Tidal Fish Forum banner
1 - 20 of 80 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,184 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
He compares the Bush/US policy to the Nazis and being a Hungarian who saw it first hand in WWII should know better. Just typical rhetoric from one of the Democratic Party's top supporters and Moveon.org. This is sickening ****........:(

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,559 Posts
I watched the entire clip. While Soros lived during the Nazi uprising as well as much of the foundation of Communism his comparison results in his not getting his point across.

I believe that GWB and Co. have used fear as their primary vehicle to power. After 9/11 Bush felt he had a free hand to do anything he wished under the guise of Homeland Security, expenditures, and taking this country into a ill conceived, poorly planned and untimately disasterous war. Remember he barely won the election and without the electorial college would not have been President. A very weak beginning...

It was Goebbles, Hitlers propaganda minister, who coined the terms, "If you tell a lie loud enough and long enough the majority of the people will believe it." The bulwark against this happening in the USA is the freedom of the press....in pamphlet form in the 1700 and in newspapers, magazines, books and much less so on TV and radio today. I say much less so as these two media are time constricted and controlled ie. Limbaugh, Imus etc censor callers and can cut them off....in TV there are time constraints which do not allow a full discussion of the subjects. Even the serious TV news shows pick who will appear and in so doing can bias the results....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,853 Posts
How is his assertion in that interview untrue?

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Hermann Wilhelm Göring
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,038 Posts
When I was in grad. school, one of my professors told me a story of being scuttled out of Germany during the rise of Hitler. He had the same pacifist mentality and even told me he has psychological issues with seeing anyone in a uniform, police included. I believe what he told me as a basis for his beliefs because he had no axe to grind. However, he told me he sees no need for war-ever.

I do not believe W is using fear to create war for no good reason. I do believe he may be using fear to justify the steps he has taken to prevent another attack. I believe he, as would I, would rather be criticized for going too far than not far enough and allowing another attack. Don't you think those 3000 people in the towers would have preferred BC and early W to do more? None of you have told me yet how this fear has had any direct affect on your lives either.

CZ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,038 Posts
When did you ask?
I posted a good while back in response to the supposed civil rights violations that W was incurring because of his war on terror. Much like my question of "Why don't lib's admit to being lib's?", no one wanted to directly respond.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,853 Posts
When I was in grad. school, one of my professors told me a story of being scuttled out of Germany during the rise of Hitler. He had the same pacifist mentality and even told me he has psychological issues with seeing anyone in a uniform, police included. I believe what he told me as a basis for his beliefs because he had no axe to grind. However, he told me he sees no need for war-ever.

I do not believe W is using fear to create war for no good reason. I do believe he may be using fear to justify the steps he has taken to prevent another attack. I believe he, as would I, would rather be criticized for going too far than not far enough and allowing another attack. Don't you think those 3000 people in the towers would have preferred BC and early W to do more? None of you have told me yet how this fear has had any direct affect on your lives either.

CZ
Does it have to have a direct impact on me personally in order for me to justify my outrage? Is it not acceptable that I am ashamed of how this nation has chosen to justify and conduct its war in Iraq? Are my concerns for impact that these actions have had on our national security and economic well being both now and in the future unjustified? I doubt it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,038 Posts
My question, before, was how have these supposed civil rights violation that the W naysayers are crying about affected them? I am not happy with how they have conducted the war either and it does bother me that some soldiers died unnecessarily because of that. But that is on W squarely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,853 Posts
My question, before, was how have these supposed civil rights violation that the W naysayers are crying about affected them?

My answer is that it does not have to. It is enough that the W. administration is justifying actions that could affect our civil rights in the future.

I am not happy with how they have conducted the war either and it does bother me that some soldiers died unnecessarily because of that. But that is on W squarely.

I think that some of the W. supporters here would disagree with you. The burden also lies on the congress people who voted to go to war, the people who re-elected them, and now the congress that can cut funding and bring the troops home. Additionally the burden lies on the propaganda machine that continues to crank out the spin (FOX, Rush, etc.) When the sh*t eventually hits the fan a few heads will roll, but not nearly enough.
:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,559 Posts
At what point did Iraq threaten or attack the USA....???

I do believe he may be using fear to justify the steps he has taken to prevent another attack. I believe he, as would I, would rather be criticized for going too far than not far enough and allowing another attack. Don't you think those 3000 people in the towers would have preferred BC and early W to do more? None of you have told me yet how this fear has had any direct affect on your lives either.

CZ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,038 Posts
Etou

I can not answer that question for sure. I do believe they were harboring terrorists, but whether or not that would have ever affected us I don;t know. We probably would have been better off treating the Iraq situation with special forces, but that is all in hindsight. I think to dwell on that question now is just playing politics. The dems. hold the pursestrings and can end it tomorrow. If they believe we need to be out and are letting soldiers get killed unnecessarily, they are now, at least, equally to blame.

I believe the war was started because of bad intelligence. If W, et. al. knew better and did it anyway, they should be impeached-Congress too. If all you can add to the debate is that W got us into a war, then you too are only playing politics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,559 Posts
CZ: To deny that there are Muslims that consider the attack upon Afganistan as well as Iraq a attack of infidels upon the religion of Islam would indicate a lack of understanding of both the Koran as well as Islamic beliefs. From the Islamic point of view (by some not all) this is a Jihad....a Holy War.

As a Jihad all Muslims so believing, whether in the USA, the Phillipines, Indonesia, Chesneya (you get my point) are "terrorists" as defined by the USA.

As a majority of those who attacked the USA on 9/11 were citizens of Saudi Arabia and the recent bombing in the market killing 300 were also citizens of Saudi Arabia would there not be more reason to attack Saudi Arabia than Iraq? If not why not?

When we discovered that the intelligence was faulty and that there were in fact no 1. stockpiles of WMD and 2. No concrete plans to attack the USA and 3. No delivery systerms capable of attacking the USA then the USA had lost its mission purpose. To extend the mission to eliminate the "loose cannon" Saddam (who GWB's father as well as Rumsfeld felt was a USA asset) from the region was, while argueable at least defenseable.

To believe that the installation of democracy in the Islamic world is to not comprehend Islam (and I am no expert). Islam is not only the religion of the mid-east but it is the governmental foundation. Certainly the degree of involvement varies but substantially my statement is true. Look around the Mid-east..including Saudi Arabia. If democracy is so desireable then why has not the various USA Presidents thrown out the House of Saud (whose human rights record equals that of some of the worst) and installed a democracy?

Finally for Bush to use the lack of WMD as a basis for joking at the National Press Conference was a impeachable offense in my estimation. The families of the military dead should have demanded that impeachment be started by Congress. That is my opinion and the reasons for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,038 Posts
With the handful of books I have read since the start of the war, I have learned a few things that I did not know prior. The Muslim jihadist are hell bent on killing whether we are in Iraq or not. They have always considered our presence their as well as the ass whipping they had taken from Israel (twice) as reason for Jihad. The extremists believe they should dominate the world and will never tolerate our "liberal" demeanor. Why else would they be stirring violence in other areas where we have not established air bases, etc.?

I am largely in agreement with a lot of whta you say, except for the impeachment part.

However, would you agree that leaving now could cause far greater problems? and if so, that is why I believe the debate needs to turn to the best possible scenario now, not whose fault it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,559 Posts
The best possible senario to me is to:
1. Get out. The shi'a and su'ni will battle it out until someone emerges just as Saddam did.
2. Any other country who begins to emass troops on the Iraqi border will be bombed into camel poop by the USA, after posting warnings to that effect. NO TROOPS.
3. Sit down with the House of Saud and tell them that 1. They will furnish oil to the USA at a pre-negotiated fair and equitable price. If they do not and side with OPEC then the USA will leave them on their own. The same thing applies to them as it does to Iraq...no outside interference or bombs away. The Saud's are no fools...without the USA they are so much sword play with the Wahabbis (sic) as well as devout Muslims everywhere.
4. The USA gets it "holier than thou" head out of its nether regions and negotiate and contract for oil with whomever will give us the best price.
5. Build more nuclear plants with the money we are wasting rattling our sword universally...while countries like Venezuela go communist.

Just my opinion and subject to change by better info or a plan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,877 Posts
Blah Blah BlaHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

You wanna loose do it on your own.

17 resolutions the guy defied then probably flew out the nukes before we got there. How quickly we forget.

Frankly I can still smell the burned innocent flesh from the Pentagon. Get some guts before it's an islamic radical forcing you to slit your own childrens throats. Oh wait you're not a Christian, that's reserved for Christians.

Good thing they cured aids......:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,184 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
The best possible senario to me is to:
1. Get out. The shi'a and su'ni will battle it out until someone emerges just as Saddam did.
2. Any other country who begins to emass troops on the Iraqi border will be bombed into camel poop by the USA, after posting warnings to that effect. NO TROOPS.
3. Sit down with the House of Saud and tell them that 1. They will furnish oil to the USA at a pre-negotiated fair and equitable price. If they do not and side with OPEC then the USA will leave them on their own. The same thing applies to them as it does to Iraq...no outside interference or bombs away. The Saud's are no fools...without the USA they are so much sword play with the Wahabbis (sic) as well as devout Muslims everywhere.
4. The USA gets it "holier than thou" head out of its nether regions and negotiate and contract for oil with whomever will give us the best price.
5. Build more nuclear plants with the money we are wasting rattling our sword universally...while countries like Venezuela go communist.

Just my opinion and subject to change by better info or a plan.
OK i'll bite-
1. Shia & sunnis are just puppets of Al Qaeda and Iran, you missed the mark.
2. The US wont bomb because they wont amass troops they will do what they are doing here , INFILTRATE. Israel may bomb, most likely scenario.
3. The US will never, ever negotiate those kind of deals unless
a. their arse is ready to get invaded or
b. we can absolute get all our oil from someone else, 100%.
The Sauds fund the wahabbis, where you been, read Onward Muslim Soldier.
4. OK i'll buy that.
5. OK, but we need to develop alternative energy sources beyond nukes, unless you can fit in a car, fusion, anyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,559 Posts
The Shia constitute about 60 percent of the population of Iraq, mostly in the south upwards to Baghdad. They are hankering for the political and economic power their numbers should have had in the past, but never have. The Shia were discriminated against and brutalized during the entire time of the Ba'ath regime. Even during the time of the British rule they were not represented politically in the numbers warranted by their population. HISTORY NEWS NETWORK

The Shia of Iraq are connected by family or other ties to many surrounding countries, including Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain (another country in the region with a majority Shia population, but run by Sunnis), India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere. They are also tied politically and financially with some Shia communities in the west, including in the US and the UK. The Shia leaders are an internationally connected, sophisticated group. IBID

In 1991 Iraq tanks attacked Sh'ia villiages. Tens of thousands died. The USA did nothing and this has not been forgotten. IBID

(extrapolated for brevity) The Wahhabis (muwahaddun) are not only financed by the House of Saud but walk a tightrope because of them. The muwahaddun believe there is no seperation between church and state...they are a unity. Additionally they preach that "unbelievers are beyond the pale by definition and deserve all punishment the Koran lays in store for them". The House of Saud by Holden and Johns.

You may recall that al Queda were veterans of the war with Russia in Afganistan and not a "terrorist" organization. They were also supported by the Saudi's (and may well still be).
IBID

For more on the subject of why the USA is hated in the region and needs to leave due, not to cowardice but to history, read Spiders Web by Alan Friedman.

All of this is on top of what I have already posted. There is more...much more.
 
1 - 20 of 80 Posts
Top