• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Reflections on the World. Terrorism and the War with Iraq)

M

Moonbeam

Elite Member
We now stand two years past the endpoint of the last century that has witnessed six major wars among
great nations. Five of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is
today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world.
Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige
depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on
how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the
peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity
among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious
people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice
would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the terrorist threat now engulfing the
world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology --
global in scope, fundamentalist in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily
the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called
for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us
to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex
struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our
charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small,
there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the
miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense;
development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in
basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself,
may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain
balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy,
balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the
comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties
imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the
national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually
finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the
main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat.
But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty,
ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own
destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of our predecessors in
peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea or Vietnam.

Until comparatively recently in our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American
makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can
no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a
permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, millions men
and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military
security fast sums..

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the
American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every
city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative
need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil,
resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence,
whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous
rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the
proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful
methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has
been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and
costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal
government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of
scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically
the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the
conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes
virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now thousands and thousands of
of computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations,
and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to
the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a
scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new
and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals
of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's
future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today,
plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot
mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political
and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become
the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever
growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a
proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table
with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military
strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the
certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must
learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because
this need is so sharp and apparent we can only confess that we enter a new century with a definite sense of disappointment. As a people who have witnessed the horror and the
lingering sadness of war ? and with the knowledge that another war could utterly destroy this
civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- we wish we could
say today that a lasting peace is in sight.

. . . . .

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs
satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn
for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand,
also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn
charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the
earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace
guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of
scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically
the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the
conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes
virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now thousands and thousands of
of computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations,
and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to
the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a
scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new
and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals
of our free society.
Click to expand...


Is that a good thing? On one had we see the federal government as a catalyst of private ventures, but on the other, we see the decline of a completely laissez-faire economy. =\
 
Originally posted by: Czar
too long
Click to expand...


Indeed.

moonbeam as much as I enjoy reading your biased-and-slanted-point-of-view-that-isn't-really-biased-according-to-you-because-you-are-above-human-nature-unlike-the-rest-of-us posts, this is much too long for my poor, chemically abused brain to deal with.

Sorry, but it looks like I will have to remain ignorant.

Oh well. Pass the pipe.
 
Moonbeam - you need to write books on your ideas, not post them at ATOT. At least that way, you'll be making some money 😉
 
i didnt bother reading what was up there - way too long - but i know it was wrong, and if it is right, then so what.🙂
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I wanted to caution people about the headlong rush to war with Iraq, but as a liberal it isn't easy. 😀
Click to expand...

I've followed discussions on TV and Arabic boards lately, and although Iraqi are afraid of the welfare of their family in a war, they do all agree that Saddam's regime must be stopped. The way it's done should be under discussion, but not the fact that he needs to be removed.
 
I've read it a few times, but I must admit I don't really understand what points you are trying to make. Interesting nonetheless.
 
wars have always been and will always be about self-interest. When will tree-hugging liberals realize that. When it comes to humanity, greed is our top priority. No matter how you hate it, that's reality. Liberals and their socialist kins seem to think that we can form a communal society deviod of human interests. Let it be known that that project failed miserably. In fact, it did no more than expose human greed on a grander scale. If anything, the capitalist system allows greed to be beneficial to all that one to take advantage, thereby evening the playing field.

We will fight Iraq for several reasons, to spread our ideological belief (democracy and capitalism) and get some benefits (a pro-american government that sits on a sh!tload of oil). I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. For those that don't like it, they can move to Anartica (which is just about the only place on earth that isn't influenced by America).

Let's not forget that human progress comes about through greed, not charity.
 
Let's see what another liberal has to say on the matter.

Why Democrats should support the president on Iraq.

BY JOE LIEBERMAN
Monday, October 7, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT

The most fateful and difficult responsibility the Constitution gives to members of Congress is to decide when the president should be authorized to lead the men and women of the U.S. military into war. We are now engaged in such a debate regarding Saddam Hussein's belligerent dictatorship in Iraq.

Although I disagree with many other aspects of President Bush's foreign and domestic policy, I believe deeply that he is right about Iraq, and that our national security will be strengthened if members of both parties come together now to support the commander-in-chief and our military. That's why I have cosponsored the Senate resolution that was negotiated with the White House. It is time to authorize the use of our military might to enforce U.N. resolutions, disarm Iraq, and eliminate the ongoing threat to our security, and the world's, posed by Saddam Hussein's rabid regime.

Making the case for such action is a responsibility to be shouldered by those of us who have reached these conclusions. If we do so convincingly, not only will the American people and our allies better understand our standards for engagement, but governments around the world who defy the dictates of the U.N. to make weapons of mass destruction or to support terrorists will appreciate how painful the consequences of their brutality and lawlessness can be.
In that spirit, let me now address a few of the most critical questions my Senate colleagues and many Americans are asking.

? Why has military action against Saddam become so urgent? Why not give diplomacy and inspections another chance? Why now?

For more than a decade we have tried everything--diplomacy, sanctions, inspections, limited military action--except war to convince Saddam to keep the promises he made, and the U.N. endorsed, to end the Gulf War. Those steps have not worked.

In 1998, Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and I sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act declaring it national policy to change the regime in Baghdad. The act became law, but until recently little has been done to implement it. In the meantime, Saddam has not wavered from his ambition for hegemonic control over the Persian Gulf and the Arab world: He has invested vast amounts of his national treasure in building inventories of biological and chemical weapons and the means to deliver them to targets near and far. Saddam once told his Republican Guard that its national honor would not be achieved until Iraq's arm reached out beyond its borders to "every point in the Arab homeland."

So, my answer to "Why now?" is, "Why not earlier?" And, of course, that question has new urgency since Sept. 11, 2001.

? Won't a war against Iraq slow or stop our more urgent war against terrorism?

To me, the two are inextricably linked. First, remember that Iraq under Saddam is one of only seven nations in the world to be designated by our State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, providing aid and training to terrorists who have killed Americans and others. Second, Saddam himself meets the definition of a terrorist--someone who attacks civilians to achieve a political purpose. Third, though the relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime is a subject of intense debate within the intelligence community, we have evidence of meetings between Iraqi officials and leaders of al Qaeda, and testimony that Iraqi agents helped train al Qaeda operatives to use chemical and biological weapons. We also know that al Qaeda leaders have been, and are now, harbored in Iraq.

Saddam's is the only regime that combines growing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and a record of using them with regional hegemonic ambitions and a record of supporting terrorists. If we remove his influence from the Middle East and free the Iraqi people to determine their own destiny, we will transform the politics of the region. That will only advance the war against terrorism, not set it back.

? Why should we launch a strike against a sovereign nation that has not struck us first?

We should and will soon have a larger debate about the president's new doctrine of pre-emption, but not here and now, because the term is not apt for our current situation. We have been engaged in an ongoing conflict with Saddam's regime ever since the Gulf War began. Every day, British and American aircraft and personnel are enforcing no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq; the ongoing force of about 7,500 American men and women in uniform costs our taxpayers more than $1 billion a year. And this is not casual duty. Saddam's air defense forces have shot at U.S. and British planes 406 times (and counting) in 2002 alone.

As former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee, "Vigorous action in the course of an ongoing conflict hardly constitutes preventive war."

? Why not have two congressional resolutions, one now encouraging the U.N. to respond to President Bush's call for inspections without limits, and another one later authorizing U.S. military action if the U.N. refuses to act?

This is sometimes described as the way to stop "go-it-alone" action by the U.S. unless and until absolutely necessary. But I believe that the best way to encourage forceful U.N. action, so that we never have to "go it alone," is for Congress to unite now in authorizing the president to take military action, if necessary. I am convinced that if we lead decisively, others will come to our side, in the U.N. and after. If we are steadfast in pursuit of our principles, allies in Europe and the Middle East will be with us.

? Why not just authorize the president to take military action to disarm the Iraqis instead of giving him a "blank check"?

Our resolution does not give the president a blank check. It authorizes the use of U.S. military power only to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

There are 535 members of Congress who have the constitutional responsibility to authorize American military action, but there is only one commander-in-chief who can carry it out. Having reached the conclusion I have about the clear and present danger Saddam represents to the U.S., I want to give the president a limited but strong mandate to act against Saddam. Five hundred and thirty-five members of Congress cannot wage war; we can only authorize it. The rest is up to the president and our military.

We in Congress have now begun a very serious debate on these questions and others. Each member must act on values, conscience, sense of history and national security. When it is over, I believe there will be a strong majority of senators who will vote for the bipartisan resolution that John Warner, John McCain, Evan Bayh and I have introduced. I am equally confident that a strong majority of Democrats in the Senate will support it. In doing so, they will embrace the better parts of our party's national security legacy of the last half century. From Truman's doctrine to prevent communist expansion to Kennedy's "quarantine" of Cuba to prevent Soviet missiles from remaining there, to Bill Clinton's deployment of American forces to the Balkans to stop genocide and prevent a wider war in Europe, Democrats should be proud of our record of strength when it counted the most.
Each of the Democratic presidents above tried diplomacy, but when it failed, they unleashed America's military forces across the globe to confront tyranny, to stop aggression, and to prevent any more damage to America or Americans. That is precisely what our resolution would empower President Bush to do now.

Mr. Lieberman is a Democratic senator from Connecticut.

 
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must
learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because
this need is so sharp and apparent we can only confess that we enter a new century with a definite sense of disappointment. As a people who have witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war ? and with the knowledge that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- we wish we could say today that a lasting peace is in sight.
Click to expand...
Here here (or is that 'hear hear', 'hear here', or here hear'?)! Bravo!

Now, let's start dropping the bombs already!
 
Originally posted by: Dari
wars have always been and will always be about self-interest. When will tree-hugging liberals realize that. When it comes to humanity, greed is our top priority. No matter how you hate it, that's reality. Liberals and their socialist kins seem to think that we can form a communal society deviod of human interests. Let it be known that that project failed miserably. In fact, it did no more than expose human greed on a grander scale. If anything, the capitalist system allows greed to be beneficial to all that one to take advantage, thereby evening the playing field.

We will fight Iraq for several reasons, to spread our ideological belief (democracy and capitalism) and get some benefits (a pro-american government that sits on a sh!tload of oil). I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. For those that don't like it, they can move to Anartica (which is just about the only place on earth that isn't influenced by America).

Let's not forget that human progress comes about through greed, not charity.
Click to expand...
Here's a ten rating for Dari, for being concise and correct!

 
Originally posted by: Dari
wars have always been and will always be about self-interest. When will tree-hugging liberals realize that. When it comes to humanity, greed is our top priority. No matter how you hate it, that's reality. Liberals and their socialist kins seem to think that we can form a communal society deviod of human interests. Let it be known that that project failed miserably. In fact, it did no more than expose human greed on a grander scale. If anything, the capitalist system allows greed to be beneficial to all that one to take advantage, thereby evening the playing field.

We will fight Iraq for several reasons, to spread our ideological belief (democracy and capitalism) and get some benefits (a pro-american government that sits on a sh!tload of oil). I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. For those that don't like it, they can move to Anartica (which is just about the only place on earth that isn't influenced by America).

Let's not forget that human progress comes about through greed, not charity.
Click to expand...

Keep all that in mind when you have millions of bin Laden's heading for the US.



 
Originally posted by: etech
Let's see what another liberal has to say on the matter.

Why Democrats should support the president on Iraq.

BY JOE LIEBERMAN
Monday, October 7, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT

The most fateful and difficult responsibility the Constitution gives to members of Congress is to decide when the president should be authorized to lead the men and women of the U.S. military into war. We are now engaged in such a debate regarding Saddam Hussein's belligerent dictatorship in Iraq.

Although I disagree with many other aspects of President Bush's foreign and domestic policy, I believe deeply that he is right about Iraq, and that our national security will be strengthened if members of both parties come together now to support the commander-in-chief and our military. That's why I have cosponsored the Senate resolution that was negotiated with the White House. It is time to authorize the use of our military might to enforce U.N. resolutions, disarm Iraq, and eliminate the ongoing threat to our security, and the world's, posed by Saddam Hussein's rabid regime.

Making the case for such action is a responsibility to be shouldered by those of us who have reached these conclusions. If we do so convincingly, not only will the American people and our allies better understand our standards for engagement, but governments around the world who defy the dictates of the U.N. to make weapons of mass destruction or to support terrorists will appreciate how painful the consequences of their brutality and lawlessness can be.
In that spirit, let me now address a few of the most critical questions my Senate colleagues and many Americans are asking.

? Why has military action against Saddam become so urgent? Why not give diplomacy and inspections another chance? Why now?

For more than a decade we have tried everything--diplomacy, sanctions, inspections, limited military action--except war to convince Saddam to keep the promises he made, and the U.N. endorsed, to end the Gulf War. Those steps have not worked.

In 1998, Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and I sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act declaring it national policy to change the regime in Baghdad. The act became law, but until recently little has been done to implement it. In the meantime, Saddam has not wavered from his ambition for hegemonic control over the Persian Gulf and the Arab world: He has invested vast amounts of his national treasure in building inventories of biological and chemical weapons and the means to deliver them to targets near and far. Saddam once told his Republican Guard that its national honor would not be achieved until Iraq's arm reached out beyond its borders to "every point in the Arab homeland."

So, my answer to "Why now?" is, "Why not earlier?" And, of course, that question has new urgency since Sept. 11, 2001.

? Won't a war against Iraq slow or stop our more urgent war against terrorism?

To me, the two are inextricably linked. First, remember that Iraq under Saddam is one of only seven nations in the world to be designated by our State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, providing aid and training to terrorists who have killed Americans and others. Second, Saddam himself meets the definition of a terrorist--someone who attacks civilians to achieve a political purpose. Third, though the relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime is a subject of intense debate within the intelligence community, we have evidence of meetings between Iraqi officials and leaders of al Qaeda, and testimony that Iraqi agents helped train al Qaeda operatives to use chemical and biological weapons. We also know that al Qaeda leaders have been, and are now, harbored in Iraq.

Saddam's is the only regime that combines growing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and a record of using them with regional hegemonic ambitions and a record of supporting terrorists. If we remove his influence from the Middle East and free the Iraqi people to determine their own destiny, we will transform the politics of the region. That will only advance the war against terrorism, not set it back.

? Why should we launch a strike against a sovereign nation that has not struck us first?

We should and will soon have a larger debate about the president's new doctrine of pre-emption, but not here and now, because the term is not apt for our current situation. We have been engaged in an ongoing conflict with Saddam's regime ever since the Gulf War began. Every day, British and American aircraft and personnel are enforcing no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq; the ongoing force of about 7,500 American men and women in uniform costs our taxpayers more than $1 billion a year. And this is not casual duty. Saddam's air defense forces have shot at U.S. and British planes 406 times (and counting) in 2002 alone.

As former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee, "Vigorous action in the course of an ongoing conflict hardly constitutes preventive war."

? Why not have two congressional resolutions, one now encouraging the U.N. to respond to President Bush's call for inspections without limits, and another one later authorizing U.S. military action if the U.N. refuses to act?

This is sometimes described as the way to stop "go-it-alone" action by the U.S. unless and until absolutely necessary. But I believe that the best way to encourage forceful U.N. action, so that we never have to "go it alone," is for Congress to unite now in authorizing the president to take military action, if necessary. I am convinced that if we lead decisively, others will come to our side, in the U.N. and after. If we are steadfast in pursuit of our principles, allies in Europe and the Middle East will be with us.

? Why not just authorize the president to take military action to disarm the Iraqis instead of giving him a "blank check"?

Our resolution does not give the president a blank check. It authorizes the use of U.S. military power only to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

There are 535 members of Congress who have the constitutional responsibility to authorize American military action, but there is only one commander-in-chief who can carry it out. Having reached the conclusion I have about the clear and present danger Saddam represents to the U.S., I want to give the president a limited but strong mandate to act against Saddam. Five hundred and thirty-five members of Congress cannot wage war; we can only authorize it. The rest is up to the president and our military.

We in Congress have now begun a very serious debate on these questions and others. Each member must act on values, conscience, sense of history and national security. When it is over, I believe there will be a strong majority of senators who will vote for the bipartisan resolution that John Warner, John McCain, Evan Bayh and I have introduced. I am equally confident that a strong majority of Democrats in the Senate will support it. In doing so, they will embrace the better parts of our party's national security legacy of the last half century. From Truman's doctrine to prevent communist expansion to Kennedy's "quarantine" of Cuba to prevent Soviet missiles from remaining there, to Bill Clinton's deployment of American forces to the Balkans to stop genocide and prevent a wider war in Europe, Democrats should be proud of our record of strength when it counted the most.
Each of the Democratic presidents above tried diplomacy, but when it failed, they unleashed America's military forces across the globe to confront tyranny, to stop aggression, and to prevent any more damage to America or Americans. That is precisely what our resolution would empower President Bush to do now.

Mr. Lieberman is a Democratic senator from Connecticut.
Click to expand...

Why I'm I not surprised HE would say this?

 
Originally posted by: etech
hagbard

Why I'm I not surprised HE would say this?
Click to expand...


I don't know, why don't you explain it to me.
Click to expand...

I am sure it has something to do with the man's last name and how
he is probably just a cog in the Zionist conspiracy machine that controls American foriegn policy.

hagbard would LIKE to say the term 'Dirty Jew'. He really would. You can tell. However, he realises that this sort of
hate will not go over well here and he would lose all credibility in his personal campaign to inform us Americans how vile and ignorant we are.
So, wisely, he restrains himself from revealing his true face.

hagbard told me this himself actually. Proof? Well use a search engine... it's not my job to provide proof of my assertions for the lazy... right hagbard? 🙂
 
Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
Originally posted by: etech
hagbard

Why I'm I not surprised HE would say this?
Click to expand...


I don't know, why don't you explain it to me.
Click to expand...

I am sure it has something to do with the man's last name and how
he is probably just a cog in the Zionist conspiracy machine that controls American foriegn policy.

hagbard would LIKE to say the term 'Dirty Jew'. He really would. You can tell. However, he realises that this sort of
hate will not go over well here and he would lose all credibility in his personal campaign to inform us Americans how vile and ignorant we are.
So, wisely, he restrains himself from revealing his true face.

hagbard told me this himself actually. Proof? Well use a search engine... it's not my job to provide proof of my assertions for the lazy... right hagbard? 🙂
Click to expand...

Yeah, do a search on Lieberman, he's always pushed for attacks on Iraq and been an advocate of Israeli policy. You don't think the Israeli lobby is a major influence on US policy in the region? You want to explain why a fully industrialized nation like Israel needs billions in US aid every year and how they manage to get it through congress?


Congress and Israel

Israel's lobby

Various by Norman Finkelstein

Facing Facts

IHR


 
The funny thing about Jews in America is that a large percentage of them lean to the left politically and are openly critical of Israeli policies. And it's for that reason that I think people like hagbard are so full of crap.
 
Originally posted by: Vespasian
The funny thing about Jews in America is that a large percentage of them lean to the left politically and are openly critical of Israeli policies. And it's for that reason that I think people like hagbard are so full of crap.
Click to expand...

Noam Chomsky is one guy.
 
Originally posted by: etech
FrancesBeansRevenge

Sadly FBR, it looks as if your assesment of hagbard and his motives was correct.
Click to expand...

So, if I point out that the IRA got most of its funding from Irish Americans, I'd be anti-Irish American?!

 
Electrode, I was particularly interested in pointing out the need for balance in a time when have begun a dangerous, in my opinion, drift away from the best ideals that characterize our nation. You can see in the words of Dari and Ornery that they project on our nation the values that drive them. These are not the values that make us great. Words like these:

'Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.'

I fear resonate little in the minds of too many Americans today. We are loosing sight, I think, of our vision and becoming what we used to oppose. But like I said, it's difficult for a dreamer like me to make that case to the pragmatists of our day. I don't have the reputation or standing of somebody like Reagan, who some might listen too if he were to make the same case. But it wouldn't surprise me that with fear as deep in our psyche as it is today, probably even a Reagan would be laughed off the stage if he were to caution balance.


The evidence that Lieberman spoke of has been discredited, no? We are still waiting for evidence that Saddam is a direct threat to the US as has been claimed. When you stack up the political economic and strategic reasons for Iraq as state # 51 as opposed to legal justifications for war, the side of the scale with legal justifications is so far empty, while the other side smells of tons of rot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top