under Baghad (along with Chinese), and Chirac was instrumental in the sale of a nuclear reactor to Saddah Hussein in the '80s. Remember, your socialists in the street like to argue that this war was for the U.S. to steal Iraqi oil. So, here was Iraq with some of the greatest oil supplies in the world, building a nuclear reactor for peaceful purposes. And Jacques Chirac helped out.
Uh,huh.

Sudsidies do exist. Yes.

Obviously you are ignorant of the Electoral College, but so are many Americans, usually liberals. See, the English that created America decided that they didn't want a tyranny of the majority and worked out a plan to assuage the concerns of the smaller, less populous original 13 colonies. The Electoral College determines the outcome of elections in America, carping and complaining notwitstanding.

May Day? Wasn't that a most favored holiday of the failed system known as Communism? Actually, in terms of your 'anarcho-weirdo-Euros', it is not my wish that they tear up anything. It is, however, my lowest common denominator of expectation from this crowd.
Enjoy.

Finally, here is a conspiracy theory for you, a British Member of Parliament, a socialist liberal, on the payroll of Saddam Hussein, and a vociferous screamer for "peace." Surprised you hadn't heard of it. Here, to help you out, I will reprint it from below, since vingo couldn't comment.

Now this is a conspiracy theory, and right there in your own city and country:

LONDON — Documents found in Iraq show that Saddam Hussein took steps to protect the reputation of a British legislator who vehemently opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq, a British newspaper reported Thursday.

The report in The Daily Telegraph came on top of a story earlier this week by the same paper that sparked investigations into connections between George Galloway and the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Law enforcement officials have begun a preliminary investigation into whether Galloway misused money from an Iraqi aid charity he runs. The governing Labor Party is investigating separate allegations that Galloway also received money from Saddam's regime through the oil-for-food program.

Galloway has dismissed the allegations as lies and has instructed his attorneys to sue the Telegraph for libel.

On its Web site Thursday, the Christian Science Monitor reported that officials of Saddam's regime authorized six payments to Galloway, totaling more than $10 million, between July 1992 and January 2003, according to documents the newspaper obtained.

The Monitor said an Iraqi general had discovered the papers in a house outside Baghdad that was used by Saddam's son Qusay, who it said appeared to have authorized at least one of the payments.

One document, dated January 2003, reportedly authorizes a check of $3 million and says the money was in return for Galloway's "courageous and daring stands against the enemies of Iraq, like [Tony] Blair, the British prime minister, and for his opposition in the House of Commons and Lords against all outrageous lies against our patient people."

In a Baghdad-dated story, The Telegraph reported Thursday it found a letter dated May 6, 2000, in files of the looted Iraqi Foreign Ministry showing Saddam sought to protect Galloway by severing his contacts with Mukhabarat, the Iraqi intelligence and secret police service.

"It is better not to engage the Mukhabarat in the relationship with George Gallo
Conspiracy theoriesSteveS
Apr 25, 2003 8:34 AM
Oh, look, today's news says that Farouk Hijazi has been arrested in Iraq near the Syria border. He must have missed a turn in Tikrit to end up there. Surely he wouldn't have gone to his brother Baathist party members with whom he shares, ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious affinities for asylum.
Right.

I don't know if Germany/France are conniving with SH, but I do remember that German engineers were building the bunkers for SH prior to the first Gulf War, rumored to have helped with the tunnels under Baghad (along with Chinese), and Chirac was instrumental in the sale of a nuclear reactor to Saddah Hussein in the '80s. Remember, your socialists in the street like to argue that this war was for the U.S. to steal Iraqi oil. So, here was Iraq with some of the greatest oil supplies in the world, building a nuclear reactor for peaceful purposes. And Jacques Chirac helped out.
Uh,huh.

Sudsidies do exist. Yes.

Obviously you are ignorant of the Electoral College, but so are many Americans, usually liberals. See, the English that created America decided that they didn't want a tyranny of the majority and worked out a plan to assuage the concerns of the smaller, less populous original 13 colonies. The Electoral College determines the outcome of elections in America, carping and complaining notwitstanding.

May Day? Wasn't that a most favored holiday of the failed system known as Communism? Actually, in terms of your 'anarcho-weirdo-Euros', it is not my wish that they tear up anything. It is, however, my lowest common denominator of expectation from this crowd.
Enjoy.

Finally, here is a conspiracy theory for you, a British Member of Parliament, a socialist liberal, on the payroll of Saddam Hussein, and a vociferous screamer for "peace." Surprised you hadn't heard of it. Here, to help you out, I will reprint it from below, since vingo couldn't comment.

Now this is a conspiracy theory, and right there in your own city and country:

LONDON — Documents found in Iraq show that Saddam Hussein took steps to protect the reputation of a British legislator who vehemently opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq, a British newspaper reported Thursday.

The report in The Daily Telegraph came on top of a story earlier this week by the same paper that sparked investigations into connections between George Galloway and the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Law enforcement officials have begun a preliminary investigation into whether Galloway misused money from an Iraqi aid charity he runs. The governing Labor Party is investigating separate allegations that Galloway also received money from Saddam's regime through the oil-for-food program.

Galloway has dismissed the allegations as lies and has instructed his attorneys to sue the Telegraph for libel.

On its Web site Thursday, the Christian Science Monitor reported that officials of Saddam's regime authorized six payments to Galloway, totaling more than $10 million, between July 1992 and January 2003, according to documents the newspaper obtained.

The Monitor said an Iraqi general had discovered the papers in a house outside Baghdad that was used by Saddam's son Qusay, who it said appeared to have authorized at least one of the payments.

One document, dated January 2003, reportedly authorizes a check of $3 million and says the money was in return for Galloway's "courageous and daring stands against the enemies of Iraq, like [Tony] Blair, the British prime minister, and for his opposition in the House of Commons and Lords against all outrageous lies against our patient people."

In a Baghdad-dated story, The Telegraph reported Thursday it found a letter dated May 6, 2000, in files of the looted Iraqi Foreign Ministry showing Saddam sought to protect Galloway by severing his contacts with Mukhabarat, the Iraqi intelligence and secret police service.

"It is better not to engage the Mukhabarat in the relationship with George Gallo
how many times you gonna post this before you respond? - nmMJ
Apr 25, 2003 8:52 AM
I am thinking two or three times is sufficient; what you antsy?nSteveS
Apr 25, 2003 9:27 AM
HEHEHEHE - nmMJ
Apr 25, 2003 10:18 AM
I don't think soCaptain Morgan
Apr 24, 2003 9:52 AM
I think people are seeing that the war is justified for reasons other than just the WMD. We used WMD for our formal rationale to the UN because that had the best chances of being approved. The state imposed genocide, harboring of terrorists, cheating under the food-for-oil program, etc. all played a part.

Anyway, if Saddam truly DID disarm on his own without the UN, why didn't he just provide the proof to the inspectors?
I don't think soJon Billheimer
Apr 24, 2003 10:36 AM
With respect to the WMD issue I agree with your rationale. However, Dubya was sooo arrogant and obnoxious about promoting this war that failure to find said WMDs will and should destroy his credibility on foreign policy issues.

Actually, given the policy positions long advocated by his advisors, watching Bush's body language since 9/11, and noting his foreign policy reversals from the election campaign I personally came to the conclusion that the man has no credibility or trustworthiness. I think much of the rest of the world has come to the same conclusion.
That's a tough one,TJeanloz
Apr 24, 2003 10:46 AM
Bush's foreign policy reversal, from the campaign plank to where he now is, has been dramatic. But an event was thrust upon him which gave him virtually no choice but to reverse. There was a sea-change in American sentiment, and, I think everybody re-evaluated what we believed our role in the world should be. When there's no crime in your neighborhood, it's easy to believe that you shouldn't provide a police force for the whole town. When you have a serious crime in your back yard, you may be more inclined to realize that providing that police force may be in your best interest.

As politicians go, I think he's on the more trustworthy side of the bench. Of course, that's not exactly great company to be keeping in the sample. On the credibility issue, I think he has more than ever. He says what he's going to do, and does it. If something happens to change his opinion, he explains it.
I don't think socycleaddict
Apr 24, 2003 10:59 AM
President Rove covered all the bases throughout this whole charade by constantly changing the reasons for war. Regime change, liberation, WMD's, and the American public went for it hook line and sinker. Now, even if no WMD's are found, the Bushies can wiggle out of any tight spots and by 11/04 we will have totally forgotten about the war. Bushies are not ethical people but they are not stupid either. They have studied in depth the debacle of GHWB and do not intend to make the same mistakes. They all read from the same script everyday and the public seems to be OK with it. And then you have the Demos who have retreated into oblivion.
As long as the neocons can obfuscate the impotant issues with fear-inducing topics such as gun contol, abortion, hatred of government etc, they will have the uneducated voter on their side.

Why are most reporters liberals? Because they are usually fairly intelligent and progressive folks. It's just that simple.
Yeah, rightCaptain Morgan
Apr 24, 2003 12:26 PM
Your contention that liberals are more educated is spurious. I submit to you that the typical high school dropout on welfare would not naturally be attracted to the conservative platform.
Yeah, rightczardonic
Apr 24, 2003 12:36 PM
I submit that such a person would be naturally drawn to some of the more reactionary planks of the conservative platform. The heart of the liberal bleeds for the poor, but there is little in the way of solidarity among the poor and uneducated.
Yeah, rightCaptain Morgan
Apr 24, 2003 12:42 PM
"The heart of the liberal bleeds for the poor"

Unless, of course, "the poor" are located in such places as Bosnia or Iraq, eh?
And conservatives care about Bosnians and Iraqis?czardonic
Apr 24, 2003 12:51 PM
The care about bombing them, to be sure.
Just want to bomb the bad ones.Sintesi
Apr 24, 2003 4:29 PM
The rest get saved from an awful life of oppression and genocide. Which is worse? Action or sitting on your arse waving your finger?

Wait don't answer we already know.
Nonesense. First, find it strangely perverse. . .czardonic
Apr 24, 2003 4:48 PM
. . .that conservatives only care about the oppressed people of the world when the opportunity to bomb them (yes, and liberate the survivors) arises.

Second, liberals were way ahead of the game when it came to addressing the opression in Afghanistan and Iraq. Back when the Bush Administration was appeasing the Taliban, it was the feminists who were calling for action against their despotic government. Same with Iraq, when it became obvious that sanctions were starving and killing Iraqi civilians and doing nothing to discourage Saddam.

Of course, the conservatives dragged their feet on both of those situations until cluster bombs became the only remaining remedy.
So you agree. Why say "nonsense" then?Sintesi
Apr 24, 2003 5:45 PM
I wasn't aware Bush was appeasing the Taliban. What demands and threats was he caving in to prior to 9/11?

Not that I want to cross the feminists of whom I consider myself a member, but they were rather quiet when it came time to kill. Was NOW a proponent of the war? What's her name Ireland? What was her stance and who's next on their agenda? Saudi Arabia?

So are you, or liberals in general, saying the Bush admin didn't move fast enough into Afghanistan? He was pussyfootin around and then got drug into the conflict for the wrong reasons? What was he supposed to do? It is a peculiar policy to wait and start a war until after one is attacked or threatened (I know all about your views on Iraq's "threat" no need to go into them here). Interestingly Bush campaigned on a MYOB style foreign policy. If the islamic radicals would have just left him alone they wouldn't have this massive wedge of western evil stuck in the thick of things.

I know, I know. So what was the liberals' real plan to change these countries treatment of their populace? I've got a couple ideas what they might have been. Not much confidence in their success. What were they?

One does have to admit those bombs are amazingly effective. War is getting less and less bloody, especially for our troops. The speed of capitulation saves vast amounts of our opponents' lives as well. A quick decisive cut is sometimes a lot less painful in the long run. I think the only deterrent to war in the future will likely be it's impact on our economy. That is, of course if the recession doesn't end.
I disagree with the assertion that Liberals were not concerened.czardonic
Apr 24, 2003 6:29 PM
They were. What were they going to do about it? I don't know. Then again, I don't know that Bush is doing anything about it either. From what I understand, Afghanistan is still a hell hole of poverty and despotism (though that one woman did get her drivers license).

The appeasment I was referring to was efforts to grease the wheels for an American built oil-pipeline.

Bush absolutely got into these conflicts for the wrong reasons, and my fear (already justified by the situation in Afghanistan) is that the results will reflect this. A mediagenic war, staged purely as a demonstration of Bush's War on Terror, followed by a return to the malignant neglect that allowed these areas to fester in the first place.

Those bombs are great at doing that they are designed to do, which is kill large numbers of people indiscriminately. They effective in spite of their tendencey to litter unexploeded and unstable ordniance over large areas. They are a far cry from the smart, surgical weaponry that is touted as the means of America's high tech, humane militarism. I will be glad to see the day when the inevitable resort to force is accomplised by non-lethal means. Of course, that won't get the same TV ratings, and it's more matcho to brag about how many "butts" our boys kicked than how many they put to sleep, immobilized with adhesive slime, etc.
the word "conservative" ...sacheson
Apr 24, 2003 1:26 PM
... is a platform for hatred and exclusiveness. I'm not saying ALL conservatives are hateful people, but do you think the KKK or neo-Nazi (the list could go on) groups consider themselves liberals? Do you believe educated individuals are members of these groups? No, most likely they are the down and out high-school dropout you label as a liberal.
change that to "the conservative platform" (nm)sacheson
Apr 24, 2003 1:26 PM
I disagreeCaptain Morgan
Apr 24, 2003 1:44 PM
First, I have no idea what the educational background of the KKK is. I wouldn't even presume to know. However, if hatred is a conservative platform, then I guess there are a heck of a lot of conservatives on the streets of Liberty City and Harlem after dark just waiting to assault the innocent liberal passers-by.
just as there are ...sacheson
Apr 24, 2003 1:49 PM
... good 'ol boys that'll run a cyclist off the road in rural America.

You can find hatred on both sides of the spectrum, but czardonic is right - the uneducated fall towards the 'reactionary planks'.
Whoa. To be fair. . .czardonic
Apr 24, 2003 1:47 PM
. . .I think you'd have to distinguish "conservativism" from the Right Wing that has come to dominate the GOP. I don't know that you could say that conservatives are for hatred and excluisivness. What you could say is that they tend to deadset againt measures to stem hatred and exclusivness.

There is a chicken-egg conundrum here: Is a given GOP voter explicitly against interventionist government policy and therefore tacitly against such things as the institutionalization of minority rights? Or are they explicitly against minority rights and therefore tacitly against government intervention because it could be used to institutionalize them?

Then there are always those who vote GOP for economic reasons, i.e. a tax refund for themselves. But they are still to blame for the right-wing agenda that they further, however much they may detest it.

Strictly speaking though, "conservativism" has nothing to do with hatred.
QuestionCaptain Morgan
Apr 24, 2003 1:53 PM
What are you referring to when you say: "What you could say is that they tend to deadset againt measures to stem hatred and exclusivness."??
Opposition to affirmative action laws, for example.czardonic
Apr 24, 2003 1:58 PM
That is, unless that opposition is accompanied by an alternative remedy to racial inequality.

Another would be oppostion to the recognition of homosexual marriage.
Opposition to affirmative action laws, for example.Captain Morgan
Apr 24, 2003 3:55 PM
Regarding your first point, I am probably a bad person to ask since I was affected once by such "quotas." Out of college, I was interviewed by a large company who said they wanted to hire me, but they needed to hire a training class of minorities. I found this unfair. One problem with quotas is: how do you calculate them? Is it based on percentage of population? Percentage of degreed? How about percentage of minorities in the particular field being hired?

Regarding your second point, it all boils down to morals. Liberals do not want conservative morals to govern individuals. However, morality is what our legal system is based on. I am sure (well, maybe not sure) that you would be opposed to allowing marriages to sisters or brothers. How about the legalization of drugs? Shouldn't people have the ability to treat their bodies however they please? Yet, on the other hand, shouldn't I be able to raise my children without having society show them that certain activities are moral just because they are accepted?

I think you confused this with hatred. Just because someone doesn't share your morals doesn't mean that you can call that hate.
Actually, you are the perfect person to askpurplepaul
Apr 24, 2003 4:14 PM
since the overwhelming majority of those seeking to further affirmative action have never had to suffer its consequences. I would have more respect if they said, "You know what, as a liberal, white male I can no longer stay in this position making a good living because I believe that had minorities not been subjected to the racism of our country, I wouldn't be here now and they would. This is a big sacrifice which I make willingly, but it is a sacrifice and therefore I can understand why others may not want or be able to follow suit."

But they never do that.
Morality and hatred.czardonic
Apr 24, 2003 4:25 PM
True, a difference of opinion need not lead to hatred. Be then again sometimes it does. In some areas (sexual preference for example), I would say that some people's definition of morality is pretty arbitrary and I have to wonder what motivates that definition.

There are common sense biological reasons to prohibit incest.

As for the criminalization of drugs, that is both wrong in principle and futile in practice. I don't use any of the drugs that are currently banned, and I would do everything I could to prevent my children from using them while they were children and to discourage them from using them when they became adults. But ultimately, I don't buy the notion that allowing something equates to condoning it or declaring it moral. I wouldn't even say that morality is the basis of our legal system any more.

Getting back to affirmative action, I agree that it is a complex issue that is necessarily unfair to somebody. But isn't life unfair anyway? Unfairness didn't start with affirmative action and won't go away if affirmative action were repealed. Still, I would not expect anyone to be happy about losing a job under any circumstances, affirmative action being one of them.
Sex, drugs, andCaptain Morgan
Apr 24, 2003 4:46 PM
Hmmm, I could argue that there are certain biological reasons against homosexuality, too, but I digress...

My point of this discussion is that you paint conservatives with the same brush because they paint liberals with the same brush. I think the whole thread that conservatism = hatred is not only correct, but also out of line.
Well, I thought I was making it clear that conservativism. . .czardonic
Apr 24, 2003 4:53 PM
. . .does not equal hatred, but that if you vote for the GOP you are implicated in the right wing's hateful agenda.
OkCaptain Morgan
Apr 24, 2003 6:41 PM
So, I guess if you vote Democrat, then you are implicated in the left's immoral agenda.
don't argue extremes ...sacheson
Apr 25, 2003 8:02 AM
... I initially said people will adopt a conservative stance to justify the hatred they have, not that conservatives are hateful people (and czar reinforced that point) ... just as individuals will adopt a liberal political platform so they can offload their problems on society. Please don't change the argument to make your point.

There is plenty of moral breakdown on both sides of the spectrum, so don't also go spouting off that conservatives have values and liberals don't.
Dude, follow the conversationCaptain Morgan
Apr 27, 2003 4:10 AM
Of course my comment was an extreme argument. If you had followed the thread, you would have realized it was in response to czar's extreme argument.
Yes indeed. But better immoral than hateful and repressive.czardonic
Apr 25, 2003 10:04 AM
Especially when "immoral" is someone elses label for allowing people to live their lives without being harassed and villified (again, using homosexuality as an example).

But to the extent that the Deomcratic party serves as a platform for the likes of someone like Sharpton, yes a Democrat is implicated. Of course while the Democrats tolerate fringe lefties, their national platform is much closer to the center. On the other hand the GOP is has become completely dominated by its right wing.
Czar, you know better than that!Matno
Apr 26, 2003 2:52 PM
"On the other hand the GOP has become completely dominated by its right wing."

The "right wing" more or less disappeared when Jesse Helms retired and John Ashcroft turned to the dark side and became a conservative disappointment (i.e. the Bush Administration, which is nowhere NEAR right wing, except maybe in name). The GOP is now, and has been for decades, dominated by fence sitters who are BARELY right of center. There are a few standouts, but they only mildly influence policy. I'd have to say that the Democrats' national platform isn't any closer to center than the Republicans'. In fact, sometimes it's hard to tell the difference any more...

As for the moral vs hatred thing, I'm going to have to side with morals. There are moral absolutes. Saying that what is morally wrong for one person is right for another is simply rationalization. The difference between conservatives and liberals, when you boil it down, is that conservatives are interested in the most good for the most people in the long run, while liberals are interested in the most good for the downtrodden in the short run. Both are compassionate in their own way, and both have strong dislikes for those who oppose them. The problem is that focusing on short term "solutions" always leads to disaster (at least, if you hold to the idea that history repeats itself). Every great civilization that has fallen has followed a similar pattern. First they set up a system of morals that protects economic and other freedoms, then they gradually drift away from morals, become corrupted, and eventually crumble.
Disagree completely.czardonic
Apr 28, 2003 9:00 AM
On the GOP, we seem to have a tremendously different reckoning of where the "center" is. The fact that you find yourself miles to the right of Ashcroft doesn't necessarily make him a centrist.

As for conservatives vs. liberals, I think both want the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Conservatives tend to want to achieve that by determining a vary narrow definition of good and shoe-horning everyone into it. Liberals tend to view good as relative to the person, and simply try to create an environment where everyone can pursue their own "good" as long as it is not to the detriment of others.

Your take on history is a bit puzzling. Are you saying that there was more freedom in the 18th century? More morality? Maybe if you were a landed white male over the age of 21 who cared only for your own interests. The principles were certainly there, but it wasn't until 50 years ago that it was even attempted to apply them universally (i.e. to men and women of all races), and we are still trying to figure out how to make that work.
The problem is...Matno
Apr 29, 2003 7:53 AM
that many liberals fail to realize what "to the detriment of others" means. Libertarians often make the same mistake. You simply can't argue that, for example, the legalization of drugs wouldn't hurt innocent people. Even if every legal drug user locked him or herself in a room until they were sober again, the power of any addiction harms not only them, but their families, coworkers, and anybody who depends on them. Same goes for liberal spending in Congress. When the gov't undertakes the redistribution of wealth "for the greatest good" there is no way it can do that without acting "to the detriment" of people who actually earned their money. We don't need to increase taxes, we need to cut spending. Drastically. In the short run, that would be a hard pill for many to swallow (not me), but in the long run, it would benefit EVERYBODY, not just a few.

As for the 18th century, "society" obviously wasn't ready for total racial equality at the time, for whatever reasons. I agree that that was not a good thing (a terrible thing, in fact), but the people who laid the foundations of our laws understood the basic principles of freedom and morality. They created the system in which freedom was taken to the highest level it has ever seen. Unfortunately, the tables have been turned somewhat. We still have people crying racial inequality, but those vocal few cause much more racial disparity than they eliminate, IMHO. In fact, I think some of them have done more damage to race relations than can even be measured (Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton come to mind, as do the Black Islam guys who preach on street corners here in New York). The whole idea of slavery "reparations" is a total farce, yet they talk about it as if it were something they somehow deserve. From a gov't perspective, I just don't see how you can make any laws that address racial inequities (even ones to "remedy past wrongs" without exacerbating the problem. (e.g. affirmative action). I know that sounds a lot like an "ignore the problem and it will go away" attitude, but honestly, I don't think there is a better way to go about the issue without furthering the problem. I'm open to suggestions though.
Everything has to have balance ...sacheson
Apr 25, 2003 8:08 AM
... if races weren't excluded from positions just because they weren't white (or female, for that matter), there wouldn't be any affirmative action now.

It sucks that willing, able, and capable white males have to lose out on a percentage of jobs, but they've had more (and still receive more) than enough fair treatment to offset any "wrong doings". I am truly sorry you didn't get hired for a position you were qualified for, but instead of ripping on liberals and other races for your mistreatment, what about looking into the highly conservative segregated system that generated the need for affirmative action?

Here's a good article on how AA helped good 'ol GW ...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/timep.affirm.action.tm/index.html
Check this out about GoreCaptain Morgan
Apr 28, 2003 5:05 AM
http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html

While I was researching your post, I found this site. Gore's SAT scores were superior, but look at his grades in some of his classes. Pretty funny.

I am still against quota systems which, by attempting to be favorable to one group, becomes inherently unfair to another group on a micro level.
you're right ...sacheson
Apr 24, 2003 1:58 PM
... I must have mis-stated my point. All I was saying is people use the conservative platform as a catalyst for their own hatred and/or lack of understanding.
That is also right. (nm)czardonic
Apr 24, 2003 1:59 PM
And that differs from liberal how? nmpurplepaul
Apr 24, 2003 2:30 PM
Does that mean you accept his contention? (nm)czardonic
Apr 24, 2003 2:33 PM
Not universally, but sure. nmpurplepaul
Apr 24, 2003 3:11 PM
Unfortunately,purplepaul
Apr 24, 2003 1:50 PM
Judges, doctors and politicians have all been members of the KKK. It doesn't take a lack of education to hate people.

The liberal platform is also a platform for hatred and exclusiveness. The targets are different.
Education is not necessarily ...sacheson
Apr 24, 2003 2:00 PM
... obtained in college. Some of the best institutionally educational minds I've been introduced to are also the most uneducated people I know.

We won't go into current high profile leaders that fit this description ...
True. Liberals tend to hate racists, for example. (nm)czardonic
Apr 24, 2003 2:00 PM
Unless those racists aren't white. nmpurplepaul
Apr 24, 2003 3:12 PM
Unfortunately, that is sometimes true. (nm)czardonic
Apr 24, 2003 3:19 PM
I doSteveS
Apr 24, 2003 11:02 AM
Oh me, oh my, the body language brigades are disaffected from Bush, the sky is falling! Oh wait, the sky already fell for the people in the World Trade Center. Who gives a frig what the foreigners think who are complicit in their anti-Americanism (several very glaring examples out of Canada)or trepidation about America defending itself without their approval. Borrowing from "Farscape", tell them to get 'frelled.' If we do nothing, as they would wish, we (the U.S.)will be 'frelled' again and 'they' including a number of Canadian politicans would be to a greater or lesser extent sooo happy that it happened.

I have listened to the protests of foreigners, read their articles published internationally, and looked at their best and brightest in the streets. Their 'trustworthiness' as a hope for my country's security is less than zero. I could care less what Chirac, Chretien, or Schroeder think or their consituents. (And yes, I am familiar that Canadians have served and died in Afghanistan. My condolences and respect to these individuals. The others, nah.)

Then again, you have places like Denmark, Spain, Italy, and several Eastern European countries that moved far up in my estimation.
Well, THAT was a truly erudite statement!! nmJon Billheimer
Apr 24, 2003 12:33 PM
Well, THAT was a truly erudite statement!! nmSteveS
Apr 24, 2003 1:51 PM
What, did you read my body language? You mean, your reading of Bush's body language is an example of great erudition? I would say that my observation of the rants, raves, protests, of the European street protestors combined with the not quite so facile political gyrations of Chirac and Schroeder certainly shows a lot more care than 'body language.' (are you a professional 'body language reader' and translator or is that a hobby like phrenology?)

It is obvious to me that many of these people are of no value to my country's self-defense or even pre-emptive defense. Pray tell from your halls of erudition (aren't you a foreigner too?) please tell me how the opinions of these protestors and leaders of France and Germany are necessary for the well-being of me and mine. (Note that the latter produced Marx and Engles (I think, please correct me if I am wrong..Kaiser Wilhelm and WWI, Hitler et al and WWII, Bader-Meinhof, and now neo-Nazis; what a level of achievement for one century. The former, well again, please show me their great contributions to my country's welfare in the last 100 years, I will bet that I can trump anything your erudition can come up with.)
. . .by Jingo. (nm)czardonic
Apr 24, 2003 2:04 PM
yip,yip! Yes, Vingo, good dog, now roll over and play...(nm)SteveS
Apr 24, 2003 3:56 PM
.Here, Vingo, come here boySteveS
Apr 24, 2003 4:21 PM
Well looky here, another liberal Euro for me to trust. I can't read his body language, but if this is true, I wouldn't trust him with your life, by jingo:

LONDON — Documents found in Iraq show that Saddam Hussein took steps to protect the reputation of a British legislator who vehemently opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq, a British newspaper reported Thursday.





The report in The Daily Telegraph came on top of a story earlier this week by the same paper that sparked investigations into connections between George Galloway and the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Law enforcement officials have begun a preliminary investigation into whether Galloway misused money from an Iraqi aid charity he runs. The governing Labor Party is investigating separate allegations that Galloway also received money from Saddam's regime through the oil-for-food program.

Galloway has dismissed the allegations as lies and has instructed his attorneys to sue the Telegraph for libel.

On its Web site Thursday, the Christian Science Monitor reported that officials of Saddam's regime authorized six payments to Galloway, totaling more than $10 million, between July 1992 and January 2003, according to documents the newspaper obtained.

The Monitor said an Iraqi general had discovered the papers in a house outside Baghdad that was used by Saddam's son Qusay, who it said appeared to have authorized at least one of the payments.

One document, dated January 2003, reportedly authorizes a check of $3 million and says the money was in return for Galloway's "courageous and daring stands against the enemies of Iraq, like [Tony] Blair, the British prime minister, and for his opposition in the House of Commons and Lords against all outrageous lies against our patient people."

In a Baghdad-dated story, The Telegraph reported Thursday it found a letter dated May 6, 2000, in files of the looted Iraqi Foreign Ministry showing Saddam sought to protect Galloway by severing his contacts with Mukhabarat, the Iraqi intelligence and secret police service.

"It is better not to engage the Mukhabarat in the relationship with George Galloway, as he has been a well-known politician since 1990, and discovery of his relationship with the Mukhabarat would damage him very much," Izzat Ibrahim, one of Saddam's deputies, said in the letter reported by The Telegraph.

The newspaper said the memo emerged from a committee that had been established to examine Galloway's alleged request for more money.

In its report Tuesday, The Telegraph produced a memo from a senior Mukhabarat officer that it said suggested Galloway was receiving about $600,000 a year from Saddam's regime.

The newspaper later reproduced a memo allegedly written in response to the request by a senior aide to Saddam. It said Galloway asked for "exceptional support which we cannot afford."

However, the committee agreed that existing arrangements with Galloway about the oil contracts should continue, The Telegraph said. Under U.N. resolutions that followed the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq was allowed to sell some oil to buy humanitarian supplies.

On Thursday, Galloway told the British Broadcasting Corp., "This is a lie of fantastic proportions which only the most credulous would believe. ... The idea that the Iraqi regime was channeling to me, personally, hundreds of thousands of pounds is simply absurd."

Galloway has represented a district in Glasgow, Scotland, since 1987. In 1999, he drove from London to Baghdad in a red double-decker bus, receiving a hero's welcome.

During the Iraq war, Galloway gave an interview with Abu Dhabi TV accusing President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of attacking Iraq "like wolves," and calling on British soldiers to refuse to fight.
I'm curious about the body language interpretation.Sintesi
Apr 24, 2003 4:23 PM
Not challenging your analysis but what bady tics are you looking for to determine Bush's untrustworthiness. Genuinely curious.

thanks
I'm curious about the body language interpretation.Jon Billheimer
Apr 24, 2003 9:25 PM
This was my personal observation and my personal impression of the man. He presents a very aggressive picture, thrusting his chin and chest out and generally, in my opinion, creating the impression of cockiness and belligerence. He appears to be an individual who must have his own way at any cost, and others be damned. Now I may be totally wrong, but that is my impression and his behaviour since becoming president is pretty consistent with that attitude.

Again, in my personal experience in business these types of individuals are not to be trusted. They do not generally seek win-win solutions in problem solving, but seek to gain their own advantage at others' expense. For instance, I would not be surprised if Bush is completely using Blair for his own purposes regardless of the political costs to the British PM. Reportedly part of Blair's political strategy was to build a positive relationship with Bush so that he could influence the president to respect multilateral relationships with EU leaders. Now it would appear that Bush has certainly exploited the good offices of the British PM in supporting the move on Iraq, but has apparently made no concessions to Blair's desire to involve the UN and the European community in concensus building with respect to Iraqi reconstruction.

Feel free to disagree with my opinion, but I really don't think I'm too far off the mark. BTW, based on my very sketchy attention to the last presidential campaign and its rhetoric, had I been voting I probably would've voted for Bush...and yes I am an American citizen whose family roots pre-date the American Revolution. I was reared in the ultra-conservative, jingoistic environment that some posters here represent. I'm familiar with the rhetoric and the mindset. But I find it pretty narrow-minded in many respects.
I'm curious about the body language interpretation.Buzzlitespeed
Apr 24, 2003 10:25 PM
". I find it pretty narrow-minded in many respects." that anyone presenting themselves as an intelligent open minded personal seriously believes they can devine the personnel motives of someone they've never met based on body language and viewing sound bits on TV. It smacks of chauvinism. If you don't agree with the President's polices make reasoned arguments. It's corrosive to assign personnel motives one simply can't know and tends to make those that don't share your opinion closed to considering your point of view. There are many intelligent and well thought out reasons to support or not must major issues of the day. What side you end up on will decide if you're right of wrong. But it doesn't in and of it's self make a person bad.

Of course being reasonable lacks entertainment value.
The President divined Putin's soul with a glance into his eyes.128
Apr 25, 2003 5:06 AM
Maybe not plausible in your book, but surely a reasonable basis to base foreign policy on. (end w/preposition. code to the undereducated wannabes)
Body Language and CommunicationJon Billheimer
Apr 25, 2003 7:47 AM
I may be right or completely wrong about my assesment of Dubya, but any communication expert will tell you that at least 70% of all communication is nonverbal. We all draw conscious and subconscious conclusions about people all the time. Even you right wingers!! It is simply a fact about the way we're wired and the way nonverbal information gets processed. Obviously a lot of Americans love GWB's strutting and chest thumping. To them that's leadership. So to each his own.

I probably shouldn't have thrown the personal comment in. I can and have made reasoned arguments for the way the U.S. has justified this war and my concerns with the farther reaching implications of neocon foreign policy. The personal commentary was one phrase of one sentence. Given some of the jingoistic rantings and ravings that go on here apparently I'm not the only person to indulge in "nonrational" excesses.

BTW, if everything turns out peachy-keen in Iraq I'll be more than happy to modify or reverse my opinions of the current U.S. administration. There actually was a positive note, in my opinion, in a newspaper item this morning. Evidently Jay Garner upon consulting with a number of prominent(?) Baghdad Iraqis has for now at least rejected a role for Chalabi and his chief sidekick Al-Zubaidi in an Iraqi government, citing a lack of indigenous support for these two. Maybe American intentions are honourable. I'll believe it when I see it.
Body Language and CommunicationBuzzlitespeed
Apr 25, 2003 9:17 AM
I had to change my opinion on Kosvo. I still have reservations about how it was conducted but now believe President Clinton did the right think. You have no idea how hard that is for me to say either.

Putin's lack of cooperation with Dubya lately would tend to prove my point that relying on percepts of politicians motives/personalities is unreliable.

Personally I think two of the worse things to happen to America politics were the transformation of political offices into "television celebrities" and the 1 hr news cycle.
Body Language and CommunicationJon Billheimer
Apr 25, 2003 9:46 AM
Well, you're probably right. According to some of the stuff I've read Russian intelligence sharing with Iraq appears to be way over the line, especially since Russia is a NATO member. It appears on the face of it that Putin is guilty of pretty serious duplicity.

On another topic, Bush's style simply doesn't appeal to me. The bluster, the oversimplification of issues, the apparent arrogance and aggressiveness. If the U.S. does pull the Iraq thing off and the middle east ends up a safer, more humane place I'll have to eat a lot of crow:)-
and where are the WMD'sLive Steam
Apr 25, 2003 4:48 AM
Responsible for what? Deposing a ruthless dictator? Yeah, I'll give them credit for it! Is this all the Left has to hang their hat on - where are the WMD? Ha! You guys need something new to make an issue of before the next election. The WMD issue is bunk. Besides I would be willing to bet my house that there are WMD in Iraq. I would also be willing to bet that this little war broke up some dire terrorist plans that were being hatched between Saddam and Al Queda and others. Ridding the World of this regime can only be viewed as good. So why appologize?
He's at the Hotel du Cap-Eden Roc in Cap d'Antibes nmmohair_chair
Apr 24, 2003 9:49 AM
Right next to Waldo and SpongeBob Squarepants The Axis of Evilnm128
Apr 24, 2003 10:40 AM