Don't Close Your Blinds!"

n-Track Studio Discussion Forum
41
Quote (DrGuitar @ Oct. 23 2004,12:53)
Quote (pastorbrian @ Oct. 23 2004,11:34)
jeremy-
are you saying that becaue terrorists hate us...we need to look inward and see what we did to offend them?
To discuss terms with them?


I'm sure you mean well, but wow...


My guess is that you are actually a Pastor (from earlier posts of yours). I'm amazed at your hawkish stance on war. Do you not believe in the Bible? Doesn't the Bible state that when struck, turn the other cheek (offer the other cheek). Doesn't the Bible state to love thy neighbor, even those that would hate you.

I'm no Scholar my self there Dr. And as I stated earlier,(for those obviously didn't read the thread.) I do not condone killing of any kind even the assasination option--and certainly not the mass destuction that befell out world neighbors, Iraq.
It seems alot of people consider this a neccisary evil, but I for one don't see it that way. --just trying to come up with alternative solutions.
Ok maybe the negotiating thing is way off. It's seems we're definitly beyond any reasonable solution at this point...
And pastor I am aware of history, though I may mis-quote things especially names and dates, but my ideas remain constant. I know all about the holy war that has been going on for thousands of years..blah blah blah...
I know alot of this has to do with Isreal, and their claim on land. The arab nations belief in thier God, there persuing claim on the same land. Part of the reason why we are dispised by them at least is our siding with Isreal. They know they can never defeat Isreal, especially with us backing them, and the UN. So some of them are resorting to drastic measure's (terrorism) to underming our eco~structure and weaken us. Am I up to date on this?
But listen, if we were both truly worshiping our God properly, showing all the compassion, of Christ, the wisdom of Mohamed, and the teaching of our Lord. Then we would find both of our God's are actually the same one. With the same wisdom, the same compassion, the same understanding and grace. We have to emulate the teachings of our Lord through actions. If half of the Americans who claim to be Christain really followed the teachings Christ, the rest of the world would see us in a different light. The arab fanatics, as well.
After all we would be their enemy's if we operated on the principles of right and wrong, rather than what's more profitable. If both side we're humbled to the level my Good Book teaches we might find we are more alike than different in our belief's.
I really and ashamed some time's to get lumped in with all the crazy bible toatin' shock gun shooting" In the Name of Christ" fanatics. Perpatuating hate is not the answere.
Fight fire with fire?--not even in the Bible.
Again guy's these are just my opinions, and subject to change at any time, without notice.
Have fun picking apart my dates and times!....what ever get's your jollies...
Until then,
Kepp shinin'
jerm




:D
42

Jeremy,

My post was for the Pastor, not you. I was angry at his flippant post about your knowledge (or lack ) of history and war. I should have made myself clearer.

Again, sorry,

Mike

43
Quote (DrGuitar @ Oct. 23 2004,20:27)
Jeremy,

My post was for the Pastor, not you. I was angry at his flippant post about your knowledge (or lack ) of history and war. I should have made myself clearer.

Again, sorry,

Mike

Likewise dock,
Mine was meant for him, and I should have thanks you as well for agreeing in part with me.. I souldn't have put your name at the beggining....apology not needed but excepted regardless....
44

Jeremy,

With all respect, the point is that assumptions can be dangerous. And the “fact” that you (among others) seem to be incapable of differentiating your assumptions from actual facts is symptomatic of the problem.

Your leaders tell you that Fundamentalist Muslims hate you because of your freedoms when that isn’t the case at all. Fundamentalist Muslims couldn’t care less about your freedoms - that is simply a ploy to paint you on the side of “good” and them on the side of “evil”.

Fundamentalist Muslims resent America being present in what they see as their region of the world - America’s power and influence (ie. support of Israel). THAT is the real reason for their animosity. They seek, through terrorist action, to undermine your resolve to be there and to support Israel. They couldn’t care less how many cars you own or how big your house is or what you eat for dinner.

45
America's power and influence (ie. support of Israel). THAT is the real reason for their animosity. They seek, through terrorist action, to undermine your resolve to be there and to support Israel. They couldn't care less how many cars you own or how big your house is or what you eat for dinner.


No, they do care what car we drive or what we have for dinner. They are pissed that in our meddling in their country they cannot have the same car and house we do. A royal family or other puppet ruler gets all the cars and houses. They are poor and are stuck with no jobs. So it is both Israel and desperation/poverty that causes such things. I suppose they are pissed that our women have the freedom to not wear burquas too.... but the freedom thing, naw, that isn;t the true crux of it. Jealousy/envy and feeling imposed/intruded upon is.
46
Quote (BillClarke @ Oct. 24 2004,00:33)
Jeremy,

With all respect, the point is that assumptions can be dangerous. And the "fact" that you (among others) seem to be incapable of differentiating your assumptions from actual facts is symptomatic of the problem.

ner.

Ok bill, you've got some good points.
I agree with the support of Isreal as being part of the 'cause of resentment.(which I think I mentioned somewhere back there...pg 4?)
But I still think our presence in the region is more monitarely motivated than simply tryin' to "Do the Right Thing" by supporting Isreal.
I also agree that having accurate facts are important, and a house built on sand is shure to crumble. I know I sometimes take the short road to get to a long point, without stopping to make shure I'm in the right state along the way...tehe

Hey but it shure makes for intersting reading on the crapper!

Keep shinin' bill


jerm
47
Quote (phoo @ Oct. 23 2004,18:32)
We took them out for all the reasons that were given before. Everyone just assumed a chem or bio attack from was imminent.

Exactly! You're saying assumptions are good enough reason to kill people? If those assumption turn out to be false then what? Still justified? How about "the assumptions were wrong and w rush to war". If we really wanted to get rid the bastard we didn't need to take the whole country down in the process. What's the CIA for anyway?

Why aren't we bombing these guys? http://www.korea-dpr.com/

No bucks for these guys by chance? http://www.halliburton.com
No, I'm not saying that. Let me clarify. I was saying that everyone outside the decision makers id D.C. assumed the President was saying an attack was imminent. It was not.

The assumptions were not entirely wrong. He did have them (WMD's) and he did use them. Why take chance that the ####### my try to sneak one by us when the intelligence of every country that has some including the UN says they (WMD's) were there. Look, your position is fair enough. It's like I've been saying all along it all depends on who you believe. I don't expect to change anyone's mind. I just want to make sure the RIGHT (conservative not necessarily correct) side is stated.

One at a time big boy. Your question about North Korea is an interesting one. We have no evidence (unlike Iraq) that North Korea has nukes. Also North Korea has not used nukes, chemical or biological agents against its neighboors. They are negotiating albeit not very well. Do you see/understand the difference? It's the same about Iran. We don't have the evidence we did in Iraq. Plenty of people have been wrongfully conviceted throughout history and in our recent. I don't see anyone rushing out to fire district attorneys or F'd up judges. In Saddam's case he wasn't wrongfully convicted. I agree it's a tragedy that so many people had to suffer and die. The appearance of a rush to war was that, an appearance. The rush to war on our part was more than 12 years in the making. As far as really getting the Bastard. It took over 100,000 troops how long to find him? What makes you so absolutely certain the CIA (the ones who had all the F'd up intelligence) were/are capable of such an action? Everyone wants an easy/fast solution for everything.

It is that premise that the brainwashing liberals in washington are trying to ram down our throat. This last statement is a bit of propagandist ranting and may or may not be true, I just don't know. :laugh:
48
Quote (IDOIT_SLAPPER @ Oct. 23 2004,17:54)
Hahahaha :laugh: Truth Seeker, registered or unregistered, you're a hoot :)

Too many people are talking about curing the symptoms while ignoring the underlying disease. It's a little like discussing cough drops, debating which brand will cure your lung cancer.

Why are large parts of the world p*ssed off with the USA's role in the middle east (and elsewhere) to begin with ?
Feel free to see things in a longer perspective than the last two Gulf incidents.

Discuss.

Thankyou for the compliment. I'm glad you find my posts hootful. :laugh:

Everyone knows this struggle is millenia old. That's kind of my point. Get these people wanting tv's, stereos, cartoons of dancing allahs, I really don't care. If democracy spreads, maybe, just maybe they might start changing the way they have viewed each other. Maybe they'll start looking for some way to "reason" with each other instead of attacking. I'm not foolish enough to think this will happen overnight either. I am hopeful it will improve over time.

As to why people are pissed off at the US. That's a good question. It's not quite so obvious to me. We did return control of Europe after WW2, but still kept troops there. We have supported Israel, which most arabs hate. We are constantly sticking our nose in where it may or may not belong. What about jealosy? Why do we play music. First, hopefully we enjoy it. Second, we are hoping to hit it big and be able to buy fast cars, big houses, etc... How many of you have said to yourself, "I know I can make better music than that band"? Why? Because you are jealous. If you were making better music, you should have a record deal and you wouldn't be here. It's partly the same thing in the world. America has the most money, the best equiped army and is not afraid to play show-and-tell.
49
Quote (Guest @ Oct. 24 2004,02:21)
But I still think our presence in the region is more monitarely motivated than simply tryin' to "Do the Right Thing" by supporting Isreal.

Perhaps.

I've often wondered how much the significance of the State of Israel in the thinking of the "Religious Right" has to do with it, as well.

But whether the motivation is altruistic, profit-based, or dependent upon scriptural interpretation - the fact remains that America is present and influential in the region. And so long as that is true, America will be a target for these terrorists.

If America wishes (for whatever reasons) to continue to exert influence there, I think it is in America's best interests to take that into consideration and not be misled by the "hatred of our freedoms" rhetoric. Because it directly influences how America responds to the threat.
50
Quote (Guest @ Oct. 24 2004,02:14)
No, they do care what car we drive or what we have for dinner. They are pissed that in our meddling in their country they cannot have the same car and house we do. A royal family or other puppet ruler gets all the cars and houses. They are poor and are stuck with no jobs. So it is both Israel and desperation/poverty that causes such things. I suppose they are pissed that our women have the freedom to not wear burquas too.... but the freedom thing, naw, that isn;t the true crux of it. Jealousy/envy and feeling imposed/intruded upon is.

I don't think there is any question that poverty and lack of opportunity can be used to fan the fires of hatred by unscrupulous leaders; Hitler demonstrated that quite convincingly in the 30s.

But the underlying reason that such leaders would want to fan those fires is because they object to what they perceive as unwarranted interference in their region.
51
Quote (BillClarke @ Oct. 24 2004,11:07)
Quote (Guest @ Oct. 24 2004,02:21)
But I still think our presence in the region is more monitarely motivated than simply tryin' to "Do the Right Thing" by supporting Isreal.

Perhaps.

I've often wondered how much the significance of the State of Israel in the thinking of the "Religious Right" has to do with it, as well.

But whether the motivation is altruistic, profit-based, or dependent upon scriptural interpretation - the fact remains that America is present and influential in the region. And so long as that is true, America will be a target for these terrorists.

If America wishes (for whatever reasons) to continue to exert influence there, I think it is in America's best interests to take that into consideration and not be misled by the "hatred of our freedoms" rhetoric. Because it directly influences how America responds to the threat.

Good point's Bill.
I'll be sittin' on the crapper readin' the threads in here once again. No that it's seem the tone has returned to civilized communication.
52

Found this opinion on a blog about imminent threat…
<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Imminent Threat? Who thought we were going to war because Iraq was an imminent threat? Everyone agreed Iraq posed no imminent threat. We clearly went to war because Bush didn’t like Hussein and on 9/11/01 found an excuse to do something about it. Just about every other reason he’s given has been found to be an overstatement if not an outright lie:

“Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons” but still no weapons have been found. “Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program” but at best the evidence shows that the program was dormant. “Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon” but again the best evidence we have to day shows no weapons and only a static capability to produce non-nuclear weapons if even that.

The thing is, if the Bushies had said “let’s go to war to free Iraq from their horrible dictator and bring democracy to the middle east,” it would have sounded far too much like Hitler or the Russians or even the Brits of centuries past in conquering nations just because we don’t like them. Every other country in the middle east (and most in Asia) would be worried that they were next. So Bush tried to make something palatable about why we were invading Iraq and therefore what the rest of the world could do to avoid invasion. Which would have been great, if the fig leaf were truthful enough that anyone believed it. Instead, it was seen as a sham and a lie and now every other country in the middle east (and most in Asia) are worried that they could be next.

Posted by: Simon on October 22, 2003 03:42 PM
53

Phoo, the argument you post really goes to the heart of the democrats argument. The problem has been shown to be faulty intelligence, not necessarily the President’s decision making. I would say, the President wanted attack Iraq. You might even say #### bent on it. But the reasons he gave for going were based on some faulty intelligence and historical documents based on knowledge gained from previous weapons inspections.

I don’t think we attacked Iraq based on an imminent threat but on the potential threat. As I have stated before this really comes down to who you believe and how you weigh the facts. I arrived at my opinion from the perspective of threat potential. I understand why someone could arrive at the opposite conclusion if looking at it from the imminent threat perspective. I work for the Federal Government in a legal capacity (thought not a lawyer). One thing I’ve learned is that words are chosen very carefuly. I vaguely recall the words Bush was using at the time were structured in such a way that (to someone not listening very very closely) could think that an imminent threat was there. Maybe the words were structured that way on purpose. This may be part of the problem people have with “the Bushies”. Personnaly I don’t. But the actual wording meant (if I recall correctly) there was a potential threat not an imminent threat.

Looking at some of the information regarding the oil for food program where Saddam is believed to have been manipulating things. It really is starting to show that he intended to reconstitute his weapons programs or atleast get the world off his back, then restart the WMD thing. Maybe not this year or next, but certainly in the near future. With his track record it was better to take him out (one could say) before things get like North Korea where it would be extremely difficult and much more costly (in lives lost) to fix. There again, the hub of terrorism is closer to Iraq than North Korea which is pretty well isolated. Iran is pretty much trapped between Iraq and Afghanistan so the pressure on that country will be building as time goes by.

54
I don't think we attacked Iraq based on an imminent threat but on the potential threat.

Selective memory can betray anyone. The fact is that Bush and his minions stated many times (before the Iraq war) that Iraq was an imminant threat and that they had the capability of building a nuclear weapon in 6 to 9 months or less. He also stated that he (Bush) believed that Iraq had WMD in the form of biological and chemical weapons that they could use at anytime (read: now).

It is interesting that selective memory does not allow those who support Bush to remember these fear tactics used by the adminiistration to push America into war.

Mike


PS...

It will be interesting to see if anyone will remember Cheney's fear threat that the (inevitable) terrorist attack will happen on American soil because of Kerry. What if Bush is in office at the time. Will it still be because of Kerry or will that signal that we need to attack North Korea or any other country that we feel needs "American values"?

Time will tell.....
55
Phoo, the argument you post really goes to the heart of the democrats argument. The problem has been shown to be faulty intelligence, not necessarily the President's decision making. I would say, the President wanted attack Iraq. You might even say #### bent on it. But the reasons he gave for going were based on some faulty intelligence and historical documents based on knowledge gained from previous weapons inspections.
Read Clarke's book - it's all there. Of course, Bush wanted to invade Iraq - he had a personal vendetta against Saddam - that's pretty clear to me.

The admin said immediate threat & then argued that that did not mean immenient threat - go figure. The MAIN point is that the admin had one reason that it gave to us, based on bad intelligence, and then charged it's rhetoric about why we went to the war in the first place.

And the other point that everyone should be livid about is, that Bush, in 3 d*mn years has still not fixed the intelligence community. He initially balked against the 9/11 commission which has said the intel community has still not been fixed. What the h*ll has Bush done for 3 years. People should be LIVID!!!
56
One thing I've learned is that words are chosen very carefuly. I vaguely recall the words Bush was using at the time were structured in such a way that (to someone not listening very very closely) could think that an imminent threat was there. Maybe the words were structured that way on purpose.

Remember, it depends on what the meaning of the word IS is.

Bush supporters always point out that Bush says what he means and means what he says (Bushizms not withstanding). "to someone not listening very very closely" ?? No hardly -- To anyone listening. To draw any other conclusion at the moment he said those words would be to totally misunderstand what he was getting at. Put his words into context of the time, his inflections, and motives which he stated in the same speech, and there is no way to take them any other way. Only when the spoken words are changed to text and printed later, minus the context - the emotion of the moment - can they be bent to mean something other than what he originally meant.

Politics at it's best (or worst).
57

I agree with everything you guys just said. But, (and I’ll admit) maybe selective memory is playing a part. If you don’t remember something with absolute clarity, the mind can be tricky. I would also say that maybe I’m not the one with selective memory. I am sure I remember thinking this could be taken to mean other than what was actually said. I also thought it was a bit of Clintonesque trickery (depends on the definition of is, is). Definately politics at its best.

Much like Kerry trying to oppose the war yet be for it. It is actually very clever how he has been walking the fence so carefully. I also don’t agree that Kerry is a flip-flopper. You could say that it was awfully convenient how he voted against the body armor issue. But then again I would be drawing a conclusion without foundation. So I haven’t, and that’s why I think Kerry would also do just as well as as President. But he has always been consitent in how he has only opposed the way Bush went to war, and I agree that is a valid argument.

As far as fixing the intelligence community. There are hundreds of thousands of government employees and I’m sure some have been working very hard since 9/11 to that end. Bush can’t do everything, and I’m sure if Kerry wins he won’t fix everything either. It’s just politics, so why get mad at all.

Keep this in mind. Even if Kerry gets elected, the same people will be working in the government. The only things that change are at the executive level. They can make general policy changes and maybe even implement a few programs or program changes. But overall, the way government works will not be changed much unless congress gets off its ass and makes the changes. The ones you should actually be mad at is congress. They are the ones that make the laws. The executive branch merely makes regulations from those laws necessary to enforce them.

I for one am strongly considering voting strictly democrat for senate and house seats. This republican congress seems to be the worst spenders of all time. Back when Gingrich was running things, congress had potential. It seems as though the republicans have grown complacent and will put anything thru as long as they get a cut for themselves or their constituants.

Maybe a change in congressional leadership would effect a bigger change. Who knows?

58

And if anyone doubted my assertion about potential threat vs. imminent threat, here is an article from macheteoftruth.com supporting my claim. I also just read that Kerry first used the word “imminent”, not the President. He used the word in a speech on the senate floor during on October 9, 2004. So, if anyone misled america and the world about the war in Iraq it was John Kerry.

BEGIN QUOTE

Refutation of Democrats Imminent!
"Imminent: about to occur; impending."

As a principle cog in their ongoing trashing of President Bush’s Iraq policy, the democrats continue to insist that President Bush said, in his State of the Union Address, that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the security of the US. Oops, they’ve sinced downgraded that accusation (apparently, one of them actually read the transcript of the speech) to President Bush “implied” that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the security of the US. The strongest part of this implication, according to the President’s democrat critics, consisted of a statement by the President that British Intelligence believed that Iraq could launch a chemical or nuclear attack on the UK in as little time as 45 minutes, so awesome were Saddam’s capabilities. [Note: To see more on this topic, read the post on British weapons expert and former UN Inspector David Kelley posted 1-21-2004.] The democrats and liberals say that it was clear that the President, and later, his advisers in various speeches and television appearances, were pointedly painting a picture of an imminent threat. Anericans, they contend, were deceived about the reason for going to war, for, as we all know now, the threat from Iraq was not imminent.

I’d like to go a step further than others have in defending the President. I’d like to direct you to the definition of imminent, posted above the body of this text. And I contend that the democrats and liberals who are making the argument detailed in the previous paragraph simply do not know the meaning of the word imminent. And that, even if everything they are saying the President said and did were true, everything they are saying his advisers said and did were true, everything they are saying anyone in the administration said and did were true, there still was no contention by President Bush or his administration that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the security of the US. Not by the definition of imminent you see above, for imminent, as defined by any dictionary, means “about to occur.” In order to make the case that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat, the President would have had to contend that Saddam Hussein was about to launch a chemical attack on the United States, in other words, that an attack was “about to occur.” Simply having the capability to launch such an attack in 45 minutes, 90 minutes, two days or two seconds makes one a potential threat, not an imminent threat. And that’s exactly how the President characterized Saddam. As a potential threat. And that’s exactly what Saddam Hussein used to be. A potential threat. Which makes the key phrase then, not “imminent threat” but “used to be.” And an accurate rendering of the Bush Iraqi policy would read thusly:

Saddam Hussein used to be a potential threat to the security of the United States of America. Thanks to President Bush and the coalition, and the heroic men and women in the armed services, this threat was eliminated before it was able to evolve into an imminent one.

The refutation of the democrat position used to be imminent; now it is truth.

END QUOTE

One word can make a difference. Don’t forget Saddam was building missle technology under the nose of the UN. These missles (while barely) could travel further than THE UN RESOLUTION allowed.

59

Presidential speech before Iraq war

This is a transcript of President Bush’s speech (posted on the whitehouse government site) prior to the Iraqi war. He clearly infers that Saddam Hussain could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. He also is clear that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and the ability to launch against close neighbors. He further infers that they could possibly launch against American soil.

I remember that this was the speech that turned me into believing that we had no choice. That good Americans were going to die to stop an attack (read:IMMINANT) against the USA.

As we now know, there were no WMD. They didn’t even find more than a handful of rockets (I don’t believe any were functioning).

Here is where it gets really twisted though. During the speech, he lays the ground work for when no WMD would be found. He states,
<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi’a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.


Here he states his true agenda. The one he falls back on when he is found out to be an exaggerator par excellence.

Did he know he was lieing to the American people and the world when he made this speech? I don’t know. The patriot in me doesn’t want to believe it. But I believe the weightiness of the remarks,

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof – the smoking gun – that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.


was meant to convince us that a threat was real and imminant no matter what “is” means…

Mike
60

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - You guys are not looking far enough back in time - Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and their crew are the real force here - go look at the stuff at Project for a New American Century. Anyone who doubts that they were looking for an excuse to hit Iraq just hasn’t been paying attention. Even Woodward’s book misses this. Somewhere in the archives at www.truthout.com there is a nice summary treatment of it, however.

Pax Americana!