BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jan 05 - 06:07 PM

Chongo says he has a mango plantation to sell you, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: robomatic
Date: 08 Jan 05 - 05:41 PM

I don't think of it as punishment at all, Amos, and i think your response is sexist. In fact, I think I'll check with ACLU on that...

It's a ..... lifestyle change with prejudice, yeah, that's the ticket!

Besides it will improve quality time with his, er,..., her kids. I suspect there is not enough of it at present, and it's all George and Tony's fault.

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 05 - 04:36 PM

It does sound like cruel and unusual punishment. There's something about it in the Constitution.

Of course, as Bush and his people have demonstrated, it is easy and often convenient to disagree with the Constitution and ignore it successfully. All this chatter about it being sacrosanct or a Great Experiment and not to be trifled with is just a bunch of liberal mumbo-jumbo -- it's just paper after all, right?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: robomatic
Date: 08 Jan 05 - 04:26 PM

I'm not sure of any legal underpinnings that require captured terrorists to be treated as formal prisoners of war.

There does seem to be some confusion as to whether we're fighting a war or engaging in extravagant international legal 'extraditions with prejudice." On the whole I support the activities of the ACLU so if they want to sniff around this one a little and then explain WHY they come to these conclusions I'll be happy for the input.

I am against torture mainly because of what it does to US, and because it is generally counterproductive. I listen to the talking heads proposing examples of where you have to free a captured hostage and you have a bad guy so why not make him uncomfortable. But the reality is that it doesn't happen that way, and people don't behave that way.

On the other side, I recently listened to a talking head saying that torture should be given a legal status, and one could obtain a writ of torture after presenting sufficient cause to a 'torture' judge. That sounded not only officious, objectionable, but also time consuming and ineffective - the perfect legal solution, the worst of all worlds. which brings me back to my feeling that torture is bad because of what it does to us.

On the other hand, I subscribe to the suggestion that if Usama should ever be captured, he should be handled by the best of surgeons, given a sexual reassignment, then returned to his people. But I don't think that's torture, not by my standards.

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Once Famous
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 06:14 PM

Maybe Tia has it memorized. It's her favorite read while sitting on the can.

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 05:55 PM

Page number TIA?


DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 02:44 PM

"Do no evil and you won't have to worry about the Patriot Act."

- DougR, 2005

"If you have nothing to hide, there is nothing to be afraid of."

- Hitler Youth Handbook, 1937

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 01:50 PM

Amos: Members of Al Quieda and the Taliban are exempt from the Geneva Convention. They represesnt no country, have not themselves, signed on to the Convention and you can be certain that any prisoners they take can look forward to only one thing:the removal of their head.

And your rhetoric does not to convince me that the ACLU does anything other than promote the far-left's philosophy. I can see why you support them. I do not.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 07:16 PM

Martin, Doug:

I think you guys have seriously gotten the ACLU mixed up with someone else. They understand the issues that arise in times of war -- even an undeclared war.

DougR, you rassertion that the ACLU would frown on the capture of enemies in war-time is disingenuous and barbarous. The line that is drawn by the Geneva Convention is against the peculiarly cruel and unusual treatments that people have come up with, including extreme methods of torture, to use against their imprisoned enemies.

Maybe in your bloodlust for revenge you see nothing wrong with doing to a prisoner the worst things you can imagine, to make him pay, individually, for your whole nation's losses at war. The Geneva Convention, in a moment of relative clarity, was developed to prevent exactly that kind of blinded sadism from making crude animals out of human beings.

To defend such practices is to promote humanity's inhumanity and the erosion of civilization. This is waaaay beyond the effort and commitment needed to win the war. Is that where you want to go with your blood-lust and fanatacism?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 07:07 PM

Nah, Robo-man. What I am suggestoing is that if Dan Rather could get within 3 feet of Saddam, I'm sure a blind CIA operative could have as well... But I'm sure there are a lot of folks out there who wouldn't have minded seeing Dan Rather get blowed up...

Now, I ain't no Saddam apologist but would someone with *real facts* (as opposed to them homemade made-up facts) like to discuss the numbers of folks who were killed by Saddam in the year before the US invasion, or two years before, or three, etc???

Then would this same person like to continue the discussion into the number of deaths that were the results of the sanctions??? And perhaps the number of Kurds that died after Bush I rolled them under the bus last time around??? Or where Saddam got the gas he used on "his own people" (well, not really his own people) or why even after this occured, Don Rumsfeld went to Iraq and gave Saddam a bunch of gifts from Bush I and a big pat on the back???

Yeah, any Bushite wanta tackle these sticky questions???

Didn't think so...

If it won't fitr on a bumper sticker, the Bushites can't handle the tough questions...

And please, no endless copy and paste. Lets hear it in your words. But please provide your sources, thankee...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 06:54 PM

"Do no evil and you won't have to worry about the Gestapo..."

No indeed. Enthusiastic supporters of any repressive regime can usually count on being left alone. In fact, there is probably a lucrative job for such types, turning their enemies and neighbours in, as long as the SySStem itself endures.

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 06:50 PM

Doug R has got it right.

I say look up anyone you want. If you have nothing to worry about, no big deal.

Frank, do you have anything to worry about? Do you wish to protect people who do have something to worry about?

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: robomatic
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 06:46 PM

Bobert, Dan RAther got 3 feed from Saddam...
Are you saying we should have made him into a suicide bomber?

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 06:17 PM

Do no evil and you won't have to worry about the Patriot Act. As far as I'm concerned the FBI can look up my records at the library for the past sixty years. There's nothing there that would cause me any problems, and I am a avid reader. They want to check my background? Okay by me.

And as to checking with the ACLU, Guest Frank ...surely you jest if you offer that organization as being fair minded. The ACLU would probably ban taking terrorists prisoners if they had their way. Must be careful not to tromp on the civil liberties of terrorists, you know, even if they may have just tried to blow up a school house filled with children. Gimme a break.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 06:07 PM

Saddam was a dictator who killed 10s of thousands of his own people, bobert.

"menawhile back at Iraq, another 47 Iragis and 3 Americans died that wouldn't have died today under Saddam"

C'mon bobert. I just don't figure you to have shit for brains.

Greg F., you post looks like you signed off as "idiot"

Thanks for the confession.

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 05:48 PM

Killer dictator, Roboman?

Opps...

Sorry...

I thought you were talking about Bush...

Awwww, jus' funnin'... Kinda...

One thing I think you and I can agree with is that Saddam might have been a "bad man" but even as bad a man as he was he wasn't wasting Iragi kids and women at the rate that the US and the UK are...

The invasion was a stupid decision... If Bush wanted him "offed" then he should have just turned it over to the CIA and had Saddam offed.

(But Bobert. Ain't that against some kinda international law?)

Yeah probably is but beat the heack out of killing a hundred thousand women, old folks and kids...

(But Bobert. The CIA couldn't get close enough to off Saddam.)

Bull. Dan Rather got three feet from him.

(But Bobert. Iraq is now a free country.)

Bull.

(But Bobert. Iraq is going to have democracy.)

Bull.

(But Bobert, Saddam tried to kill George's daddy.)

Bull.

(Mushroom clouds?)

Ditto

(Aluminum tubes? Osoma on Saddam's payroll? Oh yeah, WMD!!!???.....................................)

Bull, bull and more bull...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 04:10 PM

I lived through McCarthyism. It was then the doctrine of "Clear and Present Danger" through which innocent people lost their jobs through the oppression of McCarthy, Red Channels, the HUAC and the Tenney Commission. Now we have Bush, Clear Channels, a partisan Republican congress and the theo-fascist hypo-Christians. Plug in the word "terrorist" for "communist" and you can see that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

The same thing is happening today with the introduction of the Patriot Act.
Any one who dissents from the opinion that US should have pre-emptively invaded Iraq is subject to the same kind of purge that existed in the 50's. It is happening.   I won't go into details about how the FBI and Secret Service are targeting people such as at the Art Car Museum in Houston or a freshman at Durham Tech in North Carolina. A program officer at the US Institute of Peace and other examples. You will see more in the next four years.

Don't take my word for it. Check with the ACLU. Anyone who thinks ACLu is partial to partisan efforts only need to check with their defence of neo-theocrats who had their rights violated. The ACLU defends everyone regardless of political or religous views. They can be counted on for accurate reporting.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 01:40 PM

I appreciate that, robomatic. :-) I hope we get to do that someday, and you can buy me a glass of white wine instead, I guess. I'm not much of a beer drinker.

And, yes, these things are easier to see clearly with hindsight. I would do everything possible to forestall and avoid a war if I were a politician...but if it's unavoidable, then my heart is with the people defending their own home ground, no matter what hat or uniform they are wearing while they do it. Their homes and children are at their backs, and they know it. That's why I cannot, for instance, help feeling a deep sympathy for Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and the thin, ragged ranks of grey that fought desperately against repeated Union invasions of their homeground in 1861-65...quite regardless of the slavery issue.

Anyway, thanks for the kind thoughts, and I return them, with respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: robomatic
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 12:50 PM

LH, I appreciate your detailed response, especially because I suspect you have had to repeat yourself on more than one occassion in making your position clear. I think you have made it clear enough, but in doing so you employ an objectivity which is clear only at a distance and only in hindsight, thus (and I do not mean this about you personally) imbuing the printed after-the-fact judgement with a gloss of righteousness and master of the facts such as graced Fortinbras when he entered the gory scene at the end of the last act of Hamlet. You are trying to impose legitimacy on carnage. I don't know if that is possible in a meaningful way (i.e. that you will ever get anyone but yourself to agree with your definitions. The neo-Nazis maintain that Hitler was fighting a defensive war for his race. Japan argued that they were kicking the colonists out of Asia).

As for wanting Saddam back, I wasn't referring to your post, but to Bobert's.

As to the rest of your post, time will tell. But for the record, sometime I'd like to buy you a pint.

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 01:00 AM

We'll never agree on the use of the A-bombs, robomatic. I'm okay with that. Just accept that we don't agree about it.

I was not defending Saddam, I was merely pointing out to Doug that one does not have to be personally affected by a situation in order to oppose it on principle. That's all. To construe my comments as a defence of Saddam would be to misunderstand my point entirely.

I regard most acts of war as acts of terrorism, except these few:

Any direct defence of one's own homeground against a foreign invader (by land) or attacker (by sea or air) is a legitimate action, in my opinion, and it is not terrorism.

Therefore, I am in support of the English when they fought against the German blitz and when they protected their shipping at sea and fought the German Navy, for example. I am in support of the English, French, and Americans invading France and other occupied nations to throw out the German occupiers. I am not in support of the indiscriminate terror bombings of Hamburg, Dresden, many other German cities, and many Japanese cities. Those bombings were terrorist strikes, as were the German bombings of British metropolitan areas, and various other civilian centres in Europe, and as were the Japanese atrocities committed in China, for example.

I am not in favour of continuing wars to the point of totally occupying, smashing, and humiliating another nation and forcing it into unconditional surrender. Such actions are never necessary in order to "end a war", and they are the result of an arrogant and merciless mentality, for whom mere victory is not enough. Such people are as bad as the people they fight against, and they do not deserve victory. Such victories should be cause for shame, not pride.

I regard Stalin's pogroms on his own people as terrorism. He killed millions in the Ukraine. I regard Stalin's defence of Russia against the Axis invaders as legitimate defence.

I regard Saddam's attacks on Iran and Kuwait as terrorism. I regard Iran's defence against the Iraqi invasion as legitimate.

I regard the English incursions into France in the 13 and 1400's as terrorism. I regard Joan of Arc's campaigns against the English invaders as legitimate defence.

I regard the recent USA/British invasion of Iraq as terrorism. I regard military action on the part of Iraqis to get them out as legitimate defence...when it targets military personnel or political personnel...but not when it targets innocent civilians.

Any nation has the legitimate right to fight an invader or an occupying power and to recover its own sovereignty.

The USA and Britain are presently committed to a terrorist occupation of Iraq, with no actual justification whatsoever, in my opinion. That they are stimulating terrorist reprisals by Iraqis in response to that is not only not surprising, it's inevitable. They will continue to experience such reprisals until they leave. 25 million Iraqis will outlast 150,000 Americans. I guarantee it. Vietnam outlasted 500,000 Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: robomatic
Date: 05 Jan 05 - 09:43 AM

LH:
We've been there before in a different thread. Unless you have your own definition of 'terrorist acts', then ending the war with Japan was a legitimate use of atomic weapons at the time, decided after a lot of thought by a lot of people. If you want to go head to head on this, let's take it to a different thread or revive the one just past.

Stick to the subject.

As for 'people who wouldn't have died under Saddam' Bob, how can you possibly say? Sounds a lot like the Israelites who really missed the Pharaoh to me. Did Saddam 'make the trains run on time?"

If your objections to the current state of affairs are so great that you seek reinstituting the rule of a killer dictator, why not start a campaign to release the son-of-a-bitch? That could have its own thread, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 05 - 09:30 AM

Well, yes, the Manhattan Project led directly to what were probably the two most heinous terrorist acts in history, as a matter of fact.

Deliberate terrorizing and killing of people in an indiscriminate fashion IS terrorism, regardless of whether it's done by an individual, a group, or a government...and regardless of what excuses are trotted out to justify it.

Governments have been committing terrorism as long as they have been fighting wars with one another. They only refer to it AS terrorism when someone else does it to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Jan 05 - 09:25 AM

Sorry to post again so soon, but on reflection, I do have a personal example. For several years, I have been working with a Russian scientist (former military) through the ISTC program (www.ISTC.ru)to channel his brilliance into humanitarian, rather than WMD, devices. He used to be able to travel to the US, but can no longer get a visa. The US embassy in Moscow reports that they cannot give him a visa due to some provision of the Patriot Act. Hmmm. By that logic, all those who worked on the Manhattan project should be on a terrorist watch list.

Again, not my personal civil liberties. But, personal experience - not aluminum foil hat internet stuff - and troubling to me at least.

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Jan 05 - 08:52 AM

To Review:

What lack of civil liberties have you personally endured...

Translation:

1. If it ain't happenin' to me personally, then it ain't happenin'.

2. I'm all right, Jack.


Idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Jan 05 - 08:46 AM

Won't begin to presume to speak for Frank. But, here's my two cents. I have no evidence that my personal civil liberties have been eroded. However, that is just the point. How would I know if the government has checked on my library book list, or tapped my phone? Patriot allows them to do that (and more) much more easily and with less oversight. For instance, the FBI has reported that they requested records for 300,000 hotel guests in Las Vegas last year. I was in Las Vegas twice. Can you assure me that my civil liberties were not eroded? For another instance, immigration officials report that they have detained 3 to 5 thousand people over the last year - almost exclusively of middle eastern and south asian citizenship. Although none (0, zip, nada) were charged with any crimes, most were deported or encouraged to leave "voluntarily" even if they had proper visas or green cards. "Ah ha!" you say..."but that DID NOT affect you PERSONALLY!" You're right, but please go do a Google on Martin Niemoller.

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jan 05 - 07:11 PM

menawhile back at Iraq, another 47 Iragis and 3 Americans died that wouldn't have died today under Saddam...

And the beat goes on...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 05 - 07:03 PM

You can be against something in principle, Doug, without having been affected by it directly and personally.

Example: Saddam Hussein has done nothing to you or me personally. Nothing whatsoever. Yet a whole lot of people felt that he had to be "taken out", despite the fact that he had done nothing to them personally.

Follow me on that?

I think you oughta just leave Frank alone and respect his right to his own opinion on the Patriot Act. If he's against it in principle, it's got nothing to do with whether it has yet affected him personally or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 04 Jan 05 - 02:56 PM

Mebbe so, Frank, but you still have not addressed my question. As Martin has pointed out, your post consistes of generalities or perhaps things you read on the Internet. Have you, yourself, personally, alone, been singled out to lose your civil liberties as a result of the Patriot Act? If so, tell us about it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Once Famous
Date: 04 Jan 05 - 02:22 PM

Really meant to say who are not flaming liberals.

Yikes.

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 05 - 01:30 PM

Oooo! Just keep it up, Martin. Retribution is winging your way on the swift and terrible wings of justice! And don't go dissing my cousin Floyd either.

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Once Famous
Date: 04 Jan 05 - 12:29 PM

There's also LarryK.

there's also probably shitloads more out there (yep, folksingers who are flaming liberals) who just don't want to waste their time here for one reason or another.

Your Uncle Abdul needs his dirty nightshirt washed!

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 05 - 12:10 PM

That does it, Martin! You have insulted my uncle Abdul. I am going to come down to Chicago and hunt you down remorselessly for that. You will suffer the tortures of the damned before I finally wring the last vestiges of life out of your devastated form and cast your miserable bodily remains to the sewer rats! :-)

It's nice that Doug R is not totally alone here these days. He used to have a rough time with all us "liberals". I started feeling kinda sorry for him after awhile.

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Once Famous
Date: 04 Jan 05 - 12:09 PM

The usual generalities.

Please list 3-5 documented "instances."

Do you have a certain affection for the word "heresay?"

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 04 Jan 05 - 12:03 PM

Personal liberty in a democracy is a right to speak your mind without reprisals by others who violently disagree and have their own agenda. It is possible to be assaulted today by those who are crazy in their hatred of Liberals. This is how the Patriot Act works. It incites an intolerance for dialogue and assumes that if you disagree with the present Administration, you are an enemy. What it manages to do is discourage free speech and intrudes on civil rights. There are instances in which private citizens are intimidated by some law enforcement people as well as those who take the law into their own hands guided by a self-righteous narrow-minded and bigotted agenda. This kind of intrusion of civil liberties by demonizing dissent is well-documented and we all know someone who has suffered at the hands of this whether some of us want to deny it or not.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Once Famous
Date: 03 Jan 05 - 05:41 PM

Maybe they are holding some of your relatives, Bobert. you have an Uncle Abdul, perhaps?

I say better safe than sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jan 05 - 05:32 PM

Well, just for starters, the according to those who have been sent out to explain the Patriot Act, an American citizen can be detained, without being charged, shipped to a military base and kept there as long as the War on Terro lasts which Bush said is like, forever...

Now, has this happened? We don't friggin know becuase why, Bobert? Glad you asked. Well, evem after federal courts order Bush to do things legally he and his buddies just sandbag and do nothing... We can't even get a list of the folks that are being held???

Now if Clinton had pushed thru something like this every danged conservative over 4 years old would have screamed "Bloody commie" at him. But Bush does it and you so called conservatives, which you aren't jsut applaud. Bunch of followers as far as I can see. Bush ceratinly has shook out the followers from the conservatives, that's fir sure...

What I would remind you all is even though you are certain that your crooks have indeed figured out a way to corrupt the system so badly that progressives, no matter their future numbers, will never regain power, it could happen and all this crappy stuff can and mopst likely will be used on you... So enjoy... but rememeber this little warning...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jan 05 - 04:00 PM

Well ...They were sure "Gen Custer" Kerry was going to swat these pesky redskins and save the World,but the redskins turned out to be Bushwhackers, the General had no lead in his pencil..and now were all up shit creek...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Once Famous
Date: 03 Jan 05 - 02:45 PM

Why, Ake?

were they saying anything at that time?

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jan 05 - 02:14 PM

You "good old boys" are sure giving The "democrats" some stick.

Must be pay back time for their crazy stance before the election...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Once Famous
Date: 03 Jan 05 - 02:13 PM

The key word of course is crediblity, or as usual, lack of the usual unsubstantiated generalizations.

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 03 Jan 05 - 01:06 PM

Nope, Martin, I wasn't aware of that. That certainly would lend credibility to his post, though, were he to point that out. Of course then I would want to know, "what kind of liberties?"

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Once Famous
Date: 03 Jan 05 - 10:41 AM

They can't. dead air from these whiners, DougR.

Don't you know that Frank has personally interviewed thousands of Americans who have lost liberties from the Patriot Act?

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 03 Jan 05 - 12:02 AM

Uh, nothing, Dianavan. Are you?

Frank: Are you evading my question, or perhaps you didn't understand it? I'll try again. What personal liberties have you lost, Frank, as a result of the Patriot act? Greg F., if you have lost some or even one, perhaps you would also share your experience with us?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jan 05 - 08:33 PM

Good point, Frank... Let's not forget that Hitler buddied up to the "industrialists" in his rise to power...

Then another elememnt of facism is super patriotism... Well, these days ta better have one of them "support the troops" ribbons on the back of yer car...

No really, I've talked about this in other threads but there are lots of similarities between Germany in the late 30's and the US of today...

Too bad that most Bushites are too busy patting themselves on the back for putting down the intellectuals to realize just what a ttrap they are helping to build that can one day be used on them.. But sure is nice being in the winner's circle, ain't it... Screw the costs...

Ol' Tom Jefferson has just puked yet again...

Bobert

Oh, and BTW, fir you Bushites who may not have read Russ Bellant's "Old Nazis, the New Right and the Republican Party" I'd suggest staying the heck away from it unless you have the ability to rethink positions... which is very much questionable...

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Jan 05 - 07:39 PM

of course they return with stress disorders. It is very stressful to be shot at and bombed. My father had nightmares about Spandau machine guns all the rest of his life after ww2 That is the measure of the soldier's devotion to your country. If you go to war, you're not going to come back the same.

look! YOU are at war. Admittedly not the sort of war America is used to. this isn't something happening the other side of the world, and the unlucky ones don't come home - this is more like what happened in Europe where there are bombers overhead, terrorists sticking a bombs in MacDonalds full of kids.

The IRA used to have a good phrase explaining the situation when they stuck bombs in pubs , and at military band concerts in the park with old ladies watching, and chucked them at the horse guards trotting outside Buckingham palace. they said you are ALL legitimate targets.

And that is your situation since 9/11. you are the legitimate targets.

You hate Bush. Fair enough. But whoever was in the White House was going to have to react vigorously and show the world at large that there are consequences for doing what they did.

Those kids with their arms and legs blown off......not a really nice job, politics is it? But realistically I don't think you would have seen much difference whoever was president at this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jan 05 - 07:02 PM

Martin:

Accusing someone of hating America because they hold out for tolerance of diversity, open expression of differing viewpoints, and freedom to disagree with a heavy-handed government? These things are what MADE America. Did you becopme a robot on purpose? Or did somebody slip you a schtupid pill? Frank is right on the oney about what defines the mechanisms of text-book fascism, and all you can do is sneer and denigrate? Come on.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Jan 05 - 06:57 PM

"Many soldiers are returning with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and will attempt to take their role unsuccessfully in society."

That is a fact that cannot be denied.

Doug R. - What are you doing, on a personal level, to help these soldiers resume a productive life at home?

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Once Famous
Date: 02 Jan 05 - 06:42 PM

Man, you are such a far, far lefty Frank that it's extremely laughable.

It's amazing how you hate America.

Just remember, "the revolution will not be televised."

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 02 Jan 05 - 06:36 PM

The classical definition of fascism is that the government is actually run by corporations that determine public policy. The government is literally bought by an oligarchy of business people headed by a dictatorial regime. Dissent is ridiculed, discouraged at the least and destroyed at the max. It also is indicative of a one-party system. Under this regime, people are persecuted for having contrary beliefs to the "dicatator" and this takes a form of abuse.
Dialogue about differing opinions is no longer an option. Jingoism, patriotic posturing, war-mongering, and violent conversation and deeds are also symptomatic of this illness.

Is this beginning to look familiar to anyone?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Jan 05 - 04:44 AM

that's a fair old spread just over a thousand to over one hundred thousand.
not that its any comfort to the friends and relatives of the 1300 people, but you were never going to unseat Saddam Hussein any other way.

Hitler killed 20 million people in the Russian campaign alone. And you still have the democratic means to unseat your president and a free press. Something the German people did not have under Hitler.

the story in England was that the good citizens of Chicago and Boston were joyfully still singing the rebel songs and sticking dollars in the collecting tin when the IRA had done in a far bigger proportion of the Irish population.

Maybe you're right though. i failed maths.