Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Soldier's mom protests near Bush's ranch


Faeden

Recommended Posts

"She flat out states that Afghanistan is no different to Iraq, people let it slide, she states the War on Terror is nothing more than some Zionist conspiracy, people ignore it, and now she says that the mothers who've lost kids to this war, and still support the president and the war are brainwashed idiots, in effect, these people have a lesser opinion than hers? and you people let it slide because 'she lost her son'"""

She can say anything she wants... That's the beauty of free speech.. Just becuase she talks doesnt mean we have to listen. But she gas every right to say what she dang well pleases. It seems you have a problem with people ignoring her statements you mentioned above.

What do you suppose we do Bathory? I would luv to hear how you would handle the situation! Should she be arrested and thrown in guantanamo?? After all since she is speaking out against the governemt that could be considered treason in the eyes of many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 412
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Babs

    56

  • iaapac

    41

  • Faeden

    32

  • joc

    29

Top Posters In This Topic

She can say anything she wants... That's the beauty of free speech.. Just becuase she talks doesnt mean we have to listen. But she gas every right to say what she dang well pleases. It seems you have a problem with people ignoring her statements you mentioned above.

What do you suppose we do Bathory? I would luv to hear how you would handle the situation! Should she be arrested and thrown in guantanamo?? After all since she is speaking out against the governemt that could be considered treason in the eyes of many.

and guess what? i have just as much right to CRITICIZE every god damn word she says

please oh please point out where i have said anything along the lines of lock her up etc

funny how she has a right to free speech and my opinion on what she says is completely wrong and evil, hypocracy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what 'handle the situation' means, since there is no situation to handle, but, I can see how the media is using her, to the extreme. There have been protests about almost every war, no matter how miniscule, and if it's to the benefit of the media's agenda they will pounce on it.

It is no doubt going to cause extreme feelings from the people that may or may not believe in this particular cause and have lost children, just as she has, but, respect their children's beliefs and remaining silent out of respect.

None of us can know how he felt about it, so that's a none issue...but, most of the military personnel that I know are proud to serve and proud of what they are doing, regardless of what political agendas sent them in the first place.

Edited by Michelle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you have the right to free speach as well bathory. I was just asking what you wanted since you were upset people were ignoring her. Thats why I asked what do you want us to do?

"and you people let it slide because 'she lost her son'"""

We let it slide we let what slide???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you have the right to free speach as well bathory. I was just asking what you wanted since you were upset people were ignoring her. Thats why I asked what do you want us to do?

i was upset that her supporters and the media are ignoring various comments made by her that reflect upon her ignorant mouthpeice of the far left persona

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i was upset that her supporters and the media are ignoring various comments made by her that reflect upon her ignorant mouthpeice of the far left persona

You seem to be forgetting that the Media is the MicroPhone for her 'ignorant mouthpiece of the far left persona'. The Media is far left...the groups supporting her and pushing her in front of the Media Microphone are far left...and she has her fifteen minutes of fame.

It is necessary to laugh at these people. Getting upset only stresses out 'your' moment. It in no way affects theirs. The best way to goad these idiots is to laugh at them. w00t.gif

I thought maybe Uncle Ted would show up and play StrangleHold while that Communist Whore Joan Baez was chanting Give Peace a Chance.

Just have to say this: Hey People:

This Ain't Frigging Vietnam!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i take it by your complete silence on her comment, that you support what she is saying? that mothers/fathers of soldiers who have died in the war and still support the war are brainwashed simps. congratulations, you are scum just like her

nice of you to also jump on typo like it means something, obviously lefting was supposed to be leftwing...idiot, don't even try to make assumptions about me, and what i do and don't know because all it does is demonstrate how much of a fool you really are.

815793[/snapback]

Well, I seem to have misjudged "lefting" to be something else than "leftwing" (an another form of leftIST for example).

I have to say that you have balls calling me scum, idiot and fool. It feels good that people can actually say what they feel without mommy moderator blending in.

Anyway, I do support what she's feeling. And why is that making my opinion a leftist's one, I dont understand. It might be that everything not being (your rightwing-) main opinion is automatically foolish and idiotic. And that's a weird way to see things.

Have you ever thought that "we" might actually be right, and Bush, media and the main paradigm-followers are completely wrong respectively ARE misled?

Edited by AshKatNah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i was upset that her supporters and the media are ignoring various comments made by her that reflect upon her ignorant mouthpeice of the far left persona

You seem to be forgetting that the Media is the MicroPhone for her 'ignorant mouthpiece of the far left persona'. The Media is far left...the groups supporting her and pushing her in front of the Media Microphone are far left...and she has her fifteen minutes of fame.

It is necessary to laugh at these people. Getting upset only stresses out 'your' moment. It in no way affects theirs. The best way to goad these idiots is to laugh at them. w00t.gif

I thought maybe Uncle Ted would show up and play StrangleHold while that Communist Whore Joan Baez was chanting Give Peace a Chance.

Just have to say this: Hey People:

This Ain't Frigging Vietnam!

817064[/snapback]

Well that was a real sound answer. I didn't think that aggressive, hateful, pro-war, inbred yankees could write in complete sentences. But hey, I was wrong.

Please, before you snap back at me, just read you post again. If you still like it after that, there really must be something wrong with you.

The media is not left. I'm surprised you see it that way. They are actually a rightwing alliance, who do you think created the mass opinion that you guys should invade Iraq?

You want to laugh to people who actually oppose themselves to the mainstream propaganda which you apparently swallowed? Haha...yeah, that is funny.

And to call Joan Baez a Communist Whore (??), apparently because she likes peace, really shows a lot about you, and America.

"Either you're with us, or against us." - GW Bush, another sound statement.

Edited by AshKatNah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever thought that "we" might actually be right, and Bush, media and the main paradigm-followers are completely wrong and ARE misled?

for you to be right, you would have to demonstrate that

a) the Iraq war was for the Zionists

cool.gif the Iraq war was for oil

c) the insurgency are freedom fighters

d) the opinions of your opposition, even those of grieving families are nothing more than brainwashed simpletons

go for it, i don't care what she says, but when she spouts the aforementioned bullsh@t and you lap it up, of course i'm going to call you scum, and idiot etc

i mean, hell heres an easy one, prove that Bush lied, please make sure you address the decades worth of intelligence and reports that argue Saddam indeed had WMD stockpiles, had unaccounted for WMDs, had manufacturing capability etc

also be sure to mention the Nigerian yellowcake, however also make sure you ignore the fact that Bush was referring to English intelligence which was indeed factual, also ignore the fact that Ambassador Wilson was caught lying numerous times etc

i know my position quite well, enough indeed for me to make an informed decision on things, i wonder exactly how much beyond the notated talking points you get from the likes of Moore and Sheehan you actually know about what is going on.

Edited by bathory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"""d) the opinions of your opposition, even those of grieving families are nothing more than brainwashed simpletons"""

Lets see the 2 main reasons why we went to war with Iraq were becuase of WMD and becuase Saddam supposedly had ties with Osama.

Can you please provide a source where we found WMD in Iraq or any evidence that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11. Your leaders lie to you on a constant basis and yet you swallow thier stories with such devotion. I cant see how people dont find it suspicious that Cheney's company are the ones who got most of the building contracts in Iraq without placing any bids. HIs company overcharged (stole) millions of taxpayers dollars and all they get is a slap in the wrist. When are you people going to wake up and smell whats cookin? Your leaders are corrupt, do anything they want without worry of any repricussions becuase the masses are too stupid to call them on anything. I really wonder sometimes about America. Is it possible for this adminstration to do any wrong in your eyes? When they try and invade Iran your going to support that. When they go after Venezuela are you going to support that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you please provide a source where we found WMD in Iraq or any evidence that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11.

as i said before, the US acted on a decade worth of incorrect intelligence, though as you are all too happy to ignore, Saddam had all the systems in place ready to go about full-scale manufacturing the moment sanctions were removed.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

thats probably the easiest demonstration of that, beyond wading through lots of crap, such as UN reports etc

as for Iraq/911, strawman, noones ever asserted Iraq was responsible in the planning of the events of 911 (although recent evidence coming to light may find an interesting link), what has been said however, and is well documented is Saddam's financial, political and materials support of various terrorist groups, though you'll probably deny that too.

When they go after Venezuela are you going to support that too.

i see, so its ok to predict future events to prove what exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever thought that "we" might actually be right, and Bush, media and the main paradigm-followers are completely wrong and ARE misled?

for you to be right, you would have to demonstrate that

a) the Iraq war was for the Zionists

cool.gif the Iraq war was for oil

c) the insurgency are freedom fighters

d) the opinions of your opposition, even those of grieving families are nothing more than brainwashed simpletons

go for it, i don't care what she says, but when she spouts the aforementioned bullsh@t and you lap it up, of course i'm going to call you scum, and idiot etc

i mean, hell heres an easy one, prove that Bush lied, please make sure you address the decades worth of intelligence and reports that argue Saddam indeed had WMD stockpiles, had unaccounted for WMDs, had manufacturing capability etc

also be sure to mention the Nigerian yellowcake, however also make sure you ignore the fact that Bush was referring to English intelligence which was indeed factual, also ignore the fact that Ambassador Wilson was caught lying numerous times etc

i know my position quite well, enough indeed for me to make an informed decision on things, i wonder exactly how much beyond the notated talking points you get from the likes of Moore and Sheehan you actually know about what is going on.

817352[/snapback]

You think I can actually prove it to you in this forum? No, I can only argument from the base of the puzzle I put together from various sources. The same goes for you, how can you imply that Bush DIDN'T lie about the WMD? Have they found any?

And by the way, this is argumentation, not proof-reporting.

My point of all this is that you should have more scrutinisation and criticism toward the powers that control you. Simply because they HAVE power.

Otherwise you will only see people who at least try to make a REAL difference as scum and leftist morons who are weak and stupid because they oppose the main paradigm here.

Do you really believe what they teach you at FoxNews?

The problem is that you are very comfortable in you situation "back there", and when something might create a crack in your picture of the world, it's bull****. That's not to have an open mind. You are being aggressive and cocky, for no reason at all.

Do you always discuss this way? By calling people names? Are you five years old or something?

You won't have any credibility until you've learn't to have respect for other people's political viewing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think I can actually prove it to you in this forum? No, I can only argument from the base of the puzzle I put together from various sources. The same goes for you, how can you imply that Bush DIDN'T lie about the WMD? Have they found any?

And by the way, this is argumentation, not proof-reporting.

well its pretty clear looking at what evidence there is regarding Saddams WMD programs that Bush didn't lie because EVERYONE, intelligence agencies, governments, the UN, Saddams neighbours etc believed he had them. Are you saying the UN lied? What about French intelligence agencies? German intelligence agencies? British intelligence agencies? Mossad? etc etc did they all lie?

See using logic is a wonderful thing, you guys should try it.

"You think I can actually prove it to you in this forum? No"

of course you can't:)

You won't have any credibility until you've learn't to have respect for other people's political viewing.

no, more like your kind won't view me favorably, credibility however? i have a ton, something about proving points with evidence as opposed to baseless accusations using the same worn out disproven arguments, give it ago, you could do with the credibility boost right about now.

so lets tally this up shall we?

you support the notion that the Iraq war is a zionist plot

you believe that people who offer an alternate opinion to you are brainwashed simps

you believe that the Iraqi insurgency are 'freedom fighters'

you support the removal of US/coalition troops from Iraq regardless of the effect that will have on iraq

the War was totally about Oil

you can't provde evidence to support your accusations of Bush lying

and you say paradigm allot as though it makes the rest of your crappy argument meaningful

i think thats about it, and remember the above list isn't something you should be proud of

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked a simple question you didnt seem to answer it. The only reason I asked a hypothetical question was to see at what point you might start questioning the motives of the American leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked a simple question you didnt seem to answer it. The only reason I asked a hypothetical question was to see at what point you might start questioning the motives of the American leadership.

when i'm presented with sufficient evidence?

i don't agree with the US and Bush's stance on illegal immigration, is that what you are looking for? I know why Bush isn't doing anything to curb the flow, i don't necessarily agree with the US and Bush's stance on gay marriage, abortion and euthenasia, just because i agree with US foreign policy in the middle east doesn't mean i'm some mindless drone that you want to portray me as. I'm not even american if thats any consolation:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you support the notion that the Iraq war is a zionist plot

you believe that people who offer an alternate opinion to you are brainwashed simps

you believe that the Iraqi insurgency are 'freedom fighters'

you support the removal of US/coalition troops from Iraq regardless of the effect that will have on iraq

the War was totally about Oil

you can't provde evidence to support your accusations of Bush lying

and you say paradigm allot as though it makes the rest of your crappy argument meaningful

Number one- wrong, you said it, I don't even know what you're talking about.

Two- not necessarily brainwashed, but you seem to approve the American media's vision of the war. That you are freedomfighters that are being unfairly labeled as oppressors. You are simply going one step ahead and going against people who oppose the mainstream opinion. So in a way you can think on you own, but at the same time, you blindly accept what you hear in media. I could be mistaken.

Three- Not all of them, not from the beginning, no. They are people who understand that the government being installed is just a puppet government dancing to the tunes played by the conglomerates behind Bush. You can interpret it as you will, but in the big picture, I'm not supporting terrorism.

Four- No, you've made irrepairable damage ever since you guys installed Saddam in the first place. (To make sure the oil goes to the right nation) But honestly, I don't think it matters anymore.

Five- Yes. You actually think Bush wanted to "save" the Iraqis from Saddam or some other bull****? Because WMD were apparently a scam which I don't think I have to proof.

Lastly, about proof and evidence. I don't have proof for any of these things. I am only arguing, like I said. You haven't showed any proof either, and want me to what, show you documents?

And I'm certainly not going to source all the books I've read, and all the webpages I've been visiting. And I don't have links to documents which would back my argumentation, no. But that's nitpicking. I'm not here to convince anyone of anything, and argumentation on forums has gone pretty well so far without anyone having to present sources on anything.

And paradigm is a good word. A good word to describe how everybody sees and follows the main stream of information, history (foremost history) and the viewing of our world in large. The paradigm about America is that America is good, you are the savior of this world, if it weren't for you, we would all speak german, etc etc.

To me, America suffers from serious hubris. The goal is world domination. Therefore, you have created/participated in all greater conflicts since the 1950s, for your own benefits.

I don't think my arguments are excellent, but since you're not arguing but calling people morons, raising your arms in protest and in total denial as soon as anyone has something different to say... what's the point of trying?

And regarding Michael Moore, I've only seen "Columbine", and I've heard he also "spiced" some facts in the 9/11- thingie. Really, it doesn't matter. He is trying to show an another side of things, putting it in another perspective. To not be accurate in some facts is of course bad, but to me he's far more trustworthy that for example Fox news, who's line is that everything is black and white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked a simple question you didnt seem to answer it. The only reason I asked a hypothetical question was to see at what point you might start questioning the motives of the American leadership.

when i'm presented with sufficient evidence?

i don't agree with the US and Bush's stance on illegal immigration, is that what you are looking for? I know why Bush isn't doing anything to curb the flow, i don't necessarily agree with the US and Bush's stance on gay marriage, abortion and euthenasia, just because i agree with US foreign policy in the middle east doesn't mean i'm some mindless drone that you want to portray me as. I'm not even american if thats any consolation:)

817792[/snapback]

You might have said that earlier, so that I didn't have to accuse "your" government of anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do you get illegal immigration when I am talking about Venezuela not Mexico. My question was in regard to global foreign policy. i wasnt trying to portray you as anything specific if you think me questioning your reasoning was me trying to portray you as a mindless drone i guess i better just leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that was a real sound answer. I didn't think that aggressive, hateful, pro-war, inbred yankees could write in complete sentences. But hey, I was wrong.

Please, before you snap back at me, just read you post again.

1. I am from Texas...I am not a yankee....inbred? No. ...nor do I stoop to the level of name calling when I disagree with someone.

2. It was a sound answer and I stick by it.

3. I'm not snapping back at you. You couldn't be more wrong about the media. They are left...extremely...you just listen with one ear I guess. Consider the following...if this was Gore's war in Iraq...would the press be propping up and promoting Cindy Shehann? I don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on Joc...USA media lefist?.....yes yes, of course.... rolleyes.gif

or maybe Joc is more to the right than FOX and other "lefist" media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Number one- wrong, you said it, I don't even know what you're talking about.

you support cindy sheehans view and discourage debate regarding things she has said, i can only assume you agree with what she has stated

Two- not necessarily brainwashed, but you seem to approve the American media's vision of the war. That you are freedomfighters that are being unfairly labeled as oppressors. You are simply going one step ahead and going against people who oppose the mainstream opinion. So in a way you can think on you own, but at the same time, you blindly accept what you hear in media. I could be mistaken.

if i were a brainwashed by the american media, i would believe that this is another Vietnam, and all mighty screw up where there is no progress be made, hundreds of thousands of civilians dead and all based on a lie. Maybe you should actually see what the US media is saying about the war these days. Hell even coverage regarding Sheehan has been somewhat dishonest with a very friendly bias towards her.

Three- Not all of them, not from the beginning, no. They are people who understand that the government being installed is just a puppet government dancing to the tunes played by the conglomerates behind Bush. You can interpret it as you will, but in the big picture, I'm not supporting terrorism.

a puppet government? have you even been following the formation of the new iraqi constitution? baseless accusation? i think so!@

Four- No, you've made irrepairable damage ever since you guys installed Saddam in the first place. (To make sure the oil goes to the right nation) But honestly, I don't think it matters anymore.

what the hell does that even mean? has the US benifited from their 'puppet government'? as far as i know, there are no exclusivity deals? or is this just another made up 'fact' by you?

Five- Yes. You actually think Bush wanted to "save" the Iraqis from Saddam or some other bull****? Because WMD were apparently a scam which I don't think I have to proof.

why does "wrong" equal a lie? are you stupid? Intelligence got it wrong, the UN got it wrong, that does mean its a lie, though interestingly enough you are ignoring other proposed reasons such as Saddam's (proven) links to terrorism.

astly, about proof and evidence. I don't have proof for any of these things. I am only arguing, like I said. You haven't showed any proof either

well i did show an example of various politicians doing their thing regarding Saddams invisible weapons that Bush lied about, Clinton stating in 1998 that Saddam had WMDs? UN weapons inspectors saying he had them? don't worry, they didnt say that, BUSH LIED!

Where do you get illegal immigration when I am talking about Venezuela not Mexico. My question was in regard to global foreign policy. i wasnt trying to portray you as anything specific if you think me questioning your reasoning was me trying to portray you as a mindless drone i guess i better just leave it at that.

my point was to demonstrate that unlike you guys seem to be asserting, i'm not some mindless drone controlled the government and fox news

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mekorig: "Come on Joc...USA media lefist?.....yes yes, of course.... rolleyes.gif

or maybe Joc is more to the right than FOX and other "lefist" media."

Ha ha ha Mekorig.

Iraq was better off with Saddam. There was never a problem until Bush got into office. Now there is chaos everywhere. Iraqis are p***ed at what Bush has done them.

This is not a traditional war of nation against nation as it is the oil community setting up another government more favorable to thier ends.

Was Saddam a bad guy? Just as much as Bush. Speaking objectively. Is Bush operating on behalf of corporate supporters like Booz Hamilton and Haliburton or is he conducting the will of the people? We know already.

Edited by dmgspycat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iraq was better off with Saddam. There was never a problem until Bush got into office. Now there is chaos everywhere. Iraqis are p***ed at what Bush has done them.

I have just figured you out. You like pulling other folks chains! yes.gif

I know more believe that you believe the above quote than I believe the moon is made of cheese. no.gif

Nice try though...you have been had. ohmy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iraq was better off with Saddam.

yeah he was such a swell guy, cambodia was dream under pol pot too

Edited by bathory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were never supposed to be in Cambodia...Noam Chomsky does a pretty good piece about Cambodia...you should check it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.