18 Months - NEVER FORGET!

[Blitz]

Today being the 18 month anniversary of the September 11th atrocities, I thought I would bring this site back to the top, especially in this current state our country is in...

This is exactly why we need to take care of threats to our country's safety, wherever they may come from...

http://www.politicsandprotest.com/

 

[Blazer]

clockwork style

clockwork style

This should be played every night at sign-off of TV stations and fed "Clockwork Orange" style to those at the protests.

 

[Blitz]

**BUMP**

 

[Eddie Haskell]

Interesting how you persist in your correlation between 9-11 and war in Iraq. I hope the same filmakers and Enya are in Baghdad next week for the Asian version of this film when our missles are flying into the First National Bank of Baghdad building.

By the way, I doubt if the apparent mastermind of 9-11 will be on the receiving end of any cruise missle next week. Based on best information, Mr. bin Laden is about 1500 miles east of our soon-to-be-falling smart bombs.

Emotional, knee-jerk, propoganda ends up killing alot of innocent people. Please stop USING 9-11, and minimizing and trivializing the lives lost on that horrible day to justify this countrys alleged pre-emptive invasion of a country that, although maybe somewhat sympathetic to the terrorists and their cause, has no other responsibility for that fatefull day.

Your actions are reprehensible.

Ed

 

[ssd]

Eddie:
This is not a pre-emptive attack and I wish all the anti-war people would look back into the first conflict and do some research. A truce was established whereas we would quit the barrage if Iraq diarmed. There were very strict regulations under which he was to comply. In the past 12 years, he has violated at least 17 of these provisions. Under the terms of the agreement, he has broken his side of the pact. We are just now going in to finish this war because he will not abide by the cease-fire negotiations. There is nothing "pre-emptive" about it.

I do not want to see the US as a "First-strike" power. I do not want to see war. However, Saddam has been given ample time to show his true intentions and he has done just that. He has no plans of disarming.

 

[Eddie Haskell]

SSD:

Let me see if I understand your reasoning. Bear in mind, you used the word "we". I think we need to define "we" (and "is" while were at it).

13 years ago Iraq invades Kuwait (not US). US, with full UN backing, retakes Kuwait, gives it back to Kuwaiti government, hammers Iraq and UN drops restrictions on Hussein.

Hussein does not comply. Accordingly, "we" being the UN, must enforce "our" restrictions placed upon Iraq. Therefore, "we" are merely continuing the 90 Gulf War due to his non-compliance with UN imposed disarmament. Ah, so further therefore, since Hussein is not complying with UN restrictions to disarm, "we" are acting on behalf of UN in forcing compliance with disarmament orders.

But wait. Whats wrong with this picture. UN says don't invade. Bushie and the boys say the hell with the UN were going in anyway. To hell if its not premptive. All of a sudden, "we" decide we don't need the UN and start acting like the bully on the block.

SSD, I appreciate your point, but I think its quite clear that "we" are invading a country not to force compliance with a UN resolution but rather to overthrow a government "we" don't like. The US was not attacked by Iraq. "We" are invading a country that did not attack us. I'm sorry, but thats the way it is.

Ed

 

[AR182]

Eddie,

Since you say that there should be no attack against iraq because thay did not attack us, then is it logical to think that you would have been against our country's involvement against hitler?(man, that is one long sentence-lol).germany did not attack the US,but we got involved anyway, which imo was the right thing to do.
Were you against Clinton bombing kosovo or bosnia ? They did nothing to us. As usual the un did nothing about milosevic's ethnic cleansing, so imo Clinton did the right thing.

 

[Blitz]

You must be pushing around a wheelbarrow to carry your balls in, cause they have to be huge to make a statement (accusation) like that!

For you to say I am USING 9/11 and minimizing and trivializing it to further any of my personal views, is in itself reprehensible!!:nono:

Any respect I had for you, and unlike many, I do have respect for lawyers, is all but gone, you ambulance chasing piece of excrement!!:gf:

 

[Blitz]

P.S. Eddie,

Thanks for turning my thread, which was supposed to be a tribute to the victoms of 9/11, into yet another Iraq war thread.

Have a little class and take off the blinders...

 

[ssd]

Blitz:
Sorry to be ruining your thread. Your point is well taken.

Eddie: Without US backing, the UN is a figurehead. They have no real power. In concept, they are a good idea. In action, it is a failure. Clinton did not have UN backing when he went after Milosevic. We do not need it now. We also don't need France, or China or Russia. This is not a popularity contest. They all have alterior motives, ie defense contracts, oil contracts, etc that they are concerned about with Iraq. The higher-ups in our government know much more than we do about this situation. They believe that Iraq is a threat to the United States WAY OF LIFE. Take "WAY OF LIFE" in any manner you choose, economic, social, moral, idyllic. With their information, they also believe that Saddam is a threat to world peace. He invaded Kuwait a decade ago, why won't he do it again?
I enjoy the friendly reparte with you, Eddie and I hope we can agree to disagree on these issues peacably. The free exchange of information and ideas are not only what this website is about but also what our country is about. That's one of the things that makes America so great and one of the reasons our leaders want a regime change. Every person on Earth should be the beneficiary of the freedoms laid down in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Iminforabuck]

SSD:

The US was not attacked by Iraq. "We" are invading a country that did not attack us. I'm sorry, but thats the way it is.

Ed

Wow. Someone finally has all the answers to the question: "Who were all the players that were primarily or secondarily involved in plotting, fundiing and executing the attack on America." And to think all this time I felt that Iraq may have played some role in the whole operation, whether it be through funding or harboring. Whew. Thanks for clearing that up for all of us.

You don't know squat about who was involved in attacking us. Watching Fox or MSNBC doesnt make you any more clued in than the rest of us. Until you can produce some cold hard facts that reveal Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks on America, I suggest you take a good luck at the propaganda youre spreading.

 

[TheShrimp]

This is a joke, right Buck?

The cold hard facts that Iraq had nothing to do with it?

Where are the cold hard facts that South Dakota had nothing to do with it? Where are the cold hard facts that Israel had nothing to do with it?

Damn, where are the facts that France had nothing to do with it?

Why did you think all this time that Iraq harbored/funded these guys? Afghanistan, sure. Yemen, maybe. Saudi Arabia, maybe. There's been scant evidence that Iraq had any ties to Al Qaeda.

If you've been thinking all along that they had something to do with it then you were misinformed.

 

[Iminforabuck]

And once again, another wannabe know-it-all.

The CIA could use someone like yourself Shrimp. You could end this conflict yourself, what with all your vast knowledge.

There has been evidence suggesting that Iraq has/is harboring members of Alqueda. Please tell me you knew this Shrimp. I mean, with all the other stuff you just spewed forth that you learned on a cable news network, certainly you heard that as well?

If not, keep watching. Or hey, here's an idea, form your own opinion. Once you accomplish that, then try to act as though it is your belief and not the truth, unless you have all the evidence. And thinking you have that is the real joke isnt it.

 

[Turfgrass]

It is time for the Bush Administration to make it perfectly clear that it does not have to seek the approval or the advice of the United Nations or any U.N. organization before it can act militarily in what it believes to be its own self-interest. Yesterday we had Kofi Annan telling the world that the United States would be violating international law if it proceeds against Hussein without Security council permission. What?s next? Declaring George Bush to be a war criminal? I know that leftists and various anti-Americans might like that idea ? so I shouldn?t even raise the issue.

How about this for a statement from Bush:

?Let?s make this as crystal clear as we possibly can. The United States is a sovereign nation, not a political subsidiary of The United Nations. The United States can and will act both diplomatically and militarily as it deems necessary to protect it?s vital interests abroad and the security of its people at home. In these matters the United States sees no paramount role for an international body that would put Iraq and Iran in control of a conference on disarmament, and Libya in control of a commission on human rights.?

 

[Turfgrass]

IF the UN refuses to back action against terror, Mr Bush will announce a "temporary" suspension of America's membership, to be accompanied by an offer: if the UN gets its act together and carries out long-overdue reforms, America (and its money) will return. But if there is no reform, the temporary withdrawal will, de facto, become permanent.

There's certainly an argument to be made that the U.N., as presently constituted, is worse than useless. For one thing, despite the U.N.'s professed aversion to war, what it really seems to object to is victory. In the U.N.'s 58-year history, two wars have been waged under Security Council auspices: Korea and the Gulf War. Both ended with less than total victories, leaving in power two of the worst tyrannies on earth, which are now two of the world's most dangerous rogue states. (If the U.N. instead of the Allies had fought World War II, Germany might still be ruled by Nazis instead of weasels.) U.N. peacekeeping operations, too, are at best a mixed bag, with a record of failing to prevent such horrors as the Srebrenica massacre and the Rwanda genocide.

 

[TheShrimp]

If it were possibly worth it, Buck, I could give you the details of my cable subscription. Rest assured, though, that it would be quite impossible for my views to be formed by any cable news network.

If you can't understand the complete absurdity of forcing a country to provide cold hard facts that they had nothing to do with 9/11, well. . .I hope the FBI doesn't show up on your doorstep, throw you in jail and force you to prove you've never distributed kiddie porn, sold drugs, killed Nicole Simpson, or anything else.

Hey, I won't be surprised if a photo turns up some day of Bin Laden catching some rays at one of Saddam's pools, but I haven't seen it so far.

 

[Stuman]

For Eddie...

For Eddie...

 

[Eddie Haskell]

Thats funny Stu. Humor is based on truth.

Unfortuneatly, thats about it the only connection so far.

Blitz:

only made your blood pressure rise? Darn, I was hopein you might blow a valve. You know something ole buddy, in the history of mankind patriotism, such as yours, has gotten more people killed than any other cause with the exception of religion.

I stand by every comment I made about you. Your posts are reprehensible and anti-American. I don't think for a moment that those people killed on 9-11 would endorse or support attacks on people whose connection to the real criminals has yet to be proven.

Using the memories of 9-11 to, as you posted, "...take care of threats to our country's safety, wherever they may come from..." is a blatant attempt on your part to support a war that a substantial minority in this country, as well as the majority of states overseas, oppose.

If you want to honor those killed on that day, and avenge there death, go after the perpetrators of those events not PEOPLE WHO LOOK LIKE THEM. Thats what real Americans want not flag waiving, superficial paraders like yourself.

By the way, since your such a wonderful American, why the hell are you in front of a computer, sparring with this un-American, commie, hippie, draft-dodgin, scum-bag like me??? You ought to be dressed fashionably in your army fatigues on a naval transport somewhere in the Indian Ocean. (?how do you get to Iraq from the US by water?)

Your tribute was shallow and demeaning. Next time, put a little substance behind the flag waiving.

Haskell

 

[Blitz]

Eddie,

Your post is so off base that the only comment that I will make is ... to support your own point, I like your use of an oxymoron "substantial minority". Here's another oxymoron for you "Intelligent Attorney"

 

[Eddie Haskell]

blitzie:

Lets see if I can use this phrase in another context that even you may be able to understand. "Substantial minority" as in A subtantial minority of voters elected Bush.

Gee. You came up with a novel idea. Lets attack Eddies profession. Blitz your right on top of things. Big word for you, oxymoron. Funny when I think of you only the last two syllables apply.

from your parallel universe,
Ed