NationStates Jolt Archive

*unless the people of the world rise up against the real terrorist in the white house who declared the death of diplomacy and who uses military might to wreak havoc and chaos in the world that no one will be able to contain after he pushes it all too far

SCOTT RITTER SAYS U.S. PLANS JUNE ATTACK ON IRAN, ‘COOKED’ JAN. 30 IRAQI ELECTION RESULTS

Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia’s Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

Olympians like to call the Capitol Theater "historic," but it's doubtful whether the eighty-year-old edifice has ever been the scene of more portentous revelations.

The principal theme of Scott Ritter's talk was Americans’ duty to protect the U.S. Constitution by taking action to bring an end to the illegal war in Iraq. But in passing, the former UNSCOM weapons inspector stunned his listeners with two pronouncements. Ritter said plans for a June attack on Iran have been submitted to President George W. Bush, and that the president has approved them. He also asserted that knowledgeable sources say U.S. officials "cooked" the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran’s alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.

The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which George W. Bush has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom," were not so free after all. Ritter said that U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%.

Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine -- an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh.

On Jan. 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The Coming Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known investigative journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next strategic target [is] Iran." Hersh also reported that "The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer." According to Hersh, "Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran. . . . Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military’s war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. . . . The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans’ negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act."

Scott Ritter said that although the peace movement failed to stop the war in Iraq, it had a chance to stop the expansion of the war to other nations like Iran and Syria. He held up the specter of a day when the Iraq war might be remembered as a relatively minor event that preceded an even greater conflagration.

Scott Ritter's talk was the culmination of a long evening devoted to discussion of Iraq and U.S. foreign policy. Before Ritter spoke, Dahr Jamail narrated a slide show on Iraq focusing on Fallujah. He showed more than a hundred vivid photographs taken in Iraq, mostly by himself. Many of them showed the horrific slaughter of civilians.

Dahr Jamail argued that U.S. mainstream media sources are complicit in the war and help sustain support for it by deliberately downplaying the truth about the devastation and death it is causing.

Jamail was, until recently, one of the few unembedded journalists in Iraq and one of the only independent ones. His reports have gained a substantial following and are available online at dahrjamailiraq.com.

Friday evening's event in Olympia was sponsored by South Puget Sound Community College's Student Activities Board, Veterans for Peace, 100 Thousand and Counting, Olympia Movement for Justice & Peace, and United for Peace of Pierce County

I have a really cool hat.

well, i hope the homophobes are happy.

that's what got us into this mess, so they better be enjoying it, or i'm gonna be pissed.

edit: fuck, i just remembered.

i turn 18 in 2 weeks.

if i'm drafted, i'm going to kill that republican bastard who bullied me all year in english class for losing the election. :sniper:

My hat is cooler than your hat.

My hat is cooler than your hat.

But TINK has the coolest hat of all.

But TINK has the coolest hat of all.
Damn, you got me...

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT HATS FOR???

Scott Ritter, Now theres a name you can trust! LOL

The Bush Empire must fall, it is even more clear now.

oh great. general was starting to get alittle bit slow. hopefully we can get some huge argument going here which leads to my laughing my ass off.

Scott Ritter, Now theres a name you can trust! LOL


as opposed to who?.....


bush?


his staff?


we've seen how far that's gotten us :rolleyes:

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT HATS FOR???
Hats are cooler and make more sense? :D

And yet this morning America pledged millions of dollars in aid to Iran because of that earthquake...

as opposed to who?.....


bush?


his staff?


we've seen how far that's gotten us :rolleyes:


Not saying you can trust any numbnuts in politics. Scott Ritter is now one of them. I say only person you can trust is you. Everyone else....

Hats are cooler and make more sense? :D

It's good to see you're back, broken limbs and all!:D I guess the cast gives the newest grandchild of the clan something to look at!:p Ohh, colour!;)

I have a really cool hat.
I got one made out of hemp

And yet this morning America pledged millions of dollars in aid to Iran because of that earthquake...
Bush the imperialist pig is just investing in his future conquest

how could he not pledge millions of dollars.

didn't you see the heat he was getting for not giving everything he had to the tsunami victims?

I'd like to add my voice to the cause:


Yes, hats are cool.

I like hats but I dont like how after you take them off and your hair is wack

Well, well, well...if it isn't Scott "Child Molester" Ritter, coming up with yet more cooked-up charges. Funny, he has been stripped of any security clearances, seeing how child molesters aren't allowed to have those...and you need security clearances in order to have access to any war plans...and yet he claims to have first-hand knowlegde of current plans in the Pentagon.

Why, that is even more creative than his defense against the child molestation charges!

Well, well, well...if it isn't Scott "Child Molester" Ritter, coming up with yet more cooked-up charges. Funny, he has been stripped of any security clearances, seeing how child molesters aren't allowed to have those...and you need security clearances in order to have access to any war plans...and yet he claims to have first-hand knowlegde of current plans in the Pentagon.

Why, that is even more creative than his defense against the child molestation charges!
calling Ritter a child molester is one of Bushs demonic tactics of smearing the names of all the Truth-speakers. A stratgey he learned from his Father in Hell

calling Ritter a child molester is one of Bushs demonic tactics of smearing the names of all the Truth-speakers. A stratgey he learned from his Father in Hell


He is a child molester. Dont dodge the truth

He is a child molester. Dont dodge the truth
Karl Rove would know afterall-- a dog knows its own

Karl Rove would know afterall-- a dog knows its own
Karl Rove isn't the one who's been indicted for child molestation...Scott Ritter is.

Can you have a topic where you don't devolve into conspiracy theories and tin-foil hat accusations? What am I saying, I already know you can't.

Karl Rove would know afterall-- a dog knows its own

Again dodging the truth.... The facts are the facts.

OK to the poster, you need to take what you read with a grain of salt. This is probably baseless political mudslinging by Ritter, it happens every day on both sides of the eisle. Rupublican politicians throw mud, and Democratic politicians throw mud. It's politcally based, because Ritter is trying to appeal to the far left. He has every right to say these things, but because of his lack of sorces and obvious politcal bias, I am going to say that this is not true. This seems like consperacy theory rather then reality. And no before you make baseless and stupid acusations against me, I do not work for the republican party or the president, try FACTS before you belive baseless acusations, or before you make them.

Oh and by the way Hats ROCK!!!!!

Karl Rove isn't the one who's been indicted for child molestation...Scott Ritter is.

Can you have a topic where you don't devolve into conspiracy theories and tin-foil hat accusations? What am I saying, I already know you can't.
the only reason Rove (you can tell hes a classic pedophile by his looks alone)
hasnt been indicted is cause Rove owns Bushs ass too

Again dodging the truth.... The facts are the facts.
I agree--the fact that a classic pedophile is attacking a patriotic pedophile who speaks truth to power is very clear to me

OK to the poster, you need to take what you read with a grain of salt. This is probably baseless political mudslinging by Ritter, it happens every day on both sides of the eisle. Rupublican politicians throw mud, and Democratic politicians throw mud. It's politcally based, because Ritter is trying to appeal to the far left. He has every right to say these things, but because of his lack of sorces and obvious politcal bias, I am going to say that this is not true. This seems like consperacy theory rather then reality. And no before you make baseless and stupid acusations against me, I do not work for the republican party or the president, try FACTS before you belive baseless acusations, or before you make them.

Oh and by the way Hats ROCK!!!!!
everything Ritter said would happen in the past=100% happened
everything Bush said jas turned out to be 100% WRONG
Im putting my money on Ritter

the only reason Rove (you can tell hes a classic pedophile by his looks alone)
hasnt been indicted is cause Rove owns Bushs ass too
Wow, even more conspiracy theories and crack-pot allegations from you. Have you ever stopped to read the idiocy you post?

Its a conspiracy man! Jeezus, How can you possibly believe someone like Ritter? Unless you are Ritter? Are you?

Your officially... Brainwashed

Its a conspiracy man! Jeezus, How can you possibly believe someone like Ritter? Unless you are Ritter? Are you?
That would require Skapedroe to actually grow some brains...and start molesting kids.

everything Ritter said would happen in the past=100% happened
everything Bush said jas turned out to be 100% WRONG
Im putting my money on Ritter


Can you give me some examples. And Ill but this in bold to make sure you read it. TAKE WHAT YOU READ WITH A GRAIN OF SALT!!!!!!!!! read it criticaly, and do not accept things as 100% true all of the time, if you do it means your naive.

Your officially... Brainwashed
Skapedroe types this as he looks in a mirror...

meanwhile every single thing Ritter said about Iraq was 100% dead-on and everything Bush says about ANYTHING in existence is a damned lie from the grave. A pedophile has more integrity honor and respect for this country then that scumbag in the White House who sacrificed 3000 lives on 911 as an excuse to invade Iraq . Bush wouldnt be beleivable if they made him into a movie. Hes like retarded evil

its a shame I was forced to get ugly :mad:


I really wanted to talk about hats :(

Hes like retarded evil
That's quite a statement coming from you.

meanwhile every single thing Ritter said about Iraq was 100% dead-on and everything Bush says about ANYTHING in existence is a damned lie from the grave. A pedophile has more integrity honor and respect for this country then that scumbag in the White House who sacrificed 3000 lives on 911 as an excuse to invade Iraq . Bush wouldnt be beleivable if they made him into a movie. Hes like retarded evil
Ritter was dead right about Iraq. I agree with you there, but where is he getting this info about Iran, now that he is out of the loop? I guess he can't reveal his sources, but unlike Iraq where he actually served as a weapons inspector, he has never served in Iran so I can't take him as seriously. Still if we are just going to use airpower rather than a full scale invasion, I suppose an attack on Iran could be possible as early as this summer. I guess we'll find out if he was right or not in a few months.

That's quite a statement coming from you.
have you ever looked at the Presidents eyes?I mean truely looked at them?
Its like a vacant eyed stare of something thats not even totally human-or doesnt have a soul or something.The legions of Hell have taken control of our Govt

Ritter was dead right about Iraq. I agree with you there, but where is he getting this info about Iran, now that he is out of the loop? I guess he can't reveal his sources, but unlike Iraq where he actually served as a weapons inspector, he has never served in Iran so I can't take him as seriously. Still if we are just going to use airpower rather than a full scale invasion, I suppose an attack on Iran could be possible as early as this summer. I guess we'll find out if he was right or not in a few months.
hes confirming everything the renowned Seymour Hersh has said on the issue

have you ever looked at the Presidents eyes?I mean truely looked at them?
Its like a vacant eyed stare of something thats not even totally human-or doesnt have a soul or something.The legions of Hell have taken control of our Govt
Not sure how to address this, since any reply would actually dignify the sheer idiocy of what you have typed here.

hes confirming everything the renowned Seymour Hersh has said on the issue
Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter...between the 2 you might have 1/2 a credible source...and I am being generous.

If we rigged the election, why did the candidate we supported get third place?

hes confirming everything the renowned Seymour Hersh has said on the issue
We'll if we are going to just hit Iran with a massive air assualt, it wouldn't make much sense to let Iran know about it ahead of time. It certainly seems as if we are probing Iran's defenses with drones to try to determine their defense capabilities, which would lend support to the idea that we are going to attack. If we do bomb the crap out of Iran it isn't going to be like iraq with the months and months of build up. Anyway we'll have to wait and see it is hard to determine the credibility of information if you don't know where it is coming from.

Also I saw this scott ritter article on the electroniciraq.net website which you might want to check out. They don't have too much info yet but they are connected with the electronicintifada.net website which is quite good.

meanwhile every single thing Ritter said about Iraq was 100% dead-on and everything Bush says about ANYTHING in existence is a damned lie from the grave. A pedophile has more integrity honor and respect for this country then that scumbag in the White House who sacrificed 3000 lives on 911 as an excuse to invade Iraq . Bush wouldnt be beleivable if they made him into a movie. Hes like retarded evil


I still don't see why/how libs come up with these conspiracy throries. They have all been refuted (pick up this month's issue of popular mechanics for a breakdown) and you can come up with your own misinformation as much as you say the govt does. Noone actually studies the things you say, becasue all stupid enough to believe them are too busy wanking to pictuers of anna kournikova

If we rigged the election, why did the candidate we supported get third place?
he never said Bush was smart

That's just a cheap shot. "He rigged the election, but he was too stupid to do it." That just screams "insane conspiracy theory."

We'll if we are going to just hit Iran with a massive air assualt, it wouldn't make much sense to let Iran know about it ahead of time. It certainly seems as if we are probing Iran's defenses with drones to try to determine their defense capabilities, which would lend support to the idea that we are going to attack. If we do bomb the crap out of Iran it isn't going to be like iraq with the months and months of build up. Anyway we'll have to wait and see it is hard to determine the credibility of information if you don't know where it is coming from.

Also I saw this scott ritter article on the electroniciraq.net website which you might want to check out. They don't have too much info yet but they are connected with the electronicintifada.net website which is quite good.
all Im saying on their track record Ritter/Hersh have never been wrong yet-they also have access to inside information from people disturbed higher-up by Bushs recklessness

That's just a cheap shot. "He rigged the election, but he was too stupid to do it." That just screams "insane conspiracy theory."
and what do you call believing in WMDs in Iraq?

Well, I would believe it if the CIA, Mossad, Interpol, the French Intelligence, the British, the Russian, etc. told me there were WMD in Iraq. Usually, if every intelligence agency in the world says one thing, they are right. And it's ridiculous to accuse people of things like rigging elections with no proof. As for Iran, it might or might not be true. Anonymous sources are notoriously unreliable.

Well, I would believe it if the CIA, Mossad, Interpol, the French Intelligence, the British, the Russian, etc. told me there were WMD in Iraq. Usually, if every intelligence agency in the world says one thing, they are right. And it's ridiculous to accuse people of things like rigging elections with no proof. As for Iran, it might or might not be true. Anonymous sources are notoriously unreliable.
all the sources said Iraq was nowhere near completion of any such weapon. Bush vetted the CIA information he WANTED to hear. Bush doesnt deal with reality, he deals with people agreeing with how he redefines reality according to how he wants it to be

Ah, so I guess Jacque Chirac did this as well? And Vladimir Putin? And Bush "vetted information" when George Tenet told him it was a "slam dunk"? Look, let's be honest. The whole world thought Saddam had WMD. Hussein duped his neighbors by threatening them with imaginary WMD, and the world failed to realize he was just bluffing. It was a horrible mistake, but no malice and evil plots were involved on our side.

Ah, so I guess Jacque Chirac did this as well? And Vladimir Putin? And Bush "vetted information" when George Tenet told him it was a "slam dunk"? Look, let's be honest. The whole world thought Saddam had WMD. Hussein duped his neighbors by threatening them with imaginary WMD, and the world failed to realize he was just bluffing. It was a horrible mistake, but no malice and evil plots were involved on our side.
What about Hans Blix who was saying there was no evidence of WMDs right before the invasion? Why would the Europeans insist on weapons inspectors looking for weapons if they "knew" they had them?

Skapedroe
Since you're one of the better debators (just saw that on another thread), and I imagine good debators back up what they say with facts; can I see the facts on the Legions of Hell taking over and the rigging of elections in Iraq. I know you got all the cold hard facts that will stand up to the closest scrutiny. (Heavy sarcasm).

I still don't see why/how libs come up with these conspiracy throries. They have all been refuted (pick up this month's issue of popular mechanics for a breakdown) and you can come up with your own misinformation as much as you say the govt does. Noone actually studies the things you say, becasue all stupid enough to believe them are too busy wanking to pictuers of anna kournikova

mmmmmm anna kournikova...... :fluffle:

I'm sorry what were you saying just a minute ago? :D

O, some bull from Scott Ritter. I still remember how he was on the Daily Show and then later on everyone found out he was a pedophile (I don't remember what Jon said on the show after that bit of info came out but I remember that it was hilarious. Not that I get my news from the Daily Show. I watch it for great comedic exaggerations of current events and general hilarity. Some people actually think it's 100% real. *sigh*)

Ah, but Blix said they could find none because Saddam was obstructing them, as part of his bluff. After all, wouldn't you find it suspicious if you were inspecting a facility, but were stopped for an hour right before it, and then satellite photos showed several trucks driving away? And Chirac himself said Saddam had WMD, but he wanted inspections as a way to avoid war, so as to place himself politically as an anti-US figure and to keep the lucrative oil contracts with Saddam.

*spoken in lousy Korean accent*

Kim Jong Il: F*ck you Hans Brix! *presses the button for the trap door. Hans Blix is dumped into Kim Jong Il's shark tank and quickly eaten*

I'm in a very silly mood right now! :p :D

Ah, so I guess Jacque Chirac did this as well? And Vladimir Putin? And Bush "vetted information" when George Tenet told him it was a "slam dunk"? Look, let's be honest. The whole world thought Saddam had WMD. Hussein duped his neighbors by threatening them with imaginary WMD, and the world failed to realize he was just bluffing. It was a horrible mistake, but no malice and evil plots were involved on our side.
at one time the entire world believed this but not in very recent times when all the evidence suggesterd the new reality in Iraq it was impossible for Saddam to acquire any such thing in the near future. Iraq was 100% contained and harmless. Now its not tho

Well, well, well...if it isn't Scott "Child Molester" Ritter, coming up with yet more cooked-up charges. Funny, he has been stripped of any security clearances, seeing how child molesters aren't allowed to have those...and you need security clearances in order to have access to any war plans...and yet he claims to have first-hand knowlegde of current plans in the Pentagon.

Of course! Because White House (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=98) security (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/17/gannon/) regarding journalists is at the top of this Administration (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/18/opinion/lynch/main675050.shtml)'s list (http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp02192005.html).

Jeff Gannon is a stud.

Scott Ritter, Now theres a name you can trust! LOL
Why can't you trust him? He was right about there being no WMD in Iraq. Bush was wrong.

Score:

RITTER 1 BUSH 0

Skapedroe
Since you're one of the better debators (just saw that on another thread), and I imagine good debators back up what they say with facts; can I see the facts on the Legions of Hell taking over and the rigging of elections in Iraq. I know you got all the cold hard facts that will stand up to the closest scrutiny. (Heavy sarcasm).
I am aware of facts
but Im in the middle of a debate right now

Hats are cooler and make more sense? :D
I thought you would be pushing helmets instead of hats.....helmets will be required in Iran?

mmmmmm anna kournikova...... :fluffle:

I'm sorry what were you saying just a minute ago? :D

O, some bull from Scott Ritter. I still remember how he was on the Daily Show and then later on everyone found out he was a pedophile (I don't remember what Jon said on the show after that bit of info came out but I remember that it was hilarious. Not that I get my news from the Daily Show. I watch it for great comedic exaggerations of current events and general hilarity. Some people actually think it's 100% real. *sigh*)
So Bushs legions from hell think everyones gonna tune out the truth Ritter speaks just because they bring up something that relates to exactly nothing?

Ah, but Blix said they could find none because Saddam was obstructing them, as part of his bluff. After all, wouldn't you find it suspicious if you were inspecting a facility, but were stopped for an hour right before it, and then satellite photos showed several trucks driving away? And Chirac himself said Saddam had WMD, but he wanted inspections as a way to avoid war, so as to place himself politically as an anti-US figure and to keep the lucrative oil contracts with Saddam.
he mustve done an excellent job of hiding them since he couldnt seem to find them himself when he wouldve needed to use them the most when we invaded--or are you saying Saddam just built WMDs so he could never use them while hes being overthrown?

Well, well, well...if it isn't Scott "Child Molester" Ritter, coming up with yet more cooked-up charges. Funny, he has been stripped of any security clearances, seeing how child molesters aren't allowed to have those...and you need security clearances in order to have access to any war plans...and yet he claims to have first-hand knowlegde of current plans in the Pentagon.

Why, that is even more creative than his defense against the child molestation charges!
Can you prove that accusation regarding Scott Ritter? I don't think you can. :eek:

No proof = zero credibility

So Bushs legions from hell think everyones gonna tune out the truth Ritter speaks just because they bring up something that relates to exactly nothing?Hello!

Deciding who are leaders are and making important political decisions based upon totally irrelevant information is what America is all about.

Have you been asleep for the last 5 years?

He is a child molester. Dont dodge the truth
I am gonna call everyone on this...prove it.

Can somebody please explain why they think Ritter is a child molestor? Where the hell is this coming from? Ritter gave a talk at my school, I never heard anyone complain about him being a child molestor. I laugh at the gay-prostitute- press pass-awarding whitehouse if they start smearing its critics for sexual misconduct.

Heh, I just figured out why this thread seemed funny to me and not to anybody else:
I misread "Scott Ritter" as "John Ritter".
Whoops. Bit of a difference there!
:p

No proof = zero credibility

Does this apply to Ritter's "knowledgeable sources"?

Heh, I just figured out why this thread seemed funny to me and not to anybody else:
I misread "Scott Ritter" as "John Ritter".
Whoops. Bit of a difference there!
:p

I'd imagine it would be worse to be molested by the undead corpse of John Ritter. :D:D

I am an evil man and I am going to hell now. :D:D:D See ya all there!

edit: Crap! deleted my last post. O well, its 2 AM. O well, probably won't remember or care tomorrow...today...whatever

Does this apply to Ritter's "knowledgeable sources"?
No it applies to Panhandlia's credibility if he can't prove the accusation against Ritter.

Can somebody please explain why they think Ritter is a child molestor? Where the hell is this coming from? Ritter gave a talk at my school, I never heard anyone complain about him being a child molestor. I laugh at the gay-prostitute- press pass-awarding whitehouse if they start smearing its critics for sexual misconduct.
Apparently the charge that Scott Ritter is a child molester is a concerted smear campaign? Personally speaking, I doubt that there is a shred of evidence to prove this. Sad to say the least.

No it applies to Panhandlia's credibility if he can't prove the accusation against Ritter.

He's not here to defend it right now as you can plainly see, so it isn't really fair to charge him. Whether Ritter is or is not a pedophile does have bearing on his credibility though, which is what I was arguing (in my earlier deleted post) since skapdroe claimed that whatever he did had no bearing on what he says (which I disagree with). It was in the news...there should be something confirming either way...(I'm not gonna do the looking/researching/working, at least not right now anyway, I'm the random late night screwball in this thread :D)

I think we have yet to deal with the important issue...

My hat is awesome!
It has the hammer and sickle

PS: God smite america :D

At best we will have $200 barrel and economic depression. At worst we will have Russia and China jumping to help Iran, spirals out of control, WW III etc etc.

For God's sake Mr Bush, dont do it!

Oh !@#$%^*()

Australia commits 450 more troops to Iraq and I'm sure John Howard wants to help his friend Bush spread democracy and freedom via the gun. The US has Babylon and Israel, now it wants Persia and the Assyrian empire.

Can somebody please explain why they think Ritter is a child molestor? Where the hell is this coming from? Ritter gave a talk at my school, I never heard anyone complain about him being a child molestor. I laugh at the gay-prostitute- press pass-awarding whitehouse if they start smearing its critics for sexual misconduct.
i am immediately suspicious of anybody who leaps toward such accusations without providing proof in their FIRST POST. if Ritter is so clearly a child molester, surely they will have no trouble citing a source?

i feel that making such accusations without producing evidence right away is actually more discreditting toward the accusers; they come across as people who are angry or afraid because of what Ritter is saying, more concerned with silencing him than discussing the issue being presented. it makes them look pitiful, to me, and is disappointing conduct in what could have been an adult discussion.

i am immediately suspicious of anybody who leaps toward such accusations without providing proof in their FIRST POST. if Ritter is so clearly a child molester, surely they will have no trouble citing a source?

i feel that making such accusations without producing evidence right away is actually more discreditting toward the accusers; they come across as people who are angry or afraid because of what Ritter is saying, more concerned with silencing him than discussing the issue being presented. it makes them look pitiful, to me, and is disappointing conduct in what could have been an adult discussion.

Great. As soon as someone annoys the White House, they are all gay or peds?
Maybe the real perverts live in the White House since they think dirty all the time.

Great. As soon as someone annoys the White House, they are all gay or peds?
Maybe the real perverts live in the White House since they think dirty all the time.
it's particularly funny since their own lap dog (Jeff/James/Gannon/Guckert) has been PROVEN to be a gay prostitute...i guess the fags are good enough to be mouth pieces for the White House, even if they aren't good enough to deserve the right to marry.

it's particularly funny since their own lap dog (Jeff/James/Gannon/Guckert) has been PROVEN to be a gay prostitute...i guess the fags are good enough to be mouth pieces for the White House, even if they aren't good enough to deserve the right to marry.

Politicians like to say they are model of moral decency but they are really the dirty living under your sink in terms of morals.

Politicians like to say they are model of moral decency but they are really the dirty living under your sink in terms of morals.
i can't agree with that. the vast majority of politicians are average or above average in character, in my opinion, it's just that the ones who are scum are REALLY spectacular scum.

i can't agree with that. the vast majority of politicians are average or above average in character, in my opinion, it's just that the ones who are scum are REALLY spectacular scum.

They enter decent people but politics turns them into the scum as all that compromising on your true morals by selling out to the political pressure is what the entire corrupt system is about.

Hopefully, some don't compromise their morals and stand up to the injustices of this world.

*unless the people of the world rise up against the real terrorist in the white house who declared the death of diplomacy and who uses military might to wreak havoc and chaos in the world that no one will be able to contain after he pushes it all too far

SCOTT RITTER SAYS U.S. PLANS JUNE ATTACK ON IRAN, ‘COOKED’ JAN. 30 IRAQI ELECTION RESULTS

Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia’s Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

Olympians like to call the Capitol Theater "historic," but it's doubtful whether the eighty-year-old edifice has ever been the scene of more portentous revelations.

The principal theme of Scott Ritter's talk was Americans’ duty to protect the U.S. Constitution by taking action to bring an end to the illegal war in Iraq. But in passing, the former UNSCOM weapons inspector stunned his listeners with two pronouncements. Ritter said plans for a June attack on Iran have been submitted to President George W. Bush, and that the president has approved them. He also asserted that knowledgeable sources say U.S. officials "cooked" the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran’s alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.

The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which George W. Bush has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom," were not so free after all. Ritter said that U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%.

Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine -- an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh.

On Jan. 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The Coming Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known investigative journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next strategic target [is] Iran." Hersh also reported that "The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer." According to Hersh, "Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran. . . . Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military’s war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. . . . The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans’ negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act."

Scott Ritter said that although the peace movement failed to stop the war in Iraq, it had a chance to stop the expansion of the war to other nations like Iran and Syria. He held up the specter of a day when the Iraq war might be remembered as a relatively minor event that preceded an even greater conflagration.

Scott Ritter's talk was the culmination of a long evening devoted to discussion of Iraq and U.S. foreign policy. Before Ritter spoke, Dahr Jamail narrated a slide show on Iraq focusing on Fallujah. He showed more than a hundred vivid photographs taken in Iraq, mostly by himself. Many of them showed the horrific slaughter of civilians.

Dahr Jamail argued that U.S. mainstream media sources are complicit in the war and help sustain support for it by deliberately downplaying the truth about the devastation and death it is causing.

Jamail was, until recently, one of the few unembedded journalists in Iraq and one of the only independent ones. His reports have gained a substantial following and are available online at dahrjamailiraq.com.

Friday evening's event in Olympia was sponsored by South Puget Sound Community College's Student Activities Board, Veterans for Peace, 100 Thousand and Counting, Olympia Movement for Justice & Peace, and United for Peace of Pierce County

Skapedroe, you've been warned for this before. Link your source and add your own commentary, or you'll be warned for spamming AGAIN.

Thanks for the post Skapedroe, nothing I'd be surprised about in it really, but still good to hear that some americans do speak up and try to tell people about the injustices that are going on... :cool:

It's funny too, watching the usual batch of character assasination that follows any time an American publicly makes a statement with any kind of dissenting viewpoint from the usual US outlook. Very sad, but funny.

I thought he died?
He was great on Three's Company, tho...

as opposed to who?.....


bush?


his staff?


we've seen how far that's gotten us :rolleyes:

Certainly gotten us farther than listening to Scott Ritter, you, or me.

And it is CLEAR that Ritter is biased and therefore unqualified to try to write a strictly informative article.

"The illegal war in Iraq"

By whose relevant standard? Prove it.

Wow, even more conspiracy theories and crack-pot allegations from you. Have you ever stopped to read the idiocy you post?
Can you disprove the original post? Obviously not or you would have posted the refutation.

Until you can disprove it, you shouldn't be calling Skapedroe a "crack pot"?

In your attempt to discredit the original story, you have accused Scott Ritter of being CONVICTED of a serious crime. Yet you can't prove that allegation either?

Obviously Scott Ritter does have some credibility (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=scott_ritter), since he was the UNSCOM Chief Weapons Inspector (Summer of 1997 until August 1998) and was in Iraq before the invasion, and he was also a US Marine Intelligence Officer.

Scott Ritter claimed before the Iraq invasion that Iraq didn't have any WMD and guess what.....he was RIGHT!!

i am immediately suspicious of anybody who leaps toward such accusations without providing proof in their FIRST POST. if Ritter is so clearly a child molester, surely they will have no trouble citing a source?

i feel that making such accusations without producing evidence right away is actually more discreditting toward the accusers; they come across as people who are angry or afraid because of what Ritter is saying, more concerned with silencing him than discussing the issue being presented. it makes them look pitiful, to me, and is disappointing conduct in what could have been an adult discussion.
I concur with your sentiments 100%. Slander is the act of saying something false or malicious that damages somebody’s reputation. Could the accusations made against Ritter in this thread, if untrue, be considered slanderous?

Certainly gotten us farther than listening to Scott Ritter, you, or me.

And it is CLEAR that Ritter is biased and therefore unqualified to try to write a strictly informative article.

"The illegal war in Iraq"

By whose relevant standard? Prove it.

Listening to Bush and his staff has got the world further, yes, into a deep dark hole, where we're gearing up for yet more unnecessary wars.

So Ritter is biased and Bush isn't? His article can still be informative and he's eminently qualified in the fields that he's writing on, wheras the government practises he's exposing we're deliberately never informed of...

The war in Iraq was illegal in the eyes of much of the rest of the world.

I can find no reputable sources that claim Scott Ritter is a pedophile... would anyone care to provide some?

And it is CLEAR that Ritter is biased and therefore unqualified to try to write a strictly informative article.
How is it CLEAR that Ritter is "biased", and "unqualified"?

My 2p

Who would you trust for correct information?

An unnamed poilitican?

or

An unnamed member of a UN taskforce?

One is by definition biased. The other is required to report facts in a non politically aligned manner.

I think Mr Ritter has become percieved as biassed because of his frustration with a President who repeatedly lied to his public, ignoring the Iraq survey groups reports, which incidentally have been pretty much accepted as truth by all but the Republicans and various brinwashed yanks.

Simply, put if Mr Hussien used chem weapons on his own population, why were they not used against infidel invaiders from one of the nations most revilled in the region?

( Don't feel too smug on this one Brits, this is a loveley quote from our so called greatest leader:

" I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes."
Winston Churchill on the subject of Iraq 1920

)

" I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes."
Winston Churchill on the subject of Iraq 1920

)
hell yeah

Simply, put if Mr Hussien used chem weapons on his own population, why were they not used against infidel invaiders from one of the nations most revilled in the region?


Simply because he was scared, his own people didn't have the ability to invade Iraq and throw him out of power afterwards. That and we generally keep the antidotes etc. to gas we (the west) supplied him with and would have thrown away the gloves in any further conflict against him if he'd already use it against us. Also they'd used most of it up and allowed the remaining stocks to fall into disrepair.

ps: Hi Unamerican Peoples, not seen you posting here before. Good to see another Psytopian face. :D

I guess the point I was trying to make there is that there was a fair degree proof in Ritters report (And Blixes post-war assertations) in the fact that CW wasnt used.

(BTW Whinge I've posted very occasionly on this board, but with the lack of a certain forum, it may become more common, tho here is a bit more :headbang: than there - sqoo)

I guess the point I was trying to make there is that there was a fair degree proof in Ritters report (And Blixes post-war assertations) in the fact that CW wasnt used.

(BTW Whinge I've posted very occasionly on this board, but with the lack of a certain forum, it may become more common, tho here is a bit more :headbang: than there - sqoo)

I think we're broadly in agreement on Ritter and Brix (Arroooo... sorry couldn't resist it).

Know what you mean about the lack of that other forum, definitely more headbanging here. ;)

Here is the first article (http://www.nydailynews.com/01-19-2003/news/story/52750p-49424c.html) I found with regards to Ritter's arrest and indictment. Ritter was areested for having a sexual discussion with an underage (14 y.o.) girl who turned out to be an undercover police officer. In connection to this arrest, he was also accused of trying to lure a 16 y.o. girl to meet him at a fast-food restaraunt.

According to this article (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30587) , Paul Conti, the news director at NBC television affiliate WNYT in Albany, said "the 16-year-old girl had been lured by Ritter to meet him at the Burger King in Menands, N.Y., in order 'to have her watch him have sex with himself. Anyone who went to the Burger King that day could confirm the details of that event and report that a sting operation was underway that involved a decoy officer posing as a 16-year-old girl,' Conti said."

The records of the court procedings are sealed, but "WTEN-TV, the ABC affiliate in Albany, is reporting that Ritter contacted the "teen-age girl" twice within a three-month period in 2001, and that he underwent court-ordered sex-offender counseling from a psychologist in New York's capital." according to the article.

Skapedroe: where is your link to the original article?

Skapedroe: where is your link to the original article?

I'm not skapedroe, but a google search for the exact phrase, "SCOTT RITTER SAYS U.S. PLANS JUNE ATTACK ON IRAN, ‘COOKED’ JAN. 30 IRAQI ELECTION RESULTS" gave 22 results, though some of these results may be due to reposting in forum threads.

This does appear to be a legitimate article, though - here's one link:


http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2295/

I'm not skapedroe, but a google search for the exact phrase, "SCOTT RITTER SAYS U.S. PLANS JUNE ATTACK ON IRAN, ‘COOKED’ JAN. 30 IRAQI ELECTION RESULTS" gave 22 results, though some of these results may be due to reposting in forum threads.

This does appear to be a legitimate article, though - here's one link:


http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2295/

Thanks.

how could he not pledge millions of dollars.

didn't you see the heat he was getting for not giving everything he had to the tsunami victims?

And why should we give everything we have? Then WE would have nothing! Sorry dude but your comment rates a 10 on the idiotic scale.

Scott Ritter, Now theres a name you can trust! LOL
Didn't Saddam Hussein pay Scotty to do a documentary on nukes in Iraq, or something? I think he's been licking too many toads.

the only reason Rove (you can tell hes a classic pedophile by his looks alone)
hasnt been indicted is cause Rove owns Bushs ass too

^^See kids, this is what happens when you don't go to school! How can they let someone with a very low IQ have a computer?

everything Ritter said would happen in the past=100% happened
everything Bush said jas turned out to be 100% WRONG
Im putting my money on Ritter

And he's saying it'll happen in June? I'll take your bet!

Your officially... Brainwashed

So are you!

Can you give me some examples. And Ill but this in bold to make sure you read it. TAKE WHAT YOU READ WITH A GRAIN OF SALT!!!!!!!!! read it criticaly, and do not accept things as 100% true all of the time, if you do it means your naive.

He can't! He's brainwashed to much. He can't even see the other side of the arguement.

^^See kids, this is what happens when you don't go to school! How can they let someone with a very low IQ have a computer?

That's what I call being 'obnoxious', Corny. Remember now, glass houses and stones don't mix...

That's just a cheap shot. "He rigged the election, but he was too stupid to do it." That just screams "insane conspiracy theory."

That is all he knows

Skapedroe, you've been warned for this before. Link your source and add your own commentary, or you'll be warned for spamming AGAIN.

Take away is posting rights! :D

That's what I call being 'obnoxious', Corny. Remember now, glass houses and stones don't mix...

I know but I couldnt help my self :D

Take away is posting rights! :D

You're not being helpful - in fact, I suspect your are padding out your posts for some reason. Probably to see the little meter roll over to some nice fat round number.

If you've failed to notice (and I'm sure anyone taking the time to read through all this recent detritus might just fail to notice - thanks again, Corny) I just went to the trouble of providing a bona fide link to this thread, as I feel this is important enough an issue to warrant the continued attention of NSers.

You're spamming the thread, in what I construe as an attempt to derail it.

Shame on you. Read this, I think you'll find it applicable:

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=18597

Here is the first article (http://www.nydailynews.com/01-19-2003/news/story/52750p-49424c.html) I found with regards to Ritter's arrest and indictment. Ritter was areested for having a sexual discussion with an underage (14 y.o.) girl who turned out to be an undercover police officer. In connection to this arrest, he was also accused of trying to lure a 16 y.o. girl to meet him at a fast-food restaraunt.

According to this article (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30587) , Paul Conti, the news director at NBC television affiliate WNYT in Albany, said "the 16-year-old girl had been lured by Ritter to meet him at the Burger King in Menands, N.Y., in order 'to have her watch him have sex with himself. Anyone who went to the Burger King that day could confirm the details of that event and report that a sting operation was underway that involved a decoy officer posing as a 16-year-old girl,' Conti said."

The records of the court procedings are sealed, but "WTEN-TV, the ABC affiliate in Albany, is reporting that Ritter contacted the "teen-age girl" twice within a three-month period in 2001, and that he underwent court-ordered sex-offender counseling from a psychologist in New York's capital." according to the article.
The second article confirms:

Sources told the Gazette that Ritter's attorney and a town court judge agreed to adjourn the matter in contemplation of a dismissal.

That generally means the case is on hold for six months, and if the defendant doesn't get into trouble, the case is usually dismissed and the record sealed. The adjournment means neither an admission of guilt or innocence. The charge was reportedly a class B misdemeanor.

For his part, Ritter claims he knows nothing of the arrest.

Hence no conviction. BTW, that article is dated January 19, 2003, which means that it is past the 6 month "hold" period.

Here is the first article (http://www.nydailynews.com/01-19-2003/news/story/52750p-49424c.html) I found with regards to Ritter's arrest and indictment. Ritter was areested for having a sexual discussion with an underage (14 y.o.) girl who turned out to be an undercover police officer.

Sorry about the off-topic but:

How on earth does a 14 year old girl become an undercover police officer?

Now back to the topic at hand please...

Is there any going back to the matter at hand? I thought it'd help if I provided a link (and yes skapedroe, you should link these things) - but people seem less interested in the article than they are in either making attacks on skapedroe, or getting into something about 14 year old undercover cops...

I'd love to hear more about this, analysis or opinions, or...just about anything. Anybody have anything to say?

Sorry about the off-topic but:

How on earth does a 14 year old girl become an undercover police officer?

Now back to the topic at hand please...
That is a very interesting question indeed. :D

Also, how do the following people get to make these kind of comments without backing up their accusations with proof:

Well, well, well...if it isn't Scott "Child Molester" Ritter, coming up with yet more cooked-up charges.

He is a child molester. Dont dodge the truth

O, some bull from Scott Ritter. I still remember how he was on the Daily Show and then later on everyone found out he was a pedophile

Probably because they can't?

Now as far as Scott Ritter's credibility (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=scott_ritter), he was right about ZERO WMD in Iraq before the Bush invasion.

As far as the lead post, there are 32 links to the story on a Google search (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Scott+Ritter+reveals+Bush%27s+plans+on+starting+WW3+by+attacking+Iran+this+June+&meta=).

Is there any going back to the matter at hand? I thought it'd help if I provided a link (and yes skapedroe, you should link these things) - but people seem less interested in the article than they are in either making attacks on skapedroe, or getting into something about 14 year old undercover cops...

I'd love to hear more about this, analysis or opinions, or...just about anything. Anybody have anything to say?
It appears that in American politics, everyone runs around trying to discredit each others stories, and the truth becomes obscured, and next thing you know, a country (Iraq) gets invaded. Will the same thing happen with Iran?

The fact that he was ordered to undergo sex offender counseling as a condition of dismissal suggests that there was enough evidence to go to court. I suspect that he was given leniency because:

1. No actual molestation took place, AND

2. He agreed to undergo the treatment.

Just because he wasn't actually convicted doesn't mean he didn't perpetrate the acts he was accused of. The fact he was ordered to undergo SEX OFFENDER counceling should be enough to convince anyone that there was some merit to the charges. I don't have enough information to know whether he is credible, but these charges and their outcome lead me to be suspicious of his motives and overall credibility.

By the way, I wouldn't trust him around my teenage daughter, either!

First of all, would Bush honestly go into Iran now anyways? Even if he were planning to do so, now that the whole world knows (Iran is included in the world), he could never do it successfully. They have 3 months to plan out how to defend their land if this douche bag's right.

Also, Jane Fonda and John Kerry did this sort of stuff for the Vietnam conflict. If we would only punish treason in this country, we'd have a lot less to worry about.

By the way, if you guys want to discuss child molestation and what not, do it in another thread. There have been like 4 or 5 pages just on his child molestation accusations.

The fact that he was ordered to undergo sex offender counseling as a condition of dismissal suggests that there was enough evidence to go to court. I suspect that he was given leniency because:

1. No actual molestation took place, AND

2. He agreed to undergo the treatment.

Just because he wasn't actually convicted doesn't mean he didn't perpetrate the acts he was accused of. The fact he was ordered to undergo SEX OFFENDER counceling should be enough to convince anyone that there was some merit to the charges. I don't have enough information to know whether he is credible, but these charges and their outcome lead me to be suspicious of his motives and overall credibility.

By the way, I wouldn't trust him around my teenage daughter, either!
I read the stories that you posted and I didn't see anything that stated that Ritter would have to undergo sex offender therapy, or that he was convicted. Where can I find that information, or are you embellishing the story?

Scott Ritter reveals Bushs plans on starting WW3 by attacking Iran this June
The Bush Empire must fall, it is even more clear now.
calling Ritter a child molester is one of Bushs demonic tactics of smearing the names of all the Truth-speakers. A stratgey he learned from his Father in Hell
Ah, the best of NS gathered in one thread!

It appears that in American politics, everyone runs around trying to discredit each others stories, and the truth becomes obscured, and next thing you know, a country (Iraq) gets invaded. Will the same thing happen with Iran?

As far as I'm concerned, it sounds like there will indeed be another war, this time in Iran. And I agree with your analysis of American politics...they will indeed run around discrediting stories and letting themselves get caught up in silly minutiae while the next big push (read: illegal war) is being planned.

As far as I'm concerned, it sounds like there will indeed be another war, this time in Iran. And I agree with your analysis of American politics...they will indeed run around discrediting stories and letting themselves get caught up in silly minutiae while the next big push (read: illegal war) is being planned.
The grave concern here is that the Arab world will react much differently to the invasion of Iran than they did with the invasion of Iraq. When Iraq was invaded, the Arab world protested vehemently, but not physically. Will they respond physically if Iran is attacked? This current scenario reminds me of the start of WW1 with the "Balkan Powderkeg".

I think there will be a different reaction, certainly. Would it mean the start of a worldwide jihad? Probably not.

Will it mean the world will become a riskier place? Certainly.

Would I expect the current US admin to try exploiting this 'riskier world' scenario to enact a police state, in fact if not in name? Laughably obvious, but yes.

You've got a man who personally oversaw the execution of living breathing human beings running the world's biggest superpower. This is insane.

SCOTT RITTER SAYS U.S. PLANS JUNE ATTACK ON IRAN, ‘COOKED’ JAN. 30 IRAQI ELECTION RESULTS

Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia’s Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.



Well, they also said this about 9/11. Big assertions like these should be heavily backed. While I find it good to question, it's kind of eerie that everyone here is just jumping the gun, so to speak. Calm down,...you'll see if it arrives. You'll see if there's more evidence that arises. Then we could have him step down, and I'm sure it won't be extremely hard at that point.

At this point, it's just another random story on the net.

Well, they also said this about 9/11. Big assertions like these should be heavily backed. While I find it good to question, it's kind of eerie that everyone here is just jumping the gun, so to speak. Calm down,...you'll see if it arrives. You'll see if there's more evidence that arises. Then we could have him step down, and I'm sure it won't be extremely hard at that point.

At this point, it's just another random story on the net.

So we should just sit back, drink a beer, forget about it, and then let ourselves be surprised when it happens? That's not much of a plan...that's just not doing anything. That might just be Bush's biggest asset - the ability to keep everybody too busy with BS to see what he's up to, and when he does it - what? There are no checks and balances in place to keep him from doing whatever the Hell he (or his handlers) want.

No keeping this bird's head buried in the sand.

Possibly, the entire world should realize the ignored importance of hats. No not goddamn caps, or any shit like that, HATS man HATS.
As we all know, there is a almost worldwide Mafia which controls the entire hat racket. And the racket racket. This is precisely the reason why Mafiosos have such cool hats. The Finnish, Swedish and Canadian hat Mafias are among the most brutal in the world.
Of course we can all well forsee that Bush will most likely tempt the Iranian iotola with the finest Western hats, and he will succumb to his desires and surrendur immediately so that he may spend more time with his hats. But when he is questioned about the surrendur he will say "YOU CANNOT HAVE THEM! THAY ARE MINE....AAARGH..HEHE..CHICKENS..." and he will forever covet his fantabulous flaptraptic hats from the public, and deny them the pleasure of hats. And the US will continue to use this tactic of hat-temptation throughout the middle east. We will tempt religious and social leaders in order the gain control of the publuc, and then he will have, essentially, an empire.
God help us all.

The grave concern here is that the Arab world will react much differently to the invasion of Iran than they did with the invasion of Iraq. When Iraq was invaded, the Arab world protested vehemently, but not physically. Will they respond physically if Iran is attacked? This current scenario reminds me of the start of WW1 with the "Balkan Powderkeg".

Not just the Arab world, either. For some time now most Europeans have come to see the Bush administration as the major threat to world security and stability. It is increasingly perceived as taking a fascist turn within its borders, and being unabashedly imperialistic outside.

All European countries include large populations of Arab origin. They are our neighbours, and we've been living together, for better or worse, for a very long time. I'm not talking of state-to-state diplomacy here, but of the daily life in your average urban neighborhood. Now the few so-called 'allies' the Bush administration could find on this continent to invade Iraq already lined up against the crushing majority of their own population. And I would guess, and even hope, that if the US takes on Iran next they will find at least a few European 'insurgents' and 'terrorists' resisting its imperial hubris alongside your usual 'crazed, backwards arabs'.

Sorry about the off-topic but:

How on earth does a 14 year old girl become an undercover police officer?

Now back to the topic at hand please...

She wasn't really 14! She was a cop that could pass as 14. Cops do this all the time.

Not just the Arab world, either. For some time now most Europeans have come to see the Bush administration as the major threat to world security and stability. It is increasingly perceived as taking a fascist turn within its borders, and being unabashedly imperialistic outside.

All European countries include large populations of Arab origin. They are our neighbours, and we've been living together, for better or worse, for a very long time. I'm not talking of state-to-state diplomacy here, but of the daily life in your average urban neighborhood. Now the few so-called 'allies' the Bush administration could find on this continent to invade Iraq already lined up against the crushing majority of their own population. And I would guess, and even hope, that if the US takes on Iran next they will find at least a few European 'insurgents' and 'terrorists' resisting its imperial hubris alongside your usual 'crazed, backwards arabs'.
You do raise an interesting point. When does the rest of the world make a stand against a perceived American global dominance? Cracks are starting to appear in what used to be rock solid alliances.

I say diplomacy NOT bombs should be the order of the day.

:D Sorry to interrupt your conversation here but, if you have any time, could you maybe gp tp this website? http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=haveasliceofmypie Oh yeah, and you could also go to http://www.freewebs.com/haveasliceofmypie . They are both great websites, and they are free. :D

So we should just sit back, drink a beer, forget about it, and then let ourselves be surprised when it happens? That's not much of a plan...that's just not doing anything. That might just be Bush's biggest asset - the ability to keep everybody too busy with BS to see what he's up to, and when he does it - what? There are no checks and balances in place to keep him from doing whatever the Hell he (or his handlers) want.

No keeping this bird's head buried in the sand.

No...I said wait and see if there's more valid evidence. I just see an assertion on the net. Is there something more to this than just an assertion?

If so, then take legal action. Otherwise were just shaking a hive.

Questions are great,...but to flat out lynch someone. I sometimes think that 9/11 was more than what was shown, but I can't prove that. I have questions, and that's it.

Also, Jane Fonda and John Kerry did this sort of stuff for the Vietnam conflict. If we would only punish treason in this country, we'd have a lot less to worry about.

"Land of the free", indeed. The one committing the treason is you - treason against your own constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech (which includes criticising the government).

McCarthyism is still alive and well.

I dont give a rats ass about half of what yall say. I'm not a conservative I'm a libertarian. I'm really dangerous because well I actully want completle freedom to take care of myself.
with that said here.
1 the US keeps and updates invasion plans on half the countries in the world. I would not be surprised if in the past few years Bush's staff and the JCS signed off on invasion plans of china and Russia.
2 we cooked the elections by having our guy come in 3rd place. the fact that the country was beaten into submission by a small pit of the populace. now durring free elections that small populace only wins a bit of the popular vote and seats in their new house. wow that is totally unbelievable. must be a consipiracy with Bush and his allies the Aliens from Orions Belt.
3 the rest fo the stuff about ritter and child molsting and about bush being the devils son. and about the bush empire or dynasty. get over it. Ritter was not convicted therefore he is innocent. Bush is not the emporer or king. there was a president between him and his father. there will be another president in 2008 that wont be bush or bush junior. so well people you need to relax. the world is a cruel place filled with violence. just do your own thing. you can disagree with people but you dont have to attack them.
4 I see people attacking people and ideas but I see almost no serious debate granted thats hard when you can have a dozen people sending in post at one time. I mean people state your opinion put a fact behind it if you want. but please stop baseless or based slader.
5 I am an American guess what I elect our president the French people dont. the french people elect their government. If the world has a problem with the US being the only superpower. Well stop winning and elect people to yor government who will turn yrou country into a superpower. not those who will try to strip the US of being a super power.

Since Scott Ritter is an EX- everything, and has no access to anything, how would he know anything?

calling ritter a pedophile and leaving it at that is as good as conceeding victory.

it's an old political tool.

if you can't attack the argument, attack the man.

so far, i have not seen one good bit of evidence to even remotely weaken ritter's argument that the bush white house will attack iran in june.

provide some, please?

What about Hans Blix who was saying there was no evidence of WMDs right before the invasion? Why would the Europeans insist on weapons inspectors looking for weapons if they "knew" they had them?

Hans Blix himself said they had found no evidence, and yet made it crystal clear that SAddam was being purposfully misleading, countering the efforts of the inspection teams. At that point after 441 the UN already accepted that Iraq was a THREAT and that they were COMPELLED to give complete assistances to Hans Blix's team which did not occur. 441 itself said, IF IRAQ DID NOT COMPLY THERE WOULD BE EXTREME CONSEQUENCES!!! .. At the point Hans Blix said Saddam was not complying.. what was left on the table ?

simple.. they wanted the "SMOKING GUN" ... besides the fact that IRAQ had not acounted for thousands of tons of chemical and biological substances which Inspectors in the 90's had not destroyed

5 I am an American guess what I elect our president the French people dont. the french people elect their government. If the world has a problem with the US being the only superpower. Well stop winning and elect people to yor government who will turn yrou country into a superpower. not those who will try to strip the US of being a super power.

Er... If you'd care to have a look at your encylopaedia, you'll find that the French do elect their president, who then appoints a (non-elected) prime minister, who in turn submits a cabinet proposal to the president for approval.

As for the rest, you might find this amazing but most people around the world don't actually want their country to be a superpower, and would be more than happy if their government could find a reasonable way to get along with neighbouring ones so that everyone can just enjoy a quiet life. In European culture I suppose that has something to do with having experienced first-hand the utter madness of national will to power and expansion.

I'm even quite sure -- but correct me if I'm wrong -- that most of the American people do not actually wish to be a superpower, and would also be quite content with living peacefully, if only they felt safe (which is where the brazen state propaganda comes in).

Skapedroe, see the quote in my profile

Well there could be a case for Hanoi Jane.

She was nominated for TIME's 100 women of the century. Many soldiers and POWs wrote in and protested. She was removed.

The one story that stuck in my mind was from a POW.

She went to Viet Nam and visted a camp doing the propaganda thing. The guy said each POW palmed her a paper with their name and id number. They figured she would carry them out as to get word they were alive. She marched down each line and took them.

Then she walked right over and handed them to the camp commander.

The guy wrote 3 guys were beat to death that night.

C'mon, and you actually believe that? Jane Fonda was a peace activist - in the eyes of some ignorants that might make her a soldier for the enemy, but quite frankly anyone with half a brain can distinguish one from the other. You are basically saying Fonda was some sort of spy for the Vietcong, based on the letter of some guy who claims to have been a POW. This is truly an absurd notion and if you're honest, you will admit that you would scoff at anyone telling an insane story like this about an important person on your side of the argument.

You do raise an interesting point. When does the rest of the world make a stand against a perceived American global dominance? Cracks are starting to appear in what used to be rock solid alliances.

I say diplomacy NOT bombs should be the order of the day.

Well we did actually try that. I seem to remember the French Minister of Foreign Affairs receiving an unprecedented standing ovation at the UN general assembly, precisely for taking that stand.

It must be said, however, that contrary to their own grandiose propaganda the French position on that matter was also more than slightly motivated by so-called 'national interests' -- i.e., those of TotalFina Elf, who then had all the juicy oil prospection contracts in Iraq. The same French administration now seems quite willing to patch things up, partly because the US have agreed to give French oil companies a piece of the pie, and partly because the US-led occupation has turned the whole region into an explosive mess which it can't handle on its own and can't withdraw from either. But the only opposition state diplomacy will ever voice is that which ensures that their own 'national interests' (read economic neo-colonialism) will not be unreasonably encroached upon by the bully on the block.

As far as popular opposition is concerned, well... The first thing I'd say is that it's really up to US citizens to reclaim their own political institutions and media and force them to get a grip. In the rest of the world every pacific and democratic means has been tried, including the largest demonstrations ever recorded in human history. It's precisely because all else has failed that I suspect the Bush administration just might succeed in bringing to life something like International Brigades -- on the other end of their rifles, side by side with their enemies.

Who's Scott Ritter?

C'mon, and you actually believe that? Jane Fonda was a peace activist - in the eyes of some ignorants that might make her a soldier for the enemy, but quite frankly anyone with half a brain can distinguish one from the other. You are basically saying Fonda was some sort of spy for the Vietcong, based on the letter of some guy who claims to have been a POW. This is truly an absurd notion and if you're honest, you will admit that you would scoff at anyone telling an insane story like this about an important person on your side of the argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fonda-Hanoi1.jpg

"I, a Socialist, think we should strive toward a Socialist society, all the way to Communism."

"If you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that one day we would become Communist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fonda-Hanoi1.jpg

So the woman has Communist sympathies and was photographed with Communists. Following the U.S. logic, I guess that does make her a criminal and a probable murderer. Good job in further discrediting your country as one where different opinions are allowed without being prosecuted.

So the woman has Communist sympathies and was photographed with Communists. Following the U.S. logic, I guess that does make her a criminal and a probable murderer. Good job in further discrediting your country as one where different opinions are allowed without being prosecuted.

A criminal, no. A probable murderer, no. A traitor, yes.

If an American was photographed with Nazis during World War II, would that make them a traitor?

Who's Scott Ritter?

*cough*

Scott? Whow man, that is a really cool name. What kind of crack do you smoke man!! Man, just the other day we had this big Satan worship thing, man, you should have been there. Smoke crack and worship Satan they all said...... smoke crack and worship Satan,

whoa, where did I hear that before?

A criminal, no. A probable murderer, no. A traitor, yes.

A traitor to what? What the government of the U.S. perceives as the right policy at a particular moment in time? The constitution still warrants freedom of any political opinion, including Communism, and as far as I know the constitution pretty much outweighs anything.

Furthermore, the story I called ridiculous did make her out to be an accessory to murder and violations of the most basic human rights. You acted as if that picture and those quotes proved the story to be founded in reality, which is preposterous.

The Nazi comparison is not valid because the Nazis were the ones who started the war, so an American would have no business hanging around them to show his/her peacenik sympathies.

A criminal, no. A probable murderer, no. A traitor, yes.

If an American was photographed with Nazis during World War II, would that make them a traitor?


huh? guilty untill proven innocent?

A traitor to what? What the government of the U.S. perceives as the right policy at a particular moment in time? The constitution still warrants freedom of any political opinion, including Communism, and as far as I know the constitution pretty much outweighs anything.

Furthermore, the story I called ridiculous did make her out to be an accessory to murder and violations of the most basic human rights. You acted as if that picture and those quotes proved the story to be founded in reality, which is preposterous.

The Nazi comparison is not valid because the Nazis were the ones who started the war, so an American would have no business hanging around them to show his/her peacenik sympathies.

And in the Vietnam War, the Vietcong started the war. It was they who invaded the South, not the other way around.

huh? guilty untill proven innocent?

Think about it. If an American, Brit, Canadian, or Aussie was photographed with Nazi soldiers, interrogated POWs held by Nazis, and openly and publicly sympathized with and lauded the Nazis, would not that make them a traitor?

I am interested how you came to the conclusion I was suggesting she was a spy because of her actions?

Well, the story pretty much boiled down to the idea that Jane Fonda, when visiting Americans in a POW camp, gave private information to the Vietcong, which resulted in the death of three American soldiers. Or did I misunderstand?

About the guy stating his name, rank, ID etc...I'm not denying he was a soldier or a POW - but let's face it, many people came home from Nam more than a little delusional. Even more of them were very, very angry at the peace movement and would go pretty far to discredit it.

Scott? Whow man, that is a really cool name. What kind of crack do you smoke man!! Man, just the other day we had this big Satan worship thing, man, you should have been there. Smoke crack and worship Satan they all said...... smoke crack and worship Satan,

whoa, where did I hear that before?

Man, you guys take *Skapedroe* much much too seriously. He's just pulling your chain and you guys bit, like big time.

Think about it. If an American, Brit, Canadian, or Aussie was photographed with Nazi soldiers, interrogated POWs held by Nazis, and openly and publicly sympathized with and lauded the Nazis, would not that make them a traitor?

Tricky question, one which I admittedly find difficult to answer, but one thing's for certain: Communism, as opposed to Fascism, is an ideology that does not bind you to one particular army or country. It is perfectly possible for someone to be a Communist without supporting the Vietcong, Mao or Stalin. Being a Fascist without supporting Hitler is not.

have you ever looked at the Presidents eyes?I mean truely looked at them?
Its like a vacant eyed stare of something thats not even totally human-or doesnt have a soul or something.The legions of Hell have taken control of our Govt
:rolleyes:
Have you ever read a post written by a total leftist drama queen? I mean really read one. It's like a vacant headed moron got his panties in a twist because they cancelled "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" on his birthday and decided to take out his frustrations anonymously on an internet forum because nobody in his real life will listen to him without laughing at him. The legions of limp wristed leftists have taken control of this internet forum.

Jane Fonda was a peace activist - in the eyes of some ignorants that might make her a soldier for the enemy, but quite frankly anyone with half a brain can distinguish one from the other.

I think part of the problem people have is that to them, everything is black and white. If you don't stand with us, you are against us. So "obviously" peace activists should be considered traitors. Obviously, this is dead wrong. The scale isn't black and white. It's about every shade of grey there ever has been. Peace is probably rather neutral grey. It's neither the enemy, nor the ally. In a free country with a freedom of speech, being a peace protestor is a right. Denying such rights defeats the purpose of this country, and should be considered the REAL enemy. To that end, anyone that suggests that Jane Fonda was the enemy because she was a peace activist is commiting probably the most un-american act they possibly can. Suggesting that she was the enemy because she spoke positively of communism is similarly the most un-american act possible. Freedom of speech is granted by the Bill of Rights as dictated by the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. Last I checked, nothing in American law superceeds the constitution and it's amendments. Nothing.

Too bad more people don't understand that this means you have the right to say, believe and do just about anything within pretty wide limitations. You can't say "Fire!" in a public building, but you sure as hell can say "America should be communist" - and you should be able to expect to say that without rammifications. Too bad it generally doesn't. Senator McCarthy was perhaps the most un-American individual this country has seen come to power yet. He faught to destroy the freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press. He created one of the darkest times our country has known. He claimed that people that spoke out against what the US was doing, or even spoke in support of communism were in fact enemies of the state. They were blacklisted, banned and shunned. By the rights granted under the constitution, these people did nothing illegal by any means. The real traitor to American society was McCarthy himself, for leading the country into a series of witch trials, and destroying the lives of several honest, hard working people.

On the subject of Traitors:
Dictionary definition of Traitor (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=traitor)
Dictionary definition of Treason (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=treason)

By these, a Traitor is someone who commits an act of treason. Treason being something akin to selling secrets, such as location of forces, plans for attack, technology. In my understanding of the situation, Jane Fonda merely spoke against the war, citing that communism wasn't really that bad. Neither of these is an act of treason. Certainly being a peace activist is not treason either.

As to the subject at hand...
I personally don't care if Scott Ritter a mass murderer. If he's right, he's right. However, I do believe his sources are in question, especially if his security pass is no longer valid. If his sources are crap, then he's probably not right. If being a child molester makes the odds of his security passes being invalid very high, I question the validity of his sources. All we can really do is wait and see.

When Iraq was invaded, the Arab world protested vehemently, but not physically. Will they respond physically if Iran is attacked?

I live in the United Kingdom, and I shall react physically against the United States' Air Bases and Nuclear Defense Instillations in this country if they attack Iran.

A war on Iran will be a step too far. I will not stand for it.

And if my government aids the illegal assault, then I shall strike them too in targetted acts of civil disobedience designed to slow down the assault. Invading bases, blocking runways, entering defense compounds, whatever it takes.

For whoever was asking, the war on Iraq was illegal. Without a UN resolution authorising an invasion, it was illegal under International Law. Contrary to certain opinion, resolution 1441 did not authorise an invasion.

The real traitor to American society was McCarthy himself, for leading the country into a series of witch trials, and destroying the lives of several honest, hard working people.

But naturally, the Left cannot name any of these people he purportedly destroyed.

And in the Vietnam War, the Vietcong started the war. It was they who invaded the South, not the other way around.

Actually this is a complete fallacy. There was no North-South divide. It was a temporary and artificial divide set to rejoin, a massive percentage of popular opinion wanted it to rejoin, until America funded Diem and his compatriots, who rigged an election. The Vietcong were "South" Vietnamese resistance fighters, who were, admittedly funded by the "North".

Well you try fighting the US without some funding from somewhere.

As to the subject at hand...
I personally don't care if Scott Ritter a mass murderer. If he's right, he's right. However, I do believe his sources are in question, especially if his security pass is no longer valid. If his sources are crap, then he's probably not right. If being a child molester makes the odds of his security passes being invalid very high, I question the validity of his sources. All we can really do is wait and see.

That's the most sensible thing I've read all day.

Roach-Busters: so you will deny people have lost their jobs, families and friends because of the McCarthy witchhunt?

Being a Fascist without supporting Hitler is not.

You could support Mussolini or Franko.

That's the most sensible thing I've read all day.

Roach-Busters: so you will deny people have lost their jobs, families and friends because of the McCarthy witchhunt?

Yes, probably people were ruined, but not by McCarthy himself.

Yes, with all this talk of "cool hats," one must remember that...


My hat is the TALLEST of them all!

That's the most sensible thing I've read all day.

Thank you :)

Actually this is a complete fallacy. There was no North-South divide. It was a temporary and artificial divide set to rejoin, a massive percentage of popular opinion wanted it to rejoin, until America funded Diem and his compatriots, who rigged an election. The Vietcong were "South" Vietnamese resistance fighters, who were, admittedly funded by the "North".

Well you try fighting the US without some funding from somewhere.

Many of the Vietcong were sent South by the North between 1954-56. As documented in Buddha's Child: My Fight to Save Vietnam, they were Hanoi's puppet, behind which they masked their aggression.

Oh, and hats are cool :P

Yes, probably people were ruined, but not by McCarthy himself.

That's like saying "Probably jews were killed, but not by Hitler himself".

Ommm: yes, you could support Mussolini or Franko, but it's not like they were radically different from the Führer himself. Peaceful, democratic fascism is totally contradictory. Peaceful, democratic communism is not - it's the way it's been carried out so far that has proven inhumane, but that doesn't mean the ideology in itself is evil. If Jane Fonda thought Karl Marx had good ideas, that doesn't make her a lunatic supporting murdering, dictatorial regimes.

Saying McCarthy isn't responsible is like saying a mafia boss isn't responsible for the crimes of his underlings. McCarthy pushed for the start of the entire escapade. Without his effort, it may never have happened.

Yes, with all this talk of "cool hats," one must remember that...


My hat is the TALLEST of them all!

Whoa man! My hat is bigger! Does that make it the tallest?

Not every soldier came home with issues. Not every soldier came home hating the peace movement.

Did I say that? I said some of them did, and the person writing that letter was probably one. Nothing more, nothing less.

Oh, and hats are cool :P

Whoa man, did you experiece it yorself? Or did someone tell you about it?

Many of the Vietcong were sent South by the North between 1954-56. As documented in Buddha's Child: My Fight to Save Vietnam, they were Hanoi's puppet, behind which they masked their aggression.

The US was funding the "South" government at this point.

"At a peace conference later that year in Geneva, Ho Chi Minh obliged France to allow him to establish Communist control north of the 17th parallel while a non-Communist government would rule south of that line. According to the agreement that emerged from the conference, countrywide elections were to follow in two years' time whereby all the people of Vietnam would either unite under Ho Chi Minh's government or leave the country permanently divided. The United States, a participant in the peace conference, never accepted its outcome, and acted in concert with the government of the south to prevent the election from ever taking place. President Eisenhower himself acknowledged that, had the Vietnamese people been allowed to express themselves at the polls under the terms of the agreement, "'Ho Chi Minh would have won 80 percent of the vote'--and no U.S. president wanted to lose a country to communism." "

Source: Veterans Museun & Memorial Centre (http://www.veteranmuseum.org/vietnamwar.html)

The Final Declaration of The Geneva Conference:
On Restoring Peace in Indochina, July 21, 1954

"6. The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Viet-Nam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary. The Conference expresses its conviction that the execution of the provisions set out in the present declaration and in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities creates the necessary basis for the achievement in the near future of a political settlement in Viet-Nam."

Source Modern History Sourcebook (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1954-geneva-indochina.html)

The US was funding the "South" government at this point.

"At a peace conference later that year in Geneva, Ho Chi Minh obliged France to allow him to establish Communist control north of the 17th parallel while a non-Communist government would rule south of that line. According to the agreement that emerged from the conference, countrywide elections were to follow in two years' time whereby all the people of Vietnam would either unite under Ho Chi Minh's government or leave the country permanently divided. The United States, a participant in the peace conference, never accepted its outcome, and acted in concert with the government of the south to prevent the election from ever taking place. President Eisenhower himself acknowledged that, had the Vietnamese people been allowed to express themselves at the polls under the terms of the agreement, "'Ho Chi Minh would have won 80 percent of the vote'--and no U.S. president wanted to lose a country to communism." "

Source: Veterans Museun & Memorial Centre (http://www.veteranmuseum.org/vietnamwar.html)

The Final Declaration of The Geneva Conference:
On Restoring Peace in Indochina, July 21, 1954

"6. The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Viet-Nam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary. The Conference expresses its conviction that the execution of the provisions set out in the present declaration and in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities creates the necessary basis for the achievement in the near future of a political settlement in Viet-Nam."

Source Modern History Sourcebook (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1954-geneva-indochina.html)

Man, I tried to read taht and my head hurts you :sniper: :headbang:

But naturally, the Left cannot name any of these people he purportedly destroyed.

Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/rosenb/ROSENB.HTM

I've named two. And provided a link.

Now you name one person he purportedly helped by having that young married couple executed. Or destroyed, if you will.

Why do I have the feeling I'll be waiting a loooooooong time for a response?

Whoa man, did you experiece it yorself? Or did someone tell you about it?

No, I have lots of hats. Velvet ones, flowery ones, basic ones... My partner collects hats, and well, some of her hats fit me :P They're just cool.

That's the most sensible thing I've read all day.

Roach-Busters: so you will deny people have lost their jobs, families and friends because of the McCarthy witchhunt?

How is it a 'witchhunt?' There were indeed communist spies in the government. The problem was, in reality, far worse than even McCarthy realized. Every person McCarthy said was a communist was exactly that, a communist. Lauchlin Currie, Owen Lattimore, Haldore Hanson, Mary Jane Keeney, Annie Lee Moss, Phil Jessup, Irving Peress, John Carter Vincent, etc., were all communists. Read, for example:

1.The Assassination of Joe McCarthy by Dr. Medford Evans
2.McCarthy and his Enemies by William Buckley and Brent Bozell
3.McCarthy by Roy Cohn
4.The Lattimore Story by John T. Flynn
5.Who Promoted Peress? by Lionel Likos
6.Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy 1950-1951
7.Joseph McCarthy : Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator by Arthur Herman
8.Memorial Addresses Delivered in Congress by Joe McCarthy
9.McCarthyism: The Fight for America by Joe McCarthy
10.America's Retreat From Victory by Joe McCarthy
11.Who Killed Joe McCarthy? by William Bragg Ewald Jr.
12.What is Senator McCarthy Really Trying to Do? by John T. Flynn
13.The New American, May 11, 1987
14.Joseph Raymond McCarthy, Late a Senator From Wisconsin, Memorial Addresses Delivered in Congress (published by the U.S. government printing office in 1957)

yes, you could support Mussolini or Franko, but it's not like they were radically different from the Führer himself. Peaceful, democratic fascism is totally contradictory. Peaceful, democratic communism is not - it's the way it's been carried out so far that has proven inhumane, but that doesn't mean the ideology in itself is evil.

If Jane Fonda thought Karl Marx had good ideas, that doesn't make her a lunatic supporting murdering, dictatorial regimes.

Not disagreeing with the second part of your comment at all.

Not so sure Communism could be democratic, but as an anarchist, i have problems with it's essentially Statist structure. Marx had some ideas right, others way off.

Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/rosenb/ROSENB.HTM

I've named two. And provided a link.

Now you name one person he purportedly helped by having that young married couple executed. Or destroyed, if you will.

Why do I have the feeling I'll be waiting a loooooooong time for a response?

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were never the focus of a McCarthy investigation, and they were indeed guilty of providing sensitive information to the Soviets.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were never the focus of a McCarthy investigation, and they were indeed guilty of providing sensitive information to the Soviets.

Please don't tell me you are following that nasty bitch's claims......

No, I have lots of hats. Velvet ones, flowery ones, basic ones... My partner collects hats, and well, some of her hats fit me :P They're just cool.

That is righteous! Those sound so so very cool. I have hats, but only one has flowers on it, like the Grateful Dead roses, I think... I have to go and check I may have another 1. Later all , chat later.

Please don't tell me you are following that nasty bitch's claims......

No, I'm not.

I dont think that this guy is right, probably just more propoganda to get the people of the world to hate Bush. But nontheless, if its true, and it does happen, even though I'm too young to enlist, I would want to.

Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/rosenb/ROSENB.HTM

I've named two. And provided a link.

Now you name one person he purportedly helped by having that young married couple executed. Or destroyed, if you will.

Why do I have the feeling I'll be waiting a loooooooong time for a response?

Thank you for posting that. I couldn't remember the names... Didn't help that I had to answer the phone when I should have been googling for the names...

Yes, they were communists. And that makes them guilty of what?

How is it a 'witchhunt?' There were indeed communist spies in the government. The problem was, in reality, far worse than even McCarthy realized. Every person McCarthy said was a communist was exactly that, a communist. Lauchlin Currie, Owen Lattimore, Haldore Hanson, Mary Jane Keeney, Annie Lee Moss, Phil Jessup, Irving Peress, John Carter Vincent, etc., were all communists. Read, for example:

1.The Assassination of Joe McCarthy by Dr. Medford Evans
2.McCarthy and his Enemies by William Buckley and Brent Bozell
3.McCarthy by Roy Cohn
4.The Lattimore Story by John T. Flynn
5.Who Promoted Peress? by Lionel Likos
6.Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy 1950-1951
7.Joseph McCarthy : Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator by Arthur Herman
8.Memorial Addresses Delivered in Congress by Joe McCarthy
9.McCarthyism: The Fight for America by Joe McCarthy
10.America's Retreat From Victory by Joe McCarthy
11.Who Killed Joe McCarthy? by William Bragg Ewald Jr.
12.What is Senator McCarthy Really Trying to Do? by John T. Flynn
13.The New American, May 11, 1987
14.Joseph Raymond McCarthy, Late a Senator From Wisconsin, Memorial Addresses Delivered in Congress (published by the U.S. government printing office in 1957)

I can't believe I'm reading this - it's like you're stepping off of a particularly nasty page out of the cold war. Were they communists? Sure, a number of them were - there was never anything criminal about being a communist. People like McCarthy couldn't swallow that. So they cooked up the spy stuff.

They weren't all spies. That's preposterous. Saying they were is like saying all homosexuals are pederastes. McCarthy liked painting with a wide brush, too. Look where it got him in the end.

as opposed to who?.....


bush?


his staff?


we've seen how far that's gotten us :rolleyes:

you're right:

Taliban ousted in Afghanistan
Saddam ousted in Iraq
Free elections in Iraq
Strengthening economy after 9/11
Lower taxes (more economic freedom)

I'd say he's doing pretty well.

My hat is a sombrero, which puts the rest of your hats to shame.

So you can say he's false and I think he is honest and lets leave it at that.

Sure, but as long as it hasn't been proven it can still be considered as pure slander, and a rumor like that is not exactly a rock-solid debate instrument, now is it?

I can't believe I'm reading this - it's like you're stepping off of a particularly nasty page out of the cold war. Were they communists? Sure, a number of them were - there was never anything criminal about being a communist. People like McCarthy couldn't swallow that. So they cooked up the spy stuff.

They weren't all spies. That's preposterous. Saying they were is like saying all homosexuals are pederastes. McCarthy liked painting with a wide brush, too. Look where it got him in the end.

Wow, you mean you read all those books that fast?

I dont think that this guy is right, probably just more propoganda to get the people of the world to hate Bush. But nontheless, if its true, and it does happen, even though I'm too young to enlist, I would want to.

and as sad as I might initially have felt when I first read what you wrote, I'll say instead, 'Go for it'. And bring as many of your like-minded friends with you to the recruitment office, will you?

run along, now.

Apparently that story is FALSE according to Urban Legends (http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp):

The most serious accusations in the piece quoted above — that Fonda turned over slips of paper furtively given her by American POWS to the North Vietnamese and that several POWs were beaten to death as a result — are proveably untrue. Those named in the inflammatory e-mail categorically deny the events they supposedly were part of.

"It's a figment of somebody's imagination," says Ret. Col. Larry Carrigan, one of the servicemen mentioned in the 'slips of paper' incident. Carrigan was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967 and did spend time in a POW camp. He has no idea why the story was attributed to him, saying, "I never met Jane Fonda."

While she did some regretable stuff, that was not one of them. This is the kind of character bashing that drives me crazy. Does everyone just hear something, then mindlessly repeat it without at least checking a reputable source? :eek:

Well I am embarassed.

I usually don't fall for those. It was a article in a magazine. Just thought that was interesting. Didn't follow it as she doesn't interest me.

you're right:

Taliban ousted in Afghanistan
Saddam ousted in Iraq
Free elections in Iraq
Strengthening economy after 9/11
Lower taxes (more economic freedom)

I'd say he's doing pretty well.

Let's not forget the man's total disdain for anything concerning the environment, and the way he's created more terrorists than ever before by his warmongering. Of course, all of that doesn't matter as long as the money's pouring in and Fox News tells you everything in Afghanistan and Iraq is just dandy.

I'd love to stay and debate more but I'm out of time. See you later.

Sure, but as long as it hasn't been proven it can still be considered as pure slander, and a rumor like that is not exactly a rock-solid debate instrument, now is it?

I was proven wrong and thus removing my posts.

Don't need to propagate a myth. ;)

I'd love to stay and debate more but I'm out of time. See you later.

As am I.

So, to the rest of you: don't label me a yellow Europussy if I'm not around to answer any further comments ;)

Wow, you mean you read all those books that fast?

You do realize Roy Cohn was infamous for helping out Sen. McCarthy (and J. Edgar Hoover) persecute homosexuals for purported communist associations while Cohn himself, not to mention Hoover were both lifelong-closeted homosexuals?

Much as you might like to read, I recommending viewing 'Citizen Cohn' starring James Woods.

Maybe you'll be surprised by what you see.

and as sad as I might initially have felt when I first read what you wrote, I'll say instead, 'Go for it'. And bring as many of your like-minded friends with you to the recruitment office, will you?

run along, now.

I'm elisting whether it happens or not. Why? Because I take pride in my nation, and I'm more than happy to stand up and fight for the freedoms that we take for granted every day.

You do realize Roy Cohn was infamous for helping out Sen. McCarthy (and J. Edgar Hoover) persecute homosexuals for purported communist associations while Cohn himself, not to mention Hoover were both lifelong-closeted homosexuals?

Much as you might like to read, I recommending viewing 'Citizen Cohn' starring James Woods.

Maybe you'll be surprised by what you see.

Where can I find it?

I'm elisting whether it happens or not. Why? Because I take pride in my nation, and I'm more than happy to stand up and fight for the freedoms that we take for granted every day.


Then fight against the PATRIOT Act, and the right to only fight in wars which are legitimate, and (by inference) the right not to die for oil and conquest.

On second thoughts, please enlist. Die for a patch of land. Go on, shoo!

Because you can trust Ritter. We got some good sources herrrrrr kids...

Let's not forget the man's total disdain for anything concerning the environment, and the way he's created more terrorists than ever before by his warmongering. Of course, all of that doesn't matter as long as the money's pouring in and Fox News tells you everything in Afghanistan and Iraq is just dandy.

He hasn't created terrorists, he's brought a bunch of them to a common battleground.

They hate freedom. Is that Bush's fault?

would you let them have their way?

just wondering

And if i want the liberals' side of it, all i have to do is go to CNN, ABC, NBC or CBS... or NPR.

He hasn't created terrorists, he's brought a bunch of them to a common battleground.

They hate freedom. Is that Bush's fault?

would you let them have their way?

just wondering

He has created terrorists. His actions in the Middle East have converted a lot of radical Muslims to the terrorist cause, and alienated and radicalized plenty of moderate Muslims, as well.

He hasn't created terrorists, he's brought a bunch of them to a common battleground.

They hate freedom. Is that Bush's fault?

would you let them have their way?

just wondering


When the USA cuts and runs and iraq craps out into a type of lebannon civil war, that creates a great breeding ground for terrorists.

That country is not going to be stable for a long time, hopefully the USA will stay for about 10 years...

Then fight against the PATRIOT Act, and the right to only fight in wars which are legitimate, and (by inference) the right not to die for oil and conquest.

On second thoughts, please enlist. Die for a patch of land. Go on, shoo!

I'm for the Patriot Act. And there is no such thing as a 'legitimate' war now-a-days, with things like the UN around.

I'm for the Patriot Act. And there is no such thing as a 'legitimate' war now-a-days, with things like the UN around.

I'm glad that you are for the Patriot Act. But could you perhaps explain why? Why does Government invasion of your private life seem a good thing to you?

And no, there is no such thing as a legitimate war. All wars are inherently wrong. Including WWI, WWII, Vietnam and others.

WWII you cry, reaching for the keyboard. Yes indeed. Perhaps if the US banks, and the British government hadn't been so keen on the Nazis (they provide a barrier from the nasty Commies don't-cha-know) it could have been resolved far earlier.

Edit: removed "You come across as a Libertarian-type" because, on second read, he doesn't.

Ahhh Roach. Still hold the McCarthy is the great american. I thought this was in the past but again for your consumption.

I will have to keep this in a file and bring it up again when you start with the Great McCarthy crap again. ;)

------------------------------------------
Senetor Joe is a great american hero now is he?

The question of whom did he hurt is crap. It is what he did.

McCarthyism is the use of intimidation and unfounded accusations in the name of fighting communism. Let's not forget the fact that the communist party was not illegal in the US.

McCarthyism was the presumption of guilt instead of innocence, and the idea of guilt by association.

Truman's Federal Employee Loyalty Program prevented openly criticizing American foreign policy, advocating equal rights for women, owning books on socialism, and attending foreign films; these clearly contradict the principles on which America was formed.

For a name how about Alger Hiss? Graduate of Harvard Law and who had served as the `New' Dealer under Roosevelt(I know he is your favorite ) and had even gone to Yalta as a member of Roosevelt's staff.

To the average American, the `New' Deal seemed similar to Communism in several ways: they were to uplift the masses, they were against lassaiz-faire and for economic controls, and they both questioned the traditional ways. These, along with the fact that the US helped Russia in the WWII under FDR helped link Communism and `New' Dealism in the common man. Once llinked, it was easy to come to the conclusion that FDR and the `New' Deal must have conspired to convert America to Communism! Hiss symbolized, to the American public, the `New' Deal and all that went with it.

Nixon, HUAC, and the American people were desperately looking for someone to blame for this conspiracy, and Hiss was that person. Dubious proof was found, in a pumpkin patch, and he was finally found guilty of perjury.

McCarthy was not dedicated to finding Communists in America. He was abmvialent to it them before he had to run for re-election.

McCarthy was really looking for `New' Dealers, not only because the public already had negative feelings about them, but because it would keep his party in power in government and recapture lost congressional power.

McCarthy even tried to declare the Army was filled with communists. He tried to arrange preferential treatment for one of his friends but the Army kept a record of the calls he made and then later released them. He got pissed and the Army-McCarthy hearings started. People finally woke up to this "great" american as they watched his brutishness and rashness.

Joeseph Welch showed that McCarthy had a photo altered to make it look like the Secretary of the Army meeting with the haed of the Communist party(Guilt by association).

McCarthy produced a forged hoax of a letter from J. Edgar Hoover that confirmed there were communists in high places of the army.

Finally the dope tried to attack Eisenhower "Twenty, I mean twenty one years of treason"

It all ended with those imortal words

"Until this moment Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

McCarthyism did nothing for america in fact it hurt it. The morale in the State Department and Army suffered. This lead young educated people, the best and the brightest, not to go into government, which was left with second rate leaders who were more loyal than they were intelligent. An example is that the China Hands , who were experts on Eastern politics, were dismissed and replaced with people who told their superiors only what they wanted to hear. This lead to the mistakes made during the Chinese revolution. Other problems appeared in Korea and Viet Nam.

A lasting effect of McCarthyism was that the presidents, including Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan, did not want to seem "soft on communism," so they took the drastic step of supporting any group in power in any country that was against communism.

I'm for the Patriot Act. And there is no such thing as a 'legitimate' war now-a-days, with things like the UN around.

Ahhh so you are suggesting the UN is so powerful that we had to call Korea, Viet Nam, GW 1 and GW2 police actions and what not instead of declaring war?

snip

Way to name a source there, TBF. Moreover, I find it hard to believe you read all my sources that fast.

I was proven wrong and thus removing my posts.

Don't need to propagate a myth. ;)
I will go back and delete my post that responded to yours. You are a gentleman. :D

Way to name a source there, TBF. Moreover, I find it hard to believe you read all my sources that fast.

You forgot already? You hurt my feelings. :p

We had this debat back in Septermber. It's something I wrote. ;)

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7206145&postcount=39

---edit---

Oh and BTW. I was taught speed reading. But I will read the rest of your links. ;)

(OOC: What the heck is a 'Canuck?')

:confused:

You forgot already? You hurt my feelings. :p

We had this debat back in Septermber. It's something I wrote. ;)

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7206145&postcount=39

Very well-written, but it cites no sources.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT HATS FOR???

Because it's more interesting than the topic at hand...and based on more facts as well.

Very well-written, but it cites no sources.


Ahh well. My library is still in boxes. We moved and are still doing work on the house. NO BOOK CASES!!!! :(

Other then that. I kind of suspect not much will move you from your viewpoints. ;)

Well I am embarassed.

I usually don't fall for those. It was a article in a magazine. Just thought that was interesting. Didn't follow it as she doesn't interest me.
It is okay, I removed the post where I quoted you, because you removed yours. Kudos!! :)

Where can I find it?

It (Citizen Cohn) was on video store shelves about ten years ago. Sorry, I don't have a link ready-made for you. I suggest looking someplace like Amazon.

calling ritter a pedophile and leaving it at that is as good as conceeding victory.

it's an old political tool.

if you can't attack the argument, attack the man.

so far, i have not seen one good bit of evidence to even remotely weaken ritter's argument that the bush white house will attack iran in june.

provide some, please?

Alright, the majority of counter-responses seem to be along these lines: "wel, u can't disprove him!!1!"

You obviously can't disprove something that has no basis; there's nothing to attack. There's little research on topics such as 9/11 conspiracy theories because they're widely regarded as moronic >_>

Sure, there's a *slim* margin that Ritter's correct, but recall that he's doing the original attack; it's up to him to provide proof, and an anonymous source does not consitute proof.

(OOC: What the heck is a 'Canuck?')

:confused:
"Canuck" is a nickname for a Canadian.

Alright, the majority of counter-responses seem to be along these lines: "wel, u can't disprove him!!1!"

You obviously can't disprove something that has no basis; there's nothing to attack. There's little research on topics such as 9/11 conspiracy theories because they're widely regarded as moronic >_>

Sure, there's a *slim* margin that Ritter's correct, but recall that he's doing the original attack; it's up to him to provide proof, and an anonymous source does not consitute proof.

Amen.

O, and is 'Canuck' meant to be a derogatory term for Canadians or not? Or maybe something like calling the Irish Micks, British Limeys, or Americans Yanks?

Alright, the majority of counter-responses seem to be along these lines: "wel, u can't disprove him!!1!"

You obviously can't disprove something that has no basis; there's nothing to attack. There's little research on topics such as 9/11 conspiracy theories because they're widely regarded as moronic >_>

Sure, there's a *slim* margin that Ritter's correct, but recall that he's doing the original attack; it's up to him to provide proof, and an anonymous source does not consitute proof.
The problem here is that Scott Ritter's information regarding Iraq was ignored by the Bush administration. Ritter's assertation proved to be correct that there were no WMD in Iraq. Ritter was the Chief UN inspector in Iraq, up until 1998. So the man certainly has some past credibility.

I'm glad that you are for the Patriot Act. But could you perhaps explain why? Why does Government invasion of your private life seem a good thing to you?


Because you have to give a little to get alittle. I would rather give up a little privacy in order to gain a little safety.

Because you have to give a little to get alittle. I would rather give up a little privacy in order to gain a little safety.

Eww protect freedom by giving it away?

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Ben Franklin

Amen.

O, and is 'Canuck' meant to be a derogatory term for Canadians or not? Or maybe something like calling the Irish Micks, British Limeys, or Americans Yanks?
Actually for the most part, the term is meant good naturedly, especially in reference to some of our more famous skiers:

Read was the catalyst who propelled the Crazy Canucks --Steve Podborski, Dave Irwin and Dave Murray were the others -- to the top of the ski world.

These guys were CRAZY!!!

The problem here is that Scott Ritter's information regarding Iraq was ignored by the Bush administration. Ritter's assertation proved to be correct that there were no WMD in Iraq. Ritter was the Chief UN inspector in Iraq, up until 1998. So the man certainly has some past credibility.

I will admit, he has some past credibility, and the pedophile arguements do seem to be rather pointless. However, his information regarding WMD in Iraq was not nearly as outlandish as the conspiracy theories he's supporting now, and at that point he indeed have credibility and sources-neither of which he has now. Who knows-the man may have been fired unjustly. Regardless, until he gives me proof that 9/11 was a conspiracy, and that the US plans to invade Iran, I'll continue to consider it bunk.

Along the same lines of your arguement, any respected figure with some related background could create a crackpot conspiracy theory, claim they have, "Sources which wish to remain anonymous", and be completely valid. Doesn't work that way >_>

Eww protect freedom by giving it away?

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Ben Franklin

You're not really giving up much with the Patriot Act. The CIA (Or was it FBI? Can't recall) has extended investigative powers in cases related to terrorism, and may hold secret trials related to terrorism. Honestly, how many Americans does that affect? And no, I'm not giving you the, "nothing to hide", arguement. The point is the CIA isn't going to be listening to Average Joe's phone conversations, they'll be monitoring suspects more closely.

EDIT: http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

There's the link; honestly, I'm a bit pressed for time and can't go through it, although I read through most of the table of contents/sections. If you go through it, and actually do find anything in severe violations of constitutional rights, I'll concede the point and offer my sincere apologies. Have fun wasting time with it, if you'd like ^^

The Bush Empire must fall, it is even more clear now.
I think the church needs to go away first :) . Damn religious extremist.

You're not really giving up much with the Patriot Act. The CIA (Or was it FBI? Can't recall) has extended investigative powers in cases related to terrorism, and may hold secret trials related to terrorism. Honestly, how many Americans does that affect? And no, I'm not giving you the, "nothing to hide", arguement. The point is the CIA isn't going to be listening to Average Joe's phone conversations, they'll be monitoring suspects more closely.

"Suspects" have been just about anybody who is reported by "Average Joes" as having suspicious opinions. A man talking about his opposition to the war in a gym with his friend was reported and investigated by the FBI, pro-peace groups have fallen under the "terrorist" category (that happened early last year.) These people, BTW, were "Average Joes" not even of Arab or Middle Eastern descent: Arab-American communities are routinely harassed. That will continue to get worse if the Patriot Act is allowed to stand. The definition of "terrorist" is VERY vague, and Bush seems to be widening the category to just about anyone who doesn't agree with him.

It's sad. I feel safer in China right now.


Ge-Ren

I think the church needs to go away first :) . Damn religious extremist.

Way to not contribute, relate to the topic, or even lend us some humor-the hats are more important then your post.

"Suspects" have been just about anybody who is reported by "Average Joes" as having suspicious opinions. A man talking about his opposition to the war in a gym with his friend was reported and investigated by the FBI, pro-peace groups have fallen under the "terrorist" category (that happened early last year.) These people, BTW, were "Average Joes" not even of Arab or Middle Eastern descent: Arab-American communities are routinely harassed. That will continue to get worse if the Patriot Act is allowed to stand. The definition of "terrorist" is VERY vague, and Bush seems to be widening the category to just about anyone who doesn't agree with him.

It's sad. I feel safer in China right now.


Ge-Ren

First and foremost, I'd appreciate some links to trustworthy sources. I haven't heard of a large number of cases such as these.

Second, how is it Bush's fault if "terrorist" is misinterpreted? Sounds more like intel/police oversight, coupled with possible poor wording-which will probably be corrected when the Act's reviewed, if present.

EDIT: Bah, I always forget something >_> The point is the Act is not designed to violate any rights, and is not intended to. It's not the administration's fault if it was poorly worded by Congress, or misinterpreted by police/intel. However, the libs insist that the Act is designed to invade the average citizen's privacy, and is intended to do so.

You're not really giving up much with the Patriot Act. The CIA (Or was it FBI? Can't recall) has extended investigative powers in cases related to terrorism, and may hold secret trials related to terrorism. Honestly, how many Americans does that affect? And no, I'm not giving you the, "nothing to hide", arguement. The point is the CIA isn't going to be listening to Average Joe's phone conversations, they'll be monitoring suspects more closely.

Well I am not sure. I read somewhere(can't remember where) that most of the convictions from the act have been drug related. Very few terrorism cases.

To me it's the slippery slope argument. Who evaluates the danger? Does it open the door to abuse? Basically who is watching the CIA and the FBI? Especially with the new homeland security director. We have a Russian in our company and he laughed when he read about the new design. He said for all the American comments about the communists; they take on the format of the KGB! ;)

Being a free people means I can get a book on how the atomic bomb works and not have think I am now on a watch list.

But that is just me.

I think its a case of the young vs the old. I have relatives who lived under German and Russian occupation. I have heard their stories so I am a little leary of goverment efforts to "protect" everybody.

have you ever looked at the Presidents eyes?I mean truely looked at them?
Its like a vacant eyed stare of something thats not even totally human-or doesnt have a soul or something.The legions of Hell have taken control of our Govt
I think they make him look like a little kid. When he is waiting his turn in debates, he looks hillarious. I don't know where you get legions of hell from, perhaps a fantasy of yours?

I think they make him look like a little kid. When he is waiting his turn in debates, he looks hillarious. I don't know where you get legions of hell from, perhaps a fantasy of yours?

Please, please don't repsond to his posts. He might come back if you do. Personally, I don't find it fun to debate with someone who accuses the president of being Satan, and then when asked to provide facts he says he has them, but is too busy debating to find them again XD

Way to not contribute, relate to the topic, or even lend us some humor-the hats are more important then your post.
Ok i'd do the hat thing, but I don't really wear them that often. Personally I think the first post was very biased and had only one source, pretty much making it not worth my time. Bashing the church on the other hand, is worth all the time in the world, and since I noticed religious extremist bastard posted, i thought I'd add my 2 cents.

Well I am not sure. I read somewhere(can't remember where) that most of the convictions from the act have been drug related. Very few terrorism cases.

To me it's the slippery slope argument. Who evaluates the danger? Does it open the door to abuse? Basically who is watching the CIA and the FBI? Especially with the new homeland security director. We have a Russian in our company and he laughed when he read about the new design. He said for all the American comments about the communists; they take on the format of the KGB! ;)

Being a free people means I can get a book on how the atomic bomb works and not have think I am now on a watch list.

But that is just me.

I think its a case of the young vs the old. I have relatives who lived under German and Russian occupation. I have heard their stories so I am a little leary of goverment efforts to "protect" everybody.

It's an interesting tangle of webs, but one I think we truly can't understand. The left can scream all they want that our civil liberties are being torn down, and the right (along with myself =P) can beat them down with counterarguements claiming the Acts never interfere with the average civillian, but the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of both points. My guess is the Act was never intended to be abused, but probably will be in some cases.

Ok i'd do the hat thing, but I don't really wear them that often. Personally I think the first post was very biased and had only one source, pretty much making it not worth my time. Bashing the church on the other hand, is worth all the time in the world, and since I noticed religious extremist bastard posted, i thought I'd add my 2 cents.

See though, I'm rather religious as well, so it's somewhat offensive. Note that religions are far from following a formula or gridwork; some might praise that guy, others would call him a heretic. Myself, I'd call him a misguided idiot. You can't lump them into one category, even with just one specific religion (Christianity in this case)

See though, I'm rather religious as well, so it's somewhat offensive. Note that religions are far from following a formula or gridwork; some might praise that guy, others would call him a heretic. Myself, I'd call him a misguided idiot. You can't lump them into one category, even with just one specific religion (Christianity in this case)
Religious people I can handle, though I am persoanlly against any orangized religion whatsoever. People like him who try push their religion on everyone and say you can't be a good person without being christian, however, deserve to be put on a small barren island, castrated, chopped up into a million pieces and nuked over and over and over. Of course it wouldn't matter after the chopping, but it would make me feel better.

Religious people I can handle, though I am persoanlly against any orangized religion whatsoever. People like him who try push their religion on everyone and say you can't be a good person without being christian, however, deserve to be put on a small barren island, castrated, chopped up into a million pieces and nuked over and over and over. Of course it wouldn't matter after the chopping, but it would make me feel better.

But see, here's where things get complicated. It's your belief that it's not correct for him to express/force his religion on others, and therefore you're forcing your belief on him, rather violently. Christianity has merely become a scapegoat in recent times due to the expanded power of media, combined with isolated cases of extremists.

Really, if you're against others forcing their religion on people, why not severely advocate war against radical Islam extremists preaching death to infidels, and actually advocating and supporting violence? Gets complicated again, doesn't it?

But see, here's where things get complicated. It's your belief that it's not correct for him to express/force his religion on others, and therefore you're forcing your belief on him, rather violently. Christianity has merely become a scapegoat in recent times due to the expanded power of media, combined with isolated cases of extremists.

Really, if you're against others forcing their religion on people, why not severely advocate war against radical Islam extremists preaching death to infidels, and actually advocating and supporting violence? Gets complicated again, doesn't it?
The biggest thing is, I am not being destructive. Its beliefs like his that caused the inquisition and the crusades. When religion ruled the world, it was in face called the "dark ages." Someone like him would say if you don't believe what I believe, you are wrong. I, on the other hand, could accept your beliefs if you accept mine. (Sorry if that last sentence confused things, accept =\= believe). Supporting violence isn't part of religion, but far to often it gets binded into it. That probably one of the key reason I am against organized religion. A war against the extremists supporting violence is a war against violence, not a war against whatever god they believe in.

Sorry if I'm rambling. Ok to answer your top paragrapgh, ill use an example. Lets say you and someone next to you has a gun. If that person fires at you, don't you have every right to fire back? If he didn't say I was a bad person for not being christian(or his form of christianity anyway) I wouldn't really care. He can believe whatever he wants, its when he tries to push them on me (and other people) that I have a problem.

When the USA cuts and runs and iraq craps out into a type of lebannon civil war, that creates a great breeding ground for terrorists.

And that is why we won't cut and run! We won't run here. Iraq has already had a free and fair elections. They have a new prime minister. They are now going to write a constitution. Please.....

That country is not going to be stable for a long time, hopefully the USA will stay for about 10 years...

Doubtful we'll stay that long and I doubt your assessment of stability. It'll stabilize alot sooner than you might think.

The biggest thing is, I am not being destructive. Its beliefs like his that caused the inquisition and the crusades. When religion ruled the world, it was in face called the "dark ages." Someone like him would say if you don't believe what I believe, you are wrong. I, on the other hand, could accept your beliefs if you accept mine. (Sorry if that last sentence confused things, accept =\= believe). Supporting violence isn't part of religion, but far to often it gets binded into it. That probably one of the key reason I am against organized religion. A war against the extremists supporting violence is a war against violence, not a war against whatever god they believe in.

Sorry if I'm rambling. Ok to answer your top paragrapgh, ill use an example. Lets say you and someone next to you has a gun. If that person fires at you, don't you have every right to fire back? If he didn't say I was a bad person for not being christian(or his form of christianity anyway) I wouldn't really care. He can believe whatever he wants, its when he tries to push them on me (and other people) that I have a problem.

The thing is however, you're referring to history as if it were present. Yes, the Inquisition and Crusades were bloody affairs, however, does modern Christianity support anything similar to these today? There's the occasional isolated extremist, but those are usually condemned before they can grab too much power. In the days of the Crusades and such, Christianity was an obvious and easy-to-use political tool. The pope controlled England with it for decades, and England responded by adopting a new religion, and mobilized the public with it. Sure, it can still be used today, but nowhere near a scale that it was then. Relgion is similar to philosophy in that it's comprised of ideals a believer should attempt to live up to-it's not the organization's fault on a large scale if individuals manipulate the institution for their own gain.

And actually, the extremists are justifying their violence with Jihad; I would probably classify that as a sect, as the belief's had so much support-still a minority, yet still far from isolated.

EDIT: Oh, and you seem to not realize, you're saying he's wrong as well. That's the thing; it's impossible to not impose your opinion on others, unless you sit in a corner and become a recluse for life. The important thing is just to have some consideration for your opponents. Note that I'm not supporting the guy at all, just playing devil's advocate. And finally, chopping someone up, throwing them on an island, and nuking it for them obnoxiously disagreeing with you is definitely violent n_n

And that is why we won't cut and run! We won't run here. Iraq has already had a free and fair elections. They have a new prime minister. They are now going to write a constitution. Please.....



Doubtful we'll stay that long and I doubt your assessment of stability. It'll stabilize alot sooner than you might think.

AGREED'D. The media's underestimating the Iraqi population and our military's strength/organization

Or should I say misunderestimating? ^^;

AGREED'D. The media's underestimating the Iraqi population and our military's strength/organization

Or should I say misunderestimating? ^^;

Misunderestimating is better! LOL! And the media always misunderestimates things.

You mean they misunderestimate anything pro-conservative? n_n

The thing is, though, misunderestimating makes some kind of weird sense if you think about it. It just FEELS like a good word. Besides, no one ever said the president had to be a damn genius, or grammatically correct.

President Carter could speed read books on Quantam Physics in 15 minutes and comprehend everything he read. And he SUCKED as a president.

On the other hand, Reagan kicked ass, and all he did was take a bullet during a speech, and finish the speech.

I'd agree; while it certainly isn't a good thing to mispronounce words, a leader's ability shouldn't be judged on something like that. Myself, I think it gives him more personality; it's amusing =P

..."Hispanos" xD

You mean they misunderestimate anything pro-conservative? n_n

HAHA!!!!

I'd agree; while it certainly isn't a good thing to mispronounce words, a leader's ability shouldn't be judged on something like that. Myself, I think it gives him more personality; it's amusing =P

..."Hispanos" xD

I'll agree to this