| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/09/2004 11:18:36 PM · #101 |
The Communist Workers Party must be very happy with you.
Do you really believe Truman started the Korean conflict and Kennedy the Vietnam conflict, or is your diatribe just for political entertainment? |
|
|
|
05/09/2004 11:23:46 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If you check out tonight's 60 Minutes you'll hear about the antics of our, or at least the Bush family's, close friends, the Saudis. |
Who's book are they selling this week? |
I don't know. The story to which I was referring was to how the Saudis tortured British citizens into false confessions for bombings carried out by Islamic fundamentalists.
Turture ... not hazing. Saudi government employees. Saudi "justice" system. Saudi prisons. Get the details from CBS or any other reputable news source ... I prefer to not repeat the specific gory details here.
Snide remarks carry more weight when the maker has at least a clue as to the subject at hand. |
|
|
|
05/10/2004 03:15:59 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If you check out tonight's 60 Minutes you'll hear about the antics of our, or at least the Bush family's, close friends, the Saudis. |
Who's book are they selling this week? |
I don't know. The story to which I was referring was to how the Saudis tortured British citizens into false confessions for bombings carried out by Islamic fundamentalists.
Turture ... not hazing. Saudi government employees. Saudi "justice" system. Saudi prisons. Get the details from CBS or any other reputable news source ... I prefer to not repeat the specific gory details here.
Snide remarks carry more weight when the maker has at least a clue as to the subject at hand. |
I'm sorry, you just said "CBS" and "reputable" in the same sentence. Maybe you meant "disputable". I didn't see the story but let me guess, there's a book being published by Viacom right? |
|
|
|
05/10/2004 08:08:46 AM · #104 |
Just to get this thread "back on track", earlier in this thread, I made this comment:
'd be very interested to know about these soldiers who are shown in the photos and who've been suspended. I just wonder in what kind of political environment they grew up? Where did they come up with the idea that setting up these kinds of "photo opportunities" was an okay thing to do? That's all I'm gonna say . . . draw your own conclusions . . . but keep your eyes and ears open on this.
Well, here's the first article I've seen which serves to confirm some of my suspicions.
THE GHOUL NEXT DOOR WAS JAIL ABUSE FOTOG
|
|
|
|
05/10/2004 08:55:11 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
The Communist Workers Party must be very happy with you.
Do you really believe Truman started the Korean conflict and Kennedy the Vietnam conflict, or is your diatribe just for political entertainment? |
Wow, and some of you guys wonder why I am such a prick when it comes to these political conversations... Did you think before you wrote that? I'm guessing not...
|
|
|
|
05/10/2004 10:30:02 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by thelsel:
I'm sorry, you just said "CBS" and "reputable" in the same sentence. Maybe you meant "disputable". I didn't see the story but let me guess, there's a book being published by Viacom right? |
I'm sorry, but I guess I do trust Dan Rather more than I trust Rush Limbaugh ... at least I'm pretty sure I can throw him further ...
You sound much like one of those people my dad talked about when I was growing up, you're mind's made up so please don't confuse you with any facts.
Maybe it's all a vast left-wing conspiracy to trump up charges and fake photos and lie on television just to embarass the Saudis. But an elementary study of human history and psychology will tell you that it is overwhelmingly more likely that these men actually were tortured in Saudi prisons.
And maybe next time, just at least check out the story before you comment on it ... I already said I don't know about a book, but WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE would it make -- you now suddenly think CBS is supposed to bring us the news out of altruism and not to operate at a profit? Try selling that plan to Rupert Murdoch ... if there's torture occurring in the prisons of our allies, who cares how the news gets out?
Message edited by author 2004-05-10 10:33:12. |
|
|
|
05/10/2004 11:07:32 AM · #107 |
I guess sooner or later Rumsfeld is going to have to "take one" for the team. Too bad he doesn't take W down with him.
|
|
|
|
05/10/2004 11:30:40 AM · #108 |
There are a few reasons for the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Sadaam Hussein, but none of them really have anything to do with terrorism, or WMDﾃ｢冱. Those issues were merely the public relations case to persuade the American public that a war in Iraq was necessary. The real issues are: to weaken and possibly break OPEC and to prevent the dollarsﾃ｢ demise as the currency of trade for oil (a number of countries have started to use and promote the use of the Euro in place of the dollar, as did Sadaam Hussein). Also, to secure more oil in an American economy that is so dependent on it.
To accomplish these goals, the neocons of the Bush administration felt it necessary to invade and take over Iraq and establish another military presence in the very important (if youﾃ｢决e part of the oilygarchy) middle east Persian Gulf region. The Bushites (western fundamentalists) plans are to establish a western friendly Iraqi regime that would be happy to do business with US oil companies and to start developing the vast not yet tapped oil reserves of this country. Before the war, Iraq had only developed 15% of itﾃ｢冱 oil fields, but now even less are functional due to vandalism from the war and parts and technology that are not yet available to maintain the currently developed oil fields.
All of this is not being reported by the American press as it is feared by the oilygarchy that knowledge of this would curtail investor and consumer confidence, effect lending institutions negatively (especially the central banks), and cause a major policy shifts towards renewable energy sources. A major US economic distaster could ensue should OPEC decide to make a complete shift to use the Euro as the currency of trade.
To my mind, OPEC has already made their statement against the US presence in Iraq in the form of cutting oil output to raise prices. If itﾃ｢冱 an actual statement you are looking for from OPEC denouncing ﾃ｢徭tealingﾃ｢ oil from Iraq it may be that some of the other OPEC countries are too afraid of the US military might that may mean regime change in their countries. Also, OPEC doesnﾃ｢冲 meet but 4 times a year (the next being in June) and as is, there is little agreement among OPEC countries for any issues. The fact that there is reduced oil coming out of Iraq at this time also means it's harder for the OPEC countries to make official denouncements against the US.
There is probably no real exit strategy for the US to leave Iraq, as a military presence will be needed to support the new US-friendly Iraqi regime. That really means NO true sovereignty for the Iraqi people or the ﾃ｢彭emocraticﾃ｢ institutions that will be established there in the months ahead.
Democracy and democratic institutions have also been eroded in the US due to our extreme dependence on oil. All of the major think tanks and analysts have forecast deepening and worsening energy shortages, and oil is our major energy source. What the powers-that-be are so scared of is that there will be intense pressure to start developing alternative energy sources. This should have been the US govtﾃ｢冱 plan since the energy crises of 1973, but democrat or republican, our politicians have failed us BIG TIME by not dealing with this issue appropriately in a timely manner.
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by orussell:
Guess Halliburton et al wouldn't go for that though because it would make stealing the oil too uneconomical. |
Oh, here we go again with the whole Halliburton stealing oil thing. Let me try to debunk that stupid myth once and for all. First off, Iraq is a member of OPEC. Now, do you really think OPEC would allow the largest consumer of oil products in the world to "steal" oil from Iraq without making a huge stink? To date there have been no such outcry from OPEC or any other regulatory agency. Secondly, there are far easier targets in the world to "steal" oil from. Rather then invading a country with one of the largest standing armies in the world, wouldn't it have been easier to invade someplace like Nigeria or Algeria? Or how about Libya? We had a beef with them already you know. Not to mention they've publicly admitted to terrorist activities before. So, to recap, war for oil = stupid theory. Better theory = terrorist ass holes no longer tolerated. Oh, I know what your saying, Saddam a terrorist? Yes, anyone who sends cash rewards to the families of homicide bombers is definitely an international terrorist. And anyone that kills hundreds of thousands of his own people is a definitely a domestic terrorist. So, big terrorist ass hole + WMD = high value target in war on terror. And if you're still not convinced about the whole WMD thing, just ask the state department, they probably still have the receipts from the stuff we sold them. |
|
|
|
|
05/10/2004 11:45:39 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Democracy and democratic institutions have also been eroded in the US due to our extreme dependence on oil. All of the major think tanks and analysts have forecast deepening and worsening energy shortages, and oil is our major energy source. What the powers-that-be are so scared of is that there will be intense pressure to start developing alternative energy sources. This should have been the US govtﾃ｢冱 plan since the energy crises of 1973, but democrat or republican, our politicians have failed us BIG TIME by not dealing with this issue appropriately in a timely manner.
|
indeed. why resist such a needed and good change? |
|
|
|
05/10/2004 12:37:05 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Democracy and democratic institutions have also been eroded in the US due to our extreme dependence on oil. All of the major think tanks and analysts have forecast deepening and worsening energy shortages, and oil is our major energy source. What the powers-that-be are so scared of is that there will be intense pressure to start developing alternative energy sources. This should have been the US govtﾃ｢冱 plan since the energy crises of 1973, but democrat or republican, our politicians have failed us BIG TIME by not dealing with this issue appropriately in a timely manner.
|
indeed. why resist such a needed and good change? |
The very same reason Bush refused to signed the Kyoto Accord - protecting the interests of Americas' oil giants.
|
|
|
|
05/10/2004 12:48:58 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by orussell:
The very same reason Bush refused to signed the Kyoto Accord - protecting the interests of Americas' oil giants. |
ya know, in a world like today, in an environment as damaged as ours, that ALONE is enough to give bush the boot. |
|
|
|
05/10/2004 01:46:14 PM · #112 |
| Who is more reputable and reliable, Dan Rather or Rush Limbaugh? |
|
|
|
05/10/2004 01:57:21 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Who is more reputable and reliable, Dan Rather or Rush Limbaugh? |
Neither, but at least Rush is honest with his intensions and his standings!
|
|
|
|
05/10/2004 02:10:21 PM · #114 |
Rush is more reliable...I can always count on him for falsehoods, hate spewing and war mongering.
Originally posted by coolhar:
Who is more reputable and reliable, Dan Rather or Rush Limbaugh? |
|
|
|
|
05/10/2004 02:42:44 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by orussell:
I guess sooner or later Rumsfeld is going to have to "take one" for the team. Too bad he doesn't take W down with him. |
I guess I was wrong, W is standing by Rumsfeld, according to the latest out of Washington. I wonder what Rumsfeld knows?
|
|
|
|
05/10/2004 02:47:03 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by orussell:
Originally posted by orussell:
I guess sooner or later Rumsfeld is going to have to "take one" for the team. Too bad he doesn't take W down with him. |
I guess I was wrong, W is standing by Rumsfeld, according to the latest out of Washington. I wonder what Rumsfeld knows? |
I guess that it couldn't be that Bush isn't a scumbag and he's just standing by a man who he thinks is in the right or at least not in the wrong. I would think much much less of Bush if he took the cowards way out and sacrificed him!
You don't really think a single democrat is really asking rummy to step down because of the prisoner stuff in Iraq do you???
How foolish of you, haven't a bunch of senetors (17 to be exact) known about this for months while other investigations were going on? This was ALL pre photos BTW which have only very recently been found... None of them cared or were outraged back then... Now they have to all fake being outraged...
|
|
|
|
05/10/2004 03:06:17 PM · #117 |
| Rummy will be out sometime between now and Nov. Carl Rove probably has it marked on his desk calendar. |
|
|
|
05/10/2004 03:16:49 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Rummy will be out sometime between now and Nov. Carl Rove probably has it marked on his desk calendar. |
I wouldn't be suprised if he disapeared between now and then....
It's too bad he will most likely be running with Dick Cheney as VP again. I think he should pick someone else.
|
|
|
|
05/10/2004 03:22:05 PM · #119 |
G Bush and John Kerry somehow ended up at the same barbershop. As they sat there, each being worked on by a different barber, Not a word was spoken.
The barbers were even afraid to start a conversation, for fear it would turn to politics.
As the barbers finished their shaves, the one who had Kerry in His chair reached for the aftershave.
Kerry was quick to stop him saying, "No thanks, my wife Theresa will smell that and think I've been in a whorehouse,"
The second barber turned to Bush and said, "How about you?"
Bush replied, "Go ahead, my wife doesn't know what the inside of a whorehouse smells like!
|
|
|
|
05/10/2004 04:01:10 PM · #120 |
OK, with the last one, I couldn't resist!!!!!!
The Presidential election was too close to call. Neither the Republican candidate nor the Democratic candidate had enough votes to win.. There was much talk about ballot recounting, court challenges, etc., but a week-long ice fishing competition seemed the sportsmanlike way to settle things. The candidate that caught the most fish at the end of the week would win the election. Therefore, it was decided that there should be an ice fishing contest between the two candidates to determine the winner. After much of back and forth discussion, it was decided that the contest take place on a remote frozen lake in northern Minnesota. There were to be no observers present, and both men were to be sent out separately on this isolated lake and return at 5 P.M. with their catch for counting and verification by a team of neutral parties.
At the end of the first day, George W. returned to the starting line and he had ten fish. Soon, John Kerry returned and had no fish. Well, everyone assumed he was just having another 'bad hair' day or something and hopefully, he would catch up the next day.
At the end of the 2nd day George W. came in with 20 fish and John Kerry came in again with none.
That evening, Bill Clinton got together secretly with John and said, "John, I think George W. is a low-life, cheatin' son-of-a-gun. I want you to go out tomorrow and don't even bother with fishing. Just spy on him and see just how he is cheating."
The next night after George W. returns with 50 fish, Bill Clinton said to John, "Well, tell me, how George W. is cheating?" John replied, "Bill, you're not going to believe this, but he's cutting holes in the ice."
|
|
|
|
05/10/2004 04:29:03 PM · #121 |
Funny but not work safe.
Picture from Abu Ghraib
|
|
|
|
05/10/2004 11:13:06 PM · #122 |
Apparently, getting to prison is no picnic either ... I've added some highlighting to this article exerpt; the link at the end goes to a PDF version of the complete Red Cross report.
===============================
ﾃつﾃつﾃつThe agency said arrests allegedly tended to follow a pattern.
ﾃつﾃつﾃつﾃつ"Arresting authorities entered houses usually after dark, breaking down doors, waking up residents roughly, yelling orders, forcing family members into one room under military guard while searching the rest of the house and further breaking doors, cabinets and other property," the report said.
ﾃつﾃつﾃつﾃつ"Sometimes they arrested all adult males present in a house, including elderly, handicapped or sick people," it said. "Treatment often included pushing people around, insulting, taking aim with rifles, punching and kicking and striking with rifles."
ﾃつﾃつﾃつﾃつIt said some coalition military intelligence officers estimated "between 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake. They also attributed the brutality of some arrests to the lack of proper supervision of battle group units."
ﾃつﾃつﾃつﾃつPierre Kraehenbuehl, ICRC director of operations, said Friday the report had been given to U.S. officials in February, but it only summarized what the agency had been telling U.S. officials in detail between March and November 2003 "either in direct face-to-face conversations or in written interventions."
ﾃつﾃつﾃつﾃつKraehenbuehl said the abuse of prisoners represented more than isolated acts, and that the problems were not limited to Abu Ghraib.
ﾃつﾃつﾃつﾃつ"We were dealing here with a broad pattern, not individual acts. There was a pattern and a system," he said, declining to give further details.
Red Cross Report on Iraqi Prisons under Coalition Forces |
|
|
|
05/10/2004 11:53:47 PM · #123 |
The very same reason Bush refused to signed the Kyoto Accord - protecting the interests of Americas' oil giants. [/quote]
The reason Bush (along with the entire US Senate) rejected the Kyoto Accord is because it is worthless.
Even though it is pure speculation, for the sake of my argument we will assume that there is indeed global warming caused by increased emissions of greenhouse gases. Therefore, reducing these emissions will at least check the process of global warming. The purpose of the Kyoto Accord is to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. What makes the accord worthless is that 3 of the world's top 10 polluting nations (China, India, and Brazil) are totally exempt from any emission limits. Whatever reductions in greenhouse gas emissions accomplished by the economic sacrifices of adherents to the Kyoto Accord will be more than made up for by the rapid industrial expansion of the aforementioned exempt nations. Rather than curbing greenhouse emissions, the Kyoto Accord will simply dictate where the source of the emissions (along with the associated jobs) can be transferred to. |
|
|
|
05/11/2004 12:06:18 AM · #124 |
Here's a joke; a bit dated but a good one.
Since there isn't an American League team in Washington, DC any more, the baseball season opening day presidential ceremony is held in nearby Baltimore. One day during Clinton's presidency, Bill and Hillary were at Camden Yards for the opening day ceremonies. After the preliminary pagentry was finally over and the game ready to begin, the home plate umpire asked Bill if he was ready. Bill nodded, picked up Hillary, and threw her over the railing and onto the field. The umpire said "Mr. President, Mr. President, you're supposed to throw out the first PITCH!!"
Message edited by author 2004-05-11 22:22:00. |
|
|
|
05/11/2004 12:25:17 AM · #125 |
Perhaps you'd like one of the "Run, Hillary, Run" bumper stickers which have garnered such tremendous bi-partisan support lately ... Democrats have them plastered all over their rear bumpers ... Republicans are putting them in the front.
(Adapted from Garrison Keillor and Paula Poundstone on A Prairie Home Companion) |
|
