"Preaching intolerance." Does that include such activities as holding up signs saying "God hates Fags?" Does it include bombing women's health clinics? There is no black and white in this world, just shades of gray.

Let me make it plain, BA. I don't support Al-Queda or Osama Bin-Laden. They are a hateful group of thugs who use terror to achieve their rotten ends. I even approved of going into Afghanistan to get him. We used to support him and Saddam, now we don't.

I don't hate America. I don't approve of every action we have taken but I want to work to make us a better people. I don't want us to become like Osama or like Hitler's Germany. We have a history of helping when we can and we should continue to do so.

Now, does that make it clear that I am not a traitor, a communist, a fascist or Islamic? Can we please drop the personal attacks against ME? All my life I've been an artist. I don't kill people, throw bombs, poison wells or rape 2 year olds, OK? I paint pictures. I talk to people. I dislike violence as a means to an end. However, I realize that it is necessary to defend oneself and one's country from attack.

I just don't happen to agree with the Bush administration's handling of just about anything so far. To me they are crooked rich boys playing a game they don't fully comprehend and botching it completely, losing America's good standing in so doing. I'll be glad when he is out of office. That isn't a personal attack against you, BA! It's my opinion, and I have every right under the Constitution to voice it as often as I like.

And that's what I'm gonna do.

Since the "London" thread was cut off in the middle of a discussion and several statements were lacking the TRUTH, I am going to use this thread to respond.

I guess it is better than starting a new one and the title is accurate in any case.
Cheers,
H.

Mog - "The US has inflicted a thousand times more damage on Iraq than we have suffered ourselves. And they didn't actually attack us, whether they supported other terrorists or not."

Using round numbers of those who died: 3000 at WTC plus 1700 in Iraq times 1000 equals 4,700,000. Do you really believe we have killed 4.5 million Iraqis?

As to your second point: Iraq did attack us. Daily. In the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones over Iraq in violation of the cease fire agreement they made with the Allies. Their actions provided all the legal justification for resuming the conflict that was necessary. They bet on their bought and paid for friends to prevent it. They lost.

Mog - "What I hear here is that we need to be in a war forever, like Isreal. I don't think that is very good idea. There has to be another way...one that doesn't involve bankrupting this country to fight chimeras. We can NEVER get every terrorist, and the more we try, I fear, the more we create."

A question for you: Any solutions come to mind? I'd love to have a magic wand that instantly eliminated all terrorists. But here in the real world we just have to fight them...or accept them. Accepting them won't work because, unfortunately, they don't accept us. Fight or die...the talking option is taken off the table by them. Israel has the option to stop the fighting...they could just drop all their weapons and wait a short time for the Muslims to kill them all. (Odd how Muslims can live, work, and vote in Israel...but, the Palestinian territories must be free of all Jews???) Perhaps you can really tell which side is right and which is wrong in a conflict if you look at facts.


boe – “Let me add what else these bomb blasts have achieved:
- British troop withdrawal from Iraq cancelled
- US and British public opinion swayed/reinforced towards the continuation of hostilities in Iraq
- Higher approval ratings for Bush and Blair
- Pledges of support in the "war on terror" from the other G8 members
- Very likely more legislation tightening security and eroding civil rights to follow in US&UK, possibly the institution of national ID cards, security checks at busses and train stations etc...


So how did these "Islamic Fundamentalists" benefit from these bomb blasts? Aside from a guaranteed trip to heaven that is.”

Some counter questions to expose the flaws in your point of view: How does staying in Iraq benefit us? Bush can’t run again…how do higher approval ratings help him? Pledges to fight the War on Terror are almost meaningless, and certainly transitory...why will they last any longer this time than they did after 9/11? By the last you must be looking at this as a huge government conspiracy theory to enslave us all...if that is the goal, we could just surrender and become enslaved by the Islamic fundamentalists right now. Or is your point that taking measures to make it harder for the terrorists to act is a bad thing?
-----
If the anti-government forces really want the US out of Iraq, all they have to do is lay down their arms. We would be gone in 6 months. We are not like the UN…nobody pays us to stay there (ala Kosovo). We finish our mission and go home. It is that simple. They don't even need to ask us to go.

Seems boe's big point must be that we have the entire Muslim population of the earth under our control and are forcing them to attack us so we can build our strength. That is the gist of his big Israeli/US plot. If we are that strong...we can make Muslims actually train their children to blow themselves up...why do we wait?

Alternative: They are fools who are trained to die by their religion and culture...they do not value life on this earth...they are taught that paradise awaits them. They choose to go now with a supposed "guaranteed" ticket stamped "JIHAD". End of story.
Cheers,
H.

Last Edited : Saturday, 9 July 2005 - 10:56

Very interesting. You believe the US&UK are not in Iraq for their own benefit? Please, do not play the humanitarian card again--the spreading of democracy and peace throughout the world, please don't. If this was the case the whole US army would be positioned throughout Africa handing out bread and medicine to the starving millions.

The invasion of Iraq had a direct benefit for US's regional ally Israel, since it now no longer has a regional rival in the form of hostile militarised Iraq under Saddam Hussein. But I don't think you had that in mind either. What benefit do US&UK derive from being in Iraq at this very moment? No benefit (or more correctly profit) at all, since the occupation is unable to recover the expenses it has put into this as of yet. The pipelines and refineries are burning from resistance attacks making occupation expenses enormously high with oil revenues no where near to cover the costs. However in the end the final goal of the occupation must be the pacifying of the resistance and development of Iraq's vast oil fields, with time yielding higher revenues than the expenses which have been put in. Lets just say it is a long-term investment.

SO, if the occupation forces were to leave Iraq now, all the foregone expenses so far would go to waste, and this venture would make a large loss. Obviously since the occupation forces are not withdrawing, the planners must think they can still make their investment worthwhile. But public support for the war was at an all time low. The London bombings changed the situation for the benefit of the planners of the Iraq war, letting Blair distract the public from the brewing domestic scandals with heroic speeches about the evils of terrorism.


I can not think of any benefit any "Islamic Fundamentalist" group has derived from the London bombings. Especially since some of the bombs went off in "Arab London".

Last Edited : Saturday, 9 July 2005 - 19:47

boe,
The US and UK are in Iraq for our own benefit. We are fighting the war on terror by killing terrorists...it is what we have sworn to do for self-preservation.

Our national plan is to not even need oil in the long run...more accurately in the medium run...and with luck in the fairly short run.

We are not in Africa with all of our forces because the Africans are not trying to kill us at the moment.

The only benefit the Islamic fundamentalists care about is fear and the control that comes with it. As a conspiracy theorist, you are immune from their effect and also have no positive impact for their cause...thus, you don't see it, but it doesn't matter.

Their audience for the blasts was the US and UK and European news media and liberal politicians. They hoped it would have the same effect as in Spain...they are getting the same effect from the WTC so far. We will see how it turns out.
Cheers,
H.

Oil is one of the most crucial resources for the world economy now and will continue to be so if not more so in the foreseeable future. So lets not kid ourselves here.

Iraq was never a threat to the United States or Britain. I hate to sound like a cliche but WMDs were never found and links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam were never proven. These are facts.

Terrorism is a tactic used to instill fear in the population to achieve certain political objectives. The United States has spent $180 billion on the war in Iraq during the past two and a half years. Imagine if this money was spent on improving domestic security, if the US Government was REALLY fighting terrorism. If the global Al-Qaeda terrorist cell network REALLY existed. The invasion of Iraq, instead of extinguishing terrorism, has created alot more of it. So your explanation for the invasion is illogical Hwatta.


As for the London bombings, even if we were to take them as the press and the western Governments would have us understand them.. Then it is obvious that all the legislation since 9/11 and all the money spent on improving security in Britain has gone to waste, with intelligence unable to identify the threats and react in due time. Since these "Islamic Fundametalists" were a local group, then local security must be improved, instead of spending billions on conquest trips to the middle east. If there really is a war on terror, instead of a war of terror.

Last Edited : Saturday, 9 July 2005 - 21:36

Oil is only crucial because we have a longstanding habit of using it and are dependent on it for now. It does not have to be that way. And it won't always be. Technological advances will not eliminate the need, but the supply will be huge relative to the demand within 50 years tops.

If the point is to enslave all of us and give loads of money to Bush's friends, $180 billion for their homeland security companies would be a lot cheaper, more effective, pay off sooner than Iraqi oil, and be less controversial. So for your worldview, your explanation would be even more illogical than you believe mine is.

Back here in the real world, Iraq was a threat to the US and Britain along with a number of other countries.

There may be more terrorist attacks in the short run, but it is concentrated and we are dealing with it. They will all eventually stop or get caught. Just look at the number of weekly attacks in Iraq as they continue to fall precipitously.

Do you believe that Iran is a threat? Do you believe North Korea is a threat? Communist China?

Is President Bush really the only threat you recognize?

Obviously you are not aware of the peak-oil theory proposed by the neocon ideology. I don't know where you got your projections for the supply and demand of oil in 50 years time, I will not speculate on that.

The point is to wage unilateral wars for the benefit of friendly corporations and ally states while deceiving the general public. You see, when a democracy or a free (market) society such as the republic of the USA goes to war, public opinion and dissent become big factors. Public opinion must be managed with propanganda, deceit and disinformation especially if the reasons for the war are not moral and just.


How was Iraq a threat to the US and Britain? To what other countries was Iraq a threat? Also where did you get the idea that the number of resistance attacks is falling precipitously? icasualties.org/oif/


As to your questions: Iran and North Korea are countries with which the US currently has no diplomatic relations (or appalling diplomatic relations). Communist China is seen by the US as an economic and military rival in its quest for global supremacy. Hopefully these are satisfactory answers.


And lastly I do not recognise Bush as a threat, I recognise him as an idiot. I also do not believe that he makes any serious decisions in the running of the United States. Although I am aware of how well you believe in the authenticity of the Presidency of your country.

Last Edited : Saturday, 9 July 2005 - 23:42

Sorry I am not familiar with the peak oil theory or the latest rules on waging immoral unilateral wars to deceive the public. I will look into it.

Iraq was the most obvious nexus of a state sponsor of terrorism with the demonstrated capability to produce WMDs...N Korea now has the WMD, but not the terrorists...Iran has the terrorists, but not the WMD yet.
-----
Which part of your chart is confusing you?

The average killed per day is at 0.78...the lowest on the chart by far.

The number wounded that did not return to duty within 72 hours is 85 for the last month of data...lower than any other month period on the chart.

The Wounded in Action for June is the lowest since March of 2004.
-----
I also have access to daily casualty reports and numbers of bombings, suicide bombings, and attempted bombings as part of my job. The numbers ARE dropping precipitously. I hope and pray they continue to do so.

I understand our diplomatic situation. The question was, do you think they are a threat? Yes or no for each?

So, you see Bush as a puppet and front man for the real threat? Is that it?

H.

Hwatta, what IS your job?

Yup you got it.

Now, the 0.78 average is for the last 9 days. Are you going to base your statement on the last 9 days in a two and a half year conflict? Ok.. I guess its just how and what you want to see and believe. Just like Building 7 and 9/11. Building 7 is insignificant and must be ignored.


Is Iran and North Korea a threat to what? World peace? Or US world domination? Or Israeli domination of the middle east? Or the spread of "democracy"?

I think both Iran and North Korea are capable of conducting friendly and effective diplomatic relations, just depends who the other diplomatic party is and what is the history of their relations. They are certainly not out-of-control rogue nations the US Government and massmedia would paint them as. I believe the current US administration is a much bigger threat to world peace than both of these nations combined.


Btw, Iraq had no WMDs at the time of the 2003 invasion and had no capability to produce WMDs. These are facts admitted by your Government! Use some logic now military man, if Iraq had WMDs capable of threatening the US and Britain and other nations, do you think the invasion force would take such a risk? Don't you think those lethal WMDs would be a good enough deterrant for any invasion force? Where is your logic my friend? Sponsor of terrorism?? Where did you get that idea?

Last Edited : Sunday, 10 July 2005 - 00:44

boe,
The average on the chart takes the number of days into account. Do you know what the actual average is for the last 15 days? The last 21? That is where your data is faulty...not the last 9 days. Any arguments on the rest of the points from the chart?

For the rest...thanks...your opinion is noted.
H.

The average for the previous month is 2.77 fatalities per day and 2.84 for the month of May. These are above average figures if you consider the average number of fatalities per day for the whole duration of the conflict is 2.3. So I think you are misleading yourself if you just consider the last 9 days. If you are able to provide less faulty data and statistics then be my guest.

Your opinions are also noted, thank you very much.

Ahhhh good, deadly IRAq I am glader and bald forever happy you is bringing! Glader comes me for it! Given creatorling doubtings I listened and still unapproved I hate the feeling: stealings and roosterly!

Still, will livings without. Found MISSION for food creations there is a south area they call it "a fun experience" all leaves nothing here!

Still.

Reply game 4211. Your dinner Pirates is never router. Begone! ok, wirespeed painting is grounded in green splendor! HOHOHO!!!!

Translation: I'm really becoming fond of this looney character! He's brilliant, BRILLIANT I say!

I don't doubt that Osama's one evil, saddistic guy.. But I think he was right when he said "If we are out to destroy freedom, then why have we not attacked Switzerland? which is a much free-er country?" - IMO Bush's grand speeches about spreading freedom to the middle-east and abroad (although that may be his mission) are primarily meant to keep American spirits up and into the war in Iraq.. Terror (albeit in different forms) has always been a problem, and probably always will be, as long as people think it is effective.. When Bush says things like "We must remain steadfast in our cause to bring freedom to the world", it's just a substitute to put in place of the plan to Win this war that he most likely doesn't have... American's definitely need to be more aware of how much our media is geared around propaganda.. Politicians used to be some of our Nation's best people, looked up to and admired.. Now they have a pretty lousy reputation, which I think is at least partly attributed to how they play with words and make it so hard for people to trust them.. and the media too for that matter.... Trust is a very delicate thing now-a-days...

[/rant]

I love you all.

Ok, enough spamming... sorry

I love you too Mal

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love is all you need.

male bonding yuck! disgusting!

The thruth is never on the bias, nor in the extremist.

US media has lost their grip on reality, and the focus of a good reporter. They bend and twist and find the most obsene little crevice and make a whole out of it.

Is incredible!