WARNING: Political Thread
 

WARNING: The following is a political thread and all those wishing to not be involved in a political discussion should hit the back button in their browser now.

----

This is going to go on some political tangents.....hold on to your seat!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/....ap/index.html

What is the deal here? Why is it that the Bush Administration and Republicans in Congress are now blaming the whole North Korea deal on Clinton? Clinton, wasn't he President about, oh, nearly a decade ago? This Congress is so worthless they almost make the administration look sane.

And while on the topic of Congress, have you ever heard of a sitting Congress with more "personal issues"? The latest debacle is Foley and his 'Queer eye for the Straight Guy' approach to the help. I'm not even going to get into all the lobbyist fraud or Tom DeLay. Seems this Congress has just a ton of issues and has done very very little for the country. Aside from giving themselves a raise, what have they done?

They gave the 'OK' to a 700 mile fence line for Mexico, with no funding?? Sounds a lot like the 'no child left behind' BS from a few years back.

They did absolutely nothing about gas prices, aside from changing all states from MBTE to 10% Ethanol, which raised the cost of fuel. Allowing fuel companies to raise the average cost of fuel for the USA by nearly a dollar (but since it came down to 2.39 from 3.45 people seem to forget it was around 1.90 before).

The whole government in general did nothing about Katrina or FEMA.

They keep telling the country to 'stay the course' in Iraq, well...what is the course exactly? Has anyone seen this grand plan that tells us exactly how and when our troops would stop hanging around Iraq? The Military is meant to go in, kick @ss and return home. Not act as a roaming police force. And please, could the media stop going on like the death toll in Iraq is high. Take a look at other WARS that have taken less time, much higher death totals. I guess the big mistake was declaring the war over when it wasn't. As was said before the USA has a great force for destroying a country, not occupying it. Occupation seldom works out in the history of things.

Iran & N. Korea well, its kind of hard to say "we want negotiations and dialogue" when you refuse to talk directly to the country itself. All these 5 party, 6 party, etc. talks are worthless. And lets stop looking to the UNSC, they obviously blow. And on the N.K. tip, sounds like something Japan, S.Korea and China should be working out, not the USA. Of course, like Winne the Pooh, you stick your hands in the honey pot once to often and get stuck.

And as for the USA being involved all around the world and countries saying "USA stop getting involved" well, lets look at what the world did when the USA was practicing (for the most part) isolationism....oh, WWI and WWII...yah great track record :)

Well this should give us a lot of area for debate, remember, no personal attacks!!

Personally I think the North Korea thing is all down to the fact that Japan has just dropped the price on the PS3

Now I have hit the back button :rofl: :nanana:

The reaction to the various "issues" in Congress in interesting. They want to strip Foley's retirement pay now, to make themselves look holy just before the election.

I don't remember, and I doubt they did, do the same thing for Delay, who is actually on trial (actionable evidence, unlike Foley).

Politics as usual.

Bush apparently to have news conference today, BTW.

This is the Bush adminstration, do we need to say ANY more?

Interesting Factoid
 

From MSNBC.com:

Seventy percent say they are talking politics with family and friends, and 43 percent are debating the issues at work. Among churchgoers, 28 percent share their political views, a number that rises to 34 percent among the congregations in the South.

So, it's not just on this forum. There is more interest in the US in politics than there has been in a long while.

The more people are engaged, the better the process is. Maybe it's good.

If you're going to point the finger, make sure you lend a hand.


I have to say that I have no problem with people criticizing the government, I think all politicians are corrupt, BUT, it does nothing to help solve problems if the criticism isn't followed by an alternate plan.

The alternate plan:elect a democrat :)

I think the only way people really change in our government is when heat is brought on them, because of that I think criticism is constructive

It is all Barbara Streisand's fault for cussing out the audience....:rofl:

to do what? :rolleyes:

so he can get his D*ck sucked in the oral office? or so that your life would be easier? Because remember you get a D in office and all of a sudden things change in our stance and all of a sudden you are wearing a towel on your head and getting your dingdong cut off. be careful what you wish for blondi

OMG That was SO funny

Get us back on track budget wise and stop the pork-barrel spending and get this war under control, Bush never seems to admit fault and that really bothers me, and the Oral sex? I'd take oral sex over lying to the public about WMD anyday

would you also like to explain to the public why the black market has nuclear weapons which will be used on us in that case as well? (there is no evidence of that but believe me there would be if we didnt go to iraq)

I could care less if our next president is Democrat or Republican as I don't care if he/she is black or white.
What I want is a President with common sense and international appeal regardless of political parties. I also want a President with a backbone. And I really don't care what his personal sexual choices are or if he chooses to "play" with his wife of his "intern". I care more about not having an "investigation" that wastes time, money, and respect for this country. What people do behind closed doors is their business unless they are hurting children.

I want a President that will be tough on terrorism and not be afraid to go to war with people who have declared war on us. I want a President who will support Israel unconditionally of world opinion which is mostly anti-semitic anyway.
I want a President that is going to control our boarders and a President that is going to seperate church and state. I want a President who is not going to pull us out of Iraq without leaving a military presence in various parts of the middle east.
I want a President who supports and institutes laws that make sense, based on rational decision, not because of political party lines.

B

:iagree: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Why go to Iraq for WMD's, you can shop NK or Syria or Chechnya or Iran or Pakistan.....IMO the goal of Iraq was to get all the fighting in one place, which has pretty much worked.

true but this is just one less place to worry about

Actually, I take some of that back. I do care if our next President is black or white. I would love to see a black President.

B

might want to cross reference this, because the article is exactly what i dont want happening http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/us.../11voting.html

The "course" is to continue to spend lots and lots of our tax money on large no-bid contracts so that the war profiteers can continue to earn record profits. :thumbup:

All the other stuff is just minor unimportant details.

Barack Obama
http://obama.senate.gov/

BTW, I often don't voice my opinion on the war on Iraq because I have a very hard time articulating why I feel the way I do about the war.
I have an opinion but to a lot of people it might not make a lot of sense. I would like to try to explain it though as I'm interested to hear a debate that deals with the issues I am about to raise.

I think we need to be in Iraq. And not because of WMD's or even regime change. I think we need to be in Iraq because of a number of reasons that we can not just come out and say. We needed an excuse that people would stand behind and WMD's were the excuse. Having said that, here is my opinion of why we do need to be there.

1) After 9/11, it was clear that the US needed a war. Unfortunately Afghanistan was not the "right" war. You can't blow up a country that already looks like a "mad max" movie.
--The reasone we needed a war is a little complicated but I will try to get my ideas out. The enemy we are fighting lives by a very different logic than we do. What brings about peace in many middle eastern conflicts is not "turning the cheek" which our enemy see's as a sign of weakness. What brings about peace is "retaliation". This is something the Israeli's have understood for a long time but the rest of the world does not. For example, look at how the Muslim people retaliate to "issues" against their image/people around the world.
--So we needed retaliation for 9/11 and since there was no target that was effective for the US, we needed to make one up. To show our stregnth, our willingness to fight back. Iraq was in the wrong place at the wrong time and had they not pissed off the UN weapons inspectors and had they been more receptive to inspections, maybe they would not have been attacked.

-- Now let me say this clearly. Sometimes small wars are neccessary to avert big wars. Iraq is a small war (compared to a World War) and even though small wars sometimes lead to big wars, more often than not, they prevent big wars. It is my strong belief that regardless of WMD's, Regime Change, we are in Iraq to prevent a much, much bigger impending Middle East war. Iran is much more dangerous than N. Korea and we needed military on it's borders. The people who have declared war on us, the Jihad's, they are in the Middle East and we needed a place to fight them. So Iraq became the playing field for our fight against terrorism.

So even if it's not Iraq, we need to be there somewhere. We need the retaliation or they will see us as weak and attack us even more. We unfortunately need to fight fire, with bigger fire. Yes, it's a nice idea to turn the other cheek but that will empower our enemy's to become stronger.

B

I did not even read the whole article. It's silly. It's one town. It's one guy, Ike Brown.. That is no reason not to support and elect a black candidate. It's time this country showed a little diversity in the office.

One of the few Democrats I would actually vote for. :thumbup:

Yes, that rationale is hard to articulate. As I posted earlier and some critics have said for a while, it isn't that we shouldn't be in Iraq...we should just state the true reason we're there. Now before everyone rushes in saying "oh oh it's oil isn't it.." well, no. Is profit part of it, of course...but the bigger picture was to bring all these little Al-Aharad-el-Fo-Sheezes out into one area. It is much, much more difficult to take them out one at a time. And by creating a "chaotic" atmosphere we allowed countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt to get into the fray without losing the bases that keep them in power in the respective areas. I think the US, under GW has actually done something RIGHT. We have strengthened some ties in the middle-east, believe it or not and actually shown "terrorists" that we can be just as brutal if necessary. Now is this a good thing? In a perfect world no, but in a world where people will kill children, blow up stadiums, behead people and kill Amish kids....it is a just means IMO. As far as keeping the faith with nuclear nations goes, finding a way to unite Pakistan and India (no small effort), was done so with the "war on terror". I think the overwhelming mistakes made by the administration was to keep repeating "stay the course" and "war on terror". The administration also needs to bring closer countries more into the mix, such as Turkey (which already has its trouble with the Kurds), Saudi Arabia and India. Again this is all IMO and could be WAY WAY off :)

It was 46 years ago that this country had a freak out about a Catholic President and he had to buy votes to get in!

I'd like to see every American not giving a flying fuck about the color of someone's skin and just seeing the person. I'd love to see a green President, long as the dude can take care of bidness and not hang us out to dry with special interests/wacky foreign policy/outsourcing, etc.

JV

One problem with that rationalization of the war is that you are assuming that the total sum of "terrorists" stays the same. The military inteligence reports seem to indicate that due to the Iraq war, the total sum of terrorists in the Middle East (and especially in Iraq) has substantially grown. The same reports also seem to indicate that most of the "terrorists" roaming Iraq are not foreignors but are new Iraqi terrorists who were "created" by the war. These include all the various "death squads" that are roaming Baghdad.

Another problem with that rationalization of the war is the number of civilians that have been killed. Regardless of who killed these civilians (some were killed by bombing back in 2003, others by terrorist attacks later on), they have been killed as a result of the war, and most would still be alive if there had been no war. The total number of civilians killed in this war far surpasses the total number of people killed by all terrorist attacks worldwide in the last 50 years.

One more thing. As far as the total number of dead in Iraq as a result of the war, there was a study released this weekend that concluded the following:

Prior to 2003, there were approximately 5.5 deaths per 1000 people per year in Iraq. That number stayed consistant for many years.

Since the war started in 2003, there have been 13.3 deaths per 1000 people per year in Iraq.

Based on that increase, an extra 655,000 people have died since the war started. I think it is fair to conclude that this is the real number of civilian deaths as a result of the war.

flame me for what i'm about to say but thats 655k less possible terrorists than there were yes thats the most inhumane outlook on it and outright obnoxious and ridiculous and stupid and i should be banned type of a responce but hey i'm entitled to my opinion right

How about if that was your family or someone you loved, you would change your tone REAL quick, your posts never seen to make sense but your opinion on killing "possible" evil is just as evil as they "might" be

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. It sounds like you are in favor of a policy of genocide for Arabs.

my posts make no sence according to you, they are not factual and some as i said are simply my true self revealing myself and no you are right I wouldnt be happy if they did that to anyone I know but they did that to the country I live in and I know people who were hurt in 9/11 and I know people who were over in iraq and afghanistan. and no its not "possible" but only a matter of time until they go from possibility to reality. and at least i dont make posts that benefit me nor bash the administration that is trying to save YOUR ass from being killed

not quite but I am for a policy of kill or be killed and in this case we've already seen the outcome haven't we? you mention it doesnt matter who killed who but indeed it does. If their own people kill their own population that doesnt say much for them so its only a matter of time before they inflict that upon us no?

Bush administration trying to save someone from being killed??

:rofl: :rofl: :bustingup :bustingup :lmao: :lmao:


For making that rediculous comment, you deserve: :troutslap

like i said i'm not going to post statistical data and i'm not going to go into elaborate posts on how the US is so bad because the reason I came here was to have a good life and these pricks are making it complicated

Now I'm going to give you my opinion...

I think your post here is like if 2 Germans were discussing what the solution to the "Jewish problem" was in the 1930s. And one of them was in favor of genocide, while the other perhaps thinks that genocide is rather harsh, and instead is in favor of a policy of containment. Perhaps a third person enters the conversation who thinks the Jews should not be killed, but simply expelled from Germany.

Sorry to say, but I think you've read enough of my posts to know that I think this entire war on terror is a creation of our own government to justify various wars, as well as to justify giving large amounts of our tax money to the war profiteers.

That is my opinion. :nanana:

i'm not going to deny the comparison what i will do is say the Jewish people did NOTHING to yield such a responce where as these pricks walk around recruiting kids and blowing shit up so call me crazy but containment, mass murder or whatever else you call it is preemptive (sp?)

Lets not forget, during desert storm it was the Iraq military (made up of people from Iraq) that launched scud missles at Israel. Yes, they may have been, ""under orders"" from Saddam but they still launched missles at Israel. And I must remind you, Israel had nothing to do with Desert Shield/Storm.

So, these "terrorists" that have increased in number, have still come from a population that support the destruction of the state of Israel. Yes, they are now "Terrorists" against the US, but they have always been terrorists or at least in support of the terrorists that have continued to attack Israel.

Hence, the US did not make more terrorists. The US re-directed the hatred from Israel onto the USA and Israel.

Does that make sense?

Eric, the Jews don't care what the Germans or the Arabs say. To ALL of them there is only one Jewish response.. "NEVER AGAIN" For every six million of us they try to kill, we will kill 24 million of yours.
Once the world understands that, maybe there will be some push forward for peace. But if any Arab thinks the Jews are going to roll over and be cooked in an oven again or pushed into the sea, it's going to be bloody mayhem. And the Jews and Israel are thankful to have the US as it's ally. Cause guess who there coming for after the Jews.. The Christians.

B

Civilians die in all conflicts, you can't use that as a reason NOT to go to war. My question to those in the area..what makes you stay??

There is a tremendous difference between a terrorist attack on a theatre and a bombing run in a region in war.

As for Germany and the Jews (Eric this always seems to be your common throw back, and I'm not bashing..just stating), that scenario is NOTHING like the current one. Jews didn't overtly go around killing other religions. So that comparison doesn't hold water. I think the general populus needs to remember that this "conflict" has been going on for hundreds of years, not just since the GW administration came along or since 1776. The Marine Corps anthem refers to the 'shores of Tripoli' and was founded to deal with issue around Northern Africa and middle east and trade routes (Barbary Pirates).

I think this is an entirely different type of war, in the 'recent' past wars were battled between countries, not groups scattered around the world. Again, Iraq brings them to one area.

Btw,

I just want to make one thing very clear. I have nothing against Arab's/Muslims. I have many friends who are Arab/Muslim. If I had only one complaint to make to the Arab/Muslim nations it would be, CLEAN UP YOUR MESS. Get rid of your radicals so we don't have to.

I only hate the people that hate me. Those that want to see the US and Israel destroyed. That's it. No one else. I wish those people could be sniped out but they can't. And since no one else is going to rid the world of them, we must try. If there are other solutions besides the destruction of zion and western civilization, I'm open to hearing it.

BTW, lets not forget, as soon as Israel gave land back to Palestinians, that land was use to fire rockets back into Israel.

B

all i can say is Mazel Tov at least someone here understands, not to worry Wagner you're on my understanding list too :) :thumbup: , Eric you're sorta on a thin line :confused: :nanana:

Not true. Those who were convicted (and later executed) of firebombing the Reichstag were Communist Jews. Also, most of the leaders of the Communist Party were Jews. And as I'm sure you know, the Communists were the Nazis worst enemy. So indeed, the inference can be made that the Jews were terrorists and an enemy of Nazi Germany.

We know many years later that the Reichstag Fire was actually set by the Nazis themselves and only blamed on the Jews. But at the time, any suggestion such as that would have branded you a "conspiracy theorist". After all, why would a government firebomb their own capital building?? ;)

So it is very logical that such a debate would have been carried out by common level-headed German citizens at the time.

Actually a Dutchman was charged and executed for that :)
Marinus van der Lubbe along with Ernst Torgler and three other communist party members.

Stats for the political times back then (again, no real mirror to todays discussion) http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERkpd.htm

you've got a very twisted mind you know that? dont you ever feel that you shouldnt be saying this? at least part of it? do you not understand how this is apples and oranges what you are trying to compare? You are trying to compare the reichtag fire bombing to throwing on a vest and blowing up a club full of innocent lives? or flying an airplane or 4 filled with people into buildings and the capital? Eric really I like these discussions but sometimes I wonder if everything is alright up there with you. You've seriously got to be kidding to make such a comparison. blowing up a government building with government officials though terrorism is at least aimed at a particular group. who were the kids at the club in Israel bothering? or who were those people at the Passover dinner bothering? come on now

Yes, van der Lubbe was a Communist Jew.

The Jew Who Burned the Reichstag

Torgler was the head of the KPD, the German Communist Party. At the time, most of the KPD's leaders were Jewish.

Within hours of the Reichstag fire, the KPD's headquarters were raided. The following morning, all the German newspapers reported that the German authorities had found a Communist memo stating:

Government buildings, museums, mansions and essential plants were to be burned down… . Women and children were to be sent in front of terrorist groups…. The burning of the Reichstag was to be the signal for a bloody insurrection and civil war…. It has been ascertained that today was to have seen throughout Germany terrorist acts against individual persons, against private property, and against the life and limb of the peaceful population, and also the beginning of general civil war.


That statement above looks exactly like the kind of memos or statements they claim come from Al-Queda.

I think the only thing that is "apples and oranges" is your perception of both.

History repeats itself my friend....

that's like saying "i'm against rape". no kidding everyone wants those things, HOW would the democrats do it differently? THAT'S the point.


(and btw- i can tell you how, they'll raise everyone's taxes, hand out checks to everyone without a job, give every woman in the country a "1 free abortion" card and make all guns illegal. thanks but i'll stick to republicans)

what do you know about barack obama??

were you a previous customer of the crack dealer?

regarding north korea, you ALL should read up on madeleine albright and clinton's foreign policy regarding north korea....

or let me sum it up for you:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashma.htm

You should really consider his whole life and not part. Hell we let a coke/Vietnam War dodging/drunk President stay in office...right now. And unlike our current boy, he actually ADMITTED it.

A&E had a huge documentary on his life.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3936013.stm
http://www.mapinc.org/newsnorml/v03/n1786/a06.html

history does repeat itself which is exactly why i dont want to see an arab hitler

Stratfor.com

Has some of the best (free if you dont have the cash:) ) intelligence available for the unwashed. Sign up for their free newsletter at the link above.

Now regarding our good friend in the DPRK, he has the possiblity of setting an "interesting" precedent for world politics. Kim's main goal (with his nuclear program) seems to be to force the US into one on one talks with him, with the intent of lifting sanctions on his country.

If he succeeds, what this means is that to make a superpower bow to you, all you need to have is a nuclear weapon. Other nations will take heed of this outcome and follow in his footsteps if he is allowed toc ontinue down this path.

Whose gonna stop him from selling these toys? We obviously couldn't (or wouldn't) stop them from building them. So what do we do now???

Realize that there is a whole world out there and other countries such as China, South Korea and Japan need to take control of their area. If this was Mexico with a Nuclear weapon, Japan sure wouldn't be rushing in to talk Presidente Fox out of using it.

Although it would certain be cheaper (in the short term) if SEA (South East Asia) were to handle these things in country, that is not in the best interest of the United States. The best way to develope economic relations with other nations is to cultivate military interdependence with other nations.

You do know that the real reason that China is upset with NK is because they are afraid we would try to initiate a regime change in NK that might end up with American Military power along that border. That would force them to deal more closely with us, which is something they dont believe they have to do.

I don't think China could deal more closely with us. We owe them a ridiculous amount of money. And with the global reach of the US and the arsenal of China, there isn't much militarily for either nation to fear. However financially each could have serious impact on the other.

While it is true that they were a big supporter in the GWOT with regards to Afghanistan, some could accuse them of dragging their feet on this DPRK issue, which is understandable since if they impose trade sanctions on NK, especially in these upcoming winter months, they will have a lot of refugees running across thier border.

However its believed they are using NK as a sort of satellite state to help muddle with the US in the area. Not to mention our 350 Billion dollar trade deficit (2006), or their rediculously unfair import regulations which are inconsistantly applied, then there are the Human Rights Violation, and then the mother of all problems between us and them: Taiwan...

What made Hitler a threat was not his ideas, but the fact that he was leader of the most powerful military on the planet and had the financial backing of most of the major corporations in the world.

If you are worried about an Arab Hitler, then just make sure that one doesn't end up in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and you will be alright. :thumbup:

hitler had some very powerful ideas and people who were willing to follow him since they believed him much luck osama unfortunately there you had a people here you have 1billion lunatics, they are not in armies they do not wear uniforms they can not be identified by you or I and exactly how would an arab end up at 1600 pennsylvania ave? dont tell me for the love of g-d that Bush is an arab please dont tell me. You know what scares me sometimes i have ludicruis (sp?) ideas and statements but thats all they are, you actually believe all of the stuff you say thats the frightening part

Reply to Blondboi:
:withstupi :2thumbs: Could not have said it better myself.

:withstupid

:rofl: :bustingup :thumbup: What a great ad! I don't see that as being "way over the top." Seemed pretty realistic to me.

English please!! I'm having a hard time following this long run-on sentence. Sorry.... :rofl:

As far as Hitler and WWII, as a fellow Jew I really suggest you do more reading on this. Part of saying "never again" is being well educated on what originally happened. And I can tell from many of our conversations on here that you have a number of misconceptions about how the Nazis rose to power and the reasons for the Holocaust. A really good book that I recommend:

Amazon.com: Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

This book is also one of the best selling historical books in history.

Totaly agree
 

Also, If Clinton or any Democrate was in office, we would be attacked and attacked often. Democrates are weak on military strength, they believe in turning the other cheak only i would be the chicago building, etc etc. You cannot appease these people, they only believe in power and threats. We need at this time to have republicans in the white house a democratic congress and a republican house. But I stress, we cannot afford to have a democratic white house, this country cannot afford to have our military stripped like Clinton did (reduced by 50%) budgets slashed, forces not prepared for war, took almost a year to get the military ready to strick Iraq after Clinton 8 years, and absolutely NO HILLARY CLINTON, I would take Rudy before we put her there.

Wow, so you believe that it is acceptable to invade another country in order to relieve national frustration?

I believe that it is/was important to be in Iraq, but not for that reason...

Lets not leave out biblical implications for the war. The bible clearly states that all nations will seek to destroy Israel, but will fail, not by the power of Israel but by the power of God. Israel will stand and can stand alone. America is not mentioned in the bible, therefore my opinion is eventually the US will end up like Egypt, Rome, etc, will destroy itself internally, most likely by democratic hands, dismantling our armies, and trying the UN/ diplomatic approach of appeasement/peace which will leave us naked, with no military and eventual destruction. We must keep God in our nation and not remove him. Keep God in our schools, since this country was founded on faith and the bible we are blessed. Abortion, homosexuality, liberalism, will surely lead this nation to be blessed no more and then all the evil in the world will come upon us. All I ask is think about it.

Woe, woe, woe.. Please don't quote me as a resource for you to speak out against abortion, homosexuality, liberalism.. First off, I prefer the term, "PRO CHOICE".. Secondly, I have no problems with homosexuality, as far as liberalism, I don't endorse that word any more than I endorse the word conservative. There both wrong. Issues are not that cut and dry that they should be easily dumped into a category of right or wrong, black or white.. The world is GREY !!

God does not belong in schools because not everyone believes in the same "god". This country was founded on the principal of separation of church and state and schools are state (unless it's a private religious school which may do what ever it wishes.) And people also have the right to not accept god or Jesus or look to the bible for answers when they should be looking to text books.

B

Can someone answer me this:

If you believe in democracy for our country, then why not have democracy for the entire world? Isn't that what the UN is?

Why not have a democratic model for the entire world? If changes need to be made, then make them. But we are all human and we all live on the same planet, so why is democracy not good for everyone?

Eric,

Not everyone wants democracy. And the UN is not a vehicle for democracy. It is a vehicle for people of vast social, economic, political, climates, to come together as leaders of the world, to discuss and act for the people of the world, some who believe in democracy and others who do not.

B

Would you be kind enough the provide the scriptural reference for this statement? Thanks

I'll just throw this in here for you all to consider.

I think it is about time USA had a Lady President.:thumbup: :thumbup:

There you go how about that.:thumbup: ;) ;)

Wow, those lines sound similar to something an Iraqi Insurgent would say...just substitute Allah for God and follow it will "all praise be".

And, since this is a political thread if you want to do a God thread...please post it yourself :confused:

:iagree:

For some reason people in the USA are under the ASSumption that everyone wants a government like the USA, this is not accurate.

So here we go:

Iraq -
Just tell the citizens when their military can come back. Stop the indefinite push. It almost seems that US troops will not leave Iraq till the administration changes, which is sad. Part of being educated is knowing that you don't know everything and realizing that sometimes..you too can be wrong.

NK and Iran Nuclear Issue -
Make a damn stance WORLD. Stop relying on the USA to come in and make the stance for you. It seems Japan is finally finding its sack and going to lay some smack down on NK, now India and Pakistan...do the same with Iran. OR how about the alternative the USA just says "well, thats fine have your weapon however if we receive one Nuclear attack on our soil we unleash all out Nuclear warfare on the offending nations or terrorist sponsoring nation".

US Congress -
All I can say is the f-in people better get out and vote, since they all seem to whine. Both sides, Republican and Democrat, have done NOTHING. It is not just one side or the other and until people stop voting for a 'party' and start voting for the person, that will never change IMO.


UPDATE: yet another example of US Congressman attempting to push any and all responsibility back on the other party.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/....ap/index.html

What an Ass Hat, how do you compare the attempted hump-hump of 16 year olds to an event from almost 40 years ago.

This isnt English class I'm done with school so pardon the lack of organization in some or as you might consider all of my responces/posts. As far as WWII as a fellow Jew your suggestion on my misconceptions is based on what? I'm not a history major and do not claim to know everything but from what I recall the German people were very upset with the loss of WWI, the deals they had to make with everyone to disarm etc. etc. hitler seemed to have an idea to pin all their troubles on the mighty horrible Jewish population (I forget his genious idea on that one) So yes hitler came to power by the peoples will though once again memory leaves me as for the order of events. He promised them to rearm and to gain back what they had lost.

But the UN itself is a democratic institution. They decide things by vote. How is that bad?

The only problem with the UN in my opinion is that 5 countries have veto power, so unless all 5 of them agree, nothing ever gets done. If you were to eliminate that veto power and decide things based on majority vote (i.e. democracy), then the UN would accomplish a lot more.

That is the only problem you see with the UN????? Open your eyes man. They are a useless body very similar to the failed League of Nations.

The UN much like the congress and senate is useless accomplishes nothing mainly because of the "checks and balances" which dont really check or balance out and just have everyone chasing their own tail. in the end you get a whole lot of nothing done but at least its done legally right:rolleyes: :confused:

THIS is why the UN is useless, they all want to "punish" NK but they dont want to do shit about it, this is how those MFs got to be the way they are, they scare the crap out of the world and get everyone to say ok ok shh, like when a baby starts to wail the parents give it whatever it wants. Instead of saying and sticking to no cargo in/out no travel in/out no support in/out they are now saying well its "optional" this isnt strength this shows weakness and stupidity. NK is just using this time to do what ever they please at everyones expense. They have a nuke congrats they test it and we test ours I wonder whose would make a bigger bang. its because of this willie nillie bullshit that the world is where it is today, fcuk global warming worry about nukes

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/wo...rtner=homepage

I believe Israel would be more than happy to take care of destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities. It's unfortunate that a vast majority of Europe won't stand behind Israel, Germany and France for example. But we all know why. Don't we... These are the same countries that did not let holocaust survivors back home and left them in interment camps after they survived the final solution..

Wtf
 

does anyone else see this as propostirous (sp?)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/us/12guns.html

Many of your posts in threads where the subject has come up.


Like I said, you have many misconceptions. Here is some history:

The population did not vote for Hitler at all. In fact, he was defeated both times he ran for president, in 1928 and again in 1932.

The Nazis were supported by almost all the major corporations in Europe (as well as many British and American corporations) due to their anti-communist and pro-fascist leanings, and thus they raised much more money than the other German political parties. As a result, they were able to outspend their opponents by a 3-to-1 margain in political campaigns. Even with this big spending advantage, Hitler still lost both of his presidential bids. But the party itself managed to gain over 40% of the total seats in the Reichstag (German Parlament) by 1932.

In the German political system, the second in charge to the president was the "chancelor". The chancelor also served as head of the Reichstag, much the same way our VP is head of the Senate. But instead of the chancelor running for office along with the president, he was a cabinet member appointed by the president and then approved by the Reichstag.

After Hitler's defeat in 1932, he went to President Hindenburg and demanded to be appointed chancelor. Hindenburg refused, and as a result the Nazis decided to freeze the Reichstag making it impossible for Hindenburg to get any legislation passed. Since they were the majority party in the Reichstag, they were able to do this much the same way the Republicans could freeze the Senate or House if they wanted to.

Ultimately, Hindenburg gave in and appointed Hitler as chancelor in January 1933. Three weeks after this was when the Reichstag fire happened. This is the event that "made" Hitler in the eyes of the German people. Previously he was only liked by extremists, but now his anti-communist and anti-jewish rants were given legitamacy when a communist jew was arrested (and later convicted) for setting the fire. His subsequent anti-terrorist and anti-communist speeches pushed the public into a frenzy and his support among the German people went way up.

Within days of the Reichstag fire, the Reichstag passed what came to be known as the "Enabling Act" -- very similar in details to our own Patriot Act. Its official name was the "Law for the Protection of People and the State". It basically allowed the German government to detain "terrorists" indefinately without charging them with any crime and without giving them the right to defend themselves in court. It suspended privacy rights giving the government the right to search mail, property, etc. with regard to such "terrorist" cases.

Thousands of these "terrorists" were rounded up within the first few weeks. Most of them were members of the communist party (mostly Jews) or journalists who had published anti-Nazi articles. Within 2 weeks the jails in Germany were filled. When faced with the problem of having no more jail space, the decision was made to open up a few of the old WWI POW camps that had been closed since 1919. Most of the "terrorists" were sent to these various camps, and very few were ever released. These were the first of the "concentration camps".

At this time, and throughout the war, the German public was unaware of what was happening in these concentration camps. The extent of how many people were being held and how many of these camps existed was never known by the public, and most believed that terrorists were being jailed. As far as the Jews, they had simply been "relocated" to other areas so that they did not cause any more trouble for the common German people -- and most believed this was a good thing. There were rumours of "death camps" but they were nothing more than "conspiracy theories".

In 1934, a year after the Reichstag fire, President Hindenburg "died". The Reichstag voted to combine the offices of President and Chancelor into the office of "Reich Chancelor", and so Hitler became the leader of Germany. And that is when the real changes began to happen....

So no, this was not what the German people wanted. They were propogandized, indoctrinated, and lied to in every way possible. And you have to remember that the German public was perhaps the most educated public in the world at this time. This is the country that produced most of the great minds of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including people like Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Gottlieb Daimler, Albert Einstein, Werner von Braun, Max Planck, etc. And yet, this most educated public was nothing more than "sheeple" during this time period.

Remember this the next time you think such a thing cannot happen in this country because we are a democracy or because we have an educated public who knows better. We must learn to see the signs of when we are losing our freedoms and when our leadership is becomming too powerful, and not give into such changes.

Isn't Israel guilty of the same violations that Iran is being accused of? Haven't they illegally developed nuclear weapons?

Or are you suggesting that the rules only apply when we don't like the country in question?

so your suggestion is to pull out of dealings in Israel, get out of iraq, leave nk and iran alone, become a black hole where we suck all our powers back inside and just sit here in isolation? the rest of the world doesnt seem competent nor capable of doing a damn thing to protect itself, if we pull out of all these places and go into isolation, someone will drop a bomb on us too, did we not try to stay out of Pearl Harbor? and dont tell me that was the US govt as well. like it or not hitler setup ONE Jew, if you mean to tell me our govt setup millions of muslims as a scapegoat I'd like to see proof because all I see is shit being blown up, forget the American media, I was in Israel and saw 2 buses blown up on the news with whoever it was as the responsible ones. You complain about our govt and try to educate everyone on factual information well how about taking your own advice and not believing what you read? Isnt that the point of your posts? to try and explain how not everything is what it seems? Then why do you think that what you say is true yet everyone else is wrong?

A) Israel never came out and flat out stated "We have a NUKE"
B) Israel needs one to defend itself from the area, if you haven't noticed everyone in the area wants them out of the area
C) Israel would not make claims like nk and iran and everyone else because they are a thinking body not a reactionary body

I'll wait for FACTS on how they have a nuke and threatened to use it :blah:

Eric, You make a VERY good point. I do believe Israel has nukes but am not sure. The rational answer to your question is, the rules should apply to every country in question.

Unfortunately though, we don't live in a rational world and not all countries are created equal. I wish I had a good argument for why it's ok for Israel and not ok for Iran but I don't. I only have a knee jerk reaction. That knee jerk reaction and my gut tell me, Iran having nukes is going to be a big, big problem. I am not worried though about Israel having them. Israel is not denying the holocaust and trying to push people into the sea.

B

Iran has never said they have a nuclear weapon. In fact they have repeated over and over that they are only developing nuclear energy and have no intentions of developing a nuclear weapons.

As far as the facts on Israel having a nuclear weapon, in the July 14, 1998 issue of the Jerusalem Post, there was an interview with Shimon Peres in which he admitted that Israel had a nuclear weapon.

no iran does not have one and would like everyone to think they dont but lets see what happened when nk decided they wanted nuclear energy that guess what was supported and funded by non other than US. so guess what its only a matter of time which is the equivalent of having it

Ummm I know your smart since I read your posts...
 

There are 11million African Americans in the US...there are 100million caucasion Americans in the US....unless only 10% of whites show up it would be virtually impossible for it to swing the vote. Your also not mentioning the 00 vote in the panahandle of FLA where black voters where turned away from the pols even though they were still open, with such excuses as your registration is not valid or we are out of voting materials.....black or white....depending upon who sits in power in the location intimidation is still a factor down where time stands still.

The Isrealies have the BOMB
 

WE sold them to em...that is thier deterence from being invaded. They have the means of wipping out what ever forces mass against them. That was why we sold them to em.

i guess my point was with all the laws on anti-discrimination its being used the wrong way like even affirmative action. I didnt mean for that post to be disrespectful as I was merely referencing what is happening somewhere. also the Times had an article which said NYC whites would be a minority. Once again NYC is already democratic at least in the pres running so it wouldnt matter. and once again I'm not trying to be disrespectful however the point was that I would be very affraid of what happened in that place to happen in the white house not to say that whites are so much better. but it does seem that minority tend to favor minority for obvious reasons. BTW who told you I'm smart :lol:, we've all got to be to have even semi logical conversations on these poli sci threads argh these drive me nuts

Hmmm...
 

I understand what your thinking...if a black person where prez like say Ray Nagin, you fear that he would only pander to black issues or view problems only from a black point of view...a black person would say that a white president does not understand the issues in the community and as whole in our society since he only sees it from a white persons point of view.....

I think for a person of color to be elected in the first place they would have to view issues from a any person point of view and review policies and procedures from a practical and effective point of view and leave color on the side of the road...I got news for you...a woman will be elected before a black man would be...two men of color that could win now.....Colin Powell and Obama. Powell won't run and Obama is two senate terms away, at least that is how his handlers are trying to take him, he might feel froggy in 2012, but most feel 2016 would be his time. Hillary is going to be the next president for better or worse. Women are going to turn out in droves...it is speculated that we could have the largest ever voter turn out in 08 if the Iraq war has not ebbed.

If chilary is elected I'm moving to Canada shes the most useless politician NY has had i dont know what she does or has done and yet odds are she will get second term. and g-d help us if she wins the prez election in 08 we'll all be doomed

We did not sell nuclear weapons to Israel!!

Read:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...23/wnuke23.xml

Israel reveals secrets of how it gained bomb

By Inigo Gilmore in Jerusalem

12/23/2001

A TELEVISION documentary in which Shimon Peres, Israel's foreign minister, discloses for the first time details about Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons is to be broadcast in the Arab world. It is intended, at a time of rising tensions, as a warning.

In the documentary, Mr Peres goes further than any other Israeli official in confirming that the Jewish state has a nuclear capability. He and former French government officials give details about co-operation between Israel and France in launching Israel's nuclear programme.

The film, made by a leading Israeli documentary team, is a sign that the government may be finally relaxing its rule of absolute silence on its nuclear programme. Mordechai Vanunu, a technician at the Dimona nuclear facility, is serving an 18-year jail sentence for revealing in 1986 that Israel had a nuclear programme and more than 100 warheads.

........

The film reveals how France helped Israel on its nuclear programme in exchange for support in the Suez War. In the mid-1950s, relations between the two countries were warming because of their shared anxiety over burgeoning nationalist movements in North Africa.

I did not mean that Isreal went down the isle with a shopping cart....
 

They worked with France....CIA provided the yellow cake.

Care to share a reference for that?

Everything I have read says that they got the yellowcake from South African's Apartheid government in exchange for chemical weapons technology.

Story out today that former VA Governor and go-zillionaire Mark Warner will not seek the Democratic nomination for Pres. in '08. This can only mean that Howard Dean told him that the Democratic party wants Hillary in '08!

Now I'm gonna' start to pray for McCain to win the Rebublican nomination...:tsk:

Here's the complete article from that study I posted about yesterday:

Critics say 600,000 Iraqi dead doesn't tally
But pollsters defend methods used in Johns Hopkins study


The study, funded by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, drew on data obtained by eight Iraqi physicians during a survey of 1,849 Iraqi families -- or 12,801 people -- in 47 neighborhoods of 18 regions across the entire country.

The researchers said they based the selection of geographical areas on population size, not on the level of violence.

Then they projected the findings to the 26.1 million Iraqis estimated to be living in the survey areas.

The surveyors put Iraq's prewar mortality rate at 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people per year. In the post-invasion period, according to the survey, the rate grew to 13.3 deaths per 1,000 people per year. The surveyors used the difference between these rates to calculate deaths that were not brought on by natural causes. The survey suggests that of more than 650,000 Iraqis who died since 2003, 601,000 were killed since the war began. Polling experts supported the methods used by the surveyors.

"The sampling is solid. The methodology is as good as it gets," said John Zogby, whose Utica, N.Y.-based polling agency, Zogby International, has done several surveys in Iraq since the war began. "It is what people in the statistics business do."

Zogby said similar survey methods have been used to estimate casualty figures in other conflicts, such as Darfur and the Democratic People's Republic of Congo.

Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for many years, told the Washington Post the survey method was "tried and true." He said that "this is the best estimate of mortality we have."
Frank Harrell Jr., chairman of the biostatistics department at Vanderbilt University, told the Associated Press the study incorporated "rigorous, well-justified analysis of the data."

Well, maybe the should stop blowing up their own shopping centers, religious buildings, funerals, schools...etc..

I'm pretty sure they weren't doing that prior to March 2003. What our invasion has done is made them into a bunch of extremists.

What was the reason for this war again?

WMDs?
(President Bush's "Iraqi Survey Group" says there were none)

To "liberate" the Iraqi people?
(1 in 40 of them are now dead. How many are injured, maimed, etc?)

To punish Saddam for his role in 9/11?
(9/11 Commission says Iraq had no role in the attacks)

To make the world safer from terrorism?
(US Military Intelligence report released 2 weeks ago says the war has resulted in increased terrorism worldwide)


Any other good reasons?

Aww well that's a nice excuse I guess......

Similar to the way that guy who killed the Amish kids was 'made that way' 20 years ago.

And why weren't they doing that, because Saddam would have killed them before they had the chance.

Looking for the justification for a war that started 3 years ago is too late, asking why people killed their own civilians 3 hours ago is the question.

It's called a civil war. We had one back in the 1860s. And if memory serves me right, a similar number of our people were killed as well. The point here is that our invasion triggered this civil war, and is partly responsible for these deaths. (I said "partly", not 100% responsible)

If the NYPD goes on strike tonight, and there are 100 murders in NYC, who is responsible? Do the officers who went on strike bear some of the responsibility, or does 100% of the fault lie with those who committed the murders?

Are we a civilized "society", or just a bunch of individuals living in anarchy?

Mostly the latter.

To answer the police question, no I wouldn't fault the NYPD for 100 deaths. It amazes me what low expectations people have of others sometime. Reminds me of a Chris Rock line:

"I ain't ever been to jail." "What, you're not suppose to you low expectation mother F____r"

Our Civil War didn't involve intentionally killing children, blowing up schools or religious places. Again comparing things with little relativity aside from death.

Yeah I have it here some where with the freedom of information act it is right on
 

my finger tips....

With all of the support via military and American tax $$$$ that go to Israel from our government you want me to find a form with official letter head that say it in black in white that we provided various pieces of information to fast track Israel to a nuclear power.

All you need to do is think about it...I love my country...I fought for my country....I would die for my country if asked to defend my family and other families from harm, but I will also sit here and rationalize why different clandestine elements of our government would see it in the best interest for influence in the Middle East if for no other purpose other than seeing Israel after the 6 day war have an element of deterrence which is a nuclear deterrence.

There is something called the non proliferation treaty to which we are a soignée, so how can you sign that treaty,balk at everyone who is trying to go nuclear and yet still give it to your best friend in a bad neighborhood?!?!

Ya do it on the down low. It is not rocket science...and I should know...that is what my Grandpa was and his favorite saying cuz it isn't that hard and things are what they are.

The nuclear equation is easy, getting a controlled nuclear reaction is hard. We are one of the top five arms dealers in the world, think we could not facilitate a meeting with the South Africans and the Israelis via the CIA? Or help the process some other way? What like you think we did not know what they were doing at the time? Did we ask them to stop?

I went to Grad school with two kids from Israel and based on my conversations with them we assisted in portions of the process. The topic came up when I used to ask them about different issues that they face everyday at home because we used to work in groups on projects where a Syrian, an Indian, an Israeli, a German, and a Pakistani all worked together for a common goal. It baffles me so that we could all work together but once everyone got back on their piece of dirt feelings and emotions change.

Is there a smoking gun that I can point to?

No...but it does not mean that it did not happen.

I'm not asking for a government document. I'm asking for some sort of source that even makes such a claim. We are on the internet here. Surely if there is any credibility to this story of yours, then there would be newspaper articles, papers written on it, former CIA operatives who leaked information, etc. Perhaps it would not appear in the New York Times, but some conspiracy website would have information on it. But I find nothing, so I think your claim here is.....

:bsflag:

I do however find articles about the French helping with Israel's nuclear program, and others claiming Israel got uranium from South Africa.

Great post and reference.

Attacking NK will not make any sense, since the casualty will approach close to a million in very shot period of time. Despite the fact they should be #1 target for having WMD in current admistrations logic.

It is not relevant to me what president did as a crazy kid, or got a sexual favor in his office, even though I don't agree with his act morally AS LONG AS HE DOES HIS JOB. What would be the point of personal attacks? That goes either way.

Here is the beauty of this...
 

I can feel the way that I feel about it...and you can feel the way that you do about it. IMO I think we assisted Isreal to aquire nuclear technology and you know what. I have not one problem with it because I know that they would never use it to leverage another country or intimidate others. Now we can debate how they treat Palestineans which is whole nother situation. I think if IRAN gets the bomb they would use a tactical and say Allah told them it was his will.

:iagree: