Wirehead Studios

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040811...23531-3824r.htm (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040811-123531-3824r.htm)


Well if it wasn't obvious before, it is now.  The terrorists see Kerry as the softer option.  Remember this when you go to the polls.

shows how cowardly they are. you'd think theyd be all for bush since 'the media' keeps telling us hes the reason the terrorists are all fired up(in truth theyve been fired up since the 70s, bush jr has just been the first to actually DO SOMETHING about it, whether the right or the wrong way, thats the way our nation works, if its the wrong way, yes, it may be a huge mistake that cost lives, but what doesnt cost lives? your as likely to die in a car accident as on the battlefield if you join the army. when we make mistakes, we correct them, if bush jrs way isnt the right way to win it, the next guy will have his shot at it, and well keep trying til its done)but they want kerry cause he keeps saying hes going to pull completely out leaving the terrorists to regroup(battle of britain anyone? remember, the only reason britain did not fall was because hitler gave the RAF a HUGE break by bombing cities instead of the airfields and radar towers). quite obviously if they are going so far as to publicly admit they want kerry, bush must be doing one hell of a job destroying them! make no mistake, we are slowly winning this 'war on terror' as its called, its going to take a long time for sure, but we will win. that is how america works, were winners no matter the cost. ignore the vocal minority and you realise how many people actually agree with whats happening. 9 times out of 10 the people against the war entirely have no fricking clue what theyre talking about.

oh and before anyone goes spouting off how "you dont know what war is like you violence-hungry teenager". yes actually i do, not directly of course, because im not in the military(yet, though i will/would gladly serve should i be needed that urgently), but I have been studying military history since i was 12, and i made no effort to skip the letters home and the gruesome pictures of the war. i KNOW war is hell. thats specifically why we must stop it from coming here by fighting it over there.

Normally I prefer to stay out of these forums as I regard this fine site as recreational, but after that speech I need to say something.

1. Al Qaeda realise that Bush has security up the arse, they don't really care which Americans they wipe out so they'll go for the easier option. Cowardice, maybe, but the aftershocks would be no less apparent.

2. The reason they are so fired up is cos, frankly, US foreign policy stinks. Al Qaeda are only able to pull off these stunts because of the kickass CIA training they got during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan during the Cold War. Not to mention stuff like the US-backed ethnic cleansing in places like East Timor, and the ongoing shit in Israel/Palestine.

3. QUOTE: "... whether the right or the wrong way, thats the way our nation works, if its the wrong way, yes, it may be a huge mistake that cost lives ..." What planet are you on, mate? There is no right way to do a wrong thing, and the slaughter of thousands of people is definately NOT the right thing, regardless of whether it's the US, Al Qaeda or anyone else, just cos you think that they MIGHT have a grudge against you. Saddam Hussein might have been a dictator, but he sure as hell was no Hitler. Yeah, so they got him, and Iraq is a "free democratic state". Now what? The country lies in ruins, with the US and British troops being killed on a daily basis, the extremists running amok and numerous assassination attempts on members of the interim government. Afghanistan is no different.


4. QUOTE: "... we will win. that is how america works, were winners no matter the cost. ignore the vocal minority and you realise how many people actually agree with whats happening ..." I pity you. You have absolutely NO idea how arrogant you sound. Yeah, ignore the vocal minority and you haven't even got the fcuking foggiest notion how many people agree with THEM. As you can probably tell, I am one of those individuals, and I like to think that I have a bit of grey matter along with it. Apart from the fact that the little place where I come from ie Northern Ireland has had its own fair share of terrorism over the last 35 years, so I assure you that I DO know what I am talking about.

Let me tell you something. This "war on terror" can never be won, because the only thing that will result from Bush's antics (as we have seen) is that all they do is piss the extremists off even more. I harken back to the Bloody Sunday massacre in Derry, Northern Ireland in 1973 where British troops opened fire on a group of unarmed civil rights protesters, killing 13 and wounding many more. After that the IRA got more applications than ever before. I am not saying that the US troops are deliberately wiping out innocent civilians, but ultimately they do and they have backed nations that do for many years (see above) and all that this campaign will lead to is more bloodshed. Evil begets evil.

Joining the military is, of course, your choice, but how long for?

I'm not sure I understand the cowardise thing, what do you want from them? To me it sounds like you want them to openly go to war or something, that wouldn't be brave that would be stupid; men on camels against planes and and laser guided missiles?

If we wanted to we could prevent the terror from spreading by allowing free trade. It's so much easier for Osama and all his followers to convince more people to join their cause if the people they are trying to convine are starved and poor. I'd like the war on terror to more like that in stead of what we are doing.

I was still for the war in Irak, I hate war but this time it seemed there was no other way. If we hadn't interfered the population would have suffered eternally, at least now they have a chance to create a somewhat better country.

They're still suffering. And will be for a very long time.

I would still vote for kerry . I still dont like bush .
weird isn't it , that just the tape with his pictures on where he served the army has gone missing or whatever .

I would invite anyone discussing this topic to begin some research on Wahabism (http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/islam/0000139.php).  The roots of terrorism weren't sown by the CIA or any US policy.  They've been there for a few hundred years now and they're growing, like a cancer, spreading out through the world and poisoning Islam.  The Wahabi sect of Islam goes by a very twisted interpretation of the Qur'an and it is this group that is waging this Jihad against basically the whole world.  Anyone who thinks economic aid, feeding the hungry, or any other feel-good appeasement nonsense is going to have any effect on these people is completely ignorant of what they stand for and what they do with such aid.  Look at how many charity organizations have to be shut down.  Why?  They're funneling money and supplies to the terrorists.  All they care about at the end of the day is getting everyone to worship Allah THEIR WAY.  If you don't, you die.  It's that simple.

Other Muslims have been butchered by this sect and have constantly been at war with them as a result.  To the Wahabi, if you are not fighting Jihad against the "infidels" then you are not following the will of Allah, and you are to be put to death as well.  Has anyone forgotten the daily public executions of the Taliban?  That's the kind of world that they wish to create.  I cannot stress this enough - this is NOT a "US and Israel" problem, the whole world is the battle field.  Wake up already!  If you extend a hand in friendship to these people expect it to be cut off, with your head shortly behind it.

yeah they will, but I still stand by what I wrote at least now there is a chance for it to get better.

I am aware of Wahabism. I understand that Bin Laden's motives have nothing to do with globalisation or anything like that (he probably doesn't even know or care what it is for that matter), my point is that the current political climate is ultimately hindering, rather than helping matters. The more bullshit like this that goes on, the more extremists there are inevitably going to be. Al Qaeda is a global network. New members join every day and I'm willing to wager that since 9/11 and all subsequent events their rate of growth is increasing. Like I said, evil begets evil.

I also understand that Saddam had absolutely NOTHING to do with Wahabism, Bin Laden or Al Qaeda, yet still he was regarded as an immediate threat, in spite of no WMD's being found, and even if he DID have nukes, who was he gonna fire them at? The US? Britain?There are only 3 nations in the world with the technology (ie satellite guidance systems) to fire a missile that far. The USA, Great Britain and Russia. OK, so maybe he could hit Israel, and that would mean the loss of a very valuable customer. The US probably could prove that Saddam had these weapons, but that would mean showing the UN the receipt.

They've found UN tagged missile parts in Europe and a bunch of other places where Saddam shipped out weapons prior to and during the first stages of the assault.  There's no telling how much actually went out and to where.  Let's also not forget the trucks intercepted that were going to set off chemical bombs in Jordan that were crossing Iraq from Syria, where a lot of the WMD's are believed to have been sent.  As quick as everyone wants to get on the "no WMD" bandwagon I might remind you that everyone including the UN, and those Democrats now decrying the war said Iraq had WMD's and was an imminent threat, INCLUDING Senator Kerry, who is again waffling on his decision to vote for the war.  If you want I can dig up quotes on all of this but I think the man has embarrassed himself enough as it is without me having to add to it.

The entire point of my post was in regards to the dangers not JUST of Al Qaeda but the entire Wahabi sect.  There's an old Arab proverb that states "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."  They very much follow this philosophy, and will use anyone who opposes their perceived enemies as long as it's convenient to them.  The plain truth is they see Bush as a threat, and Kerry as a non-threat.  I'm offering this only as something to keep in mind, regardless of who you support.

Nice to see that you think of them as people first...

The CIA may not have planted the roots of Wahabism, but they've done an awful good job of making sure that it's had fertile ground to grow in.  If we're going to talk about the history of Wahabism, we should also talk about the history of US intervention in the region, starting from our government propping up murderous dictator Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. He's a guy that matched Saddam Hussein decades ago in the field of  "my secret police abduct my citizens and torture them to death on a lark".  When he was finally forced out, the Iranian people remembered our government's support of that slimeball and were ripe for being conned by the hardline fundamentalist Islamic Ayatollahs. Cause and effect works. Wahabism didn't spring up in a vacuum, outside factors contributed to its growth. The foaming-at-the-mouth mullahs get a lot more street cred when they can point to piles of civilians killed by weapons purchased from the US. Personally, this just smacks of more "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" nonsense. If "Al Qaeda" really wanted someone besides Bush as president in this country, why exactly would such a supposedly cagey and inscrutible organization allow that information to get out, practically ensuring that their "softer" choice would never make it? For that matter, what exactly would be the point in any high-ranking Al Qaeda member saying something like that? Our "intelligence" community can't even figure out where these guys are, but supposedly they know who they want as president of the US? Which are they, devilishly clever or self-destructively stupid?

QUOTE: (Pho) Nice to see that you think of them as people first...

Indeed I do. Whether or not Congress does is a different matter ...

Why use all the above? A nice truck carrying the bomb would be all it takes....think...who needs millions in tech when it can be done by simpler methods?

Skullhunter:  the Arabs think that way.  "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", as I pointed out earlier.  I see three kinds of people - those trying to fight the terrorists, those helping (directly or indirectly) the terrorists, and those with their heads in the sand about the whole thing.  You bring up all sorts of valid points in regards to foreign policy, that's all well and good,  but the truth of the matter is Wahhabism will continue to grow if left unchecked regardless of past policies.  Right now Saudi Arabia is funding 80% to 90% of all the new mosques in Canada and the US, and guess what form of Islam is being promoted there?  Pointing fingers for past events isn't going to solve the problem that exists TODAY.  Hindsight is always 20/20, but look backward too much and you tend to run into things.  At the end of the day you have to ask yourself if the guy you want to put in the Oval Office is going to make the tough decisions to defend the citizens of the country, or defer those decisions to some foreign body or act with hesitation.  If you think Kerry has the balls to push the button if it comes down to that then by all means vote for him.  I'm just laying out on the table what I know, and right now the situation doesn't look too good for the US, Israel, or any other free nation.

Lilazz:  Exactly.  There's also reports that the current strain of West Nile Virus was weaponized by Hussein and smuggled to Cuba, that same strain was given to Iraq by the CDC during the 1980's for "legitimate research purposes".  This was, of course, before the Gulf War in 1991, which it is believe Saddam later weaponized it in revenge for the US kicking Iraq out of Kuwait.  Let's also not forget that Russia is missing around 100 or so suitcase-sized tactical nukes, which have yields up in the 1-3 megaton range.  Nobody knows where they are, who has them, or what shape they're in.

:wall:  :wall:  :wall:

The wonderful and reliable source known as the Washington Times gives us this: If you vote anyone but Bush, THE TERRORISTS WIN!!! Never mind the fact the Kerry and Edwards promised to go HARDER on terrorists in their platform at the convention. All that matters is, since it's from a major pro-Bush newspaper, it MUST be true!

Contrary to wingnut belief, Democrats want to see terrorism eradicated off the face of the earth, too - not just Zell and Joe, either. I used to think that Kerry-Edwards's Bush-like "tough stance" on terrorism was simply to satisfy mainstream voters concerned about national security, the ONLY category where Bush remains high. At the convention, it looks like they meant it.

And here I was thinking that stance would render them immune to such bullshit like this. Nope, they STILL try to smear Kerry as weak, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Look, both candidates' records are about evenly matched when it came to national security. Bush proposed, Kerry approved. Now, they're even matching on rhetoric.

Fact is, what the terrorists think don't matter a HOOT. It weill be what AMERICANS think, based on their own views on foreign AND domestic policy, when Election day comes. Speaking of American voters, this article even goes as far as to imply that Kerry-voters are FOR THE TERRORISTS! I mean, if that is NOT utterly disgusting.... (My stomach churns at this moment... I need a vomit icon...)

Phoenix... tsk tsk... I had no idea you would stoop this LOW.

Oh I see, I should believe them because they "promised".  Right.  Should I believe Kerry's promises as much as I should believe his war record?  Seriously, believing the promises of politicians is a very naive and downright ignorant thing to do, I'm surprised you expect that of me and I pity anyone who takes a politician at their word.  Words must be backed up with actions.  Kerry's voting record is extremely weak on security, he's flip-flopped more times on Iraq than I can count on my primary feathers, and he's missed important national security meetings on a number of occasions, as well as missing a number of important votes in the Senate.  You have a retired Admiral, the guy who took over his swift boat in Vietnam saying he flat out LIED about his war record and is not fit to be Commander in Chief of the US military.  Sure, you have 13 war buddies of Kerry's going around saying he's such a hero, when you have 122 other swift boat grunts (including former CO's of his) saying he's a liar and a traitor, that he lied about how he got his medals, that he lied about the "war crimes" he witnessed, and have signed sworn statements to that effect.  It's pretty clear to me at least who's more believable, and it's NOT John Kerry.

If getting to the truth of the matter is "stooping low" I'll be happy to disappoint you every single time.

Heh, actually I have no intention of voting for either of them. Or Nader for that matter. They're all part of the problem as far as I'm concerned. Bush, well, it doesn't take balls to push a button, nor does it take balls to sit in an air-conditioned office behind Secret Service and Marine guards and say "Bring it on!" while people thousands of miles away are the ones it'll get brought on. Kerry's busy trying to match Bush word for word with the "war president" rhetoric and freely admits that he still would have voted in favor of the war even though none of the reasons originally given for said war have panned out. Nader's busy pulling in contributions from the same kind of corporate slime that the other two parties cozy up to. And none of it changes the fact that while Wahabism may continue to grow in the Middle East no matter what the US's policy approach, continuing the same policies are definitley not going to stop it and most likely will encourage it.


The only people legitimately helping the terrorists are those that give them financial, material or military support. "Indirectly" is really fudging things. I refuse to accept the ridiculous assertion that someone here in the US protesting American policy in the region is even remotely responsible for terrorism. No one here says "capitulate". No one here says "Let's surrender and become an Islamic republic.". The suggestion is to stop living up to the negative image. Too often it seems that our government hears the US being called "the Great Satan" and responds by saying, "Oh yeah? We'll show you Satan!". It is possible to be tough and strong without being a bully. Right now all I see is a lot of chest-thumping (from both sides of the aisle), a lot of high-tech firepower being brought to bear on two horribly technologically inferior nations, and not a single thought to the fact that our actions are probably doing more to recruit for Al Qaeda than anything else.


And guess what Bush (or Kerry for that matter) is going to do about it? Jack and squat. Almost all, if not all, of the hijackers responsible for 9/11 were Saudi nationals, from organizations with ties to the Saudi government. So we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. You do the math. Besides, if you're worried about the US being innundated with wild-eyed fundamentalist Muslim terrorists, you'd better not read stories like this one. (http://www.thememoryhole.org/terror/tyler-terror.htm) We've all ready got a good crop of domestic terrorists, and I'm not talking about the ELF or their like, they just damage property, I'm talking about ones that have all ready been caught trying to make or procure their own WMD, or actually have been caught about to use it against American civilians. Doubt you'll see that one on FOX News any time soon.

I'm not a huge Kerry fan myself, but at least he ended up in the right country, not defending Texas airspace against the North Vietnamese.

Those swiftboat vets are a crock of bull. They never actually served on John Kerry's boat, you know that? Meanwhile, those who actually served WITH Kerry went to praise him at the Democratic Convention! (Were invited! Whatever...)

John McCain - "Swiftboat veterans = dishonest, dishonerable; Bush must repudiate them"

If you can't believe McCain, who can you believe? Hell, even John O'Neill, who spearheaded this, is retracting his statements.

Meanwhile, the American public, influenced by a subservient press, STILL trusts Mr. AWOL (I'm sorry, "Honorably Discharged") from the Texas Air National Guard on national security. There's a REASON Kerry pumps his Vietnam record.

On "flip (http://tinyurl.com/3dux8)-flops (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/3/7/213753/1954)" - Oh, please. The biggest flip-flopper so far has been George W. Bush himself. First a war president, then a peace president, then a war president again. First, his primary concern was Osama and Al-Qaeda, then it wasn't. First he's against nation-building, then he's all for it! At least MY candidate (People with good memory will recall who he is) was consistent on his position on the war.

The point is, the fact that the Kerry-Edwards utterly CRUSHED the anti-war platform proposals shows that they DO want to appear tough on terrorists.  Maybe it's an election thing, but I doubt that they would adopt positions that they so utterly crushed beforehand. Then again, it's probably just my perception that Kerry will end up not being different from Bush when it comes to the war. But calling Kerry "weak on terror", something that you can probably say about MY candidate, is a crock of shit.

Speaking of flip-flops, did you know that after the bombing in Spain, Al-Qaeda stated that they wanted Bush to LOSE? I cannot recall an instance where the left-blogosphere ran with THAT instance - they just said "Bush is in deep trouble".

Seriously - if regurgitating Republican talking points (Often conjured up by Rove, Scaife, etc., or in the case of the Washington Times, MOON) is your idea of "truth", I don't know if I could have respect for your arguments as I did in the past.

Well you know I've never really cared if you respect me or not, that's something you probably missed along the way.  I really don't have any vested interest in politics one way or the other, or either political party.  However I do have an interest in reality, and some compassion for people.  As much as I may hate mankind and what humanity does, I do care about people and I don't like seeing any living thing suffer.  Why, I do not know anymore, but that's why I continue to try to warn people about this sort of thing, despite the flak I get for it.  You also continually mistake me as some kind of Republican or "Bush Supporter".  I've never once said I flat out support Bush for everything he does.  I oppose a hell of a lot of what Bush has done, and I've said this many times before.  Is he perfect?  No, but I certainly see Kerry as doing a worse job.  Kerry IS weak on terrorism, and foreign policy in general no matter what you've deluded yourself into believing about this.  Since the terrorists seem to fear Bush more than Kerry what does that tell me about both candidates then?  The terrorists are NOT stupid, and as 9/11 showed it is foolish to understimate either their will or their capabilities.

As for sources, hey, take it or leave it, but at least I'm quoting what's being reported on the major media outlets (and before you pounce on that - no, I don't believe everything I read and I read a lot more than you think I do) and not some message forum somewhere who doesn't even provide source links, or (God forbid) Comedy Central.  Regarding the swift boat vets... I'll take their word over yours OR your sources on this any day.  It was Elliott who supposedly issued the retraction as reported in the Boston Globe, and Elliott has since denied the retraction ever took place. (http://www.swiftvets.com/article.php?story=20040806153208686)  Please get your facts straight on this.

I'd kind of like to see the US in one piece for a bit longer, and it certainly won't happen at this rate as long as people are out there who care more about deposing the sitting US president than actually getting rid of the people who decided it would be a nice idea to fly airplanes into US buildings and kill a lot of people.  Oh yes, sorry, I forgot, the US can do no right and they're "only reacting because US foreign policy has oppressed them in the past."  Silly me, I should have remembered that! (/sarcasm)

You know I'm going to find it quite sad when I'm finally proven right on this.  I'd really like to be proven wrong, to see that all this danger is just because poor and needy people need food, and that love and "feel good" measures could overcome hateful hardline attitudes.  I would love to see that happen.  Unfortunately that's not how the world works, and playing ignorant to the dangers in the world is only going to result in more 9/11's and worse.  All I see any more is people bitching about the price of gas, bitching about jobs going overseas, bitching about this, bitching about that, and nobody's really lifting a finger to do anything about it.  "I want I want I want, Me Me Me."  This country is being run by  the whiners anymore, and all I see from the "hate Bush" crowd is a bunch of spoiled little brats who have nothing better to do than to whine about not getting their way.  Whatever happened to JFK, remember him?  "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."  Well forgive me for actually trying to make a difference here and giving a damn about people's lives.  Believe whatever you want, but don't come crying at me when the hammer falls and you're caught on the anvil when it hits.  Just go on with your merry little lives, pretending the problems of the world don't exist, or are all the faults of the evil Republicans or Jews or whatever you want, and since you're not to blame nobody's going to hurt you for it.  Why should I be concerned, right?

We can debate this as much as we like but it's future events that will decide the truth of it, not rhetoric or posturing.  I have about as much chance at the end of the day of influencing your position as you do of mine.  At least I have something more substantive to offer than "I hate Bush", however if you want to continue this needless back-and-forth discussion just to have a "let's see who can out-conversation the other guy" that's up to you.  I'd originally set out to educate people on the dangers of Wahhabism, not turn this into partisan-style bickering.  Do you even care about what I originally posted, or the subesquent link regarding Wahhabism, or are you just here because you enjoy arguing with me?

Skullhunter:  I appreciate the link regarding the story that World Net Daily ran.  This is EXACTLY the sort of thing that needs reporting - not sweeping under the rug.  Also, yes, I agree with you that the US policy toward Saudi Arabia sucks rotten eggs.  Saudi Arabia is definitely not an ally to anyone.

w00t i started a debate! lmfao

I'm not gonna say anything but this:
http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/...Sovereignty.mp3 (http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/archives/Bush%20-%20Tribal%20Sovereignty.mp3)

So he's not a good public speaker.  Your point?  Oh wait, to most people this means Bush is a complete idiot, I forgot.  How about his education, if we want to pick on his intelligence:

Graduated from Yale University (1968)
Graduated from Harvard Business School (1975)

Again, facts before rhetoric please.  You can't graduate from Yale and Harvard if you're a complete dumbass.

I, for one, have never thought Bush is an idiot. His public speaking strikes me as being half ill-preparation and half him not seriously believing in what he's saying. What I do think though, regarding his intelligence, is that he is actually willfully ignorant. The only thing wrong with his thought processes is that he has arrived (like many other rich elitist scum) at a point where he need not learn anything else. The world can be put into black-and-white terms, there is only one true way to live, to think, to worship and all others are wrong at best and the very work of Satan at worst. No one unlike himself has anything of any worth to say, nor does anyone have the right to criticize or lampoon him (see his statement "There ought to be limits to freedom" regarding a pardoy website about him). In other words, he's a typical rich child of privildge. Almost no level of education can change that. Certainly not a C average worth of education.

Again, some very good points there.  Kerry is just as rich and elitist as Bush, which is why I don't really trust either one of them, I can only hope one will screw things up less than the other.  I don't trust any politician outside of trusting them to be predictable.  I am also of the mindset that you can never STOP learning.  I may know a lot of things, sure, but all I've really learned is that I'll never be able to learn everything.  As a very wise old man I knew once put it, "The more you know the dumber you feel."

well this isnt the first time outside opinions  have been brought up to try and influence american ellections. I really couldnt care any less how anyone feels about american leadership who dosent vote in american ellections because its really none of thier buisness. so when i see things in the media like "terrorists prefer anyone but bush" or " most europeans see bush as bigger threat than saddam" i dont put much stock into it and i certainly wont let it influence my vote in either direction.

On the issue of john kerrys war service i dont really see a whopping 4 months as anything impressive. My brother spent an entire year in iraq but i wouldnt vote for him for president based on that. Seems to me a person who gets 3 purple hearts in 4 months is proubly more careless than heroic.

 While i dont see bushs service in the air national guard as anything significant in this campaign ( for me anyway ) i do think that the claiming that  nation guard service is not worth while  for the sole perpose of hurting bush  politicly is a bit out of line. The national guard isnt shown a 10th of the respect it deserves despite the considerbale peace time services it provides so if you want to bash bush thats fine but leave the guard alone.  They may not be Green barrets but that dosent mean its cool to spit on them.

I'd say in this case the outside opinions are a little more relevent, owing to the fact that they belong to the people who would like to see all Americans dead and are attempting to do just that.  Knowing the minds of your enemies is important to understanding how to defeat them.  What's wrong with sharing information in this respect?

Because it may not necessarily be legit. It sounds a lot more like intentional disinformation than anything else. I've got a rough time believing that the same intelligence apparatus that claimed the Soviet Union was a powerful threat right up until the point where they collapsed suddenly knows who our enemies want us to vote for. Seriously, it's so prejudicial it's not even funny. You all know I don't like Kerry, I see very little difference between Bush's policies and what Kerry is promising, but the only way this could get more blatant would be if Bush himself issued a statement that voting for Kerry was a treasonous act. Not only that, but it reinforces the idiotic "people who don't like Bush love terrorists and Saddam Hussein" nonsense. Why else would "sensitive intelligence" like this be shared with the press? For that matter, again I ask why such a secretive group like Al Qaeda would let their "candidate" be known? There's far too many gaping holes for this to be legitimate.

There is a valid reason for Al Qaeda not wanting Bush in the White House for another four years, and that's Afghanistan.  Bush is a known factor among the terrorists, they know when he makes a threat he follows through with it and there's a lot of terrorists that are dead or captured as a result.  Bin Laden is in hiding, the Taliban is gone, and even though Iraq is a mess right now Saddam Hussein is awaiting trial, his sons are dead, and Al Qaeda has had to shift their methods of operation around completely and decentralize in order to avoid being caught.  This is not disinformation, it's common sense based on recent events.  That there's some intelligence floating around to this effect should not come as a surprise to anyone.  It's cause and effect, nothing more, nothing less.  Bush has done them a lot of damage, so they want him out and by whatever means necessary.

Al Qaeda was all ready decentralized, that's why it's been so difficult to get someone inside the organization. They're composed mainly of small groups or "cells" of people that operate independently. Infiltrating their network is so difficult because there's no network to infiltrate. That's why even though Bin Laden is either in hiding or dead, they continue to make attacks, a central leadership is unnecessary for them to function. As far as the Taliban being gone, someone better tell them because US military outposts in Afghanistan still come under fire regularly, their "morality police" still accost women for dressing immodestly, being seen in the company of men that are not relatives and trying to go to school or work. Afghani "President" Hamad Karazi can't go anywhere in Kabul without a heavy armed guard and can't go anywhere outside Kabul period. People that keep wanting to bleat "Mission accomplished" should probably check with the people actually getting shot at first. As far as Bush following through with a threat, I've got two words for you: North Korea. And if he's done some much damage to Al Qaeda, where exactly are all these new recruits coming from that are showing up in Iraq? You know, the ones that weren't there before the US decided that NOW Hussein needed to go, not after the first Gulf War when Iraqis begged the US to support an uprising but were left to those same torture chambers and executions that were used as part of the pretext for this most recent war. If Al Qaeda wants anybody in office, they'd probably settle for either one of the guys who think military might is actually going to solve something it hasn't managed to solve for decades but has managed to do wonders for recruiting. I'm just so tired of the "if you are for this guy/think this way/say this stuff, you're for the terrorists" crap. History shows there's only one road that kind of mindset goes down. When you demonize entire groups of people for thinking differently, you can justify just about any level of atrocity committed against them. I'm not terribly comfortable being in that group, but I'll be damned if I'm going to shut up and behave like a good little citizen of the State.

Alright, what's your solution to this problem since you're convinced you know better how to solve it than those who are currently in power?

Logical fallacy. That's like telling me that because I can't rebuild an engine I'm not qualified to notice when it's not functioning right. I never said I know how to solve the problem better than those in charge, I just said I know what's currently not working. Look at Russia, they've been even more brutal than the US in dealing with terrorists. They've buried them in pigskin to symbolically deny them access to Heaven, they've murdered family members, they've tortured them, summarily executed them and if anything it has increased the resolve of the Chechen terrorists. Some people say insanity is repeating the same actions and expecting different results. Military action is not going to provide a solution to a problem that is mainly being CAUSED by military action. My main gripe is, neither party is going to put a stop to that any time soon. As always, they and the people that give them financial support make the policy and the profit, the rest of us get to do the dying. That's something that 9/11 should have really been illustrative of. The vast majority of the people killed that day weren't captains of industry, politicians or government intelligence operatives. They were regular people like us that figured they were going home after work that day. If the body count keeps going up, which it has been, we are not winning. It's not enough to kill them if more people are going to sign up to follow in the footsteps of the martyred dead. Figuring out how to stop that cycle isn't appeasement, it's not weakness, it's common sense. Of course, it's ultimately not profitable either.

I see.  So what you're basically saying is the situation sucks, you see no end in sight, politicians suck because they're the cause of it, and regular people do the dying and that sucks too.  I've heard these complaints so many times across so many generations, and people still complain about the same things.  They complained about this in the middle ages.  That's the problem, too much complaining, not enough action.  All I'm hearing from you is a lot of compaining that the current system isn't working.  Well, if you think it's broken then either fix it, or find someone you think can.  Isn't that what elections are for?  Otherwise, if you have no solutions then you're just out for attention.  We have a word for complaining incessantly, it's called "whining".  Actions > words.

I've also got some rather rude news for you if you think there's a way to break this cycle by being "humanitarian" about it.  Humans have been killing each other for as many reasons as there are grains of sand along the beach all throughout history.  This has not changed for several thousand years now.  This is why the dream of world peace is an illusion.  Human nature will never break from this, and even if you enforce rule with an iron rod you'll never stop it.  Disarming the world won't stop it.  The people behind the Wahhabi movement will NOT stop and sit down at a table for peace talks.  They are interested in killing and conquest.  These are murderous religious fanatics that began this movement several hundred years ago.  Neither the US nor Israel started this, but they are the focus of the Wahhabi movment because the US is seen by ALL Arabs as the center for Western Christianity, and Israel is targeted because they've always wanted the Jews gone.  (You should do a little history on Nazi Germany some time as well, to find out just how much influence a certain Haj Amin Al Husseini, former grand mufti of Jerusalem had on Hitler's anti-semitic campaign.  By the way, Haj Amin Al Husseini was none other than Yasser Arafat's mentor.)  While you're shaking hands in friendship with them they're waiting with a knife behind their back to put in yours when you're not looking.  The only thing you can do is break down the immediate threats they pose and remove the leadership behind organized movements bent on attacking you in order to reduce the long term chances of repeated attacks.  9/11 wasn't the result fo some random rabble or resistance fighters, it was a top-down planned operation that had been in the works for years.  You had attacks on the US embassies in Africa, the 1996 World Trade Center bombing, then the USS Cole...  What did the US do?  Nothing.  That's why 9/11 happened, the US appeared weak so they pounced.

The ONLY way this is going to stop is if EVERY country in the civilized world works together to reign in Islamic extremism.  Those who advocate or support extremism should be toppled, period, end of story.  Harsh?  Damn right it is, and that's the only way to do it - all or nothing.  You cannot sit down and do nothing when people are out to kill you, or they will succeed.  Either stand and fight, or lay down and die.  The war is already on, and it cannot be rolled back now and just forgotten about as if it never happened.  Advocating a cessation of hostilities just because people are dying is lunacy.  It's a war, what the hell were you expecting, bridge club?  You want more US civilians to die instead?  If someone's going to die I'd prefer it to be the terrorists.  So what if people want to sign up to be martyrs?  Let them!  Let them run up against the US military and die.  Let them pour over the border into Iraq to get shot up by the US Marine Corps.  I have no sympathy for fools, and if that's what they want is to become martyrs then I say it's time to start making a whole lot of martyrs.  Give them what they want.  If they want death then let them have it, just not on their terms.

i think razchek(sp?) said it best in starship troopers when he said "the theory that 'violence never solved anything' is wishful thinking at best, brute force has solved more conflicts in history that all other options combined"



btw, everyone harps on OUR body count(700ish? out of about a half million or so people in the armed forces, yeah we certainly are losing; idk what it is, dont care really) .... how many non civilian(since everyones so uppity about that too!) people have we killed? thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, its pretty simple, kill more of them than they kill of us. eventually there will be none left of them due to a) weve killed them all and their ideology is gone, or b) there will be too few of them left to be of any consequence and any of them will be shunned by the people that once supported them either out of fear or of good conscience.

Aye.  You know, I think the US isn't given enough credit.  After all, look at how humanitarian the US military is for going in the hard way - troops, tanks, planes, etc, trying to not kill everyone except the bad guys?  They're respecting holy sites instead of blowing them up, even though the "FIGHT TO THE DEATH IN THE NAME OF ALLAH!!" bad guys are holed up in there, and they're providing food and water for the local people instead of just mowing them down with heavy machineguns so they don't breed any more insurgents for 20 years down the line.  I mean, why not do it the easy way and just lob a few ICBM's into the entire region and be done with it?  That would pretty much solve the entire "Mideast Problem" swiftly and permanently.

Maybe it's because they're not getting fixed.


We also have a word for thinking you know what someone's doing without evidence to go on. It's called "assumption". The "you're just trying to get attention for yourself" and "you're just whining" are very familiar criticisms, usually leveled by people who don't want to contemplate that a system by and large controlled by those with money and power is no longer within our ability to fix. It's been taken out of our hands. The people who end up running for office that we're supposed to vote for are not necessarily the best people for the job nor do they have our best interests at heart. They're the ones that could spend the most money and make themselves look the best in the media. Incidentally, there's also word for refusing to acknowledge a situation, it's called "denial".


They're also not going to be deterred by the possibility of dying either. As you said, they're religious fanatics. Dying for their beliefs is not something to be avoided but to be embraced.

 
The US is targeted because the US has supplied arms to Israel, because they've propped up numerous dictators in the region like the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein and because they've destabilized governments whose only transgression was to engage in policy that ran counter to US interests. As far as Israel being targeted because "they've always wanted the Jews gone" you might want to look into a little history yourself, like what happened to all the people that were living in that area right before Israel was formed. You also might want to look up groups like Irgun and the Stern Gang. That may provide a nice perspective on ?terrorism? in that region. And the "center for Western Christianity" thing might not be so if certain idiots would quit proclaiming that we are a "Christian nation" in direct ignorance of a). all the citizens of the US who are NOT Christian and b). centuries of law and Constitutional doctrine, like the Treaty of Tripoli.



Thereby creating tomorrow's honored martyrs for the next batch of terrorist recruits to idolize. Maybe if we weren't rolling our tanks through their countries like we own the place and giving them fresh stacks of bomb-shredded bodies to point at as they rail against "The Great Satan" they wouldn't draw as much of a crowd.  Killing them is not working.


Yes, I was expecting bridge club. And I'd love for more US civilians to die. I'd also love for fanatic fundamentalist Muslims to take over the country and put me and all of my pagan, homosexual and atheist friends to death. Look, hang the condescension for a minute. I know full well what war is like, not as much as someone actually in it but a hell of a lot more than some average CNN-watching armchair general. This is combat in the really real world; the participants don't get to respawn after they get splattered and there are tons of noncombatants that happen to be living in the arena that don't get to respawn either. This is a lot deeper than this "We're the good guys, they're the bad guys" nonsense, because you know what? They think they're the good guys and we're not. That's what they're taught, and they don't think any farther than that either. Both sides engage in the same chest-thumping, flag-waving, ?we?re #1!? routine. They don?t realize they?re being suckered into throwing their lives away by fanatics, and until they do this definitely won?t stop. They think they?re fighting against a foreign invader that?s out to destroy their culture and their faith. And every time the military levels a mosque, shoots up a wedding party, talks about this war as a ?Crusade?, has soldiers who call them ?ragheads? and worse, humiliates and degrades them and then waves it off as being no worse than a fraternity initiation, the fanatics are being proven right. Oh, and much like our esteemed President, it?s very easy to say ?let them run up against the US military and die?, ?bring it on?, when you?re not the one sitting in the desert getting shot at. Oops, my mistake, I?m supposed to hate the soldiers, not feel sympathy for them.



Hedhunta, it's funny you should mention that. I always liked that movie, but not for the reason most people did. I liked it because it showed how easy it is to get people to root for the fascists. That's exactly what the "good guys" were, a high-tech version of Nazi Germany, except instead of being white supremacists they were human supremacists. The propaganda, the uniforms, the society structure, take another good look. Verhooven did a great job of integrating that stuff subtley enough that not many people noticed. Oh, and in case you think that upping the body count is really the solution, I've got one word for you: Vietnam.



Yes, yes, the inherent nobility and goodness of the US military, trying to spare the civilians while our wicked, Satan-inspired enemies cover themselves in babies, hold old ladies up infront of themselves and hide inside busloads of schoolchildren. "Collateral damage", folks. The military plans for and accepts collateral damage, which as we all know is the cleaned-up term for "civilians who get smoked".  Now to quote you from earlier, Phoenix, "I've also got some rather rude news for you if you think there's a way to break this cycle by being "humanitarian" about it.". Now we are being humanitarian about it? Last time I checked, killing people was not any part of the definition of humanitarian.


That's patently not true. They may not be leveling them with concentrated bombardment, but it's not stopping them from busting the door in and shooting up the place. story link (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/23/1085250871497.html?from=moreStories&oneclick=true)


I sincerely hope no one from that region reads what you're saying. Ever. What would you expect Iraqis to say to that? "Thank you for not exterminating us like cockroaches?". This is generosity and humanitarianism, the fact that we haven't started mass executions or nuked them? "Shut up and quit complaining, we're giving you food and water after we demolished what was left of your civilian infrastructure and we're only killing you by accident and whrn you piss us off, this is nothing compared to what we could be doing to you right now.", gee, how generous. I can't imagine why they haven't yet been coming out to meet our soldiers with bunches of flowers in thanks for not being shown what could be done to them. "Oh wow, it's all good, I don't have to worry about being carbonized and my entire country being reduced to a fused sheet of radioactive glass. It's just little stuff like getting blown away at a checkpoint, being handed back over to the Iraqi cops that were beating the crap out of me, having my house flattened by "stray" bombs or artillery, or getting caught in the crossfire between US troops and fanatic Muslim gunmen that don't live here and weren't even around less than a year ago. Oh joy." Funny you should mention the Jews earlier, since it looks like you have your own idea of a "Final Solution" to the "Mideast Problem".

What really gets me is that after a screed like that, you still don't have a single clue about where the new recruits for fanatics come from, why they hate us so much, or why it's so easy to get them to hate us.

Ahh yes, the usual line-by line "try to cut up the argument" approach.  Been there done that, you know you "debate" guys really need to find a new strategy.  As for assumptions... you're making plenty about me, either that or you're only going on what Assamite says about me behind my back. ;)

I'm not so ignorant as you think, so please, come down off your intellectual pedastal and try talking to me instead of skirting around the points I make.  I'll skip the tit-for-tat stuff and obvious sarcasm (at least I hope that was sarcasm about wanting civilian deaths) and just deal with your summary here.


Quite the contrary.  The recruits come from people being brainwashed by the Mullahs and the clerics.  Again - read about Wahhabism, and quit pinning the root blame on the US and Israel.  You need to throw that playbook out the window and deal with some REAL FACTS.  I already told you this started hundreds of years ago, WELL BEFORE THE NATION OF ISRAEL WAS REFORMED.  As for stopping the recruiting, it's pretty simple.  If you remove the brainwashers you remove future brainwashing.  Cut off the head and the body dies.  Sure, you have a lot of leftover rabble right now, but the whole long-term goal in Afghanistan and Iraq is to set up free and self-determined states in an area of the world where freedom is nonexistant.  I propose taking this further, and toppling the leadership of Iran, the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism, and I'd certainly take a hard look at Saudi Arabia, since that's where Wahhabism spawned in the first place.

There's three fronts to this war - physical, economical, and psychological.  You destroy the terrorists who are immediate threats, you cut off the funding to the terrorist networks so they can't buy weapons and pay recruits, and you work to demoralize the current terrorist networks as well as discouraging people from joining up.  The latter of those is done by spreading freedom and democracy in place of totalitarianism, fearfulness, and lies.  I invite you to name for me any democratic and free country in the entire world that harbors and spawns Al Qaeda-type terrorist movements from its indigenous population.  Free countries don't promote terrorism.  Are you against even trying to stop these people?  It seems to me you just want to prattle on about how the US is wrong no matter what it does, that nothing will ever be solved no matter what anyone does, so why even bother in the first place.  By your own words you're convinced the war is already lost while it's still being fought, so let's pack up and go home and hope the nice little insurgents and terrorists will just play nice after that.  With that kind of attitude failure is guaranteed, and I for one am damned glad that people like you are NOT running the show.  What exactly is it that you expect to accomplish thinking this way?  I'd really like an answer to that question.  What do you want?  What is your goal?  DO you have a goal?

Look, you can go round and round about what you think I do or do not know, I'm sure you're convinced you're as right about all of this as I am.  If you're so convinced the system is completely broken then what do you intend to do about it?  That's what I'm asking here.  I'm calling what you're doing whining because that's EXACTLY what it is if you can't pony up a solution or at least make an effort.  Perhaps the reason that's being leveled at you is because it's true?  Don't get me wrong, everyone whines about stuff some times, I do it myself.  However, I do at least try to think up solutions for problems as opposed to doing nothing but complain incessantly about those problems.  A futile effort is better than effortless complaining.  As Yoda said to Luke, "DO, or DO NOT."  Now if you're interested in discussing possible solutions for what appears to be a broken political system be my guest.  Start up a new topic.  Share your ideas.  I'm all for open discussion, especially if it's meaningful and can actually lead to getting something done.

Sure, I'll come down off my "barely passed high school and flunked out of college" intellectual pedestal. Here I figured I was keeping it fairly simple. I don't recall implying you were ignorant either, maybe just avoiding looking at certain things too closely. Just understand that I'm not some rich kid idle intellectual fresh out of Berkely or some crap, I'm a guy who crashed and burned in college and has busted ass working for the past 7 years to support a family, who used to think very much like you do now, hell, maybe I was even MORE gung-ho than you are and then ended up getting a very nasty wake-up call. So I don't study Marx, Engels or Bakunin, sometimes I read stuff that Chomsky writes if I can get my brain to focus that long, but I definitley don't have a bunch of degrees after my name. As for "cutting up the argument", that's how I do it. I address each point in turn rather than just ramble like a speed freak, which is how I'd write if I DIDN'T split stuff up. And yes, that was sarcasm. I may have mentioned this before, but after hearing all this "you just love terrorists/you want America to lose" stuff so often for so long now I tend to get a little snarky about it. Look, I understand Wahaabism pretty well, I have read up on it. I know how totalitarian and constrictive they are, I understand they treat women like property and I understand the contempt they have for those of other paths. I also understand that until the past 30-40 years, they were just some backwards offshoot of mainstream Islam that had no popularity because, well, it just wasn't appealing. That's shifted, you might say they've decided dying on their feet is preferable to living on their knees, whether or not they really ARE living on their knees. Selling something is as much dependent on WHO you're selling it to as much as what you're selling and how you're selling it. So while Wahaabism wasn't very palatable to people who were living fairly comfortable lives, once the misery level started going up, it started looking better. And like it or not, our government has had a hand in creating that misery. As I said towards the beginning, the CIA may not have created Wahaabism, but they've definitley made sure that it's got some nice blood-soaked ground to grow in. We can't have agents of our government going overseas and screwing with other countries that pose no military threat to us but aren't doing things the way we want and then cry "Foul!" when it comes home to roost. So technically we're both right. The fundamentalists have spread Wahaabism AND our government has engaged in actions guaranteed to make it appealing to people who feel we're screwing with them for no reason. Oh, and don't get yourself all wrapped up in wanting something done about Saudi Arabia. Barring a miracle (or utter catastrophe) nothing's going to happen there any time soon.


Baader-Meinhoff Gang, Germany. Irish Republican Army, Ireland. Pretty much any bonehead white supremacist group, the United States. Terrorists don't just have brown skin and live in the Middle East. I invite you to name for me any democratic and free country in the entire world that has become free and democratic due to the military intervention of the US since WW2. I can name you plenty that we've screwed with since then.


Four words. School of the Americas. One more word: Contras. If that isn't promoting terrorism, I'm Santa Claus. But I understand when they work for us, they're called "freedom fighters".


My goal will never happen in my lifetime. I'd like to see the whole diseased system torn apart and replaced by NOTHING. No heirarchy. No centralized government, no authority derived from money and power. But I know it'll never happen in my lifetime because humanity isn't mature enough to not want to be led. For the now, I'd like to see people stop whining about how everybody else in the world seems to hate us and then pretty much excusing everything our government does. It's like wondering why no one wants to hang out with you, when you've got a friend who won't stop flipping people off and crapping on the hood of their car every time someone disagrees with you.

Look Phoenix, I don't have a mad-on for you personally but I'm at the saturation point right now for "We're the good guys and we always do the right thing for the right reasons" shite.  I used to think that way too. I used to think Reagan was the best president ever and Oliver North was a real American hero. Instead what I find out is that Reagan was a lying old reptile that talked tough about terrorists and then cut deals with them behind our backs to make himself look good and North was a disgrace to his uniform and the Corps who helped a bunch of "freedom fighters" who went after nothing but soft civilian targets and never got within miles of real armed forces if they could avoid it. Nobody wants to look in the mirror and say "You know, maybe they've got a point outside the other crap. Maybe we are partly responsible."  Everybody just wants to dodge it and say "Screw that, it's their fault, goddamn backward savages, we're just trying to bring them democracy and freedom." Who knows, maybe they saw what happened to the last group of backward savages we tried to "help" and don't like that idea too much.  In light of stuff like Abu Ghraib, I don't think I blame them either. What I've seen so far is that not only do the insurgents not want the US in Iraq, they don't want the Wahaabists there either. There have been a few statements issued warning Al Qaeda operatives to get their carcasses out of the country or face the consequences. Look at it this way. The US supported Saddam Hussein for the longest time, right up until the Kuwait invasion. We had an opportunity to remove him then, the Iraqi resistance practically begged us to do so, and they were left to twist in the wind. NOW all of a sudden it's important to remove Hussein after he's been in place all these years, after all the mass graves, the chemical weapons used against his own people, after all the abductions and tortures. They're supposed to trust that we're there to do the right thing THIS time? I don't know, maybe I just ask too many questions. Maybe I'd be happier if I didn't. But I do. As far as my solutions and what I do, I try to get people to ask themselves those uncomfortable questions. The big solution, well, like I said, people like to be led. That's not going to change until they find themselves slogging around knee-deep in their own dead and realize who made it that way. That's what it'll take before people in general say "Okay, you had your chance, you cocked it all up, now you need to go." Until then, the people entrenched on both sides of this are going to stay right where they are and they're going to do whatever they have to to stay there. There is no sacrifice they are not willing to have us make. I don't feel like being used to grease the wheels. I used to think we really were free, but then I asked myself how free and saw that it only worked that way if we were willing to be our own jailers and stay inside the cages we're taught to build for ourselves. Don't question, don't complain, cooperate, consume, conform. All you've got to do is take a look at the way our system (and those in other countries) treat people who don't go along with that program, that'll show you how free we really are. We're free to be what they want us to be, once you step outside that area, like it used to say on maps of old "Here there be monsters". Anyways, I'm done rambling like I said I wasn't going to. Understand I mean no disrespect, I just tend to be very blunt, I prefer it to sugar-coating things. I'm actually a really nice guy once you get to know me  :)

Oh, and I haven't talked to Assamite, he's usually too busy wiping the floor with me on the server.  O_o

I prefer people to be blunt and plain spoken, and I'm glad you're willing to put down what you think and why.  There are a lot of people who will talk much but say little, and I prefer people to just speak their minds.  I do not think lower of you for what you've said about your life's circumstances either.  Far from it.  From what you say I can see that you're frustrated with all that has gone wrong in the world, you're unhappy the US has screwed up as much as it has over the last few decades, and you're wishing there was some way it could all be fixed up.  I have no problem with that.  I watched the US completely screw over Bosnia.  I have friends in the military who had to sit around playing cards 100 miles away from where people were being butchered by the Serb army, who wanted to go in and put a stop to it, but were ordered to do absolutely nothing because they had a commander in chief who was more worried about his poll numbers than the lives of those people so decided "better some Albanain civilian than any US ground troops or I might look bad."  He told me there was a 10 year old girl there at the refugee camp.  She didn't speak, she wouldn't say anything.  She had been raped repeatedly by the Serb army while she had to watch them murder her parents and her older sister.  You think hearing that sort of thing doesn't make me hopping mad?  I don't think the US is innocent, a lot of policy mistakes are made, but that doesn't mean I'm against trying just because a mistake might be made.  I'd rather see someone try to make the right choice and choose poorly than make no choice at all out of fear and hesitation or personal self-interest.  As for Abu Graihb, yes that is inexcusable, and the commanding officer(s) directly in charge of that need to be punished for it.

I personally don't think anarchy is ever going to solve anything myself.  A lack of power only invites in bullies to claim that power.  You end up with the strong ruling over the weak by force until someone stronger comes in to knock them down.  That's the way the earth was for thousands of years, one warlord picking a fight with another.  Maybe now it's just been replaced with nations and more complex political alliances, but really the same problem will exist no matter what mankind does.  At least in a democracy you are given some form of say.  The US used to have limited government.  Those days are gone, but there are people who are still working and trying to get it back.  There is no such thing as a perfect government.  All you can do is try to work for one that is least intrusive into people's lives while insuring at the same time that its citizenry isn't left completely vulnerable to outside aggression.

I know about the IRA over in Ireland, and hate groups in the US, the contras in South America, etc.  Sure, they've got their private little wars, but they're not going into countries half-way around the world and blowing up buildings, and (usually) not trying to take over entire regions.  Most of these fights are more akin to civil wars, or localized insurgency.  Yes, it's still a problem, and the US does get its fingers in the political pie in a lot of places.  The Soviet Union was doing the exact same thing at the time as well.  The Cold War drove both super powers to interfere with the internal development of a lot of nations.  Look at how many satelite countries the Soviets annexed illegally.  Romania, Poland, half of Germany...  The US was out to prevent Communism from spreading owing to the threat of nuclear war.  That's a pretty strong motivation, especially when you consider the Cuban Missile Crisis which damned near led to just that.  When you're under that kind of pressure you end up doing drastic things that while they may not be right, they are sometimes necessary.  It's an evil situation that you  have to try to deal with the best you can.

I don't particularly care for the US propping up people like Saddam in the first place.  I understand why it was done, but again hindsight is clearer than foresight.  Mistakes were made, and now that's the current task is cleaned it all up.  The US should have taken Saddam down the first time, but the idea at the time was he could be contained, and again we had a president who was more worried about re-election and "UN cooperation" than actually finishing the job (Bush 41).  If it wasn't for the UN and it's bloody cowardice there wouldn't BE a war in Iraq right now.  Instead they decided to pass resolution after resolution after resolution and do absolutely nothing to enforce them.  Someone had to step up to the plate because the rest of the world either had monetary interests in keeping Saddam in power or lacked the backbone and ability to enforce what the world had supposedly decided on - disarmament, disclosure OF disarmament, or regime change.  When Saddam kicked the weapons inspectors out he pretty much nailed his own coffin shut.  The alternative - doing nothing - would show not only terrorists but rogue states that the UN and the US were too weak-kneed to follow up on their rhetoric, which would only serve to further polarize anti-western sentiment.  Instead of a war on terror, you'd have countries like Iran and Iraq developing and building nuclear weapons for use on each other and against anyone they felt like at the time.  Iran is STILL after nuclear weapons and almost has them, North Korea claims to have them, and Pakistan and India already do.  The US isn't the only screwball in the world when it comes to foreign policy either.  Russia is behind 90% of the illegal sale of nuclear equipment to Iran, France and Germany were both selling arms illegally to Iraq prior to the US invasion, and Pakistan's chief nuclear scientist is over there in Iran showing these people how to build nuclear bombs.  What do you think these Mullahs are going to do with them once they have enough of them?

If you want to talk about disillusionment I'm the worst of the lot.  I have absolutely NO faith in mankind whatsoever to solve anything in the long term.  I can only hope for damage control in the mean time prior to a more permanent solution being enacted from someone with greater authority and moral clarity than man.  That is the goal I am working towards.  I do not know what religious beliefs you may have, if any, but I myself believe strongly that God will not sit idly while the earth tears itself to shreds.  If anything I've seen more evidence in the last two years that all the prophecies concerning a reckoning between God and those who are destroying the earth is almost at hand.  Until that comes to pass I will support the United States's and anyone else's efforts to stand up to anyone who desires to supplant self-determination and individual freedom with a police state or dictatorship.  This includes people within the US government as well.

... SST didnt seem fascist to me, im pretty sure they held elections, so im not sure where youre getting that. propaganda et all, thats how life is, theres always someone out there willing to tell you what to do, pulling another quote from that movie(since i love it so much) "the freedom to choose is the only real freedom anyone has, make up your own mind" maybe it 'looked' fascist, but everyone still had the right to choose life, choose citizenship, etc. hardly fascist(since fascism is the definition of anti-choice), if anything it was closer to socialist/communist where the govt provided for everyone on a basic level, and everyone was free to choose how they wanted to live. the difference is in SST you were RESPONSIBLE for your actions, look at the murder case in that movie where hes immediately sentenced to death. thats not to say they did that without evidence, im sure they had highly advanced forensics in the future that would allow them to KNOW he was guilty, but there was none of the putzing around "should we kill him?" " what about his rights?" shit that we have going on today for serial killers and their kin.

Hedhunta, they had elections, but only people who'd served in the military (and thereby displayed their allegiance to the state) could vote in them. Their government was a military tribunal, installed after the previous governments were overthrown in a military coup. They did have "freedom" of a sort, but only as long as they did what the government ordered, as illustrated by the Mormon group attempting to settle in an Arachnid-controlled area. They were left to be slaughtered, you get the idea that they were "allowed" to do so only that their grisly deaths might serve as an example to others. Fascism does tend to look a lot like state socialism (a'la Stalin) under many circumstances, they're both pretty much the same idea, the individual serves and sacrifices for the good of the collective society. Of course, having them be a direct copy of white supremacist Nazi Germany would have been too obvious; instead they're speciesist, human supremacists. They openly plan to wipe the Arachnids out completely, genocide. The enemy is reduced to a faceless monstrosity, referred to by a one-word epithet "bugs", reminiscent of how Germans referred to the Jews (or the US referred to the Japanese, for that matter). I didn't notice it the first time through either, but everybody thinks that white supremacy is a central characteristic of fascism; if they don't see that, they don't think it's fascism.

sp theyre fascist for wanting to eliminate a species that is trying to eliminate them? ive watched that movie a hundred times, it has and never will seem fascist, indefinately maybe a satire on propaganda at times, but noone in that movie was forced to do anything(well until they joined, which they CHOSE to join), and even the people that werent 'citizens' sure seemed to have pretty decent lives(listen to the stories each of them tell in the shower room of where theyre from) and get to choose how they want to live. i still stand by saying that SST was NOT fascist at all. was it a world govt run by a tribunal of people that have served and learned respect for life, freedom, etc? yes, but then that would be an oligarchy would it not, being run by a small group of people, but since a good majority of people have probably served, that doesnt even hold up

Well it's funny considering the EU and the UN want to tell the whole world what to do that nobody seems to harp on that fact except the "right-wing nutballs" and the rabid anarchists.  Am I not correct in this?  Doesn't everyone who's "progressive" think the entire world needs to "respect the will of the international community"?  What's the difference whether the world is run by a great big council or a rather small one?

Besides, we're talking about a science-fiction movie here.  It's just a movie.  What kind of relevence does any of this have to the topic at hand?