The Bush Latin American Model [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Steve 'StatMan'

11-04-2005, 09:23 PM

Bashing the sitting U.S. President has been the 'In Thing' in many foreign countries for decades. Remember when the Iranians 'burned the evil Jimmy Carter in effigy' during the 1980 Persian Gulf Crisis? Castro and his communists have been protesting for decades. Venezula's new Communist President sure isn't going to be a fan of a U.S. President, etc. Plenty of protesters all over the world, for many things, at many presidents over the years.

But now there are people leading large scale protests, on our own soil, as well as foreign. Many of these issues are serioius but often overblown, but lead people to think that the U.S. and it's current President, Bush, are meant for kicking around. Frankly, I can't stand watching Leno anymore. Humor is one thing, but this day to day dwelling on things, which totally overshadow all the good things that have been done, is just too depressing, and frankly mighty damaging to our country and it's morale. (Bush this, DeLay that, Scooter Libby this, Bill Clinton sex joke that, Monica Lewinski sex joke this, O.J. Simpson that, Michael Jackson this, Catholic Priests that, Martha Stewart this, Donald Trump that).

The majority of the people of South and Centra America have been poor for centuries. Most of it is their governements. Some things are trade based. So they're just kicking around the biggest and best free-market trading country there is. But banana farm workers will never have much, period. Banana farm owners will always have a lot. No matter who the President of the United State is.

kenwoodallpromos

11-04-2005, 09:52 PM

As far as I know, USA leaders have always had trouble with latinos.

Tom

11-04-2005, 10:24 PM

And what ANYONE in Argentina thinks is of ony concern to us at all because.....?:confused:

lsbets

11-04-2005, 10:25 PM

As far as I know, USA leaders have always had trouble with latinos.

But its so convenient to Sec when they are protesting Bush. Of course many of these protests are staged by Castro and Chavez, and many of the people there are the same ones who show up at any "globalization" meeting looking for an excuse to riot. Its pretty sad that some folks in this country seem to admire what those people are doing.

PaceAdvantage

11-04-2005, 11:06 PM

So are you saying the protests of Bush in Argentina are being orchestrated by moveon.org?

Of course not. However, they have led the charge by example.

Secretariat

11-04-2005, 11:17 PM

Of course not. However, they have led the charge by example.

How so? Bush has been a big NAFTA and CAFTA supporter. One would think that those South of the border they'd be singing his praises, yet he is apparently despised there. Why does it matter what Argentina thinks as Tom asks? What a question to ask when there are terrorist groups worldwide looking for a friendly government to welcome them. We should be seeking allies, not dividing the coalition of the willing.

Steve 'StatMan'

11-04-2005, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by Secretariat:
So are you saying the protests of Bush in Argentina are being orchestrated by moveon.org?

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage:

Of course not. However, they have led the charge by example.

Exactly! They see others with huge, headline getting protesters that claim all sorts of awful reasons to hate the U.S. and the U.S. President (In this case, George Bush) and claiming to be working very hard to get him and his colleagues out of office (closest thing to an 'overthrow' to a Latin-American' and they feel emboldened and feel if they just push as hard as they possibly can, and the Al-Quida/Iraqi and Afgan stalwarts push hard enough, and Moveon.org's people with lots of money and angry and sympathetic Americans push hard enough, the U.S. Government will either change, collapse, or whatever (remember, the angry foreigners with no jobs don't care about what happens to the U.S., even though MoveOn.org members probably do). It's like they get emboldened like a growning mob that comes together turning over cars, and thinks that, with enough of them, they can overturn the "fully loaded semi-trucks" and maybe even the "fully loaded cement mixer'. Never mind that afterwards nothing will still get any better for them even if they do succeed.

PaceAdvantage

11-04-2005, 11:24 PM

One would think that those South of the border they'd be singing his praises, yet he is apparently despised there.

Again, protesting Bush is the "in thing" to do.....it means about as much as polls taken by American news media.....not a whole hell of a lot....

Half the folks protesting probably don't even know what they hell they're protesting about....they're out there to party and get laid....

Like I said, check out the episode of Penn & Teller BULLSHIT on Showtime where they follow some environmentalist groups....a real eye opener.

Steve 'StatMan'

11-04-2005, 11:29 PM

How so? Bush has been a big NAFTA and CAFTA supporter. One would think that those South of the border they'd be singing his praises, yet he is apparently despised there. Why does it matter what Argentina thinks as Tom asks? What a question to ask when there are terrorist groups worldwide looking for a friendly government to welcome them. We should be seeking allies, not dividing the coalition of the willing.

Most of the goverrnments are fine wish Bush. It's the poor and downtrodden, and the rising popularist goverments that cater to the poor like Chavez in Venezuela that are doing all the protesting.

The 'haves' are fine. The 'have nots' and those who got in power with the votes of the 'have nots' are not happy. The trouble is, the have nots, in general, never will have much. Their leaders do (Communist Party members in Russia were much more well off than the average peasant, Sadam Hussein was loaded with skimmed Oil-for-Food money, and his well-connected leaders all did well, while the average Iraqi suffered, and blamed the lack of funds and starvation on the U.S., hating all our Presidents, Bush I, Clinton & Bush II), because they themselves couldn't overthrow the only real person that mattered there, Sadam Hussein.

Secretariat

11-04-2005, 11:37 PM

http://news.syd.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=70589

"Argentine football legend Diego Maradona was the star turn again Friday leading the attack against US President George W. Bush at an international summit here, calling Bush "human rubbish".

Maradona was mobbed by fans as he arrived in Mar del Plata on a special train bringing activists to join protests against the Summit of the Americas, which saw widespread protests against the US presence.

The onslaught against the US leader was like Maradona leading the attack in the World Cup.

He wore a series of t-shirts, calling Bush "assassin" or declaring "stop Bush" and the chaos at Mar del Plata railway station was such that he decided not to lead a rally by more than 10,000 people to a football stadium."

.....

Please tell me how any of this relates to moveon.org OR how any President in my history has ever recevied this kind of reception in South America? When are you going to wake up and realize this is not the normal US President trip to South America? It's a little more than the "in thing to do".

Tom

11-04-2005, 11:44 PM

Please tell me how any of this relates to moveon.org OR how any President in my history has ever recevied this kind of reception in South America? When are you going to wake up and realize this is not the normal US President trip to South America? It's a little more than the "in thing to do".

1. It is the mo.org model - post thinking points on a website and the mindless will follow blindly - like lemmings. Like you ! :eek:
2. They stoned Nixon in SA and he was in jeopardy in his car.

Again, who cares what Argentinian idiots think?
We have thier co-ordinates....Bush is there to verify them! ;)
:kiss:

Lefty

11-04-2005, 11:46 PM

Steve 'StatMan'

11-04-2005, 11:49 PM

http://news.syd.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=70589"Argentine football legend Diego Maradona was the star turn again Friday leading the attack against US President George W. Bush at an international summit here, calling Bush "human rubbish".

All right then. To borrow the famous words of Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, Diego Maradona calling U.S. President George Bush "human rubbish" is like Poop telling Vomit "You Stink".

Enough for me. I have too many things I really should be taking care of instead of arguing things here that are far larger than any of us, and are far more complicated than the lead complainers (here and in the world in general) can deal with or make signifcantly better overnight or with a 'simple' administration change or a coup-de-tat.

Flusssssshh!

PaceAdvantage

11-04-2005, 11:49 PM

linrom1

11-05-2005, 11:18 AM

statman is right. Pictures on TV tonight showed Chavez actually cheerleading the protestors. You can bet the Argentine leaders behind closed doors apologizing to Bush all over the place. They need us more than we need them.

I think that some finally realize that US Democracy + US Free Markets = Corporate Fascism. One does not need to elaborate on this especially in Argentina.

Lefty

11-05-2005, 11:56 AM

linrom, you sound like a socialist that abhors free trade and capitalism.

linrom1

11-05-2005, 12:21 PM

linrom, you sound like a socialist that abhors free trade and capitalism.

Actually, I abhor exploitation and "the end justifies the means type of thinking" in the name of free markets and capitalism that has so corrupted our country. The people running our institutions are social psychopaths. The VP of Operations who I work for comes to work at 6am and works until 7 PM including weekends spending most of that time trying to figure out how to screw someone out of a $.05.

Lefty

11-05-2005, 12:34 PM

ljb

11-05-2005, 01:16 PM

lin, so without this corp you're out of a job? Maybe you're just bitter cause your boss is doing better than you. You're prob. just working your 8 hra and going home while the vp is putting in 12-13 hr days trying to think of more ways to make profits to keep the investors happy and people like you in a job.
The dems exploit thinking such as yours.
Lefty, you are so into quoting the party line it almost makes you look like a dittohead. Oops you are, sorry. Oil companies make record profits and get mammoth tax breaks, man on the street pays record prices for gas and gets $300 tax break. Repubs pass medicare program costing taxpayers billions of dollars resulting in billions of dollars profit for Insurance industry. The repubs exploit those who can't think for themselves like dittoheads.

Dave Schwartz

11-05-2005, 01:34 PM

LJB & Sec,

LOL - When I first saw the title of this post I thought it had to do with a new Presidential scandal involving Bush and some Latin model.

Wouldn't you guys really love that?

Dave

Steve 'StatMan'

11-05-2005, 01:39 PM

Yes! The only Latin Models I'd really rather care about are Yamila Diaz and Elsa Benitez!

Tom

11-05-2005, 06:57 PM

Lefy. that is the thinking ( the boss is out to screw me, that's why he work all those hours) that make libs so in favor of minimumn wage laws - minimum output.

Lefty

11-05-2005, 07:51 PM

Tom, yes, it's pitiful, isn't it.
lbj, like 46, you don't even really know what dittohead means. Here's the deal. If all the evil corps went broke where would you be? You are the one that spouts the lib line, just like tom said. Meanwhile, with all the probs that have been thown at this adm. terrorists, hurricanes,high gas prices because liberals wouldn't let us use natural resources, build new refineries, etc etc. the economy is setting records. And gas prices have dropped over .50 in last mo. Get off the lib blogs and come into the real world.

46zilzal

11-06-2005, 02:59 AM

dittohead: the crowning achievement of late 20th century philosophy, one who takes pride in his or her lack of ability to form original or analytical thought. AKA rush worshipers

Secretariat

11-06-2005, 06:54 AM

Sec, I'm not sure I understand the significance of what you just posted. Does might mean right?

You can have all the t-shirts, sports stars, and misguided folks you want....won't make them any more right or wrong.

Are they right? Do they know what they are protesting? Where are their articulated views? Does it go any deeper than "assassin" or "stop Bush?"

I mean, come on! What on earth did you just post? Bush protesters or a description of the latest "Pro" wresting Pay Per View episode?

I'll leave you with one last question. How far back does protesting big economic summit meetings go? Further back than GWB? I thought so...

PS. Yes, MoveOn has been a catalyst for many a GWB protest rally. Do you think these rallies only get play in America? They make news all over the world....makes it the "in" thing to do...you know how much the rest of the world loves to copy America....lol

The signficance is simple.

1. Our president is despised in Argentina and South America. Comparing his response to Nixon's isn't exactly a favorable one. If that's his goal to be compared to Nixon, he's on the right track.
2. When legendary star athletes take a political stand (who are role models for millions of South American children) when they take a stand it has future impact on those children's perception of America. Imagine if someone like Derek Jeter came out with those kind of statements in our country. Now, you may not care, but children are highly influenced by what their role models assert. I am surprised that those on the right who are constantly bashing the so called liberal Hollywood filsm for their influence on our children are so easy to dismiss the influence of a legendary athlete's words in Argentina.
3. Tom's point of who cares what Argentina thinks is naive in a world in which terrorists are seeking friendly government refuge, and potentially here in the Western hemisphere. Not only naive, but dangerous to our national security.
4. The policies of this administration have lead to widespread poverty in South American, and the people there arent buying GW's BS while they see the Halliburton's and Exxon's roll up record profiteering.
5. GW is the guy who is advising us to look at Chiles retrirement system as a mdoel for our future Social Security system, and the poor down there ain't liking what they see, or has GW finally dropped that inane argument. We don't here him talk about that absurdity much anymore.

lsbets

11-06-2005, 09:06 AM

linrom1

11-06-2005, 09:35 AM

Failed Business Model (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GK05Dj01.html)

Not KFC's war
In recent years, KFC has had some trying moments in the Muslim world. In early September, a bomb exploded inside one of the company's fried-chicken outlets in Karachi, Pakistan. It was not the first time the chain had been targeted. In May, a Shi'ite mob, angered by US backing for President General Pervez Musharraf and by reported abuses at Guantanamo Bay, set fire to another KFC outlet - one decked out with large images of Colonel Sanders set atop fields of stars and stripes. Two other branches were destroyed shortly after the US attack on Afghanistan in 2001.

The woes affecting KFC go well beyond one fast-food chain - McDonald's, too, has been attacked in Pakistan and Indonesia - and the torching of fast-food outlets is only the most dramatic sign of the new business climate being fostered by a changing American foreign policy. If Clinton's diplomatic affairs could be described as a sustained effort to make the world safe for Mickey Mouse, Microsoft and popcorn chicken, the Bush/Cheney agenda represents something altogether more dangerous for business.

The Clinton administration served as a steady advocate for building a cooperative, "rules-based" international economy - a multilateral order known to critics as "corporate globalization". The Bush administration, while purporting to be interested in issues such as "free trade", has offered up a very different set of policies.

Aggressive and unilateralist, it has fashioned a new model of "imperial globalization", which has even put multilateral institutions such as the World Trade Organization, decried by globalization activists, in jeopardy. Rather than working through such bodies, the current administration has regularly shown intransigence in international negotiations around trade and development; it has focused on tying its aid for other countries directly to its militarist prerogatives; and it has tried to deny war-weary "Old Europe" its traditional role as a junior partner in the globalization endeavor. In the process, it has begun dismantling an international order that served multinational corporations very well in the booming 1990s, and facilitated their rise over the past 30 years.

In short: if Bush is an oil president, he's not a Disney president, nor a Coca-Cola one. If Cheney is working diligently to help Halliburton rebound, the war he helped lead hasn't worked out nearly so well for Starbucks.

A bungled-brand America
Whether the administration's bold gamble for US global dominance will prove profitable either in the near future or in the long run, the business costs of this approach are already becoming evident. For starters, the new wave of anti-Americanism sweeping the planet goes far beyond KFC bombings in South Asia or widespread hostility in the Middle East.

In Asia, the South China Morning Post has noted that a "strong, growing hostility" toward the United States has complicated Disney's expansion plans in the area. The Bush imperial foreign policy, moreover, is inspiring consumer backlash even among traditional allies.

Lefty

11-06-2005, 12:01 PM

46, didn't think you had the foggiest what a dittohead really is. I was right.

sec, yeah, a SS plan where people can sock away a part of their money where the govt can't get at it is completely abhorrant to socialists. It would be absurd for people to be able to retire with plenty of funds where they wouldn't need govt prgms to help them out. If that happened, the Dems may never win another election and then the socialists would be sad.

Tom

11-06-2005, 12:37 PM

I would rather start to fix SS by eliminating the cap, so that EVERYYONE pays the same percentage of EVERYTHING they earn. This might mean Tiger Woods, Tom Crusie, The Balwin boys, etc all pay over a million a year into SS. Hey, this is exactly the argument they used against the tax cuts "for the rich."
Do that, and then put all SS funding into a "locked box" and let's see how things look then.

Secretariat

11-06-2005, 04:09 PM

Sec, nice to see you are more than willing to crawl into bed with leaders of the "socialist revolution" if it gives you one more thing to point at Bush about. Heck, if Stalin were alive and spoke out against Bush I bet you would use him as a reference. Your moral compass has completely broken, hasn't it?

lol..oh and where am I crawling into bed with leaders of the socialist revolution? What a laugh. Talk about hyperbole. Here's a little Teddy Roosevelt to ponder:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public."
-Teddy Roosevelt

lsbets

11-06-2005, 04:58 PM

lol..oh and where am I crawling into bed with leaders of the socialist revolution? What a laugh. Talk about hyperbole. Here's a little Teddy Roosevelt to ponder:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public."
-Teddy Roosevelt

If I would have put money on your response I'd be a rich man. You are so predictable it is pathetic. You either don't know who led and organized the riots in Argentina or you don't care because you use them to point at Bush. Either way it speaks volumes about you.

PaceAdvantage

11-06-2005, 07:16 PM

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public."
-Teddy Roosevelt

Please, PLEASE point out the post by either lsbets or myself or ANYONE which claimed that there MUST BE NO CRITICISM OF THE PRESIDENT.

For the most part, there has ONLY been criticism of the President in this forum. What a laugh is right!

What exactly are you trying to imply with your Teddy Roosevelt quote?

Secretariat

11-06-2005, 07:23 PM

Isbets,

I've thought you a reasonable, rational man, but you've become fanatical in your defense of GW as the walls keep crumbling around him. The summit GW just attended was a political disaster for him yet again. The "leaders" of Argentina AND Brazil voted against his policies. Argentina and Brazil are the two largest countries in the Southern Hemisphere. What don't you get about their rejection of Bush's policies? Yes, you hate Chavez and Venezuelan, and their oil, but Argentina and Brazil are not Chavez or Castro. Yet, they voted against the GW policies. It is your right to be among the latest poll of 35% of Americans who are still duped by this admin, but I'm afraid I beg to differ.

Secretariat

11-06-2005, 07:38 PM

Please, PLEASE point out the post by either lsbets or myself or ANYONE which claimed that there MUST BE NO CRITICISM OF THE PRESIDENT.

For the most part, there has ONLY been criticism of the President in this forum. What a laugh is right!

What exactly are you trying to imply with your Teddy Roosevelt quote?

Here is Isbets post:

"Sec, nice to see you are more than willing to crawl into bed with leaders of the "socialist revolution" if it gives you one more thing to point at Bush about. Heck, if Stalin were alive and spoke out against Bush I bet you would use him as a reference. Your moral compass has completely broken, hasn't it?"

I point up the thousands of people protesting GW in South America, and am associated as with "crawling into bed with leaders of the socialist revolution" by Isbets. Isbets then equates my pointing up the complaints of the leaders and people of South America as somehow meaning that I am equivalent to Joe Stalin in terms of my "moral compass". Generally, it takes Rush to dig that low, but instead of addressing the complaints of the dissatsifaction of the people and leaders of South America, Isbets appears to brand people who attempt to understand their POV as part of the "socialist revolution."

The Teddy Roosevelt quote is apropos. Teddy's quote cries for an America that does not blindly support a person when his policies are endangering the well being of our nation, and alieiating those nations that have formerly been allies in the western hemisphere. Teddy's quote shines as Edward R. Murrow's did for an open discussion of democracy and its leaders without accusations of socialist sympathizer or communist or other such Joe McCarthy like nonsense. Disapointing as Isbets posts are generally of a higher level of integrity than his name calling one posted above.

lsbets

11-06-2005, 07:49 PM

Lefty

11-06-2005, 07:50 PM

sec, it's your right to criticize the pres but when you despise everything he's done then you're no better than the dem ldrs who have orchestrated attack after attack, since the first day he took office. They want power, what's your excuse? You don't like the good economy? You don't like being free of attacks since 9-11? You don't like keeping more of your own hard earned money? Guess not.

lsbets

11-06-2005, 07:55 PM

lefty, Sec doesn't give a crap about the USA, he only cares about the Democratic Party.

Light

11-06-2005, 09:00 PM

Bush lies and people die.That's why Bush is hated and protested around the world,not only in South America.Conspiracy theories regarding protests in other countries are as paranoid and self deluding as the protests in this country against the Vietnam war that were thought to originate from subversives. Big government cannot understand that there is something in us that will not stand for corruption at the expense of innocent lives and requires no external influences to be put into play.And BTW,thats how our country was born.

Tom

11-06-2005, 09:06 PM

So where were all these people who will not stand for this on election day in 2004?
I'd say they were outnumbered by those who support what we are doing.
BTW, SCREW Argentina....what has that 8th world country ever contributed to the world? Do know if Argentina was completely swalled up by the earth tonight, it would probably affect NOBODY!
On the list of important countries, it isn't even on it!

Lefty

11-06-2005, 09:15 PM

light, Yes, lots of terrorists have died, Saddams sons died and he will prob die. Sadly, we have lost some good people too, but that's the price of war and freedom and thank god there are still patriots willing to stand up for this country and the cowards and ill informed pacifists are in the minority.

Bush is hated because the world is full of dictators, communists and socialists.
Why don't you defend him instead of them. Because he's not a socialist only reason i can think of.

Tom

11-06-2005, 09:39 PM

Spain, now France are learning just what it means to allow the islamic menace to go unchallenged. The idea that they will leave you alone if you go after them is absurd. Their mission is to destroy the western wolrd. Our mission is to destroy them first. Complacency = death.

Secretariat

11-06-2005, 09:52 PM

Okay Sec, it is official, you are as dumb as Chuckles (too bad he left the day you got better, you would have really liked each other). Show me where I defended GW? I didn't, but I pointed out who organized the protests and what they stand for and that you are more than willing to overlook that, because as is obvious to almost everyone here, you don't give a rat's ass about our country, you only care about your party.

You are a shining example of what is wrong with politics in our country right now. There are very few ordinary people who fall as deep into that chasm as you. I stand by what I said - you moral compass is completely broken.

Here is my challenge to you - in this thread, show me where I defended Bush rather than point out who organized the protests and riots. You can't do it. As a matter of fact, show me where I equated you to Joe Stalin. Again, you can't do it, so I suggest, go to night school and take a reading comprehension class, because you obviously need one.

You're becoming tiring and boorish with the name calling, and criticizing my patriotism, and my morality. And anyone who chooses to go back and read your post on Joe Stalin can very easily see the comparision you're trying to make. It's beneath you and not worthy of debate. I'll let others draw their own conclusions from it. I suppose the polls have got you down, I dunno, but you've done nothing in thread after thread but defend GW's policies. Frankly, I don't care about who organized the protests if they are citizens of those countries, and their leaders, in fact voted their conscience to dismiss GW's policies.

As stated previously, the "leaders" of the two largest nations in the Southern Hemisphere (which are demcoracies btw) voted to dismiss the policies of GW. I would imagine they did because they felt the "people" of their nations saw those polices as disadvantageous to their nation's people. However, if GW is for it, I'm sure that he'll have his few supporters here.

lsbets

11-06-2005, 10:03 PM

In other words Sec, you cannot rise to the challenge. I don't think anyone is surprised. I still suggest you take the reading comprehension class because your abilities are lacking.

PaceAdvantage

11-06-2005, 11:42 PM

However, if GW is for it, I'm sure that he'll have his few supporters here.

Are you joking? Are you trying to say that "here" is a bastion of GW support? Look around friend. Ain't nothing but GWB bashing going on....you guys crack me up.....

boxcar

11-07-2005, 12:47 AM

Sec, nice to see you are more than willing to crawl into bed with leaders of the "socialist revolution" if it gives you one more thing to point at Bush about. Heck, if Stalin were alive and spoke out against Bush I bet you would use him as a reference. Your moral compass has completely broken, hasn't it?

Actually, LS, Sec's "moral compass" is in sync with socialism or even communism. It's really no wonder at all that commies seek out libs to proselytize. They have soooo much in common...

Boxcar

Light

11-07-2005, 01:22 AM

light, Yes, lots of terrorists have died, Saddams sons died and he will prob die. Sadly, we have lost some good people too, but that's the price of war and freedom and thank god there are still patriots willing to stand up for this country and the cowards and ill informed pacifists are in the minority.

And Blah Blah Blah. Lefty,talk and reality are 2 totally different things. There is no difference in pain between an Iraqi losing a loved one or an American losing a loved one. This is not payment for freedom. This is the cost of the blind leading the blind.

Lefty

11-07-2005, 02:05 AM

light, what do you not get about freedom? More Iraquis died for no reason under the tyranny of Saddam and it would have gone on and on. Now they have a constitution. That's reality, buddy.

boxcar

11-07-2005, 11:49 AM

And Blah Blah Blah. Lefty,talk and reality are 2 totally different things. There is no difference in pain between an Iraqi losing a loved one or an American losing a loved one. This is not payment for freedom. This is the cost of the blind leading the blind.

Hey, Light, when you went to school (as much as I hate assuming this, I will), did you ever study American history? Was any blood shed by the settlers to gain their independence (a/k/a freedom if you live on Uranus) from England? Have you ever read or heard about the Revolutionary War?

"Reality", eh? I suspect that if Reality were to slap you hard upside, you still wouldn't wake up from your fantasy-filled slumber.

Boxcar

Light

11-07-2005, 12:25 PM

Lefty

If I respond to your last statement,you'll come back with another response,then me then you and on and on. Makes no difference. The truth will eventually come out. Allways does. The truth is allready cracking from the seams with the CIA leak pointing to the Iraq war as a fraud. The Administration will try to cover it up,just as Clinton did with Monica. Eventually the damn will burst.

Your notion of freedom has been twisted by right wing politics and let me explain how.. Not saying left wing is right either. The so called "insurgents" are trying to free themselves from a foreign occupier. They are the only ones really fighting for freedom,allthough their tactics are horrid,but so is ours. How many of these so called insurgents are terrorists? From what I have heard only 6% of those captured are foreigners.The rest are Iraqi!.It's their home. Don't you think they have a right to defend their own country from a foreign occupier? Americans will vehemntly defend that right,but when another country applies the same principle that we believe in,(Vietnam and Iraq)they are cleverly labeled by right wing propaganda to sound like they hate freedom.And the country that wants to take away their freedom and control them is called the liberators. That's twisting the truth about freedom.

So if we are not fighting for freedom we are fighting for our self interests in the region. That's a far cry than fighting for freedom. The men and women who are fighting do believe we are fighting for freedom and they are very noble.It would be harder to enlist recruits if you told them we want to hire them to kill innocent people for America's interest than defend America's freedom's.You learn that in Pychology 101. But a belief and truth are 2 seperate worlds. You learn that.....eventually.

boxcar

11-07-2005, 12:40 PM

Light, get your facts straight, will ya? The "insurgents" consist of a bunch of religious fanatics who want anything but a free democratic society therefore, they are not fighting for freedom. If they had their way, Iraq would become Islamic, theocratic state. The fact of the matter is that two elections now prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the vast majoriy of Iraqis stand in sharp opposition to the fanatics, and instead prefer true freedom through a democratic process.

Boxcar

lsbets

11-07-2005, 12:50 PM

"So called insurgents"

Nothing so called about them and they are terrorists. They are fighting to regain power and subjugate the majority of the country to their will. Light, you should be thankful for guys like me. We make it easy for you to live in a country where you have the absolute right to be a total moron and brag about it with no real consequences. If you spoke your mind to one of the "so called insurgents" you would more than likely end up with your body disconnected from your head. All you get from me is a dose of the truth, which might hurt more than losing your head.

Light

11-07-2005, 04:57 PM

At the risk of stating the obvious,Iraq never threatened the U.S, is now conclusively proven to not have had wmd's,nor ties to 9/11. Therefore as much as you try to tell yourself that you are fighting for freedom in Iraq,the truth says you are either lying,deluded or both.

lsbets

11-07-2005, 05:07 PM

is now conclusively proven to not have had wmd's

A falser statement you could not have made, dear Light. That Iraq had WMDs is without a doubt a proven fact. The question is what happenned to them. No sane person argues that Iraq was proven to not have them. Because that argument cannot be made - they did have them. They were either destroyed sometime between 1998 and our invasion or they were moved out of the country prior to our invasion. Which is the case has not been determined.

I think it is you who delude yourself, but based on your prior comments to me that doesn't surprise me. You're welcome for the right to be a moron, no thanks neccessary.

PaceAdvantage

11-07-2005, 05:16 PM

At the risk of stating the obvious,Iraq never threatened the U.S, is now conclusively proven to not have had wmd's,nor ties to 9/11.

Conclusively proven? Where?

Lefty

11-07-2005, 05:47 PM

hey, light, what about the 500 tons of uranium found May 22 2004?

Lefty

11-07-2005, 05:57 PM

As to ties to 9-11, Zaqawi(the beheader)was training people there and Saddam was giving money to homicide bombers' families. I think to any reasonable person, that would be enough of a tie.

Tom

11-07-2005, 06:39 PM

I thought the WMDs went to Syria, but lately, it looks more like Iran has them.

The fact is they DID exist, they WERE NOT destroyed.

Unfortunately, I believe had the idiot Rumsfeld run the invasion with facts and strategy instead of his ego and put enough troops there to begin wtih, we might have stopped them from leaving. When it comes to Rumsfeld, I have to agree with the libs this guy is a total zero and should be shot. I'd be happy to pull the trigger.

Steve 'StatMan'

11-07-2005, 07:02 PM

When the libs and the media first cried "50,000 Troups! How can you send that many troups!" Then "100,000 Troups! How dare we do that". On and on. Then the complaints of the cost. Even the padding by Kerry in the debates was meant to discourage the spending and involvement as it was. The price of a full-blown Iraq-Iran-Syria Enema would have been drastically higher. Maybe if realized how strongly we could move to wipe out Sadam, maybe it'd be different, but without further 'evidence' involving Syria and Iran, we'd really have had a tough time not going it alone. The smart-asses will say we could have manufactured evidence "like we did in Iraq" but that wasn't really the case - try convincing some of that.

If Sadam allows the full inspection of his country, and allows the U.S. to determine that the WMD's are not being stored in his "Palace Compounds", things might have been different. Instead, he acts like a man with something very big to hide. Turns out, it was the the hundreds of millions of dollars and the vast riches he'd stored from the skiming of the Oil-For-Food Program, which the independent study led by Paul Volker found over 2,200 world corporations and various politicians were involved with financially. Seems like the media forgot about this story, came out just before the Breeders' Cup. They'd rather cover the Scooter Libby case instead.

By the way, for the "No Blood For Oil" crowd. Had Sadam Hussein and Iraq had not invaded Kuwait back in 1990, killing thousands over claims of stealing Iraqi oil by underground drilling of their same/connected oil fields, we probabaly never would have had to get involved in 1991, let alone again when the half-assed orders of the U.N. which we followed didn't work. Of course, they've got enough oil in Iraq and Kuwait to last for decades, but Sadam invaded them nonetheless.

So remember, who was the first in this mess to cause 'massive bloodshed for oil'? Sadam Hussein's Iraq.

Dang. This thread is far away from Latin America and Economic Models, isn't it. This whole Iraq, Sadam, Foreign Intervention thing + 9/11 is going to define the decade of 2000. It'll be forever known for the world's battles, particularly the U.S.'s, vs. unfriendly Muslim states. (The UAE, Kuwaitt, among others are examples of friendly Muslim states).

Tom

11-07-2005, 07:35 PM

Kuwati has reason to be friendly - they hid their worthless butts in Britain while WE fought their war. Friends like Kuwati we don't need. I say, that oil in Kuwait is OURS and we should be taking it as payment for them being a POS country that can't take care of itself. Next one to invade Kuway, I say let them have it-stinking bastards! Their lives are not worth a hangnail on one of our guys. Everyone one of them together. *spit*

Light

11-07-2005, 09:12 PM

Do you right wingers ever read the newspapers?Why are you asking me dumb questions. This stuff is everywhere.

To answer your presumption that Iraq had WMD's and that Saddam hid them,the CIA has concluded in The Iraq Survey Group Report in fall 2004 which is around 1500 pages long that:

Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them,

SEC,LJB and Hcap have all posted similar quotes from various sources which reiterate this and the fact that there is no connection with Al-Queda and Saddam and therfore 911.It is now known that Saddam did not get along with Al Queda. He ruled Iraq with an iron fist and no one told him what to do including BIN. End of history lesson.

You guys can believe that the earth is flat,that we are fighting for freedom in Iraq,that God is on our side and that America is still Mom and Apple pie Timmy. Then you get stuff like Latin America and you wonder why? Have a nice sleep.

lsbets

11-07-2005, 09:29 PM

Light - you said it was conclusively proven that Iraq did not have WMDs. It is a fact that they did have WMDs and were supposed to get rid of them as a part of the cease fire agreement from the Gulf War. It is also a fact that the burden of proof of said compliance fell squarely on their shoulders. So, your statement is simply wrong. I know, I know, when the truth gets in your way start saying "you right wingers". I could go over example over example of meetings between Iraqi agents and representatives of Al Queda (that does not mean a 9/11 connection, that means meetings between Iraq representatives and Al Queda), I could give you examples of chemical weapons that were found in 2004 and chemical weapons that were used against our soldiers in 2004, but it wouldn't matter. Because you don't get it and don't want to get it. But you'll be okay little Lighty, because guys like me will make sure of it. Sleep well tonight little Light, rough men stand ready to do violence on your behalf so that you and your family may stay safe.

PaceAdvantage

11-07-2005, 09:51 PM

Do you right wingers ever read the newspapers?Why are you asking me dumb questions. This stuff is everywhere.

To answer your presumption that Iraq had WMD's and that Saddam hid them,the CIA has concluded in The Iraq Survey Group Report in fall 2004 which is around 1500 pages long that:

Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them,

SEC,LJB and Hcap have all posted similar quotes from various sources which reiterate this and the fact that there is no connection with Al-Queda and Saddam and therfore 911.It is now known that Saddam did not get along with Al Queda. He ruled Iraq with an iron fist and no one told him what to do including BIN. End of history lesson.

This is conclusive proof? At the time of the US invasion? How about 10 minutes before we invaded....did he have them then? Where's the proof?

Light

11-07-2005, 10:47 PM

George W Bush himself has conceeded that there were no WMD's found in Iraq.Deal with it.

PaceAdvantage

11-07-2005, 11:00 PM

I THOUGHT YOU SAID BUSH LIES?

PaceAdvantage

11-07-2005, 11:06 PM

And besides, just because Bush said no WMDs were found, that still doesn't conclusively prove your own damn statement false. In case you forgot, you said:

(Iraq) now conclusively proven to not have had wmd's

Not HAVE HAD WMDs. Not the same as no WMDs found after invasion.

Say a teenager is smoking pot in his bedroom, thinking his parents aren't home. Next say the parents come home early and start heading towards their son's bedroom, but the son hears his parents coming before they open the door and he throws the joint out the window....the parents find their son alone in his room reading a book.

Is this conclusive proof that the teen did NOT have pot?

Light

11-07-2005, 11:06 PM

Correct

Light

11-07-2005, 11:10 PM

Bush invaded on the basis that Saddam has WMD's not had WMD's.

Steve 'StatMan'

11-07-2005, 11:30 PM

And Sadam wouldn't let the U.N. inspectors finish their work to prove that he didn't have them anymore, other that those merely tagged and tracked as inventory. He threw them out of the country. They only came back in just before the war, because we brought our firepower into the area and demanded that they be brought back in and resume the work, or face war. The inspectors came back, he screwed with them again, and we said enough Mr. Nice Guy, time for some Mr. Nice WhoopAss. Remember, we're Mr. Nice WhoopAss. We have the ability to be Mr. Evil WhoopAss, but it's against our values. Mr. Evil WhoopAss either destroys the whole country, or he wipes out nearly everything and leaves them all to suffer, struggle and starve. We didn't do that. We didn't just dispose of Sadam and then run. They'd have struggled, been pissed, and the people that are struggling to fight our troups and the new Iraqi Police and Army are the ones that would have tried to come back at us later.

Steve 'StatMan'

11-07-2005, 11:40 PM

Analogy time.

Robert Blake had a motive. He had at least one gun he 'left' in the restaurant when his wife was murdered between when he left her in the car, and when he went back into the restaurant. Did he ever own the gun that she was shot with? Not known. The gun that killed his wife, was in a trash can near their car and the restaurant. There are people who testified he'd contacted them about having her killed. He'd made the threats against her.

Is that your gun Mr. Blake that was used to kill your wife? He could say "no, that's not my gun", but heck, he may not claim it as his because he threw it in the trash, so it isn't "his" anymore, it's garbage.

So - did Robert Blake kill his wife, or not?

Sadam had all sorts of WMD's before. He was to have everything proven destroyed (why they just tagged some things, I'll never understand). But he refused to prove he'd had it all destroyed. Why would you believe he no longer had them, when it was know he had them before.

You can't use symantics to affect the fate of the world, and the stabilty of the key Middle-East.

Lefty

11-07-2005, 11:53 PM

light says: Bush invaded on the basis that Saddam has WMD's not had WMD's.
And all the intel of the world and all the democrats said the exact same thing.
But you can't get past the fact that whether he had em or not at this time is totally irrelevent. The relevance now is because we are there they now have a constitution. If we can help this new democracy flourish, then as stat said it's the key to the Middle-East and the fate of the world. If you can't see that light, then your handle is a complete misnomer.

lsbets

11-07-2005, 11:54 PM

Steve, arguing with Light will get you nowhere. There are certain things he wants to believe, and he will believe them no matter what. He desperatly wants to believe the insurgents are the good guys. He calls them freedom fighters who use unpleasant methods. He chooses to ignore the people (at least 50X greater in numbers) who quite literally risked their lives to vote on their future. He considers himself antiwar, yet its obvious he's not - he roots for those he thinks are the good guy, the freedom fighters. You and I might call them terrorists, or insurgents. Don't waste your time or energy arguing, it won't get you anywhere. And judging by his rising anger as he has gone deeper into this thread, he probably has a complex about not having the courage to help his so called freedom fighters.

lsbets

11-08-2005, 12:16 AM

From BBC News May 14, 2004:

Last Updated: Monday, 17 May, 2004, 15:50 GMT 16:50 UK

An artillery shell containing a small amount of the nerve gas sarin has exploded in Iraq.
Brig Gen Mark Kimmitt said the blast had caused a small release of the substance and two people had been treated for exposure to the agent.

The substance was found in a shell inside a bag discovered by a US convoy a few days ago, he said.

It appears to be the first evidence of nerve gas existing in Iraq since the start of the US-led war last year.

I decided to go with the BBC rather than Fox News to make some folks more comfortable with the source.

None is simply false. You can debate where one came from (a mustard shell was used a few days later), but to say there were none (which to most people means zero) is simply untrue. Oh yeah, about 7 rockets with nerve agent were found near Nassariyah in the fall of 2004.

No large stockpiles found - true. Nothing found - false.

Just trying to keep the discussion honest.

Steve 'StatMan'

11-08-2005, 12:19 AM

Yeah, you're right. I've tried avoiding getting involved again here in O/T, but enough outrageous things get posted and quoted, so I see them, and just can't seem to help get involved.

Makes me mad to see so many people either trying to greatly discount what we've done, or misrepresent what we've done, and when I say we, I mean as a nation. I just sit on my butt, the same as Light, Eddie, and many of us on each side. But you were bold and put your life and future on the line. You did the tough work that helps give hope to the vast majority of the Iraqi's and you and your fellow solidiers gave us, and continue to give us, the reasons we can sleep at night. So, despite all the lack of non-thankful actions of the popular media and the supposdly 'illuminated' ones, I want speak up once again, and say Thank You lsbets and those who served and/or continue to serve.

Light

11-08-2005, 01:31 AM

LS says things like:

Light is an angry man,no point in talking to the moron. Regarding himself:I defended this country so even low life's like Light can speak their mind.

Just because you have served in the armed forces does not mean you know more or are a better man than the lowliest soul on this planet.Your ignorance shows.When you try to pull rank on civilians,you lose.

hcap

11-08-2005, 06:14 AM

Lsbets From BBC News May 14, 2004:

Last Updated: Monday, 17 May, 2004, 15:50 GMT 16:50 UK

An artillery shell containing a small amount of the nerve gas sarin has exploded in Iraq.
Brig Gen Mark Kimmitt said the blast had caused a small release of the substance and two people had been treated for exposure to the agent.

The substance was found in a shell inside a bag discovered by a US convoy a few days ago, he said.

It appears to be the first evidence of nerve gas existing in Iraq since the start of the US-led war last year.

I decided to go with the BBC rather than Fox News to make some folks more comfortable with the source.

None is simply false. You can debate where one came from (a mustard shell was used a few days later), but to say there were none (which to most people means zero) is simply untrue. Oh yeah, about 7 rockets with nerve agent were found near Nassariyah in the fall of 2004.

No large stockpiles found - true. Nothing found - false.

Just trying to keep the discussion honest.OK, you finally said a demonstratable truth."No large stockpiles found - true. Nothing found - false." The rest that you gentleman are babbling about is NOT demonstratable. Moving large stockpiles out of Iraq before we invaded is along the lines of absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. Feel free to correct me if I incorrectly quoted that canard.

Also the amounts and types of WMDs that were actually found pale in comparison to large stockpiles compiled by dozens of other unfriendly regimes

However since you want to keep the discussion honest by quoting a british source, you will have to consider a very unpleasant story breaking know. In no way if true, does this reflect on the majority of enlisted. But I think you may have to reconsider the integrity of those higher ups who would have directed this.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece

US forces 'used chemical weapons' during assault on city of Fallujah

"Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon."

hcap

11-08-2005, 07:02 AM

Re: The The Independent picks up US chemical weapons attack story.

If this story is true, the ends justifies the means philosophy of invading Iraq has just been dealt a devasting blow.

Usually I would wait a bit longer to see if a story like this is substanstiated. But at this point I suspect although it may be exagerated somewhat, unfortunately, the basic story may have legs. I hope not, but it does not look good.

This is war at it's worst. And how war muddies the distinction between those who are the so-called "evil doers", (an example of bush lunancy "groupthink"), and those that wear the white hats.

lsbets

11-08-2005, 08:02 AM

Hcap - read my comments on that garbage story in the other thread. I believe you when you say you hope its not true, but the eagerness with which you say the basic story may have legs is disappointing to say the least. Over the last few months I have come to reagrd you as an honest lefty (there arean't many out there). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but that story is simply false.

Light says I "pull rank on civilians". Hmm, I use my personal experience in the very war he is talking about to make a point. If Cindy Sheehan has absolute moral authority to speak out because she lost her son, why don't I at least have the right to use first hand knowledge to make a point? Oh yeah, because Light doesn't like my points so he wishes I wouldn't make them. Light says just because I was there doesn't mean I know more than him. Umm, yes it does. I don't consider murderous terrorists to be freedom fighters. I call them targets. I don't consider myself to be better than 99% of the population out there, but guys like Light who look at the insurgents with admiration? I'll let you all be the judge about that, it seems to matter much more to little Lighty than to me, it even seems like he might have a little complex.

46zilzal

11-08-2005, 09:57 AM

typical black and white mindset

Light

11-08-2005, 11:56 AM

Well done LS. You may have a future succeeding Rumsfeld.Twist my words and add some new ones.

My personal description of you pulling rank is that you have called me several names in this thread which bear the signs of arrogance and immaturity. Usually what someone resorts to when they have no answer.

Now you try to slander me by saying how I admire the insurgents. Another twist of what I was saying and changing the point of my message. I said they were the only ones fighting for freedom from an occupying force,something we are proud of as a nation that was under a foreign power. But now that we are that foreign power,we frown on their struggle for independence. So go tell the founding fathers of this country how they love insurgents too because they would agree that all countries are entitled to their own independence.

Back to your military showmanship which I sense you wear on your forehead with a neon sign. Every person who has fought in wars since human wars began on any side has the same or more guts as you. It's intrinsic in human nature to have a sense of duty,honor and sacrifice to your country whatever that may be. You are not special in that respect,so stop flaunting it. The more you brag about it the more you wash any benefits you may have personally gained there.

Furthermore,just because you saw action there doesn't mean you understand whats going on there. You cant even understand the messages on this board without twisting and turning them,so your opinion about Iraq is highly suspect.

Lefty

11-08-2005, 12:05 PM

light said: said they were the only ones fighting for freedom from an occupying force,something we are proud of as a nation that was under a foreign power

Meaning the terrorists. Light, how can you blve this nonsense and then denigrate a man that actually was there and saw with his own eyes the terrorists flowing into the country trying to defeat the new democracy? When all those people in Iraq when to the polls at the risk of their lives and you call the terrorists freedom fighters? How about coming over to America's side? It's amazing how liberals always willing to discount and go against their own country and side with the enemy. And that's exactly what you're doing light, when you call terrorists who are trying to overturn a democracy, freedom fighters.

lsbets

11-08-2005, 12:13 PM

Little Light, your inferiority complex is becoming more and more obvious. True, I have called you several names - you are deserving of them. You made claims which I proved to be wrong and then whined like a little bitch because you were proven wrong. The sensitivity level is set a little too high in you Light. Military showmanship? Hardly. It wasn't until I was home several months before people here found out details of my job over there and awards I won, and it wasn't because I put it up here, it was because someone else posted an article that was written about my wife and I in one of the Dallas papers. There is only one accomplishment of mine you will hear me brag about, and that is that I brought all 154 of my soldiers home to their families while accomplishing every single mission we were given. You seem to think saying I was there is showmanship, again I say that goes back to the complex you seem to have. There is no twisting and turning of what you say - you have had a pattern everytime you venture forth into Off Topic which is not hard to follow. Who is fighting for freedom there? The folks who put their lives on the line to stand up to the insurgents and vote. We are helping them. Who is fighting to oppress the people there? The insurgents you claim are fighting for freedom. But, I guess from your vantage point tucked safely away at home you know more than the folks who are there.

You're a joke Light, a pitiful little joke of a man.

hcap

11-08-2005, 04:43 PM

LS, what other thread?

As far I know this story is only hitting major outlets now.

lsbets

11-08-2005, 04:50 PM

It was posted in the poll thread yesterday.

Light

11-08-2005, 05:28 PM

LS,let's see how many more derogatory names you used for me in your last post.

1)Little Light
2) inferiority complex
3)whined like a little bitch
4) complex you seem to have
5)a pitiful little joke of a man.

The more I post,the greater the insults. When someone resorts to this low a level it is surely a sign of internal weakness. Your military training has not advanced you as a human being. Instead it seems to have relegated you to this .I'm not angry with you. I feel sorry for you. If you were comfortable with your position or what you have done,you would have had no need to react this way.

PaceAdvantage

11-08-2005, 05:46 PM

Where's the "puke" icon when you need one?

lsbets

11-08-2005, 05:51 PM

I feel sorry for you. If you were comfortable with your position or what you have done,you would have had no need to react this way.

As I told you the first time you insinuated that I would have issues to deal with relating to my service, I sleep very well at night and am not bothered by anything that I have done and would not do anything differently. After the first time you jumped on me with that crap I decided there would be no need for any pretension of politeness in dealing with you. I stand by everything that I have said to and about you. Deep down I think you don't feel that you measure up to guys like me and that is the cause of your complex. Everytime you post something its refuted and you shoot back with some crap accusation accompanied with insults and seem to get mad if I throw a few insults around in response. Lets see, you can insult all you want, but when you are inulted in return you get upset. Yes, that's whining like a little bitch. So I stand by that - you are a little bitch with a major inferiority complex. Seek therapy dude, seriously it might do you some good.

Secretariat

11-08-2005, 09:44 PM

Light,

Isbets did not used to post this way. His frustration has been showing more and more, and he has resorted to denigration and name calling more and more. He beleives he is "winning" an argument and "refuting" you when in reality you're simply trying to point up issues emerging. I understand what it is like defending a war that one has fought in which lacks popularity here at home. You put your life on the line for something you beleive in, and people apparently don't understand something you and your friends risked your life for. And then civilians come in here and attempt to tell someone who's been there what it's like...well, I understand all that frustration.

We have to remember it was primarily "civilians with no military combat experience" who initiated the decision to invade Iraq: Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Hadley, Rice. Light, just becasue you're a civilian doesn't mean your opinion doesn't matter. It mattered a lot when the above "civilians" spoke...and still does.