PDA

View Full Version : Splitting the spoils of war



Sniper
03-22-2003, 06:29 PM
Why am I not surprised to see Halliburton involved? It is totally disgusting when corporate execs are allowed to enrich themselves at the expense of human lives. I guess it is business as usual to this administration.

http://www.guerrillanews.com/corporate_crime/doc1247.html

Muck
03-22-2003, 06:52 PM
I guess it's a crime for a business to make a profit. :rolleyes:

It's not like these guys are making bombs, tear gas, etc. They're housing our military and supporting them. And those future contracts.......they're for rebuilding Iraq's roads, renovate schools, manage oil fires........basically rebuild Iraq.

Counter-propaganda as usual. Nice try, though.

Sniper
03-22-2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Muck
I guess it's a crime for a business to make a profit. :rolleyes:

It's not like these guys are making bombs, tear gas, etc. They're housing our military and supporting them. And those future contracts.......they're for rebuilding Iraq's roads, renovate schools, manage oil fires........basically rebuild Iraq.

Counter-propaganda as usual. Nice try, though.

It is unethical; just like our adminstration. This probably isn't obvious to the typical person who gets their information from the network news.

Barbarian
03-22-2003, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
It is unethical; just like our adminstration. This probably isn't obvious to the typical person who gets their information from the network news.

Okay... how is it unethical?

Please elaborate.

(not mocking, I'm curious to hear your reasoning because I don't see it)

Sniper
03-22-2003, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian
Okay... how is it unethical?

Please elaborate.

(not mocking, I'm curious to hear your reasoning because I don't see it)

For starters... Dick Cheney was the former CEO of Halliburton. In fact, he's also still on their payroll.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,912515,00.html

Secondly, this was not an open bid process. A few select companies were invited to bid on these lucrative contracts. All cronies of this administration.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_rebuilding_contract030322.html

Big business execs no longer have to buy politicians because they are now politicians themselves. Major conflicts of interest here.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=83&row=1

Peebs
03-22-2003, 10:24 PM
Thanks for the link Sniper. I sent it to my friend Kirsten to see if she knew about it. She hadn't seen that article but knew the SEC was investigating Halliburton.....

ohall
03-22-2003, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Why am I not surprised to see Halliburton involved? It is totally disgusting when corporate execs are allowed to enrich themselves at the expense of human lives. I guess it is business as usual to this administration.

http://www.guerrillanews.com/corporate_crime/doc1247.html

Are you implying this is why we are at war in Iraq? If so please prove that stance. And do me a favor; don't post those 3rd rate URL's to do that.

Obviously Cheney still being on their payroll (however they do that) and being VP is not illegal, why do you have a problem with this arrangement?

The other side of your thought here is if the US and UK did not go in to free Iraq, Saddam would be allowed to continued to break 2 year children’s feet in the hopes the child’s parent(s) will give Saddam and his crew the info they feel they have. Of course this is just one sick example of the person you may actually be defending with your stance here. That’s is if my assumption is correct and you think the only reason Bush and Cheney went into Iraq was to get oil for blood.

That’s quite a nice place to be Sniper, defending a monster like Saddam especially when you may not know you are defending Saddam. I assume you didn't know your stance could actually be seen as actually defending Saddam and monsters like him at the expense of the good ppl and government of this country in which you live.

Oliver...

dolfan06
03-22-2003, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
It is unethical; just like our adminstration. This probably isn't obvious to the typical person who gets their information from the network news. :rolleyes: this is getting really heavy, AJ thought we needed an unmoderated political forum and i agree!:rolleyes:

Muck
03-22-2003, 11:04 PM
That's a very good idea. Seriously.

Peebs
03-22-2003, 11:11 PM
That’s quite a nice place to be Sniper, defending a monster like Saddam especially when you may not know you are defending Saddam. I assume you didn't know your stance could actually be seen as actually defending Saddam and monsters like him at the expense of the good ppl and government of this country in which you live.

Where do you see Sniper saying that?

I think we've proven time and time again that we think Saddam is evil BUT you don't break international law. You bring him up on war crimes on trial at the Hague like they have Nazi's etc....


BUT one can not PERSONALLY profit from the war when you are the Vice President of the United States. It is soooooooooo unethical. As Sniper pointed out, to get a Government contract, you need to bid. There was no bidding process...it was just given to Cheney's compnay where he'll reep millions....

Muck
03-22-2003, 11:40 PM
I can see the beef on this one (Cheney possibly profiting). But as far as "profiting at the expense of human lives" goes, the tobacco industry has been doing it for years. So it isn't unheard. But that doesn't make it right.

Still, there haven't been a lot of lives lost in this war. Not yet anyway. Lets just pray for the best and hope we get this thing done quickly.

SWS84
03-23-2003, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
[B]Why am I not surprised to see Halliburton involved? It is totally disgusting when corporate execs are allowed to enrich themselves at the expense of human lives. I guess it is business as usual to this administration.

What human lives are you refering to? Iraqi solders, American/coalition solders, Iraqi civilians, or Saddam Hussein?

Steve

Sniper
03-23-2003, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by Peebs
Thanks for the link Sniper. I sent it to my friend Kirsten to see if she knew about it. She hadn't seen that article but knew the SEC was investigating Halliburton.....

I'll dig up some more links for you... I have a few good ones.

Sniper
03-23-2003, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by Oliver
Are you implying this is why we are at war in Iraq? If so please prove that stance. And do me a favor; don't post those 3rd rate URL's to do that.

First... I don't have to prove anything Oliver... Just like the Bush administration never proved that Saddam and Al Queda are linked. Instead of whining about some internet sites, why don't you prove these stories are untrue?

BTW... the Guardian is a not-for-profit news organization. It is about as unbiased as you can get.


Originally posted by Oliver
Obviously Cheney still being on their payroll (however they do that) and being VP is not illegal, why do you have a problem with this arrangement?

It may be legal, but it is unethical. To even suggest otherwise is foolish.

BTW... Weren't the people in THIS administration suppose to avoid even the appearance of impropriety?


Originally posted by Oliver
The other side of your thought here is if the US and UK did not go in to free Iraq, Saddam would be allowed to continued to break 2 year children’s feet in the hopes the child’s parent(s) will give Saddam and his crew the info they feel they have. Of course this is just one sick example of the person you may actually be defending with your stance here. That’s is if my assumption is correct and you think the only reason Bush and Cheney went into Iraq was to get oil for blood.

That’s quite a nice place to be Sniper, defending a monster like Saddam especially when you may not know you are defending Saddam. I assume you didn't know your stance could actually be seen as actually defending Saddam and monsters like him at the expense of the good ppl and government of this country in which you live.

I'm not defending Saddam. I'm being critical of Bush and Co. These are two totally different things. I thought you could differentiate between between the two, but maybe I am giving you too much credit.


Originally posted by Oliver
Oliver...

You don't have to sign every one of your posts. We know what posts you write.

dolfan06
03-23-2003, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by Muck
That's a very good idea. Seriously. whether people think this was the right thing for america to do, just listen to some of the horror stories from iraqi's in this country. according to one woman they interviewed, saddam has chemical pools in his prisons, to get rid of bodies, he has ovens, rooms for sexual abuse and many other means of torture. she said she hates the site of these protesters, and she intends to return home when this is all over!:rolleyes:

Sniper
03-23-2003, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by SWS84
What human lives are you refering to? Iraqi solders, American/coalition solders, Iraqi civilians, or Saddam Hussein?

Steve

All lives Steve, especially the innocent.

themole
03-23-2003, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by dolfan06
:rolleyes: this is getting really heavy, AJ thought we needed an unmoderated political forum and i agree!:rolleyes:

That would be awesome! A really good hunker down, take your stand, take no prisoners forum. Not for the faint of heart or easily abused. If you come in, come in with your sleeves rolled up and ready to duke it out. I'm all for it!

dolfan06
03-23-2003, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by themole
That would be awesome! A really good hunker down, take your stand, take no prisoners forum. Not for the faint of heart or easily abused. If you come in, come in with your sleeves rolled up and ready to duke it out. I'm all for it! when i was talking to AJ on the phone, he metioned it. said that some other boards have it. let me get back to AJ with this positive feedback and we'll see what we can do!;)

themole
03-23-2003, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by dolfan06
when i was talking to AJ on the phone, he metioned it. said that some other boards have it. let me get back to AJ with this positive feedback and we'll see what we can do!;)

:cool:

dolfan06
03-23-2003, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by themole
:cool: an unmoderated forum!:rolleyes: just hope i'm not standing behind a screen door when the sh!t hits the fan!;)

themole
03-23-2003, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by dolfan06
an unmoderated forum!:rolleyes: just hope i'm not standing behind a screen door when the sh!t hits the fan!;)

Let's put on our rain gear and let it rip. Or should I say spray.:lol:

baccarat
03-23-2003, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by Peebs

You bring him up on war crimes on trial at the Hague like they have Nazi's etc....



Saddam will go to international court for his crimes? Just like Pol Pot and Milosevic(Just to name a few.) did, huh? :rolleyes:

dolfan06
03-23-2003, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by booyeah_
Saddam will go to international court for his crimes? Just like Pol Pot and Milosevic(Just to name a few.) did, huh? :rolleyes: milosevic was killed, wasn't he?:confused:

Muck
03-23-2003, 02:43 AM
SLOBODAN!! That has to be my favorite name ever. Just rolls off the tongue. We used to make fun of that guy's name constantly in college.

FYI - he's alive and in jail (in the Netherlands). But he's got grave heart problems. His trial was put on hold this week. Due to resume Monday.

Peebs
03-23-2003, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by booyeah_
Saddam will go to international court for his crimes? Just like Pol Pot and Milosevic(Just to name a few.) did, huh? :rolleyes:

Milosevic was arrested. The UN and Nato does have procedures for arresting war criminals.

Barbarian
03-23-2003, 05:35 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
It may be legal, but it is unethical. To even suggest otherwise is foolish.

I find this statement ironic, because it's kind of a flip of my view of the war, which is "It may be illegal, but it is ethical. To suggest otherwise is foolish."

Like I said, I trust Bush about as far as I can throw him, but there are solid, clear, and very valid resons for going in there and I can't wait untill Iraq is liberated.

Lets save the debate about rebuilding for after the fighting is done okay people?

After all, while things are going incredably well so far... it's not over yet.

*knocks on wood*

Marino1983
03-23-2003, 06:13 AM
Originally posted by themole
That would be awesome! A really good hunker down, take your stand, take no prisoners forum. Not for the faint of heart or easily abused. If you come in, come in with your sleeves rolled up and ready to duke it out. I'm all for it!


I don't know mole, that sounds too intimidating to me .....:rofl: :lol: :evil: Marino1983

SWS84
03-23-2003, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
All lives Steve, especially the innocent.


So I may understand a little better, are you saying that our president and vice president have the intent to to kill innocent and not so innocent people, so Halliburton, and thus the vice president can profit from it?

Do you feel that is their sole motive for this war?

Sniper
03-23-2003, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by SWS84
So I may understand a little better, are you saying that our president and vice president have the intent to to kill innocent and not so innocent people, so Halliburton, and thus the vice president can profit from it?

Do you feel that is their sole motive for this war?

No. I don't think this is their sole motive for the war and I don't think killing innocents for profit is their intent.

I do think profit for these companies does play some role in their policy formation. I also think that human lives are a secondary concern to them.

ohall
03-23-2003, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
First... I don't have to prove anything Oliver... Just like the Bush administration never proved that Saddam and Al Queda are linked. Instead of whining about some internet sites, why don't you prove these stories are untrue?

BTW... the Guardian is a not-for-profit news organization. It is about as unbiased as you can get.



It may be legal, but it is unethical. To even suggest otherwise is foolish.

BTW... Weren't the people in THIS administration suppose to avoid even the appearance of impropriety?



I'm not defending Saddam. I'm being critical of Bush and Co. These are two totally different things. I thought you could differentiate between between the two, but maybe I am giving you too much credit.



You don't have to sign every one of your posts. We know what posts you write.

Thx for proving my point, just like with your BS that Bush is Hitler crap you posted weeks ago. At least my memory tells me you were the one that posted that crap. You are just here to spread lies wrapped in insignificant facts that you like to spin. All because you have personal hatred for all conservatives and this President in particular.

What you bring is nothing but hate for the leaders of this country, you are transparent basically. Thankfully the soldiers who are fighting and dieing for our country and freedom know they are fighting for ppl like you as well. That's what makes this country great, God bless America.

I see no impropriety, I see a very smart man in Cheney. Your jealousy is obvious and apparent.

Tell me, why would someone constantly bash, question and insult this administration while this country's military is at war? What exactly are your motives here Sniper?

Personally I think it's low, and again very transparent.

Oliver...

Sniper
03-23-2003, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by Oliver
Thx for proving my point, just like with your BS that Bush is Hitler crap you posted weeks ago. At least my memory tells me you were the one that posted that crap. You are just here to spread lies wrapped in insignificant facts that you like to spin. All because you have personal hatred for all conservatives and this President in particular.

What you bring is nothing but hate for the leaders of this country, you are transparent basically. Thankfully the soldiers who are fighting and dieing for our country and freedom know they are fighting for ppl like you as well. That's what makes this country great, God bless America.

I see no impropriety, I see a very smart man in Cheney. Your jealousy is obvious and apparent.

Tell me, why would someone constantly bash, question and insult this administration while this country's military is at war? What exactly are your motives here Sniper?

Personally I think it's low, and again very transparent.

Oliver...

Why would I question this administration? Because they are unethical and I am not a sheep that needs others to make up my mind for me.

Muck
03-23-2003, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
No. I don't think this is their sole motive for the war and I don't think killing innocents for profit is their intent.

I do think profit for these companies does play some role in their policy formation. I also think that human lives are a secondary concern to them.

I agree with a lot of that.

ohall
03-23-2003, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
Why would I question this administration? Because they are unethical and I am not a sheep that needs others to make up my mind for me.

That's your opinion, and it seems you have had that opinion since before they took office. It also appears you have nothing but comtempt for conservatives in general.

Transparent appears to be your game, although you some how think you are making a statement that will some how inform ppl of some wrong that only you see. I suggest to you, you want something to be wrong so you can tell everyone, "I told you so".

Don't hold your breath.

Oliver...

Sniper
03-23-2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Oliver
That's your opinion, and it seems you have had that opinion since before they took office. It also appears you have nothing but comtempt for conservatives in general.

Transparent appears to be your game, although you some how think you are making a statement that will some how inform ppl of some wrong that only you see. I suggest to you, you want something to be wrong so you can tell everyone, "I told you so".

Don't hold your breath.

Oliver...

Is this a continuation of one of your old whines or the start of a new one? Agree or disagree about the content of the thread and discuss the reasons for your position. Quit throwing out personal accusations about me or my motives. Honestly, 5-year-olds argue like that.

Yes... I dislike fascism. Fascism is the unification of government and business. Guess what is in the White House right now?

ohall
03-23-2003, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
Is this a continuation of one of your old whines or the start of a new one? Agree or disagree about the content of the thread and quit throwing out ignorant accusations about me or my motives. Honestly, 5-year-olds argue like that and I know you are above that.

Yes... I dislike fascism. Fascism is the unification of government and business. Guess what is in the White House right now?

Sorry your posts prove my claims of your motivations are dead on accurate. It pisses you off that someone can see exactly what you are trying to do. People like you take advantage of the freedom you enjoy every day with your constant insults directed at this country and the ppl who run it. That's what makes this country great.

I'm sorry you can't handle the truth. This is not personal, I am simply going by the vile and venom you have posted about this country over the last 2 to 3 months.

Last I heard the White house is the home of the leader of this country and the Commander and Chief of our military. Save your venom for 2004 so G.W. Bush can win an easy re-election. I know conservatives like me value ppl like you, because you make things much easier to keep conservative politicians that we support in power. Thank you for the unkowing support you give our conservative politicians, it'much appreciated.

Oliver...

Sniper
03-23-2003, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Oliver
Sorry your posts prove my claims of your motivations are dead on accurate. It pisses you off that someone can see exactly what you are trying to do. People like you take advantage of the freedom you enjoy every day with your constant insults directed at this country and the ppl who run it. That's what makes this country great.

I'm sorry you can't handle the truth. This is not personal, I am simply going by the vile and venom you have posted about this country over the last 2 to 3 months.

Last I heard the White house is the home of the leader of this country and the Commander and Chief of our military. Save your venom for 2004 so G.W. Bush can win an easy re-election. I know conservatives like me value ppl like you, because you make things much easier to keep conservative politicians that we support in power. Thank you for the unkowing support you give our conservative politicians, it'much appreciated.

Oliver...

I guess this means you can't argue your position using complete, logical thoughts.

BTW... stupidity is what keeps Bush in the White House.

ohall
03-23-2003, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
I guess this means you can't argue your position using complete, logical thoughts.

BTW... stupidity is what keeps Bush in the White House.

I believe I did Sniper, as much as you did at any rate. The Internet is a wonderful tool for propaganda now a days. Most understand anyone can start a web site and put up any info they want.

In short the URL's that you put up do not fool me. No matter how much these organizations say they are non-profit or non-affiliated, common sense tells anyone with any common sense that's not the real truth.

At time of war, I'll go with my President over a mad man like Saddam. Whether you know it or not all you are doing is giving comfort to him and his cause. In short, this is not the time. But some how I think you know that, and you are getting the desired reaction you were looking for.

Good job, I’m not empowering your cause any longer, and I hope the other posters here will see right thru you and ignore such intentions at the very least until these wars are over.

Peace.

Oliver...

SWS84
03-23-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
No. I don't think this is their sole motive for the war and I don't think killing innocents for profit is their intent.

I do think profit for these companies does play some role in their policy formation. I also think that human lives are a secondary concern to them.


Do you think the Clinton administration had any ties to business and manipulated events or circumstances to profit by it?


What do you think about Kosovo? Should we have gone in to help those people?

Sniper
03-23-2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by SWS84
Do you think the Clinton administration had any ties to business and manipulated events or circumstances to profit by it?

Certainly the Clintons had business ties. Theirs ties are just as disgusting and unethical. However, I think the Bush business dealings are much more pronounced.

http://www.motherjones.com/news_wire/bushboys.html




Originally posted by SWS84
What do you think about Kosovo? Should we have gone in to help those people?

No I don't. I believe we should concentrate on our borders and not worry about other countries' problems.

dolfan06
03-23-2003, 01:07 PM
listen to some of the iraqi's in this country. we had to stop hitler, why not saddam?:eek:

Sniper
03-23-2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by dolfan06
listen to some of the iraqi's in this country. we had to stop hitler, why not saddam?:eek:

It is interesting that you brought Hitler up. I can't wait to see the reaction this website gives Oliver :lol:

http://www.hermes-press.com/nazification_step3.htm

Muck
03-23-2003, 03:59 PM
Hitler was a self-hating homosexual. Bush doesn't have those kind of problems. lol.

dolfan06
03-23-2003, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Muck
Hitler was a self-hating homosexual. Bush doesn't have those kind of problems. lol. a lot you know!:D

Peebs
03-23-2003, 06:40 PM
Ha you beat me to it! ;)

baccarat
03-23-2003, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by Peebs
Milosevic was arrested. The UN and Nato does have procedures for arresting war criminals.

He was arrested after Clinton and an international coalition ended his reign of terror. The U.N. did not approve of this action and if the U.N. had their way, he would still be ethnic cleansing. So how can we bring Saddam up on crimes against humanity, as you suggested, w/out some kind of military action?

PhinPhan1227
03-24-2003, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Sniper


It may be legal, but it is unethical. To even suggest otherwise is foolish.

BTW... Weren't the people in THIS administration suppose to avoid even the appearance of impropriety?
.

Just out of curiosity, since Halliburton has always done the majority of their business with the government, were they suppossed to stop that practice when Cheney was elected? In addition to that question, I'd like to see some proof that these contracts were not set long before the war started. Halliburton has been doing business with the government and especially the military for most of it's existance. They even thrived on government contracts while Clinton was in office. If they're the best company to get the job done, they should be the company hired, regardless of who is in office.

PhinPhan1227
03-24-2003, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Peebs
Where do you see Sniper saying that?

I think we've proven time and time again that we think Saddam is evil BUT you don't break international law. You bring him up on war crimes on trial at the Hague like they have Nazi's etc....





Yeah, we SHOULD have just brought Hitler up on war crimes at the Hague instead of invading France....oh...wait....The Hague was under Nazi occupation at the time. Maybe they would have still let us use it?

PhinPhan1227
03-24-2003, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
Yes... I dislike fascism. Fascism is the unification of government and business.


So you don't like the unification of government and business? Do you have some OTHER definition of Socialism?

PhinPhan1227
03-24-2003, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
I guess this means you can't argue your position using complete, logical thoughts.

BTW... stupidity is what keeps Bush in the White House.


Actually, the Constitution keeps Bush in the White House...it's called a "term", lasts at least 4 years unless the man dies or is removed from office by the Congress...:cool:

PhinPhan1227
03-24-2003, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Sniper

No I don't. I believe we should concentrate on our borders and not worry about other countries' problems.


Personally, I believe that the wealth and power that we as Americans are gifted with at birth carries with it a moral obligation to help those who can't help themselves. Just as I would expect a healthy adult man to help a woman who he saw being assaulted, I expect the US to step in where they can, and help those who are in need. Doing anything less makes us accomplices in those crimes. If you're against the loss of innocent life, how can you NOT support the use of force to end an attempted genocide like Kosovo?

Sniper
03-24-2003, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Just out of curiosity, since Halliburton has always done the majority of their business with the government, were they suppossed to stop that practice when Cheney was elected?

Here's a thought... Why doesn't Cheney act in an ethical manner and divest himself of all current and FUTURE business ties with Halliburton? These contracts are a windfall for Halliburton and Cheney should not profit in anyway from it. The Clinton/Whitewater scandal pales in comparison to this and yet you don't see the corporate controlled media covering this.


Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
In addition to that question, I'd like to see some proof that these contracts were not set long before the war started.

"In December 2001, Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, secured a 10-year deal known as the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP), from the Pentagon. The contract is a "cost-plus-award-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity service" which basically means that the federal government has an open-ended mandate and budget to send Brown and Root anywhere in the world to run military operations for a profit."

http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6008



Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Halliburton has been doing business with the government and especially the military for most of it's existance. They even thrived on government contracts while Clinton was in office. Look iIf they're the best company to get the job done, they should be the company hired, regardless of who is in office.

Who knows if they are the best company. From what I read, these contracts weren't done using the typical bid process. If this is true then there very well could be a company that could do the job cheaper or better. We'll never know.

As far as being a good company, you must be joking. Halliburton's record isn't exactly stellar. This company is allegedly plagued with many problems like accounting irregularities, problems with the SEC, income tax evasion, overcharging the U.S. government, and recent asbestos litigation. The only thing they seem to be good at is fattening themselves at the trough at the expense of the working class.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/Nightline/douglass_cheney_halliburton_020719.html

http://www.corpwatch.org/search/PSR.jsp

http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=3150

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2003/03/cheney_victory-1.jpg

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2003/03/cheney_warinc-1.jpg

baccarat
03-24-2003, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Actually, the Constitution keeps Bush in the White House...it's called a "term", lasts at least 4 years unless the man dies or is removed from office by the Congress...:cool:

He could resign.;)

baccarat
03-24-2003, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by booyeah_
He was arrested after Clinton and an international coalition ended his reign of terror. The U.N. did not approve of this action and if the U.N. had their way, he would still be ethnic cleansing. So how can we bring Saddam up on crimes against humanity, as you suggested, w/out some kind of military action?

So I guess Peebs will not respond to this.

PhinPhan1227
03-25-2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
[B]Here's a thought... Why doesn't Cheney act in an ethical manner and divest himself of all current and FUTURE business ties with Halliburton? These contracts are a windfall for Halliburton and Cheney should not profit in anyway from it. ]


Like the guy wasn't making money hand over fist BEFORE he got elected? You sound like the lawyer for a woman who just married a wealthy man, and thinks she deserves half his wealth. He's been with Halliburton, and there's no reason he should LEAVE Halliburton. Plato's ideal of politicians living in poverty to serve their country is all well and good, but if Cheney lived by that ideal he'd be the first. As for Whitewater, that was a CRIMINAL act. There was fraud involved. I know you love unfounded accusations, but while the ethics of Halliburtons contract may be questionable, the legality so far has not been questioned in ANY way.

PhinPhan1227
03-25-2003, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by booyeah_
So I guess Peebs will not respond to this.


I thought "wishful thinking", and "sit-in's" might convince him to answer to the Hague? Of course, France would never allow him to be convicted anyway, so why bother?

Sniper
03-25-2003, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
I know you love unfounded accusations, but while the ethics of Halliburtons contract may be questionable, the legality so far has not been questioned in ANY way.

Unfounded? Unlike you and your past B.S. posts, at least I make an effort to incorporate some fact into what I say. Your posts, on the other hand, can be lumped into 1 of 3 groups: bandwagon statements, categorical statements, or personal attacks (see your last post). Maybe you should try using a logical argument with facts instead of the amateurish and deceptive argumentation you spew.

Let's take a look at your misleading, categorical argument that "He has not been questioned in ANY way." The truth is it has been questioned, so pull your head out of your ass. The SEC doesn't do these inquiries for fun:

"Nevertheless, the SEC investigation increases the pressure on the administration and on Cheney who has also been accused of assisting Halliburton get lucrative contracts in government."

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/12072002-050430-7117r.htm

If you sense that this post has the tone of a personal attack toward you, then that's probably because there is... Like I told you before, I don't like liars and I don't treat them kind.

Sniper
03-25-2003, 03:53 PM
Some more articles:

http://archive.salon.com/news/col/huff/2002/08/06/tax_havens/

http://archive.salon.com/news/col/scheer/2002/07/17/cheney/

It's pretty convenient for this administration that Harvey Pitt resigned just when their was going to be a vigorous investigation into the alledged business misdealings.

http://archive.salon.com/news/col/scheer/2002/09/04/cheney/

PhinPhan1227
03-25-2003, 03:56 PM
After degenerating to name calling for the third time Sniper, I stopped being surprised whenever you resorted to that tactic, so not only won't I take offense at your present and future personal attacks, I'm not even going to point them out any more. As for the rest of your drivel, the SEC has inquiries running on thousands of companies. Until they file charges, or even form a Grand Jury, the LAW states that nothing illegal has occurred. Again, you've got a heck of a penchant for throwing out accusations without proof, but hey, whatever floats your boat. The bottom line is, you stated that Halliburton FAR exceeds Whitewater, when Whitewater has been PROVEN to incorporate illegal activity, where Halliburton hasn't. I'd question your will to retain any credibility, but for anyone who's willing to define Fascism and Socialism with the same terminology, I guess that's a foregone conclusion anyway.

LeftCoastPhin
03-25-2003, 04:15 PM
Wow, there is a lot of jumping to conclusions going on around this joint! I agree with a lot of what Sniper is saying, I haven't heard him say once on this thread that his points are why we are at war. The Websites he referred to are VITAL in helping keeping the powers at be in check, only if it is only a little.

I agree 100% with Sniper on his point about worrying about our OWN borders, that to me is the biggest concern. And a whole other BIG A$$ can of beans that I may or may not open at a later time. (CIA so called drug war which they profit from, bribes and lobbies from corporations to keep the borders open, among other glaring problems with our border policy) Ooops, looks like I just opened the can. Anyway....more on that later, back to the thread:

As I've stated before, I agree with the war because I feel Iraq and Sadaam are a threat to the U.S.A. That is the only reason why I feel that way. All of this other crap is simple sugar coating to appear there are more reasons. Human rights? Please!! What about human rights for people of Rwanda? All of the many other countries that face evil leaders? Yes, it is noble that we are liberating Iraqis but it's simply NOT why we're there. I would hope we're there for our national security but at least acknowlege there are other potential dirty reasons. This war has so much gray matter, but hardly anyone wants to acknowlede it. I dont know about you, but every time I hear about an Amerian troop dying, I get a pit in my stomach and almost cry. Call me a bleeding heart, call me whatever, but these are my brothers over there and it kills me that they are dying. I can only hope and pray they are dying for our security. I find many flaws in Pres Bush, I mean c'mon, it's no secret he has made millions in dirty oil profits. But, in my heart, naive as it may or could be, I believe he is doing his for our security. But, what makes me furious is our REAL security threat lies in our porous borders and it's not being fixed because of POLITICS and GREED. Plain and simple. Where's the honor and bravery in that?

Sniper
03-25-2003, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
After degenerating to name calling for the third time Sniper, I stopped being surprised whenever you resorted to that tactic, so not only won't I take offense at your present and future personal attacks, I'm not even going to point them out any more. As for the rest of your drivel, the SEC has inquiries running on thousands of companies. Until they file charges, or even form a Grand Jury, the LAW states that nothing illegal has occurred. Again, you've got a heck of a penchant for throwing out accusations without proof, but hey, whatever floats your boat. The bottom line is, you stated that Halliburton FAR exceeds Whitewater, when Whitewater has been PROVEN to incorporate illegal activity, where Halliburton hasn't. I'd question your will to retain any credibility, but for anyone who's willing to define Fascism and Socialism with the same terminology, I guess that's a foregone conclusion anyway.

Guess what... You used the word QUESTIONED and not some other word as you are now claiming. You said they weren't questioned in ANY way and I showed they were. An SEC inquiry is a questioning and information gathering process. If you meant something else then maybe you should use the correct terminology. This seems to be a typical tactic with you. Make a stupid statement, wait until I disprove it, and then back out of it and claim that you said something else. Grow a pair of nads and be accountable for what you said.

As to degenerating into the name calling... you started it on this particular thread so don't be surprised when you get smacked back and don't whine like a baby about it.

Finally fascism and socialism share many of the qualities, but are distinctly different. This is obvious to most people, so I didn't think I had to explain it to you. Since you are confused about the two, I will oblige you. In socialism, the government works for the people. With fascism, the people essentially work for the controlling elite. There are a few more differences, but you can look those up for yourself.

Sniper
03-25-2003, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by LeftCoastPhin
Wow, there is a lot of jumping to conclusions going on around this joint! I agree with a lot of what Sniper is saying, I haven't heard him say once on this thread that his points are why we are at war. The Websites he referred to are VITAL in helping keeping the powers at be in check, only if it is only a little.

I agree 100% with Sniper on his point about worrying about our OWN borders, that to me is the biggest concern. And a whole other BIG A$$ can of beans that I may or may not open at a later time. (CIA so called drug war which they profit from, bribes and lobbies from corporations to keep the borders open, among other glaring problems with our border policy) Ooops, looks like I just opened the can. Anyway....more on that later, back to the thread:

As I've stated before, I agree with the war because I feel Iraq and Sadaam are a threat to the U.S.A. That is the only reason why I feel that way. All of this other crap is simple sugar coating to appear there are more reasons. Human rights? Please!! What about human rights for people of Rwanda? All of the many other countries that face evil leaders? Yes, it is noble that we are liberating Iraqis but it's simply NOT why we're there. I would hope we're there for our national security but at least acknowlege there are other potential dirty reasons. This war has so much gray matter, but hardly anyone wants to acknowlede it. I dont know about you, but every time I hear about an Amerian troop dying, I get a pit in my stomach and almost cry. Call me a bleeding heart, call me whatever, but these are my brothers over there and it kills me that they are dying. I can only hope and pray they are dying for our security. I find many flaws in Pres Bush, I mean c'mon, it's no secret he has made millions in dirty oil profits. But, in my heart, naive as it may or could be, I believe he is doing his for our security. But, what makes me furious is our REAL security threat lies in our porous borders and it's not being fixed because of POLITICS and GREED. Plain and simple. Where's the honor and bravery in that?

Good post LeftCoastPhin.

I too share your concern about our troops and all lives. I don't want to see anybody killed (American or Iraqi) and am praying for the best.

LeftCoastPhin
03-25-2003, 04:39 PM
Thanks Sniper. I agree with some of the more outspoken posters a lot of the time, but not on this thread. I feel you make good points and got lambasted for no good reason.

PhinPhan1227
03-25-2003, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Guess what... You used the word QUESTIONED and not some other word as you are now claiming. You basically said they weren't questioned in ANY way and I showed they were. An SEC inquiry is a questioning and information gathering process. If you meant something else then maybe you should use the correct terminology. This seems to be a typical tactic with you. Make a stupid statement, wait until I disprove it and then back of of it and claim that you said something else. Grow a pair of nads and be accountable for what you said

As to degenerating into the name calling... you started it on this particular thread so don't be surprised when you get smacked back and don't whine like a baby about it.

Finally fascism and socialism share many of the qualities, but are distinctly different. This is obvious to most people, so I didn't think I had to explain it to you. Since you are confused about the two, I will oblige you. In socialism, the government works for the people. With fascism, the people essentially work for the controlling elite. There are a few more differences, but you can look those up for yourself.

Yes I said "questioned". But only after you compared an illegal activity to one which has not been shown to be in any way, shape, or form illegal. I'll be happy to admit that I should have said "shown to be illegal" rather then "questioned". Any bets on whether you'll admit that once again you've decided to make yet ANOTHER baseless accusation? I thought not. As for Fascism/Socialism YOU defined it as "Fascism is the unification of government and business". As Socialism is ALSO the unification of government and business, it seems obvious to me that you either don't know the difference, or are willing to throw around labels strictly for effect, without any regard for accuracy. Either way, Snippy, you've once again demonstrated that your grasp of the world extends only so far as your Socialist dogma allows. I particularly loved the "fattening themselves at the trough at the expense of the working class" line....Comrade Lenin would be proud.

PhinPhan1227
03-25-2003, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Good post LeftCoastPhin.

I too share your concern about our troops and all lives. I don't want to see anybody killed (American or Iraqi) and am praying for the best.


But once again, feel no compunction whatsoever about letting innocent civilians be tortured and killed by totalitarian regimes(you're on record as opposing our intervention in Kosovo). So much for Peace, Love, and understanding.

LeftCoastPhin
03-25-2003, 04:52 PM
Also, one more important thing:

Just like the front office of the Dolphins, we dont have access to crucial information that might sway our opinions either way. We dont have all the intelligence Pres Bush has access to, so in a lot of ways we are still in the dark. We can only investigate, and pray he has indeed found reasons to fear Iraq in our national security. I believe he has.

I guess my point is we aren't privy to vital info that sways outcomes of decisions.


As far as being the world's police goes, to a certain extent I believe we have a moral obligation as a super power to help. But i'd rather help with diplomacy, than bullets.

If the people are that oppressed, let THEM start thier own revolutionary war. Like we did. Then, if need be, we can help.

PhinPhan1227
03-25-2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by LeftCoastPhin
Yes, it is noble that we are liberating Iraqis but it's simply NOT why we're there. I would hope we're there for our national security but at least acknowlege there are other potential dirty reasons. This war has so much gray matter, but hardly anyone wants to acknowlede it. I dont know about you, but every time I hear about an Amerian troop dying, I get a pit in my stomach and almost cry. Call me a bleeding heart, call me whatever, but these are my brothers over there and it kills me that they are dying. I can only hope and pray they are dying for our security. I find many flaws in Pres Bush, I mean c'mon, it's no secret he has made millions in dirty oil profits. But, in my heart, naive as it may or could be, I believe he is doing his for our security. But, what makes me furious is our REAL security threat lies in our porous borders and it's not being fixed because of POLITICS and GREED. Plain and simple. Where's the honor and bravery in that?


Good GOD!! Why is it exactly that some people, both left AND right wing, are so freaking willing to convict people on innuendo, when the courts have been unable to do so? I'll let that drop for a minute however to point out that while we ARE removing Saddam as a security measure, we're ALSO doing it to help the Iraqi people. And in helping them, we can help ourselves. America thrives when we have trading partners and other Democracies in the world. Having the country with the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world as a trading partner and haven for civil liberties can ONLY be good for the US. Those soldiers on the ground are doing the job they signed up for(I took the same oath to do the same job), and I'm damned glad that job is getting done. As for our borders, they'll always be porous, it's the price you pay for a free society. If the Israeli's can't keep their borders safe with the draconian methods THEY employ, how in thw world can we?

PhinPhan1227
03-25-2003, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by LeftCoastPhin

If the people are that oppressed, let THEM start thier own revolutionary war. Like we did. Then, if need be, we can help.


They did when we promised our support. We didn't deliver, and they got massacred. I guess on that level Bush sr is right up there with JFK.

Sniper
03-25-2003, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Yes I said "questioned". But only after you compared an illegal activity to one which has not been shown to be in any way, shape, or form illegal. I'll be happy to admit that I should have said "shown to be illegal" rather then "questioned". Any bets on whether you'll admit that once again you've decided to make yet ANOTHER baseless accusation? I thought not. As for Fascism/Socialism YOU defined it as "Fascism is the unification of government and business". As Socialism is ALSO the unification of government and business, it seems obvious to me that you either don't know the difference, or are willing to throw around labels strictly for effect, without any regard for accuracy. Either way, Snippy, you've once again demonstrated that your grasp of the world extends only so far as your Socialist dogma allows. I particularly loved the "fattening themselves at the trough at the expense of the working class" line....Comrade Lenin would be proud.

Baseless accusation... Is this another one of your bogus categorical statements or just another example of you being incompetent in the English language? The truth is I'm basing my posts on many links. Hence, my posts and the questions I am raising are not baseless.

Most people on here are smart enough to know misdirection when they see it. So feel free to split the hairs about Fascism/Socialism all you want in a vain attempt to save face and appear intelligent. It is obvious too most people that I was posting about how corporate interests seem to influence our government's policies. So yes, that's the effect I was striving for.

LeftCoastPhin
03-25-2003, 05:26 PM
I also served in the military and have friends in the war right now. What's your point 1227? Are you trying to tell me the soldiers signed up to invade EVERY country that opresses people? C'mon! We better get those draft papers ready if that's the case cause we'll run out of our best natural resource we have: people.

You just said it benefits us because they have oil. Screw oil, we have our own and should be using it untill we can find an alternative source.

So, which is it 1227? To liberate people or protect our greed? I agree with a lot of what you say, but now you are contradicting yourself.



Also, OJ was aquitted by our flawless court system, so that makes him innocent? Can I come live in your fairy tale dream world for awhile, it sure seems like a lovely place.

PhinPhan1227
03-25-2003, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Baseless accusation... Is this another one of your bogus categorical statements or just another example of you being incompetent in the English language? The truth is I'm basing my posts on many links. Hence, my posts and the questions I am raising are not baseless.

Most people on here are smart enough to know misdirection when they see it. So feel free to split the hairs about Fascism/Socialism all you want in a vain attempt to save face and appear intelligent. It is obvious too most people that I was posting about how corporate interests seem to influence our government's policies. So yes, that's the effect I was striving for.

Yes "baseless". This country DOES live by "innocent until proven guilty", and until someone actually PROVES wrongdoing, neither Halliburton, nor Cheney can be said to have done anything LEGALLY wrong. I never disputed your right to challenge the ethics involved, but saying that something which has NOT been shown to be in any way, shape, or form illegal is "far worse", than something which was shown in a court of law to be a criminal act, is insipid. You know Snippy, I think you may be the first person I've encountered on these boards who actually DOES deserve the appellation "Commie". You just have too much of the "downtrodden proletariat" lingo rolling off your tongue for that not to be the case.

Penthos
03-25-2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Yes "baseless". This country DOES live by "innocent until proven guilty"...

Is that so? ...and when was it that Iraq was PROVEN to be connected to 911, when was it PROVEN that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction and when was it PROVEN that Saddam's Regime was supporting Al-Qaeda... In fact ther is more proof that Saudi Arabia is supporting Al-Qaeda than Iraq, should we attacak them next?

I whole-heartedly support our troops, as I was one in 91 as its not their fault they were sent there... I am excited for the future of the Iraqi people being free of a brutal dictatorship...

I do not support George Bush's foreign or domestic policy...

By the way, good original post Sniper, its indicative of what this administration is all about...

ohall
03-25-2003, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
Is that so? ...and when was it that Iraq was PROVEN to be connected to 911, when was it PROVEN that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction and when was it PROVEN that Saddam's Regime was supporting Iraq...

I whole-heartedly support our troops, as I was one in 91 as its not their fault they were sent there... I am excited for the future of the Iraqi people being free of a brutal dictatorship...

I do not support George Bush's foreign or domestic policy...

Don't worry you will.

Yes it has been proven that Saddam has supported terroist in his very country, trained them and many of those terroist are aligned with Al-Qaeda. Not to mention Saddam pays suicide bombers families 25k for their human guided missle runs on Israel and their ppl.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
03-25-2003, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by LeftCoastPhin
I also served in the military and have friends in the war right now. What's your point 1227? Are you trying to tell me the soldiers signed up to invade EVERY country that opresses people? C'mon! We better get those draft papers ready if that's the case cause we'll run out of our best natural resource we have: people.

You just said it benefits us because they have oil. Screw oil, we have our own and should be using it untill we can find an alternative source.

So, which is it 1227? To liberate people or protect our greed? I agree with a lot of what you say, but now you are contradicting yourself.



Also, OJ was aquitted by our flawless court system, so that makes him innocent? Can I come live in your fairy tale dream world for awhile, it sure seems like a lovely place.



Whoa!!! I said

"America thrives when we have trading partners and other Democracies in the world. Having the country with the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world as a trading partner and haven for civil liberties can ONLY be good for the US."

The important thing there is having a STRONG nation with EQUALLY strong civil liberties as an example and mollifying influence in the region. Iraq's oil isn't the issue. The issue is that Iraq WITH it's oil can be a strong nation that supports peace, rather than terror. And THAT'S the point of freeing the people of Iraq. You've got a people who, while they are still muslims, are also still a very secular people. Get them on their feet however, and set them up with a functioning democracy, and you've got an example for other muslims to follow. American soldiers sign up to defend our nation. But when I signed up, I knew very well that the odds were that if I was sent over-seas, it most likely wouldn't be to fight someone who had attacked us directly. It would most likely be to protect American interests, whatever they may be. In this case, American interests are served by saving the Iraqi people so they can help us eliminate some of the hatred which has been directed towards us. As for OJ, he was convicted in civil court. And at LEAST there was enough evidence for a grand jury to take the case to trial. Are you aware of any cases which were brought against the POTUS or VP? I refer to criminal cases of course, people sue the President all the time.

PhinPhan1227
03-25-2003, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
Is that so? ...and when was it that Iraq was PROVEN to be connected to 911, when was it PROVEN that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction and when was it PROVEN that Saddam's Regime was supporting Al-Qaeda... In fact ther is more proof that Saudi Arabia is supporting Al-Qaeda than Iraq, should we attacak them next?

I whole-heartedly support our troops, as I was one in 91 as its not their fault they were sent there... I am excited for the future of the Iraqi people being free of a brutal dictatorship...

I do not support George Bush's foreign or domestic policy...

By the way, good original post Sniper, its indicative of what this administration is all about...


While all of that has been made an issue by the media and the President(dumb move on his part), the reason for this war is because Saddam invaded Kuwait, and when he lost, was given the chance to PROVE that he had disarmed. Saddam was ALREADY convicted back in '91. Basically, he was on parole for invading Kuwait, and has failed to fulfil the requirements of that parole. His sentence was supended pending the satisfaction of those requirements, and that sentence has now come due. Does that answer your questions?

Penthos
03-25-2003, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Oliver
Don't worry you will.

Yes it has been proven that Saddam has supported terroist in his very country, trained them and many of those terroist are aligned with Al-Qaeda. Not to mention Saddam pays suicide bombers families 25k for their human guided missle runs on Israel and their ppl.

Oliver...

There is no proven LINK BETWEEN Saddam and 911... Even Sen. John McCain admitted that on a Nightline town hall meeting last week or the week before...

Penthos
03-25-2003, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
While all of that has been made an issue by the media and the President(dumb move on his part), the reason for this war is because Saddam invaded Kuwait, and when he lost, was given the chance to PROVE that he had disarmed. Saddam was ALREADY convicted back in '91. Basically, he was on parole for invading Kuwait, and has failed to fulfil the requirements of that parole. His sentence was supended pending the satisfaction of those requirements, and that sentence has now come due. Does that answer your questions?

Actually I agree with that point of view... and if the Bush administration would simply site that as the reason for all this I might have more support and respect for Bush...

LeftCoastPhin
03-25-2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Whoa!!! I said

"America thrives when we have trading partners and other Democracies in the world. Having the country with the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world as a trading partner and haven for civil liberties can ONLY be good for the US."

The important thing there is having a STRONG nation with EQUALLY strong civil liberties as an example and mollifying influence in the region. Iraq's oil isn't the issue. The issue is that Iraq WITH it's oil can be a strong nation that supports peace, rather than terror. And THAT'S the point of freeing the people of Iraq. You've got a people who, while they are still muslims, are also still a very secular people. Get them on their feet however, and set them up with a functioning democracy, and you've got an example for other muslims to follow. American soldiers sign up to defend our nation. But when I signed up, I knew very well that the odds were that if I was sent over-seas, it most likely wouldn't be to fight someone who had attacked us directly. It would most likely be to protect American interests, whatever they may be. In this case, American interests are served by saving the Iraqi people so they can help us eliminate some of the hatred which has been directed towards us. As for OJ, he was convicted in civil court. And at LEAST there was enough evidence for a grand jury to take the case to trial. Are you aware of any cases which were brought against the POTUS or VP? I refer to criminal cases of course, people sue the President all the time.


My bad, I misunderstood your post. I agree with this one.

ohall
03-25-2003, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
There is no proven LINK BETWEEN Saddam and 911... Even Sen. John McCain admitted that on a Nightline town hall meeting last week or the week before...

I guess you missed what I typed. Do you think these ppl make it easy to be linked together especially after what took place on 9/11? Honestly what world do you think these ppl are living in? I can tell you they do not live in a world that has laws and a government that provides a safe place for them to live, if they did odds are they wouldn't be doing what they are doing.

Please do not ever forget who and what you are dealing with. The LINK was established, some ppl just don't want to realize or believe it, for political reasons I might add. Just like some thought there was no reason to go to war with Iraq, for political reasons I might add.

I doubt you will ever support or respect him, but after time goes by you will understand he knows what he's doing. He's not this fool that some try and make him out to be. That's their wishful thinking on their part, sad but true.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
03-25-2003, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
Actually I agree with that point of view... and if the Bush administration would simply site that as the reason for all this I might have more support and respect for Bush...

Lol...while I support most of Bush's actions so far, I think he should be b!tch slapped for not keeping to the "legal" reasons for the war. He also screwed up when he called the war a "preemptive strike", which completely ignores the fact that we've BEEN in a state of conflict with Iraq since '91. American soldiers and airmen have been putting themselves in danger since then maintaining UN sanctions. This war isn't new, it's just a massive escalation of hostilities...:rolleyes:

PhinPhan1227
03-25-2003, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by LeftCoastPhin
My bad, I misunderstood your post. I agree with this one.

No problem, it was badly worded on my part.

Penthos
03-25-2003, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by Oliver


Please do not ever forget who and what you are dealing with. The LINK was established, some ppl just don't want to realize or believe it, for political reasons I might add.

No it wasn't, site a source that says there was one... I'll site one, republican Senator John McCain, who from his own lips said there was no link...

I guess YOU know better than he...

ohall
03-25-2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Lol...while I support most of Bush's actions so far, I think he should be b!tch slapped for not keeping to the "legal" reasons for the war. He also screwed up when he called the war a "preemptive strike", which completely ignores the fact that we've BEEN in a state of conflict with Iraq since '91. American soldiers and airmen have been putting themselves in danger since then maintaining UN sanctions. This war isn't new, it's just a massive escalation of hostilities...:rolleyes:

It was preemptive, he is destroying one possible country that could supply terrorist with WMD before they use them on us, at home.

Just like JFK on a smaller scale did with Cuba when the Russians shipped those missles into Cuba. Thankfully the leaders of Russia were not insane like Saddam obviously is.

Oliver...

ohall
03-25-2003, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
No it wasn't, site a source that says there was one... I'll site one, republican Senator John McCain, who from his own lips said there was no link...

I guess YOU know better than he...

Yes in this case I do, because I believe President Bush, Powell. I'll go with them any day over McCain. He's a warm weather Republican anyway, he does what's best for him and he alone.

The sources are out there, I've read them. Just do a search, I don't care enough to do your work for you. Believe me, for that matter believe Bush or not, no worries here.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
03-25-2003, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by Oliver
It was preemptive, he is destroying one possible country that could supply terrorist with WMD before they use them on us, at home.

Just like JFK on a smaller scale did with Cuba when the Russians shipped those missles into Cuba. Thankfully the leaders of Russia were not insane like Saddam obviously is.

Oliver...


How do you have a preemptive strike on a country you're already in conflict with? We had planes striking AA positions almost every month, and had troops in the norhtern areas for years. "Pre-emptive" implies that we are going from a state of peace, to a state of war, without the other guy throwing the first punch. The other guy ALREADY threw that punch, he just did it 12 years ago.

ohall
03-25-2003, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
How do you have a preemptive strike on a country you're already in conflict with? We had planes striking AA positions almost every month, and had troops in the norhtern areas for years. "Pre-emptive" implies that we are going from a state of peace, to a state of war, without the other guy throwing the first punch. The other guy ALREADY threw that punch, he just did it 12 years ago.

If you follow their logic, because of a cease fire, and what the popular preception was when he said that. I agree with what you are saying by the way, just trying to see why he said what he said.

Oliver...

LeftCoastPhin
03-25-2003, 07:08 PM
I wouldn't go as far as saying Senator McKain is warm weather. The man did 5 plus year in a Vietnam POW camp. I have tons of respect for him, and if you ever read his book "Faith of my Fathers" I think you would too. He and his family have done this country a GREAT service. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude. I think he was just being diplomatic. He is for this war and very pro military action.

Sniper
03-25-2003, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
By the way, good original post Sniper, its indicative of what this administration is all about...

:)

Thank you. I'm glad some people can see the point I'm trying to make.

baccarat
03-25-2003, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by LeftCoastPhin
I wouldn't go as far as saying Senator McKain is warm weather. The man did 5 plus year in a Vietnam POW camp. I have tons of respect for him, and if you ever read his book "Faith of my Fathers" I think you would too. He and his family have done this country a GREAT service. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude. I think he was just being diplomatic. He is for this war and very pro military action.

I'm with you on that. I have great respect for Sen. McCain and I would vote for him if he ran for President, again. I want to get his autobiography. Did you like it?

iceblizzard69
03-25-2003, 08:34 PM
I support Bush, but the Iraq-al Qaeda link is total bull****. Bush uses really bad reasons to say that there is a link. Face it guys, the link isn't there!! Saddam is a Sunni, and Osama is a shi'ite, and Saddam oppresses and hates shi'ites, so why the hell would he have a link with one? I don't think either are religious and they both don't represent Islam, but I think there is no link between al Qaeda and Saddam. I think the war is justified, and definitely the right thing to do, but I don't think there is a link between Iraq and 9/11. Iraq may have liked the events of 9/11, but it doesn't mean they had anything to do with it.

LeftCoastPhin
03-25-2003, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by booyeah_
I'm with you on that. I have great respect for Sen. McCain and I would vote for him if he ran for President, again. I want to get his autobiography. Did you like it?



I would vote as well. I loved his autobiography "Faith of my Fathers" It should be required reading for high school American History. His Grandfather was a kick ass and take names Navy Admiral. His father was the same way, rising all the way to head of the Pacific Fleet for the Vietnam War. Sen McCain was a Navy fighter pilot who got shot down, thus the POW situaiton.

I just cant recommend this book enough, it is very inspirational. In fact, I feel like reading it again when I get home. He talks about his rebellious youth, on how he wasn't a very serious cadet at first. On how he survived with honor intact after being offered early release because of his Dad's status in the Navy. He didn't want to embarrass his country, so he refused and took his place in line. It talks about how he forgives the protesters back home, who were young and didn't realize the false propaganda coming from the Vietcong. About how their bombing missions became reduntant and weren't hitting the right targets for fear of political blowback of false propaganda. How demoralized his fellow pilots were, but still carrying out their duty with honors.





:hail: John McCain, a true American hero

LeftCoastPhin
03-25-2003, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by iceblizzard69
I support Bush, but the Iraq-al Qaeda link is total bull****. Bush uses really bad reasons to say that there is a link. Face it guys, the link isn't there!! Saddam is a Sunni, and Osama is a shi'ite, and Saddam oppresses and hates shi'ites, so why the hell would he have a link with one? I don't think either are religious and they both don't represent Islam, but I think there is no link between al Qaeda and Saddam. I think the war is justified, and definitely the right thing to do, but I don't think there is a link between Iraq and 9/11. Iraq may have liked the events of 9/11, but it doesn't mean they had anything to do with it.


I agree, a link doesn't add up. It's the fact that a madman is building WMD that is enough reason for war.

SWS84
03-25-2003, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
No it wasn't, site a source that says there was one... I'll site one, republican Senator John McCain, who from his own lips said there was no link...

I guess YOU know better than he...


and here is why I think so. Please note: I don't have any real facts on this, this is just some reasons why I think Saddam wasn't behind 9/11.

1. Saddam is not a religious man. Ignore when he talks about Allah etc. he doesn't believe it, but is very smart and uses it when he has to.
2. Bin Laden is very religioius and very charismatic. Saddam would never welcome him in Iraq because of this. I'm not sure which sect he favors, but he could garner a huge following in Iraq if he spent any time there.
3. The two clash because of power. Saddam would not want anyone around that could erode his power base.


Also note: In my opinion Saddam could still be dangerous to our country because of his hatred of America and the humiliation he suffered in Gulf War I. I believe Saddam does have the capability to launch his own terrorist attack against us with any WMD he has or is able to aquire in the future. It is no secret that Saddam has close ties with Russia, if not so much the government , the companies. Russia's economy is still suffering while making the transition to a western type of economy. I believe there is no reason to assume that someone from a legitimate or mafia organization would not sell a portable nuclear weapon to Saddam for some serious cash.
I don't think anyone could really say this is not a possiblity. Right now, we aren't exactly the most popular people in Russia. Those folks probably feel very frustrated because things aren't taking off like they believed and led to believe. IMO, It will take years to build the infranstructure in Russia for them to really benifit from a western economy and I'm sure some wonder why we would invade Iraq and take away the business they so desperately need.
Once again, please note that I don't really have proof that this is the case and I am not an expert on international relations and economies, however, I think this is somewhat plausible and could pose a serious problem for us in the future as long a Saddam remains in power. I could even say as long as Saddam remains alive.
thoughts?


Steve

baccarat
03-25-2003, 08:50 PM
Saddam does has links to Hamas, one of the most radical Islamic terrorist groups, and brags about it in several speeches. Hamas has several training camps in Iraq, but for some reason this is rarely brought up. Just something to think about it.

LeftCoastPhin
03-25-2003, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by booyeah_
Saddam does has links to Hamas, one of the most radical Islamic terrorist groups, and brags about it in several speeches. Hamas has several training camps in Iraq, but for some reason this is rarely brought up. Just something to think about it.


Nobody is saying Sadaam is not a terrorist. The bastard pays $25 grand to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He's a terrorist.

As far as Hamas goes, I might have to retake Terrorist Org 101 again but I thought Hamas is separate from Al Quada. Again, I could be wrong. Who knows?

Sniper
03-25-2003, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Yes "baseless". This country DOES live by "innocent until proven guilty", and until someone actually PROVES wrongdoing, neither Halliburton, nor Cheney can be said to have done anything LEGALLY wrong. I never disputed your right to challenge the ethics involved, but saying that something which has NOT been shown to be in any way, shape, or form illegal is "far worse", than something which was shown in a court of law to be a criminal act, is insipid. You know Snippy, I think you may be the first person I've encountered on these boards who actually DOES deserve the appellation "Commie". You just have too much of the "downtrodden proletariat" lingo rolling off your tongue for that not to be the case.

Why don't you stop lying and quit putting words I never said in my mouth? Go back into this thread and find where I said Cheney and Halliburton are together involved in something illegal. Make sure it is something I actually said. I have been very clear throughout this thread that I think their relationship at this point is unethical.

Commie? Where did you learn how to debate? From the Right-Wingers handbook? I can just read it now:

"When somebody is beating you with logic, facts, and truth make sure you throw out the "Commie" label at them to save face."

As I said before, it is clear to me that you have no interest in an honest debate. You are a disgrace.

iceblizzard69
03-25-2003, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by LeftCoastPhin
Nobody is saying Sadaam is not a terrorist. The bastard pays $25 grand to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He's a terrorist.

As far as Hamas goes, I might have to retake Terrorist Org 101 again but I thought Hamas is separate from Al Quada. Again, I could be wrong. Who knows?

Hamas has no relations to al Qaeda. This may be surprising, but several Hamas members actually denounces the attacks on 9/11. I think Hamas is terrible, but they are different from other terrorist groups, in that their cause is considered legitimate by many countries.

Sniper
03-25-2003, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by iceblizzard69
I support Bush, but the Iraq-al Qaeda link is total bull****. Bush uses really bad reasons to say that there is a link. Face it guys, the link isn't there!! Saddam is a Sunni, and Osama is a shi'ite, and Saddam oppresses and hates shi'ites, so why the hell would he have a link with one? I don't think either are religious and they both don't represent Islam, but I think there is no link between al Qaeda and Saddam. I think the war is justified, and definitely the right thing to do, but I don't think there is a link between Iraq and 9/11. Iraq may have liked the events of 9/11, but it doesn't mean they had anything to do with it.

We have an administration that has endlessly droned on about Al Queda and Saddam Hussein together in the same breath ever since 9/11. As good propagandists, they know it's possible to shape people's thoughts with endless repetition. It is no wonder that many people now believe there is an actual link. :D

Penthos
03-26-2003, 12:14 AM
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart just did a piece on the TOPIC of this thread...

Halluburton was just awarded the contracts to rebuild the oil fields after the war in Iraq at an undisclosed cost... As you recall they were a leading contributor to the Bush Campaign and Cheney was the Former Boss of the company. Jon Stewart said that after first hearing this he felt like someone had just sh!it on his chest...

dolfan06
03-26-2003, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by SWS84

1. Saddam is not a religious man. i would have to think he is religious, look at all of his own people he has sent to the promised land!;)

Peebs
03-26-2003, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
We have an administration that has endlessly droned on about Al Queda and Saddam Hussein together in the same breath ever since 9/11. As good propagandists, they know it's possible to shape people's thoughts with endless repetition. It is no wonder that many people now believe there is an actual link. :D

Exactly....:up: US intelligence (which is a term i use lightly these days) is well aware of who and whom help finance Osama coughcoughSaudiArabiacoughcough...
It ain't Saddam.

Ever see the movie "Wag the Dog"? I keep seeing the movie in my head. Can't find Osama? Bomb the sh&t out of Iraq.....that'll divert the peoples attention......

dolfan06
03-26-2003, 03:09 AM
with his people starving, he was out spending billions of dollars buying arms and ammunition, was he planning a big election party or something, after all of his opposition died of hunger. what the hell is wrong with you people, the man had to be eliminated!:yell:

SWS84
03-26-2003, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by dolfan06
i would have to think he is religious, look at all of his own people he has sent to the promised land!;)

Yea, he is such a swell guy!:lol:


Steve

Sniper
03-26-2003, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Peebs
Exactly....:up: US intelligence (which is a term i use lightly these days) is well aware of who and whom help finance Osama coughcoughSaudiArabiacoughcough...
It ain't Saddam.

Ever see the movie "Wag the Dog"? I keep seeing the movie in my head. Can't find Osama? Bomb the sh&t out of Iraq.....that'll divert the peoples attention......

Excellent point Peebs! This war could very well be a diversion from many important things.

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2003/03/soldier-1.jpg

Barbarian
03-26-2003, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by dolfan06
with his people starving, he was out spending billions of dollars buying arms and ammunition, was he planning a big election party or something, after all of his opposition died of hunger. what the hell is wrong with you people, the man had to be eliminated!:yell:

I agree that Saddm has to be eliminated (or at least removed from power), and that what we are doing over there is definately the right thing. That said, yeah, this whole thing with Halluburton is more than a little fishy.

After we are done taking that evil prick out, then yes, somebody needs to look into this issue with Halluburton to ensure that nothing improper took place.

Is it an issue and a legitimate concern?
Yes it is, especially considering the other fishy deals this administration has cut.

Is it a secondary concern at the moment and do we have bigger issue with taking that sick peice of crap out of power in iraq?
Hell yes it is. Lets deal with the Murdering bastard first, then lets worry about the posible white collar crimes.

Priorities people, it's all about the priorities.

PhinPhan1227
03-26-2003, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
Why don't you stop lying and quit putting words I never said in my mouth? Go back into this thread and find where I said Cheney and Halliburton are together involved in something illegal. Make sure it is something I actually said. I have been very clear throughout this thread that I think their relationship at this point is unethical.

Commie? Where did you learn how to debate? From the Right-Wingers handbook? I can just read it now:

"When somebody is beating you with logic, facts, and truth make sure you throw out the "Commie" label at them to save face."

As I said before, it is clear to me that you have no interest in an honest debate. You are a disgrace.

"Here's a thought... Why doesn't Cheney act in an ethical manner and divest himself of all current and FUTURE business ties with Halliburton? These contracts are a windfall for Halliburton and Cheney should not profit in anyway from it. The Clinton/Whitewater scandal pales in comparison to this and yet you don't see the corporate controlled media covering this. "

You stated that the actions taken by Cheney/Halliburton are far worse than those taken during Whitewater. Whitewater was a criminal activity. Are you actually going to claim that your implication was NOT that the Cheney/Halliburton activity was therfore illegal? As for calling you a "commie", that was more in honor of the fact that I personally have never actually interacted with someone who spouted communist doctrine in his daily conversations. I've seen people use it in jest, but never seriously. I'm sure that when the vast majority of people throw the "commie" label around, it's misdirected at those who are merely liberals, but in your case, how can you even object to it? Taken together, your posts are almost a disertation on the Communist Manifesto as instituted by Lenin. Granted, calling you a Leninist would be more accurate, but most people wouldn't know what I was talking about if I did that.

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Peebs
Exactly....:up: US intelligence (which is a term i use lightly these days) is well aware of who and whom help finance Osama coughcoughSaudiArabiacoughcough...
It ain't Saddam.


It's obvious that we should all just bow down to your superior sources... you seem to have much better information coming to you than the federal intelligence community.... perhaps we should appoint peebs the director of the CIA....

Sniper
03-26-2003, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
"Here's a thought... Why doesn't Cheney act in an ethical manner and divest himself of all current and FUTURE business ties with Halliburton? These contracts are a windfall for Halliburton and Cheney should not profit in anyway from it. The Clinton/Whitewater scandal pales in comparison to this and yet you don't see the corporate controlled media covering this. "

You stated that the actions taken by Cheney/Halliburton are far worse than those taken during Whitewater. Whitewater was a criminal activity. Are you actually going to claim that your implication was NOT that the Cheney/Halliburton activity was therfore illegal?

Let's look at the actual words used in in my quote... the word 'unethical' is very prominently used in my quote, but I don't see the word 'illegal' used at all. If an assumption is the best proof you can come up with, then it just demonstrates your ignorance. My statement is 100% about ethics, but you never seem to let the facts get in your way when you make accusations. And yes, the ethics involved and the potential profit motive in this circumstance do pale in comparison to the Clinton/Whitewater scandal. If you are looking for implications, the only real implication here is you don't read or think very well.


Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
As for calling you a "commie", that was more in honor of the fact that I personally have never actually interacted with someone who spouted communist doctrine in his daily conversations. I've seen people use it in jest, but never seriously. I'm sure that when the vast majority of people throw the "commie" label around, it's misdirected at those who are merely liberals, but in your case, how can you even object to it? Taken together, your posts are almost a disertation on the Communist Manifesto as instituted by Lenin. Granted, calling you a Leninist would be more accurate, but most people wouldn't know what I was talking about if I did that.

Again... nice try with the name calling and the misdirect. It just shows to me and to others that you aren't intelligent enough to debate on a topic using actual facts.

LeftCoastPhin
03-26-2003, 12:44 PM
Peebs: I see what you're trying to say about diversion. However imperfect the U.S intelligence may be, they are still pretty damn good. They ARE still looking for Bin Laden, in fact they just arrested the planner of 9-11. Pretty impressive if you ask me. They will find him, but nobody said it was gonna be easy. They need better coordination with other U.S. agencies, but as far as the front in Afganistan, they are doing a good job looking for him.

PhinPhan1227
03-26-2003, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Let's look at the actual words used in in my quote... the word 'unethical' is very prominently used in my quote, but I don't see the word 'illegal' used at all. If an assumption is the best proof you can come up with, then it just demonstrates your ignorance. My statement is 100% about ethics, but you never seem to let the facts get in your way when you make accusations. And yes, the ethics involved and the potential profit motive in this circumstance do pale in comparison to the Clinton/Whitewater scandal. If you are looking for implications, the only real implication here is you don't read or think very well.



Again... nice try with the name calling and the misdirect. It just shows to me and to others that you aren't intelligent enough to debate on a topic using actual facts.

Whatever Snippy. You want to count on that level of naivete to make your point, there's nothing I can do about it. As for your leanings, the facts are that Leninist dogma rolls off your fingertips more easily than any other poster I've ever seen on a BBS. You want to stay in the closet about it, however, that's your call. But for anyone who has any knowledge of Leninist doctrine, you might as well type your posts in a red font.

Sniper
03-26-2003, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Whatever Snippy. You want to count on that level of naivete to make your point, there's nothing I can do about it. As for your leanings, the facts are that Leninist dogma rolls off your fingertips more easily than any other poster I've ever seen on a BBS. You want to stay in the closet about it, however, that's your call. But for anyone who has any knowledge of Leninist doctrine, you might as well type your posts in a red font.

Go ahead and pout like a baby. We both know that you are doing this because I pointed out your lies and made you look like an ass.

Wharf... since he is libling me as a commie (I'm not) and claiming that I'm using the Communist Manifesto, isn't this a TOS violation?

PhinPhan1227
03-26-2003, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Go ahead and pout like a baby. We both know that you are doing this because I pointed out your lies and made you look like an ass.

Wharf... since he is libling me as a commie (I'm not) and claiming that I'm using the Communist Manifesto, isn't this a TOS violation?


ROTFLMAO!!! That's classic, calling me a child and then running to dad!! Oh that was great Snippy...thanks for making my day....lol.....Sorry...give me a minute to stop laughing....ok....if you or anyone else would like to accuse me of lible, you'll have to prove that I'm stating a purposeful falsehood. You may claim not to embrace the dogma of Lenin, but since your posts are laced with it's teachings, I think that ANY reasonable person might draw the same conclusions that I did. If you walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and look like a duck, you may very well claim to be a beaver, but don't blame everyone else for thinking that you're...well....a duck!... :lol:

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 02:32 PM
I think this has gone beyond the scope of intelligent debate.
Personally, I think the name calling needs to stop....it's no longer about the issues, it's now become personal. Either keep it about the issues, or walk away....

Sniper
03-26-2003, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
ROTFLMAO!!! That's classic, calling me a child and then running to dad!! Oh that was great Snippy...thanks for making my day....lol.....Sorry...give me a minute to stop laughing....ok....if you or anyone else would like to accuse me of lible, you'll have to prove that I'm stating a purposeful falsehood. You may claim not to embrace the dogma of Lenin, but since your posts are laced with it's teachings, I think that ANY reasonable person might draw the same conclusions that I did. If you walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and look like a duck, you may very well claim to be a beaver, but don't blame everyone else for thinking that you're...well....a duck!... :lol:

Making blatant, false accusations about someone is an entirely different matter on these bulletin boards. Like I said... you arguements are one of three things... bandwagon statements, categorical statements, or personal attacks... Thank you for proving me right again.

Like I said MANY times before.. you can't make a decent arguement about anything. Lies, distortions, etc. are the tactics you need to resort to. Do you realize in this entire thread I disproved everything you had said? Talk about a shut out.

It really is pathetic. You are a disgrace to the uniform you once wore. I'm actually ashamed you an American.

PhinPhan1227
03-26-2003, 02:41 PM
Fine with me....ignoring Snippy is easy...."comedy" is hard...:)

PhinPhan1227
03-26-2003, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Making blatant, false accusations about someone is an entirely different matter on these bulliten boards.

Like I said MANY times before.. you can't make a decent arguement about anything. Lies, distortions, etc. are the tactics you need to resort to. Do you realize in this entire thread I disproved everything you had said? Talk about a shut out.

It really is pathetic. You are a disgrace to the uniform you once wore. I'm actually ashamed you can call yourself an American.


Ok...I'll ignore you in a minute. Neither I nor anyone here but you have ANY idea of whether you're a card carrying communist Snippy. But what I and everyone esle DO know is that MANY of your posts have been laced with phrases and ideals that DO come from Communist doctrine in general, and Leninist doctrine in particular. Sorry, but those are the facts. You may NOT be a Leninist Snippy, but all I or anyone else here can go on is what you post, and what you post DOES smell like you have embraced Lenins ideals. As for the rest, you haven't refuted anything I've said Snippy. You've done what you always do which is twist the other persons point, and then refute THAT. I'd accuse you of inventing the Straw Man fallacy, but since I DO know that to be untrue, I'll just say that you've "refined" it. Oh, and before you talk about "disgracing a uniform", why don't you try and find the balls to put one on?

Sniper
03-26-2003, 03:09 PM
Here's my political ideology. So if you think I'm a communist... I'd hate to see how far from center you are:

http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

PhinPhan1227
03-26-2003, 03:18 PM
Lol...I've taken the Libertarians test before...I wound up almost dead center. The funny thing Snippy is that you probably don't even realize how subjective that test is. It's designed to bring people into the Libertarian party, and is as loaded with bias as anything you'd get from the DNC, or GOP. The FACTS Snippy, are that you've espouced views, and used terminology which IS shapred by the Leninists/communists. There's no two ways around that fact. Heck, you probably do believe that you aren't a Leninist, but that doesn't change the fact of what you put forward on this BBS. You can feel free to call me aliar all you want Snippy, but it's truly sad if you're lying to yourself.

Sniper
03-26-2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Lol...I've taken the Libertarians test before...I wound up almost dead center. The funny thing Snippy is that you probably don't even realize how subjective that test is. It's designed to bring people into the Libertarian party, and is as loaded with bias as anything you'd get from the DNC, or GOP. The FACTS Snippy, are that you've espouced views, and used terminology which IS shapred by the Leninists/communists. There's no two ways around that fact. Heck, you probably do believe that you aren't a Leninist, but that doesn't change the fact of what you put forward on this BBS. You can feel free to call me aliar all you want Snippy, but it's truly sad if you're lying to yourself.

I'm sure the test does try to steer people into the Liberitarian Party.

I think it is a big stretch to even suggest that I am a Communist. For starters, I believe in private ownership rather than communal ownership... I believe the function of government is to provide services that people can't do for themselves; nothing more and nothing less. I also believe our society needs to treat people more fairly as I believe it is currently serving the rich elite more than anyone else.

The point is, I don't want anything... Big Business or Big Government interfering with my freedoms.

PhinPhan1227
03-26-2003, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
I'm sure the test does try to steer people into the Liberitarian Party.

I think it is a big stretch to even suggest that I am a Communist. For starters, I believe in private ownership rather than communal ownership... I believe the function of government is to provide services that people can't do for themselves; nothing more and nothing less. I also believe our society needs to treat people more fairly as I believe it is currently serving the rich elite more than anyone else.

The point is, I don't want anything... Big Business or Big Government interfering with my freedoms.


I'm sure you do. But you also seem to feel that corporations exist only to "exploit the masses". You also seem to feel that there's a ruling "elite" here in the US. Lastly, while you claim that the role of government is to provide only the minimal srvices required, you're also completely in favor of heavy government regulation of business, and the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. I mean honeslty, how can you think that your NOT in favor of bigger government when you're strongly in favor of more Socialization in America? You may very well think that you are Centrist, but the views you've expressed on this BBS are STRONGLY left wing. Maybe you just made them for effect, but that's what's been conveyed. Oh, and while we're at it, I repeat....before you accuse someone of disgracing the uniform, you should try one on. Otherwise, stick to what you have ANY chance of knowing anything about.

Sniper
03-26-2003, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
I'm sure you do. But you also seem to feel that corporations exist only to "exploit the masses". You also seem to feel that there's a ruling "elite" here in the US. Lastly, while you claim that the role of government is to provide only the minimal srvices required, you're also completely in favor of heavy government regulation of business, and the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. I mean honeslty, how can you think that your NOT in favor of bigger government when you're strongly in favor of more Socialization in America? You may very well think that you are Centrist, but the views you've expressed on this BBS are STRONGLY left wing. Maybe you just made them for effect, but that's what's been conveyed. Oh, and while we're at it, I repeat....before you accuse someone of disgracing the uniform, you should try one on. Otherwise, stick to what you have ANY chance of knowing anything about.

No... I don't think corporation exist to exploit the masses. They exist to make a profit. I think business tends to get the upper hand in many cases and needs to be regulated.

Absolutely do I favor the redistribution of wealth because I think this is necessary for a healthy economy. In the free makets, I believe money tends to flow upward. A belief in a redistribution of wealth doesn't make someone a communist. Technically, capitolism is a form of wealth redistribution.

I'm for sensible government.

As for trying on the uniform... I don't need to in order to make that statment... The people I know in uniform are people of honor and integrity... I'm sorry but I don't sense those qualities in you.

PhinPhan1227
03-26-2003, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
No... I don't think corporation exist to exploit the masses. They exist to make a profit. I think business tends to get the upper hand in many cases and needs to be regulated.

Absolutely do I favor the redistribution of wealth because I think this is necessary for a healthy economy. In the free makets, I believe money tends to flow upward. A redistribution of wealth doesn't make someone a communist. Technically, capitolism is a form of wealth redistribution.

I'm for sensible government.

As for trying on the uniform... I don't need to in order to make that statment... The people I know in uniform are people of honor and integrity... I'm sorry but I don't sense those qualities in you.


First of all "redistribution of wealth" implies government redistribution of wealth. Capitalism is idealy the building of wealth. If the governemtn is redistributing wealth, you're once
again moving towards that Socialist state you love so much. Lastly, as regards the uniform, you've proven my point to an extent. The quality of soldiers as human being runs the gamut from guys I'd be honored to take a bullit for to guys I'd have to really think twice about. Putting on the uniform doesn't make you a saint, and I won't even say that everyone joins up for noble reasons. There were plenty of people I served with who were there strictly as a job. Heck, some of the people going over seas right now are probably in shock because they never honestly believed they would actually be put in danger. They just thought that they were learning a trade, and maybe getting money for school. That's not all of them, or even a majority, but it's a solid minority. Had you served, you'd probably know this. Instead, you choose to throw around words like "honesty" and "integrity" like you have some concept of the meaning. My asserion to you is that you won't even be honest enough with yourself to admit that you're political leanings are towards a Socialist state. How honest is that? And how much integrity can a person have who makes accusations like that when he's safely hiding behind his computer? "Integrity" Snippy? You have no concept of the word.

Sniper
03-26-2003, 04:55 PM
You certainly showed me. Yes, I have no integrity... I am the one who has blatantly lied in my posts.

PhinPhan1227
03-26-2003, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
You certainly showed me. Yes, I have no integrity... I am the one who has blatantly lied in my posts.


See...was that so hard to admit? Tell the truth, you feel much better now, don't you?

PressCoverage
08-22-2008, 05:58 PM
I guess you missed what I typed. Do you think these ppl make it easy to be linked together especially after what took place on 9/11? Honestly what world do you think these ppl are living in? I can tell you they do not live in a world that has laws and a government that provides a safe place for them to live, if they did odds are they wouldn't be doing what they are doing.

Please do not ever forget who and what you are dealing with. The LINK was established, some ppl just don't want to realize or believe it, for political reasons I might add. Just like some thought there was no reason to go to war with Iraq, for political reasons I might add.

I doubt you will ever support or respect him, but after time goes by you will understand he knows what he's doing. He's not this fool that some try and make him out to be. That's their wishful thinking on their part, sad but true.

Oliver...

Ooops. Dead wrong then, dead wrong since, dead wrong now...