election day (United States)

Post by **Freakzilla** » 14 Jan 2009 15:45

They can't even tell us where the first $350B of the $700B bailout plan went. It's a fucking free-for-all right now.

I say we take the remaining $350B and give it to US housholds.

At 100M households, that's $3,500 each. That sure would help me out a lot.

A Thing of Eternity · Post by **A Thing of Eternity** » 14 Jan 2009 15:55

Give it to us, didn't I figure out that I'm owed about 2500$ myself?

Post by **Freakzilla** » 14 Jan 2009 15:56

GP and Freak i agree.. the guy is retarded if he thinks he can implement universal healthcare within the next 4 years with the way the economy is headed. not to mention the debt that's been incurred over the past few years that will eventually cripple the US economy.

Don't worry, I will keep y'all up to date on his broken campaign promises.

A Thing of Eternity · Post by **A Thing of Eternity** » 14 Jan 2009 15:57

Baraka Bryan wrote:AToE: we're not at all at rock bottom but for a G8 country in a relatively strong economic position, our system could be a lot better. I think some more private practise could go a long way in improving the system.

I agree that it would help for sure if done right, I just have almost zero faith that it would be done right, and the stakes are pretty stinking high for that kind of risk. Maybe we'll reach a point where that gamble makes sense, but I just don't think we're there yet.

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 14 Jan 2009 16:50

Freakzilla wrote:
GP and Freak i agree.. the guy is retarded if he thinks he can implement universal healthcare within the next 4 years with the way the economy is headed. not to mention the debt that's been incurred over the past few years that will eventually cripple the US economy.
Don't worry, I will keep y'all up to date on his broken campaign promises.

I wonder who Freak-Z voted for?

Post by **Freakzilla** » 14 Jan 2009 16:58

GamePlayer wrote:
Freakzilla wrote:
GP and Freak i agree.. the guy is retarded if he thinks he can implement universal healthcare within the next 4 years with the way the economy is headed. not to mention the debt that's been incurred over the past few years that will eventually cripple the US economy.
Don't worry, I will keep y'all up to date on his broken campaign promises.

I wonder who Freak-Z voted for?

It wasn't for the socialist.

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 14 Jan 2009 19:10

Wow...he hasn't even taken office yet and already your shtick is strangely getting old.

Post by **Freakzilla** » 15 Jan 2009 08:55

SandChigger wrote:Wow...he hasn't even taken office yet and already your shtick is strangely getting old.

I'm sure it will get better.

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 15 Jan 2009 11:01

Can't not.

chanilover · Post by **chanilover** » 15 Jan 2009 11:38

Freakzilla wrote:
SandRider wrote:During the campaign last year, I kept asking the college kids in the
Young Demcrats this debate question:

Health care : Commodity or Human Right ?
It may be a human right but it is NOT a right granted by our Constitution.

The US Constitution is a bit crappy, overall.

chanilover · Post by **chanilover** » 15 Jan 2009 11:47

Freakzilla wrote:
Baraka Bryan wrote:has Bush made any changes to prevent attacks on American interests abroad? I know there haven't been any attacks on the homeland, but i can't remember if i've heard of any embassy attacks in the past 8 years
Not that I know of, Al Queda has been drawn to Iraq to fight us there, where they've been spanked. We have taken the fight to them.

Al-Qaeda weren't in Iraq until Saddam was toppled by the US and its cronies (including that vile Blair creature, not that he went out to fight, he just sent other people out there to do his dirty work for him). Saddam didn't like the competition from religious maniacs when he was in power and kept them out, but "al-Qaeda" apparently came swarming in over the borders after Saddam had been removed.

It's strange that even now people talk about al-Quaeda as some form of structured organisation with a chain of command, instead of separate small groups who mostly work under the al-Qaeda brand name. I suppose pretending al-Qaeda is an organisation that can be defeated is done to boost the US people's morale.

If Bush is partly "responsible" for the lack of attacks on US soil, does he take some responsibility for "allowing" 9/11?

Post by **Freakzilla** » 15 Jan 2009 11:58

chanilover wrote:
Freakzilla wrote:
Baraka Bryan wrote:has Bush made any changes to prevent attacks on American interests abroad? I know there haven't been any attacks on the homeland, but i can't remember if i've heard of any embassy attacks in the past 8 years
Not that I know of, Al Queda has been drawn to Iraq to fight us there, where they've been spanked. We have taken the fight to them.
Al-Qaeda weren't in Iraq until Saddam was toppled by the US and its cronies (including that vile Blair creature, not that he went out to fight, he just sent other people out there to do his dirty work for him). Saddam didn't like the competition from religious maniacs when he was in power and kept them out, but "al-Qaeda" apparently came swarming in over the borders after Saddam had been removed.

I wasn't saying they were. They were across the border in Iran. I'd rather draw them to Iraq that have to fight them and the Iranian army.

It's strange that even now people talk about al-Quaeda as some form of structured organisation with a chain of command, instead of separate small groups who mostly work under the al-Qaeda brand name. I suppose pretending al-Qaeda is an organisation that can be defeated is done to boost the US people's morale.

They sound pretty organized in Afghanastan. They don't operate there like they do in Iraq. They don't attack until they are ready and do so from prepared positions in up to company sized formations.

If Bush is partly "responsible" for the lack of attacks on US soil, does he take some responsibility for "allowing" 9/11?

Sure, but how long had he been President? Al-Qaeda was at war with us for ten years before we started fighting back. Take a closer look at what Clinton did or didn't do.

And before you ask, I voted for Clinton... twice.

chanilover · Post by **chanilover** » 15 Jan 2009 12:13

Freakzilla wrote:
chanilover wrote:
Freakzilla wrote:
Baraka Bryan wrote:has Bush made any changes to prevent attacks on American interests abroad? I know there haven't been any attacks on the homeland, but i can't remember if i've heard of any embassy attacks in the past 8 years
Not that I know of, Al Queda has been drawn to Iraq to fight us there, where they've been spanked. We have taken the fight to them.
Al-Qaeda weren't in Iraq until Saddam was toppled by the US and its cronies (including that vile Blair creature, not that he went out to fight, he just sent other people out there to do his dirty work for him). Saddam didn't like the competition from religious maniacs when he was in power and kept them out, but "al-Qaeda" apparently came swarming in over the borders after Saddam had been removed.
I wasn't saying they were. They were across the border in Iran. I'd rather draw them to Iraq that have to fight them and the Iranian army.

I suppose Iraq is better than Iran, but Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda and certainly had nothing to do with 9/11 and wasn't building up an arsenal of WMDs, which were the lies put about for the justification of regime change in Iraq. Taking on al-Qaeda in a country with had nothing to do with them, with all the collateral damage, is indefensible.

It's strange that even now people talk about al-Quaeda as some form of structured organisation with a chain of command, instead of separate small groups who mostly work under the al-Qaeda brand name. I suppose pretending al-Qaeda is an organisation that can be defeated is done to boost the US people's morale.
They sound pretty organized in Afghanastan. They don't operate there like they do in Iraq. They don't attack until they are ready and do so from prepared positions in up to company sized formations.

Maybe the reason they operate differently is that they are actually distinct groups which have little in common other than they operate under the al-Qaeda name.

If Bush is partly "responsible" for the lack of attacks on US soil, does he take some responsibility for "allowing" 9/11?
Sure, but how long had he been President? Al-Qaeda was at war with us for ten years before we started fighting back. Take a closer look at what Clinton did or didn't do.

And before you ask, I voted for Clinton... twice.

That last bit is truly shocking!

I don't give Bush credit for anything, he was a brainless sheep who was manipulated by the trash who surrounded him. He's a weak-willed cretin, and it's odd that everyone seems to forget what he did on 9/11, which was fly around on Airforce One like a headless chicken. Inspirational leadership at its best.

Post by **Freakzilla** » 15 Jan 2009 12:16

Neither did I say we invaded Iraq to fight Al-Qaeda.

However, we know Saddam had WMDs, he was using them on the Kurds. You can deny that if you want but it's true.

Thanks to the UN, he had plenty of time to send them to Syria and Jordan.

But this is an old, pointless argument.

chanilover · Post by **chanilover** » 15 Jan 2009 12:30

He used them on the Kurds in the 80s, that doesn't mean he was still building them up. Rumsfeld said "we know where they are" at one point. Why didn't he let Hans Blix know instead of letting the poor guy run around Iraq on a wild goose chase? This argument may be old but it's not pointless, it was the entire justification for invading the country and it was wrong.

Are Syria and Jordan next on the hit-list?

Seraphan · Post by **Seraphan** » 15 Jan 2009 12:37

chanilover wrote:I suppose Iraq is better than Iran, but Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda and certainly had nothing to do with 9/11 and wasn't building up an arsenal of WMDs, which were the lies put about for the justification of regime change in Iraq. Taking on al-Qaeda in a country with had nothing to do with them, with all the collateral damage, is indefensible.

I've thought of it being a beach head in the middle east also, besides the obvious oil interests, that they could use. With all that evil regime excuse genre, it would seem to be an easy target from wich they could launch military actions agaisnt Iran, if need be. Any real possibility of this?

Post by **Freakzilla** » 15 Jan 2009 12:39

A US President can't be expected to know everything, the decisions he makes are only as good as the intelligence he gets. That's what his cabinet is for and I suppose that is why Obama is surrounding himself with criminals.

Saddam's WMD
have been found
New evidence unveils chemical,
biological, nuclear, ballistic arms

The Iraq Survey Group, ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, has found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official tells Insight.

"There is a long list of charges made by the U.S. that have been confirmed, but none of this seems to mean anything because the weapons that were unaccounted for by the United Nations remain unaccounted for."

MORE THAN 500 WMD FOUND IN IRAQ SINCE 2003

However, a partially declassified Army National Ground Intelligence Center report confirms that since 2003 U.S. forces have discovered more than 500 shells of ordinance containing sarin or mustard gas, i.e., WMD. It is now a definitive fact that there were WMDs in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein lied to the world when he said Iraq had no WMD.

This information was disclosed at a Wednesday, June 21, press conference held by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-PA), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Just because the liberal media doesn't report it does not mean it doesn't exist.

Post by **Freakzilla** » 15 Jan 2009 12:41

Seraphan wrote:
chanilover wrote:I suppose Iraq is better than Iran, but Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda and certainly had nothing to do with 9/11 and wasn't building up an arsenal of WMDs, which were the lies put about for the justification of regime change in Iraq. Taking on al-Qaeda in a country with had nothing to do with them, with all the collateral damage, is indefensible.
I've thought of it being a beach head in the middle east also, besides the obvious oil interests, that they could use. With all that evil regime excuse genre, it would seem to be an easy target from wich they could launch military actions agaisnt Iran, if need be. Any real possibility of this?

What country borders Iraq in the east?

Afghanastan

Coincidence? I think not.

SandRider · Post by **SandRider** » 15 Jan 2009 12:44

Freak wrote:I wasn't saying they were. They were across the border in Iran. I'd rather draw them to Iraq that have to fight them and the Iranian army.

Al-Qaida are Wahabbi Sunnis, they crossed the border from their homeland,
our friend and ally, Saudi Arabia. Saddam's Bathist party were secular Sunnis,
the sworn enemy of the Iranian Shia. The Federal Army toppled a modernist,
secular Sunni government, the extremist Sunnis poured in (joined in the fight by
the out-of-power Bathists), then the Federal Army turned over the civilian govern-
ment to Iraqi Shias, who immediately began negotiations with the Iranian Shia.

Confused ?
You won't be after the next episode of Soap.

Freak wrote:Al-Qaeda was at war with us for ten years before we started fighting back. Take a closer look at what Clinton did or didn't do.

After G.H.W. Bush betrayed his former friend and ally, Saddam Hussien, and Iraq invaded
Kuwait, Osama Bin Laden offered the use of his "standing army" to King Fahd of Saudi
Arabia, to defend against a possible incursion of Iraqi forces into the oil fields of the Eastern
Province. (This mujahadeen in Afghanistan that the US State Department & CIA fianced and
trained to fight the Soviets after their invasion of Afghanistan in 1979)

US State Department officials convinced King Fahd to reject Osama's offer, and allowed
those 500K Americans into Saudi Arabia. (I think you remember that, Freak). At that point,
being disrespected and humilated, with foreign troops on the "Holy Soil" of the homeland of
Islam, Bin Laden declared jihad on America.

So I blame Pappy Bush for the whole fucking mess.

ChaniLuv wrote:I don't give Bush credit for anything, he was a brainless sheep who was manipulated by the trash who surrounded him.

Don't misunderestimate that boy. Take a closer look at his operations during his daddy's presidential
campaign of 1988, when he was personally tutored under the most devious politcal mind of any
generation, Lee Atwater. See what he learned then that was applied in Pappy's 92 run, his own
take-over of Austin, the coup of 2000, and re-election of '04.

It's conventional wisdom now that Bush was Cheney's puppet. Bear in mind, conventional wisdom
is usually dead wrong. There is not a more malleable piece of clay in the US Federal Government
than Dick Cheny, with the possbile exception of Robert Gates.

Seraphan · Post by **Seraphan** » 15 Jan 2009 12:51

Well i didnt really noticed the midle eastern map
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/me.htm
Iran sandwich

Post by **Freakzilla** » 15 Jan 2009 12:55

So you think it would have been better if we let Saddam keep Kuwait and have control of a quarter of the worlds oil supply? Not to mention let him attack Saudi Arabia from there?

That's insane.

SandRider · Post by **SandRider** » 15 Jan 2009 12:57

oh yes, that's been in the plans, surely.

the only reason the Iranian war hasn't started yet
is that America voted for sanity in foreign policy
last november. (but by a god-awful slim margin)

Post by **Freakzilla** » 15 Jan 2009 13:02

SandRider wrote:oh yes, that's been in the plans, surely.

the only reason the Iranian war hasn't started yet
is that America voted for sanity in foreign policy
last november. (but by a god-awful slim margin)

Oh yeah, pull out all the troops... unless Al-Qaeda comes back. (paraphrased from his own web site) In that case he'll leave some. What a dork.

And Secretary of State Hill-Billy Clinton recieved how much money from UAE in last ten years? I think $10M was the last figure I heard.

No conflict of interest there...

SandRider · Post by **SandRider** » 15 Jan 2009 13:18

out of sequence posts there, but y'all are smart folks
and can figger it out.

Freak wrote:So you think it would have been better if we let Saddam keep Kuwait and have control of a quarter of the worlds oil supply? Not to mention let him attack Saudi Arabia from there?

That's insane.

All that is shoulda/coulda/woulda. I just stated the facts of the situation.

Freak, I spent most of the 70s in Saudi Arabia, working for ARAMCO.
Did a project for Bell Helicopter in Isfahan, Iran, too. It was clear to me
then that on the average, the American businessman and government official
did not understand anything about Arab or Persian mentality, nor did they care
to. It's only been now, after sticking our fingers and oil rigs and guns over there
for 80 years that the average American is somewhat familar with the terms "Sunni"
and "Shia". The actions of the US government gave both those fuckers, Saddam
and Osama, no choice but to do what they did.

"It would have been better" to never have betrayed Saddam and Osama. "It would
have been better" to never have allowed the US government to get involved in the
first place. "It would have been better" to not have allowed the CIA to overthow the Iranian
government in 1953 and reinstall the Shah. "It would have be been better" to never
have allowed Bill Casey to subvert the purpose of the CIA as an independant voice
in the 1980's to tailor information to fit Reagan's Central American agenda, which
set the stage for Robert Gates and George Tennant to feed twisted data to the Bush
White House to justify the Iraq invasion. "It would have been better" if the Johnson
Administration hadn't flat out LIED about the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

"It would have been better" if Robert E. Lee's staff hadn't dropped Special Order 121 on the
fucking ground, where it was picked up by Union soldiers and gave Little Mac the
positions and plans of the Confederate Army before the battle of Sharpsburg.

Like most of the foreign entanglements this county has gotten itself into, there were
pivotal moments where men with good intentions made the most fucked up decisions
possible.

but anyway. Hey, did you ever pass thru Khobar Towers outside Dhahran, at the
beginning ? I can tell you exactly why there was no fucking plumbing in that building.

SandRider · Post by **SandRider** » 15 Jan 2009 13:23

and I've meaning to post this too, mainly for you, Freak :

http://www.globalsecurity.org/index.html

one of my good old buddies in an Army surgeon, old
sumbitch now, too. This is the website he's hot on,
was just in Kuwait for a couple of years, said he checked
it all the time.

kinda like a Drudge report for the war(s).