| Author |
Message |
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
 Mon Jan 03, 2005 5:05 pm Neo Imperialism |
|
This should be fun. OK, so im gonna state my view, and everyone can tear into that, and have a nice debate. Havent done that in awhile.
So, I think the US is a neo imperialist nation. We control countries from afar, so it doesnt appear that we are totally taking them over. We make it look like we are trying to liberate them, as an excuse to increase our influence in the world. We basically have a puppet nation (Iraq and Afghanistan). So, any takers?
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 5:13 pm |
|
I disagree but many foreign nations disagree with me. My g/f is from Indian and she told me over there they see us as an imperialist nation. Spreading our influence. Over half of the Middle East agress in that assesment. I ask though. What countries do we control? No offense but its dumb to say we control Iraq and Afghanistan. Watch the news. We don't....
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 5:18 pm |
|
We have troops there. We decide when they hold elections, who gets elected, what gets done with their resources, how to train their security forces. We control them. We are the puppet master to Iraq and Afghanistan, end of story.
And imperialism would be outright setting up a colony over there. Since they are trying to make it look like we arent taking over, its neo imperialism. Japan did it too with Mochaku.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 5:21 pm |
|
No thats not the "end of story". We don't truly control it. Do we control aspects of it? Definitly. Thats the only way to maintain order right now. Full control would be squashing the rebellion and having the country obey our will. I think your definiton of control is too loose. Maybe mine is to strict. If the insurgency was defeated would we control it? Yes.
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 5:25 pm |
|
I disagree with you Defiant. Our troops are over there for one reason only and thats to stop terrorist. Not to rule that country.
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 5:35 pm |
|
To stop terrorism? There were no terrorists in Iraq. There were no connections to 9/11. That point is invalid. That is a ruse created to hide their real motives.
And yes, we do control them. We hand picked the prime minister. He does exactly the things that the US agrees with. Dont you imagine if they were truly free we would have at least a little controversy or disagreement over things? Not if we are telling them what to do.
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 5:52 pm |
|
Yes, there are terrorist in Iraq. But you can believe whatever you want your life
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 6:20 pm |
|
1. Founder and Rb are right 100%!! We are NOT an imperialist nation, and we do NOT control countries.
2. | Defiant wrote: | | We have troops there. We decide when they hold elections, who gets elected, what gets done with their resources, how to train their security forces. We control them. We are the puppet master to Iraq and Afghanistan, end of story. |
Ah, not true. That's false.
A. The IRAQIS are deciding when to hold elections, and who gets elected, etc. WE DO NOT CONTROL THEM! THAT IS FALSE! Sure, we are their primary security trainers, but they are their OWN SOVEREIGN NATION. Most of Iraq *cough* 25 million *cough* SUPPORT our efforts, while a slim amount *cough* 12-15 THOUSAND *cough* don't. That's IT. Those are the facts that the Liberal US media won't let you hear. I don't know if your misguided, or just blind. But, whatever suits you.
| Defiant wrote: | To stop terrorism? There were no terrorists in Iraq. There were no connections to 9/11. That point is invalid. That is a ruse created to hide their real motives.
And yes, we do control them. We hand picked the prime minister. He does exactly the things that the US agrees with. Dont you imagine if they were truly free we would have at least a little controversy or disagreement over things? Not if we are telling them what to do. |
Um...yes, there were terrorists in Iraq! It is a COMPLETELY valid to state that. Ever heard of a man leading the terrorists and part of al Quada known as, om, ZARQOWI? HUH? Guess not...He was IN IRAQ BEFORE HAND, and got MEDICAL AID AND SECURITY!!!! He HELPED A KNOWN TERRORIST! And the list goes ON!
Also, Saddam HIMSELF was a terrorist and a Weapon of Mass Destruction! Ever heard of the Mass Graves? Hundreds of them? Guess not. You haven't heard of a lot of things, huh?
Sure, there was no DIRECT tie to 9/11, but they SUPPORTED the organization that carried out the attack.
Read this article, if you dare to see the truth. I don't want you to focus on the WMD portion, but the terrorist portion:
| CNS News wrote: |
CNSNews.com
Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
By Scott Wheeler
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 04, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.
One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al Qaeda.
Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq had relationships and considered available for terror operations against the United States.
Among the organizations mentioned are those affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the world's most wanted terrorists. Zarqawi is believed responsible for the kidnapping and beheading of several American civilians in Iraq and claimed responsibility for a series of deadly bombings in Iraq Sept. 30. Al-Zawahiri is the top lieutenant of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, allegedly helped plan the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes on the U.S., and is believed to be the voice on an audio tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera television Oct. 1, calling for attacks on U.S. and British interests everywhere.
The source of the documents
A senior government official who is not a political appointee provided CNSNews.com with copies of the 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service documents. The originals, some of which were hand-written and others typed, are in Arabic. CNSNews.com had the papers translated into English by two individuals separately and independent of each other.
There are no hand-writing samples to which the documents can be compared for forensic analysis and authentication. However, three other experts - a former weapons inspector with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), a retired CIA counter-terrorism official with vast experience dealing with Iraq, and a former advisor to then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton on Iraq - were asked to analyze the documents. All said they comport with the format, style and content of other Iraqi documents from that era known to be genuine.
Laurie Mylroie, who authored the book, "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War against America," and advised Clinton on Iraq during the 1992 presidential campaign, told CNSNews.com that the papers represent "the most complete set of documents relating Iraq to terrorism, including Islamic terrorism" against the U.S.
Mylroie has long maintained that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism against the United States. The documents obtained by CNSNews.com , she said, include "correspondence back and forth between Saddam's office and Iraqi Mukhabarat (intelligence agency). They make sense. This is what one would think Saddam was doing at the time."
Bruce Tefft, a retired CIA official who specialized in counter-terrorism and had extensive experience dealing with Iraq, said that "based on available, unclassified and open source information, the details in these documents are accurate ..."
The former UNSCOM inspector zeroed in on the signatures on the documents and "the names of some of the people who sign off on these things.
"This is fairly typical of that time era. [The Iraqis] were meticulous record keepers," added the former U.N. official, who spoke with CNSNews.com on the condition of anonymity.
The senior government official, who furnished the documents to CNSNews.com, said the papers answer "whether or not Iraq was a state sponsor of Islamic terrorism against the United States. It also answers whether or not Iraq had an ongoing biological warfare project continuing through the period when the UNSCOM inspections ended."
Presidential campaign focused on Iraq
The presidential campaign is currently dominated by debate over whether Saddam procured weapons of mass destruction and/or whether his government sponsored terrorism aimed at Americans before the U.S. invaded Iraq last year. Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry has repeatedly rejected that possibility and criticized President Bush for needlessly invading Iraq.
"[Bush's] two main rationales - weapons of mass destruction and the al Qaeda/September 11 (2001) connection - have been proved false ... by the president's own weapons inspectors ... and by the 9/11 Commission," Kerry told an audience at New York University on Sept. 20.
The Senate Intelligence Committee's probe of the 9/11 intelligence failures also could not produce any definitive links between Saddam's government and 9/11. And United Nations as well as U.S. weapons inspectors in Iraq have been unable to find the biological and chemical weapons Saddam was suspected of possessing.
But the documents obtained by CNSNews.com shed new light on the controversy.
They detail the Iraqi regime's purchase of five kilograms of mustard gas on Aug. 21, 2000 and three vials of malignant pustule, another term for anthrax, on Sept. 6, 2000. The purchase order for the mustard gas includes gas masks, filters and rubber gloves. The order for the anthrax includes sterilization and decontamination equipment. (See Saddam's Possession of Mustard Gas)
The documents show that Iraqi intelligence received the mustard gas and anthrax from "Saddam's company," which Tefft said was probably a reference to Saddam General Establishment, "a complex of factories involved with, amongst other things, precision optics, missile, and artillery fabrication."
"Sa'ad's general company" is listed on the Iraqi documents as the supplier of the sterilization and decontamination equipment that accompanied the anthrax vials. Tefft believes this is a reference to the Salah Al-Din State Establishment, also involved in missile construction. (See Saddam's Possession of Anthrax)
The Jaber Ibn Hayan General Company is listed as the supplier of the safety equipment that accompanied the mustard gas order. Tefft described the company as "a 'turn-key' project built by Romania, designed to produce protective CW (conventional warfare) and BW (biological warfare) equipment (gas masks and protective clothing)."
"Iraq had an ongoing biological warfare project continuing through the period when the UNSCOM inspections ended," the senior government official and source of the documents said. "This should cause us to redouble our efforts to find the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs."
'Hunt the Americans'
The first of the 42 pages of Iraqi documents is dated Jan. 18, 1993, approximately two years after American troops defeated Saddam's army in the first Persian Gulf War. The memo includes Saddam's directive that "the party should move to hunt the Americans who are on Arabian land, especially in Somalia, by using Arabian elements ..."
On Oct. 3, 1993, less than nine months after that Iraqi memo was written, American soldiers were ambushed in Mogadishu, Somalia by forces loyal to Somali warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid, an alleged associate of Osama bin Laden. Eighteen Americans were killed and 84 wounded during a 17-hour firefight that followed the ambush in which Aidid's followers used civilians as decoys. (See Saddam's Connections to al Qaeda)
An 11-page Iraqi memo, dated Jan. 25, 1993, lists Palestinian, Sudanese and Asian terrorist organizations and the relationships Iraq had with each of them. Of particular importance, Tefft said, are the relationships Iraq had already developed or was in the process of developing with groups and individuals affiliated with al Qaeda, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri. The U.S. currently is offering rewards of up to $25 million for each man's capture.
The documents describe Al-Jehad wa'l Tajdeed as "a secret Palestinian organization" founded after the first Persian Gulf War that "believes in armed struggle against U.S. and western interests." The leaders of the group, according to the Iraqi memo, were stationed in Jordan in 1993, and when one of those leaders visited Iraq in November 1992, he "showed the readiness of his organization to execute operations against U.S. interests at any time." (See More Saddam Connections to al Qaeda)
Tefft believes the Tajdeed group likely included al-Zarqawi, whom Teft described as "our current terrorist nemesis" in Iraq, "a Palestinian on a Jordanian passport who was with al Qaeda and bin Laden in Afghanistan prior to this period (1993)."
Tajdeed, which means Islamic Renewal, currently "has a website that posts Zarqawi's speeches, messages, claims of assassinations and beheading videos," Tefft told CNSNews.com. "The apparent linkages are too close to be accidental" and might "be one of the first operational contacts between an al Qaeda group and Iraq," he added.
Tefft said the documents, all of which the Iraqi Intelligence Service labeled "Top secret, personal and urgent" show several links between Saddam's government and terror groups dedicated not only to targeting America but also U.S. allies like Egypt and Israel.
The same 11-page memo refers to the "re-opening of the relationship" with Al-Jehad al-Islamy, which is described as "the most violent in Egypt," responsible for the 1981 assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. The documents go on to describe a Dec. 14, 1990 meeting between Iraqi intelligence officials and a representative of Al-Jehad al-Islamy, that ended in an agreement "to move against [the] Egyptian regime by doing martyr operations on conditions that we should secure the finance, training and equipments." (See More Saddam Connections to al Qaeda)
Al-Zawahiri was one of the leaders of Jehad al-Islamy, which is also known as the Egyptian Islamic Group, and participated in the assassination of Sadat, Tefft said. "Iraq's contact with the Egyptian Islamic Group is another operational contact between Iraq and al Qaeda," he added.
One of the Asian groups listed on the Iraqi intelligence memo is J.U.I., also known as the Islamic Clerks Society. The group is currently led by Mawlana Fadhel al-Rahman, whom Tefft said is "an al Qaeda member and co-signed Osama bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious ruling) to kill Americans." The Iraqi memo from 1993 states that J.U.I.'s secretary general "has a good relationship with our system since 1981 and he is ready for any mission." Tefft said the memo shows "another direct Iraq link to an al Qaeda group."
Iraq had also maintained a relationship with the Afghani Islamist party since 1989, according to the memo. The "relationship was improved and became directly between the leader, Hekmatyar and Iraq," it states, referring to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an Afghani warlord who fought against the Soviet Union and current al Qaeda ally, according to Tefft.
Last year, American authorities in Afghanistan ranked Hekmatyar third on their most wanted list, behind only bin Laden and former Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Hekmatyar represents "another Iraqi link to an al Qaeda group," Tefft said. (See More Saddam Connections to al Qaeda)
The Iraqi intelligence documents also refer to terrorist groups previously believed to have had links with Saddam Hussein. They include the Palestine Liberation Front, a group dedicated to attacking Israel, and according to the Iraqi memo, one with "an office in Baghdad."
The Abu Nidal group, suspected by the CIA of having acted as surrogates for Iraqi terrorist attacks, is also mentioned.
"The movement believes in political violence and assassinations," the 1993 Iraqi memo states in reference to the Abu Nidal organization. "We have relationships with them since 1973. Currently, they have a representative in the country. Monthly helps are given to them -- 20 thousand dinars - in addition to other supports," the memo explains. (See Saddam's Connections to Palestinian Terror Groups)
Iraq not only built and maintained relationships with terrorist groups, the documents show it appears to have trained terrorists as well. Ninety-two individuals from various Middle Eastern countries are listed on the papers.
Many are described as having "finished the course at M14," a reference to an Iraqi intelligence agency, and to having "participated in Umm El-Ma'arek," the Iraqi response to the U.S. invasion in 1991. The author of the list notes that approximately half of the individuals "all got trained inside the 'martyr act camp' that belonged to our directorate."
The former UNSCOM weapons inspector who was asked to analyze the documents believes it's clear that the Iraqis "were training people there in assassination and suicide bombing techniques ... including non-Iraqis."
Bush administration likely unaware of documents' existence
The senior government official and source of the Iraqi intelligence memos, explained that the reason the documents have not been made public before now is that the government has "thousands and thousands of documents waiting to be translated.
"It is unlikely they even know this exists," the source added.
The government official also explained that the motivation for leaking the documents, "is strictly national security and helping with the war on terrorism by focusing this country's attention on facts and away from political posturing.
"This is too important to let it get caught up in the political process," the source told CNSNews.com.
To protect against the Iraqi intelligence documents being altered or misrepresented elsewhere on the Internet, CNSNews.com has decided to publish only the first of the 42 pages in Arabic, along with the English translation. Portions of some of the other memos in translated form are also being published to accompany this report. Credentialed journalists and counter-terrorism experts seeking to view the 42 pages of Arabic documents or to challenge their authenticity may make arrangements to do so at CNSNews.com headquarters in Alexandria, Va.
Source
|
In effect, Saddam had EXTENSIVE terrorist ties, and you are BLIND and WRONG if you cannot see that. It is NOT a ruse, it is the TRUTH. What if Kerry said it? Oh wait--he DID! And I have that quote somewhere...
And don't forget ties to Palestinian terrorists!
No, we don't control them, back to that. Sure, we picked their INTERUM PRIME MINISTER in the PAST, but no longer! You are just blind. That's all.
Last edited by Republican_Man on Mon Jan 03, 2005 6:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 6:24 pm |
|
Just found this:
| CNS News wrote: | Saddam�s Connection to al Qaeda:
(Memo from Iraqi Intelligence Service to Abid Hamid Mahmud, Saddam�s secretary on Jan. 25, 1993)
In the name of Allah the compassionate the kind
Top secret, personal & urgent
Republic of Iraq
The bureau of presidency
The Iraqi intelligence service
Issue # 110/2/ 43
Date; Jan. 25th,1993
Shaaban 3rd.1413 Hijri
Recently, our system met Sheikh Ali Othman Taha the vice
chairman of the National Islamic Front in Sudan, we agreed with him on the following:
A- Re opening of the relationship with �Al-Jehad al-Islamy� organization in Egypt, also known as �Al-Jama�at al-Islameya/ The Islamic groups� which was found by an Egyptian (Mohammed Abdel Salam Faraj) and currently led by Dr. Omar Abdel Rahman, the organization is considered as the most violent in Egypt, they assassinated �Anwar Sadat� & �Refa�at Al-Mahjoob,� who was the chairman of people�s council in Egypt.
A meeting had already been conducted with a representative from the organization on Dec. 14th, 1990. We agreed on a plan to move against Egyptian regime by doing martyr operations on conditions that we should secure the finance, training and equipments. |
Source
| CNS News wrote: | Saddam�s Connection to al Qaeda:
(Memo from Abid Hamid Mahmud, Saddam Hussein�s secretary, to Ali Al-Reech Al-Sheikh, member of Arabian Bureau Ba�ath Party leadership on Jan. 18, 1993)
In the name of Allah the compassionate the kind
Top secret, personal & urgent
Republic of Iraq
The bureau of presidency
The secretary
Issue # 425/K
Date; Jan.18th, 1993
Rajab 25th.1413 Hijri
Esquire Comrade Ali Al-Reeh Al-Sheikh/a member of
The Arabian Bureau-Ba�ath party leadership.
Subject: instruction
In a continuity with our former book#7184/K on Dec. 20th, 1992, it�s decided that the party should move to hunt the Americans who are on Arabian land, especially in Somalia, by using Arabian elements, or Asian (Muslims) or friends.
Take the necessary steps
Stay well for struggle
Signature of the president�s secretary
Jan.18th, 1993
Copy to:
The General Director of the intelligence system/
The same purpose mentioned above that concerned your duties
Source |
So don't you go telling me there's no ties!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 6:45 pm |
|
Ok. Its obvious Defiant is in denial. He actually believes there are no terrorists in Iraq. Sad...just...sad.
| Defiant wrote: | | And yes, we do control them. We hand picked the prime minister. He does exactly the things that the US agrees with. Dont you imagine if they were truly free we would have at least a little controversy or disagreement over things? Not if we are telling them what to do. |
You just proved my point. We control aspects of the country. Nothing more.
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 7:13 pm |
|
People can not see we are over to stop the bad guys aka terrorist. They just so hung up on either bashing Bush or bashing America. People need to worry about their own life and instead of worrying about other people.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 7:31 pm |
|
| Rbgirl wrote: | | People can not see we are over to stop the bad guys aka terrorist. They just so hung up on either bashing Bush or bashing America. People need to worry about their own life and instead of worrying about other people. |
You're right. And their hatred for this President blinds them, and the fact that they can't take the fact that most Americans like him is leading to their downfall.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:19 pm |
|
Whether or not you are in fact an imperialist country, the fact that other countries perceive you as this is what you should worry about.
Terrorism, religion, basically everything we do as human beings depends on perception of a given situation: our subjective interpretation of reality. Why are the terrorists in the Middle East terrorists? Because they perceive the U.S. to be an expansionist imperialist threat to their culture, lives, religion, et cetera.
Admittedly, some of them are die-hard fanatics who are amoral or immoral and would like nothing better than to continue militant action at any cost. You really can't do much about these types of people except continue trying. However, the U.S. has yet to address the root cause of most terrorism: people's dissatisfaction with the U.S.' image.
I'm not one to go around talking about image, because I too think that you should judge based on facts and not on apparent illusions. However, the fact in this case is that the majority of people judge by illusions and the surface of matters, few actually look deeper (that's why advertising works).
Thusly, the U.S. appears as an imperialist nation to several other nations, even if it is not. Therefore, dissidents of these nations decide to form terrorist movements to combat this perceived wave of U.S. expansion. Most of the time this can be stopped, the problem escalates however when one of those die-hard fanatics I mentioned earlier can seize control of a sizable sect of terrorists and mould them to his or her purposes.
So while I don't like the concept of 'image', just as I don't like the concept of a mercantile society, unfortunately both are concepts we must live with on a daily basis. You can confront terrorism head-on all you want, but if you continue to incur the dissatisfaction of other nations then more terrorists will continue to appear in a vicious cycle.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:29 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | Whether or not you are in fact an imperialist country, the fact that other countries perceive you as this is what you should worry about.
Terrorism, religion, basically everything we do as human beings depends on perception of a given situation: our subjective interpretation of reality. Why are the terrorists in the Middle East terrorists? Because they perceive the U.S. to be an expansionist imperialist threat to their culture, lives, religion, et cetera.
Admittedly, some of them are die-hard fanatics who are amoral or immoral and would like nothing better than to continue militant action at any cost. You really can't do much about these types of people except continue trying. However, the U.S. has yet to address the root cause of most terrorism: people's dissatisfaction with the U.S.' image. |
No, that's not why the terrorists hate us and are terrorists. It is a mix, but mostly that they hate Democracy. Why? Because they know that their radical agenda will push them out of power, and that frightens them. Given, not-so radical muslims are drawn into it because Israel is brought up, yada yada yada (even though that's just an excuse), but they really just hate America's guts and the freedoms that we have, coupled with our devout Christianity. It is NOT our fault, and prior to 9/11 we did LITTLE in the Middle East, so don't bring up this crap about how America's fault is this.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:30 pm |
|
Excellant point HH. All of what you said is true. Im sure im going to get blasted for what im about to say. In a way they(Terrorists) are fighting against what they percieve to be an invading force. America, although its intentions are good, sometimes cause harm. Iraq NOT being an example. As RM pointed out we are wanted there. The Liberal's sweep that part under the rug though as to not look stupid. Although Bin Laden accused us of hurting the Palestians and the Lebonese(sp?) people. Perhaps he is right that we have hurt many people there. That does not excuse 9/11 though. We are not invading them for fun. We are invading any threat to the US. Guess what? Iraq was a threat. Its time for people to get over it and accept it. The Liberal's will have you believe that Saddam was a peaceful leader and Iraq a peaceful nation. All of these are lies. Does that mean Iraqi's are evil? Absolutely not. They are a good people and thats why we want to free them from tyranny. He had ties to terrorist and thats enough for me. Its time the World learned that you don't f**k with the US and think you can get away with it.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:39 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Rbgirl wrote: | | People can not see we are over to stop the bad guys aka terrorist. They just so hung up on either bashing Bush or bashing America. People need to worry about their own life and instead of worrying about other people. |
You're right. And their hatred for this President blinds them, and the fact that they can't take the fact that most Americans like him is leading to their downfall. |
I don't percieve this topic as having to do anything with Bush or the current administration, in particular. Of course there are things they and he have done that may or do make them seem this way, however America has been the way it is for a long time; and examples of what is percieved as imperialism have occured before our current presidency (Vietnam for example). Nobody here is bashing America, either. They just don't agree with somethings that the current administration has done, but that doesn't mean that they dislike America. You aren't a traitor for just disagreeing.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:41 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | Rbgirl wrote: | | People can not see we are over to stop the bad guys aka terrorist. They just so hung up on either bashing Bush or bashing America. People need to worry about their own life and instead of worrying about other people. |
You're right. And their hatred for this President blinds them, and the fact that they can't take the fact that most Americans like him is leading to their downfall. |
I don't percieve this topic as having to do anything with Bush or the current administration, in particular. Of course there are things they and he have done that may or do make them seem this way, however America has been the way it is for a long time; and examples of what is percieved as imperialism have occured before our current presidency (Vietnam for example). Nobody here is bashing America, either. They just don't agree with somethings that the current administration has done, but that doesn't mean that they dislike America. You aren't a traitor for just disagreeing. |
All three of you are wrong. ENTIRELY. And Vietnam was NOT "imperialism."
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:43 pm |
|
| Rbgirl wrote: | | People can not see we are over to stop the bad guys aka terrorist. |
Think like the 'enemy'  The terrorists don't see themselves as bad guys, they don't say to each other, "Hey man, we're nefarious evil guys!" (well . . . most don't . . . there's always one . . .  ). They believe in their cause just as much as you believe in yours, the only reason we see them as bad guys is because their cause happens to go against the social norm.
| Quote: | | People need to worry about their own life and instead of worrying about other people. |
Er . . . isn't that rather selfish? I don't think I should spend my entire life trying to help others at the expense of my own wellbeing (I'm no saint) but the whole point is that people are supposed to be all the same . . . what goes around comes around . . . that sort of thing. Help others because they need help, and because one day you too might need help.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:44 pm |
|
| RM wrote: | | All three of you are wrong. ENTIRELY. And Vietnam was NOT "imperialism." |
All three of us, including yourself and kmma (whom you agreed with)? 
Did you read what I said? I never said that Vietnam was imperialism. I believe I said "examples of what is percieved as imperialism," with Vietnam being an example.
Last edited by IntrepidIsMe on Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:45 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | All three of us, including yourself and kmma (whom you agreed with)?
Did you read what I said? I never said that Vietnam was imperialism. I believe I said "examples of what is percieved as imperialism," with Vietnam being an example. |
Yes, you said percieved, and that's wrong.
And why is it amazing that Kmma and I agreed with each other? It's NOT. And I meant you, HH, and Founder.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Kyre
Commodore
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 1263
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:47 pm |
|
Why do these arguments end up as Republicans versus Liberals? Does everyone believe that all Republicans support Bush's war on terror? Are all Liberals against it? And why can't someone just be a person with an opinion? If I disagree with RM, does that automatically make me a liberal? What if I disagree with Defiant? Republican now? Is that fair?
I support a competent fight against terror. I don't support the decision to start a war that the majority of the planet opposes (that doesn't just mean governments). I also support a well equipped army, i.e. one that doesn't have to scavenge for parts.
However, I would not take a stand against every Bush decision because of who he is, which is something I suspect alot of people here would do. Same goes for Kerry. If it's a good decision, it doesn't really matter who makes it.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:49 pm |
|
^^I didn't say it was amazing, you said "all three of you." You, kmma, and I were the ones quoted in that post, so I figured you were talking about us.
Percieved isn't wrong. What do you think all the protesting was about? Because people felt we didn't belong there, like we were "invading" for no reason.
And you said that Vietnam wasn't "imperialism." I never said it was, that's what I was responding to.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:50 pm |
|
| Kyre wrote: | Why do these arguments end up as Republicans versus Liberals? Does everyone believe that all Republicans support Bush's war on terror? Are all Liberals against it? And why can't someone just be a person with an opinion? If I disagree with RM, does that automatically make me a liberal? What if I disagree with Defiant? Republican now? Is that fair?
I NEVER said that, and I know FOR A FACT that Founder is NOT Liberal. Stop spinning my words. (And I'm generalizing when I talk about Libs because that's what comes out of the Lib leadership.)
I support a competent fight against terror. I don't support the decision to start a war that the majority of the planet opposes (that doesn't just mean governments). I also support a well equipped army, i.e. one that doesn't have to scavenge for parts.
However, I would not take a stand against every Bush decision because of who he is, which is something I suspect alot of people here would do. Same goes for Kerry. If it's a good decision, it doesn't really matter who makes it. |
Alright, fine. That works. But I disagree with all those who say that it's America's fault, because it's NOT. And that goes for you, Defiant, HH, Intrepid, Link, and Founder. And don't spin around it.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Kyre
Commodore
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 1263
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:54 pm |
|
Show me where my original post was pointing the finger at you, Republican man.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:56 pm |
|
And I never said that it was at all America's fault. That's why I italacized phrases and words to make people realize I wasn't drawing any conclusions. "Percieved" and "Seem this way" aren't in any way saying that somethings fact, and that's it.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
