Obama is dead wrong here

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' date='15 March 2010 - 10:43 PM' timestamp='1268707398' post='870803']
Jamie those people are obviously wussies.

I've been researching the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_civil_war"]Spanish Civil War of the 1930's[/url] lately. An event that my public education failed to even inform me even happened. 500,000 people killed, about half of them being noncombatants. Anyone presumed to be on the other side was rounded up and shot without thought. The definition of terrorism, right there. Terrorism one would actually need to be so paranoid about.

I just can't get over ~3,000 deaths in one incident leading people to such extreme reactions. 250,000 deaths is something to worry about. Secret police is something are something to worry about. People being dragged from their homes at night for being "opposition" is something to worry about. Muslims in freaking caves half a world away who have "successfully" carried a single attack on the mainland in the past decade is not something to radically change your policies over, or worry about any more than you worry a drunk driver might kill you on your drive home.

The reality is we have no clue what real "terror" is. Not even a little bit.
[/quote]

I can't get behind this logic of "worrying" about something being solely based on some arbitrary number of deaths that need to occur before its an issue. The issue of being attacked like we were on 9/11 (along with other terrorist attacks against our interests abroad) go far, far beyond the scope of the actual outcome of the attacks themselves.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='oldschooler' date='16 March 2010 - 06:17 PM' timestamp='1268777830' post='870983']
They would if it was up to you wussy Pilgrims.


[IMG]http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/743/johnwayneu.gif[/IMG]

[/quote]


Well if you people didnt create them in the first place...

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='16 March 2010 - 09:15 PM' timestamp='1268788527' post='871042']
Well if you people didnt create them in the first place...
[/quote]

Who in the hell is "you people"?

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/default/smileyfart.gif[/img]

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='Bunghole' date='16 March 2010 - 07:56 PM' timestamp='1268794594' post='871053']
Who in the hell is "you people"?

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/default/smileyfart.gif[/img]
[/quote]


The American Government as a whole, which consists of individuals that the electorate puts into place (yeah, I know; the "you people" is vague and all-encompassing, but he still brings up a valid point).


Ayatollah Khomeini: Created and enabled by the US\CIA overthrowing the elected leader of Iran and putting the Shah ( a brutal puppet dictator) into power in 1953 -check

Modern Radical Islam: See above

Saddam: Propped up and supported by the CIA and government of USA during war with Iran (due to first 2 points)- check

Bin Laden: Created by CIA when supported by aforementioned US government entity via support and weapons during war with Russia in Afghanistan - Check

Gulf War I: Middle Eastern sentiment towards the US soured when our troops remained stationed in the holiest site in Islam (Saudi Arabia): - Check

Iraq: Attack sovereign (albeit douchey) nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 because Shrub has hardon for leader that daddy had huge hand putting into place (see point 3 above) blasting tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians to bits breeding a whole new generation of radical islamist bombers - check

The chickens of our infernal habit of meddling in other peoples' business are coming home to roost.

That's a fact.

Now how do we fix it?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Bunghole' date='16 March 2010 - 10:56 PM' timestamp='1268794594' post='871053']
Who in the hell is "you people"?

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/default/smileyfart.gif[/img]
[/quote]


[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAlVKgl_zCQ[/media]

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='16 March 2010 - 08:15 PM' timestamp='1268788527' post='871042']
Well if you people didnt create them in the first place...
[/quote]



You people? LOL


That is like saying Wal-Mart created Meth users because they sell the shit used to make it.


[quote name='Elflocko' date='17 March 2010 - 12:07 AM' timestamp='1268802469' post='871077']
The American Government as a whole, which consists of individuals that the electorate puts into place (yeah, I know; the "you people" is vague and all-encompassing, but he still brings up a valid point).


Ayatollah Khomeini: Created and enabled by the US\CIA overthrowing the elected leader of Iran and putting the Shah ( a brutal puppet dictator) into power in 1953 -check

Modern Radical Islam: See above

Saddam: Propped up and supported by the CIA and government of USA during war with Iran (due to first 2 points)- check

Bin Laden: Created by CIA when supported by aforementioned US government entity via support and weapons during war with Russia in Afghanistan - Check

Gulf War I: Middle Eastern sentiment towards the US soured when our troops remained stationed in the holiest site in Islam (Saudi Arabia): - Check

Iraq: Attack sovereign (albeit douchey) nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 because Shrub has hardon for leader that daddy had huge hand putting into place (see point 3 above) blasting tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians to bits breeding a whole new generation of radical islamist bombers - check

The chickens of our infernal habit of meddling in other peoples' business are coming home to roost.

That's a fact.

Now how do we fix it? [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/default/mellow.gif[/img]
[/quote]





So us helping people fight their foes, (and our foes) equals us making terrorist, huh?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.


I look at it more like people without power are jealous of people with power.
People without power blame people with power for all the wrong in their life.

Every Muslim, Iranian, Iraqi, and Middle Eastern doesn't hate us and want
us to die. A small group of radicals do.


They are just like a lot of other hate groups. But they act on that hate with terrorism.

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='oldschooler' date='17 March 2010 - 07:28 AM' timestamp='1268836105' post='871125']
You people? LOL


That is like saying Wal-Mart created Meth users because they sell the shit used to make it.








[b]So us helping people fight their foes, (and our foes) equals us making terrorist, huh?[/b]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.


I look at it more like people without power are jealous of people with power.
People without power blame people with power for all the wrong in their life.

Every Muslim, Iranian, Iraqi, and Middle Eastern doesn't hate us and want
us to die. A small group of radicals do.


They are just like a lot of other hate groups. But they act on that hate with terrorism.
[/quote]


I in now way said that.

The point I was trying to convey is that we [b]created[/b] the terrorists we're currently fighting. Or at least our government and its agencies overstepping its bounds did.

And you're correct; not every person in that region wants to kill us. However, when I travel overseas, the most common refrain I hear is "We like Americans, we just hate your government".

I'm prone to agree...

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Elflocko' date='17 March 2010 - 10:18 AM' timestamp='1268839104' post='871134']
I in now way said that.

The point I was trying to convey is that we [b]created[/b] the terrorists we're currently fighting. Or at least our government and its agencies overstepping its bounds did.

And you're correct; not every person in that region wants to kill us. However, when I travel overseas, the most common refrain I hear is "We like Americans, we just hate your government".

I'm prone to agree...
[/quote]



I don't think we created them. I think we helped give them some power
and they got drunk off that power.

Like I said to Jamie, I think saying we created them is like saying Wal-Mart
creates Crystal Meth (and/or Meth addicts).

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='oldschooler' date='17 March 2010 - 10:28 AM' timestamp='1268836105' post='871125']
You people? LOL


That is like saying Wal-Mart created Meth users because they sell the shit used to make it.




[/quote]


What an absurd analogy.

Anyway you dont have to believe me, take what the CIA had to say about it... (oh and the fact that this was written in 2001 and were talking about the assassination restriction being lifted then which has come to pass.... and of course some still arent making the "necessary connections for an explanation" rather their explanation is more along the lines of "america fuck yeah")

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011015/johnson

[quote][size="5"]Blowback[/size]


For Americans who can bear to think about it, those tragic pictures from New York of women holding up photos of their husbands, sons and daughters and asking if anyone knows anything about them look familiar. They are similar to scenes we have seen from Buenos Aires and Santiago. There, too, starting in the 1970s, women held up photos of their loved ones, asking for information. Since it was far too dangerous then to say aloud what they thought had happened to them--that they had been tortured and murdered by US-backed military juntas--the women coined a new word for them, los desaparecidos--"the disappeareds." Our government has never been honest about its own role in the 1973 overthrow of the elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile or its backing, through "Operation Condor," of what the State Department has recently called "extrajudicial killings" in Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil and elsewhere in Latin America. But we now have several thousand of our own disappeareds, and we are badly mistaken if we think that we in the United States are entirely blameless for what happened to them.

The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001, did not "attack America," as our political leaders and the news media like to maintain; they attacked American foreign policy. Employing the strategy of the weak, they killed innocent bystanders who then became enemies only because they had already become victims. Terrorism by definition strikes at the innocent in order to draw attention to the sins of the invulnerable. The United States deploys such overwhelming military force globally that for its militarized opponents only an "asymmetric strategy," in the jargon of the Pentagon, has any chance of success. When it does succeed, as it did spectacularly on September 11, it renders our massive military machine worthless: The terrorists offer it no targets. On the day of the disaster, President George W. Bush told the American people that we were attacked because we are "a beacon for freedom" and because the attackers were "evil." In his address to Congress on September 20, he said, "This is civilization's fight." This attempt to define difficult-to-grasp events as only a conflict over abstract values--as a "clash of civilizations," in current post-cold war American jargon--is not only disingenuous but also a way of evading responsibility for the "blowback" that America's imperial projects have generated.

"Blowback" is a CIA term first used in March 1954 in a recently declassified report on the 1953 operation to overthrow the government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran. It is a metaphor for the unintended consequences of the US government's international activities that have been kept secret from the American people. The CIA's fears that there might ultimately be some blowback from its egregious interference in the affairs of Iran were well founded. Installing the Shah in power brought twenty-five years of tyranny and repression to the Iranian people and elicited the Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution. The staff of the American embassy in Teheran was held hostage for more than a year. This misguided "covert operation" of the US government helped convince many capable people throughout the Islamic world that the United States was an implacable enemy.
The pattern has become all too familiar. Osama bin Laden, the leading suspect as mastermind behind the carnage of September 11, is no more (or less) "evil" than his fellow creations of our CIA: Manuel Noriega, former commander of the Panama Defense Forces until George Bush père in late 1989 invaded his country and kidnapped him, or Iraq's Saddam Hussein, whom we armed and backed so long as he was at war with Khomeini's Iran and whose people we have bombed and starved for a decade in an incompetent effort to get rid of him. These men were once listed as "assets" of our clandestine services organization.

Osama bin Laden joined our call for resistance to the Soviet Union's 1979 invasion of Afghanistan and accepted our military training and equipment along with countless other mujahedeen "freedom fighters." It was only after the Russians bombed Afghanistan back into the stone age and suffered a Vietnam-like defeat, and we turned our backs on the death and destruction we had helped cause, that he turned against us. The last straw as far as bin Laden was concerned was that, after the Gulf War, we based "infidel" American troops in Saudi Arabia to prop up its decadent, fiercely authoritarian regime. Ever since, bin Laden has been attempting to bring the things the CIA taught him home to the teachers. On September 11, he appears to have returned to his deadly project with a vengeance.

There are today, ten years after the demise of the Soviet Union, some 800 Defense Department installations located in other countries. The people of the United States make up perhaps 4 percent of the world's population but consume 40 percent of its resources. They exercise hegemony over the world directly through overwhelming military might and indirectly through secretive organizations like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. Though largely dominated by the US government, these are formally international organizations and therefore beyond Congressional oversight.

As the American-inspired process of "globalization" inexorably enlarges the gap between the rich and the poor, a popular movement against it has gained strength, advancing from its first demonstrations in Seattle in 1999 through protests in Washington, DC; Melbourne; Prague; Seoul; Nice; Barcelona; Quebec City; Göteborg; and on to its violent confrontations in Genoa earlier this year. Ironically, though American leaders are deaf to the desires of the protesters, the Defense Department has actually adopted the movement's main premise--that current global economic arrangements mean more wealth for the "West" and more misery for the "rest"--as a reason why the United States should place weapons in space. The US Space Command's pamphlet "Vision for 2020" argues that "the globalization of the world economy will also continue, with a widening between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots,'" and that we have a mission to "dominate the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investments" in an increasingly dangerous and implicitly anti-American world. Unfortunately, while the eyes of military planners were firmly focused on the "control and domination" of space and "denying other countries access to space," a very different kind of space was suddenly occupied.

On the day after the September 11 attack, Democratic Senator Zell Miller of Georgia declared, "I say, bomb the hell out of them. If there's collateral damage, so be it." "Collateral damage" is another of those hateful euphemisms invented by our military to prettify its killing of the defenseless. It is the term Pentagon spokesmen use to refer to the Serb and Iraqi civilians who were killed or maimed by bombs from high-flying American warplanes in our campaigns against Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein. It is the kind of word our new ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, might have used in the 1980s to explain the slaughter of peasants, Indians and church workers by American-backed right-wing death squads in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua while he was ambassador to Honduras. These activities made the Reagan years the worst decade for Central America since the Spanish conquest.

Massive military retaliation with its inevitable "collateral damage" will, of course, create more desperate and embittered childless parents and parentless children, and so recruit more maddened people to the terrorists' cause. In fact, mindless bombing is surely one of the responses their grisly strategy hopes to elicit. Moreover, a major crisis in the Middle East will inescapably cause a rise in global oil prices, with, from the assassins' point of view, desirable destabilizing effects on all the economies of the advanced industrial nations.

What should we do? The following is a start on what, in a better world, we might modestly think about doing. But let me concede at the outset that none of this is going to happen. The people in Washington who run our government believe that they can now get all the things they wanted before the trade towers came down: more money for the military, ballistic missile defenses, more freedom for the intelligence services and removal of the last modest restrictions (no assassinations, less domestic snooping, fewer lists given to "friendly" foreign police of people we want executed) that the Vietnam era placed on our leaders. An inevitable consequence of big "blowback" events like this one is that, the causes having been largely kept from American eyes (if not Islamic or Latin American ones), people cannot make the necessary connections for an explanation. Popular support for Washington is thus, at least for a while, staggeringly high.

Nonetheless, what we should do is to make a serious analytical effort to determine what overseas military commitments make sense and where we should pull in our horns. Although we intend to continue supporting Israel, our new policy should be to urge the dismantling of West Bank Israeli settlements as fast as possible. In Saudi Arabia, we should withdraw our troops, since they do nothing for our oil security, which we can maintain by other means. Beyond the Middle East, in Okinawa, where we have thirty-eight US military bases in the midst of 1.3 million civilians, we should start by bringing home the Third Marine Division and demobilizing it. It is understrength, has no armor and is not up to the standards of the domestically based First and Second Marine Divisions. It has no deterrent value but is, without question, an unwanted burden we force the people of this unlucky island to bear.
A particular obscenity crying out for elimination is the US Army's School of the Americas, founded in Panama in 1946 and moved to Fort Benning, Georgia, in 1984 after Panamanian President Jorge Illueca called it "the biggest base for destabilization in Latin America" and evicted it. Its curriculum includes counterinsurgency, military intelligence, interrogation techniques, sniper fire, infantry and commando tactics, psychological warfare and jungle operations. Although a few members of Congress have long tried to shut it down, the Pentagon and the White House have always found ways to keep it in the budget. In May 2000 the Clinton Administration sought to provide new camouflage for the school by renaming it the "Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation" and transferring authority over it from the Army Department to the Defense Department.

The school has trained more than 60,000 military and police officers from Latin American and Caribbean countries. Among SOA's most illustrious graduates are the dictators Manuel Noriega (now serving a forty-year sentence in an American jail for drug trafficking) and Omar Torrijos of Panama; Guillermo Rodrigues of Ecuador; Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru; Leopoldo Galtieri, former head of Argentina's junta; and Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia. More recently, Peru's Vladimiro Montesinos, SOA class of 1965, surfaced as a CIA asset and former President Alberto Fujimori's closest adviser.

More difficult than these fairly simple reforms would be to bring our rampant militarism under control. From George Washington's "farewell address" to Dwight Eisenhower's invention of the phrase "military-industrial complex," American leaders have warned about the dangers of a bloated, permanent, expensive military establishment that has lost its relationship to the country because service in it is no longer an obligation of citizenship. Our military operates the biggest arms sales operation on earth; it rapes girls, women and schoolchildren in Okinawa; it cuts ski-lift cables in Italy, killing twenty vacationers, and dismisses what its insubordinate pilots have done as a "training accident"; it allows its nuclear attack submarines to be used for joy rides for wealthy civilian supporters and then covers up the negligence that caused the sinking of a Japanese high school training ship; it propagandizes the nation with Hollywood films glorifying military service (Pearl Harbor); and it manipulates the political process to get more carrier task forces, antimissile missiles, nuclear weapons, stealth bombers and other expensive gadgets for which we have no conceivable use. Two of the most influential federal institutions are not in Washington but on the south side of the Potomac River--the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency. Given their influence today, one must conclude that the government outlined in the Constitution of 1787 no longer bears much relationship to the government that actually rules from Washington. Until that is corrected, we should probably stop talking about "democracy" and "human rights."

Once we have done the analysis, brought home most of our "forward deployed" troops, refurbished our diplomatic capabilities, reassured the world that we are not unilateralists who walk away from treaty commitments and reintroduced into government the kinds of idealistic policies we once pioneered (e.g., the Marshall Plan), then we might assess what we can do against "terrorism." We could reduce our transportation and information vulnerabilities by building into our systems more of what engineers call redundancy: different ways of doing the same things--airlines and railroads, wireless and optical fiber communications, automatic computer backup programs, land routes around bridges. It is absurd that our railroads do not even begin to compare with those in Western Europe or Japan, and their inadequacies have made us overly dependent on aviation in travel between US cities. It may well be that some public utilities should be nationalized, just as safety aboard airliners should become a federal function. Flight decks need to be made genuinely inaccessible from the passenger compartments, as they are on El Al. In what might seem a radical change, we could even hire intelligence analysts at the CIA who can read the languages of the countries they are assigned to and have actually visited the places they write about (neither of these conditions is even slightly usual at the present time).

If we do these things, the crisis will recede. If we play into the hands of the terrorists, we will see more collateral damage among our own citizens. Ten years ago, the other so-called superpower, the former Soviet Union, disappeared almost overnight because of internal contradictions, imperial overstretch and an inability to reform. We have always been richer, so it might well take longer for similar contradictions to afflict our society. But it is nowhere written that the United States, in its guise as an empire dominating the world, must go on forever.[/quote]

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='17 March 2010 - 08:34 AM' timestamp='1268840050' post='871140']
What an absurd analogy.

Anyway you dont have to believe me, take what the CIA had to say about it... (oh and the fact that this was written in 2001 and were talking about the assassination restriction being lifted then which has come to pass.... and of course some still arent making the "necessary connections for an explanation" rather their explanation is more along the lines of "america fuck yeah")

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011015/johnson
[/quote]

Damn. I got pretty close considering I hadn't previously seen that article...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Elflocko' date='17 March 2010 - 11:50 AM' timestamp='1268841056' post='871143']
Damn. I got pretty close considering I hadn't previously seen that article...
[/quote]


Thats because you arent willing to say "i trust the goverment on everything"


of course neither of us are likely comfortable with anarchy either so we recognize the need for government but the need to keep a watchful eye on those running it

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='17 March 2010 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1268840050' post='871140']
What an absurd analogy.

Anyway you dont have to believe me, take what the CIA had to say about it... (oh and the fact that this was written in 2001 and were talking about the assassination restriction being lifted then which has come to pass.... and of course some still arent making the "necessary connections for an explanation" rather their explanation is more along the lines of "america fuck yeah")[/quote]



My analogy is no more absurd than you saying we created them, to me.

Where are all the other "terrorist" from the other parts of the World we "meddle" in?

How come they all come from the same region and/or use the same religion as a reason
to justify their actions?

I am not condemning the Muslim religion by the way. I am just saying that the terrorist
all use their religion to justify their actions.


I get really tired of people blaming America for the actions of others. These people
choose to declare war in the name of their religion. They choose to target innocent
civilians. They choose to hijack a peaceful religion in their name of their hate.
They hate us for giving aid to Israel. But ignore the aid we give to the Palestinians
and to Egypt, Jordan, and other Muslim countries. Hell, they even ignore the aid
we gave to them.

These terrorist also attack and kill people that practice the same religion as them.
They attack and kill people that aren't Americans. They attack and kill anyone that has
different goals and beliefs than them.


Sure the U.S. has had bad foriegn policies in the Middle East. But it is the bad reaction of radical Muslims
that should be blamed for them being terrorist. Not U.S. policies.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='oldschooler' date='17 March 2010 - 11:57 AM' timestamp='1268841456' post='871146']
My analogy is no more absurd than you saying we created them, to me.

Where are all the other "terrorist" from the other parts of the World we "meddle" in?

How come they all come from the same region and/or use the same religion as a reason
to justify their actions?

I am not condemning the Muslim religion by the way. I am just saying that the terrorist
all use their religion to justify their actions.


I get really tired of people blaming America for the actions of others. These people
choose to declare war in the name of their religion. They choose to target innocent
civilians. They choose to hijack a peaceful religion in their name of their hate.
They hate us for giving aid to Israel. But ignore the aid we give to the Palestinians
and to Egypt, Jordan, and other Muslim countries. Hell, they even ignore the aid
we gave to them.

These terrorist also attack and kill people that practice the same religion as them.
They attack and kill people that aren't Americans. They attack and kill anyone that has
different goals and beliefs than them.


Sure the U.S. has had bad foriegn policies in the Middle East. But it is the bad reaction of radical Muslims
that should be blamed for them being terrorist. Not U.S. policies.
[/quote]


where are the other terrorists? really? Are you conveniently ignoring the fact that Kim Jong-il was on the "access of evil" list? Or how about how Chavez is now one of our enemies? Nope it's only those crazy Muslim guys.


Yeah it's only the drug addict that's to blame the dealer never has any culpability in it.

Your defense in this really comes down to nothing but blind patriotism and frankly that blindness is causing more issues for this country you claim to love than you would ever admit.

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='oldschooler' date='17 March 2010 - 08:57 AM' timestamp='1268841456' post='871146']
My analogy is no more absurd than you saying we created them, to me.

[b]Where are all the other "terrorist" from the other parts of the World we "meddle" in?[/b]

How come they all come from the same region and/or use the same religion as a reason
to justify their actions?

I am not condemning the Muslim religion by the way. I am just saying that the terrorist
all use their religion to justify their actions.


I get really tired of people blaming America for the actions of others. These people
choose to declare war in the name of their religion. They choose to target innocent
civilians. They choose to hijack a peaceful religion in their name of their hate.
They hate us for giving aid to Israel. But ignore the aid we give to the Palestinians
and to Egypt, Jordan, and other Muslim countries. Hell, they even ignore the aid
we gave to them.

These terrorist also attack and kill people that practice the same religion as them.
They attack and kill people that aren't Americans. They attack and kill anyone that has
different goals and beliefs than them.


Sure the U.S. has had bad foriegn policies in the Middle East. But it is the bad reaction of radical Muslims
that should be blamed for them being terrorist. Not U.S. policies.
[/quote]

Our meddling over the past 60+ years generally involved fighting communists and obtaining oil. Now that there's a dearth of communists, our meddling centers almost exclusively around oil. Considering most of the world's oil supply sits underneath the Middle East and that region consists mostly of one particular religion, that might explain the disparity you see.

^^To be read as a hypothesis based on the information and history at hand, not a statement of fact.^^

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='17 March 2010 - 09:05 AM' timestamp='1268841941' post='871151']
where are the other terrorists? really? Are you conveniently ignoring the fact that Kim Jong-il was on the "access of evil" list? [b]Or how about how Chavez is now one of our enemies?[/b] Nope it's only those crazy Muslim guys.


Yeah it's only the drug addict that's to blame the dealer never has any culpability in it.
[/quote]

See?

Oil and a communist...

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='17 March 2010 - 12:05 PM' timestamp='1268841941' post='871151']
"access of evil"
[/quote]

LOL, great typo!

I want more access to evil, please, in order to help me complete my world-domination plans.

Thx.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Bunghole' date='17 March 2010 - 12:43 PM' timestamp='1268844204' post='871161']
LOL, great typo!

I want more access to evil, please, in order to help me complete my world-domination plans.

Thx.
[/quote]

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='Bunghole' date='17 March 2010 - 09:43 AM' timestamp='1268844204' post='871161']
LOL, great typo!

I want more access to evil, please, in order to help me complete my world-domination plans.

Thx.
[/quote]

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='17 March 2010 - 11:05 AM' timestamp='1268841941' post='871151']
where are the other terrorists? really? Are you conveniently ignoring the fact that Kim Jong-il was on the "access of evil" list? Or how about how Chavez is now one of our enemies? Nope it's only those crazy Muslim guys.


Yeah it's only the drug addict that's to blame the dealer never has any culpability in it. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Your defense in this really comes down to nothing but blind patriotism and frankly that blindness is causing more issues for this country you claim to love than you would ever admit.
[/quote]



Axis of evil was termed for those accused of harboring terrorist or were seeking WMDs.

We are talking about terrorist here. You know, the one's you said we created.
It has nothing to do with states or Governments.



And I never called the U.S. a drug dealer. I compared them to Wal-Mart in terms
of Crystal Meth and Meth addicts and dealers. Learn to read.



And no dumbass, I explained myself rather well. Instead of attacking me and acting
like my thinking is casuing damage to this Country, why don't you actually fucking
respond to what I am saying?


My point is that yes he had bad policies there. But to say we created them is facetious.
They made the choices to declare war, hijack their religion and kill innocents that don't
have the same beliefs and goals. The U.S. didn't make them do that shit.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='oldschooler' date='17 March 2010 - 12:59 PM' timestamp='1268845177' post='871166']
Axis of evil was termed for those accused of harboring terrorist or were seeking WMDs.

We are talking about terrorist here. You know, the one's you said we created.
It has nothing to do with states or Governments.



And I never called the U.S. a drug dealer. I compared them to Wal-Mart in terms
of Crystal Meth and Meth addicts and dealers. Learn to read.



And no dumbass, I explained myself rather well. Instead of attacking me and acting
like my thinking is casuing damage to this Country, why don't you actually fucking
respond to what I am saying?


My point is that yes he had bad policies there. But to say we created them is facetious.
They made the choices to declare war, hijack their religion and kill innocents that don't
have the same beliefs and goals. The U.S. didn't make them do that shit.
[/quote]


Re wiki - [quote]"Axis of evil" is a term initially used by the former United States President George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002 and often repeated throughout the rest of his stay in office, describing governments that he accused of helping terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction.[/quote]


Of course if you believe that then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. (the same bridge in alaska that sarah palin funded.)

You cant build a meth lab from the items in walmart unless you have a CIA to teach you how to do that. Learn to think.

You explained yourself with blind patriotism.

If I took the policies we had and said they were polices that some random country had against us, you would be outraged, you might even condone the use of military action to stop them. Of course we have a better military than they do, so it really comes down to he who has the best weapons wins, doesnt it? (I mean arent you the "if you dont want no dont start none" guy?, you just mistakenly believe they started it.)

[CTBengalsFan]

Oldschooler: Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote a book bragging about how he funded the Khmer Rouge, the Cambodian faction headed up by Pol Pot that killed ~3 million people. They aren't Muslims, so there goes that theory, and that's just one example I can think of off the top of my head.

I love how Jamie can rattle off a list of dictators we put in power and you just brush it off. What new dictator are we breeding right now? Who's going to seize control in Afghanistan or Pakistan when our constant presence is pissing them off to no end 10 years from now, or 20. At what point do we stop playing world politics like it's a fucking chessboard and pack up our shit and go home? I suppose when we're bankrupt from it.

I also think this goes back to the obsession our foreign policy leaders have with encircling China.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' date='17 March 2010 - 02:22 PM' timestamp='1268850156' post='871199']
Oldschooler: Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote a book bragging about how he funded the Khmer Rouge, the Cambodian faction headed up by Pol Pot that killed ~3 million people. They aren't Muslims, so there goes that theory, and that's just one example I can think of off the top of my head.

I love how Jamie can rattle off a list of dictators we put in power and you just brush it off. What new dictator are we breeding right now? Who's going to seize control in Afghanistan or Pakistan when our constant presence is pissing them off to no end 10 years from now, or 20. At what point do we stop playing world politics like it's a fucking chessboard and pack up our shit and go home? [color="#FF0000"]I suppose when we're bankrupt from it.[/color]

I also think this goes back to the obsession our foreign policy leaders have with encircling China.
[/quote]


Sadly yes, that's when.

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='17 March 2010 - 11:28 AM' timestamp='1268850506' post='871202']
Sadly yes, that's when.
[/quote]


The only thing I take issue with is the word "when".

Can you use that word in the present tense?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Elflocko' date='17 March 2010 - 02:33 PM' timestamp='1268850826' post='871206']
The only thing I take issue with is the word "when".

Can you use that in the present tense?
[/quote]


Meaning that I dont think anything changes until we do go bankrupt from it.

[CTBengalsFan]

Moody's is already threatening to drop our AAA bond rating.

I suppose when that happens, and the dollar crumbles, and everyone who's here defending this cowboy world police bullshit has the value of their savings REALLY get hit (what happened to your 401k over the past two years is NOTHING), maybe, just maybe an ounce of sense will creep into their brains.