NationStates Jolt Archive

I can't believe you bought that excuse. Rocking a motherfucking flag don't make you a hero, word to ground zero. The devil crept into heaven, God overslept on the 7th, the new world order was born on September 11th.

Those are words from a song and this is an interesting op/ed from the NY Daily News.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/499339p-421044c.html

Just be honest with me, if it was for oil say "look, we need oil so we need to stabilize this area to have access to it." At least then I could respect you. But no, you lie and then rape the middle east just like you did Africa. Greed is the motivator my friends no matter how many times they use the word freedom.

I can't believe you bought that excuse. Rocking a motherfucking flag don't make you a hero, word to ground zero. The devil crept into heaven, God overslept on the 7th, the new world order was born on September 11th.

Those are words from a song and this is an interesting op/ed from the NY Daily News.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/499339p-421044c.html

Just be honest with me, if it was for oil say "look, we need oil so we need to stabilize this area to have access to it." At least then I could respect you. But no, you lie and then rape the middle east just like you did Africa. Greed is the motivator my friends no matter how many times they use the word freedom.

I am jealous of your spelling skills.

I am jealous of your spelling skills.

The word you're looking for is speiling, speiling skills!

The word you're looking for is speiling, speiling skills!

Skilz! Skilz!

Skilz! Skilz!

Du-ah!:headbang:

"We" actually had nothing to do with Africa. That was a European deal there. The United States never had any colonies, and then after that, it was the Russians who dumped guns into the region in such vast quantities. When you see the numbers, it's AK47s that are run amok in Africa, not M16s, RPG7s not LAWs.

"We" actually had nothing to do with Africa. That was a European deal there. The United States never had any colonies, and then after that, it was the Russians who dumped guns into the region in such vast quantities. When you see the numbers, it's AK47s that are run amok in Africa, not M16s, RPG7s not LAWs.

Shhh. Liuzzo thinks that everything wrong in the world is the US's fault, and the Europeans never did anything bad.

Skilz! Skilz!

Much of it was a quote from a song dbag. Now anything substantive from you so I can readily destroy you as usual? At least you've turned from your former habit of running from me every time I shot you down. Good for you for being a brave boy. :D

Shhh. Liuzzo thinks that everything wrong in the world is the US's fault, and the Europeans never did anything bad.

Whoah, thanks for building your strawman as usual. No, Europe is very much to blame for their dismantling of the Ottoman Empire, subsequent creation of Israel in the Arab lands, and the tinkering with governments all over the world. It's why they get lumped in with us as the "west." Because you're a sycophant of this lovely administration doesn't mean I'll allow you to brand me with your stupid "America-hate" label. What rank do you hold in the military my friend? I've got medals that don't come from a toy store and was taught to think critically in OCS. The US military surprisingly expects that of its commanders although in most cases we cannot speak out again the CinC. That is why it is great to have a place like this where we can speak out anonymously and not have fear of reprisal from higher ups So save your horseshit and speak only for yourself, you do not have any right to speak for me.

The United States never had any colonies.

Liberia. Virgin Islands. The Philippines. Hawaii. Guam. Off the top of my head.

Shhh. Liuzzo thinks that everything wrong in the world is the US's fault, and the Europeans never did anything bad.

Ah, and remind me who it was that started the war in Iraq? You've been owned you painted mule.

oh EO and his puppets are here. YEA!

Two of us were talking about your horseshit idea that the US fucked over Africa.

Iraq fool, IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was talking about IRAQQQQQQQQQQ!!!!

Whoah, thanks for building your strawman as usual. No, Europe is very much to blame for their dismantling of the Ottoman Empire, subsequent creation of Israel in the Arab lands, and the tinkering with governments all over the world. It's why they get lumped in with us as the "west." Because you're a sycophant of this lovely administration doesn't mean I'll allow you to brand me with your stupid "America-hate" label. What rank do you hold in the military my friend? I've got medals that don't come from a toy store and was taught to think critically in OCS. The US military surprisingly expects that of its commanders although in most cases we cannot speak out again the CinC. That is why it is great to have a place like this where we can speak out anonymously and not have fear of reprisal from higher ups So save your horseshit and speak only for yourself, you do not have any right to speak for me.

Two of us were talking about your horseshit idea that the US fucked over Africa.

I can't believe you bought that excuse. Rocking a motherfucking flag don't make you a hero, word to ground zero. The devil crept into heaven, God overslept on the 7th, the new world order was born on September 11th.

Those are words from a song and this is an interesting op/ed from the NY Daily News.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/499339p-421044c.html

Just be honest with me, if it was for oil say "look, we need oil so we need to stabilize this area to have access to it." At least then I could respect you. But no, you lie and then rape the middle east just like you did Africa. Greed is the motivator my friends no matter how many times they use the word freedom.Was there ever any real doubt what this war was about? Did you really need that op/ed piece to spell it out for you? They started securing oil fields on the second day of the war. Way to pay attention.

At least then I could respect you. But no, you lie and then rape the middle east just like you did Africa.

Iraq fool, IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was talking about IRAQQQQQQQQQQ!!!!

I seem to see the clear reference in here to the US "raping" Africa. Last I checked, it was because of the Belgians, French and British Imperialism, combined with the Soviets giving AK's dirt cheap to every warlord who said he was a "people's revolutionary" or something along those lines.

Well apparently Liuzzo didn't pick up any history or foreign policy courses at good 'ol OCS. I was in the military as well, and I have 'real' awards, as real as the military handing out every award up to and including Bronze Stars like they were candy can get. Being in the military in itself does not make you an expert on foreign policy, nor does earning awards for valor, as as much respect as I have for that. Stop using it as a prop-up - military service deserves better than to be used as an argument from authority.

Was there ever any real doubt what this war was about? Did you really need that op/ed piece to spell it out for you? They started securing oil fields on the second day of the war. Way to pay attention.

The Dave Chappelle skit was spot-on.

Yeah, either that, or in the first Gulf War they TORCHED all of the oil fields as the Iraqis fled, and it was a BITCH to clean up, not to mention a serious hazard. Funny thing, that history.

Oh, not to mention that most of our oil doesn't come from Iraq, so it would have been more strategically sound to 'liberate' say...Kuwait, if we were after oil. After all, if we were making shit up to go after oil, why not make shit up about them instead? Idiots.

Yeah, either that, or in the first Gulf War they TORCHED all of the oil fields as the Iraqis fled, and it was a BITCH to clean up, not to mention a serious hazard. Funny thing, that history.Yeah, they torched the oil fields in the foriegn country they were withdrawing from. Why? Because that's what the whole fight boiled down to, those oil fields. One of the reasons Iraq gave for the invasion of Kuwait was that Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi fields.

Yeah, Funny thing that history, no one ever pays attention to it except to misquote it.

Yeah, they torched the oil fields in the foriegn country they were withdrawing from. Why? Because that's what the whole fight boiled down to, those oil fields. One of the reasons Iraq gave for the invasion of Kuwait was that Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi fields.

Yeah, Funny thing that history, no one ever pays attention to it except to misquote it.

Then arbitrate. Don't invade another country because you've got inconclusive evidence that they're discreetly robbing you.

I seem to see the clear reference in here to the US "raping" Africa. Last I checked, it was because of the Belgians, French and British Imperialism, combined with the Soviets giving AK's dirt cheap to every warlord who said he was a "people's revolutionary" or something along those lines.

Liuzzo can't be bothered to read his own posts, where he directly mentions the US raping Africa.

Oh, and having been in the military for an extended period of time in my life, I don't believe someone has been in the military at all unless I see an official, notarized copy of their DD214. If they're active duty, I need a notarized copy of their current orders, signed by their current commander, who I will call in person.

Otherwise, Liuzzo has never been in the military as far as I'm concerned.

Then arbitrate. Don't invade another country because you've got inconclusive evidence that they're discreetly robbing you.

I think they tried that. Kuwait just went "Nyah nyah" IIRC.

Oh, and having been in the military for an extended period of time in my life, I don't believe someone has been in the military at all unless I see an official, notarized copy of their DD214. If they're active duty, I need a notarized copy of their current orders, signed by their current commander, who I will call in person.

Otherwise, Liuzzo has never been in the military as far as I'm concerned.

Got a scan of yours? It's a bit hard to take you seriously when you put a challenge down like that without having a hand to back it up.

I think they tried that. Kuwait just went "Nyah nyah" IIRC.

Then appeal to other authorities. There were avenues that remained open to Iraq.

Got a scan of yours? It's a bit hard to take you seriously when you put a challenge down like that without having a hand to back it up.

I'd be glad to mail you the certified and notarized copy.

A scan can be Photoshopped, which is why I won't accept those either.

Oh, and having been in the military for an extended period of time in my life, I don't believe someone has been in the military at all unless I see an official, notarized copy of their DD214. If they're active duty, I need a notarized copy of their current orders, signed by their current commander, who I will call in person.

Otherwise, Liuzzo has never been in the military as far as I'm concerned.

As an aside: I find it's best to just not give a shit what people on the internet claim about themselves. Keeps things nice and simple.

Well, yes. I had that opinion already, especially when it comes to beauty pageant trophy wives.

Yeah. I've got like 50 of them. And a huge penis. ;)

As an aside: I find it's best to just not give a shit what people on the internet claim about themselves. Keeps things nice and simple.

Well, yes. I had that opinion already, especially when it comes to beauty pageant trophy wives.

Then appeal to other authorities. There were avenues that remained open to Iraq.

None that would have worked I think. Besides, technically, they did. The US was after all, the presiding 'authority' in realpolitik terms then.

Shhh. Liuzzo thinks that everything wrong in the world is the US's fault, and the Europeans never did anything bad.
I know we Germans never did anything bad.
Liberia. Virgin Islands. The Philippines. Hawaii. Guam. Off the top of my head.
You forgot Poland! (Well, not really.)
...signed by their current commander, who I will call in person.
While you were talking about spelling skills - shouldn't it be "...signed by their current commander, whom I will call in person."?

Just asking because that's how I learned it.

As for the OP: Meh. Not really surprising, but I share your sentiment about honesty. :p

None that would have worked I think. Besides, technically, they did. The US was after all, the presiding 'authority' in realpolitik terms then.

I thought the authority supposedly in the Kuwait conflict was the UN.

I thought the authority supposedly in the Kuwait conflict was the UN.
Yeah, unlike this time where the U.S. committed what they themselves sentenced to death by hanging in the Nuremberg Trials.

1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace? - Check.
2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace? - Check.
3. War crimes? - Check.
4. Crimes against humanity? - Check.

Looks like somewhere along the way you've really lost the standards of decent human behavior, I believe.

Was there ever any real doubt what this war was about? Did you really need that op/ed piece to spell it out for you? They started securing oil fields on the second day of the war. Way to pay attention.

no, but I love when people use the "With us or against us man. It's all for freedom man. You're a commie America-hate man." All that tripe just insults your intelligence.

no, but I love when people use the "With us or against us man. It's all for freedom man. You're a commie America-hate man." All that tripe just insults your intelligence.

I'm not saying you're a "commie America-hate man".

I am making the rather obvious observation that none of your posts show the US in anything remotely resembling a favorable light.

To the point where you step on yourself and claim that the US fucked Africa over.

Military huh? Currently USMC Res stations at Earle Naval Weapons Station in NJ. I hold the Rank of 1st Lt. and I'm up for promotion to Capt. soon. That is unless I decide not to re-up which my wife is begging me not to do. My family has served this country since we came to this country. Great Grandpa in WW1 Army, Grandpa WW2, Army Air corp, Dad Marines Vietnam, 4 Uncles all Marines, Myself, Marines, Cousin Charles Navy, just like his daddy. We consider it an honor and privilege to serve this country, but those of us in do not feel that way for our current CinC. Unfortunately my cousin Chuck didn't go to an Ivy like I did and is stuck in the Navy with no out in sight. You can question my honor all you want but if we are face to face you'd be doing it from the floor.

Rule 4 of the internet: Nobody gives a shit if you're hard in real life.

I know we Germans never did anything bad.

You forgot Poland! (Well, not really.)

While you were talking about spelling skills - shouldn't it be "...signed by their current commander, whom I will call in person."?

Just asking because that's how I learned it.

As for the OP: Meh. Not really surprising, but I share your sentiment about honesty. :p

Military huh? Currently USMC Res stations at Earle Naval Weapons Station in NJ. I hold the Rank of 1st Lt. and I'm up for promotion to Capt. soon. That is unless I decide not to re-up which my wife is begging me not to do. My family has served this country since we came to this country. Great Grandpa in WW1 Army, Grandpa WW2, Army Air corp, Dad Marines Vietnam, 4 Uncles all Marines, Myself, Marines, Cousin Charles Navy, just like his daddy. We consider it an honor and privilege to serve this country, but those of us in do not feel that way for our current CinC. Unfortunately my cousin Chuck didn't go to an Ivy like I did and is stuck in the Navy with no out in sight. You can question my honor all you want but if we are face to face you'd be doing it from the floor.

Military huh? Currently USMC Res stations at Earle Naval Weapons Station in NJ. I hold the Rank of 1st Lt. and I'm up for promotion to Capt. soon. That is unless I decide not to re-up which my wife is begging me not to do. My family has served this country since we came to this country. Great Grandpa in WW1 Army, Grandpa WW2, Army Air corp, Dad Marines Vietnam, 4 Uncles all Marines, Myself, Marines, Cousin Charles Navy, just like his daddy. We consider it an honor and privilege to serve this country, but those of us in do not feel that way for our current CinC. Unfortunately my cousin Chuck didn't go to an Ivy like I did and is stuck in the Navy with no out in sight. You can question my honor all you want but if we are face to face you'd be doing it from the floor.

That's right up there with your trophy wife claims.

I'm not saying you're a "commie America-hate man".

I am making the rather obvious observation that none of your posts show the US in anything remotely resembling a favorable light.

To the point where you step on yourself and claim that the US fucked Africa over.

The US engaged in war based on lies as pointed out by the IG (manipulated intelligence) this week. So I find it dishonorable. Yes, lying is dishonorable. You want to talk positively about the US foreign policy then start from 1960 and work backwards and I'll have a lot of positive things to say. My negativity is pointed almost solely at Bush and the band of cronies he commands. Since Vietnam we have engaged in a lot of questionable shit. I'm sorry if I don't think Iran Contra and the Sandinistas was a positive thing, but tough shit. The US is a great country that is in a great lull of judgment. We needs leadership resembling Eisenhower or Truman. Right now we are seriously lacking. You on the contrary have sucking sounds coming so hard off of Bush's nob we'd think you were a Hoover. I'd rather take my position that yours.

That's right up there with your trophy wife claims.

I'm sorry I have a beautiful wife with an MBA, sorry your life sucks. I'm damn proud of where I am and where I come from. You don't want to believe it then fine. "Nuh-uh" is great debating you hack! If you were in 4th grade that is.

The US engaged in war based on lies as pointed out by the IG (manipulated intelligence) this week. So I find it dishonorable. Yes, lying is dishonorable. You want to talk positively about the US foreign policy then start from 1960 and work backwards and I'll have a lot of positive things to say. My negativity is pointed almost solely at Bush and the band of cronies he commands. Since Vietnam we have engaged in a lot of questionable shit. I'm sorry if I don't think Iran Contra and the Sandinistas was a positive thing, but tough shit. The US is a great country that is in a great lull of judgment. We needs leadership resembling Eisenhower or Truman. Right now we are seriously lacking. You on the contrary have sucking sounds coming so hard off of Bush's nob we'd think you were a Hoover. I'd rather take my position that yours.

It amuses me slightly that you're totally ignoring everyone calling you on that "US fucked Africa" thing.

The US engaged in war based on lies as pointed out by the IG (manipulated intelligence) this week. So I find it dishonorable. Yes, lying is dishonorable. You want to talk positively about the US foreign policy then start from 1960 and work backwards and I'll have a lot of positive things to say. My negativity is pointed almost solely at Bush and the band of cronies he commands. Since Vietnam we have engaged in a lot of questionable shit. I'm sorry if I don't think Iran Contra and the Sandinistas was a positive thing, but tough shit. The US is a great country that is in a great lull of judgment. We needs leadership resembling Eisenhower or Truman. Right now we are seriously lacking. You on the contrary have sucking sounds coming so hard off of Bush's nob we'd think you were a Hoover. I'd rather take my position that yours.

Funny, I go to the Navy Yard and 8th and I St every day, and no Marine officer I know finds Bush dishonorable. Wrong decisions maybe, but not dishonorable.

These are, by and large, the same men who openly spoke of sedition when talking about Clinton.

Including naval officers, and visiting Air Force officers.

I seriously doubt you're a Marine.

It amuses me slightly that you're totally ignoring everyone calling you on that "US fucked Africa" thing.

He certainly went too far on that Africa comment but that paragraph you responded to is something I can't really find any fault with.

I'm sorry I have a beautiful wife with an MBA, sorry your life sucks. I'm damn proud of where I am and where I come from. You don't want to believe it then fine. "Nuh-uh" is great debating you hack! If you were in 4th grade that is.

So let's get back to the topic at hand. HONESTY. If we were going to have a war for resources that would be fine by me. We all need resources and sometimes these things need to be taken by force. The part that bothers me is the creation of some kind of altruistic alternate reasoning that leaders feel they need to create in order to get us to go along. If EO is done trying to attack me and my beautiful 5'4'' 125 pound, blue eyes, 36C having wife who just so happened to have been Miss Teen NJ years back. We also live in an area of NJ 07028 where the people are very well educated, mostly Republican (which I am), with home values are quite high. Why I am defending my damn life I don't know. I suppose it's because EO cannot debate the honesty of fighting wars based on the "facts" of the case. So I'm done with defending my life. I came from a poor working class family, married well, and now make a very nice living. I'm damn proud of who I am and where I am, so are you happy EO? Now tell me how it is right for the Chief Executive to lie to the entire nation, and world, to justify a war which there was no first strike? Anything else will be ignored from here on out. Finally, the USA is a great nation. As of late US foreign policy has sucked! Do you get the distinction Mr. Black and White, it's either bad or good? :headbang:

So let's get back to the topic at hand. HONESTY. If we were going to have a war for resources that would be fine by me. We all need resources and sometimes these things need to be taken by force. The part that bothers me is the creation of some kind of altruistic alternate reasoning that leaders feel they need to create in order to get us to go along. If EO is done trying to attack me and my beautiful 5'4'' 125 pound, blue eyes, 36C having wife who just so happened to have been Miss Teen NJ years back. We also live in an area of NJ 07028 where the people are very well educated, mostly Republican (which I am), with home values are quite high. Why I am defending my damn life I don't know. I suppose it's because EO cannot debate the honesty of fighting wars based on the "facts" of the case. So I'm done with defending my life. I came from a poor working class family, married well, and now make a very nice living. I'm damn proud of who I am and where I am, so are you happy EO? Now tell me how it is right for the Chief Executive to lie to the entire nation, and world, to justify a war which there was no first strike? Anything else will be ignored from here on out. Finally, the USA is a great nation. As of late US foreign policy has sucked! Do you get the distinction Mr. Black and White, it's either bad or good? :headbang:

My god, you're so smart and winner that you quoted yourself.

Funny, I go to the Navy Yard and 8th and I St every day, and no Marine officer I know finds Bush dishonorable. Wrong decisions maybe, but not dishonorable.

These are, by and large, the same men who openly spoke of sedition when talking about Clinton.

Including naval officers, and visiting Air Force officers.

I seriously doubt you're a Marine.

Sure, because the "marines I talk to" never said it. It's not all black and white like it is in your head. Every single one of us is not programmed to believe one thing. You're talking to enlisted or officers? You're talking to them in an environment where it would be safe to say such things? Things aren't as simple as you make them seem but then again you are as simple as you seem. As for the Africa thing? Are you people kidding me? I love how you narrowly focus on something that was a tertiary point at best. I suppose tearing people from their homeland and forcing them into slavery cannot be considered "raping of Africa." I suppose the exploitation of the ivory coast is just fine and dandy. I suppose taking the greatest centers for learning and knowledge all over the world and colonizing it for your own benefit is not "raping." I guess the blood on the hands of people who engage in the diamond trade is just fine because after all they're only Africans. I speak not only of Americans but Europeans as well. But HELLO! Earth to myopic people...where do most of the current inhabitants of the United States of America come from? We are a Euro-centric society unless you want to revise history Who commissioned the original 13 colonies from with the USA was born? Really, having to spell this stuff out for you is quite an embarrassment to you and a complete waste of my time.

Liberia. Virgin Islands. The Philippines. Hawaii. Guam. Off the top of my head.

Hawaii is a state, and the rest were never colonies, they are or were "territories" :)

When you see the numbers, it's AK47s that are run amok in Africa, not M16s, RPG7s not LAWs.the reason why they all prefer to buy AK47 over M16...

is the same reason they all prefer to buy Toyota.. over Reanult, Ladas or GMs

If you take the position that America takes its role as policeman of the world and a defender of a free way of life seriously then you could say that it has acted quite consistently, where possible, concluding with its invasion of Iraq. They've fought countries that have acted as a threat to freedom from the boundaries of Soviet expansion to attacks on specific states that threaten free global trade and thus the expansion of a free way of life.

Taking limited action against Middle Eastern states that defy the US - from sanctions, to bombing Libya to displacing the Taliban - there's a logical trend in that as attacks on the US have multiplied, so has the US response. 9/11 was a defining moment.

In coming to Iraq, the US is going proactive, sending a message to say that 'anyone' who defies them, which in the eyes of the US means defying the cause of freedom, will result in punishment. Yes, the US have long had plans to overthrow Saddamn but any government has plans in store for a great many events, they'd be stupid not to.

It terms of N. Korea, it's simply not possible, in terms of African states, the US has limited resources and this is not an effective use of them.

It doesn't have to be about oil, it could be about that which Bush has said all along - these countries are against a free way of life and some cause a threat to very stability that makes it possible for much of the technologically advanced nations to progress freely. In the eyes of the US yes, a free way of life to some people is strict adherence to their particular religion, but the US is the dominant power so their 'eyes have it' to make a poor pun.

To baldly state it's just about oil is unfair. I'm sure it's a strong element in that a free flow of oil is necessary, but I just can't bring myself to believe that Bush & Co went 'Yay, 9/11 gives us an excuse to grab some profits'.

If you take the position that America takes its role as policeman of the world and a defender of a free way of life seriously then you could say that it has acted quite consistently, where possible, concluding with its invasion of Iraq. They've fought countries that have acted as a threat to freedom from the boundaries of Soviet expansion to attacks on specific states that threaten free global trade and thus the expansion of a free way of life.

Taking limited action against Middle Eastern states that defy the US - from sanctions, to bombing Libya to displacing the Taliban - there's a logical trend in that as attacks on the US have multiplied, so has the US response. 9/11 was a defining moment.

In coming to Iraq, the US is going proactive, sending a message to say that 'anyone' who defies them, which in the eyes of the US means defying the cause of freedom, will result in punishment. Yes, the US have long had plans to overthrow Saddamn but any government has plans in store for a great many events, they'd be stupid not to.

It terms of N. Korea, it's simply not possible, in terms of African states, the US has limited resources and this is not an effective use of them.

It doesn't have to be about oil, it could be about that which Bush has said all along - these countries are against a free way of life and some cause a threat to very stability that makes it possible for much of the technologically advanced nations to progress freely. In the eyes of the US yes, a free way of life to some people is strict adherence to their particular religion, but the US is the dominant power so their 'eyes have it' to make a poor pun.

To baldly state it's just about oil is unfair. I'm sure it's a strong element in that a free flow of oil is necessary, but I just can't bring myself to believe that Bush & Co went 'Yay, 9/11 gives us an excuse to grab some profits'.

Very nice post. I appreciate you ability to formulate an argument and not just attack. This post has a very limited scope. I am not talking about the rest of the world in this case and neither is the article. We are focusing solely on Iraq as I believe the war in Afghanistan was just and truly needed. After 9/11 we needed to attack those who attacked us. As a contrary to that we know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. 9/11 was used as an excuse to go into Iraq to settle and old score and grab resources. We were lied to in this case. Hell, if Bush would have said "we need to attack Iraq because Saddam Hussein should have been taken out years ago and we need oil" then at least we could make an honest case one way or the other. Instead it was for 9/11, no for WMD, no it's because Saddam is an evil man, oh wait it was for freedom!!!! BINGO. Just tell me the truth as I don't scare into paralysis.

My god, you're so smart and winner that you quoted yourself.

I did it for the ease as it was the one closest and right in front of me. I'm note arguing with myself. Really, what the hell was this statement about. Was it, "I really have nothing of value to say so I'll just say this?" Thanks a lot joker.

Liberia. Virgin Islands. The Philippines. Hawaii. Guam. Off the top of my head.

Clearly, the context was "in Africa", silly.

"We" actually had nothing to do with Africa. That was a European deal there. The United States never had any colonies, and then after that, it was the Russians who dumped guns into the region in such vast quantities. When you see the numbers, it's AK47s that are run amok in Africa, not M16s, RPG7s not LAWs.

Uhhm you're right to a point as you can see, it's very very hard to trace money. Africa is washed with weapons but who's going to follow a warlord if he has no money to pay to willing followers? All America has to do is pay few $100,000 (a lot in Africa) and you got yourself a militia doing your dirty bid. America helped Somali warlords to fight off Islamic militias but the problem was that America sided with the most hated warlords in Somalia (they're even the ones that fought the Americans in Mogadishu in 1993 and prevented Somalia from ever being a peaceful nation). So it makes me wonder, if America does that to my country, where else does America play politcs in Africa?

These are some articles concerning America's involvement in my country:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Somali_%22Anti-Terrorism_Alliance%22_gets_US_funds%3B_so_do_%22Blackhawk_Down%22_warlords

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/13/news/somalia.php

http://youtube.com/watch?v=43PdwawQ-yw

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qmRocZC2-NA&mode=related&search=

History can't allow for 1 event to be taken in isolation - you can't take Iraq by itself.

Since television, the fight for opinion in the West has been between the media and the government - that's why the majority of countries limit the press.

The need to sell news however has a poor side effect of escalating 'headline news' as is well-demonstrated in these threads where "Muslims taking over our life' tends to actually be about a body of Muslims asking for some limited requests (sorry for referring to the UK/bathing/school thing).

Governments need to win the news to win the people and, unfortunately, a lot of people are unprepared to read past the headline let alone the first paragraph.

So governments have resorted to taking very very very faint threads of the truth and allowing them to be escalated in people's minds through the media. If you look closely at what Bush & Cheney said, it was that there is strong evidence that Al Qaeda have been in contact with Saddamn - they have, it's by implication that sways the mood of an already shocked and therefore aggressive public.

History can't allow for 1 event to be taken in isolation - you can't take Iraq by itself.

Since television, the fight for opinion in the West has been between the media and the government - that's why the majority of countries limit the press.

The need to sell news however has a poor side effect of escalating 'headline news' as is well-demonstrated in these threads where "Muslims taking over our life' tends to actually be about a body of Muslims asking for some limited requests (sorry for referring to the UK/bathing/school thing).

Governments need to win the news to win the people and, unfortunately, a lot of people are unprepared to read past the headline let alone the first paragraph.

So governments have resorted to taking very very very faint threads of the truth and allowing them to be escalated in people's minds through the media. If you look closely at what Bush & Cheney said, it was that there is strong evidence that Al Qaeda have been in contact with Saddamn - they have, it's by implication that sways the mood of an already shocked and therefore aggressive public.

Yes, they said that and they were wrong. It has never been corroborated that there was any high/med/low level contact between Saddam and Al Quada. As a matter of fact they hated each other and worked against one another. The fact that you still think there was a connection is proof that the disinformation campaign worked.

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.


Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.
to read the whole article go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

CIA Learned in '02 That Bin Laden Had No Iraq Ties, Report Says

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 15, 2006; Page A14

The CIA learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle that Iraq had no past or present contact with Osama bin Laden and that the Iraqi leader considered bin Laden an enemy of the Baghdad regime, according to a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report.

CIA Learned in '02 That Bin Laden Had No Iraq Ties, Report Says

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

Nearly every single thing this administration says turns out to be false so we must believe them either to be 1. completely stupid 2. completely complicit in their lying.

Either way I don't like it.

I can't believe you bought that excuse. Rocking a motherfucking flag don't make you a hero, word to ground zero. The devil crept into heaven, God overslept on the 7th, the new world order was born on September 11th.

Those are words from a song and this is an interesting op/ed from the NY Daily News.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/499339p-421044c.html

Just be honest with me, if it was for oil say "look, we need oil so we need to stabilize this area to have access to it." At least then I could respect you. But no, you lie and then rape the middle east just like you did Africa. Greed is the motivator my friends no matter how many times they use the word freedom.

Well the middle east was asking for it. Just laying there in the sun all oiled up. What did it expect?

"Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation"

This is about spinning the news to win the media to win the public - it's a necessary part of politics now - there is a 'very very very faint thread of truth' in the proposition that there were links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, links that went nowhere but links all the same

"Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation"

This is about spinning the news to win the media to win the public - it's a necessary part of politics now - there is a 'very very very faint thread of truth' in the proposition that there were links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, links that went nowhere but links all the same

Yeah, you could call it stretching the truth if you want, I still call it lying. Telling something that is not totally true is as bad as it being completely false.

Yeah, you could call it stretching the truth if you want, I still call it lying. Telling something that is not totally true is as bad as it being completely false.

I call it "stretching the page" :mad: (or breaking it...)

I think the decision to invade Iraq was complicated and full of competing interests. In highly charged debates, with corresponding high emotions and adrenaline running, claims are made to win the debate, not necessarily to be right. That need to win the debate can cause what we'd, in retrospect, call lies, or false claims at least, to be made.

I suspect a lot of Americans rue the USA USA USA atmosphere of post-9/11. I suspect it's resulted in the converse sense of betrayal.

I'd say it's better to say that Bush & Co, as leaders, should have kept cooler heads and approached the situation better, but again, I can't bring myself to believe that they're out and out liars using 9/11 for profits only.

I think the decision to invade Iraq was complicated and full of competing interests. In highly charged debates, with corresponding high emotions and adrenaline running, claims are made to win the debate, not necessarily to be right. That need to win the debate can cause what we'd, in retrospect, call lies, or false claims at least, to be made.

I suspect a lot of Americans rue the USA USA USA atmosphere of post-9/11. I suspect it's resulted in the converse sense of betrayal.

I'd say it's better to say that Bush & Co, as leaders, should have kept cooler heads and approached the situation better, but again, I can't bring myself to believe that they're out and out liars using 9/11 for profits only.

Do you see them to be such great people that you can't conceive of them lying for money? Regular people do it all the time - politicians do it all the time - corporations do it all the time. Why not the president?

I think he's a committed American, I think he's intellectually lazy, I think he's way too Christian, I think he's a family man, I think he looks like a monkey, I think he prefers a joke to seriously thinking about consequences but I don't think he's in this for personal gain.

I'm open to being wrong and would be deeply disappointed if he was, in the end it's gut feeling based on a lot of reading and discussion.

Man, Liuzzo, you broke the page with your post #57 - could you fix that, please?

Clearly, the context was "in Africa", silly.

That still leaves Liberia, which fulfills the claim about Africa getting raped pretty nicely.

Hawaii is a state, and the rest were never colonies, they are or were "territories" :)

Territories is the current word used to describe "colonies". Hawaii was taken as a territory before WW2 in a military coup where the US Military kidnapped and killed the current regining queen of Hawaii. Other such methods were used to take over those other "territories" that the United States claims to have currently.

We overthrew the local national governments of all of those so called territories and placed in our own puppet governments and then called them our territories. Which sounds to me an awful lot like a "colony".

I can't believe you bought that excuse. Rocking a motherfucking flag don't make you a hero, word to ground zero. The devil crept into heaven, God overslept on the 7th, the new world order was born on September 11th.

Those are words from a song and this is an interesting op/ed from the NY Daily News.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/499339p-421044c.html

Just be honest with me, if it was for oil say "look, we need oil so we need to stabilize this area to have access to it." At least then I could respect you. But no, you lie and then rape the middle east just like you did Africa. Greed is the motivator my friends no matter how many times they use the word freedom.

For the record, I had nothing to do with this.