wilmshurst 0 #176 February 12, 2003 I read in Time that given the reduction in passenger numbers and increase in oil prices, it has been estimated that half of the major US airlines would be bankrupt in one year if there was another gulf war. Also, the US only paid for a fraction of the cost of the last Gulf War (I think the figure was 10%). I believe that other countries pretty much ended up paying the US to fight. It would seem that things may be different this time. What's the deal?? Does Bush have brass balls or is he two ants short of a picnic? The US economy is already struggling. What happens when the body bags start coming home and the economy turns to custard. Why is the US so very keen to fight??? The only thing worse than a cold toilet seat is a warm toilet seat. The only thing worse than a cold toilet seat is a warm toilet seat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #177 February 12, 2003 Define "Those fuckers" I thought they all died when the planes hit the buildings. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #178 February 12, 2003 The info is not 12 years old.. Sorry my friend.. Those satellite photo's were new. We can't find the WMD's RIGHT NOW.. Common... lol Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #179 February 12, 2003 Quote Define "Those fuckers" I thought they all died when the planes hit the buildings. Those fuckere = Those that have done harm to and will do harm to our country and allies.. Those fuckers must go down.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #180 February 12, 2003 QuoteThe info is not 12 years old.. Sorry my friend.. Those satellite photo's were new. We can't find the WMD's RIGHT NOW.. Common... lol Rhino Then how do WE know that they exist at all? Because WE sold them (or the means of making them) to Iraq during Reagan and Bush I administrations? PS the 12 year old "intelligence" concerned links between Iraq and Al Quaeda. And it WAS 12 years old. Have you ever wondered why one of Bush II's first acts after becoming president was to prevent the release of the administration records of Bush I? Didn't think so. You are just too ready to believe the politicians. They are the most venal lying bastards in the universe, and you should treat everything they say with great skepticism.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zinger 0 #181 February 12, 2003 *** You are just too ready to believe the politicians. They are the most venal lying bastards in the universe, and you should treat everything they say with great skepticism. Quote I think you need to watch less movies and maybe spend the extra time at your township/city/county/state or federal public meetings, Then you will see that most politicians are regular people and most are trying to make things better for you and all the people. My father was a politician for 38 years, never lost an election, heard ALOT of people say he is the most honest man they ever met. I also am very much involved in my local government and hold a chair behind the big desk and I don't do it just to lie and cheat and it's defiantly not for the money because it don't pay nearly enough to deal with people like you. My Mother and Father where married when I was conceived and so was my fathers parents so your bastard name don't apply either. ------Have a good one!-------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #182 February 12, 2003 Big difference between local, grass roots politics, and national, corporate sponsored politics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #183 February 12, 2003 QuoteHave you ever wondered why one of Bush II's first acts after becoming president was to prevent the release of the administration records of Bush I? Didn't think so. If that is true it is interesting.. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #184 February 12, 2003 QuoteIn 1974, Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act, which guaranteed citizens access to public information. Four years later, the Presidential Records Act, which defied Richard Nixon's last attempt to conceal his papers and tape recordings, stated that presidential records are the property of the government and do not belong to former presidents. In a spirit of compromise, the act guaranteed public access to papers 12 years after a president has left office. Last January, former President Reagan's most sensitive records became available for public scrutiny. The Bush administration, however, delayed the release of some 68,000 records three times. Then, on Nov. 1, President Bush issued an executive order that gives himself -- as well as former presidents -- the right to veto requests to open any presidential records. Even if a former president wants his records to be released, the executive order permits Bush to exercise executive privilege. It also gives him and former presidents an indefinite amount of time to ponder any requests. Bush's executive order openly violates the Presidential Records Act passed by Congress in 1978. In defending the executive order, the White House has argued that these new restrictions balance public access with "national security concerns." But few archivists, journalists or historians believe that national security has anything to do with Bush's executive order. That is because national security documents are already excluded from public scrutiny. Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists agrees. "We are not talking about protecting national security information of properly classified documents." Thomas S. Blanton, executive director of the National Security Archive, notes that "The Presidential Records Act was designed to shift power over presidential records to the government and ultimately to the citizens. This shifts the power back." Consider, for example, the Iran-Contra scandal that tainted the Reagan administration. In order to finance opposition to the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, certain high-level administration officials sold weapons to Iran. This was illegal. But despite a huge public scandal, no government official ever went to prison. At the time, some suspected that then-Vice President George Bush, a previous head of the CIA, knew more than he let on about the illegal Iran-Contra scheme. The elder Bush, however, always protested that he "was out of the loop." Still, other historians think that the current Bush White House, deeply immersed in the war on terrorism, may be worried about fresh revelations that detail the Reagan administration's strong financial support of the Taliban as they rose to power. To deny the public's right to presidential papers is a violation of the law -- as well as the spirit of a democratic society. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #185 February 12, 2003 QuoteQuoteHave you ever wondered why one of Bush II's first acts after becoming president was to prevent the release of the administration records of Bush I? Didn't think so. If that is true it is interesting.. Rhino Executive Order 13233.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #186 February 12, 2003 Quote*** You are just too ready to believe the politicians. They are the most venal lying bastards in the universe, and you should treat everything they say with great skepticism. Quote I think you need to watch less movies and maybe spend the extra time at your township/city/county/state or federal public meetings, Then you will see that most politicians are regular people and most are trying to make things better for you and all the people. My father was a politician for 38 years, never lost an election, heard ALOT of people say he is the most honest man they ever met. I also am very much involved in my local government and hold a chair behind the big desk and I don't do it just to lie and cheat and it's defiantly not for the money because it don't pay nearly enough to deal with people like you. My Mother and Father where married when I was conceived and so was my fathers parents so your bastard name don't apply either. There are exceptions to all rules. Maybe you'll explain the purpose of Executive Order 13233, if not to cover up something embarrassing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #187 February 12, 2003 Speaking of politicians, it seems now we're trying to convey two different stories to make everyone happy. A) Osama Bin Laden is closely tied to the Iraqi government. B) We are successful, Osama Bin Laden is dead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jfields 0 #188 February 12, 2003 Quote Speaking of politicians, it seems now we're trying to convey two different stories to make everyone happy. A) Osama Bin Laden is closely tied to the Iraqi government. B) We are successful, Osama Bin Laden is dead. The summary is: We don't know our ass from a hole in the ground, but we do know we don't like Osama Bin Laden. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #189 February 12, 2003 QuoteSpeaking of politicians, it seems now we're trying to convey two different stories to make everyone happy. A) Osama Bin Laden is closely tied to the Iraqi government. B) We are successful, Osama Bin Laden is dead. Here's a link that describes how we got in to all this mess. clicky... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #190 February 12, 2003 >Those that have done harm to and will do harm to our country and > allies.. Those fuckers must go down.. I agree; the head fucker just released another tape calling on all Arabs to rise up and fight the US. We have to find him and the rest of his organization and neutralize them one way or another. Oddly, he also called Hussein an evil dictator and his regime a corrupt one. From CNN: ----------------- "My overall sense is that if there's one person rooting for the United States to go to war against Iraq, it's Osama bin Laden," said Juliette Kayyem, a Harvard University professor who was a member of the National Commission on Terrorism. ---------------- Looks like we'll be fighting a war for Bin Laden, too. That's a little odd. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #191 February 12, 2003 > . . . but we do know we don't like Osama Bin Laden. Apparently they don't like Hussein even more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JJohnson 0 #192 February 12, 2003 We are dealing with people (Bin Laden and Hussien) that share a mutual hatred of the U.S...at least currently as we are not on "their" side for the moment. Given that there is a link between them, even if it is 12 years old, I would not assume that the link is completely severed. What better way to hide such an allegiance than to deny it. Funding between the 2, could be channeled through so many places it could never be traced. Not saying this is the case, but it is a good possibility. I don't believe half the shit our governement says and I believe way less than that from the Iraqis.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #193 February 12, 2003 >We are dealing with people (Bin Laden and Hussien) that share a > mutual hatred of the U.S...at least currently as we are not on "their" > side for the moment. I'm not so sure about that. We have this policy that "the enemy of our enemy is our friend." In the 80's we funded the Mujahideen (part of which became Al Quaeda) because they hated the USSR, and with our money and weapons they would fight them for us. Nowadays we're funding Kurdish rebels to fight Hussein. Bin Laden just released a tape which calls Hussein an evil dictator, and calls he and his government infidels. I suspect we won't fund him to fight Hussein this time, but if we do attack Iraq, we will oddly find ourselves on the same side as Al Quaeda (although I'm sure they will still hate us as much.) If anything, attacking Iraq will do wonders for Al Quaeda's recruiting effort. We will have one more war that Arab extremists will use to prove that we hate all Arabs; Al Quaeda's propaganda will start making a lot more sense to mainstream Arabs. That doesn't bode well for our future efforts to prevent terrorism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JJohnson 0 #194 February 12, 2003 That policy is a good thing...get some other poor sap to do your dirty work for you...what could be a better example of diplomacy???? However, supporting the people fighting an invading force, like the Afghanis against the Soviets....Is that really a bad thing? They were not fighting the Soviets for us, they were doing it for themselves. Repurcussions of a war with Iraq will definetely lead to more terrorist attacks against us.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #195 February 12, 2003 >That policy is a good thing... Well, except when it creates groups like Al Quaeda. And I think that funding them now to take out Hussein would be a seriously stupid move. Funding the Kurds isn't as dumb but it's close. >Repurcussions of a war with Iraq will definetely lead to more terrorist >attacks against us. Yep. I just hope we go into the war knowing that and accepting the risk. I have this image of watching the Sears Tower burn to the ground while people say "how could this have happened? We were told war with Iraq was a war against terror!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 8 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
PhillyKev 0 #182 February 12, 2003 Big difference between local, grass roots politics, and national, corporate sponsored politics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #183 February 12, 2003 QuoteHave you ever wondered why one of Bush II's first acts after becoming president was to prevent the release of the administration records of Bush I? Didn't think so. If that is true it is interesting.. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #184 February 12, 2003 QuoteIn 1974, Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act, which guaranteed citizens access to public information. Four years later, the Presidential Records Act, which defied Richard Nixon's last attempt to conceal his papers and tape recordings, stated that presidential records are the property of the government and do not belong to former presidents. In a spirit of compromise, the act guaranteed public access to papers 12 years after a president has left office. Last January, former President Reagan's most sensitive records became available for public scrutiny. The Bush administration, however, delayed the release of some 68,000 records three times. Then, on Nov. 1, President Bush issued an executive order that gives himself -- as well as former presidents -- the right to veto requests to open any presidential records. Even if a former president wants his records to be released, the executive order permits Bush to exercise executive privilege. It also gives him and former presidents an indefinite amount of time to ponder any requests. Bush's executive order openly violates the Presidential Records Act passed by Congress in 1978. In defending the executive order, the White House has argued that these new restrictions balance public access with "national security concerns." But few archivists, journalists or historians believe that national security has anything to do with Bush's executive order. That is because national security documents are already excluded from public scrutiny. Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists agrees. "We are not talking about protecting national security information of properly classified documents." Thomas S. Blanton, executive director of the National Security Archive, notes that "The Presidential Records Act was designed to shift power over presidential records to the government and ultimately to the citizens. This shifts the power back." Consider, for example, the Iran-Contra scandal that tainted the Reagan administration. In order to finance opposition to the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, certain high-level administration officials sold weapons to Iran. This was illegal. But despite a huge public scandal, no government official ever went to prison. At the time, some suspected that then-Vice President George Bush, a previous head of the CIA, knew more than he let on about the illegal Iran-Contra scheme. The elder Bush, however, always protested that he "was out of the loop." Still, other historians think that the current Bush White House, deeply immersed in the war on terrorism, may be worried about fresh revelations that detail the Reagan administration's strong financial support of the Taliban as they rose to power. To deny the public's right to presidential papers is a violation of the law -- as well as the spirit of a democratic society. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #185 February 12, 2003 QuoteQuoteHave you ever wondered why one of Bush II's first acts after becoming president was to prevent the release of the administration records of Bush I? Didn't think so. If that is true it is interesting.. Rhino Executive Order 13233.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #186 February 12, 2003 Quote*** You are just too ready to believe the politicians. They are the most venal lying bastards in the universe, and you should treat everything they say with great skepticism. Quote I think you need to watch less movies and maybe spend the extra time at your township/city/county/state or federal public meetings, Then you will see that most politicians are regular people and most are trying to make things better for you and all the people. My father was a politician for 38 years, never lost an election, heard ALOT of people say he is the most honest man they ever met. I also am very much involved in my local government and hold a chair behind the big desk and I don't do it just to lie and cheat and it's defiantly not for the money because it don't pay nearly enough to deal with people like you. My Mother and Father where married when I was conceived and so was my fathers parents so your bastard name don't apply either. There are exceptions to all rules. Maybe you'll explain the purpose of Executive Order 13233, if not to cover up something embarrassing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #187 February 12, 2003 Speaking of politicians, it seems now we're trying to convey two different stories to make everyone happy. A) Osama Bin Laden is closely tied to the Iraqi government. B) We are successful, Osama Bin Laden is dead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jfields 0 #188 February 12, 2003 Quote Speaking of politicians, it seems now we're trying to convey two different stories to make everyone happy. A) Osama Bin Laden is closely tied to the Iraqi government. B) We are successful, Osama Bin Laden is dead. The summary is: We don't know our ass from a hole in the ground, but we do know we don't like Osama Bin Laden. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #189 February 12, 2003 QuoteSpeaking of politicians, it seems now we're trying to convey two different stories to make everyone happy. A) Osama Bin Laden is closely tied to the Iraqi government. B) We are successful, Osama Bin Laden is dead. Here's a link that describes how we got in to all this mess. clicky... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #190 February 12, 2003 >Those that have done harm to and will do harm to our country and > allies.. Those fuckers must go down.. I agree; the head fucker just released another tape calling on all Arabs to rise up and fight the US. We have to find him and the rest of his organization and neutralize them one way or another. Oddly, he also called Hussein an evil dictator and his regime a corrupt one. From CNN: ----------------- "My overall sense is that if there's one person rooting for the United States to go to war against Iraq, it's Osama bin Laden," said Juliette Kayyem, a Harvard University professor who was a member of the National Commission on Terrorism. ---------------- Looks like we'll be fighting a war for Bin Laden, too. That's a little odd. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #191 February 12, 2003 > . . . but we do know we don't like Osama Bin Laden. Apparently they don't like Hussein even more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JJohnson 0 #192 February 12, 2003 We are dealing with people (Bin Laden and Hussien) that share a mutual hatred of the U.S...at least currently as we are not on "their" side for the moment. Given that there is a link between them, even if it is 12 years old, I would not assume that the link is completely severed. What better way to hide such an allegiance than to deny it. Funding between the 2, could be channeled through so many places it could never be traced. Not saying this is the case, but it is a good possibility. I don't believe half the shit our governement says and I believe way less than that from the Iraqis.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #193 February 12, 2003 >We are dealing with people (Bin Laden and Hussien) that share a > mutual hatred of the U.S...at least currently as we are not on "their" > side for the moment. I'm not so sure about that. We have this policy that "the enemy of our enemy is our friend." In the 80's we funded the Mujahideen (part of which became Al Quaeda) because they hated the USSR, and with our money and weapons they would fight them for us. Nowadays we're funding Kurdish rebels to fight Hussein. Bin Laden just released a tape which calls Hussein an evil dictator, and calls he and his government infidels. I suspect we won't fund him to fight Hussein this time, but if we do attack Iraq, we will oddly find ourselves on the same side as Al Quaeda (although I'm sure they will still hate us as much.) If anything, attacking Iraq will do wonders for Al Quaeda's recruiting effort. We will have one more war that Arab extremists will use to prove that we hate all Arabs; Al Quaeda's propaganda will start making a lot more sense to mainstream Arabs. That doesn't bode well for our future efforts to prevent terrorism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JJohnson 0 #194 February 12, 2003 That policy is a good thing...get some other poor sap to do your dirty work for you...what could be a better example of diplomacy???? However, supporting the people fighting an invading force, like the Afghanis against the Soviets....Is that really a bad thing? They were not fighting the Soviets for us, they were doing it for themselves. Repurcussions of a war with Iraq will definetely lead to more terrorist attacks against us.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #195 February 12, 2003 >That policy is a good thing... Well, except when it creates groups like Al Quaeda. And I think that funding them now to take out Hussein would be a seriously stupid move. Funding the Kurds isn't as dumb but it's close. >Repurcussions of a war with Iraq will definetely lead to more terrorist >attacks against us. Yep. I just hope we go into the war knowing that and accepting the risk. I have this image of watching the Sears Tower burn to the ground while people say "how could this have happened? We were told war with Iraq was a war against terror!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 8 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
PhillyKev 0 #187 February 12, 2003 Speaking of politicians, it seems now we're trying to convey two different stories to make everyone happy. A) Osama Bin Laden is closely tied to the Iraqi government. B) We are successful, Osama Bin Laden is dead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #188 February 12, 2003 Quote Speaking of politicians, it seems now we're trying to convey two different stories to make everyone happy. A) Osama Bin Laden is closely tied to the Iraqi government. B) We are successful, Osama Bin Laden is dead. The summary is: We don't know our ass from a hole in the ground, but we do know we don't like Osama Bin Laden. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #189 February 12, 2003 QuoteSpeaking of politicians, it seems now we're trying to convey two different stories to make everyone happy. A) Osama Bin Laden is closely tied to the Iraqi government. B) We are successful, Osama Bin Laden is dead. Here's a link that describes how we got in to all this mess. clicky... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #190 February 12, 2003 >Those that have done harm to and will do harm to our country and > allies.. Those fuckers must go down.. I agree; the head fucker just released another tape calling on all Arabs to rise up and fight the US. We have to find him and the rest of his organization and neutralize them one way or another. Oddly, he also called Hussein an evil dictator and his regime a corrupt one. From CNN: ----------------- "My overall sense is that if there's one person rooting for the United States to go to war against Iraq, it's Osama bin Laden," said Juliette Kayyem, a Harvard University professor who was a member of the National Commission on Terrorism. ---------------- Looks like we'll be fighting a war for Bin Laden, too. That's a little odd. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #191 February 12, 2003 > . . . but we do know we don't like Osama Bin Laden. Apparently they don't like Hussein even more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #192 February 12, 2003 We are dealing with people (Bin Laden and Hussien) that share a mutual hatred of the U.S...at least currently as we are not on "their" side for the moment. Given that there is a link between them, even if it is 12 years old, I would not assume that the link is completely severed. What better way to hide such an allegiance than to deny it. Funding between the 2, could be channeled through so many places it could never be traced. Not saying this is the case, but it is a good possibility. I don't believe half the shit our governement says and I believe way less than that from the Iraqis.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #193 February 12, 2003 >We are dealing with people (Bin Laden and Hussien) that share a > mutual hatred of the U.S...at least currently as we are not on "their" > side for the moment. I'm not so sure about that. We have this policy that "the enemy of our enemy is our friend." In the 80's we funded the Mujahideen (part of which became Al Quaeda) because they hated the USSR, and with our money and weapons they would fight them for us. Nowadays we're funding Kurdish rebels to fight Hussein. Bin Laden just released a tape which calls Hussein an evil dictator, and calls he and his government infidels. I suspect we won't fund him to fight Hussein this time, but if we do attack Iraq, we will oddly find ourselves on the same side as Al Quaeda (although I'm sure they will still hate us as much.) If anything, attacking Iraq will do wonders for Al Quaeda's recruiting effort. We will have one more war that Arab extremists will use to prove that we hate all Arabs; Al Quaeda's propaganda will start making a lot more sense to mainstream Arabs. That doesn't bode well for our future efforts to prevent terrorism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #194 February 12, 2003 That policy is a good thing...get some other poor sap to do your dirty work for you...what could be a better example of diplomacy???? However, supporting the people fighting an invading force, like the Afghanis against the Soviets....Is that really a bad thing? They were not fighting the Soviets for us, they were doing it for themselves. Repurcussions of a war with Iraq will definetely lead to more terrorist attacks against us.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #195 February 12, 2003 >That policy is a good thing... Well, except when it creates groups like Al Quaeda. And I think that funding them now to take out Hussein would be a seriously stupid move. Funding the Kurds isn't as dumb but it's close. >Repurcussions of a war with Iraq will definetely lead to more terrorist >attacks against us. Yep. I just hope we go into the war knowing that and accepting the risk. I have this image of watching the Sears Tower burn to the ground while people say "how could this have happened? We were told war with Iraq was a war against terror!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
