Ronald Reagan debate threads....

[august spies]

Haha, sorry cant let this one go on without puking.

Sorry to wake some up to reality and facts (i know reagan said "facts are stupid") but just bare with me for a second.

This is a man whose ties to terrorism in one country alone are far greater and more distructive than bin ladens ties to the 9/11 hijackers. Regean had ties to terrorists in dozens of countries, and throughout the planet. the body count his is responsible for is off the charts, it would be off the charts if we were just counting the children killed.

This is a man who gave us a 3 trillion dollar debt, this is a man who was a systematic liar, this is a man who was so stupid he actually said that trees cause pollution.

This is a man who gutted social programs and dumped americans into poverty and debt.

god bless god for taking reagan away from us
ps. saddam and bin laden also send their condolences

[KoocheeKoo]

Originally posted by august spies
Haha, sorry cant let this one go on without puking.

god bless god for taking reagan away from us


The only thing that makes me feel ill is your totally classless, disrespectful post regarding the deceased. I wouldn't gloat over the death of anyone; not even my worst enemy....thank God my mother taught me better manners than that.

You just gave every member of TMF a vivid example in disrespect and total lack of class....and dishonored both yourself and family in the process.

[august spies]

The only thing that makes me feel ill is your totally classless, disrespectful post regarding the deceased. I wouldn't gloat over the death of anyone; not even my worst enemy....thank God my mother taught me better manners than that.

Sorry dude, some times the world is a much better place when some people are dead, especially evil and powerful people like reagan. I would have been very happy if i were alive when hitler shot himself, and id be happy to hear that osama was killed because he step on a landmine that he and reagan put all over afghanistan. and im happy to hear that reagan a leading terrorist is dead, its a shame he wasnt put on trial.

and please, im sure you support the death penalty.

[venray]

Originally posted by august spies
Haha, sorry cant let this one go on without puking.

but just bare with me for a second.



No thanks. I have no desire to "bare" with YOU.. LOL

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/bare.html



Ray (tired of those who respect nothing..least of all the sanctity of life)


As for your further comments about us being better off with some people dead, I couldnt agree with you more.....:rolleyes:

[Jimblast]

Anyone who would be gleeful during a time for mourning for a great President's death deserves to have his head examined. That nutcase should be thanking him that you live in a country as great as this is. I had a feeling an individual the calibur of that moron would slither his way into this thread to prove himself to be a classless idiot. Not only does a person like that show horrible taste, he also shows a horrific and demented sense of history, politics, and economics. The only thing he had right are the three people that are happy to see the former President deceased: Osama, Saddam, and of course the August person. He, like the other two should be put in front of a firing squad. If you hate this country so much pal, move to Syria, I'm sure they'll love ya'. Friggin' classless lowlife.

[venray]

Post your debates here and not in the other. That thread is for paying respects only. All other posts there will be deleted.

Ray

[Psycho]

Damn Aug. Would you go into a memorial service for someone and start complaining about all the stuff they did wrong and joyfully make fun of their death.

LOL Venray, funny link.

BTW aug I noticed your signature. Are you an anarchist? I would like to debate your opinions on this one day.

Anyways see yall later.

Psycho

[Neutron]

august spies isn't all that bright is he, I love it when people take history, and draw a conclusion without looking into the facts.

1: The Trillion Dollar deficit was going to become a reality without Reagan. Carters next proposed budget exceeded a Trillion. The question wasn't whether to exceed a trillion, the question was WHAT are we gonna get for our trillion.

2: Social programs are Unconstitutional. Reagan didn't GUT the programs, he LEGALLY let them expire. Each program has an expiration date and no single government is required to renew them, This is a check to ensure one governments decisions cannot affect governments far into the future.

3: At the time defense had to be a priority. Whereas Carter preferred to spend the money on research, Reagan felt we needed hardware. The oney was going to be spent anyways.

4:Under no way shape or form was Reagan a war criminial. To put him on the same page as Bin Laden et al is pure ignorance.

5: I love a good strawman argument. So what exactly does supporting Reagan have to do with supporting the Death Penalty. Arguments like this weren't valid in the 4th grade, they're less valid now.


Tron

[august spies]

what is an e-thug?

i think it would be more permitting to discuss reagan, an actual thug.

social programs are unconstitutional? well screw the constitution and screw reagan

Defense? are you insane? try government pork and terrorist imperialism

To put him in the same page as bin laden is a bit ignorant for reagan caused much more death torture and destruction than bin laden could possible dream of. I only used bin laden because most people know who he is.

Would i mock someone who died? of course, i dont care if they are dead or alive, hitler is dead and ill mock him ever day of the week and twice on sunday. You dont seem to understand that this is not just about reagan, its about his crimes and those crimes still exist after his death.

uh jim by ill assume you mean an actual sense of history and politics accordint to reality which to you would of course be demented or a "thought crime"

I didnt say saddam and osama were happy i said they would be sad to see reagan die as he was their former strong ally.

[august spies]

i would also just like to point out, that your beloved terrorist is so well liked that you have to censor his death thread from criticism, and even posts outside of that thread (one which i posted just detailing some of his foriegn policy actions) had to be deleted by mods. facts can be dangerous things.

Also the club i was at on sat night, the dj thanked us for comming out to celebrate the death of reagan, and the crowd cheered loudly. You cant fool people that easily, i still have faith.

[Neutron]

On one hand you say Reagan was a poor president because he didn't do for the people, YET on the other hand you says screw the Constitution, which specifically is a government by the people for the people.

Who exctly did Reagan torture and kill? Please provide dates, times and a reliable source.

Also, how could Reagan EVER have been Osama Bin Ladens ally? This makes me very curious because Bin Ladens network and terrorist activities did not even start until the first Bush Era, and were triggered NOT by the US but Saudi Support for the first Gulf War.

Again, facts please, and a bit less Strawman argument. I could care less what you think of Reagan, what I'm challenging is you posting ignorance, and presenting it as fact without any proof.

And exactly how much pork do you think Reagans government had over any other. If I remember right Reagans government was the first to start challenging pork.

I also note Pork wasn't part of your original post, so not that your first Strawman claims are burned to ashes you now introduce new claims? None of which you can back.

Tron

[KoocheeKoo]

Originally posted by august spies

Also the club i was at on sat night, the dj thanked us for comming out to celebrate the death of reagan, and the crowd cheered loudly. You cant fool people that easily, i still have faith.


You honestly make me very thankful to reside in Georgia. If you and those other disrespectful punks in that club are examples of what lives in New Jersey, I'd rather go to hell than live there.

[qjakal]

Originally posted by august spies
facts can be dangerous things.




Why not at least dwell on the Iran-Contra scandal? That way you'd have at least some of those precious "facts" at your disposal? Going off onto psuedo tangents doesn't present much of a case....hope you're not the best the anarchists have in the way of a debate team. Arms dealing to Nicarauga, or better yet, the disaster in Lebanon would be a much better launching spot for critisizing Reagan.

Hey, btw, at 3 a.m. you can get a dance club to basically cheer any statement that ends with the words "1/2 price drinks for the next hour"...

Q

[Neutron]

"Anarchists are opposed to violence...The main plank of anarchism is the removal of violence from human relations. It is life based on the freedom of the individual, without the intervention of the police. For this reason we are enemies of capitalism, which depends on the protection of the police to force workers to allow themsleves to be exploited...We are therefore enemies of the State, which is the coercive, violent organization of society."


-- Errico Malatesta, Umanita Nova, August, 25, 1921


Yet Malatesta was a member of the group, and authorized the violence which resulted in the assassination of Archduke Ferdinad, and ultimately resulted in the second bloodiest war in history and created the conditions for the bloodiest war in history. Do you post stuff blindly without researching the historical reality? Also, Malatesta did not understand what anarchy is. Anarchy is NOT an enemy of captitalism, or communism. Anarchy is in fact a method of government which allows total freedom of expression, it's the ultimate in individual power, which usually ends up in a totalitarian state. One cannot exercise Individual power without wanting to eventually exercise group power. This isn't an idealistic world we live in. Getting back to my point, Captipalism and communism are ECONOMIC SYSTEMS not governmental systems, therefore Anarchy cannot be their enemy. Note how convoluted the logic of a very violent man becomes when he's trying to convince others he hasn't sinned.

Tron

[Cosmo_ac]

Perhaps agaust is refereing to number of weapons, money and chemical againts Reagan gave Saddam to use on his own people, kurds, and Irans? list Just a thought.
Oh, on a side note, and incase anybody is wondering, i don't get any pleasure from the man's death. Like a person or hate a person, i always dislike the loss of life.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

[Neutron]

The US did not give those weapons to Iraq with the purpose of using them on his own people. Throughout history countries have been allies with countries in order to support a greater good, WW2 is a classic example.. Let's remember, at that time Iran was considered a FAR greater danger, they had in fact attacked US Territory, took US hostages and threatened to destroy the region.
Also remember the world at large was afraid of what the Soviets would do, they'd already started a war in the region, we certainly couldn't stage an Army there, AND we needed an ally, otherwise it was feared with Irans help the Soviets would overrrun the region. In retrospect the danger probably wasn't as great as feared (at least from the Sovs) BUT Reagan couldn't have known that, in had to rid us of the greater danger. By putting pressure everywhere he did exactly that. Also, initially Saddam was not gassing his own people, he didn't really start that until AFTER the Reagan administration. So how does one tie to the other? Quite simply it doesn't. It' Strawman logic.

By the way no one has explained exactly how feeling grief for Reagans death ties to supporting the Death Penalty.

Tron

[august spies]

neurton lets stick to reagan, im not about to start a debate on anarchism, something you dont know much about, maybe a different thread i can explain anarchism to you.

yea cosmo gives an example, and as i said before i had a post with several examples, including a detailed example from el salvador, but of course that was deleted by the mods (and no it was not in the praise reagan thread).

and qjakal, my deleted post did include nicaragua, and the rejoicement at the club did not end in free or half price drinks.


neurton after reading your last post i think i understand where our differences lie, it is with the definition of terrorism.

to you a terrorist is a non state actor who kills americans or american mercenaries and soldiers.

to me, a terrorist is any group of people or individuals who through, violence, toture, rape, and destruction "terrorize" any civilian population, not just americans.

so to you when bin laden and his mujha hadeen network were running around afghanistan blowing up schools and hospitals, this wasnt terrorism, because the victims were mainly civilian afghanis. And when reagan mano blanco were running around the country side and the cities of el salvador cutting of womans breats and mens genitals, this wasnt terrorism, because they were connected to the military dictatorship and funded by reagan.

Well we anarchists feel the world would be much better if terrorism including all human civilians and not just one group of rich people. After all the civilian victim suffers no matter what.

and here is a thinking point, your definition of terrorism (just people like bin laden post 9/11 or post gulf war) who of course no doubt fit my definition of terrorism also, many times are connected to people like reagan, as bin laden and early al queda was. In other words they fuel each other.

another reason to stop all terrorism and hold all terrorists accountable

[august spies]

neurton get real, the us government knew exactly what kind of man saddam was, and btw, they armed both sides of the iran iraq war. Saddams al anfal campaign began in the late 80s and weather it was reagan or bush makes no difference to me. Also, saddam had been brutal well before his campaign of northern agression.

Before saddam became an official enemy of the us, people who tried to expose his crimes and weapons capabilities were silenced by the us government. Media analyist noam chomsky gives excellent examples of this, in fact he gives a key government statement regarding a journalist trying to expose hussiens evil pre enemy status. the government actualy told saddam that his problem is with "a few journalists and not the us government" which apparently was pleased with his actions.

We are talking about a government that send torture specialist to latin america who kidnapped people off the street and tortured them in classrooms of totalitarian societies. I think its safe to say that the us government and human rights in foreign policy is something we can all agree dont mix.

[august spies]

ps. i have a kurdish friend from turkey, which is a country in the last 10 years created 2 million kurdish refugees raized hundreds of kurdish villiages and killed tens of thousands of kurdish civilians, its still illegal to speak kurdish in turkey (ask lela zana, a kurdish member of parliment still rotting in prison just for speaking the kurdish language) however turkey is a godsend to people like bush and clinton who supported the terrorism and continue to.

the hypocracy of government is endless, which basically is my point all along, reagan was just a part of it.

[Neutron]

To Iran, then defeated the ability of that country to use those arms. Witness the F14s they still cannot fly!

I'm not saying we did not know what kind of man Hussein was, HOWEVER we could not have predicted the man he would become. To say otherwise would be the same as blaming the Brits for WW2. They knew what Hitler was, but did not and COULD not predict the man he would become.

Again you make these claims, Would you provide some proof please?????????? You keep changing your argument when you're confronted with easily available facts. Try this. RESEARCH, then base your opinions on that!. You haven't done anything but make unprovable accusations.

Am I saying the Us Government is always innocent. Hell no. I'm not naive and certainly know better. HOWEVER prior to making a claim I can at least back it up. Hell man, you have a quote at the end of your posts from someone who routinely used violence, yet you think the quote has some meaning.

Try being less a Strawman. I could care less what you believe, it is after all your right to believe as you choose, BUT at least provide legitimate basis for your beliefs. Otherwise you sound like J LO and Ben Affleck when they'd discuss their "marriage" plans.

Tron

[Neutron]

Clinton didn't take action to stop a threat, that's different from supporting terror. AND how is making war on terror the same as supporting it.
Again sometimes you need to use a smaller evil in order to fight a larger one. Please use FACT. The Kurds have many times resorted to terrorist tactics against Turks. ALSO the Turks are under NO obligation to take Kurdish refugees. That's simple International Law.

Now you've introduced acts by current foreign governments to support a claim you made about Reagan. Do you ever stop to think before you post? Strawman logic strikes again.

Tron

[august spies]

the us armed both sides of the iran iraq war, that was my point and i see you except it. i dont see what you mean by we "defeated that counties ability to use the arms" after all they were involved in a very bloody and pointless war after being attacked by iraq, which was armed more.

This is where you are wrong "predicted the man he would become" this again proves my point about definitions. Saddam was always a ruthless killer and always used torture and there were always thousands of political prisoners rotting in his jails (built by the british). however he only becomes evil to you once he turns agains the us (or misunderstood orders, see amabassador april gilespees comments to saddam regarding his invasion of kuwait).

Sorry tron my argument has not changed one bit, if you would like me to go into a certain point in more detail ill be glad, just give me a specific example.

The second post is where you are blantenly wrong, your right, clinton didnt take action to stop turkeys terrorism, he took action to support it, turkey outside israel is one of the largest recepient of us aid and dick sucking in that part of the world.

i dont really think you need to use smaller evil to defeat larger evil, however your point about turkist state terrorism being a small eveil as compared to kurdish resistence (and sometimes terrorism) is totally backward, at most kurdish resistence killed a few dozen turkish civilians, as opposed to the turkish state which killed tens of thousands. the term refugees reffering to the kurds was wrong, your right, i only used to because most people do not know the difference between internally displaced peoples and refugees, refugees is just a more common word. so i apologize, i didnt think you would know the difference.

The turkish goverment created 2million kurdish IDPS with their scortched earth terrorist campaign.

for those who dont know an IDP is somone displaced in their own country, to give another examlpe Sudans terrorist actions against the people of the south displace them inernally (within Sudan) so they are not refugees but IDPs. however if fighting in the Congo intensifies many congolese will flee to neighboring countries, this makes them refugees.

[august spies]

yea and you keep attacking poor malatesta, i dont know where you get these crazy ideas that he "routinley used violence" he was actually one of the anarchists who came out against all violence. but lets save the political discussion of anarchism for another time

[Neutron]

He was behind the plot to assassinate Ferdinand, Hardly a peacable gesture.

Again please provide proof for your claims, all you've done is restate your claims with extremely poor spelling. I did not EXCEPT anything, NOR did I accept anything. I merely pointed to a fact, that we armed Iran, then when it became they were a danger we took action to Unarm them.

And yes sometimes you need a smaller evil to defeat a bigger one. It's been that way thoughout world history, but you wouldn't know that because it's apparent you've never bothered learning it. How sad...

As for Hussein, no, he wasn't known as a tortuer when he was "promoted" He was a relatively minor player who the US supported because they felt he could control him.

The Turks do not receive the second amount of Foreign aid. Where exactly do you get that?

Again please provide SOURCES and not allegations.

You're proving an old adage. Never debate an idiot, they'll drag you to their level and beat you with experience.

Also please tell me exactly how grieving for Reagan equates with supporting the Death Penalty? You made that claim earlier. I'm curious how a Strawman backs that up..

Tron

[august spies]

i actually didnt proofread my posts because i assumed all your could criticize would be spelling errors, i guess i was right.

Nuetron, your smart enough to realize that saddam was a known torturer, and you can take those pretentious quotations off of the word promoted, we know our history. Every human rights report and even state deptartment human rights reported from that time denounced him as a torturer.

the lesser evil remark i shouldnt even bothered making, that was just a tangent that i should have known you would have attacked instead of going after the key point, that the turkish government was the greater evil, not the kurds.


The Turks do not receive the second amount of Foreign aid. Where exactly do you get that?

the above statement must be you getting desperate, i never said that, now you are just making things up. but it doesnt matter to me because its irrelavent. i said the turks are one of the largest recipients of us aid, its in the billions, epypt and israel get more, but billions in aid to a terrorist state is wrong and thats my point.

you havent given me any specific statements you want me to back up so heres one people always find shocking. Its regarding the toture specialist who worked with brazil during its totalitarianist dictatorship.

btw, this is from a report by the catholic church, not the most anarchist friendly organization in the world.

[URL=http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0292704844/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-1324084-6384126#reader-page]

page 14, look for the name dan mitrione.

i really know im really taking your bait here, but where on earth did you here of malatestas plot with the serb nationlist who killed the archduke (and please dont limit your response to this alone)

[Psycho]

aug stop changing points. Tron didn't mean that the Kurds where the greater evil. He was pointing out that you have to use a smaller evil (ex: the kurds or saddam) to defeat a greater evil (ex: the Turks or the Soviets) He was relating the 2. Did you not say "Turkey, outside of isreal, is the largest recipiant of US aid and dick sucking"? Scroll down buddy its there. Anyway stop changing the subject for god sakes. What does the Kurds, Clinton, and the Death Penalty have to do with you celebrating Reagan's death. Also since when is anarchism anit-violent. I dont know who the hell would buy that. Also you haven't proven anything that you have said. You said Reagan is a terrorist that he supported raping, beating, and torturing, but you havent given any examples of him supporting any of these. I hate to say it because Tron said it so many times it sounds repetative, but he is right. Straw Man. KoocheeKoo your right I am proud to be born southern. Those damn yankees dont know a damn thing and dont respect a damn thing either.

Psycho

[Neutron]

Well said, and thank you for getting the point.

Tron

[Neutron]

"turkey outside israel is one of the largest recepient of us aid and dick sucking in that part of the "


Implies you're saying Turkey IS the second largest receiver of US foreign aid. Otherwise you should have mentioned other countries.

Also, when we talk terrorism let's stick to the LEGAL definition ok? Anyone who performs acts in order to cause a state of terror or unrest outside normal military channels and without consent of a legally recognized government.

Otherwise it comes down to your uninformed strawman opinion.

I have asked for sources and proof after EVERYONe of your threads. Hell just pick one of your mindless statements and prove it. Your choice. And please let's stick to what legally recognized organizations use when it comes to definition, then again you'd be out of luck wouldn't you?

PLEASE tell me what supporting the death penalty has to do with grieving over Reagan. I've asked you to do that many times. Specific enough for you?

By the way, what other parts of the Constitution should we throw out? Maybe the part that allowed your DJ buddy to ask for applause for an ex presidents death?

Tron

[Strider]

Yeah,he just had to go and win the Cold War.

[KoocheeKoo]

Originally posted by Psycho

KoocheeKoo your right I am proud to be born southern. Those damn yankees dont know a damn thing and dont respect a damn thing either.


I can't say that about all folks from the north....my brother in law hails from Oregon and he's a great guy....so are his folks. IMO "august the anarchist" is just a punk with no class and less manners. One thing is for certain....he's darn lucky to live in New Jersey. We don't tolerate such blatant disrespect of the dead down here.

[august spies]

this thread turned into me making fun of a bunch of southern fascists? wow i would have never guessed that.

nuetron all of your arguments are strawman, either that or you just make up things, or you focus on things that are completely irrelavent to the point.

what legal definition of terrorism is that? george bushs? lets use the definition that most of the world goes by.

but lets humor you, even with your own definition of terrorism reagans contras were not a state. reagans connection to them was far greater than bin ladens to 9/11 and they caused far more terrorism and death.

i just gave you proof of a point i made, a fairly important one that sets a context, however of course you choose to ignore it. and i said it a million times but ill say it again, i wrote another thread detailing reagans actions, it was deleted by the mods because they have a bias and they dont hide it.

i not going to cite everything i say, ill be here all night, if you dont believe something look into it, if you dont find it, ill cite it for you, but be specific.

i dont support the death penalty, im sure you do.

the dj can say that because he believes in freedom, as do i. not because a piece of paper tells him he is allowed. that thinking gets you idiots who say,"healthcare isnt in the constitution so its bad". well sorry f the constitution.

ps. he didnt ask for applause, it came naturally.

psycho:

aug stop changing points. Tron didn't mean that the Kurds where the greater evil. He was pointing out that you have to use a smaller evil (ex: the kurds or saddam) to defeat a greater evil (ex: the Turks or the Soviets) He was relating the 2. Did you not say "Turkey, outside of isreal, is the largest recipiant of US aid and dick sucking"? Scroll down buddy its there. Anyway stop changing the subject for god sakes. What does the Kurds, Clinton, and the Death Penalty have to do with you celebrating Reagan's death. Also since when is anarchism anit-violent. I dont know who the hell would buy that. Also you haven't proven anything that you have said. You said Reagan is a terrorist that he supported raping, beating, and torturing, but you havent given any examples of him supporting any of these. I hate to say it because Tron said it so many times it sounds repetative, but he is right. Straw Man. KoocheeKoo your right I am proud to be born southern. Those damn yankees dont know a damn thing and dont respect a damn thing either.

Of course he ment the kurds were the greater evil, if he ment it the other way he would be agreeing with me and not bush, and i doubt its that.

and no i didnt say turkey outside israel is the greatest recipient of us aid, i said it is ONE of the greatest recipients of us aid. i also said that if its the 4th greatest the 5th the 3rd or the 2nd doesnt matter, the point im making is it is ONE of the greatest recipients of us aid, agreed? can we move one?

anarchists are not monolithic in their tactics, malatesta believed in non violence, some didnt.

what do the kurds have to do with celebrating reagans death? the kurds are just one example of an opressed people, who are opressed because of people like reagan. so if this opressor dies, although the opression doesnt end because somone else takes over (clinton) im still happy reagan is gone.

as i said a million times i posted a thread detailing reagans terrorist activities but it was deleted, and no it wasnt in the praise reagan thread.

Reagan was very close to, trained, funded, direceted, and even created many thug like terrorist groups, mainly in latin america who were responsibly for the death of up to a million people. the mano blanco of el salvador were one, the contra mercenaries were another, the guatamalan genocide squads were another.

the el mozote massacre was one of the most brutal terrorist attacks, about 1/3 the casualty rate of 9/11 but most were woman and children, most were raped, and most were tortured. the terrorist group responsible, the salvadoran atlacatl battalion, was reagans brain child.

here is a quote from one of their leaders:

"You know you're not going to be able to work with the civilian population up there, you're never going to get a permanent base there. So you just decide to kill everybody. That'll scare everybody else out of the zone. It's done out of frustration more than anything else."

terrorism plane and simple, include the rape and torture, and you have the most barbaric form of terrorism possible.

[venray]

you call this details..lol It was pulled by one of the mods because it duplicated your meaningless tirade in the thread meant to pay respects to the dead....

August's restored post:

leading terrorist dies
ronald reagan, former head terrorist dies.

bin laden, saddam, mano blanco, august pinochet, general suharto, somoza, marcos, mobutu, all send condolences.

lets take a look at his lovely record of war torture racism,and fascism.
remember, all the ties to these terrorists are equal or greater than bin ladens ties to 9/11.

el salvador- 75,000 dead
nicargaua-30,000 dead
guatamala-200,000 dead
chile-5,000 dead
argentina-30,000 dead
bolivia-40,000 dead
zaire-1,000,000 dead
south africa-1,000,000 dead and the legitamacy of racism.
indonesia-1,000,000 dead
phillipines-tens of tousands dead
afghanistan-6billion dollars and al queda later, the country is destroyed and islamic fascism takes power 1,000,000 dead


just to put this terrorism into context ill just give one story

its about a peasent woman from el salvador, who returned to her house to find her entire familiy decapitated and sitting at the diner table with their heads in front of them on dinner plates (including children). this was the work of reagans "mano blanco" or white hand terrorist hit squad.

well i could go on by my hands are getting tired.


This is nothing more than a list that YOU attribute to Reagan...once again you have backed up nothing with fact, you just spew forth drivel..to say "this was the work of reagans "mano blanco" or white hand terrorist hit squad.." when this organization started long before the man even thought of politics let alone the Presidency, shows you know nothing of history...give it up son or PROVE at least one point you are trying to make..you havent yet, and quite frankly your lack of good grammar and spelling skill makes your posts both difficult and painful to wade through...

Ray :rolleyes:

[Strider]

August,you are aware that we were in The Cold War(World War 3)at the time of the actions you're describing.That you're also getting facts completely wrong,you're either being intentionally disingenuous you simply don't know what you're talking about,I really don't know,nor do I particularly care.

For instance,on the subject of El Salvador,you obviously think backing Duarte and the PDC was the wrong decision,fine;your reason for this seems to be their ostensible brutality,for some reason you don't take into account that the FMLN has admitted they fabricated atrocity stories,nor do you bother to differentiate between the PDC and the paramilitaries,but I'll ignore that for now.So,you say we should not have backed the PDC due to their repressive nature,but if that's your argument,the burden then falls on you to make the argument that had the US extended no support and the FMLN been allowed to overrun the country,the outcome would have been markedly better off were the Salvadorans.Frankly,I don't believe that's possible.The eventual outcome due to support of Duarte's government-which,for all it's flaws,was certainly a better option than the caudillos so traditionally popular in the area-was democratization in 1984,and an eventual end to the civil war in 1991.Today,the FMLN can run uncontested in Salvadoran elections.If it had been the other way around,would the PDC be able to function above ground today?The actions of Ortega's clique in the FSLN would indicate otherwise.

Another example,on your death totals,you simply take the entire number dead in any given conflict and attribute every death to the US as if some men in black suits are secretly micro-managing every last one of these events and local causes and the agendas of regional leaders don't actually matter.For instance,the subject of the Chilean military coup in 1973 has been so willfully lied about it's mind blowing.Popular mythology would have you believe the UP regime was running some wondrous arcadia in early 70s Chile until the CIA single handedly prodded Pinochet into action.To say this leaves a few things out is perhaps the understatement of the millenium.Without understanding the circumstances surrounding the Statute of Democratic Guarantees,it's impossible to understand how this affair played out.But the people who continue to push the 'CIA installed Pinochet' myth have probably never even heard of that particular document.

Some of the totals are also significantly larger than I've ever seen.For instance,you say 200,000 deaths in Guatemala.But you're ostensibly referring to deaths due to actions directly orchestrated by Reagan,and 200,000 is the number of deaths in the entire Guatemalan Civil War,on all sides,both military and civilian.Of course,you simply attribute every last one of them to the US.You also neglect to mention Reagan had an arms embargo on Guatemala during the worst repressions in the early 80s.In Nicaragua,the 30,000 figure sounds about right.But once again,you take every single casualty in a civil war,whether military or civilian and act as if the US is single handedly responsible.That is asinine.Also,if you're interested,the Sandinistas themselves admitted that three quarters of the people the Contras killed were military targets.Naturally,you also neglect to mention the Sandinista persecution of the Moskitos,but that's not surprising really.In Salvador you do the exact same thing.(The Real Contra War-Tim Brown;Nicaragua: Revolution in the Family-Shirley Christian;Shattered Hope:The Guatemalan Revolution and the United States-Piero Gleijeses)

In Chile,you claim 5,000.The Chilean Truth and Reconcilliation Committee lists 3,197.Naturally,I suppose whether those people executed were members of the MIR or Altimiranos is irrelevant to you.Seriously,you could at least attempt to learn about the situations you're discussing.(http://www.amnesty.it/AIlibtop/1996/AMR/22200196.htm;The Overthrow of Allende and the Politics of Chile:1964-1976-Paul Sigmund)

I don't know where the hell you got the number on Bolivia.Banzer's regime executed probably 400 people,but that was in 1971-1978,before Reagan was in office.Meza's regime was in power in the first year of Reagan's first term;Amnesty Internatioal estimates his regime killed around 1,000 people in 1980-1981.So please,let me know where you got 40,000.In Zaire,once again,I don't know where the hell you got one million,Mobutu's regime probably executed around 8,000 people.Anyway,I won't bother with anymore of these,if you care enough about history,you'll trouble yourself to research it.(NY Times,1999;UK Guardian,2002)

[august spies]

ven, im not stupid. the thread was pulled for political reasons because the conflicted with the right wing mods beliefs. the post had its own thread entitled leading terrorist dies. and frankly i wouldnt care if it was in the jerk off reagan thread, but it wasnt and thats a fact.

If it had been a thread priasing reagan it would never have been taken down.

the reagan death count is a fact. those people are dead.

the specific example is a fact, her familiy is dead.

the death squad killed them, thats a fact, they brag about it.

reagan supported them, thats a fact.

salvadorian terrorism didnt start with reagan, just like islamic terrorism didnt start with bin laden. does that mean bin laden is ok?

salvadorian terrorism got extermely bloody and intense under reagan because of his intense support for it. its that simple.

[august spies]

strider im not going to debate death counts with you, if its 300 people, its too many so for arguments sake ill agree with all your totals.

i dont care about the fmln fabricating stories, there are enough real stories to make any human being sick to their stomach. if you want to endulge fantasys about latim american fascists and their love for democracy thats another story.

the cia was heavily involved in pinochets demoracy to dictatorship transition and they brag about it.

im sure the sandinistas killed a few dozen miskiots, but i never praised their human rights record, up against el salvadors it looks like a paradise. but your missing the point, YOUR RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSIQUENCES OF YOUR OWN ACTIONS, THE CONTRA REIGN OF TERROR WAS DIRECTED FUNDED AND FUELED BY REAGAN AND OUR GOVERNMENT, THE FSLN WAS NOT

[venray]

You say you have given facts...Give sources to prove them

You say you have given specific examples...give their source and prove them....

You say Reagan the man, the president supported the death squads..give a source to prove your statement..

You say you arent stupid....no source necessary, just dont act it.


You have proven nothing nor can you give a source that shows that 5000 chileans died at the hands of Reagan. This it what you SAY, but cannot prove. This is why people dont listen to you or those like you that continuosly throw out what you call facts with no supporting source.

You take a "fact" and twist it and make it fit into the point you are trying to make, but it doesnt work , son....


Ven

[Neutron]

Can verify I don't "make facts up". I'm an astute student of history and will be the first to separate that which I know as a fact, from that which is my opinion. You've stated very biased opinions and haven't given ONE source outside of Everyone knows it to be true. That argument wasn't valid in the 5th grade, and is less valid as adults.

I never once said Kurds were an eveil, I suggest you reread that post. I'll not explain it to you, you don't seem to understand the concept of international balance.

As for my definition of terrorism, that's the definition as used by International Law, defined when treying to post an international subpeona for Carlos The Jackal. It is in fact the currently used LEGAL definition, and the one must prove when attempting to extradite a terrorist.

Again please cite sources for your "facts" Your post was pulled because it didn't belong in that thread. Note no one has deleted your posts in this thread.

Tron

[venray]

To clarify: The post was pulled by one of the mods because of redundancy. His points were made in the Reagan passes thread and then this other was posted. Since the comments have been moved from the other thread to here I have restored that which August claims to explain his points.

The thread has been restored within my above post. It neither explains nor backs up anything that he has said thus far. No sources have been cited, perhaps because there are none.

Ray

[Neutron]

An "anarchist" Bemoans the Reagan administration "gutting" social and social welfare programs. This implies he's bemoaning lack of government intervention for a social situation. I'm sort of amused in that aren't government intervention and anarchy mutually exclusive?

Tron

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Neutron

Also, when we talk terrorism let's stick to the LEGAL definition ok? Anyone who performs acts in order to cause a state of terror or unrest outside normal military channels and without consent of a legally recognized government.


Umm, I might be way off target here, but the way I see this is if the US supported the Contras, which were armed opponents of the democratically elected government, and if the Contras struck at targets not considered military in nature, then the US was indeed supporting Terrorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair


In the Iran-Contra Affair, United States President Ronald Reagan's administration secretly sold arms to Iran, which was engaged in a bloody war with its neighbor Iraq from 1980 to 1988 (see Iran-Iraq War), and diverted the proceeds to the Contra rebels fighting to overthrow the leftist democratically-elected Sandinista government of Nicaragua. Those sales thus had a dual goal: appeasing Iran, which held American hostages and supported bombings in Western European countries, and funding an anti-Communist guerilla war.

Both actions were contrary to acts of Congress which prohibited the sale of weapons to Iran, as well as in violation of UN sanctions.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras


The Contras (Spanish contrarevolucionario, "counter-revolutionary") were the armed opponents of Nicaragua's revolutionary and democratically-elected Sandinista government following the July 1979 overthrow of Anastasio Somoza Debayle and the ending of the Somoza family's 43-year rule. The label was commonly used by the US press to cover a range of groups with little in the way of ideological unity; thus some references use the uncapitalized form, contra.

They were considered terrorists by the Sandinistas and many Nicaraguans and many of their attacks targeted civilians. There are allegations that Reagan's US administration incited the targeting of "soft" or civilian targets by Contra militants, for example farm co-operatives (which are comparable to Palestinian guerrilla attacks on civilians in kibutz in Israel).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States


The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America was a case heard by the International Court of Justice in which it was alleged that the United States had violated international law by supporting Contra guerrillas in their war against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The Court ruled in Nicaragua's favor, but the United States refused to abide by the Court's decision, even though it was obligated to do so under international law. After the Court's decision, the United States withdrew its declaration accepting the Court's compulsory jurisdiction.

On June 27, 1986, the Court found that:


The United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State.

The United States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, namely attacks on Puerto Sandino on 13 September and 14 October 1983, an attack on Corinto on 10 October 1983; an attack on Potosi Naval Base on 4/5 January 1984, an attack on San Juan del Sur on 7 March 1984; attacks on patrol boats at Puerto Sandino on 28 and 30 March 1984; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on 9 April 1984; and further by those acts of intervention referred to [above] which involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State.

The United States of America, by directing or authorizing over Rights of Nicaraguan territory, and by the acts imputable to the United States referred to [above], has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to violate the sovereignty of another State.

By laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the Republic of Nicaragua during the first months of 1984, the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce.

The United States of America, by the attacks on Nicaraguan territory referred to [above], and by declaring a general embargo on trade with Nicaragua on 1 May 1985, has acted in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956.

The United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled 'Operaciones sicológicas en guerra de guerrillas', and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but does not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed are imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America.


Now I am NOT saying that this puts Ronald Reagan on the same level as the bin-Laden's of this world, only that a case can be made that his administration did indeed support terrorism, a charge that, 17 years later, was given as a reason for invading Iraq in 2003.


Originally posted by Neutron

The US did not give those weapons to Iraq with the purpose of using them on his own people.


Again, I might be off the mark but why give them to him in the first place? Surely you don't give a country chemical weapons and not expect them to be used against SOMEONE. When they were used, the administration downplayed the reports and when the media confirmed them, the response was:



"Everyone in the administration saw the same reports you saw last night. They were horrible, outrageous, disgusting and should serve as a reminder to all countries of why chemical warfare should be banned."


But if the US had any part in supplying those chemicals then they should have shouldered part of the blame. They didn't and left the Kurds to face an enemy that the US had a major hand in creating, a pattern that would be repeated after the first Gulf War with the Shiites.


Originally posted by Neutron

And yes sometimes you need a smaller evil to defeat a bigger one. It's been that way thoughout world history.


I've got a question about this that I think you can answer, your knowledge of history has a far wider base than mine does after all. How many times when a small evil has been used to defeat a bigger one has the smaller evil gone on to take the place of the larger one it has displaced?

[Psycho]

Ok there is not point argueing anymore on my part. There is alot I would like to say but it will just get ignored by august. So I will give an example of august's debating strategy.

Say I where to create the following thread trying to prove that Aug is a terrorist. Say Tron (just for the sake of having a name to use) where to argue with me about it. If I where to used August's debating strategy it would look something like this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Psycho: August Spies is the most evil terrorist ever alive. He supports death squads in Isreal killing 600,000 Jews a year. His August Blood Cobras crew raped hundreds of jewish women and tortured their kids and husbands.

Tron: That isn't true. No where in history is there any proof of any of this. Can you provide proof?

Psycho: I did create a thread with proof but the mods deleted it.

Venray: restored thread-
August is evil.
Jews killed-600,000 a year.
Raped-300,000
tortured-1,000,000

see there is proof.

Tron: that isn't proof. This doesn't make any since. Nothing like that ever happened.

Psycho: yes it did and I provided proof but the mods took it. August Spies is a murderer. Just look at last year when he went to Idaho and personnally shot 5 million people. You want more proof? Well I don't support the death penalty or abortion.

Tron: you still haven't given any proof.

Psycho: yes I have. August Spies in one story killed a womans whole family and sat them at the dinning table with their heads in the bowls.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

You see. In your own logic I have just proven that you are a terrorist.

Psycho

[Neutron]

However by international law terrorism involves NO government in any way shape or form. It also has no real political backing outside of an agenda by a special interest group. It also has to be against civilian targets. By definition one cannot strike "terror" into the military.

The US did NOT supply Chemical weapons, we supplied planes, taks, bullets, and missiles. So far as I know the US does not supply WMD to anyone on the basis that it could potentially be used against an ally.

The US did NOT promise support to the Kurds. Granted it promoted them to rise against Hussein, BUT once the war was ended we had no right to interfere in a civil matter. One cannot say, We're not gonna take Husseoin out, then provide military backing to that group which rises against him. Had we backed them fully we would have been Middle Eastern Paraihs, In fact to keep the peace with our allies we specifically agreed not to militarily back anyone.

In the last case I agree. Note I never raised the ultimate end to the scenario. However, in some cases the smaller evil has not become a bigger evil. It's situational, for instance do I agree with the Turks treatment of the Kurds? Nope. As a whole are the Turks a threat to the world because of their treatment of the Kurds? Nope, the Turks have never been a threat to the modern world and there's no reason to believe they'll start. Let's remember, part of their repression of the Kurds is justified. I guess it's just a matter of who is being evil to who. Another way to look at it, During WW2 the US supported Mao Tse Tung along with Chang Kai Chek. It was recognized Tung might drive the Chinese to Communism, BUT he was necessary to fight at least at the beginning of the war Japanese agression. In the end the Japanese were beaten and by 1949 China was communist. But were the Chinese a threat to world peace? Nope, they never have been a serious threat, AND have never shown the inclination to be one. In this case the smaller evil did not spread, and in many cases ended up being a stabilizing force in the region.
Even the Soviets in WW2 did not spread into a bigger evil. Granted the cold war happened and granted the Sovs did invade other nations, but look closely, in Europe they never invaded anyone that hadn't provided a path from Germany to Russia, Stalin vowed after WW2 the Germans would never threaten his country again, and he made damn sure of it. In this case the smaller evil DID NOT replace a larger evil, Russia was never the threat the Germans were.

Tron

[august spies]

i somone just lost a giant post, and im not rewritng it.

it basically stated their is no point arguing with tron because he mind is made up, i dont even think he is reading what im saying.

thats why he still thinks my post was pulled because it was in the praise reagan thread which i said a million times it wasnt.

i didnt cite one source? i gave you a catholic church report on torture featuring your hero dan mitrione.

the us armed the contras, they armed the death squads, and they armed the dictatorships, period.

[Neutron]

Tron

[Neutron]

And exactly how does that Catholic Church report prove anything? PLEASE provide a recognized source (journalist) newspaper, Author, Internation Report. SOMETHING!!

And how exactly is Dan Mitrione my hero? I don't believe I ever condoned torture. I read the nonsense you posted. I only asked you back it up. Hell look at the fine job BOFH did, AND you could actually read his!

Now answer the last question, How exactly can an "anarchist" bemoan Reagans decision to "gut" social programs. It seems that's exactly what an anarchist would want, less government intervention in society.

Tron

[august spies]

again its a fact they us armed, trained, and gave countless support to terrorist actions in latin america, the difference lies in your opinion why.

Reagan said it was for self defense, the us had to be protected from "salvadoran peasents" or a state of emergency had to be declared in 1986 because of the "threat" nicaragua posed to the US. anyone with a brain knows this is nonsense.

the reason for the terrorism was simple, it was to maintain us hegemony in the region, since the turn of the previous century the us has invaded that regeion dozens of times, it set up the somoza dictatorship in the 30s, overthrew the first and last democratic government of guatemala in 1954 and has armed countless terrorist factions and dictatorships, all to maintain their dominace and control over the region, why? profits.

here is a favorite quote of mine from a marine during that time period:

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.



tron actually many us capitalists supplied wmds to saddam, here is a well cited article:

Flashback: How The US Armed Saddam Hussein With Chemical Weapons

By Norm Dixon
On August 18, 2002, the New York Times carried a front-page story headlined, "Officers say U.S. aided Iraq despite the use of gas". Quoting anonymous US "senior military officers", the NYT "revealed" that in the 1980s, the administration of US President Ronald Reagan covertly provided "critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war". The story made a brief splash in the international media, then died.

While the August 18 NYT article added new details about the extent of US military collaboration with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during Iraq's 1980-88 war with Iran, it omitted the most outrageous aspect of the scandal: not only did Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime's repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq's Kurdish minority, but the US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

Nor did the NYT dwell on the extreme cynicism and hypocrisy of the current US administration's citing of those same terrible atrocities — which were disregarded at the time by Washington — and those same weapons programs — which no longer exist, having been dismantled and destroyed in the decade following the 1991 Gulf War — to justify a massive new war against the people of Iraq.

A reader of the NYT article (or the tens of thousands of other articles written after the latest war drive against Iraq began in earnest soon after September 11) would have looked in vain for the fact that many of the US politicians and ruling class pundits demanding war against Hussein today — in particular, the most bellicose of the Bush administration's "hawks", defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld — were up to their ears in Washington's efforts to cultivate, promote and excuse Hussein in the past.

The NYT article read as though Washington's casual disregard about the use of chemical weapons by Hussein's dictatorship throughout the 1980s had never been reported before. However, it was not the first time that "Iraqgate" — as the scandal of US military and political support for Hussein in the '80s has been dubbed — has raised its embarrassing head in the corporate media, only to be quickly buried again.

One of the more comprehensive and damning accounts of Iraqgate was written by Douglas Frantz and Murray Waas and published in the February 23, 1992, Los Angeles Times. Headlined, "Bush secret effort helped Iraq build its war machine", the article reported that "classified documents obtained by the LA Times show … a long-secret pattern of personal efforts by [George Bush senior] — both as president and vice president — to support and placate the Iraqi dictator."

Even William Safire, the right-wing, war-mongering NYT columnist, on December 7, 1992, felt compelled to write that, "Iraqgate is uniquely horrendous: a scandal about the systematic abuse of power by misguided leaders of three democratic nations [the US, Britain and Italy] to secretly finance the arms buildup of a dictator".

The background to Iraqgate was the January 1979 popular uprising that overthrew the cravenly pro-US Shah of Iran. The Iranian revolution threatened US imperialism's domination of the strategic oil-rich region. Other than Israel, Iran had long been Washington's key ally in the Middle East.

Washington immediately began to "cast about for ways to undermine or overthrow the Iranian revolution, or make up for the loss of the Shah. Hussein's regime put up its hand. On September 22, 1980, Iraq launched an invasion of Iran. Throughout the bloody eight-year-long war — which cost at least 1 million lives — Washington backed Iraq.

As a 1990 report prepared for the Pentagon by the Strategic Studies Institute of the US War College admitted: "Throughout the [Iran-Iraq] war the United States practised a fairly benign policy toward Iraq… [Washington and Baghdad] wanted to restore the status quo ante … that prevailed before [the 1979 Iranian revolution] began threatening the regional balance of power. Khomeini's revolutionary appeal was anathema to both Baghdad and Washington; hence they wanted to get rid of him. United by a common interest … the [US] began to actively assist Iraq."

At first, as Iraqi forces seemed headed for victory over Iran, official US policy was neutrality in the conflict. Not only was Hussein doing Washington's dirty work in the war with Iran, but the US rulers believed that Iraq could be lured away from its close economic and military relationship with the Soviet Union — just as Egypt's President Anwar Sadat had done in the 1970s.

In March 1981, US Secretary of State Alexander Haig excitedly told the Senate foreign relations committee that Iraq was concerned by "the behaviour of Soviet imperialism in the Middle Eastern region". The Soviet government had refused to deliver arms to Iraq as long as Baghdad continued its military offensive against Iran. Moscow was also unhappy with the Hussein's vicious repression of the Iraqi Communist Party.

Washington's support (innocuously referred to as a "tilt" at the time) for Iraq became more open after Iran succeeded in driving Iraqi forces from its territory in May 1982; in June, Iran went on the offensive against Iraq. The US scrambled to stem Iraq's military setbacks. Washington and its conservative Arab allies suddenly feared Iran might even defeat Iraq, or at least cause the collapse of Hussein's regime.

Using its allies in the Middle East, Washington funnelled huge supplies of arms to Iraq. Classified State Department cables uncovered by Frantz and Waas described covert transfers of howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons to Baghdad in 1982-83 from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait.

Howard Teicher, who monitored Middle East policy at the US National Security Council during the Reagan administration, told the February 23, 1992, LA Times: "There was a conscious effort to encourage third countries to ship US arms or acquiesce in shipments after the fact. It was a policy of nods and winks."

According to Mark Phythian's 1997 book Arming Iraq: How the US and Britain Secretly Built Saddam's War Machine (Northeastern University Press), in 1983 Reagan asked Italy's Prime Minister Guilo Andreotti to channel arms to Iraq.

The January 1, 1984 Washington Post reported that the US had "informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the three-year-old war with Iran would be 'contrary to US interests' and has made several moves to prevent that result".

Central to these "moves" was the cementing of a military and political alliance with Saddam Hussein's repressive regime, so as to build up Iraq as a military counterweight to Iran. In 1982, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department's list of countries that allegedly supported terrorism. On December 19-20, 1983, Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy — none other than Donald Rumsfeld — to Baghdad with a hand-written offer of a resumption of diplomatic relations, which had been severed during the 1967 Arab-Israel war. On March 24, 1984, Rumsfeld was again in Baghdad.

On that same day, the UPI wire service reported from the UN: "Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers … a team of UN experts has concluded … Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, US presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with foreign minister Tariq Aziz."

The day before, Iran had accused Iraq of poisoning 600 of its soldiers with mustard gas and Tabun nerve gas.

There is no doubt that the US government knew Iraq was using chemical weapons. On March 5, 1984, the State Department had stated that "available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons". The March 30, 1984, NYT reported that US intelligence officials has "what they believe to be incontrovertible evidence that Iraq has used nerve gas in its war with Iran and has almost finished extensive sites for mass producing the lethal chemical warfare agent".

However, consistent with the pattern throughout the Iran-Iraq war and after, the use of these internationally outlawed weapons was not considered important enough by Rumsfeld and his political superiors to halt Washington's blossoming love affair with Hussein.

The March 29, 1984, NYT, reporting on the aftermath of Rumsfeld's talks in Baghdad, stated that US officials had pronounced "themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the US and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name". In November 1984, the US and Iraq officially restored diplomatic relations.

According to Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, in a December 15, 1986 article, the CIA began to secretly supply Iraq with intelligence in 1984 that was used to "calibrate" mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. Beginning in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with "data from sensitive US satellite reconnaissance photography … to assist Iraqi bombing raids".

Iraqi chemical attacks on Iranian troops — and US assistance to Iraq — continued throughout the Iran-Iraq war. In a parallel program, the US defence department also provided intelligence and battle-planning assistance to Iraq.

The August 17, 2002 NYT reported that, according to "senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program", even though "senior officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq's employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents … President Reagan, vice president George Bush [senior] and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program in which more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq."

Retired DIA officer Rick Francona told the NYT that Iraq's chemical weapons were used in the war's final battle in early 1988, in which Iraqi forces retook the Fao Peninsula from the Iranian army.

Another retired DIA officer, Walter Lang, told the NYT that "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern". What concerned the DIA, CIA and the Reagan administration was that Iran not break through the Fao Peninsula and spread the Islamic revolution to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Iraq's 1982 removal from Washington's official list of states that support terrorism meant that the Hussein regime was now eligible for US economic and military aid, and was able to purchase advanced US technology that could also be used for military purposes.

Conventional military sales resumed in December 1982. In 1983, the Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 Hughes helicopters to Iraq in 1983 "for civilian use". However, as Phythian pointed out, these aircraft could be "weaponised" within hours of delivery. Then US Secretary of State George Schultz and commerce secretary George Baldridge also lobbied for the delivery of Bell helicopters equipped for "crop spraying". It is believed that US-supplied choppers were used in the 1988 chemical attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja, which killed 5000 people.

With the Reagan administration's connivance, Baghdad immediately embarked on a massive militarisation drive. This US-endorsed military spending spree began even before Iraq was delisted as a terrorist state, when the US commerce department approved the sale of Italian gas turbine engines for Iraq's naval frigates.

Soon after, the US agriculture department's Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) guaranteed to repay loans — in the event of defaults by Baghdad — banks had made to Iraq to buy US-grown commodities such as wheat and rice. Under this scheme, Iraq had three years to repay the loans, and if it could not the US taxpayers would have to cough up.

Washington offered this aid initially to prevent Hussein's overthrow as the Iraqi people began to complain about the food shortages caused by the massive diversion of hard currency for the purchase of weapons and ammunition. The loan guarantees amounted to a massive US subsidy that allowed Hussein to launch his overt and covert arms buildup, one result being that the Iran-Iraq war entered a bloody five-year stalemate.

By the end of 1983, US$402 million in agriculture department loan guarantees for Iraq were approved. In 1984, this increased to $503 million and reached $1.1 billion in 1988. Between 1983 and 1990, CCC loan guarantees freed up more than $5 billion. Some $2 billion in bad loans, plus interest, ended up having to be covered by US taxpayers.

A similar taxpayer-funded, though smaller scale, scam operated under the auspices of the federal Export-Import Bank. In 1984, vice-president George Bush senior personally intervened to ensure that the bank guaranteed loans to Iraq of $500 million to build an oil pipeline. Export-Import Bank loan guarantees grew from $35 million in 1985 to $267 million by 1990.

According to William Blum, writing in the August 1998 issue of the Progressive, Sam Gejdenson, chairperson of a Congressional subcommittee investigating US exports to Iraq, disclosed that from 1985 until 1990 "the US government approved 771 licenses [only 39 were rejected] for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application …

"The US spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted… US export control policy was directed by US foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was US foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein."

A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a "witch's brew" of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.

The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment. US firms supplied advanced and specialised computers, lasers, testing and analysing equipment. Among the better-known companies were Hewlett Packard, Unisys, Data General and Honeywell.

Billions of dollars worth of raw materials, machinery and equipment, missile technology and other "dual-use" items were also supplied by West German, French, Italian, British, Swiss and Austrian corporations, with the approval of their governments (German firms even sold Iraq entire factories capable of mass-producing poison gas). Much of this was purchased with funds freed by the US CCC credits.

The destination of much of this equipment was Saad 16, near Mosul in northern Iraq. Western intelligence agencies had long known that the sprawling complex was Iraq's main ballistic missile development centre.

Blum reported that Washington was fully aware of the likely use of this material. In 1992, a US Senate committee learned that the commerce department had deleted references to military end-use from information it sent to Congress about 68 export licences, worth more than $1 billion.

In 1986, the US defence department's deputy undersecretary for trade security, Stephen Bryen, had objected to the export of an advanced computer, similar to those used in the US missile program, to Saad 16 because "of the high likelihood of military end use". The state and commerce departments approved the sale without conditions.

In his book, The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq, Kenneth Timmerman points out that several US agencies were supposed to review US exports that may be detrimental to US "national security". However, the commerce department often did not submit exports to Hussein's Iraq for review or approved them despite objections from other government departments.

On March 16, 1988, Iraqi forces launched a poison gas attack on the Iraqi Kurdish village of Halabja, killing 5000 people. While that attack is today being touted by senior US officials as one of the main reasons why Hussein must now be "taken out", at the time Washington's response to the atrocity was much more relaxed.

Just four months later, Washington stood by as the US giant Bechtel corporation won the contract to build a huge petrochemical plant that would give the Hussein regime the capacity to generate chemical weapons.

On September 8, 1988, the US Senate passed the Prevention of Genocide Act, which would have imposed sanctions on the Hussein regime. Immediately, the Reagan administration announced its opposition to the bill, calling it "premature". The White House used its influence to stall the bill in the House of Representatives. When Congress did eventually pass the bill, the White House did not implement it.

Washington's political, military and economic sweetheart deals with the Iraqi dictator came under even more stress when, in August 1989, FBI agents raided the Atlanta branch of the Rome-based Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL) and uncovered massive fraud involving the CCC loan guarantee scheme and billions of dollars worth of unauthorised "off-the-books" loans to Iraq.

BNL Atlanta manager Chris Drougal had used the CCC program to underwrite programs that had nothing to do with agricultural exports. Using this covert set-up, Hussein's regime tried to buy the most hard-to-get components for its nuclear weapons and missile programs on the black market.

Russ Baker, writing in the March/April 1993 Columbia Journalism Review, noted: "Elements of the US government almost certainly knew that Drougal was funnelling US-backed loans — into dual-use technology and outright military technology. The British government was fully aware of the operations of Matrix-Churchill, a British firm with an Ohio branch, which was not only at the centre of the Iraqi procurement network but was also funded by BNL Atlanta... It would be later alleged by bank executives that the Italian government, long a close US ally as well as BNL's ultimate owner, had knowledge of BNL's loan diversions."

Yet, even the public outrage generated by the Halabja massacre and the widening BNL scandal did not cool Washington's ardour towards Hussein's Iraq.

On October 2, 1989, US President George Bush senior signed the top-secret National Security Decision 26, which declared: "Normal relations between the US and Iraq would serve our long-term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East. The US should propose economic and political incentives for Iraq to moderate its behaviour and increase our influence with Iraq... We should pursue, and seek to facilitate, opportunities for US firms to participate in the reconstruction of the Iraqi economy."

As public and congressional pressure mounted on the US Agriculture Department to end Iraq's access to CCC loan guarantees, Secretary of State James Baker — armed with NSD 26 — personally insisted that agriculture secretary Clayton Yeutter drop his opposition to their continuation.

In November 1989, Bush senior approved $1 billion in loan guarantees for Iraq in 1990. In April 1990, more revelations about the BNL scandal had again pushed the department of agriculture to the verge of halting Iraq's CCC loan guarantees. On May 18, national security adviser Scowcroft personally intervened to ensure the delivery of the first $500 million tranche of the CCC subsidy for 1990.

According to Frantz and Waas' February 23, 1992, LA Times article, in July 1990 "officials at the National Security Council and the State Department were pushing to deliver the second installment of the $1 billion in loan guarantees, despite the looming crisis in the region and evidence that Iraq had used the aid illegally to help finance a secret arms procurement network to obtain technology for its nuclear weapons and ballistic-missile program".

From July 18 to August 1, 1990, Bush senior's administration approved $4.8 million in advanced technology sales to Iraq. The end-users included Saad 16 and the Iraqi ministry of industry and military industrialisation. On August 1, $695,000 worth of advanced data transmission devices were approved.

"Only on August 2, 1990, did the agriculture department officially suspend the [CCC loan] guarantees to Iraq — the same day that Hussein's tanks and troops swept into Kuwait", noted Frantz and Waas.

[august spies]

i somone just lost a giant post, and im not rewritng it.

it basically stated their is no point arguing with tron because he mind is made up, i dont even think he is reading what im saying.

thats why he still thinks my post was pulled because it was in the praise reagan thread which i said a million times it wasnt.

i didnt cite one source? i gave you a catholic church report on torture featuring your hero dan mitrione.

the us armed the contras, they armed the death squads, and they armed the dictatorships, period.

[august spies]

how can you not recognize the catholic church? they have an amazing influence on the people of the region. the cared for the victims, have a reputation for being fairly anti leftist, and they held an investigation, they published their findings. the author was the archdiosce of sao paulo.

What more do you want? nixon saying how fun it was to send torture specialists to latin america? your not going to find that (most of the time) you need independant sources, like the church, if you dont want to believe the victims.

how ignorant of history are you, let me know where exactly are you comming from? do you not believe all these people were killed tortured and imprisoned? Or do you not believe people like reagan supported the terrorism with money, arms, more support,and training?

i hope we are at the point where we can agree that reagan was a terrorist and we can begin debating the why he did it. "security" or us hegemony.

[KoocheeKoo]

Originally posted by august spies
this thread turned into me making fun of a bunch of southern fascists? wow i would have never guessed that.


Southern fascists? Why...because I believe in folks respecting the dead??
I'm not a fascist son....I'm a southern gentleman. There's a helluva difference.

[august spies]

respecting the dead? here is a story from a priest in el salvador. his name is reverand santiago

"People are no just killed by death squads in el salvador, they are decapitated and then their heads are placed on pikes and used to dot the landscape. Mane are not just disemboweled by the Salvadoran Treasury Policy; their severed genitalia are stuffed into their mouths. Salvadoran women are not just raped by the National Guard; their wombs are cut from theri bodies and used to cover theri faces. It is not enought to kill children; they are dragged over bared wire until the flesh falls from their bones while parents are forced to watch... The aesthetics of terror in El Salvador is religious."

This is why when somone like ronald reagan, who supported these crimes, with money, training, arms, and propaganda lies (im just reminded of the time when alexander haig, his sec of state, reacted to the rape and murder of four american nuns by the same terrorist forces, he said "the nuns may have ran a roadblock... and there many have been an exchange of gunfire" of course the nuns were not packing heat and it was a hideous lie.

Point being, i hate hypocracy and you cant have it both ways, im sure your not a fascist i was only screwing around. but reagan supported many fascists and terrorists, and not just in el salvador. Many people dont know this and that is why they still love reagan.

[Neutron]

Does it SAY the US provided one chemical weapon? It says we provided technology. Technically if I provide one transistor to a nation, and they use it to make a missile I've provided them with missile technology when in fact all I sold them was a transistor.

I see no where in that article where the US provided Iraq with a chemical weapon OR a viable delivery system. Hell the US doesn't even fabricate Mustard gas for itself!!!

I see a lot of heresay and conjecture, and of course the "anonymous" (Read made up) source.

Come on, provide something concrete.

As for doing the US Dirty work in Iran, Uh it was the Soviet dirty work, but that's beside the point. Learn your history child.

When exactly has the US invaded the Middle East? Or South America. I'm curious...

Now can you explain what being a Reagan support has to do with supporting the Death Penalty?

AND why would an "anarchist" care about gutting GOVERNMENT sponsored social programs?

Just out of curiousity, the club you went to where the DJ said let's applaud the death of Reagan (utilizing a Constitutional right from the same document you'd like to throw out), do you have to pay for drinks or an entrance fee?

And, if you get censored do you say you have a right by the Constitution to say what's on your mind?

Try answering those questions.

Tron

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Neutron
However by international law terrorism involves NO government in any way shape or form. It also has no real political backing outside of an agenda by a special interest group. It also has to be against civilian targets. By definition one cannot strike "terror" into the military.


Huh? You lost me. If I'm reading that right you're saying terrorism is not terrorism if it's sponsered by a government? Sooooooo..... why are whole countries being targeted as supporters of terrorism, invaded and 'liberated'? Or are you saying that if an organisation targets both military AND civilian targets then it isn't a terrorist organisation by definition? And if THAT'S the case then al-qaida isn't a terrorist organisation as they've struck military targets (and in fact, before September 11th, wasn't that the ONLY targets, meaning government and military, that they'd been confirmed as striking when it came to the US?). Or did you mean something else?


Originally posted by Neutron


The US did NOT supply Chemical weapons, we supplied planes, taks, bullets, and missiles. So far as I know the US does not supply WMD to anyone on the basis that it could potentially be used against an ally.


As always, this is a very difficult question to prove one way or the other, but there is sufficient evidence to strongly suggest, if not outright prove, this DID happen.

http://hnn.us/articles/1283.html



A letter written in 1995 by former CDC Director David Satcher to former Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr., points out that the U.S. Government provided nearly two dozen viral and bacterial samples to Iraqi scientists in 1985--samples that included the plague, botulism, and anthrax, among other deadly diseases. According to the letter from Dr. Satcher to former Senator Donald Riegle, many of the materials were hand carried by an Iraqi scientist to Iraq after he had spent 3 months training in the CDC laboratory. The Armed Services Committee is requesting information from the Departments of Commerce, State, and Defense on the history of the United States, providing the building blocks for weapons of mass destruction to Iraq. I recommend that the Department of Health and Human Services also be included in that request. The American people do not need obfuscation and denial. The American people need the truth. The American people need to know whether the United States is in large part responsible for the very Iraqi weapons of mass destruction which the administration now seeks to destroy. We may very well have created the monster that we seek to eliminate. The Senate deserves to know the whole story. The American people deserve answers to the whole story.


http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php - all source documents for data referenced from this site.


November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians.

December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support.

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application.

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons.

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq.

{snip}

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq.

September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives."

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons.



Originally posted by Neutron
The US did NOT promise support to the Kurds. Granted it promoted them to rise against Hussein, BUT once the war was ended we had no right to interfere in a civil matter. One cannot say, We're not gonna take Husseoin out, then provide military backing to that group which rises against him. Had we backed them fully we would have been Middle Eastern Paraihs, In fact to keep the peace with our allies we specifically agreed not to militarily back anyone.


So what you're saying is the US used them and abandoned them? Yes, I understand the reasons for doing so, but in that case they should NEVER have been used in the first place. Perhaps more to the point, in the case of the Shiite's, why on earth did anyone think they'd welcome US forces with open arms this time round considering it was only just over ten years ago that the US gave them the finger and watched them die in the tens of thousands?


Originally posted by Neutron

In the last case I agree. Note I never raised the ultimate end to the scenario. However, in some cases the smaller evil has not become a bigger evil. It's situational, for instance do I agree with the Turks treatment of the Kurds? Nope. As a whole are the Turks a threat to the world because of their treatment of the Kurds? Nope, the Turks have never been a threat to the modern world and there's no reason to believe they'll start. Let's remember, part of their repression of the Kurds is justified. I guess it's just a matter of who is being evil to who. Another way to look at it, During WW2 the US supported Mao Tse Tung along with Chang Kai Chek. It was recognized Tung might drive the Chinese to Communism, BUT he was necessary to fight at least at the beginning of the war Japanese agression. In the end the Japanese were beaten and by 1949 China was communist. But were the Chinese a threat to world peace? Nope, they never have been a serious threat, AND have never shown the inclination to be one. In this case the smaller evil did not spread, and in many cases ended up being a stabilizing force in the region.
Even the Soviets in WW2 did not spread into a bigger evil. Granted the cold war happened and granted the Sovs did invade other nations, but look closely, in Europe they never invaded anyone that hadn't provided a path from Germany to Russia, Stalin vowed after WW2 the Germans would never threaten his country again, and he made damn sure of it. In this case the smaller evil DID NOT replace a larger evil, Russia was never the threat the Germans were.


I know this is personal opinion now, but I wouldn't class nations such as China and Russia as a "small" anything ;) I was thinking more situations like, well, like the middle east where it seems that one evil has been replaced by another which has been replaced by... well you get the idea. At some point that idea has to be sent to the history books once and for all or this is NEVER going to stop. Good for the weapons manufaucturers, not so good for the rest of us one would suggest.

[ticklebutton]

I'd like to join BOFH in interrupting this pecking party.

The facts are available for anyone who bothers to do a little research.

El Salvador - The Reagan Administration spent more than $4 billion on El Salvador in the ’80s, backing wildly brutal regimes and their death squads against a leftist insurgency.

The 12-year civil war left 75,000 Salvadorans dead--overwhelmingly civilians killed by U.S.-supported forces.

Elliot Abrams, Reagan's assistant secretary of state for human rights & humanitarian affairs, and later for inter-American affairs [http://www.eppc.org/]helped cover up one of the worst atrocities of the war: a Salvadoran army massacre in El Mozote that left 800 to 1000 civilians dead.

On a side note, this man has been appointed by President Bush to the National Security Council as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations. :eek: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer]

[http://www.fair.org/extra/0109/iran-contra.html]

Honduras - Under Ambassador John Negroponte, neighboring Honduras grew so crammed with U.S. bases and weapons that it was dubbed the U.S.S. Honduras, as if it were simply an off-shore staging ground for the Contra war.

The Honduran army, especially the U.S.-trained Battalion 316, engaged in widespread human rights abuses, including kidnapping, torture and assassination.

Negroponte worked closely with the perpetrators and covered up their crimes, according to Ambassador Jack Binns, his predecessor in the post.

On a side note, this is the man that President Bush President has appointed to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. :eek:

[http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/09/allen2509.html]

Nicaragua - Congress had enacted legislation, known as the Boland amendments, that prohibited the Defense Dept., the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or any other government agency from providing military aid to the contras.

The Reagan administration circumvented these prohibitions by using the National Security Council (NSC), which was not explicitly covered by the law, to supervise covert military aid to the contras.

Under Robert McFarlane and John Poindexter the NSC raised private and foreign funds for the contras. This operation was directed by NSC staffer Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North.

McFarlane and North were also the central figures in the plan to secretly ship arms to Iran despite a U.S. trade and arms embargo.

[http://reference.allrefer.com/encyc...I/Irancont.html]

In November 1986, as the Iran-Contra scandal broke, Oliver North and President Reagan's national security adviser, John Poindexter began electronically destroying more than 5,000 e-mail messages in the memory banks of the White House computer system. Read them here: [http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.wa...des/18/archive/]

The United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua...

[http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/N/...ited-States.htm]

While poverty raged in the U.S., U.S. military aid jumped from $3.9 million in 1980 to $77.4 million by 1984.

And, oh, so much more... Though Aug isn't as articulate as he could be, he is quite correct in this case:



quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by august spies
...the us armed the contras, they armed the death squads, and they armed the dictatorship...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Neutron
Does it SAY the US provided one chemical weapon? It says we provided technology. Technically if I provide one transistor to a nation, and they use it to make a missile I've provided them with missile technology when in fact all I sold them was a transistor.


The sale of dual use technology is illegal and subject to export controls.

http://www.wasc.noaa.gov/wrso/security_guide/techtran.htm



The U.S. Government -- often in collaboration with its allies -- controls the export of certain technologies and commodities to countries that for various reasons are judged to be inappropriate recipients. The violation of these export controls is commonly referred to as illegal technology transfer and is a serious security concern.

The Arms Export Control Act regulates the export of defense articles and services. Such exports may be licensed only if their export will strengthen U.S. national security, promote foreign policy goals, or foster world peace. The Arms Export Control Act is administered by the Department of State, Center for Defense Trade Controls, through the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the U.S. Munitions List. The Munitions List is a list of defense articles that require a license prior to export.

The Export Administration Act regulates the export of dual-use items, that is, items that have both military and civilian uses. Dual-use items that would make a significant contribution to the military potential of another country are on the Department of Commerce's Commodity Control List, and a license is required for their export. The Commodity Control List includes items from the Defense Department's Militarily Critical Technologies List and technology that could support the proliferation of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons or missile technology.

While this does not make the sale of such items automatically illegal (as the government is the one calling the shots on the law) it surely shows that the sale of such equipment if it can be used in a weapon AND is not politically convenient is indeed illegal. Certainly, according to this definition, such equipment should not be sold to a country in a politically uncertain climate where sides seemed to switch every couple of years and the situation was... unsettled as best.

[august spies]

are we at the point yet where we agree reagans a terrorist? ill assume so since you didnt answer that question.

who is made up? william blum? he used to work for the state department and i assure you he is quite "Real".

The us stated it wanted dominace over mid east oil right after ww2. In Iran the cia overthrew that nations first and last democratic government in 1953 because they nationalized their oil, in came the dictatorship. Look up operation ajax for details on that covert up, many docs have been released.

Interventions and invasions:

1846
The U.S., fulfilling the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, goes to war with Mexico and ends up with a third of Mexico's territory.
1850, 1853, 1854, 1857
U.S. interventions in Nicaragua.
1855
Tennessee adventurer William Walker and his mercenaries take over Nicaragua, institute forced labor, and legalize slavery.
"Los yankis... have burst their way like a fertilizing torrent through the barriers of barbarism." --N.Y. Daily News
He's ousted two years later by a Central American coalition largely inspired by Cornelius Vanderbilt, whose trade Walker was infringing.
"The enemies of American civilization-- for such are the enemies of slavery-- seem to be more on the alert than its friends." --William Walker
1856
First of five U.S. interventions in Panama to protect the Atlantic-Pacific railroad from Panamanian nationalists.
1898
U.S. declares war on Spain, blaming it for destruction of the Maine. (In 1976, a U.S. Navy commission will conclude that the explosion was probably an accident.) The war enables the U.S. to occupy Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.
1903
The Platt Amendment inserted into the Cuban constitution grants the U.S. the right to intervene when it sees fit.
1903
When negotiations with Colombia break down, the U.S. sends ten warships to back a rebellion in Panama in order to acquire the land for the Panama Canal. The Frenchman Philippe Bunau-Varilla negotiates the Canal Treaty and writes Panama's constitution.
1904
U.S. sends customs agents to take over finances of the Dominican Republic to assure payment of its external debt.
1905
U.S. Marines help Mexican dictator Porfirio Díaz crush a strike in Sonora.
1905
U.S. troops land in Honduras for the first of 5 times in next 20 years.
1906
Marines occupy Cuba for two years in order to prevent a civil war.
1907
Marines intervene in Honduras to settle a war with Nicaragua.
1908
U.S. troops intervene in Panama for first of 4 times in next decade.
1909
Liberal President José Santos Zelaya of Nicaragua proposes that American mining and banana companies pay taxes; he has also appropriated church lands and legalized divorce, done business with European firms, and executed two Americans for participating in a rebellion. Forced to resign through U.S. pressure. The new president, Adolfo Díaz, is the former treasurer of an American mining company.
1910
U.S. Marines occupy Nicaragua to help support the Díaz regime.
1911
The Liberal regime of Miguel Dávila in Honduras has irked the State Department by being too friendly with Zelaya and by getting into debt with Britain. He is overthrown by former president Manuel Bonilla, aided by American banana tycoon Sam Zemurray and American mercenary Lee Christmas, who becomes commander-in-chief of the Honduran army.
1912
U.S. Marines intervene in Cuba to put down a rebellion of sugar workers.
1912
Nicaragua occupied again by the U.S., to shore up the inept Díaz government. An election is called to resolve the crisis: there are 4000 eligible voters, and one candidate, Díaz. The U.S. maintains troops and advisors in the country until 1925.
1914
U.S. bombs and then occupies Vera Cruz, in a conflict arising out of a dispute with Mexico's new government. President Victoriano Huerta resigns.
1915
U.S. Marines occupy Haiti to restore order, and establish a protectorate which lasts till 1934. The president of Haiti is barred from the U.S. Officers' Club in Port-au-Prince, because he is black.
"Think of it-- niggers speaking French!" --secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, briefed on the Haitian situation
1916
Marines occupy the Dominican Republic, staying till 1924.
! 1916
Pancho Villa, in the sole act of Latin American aggression against the U.S, raids the city of Columbus, New Mexico, killing 17 Americans.
"Am sure Villa's attacks are made in Germany." --James Gerard, U.S. ambassador to Berlin
1917
U.S. troops enter Mexico to pursue Pancho Villa. They can't catch him.
1917
Marines intervene again in Cuba, to guarantee sugar exports during WWI.
1918
U.S. Marines occupy Panamanian province of Chiriqui for two years to maintain public order.
1921
President Coolidge strongly suggests the overthrow of Guatemalan President Carlos Herrera, in the interests of United Fruit. The Guatemalans comply.
1925
U.S. Army troops occupy Panama City to break a rent strike and keep order.
1926
Marines, out of Nicaragua for less than a year, occupy the country again, to settle a volatile political situation. Secretary of State Kellogg describes a "Nicaraguan-Mexican-Soviet" conspiracy to inspire a "Mexican-Bolshevist hegemony" within striking distance of the Canal.
"That intervention is not now, never was, and never will be a set policy of the United States is one of the most important facts President-elect Hoover has made clear." --NYT, 1928
1929
U.S. establishes a military academy in Nicaragua to train a National Guard as the country's army. Similar forces are trained in Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
"There is no room for any outside influence other than ours in this region. We could not tolerate such a thing without incurring grave risks... Until now Central America has always understood that governments which we recognize and support stay in power, while those which we do not recognize and support fall. Nicaragua has become a test case. It is difficult to see how we can afford to be defeated." --Undersecretary of State Robert Olds
1930
Rafael Leonidas Trujillo emerges from the U.S.-trained National Guard to become dictator of the Dominican Republic.
1932
The U.S. rushes warships to El Salvador in response to a communist-led uprising. President Martínez, however, prefers to put down the rebellion with his own forces, killing over 8000 people (the rebels had killed about 100).
! 1933
President Roosevelt announces the Good Neighbor policy.
1933
Marines finally leave Nicaragua, unable to suppress the guerrilla warfare of General Augusto César Sandino. Anastasio Somoza García becomes the first Nicaraguan commander of the National Guard.
"The Nicaraguans are better fighters than the Haitians, being of Indian blood, and as warriors similar to the aborigines who resisted the advance of civilization in this country." --NYT correspondent Harold Denny
1933
Roosevelt sends warships to Cuba to intimidate Gerardo Machado y Morales, who is massacring the people to put down nationwide strikes and riots. Machado resigns. The first provisional government lasts only 17 days; the second Roosevelt finds too left-wing and refuses to recognize. A pro-Machado counter-coup is put down by Fulgencio Batista, who with Roosevelt's blessing becomes Cuba's new strongman.
! 1934
Platt Amendment repealed.
1934
Sandino assassinated by agents of Somoza, with U.S. approval. Somoza assumes the presidency of Nicaragua two years later. To block his ascent, Secretary of State Cordell Hull explains, would be to intervene in the internal affairs of Nicaragua.
! 1936
U.S. relinquishes rights to unilateral intervention in Panama.
1941
Ricardo Adolfo de la Guardia deposes Panamanian president Arias in a military coup-- first clearing it with the U.S. Ambassador.
It was "a great relief to us, because Arias had been very troublesome and very pro-Nazi." --Secretary of War Henry Stimson
1943
The editor of the Honduran opposition paper El Cronista is summoned to the U.S. embassy and told that criticism of the dictator Tiburcio Carías Andino is damaging to the war effort. Shortly afterward, the paper is shut down by the government.
1944
The dictator Maximiliano Hernández Martínez of El Salvador is ousted by a revolution; the interim government is overthrown five months later by the dictator's former chief of police. The U.S.'s immediate recognition of the new dictator does much to tarnish Roosevelt's Good Neighbor policy in the eyes of Latin Americans.
1946
U.S. Army School of the Americas opens in Panama as a hemisphere-wide military academy. Its linchpin is the doctrine of National Security, by which the chief threat to a nation is internal subversion; this will be the guiding principle behind dictatorships in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Central America, and elsewhere.
1948
José Figueres Ferrer wins a short civil war to become President of Costa Rica. Figueres is supported by the U.S., which has informed San José that its forces in the Panama Canal are ready to come to the capital to end "communist control" of Costa Rica.
1954
Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, elected president of Guatemala, introduces land reform and seizes some idle lands of United Fruit-- proposing to pay for them the value United Fruit claimed on its tax returns. The CIA organizes a small force to overthrow him and begins training it in Honduras. When Arbenz naively asks for U.S. military help to meet this threat, he is refused; when he buys arms from Czechoslovakia it only proves he's a Red.
Guatemala is "openly and diligently toiling to create a Communist state in Central America... only two hours' bombing time from the Panama Canal." --Life
The CIA broadcasts reports detailing the imaginary advance of the "rebel army," and provides planes to strafe the capital. The army refuses to defend Arbenz, who resigns. The U.S.'s hand-picked dictator, Carlos Castillo Armas, outlaws political parties, reduces the franchise, and establishes the death penalty for strikers, as well as undoing Arbenz's land reform. Over 100,000 citizens are killed in the next 30 years of military rule.
"This is the first instance in history where a Communist government has been replaced by a free one." --Richard Nixon
1957
Eisenhower establishes Office of Public Safety to train Latin American police forces.
! 1959
Fidel Castro takes power in Cuba. Several months earlier he had undertaken a triumphal tour through the U.S., which included a CIA briefing on the Red menace.
"Castro's continued tawdry little melodrama of invasion." --Time, of Castro's warnings of an imminent U.S. invasion
1960
Eisenhower authorizes covert actions to get rid of Castro. Among other things, the CIA tries assassinating him with exploding cigars and poisoned milkshakes. Other covert actions against Cuba include burning sugar fields, blowing up boats in Cuban harbors, and sabotaging industrial equipment.
1960
The Canal Zone becomes the focus of U.S. counterinsurgency training.
1960
A new junta in El Salvador promises free elections; Eisenhower, fearing leftist tendencies, withholds recognition. A more attractive right-wing counter-coup comes along in three months.
"Governments of the civil-military type of El Salvador are the most effective in containing communist penetration in Latin America." --John F. Kennedy, after the coup
1960
Guatemalan officers attempt to overthrow the regime of Presidente Fuentes; Eisenhower stations warships and 2000 Marines offshore while Fuentes puts down the revolt. [Another source says that the U.S. provided air support for Fuentes.]
1960s
U.S. Green Berets train Guatemalan army in counterinsurgency techniques. Guatemalan efforts against its insurgents include aerial bombing, scorched-earth assaults on towns suspected of aiding the rebels, and death squads, which killed 20,000 people between 1966 and 1976. U.S. Army Col. John Webber claims that it was at his instigation that "the technique of counter-terror had been implemented by the army."
"If it is necessary to turn the country into a cemetary in order to pacify it, I will not hesitate to do so." --President Carlos Arana Osorio
1961
U.S. organizes force of 1400 anti-Castro Cubans, ships it to the Bahía de los Cochinos. Castro's army routs it.
1961
CIA-backed coup overthrows elected Pres. J. M. Velasco Ibarra of Ecuador, who has been too friendly with Cuba.
1962
CIA engages in campaign in Brazil to keep João Goulart from achieving control of Congress.
1963
CIA-backed coup overthrows elected social democrat Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic.
1963
A far-right-wing coup in Guatemala, apparently U.S.-supported, forestalls elections in which "extreme leftist" Juan José Arévalo was favored to win.
"It is difficult to develop stable and democratic government [in Guatemala], because so many of the nation's Indians are illiterate and superstitious." --School textbook, 1964
1964
João Goulart of Brazil proposes agrarian reform, nationalization of oil. Ousted by U.S.-supported military coup.
! 1964
The free market in Nicaragua:
The Somoza family controls "about one-tenth of the cultivable land in Nicaragua, and just about everything else worth owning, the country's only airline, one television station, a newspaper, a cement plant, textile mill, several sugar refineries, half-a-dozen breweries and distilleries, and a Mercedes-Benz agency." --Life World Library
1965
A coup in the Dominican Republic attempts to restore Bosch's government. The U.S. invades and occupies the country to stop this "Communist rebellion," with the help of the dictators of Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras, and Nicaragua.
"Representative democracy cannot work in a country such as the Dominican Republic," Bosch declares later. Now why would he say that?
1966
U.S. sends arms, advisors, and Green Berets to Guatemala to implement a counterinsurgency campaign.
"To eliminate a few hundred guerrillas, the government killed perhaps 10,000 Guatemalan peasants." --State Dept. report on the program
1967
A team of Green Berets is sent to Bolivia to help find and assassinate Che Guevara.
1968
Gen. José Alberto Medrano, who is on the payroll of the CIA, organizes the ORDEN paramilitary force, considered the precursor of El Salvador's death squads.
! 1970
In this year (just as an example), U.S. investments in Latin America earn $1.3 billion; while new investments total $302 million.
1970
Salvador Allende Gossens elected in Chile. Suspends foreign loans, nationalizes foreign companies. For the phone system, pays ITT the company's minimized valuation for tax purposes. The CIA provides covert financial support for Allende's opponents, both during and after his election.
1972
U.S. stands by as military suspends an election in El Salvador in which centrist José Napoleón Duarte was favored to win. (Compare with the emphasis placed on the 1982 elections.)
1973
U.S.-supported military coup kills Allende and brings Augusto Pinochet Ugarte to power. Pinochet imprisons well over a hundred thousand Chileans (torture and rape are the usual methods of interrogation), terminates civil liberties, abolishes unions, extends the work week to 48 hours, and reverses Allende's land reforms.
1973
Military takes power in Uruguay, supported by U.S. The subsequent repression reportedly features the world's highest percentage of the population imprisoned for political reasons.
1974
Office of Public Safety is abolished when it is revealed that police are being taught torture techniques.
! 1976
Election of Jimmy Carter leads to a new emphasis on human rights in Central America. Carter cuts off aid to the Guatemalan military (or tries to; some slips through) and reduces aid to El Salvador.
! 1979
Ratification of the Panama Canal treaty which is to return the Canal to Panama by 1999.
"Once again, Uncle Sam put his tail between his legs and crept away rather than face trouble." --Ronald Reagan
1980
A right-wing junta takes over in El Salvador. U.S. begins massively supporting El Salvador, assisting the military in its fight against FMLN guerrillas. Death squads proliferate; Archbishop Romero is assassinated by right-wing terrorists; 35,000 civilians are killed in 1978-81. The rape and murder of four U.S. churchwomen results in the suspension of U.S. military aid for one month.
The U.S. demands that the junta undertake land reform. Within 3 years, however, the reform program is halted by the oligarchy.
"The Soviet Union underlies all the unrest that is going on." --Ronald Reagan
1980
U.S., seeking a stable base for its actions in El Salvador and Nicaragua, tells the Honduran military to clean up its act and hold elections. The U.S. starts pouring in $100 million of aid a year and basing the contras on Honduran territory.
Death squads are also active in Honduras, and the contras tend to act as a state within a state.
1981
The CIA steps in to organize the contras in Nicaragua, who started the previous year as a group of 60 ex-National Guardsmen; by 1985 there are about 12,000 of them. 46 of the 48 top military leaders are ex-Guardsmen. The U.S. also sets up an economic embargo of Nicaragua and pressures the IMF and the World Bank to limit or halt loans to Nicaragua.
1981
Gen. Torrijos of Panama is killed in a plane crash. There is a suspicion of CIA involvement, due to Torrijos' nationalism and friendly relations with Cuba.
1982
A coup brings Gen. Efraín Ríos Montt to power in Guatemala, and gives the Reagan administration the opportunity to increase military aid. Ríos Montt's evangelical beliefs do not prevent him from accelerating the counterinsurgency campaign.
1983
Another coup in Guatemala replaces Ríos Montt. The new President, Oscar Mejía Víctores, was trained by the U.S. and seems to have cleared his coup beforehand with U.S. authorities.
1983
U.S. troops take over tiny Granada. Rather oddly, it intervenes shortly after a coup has overthrown the previous, socialist leader. One of the justifications for the action is the building of a new airport with Cuban help, which Granada claimed was for tourism and Reagan argued was for Soviet use. Later the U.S. announces plans to finish the airport... to develop tourism.
1983
Boland Amendment prohibits CIA and Defense Dept. from spending money to overthrow the government of Nicaragua-- a law the Reagan administration cheerfully violates.
1984
CIA mines three Nicaraguan harbors. Nicaragua takes this action to the World Court, which brings an $18 billion judgment against the U.S. The U.S. refuses to recognize the Court's jurisdiction in the case.
1984
U.S. spends $10 million to orchestrate elections in El Salvador-- something of a farce, since left-wing parties are under heavy repression, and the military has already declared that it will not answer to the elected president.
1989
U.S. invades Panama to dislodge CIA boy gone wrong Manuel Noriega, an event which marks the evolution of the U.S.'s favorite excuse from Communism to drugs.
1996
The U.S. battles global Communism by extending most-favored-nation trading status for China, and tightening the trade embargo on Castro's Cuba.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where to go for more info
Black, George. The Good Neighbor. Pantheon Books, New York: 1988. Highly recommended. An often amusing history of U.S. attitudes toward its southern neighbors.
Burns, E. Bradford. Latin America: A concise interpretive history. 4th ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs: 1986. Not only what the U.S. does to Latin America, but what Europe and the Latin Americans do to Latin America.
Chomsky, Noam. Year 501: The Conquest Continues. South End Press, Boston: 1993. Packed with documentation.
Galeano, Eduardo. Century of the Wind and Faces & Masks. Pantheon Books, New York: 1988. (Originally published as Memoria del fuego II, III: El siglo del viento, Las caras y las mascaras.) Vignettes from history, from a master Latin American novelist. As history, take it with a grain of salt.
Gleijeses, Piero. Shattered Hope: The Guatemalan Revolution and the United States, 1944-1954. Princeton, Princeton NJ: 1991. The definitive study of the Arévalo/Arbenz administrations and the U.S. coup.
Kwitny, Jonathan. Endless Enemies: The Making of an Unfriendly World. Congdon & Weed, New York: 1984. By a former Wall Street Journal reporter.


reagan supported the death penalty, i dont, i assume most of his supporters do??

lets leave anarchism for another thread, start one if youd like.

if im censored do i whine about the constitution? no i believe all humans have a right to free expression regardless of a what rich white people say. however if works good in debating, so if im censored by people like you, which i often am, i will say "look even by your standards you are unfairly censoring me.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by august spies
are we at the point yet where we agree reagans a terrorist?

No. Reagan (why is it I ALWAYS forget that first A when I'm typing his name?) was not a terrorist by the accepted definition because any actions underaken by him or his administration are, by the current international definition of the term, not terrorist actions.

The problem is (and this is my own opinion now so no links to prove this) that the current US administration has played fast and loose with the definition of terrorist. Certainly, if you took Saddam as an example and concentrated ONLY on his 'terrorism' record there are VERY uncomfortable similarities between the two. The problem is that this use of the term is, quite simply, wrong. It's a buzz word to hook the public and train them to react with fear first, rational thought second (if ever). There is no doubt that Reagan's administration has a, we'll be polite, a questionable record in foreign policy, and that some of those policies are still causing problems today. BUT calling Reagan a terrorist will have the same reaction from the right as the flip-flopping on "why we spanked Iraq" (oh come on, someone on Fox has to have used that at some point) will from the middle and the left.

And I'm going to agree with Neutron here I'm afraid, (*Waits for world to end*) PLEASE provide links and do try to stick to one point. I've been trying to follow your arguments and it's very hard going as you're tending to bounce around from one issue to the next and, well... indulging in a fair bit of grandstanding.

[Strider]

strider im not going to debate death counts with you, if its 300 people, its too many so for arguments sake ill agree with all your totals.

Well,no,it does matter.When you say Mobutu killed a million people,and the real number is 8,000,that's a major fucking difference,and it calls the rest of your statements in for closer scrutiny.


i dont care about the fmln fabricating stories, there are enough real stories to make any human being sick to their stomach.

And as I said,let's say,for the sake of argument,that everything you've said is 100% accurate.Never mind that for the moment that the PDC and the paramilitaries acted seperately of each other,the burden still falls on you to make the case that had the FMLN overran the country,the condition of the average Salvadoran would have been better off than the outcome-end of the civil war,and democratization-under Duarte.If all you do is continue to repeat stories about atrocities committed by paramilitaries and don't bother to get into the character of an FMLN regime,I'm going to conclude you realize you don't have a leg to stand on.


if you want to endulge fantasys about latim american fascists and their love for democracy thats another story.

You clearly have no clue what Fascism is.But aside from that,tell me,why exactly was it that the PDC held elections and in Salvador today the FMLN are allowed to run for office ummolested?Doesn't exactly sound like democracy haters to me.


the cia was heavily involved in pinochets demoracy to dictatorship transition and they brag about it.

They in fact,deny involvement in the 1973 coup to this day.There was CIA involvement in 1970 but the plug was pulled on that after Allende's confirmation.From then on,after he signed the Statute of Democratic Guarantees,things were basically bound to get bloody.But I'm not going to get into this at the moment,if you honestly care enough about history,you'll make the effort to read up on this yourself.


im sure the sandinistas killed a few dozen miskiots,

Try around 15,000.


but i never praised their human rights record, up against el salvadors it looks like a paradise.

Your objective standard on this is what?Both countries were involved in civil wars,in the case of Salvador,the worst repressions were carried out by paramilitaries,not the PDC,who,due to US aid,were able to put pressure on paramilitary groups instead of having to deal with them.In the case of Nicaragua,the worst repressions were carried out by the government,and went far beyond anything in Salvador in that(in grand communist tradition)they targeted entire segments of society.If you want to go comparing atrocity stories of the FSLN and the PDC,I can guarantee you the Sandinistas would win that one.Second,maybe you should think about the Sandinistas human rights record,instead of mindlessly repeating the 'Contras were just Guardia exiles' mythology.If you want to repeat shibboleths,be my guest,but at least attempt to learn the history here.


but your missing the point, YOUR RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSIQUENCES OF YOUR OWN ACTIONS, THE CONTRA REIGN OF TERROR WAS DIRECTED FUNDED AND FUELED BY REAGAN AND OUR GOVERNMENT, THE FSLN WAS NOT

Actually,you're missing the point.Aside from the fact that you clearly no utterly nothing about the Contra War,once again,we'll pretend that what you're saying is 100% accurate,can you please give me a cogent and coherent argument as to why sitting back and having the FSLN run the country would have been better for the average Nicaraguan than backing the MILPAS/FDN,which eventually led to democratization.Also,the Contra army was organic,you're acting as if the US created them in a test tube somewhere,but that's ridiculous.Despite the mythology casting the Contras as Guardia exiles,they were in fact,largely campesino peasants who had the full support of the rural population.

[august spies]

who makes the current international definition, because ive heard bush many times refer to saddam as a sponsor of terrorism, could we say reagan was a sponsor of terrorism? hows that

google operation ajax, you will get plenty of links.

[Strider]

Yes,taking out Mossadegh was one of the worst things the US ever did.Both from a strategic standpoint,and a moral one.The firebombing of Dresden was reprehensible as well,but that doesn't invalidate waging World War 2.Operation Ajax doesn't invalidate waging World War 3.

[Neutron]

There's no proven link, AND it wasn't a matter of national policy.

I already told you. The current definition is supplied by International Law. Damn dude, I can see why you can't provide sources, it's tough when you can barely read@!


BOFH. And yes I do agree about the Bush administration, HOWEVER I still believe they did the right thing, AND they haven't gone far enough. I fully believe in US unilateralism and the US doing what is solely in her national intersts.

At the risk of provoking... Another example of small evil being used to defeat big evil and turning out ok.

USA helping the UK in WW2. Many believed our actions prior to the declaration of war by Germany was illegal, and benefiting Empirism vice helping the world at large. Were the Brits evil? Nah, did the average US Citizen view their Empire as evil, or at least morally corrupt. Yepper.

august, please answer the list of questions I provided, OR are you afraid your answers prove you as being a hypocrite?

Tron

[Neutron]

Or brutal regime, IS not sponsoring terrorism!!!
august accused Reagan of being a terrorist and arming terrorists. In the above cases a legimate regime (while abhorrent) was supported. Additionally, in many of these cases the people who wanted to overthrow the regime were worse.

Tron

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Neutron
Or brutal regime, IS not sponsoring terrorism!!!
august accused Reagan of being a terrorist and arming terrorists. In the above cases a legimate regime (while abhorrent) was supported. Additionally, in many of these cases the people who wanted to overthrow the regime were worse.

Tron

Ah-hem: "Contra rebels fighting to overthrow the leftist democratically-elected Sandinista government of Nicaragua". They were fighting AGAINST the legitimate government and acted against civilian targets, therefore the Reagan administration did sponsor terrorism.

And no reply on the chemical weapons?

So you're comparing supporting the UK in World War 2 (which, by the way, you're claiming a particular view ("many believed" etc) without providing any sources, exactly what you've been ragging on August for doing) to supplying weapons to a country that, as early as 1983, the US KNEW was using chemical weapons against it's enemies?

And for the record, if the US does only what is in its own self interest then it is doomed as a country. Even now, as we speak, the US military machine, the most powerful the planet has ever seen, is being pushed to a point where the cracks are starting to show. If you pursue this path, how do you trade with other countries, how does your economy keep working when no-one will buy your goods and services. It is time to wake up and smell the coffee, NO country can exist on its own anymore, we are all linked and even the US cannot hold the entire world hostage to its whims for long. Cooperation is the future, like it or not you're gonna have to learn to play nice with those who live outside of your borders.

[Daumantas]

Here's a point I don't think anyone has made so far: anarchism is ultimately a cowardly approach to dealing with the inevitable ills of life.

Since the object of Anarchism is to eliminate all states, there can never be a truly Anarchist society (in fact, by definition an Anarchist "society" is a logical contradiction in terms). So, since the Anarchist's vision cannot logically occur in a viable form, he/she/it is free to rail against ALL societies equally and criticize all their contradictions and evils with equal passion. Since the only vision the Anarchist presents is one that cannot logically exist, he can neatly avoid the ambiguities the rest of us have to deal with.

Anyone whose vision of society is a conceivable one - whether they be on the right like venray and Neutron, or on the left like BOFH and me - will sooner or later have to try to defend his or her vision, and will sometimes be put in the position of trying to defend the indefensible. This takes real courage of one's convictions. An Anarchist doesn't have to have true courage of convictions, despite their bomb-throwing image, because they can simply attack, attack, attack without ever having to get their hands dirty (and sometimes bloody) trying to live in the real world and create a doable society in the midst of the difficulties of real life.

(The above is strictly my own opinion, so I haven't cited any sources. :) )

[Neutron]

I never said I didn't believe the US and the UK should fight together. It was exactly the correct choice. I was pointing out that when one is talking evil at times it's subjective, many Americans believed the UK was in the wrong in both World wars and was more interested in protecting her empire, vice protecting others. They were half right.

As for our war machine cracking. LOL No my friend, we've only stopped flexing our muscle. The evidence? There is only one carrier stationed over there. Also, I realize cooperation is needed for the world, however when the USA has to act in her best interests, then she should.

Tron

[red indian]

....."the big picture", and all that, I am with Tronny. The U.S. is bound up with the U.K. on so many levels and the U.K. is bound up with the U.S.

I have travelled all over Europe, but have never been to the U.S. yet I still feel much more part of the U.S. than any part of Europe.

I would be much happier if we joined NAFTA and got the hell out of the E.U. Lets face it,the Germans are never going to like us, and the French have never forgiven us for not being invaded by the Germans. The French and the Germans run the E.U. they want the U.K. more involved in the E.U so they can shaft us completely,and take our money,and the fourth largest economy in the world, out of the game, once and for all.


On the narrower point regarding U.S. forces in Iraq, its fairly clear to most observers that the U.S. military have not the faintest idea what they are doing, once the set piece Napoleonic battle is over. Excuse me if I am about to bore any one but, British forces have done a much better job since the end of the set piece battle, because they have so much experience in this type of situation in Northern Ireland. That experience was gained against an enemy backed by..........

[ticklebutton]

Originally posted by ticklebutton
El Salvador - The Reagan Administration spent more than $4 billion on El Salvador in the ’80s, backing wildly brutal regimes and their death squads against a leftist insurgency.
The 12-year civil war left 75,000 Salvadorans dead--overwhelmingly civilians killed by U.S.-supported forces.

Elliot Abrams, Reagan's assistant secretary of state for human rights & humanitarian affairs, and later for inter-American affairs [http://www.eppc.org/]helped cover up one of the worst atrocities of the war: a Salvadoran army massacre in El Mozote that left 800 to 1000 civilians dead.

On a side note, this man has been appointed by President Bush to the National Security Council as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations. :eek: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer]

[http://www.fair.org/extra/0109/iran-contra.html]

Honduras - Under Ambassador John Negroponte, neighboring Honduras grew so crammed with U.S. bases and weapons that it was dubbed the U.S.S. Honduras, as if it were simply an off-shore staging ground for the Contra war.

The Honduran army, especially the U.S.-trained Battalion 316, engaged in widespread human rights abuses, including kidnapping, torture and assassination.

Negroponte worked closely with the perpetrators and covered up their crimes, according to Ambassador Jack Binns, his predecessor in the post.

On a side note, this is the man that President Bush President has appointed to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. :eek:

[http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/09/allen2509.html]

Nicaragua - Congress had enacted legislation, known as the Boland amendments, that prohibited the Defense Dept., the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or any other government agency from providing military aid to the contras.

The Reagan administration circumvented these prohibitions by using the National Security Council (NSC), which was not explicitly covered by the law, to supervise covert military aid to the contras...and
secretly ship arms to Iran despite a U.S. trade and arms embargo.

[http://reference.allrefer.com/encyc...I/Irancont.html]

While poverty raged in the U.S., U.S. military aid jumped from $3.9 million in 1980 to $77.4 million by 1984.
In fairness, I want to add that many political analysts suspect that Reagan himself was largely unaware of many of these activities.

Possibly even that his Alzheimer's was already kicking in. :confused:

Now I regret laughing scornfully when he addressed Princess Diana as "Prince David". :(

Button

[kis123]

I have been sitting around for a long time trying not to get into this, but I can't take anymore. First of all, my condolences to President Reagan's family. A loss is a loss regardless of my political views or opinions. Nancy and the family must be suffering and that deserves respect.

That being said, I NEVER LIKED REAGAN AS PRESIDENT. He was one of the pre-cursors for what we are suffering from today. He totally lacked domestic responsibility while he was up to his rear end in overseas interests.

My mother was a government employee for 44 years. Reagan told her that there wasn't enough money to pay her after she already gave her time and effort to work in an establishment that he is responsible for. He also told her that if she didn't like it to go find another job. My mother was in her late fifties at the time. Where was she going to go? Until that time, she was a staunch Republican. She voted Democrat until she died in 1995. Maybe our goverment leaders should focus more on domestic issues as opposed to overseas interests.

I need to say this while it's on my mind to do so. I saw on some post that elderly seem to be a burden on the American people. These "burdens" blindly fought wars for this country and believed in its policies. Now, because they are living longer than we assumed they would, they've become a burden. It is a pathetic shame that our society sees our elderly that they are expendable once their usefulness has been fulfilled. We are going to become the country's elderly one day, and I hope that I don't get thrown away like today's society is attempting to do. MY main reasons for mentioning this is that both August and Tron do have something in common when it comes to throwing our elderly to the wolves since they're no longer income producing citizens.

MOVING RIGHT ALONG.............

Let's face it, Iran-contra has Reagan's name all over it. Oliver North aside, Reagan was responsible for all decisions made during that time, whether he had signs of Alzhimers or not. His disease explains a lot of prior decisions and behavior. I don't excuse any of it.

For all of you who think he was some sort of icon, good for you. There are some of us who do not agree, and many reasons have been previously stated (with facts to back it up , Tron).

Now, let's let the man die in peace (august spies). Whatever he's done, has been done. You can no longer beat the horse.

I've posted at the risk of the opinion police who have a tendency to come out when kis posts. Good for them! I'm going back to my cave.

[venray]

Kis...stick your head out a little more often..

And the rest of you (including August)..I am impressed at where this thread has gone since it began. Finally some intelligent debate in stead of just name calling....

Keep it up gentlemen...the facts and views presented are interesting reading...

Oh and Daumantas...I am not as far right as I sometimes appear to be, mate..at the very least I am open to all points of view when argued admirably....:cool:



Ray

[august spies]

again id like to try and sum this post up.

the facts are clearly in, from dan mitrione, to operation ajax, to reagans support of death squads and terrorists. this is the only point i was trying to make, and it is something i take very seriously. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of peoples lives, torture chambers, rape, and imprisonment.

because of the way the corporate media is run, most american dont have a clue about those above events in history, and if they did i think we would have a better society.

The only person still hanging on is tron, and he seems to be ignoreing everything posted, maybe my posts arent showing up? for i did answer your questions.

if we can agree ronald reagan supported these crimes and terrorism, the next step is to discuss why? As i said, reagans excuse was "self defense", a much more logical reason is hegemony. remember hitler used to talk about the threat poland was, and believe me that makes more sense than reagan talking about salvadoran peasents or nicargua threatening the US.

Another knock on anarchism? common guys start an anarchist thread, ill be glad to defend the philosophy.

see that whole spanish revolution thing and keeping franco out of ww2, that was just a joke, and the whole IWW thing, and the fight for the 8 hour work week, that was just a joke also, and all the repression we suffered in the ussr,that was all fun. We anarchists never get our hands dirty (notice the sarcasm) oh yea, new thread!

[ticklebutton]

Originally posted by venray1
Keep it up gentlemen...
Gentlemen? *bats her eyelashes at Venray*

Button :justlips:

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by ticklebutton
Gentlemen? *bats her eyelashes at Venray*

Button :justlips:

Bring out your dead!

*Tonk*

Bring out your dead!

*Tonk*

[venray]

Originally posted by ticklebutton
Gentlemen? *bats her eyelashes at Venray*

Button :justlips:

Bless you button......:D

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Neutron

As for our war machine cracking. LOL No my friend, we've only stopped flexing our muscle. The evidence? There is only one carrier stationed over there. Also, I realize cooperation is needed for the world, however when the USA has to act in her best interests, then she should.


Yes, the strike force of the US Military is vast but that's not the issue. The problem is that, as we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, you need troops in place after the strike forces have done their job to secure and hold the country. In Afghanistan, once the troops left the whole country descended into near-anarachy, in Iraq 130,000 troops were deployed and it was nowhere near enough. Borders were left open, looting and lawlesness was rife and now, over a year later, the country is threatening to go the same way as Afghanistan. Even with the "transfer of power" (which is nothing of the sort but we'll skip over that) coming up the US is expecting to have troops in theatre until 2006.

Now, take a look at this report: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4706&sequence=0



In performing its analysis, CBO made no assumptions about how long the occupation might last or about the size of the force that might be necessary. Instead, CBO's work focused on determining how large an occupation the U.S. military could sustain in Iraq indefinitely--while still maintaining acceptable levels of military readiness and not jeopardizing the quality of the all-volunteer force--under various policy options. Those options include using only combat troops from the Army's active component for the occupation, employing other existing U.S. ground forces as well, and expanding current forces to incorporate two additional Army divisions.

CBO's analysis indicates that the active Army would be unable to sustain an occupation force of the present size beyond about March 2004 if it chose not to keep individual units deployed to Iraq for longer than one year without relief (an assumption consistent with DoD's current planning).(1) In the six to 12 months after March, the level of U.S. forces in Iraq would begin to decline as units that had been deployed for a year were relieved and were not replaced on a one-for-one basis.(2) After the winter of 2004-2005, the United States could sustain--indefinitely, if need be--an occupation force of 38,000 to 64,000 military personnel using only combat units from the Army's active component (and some support units from the reserves), the option that constitutes the base case in this analysis. With a force of that size, the occupation would cost $8 billion to $12 billion per year, CBO estimates (see Table 1). Those and other costs shown in this analysis are in 2004 dollars.


And THAT'S the problem. Acting on its own, without any allies or support, the US cannot occupy a country for the long-term and maintain a suitable defence force. We've already seen reserve units in action in Iraq, and troop movements from South Korea have been confirmed for, I believe, later in the year. America as a military power is unmatched but, short of re-introducing the draft, it simply does not have the number of warm bodies a full time occupation of more than a single country would require. Worse, the advanced technology used by US forces makes an occupation a costly option as we are starting to see in Iraq. You can bomb cities flat, you can destroy military might but no country, with the possible exception of China, has the resources to hold a population by force of arms for long if it does not wish to be.

Now something I keep meaning to ask about, you claim that all arguments should be supported by proof and research, quite correctly too, yet it seems as if every time you come into a thread you don't apply your own rules?


Originally posted by Neutron

Also, initially Saddam was not gassing his own people, he didn't really start that until AFTER the Reagan administration


Saddam attacked the Kurds March 16th and 17th 1988, well within the Reagan administration.


Originally posted by Neutron

Does it SAY the US provided one chemical weapon? It says we provided technology. Technically if I provide one transistor to a nation, and they use it to make a missile I've provided them with missile technology when in fact all I sold them was a transistor.

I see no where in that article where the US provided Iraq with a chemical weapon OR a viable delivery system. Hell the US doesn't even fabricate Mustard gas for itself!!!



Originally posted by Neutron

However by international law terrorism involves NO government in any way shape or form. It also has no real political backing outside of an agenda by a special interest group. It also has to be against civilian targets.


In all three of those examples I've done exactly what you asked for, gone away and found data to back up the counterpoint for those claims, yet when actually confronted with data you fall silent. I'm not saying you CAN'T prove your point but considering your instance on the need for proof to validate an opinion and, as you put it:


Originally posted by Neutron

I could care less what you believe, it is after all your right to believe as you choose, BUT at least provide legitimate basis for your beliefs


it just strikes me as odd that you fail to provide a reply, moving the conversation on to other topics instead.

[Strider]

because of the way the corporate media is run, most american dont have a clue about those above events in history, and if they did i think we would have a better society.

Are you kidding me?If there was one issue that got more media attention than El Salvador in the early 80s,I haven't seen it yet.


remember hitler used to talk about the threat poland was, and believe me that makes more sense than reagan talking about salvadoran peasents or nicargua threatening the US.

Um,no he didn't.Other than making a couple of references to the Polish Army's mobilization in 1939,Hitler never made any bones about the fact that the invasion of Poland was to retake areas ceded in 1919 and achieve lebensraum.


the facts are clearly in, from dan mitrione, to operation ajax, to reagans support of death squads and terrorists. this is the only point i was trying to make, and it is something i take very seriously. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of peoples lives, torture chambers, rape, and imprisonment.

All you did was give a list of(in some cases wildly inflated)death totals in various places and attribute every last one of them to Reagan.You make no effort to explain the various situations,and many of them didn't even happen when he was in office.You keep going back to the installation of Reza Pahlavi which happened in 1953,before Reagan was even involved in politics.And you either won't,or can't make a defense that the FMLN,Sandinistas,etc.would have been any better,if not far worse than those we supported.

[Neutron]

No one agreed with the facts you posted august spies. Any agreement I made ws with others in the thread. You haven't posted any facts, and certainly any sources. I find it difficult to believe you consider the Catholic Church as a serious source WHEN you ridicule it in your boigraphy post.

Also, in your Biography you say you have a degree in History. I find that hard to believe since you can't spell, construct a readable sentence, make a cogent let along intelligent argument or point, and seem to believe you don't have to supply a credible source to back up your outlandish claims. Things certainly must have gotten eaier since I got my degree.

Strider, actually many considered Poland a viable threat, Germany included. Poland had the 4th largest military in the world in 1939, and had preliminary plans to invade at least Russia.

Also august spies, why do you refuse to answer my simple questions about anarchy and social programs, and whether you had to pay to get into the place where the DJ made remarks about Reagan.


Tron

[Neutron]

The biggest problem, US Troops by nature, and Americans in general are poor occupiers, it's not in our nature, perhaps we can learn from the Brits, after all they had centuries of experience in subjucating native people.

Tron

[Roseblossom]

Originally posted by Neutron
they had centuries of experience in subjucating native people.
The best defense is a good offense, huh? When you're cornered, just counter with a cheap shot.

[qjakal]

Guess you don't know these 2...between red and Tron that's a love tap and the equivalent of the 'ol chuck on the shoulder, aw shucks, shit eating grin and c'mon in for a beer buddy kind of statement.

Not to mention I said basically the same thing to red in another thread regarding the British' experience in this area...it really is undeniable fact that they ARE the worlds best at this due to centuries of hands on training. Debating whether or not that's a *good* thing is another matter altogether.

Q

[BOFH666]

Ummm, I think that was directed at me as well. And I don't argue the point, we're the best at it because of our history, and it's something that a policy such as Neutron suggests will require from American forces as well. On the other hand, BECAUSE we train for those roles with an eye to avoiding the mistakes of the past we're damn good at keeping the peace without being heavy handed and causing large numbers of civilian deaths in the process.

The cheap shot comment was, I believe, in response to legitimate questions once again being ducked in favour of a change of argument and, in the process, rather proving the point that there's a certain amount of "do as I say not as I do" going on here.

[august spies]

tron, there have been countless facts posted about this countries terrorist based foreign policy, including many about nicaragua. ignoring fact is like not agreeing with history, once you start rejecting history thats when the totalitarian mindset sets in.

the catholic church reports are what we historians consider primary sources. they were on the ground and active during the dictatorship, they cared for torture and murder victims and launched investigations into systematic totalitarian repression. They published their findings.(and some, like archbishop romero payed the ultimate price for exposing truths), o btw, his murderes were trained by reagan
see: http://www.soaw.org/new/docs/Talking%20Points-new1.pdf

Since you wouldnt believe an actual victim, and im sure you wouldnt believe any source contrived by a "leftist". i used that source.

Yes i am in a masters program, and i dont care. I know many people with their GED that have a better understanding of history and politics than you. Also, i would like to point out that this is the TICKLING MEDIA FORUM GENERAL DISCUSSION MESSAGE BOARD. this is not my thesis class, and honestly my spelling errors on this form are really giving me sleeples nights.

And i told you, if you want to talk about anarchism lets do it somewhere else, this is about reagan and us foreign policy in its relation to terrorism and opression.

But yet again i continue to beat my head against the wall. this argument is pointless, we have different goals, mine is freedom for all, yours is freedom for the rich and "subjugation" for the "natives"

I can argue that your subjugation of the "natives" for example the history of iran, will come back and bite you in the ass. but thats probably not even worth it. Killing and torturing children is "subjugating" the natives, and to you is a good thing that should be supported. to me its horrible

[Roseblossom]

Originally posted by qjakal
Guess you don't know these 2...between red and Tron
Q, I don't know who or what you're referring to.

My comment was because of a response to BOFH's clear and pointed questions which have not yet been answered.

A cheap shot is a cheap shot - whether it be Nazi remarks to Hal, anarchy remarks to August, or Brit remarks to BOFH.

~Rose~

[Roseblossom]

Originally posted by BOFH666
The cheap shot comment was, I believe, in response to legitimate questions once again being ducked in favour of a change of argument and, in the process, rather proving the point that there's a certain amount of "do as I say not as I do" going on here.
Yep :)

[BigJim]

Originally posted by qjakal
Why not at least dwell on the Iran-Contra scandal? That way you'd have at least some of those precious "facts" at your disposal? Going off onto psuedo tangents doesn't present much of a case....hope you're not the best the anarchists have in the way of a debate team. Arms dealing to Nicarauga, or better yet, the disaster in Lebanon would be a much better launching spot for critisizing Reagan.

Beat him to it. ;) Part 3 I think it was.

[Neutron]

It's a historical fact. The Brits are marvelous at brutally subjucating native populations, witness the Boer War, where do you think Hitler got his model for the concentration camps?? (NOT the Final Solution, the camps and method of prisonar management). It would have been a cheap shot had it not been so true. The Zulus. Abbos, Maori, Narragansetts, (fill in almost any native population). All were brutally destroyed by the Brits, and those who weren't ended up in "Camps" Hell it was the Brits who so cleverly had the Australian Continent declared legally developmentally stilted by the Abos because they hadn't developed it in centuries and used this as their excuse to destroy the population. (They were better off dead).

Americans are not born occupiers, it's not within our psychology. Yet some members seem to think this is an "error" or a weakness in our war with Iraq. Truth is, had G.W. done what he originally intended and what he SHOULD have done, that being turned the country into a parking lot and destroyed the population, all we'd be hearing about is how the mighty US War Machine once again picked on a weakling.

So which is it guys? Do it the Brit way, and arrest and destroy a population and decalre martial law,

OR do it the way the Us should be doing things. Turn the area into a massive fire. Pave it over, then let them figure out how to rebuild it. In which case the bitch wouldn't be the war machine is cracking, it'd be we're far too efficient.

Tron

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Neutron
It's a historical fact. The Brits are marvelous at brutally subjucating native populations, witness the Boer War, where do you think Hitler got his model for the concentration camps?? (NOT the Final Solution, the camps and method of prisonar management). It would have been a cheap shot had it not been so true. The Zulus. Abbos, Maori, Narragansetts, (fill in almost any native population). All were brutally destroyed by the Brits, and those who weren't ended up in "Camps" Hell it was the Brits who so cleverly had the Australian Continent declared legally developmentally stilted by the Abos because they hadn't developed it in centuries and used this as their excuse to destroy the population. (They were better off dead).

Americans are not born occupiers, it's not within our psychology. Yet some members seem to think this is an "error" or a weakness in our war with Iraq. Truth is, had G.W. done what he originally intended and what he SHOULD have done, that being turned the country into a parking lot and destroyed the population, all we'd be hearing about is how the mighty US War Machine once again picked on a weakling.

So which is it guys? Do it the Brit way, and arrest and destroy a population and decalre martial law,

OR do it the way the Us should be doing things. Turn the area into a massive fire. Pave it over, then let them figure out how to rebuild it. In which case the bitch wouldn't be the war machine is cracking, it'd be we're far too efficient.

Tron

Sorry Tron but you have lost the plot. Why nuke Iraq? They had nothing, zero, nadda, FUCK ALL to do with 9/11! If you want to use such crude justice then it's Saudi Arabia you should be turning into a parking lot, wasn't it 16 Saudi's out of 21 hijackers. What were the "crimes" that Saddam was accused of?

1) WMD - nope, none found and now the adminsitration says they may have been moved out of the country before the war so nuking would have done nothing. Here's Colin Powell's take:



When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I'm deeply disappointed. But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.

2) Funding Terrorism - it's been proven by your own definition that the Iran-Contra scandle funded terrorism, nuke the US first.

3) Clear and Present Danger - Saddam couldn't attack his neighbours let alone the US.

4) Liberating Iraq - the current justification and liberating a people by way of nuke is just idiotic.

You complain about August saying he's glad one man is dead (something I do NOT agree with by the way) and then say that killing 23 MILLION people in Iraq ALONE who have done NOTHING to you is okay? By that justification, let's kill all white american males with military service to stop the next Timothy Mcveigh. Yes that's ridiculous but no more so than your "suggestion" here.

You just suggested the biggest mass gencoide in history, on a people that had done you no harm. If you claim to represent the US people (and thank GOD you don't) you've just proven you're not occupiers, you're cowards with a desire for mass murder on a scale that has never before been seen.

[Neutron]

Calm down big boy. Where did I advocate nuking 23 million people? Or even advocate genocide? I never said anything about nukes, nor killing Iraqis wholesale. I suggest reading the Tronny post started by red indian, in that post I openly questioned why anyone would advocate nuking China in the 60s, and would question doing it now. I'm not in favor of nuking anyone, but should the US decide to do so, I'd love the chance to sign the weapon.

Please reread my post. It's alledged the US War Machine is cracking. I say otherwise, we haven't used even .00000001% of our total military ability. Our skills as occupationalists aren't up to snuff but that's more a matter of national psychology. I also gave credit where credit is due, If you want a land occupied and a population brutally subjucated under the most martial terms, get the Brits to do it. It's well within their national heritage, make up, and their past national policy supports it. As the Boers, Germans post WW1 and WW2. Their brutal treatment of Germany Post WW1 was the first path to WW2.

I was merely pointing out that there;s nothing wrong with the US War Machine. HAD we decided to unleash it then we;d have turned that country into a parking lot, WITHOUT the use of nukes. It's well within our capability, and the world should realize that. It's only through our good will we didn't do it.

I could care less about WMD. Fact is, we decided Iraq was a danger to us, we had every right to eliminate that danger. The last time we fooled around a couple huge towers got hit and Americans died. Or have you forgotten that?

Hey qjakal. LOL Hell man that wasn't even a love tap, that was a very gentle poke.

Tron

[BigJim]

...totally frigging banjaxed.

[august spies]

tron, since when does "iraq is a danger to us" mean lets make rich imperialists even more rich. your use of the english language has orwell rolling over in his grave.

for the rest of us down here in reality, iraq is a danger to us means that the people of iraq somehow possed a military threat to the USA.

What you mean is that there is a lot of money to be made by rich people off of war and imperialism so lets lie to people and start wars to make money. those are two very different things.

[ticklebutton]

Originally posted by Neutron
Fact is, we decided Iraq was a danger to us, we had every right to eliminate that danger. The last time we fooled around a couple huge towers got hit and Americans died. Or have you forgotten that?
Damn, I had forgotton that - thanks for the reminder.

Good thing "WE" (Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Ahmed Chalabi) decided Iraq was a danger to us.

Those Iraqis'll think twice next time before they fly into New York and...oh, wait...

Button :rolleyes:

[BigJim]

Originally posted by august spies
your use of the english language has orwell rolling over in his grave.


Someone please fucking slap me and say that it wasn't August who said that?



BWAAAHAHAHAHAHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEHEJFLOGLH<LHL:RLRFDLDL<LC........


Jim - Who's just been carted off to the funny farm.

[Neutron]

Which imperialists (and your use of imperialist is hilarious, do you know what it means?) have gotten rich off the Iraqi war? Please provide a source and finaancial numbers to prove it.

ticklebutton, Uh you don't ACTUALLY have to fly the planes to NY to be a danger, or even a greater threat.

Now I'm curious, BOFH66 posted about Iraq/Iran Contra. I've never denied we did that, hell it's well documented. However, we were supporting a LEGITIMATE Regime in a LEGITIMATE war in order to put pressure on the Soviets. That's hardly state sponsored terrorism. In fact in many countries that type of support is legal. What's wrong is in the US it isn't legal. That was Reagans sin.

An analogy. I'm positive the Brits remember Lend Lease, after all it's how they were armed and how they ate during WW2. By BOFH66 analysis of Reagan we were guilty of supporting state sponsored terrorism, AND the Nrits were guilty of worse, BY using the Bombs and Bombers we supplied in bombing raids against German cities they were guilty of terrorism, AND by supplying Russians with some of these weapons they were guilty of supporting State Sponsored Terrorism in two ways. A: Outright Russian use of these weapons against German Civilians. and B: Even worse, many of these weapons ended up in Russian partisan hands. Partisans are not legal military members. So when they used said weapons against German Military, and worse yet used these weapons to support one of the largest rape and pillage campaigns in modern history they became terrorists.
All supported by the Brits. (See Erickson and Beevors excellent books on the Eastern Front)

As for Orwell LOL Oddly the "anarchist" quotes one of the bigger socialists in history. Orwells books were warnings against taking socialism TOO far. He advocated socialism but not at the expense of individual right. Hardly an anarchist.

Tron

[TKpervert]

Originally posted by august spies


Yes i am in a masters program, [....]

what program ?

[BigJim]

... I was never one for setting the UK on some moral high ground. I've critiscised our government as equally as yours. During the 60's and 70's for instance the British government had it's own version of apartheid in Northern Ireland, but based on Catholic-Protestant, instead of white-black. Catholics were reduced to the status of second class citizens, denied more than one vote per household and denied the right to own some types of business.

And you can bet your life that if that walking financial disaster Kerry gets in in November that I'll try and pull holes in all his vests too.


P.S. I wrote about the Contra affair in my Part 3 thread. What I essentially said was that GB Snr. traded arms with them (I always maintained that he was President for 12 years. There was no way he wasn't the power behind Ronny Ray-Gun's throne) and took payment in grade-A heroin which he then flogged onto the streets of America. I forget the sources I used, but they are there somewhere. Some of them anyway.

[august spies]

imperialism isnt hilarous, its quite bloody and ruthless, but i forgot that sort of thing is hilarious to you.

who decides what government is legitimate and what wars are legitimate? ronald reagan?

so if osama bin laden invaded your country and set up an islamic dictatorship is that legitamate?

[august spies]

ps.. you can also stop playing the self defense bs. even the imperialists arnt doing that anymore.

[Strider]

August,are going to answer me?

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Neutron
Calm down big boy. Where did I advocate nuking 23 million people? Or even advocate genocide? I never said anything about nukes, nor killing Iraqis wholesale. I suggest reading the Tronny post started by red indian, in that post I openly questioned why anyone would advocate nuking China in the 60s, and would question doing it now. I'm not in favor of nuking anyone, but should the US decide to do so, I'd love the chance to sign the weapon.

Please reread my post. It's alledged the US War Machine is cracking. I say otherwise, we haven't used even .00000001% of our total military ability. Our skills as occupationalists aren't up to snuff but that's more a matter of national psychology. I also gave credit where credit is due, If you want a land occupied and a population brutally subjucated under the most martial terms, get the Brits to do it. It's well within their national heritage, make up, and their past national policy supports it. As the Boers, Germans post WW1 and WW2. Their brutal treatment of Germany Post WW1 was the first path to WW2.

I was merely pointing out that there;s nothing wrong with the US War Machine. HAD we decided to unleash it then we;d have turned that country into a parking lot, WITHOUT the use of nukes. It's well within our capability, and the world should realize that. It's only through our good will we didn't do it.

I could care less about WMD. Fact is, we decided Iraq was a danger to us, we had every right to eliminate that danger. The last time we fooled around a couple huge towers got hit and Americans died. Or have you forgotten that?

Hey qjakal. LOL Hell man that wasn't even a love tap, that was a very gentle poke.

Tron


what he SHOULD have done, that being turned the country into a parking lot and destroyed the population


Turn the area into a massive fire. Pave it over, then let them figure out how to rebuild it

Oh, and see if this rings any bells:

http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14370


So never even try to imply that I feel we should get over it. In fact we should have started nuking Mid Eastern cities. I regret we didn't. I firmly believe the price of 1 American Life is 10000 foreign lives. MINIMUM. I also believe we should stay in that region and fight until no one is left standing. We won't, but we should. By my count over 3,000,000 Middle Easterners should be nuclear waste by now.


So you want to tell me what you WERE suggesting? Certainly "destroying the population" sounds like killing Iraqi's wholesale. "Turn the area into a massive fire" and "parking lot" are comonly accepted euphemisms for nukes, but even if you were suggesting "conventional" weapons you just slaughtered an entire country with, at last count, over 23 million citizens who have never presented a danger to the US.

Iran/Contra - from the sources I quoted the Contra's were attacking both the democratically-elected government and civilian targets:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Contra


The Contras (Spanish contrarevolucionario, "counter-revolutionary") were the armed opponents of Nicaragua's revolutionary and democratically-elected Sandinista government following the July 1979 overthrow of Anastasio Somoza Debayle and the ending of the Somoza family's 43-year rule. The label was commonly used by the US press to cover a range of groups with little in the way of ideological unity; thus some references use the uncapitalized form, contra.

They were considered terrorists by the Sandinistas and many Nicaraguans and many of their attacks targeted civilians. There are allegations that Reagan's US administration incited the targeting of "soft" or civilian targets by Contra militants, for example farm co-operatives (which are comparable to Palestinian guerrilla attacks on civilians in kibutz in Israel).

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/centralamerica/Nicaragua.html


“It is cynical to think that the contra respect human rights. During my four years as a contra director, it was premeditated practice to terrorize civilian non-combatants to prevent their cooperation with the government... No serious attempt has been made to stop them because terror is the most effective weapon of the contra.”
Edgar Chamorro


So unless you've actually got some proof, some facts to back you up (not saying you haven't but really curious why you haven't posted them if you do) that the Contras were "a legitimate regime" by your own definition it WAS a terrorist act (acting against the elected government and targeting civilians).

And we come back to the same question I asked you before: Why when data that seems to prove the counterpoint to your views is presented do you ALWAYS duck the issue? You've spent a lot of time in this thread bashing August for not providing evidence to back up his claims yet are guilty of exactly the same thing yourself. No, instead you engage in cheap shots and more unsupported arguments, the one at Button is a good example:



Uh you don't ACTUALLY have to fly the planes to NY to be a danger, or even a greater threat.


Great, wonderful use of that tragedy to try and further your argument, except of cause Iraq wasn't involved in the hijackings 9/11 and nor were any of its citizens. But facts are so gosh darn inconvenient when they get in the way of your arguments aren't they?

[ticklebutton]

Originally posted by Neutron
Uh you don't ACTUALLY have to fly the planes to NY to be a danger, or even a greater threat.
Why, apparently you don't ACTUALLY have to have any evidence of Iraqi participation in 9-11 either, or evidence of WMD, or ANY valid honorable way to justify destroying a country, a landscape, and all those lives. :sowrong:

[Neutron]

august spies doesn't understand what imperialism is.

ticklebutton, EXACTLY whose lives have we destroyed over in Iraq. Provide a source please. You're taking the august spies tact of just changing the topic.

BOFH I never advocated turning anything into a parking lot and certainly not with nuclear weapons. We could have leveled Iraq with conventional weapons HAD WE SO CHOSE and WERE we so callous about innocent casualties. that we chose to do so. We're so paranoid about killing innocents that we pull back

Strider get used to it. the "masters degree candidate " can't make an argument he can prove. And he has no idea what a legitimate war is.

So I'm still wondering, by using lend Lease did the US not support the biggest terrorist state in History that being the UK? By following the opinion of many in this thread we certainly did.

Tron

[BigJim]

Originally posted by Neutron
ticklebutton, EXACTLY whose lives have we destroyed over in Iraq. Provide a source please. You're taking the august spies tact of just changing the topic.n

If you want to know that Mike, then read parts 1,2,3, & 4. Ignore the bits about conspiracy theories and just go for the facts and sources I quoted, like Madeleine Albright being forced to admit a million Iraqi infants had been killed by 1995 because of sanctions, how both the UK and the US broke the Geneva Convention, like on the road to Basra by bombing a convoy that was both stationary and retreating; how British soldiers buried surrendured Iraqis alive with earth-movers; how a document accidentally declassified showed the USAF deliberately bombed targets like water purification plants to cause a breakdown in the civillian infrastructure; and how area effect ordanance was used over totally civillian areas. (And don't forget the pictures of two-headed, stubby limbed kids, caused by radioactive exposure in allied bombs and shells. Iraq went from gazillionth to first in the league table for instances of childhood leukemia because of it too.) I don't doubt you'll disagree with me, but it should at least prove diverting for an hour or so.

[BigJim]

Originally posted by Neutron
and WERE we so callous about innocent casualties. that we chose to do so. We're so paranoid about killing innocents that we pull back
Tron

Sorry Tron, but that is blatantly untrue. Can I also assume that you're calling yourself callous, as your definition of not giving an arse about innocent lives pretty much equates with your 1:100,000 ratio of what a rag-head is worth next to an American?

[Neutron]

And that's my opinion. not a national outlook.
ANd I don't use words like raghead or anything of the like.

Now wait a minute. You cannot hold the US accountable for deaths due to sanctions, quite simply the sanctions end when a country that STARTED a war decided to comply with the peace articles that ended that war. By your reckoning we're pikers compared to Great Britain. Roughly 6 million German children starved to death in WW1 due to British Blockade and their loose treatment of what could be blockaded.

The water purification plant in Iraq. Owned by the US, built by the US. In fact all water purification plants in Saudi, Iraq, Jordan etal are Us Owned and operated (at a cost). Water purification is a legitimate MILITARY target. Again established by the Brits in WW2.

If you're implying DU results in Leukemia please stop there. It doesn't. It never has, it never will. I've received roughly 10,000 times the lifetime dose one gets if one ATE an entire DU tip. And I get roughly 100s of times that dose every year, as do many of my coutnerparts. No leukemia yet. In that the type of radiation DU puts out isn't a leukemia causer. It's a boneseeker.

There is nothing in the Geneva Convention that prevents striking at a retreating convoy. OR a stationary one in fact it's an accepted military tactic to try to stop the convoy and get it to reverse in order to destroy it.

Come on, you can do better than that.

Oh and when you mentioned the butied alive Iraqis. Where exactly were US Troops involved in that. You only proved my point, when you need to Brutally subjucate a native population call the Brits. They're experts at it.

Now, since we were so BIG on Iraq/Irangate wouldn't we also classify the UK as the biggest terrorist state in History based on their past record of

1: Begging for Lend Lease
2: Using said supplies to destroy German Civilian targets
3: Supplying said supplies to non military personnel (Russian Partisans) which were subsequently used against German Civilians in a campaign of terror.

That's what you're saying the US did by supplying another ally in a declared war. Compared to the death toll of WW2 they were children playing an adult game.

[kis123]

The arrogance of some Americans never ceases to amaze me...

There is a group of Americans who think people of other races and countries are sub-human because they're not American. Considering that there is deep European influences in our country, the only "real Americans" who exist were the brown-skinned ones who were here when the Mayflower hit. That's why we call them Native Americans, right? Or is that just another politically correct term or buzzword? It is a shame that people are only created equal only when America says so.

Everyone is complaining about the loss of life in the 9-11 tradgedy. It is true that thousands of lives were lost, and those lives are important. However, the multiple thousands of lives lost in the Middle East and other parts of the world are just as important. They had family, friends, and people who loved them just as we do in the US. Some Americans tend to be self absorbed and self centered and see others as either unimportant or "less than".

I don't think we should just nuke 'em. I don't think we should just pave over them as if they're not human. We need to realize that US interests are not the only interests that are important.

If not, consider this: many of the cultures we have been known to have complete disrespect for are now living next door to us. How much longer do you expect them to sit by and watch US destroy their homeland?

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Neutron

ticklebutton, EXACTLY whose lives have we destroyed over in Iraq. Provide a source please. You're taking the august spies tact of just changing the topic.


Here you go, http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

A database of all deaths since the end of the "major-combat" phase which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation. Add on a further 7,00+ deaths during the major combat phase.

Or how about this (Warning, this link contains graphic images of violence in Iraq.): http://scoop.co.nz/mason/features/?s=warimages


Originally posted by Neutron

BOFH I never advocated turning anything into a parking lot and certainly not with nuclear weapons. We could have leveled Iraq with conventional weapons HAD WE SO CHOSE and WERE we so callous about innocent casualties. that we chose to do so. We're so paranoid about killing innocents that we pull back


BZZZT!!! Oh I'm sorry. would you like to go for double jepordy where the scores can really change?

I've quoted you directly up above as saying:


what he SHOULD have done, that being turned the country into a parking lot and destroyed the population .

So... how are you going to try to weasel out of that? Or was it the other Neutron that posts here who said it? And as for "never advocated" oh yes you did sir, as shown in the linked post above, but as you appear to be having trouble reading today:


In fact we should have started nuking Mid Eastern cities. I regret we didn't. I firmly believe the price of 1 American Life is 10000 foreign lives.
By my count over 3,000,000 Middle Easterners should be nuclear waste by now.

For that matter, Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. He, for those that don't know, was a 27 year old white Americna male, born in New York and served in the US Military during the first Gulf War, whose service record rated him "among the best" in leadership potential and an "inspiration to young soldiers". So based on your 1:10,000 ratio, does that mean 1,680,000 US Citizens should be collected in one spot and nuked? That Detroit should be nuked in retaliation? No? But why not, they're from the same ethnic class, and the same country, as the bomber?

For the third time of asking Tron, how about providing some DATA and FACTS to support your arguments? You've busted on August for failing to do this either at all or to your satisfaction several times in this thread but seem unwilling or unable to hold yourself to the same standard you hold others to. There have been several people on this thread that try to engage you in honest debate with their position backed with facts, yet every time you either ignore the question or head off in another direction without first having the good manners to reply to them with the concrete evidence you base your own facts upon.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Neutron

If you're implying DU results in Leukemia please stop there. It doesn't. It never has, it never will. I've received roughly 10,000 times the lifetime dose one gets if one ATE an entire DU tip. And I get roughly 100s of times that dose every year, as do many of my coutnerparts. No leukemia yet. In that the type of radiation DU puts out isn't a leukemia causer. It's a boneseeker.


Don't start this again, you've argued the point before, ignored EVERY shred of evidence that was posted refuting your claims, and if memory serves claimed there were things "you weren't allowed to discuss" that proved your point that no-one knew about and that all info in the public domain was wrong. You ignored reams of statistical data about how figures were generated, you flat out said that you knew more than the US Government on how DU worked, ignored the fact DU munitions are classified as WMD by international law and a host of other "facts" that you couldn't refute or defend your own opinions. Oh, and I see that there too you resorted to lashing out at other countries and posters instead of answering the points raised.

Actually, let me quote Maurader from that thread:



Tron: prove your statements or don't make them.


Edit Ooops, forgot the link: http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43332&perpage=15&highlight=WMD&pagenumber=1

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Neutron

Oh and when you mentioned the butied alive Iraqis. Where exactly were US Troops involved in that.

Right here: http://jeff.paterson.net/aw/aw4_buried_alive.htm



Newsday disclosed in September that many Iraqi troops were buried alive when the First Mechanized Infantry Division attacked an 8,000-man division defending Saddam Hussein's front line.

U.S. commanders told Newsday that thousands had been buried during the two-day assault Feb. 24-25, 1991. During the February 27 Iraqi retreat from Kuwait, tens of thousands of vehicles were destroyed by U.S. jets. But most estimates said 1,000 or fewer Iraqis were killed.

According to the new report, the incidents raised questions about the Geneva Convention's prohibition of "denial of quarter" -- refusing to accept an enemy's offer to surrender. It said:

"There is a gap in the law of war in defining precisely when surrender takes effect or how it may be accomplished. An attempt at surrender in the midst of a hard-fought battle is neither easily communicated nor received. The issue is one of reasonableness."

At the time the Iraqi front was breached, commanders were still concerned about the threat of chemical, gas and missile attack. "Because of these uncertainties and the need to minimize loss of U.S. lives, military necessity required that the assault ... be conducted with maximum speed and violence," the report said.

"Many Iraqis surrenderd during this phase of the attack and were taken prisoner. The division then assaulted the trenches containing other Iraqi soldiers. Once astride the trench lines, the division turned the plow blades of its tanks and combat earth movers along the Iraqi defense line.

"In the process many more Iraqi soldiers surrendered; others died in the course of the attack and the destruction or bulldozing of their defensive positions."

[venray]

So what we are saying is war sucks because innocents die....agreed...

We are also saying that sanctions suck because because innocents die....again agreed...

If we sit back and do nothing to people like Saddam, that innocents will die...agreed....

(this means that all countries that condoned UN sanctions are terrorists and that the UN is a major terrorist organization by definition of this thread)

So what do we do...do we pick the lesser of all evils and get rid of those that will continue to kill or do we impose sanctions and let the innocents die off first as the leaders use up all of the country's resources for themselves.

Or do we just sit back and do nothing and let them do whatever they like in the world until they decide they need more and come after us.

Tell me folks...what is the solution here. Anyone can say what we have done is wrong. Tell me what is right and show me how it would work better and have less innocents die in the process. If you cannot, then I think that there isnt much more here to discuss.


Ray:(

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by venray1

Tell me folks...what is the solution here. Anyone can say what we have done is wrong. Tell me what is right and show me how it would work better and have less innocents die in the process. If you cannot, then I think that there isnt much more here to discuss.


Ray:(

Huh? Did this thread just pogo or something? I could have sworn the two posts before this just swapped places. *Scritches Head*

Just a suggestion, but how about if the US had played nice with the UN? If they'd let the inspectors do what they were supposed to do, if they'd bothered to put an international military force together and gone in, not as occupiers but as liberators in the eys of the Iraqi people. If there had been no "shock and awe" campaing which in reality only served to damage relations with the Iraqi people. If as soon as the military job was done the Iraqi people themselves had been given control with the the coalition, a TRUE coalition there just to provide security. If reconstruction had been done on a free, democratic system and at cost price (or with very tight profit margains) so that this would have been a shining example of the West in action.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly didn't want Saddam to stay there, but in the rush to get him out we (and Britain shares the shame of this war) did it the wrong way. We did it for the wrong reasons and under a cloud of lies, instead of the RIGHT reason, to liberate the Iraqi people and let them choose their own way forward, without interference from us.

But I'd suggest that, really, Iraq isn't the issue in this thread, rather it is being used to illustrate a point about the justification of otherwise of the Iran/Contra scandle and is in danger of dragging things WAY off topic. So how about we actually try and stick with the issue at hand? There's certainly a LOT more to discuss when it comes to Reagan's administration, did we even get into the financial side?

[Bulldogge]

Originally posted by venray1
So what we are saying is war sucks because innocents die....agreed...

We are also saying that sanctions suck because because innocents die....again agreed...

If we sit back and do nothing to people like Saddam, that innocents will die...agreed....

(this means that all countries that condoned UN sanctions are terrorists and that the UN is a major terrorist organization by definition of this thread)

So what do we do...do we pick the lesser of all evils and get rid of those that will continue to kill or do we impose sanctions and let the innocents die off first as the leaders use up all of the country's resources for themselves.

Or do we just sit back and do nothing and let them do whatever they like in the world until they decide they need more and come after us.

Tell me folks...what is the solution here. Anyone can say what we have done is wrong. Tell me what is right and show me how it would work better and have less innocents die in the process. If you cannot, then I think that there isnt much more here to discuss.


Ray:(

I think the right answer, much as I hate war, is that you make a decision to go into conflict to protect the lives of innocents, no matter who those innocents might be. And if that were the true reason, the real reason we went to war in Iraq, then you would never hear me say a word of criticism. But when Saddam gassed the Kurds, we didn't go to war. When he commited atrocity after atrocity on his own people, we didn't go to war.

"An indictment of Saddam's atrocities would include not only his slaughter and gassing of Kurds in 1988 but also, rather crucially, his massacre of the Shiite rebels who might have overthrown him in 1991......

At the time, Washington and its allies held the "strikingly unanimous view (that) whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression," reported Alan Cowell in the New York Times.....Such practices reflect a trap deeply rooted in the intellectual culture generally – a trap sometimes called the doctrine of change of course, invoked in the United States every two or three years. The content of the doctrine is: 'Yes, in the past we did some wrong things because of innocence or inadvertence. But now that's all over, so let's not waste anymore time on this boring, stale stuff.'
The doctrine is dishonest and cowardly, but it does have advantages: It protects us from the danger of understanding what is happening before our eyes......

Throughout history, even the harshest and most shameful measures are regularly accompanied by professions of noble intent – and rhetoric about bestowing freedom and independence.

An honest look would only generalize Thomas Jefferson's observation on the world situation of his day: 'We believe no more in Bonaparte's fighting merely for the liberties of the seas than in Great Britain's fighting for the liberties of mankind. The object is the same, to draw to themselves the power, the wealth and the resources of other nations.'"

-Noam Chomsky

We went to war not to save lives - but to protect our interests. And that's where the problem lies. The only reason to go to war is when it's clear that such an action will save more people's lives than it ends.

Just an opinion.

[venray]

Good answer. Now what do we do to fix the present situation.

[Neutron]

The amount of DU alledged to be used in that thread is more than that in existence.

DU is not a Leukemia causer. It simply doesn't emit the right type of radiation. Gamma emitters cause leukemia. Not alpha emitters.

Also, I did give a fact. Lend Lease, which was subsequently used by the Brits to bomb civilians, and to supply non military personnel who subsequently killed and raped civilians. I even provided two acknowledged sources.

By your logic this makes the UK the biggest group of terrorists in history. After all when they supplied the weapons to the Russians they must have known these weapons would be used to kill people right?

Tron

[august spies]

fixing the present situtation: right now the world is run by people like tron, who ignore facts when they are presented to him, and spew propaganda that is full of lies.

People like him also advocate killing millions of people just so we can make the rich richer. Well lets all agree that this isnt the kind of world that we want to live in. So i honestly think we need to stop supporting the government, and start supporting their victims.

When you have a sitution like saddam, you need to look at history. first off he wouldnt have been as powerful as he was if it werent for the us government.

Secondly he could have been overthrown numerous times if we had just lent minor support to democratic opposition. this countrys government has overthrown democratically elected governments before without war, im sure it could have easily overthrown fascist governments, but to do that you need to go to the people. And you cant go to the people, if the only reason your there is to rip them off and kill them (or as tron would say in trononean newspeak "liberate them").

Anyway we are at the point now where global arms spending is reaching the trillion dollar mark (every year). Just imagine what good that money could be doing.

[TFStudio]

Originally posted by august spies
Haha, sorry cant let this one go on without puking.

Sorry to wake some up to reality and facts (i know reagan said "facts are stupid") but just bare with me for a second.

This is a man whose ties to terrorism in one country alone are far greater and more distructive than bin ladens ties to the 9/11 hijackers. Regean had ties to terrorists in dozens of countries, and throughout the planet. the body count his is responsible for is off the charts, it would be off the charts if we were just counting the children killed.

This is a man who gave us a 3 trillion dollar debt, this is a man who was a systematic liar, this is a man who was so stupid he actually said that trees cause pollution.

This is a man who gutted social programs and dumped americans into poverty and debt.

god bless god for taking reagan away from us
ps. saddam and bin laden also send their condolences

Glad to see the Democrats back to their old tricks. They speak of "compassion" but then go and dis-respect the dead.

And they say that Conservatives are full of vile and hate.

[august spies]

maybe its time for a new post?? what do you guys think? A where do we go from here post.

dozens of facts have surfaced from lots of people proving my orgional point about reagan. Though we didnt get into debating the opinion on why he was supporting such actions, i think people can and should do more research from a wide range of sources and come to their own conclusions.

I think the new thread will argue for us to start looking left. And i wont focus it on anarchism (thought i will certainly bring it up). look for it in a day or two (unless somone beats me to it!) looks like fun lies ahead

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Neutron
The amount of DU alledged to be used in that thread is more than that in existence.

DU is not a Leukemia causer. It simply doesn't emit the right type of radiation. Gamma emitters cause leukemia. Not alpha emitters.

Also, I did give a fact. Lend Lease, which was subsequently used by the Brits to bomb civilians, and to supply non military personnel who subsequently killed and raped civilians. I even provided two acknowledged sources.

By your logic this makes the UK the biggest group of terrorists in history. After all when they supplied the weapons to the Russians they must have known these weapons would be used to kill people right?

Tron

Drop the DU, we've been there, done that, and you made the same allegations last time and couldn't back them up then with any independent evidence. That thread ran for five pages plus, multiple requests from multiple people to prove what you were saying and it didn't happen. Let's get this thread back where it's supposed to be and if you've got anything new to add to THAT discussion, the link is in my post above.


If you'll notice I took your definition of terrorism, and in the Contra case those arms were supplied to a group that deliberately targeted the legitimite government and civilian targets, thus fulfilling your definition. Again, by your own definition and the evidence supplied here, any materials were supplied to the legitmate government of the UK for, if I'm reading this right, use in a wartime situation where war was legally declared AND the UK was defending itself. By YOUR definition that doesn't qualify as terrorism.

More to the point, you supplied NOTHING in the way of facts, just your opinion. I admit I'm not up on my history to the point I'd like, so I, and most others I suspect, don't have the facts memorised. This means that to prove your arguments you need to provide EVIDENCE, from independent sources, something easy enough to do for a matter 60 years old. Oh, and providing print sources is useless in an on-line forum as no-one is going to go look them up and even if they did then they would not be in a position to use that information within the lifetime of this discussion. In this case I'd have gone for:

What the act involved in both laymans terms and the actual act itself
What weapons were involved
What weapons were transfered to the Russians
How the situation was the same as the Contra situation and what the differences were.

Why the hell I should have to tell you this, considering you're the one asking for proof and research I don't know.

Oh, and one FUNNY thing, looked up the Act and found that:



Article III

The Government of the United Kingdom will not without the consent of the President of the United States of America transfer title to, or possession of, any defense article or defense information transferred to it under the Act or permit the use thereof by anyone not an officer, employee, or agent of the Government of the United Kingdom.


So guess what, you want to blame the UK for terrorism it was done with YOUR consent. Which brings us neatly back to Reagan and Iran/Contra. :D

And ON that subject, I can't help but notice you're still ducking the questions raised, and no witty reply to the fact you did say, very clearly, "parking lot" and HAVE advocated nuking the middle east before now? As far as I'm concerned that's three times you were asked for any evidence on Iran/Contra, or to back up your calls for mass slaughter in the middle east, or how that philosophy applies to Timothy McVeigh so unless you want to do so now, the points you raised are discredited. You seem to be far more interested in trying to rip people apart for their posts than actually setting a good example and following your own rules. Which is very disapointing because, if you wanted to, you CAN argue points well and with factual evidence, you just choose not to for whatever reason. Your choice to make of course, though I don't know why you make it.

[gila67]

Originally posted by august spies
imperialism isnt hilarous, its quite bloody and ruthless, but i forgot that sort of thing is hilarious to you.


Could you misread other people's posts a bit more? If you had bothered to actually read what Neutron wrote, you'd know he never called imperialism hilarious, he was referring to your use of the word imperialism. But I don't guess real discussion is what you're here for.

[august spies]

if by "real" you mean fake no.

[gila67]

:confused:

[venray]

Originally posted by gila67
:confused:

Just a little doublespeak, gila...dont try to figure it out...lol

Ray

[Neutron]

I don't believe the Brits were guilty of terrorism during WW2. They were fighting a brutal war the best they could, ALTHOUGH the head of the RAF had as one of his goals to utilize the terror of strategic bombing as a means to force the Germans to surrender.

I'm only pointing out, if you want to use Iran/Iraq gate as a accusation of the US supporting terrorism the only thing wrong with it was Reagan supplied the arms without government consent. He was supplying them to a legal ally in a legally declared war. The only difference between it and Lend Lease was Roosevelt had a law (an unconstitutional one at that) passed to allow it. How thw weapons ended up being used were beyond US control in both cases. If you want to use historical precedent there are no bigger terrorists in History than the Brits. Hell in the late 40s and early 50s they were MORE than willing to sack Egypt, and without US Intervention they would have.

Britain created Isreal, AND the current borders for the various Middle East countries, and did so with the specific intent of ensuring someone over there would always supply them with oil. They knew damn well the cost would be eternal war, but it wasn't within Pax Britanica to care.

China, The Boer War, Germany post WW1 and WW2, an attempt in Egypt. These are all times when the UK was far more brutal than the US has ever been, AND they did it as a national policy.

As for august spies LOL> The lad can't spell, I'm wondering how he's ever going to get his "masters" degree.

Tron

[BOFH666]

You're doing this on purpose now aren't you? The discussion was NOT about the IRAN part of the Iran/Contra affair, but the CONTRA side. THAT'S what fits your definition of terrorism. Please do try and keep up with the rest of the class.

[august spies]

trong hasnt attempted to discuss one fact that bashes his inane points, and hes not going to start now.

however he has however attempted to argue spelling, and again its really keeping me up nights.

DERRICK Z. JACKSON
Reagan's heart of darkness
By Derrick Z. Jackson | June 9, 2004

PRESIDENT Bush proclaimed: "Ronald Reagan believed that God takes the
side of justice and that America has a special calling to oppose
tyranny and defend freedom." In the first three days of news reports
on the death of the former president, not a single major American
newspaper, television station, or politician has dared to exhume this
counterpoint to the Reagan's legacy: "Immoral, evil, and totally
un-Christian."

These were the words of Bishop Desmond Tutu, spoken on Capitol Hill
at a House hearing in late 1984. It was just after Reagan's easy
reelection. Tutu had just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his
nonviolent struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Throughout the
United States a rising number of Americans were calling for American
companies to stop doing business there.

Reagan ignored them. The president of so-called sunny optimism
attempted to blind Americans with his policy of "constructive
engagement" with the white minority regime in Pretoria. All
constructive engagment did was give the white minority more time to
mow down the black majority in the streets and keep dreamers of
democracy, such as Nelson Mandela, behind bars.

In the weeks leading up to his appearance on Capitol Hill, Tutu said
in speeches that it seemed that the Reagan White House saw "blacks as
expendable" in South Africa. The white government forced black people
from prized lands and into horrid townships. Migratory labor laws
split familes for 11 months at a time. Education was gutted for black
children. There was virtually no due process for black defendants.
Tutu said it was "reminiscent of Hitler's Aryan madness." Tutu
declared that "constructive engagement is an abomination, an
unmitigated disaster."

On Capitol Hill, Tutu became a public relations disaster for Reagan.
Tutu started off the hearing by saying apartheid itself "is evil, is
immoral, is un-Christian, without remainder." I was there, and all
breathing stopped, without remainder. Tutu continued:

"In my view, the Reagan administration's support and collaboration
with it is equally immoral, evil, and totally un-Christian. . . . You
are either for or against apartheid and not by rhetoric. You are
either in favor of evil or you are in favor of good. You are either
on the side of the oppressed or on the side of the oppressor. You
can't be neutral."

Tutu received an unprecedented standing ovation by the committee.
Even Reagan's Republican allies told the South African Embassy they
would reluctantly support sanctions if Pretoria did not move to end
apartheid.

Reagan was not moved. Over the remainder of his presidency, at least
3,000 people would die, mostly at the hands of the South African
police and military. Another 20,000, including 6,000 children,
according to one estimate by a human rights group, would be arrested
under "state of emergency" decrees.

Yet Reagan had the gall to say in 1985 that the "reformist
administration" of South Africa had "eliminated the segregation that
we once had in our own country." In 1986, Reagan gave a speech where
he said Mandela should be released but denounced sanctions with
crocodile tears, claiming that they would hurt black workers, who
were already ridiculously impoverished. Reagan's go-slow speech was
denounced by Tutu, who said: "I found it quite nauseating. I think
the West, for my part, can go to hell. . . . Your president is the
pits as far as blacks are concerned. He sits there like the great,
big white chief of old."

Later in 1986, Reagan made his greatest demonstration yet that black
bodies were "expendable." Congress had finally had enough of the
carnage to vote for limited sanctions. Reagan vetoed them. Congress
overrode the veto. Reagan proceded to put no muscle behind the
sanctions. Mandela remained in jail and at least 2,000 political
prisoners remained detained without trial.

In 1987 Reagan published a report that said additional sanctions
"would not be helpful." The gleeful South African foreign minister,
Roelof Botha, said that Reagan "and his administration have an
understanding of the reality of South Africa."

Reagan's and Botha's "reality" was rendered a fantasy by the force of
world opinion and a more enlightened leadership inside South Africa.
Only a year after Reagan left office, Mandela was released. One can
only wonder how much sooner he would have been released and how many
lives would have been saved had Reagan not behaved like the white
chief of old.

President Bush said Reagan believed God was on the side of justice.
On South Africa, Reagan was on the side of one of the most demonic
governments on the face of the earth. He chose to assist tyranny and
ignore brutality. Ronald Reagan's death has been followed by
relentless descriptions of him as a president of sunny optimism. On
South Africa he was no sunshine. He was the cloud who dimmed the
skies as apartheid rained death upon black people.

[august spies]

if i have one regret its that ive been to hard on reagan, and not they sytem..


The Reagan Era
Excerpted from Deterring Democracy, 1991

by Noam Chomsky; June 11, 2004

With regard to the political system, the Reagan era represents a significant advance in capitalist democracy. For eight years, the U.S. government functioned virtually without a chief executive. That is an important fact. It is quite unfair to assign to Ronald Reagan, the person, much responsibility for the policies enacted in his name. Despite the efforts of the educated classes to invest the proceedings with the required dignity, it was hardly a secret that Reagan had only the vaguest conception of the policies of his administration, and if not properly programmed by his staff, regularly produced statements that would have been an embarrassment, were anyone to have taken them seriously. The question that dominated the Iran-contra hearings -- did Reagan know, or remember, what the policy of his administration had been? -- was hardly a serious one. The pretense to the contrary was simply part of the cover-up operation; and the lack of public interest over revelations that Reagan was engaged in illegal aid to the contras during a period when, he later informed Congress, he knew nothing about it, betrays a certain realism.



Reagan's duty was to smile, to read from the teleprompter in a pleasant voice, tell a few jokes, and keep the audience properly bemused. His only qualification for the presidency was that he knew how to read the lines written for him by the rich folk, who pay well for the service. Reagan had been doing that for years.



He seemed to perform to the satisfaction of the paymasters, and to enjoy the experience. By all accounts, he spent many pleasant days enjoying the pomp and trappings of power and should have a fine time in the retirement quarters that his grateful benefactors have prepared for him. It is not really his business if the bosses left mounds of mutilated corpses in death squad dumping grounds in El Salvador or hundreds of thousands of homeless in the streets. One does not blame an actor for the content of the words that come from his mouth. When we speak of the policies of the Reagan administration, then, we are not referring to the figure set up to front for them by an administration whose major strength was in public relations. The construction of a symbolic figure by the PR industry is a contribution to solving one of the critical problems that must be faced in any society that combines concentrated power with formal mechanisms that in theory allow the general public to take part in running their own affairs, thus posing a threat to privilege.



Not only in the subject domains but at home as well, there are unimportant people who must be taught to submit with due humility, and the crafting of a figure larger than life is a classic device to achieve this end. As far back as Herodotus we can read how people who had struggled to gain their freedom "became once more subject to autocratic government" through the acts of able and ambitious leaders who "introduced for the first time the ceremonial of royalty," distancing the leader from the public while creating a legend that "he was a being of a different order from mere men" who must be shrouded in mystery, and leaving the secrets of government, which are not the affair of the vulgar, to those entitled to manage them. In the early years of the Republic, an absurd George Washington cult was contrived as part of the effort "to cultivate the ideological loyalties of the citizenry" and thus create a sense of "viable nationhood," historian Lawrence Friedman comments. Washington was a "perfect man" of "unparalleled perfection," who was raised "above the level of mankind," and so on. To this day, the Founding Fathers remain "those pure geniuses of detached contemplation," far surpassing ordinary mortals (see p. 00). Such reverence persists, notably in elite intellectual circles, the comedy of Camelot being an example. Sometimes a foreign leader ascends to the same semi-divinity among loyal worshippers, and may be described as "a Promethean figure" with "colossal external strength" and "colossal powers," as in the more ludicrous moments of the Stalin era, or in the accolade to Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir by New Republic owner-editor Martin Peretz, from which these quotes are taken.



Franklin Delano Roosevelt attained similar heights among large sectors of the population, including many of the poor and working class, who placed their trust in him. The aura of sanctity remains among intellectuals who worship at the shrine. Reviewing a laudatory book on FDR by Joseph Alsop in the New York Review of Books, left-liberal social critic Murray Kempton describes the "majesty" of Roosevelt's smile as "he beamed from those great heights that lie beyond the taking of offense... Those of us who were born to circumstances less assured tend to think of, indeed revere, this demeanor as the aristocratic style... [We are] as homesick as Alsop for a time when America was ruled by gentlemen and ladies." Roosevelt and Lucy Mercer "were persons even grander on the domestic stage than they would end up being on the cosmic one," and met the great crisis in their lives, a secret love affair, "in the grandest style." "That Roosevelt was the democrat that great gentlemen always are in no way abated his grandeur... [His blend of elegance with compassion] adds up to true majesty." He left us with "nostalgia" that is "aching." His "enormous bulk" stands between us "and all prior history...endearingly exalted...splendidly eternal for romance," etc., etc. Roosevelt took such complete command that he "left social inquiry...a wasteland," so much so that "ten years went by before a Commerce Department economist grew curious about the distribution of income and was surprised to discover that its inequality had persisted almost unchanged from Hoover, through Roosevelt and Truman..." But that is only the carping of trivial minds. The important fact is that Roosevelt brought us "comfort...owing to his engraving upon the public consciousness the sense that men were indeed equal," whatever the record of economic reform and civil rights may show. There was one published reaction, by Noel Annan, who praised "the encomium that Murray Kempton justly bestowed on Roosevelt." Try as they might, the spinners of fantasy could not even approach such heights in the Reagan era.



The political and social history of Western democracies records all sorts of efforts to ensure that the formal mechanisms are little more than wheels spinning idly. The goal is to eliminate public meddling in formation of policy. That has been largely achieved in the United States, where there is little in the way of political organizations, functioning unions, media independent of the corporate oligopoly, or other popular structures that might offer people means to gain information, clarify and develop their ideas, put them forth in the political arena, and work to realize them. As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.



One major step towards barring the annoying public from serious affairs is to reduce elections to the choice of symbolic figures, like the flag, or the Queen of England -- who, after all, opens Parliament by reading the government's political program, though no one asks whether she believes it, or even understands it. If elections become a matter of selecting the Queen for the next four years, then we will have come a long way towards resolving the tension inherent in a free society in which power over investment and other crucial decisions -- hence the political and ideological systems as well -- is highly concentrated in private hands.



For such measures of deterring democracy to succeed, the indoctrination system must perform its tasks properly, investing the leader with majesty and authority and manufacturing the illusions necessary to keep the public in thrall -- or at least, otherwise occupied. In the modern era, one way to approach the task is to rhapsodize (or wail) over the astonishing popularity of the august figure selected to preside from afar. From the early days of the Reagan period it was repeatedly demonstrated that the tales of Reagan's unprecedented popularity, endlessly retailed by the media, were fraudulent. His popularity scarcely deviated from the norm, ranging from about 1/3 to 2/3, never reaching the levels of Kennedy or Eisenhower and largely predictable, as is standard, from perceptions of the direction of the economy. George Bush was one of the most unpopular candidates ever to assume the presidency, to judge by polls during the campaign; after three weeks in office his personal approval rating was 76 percent, well above the highest rating that Reagan ever achieved. Eighteen months after taking office, Bush's personal popularity remained above the highest point that Reagan achieved. Reagan's quick disappearance once his job was done should surprise no one who attended to the role he was assigned.



It is, nonetheless, important to bear in mind that while the substance of democracy was successfully reduced during the Reagan era, still the public remained substantially out of control, raising serious problems for the exercise of power.

[Neutron]

YOu claim the trillions of expense would be better spent on social programs. Why would an "anaarchist" want more government involvement in our lives?

BOFH666 I see you finally see my point about Lend Lease. The point is once one sells arms or lends something to another government it's beyond their control how it is used. The Act was for the Brits to use those arms, NOT for the Brits to subsequently give them to Russian Paramilitaries. By definition the Brits not only were terrorists, they supported terrorism. All we did was supply arms to an ally with the hopes they'd use them gainst a military.

Me, I just think they were trying to win a war.

As for Iraq/Irangate. Nothing occurs in a vacuum, You couldn't have the Contra Portion without the Iran/Iraq portion and THAT was the greater good.

As for august spies. LOL Does this guy think anyone believes he has a history degree????

Tron

[BOFH666]

You've tripped yourself up, your original statement was:


I merely pointed to a fact, that we armed Iran, then when it became they were a danger we took action to Unarm them.

And yes sometimes you need a smaller evil to defeat a bigger one. It's been that way thoughout world history, but you wouldn't know that because it's apparent you've never bothered learning it. How sad...

As for Hussein, no, he wasn't known as a tortuer when he was "promoted" He was a relatively minor player who the US supported because they felt he could control him.


Leaving aside the atrocious English, if you read your own posts you're using Iraq as the example of the smaller evil which you supported (from 1982) to get rid of the bigger evil. BUT in the Iran/Contra affair you armed the bigger evil in 1985 then used the money to sponsor the Contras who WERE targeting civilians (see the quote above) and fighting the legal government in an armed revolution so they do NOT have the protection of the government. Where's the "greater good" in that? Or are you arguing that supporting the Contras just because you didn't like the democratically elected government was the greater good?

And your point on lend lease was right, though thanks to the wording of the act the US had to approve all transfers (it wasn't forbidden if the US knew about it) thus removing that comfortable blanket of deniability, but your analogy was wrong. Different rules for nations than armed revolts, even if those doing the revolting can lay claim to being a potential political party. Or are you saying the IRA shouldn't be considered terrorists? Hell I don't agree with what you quoted on a moral basis, but YOU were the one banging the "legal definition" drum, remmeber?

So again, I'll make this simple (and on topic too), using the definition of international law you quoted how did the US NOT support terrorism when they funded the Contras?

[Daumantas]

Tron, I'd believe august spies has a history degree before I'd believe you have one.

Instead of continuously changing the subject by bringing up Lend-Lease and whatever other ephemera crosses your mind, please respond to BOFH's questions. You have yet to do so.

[Daumantas]

Originally posted by Ticklemaster750
Glad to see the Democrats back to their old tricks. They speak of "compassion" but then go and dis-respect the dead.

And they say that Conservatives are full of vile and hate.

I didn't think august spies' original post was appropriate either. Elsewhere I discussed paying appropriate respect to the deceased. The point, however, that he was trying to make is one that stands your comment on its head: Republicans speak of "compassion" when their favorite president dies and they're annoyed at people who aren't as heartbroken as they're supposed to be; but they have little "compassion" when the topic at hand is the sweatshop labor that makes your clothes, or the thousands of downsized workers, or the victims of ill-considered wars.

Also (since everyone keeps picking on august for this sort of thing), please consult a dictionary before posting in the future. "Bile," which I assume is the word you were looking for, is technically a digestive fluid produced by the liver but is also used as a synonym for angry, mean-spirited invective. "Vile" is what George W. Bush is.

[Neutron]

What I posted has direct applicability to the point. BOFH666 and his "anarchist" friend both claim because the US funded certain factions that they in fact are responsible for the use of the weapons. And are terrorists simply because they "should" have known how the weapons and casgh would be used.

Now I doubt you know, or understand what Lend Lease was, so I'll excuse your historical ignorance. Hell BOFH666 had to look it up. But the historical analogy is 100% correct. By his logic Britain is the greatest terrorist state in history. Over the course of the late 19th and 20th Century they've..

1: Brutally subjucated the Boers (and in the process created concentration camps and modern war agains civilians).

2: Did the same to the Chinese (Boxer Rebellion)

3: Brutally reduced German Society with an illegal blockade in WW1.

4: Knowingly waged a war of terror against German Civilians in WW2 with the hopes this would pressure the German government into surrender.

5: Supplied known paramilitaries with arms knowing they were waging war against German and Prussian farmers.

6: Once again brutally reduced the German people post WW2. Read some of the German citizens accounts post WW2. They'd do ANYTHING to get out of the Brit zone. The only thing worse to them was the French.

7: Attempted to wage a war against Egypt for the simple means of protecting what was left of her morally corrupt empire. US intervention stopped this.

Oh I do agree the IRA are terrorists, So why exactly did the Brits supply arms to the equivalant Russian groups in WW2? Not to mention post WW1.

By the way what the heck does this have to do with Bush?

Tron

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Neutron

By the way what the heck does this have to do with Bush?

Tron

Confused you are, hmmmm. Reagan it says in the title, yes? Bush many skills has, but time travel he can not. Reading lessons you need, good teacher I know, cheap she is and to an eigth grade level she can take you.

And ONCE AGAIN you ducked the question. Apply your "lend lease" argument to the Iran/Contra afair please.

Oh, and for the record Tron, you'll notice I disagreed with August about Reagan being a terrorist.

And to once again use your own logic and viewpoint, if supplying a known terrorist group with resources does not make you responsible for their actions then there is no such thing as state-sponsored terrorism. But do try and answer the original question namely by using the definition of international law you quoted how did the US NOT support terrorism when they funded the Contras?

[ticklebutton]

Originally posted by BOFH666
But do try and answer the original question namely by using the definition of international law you quoted how did the US NOT support terrorism when they funded the Contras?
Don't hold your breath. You'll just hear more about WW2 & British history, which, though interesting, will be far from the point

of the US supporting the Contra's terrorism by funding them, equipping them with weapons, and training Contra soldiers at the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, GA. in terrorist techniques including torture & massacre.

Button

[Strider]

August,I'm going to ask you again.Make a decent case that the FSLN were any better,if not far worse than the FDN/MILPAS.It shouldn't be that hard seeing as you're going out of your way to portray the Contras as little more than a mafia hit squad.

[august spies]

Don't hold your breath. You'll just hear more about WW2 & British history, which, though interesting, will be far from the point of the us supporting them with weaons, and training Contra soldiers at the School of theAmericas in Fort Benning, GA in terrorist techniques including torture and massacre."

wow nice post button.


Strider, first off we must aree that the FDN were terrorists, there is a long record from a myraids of human rights groups and us govt sponsored reports of their systematic terror, barbaric torture, and rape directed at civilian infrastructure and civilians themselves.

The FDN was largely made up of members of the ex brutal dictator somoza's gaurd, and kidnapped child soliders, they attacked nicaragua from foriegn bases (usually honduras), they were totally reliant on foreign support (reagan), and they put forth no political program what so ever, their entire history is one of terror. believe me, mafia hitsqauds dont kill woman and children, contras do.

Ill recommend a report not from a sandinista or leftist source, but the former attorney general, Reed Brody of NYC who investigated FDN terrorism back in 1984. Its a "just the facts" source.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0896083128/qid=1086988719/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1324084-6384126?v=glance&s=books (http://)

On the other hand the FSLN was an entirley indigenous movement against a foreign imposed, ugly, and corrupt dictatorship with roots back into the 1930s (hence the name sandinista for Augusto Sandino)

The FSLN was not paid to fight, they were not totally reliant on foriegn support, and they overthrew a dictatorship with a mass movement of nicaraguan people. They came to power with great furvor and instituted a series of democratic reforms, such as healthcare, land reform, education reform, and pollution reform. (See quotes from article below)

The FSLN was not perfect and there are reasons for this, they had a terrorist war launched agaisnt them. later in the 80s they became slightly repressive, but no where near as opressive as somoza and nowhere near as opressive as US client state El Salvador. Just look at how opressive the US govt became after 9/11 with the patriot act, and nicaragua was constantly under terrorist attack and lost far more people. It also should be noted, that the FSLN was the first party to peacefull transfer power in nicaraguan history.


exerpts from an article by noam chomsky "teaching nicaragua a lesson":

Reagan used them to launch a large-scale terrorist war against Nicaragua, combined with economic warfare that was even more lethal. We also intimidated other countries so they wouldn't send aid either.

And yet, despite astronomical levels of military support, the United States failed to create a viable military force in Nicaragua. That's quite remarkable, if you think about it. No real guerillas anywhere in the world have ever had resources even remotely like what the United States gave the contras. You could probably start a guerilla insurgency in mountain regions of the US with comparable funding.

Why did the US go to such lengths in Nicaragua? The international development organization Oxfam explained the real reasons, stating that, from its experience of working in 76 developing countries, "Nicaragua was...exceptional in the strength of that government's commitment...to improving the condition of the people and encouraging their active participation in the development process."

Of the four Central American countries where Oxfam had a significant presence (El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua), only in Nicaragua was there a substantial effort to address inequities in land ownership and to extend health, educational and agricultural services to poor peasant families.

Other agencies told a similar story. In the early 1980s, the World Bank called its projects "extraordinarily successful in Nicaragua in some sectors, better than anywhere else in the world." In 1983, The Inter-American Development Bank concluded that "Nicaragua has made noteworthy progress in the social sector, which is laying the basis for long-term socio-economic development."

The success of the Sandinista reforms terrified US planners. They were aware that -- as José Figueres, the father of Costa Rican democracy, put it -- "for the first time, Nicaragua has a government that cares for its people." (Although Figueres was the leading democratic figure in Central America for forty years, his unacceptable insights into the real world were completely censored from the US media.)

The hatred that was elicited by the Sandinistas for trying to direct resources to the poor (and even succeeding at it) was truly wondrous to behold. Just about all US policymakers shared it, and it reached virtual frenzy.

Back in 1981, a State Department insider boasted that we would "turn Nicaragua into the Albania of Central America" -- that is, poor, isolated and politically radical -- so that the Sandinista dream of creating a new, more exemplary political model for Latin America would be in ruins.

George Shultz called the Sandinistas a "cancer, right here on our land mass," that has to be destroyed. At the other end of the political spectrum, leading Senate liberal Alan Cranston said that if it turned out not to be possible to destroy the Sandinistas, then we'd just have to let them "fester in [their] own juices."

So the US launched a three-fold attack against Nicaragua. First, we exerted extreme pressure to compel the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank to terminate all projects and assistance.

Second, we launched the contra war along with an illegal economic war to terminate what Oxfam rightly called "the threat of a good example." The contras' vicious terrorist attacks against "soft targets" under US orders did help, along with the boycott, to end any hope of economic development and social reform. US terror ensured that Nicaragua couldn't demobilize its army and divert its pitifully poor and limited resources to reconstructing the ruins that were left by the US-backed dictators and Reaganite crimes.

One of the most respected Central America correspondents, Julia Preston (who was then working for the Boston Globe), reported that "Administration officials said they are content to see the contras debilitate the Sandinistas by forcing them to divert scarce resources toward the war and away from social programs." That's crucial, since the social programs were at the heart of the good example that might have infected other countries in the region and eroded the American system of exploitation and robbery.

We even refused to send disaster relief. After the 1972 earthquake, the US sent an enormous amount of aid to Nicaragua, most of which was stolen by our buddy Somoza. In October 1988, an even worse natural disaster struck Nicaragua -- Hurricane Joan. We didn't send a penny for that, because if we had, it would probably have gotten to the people, not just into the pockets of some rich thug. We also pressured our allies to send very little aid.

This devastating hurricane, with its welcome prospects of mass starvation and long-term ecological damage, reinforced our efforts. We wanted Nicaraguans to starve so we could accuse the Sandinistas of economic mismanagement. Because they weren't under our control, Nicaraguans had to suffer and die.

Third, we used diplomatic fakery to crush Nicaragua. As Tony Avirgan wrote in the Costa Rican journal Mesoamerica, "the Sandinistas fell for a scam perpetrated by Costa Rican president Oscar Arias and the other Central American Presidents, which cost them the February [1990] elections."

For Nicaragua, the peace plan of August 1987 was a good deal, Avrigan wrote: they would move the scheduled national elections forward by a few months and allow international observation, as they had in 1984, "in exchange for having the contras demobilized and the war brought to an end...." The Nicaraguan government did what it was required to do under the peace plan, but no one else paid the slightest attention to it.

Arias, the White House and Congress never had the slightest intention of implementing any aspect of the plan. The US virtually tripled CIA supply flights to the contras. Within a couple of months the peace plan was totally dead.

As the election campaign opened, the US made it clear that the embargo that was strangling the country and the contra terror would continue if the Sandinistas won the election. You have to be some kind of Nazi or unreconstructed Stalinist to regard an election conducted under such conditions as free and fair -- and south of the border, few succumbed to such delusions.

If anything like that were ever done by our enemies... I leave the media reaction to your imagination. The amazing part of it was that the Sandinistas still got 40% of the vote, while New York Times headlines proclaimed that Americans were "United in Joy" over this "Victory for US Fair Play."

US achievements in Central America in the past fifteen years are a major tragedy, not just because of the appalling human cost, but because a decade ago there were prospects for real progress towards meaningful democracy and meeting human needs, with early successes in El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua.

These efforts might have worked and might have taught useful lessons to others plagued with similar problems -- which, of course, was exactly what US planners feared. The threat has been successfully aborted, perhaps forever.

[Strider]

Strider, first off we must aree that the FDN were terrorists, there is a long record from a myraids of human rights groups and us govt sponsored reports of their systematic terror, barbaric torture, and rape directed at civilian infrastructure and civilians themselves.

No,I will not agree with you on that,because you simply have no clue what you're talking about.The Sandinistas themselves admitted four fifths of the Contras casualties were military(Shirley Christian;Nicaragua:Revolution in the Family).I realize that you simply take any tales of Contra rampages you can find and decide they're factual,but really,that's not reality.


The FDN was largely made up of members of the ex brutal dictator somoza's gaurd, and kidnapped child soliders, they attacked nicaragua from foriegn bases (usually honduras), they were totally reliant on foreign support (reagan), and they put forth no political program what so ever, their entire history is one of terror. believe me, mafia hitsqauds dont kill woman and children, contras do.

This is a myth.The FDN made up,at most,2% of the total Contra forces.The remaining 98% were all MILPAS.The FDN were indeed Guardia exiles,but the MILPAS were peasant farmers,and largely former Sandinistas.Eden Pastora,Alfonso Robello,Dimas,and all the most important leaders of the Contras,were former Sandinistas that broke with the movement when the 12 Commandantes consolidated power around themselves.


Ill recommend a report not from a sandinista or leftist source, but the former attorney general, Reed Brody of NYC who investigated FDN terrorism back in 1984. Its a "just the facts" source.

I've read it.For you to call the Reed Brody report a 'just the facts' approach,ignores the fact that when he and Bordelon made their 'fact finding' trip,had their room,board,and transportation provided for them by the government,and Brody himself was friends with Ortega.


On the other hand the FSLN was an entirley indigenous movement against a foreign imposed, ugly, and corrupt dictatorship with roots back into the 1930s (hence the name sandinista for Augusto Sandino)

The FSLN was not paid to fight, they were not totally reliant on foriegn support, and they overthrew a dictatorship with a mass movement of nicaraguan people. They came to power with great furvor and instituted a series of democratic reforms, such as healthcare, land reform, education reform, and pollution reform. (See quotes from article below)

I know what it means.What you seem to not get is that the vast majority of the Contras were former Sandinistas who turned against the movement when it turned out that Ortega's clique wasn't interested in bringing democracy at all,but in fact executed a bait and switch which was intended to turn the country into simply another Soviet satelite.The 'land reform' that fills you with glee was actually one of the biggest reasons the peasantry turned against the regime,it seems people who've been doing things the same way for hundreds of years really don't appreciate a bunch of urban elites(espanioles nonetheless)coming in and telling them to reorder their society for 'their own good'.The Sandinistas themselves have admitted this;the Sandinista Vice President,Sergio Ramirez said:


Let the record show that many landless peasants joined the contras or-resolved not to be corralled into agricultural cooperatives-became the contras’ social base of support…the ranks of the contra kept on growing, and by then its field commanders tended to be small farmers, many of them without any ties to Somoczismo, indeed, in many cases they supplanted the former National Guard officers who had been the movement’s original leaders.

In his memoir of the Nigaraguan Revolution and Contra War,the Sandinista Minister of Agriculture,Alejandro Bendana,said that the:


contra army grew beyond expectations not as a result of sophisticated recruitment campaigns in the countryside but mainly because of the impact on the small-holding peasant of the policies, limits and mistakes of the Sandinistas.

Although,I do find it interesting that you think the land reforms and other economic measures were so wondrous.If that's the case,then certainly you'd have to concede some support for the regime we backed in El Salvador,which nationalized the country's banks and coffee fields,and broke up feudal Spanish properties to redistribute to poor peasants.So please,commend the PDC government for that,or else explain why:

Land reform under a dictatorship backed by US=Bad :(

While land reform under a dictatorship not backed by the US=Good :)


The FSLN was not perfect and there are reasons for this, they had a terrorist war launched agaisnt them. later in the 80s they became slightly repressive, but no where near as opressive as somoza and nowhere near as opressive as US client state El Salvador.

No,it doesn't work that way.You cannot simultaneously present yourself as the champion of the downtrodden all over the world,and then make half assed excuses as to why the repressions from one regime were somehow acceptable and the other's weren't.If I used that excuse with Pinochet(who,incidentally,killed about a third of the people the Sandinistas did)you'd probably hit the roof.Second,your claim that the Sandinistas were worse than Somoza or Duarte is based on what objective standard?Or is it simply based on the standard that whichever faction the US is backing is automatically going to be 'bad' without making the slightest effort to find out anything about the Contra War and it's real causes.

To say that they became 'slightly oppressive',and then only the 'late 80s',and only because of American pressure,is basically akin to saying:the devil made them do it.

Turning to reality,the regime was opressive from the start as Ortega,Borge,et al.made perfectly clear they were going to isolate the more democratically minded members of the FSLN like Pastora,Robelo,and Chamorro.In 1979 the regime formed a secret police,and set up Revolutionary Courts completely under the control of Ortega's clique,by 1980 their army had grown to 12,000 people.This was two years before the US made contact with the FDN.The fact is,the MILPAS formed completely independently,and it's membership was comprised of former Sandinistas and poor peasants.And as I said,the MILPAS were the force that won the Contra War.

But back to the repressions,the Miskito population took the bulk of it,as they didn't want to go along with the central plan Managua tried to impose on them.Early in 1981,the leaders of the Misurasata were arrested,and in 1982,the Sandinista army forcibly moved 10,000 Miskitos inland.These large scale resettlement projects were naturally opposed by the Miskitos,so in grand communist tradition,the regime starved them out.Due to government monopoly on the food trade it was a relatively simple matter to make sure plentiful food supplies reached those that had allowed themselves to be relocated,while those who remained on the coastal areas were allowed to starve.During this time,up to 15,000 became refugees,and another 14,000 were imprisoned,and the Sandinistas regularly shot refugees trying to flee the country across the Coco River.This was what caused Pastora,Robelo,and the others who actually had peasant origins to leave the movement,in the Council of Ministers,Pastora said,in regards to the Miskitos:


Even that tyrant Somoza left them alone!He might have exploited them a bit,but you want to turn them into proletarians by force!

Borge,the most hardline in Ortega's group,responded:


The revolution could tolerate no exceptions.

So that was that.They didn't want to be part of the new order,they'd be destroyed.Nothing personal.The repression of the Moskitos was so bad,that Russell Means(not exactly a conservative ideologue)accused the Sandinistas of genocide.Though,I'm sure you'll find some way to blame the US for somehow forcing the Sandinistas into attempting to destroy an entire culture who wouldn't assimilate with the rest of the country willingly.

Now once again,you didn't answer my question.You repeated the litany of tales about the Contras,and made a half assed defense of the Sandinistas.Due to the fact that we supported the Contras,the Sandinistas eventually consented to elections;since then,we've seen three national democratic elections in Nicaragua in the past decade,they have freedom of speech,freedom of the press,and Sandinistas are allowed to run for office unmolested.It's not Connecticut,and nobody's arguing that it is.But only an utter moron would try to deny that it's by far the best the country's had in the past 200 years.Now,I'll ask you one more time,make a cogent and convincing argument that had we done nothing,and the Sandinistas completely consolidated their control over the country,that the outcome would be even remotely close to what it was,and that the country wouldn't be another Cuba.If you keep refusing to do that,I'm going to conclude you can't.

[maniactickler]

just a news flash for you bulldogge. we went to war because of an event called 9/11.

[kis123]

Originally posted by maniactickler
just a news flash for you bulldogge. we went to war because of an event called 9/11.

If we went to war over 9-11, why did it end up in Iraq? It was supposed to be Bin Laden in Afganistan, not Saddam in Iraq. The war has little to nothing to do with 9-11. It turned into throwing Saddam out of Iraq and rebuilding a country that we helped tear up in the first place. And I must remind you that Bin Laden still hasn't been found (maybe because no one's looking for him).

Since this is a Ronald Reagan debate thread and not a George W Bush one, I tried really hard not to respond to this particular post.

So this is kis returning you back to the spirit of the original thread......................

[Roseblossom]

Originally posted by maniactickler
just a news flash for you bulldogge. we went to war because of an event called 9/11.
You're a little mixed up, it seems. Bulldogge was referring to Iraq, not to the war in Afghanistan to find the perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks.

~Rose~

[august spies]

strider all of the propaganda you parrotted is a lie and if you dont agree that cutting of womans breasts while they are still alive is terrorism, than there is no point in talking with you.

[Strider]

Wow,you didn't bother to refute one thing I said,you simply dismissed it all as 'propaganda',then repeat your own claims about the Contras as if that settles the argument.

Now,here's something I bet might blow your mind:have you ever considered,that maybe,just maybe,the Sandinistas engaged in their own propaganda about the Contras?Or is that simply imcomprehensible to you?

I know La Layenda Negra,I also know it has little basis in reality.The fact that you couldn't trouble yourself to respond to any of my points about the MILPAS,Pastora,Robelo,Dimas,and the other highland peasant leaders,leads me to question if you even know who they are.Because if you don't,then nothing personal,but you really have no business talking about the Contra War.

[maniactickler]

Originally posted by Roseblossom
You're a little mixed up, it seems. Bulldogge was referring to Iraq, not to the war in Afghanistan to find the perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks.

~Rose~


newsflash for roseblossom, its all the same.

[Bulldogge]

Originally posted by maniactickler
newsflash for roseblossom, its all the same.

maniac-

I hope you'll excuse me for not responding to you. While you and I obviously have some things we could discuss, I'd like to cooperate with the other subscribers, and their wishes to keep this thread on topic. If you'd like to debate the subject of the war on terror, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or 9-11, then I suggest you start a new thread. I'd be happy to debate you on those subjects - but this isn't the proper time or place.

-Bulldogge

[BigJim]

Originally posted by Neutron
And that's my opinion. not a national outlook.
ANd I don't use words like raghead or anything of the like.

Oh yeah Mike, I know it's only your opinion. In that particular part, I was only commenting on the opinion of unilateralists. Nowt more. I do comment on national outlooks, but usually state specifically that that's what I'm doing. As for the term "Raghead", I wasn't implying a racial bias on your account. A national one certainly. I havn't yet heard a term that describes someone who treats people of another nationality as if they're worth intrinsicly less than someone from theirs, like a racist treats blacks; but such a word, if it's ever invented, would fit you perfectly. The 1:10,000 figure explains that perfectly. If something's in America's interest, do it and fuck anyone else who it shags up the arse. (Or if an American is killed, kill 10,000 someone-else's in retaliation.)

n.b. Sorry about the extra zero. I either had the DT's and touched 0 once too often, or I was extrapolating something from the expression "1 to 10,000, AT LEAST". I can't remember which.


Originally posted by Neutron
Now wait a minute. You cannot hold the US accountable for deaths due to sanctions, quite simply the sanctions end when a country that STARTED a war decided to comply with the peace articles that ended that war. By your reckoning we're pikers compared to Great Britain. Roughly 6 million German children starved to death in WW1 due to British Blockade and their loose treatment of what could be blockaded.

I hold the sanctions accountable. The most they did to Saddam himself was force him to look extra hard for his usual soft toilet paper. And if the US and UK and whoever else's governments were responsible for their implementation, then I hold them responsible for them.

As to the second part of the paragraph above quoted, what gives you the idea that I'm saying the British government is clean and holy? The British government is responsible for some of the most despicable acts of history, either off their own bat or through their placemen. I hold the British government between one third and one half responsible for Adolf Hitler rising to power for instance. Because of the abominable way we treated the German people after WW1, the country was nearly destroyed and thousands starved to death. This created the perfect leadership vacuum for Hitler to stride into. The people of Germany were so distressed after so many years of abuse they accepted him as their saviour, rather than laughing the Nazi idiot out of the house like they would have done if their economy, currency and country had been safe and secure. Brits and Americans are very quick to remind German people that they unleashed history greatest racist psychopath on the world. (One world Cup and two World Wars, doo-dah, doo-dah...) In my opinion we should be on our knees, begging the German people for forgiveness for being such vindictive bastards that their country was inflicted with him.


Originally posted by Neutron
The water purification plant in Iraq. Owned by the US, built by the US. In fact all water purification plants in Saudi, Iraq, Jordan etal are Us Owned and operated (at a cost). Water purification is a legitimate MILITARY target. Again established by the Brits in WW2.

It doesn't matter who it was built by, who it was maintained by or who drank the excess water from it. Destroying it with the aim of hitting the civillian infrastructure is a breach of the Geneva Convention and immoral. (Not to mention unecessary.) the fact that the British did the same thing in the Second World War doesn't make it any more legal or ethical. It was against the GC to bomb it, we bombed it and innocent civillians died as a result.

As for being "legitimate", cop a load of this...

Reproduced from another thread of BigJim-esque boring shite
They also continued (unreported largely) to bomb civilian targets, including the family of a woman who spoke to a journalist called John Pilger. Her husband, father in law and children were all killed by two US planes who bombed them while they were tending a flock of sheep… on a hill…twenty five miles from the nearest town… or any other industrial or military target.
A public health team from Harvard University went to Iraq in soon after the war had ‘officially’ ended and estimated that over 46,000 children under the age of 5 had already died before August of 1991, because of the destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure. Thomas J. Nagy exposed the way that the US military fired at the Iraqi water supply in the full knowledge that it would result in the disease and death of the most vulnerable people in the country; women, children and the elderly. Nagy, who is a teacher at the School of Business and Public Management at George Washington University, uncovered some files from the US Defence Intelligence Agency that reveal a horrifying disregard for human life. Dated January 22nd 1991, they say………

“Iraq depends on importing specialised equipment and some chemicals to purify the water supply… Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease. The most likely diseases during the next 60-90 days include: diarrhoeal diseases (particularly children); acute respiratory illnesses (colds and influenza); typhoid; hepatitis A (particularly children); measles; diphtheria; and pertussis (particularly children); cholera (possible, but less likely).“

This is a flagrant breach of the Geneva Convention. The relevant article of it, says……..
“It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installation and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse party, whatever the motive.”

Now unfortunately I can't find my notes which tell me which particular section or paragraph of the GC this violates, but that's the verbatim section.



Originally posted by Neutron
If you're implying DU results in Leukemia please stop there. It doesn't. It never has, it never will. I've received roughly 10,000 times the lifetime dose one gets if one ATE an entire DU tip. And I get roughly 100s of times that dose every year, as do many of my coutnerparts. No leukemia yet. In that the type of radiation DU puts out isn't a leukemia causer. It's a boneseeker.

If I mentioned DU at all(which I don't believe I did in this thread?), it was as a single contributing factor; not the sole one. My personal belief is that large amounts of radioactive ordanance have been dropped on civillian areas. Either that or Saddam decided to pick on Sunni's as well as Shi'ites in a wild conspiracy to turn liberals in the west against their own governments. (I fucking hate conspiracy theorists, don't you? :D) It's not just the leukemia rise either, it's the Hiroshima-style mutant births that have suddently popped up too.


Originally posted by Neutron
There is nothing in the Geneva Convention that prevents striking at a retreating convoy. OR a stationary one in fact it's an accepted military tactic to try to stop the convoy and get it to reverse in order to destroy it.

No there isn't, but there are articles in the conventions of international law that outlaw what happened on the road to Basra. The version you've just described is slightly innaccurate, as if it had been done totally on military forces and while it was in full attack mode, neatly reversed by the Allies. Again, whether we've done it before and who it was against is irrelevant. Here's another excerpt...

Yet more boring stuff from another thread of mine...
So that’s just the air war. What of the ground? The Highway of Death? Well these morally superior ‘UN’ forces blatantly broke the international law by using bulldozers to bury Iraqi troops alive. That’s bad enough, but nothing describes the sick mentality of these people more than the ‘Highway of Death’. The Iraqi army was retreating in a full rout, back up the road to Basra. With them were thousands of civilians and prisoners. US pilots attacked the vehicles at both the front and rear of this RETREATING convoy, thus forcing it to a halt, grounding the seven-mile long exodus. Then the real slaughter began. They constantly bombed the tailback, sweeping back and forth and then returning to their carriers so the could continue the mass-murder. This didn’t just break the *law* (edit); it shattered it into a million pieces. Was any criminal action taken? Nope. A rather weak-kneed indictment was made somewhere, then it all just vanished up it’s own arse. Bush, Powell, Storming Norman and anyone else associated with the action should have been tried for capital war crimes and imprisoned for decades. Why weren’t they? Because there is one rule for America, Britain, France, Germany and whoever is on their side at the time, and a very different one for anyone they choose to murder, maim, mutilate and destroy. That indictment served to have a rather un-circulated conviction for war crimes laid against Bush, Dan Quayle, Dick Cheney, James Baker, Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf. What happened? Bugger all, that’s what.

You see that Mike? Accompanied by prisoners and civillians. If the operation was purely about ejecting the Iraqis from Kuwait (which it wasn't, in my opinion) why blow the shit out of a convoy full of innocents and routed soldiers? Objective accomplished. the Iraqis were out and the Allies were in. What more needed to be done? Why blat innocents and prisoners in an act of mindless thuggery?


Originally posted by Neutron
Come on, you can do better than that.

I can and I have. I just didn't have room to duplicate it all here. But it's all there in it's original thread.


Originally posted by Neutron
Oh and when you mentioned the butied alive Iraqis. Where exactly were US Troops involved in that. You only proved my point, when you need to Brutally subjucate a native population call the Brits. They're experts at it.

It emphasised a point of yours that I wholeheartedly agreed with. There were no US troops involved in the living burial and I never stated that there were. To my knowledge all soldiers involved in that were British. Again, I say that I don't have a national bias of any sort. You may have gained the idea that I did because most, if not all, of what we were just discussing involved things that America had been involved in. But nationality means nothing to me. I will critiscise the actions of ANY nation that I feel has stepped out of line, including my own.


Originally posted by Neutron
Now, since we were so BIG on Iraq/Irangate wouldn't we also classify the UK as the biggest terrorist state in History based on their past record of

1: Begging for Lend Lease
2: Using said supplies to destroy German Civilian targets
3: Supplying said supplies to non military personnel (Russian Partisans) which were subsequently used against German Civilians in a campaign of terror.

That's what you're saying the US did by supplying another ally in a declared war. Compared to the death toll of WW2 they were children playing an adult game.

Yep, the people running the British government have done appauling things. I'm happy to say that, because I don't put the UK above other nations. Read all those long and boring threads of mine and you'll see I critiscise Britain quite often, especially when it's stuff from 50 years or more ago. You won't agree with my themes Mike, but you'll see I'm fair minded in my critiscism, being free as I am of the disease that is called "patriotism". That doesn't mean I don't have pride in my land or it's culture. It just means that I'm not so hypnotised by pretty flags, flashing lights and my own self-interest, that I don't see who's suffered as a result of British governments doing bad things.

One American asked a British writer (I think it was David Icke, but I'm not sure) about Union Jacks flying outside British schools. Whoever the writer was replied that British schools didn't have flags flying outside them. Horrified the yank asked how British children were taught to be patriots without flags. The writer replied that it was because we thought of patriotism as something a country earned from it's citizens, not something they owed the country, no matter what it did.

Now that sounds pro-British, but the reason I quoted it is because I wanted to emphasise my opinion on patriotism. Positively held it's something that inspires the citizenry to make their nation something to be proud of. Used negatively it's hypnotising force that makes people ignore the crimes their government commits because they're terrified of being accused of helping the enemy by being "un-patriotic".

[BigJim]

Originally posted by maniactickler
newsflash for roseblossom, its all the same.

Newsflash for mt, it's bugger all to do with as the hi-jackers never had anything to do with either country except perhaps for flying over them on occasion. Following what passes for your logic, why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia, seeing as how the majority of named hi-jackers were from there and seeing as how that country's people need more saving from a despotic regime than even Iraq did?

[BigJim]

Originally posted by kis123
The arrogance of some Americans never ceases to amaze me...

There is a group of Americans who think people of other races and countries are sub-human because they're not American. Considering that there is deep European influences in our country, the only "real Americans" who exist were the brown-skinned ones who were here when the Mayflower hit. That's why we call them Native Americans, right? Or is that just another politically correct term or buzzword? It is a shame that people are only created equal only when America says so.

Everyone is complaining about the loss of life in the 9-11 tradgedy. It is true that thousands of lives were lost, and those lives are important. However, the multiple thousands of lives lost in the Middle East and other parts of the world are just as important. They had family, friends, and people who loved them just as we do in the US. Some Americans tend to be self absorbed and self centered and see others as either unimportant or "less than".

I don't think we should just nuke 'em. I don't think we should just pave over them as if they're not human. We need to realize that US interests are not the only interests that are important.

If not, consider this: many of the cultures we have been known to have complete disrespect for are now living next door to us. How much longer do you expect them to sit by and watch US destroy their homeland?

Kis hun, if you weren't already attached I'd be proposing to you. :)

[BigJim]

Originally posted by BOFH666
Right here: http://jeff.paterson.net/aw/aw4_buried_alive.htm

Oh, so americans DID do that? :wow:

Shit, I must've missed that one...:mad:

[BigJim]

Originally posted by venray1
Tell me folks...what is the solution here. Anyone can say what we have done is wrong. Tell me what is right and show me how it would work better and have less innocents die in the process. If you cannot, then I think that there isnt much more here to discuss.


Ray:(


Like illness Ray, prevention is better by miles than cure. We shouldn't have given Hussein his throne and sat back and smiled and sold arms to him while he happily gassed kids in Iran in the first place. :(

[BigJim]

Originally posted by Neutron
DU is not a Leukemia causer. It simply doesn't emit the right type of radiation. Gamma emitters cause leukemia. Not alpha emitters.


Correct; it takes an electromagnetic wave to cause something that deep-seated, not a particle that gets stopped by something the thickness of three layers of skin or less. Hair loss, puking, loss of teeth, in-vitro muilation through inhalation and damage of the mother's body and running doses on the other hand...

[Neutron]

Not every point I made was in answer to yours. I guess I should have seperated them, I didn't so I'm sorry.

Also, uh I know very well what radiation is, and I know it's effects.

You could EAT DU and not get radiation sickness, it's much the same as the radioactive source in your smoke detector at home. You need about 2,000,000 times the radiation to get sick.

Also, uh yes this does link to 9/11. If I recall correctly the US Government said this was a war on a ism. that being terrorism, and NOT just one country would be the target. They made it very clear, any country that has attacked the US, was harboring people who have attacked the US, were planning attacks on the US, or we suspected of any of the above were going to be in the cross hairs. Sorry folks, that's the modern world and that's the way it's gonna be.
Any doubts about what the US intentions were and are, go back to BUshs speech the night of 9/11, he pretty much made it crystal clear. Obviously of all the countries over there only Pakistan got the message.

kis if you are embarrassed to be an American why don't you move out? I'm curious...

Tron

[BigJim]

Originally posted by Neutron
Not every point I made was in answer to yours. I guess I should have seperated them, I didn't so I'm sorry.

Not a prob mate. Likewise my remark about radiation was addressed to the thread at large.

[BigJim]

Originally posted by Neutron
Also, uh yes this does link to 9/11. If I recall correctly the US Government said this was a war on a ism. that being terrorism, and NOT just one country would be the target. They made it very clear, any country that has attacked the US, was harboring people who have attacked the US, were planning attacks on the US, or we suspected of any of the above were going to be in the cross hairs. Sorry folks, that's the modern world and that's the way it's gonna be.
Any doubts about what the US intentions were and are, go back to BUshs speech the night of 9/11, he pretty much made it crystal clear. Obviously of all the countries over there only Pakistan got the message.

So far there's been no proof of anything except minor outposts of terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you liken it to wanting to cripple the US transport system it'd be like digging up a dirt track in Achin' Asshole, Indiana, instead of dropping a nuke on Grand Central Station. Again, most of the terrorism, even that labelled on the Oswald of terrorism organisaions Al Qaeda, is based in or out of, funded from and composed of nationals of, Saudi Arabia. Why then do what we did in Afghanisatan and Iraq? And why do such horribly needless things? And why so many of them? And why so innefectively? :cry1: Similarly why would America have been so outraged if the SAS had reduced the PIRA's membership to single figures, as they could've done with a snap of Maggie Thatcher's fingers? They weren't brave freedom fighters, they were fucking cowards who put nailbombs in shopping centres. Precious few provo attacks were against soldiers or the then RUC.

Then all we heard from America was how we should consider the feelings of those we were oppressing, consider the dicks in the Maze as POW's and that we should vacate the Province ASAP. Bit of a different tune now that something landed on your own doorstep isn't it? Of course Mike I know from what you said earlier that you harbour no love for the PIRA, but I'm making a sweeping point, not a personal one.



Originally posted by Neutron
kis if you are embarrassed to be an American why don't you move out? I'm curious...

Tron

I hope Kis doesn't mind me answering this one before she sees it, but it's a question I've seene asked many times before.

Why should she move out? Why just because the leadership of her country is hell bent on savagery and certain other American citizens support that, should she move out? If I was Kis I wouldn't want to move away, I'd want to stay and change it for the better.

This "if you don't like America, why don't you fuck off to China?" argument is very old, and very tired. It needs to be put to bed in a geriatric home... soon.

[BigJim]

Originally posted by Neutron
You could EAT DU and not get radiation sickness, it's much the same as the radioactive source in your smoke detector at home. You need about 2,000,000 times the radiation to get sick.

Interesting point that side-links to this discussion...

I never did believe that DU was the chief factor in Gulf War Syndrome. I always thought that was far more likely to be the result of the vaccinations the troops were given. Most of those injections were being given as tests. Nearly all were too powerful and a good two-thirds were uneccessary.

See the Medical Conspiracy thread for further details...:zzzzz: :zzzzz: :zzzzz:

[BigJim]

... I know I've mentioned this elsewhere, but I can't remember if I did here or not. I never felt Regan was truly the President. To my mind George Bush was President of the United States for 12 years and Regan was just the "face" of the first 8; even moreso than most Presidents are "faces".

[kis123]

Originally posted by Neutron
kis if you are embarrassed to be an American why don't you move out? I'm curious...

Tron

First of all, I never said I was embarrassed to be an American. You said that, not me. I just call a spade a spade and if you or anyone else doesn't like that, I'm within my American rights of free speech. Your cheap shots and bogus rhetoric don't scare or insult me in the least. You'll have to use them on someone who actually thinks they're important. I am just as much as an American as you, so don't attempt to discredit my opinions with basically ignorant questions like this one. This is the kind of talk that comes when someone challenges the status quo. I dance to a different tune than the norm and am my own person who can think and form my own viewpoints. That is being an American. What you've been suggesting throughout this entire thread is not what America is supposed to be about.

Second, I'm an American and proud of it. I still think America is the best place to live in the world, and so do many other nations pouring into it everyday. However, I'm not buying into this "patriotism" that thinks that only Americans are important.

While we're on the subject, Americans historically believed only certain people (white and European-descended) are the only Americans in this country. Our history with the Native Americans and African Americans attest to this. Folks historically haven't gotten it right domestically much less dealing with other cultures (or as you'd have us to believe, subcultures).

My race has been here for hundreds of years, along with my Native American ancestors who mostly live on reservations at the courtesy of the first immigrants to this country (our European forefathers).

I can love and believe in my country without blindly buying into the rhetoric and the pro-American rah-rahs that ignore our mistakes and pretend that everything our government does is right. I've always called right and wrong as they expose themselves. I'm not going to stop to make you or anyone else feel better about our country's atrocities against other nations (or against our own with racism, etc.).

I hope I have thoroughly answered your question. Let me know if you need additional information.

Once again, this is kis attempting to focus on the original topic....

[gila67]

BigJim,

I have some questions about subjects you've posted on in this thread, and they are these:

"...it's bugger all to do with as the hi-jackers never had anything to do with either country except perhaps for flying over them on occasion."

I can see your point here re Iraq, but please tell me how the hijackers never had anything to do with Afghanistan. And about the hijackers mainly being from Saudi Arabia - I don't see how this fact makes the American action in Afghanistan wrong.


"We shouldn't have given Hussein his throne and sat back and smiled..."

Again, I'm with you in that we (the Western countries, not just the U.S.) shouldn't have sat back and not only smiled at, but helped Hussein commit his crimes. But I'd like to know how any Western government gave him his throne. The fact is that Hussein became the effective ruler of Iraq in the late 1960s(though he didn't officially take power until 1979), long before the Iranian revolution and the perceived threat that posed. And as far as I know, his rise to power was a matter of internal Iraqi politics, not American or European intervention. But feel free to correct me if you can.

"...most of the terrorism...is based in or out of, funded from and composed of nationals of, Saudi Arabia. Why then do what we did in
Afghanistan and Iraq?"

Why do you lump Afghanistan and Iraq together? While there's plenty of room for debating Bush's actions in Iraq, I just don't see how that debate extends to the former home of the Taliban. You must remember that, as wasn't the case in Iraq, many Afghans fought alongside the Americans to free their country. And to your statement about Saudi Arabia - what about the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan; what about Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines?

[maniactickler]

kis, america has to do what it takes to protect itself. if it means taking out a country whos a potential threat, so be it. i know you liberals would much prefer to wait around till thousands more of us are killed before you act. but i dont share that same philosophy. and surely you consider the terrorists and the iraqis we are battling sub human?

[MrMacphisto]

Reagan... what a dumbass... Perhaps, his death marks a new hope for this country. The death of imperialism... Oh wait... We're in Iraq... Nevermind, I guess Reagan has been reincarnated into a dumber version by the name of Dubya.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by maniactickler
kis, america has to do what it takes to protect itself. if it means taking out a country whos a potential threat, so be it. i know you liberals would much prefer to wait around till thousands more of us are killed before you act. but i dont share that same philosophy. and surely you consider the terrorists and the iraqis we are battling sub human?

Oh dear. Let's break this down shall we, and I'll try to keep it simple. Let us take the statement “ America has to do what it takes to protect itself. if it means taking out a country who's a potential threat, so be it” as our starting point. Fair enough viewpoint, and it's only the use of the word “potential” that really causes any sticking points. Now let's see here, let's go back ten years and look at the nationalities of those who have committed terrorist acts in the United States shall we? Next to each is the average number of deaths each country has caused per terrorist.

15 Saudis (157)
2 from union of Arab Emirates. (157)
1 American (168)
1 Egyptian (157)
1 Lebanese (157)

You'll note that nowhere on that list does either Afghanistan or Iraq get mentioned. If we're going to use those who carried out terrorist acts as rational for invading a country, then I'd suggest you have a really close look at the third country listed above. It's an interesting figure and one that I've asked about a number of times here and elsewhere. That is Timothy McVeigh who, with a single bomb, killed more people per terrorist than September 11th, so by the “exterminate everyone who poses a threat” logic shouldn't you wipe out the US first?

Okay, so what about other reasons? Well, Afghanistan was, to be fair, a reasonable target. It was a state that hosted a great deal of training for al-qaeda and of course Osama bin-Laden himself. Except for the slight problem that the US failed to actually catch him despite their best efforts (or he's in a cell somewhere waiting for, oh, October 31st should do it).

And thus to Iraq. Why invade? Iraq has NEVER attacked the US directly. There is, as far as I can see, NO evidence linking Iraq to al-qaeda or any other international terrorist organisation. WMD? Nope, sorry, even the US government has admitted that they were wrong on that one, fed duff intelligence by Mr Chalabi to sucker the US into invading and, potentially, giving the country on a platter to Iran. Military threat? Iraq couldn't even dent the US military (and quite right too, if they COULD someone screwed up somewhere). Ideological threat? Nope, again sorry, but there simply were no religious voices in Iraq loud enough to start anything that could be considered a threat.

So what was it? Where was the “potential threat?” Oh, maybe you mean “terrorism”, that invading Iraq made the world a safer place. If that IS what you mean, I'm afraid I've got some bad news on that too.

On April 29, the state department released the Patterns of Global Terrorism report 2003. This has, in the past, been considered a reliable source of data. This year the data was compiled by a new office, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, and when it was released the administration was accompanied by frenzied back slapping as it showed terrorism was down to a 34 year low and the Deputy Secretary of State said that "you will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight.. Good news yes?

No. Bad news because the report was horribly, hopelessly inaccurate. As soon as the academic community saw the data they started ripping it apart, NOT because they were “liberals”(just cutting that one off before it gets going, on with the show) but because it excluded a large number of incidents, it's conclusions based on the data was inaccurate and even the arithmetic of statistics in its own tables was wrong. The best analysis shows that, using the State department's own official standards, the number of terrorist incidents jumped 36% from 2001 to 2003, a 20 year HIGH.

Administration officials have announced that substantial errors marred the accuracy of the State Department's report on terrorist incidents and perpetrators -- and that its hyped conclusions must be substantially revised. The statement issued by spokesman Richard Boucher noted that the department itself "did not check and verify the data sufficiently." While the department's revisions aren't ready yet, Boucher also noted that "our preliminary results indicate that the figures for the number of attacks and casualties will be up sharply from what was published."

So, if a report showing the number of incidents went down showed that the fight is being won, then surely a report indicating a substantial rise in figures shows it is being lost?

And there is the truth of the matter. The US State Department's own figures show that this policy is not working, plain and simple. It has been two years and the terrorists organisations are more active now than ever. Is that down to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan? I don't know, and I suspect there's no way to prove it either way. What IS clear is that it is time to change strategy because this one isn't getting the job done.

You also have to wonder WHY such a report had these basic errors and flaws in it. Considering the “war on terror” is one of the few things Bush can point to in his reelection campaign without getting crucified the political capital from the “inaccurate” report was invaluable. Whether it was a genuine accident or not we'll never know, but if it was it was a very convenient one.

So, if you've got anything to support your argument let's here it. And I don't mean “typical liberal brainwashing”, try presenting some facts for a change.

Oh, one other thing. The Iraqi's you're fighting are fighting to get, from their point of view, an invading army OUT of their country after that army has commited attrocities against their people. I suspect if a foreign power rocked up in the US you might just want to get out there and help drive them out anyway you could. Not saying that excuses their actions, but it certainly does NOT make them "sub-human".

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by gila67


"We shouldn't have given Hussein his throne and sat back and smiled..."

Again, I'm with you in that we (the Western countries, not just the U.S.) shouldn't have sat back and not only smiled at, but helped Hussein commit his crimes. But I'd like to know how any Western government gave him his throne. The fact is that Hussein became the effective ruler of Iraq in the late 1960s(though he didn't officially take power until 1979), long before the Iranian revolution and the perceived threat that posed. And as far as I know, his rise to power was a matter of internal Iraqi politics, not American or European intervention. But feel free to correct me if you can.



Just a quick one on this, I don't know the history of the region well enough to comment on Saddam's rise to power (though I did read that it was with US backing, albeit covert, I don't trust the source so I won't use it here), but I'd suggest it might be more accurate to say that the West gave him the tools needed to keep that throne.

The sad fact is, it was the West that built up Iraqs military might (and at least some of his chemical weapons) and, come 1991, it was at the stage where it dwarfed most others in the region. Remember too that the US was told by Saddam of his intention to attack Kuwait and basically gave him the green light. It was only when Saudi was threatened that the about-face happened. However he got to that throne, it's an undeniable fact that he stayed there with the support, both in resources and political approval, of the West.

[maniactickler]

you have to be hallucinating to think there arent wmds. the problem is, Bush made a huge blunder when he went to the UN and wasted time with the inspections. that gave iraq more than enough time to hide them. Bush needed to forget about what the rest of the american hating countries wanted or the corrupt, worthless UN. theres a time when you have to stand up for yourself and not worry about what others think.

[maniactickler]

Originally posted by MrMacphisto
Reagan... what a dumbass... Perhaps, his death marks a new hope for this country. The death of imperialism... Oh wait... We're in Iraq... Nevermind, I guess Reagan has been reincarnated into a dumber version by the name of Dubya.

good to see you back MrMac, ive missed your mindless rants.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by maniactickler
you have to be hallucinating to think there arent wmds. the problem is, Bush made a huge blunder when he went to the UN and wasted time with the inspections. that gave iraq more than enough time to hide them. Bush needed to forget about what the rest of the american hating countries wanted or the corrupt, worthless UN. theres a time when you have to stand up for yourself and not worry about what others think.

Right, hidden somewhere, yeah of course. Except for one slight, tiny flaw in your logic. Saddam knew he was screwed, that the US was coming in no matter what. If he had them, why didn't he use them? What did he have to loose? Why "hide" them away somewhere so safe that the US hasn't been able to find diddly in over a year of looking (and $900 Million) and Colin Powell has admited that there's a chance (diplo-speak for "oops, our bad") that they might have had nothing because the US doesnt know. Where's the production facilities? We're not just talking about the weapons themselves, we're talking a pretty large scale operation to produce them, so where is all the evidence of that? Even the head of the inspection team has said that there was no large-scale WMD's in Iraq, so WHERE ARE THEY? No, wait, let me guess, moved to the next target for "liberation", right? My how convenient :rolleyes:

Again, I say the same thing I've been saying over and over to you, PROVE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. You ridicule others opinions, whether there's facts involved or not, but refuse point blank to provide ANY data or evidence to back up what you say. So here's the thing, post something, ANYTHING that proves Saddam had WMD in a usable form. If it's so obvious then there must surely be some evidence. If you can't find anything, then show where such weapons MIGHT have come from, what programs could have developed them.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by maniactickler
good to see you back MrMac, ive missed your mindless rants.

Ah yes... Maniac... such an appropriate name for you...

Tell me... Why do you like the same president that dramatically increased the national debt, totally neglected the poor with tax cuts and welfare cuts, and controlled the nation through nationalistic paranoia? Oh yeah, and I'm talking about Reagan, not Bush....

Two other things you must keep in mind about Reagan are that he was a key player in the Iran-Contra scandal, and of course, he used his CIA connections to screw Carter's re-election by delaying the Iran hostage situation.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by MrMacphisto
Ah yes... Maniac... such an appropriate name for you...

Tell me... Why do you like the same president that dramatically increased the national debt, totally neglected the poor with tax cuts and welfare cuts, and controlled the nation through nationalistic paranoia? Oh yeah, and I'm talking about Reagan, not Bush....

Two other things you must keep in mind about Reagan are that he was a key player in the Iran-Contra scandal, and of course, he used his CIA connections to screw Carter's re-election by delaying the Iran hostage situation.

Ummm, shouldn't that be "unsustainable" tax cuts? If you haven't already, check the proposed 2006 budget, it makes for scary reading.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/executive/2004-05-27-bush-budget-cuts_x.htm

At least Regan had the common sense to go "hmm, no, this isn't going to work" and reverese the tax cut rather than gut public services. From the article:

• Domestic security at the Homeland Security Department and other agencies would go from $30.6 billion in 2005 to $29.6 billion in 2006, a 3% drop.

• The Education Department would go from $57.3 billion in 2005 to $55.9 billion in 2006, 2.4% less.

• The Veterans Affairs Department would fall 3.4% from $29.7 billion in 2005 to $28.7 billion.

• The Environmental Protection Agency would drop from $7.8 billion in 2005 to $7.6 billion, or 2.6%.

• The National Institutes of Health, which finances biomedical research and had its budget doubled over a recent five-year period, would fall from $28.6 billion to $28 billion, or 2.1%.

• The Interior Department would fall 1.9% from $10.8 billion in 2005 to $10.6 billion.

• The Defense Department would grow 5.2% to $422.7 billion in 2006, and the Justice Department would increase 4.3% to $19.5 billion in 2006.

[Daumantas]

Originally posted by Neutron
Now I doubt you know, or understand what Lend Lease was, so I'll excuse your historical ignorance. Hell BOFH666 had to look it up.

Tron

Actually, sonny, I've probably forgotten more WWII history than you've ever learned. But when one doesn't have the facts on one's side, I suppose one attempts to argue by way of cheap shots.

What does any of this have to do with Bush? Nothing, except that a definition of the word "vile" was required.

[Daumantas]

And, by the way...you STILL have not responded to BOFH pointing out several times that in this very thread, you stated that Iraq should have been turned into a "parking lot," and then attempted to deny your own words. You're evading the issue like a two-bit Congressman caught taking bribes.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Daumantas
And, by the way...you STILL have not responded to BOFH pointing out several times that in this very thread, you stated that Iraq should have been turned into a "parking lot," and then attempted to deny your own words. You're evading the issue like a two-bit Congressman caught taking bribes.

Huh? I thought that was part of the swearing in ceremony these days? ;)

And as for Neutron ducking the issues, my best advice is to get used to it. If you want an example, there's a link in one of my posts up above to a Deplete Uranium debate where exactly the same thing happened. I actually find it pretty funny that a guy would say "I excuse your ignorance" while refusing to provide any links to support what he's saying and assit in removing that "ignorance". Oh, and considering that this is someone who has, in the past, claimed that "no-one here can research", or words to that effect, you'd think he'd be more willing to share the fruits of his own labours. I would point you to that particular gem, but it got mod-squadded PDQ.

[kis123]

Originally posted by maniactickler
kis, america has to do what it takes to protect itself. if it means taking out a country whos a potential threat, so be it. i know you liberals would much prefer to wait around till thousands more of us are killed before you act. but i dont share that same philosophy. and surely you consider the terrorists and the iraqis we are battling sub human?

America is considered one of the blessed nations of the world. We have the most rights of any nation in the world (even though many of them are being challenged and taken away right under our noses). We sit at our tables and watch tv without a clue as to what is going on in other parts of the world. Especially the war-torn ones.

How much of a potential threat are a bunch of sick, poor, hungry Iraqi people who just want us to stop bombing their homeland and leave them something to raise their kids on. Have you ever remotely considered putting yourself into their shoes? Or is it out of sight, out of mind for you? We wouldn't have some of the "threats" you describe if we weren't stealing their oil, selling weapons to terrorist regimes, and in bed with their dictators would we? You see, they see what the media hides from us: all the secret deals that leave the people broke and hungry while royalty gets richer.

By the way, I'm compassionate, not liberal in any sense of the word. I don't believe in much of the liberal agenda at all. I do believe in looking at both sides of the equation before I add the totals. I don't believe everything the government says or portrays in the media. I have my own mind and am not afraid to speak it. That's who I am, not a bleeding heart liberal. That term is used to describe people who won't run with the status quo and disagree with the spoon-fed crap that satisfies most Americans. Let's face it, our government is by no means perfect. Just deal with it and stop pretending that we doing what's best for the country. A few people are doing what's best for themselves and their families at the expense of millions of others, Americans included.

No, I don't consider the terrorists sub human. That would be too compassionate, even for me. They're animals who need body parts cut off and fed to dogs for what they've done to their own people, much less Americans.

[Cosmo_ac]

Too be honest, i've never liked it when people view others as sub human. It's simply an excuse to exuse atrocities. It always has. We de-humanize people because we can't handle the simple fact that these people are all too human. I remember having a similiar discussion with Jo about this on a post regarding the 9/11 attack.

I find it the height of hypocracy for a person to claim there a good person yet wish to comdemn a horrible, bloody fate on somebody else. Jim for example, i imagine he feels he's a great American, and an all around good guy, yet he certainly seems to like the idea of laying waste to a good percentage of the middle-east. Now, is he a good guy? is he a bad guy? Somewhere in between?


Kis, your government trained, paid, and then mass slaughter or been in one way or another, responsible for thousands, if not millions of deaths. Let's take a look at Iraq for a moment. Now, America seems to be confused why these people aren't worshiping them as saviours. But, lets take a look at the history. We'll put aside for the moment how many people died and were tortured, gassed, etc by Saddam, and focus on what the US did. The US deliberatly destroyed water purification plants. This caused massive cantamination to the Iraqi drinking water, and if i remember right, somethging like 1.4 million people, mainly children, died because of it. Because of the sanctions imposed by the US, Iraq couldn't get the equipment in to fix the damns, so, many people continued to die.

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/iraqgenocide/PoisonedWater.html

Now, i want you to picture your loved one, your child, father brother, sister, etc dying like that. It's not a fast death. They would be vomiting and have unccontrolable diarea, horrible cramping of the bowls, suffer from sever dihidration, and many more horible diseases. All you could do was watch, and wait for them to die so they wouldn't be suffering any more. And then, when the US comes in, they're supposed to say "Hey, you're responsible for the slow and painful death of my child, but thats ok!"

Not likely. They have every right to be angry. And as the US has spent more time in Iraq, they have even more reason to be angry. Some use the word terrorism. Freedom fighter is another word that could be applied. It really all depends on how you look at it.

I remeber when i first saw the pictures of the Abu Graib prsion abuse scandle. I was disgusted with these guards. And for a while i thought that they should be punished exactly how they treated the prisoners. Humiliated, degraded, beaten, raped, etc. But, once i cooled down i realized something. These people are not sub-human. They are not animals. They are people, very much like you and me. They are simply the side of people we don't like to asociate with humanity, because we don't want to face that fact. Simply put, nobody deserves to be made to sufer. Not like that. I'm not saying people shouldn't be punished, but there are lines we can't cross. If we do Kis, we're no better then the ones we try and stop.

So, in a nutshell. It's very easy to sit back and drink our cacino's and look at these people fighting the only way they can fight back, and say there subhuman, when we've never gone through what they have. Does that mean we should fogive them? Thats a personl thing that only you can decide, however, when it does come to there treatment, and punishment, lets try and act a little better then the people we're calling monsters. Anything less, and really, whats the point of it all?

[Neutron]

Originally posted by Daumantas
Actually, sonny, I've probably forgotten more WWII history than you've ever learned. But when one doesn't have the facts on one's side, I suppose one attempts to argue by way of cheap shots.

What does any of this have to do with Bush? Nothing, except that a definition of the word "vile" was required.


Is that right? (Looking at my 70,000 dollar WW2 book collection. Nice try junior.

By the way. By BOFH666 we have no right to take preemptive action in order to stop a potential violent act to the US. Had the Brits taken a premptive action in 1936 or 1937 there would have been no WW2. How typical...

Bush stated flat out, on 9/11/01 You are either WITH us, or AGAINST us. It wasn't like he didn't at all warn the world we were coming, and we were angry. The choice for Iraq, etal was simple. Show proof, comply, or else. We've been awfully nice so far as I'm concerned.

I see this claim by cosmo we've killed millions of Iraqis. Name your source please? And kindly do NOT use the sanctions, If I recall correctly one of the big beefs some of the Third Worlders (remember non US = Third World) is that we didn't let the UN run it's course on this. Now, aren't the sanctions against Iraq UN SAnctions? And given the US is a member of the security council didn't we have every right to veto lifting of the sanctions? After all, the UN security council (FRance) Vetoed US action in Iraq.. Seems odd we get banged for following the rules of the UN.
Additionaly. Read Erickson and Beevor. The UN was never meant to deny ANY country the right to take unilateral action should they determine they need it for their own self defense. This was the only way they could get the Soviets, AND France to agree to join. Without the Sovs there would have been no true UN. The UNs purpose was to prevent AGGRESSIVE action, ie the unwarranted invasion of surrounding countries, (Germany WW2 actions and such.)

Strange how ya;ll conveniently forgot that sort of stuff.

Tron

[maniactickler]

Originally posted by MrMacphisto
Ah yes... Maniac... such an appropriate name for you...

Tell me... Why do you like the same president that dramatically increased the national debt, totally neglected the poor with tax cuts and welfare cuts, and controlled the nation through nationalistic paranoia? Oh yeah, and I'm talking about Reagan, not Bush....

Two other things you must keep in mind about Reagan are that he was a key player in the Iran-Contra scandal, and of course, he used his CIA connections to screw Carter's re-election by delaying the Iran hostage situation.

In the iran-contra deal, reagan may have done the wrong thing, but for the right reason. things worked out pretty good over there in the end.

[Cosmo_ac]

I fail to see the harm in allowing a country to get the technology to purify there water, Nuetron. And as far as france vetoing US's attack against iraq, while i'm sure they have personal reasons for it, the fact remains, the US has yet to find any WMD, or ties to Al-queda. Both main reasons for going in to Iraq. So, maybe, just maybe, the "proof" the US provided was a little lacking. if i'm wrong, then were is it?

[Neutron]

A wonderful plant, built by the US. Water Purification was not on the sanctions list.
THEY agreed to the sanctions, all they had to do was comply, and guess what? The sanctions would have gone away. Don't you find it significant that a pussy ass administration like Clintons didn't actively campaign to lift the sanctions? Especially since the US stood to benefit most economically?

Fact is, Hussein couldn't give a shit about his people so long as HE prospered. It was incumbent on HIM to take the necessary steps to get the sanctions lifted, and he elected not to do so. DO not even try to say Iraq did not prosper despite the sanctions, During the time of the sanctions Sadam built dozens of palaces and Bahgdad grew into one of the most modern cities in the world. Fact, the average Iraqis life did not change at all because of UNITED NATIONS sanctions, It was affected by a brutal tyrant, not any sanctions. You claimed millions died, Prove it please... You made the claim, now back it up. After all you say Bush needed irefutable proof of WMD to invade Iraq, shouldn't you be under the same burden of proof for an outlandish claim?

Again, the US told that region, WE ARE COMING, all they had to do was comply, and in SAdams case he wasn't complying with a US resolution, HE was being forced to comply with a UN resolution that he was still under from the early 90s. It's not like we invented that..


Tron

[august spies]

tron more people resigned from the UN beacuse of the US/UK genocide sanctions in iraq. Even Madaline Albright admitted on national television that half a million children died under the age of five as a direct result of her sanctions. She said "it was worth it".

[kis123]

Originally posted by cosmo_ac
Too be honest, i've never liked it when people view others as sub human. It's simply an excuse to exuse atrocities. It always has. We de-humanize people because we can't handle the simple fact that these people are all too human. I remember having a similiar discussion with Jo about this on a post regarding the 9/11 attack.

I find it the height of hypocracy for a person to claim there a good person yet wish to comdemn a horrible, bloody fate on somebody else. Jim for example, i imagine he feels he's a great American, and an all around good guy, yet he certainly seems to like the idea of laying waste to a good percentage of the middle-east. Now, is he a good guy? is he a bad guy? Somewhere in between?


Kis, your government trained, paid, and then mass slaughter or been in one way or another, responsible for thousands, if not millions of deaths. Let's take a look at Iraq for a moment. Now, America seems to be confused why these people aren't worshiping them as saviours. But, lets take a look at the history. We'll put aside for the moment how many people died and were tortured, gassed, etc by Saddam, and focus on what the US did. The US deliberatly destroyed water purification plants. This caused massive cantamination to the Iraqi drinking water, and if i remember right, somethging like 1.4 million people, mainly children, died because of it. Because of the sanctions imposed by the US, Iraq couldn't get the equipment in to fix the damns, so, many people continued to die.

Now, i want you to picture your loved one, your child, father brother, sister, etc dying like that. It's not a fast death. They would be vomiting and have unccontrolable diarea, horrible cramping of the bowls, suffer from sever dihidration, and many more horible diseases. All you could do was watch, and wait for them to die so they wouldn't be suffering any more. And then, when the US comes in, they're supposed to say "Hey, you're responsible for the slow and painful death of my child, but thats ok!"

Not likely. They have every right to be angry. And as the US has spent more time in Iraq, they have even more reason to be angry. Some use the word terrorism. Freedom fighter is another word that could be applied. It really all depends on how you look at it.

I remeber when i first saw the pictures of the Abu Graib prsion abuse scandle. I was disgusted with these guards. And for a while i thought that they should be punished exactly how they treated the prisoners. Humiliated, degraded, beaten, raped, etc. But, once i cooled down i realized something. These people are not sub-human. They are not animals. They are people, very much like you and me. They are simply the side of people we don't like to asociate with humanity, because we don't want to face that fact. Simply put, nobody deserves to be made to sufer. Not like that. I'm not saying people shouldn't be punished, but there are lines we can't cross. If we do Kis, we're no better then the ones we try and stop.

So, in a nutshell. It's very easy to sit back and drink our cacino's and look at these people fighting the only way they can fight back, and say there subhuman, when we've never gone through what they have. Does that mean we should fogive them? Thats a personl thing that only you can decide, however, when it does come to there treatment, and punishment, lets try and act a little better then the people we're calling monsters. Anything less, and really, whats the point of it all?


Kis scratches head, crosses her eyes and says to response to this post:

Here's my question;

Why have you dragged me into this post when this is the very thing I have been arguing about? I've been called a liberal and argued my points with several posters and you write this about me? I'm on you side. I've been saying US has responsibity for atrocities and the problems in parts of the Middle East. I told another poster to put himself in the shoes of the people in Iraq who have suffered for years at our and other country's hands. And you address this post to me?

Have you actually read my posts? Have you confused me with another poster? Are you on drugs or something? Please explain yourself because I'm thoroughly confused with this post.

Oh, by the way, Jim would be a great American except he's from Britain.

After you wake up, have some coffee or whatever method you use to sober up, review my posts and get back to me. :wow: :sowrong:

[Bulldogge]

Originally posted by Neutron
and in SAdams case he wasn't complying with a US resolution, HE was being forced to comply with a UN resolution that he was still under from the early 90s.


But shouldn't the decision on how, where and when a U.N. sanction is enforced be the decision of the U.N.?

Not that of a superpower rouge state?

Let's face it. How did the American government decide to deal with a nation which defied the U.N.? By defying the U.N. themselves.

Seems a little odd, to say the least.

[kis123]

Originally posted by Neutron
A wonderful plant, built by the US. Water Purification was not on the sanctions list.
THEY agreed to the sanctions, all they had to do was comply, and guess what? The sanctions would have gone away. Don't you find it significant that a pussy ass administration like Clintons didn't actively campaign to lift the sanctions? Especially since the US stood to benefit most economically?

Fact is, Hussein couldn't give a shit about his people so long as HE prospered. It was incumbent on HIM to take the necessary steps to get the sanctions lifted, and he elected not to do so. DO not even try to say Iraq did not prosper despite the sanctions, During the time of the sanctions Sadam built dozens of palaces and Bahgdad grew into one of the most modern cities in the world. Fact, the average Iraqis life did not change at all because of UNITED NATIONS sanctions, It was affected by a brutal tyrant, not any sanctions. You claimed millions died, Prove it please... You made the claim, now back it up. After all you say Bush needed irefutable proof of WMD to invade Iraq, shouldn't you be under the same burden of proof for an outlandish claim?

Again, the US told that region, WE ARE COMING, all they had to do was comply, and in SAdams case he wasn't complying with a US resolution, HE was being forced to comply with a UN resolution that he was still under from the early 90s. It's not like we invented that..


Tron

You know Tron, I was actually with you on this one until you got to the last part. Saddam did get richer as the poor got poorer. His children did not lack medicine or food. He had millions of dollars at his disposal while his own people starved to death.

However, when the President of the United States who claims to represent our interests runs roughshod over the American people who didn't want to go to war, and the UN, and gets angry when nations decide not to support him in his single handed crusade to invade Iraq, whose interests is he really supporting? Certainly not mine. He said he was looking for WMD. Did he find it? He said Bin Laden and Hussein were partners. Did he prove it? NO! He still wants to wave our nation's flag over this mess and call it patriotism. It's not going to go away. It is exposed as the US being a big bully over a country that it could control.

Go to North Korea or China and see if they let it happen. They have the weapons. North Korea violated arms agreements. Are we over there looking for WMD that we know exist? No, becuase if we go over there, they're going to blow our remains back to the United States. We're fighting for our freedom and anti terrorism, we just pick the enemies that can't fight back.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by Neutron
A wonderful plant, built by the US. Water Purification was not on the sanctions list.
THEY agreed to the sanctions, all they had to do was comply, and guess what? The sanctions would have gone away. Don't you find it significant that a pussy ass administration like Clintons didn't actively campaign to lift the sanctions? Especially since the US stood to benefit most economically?

Yes, that Clinton... such a pussy and always getting pussy. I guess he was too busy helping our economy and the poor to address the Saddam issue. He was too busy taking care of the Bosnia and Somalia situations to understand this all-encompassing situation in Iraq. I mean, what kind of a pussy do you have to be to pay more attention to instability in Eastern Europe and Africa than the oh-so-important people of Iraq? I guess he just didn't understand that getting us in Iran-contra scandals and funding dictators (who would later betray us) against the Soviets were better policy decisions. If only Clinton had engaged in a massive arms race versus those well-armed towelheads... then... he wouldn't be such a pussy...

This message was brought to you by the Fox News Channel.

[BigJim]

Originally posted by Neutron
Had the Brits taken a premptive action in 1936 or 1937 there would have been no WW2. How typical...

Had the Brits and French and (to a much lesser degree at this time) the Americans not been so vindictive and inhumane in 1918-1922, there would have been no need for pre-emptive action to stop World War Two from happening.

[BigJim]

Originally posted by gila67
BigJim,

I have some questions about subjects you've posted on in this thread, and they are these... etc

Have you read my threads on politics that have very heavily covered the military actions of the UK and US in the Middle East? If you havn't, you should, because they give my answers to most of your questions.


Originally posted by gila67
Why do you lump Afghanistan and Iraq together? While there's plenty of room for debating Bush's actions in Iraq, I just don't see how that debate extends to the former home of the Taliban. You must remember that, as wasn't the case in Iraq, many Afghans fought alongside the Americans to free their country. And to your statement about Saudi Arabia - what about the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan; what about Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines?

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the mass-murder of civillians on a scale that most Americans have never heard, and when they do stick their fingers in their ears and whistle the national anthem like a fervent christian being told a few home truths about how false the Bible is. (See the other thread on calling all Christian believers and the "Jesus is the way" happy dance.)

EDIT:- This above note was given as an example relavent to this thread, not a pop at all Christians. Please do not call me an asshole as I'm too tired to fend you off. *end of edit*

In both countries the Allied miilitary committed acts of appauling mass-murder that were never reported on CNN or Fox. All we see are the generals lining up proudly and showing the footage of bombs going right down the liftshafts of military HQ's. We weren't shown any of the decidedly un-"smart" bombs being dropped on residential areas, or targets vital to civillian welfare being bombed. Of course, even when someone does mention that, there's someone like Tron around to say that it didn't matter, why didn't we hit a few more.

Anyway, back on track. Here are some links Gila. It'll take time to read, but my answers lie therein.

Illuminati, real, imaginary, myth? (http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16368)
A sensible Discussion on the existence of the "Illuminati" (http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18411)
World corruption, lying politicians and the tragedy of 9/11. (http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28158)
Part 2 of World corruption, lying politicians and the tragedy of 9/11. (http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28644)
Part 3 of World corruption, lying politicians and the tragedy of 9/11.(At last!!!) (http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34077)
What really happened on 9/11?A pack of lies were told, among other things. PART 4!!! (http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40020)


(The last 4 were threads of mine, the other two just ones I contributed to.)

There is material about the two Gulf Wars, the rise to power of Hussein, the part George Bush played by selling arms to the Contras and accepting payment in pure heroin and so on. Let me know if there's anything I havn't covered that you want to know my opinion of.

[BigJim]

... seventy thousand fucking dollars??? :eek: :o :eek: :o :wow:

That is one serious hobby!

[BigJim]

Originally posted by maniactickler
kis, america has to do what it takes to protect itself. if it means taking out a country whos a potential threat, so be it. i know you liberals would much prefer to wait around till thousands more of us are killed before you act. but i dont share that same philosophy. and surely you consider the terrorists and the iraqis we are battling sub human?

If you consider anyone to be sub-human, then people will follow by example and continue to believe it. Trouble is, they'll put their own slant on your example and apply it to whoever they dislike.

There is no such thing as sub-human. There are people like terrorists and those so selfish that they don't consider the well-being of other people in their drive to get what they want who certainly act like it, but none truly.

[Neutron]

The US DID protest the treatment of the Germans post WW1 and were told it wasn't our business, it was a European affair. In fact the US wasn't entirely ever sure Britain and France were in the right in WW1. It was hit or miss as to which side we'd enter the war on, AND if we ever would. Unlike WW2, where there was clearly evil, WW1 wasn't quite so clear cut.

Actually Clinton had nothing to do with the economy. The way the economy works you're actually benefiting from decisions made 8 to 10 years before. Clinton benefitted from the fall of the Iron Curtain, done by a Republican President. The current regime rarely has anything to do with the overall economy.

China, so far as is known did NOT attack her neighbors or get involved in a war in which the US had to intervene. The US doesn;t HAVE to do anything in North KOrea because Chine keeps her firmly under her thumb. Because of location NK realistically doesn't have any means to be of harm to anyone but herself, and maybe South Korea.

Now wait, HOW can the US be a rouge state for wanting the UN to enforce her own sanctions. BY UN Rules the US is simply doing what she has every right to do, that being veto any attempt to lift sanctions until the state under questions complies with UN resolution. That's hardly rouge. Also the UN has NOTHING to do with a state taking any action that believes it's acting in it's own self defense.

By your logic the following makes sense. Assume you're a kid.
Over the past year you've caused trouble, been cruel to animals, hit other kids and been a pain in the ass. You have a really HOT girlfriend but she's only available Friday through Sunday. Finally you go over the line, and break into a house, and assault the owner. You get the Police Involved, and they AND you talk with the parents. BY common agreement you all agree the Kid cannot see his girlfriend until he can learn to behave. To enforce this his parents must keep him indoors from Friday at dawn till Monday morning at 6am.
The first few weeks the police monitor the "sanctions" the kid seems ok. Then they more or less go to a monitor from a distance mode. As soon as this happens the kid starts his normal bullshit again, a pattern of which historically led to a violent act against his neighbors. Only this time he's a bit more sly about it, he knows next time he does something really screwed up he's going to jail. All the while he's doing this he's promising if the sanction gets lifted he'll be good. The Police and Neighbors know this isn't the truth, after all his pattern before says otherwise. Are you HONESTLY claiming the victims, or others should condone lifting the sanction when all the kid has to do is comply with a common norm? In which case he'll get his sexlife back.

Sorry folks. The person who could have gotten those sanctions lift chose to act in a fashion that increased his personal power and NOT in the benefit of his people. The UN invoked sanctions. Had he complied this would be case closed. The sanctions would have been lifted. The sanctions had NOTHING to do with those children dying and I doubt it's that many. Again please provide a source. Fuck in WW1 the Brits were responsible for over 2 million childrens deaths due to a brutal blockade (Padfield The Battleship Era), in many areas not a child under 6 survived. . In WW2 no one knows how many they killed with carpet bombing of German cities during a bombing campaign specifically introduced to strike terror in the German Civilians (RAF Strategic Bombing Survey). It's odd we say there's no proof of WMD (which there is by the way), when there's no proof what effect the sanctions had. Remember during this time frame many Iraqi cities PROSPERED!

Put the blame squarely where it belongs. On Saddam. And remember, the fact the country is being rebuilt is courtesy of the USA, the ONLY country to date to ever rebuild the facilities of a vanquished enemy.

kis while I admire your ability to attempt to stand up for what you say, please do so with sources and not opinion.

Tron

[BigJim]

Originally posted by maniactickler
good to see you back MrMac, ive missed your mindless rants.

Mr. Pot, there's a Mr. Kettle on the phone for you...

[BigJim]

Originally posted by kis123
Oh, by the way, Jim would be a great American except he's from Britain.

I think Cos was referring to JimBlast, not me Kis.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Neutron

The US doesn;t HAVE to do anything in North KOrea because Chine keeps her firmly under her thumb. Because of location NK realistically doesn't have any means to be of harm to anyone but herself, and maybe South Korea.


Ah, thank you, there's been something bugging me about your logic here for the last couple of posts and this finally let me put my finger on it. Why did the US invade Iraq? Becuase, if you believe the stories before the war, Iraq had WMD and may supply them to terrorists. Iraq was NEVER a direct threat to the US, what were they going to do, float the country over and pull up next to New York? They were ONLY a threat if they supplied WMD (if they had any) to a terrorist group. Now would you like to explain how having China "keeping North Korea under her thumb" stops them from, just as an example, giving a Nuke to al-qaeda?

Simply put, you're deliberatley mixing up the threats posed by countries and those posed by individuals. It's for this reason that world war comparisons (1 or 2) aren't valid when it comes to Iraq as Saddam NEVER posed a direct threat to anyone other than his neighbours, and after the first gulf war, didn't even have that capability anymore.

Let me ask you this: if you're right then what threat did Iraq pose that, for example, North Korea does not?

On the UN, again it's a very simple point that you seem to overlook. Saddam WAS co-operating, the inspectors were in the country and were saying "give us time to finish the job". How the hell else was Iraq supposed to prove it had no WMD remaining? But no, the US rushed to war because of the immediate threat... which didn't exist.


Originally posted by Neutron

kis while I admire your ability to attempt to stand up for what you say, please do so with sources and not opinion.

Tron

This from the man that KEEPS ducking questions when they're asked (and questions that are actually on topic you may notice) and denies he's said what he's said barely a handful of posts earlier. Again I say apply your own standards, provide sources (on-line so the rest of us can actually make use of them) instead of your own opinion.

[BigJim]

Originally posted by Neutron
The US DID protest the treatment of the Germans post WW1 and were told it wasn't our business, it was a European affair. In fact the US wasn't entirely ever sure Britain and France were in the right in WW1. It was hit or miss as to which side we'd enter the war on, AND if we ever would. Unlike WW2, where there was clearly evil, WW1 wasn't quite so clear cut.

Correct, it was largely due to the UK and France. There were also some Americans involved however, largely due to their connection in Britain.
As for fighting evil in world War 2, not only did we create the stage for Hitler to enter, the grandfather of your esteemed President helped fund the bastard through the Union Banking Corporation and the oil and steel empire of Fritz Thyssen. As did another pillar of the American community, Henry Ford. The evil we were fighting was our own. A wonderful example of how there is no such thing as a seperate nation on Earth, no matter how much the patriots of the world wish it to be so.



Originally posted by Neutron
Sorry folks. The person who could have gotten those sanctions lift chose to act in a fashion that increased his personal power and NOT in the benefit of his people. The UN invoked sanctions. Had he complied this would be case closed. The sanctions would have been lifted. The sanctions had NOTHING to do with those children dying and I doubt it's that many. Again please provide a source. Fuck in WW1 the Brits were responsible for over 2 million childrens deaths due to a brutal blockade (Padfield The Battleship Era), in many areas not a child under 6 survived etc etc... (For the sake of space.)

I agree with most of that. As I said before I'm not one to set Britain above any other nation. Indeed Britain has been the manipulator behind many things the US has done. I've provided many sources for that, including a quote from a director of Burke's Peerage.

I do not accept that Saddam being a complete bastard (as he undoubtedly was) gives us carte blanche to do whatever we want to his people, in the name of trying to cripple him. (Which is resoundingly failed to do anyway.) We fed him, nurtured him, grew him like a tomato plant in a greenhouse. Then it suits us to declare him a bad guy and all of a sudden the rotten fruits of our government's perfidy poison the innocent people unfortunate enough to live in his country. You may be able to gloss over that, but it sickens me to the stomach.


Originally posted by Neutron
Put the blame squarely where it belongs. On Saddam. And remember, the fact the country is being rebuilt is courtesy of the USA, the ONLY country to date to ever rebuild the facilities of a vanquished enemy.

Saddam was a puppet of people like the Bush family and the others who sit in their Ivory Towers like the Windosrs, Rockerfellers, Gettys, Rothschilds and Melons. He wouldn't have been anything if he hadn't been "sponsored". Again. I only care about the people who suffered because it was a convenient time for our governments to demonise a sinister git who once was in our good books.


Originally posted by Neutron
kis while I admire your ability to attempt to stand up for what you say, please do so with sources and not opinion.

Once again I apologise to kis for remarking on a comment addressed to her, but I really can't ignore it.

Tron, I think kis is entitled to any sort of opinion she sees fit to have, especially considering you've been opining how in favour of acts of genocide you are. (I refer of course to your idea of redecorating the Middle East in an interesting new colour called hint of gamma.)

[Bulldogge]

Originally posted by Neutron
Now wait, HOW can the US be a rouge state for wanting the UN to enforce her own sanctions.

Tron -

The U.S. is a rogue state for exactly the same reasons Iraq is - for defying the authority of the U.N. on multiple occasions. When the decisions handed down by the Security Council or the World Court aren't in America's favor, they are ignored. Case in point: Nicaragua.

"But I’ll just mention one case which is totally uncontroversial, so we might as well not argue about it, by no means the most extreme but uncontroversial. It’s uncontroversial because of the judgments of the highest international authorities the International Court of Justice, the World Court, and the UN Security Council. So this one is uncontroversial, at least among people who have some minimal concern for international law, human rights, justice and other things like that. And now I’ll leave you an exercise. You can estimate the size of that category by simply asking how often this uncontroversial case has been mentioned in the commentary of the last month. And it’s a particularly relevant one, not only because it is uncontroversial, but because it does offer a precedent as to how a law abiding state would respond to…did respond in fact to international terrorism, which is uncontroversial. And was even more extreme than the events of September 11th. I’m talking about the Reagan-US war against Nicaragua which left tens of thousands of people dead, the country ruined, perhaps beyond recovery.

Nicaragua did respond. They didn’t respond by setting off bombs in Washington. They responded by taking it to the World Court, presenting a case, they had no problem putting together evidence. The World Court accepted their case, ruled in their favor, condemned what they called the “unlawful use of force,” which is another word for international terrorism, by the United States, ordered the United States to terminate the crime and to pay massive reparations. The United States, of course, dismissed the court judgment with total contempt and announced that it would not accept the jurisdiction of the court henceforth. Then Nicaragua then went to the UN Security Council which considered a resolution calling on all states to observe international law. No one was mentioned but everyone understood. The United States vetoed the resolution. It now stands as the only state on record which has both been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism and has vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law. Nicaragua then went to the General Assembly where there is technically no veto but a negative US vote amounts to a veto. It passed a similar resolution with only the United States, Israel, and El Salvador opposed. The following year again, this time the United States could only rally Israel to the cause, so 2 votes opposed to observing international law. At that point, Nicaragua couldn’t do anything lawful. It tried all the measures. They don’t work in a world that is ruled by force."

- Noam Chomsky


Originally posted by Neutron
Also the UN has NOTHING to do with a state taking any action that believes it's acting in it's own self defense.

Actually, the charter of the U.N. Security Council is pretty specific on that point. It states that "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42," which detail the preferred "measures not involving the use of armed force" and permit the Security Council to take further action if it finds such measures inadequate.

The only exception is Article 51, which permits the "right of individual or collective self-defense" against "armed attack...until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." Apart from these exceptions, member states "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force."

Please note that America is not allowed to attack because a threat is suspected. We are allowed to defend ourselves if we are attacked. The charter is specific, and does not allow for interpretation.

[BigJim]

Bulldogge you're wasting your effort. Don't try to combat things like patriotism and unilateralism with stupid things like facts, it just doesn't work. :rolleyes:

[kis123]

Originally posted by Neutron
kis while I admire your ability to attempt to stand up for what you say, please do so with sources and not opinion.

Tron

Is this another of your attempts to divert attention away from your rants to another person? If so, you're going to have to try again. I not only attempt, but I successfully stand up for my beliefs. I don't have to utilize pages of this thread to get sources to satisfy you. Especially since they're better historians than myself to do it for me. Most of my history is what I've lived, not what is misconstrued and lied about in a book to make criminals against humanity look good to little children. They find the truth for themselves when they grow up anyway.

I never said I was a history professional. My teenage children can realize where the US has screwed up and left them with a huge bag to hold. They get to pay for the decisions these old farts have made over the decades. They get the multitrillion dollar debt these administrations have created. They get to rebuild things and countries they didn't tear down. They get to spend thousands of dollars to go to college just to work at jobs that don't even pay the college bills. There was a time a kid can graduate from high school and could find a good paying job. Thanks to Reganomics that is no more. I started college during the Carter years where grants would pay for everything. Now you have to borrow a mortgage to send a kid to college. No one has to be a history professional to figure that one out.

Aren't you the one who feels we shouldn't take care of the elderly? Oh yeah that's you who feels we should just throw them away after their usefulness has been made. Sounds like a Reagan Republican concept to me. Other cultures around the world take care of their elderly without nursing homes or having Grandma shop for her groceries in the cat food isle. But you'd have us to believe that because they're not American, they're not important. They respect and revere their elderly, many of us see them as excess baggage on the tax bill. If it weren't for their efforts, we wouldn't be here giving our opinions about how useless they are.

Sounds like you express opinions without supportive facts as well. If you can dish it out, be prepared to take it.

[Cosmo_ac]

Sorry Kis, my post wasn't meant as an attack, though i guess it could look that way. And yes, i was refering to Jimblast. The point i was trying to make was this. There are no subhumans, only humans who makes choices we don't agree with, usually because something horrble has happened in there past. Of course, this doesn't include everybody. Also, i was trying to make the point that, if enough pressure is applied, even good people can do things that would make them bad people. For example, i talked on another post a long time ago with JoBelle on this subject. I laid out a scenerio, in which, her childrn would be killed, unless she flew a plane into a building. If memory serves, she agreed to fly the plain into the building. Now, does this suddenly make her a monster? Is she suddenly some sub-human piece of trash? In my opinion, she's just mother that loves her family.

Once again, i apologise kis, i probably should have directed this more towards maniac, but lets face it that would have been a lost cause.

[maniactickler]

Originally posted by BigJim
If you consider anyone to be sub-human, then people will follow by example and continue to believe it. Trouble is, they'll put their own slant on your example and apply it to whoever they dislike.

There is no such thing as sub-human. There are people like terrorists and those so selfish that they don't consider the well-being of other people in their drive to get what they want who certainly act like it, but none truly.

my apologies for calling the terrorists sub-human. i meant to call them bottom feeding maggots.

[Cosmo_ac]

And jim so easily manages to say what i'm trying to say, more or less, so easily. I give up :D

[BigJim]

I don't mourn for a man who described AIDS as...


Originally given to the world as a gift of wisdom by Ronald Reagan
God's punishments for all "faggots, junkies, whores + niggers"

(Thanks to Hal for digging that quote up.)

There are many people who have led the world's countries and almost always they are looked at with rose-tinted spectacles. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson for instance. Two fine leaders who were there when America needed them, yes? No. Two slave owners who profiteered, regularly raped the slaves they owned and fucked over the American people as surely as Reganomics did. Did I mention that they were also placemen put in place by the British royal family on account of being related to them? (As more than 3/4 of American Presidents have been indeed.)

I'm not speaking ill of the dead, I'm speaking ill of someone who was an actor in more than one arena. Ronald Regan was no more in charge of America than I am.

[BigJim]

Originally posted by maniactickler
my apologies for calling the terrorists sub-human. i meant to call them bottom feeding maggots.

That's more like it! :D

[august spies]

this thread is proof that the ronald reagan jerk off fest is just a corporate media thing. People really are pissed off at his evil policies and many know of his crimes.. Thanks all for participating (except neurton, he gets the ducking the question going off on tangent and ingorning the facts award.)

[BigJim]

There are worse people than Tron to have an argument with August.

[maniactickler]

Originally posted by BigJim
I don't mourn for a man who described AIDS as...



(Thanks to Hal for digging that quote up.)

There are many people who have led the world's countries and almost always they are looked at with rose-tinted spectacles. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson for instance. Two fine leaders who were there when America needed them, yes? No. Two slave owners who profiteered, regularly raped the slaves they owned and fucked over the American people as surely as Reganomics did. Did I mention that they were also placemen put in place by the British royal family on account of being related to them? (As more than 3/4 of American Presidents have been indeed.)

I'm not speaking ill of the dead, I'm speaking ill of someone who was an actor in more than one arena. Ronald Regan was no more in charge of America than I am.

can you tell me the source where you got that reagan quote from?

[BigJim]

*steps sideways into the original thread*

[Strider]

this thread is proof that the ronald reagan jerk off fest is just a corporate media thing. People really are pissed off at his evil policies and many know of his crimes.. Thanks all for participating (except neurton, he gets the ducking the question going off on tangent and ingorning the facts award.)

So you're telling me that 110,000 people waited 10 hours to see the coffin of a man they never even liked that much?

Wow,typical left winger.Those who disagree with you are not simply wrong,they're ignorant brainwashed morons.

[BigJim]

Strider, how do you think of George Washington? Brave liberator? Courageous general? Superb statesman? Or rapist slave-owner who happily accepted a job on behalf of his richer relatives to run America?

I'd be willing to bet that if his remains were displayed in public that most people would forget the bad bits and salute the casket.

[Strider]

Actually,I think of him as a human being who had flaws like anyone,and whose greatness overrode those flaws.

So,he owned slaves.Well,so did quite a few people at the time,slavery's part and parcel of human history.The rape thing I can find absolutely nothing to verify.The stuff about him being a proxy of the royal family is usually repeated by LaRoucheites(please tell me you're not one)but I don't put too much stock in it.

Has there ever been a leader in US history(or any history)that actually deserves their praise?Or all they all amoral sociopaths who pull the wool over the eyes of the masses,who,after all,are such idiots they'll believe whatever's fed them.

Oh,and August,I'm still waiting for a response.

[BigJim]

La-who? I've never eard of them,let alone BE one of them.

Well call it a fact that 34 of the 44 Pres's so far have blood ties with European monarcy so strong that they can trace them back to Charlemagne of France and Alfred the Great of England. Your Dubya is a cousin of Prince Charles and so was Al Gore. Nothing like democratic choice, eh?

[Strider]

Lyndon LaRouche is a total wackjob and the less anybody knows of him the better.

So,I'll take your word on the familial connections.So what?Are you implying there's something more sinister at work here and European monarchs are controlling me right now?

[BigJim]

What? Me? Be a conspiracy theorist?

Never! :D


No chance. (http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28158)

Nu-uh. (http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28644)

Never in a million years. (http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34077)

Losing the will to live. (http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40020)

Oh God, why me? (http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36738)

What did I do to deserve this? (http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18477)

I wish I hadn't started this now... (http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12823)

Shit happens. (http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18411)

Will it ever end? (http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30975)



Jim - Who's even beginning to bore himself.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by BigJim
*steps sideways into the original thread*

Uh, you do know the thread was to the LEFT of where you were standing? That thing to your right is the commode.

[BigJim]

Originally posted by BOFH666
Uh, you do know the thread was to the LEFT of where you were standing? That thing to your right is the commode.


Ah, I was wondering where JB and maniac got their material from. :D

[MrMacphisto]

"Actually Clinton had nothing to do with the economy. The way the economy works you're actually benefiting from decisions made 8 to 10 years before. Clinton benefitted from the fall of the Iron Curtain, done by a Republican President. The current regime rarely has anything to do with the overall economy."

Well Neutron, given that logic... I suppose that means that Carter was responsible for the economic growth of the late 80s. Yeah, that whole energy crisis thing led to such massive growth in our country. Wake up man, trickle down economics didn't work....

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by BigJim
Ah, I was wondering where JB and maniac got their material from. :D

That'll be a fiver for the set-up line please ;)

[Strider]

So it turns out it's the House of Windsor that's secretly controlling my life.

All this time I thought it was alien grays....

[BigJim]

When they pay me a tenner to shut up, you can have your fiver.

[august spies]

110,000 people viewing a casket when you have the entire mass media sucking you off and distorting your policies all rapped up nice and tight in an american flag, is not much to write home about.

i bet half of them couldnt find el salvador on a map, let alone explain reagans terrorist actions there.

[Strider]

Well,August,I realize that like most left wingers you have utter contempt for the 'little people' you actually seem to think you speak for,but have you ever considered that all the media attention due to Reagan's death could be due to the fact that this man was so beloved by the 'little people' that their would probably be a revolt if they didn't cover it?

I don't know what outlets are 'distorting' his policies,because almost every time I've seen Jennings,Rather,Brokaw,or the other media elites talking about him the past week,the only thing they've talked about was what a great disposition Reagan had.Probably because they couldn't stand his policies and saying anything nice about them would have been anathema.

Now,just to confirm what you're saying:you're telling me,that 110,000 people in California alone(including myself),waited in line for 10 hours or more,to file past the coffin of a man they'd never even met,and didn't actually like that much,did it simply because the media told them to.This is despite the fact that the outpouring of grief was spontaneuous,and started the minute the news Reagan had died came out;oh wait,I bet the mourners who lined his street when the news he died first came out were just actors paid to be there right?This is really what you believe?Do you have such contempt for people who might think differently than you,that you basically mock the idea that they might be acting independently?

As for Salvador,I realize I'm wasting my time,but I'll ask you again,make me a case that sitting back and watching as the FMLN took over the country would have made life better for the average Salvadoran than the track we did take.Can you do that?Or are you simply going to repeat a litany of unsubtantiated atrocity tales and then say 'ha ha,I win'?Really,I can't see what your problem with the PDC is,I mean,they did many of the same things(land reform,nationalization of industry)you were wetting your pants over the Sandinistas doing.

[Daumantas]

Originally posted by Neutron
Is that right? (Looking at my 70,000 dollar WW2 book collection. Nice try junior.



Seventy thousand dollars on BOOKS? I borrow all of mine from the library. Jesus, Gladys, did they see YOU coming.

Please let me know next time you're about to make a major purchase, of any sort, as I'd like to get in on it. Suckers of your magnitude don't grow on trees.

Oh...also, the thing that matters about books is...READING them.

[kis123]

Originally posted by august spies
110,000 people viewing a casket when you have the entire mass media sucking you off and distorting your policies all rapped up nice and tight in an american flag, is not much to write home about.

i bet half of them couldnt find el salvador on a map, let alone explain reagans terrorist actions there.

:wow: Ouch!

[maniactickler]

Originally posted by BigJim
Ah, I was wondering where JB and maniac got their material from. :D

unfortunately, even getting information from a toilet is probably still more credible than your lamestream liberal sources.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by Strider
Well,August,I realize that like most left wingers you have utter contempt for the 'little people' you actually seem to think you speak for,but have you ever considered that all the media attention due to Reagan's death could be due to the fact that this man was so beloved by the 'little people' that their would probably be a revolt if they didn't cover it?

I don't know what outlets are 'distorting' his policies,because almost every time I've seen Jennings,Rather,Brokaw,or the other media elites talking about him the past week,the only thing they've talked about was what a great disposition Reagan had.Probably because they couldn't stand his policies and saying anything nice about them would have been anathema.

Now,just to confirm what you're saying:you're telling me,that 110,000 people in California alone(including myself),waited in line for 10 hours or more,to file past the coffin of a man they'd never even met,and didn't actually like that much,did it simply because the media told them to.This is despite the fact that the outpouring of grief was spontaneuous,and started the minute the news Reagan had died came out;oh wait,I bet the mourners who lined his street when the news he died first came out were just actors paid to be there right?This is really what you believe?Do you have such contempt for people who might think differently than you,that you basically mock the idea that they might be acting independently?

As for Salvador,I realize I'm wasting my time,but I'll ask you again,make me a case that sitting back and watching as the FMLN took over the country would have made life better for the average Salvadoran than the track we did take.Can you do that?Or are you simply going to repeat a litany of unsubtantiated atrocity tales and then say 'ha ha,I win'?Really,I can't see what your problem with the PDC is,I mean,they did many of the same things(land reform,nationalization of industry)you were wetting your pants over the Sandinistas doing.

*Claps* Wonderful... You ought to write for Bill O'Reilly. Seriously... You are in L.A., that's a good place to start a career in these kind of things.

However, it's time to enter the "no-spin" zone. Being a left winger, the only people I have utter contempt for are the stupid people. It's not about income class or social importance, it's about whether or not someone is educated about the political issues they speak out for or against. I know I blasted MikeMike in another forum for his views, but in retrospect, at least the guy did some research on his topics before he posted. The sources might have been questionable, but oh well... Strider, the people I have contempt for are... well, I'll give you a hint: one of them has a name that rhymes with brainiacpickler. You know, the kind of people that go on and on without even trying to explain their views. In order to prevent myself from being hypocritical, let me explain the problems with your post.

Yeah, people liked Reagan. He got 49 out of 50 states in the 1984 election, and he got like 44 in 1980. He did embody the patriotism of the 1980s, and he functioned as a nationalistic figure of pride for our country then. Of course, things are never as they seem....

Behind this glorious facade, you had a man who passed a tax cut that was blatantly aimed at the wealthy, a man willing to pull strings to delay the release of hostages in Iran in order to secure his election in 1980, and a man that was so deep in the Iran-Contra scandal that it made Watergate look like a blowjob with an intern. Simply put, as likable as this man was in person, inside, he was a very evil man. It was ideal that he was in power during the 80s. America was simultaneously immersed in a decadent stupor and a paranoid patriotism. The sad thing is... We've entered this strange mindset yet again, with the only difference being that the Soviets are replaced by terrorists. Instead of an arms race, we have a race to see how many "rogue nations" we can conquer before our money runs out.

By the way, if you still think that Peter Jennings is a liberal, you should have seen his subtle contempt for Clinton back in the 90s. I'll see if I scrounge up some video files, and you'll see what I mean. He absolutely adored that whole Monica Lewinsky scandal.

I'll give you credit for one thing though, Strider... People liked Reagan for his image, but if they had known him more personally or actually did some research on his policies, they might have less respect for him....

[Strider]

However, it's time to enter the "no-spin" zone. Being a left winger, the only people I have utter contempt for are the stupid people. It's not about income class or social importance, it's about whether or not someone is educated about the political issues they speak out for or against.

If I may ask what stripe of leftie are you?Green,anarchist,socialist,run-of-the mill Democrat?Just so I can no who I'm dealing with. ;)

In the interest of full disclosure,I'm a libertarian.


Behind this glorious facade, you had a man who passed a tax cut that was blatantly aimed at the wealthy,

Well,look,if it was up to me the IRS would be abolished,but I'm not in charge and seeing as cuts are the most that's gonna happen anytime soon,why should those who pay the most taxes not get the lion's share of the cuts?Any income tax cut is going to mainly benefit 'the wealthy',as we define them.


a man willing to pull strings to delay the release of hostages in Iran in order to secure his election in 1980,

I've read Gary Sick's book.It's interesting,but that's all it is.Even he admitted a lot of the his evidence was circumstantial.Some of the other October Surprise literature(Barbara Honneggar,e.g.)out there gets a little too far into X-Files land.


and a man that was so deep in the Iran-Contra scandal that it made Watergate look like a blowjob with an intern

Yeah,Iran-Contra was a clusterfuck.I would have attempted to veto the Boland Ammendment,on the grounds that it was an unconstitutional infringement on executive privelage.That may or may not have worked.But once again,I'm not the one in charge.The way it was handled was certainly reckless,but evil?I see that as being a stretch personally.


People liked Reagan for his image, but if they had known him more personally or actually did some research on his policies, they might have less respect for him

Is it possible people have done research and come to the opposite conclusion as you?

[BigJim]

Originally posted by maniactickler
unfortunately, even getting information from a toilet is probably still more credible than your lamestream liberal sources.

Heh heh.

"Poo to you!"

"Poo to you tiwce!"

"Poo to you ten times!"

"Poo to you two hundred times and you can't say poo again!"

How adult. Dear boy, do you actually have an adjective for people whose politics you dislike, other than "liberal"? I fit the lexiconic definition of the word, but I have serious issues with liberal politicians, finding most of them idiots, integrationalist and indecisive. I also find a lot (but by no means all) liberalist voters to be people who object to the solutions of the right wing, but don't have a viable alternative themselves. John Kerry I'm pretty convinced is gonna borrow a shitload of money to finance the tax cuts he promises, then wind up paying even more interest than he could ever afford.

What I suggest is that you go away, speak to an English teacher, learn a few more words of the English language (and learning how to use capital letters might come in useful too), then come back and see if you can have a discussion with me. Right now all you're doing is resorting to round after round of decidedly "lame" name-calling and presenting less in the way of facts than a lodge meeting of the Guild of Village Idiots. When you finally realise that there's more to the world than conservative and liberal, you might have gained enough intelligence to join the rest of us in big school.


Jim - Who knows pomposity and arrogance as every Englishman should. :D

n.b. By British standards, I'm considered a conservative. That's the party line of Winston Churchill and Maggie Thatcher. That HARD bastards and bitches of British politics. It's only by your own drastically acute leanings to starboard that I'm considered liberal.

[Strider]

Allright,I'm not completely up on this.But I was under the impression that by European standards the term conservative refers to monarchists.Although,I may be a couple centuries out of date.

[maniactickler]

Originally posted by BigJim
Heh heh.

"Poo to you!"

"Poo to you tiwce!"

"Poo to you ten times!"

"Poo to you two hundred times and you can't say poo again!"

How adult. Dear boy, do you actually have an adjective for people whose politics you dislike, other than "liberal"? I fit the lexiconic definition of the word, but I have serious issues with liberal politicians, finding most of them idiots, integrationalist and indecisive. I also find a lot (but by no means all) liberalist voters to be people who object to the solutions of the right wing, but don't have a viable alternative themselves. John Kerry I'm pretty convinced is gonna borrow a shitload of money to finance the tax cuts he promises, then wind up paying even more interest than he could ever afford.

What I suggest is that you go away, speak to an English teacher, learn a few more words of the English language (and learning how to use capital letters might come in useful too), then come back and see if you can have a discussion with me. Right now all you're doing is resorting to round after round of decidedly "lame" name-calling and presenting less in the way of facts than a lodge meeting of the Guild of Village Idiots. When you finally realise that there's more to the world than conservative and liberal, you might have gained enough intelligence to join the rest of us in big school.


Jim - Who knows pomposity and arrogance as every Englishman should. :D

n.b. By British standards, I'm considered a conservative. That's the party line of Winston Churchill and Maggie Thatcher. That HARD bastards and bitches of British politics. It's only by your own drastically acute leanings to starboard that I'm considered liberal.

sorry im not a snobby, elitist brit such as yourself. im humbled before you. although you have the freedom to comment on our country, i still think you should save your comments for your own country. unless youve lived in this country, i could care less about your meaningless comments. reading about a country and living in one, there tends to be a big difference i think.

[BigJim]

Originally posted by maniactickler
sorry im not a snobby, elitist brit such as yourself. im humbled before you. although you have the freedom to comment on our country, i still think you should save your comments for your own country. unless youve lived in this country, i could care less about your meaningless comments. reading about a country and living in one, there tends to be a big difference i think.

My dear old cobweb, I only get snobby and eliteist when confronted by that particular breed of Americans who make the hicks in Deliverance look sophisticated. And how precisely does one save their comments for one particular country, when one doesn't even recognise petty things like national boundaries? Such medieval thinking is responsible for such a lot of division and sadness in the world.

[BigJim]

Originally posted by Strider
Allright,I'm not completely up on this.But I was under the impression that by European standards the term conservative refers to monarchists.Although,I may be a couple centuries out of date.

Monarchists would certainly be considered conservatives, although conservatives are not neccessarily monarchists. Our royal family is just one branch of a great, weaving tribe who control just about every ocuntry in the world, so their titular position as the constitutional head of Britain means nothing to me.

[Strider]

Damn,I bet France is pissed off they killed all their royalty and can't get a seat at the table.

[BigJim]

Originally posted by Strider
Damn,I bet France is pissed off they killed all their royalty and can't get a seat at the table.

Not at all. Chirac, Mitterand and De Gaul were all relatives of European royalty, as have been 34 of the 44 men appointed President of the United States. They may not use words like "king" and "queen", but that's exactly what they are.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by Strider
If I may ask what stripe of leftie are you?Green,anarchist,socialist,run-of-the mill Democrat?Just so I can no who I'm dealing with. ;)

Hmmm... I'm Green, in that I care about the environment. I'm anarchist and misanthropic, in that I feel human nature is destined to destroy us. I'm socialist, in that I care about poor people and the middle class. ...and I'm run-of-the-mill Democrat, in that I trust very few Republicans.


In the interest of full disclosure,I'm a libertarian.

Then we'd probably agree on social issues....


Well,look,if it was up to me the IRS would be abolished,but I'm not in charge and seeing as cuts are the most that's gonna happen anytime soon,why should those who pay the most taxes not get the lion's share of the cuts?Any income tax cut is going to mainly benefit 'the wealthy',as we define them.

You know... Libertarians are a lot like Communists. They have ideas that look great on paper, but in reality, they just don't work. Try collecting taxes without an IRS. And about this tax issue with the wealty, think about this: First of all, there are far more ways that rich people can avoid taxes than the rest of us can, due to various business-oriented deductions. Second, they can afford to pay more in taxes. Third, the more you decrease their taxes, the less chance you'll get ANY revenue from them. Fourth, the power and privilege that the wealthy have over the rest of society should be reason enough alone that they should pay more in taxes. When you get more from society, you should have to pay for it.


Is it possible people have done research and come to the opposite conclusion as you?

Yes, these people you're referring to are the extremely wealthy. They loved this man more than anyone else, because if Reagan had been dictator instead of president, we'd be serfs and they would be the nobles ruling us.

[Strider]

You know... Libertarians are a lot like Communists. They have ideas that look great on paper, but in reality, they just don't work. Try collecting taxes without an IRS.

That's the point.The entire tax code would be scrapped and replaced with a consumption tax.


And about this tax issue with the wealty, think about this: First of all, there are far more ways that rich people can avoid taxes than the rest of us can, due to various business-oriented deductions. Second, they can afford to pay more in taxes. Third, the more you decrease their taxes, the less chance you'll get ANY revenue from them. Fourth, the power and privilege that the wealthy have over the rest of society should be reason enough alone that they should pay more in taxes. When you get more from society, you should have to pay for it.

Dude,there's no justification for taking chunks of people's money at gunpoint.I don't care if you're Ted Turner,I don't care if you're a trash collector,the government has no right to rob either one.I don't care if someone can afford to pay higher taxes or not that's no justification to take their money.


Yes, these people you're referring to are the extremely wealthy. They loved this man more than anyone else, because if Reagan had been dictator instead of president, we'd be serfs and they would be the nobles ruling us.

I'm extremely wealthy?Damn,coulda fooled me.

I'm off to sleep.Good night folks.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by Strider
That's the point.The entire tax code would be scrapped and replaced with a consumption tax.

That would be great except for the fact that the percentage would have to be like 50% just to fund the government and all its various programs. Also, high consumption/sales taxes always favor the rich. Look at Tennessee: they have no income tax, but they have about a 15% sales tax. Can you imagine how expensive everything must be for the average person, while the rich guys get to keep a shitload of money? If that's not classist, I don't know what is.... Oh yeah, I think you'll also find that their social programs suck ass too as a result of that setup.


Dude,there's no justification for taking chunks of people's money at gunpoint.I don't care if you're Ted Turner,I don't care if you're a trash collector,the government has no right to rob either one.I don't care if someone can afford to pay higher taxes or not that's no justification to take their money.

I'd buy this argument, if it weren't for the fact that the same people arguing for no income tax are usually the same people that want to get rid of the welfare system. It's funny how they rarely mention anything about the corporate welfare we spend billions on. See, these people don't want to give government money to the needy, they just like to give money to the rich. How's that for robbery?


I'm extremely wealthy?Damn,coulda fooled me.

No offense, but given your viewpoint, I'd say you're just extremely naive....

[TKpervert]

Settle down here folks, august is using you all as fodder (errata?) for his doctoral thesis after he manages to schlup his masters in five or ten years.

[Daumantas]

BigJim:

Despite what some people have said, your comments on the matters, manners and mores of those of us here in the Land of the Fee and the Home of the Pay are always welcome. You're far more insightful than many an American I've met.

[Bulldogge]

Originally posted by Daumantas
BigJim:

Despite what some people have said, your comments on the matters, manners and mores of those of us here in the Land of the Fee and the Home of the Pay are always welcome. You're far more insightful than many an American I've met.

Well put. And Jim, seriously: from those of us who recognize the value of an outside opinion, thanks for all your insight. And besides, the "poo to you" post made me laugh until I choked. Insight and humor? How refreshing.

[august spies]

Dude,there's no justification for taking chunks of people's money at gunpoint.I don't care if you're Ted Turner,I don't care if you're a trash collector,the government has no right to rob either one.I don't care if someone can afford to pay higher taxes or not that's no justification to take their money.

unless your from el salvador, than after you take their money, your rape them, torture them and murder them. How libertarian.

[BigJim]

Originally posted by Daumantas
BigJim:

Despite what some people have said, your comments on the matters, manners and mores of those of us here in the Land of the Fee and the Home of the Pay are always welcome. You're far more insightful than many an American I've met.


Thank you Daumantas. That means a lot to me.

[BigJim]

Originally posted by Bulldogge
Well put. And Jim, seriously: from those of us who recognize the value of an outside opinion, thanks for all your insight. And besides, the "poo to you" post made me laugh until I choked. Insight and humor? How refreshing.

Again, thank you. It means a lot to me that I'm not just shouting into the wind.

As for the humour, well laughing is better than crying. ;) If I was up in front of a firing squad in the morning, I'd stand in front of the wall, bare my arse and reveal a large drawn arrow, pointint to the hole, saying "AIM HERE". I just can't act seriously to save my life. Takes too much effort, yanno?

[maniactickler]

Originally posted by MrMacphisto
Hmmm... I'm Green, in that I care about the environment. I'm anarchist and misanthropic, in that I feel human nature is destined to destroy us. I'm socialist, in that I care about poor people and the middle class. ...and I'm run-of-the-mill Democrat, in that I trust very few Republicans.



Then we'd probably agree on social issues....



You know... Libertarians are a lot like Communists. They have ideas that look great on paper, but in reality, they just don't work. Try collecting taxes without an IRS. And about this tax issue with the wealty, think about this: First of all, there are far more ways that rich people can avoid taxes than the rest of us can, due to various business-oriented deductions. Second, they can afford to pay more in taxes. Third, the more you decrease their taxes, the less chance you'll get ANY revenue from them. Fourth, the power and privilege that the wealthy have over the rest of society should be reason enough alone that they should pay more in taxes. When you get more from society, you should have to pay for it.



Yes, these people you're referring to are the extremely wealthy. They loved this man more than anyone else, because if Reagan had been dictator instead of president, we'd be serfs and they would be the nobles ruling us.

This is just the liberal class envy in play. they are jealous of success. if it was up to liberals, capitalism would be abolished. that way noone could be successful. they want everyone to be equally miserable. hmm..sounds like the old USSR.

[BigJim]

Originally posted by maniactickler
This is just the liberal class envy in play. they are jealous of success. if it was up to liberals, capitalism would be abolished. that way noone could be successful. they want everyone to be equally miserable. hmm..sounds like the old USSR.


Nah MT, that's socialists and communists you're thinking about. They're the ones on the left, yassee? Liberals are actually centre-field and only referred to as lefties by raving right-wing nutters. :D

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by maniactickler
This is just the liberal class envy in play. they are jealous of success. if it was up to liberals, capitalism would be abolished. that way noone could be successful. they want everyone to be equally miserable. hmm..sounds like the old USSR.

Okay, please try and keep your rantings consistent if nothing else. Example - you call me a "liberal" but have I ever, even once, said capitalism is bad, mmkay? You're using "Liberal" to describe a political party in the democrats who, last time I looked, don't have "communism" high on their list of campaign pledges. You use "Liberal" to describe a media who, without capitalism CANNOT EXIST! You use "liberal" to bash anyone who disagrees with you and have now called everyone that you consider a "liberal" a "communist". :rolleyes:

Again, let me make this point clear to you. Virtually no-one is 100% liberal or 100% conservative. The republican party uses liberal policies, the deomcrats use conservative ones. Do try and get this concept into your head.

I'll mkae this simple. You're now flaming for the hell of it, you are not contributing anything to this discussion, prefering instead to bash others for their opinions, usally after they have taken the time to explain their views in a polite, calm and adult manner. How about showing them the same curtesy.

Oh, and for the record, Capitalism as a pure concept, as the ideal you hold up here and absent of regulatory control, is eventually self destructive with all competition absorbed into one monopoly who can then charge what they like for the product. Capitalism, as a system, will have to change and evolve according to the needs of its society.

[maniactickler]

Originally posted by BOFH666
Okay, please try and keep your rantings consistent if nothing else. Example - you call me a "liberal" but have I ever, even once, said capitalism is bad, mmkay? You're using "Liberal" to describe a political party in the democrats who, last time I looked, don't have "communism" high on their list of campaign pledges. You use "Liberal" to describe a media who, without capitalism CANNOT EXIST! You use "liberal" to bash anyone who disagrees with you and have now called everyone that you consider a "liberal" a "communist". :rolleyes:

Again, let me make this point clear to you. Virtually no-one is 100% liberal or 100% conservative. The republican party uses liberal policies, the deomcrats use conservative ones. Do try and get this concept into your head.

I'll mkae this simple. You're now flaming for the hell of it, you are not contributing anything to this discussion, prefering instead to bash others for their opinions, usally after they have taken the time to explain their views in a polite, calm and adult manner. How about showing them the same curtesy.

Oh, and for the record, Capitalism as a pure concept, as the ideal you hold up here and absent of regulatory control, is eventually self destructive with all competition absorbed into one monopoly who can then charge what they like for the product. Capitalism, as a system, will have to change and evolve according to the needs of its society.

You just stated that capitilism is bad. and yes, noone is 100% conservative or liberal. another yes to liberals do support communism. thats one of the reasons they hated reagan, he brought down russia. russia was considered a paradise for liberals. they only hoped they could make this country to be like russia. and a final yes to the fact that i think i am contributing here. im trying to toss some common sense into these posts to offset the liberal bilge. i can only hope more people will come to their senses.

[Daumantas]

Originally posted by maniactickler
You just stated that capitilism is bad. and yes, noone is 100% conservative or liberal. another yes to liberals do support communism. thats one of the reasons they hated reagan, he brought down russia. russia was considered a paradise for liberals. they only hoped they could make this country to be like russia. and a final yes to the fact that i think i am contributing here. im trying to toss some common sense into these posts to offset the liberal bilge. i can only hope more people will come to their senses.

You make arguments like this, and you talk about OTHER PEOPLE coming to THEIR senses?

Russia a "liberal paradise?" Gee, I'm sure all of the Constitutional Democrats of Russia circa 1917 would agree with you. Whoops, sorry - those liberals were all either killed or imprisoned by the Bolsheviks. Well, how about the Mensheviks - nope, them too...

You're proving Big Jim's point perfectly - everyone left of George Bush is a liberal, which is the same thing as a communist, which is true only if you're a right-wing nutcase.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by maniactickler
This is just the liberal class envy in play. they are jealous of success. if it was up to liberals, capitalism would be abolished. that way noone could be successful. they want everyone to be equally miserable. hmm..sounds like the old USSR.

Dude... do you even read my posts all the way through? You're using a quote from me that denounces Communism to say I'm a Commie. Are you illiterate or just idiotic?

Seriously folks... I'm not jealous of success; I'm wary of oppression. Some of the "success" in this country results from oppression. Some of it also results from inheritance. Then there is that part of success that actually comes from hard work. If you start your own business and follow all the tax laws and treat your workers well, then yeah, I respect your success. However, there are a lot of people in the business field that don't do that. They use people to make a lot of money, trick them into contracts and fees, and then call it success. A good example of this are credit card companies and cell phone companies. That's not success, that's treachery.

[kis123]

Originally posted by MrMacphisto
Dude... do you even read my posts all the way through? You're using a quote from me that denounces Communism to say I'm a Commie. Are you illiterate or just idiotic?

Seriously folks... I'm not jealous of success; I'm wary of oppression. Some of the "success" in this country results from oppression. Some of it also results from inheritance. Then there is that part of success that actually comes from hard work. If you start your own business and follow all the tax laws and treat your workers well, then yeah, I respect your success. However, there are a lot of people in the business field that don't do that. They use people to make a lot of money, trick them into contracts and fees, and then call it success. A good example of this are credit card companies and cell phone companies. That's not success, that's treachery.

Yeah, what he said! I wish I could've said it just like this!:D I don't mind you making your money the right way. If you make it off the backs of hard working people by ripping them off, you're wrong. You may be rich, but you'll spend the rest of your life trying to hoard more to serve your paranoia because you didn't earn it right in the first place.

[august spies]

capitalism stole my virginity

[maniactickler]

Im not saying every single liberal wants communism. but definately a majority. then might not even realize they do either. dont take it personally. im just here to help. and of course theres treachery out there. with big companies and everyday joes. its a crazy world out there. you have to be on your toes. alot of people fall for scams due to ignorance also. id go as far as to say some people even deserve it. but you cant deny that the liberal media tries to divide this country. either by rich/poor, black/white, man/woman. most liberals would love a world where noone was better than the other. where everyone was equal. we are just numbers to them.

[august spies]

mania, i dont think you understand the definition of a liberal.

ill go out on a limb here and assume your one of those right wing clones who burns picture of bill clinton every night. I guess what im saying is that "liberal" to you means democrats.

Well the demcorats have done more destruction to the left than many republicans have done. It was the democrats who killed che guevara, it was the democrats who brought the fascists to power in brazil, carter was supporting death squads in el salvador before reagan, and carter supported suhartos genocide in timor.\

Clinton put NAFTA through and supported the crushing(attempted) of the zapatista resistence in chiapas.

Yes i do believe the media, along with their bosses the government and big corporations are waging a massive classwar on global working people.

Now the media is liberal in the sense that its not openly racist(for the most part) so i dont see where you think its trying to devide whites and blacks. However calling the media "left" would be insane.

liberals want world like all capialists do, driven by greed,lots of poor people, and money buys all the power you want.

[MrMacphisto]

Again Maniac... You're confusing Communism with Socialism. big difference... A lot of liberals want more socialized amenities, like healthcare and education. Such ideas are designed to start people off equally. What individuals do with this equal start is up to them. Some will get rich, others will be middle class, and still others will either hit some bad luck or make dumb decisions and enter poverty. C'est la vie.... The important thing is to give poor people and the middle class a good start in their lives, because the rich can take care of themselves.