Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
j-turbo2002

Operation Iraqi Freedom: The Aftermath

Recommended Posts

In the news tonight GW Bush was criticized by the Pope for going to war in Iraq and for not pulling out of Iraq now that rule had passed to the people.

J-Turbo said

This war is about one little word that those who are ruled by a Monarch and the socialists/communists in Europe don't want to hear: FREEDOM

So now it would seem the Pope is a communist.

I wonder how that sits with the Roman Catholics of the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UN Resolution 1441 was a total and clear justification for the war in Iraq. I have noticed that people who say, "using 1441 as a justification for the war in Iraq is a hollow argument" are just too damn ashamed to admit that there was a Resolution in the UN Security Council that called for the disarmament of Iraq. So, they go and try to "blow smoke" around the resolution that existed by saying 1441 was a hollow argument. It is like they are trying to make the whole issue disappear to back up their own personal agendas.

Everyone knew that there was a resolution in the UN Security Council that called for the disarmament of Iraq. Six to seven months before the war, President Bush repeatedly was quoted over and over again as saying that the United States would enforce the resolution when it came time to do so - and we did. So, when the war in Iraq started, it should have been to no surprise to anyone that the US was there.

The whole point is, that to win a war against terrorism, you have to fight on two fronts. Apprehend the terrorists themselves and chip away at any issues or injustice which is fuelling new recruits to their cause.

Where have you been the past year-and-a-half? This is what the United States is doing along with its partners around the world.

The war in Iraq has greatly strengthend the war on terror. Al Qaeda has been disseminated and they are on the run. They are cold and runnig scared. No on wants to join their stupid/immoral cause now. We are eliminating their bases in Iraq and everywhere else in the region.

Al Qaeda wanted to pick a fight with the US and they recieved their wish. We a are taking the fight right to them in Iraq, etc. We are winning and they know this. They also know that they only have a matter of time before the US wipes them from the face of the earth. You can continue to watch the BBC and Aljazeera and continue to have your mind polluted with the idea of "agression against Arab states by the USA" and that is fine but, believe me, I speak the truth based on the facts as they are today.

Very, very small pockets of Al Qaeda members occasionally do rear up their ugly heads now-and-then (i.e., The Madrid Bombings). Believe me, they would have not attempted this anywhere else. There was a reason why they picked Spain.

On account of these reasons, most people have seen the light that the war in Iraq was not based on anything else other than greed for control of oil

You see, highly educated and logical thinking intellectuals like myself know how to that this is not a fair argument at all.

To see why the "War for Oil" claim is a farse you really need to sit down and do the math. It is something one cannot tell you, rather, it is something that you need to see with your own eyes - on paper. If you are not willing to do a little bit of research and sit down and do some math and bais this argument on just what the weak minded say - I have no respect for you at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now it would seem the Pope is a communist.

I wonder how that sits with the Roman Catholics of the US.

Well, I have news for you, I am a devout Roman Catholic.

No, of couse the Pope is not a communist. I have studied John Paul in great detail. This is a man who could have very well been anything he wanted to be. John Paul is a very hard man to put in a political sense. To me, he is a Liberal Republican yet he stands on the boarderline between Liberal Democrat and Liberal Republican. This is why he is hard to put in a political sense.

Contrary to popular belief, the Pope has been supportive of the War in Iraq. The Pope knows that a lot of good is going to come from this war and the only issue that he has called for is a quick/speedy end to the war and to pray for those who are going to be in suffering and pain during the conflict. Yet, to my knowledge, to this day he has never come out and fully opposed the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The war in Iraq has greatly strengthend the war on terror. Al Qaeda has been disseminated and they are on the run. They are cold and runnig scared. No on wants to join their stupid/immoral cause now. We are eliminating their bases in Iraq and everywhere else in the region.

Al Qaeda wanted to pick a fight with the US and they recieved their wish. We a are taking the fight right to them in Iraq, etc. We are winning and they know this. They also know that they only have a matter of time before the US wipes them from the face of the earth. You can continue to watch the BBC and Aljazeera and continue to have your mind polluted with the idea of "agression against Arab states by the USA" and that is fine but, believe me, I speak the truth based on the facts as they are today.

Very, very small pockets of Al Qaeda members occasionally do rear up their ugly heads now-and-then (i.e., The Madrid Bombings). Believe me, they would have not attempted this anywhere else. There was a reason why they picked Spain.

So Al Qaeda is "on the run" and all but finished? They wouldn't attempt bombings other than places like Spain? I believe they carried out successful attacks in New York and Washington if my memory serves me correctly. If you think Al Qaeda is incapable of attacking places other than like Spain, are you going to categorically state they wont try anything in the US or in the UK?

Believe me, I would like to see the end of Al Qaeda as much as you do. But I'm a realist in how that can be achieved and one way not to do it is to continue comitting injustiuces. Example: Invading Arab nations. Example: Human rights atrocities in Abu Graihb Jail. Example: Deciding which UN resolutions to take action on based on a bias against Islam. Example: Standing by doing nothing while Palestinians are killed daily.

If Bush and Blair want to win against islamic terror they are continually shooting themselves in the feet. They should remember it is difficult to pursue terrorists when your feet are full of bullet holes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Al Qaeda is "on the run" and all but finished? They wouldn't attempt bombings other than places like Spain? I believe they carried out successful attacks in New York and Washington if my memory serves me correctly. If you think Al Qaeda is incapable of attacking places other than like Spain, are you going to categorically state they wont try anything in the US or in the UK?

The reason Al Qaeda attacked New York and Washington is because we followed the false Firefox attitude of, "Well, if we don't do anything to them, they won't do anything to us" for 8 years during the Clinton Administration.

Boy, I am sure glad that this polocy worked. What did it give us? September 11th.

Listen Firefox, Al Qaeda is pure evil. History has shown that you cannot appease evil, rather, you have to destroy it - no matter the costs. Your false attitude of appeasement is what is going to get us all killed again.

History has continuously shown that appeasement solves nothing. It just leads to more trouble, death, and suffering. And you have the nerve to call yourself a realist?

Appeasement shows weakness. Al Qaeda loves to see weakness in countries. This is why Spain was attacked - they believed in appeasement.

If there are others over there in the UK who think like you do, who show weakness, who believe in appeasement, then I would start worry. There will be another attack in the UK.

I believe that there will never be another terrorist attack on US soil again for the sole fact that we are a strong nation that has learned from its mistakes and has refused to go about a polocy of appeasement and show weakness.

If Bush and Blair want to win against islamic terror they are continually shooting themselves in the feet. They should remember it is difficult to pursue terrorists when your feet are full of bullet holes.

To my knowledge, they have not shot themselves in the foot. It is too bad that they are having trouble aiming at their feet.

I know for a fact that Bush is wearing steel toed boots. Maybe this is the reason? :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bow to your superior knowledge J-Turbo. On the News on Saturday night I saw GWB and the Pope sitting side by side talking to a group of people from the press. But either 1 The Pope did not say what I heard him say and the press did not report him saying and that GWB looked very solemn when reprimanded by the Pope. Or 2 I did hear what the Pope had to say and what was reported but the two people were ringins, pretending to be GWB and the Pope. Obviously the media got it wrong but all is ok because you set us right. I would like to suggest J-Turbo that you wake up or else you are going to start believing your own propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the meeting just as you have and this is what I came away with. Also, this is what most of the media here in the US reported.

The following is from this weeks edition of the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/public/us (you will need a username and password to log in)

Pope John Paul has told President Bush at the Vatican today that there have been "encouraging" steps in Iraq.

But the pontiff also reminded Bush of the Vatican's opposition to the war (Note: It does not say the Pope's opposition! Rather most of the Cardinals oppose the war and have been very outspoken about it!) , and he called for U-N involvement in a "speedy return" of sovereignty to Iraqis.

Afterward, the 84-year-old pope spoke from a wheelchair -- his hands shaking and his frail voice difficult to understand.

But a transcript supplied by the Vatican shows him urging the situation in Iraq be "normalized as quickly as possible."

Bush didn't reply directly, but promised to "work for human liberty and human dignity."

He also presented John Paul with the presidential medal of freedom -- America's highest civilian honor -- telling the pope that in America, he's "respected, admired and greatly loved."

********

Now dammit! I am not making this stuff up! I am using a credible source here which is more than I can say for you.

Now you tell me who is believing his own propaganda? It sure as hell is not me!

This is all that I have to say about the Pope!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bow to your superior knowledge J-Turbo.

Well, I don't know what to say, I knew that I was good but, Geez!

Let me be the first to say that I am sorry for making you feel inferior to myself for that was not my intention at all.

I was simply making a true statement based on what I knew about the Pope. As I have already metioned, I am a devout Roman Catholic, and I know a lot about the Pope based on what I have studied about him. I also know a lot about what goes on in his daily life.

That was all.

This has nothing to do with propaganda. I am not quite sure where you got this idea from. (?)

Once again, I am sorry that I hurt your feelings by making you feel inferior to me.

Can you forgive me? I don't know if you are a religious man or not however, the Pope would forgive me. That is just what kind of man he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After about a year's absence on the board I note that both Al Quada and J-Turbo remain as stubborn as ever about their beliefs. They both appear to have lost their abilities to relativate and see the big picture in the world. I won't get involved into this (anymore) and will check this tread next year again, hopefully after peace on the terrain and on this board has won. PS: J-Turbo, don't sleep too tight, most people are not as convinced as you that your strong nation has learned all the lessons and that Al Quada will therefore not be in the possibilty to attack you again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

History has continuously shown that appeasement solves nothing.

How many people on the board would agree that this statement is right?

History has shown that violence creates more violence. Witness the Palestinian/Israeli conflict or the recent troubles in Northern Ireland or ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia. Are we going to solve these problems with appeasement or force? Your opinion welcomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

History has shown that violence creates more violence. Witness the Palestinian/Israeli conflict or the recent troubles in Northern Ireland or ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia. Are we going to solve these problems with appeasement or force? Your opinion welcomed.

You should be asking yourself that very same question:

How many people on the board would agree that this statement is right?

A polocy of appeasement has caused all of the problems that you have mentioned here. Not violence causes violence. I am ashamed at you. I thought that you knew your history better.

The world is free today because WWII was fought with force. South Korea is free today because their freedom was fought with force. More importantly, the Sovet Union is no longer here today because of force.

America won its freedom because of force.

I could go on and on. Would you like me to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They both appear to have lost their abilities to relativate and see the big picture in the world.

What are you talking about? I do see the big picture. I am a Chartered Engineer. I get paid to see the big picture and solve problems. This is what I have been doing for the later half of my life. Something of which is more than I can say for you.

Also, since you have just "transformed" yourself, don't you dare try to lecture me on, "lost their abilities to relativate and see the big picture".

I will see you again in a year from now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

History has shown that violence creates more violence.

You know, now that I think about it, the reasoning and logic behind this statement make no sense at all. Also, there is no historical evidence to back this statement up. Therefore, it is not a fair argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J-Turbo I have two questions for you. Are you always right in every thing you say? And after looking at what threads you have posted in, where by far the most are to do with conflict the second question is Why are you here on a high heel site? The perception you create is that you are as fanatical as those you wish the world to be rid of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was telling my sister about the discussion on "Iraqi freedom, the aftermath" and she sent this to me.

From: RePorterNoteBook@aol.com

To: undisclosed-recipients:;

Subject: *NEWSFLASH* Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides

Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 13:39:09 EDT

From Capitol Hill Blue

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4636.shtml

Bush Leagues

Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides

By DOUG THOMPSON

Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue

Jun 4, 2004

President George W. Bush’s increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood swings, has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately express growing concern over their leader’s state of mind.

In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as “enemies of the state.”

Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge, increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home.

“It reminds me of the Nixon days,” says a longtime GOP political consultant with contacts in the White House. “Everybody is an enemy; everybody is out to get him. That’s the mood over there.”

In interviews with a number of White House staffers who were willing to talk off the record, a picture of an administration under siege has emerged, led by a man who declares his decisions to be “God’s will” and then tells aides to “fuck over” anyone they consider to be an opponent of the administration.

“We’re at war, there’s no doubt about it. What I don’t know anymore is just who the enemy might be,” says one troubled White House aide. “We seem to spend more time trying to destroy John Kerry than al Qaeda and our enemies list just keeps growing and growing.”

Aides say the President gets “hung up on minor details,” micromanaging to the extreme while ignoring the bigger picture. He will spend hours personally re viewing and approving every attack ad against his Democratic opponent and then kiss off a meeting on economic issues.

“This is what is killing us on Iraq,” one aide says. “We lost focus. The President got hung up on the weapons of mass destruction and an unproven link to al Qaeda. We could have found other justifiable reasons for the war but the President insisted the focus stay on those two, tenuous items.”

Aides who raise questions quickly find themselves shut out of access to the President or other top advisors. Among top officials, Bush’s inner circle is shrinking. Secretary of State Colin Powell has fallen out of favor because of his growing doubts about the administration’s war against Iraq.

The President's abrupt dismissal of CIA Directory George Tenet Wednesday night is, aides say, an example of how he works.

"Tenet wanted to quit last year but the President got his back up and wouldn't hear of it," says an aide. "That would have been the opportune time to make a change, not in the middle of an election campaign but when the director challenged the President during the meeting Wednesday, the President cut him off by saying 'that's it George. I cannot abide disloyalty. I want your resignation and I want it now."

Tenet was allowed to resign "voluntarily" and Bush informed his shocked staff of the decision Thursday morning. One aide says the President actually described the decision as "God's will."

God may also be the reason Attorney General John Ashcroft, the Administration’s lightning rod because of his questionable actions that critics argue threatens freedoms granted by the Constitution, remains part of the power elite. West Wing staffers call Bush and Ashcroft “the Blues Brothers” because they’re on a mission from God.”

“The Attorney General is tight with the President because of religion,” says one aide. “They both believe any action is justifiable in the name of God.”

But the President who says he rules at the behest of God can also tongue-lash those he perceives as disloyal, calling them “fucking assholes” in front of other staff, berating one cabinet official in front of others and labeling anyone who disagrees with him “unpatriotic” or “anti-American.”

“The mood here is that we’re under siege, there’s no doubt about it,” says one troubled aide who admits he is looking for work elsewhere. “In this administration, you don’t have to wear a turban or speak Farsi to be an enemy of the United States. All you have to do is disagree with the President.”

The White House did not respond to requests for comment on the record.

© Copyright 2004 Capitol Hill Blue

+++++++

"Deep down, I believe that a little anti-Semitism is a good thing for the

Jews - reminds us who we are." --Jay Lefkowitz (NYT Magazine. Feb.12, 1995. Page

65). Jay Lefkowitz is now Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic

Policy. A sick man! Don't you think?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Peace is patriotic!

Michael Santo Mauro

Editorial Director

253 West 72nd street #1711

New York, NY 10023

http://www.RePortersNoteBook.com

Available for Talk-Radio interviews 24hours 212-787-7891

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The QUESTION:

To subscribe and grow with knowledge or

to unsubscribe and Die Stupid?

Send an E-mail to:

RePorterNoteBook@aol.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JeffM, we need to get a few things straight:

First of all, when you post a source for your information it needs to come from a CREDIBLE source. For example, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Time, etc.

The Capitol Hill Blue is NOT a credible source. You have to read the very small print on the website. Remember, the BIG print giveth and the SMALL print taketh away.

If you look on the Capitol Hill Blue website you will find al small disclaimer that says the following:

"Capitol Hill Blue is a not-for-profit, non-commercial experiment in on-line journalism published by Doug Thompson Media purely for the enjoyment of our readers. All material is © 2004 Capitol Hill Blue. For more information, please check out our FAQ. We take your privacy seriously at Capitol Hill Blue."

Secondly, is everything I say right? That is a good question. As of this moment I would have to say, "Yes" because, along with everything I have said so far, I have true factual historical evidence to back me up. Which is more than I can say for some people who post in this topic.

Thirdly, we have probably the stupidest question of the year:

Why are you here on a high heel site?

Why do you think? I like to wear high heels! Gee, that was a tough question to answer wasn't it? I would show you a picture of me however Richie must have taken his webstie down off of the internet.

The perception you create is that you are as fanatical as those you wish the world to be rid of.

Come on! I do not have time for these cheap shots! By making this statement you are telling me that you are very uneducated and that you can not come up with anything constructive to say. Come on now, you can do better than this.

I am serious, I am so sick of this shit. You guys are so un-intellectual really can't think of anything else to say. So what do you do? Go go and pull out the "Old Play Book" and falsely accuse me of:

1) Watching too much Fox News.

2) Spewing propaganda.

3) Believing my own propaganda.

4) Being out of touch with reality.

5) Not comforming to the "true" views of the "rest of the world"

6) Not seeing the big picure.

Hmmm........let me see.........what else have you guys used?

Basically, you make these dumb statements just because you cannont think of anything else.

It really makes me mad because I come to this website to debate the highly educated European intellectuals. Instead, rather, what do the highly well educated Europeans say? Un-intelligent things listed in numbers 1 thu 5 above.

Now, I am being serious here. You guys can do better than this.

Please do not let me down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys! Let's let this thread die before things get serious. But, before we go, I would like to offer a few obversations. 1) there are as many views on the USA's and British involvement in Iraq as there are colors in the spectrum. 2) for those that either aren't aware of the fact, or just don't want to face it, this is a war for the very existance of western culture. There isn't a country on the globe that doesn't have it's share of Muslems fanatics that wish all non-Muslems a speedy departure from this life. Just look at recent news reports about arrests in Belgium, Germany, France and the UK, for example. 3) these fanatics do not respond to the usual stimuli, like the threat of dying or physical pain. Their single purpose is to convert the entire world to the Muslem faith and eliminating those that don't or die trying. No amount of appeasement will work or deter them from this objective. Their singleness of purpose is all encompassing -- that's why they are lcalled "fanatics." And, we -- all non-muslems -- will eventually have to "eliminate" these fanatics if life as we know it is to survive. So, the sooner we send them to the "right hand of Allah" and their 71 virgins, the better off we will be. Now, just a comment to those that ranted that I offended them with some of my remarks. I don't give a "flying f$$k" if you are offended. This country is a sovereign nation and our government is responsible to protect and defend it's citizens from all enemies, "foreign and domestic." The United States will never accede responsibility over it's foreign policy to any foreign power or group of nations....united or otherwise. Furthermore, this country will never seek permission from any other nation or group of nations to defend itself ......It will continue to take whatever action, collectively or unilaterally, it deems appropriate and in it's (own) national interests. Gingus Kahn's experience taught us that total victory only comes as the result of resounding military defeat. Grinding enemy opposition into the dirt until they learn the only choice they have is giving up and adjusting their attitude to the victor's way of thinking or dying. You guys, with your whining, crybaby, jealous attitude and wishy-washy appeasment mind set and soft underbellies will only learn when you experience, first hand, your own 9/11......and then I will do everything in my power to make sure the USA does not come to your aid or provide any assistance other than to say -- See, we told you so! So, to you guys in the UK, France, Belgium and/or Germany that are tiptoeing around this issue and are unhappy with the way America is reacting -- GET BENT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This country is a sovereign nation and our government is responsible to protect and defend it's citizens from all enemies, "foreign and domestic." The United States will never accede responsibility over it's foreign policy to any foreign power or group of nations....united or otherwise. Furthermore, this country will never seek permission from any other nation or group of nations to defend itself ......It will continue to take whatever action, collectively or unilaterally, it deems appropriate and in it's (own) national interests.

meaning:

The biggest bully in the playground has the right to do what he wants to all the other kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

meaning:

The biggest bully in the playground has the right to do what he wants to all the other kids.

I think that you have it all wrong, as usual.

The correct meaning:

The parent is going to dicipline the child!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TD, this hasn't anything to do with "bullying." It has to do with self-defense. In other words: We'll play nicely as long as you play nicely....When you get mean and ugly, we'll take the bat and shove it up your A$$.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TD, this hasn't anything to do with "bullying." It has to do with self-defense.

self-defense, by arbitrarily attacking other nations?

that's called offense, not defense.

In other words: We'll play nicely as long as you play nicely....

The US has never played nicely, and that's what got you into this situation in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may not be easy for you to see from inside the States, as no doubt there is plenty of propaganda thrown around. However, the USA has not "played nicely." A foreign policy full of greed and self interest rivals the worst excesses of the British 100 years ago. A terrible record of polution emissions, gas guzzling cars, SUVs and other consumer excesses. A record of sending in troops to support regimes which may favour the USA politically. This is how the rest of the world sees the USA and also the UK as its partner in crime. Unfortunately for us, a few thousand cruise missiles and display of smart weaponry do nothing to change this view. Neither do the "baseball bats" and other instruments of torture as used by the USA in Abu Graihb Jail. What the USA and the UK need to do is start setting an example of how to play fairly and nicely on the international stage. This will remove much of the motivation for the current wave of Islamic terrorism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In contrary, it may not be very easy for you to see from inside Europe but the there is a lot of propaganda being thrown around, and unfortunately, you are a shinning example of what happens to someone who takes that propaganda as truth.

First:

So let me see if I understand you correctly. The US does not play nicely?

We export more jobs to other developing countries than any other country on earth. Without the help of the United States, those people in the developing countries would not have the benefit of a job and the income that comes with it.

We are also the leaders in food production. Without the help of the United States, millions of people would be starving.

The United States is the leader in pollution control technology. The United States was involved in pollution control long before Europe (by approx. ten years). Without the ingenuity of the United States, the environment would be ten times as worse as it is today. We are going to make the future a better/cleaner place to live for everyone.

Finally, we bring the idea of freedom, life, and the pursuit of happiness to those who have never experienced it.

So let me ask you again. The US does not play nicely? Oh no my friend, the United States has been too nice for too long.

Second:

I have to ask you a question. Where did you learn your history? I am asking this question because you cannot even compare the US to what the British did years ago.

The United States is not an Empire, it never will be, and it most certainly does not even compare to the atrocities of the former British Empire. Unlike the former British Empire, the United States is not swallowing up other countries as part of itself, occupying them for 300+ years, and exploiting every valuable resource in that country. It is just not happening, and there is no proof that it is ever going to do so.

To note:

I picture the extreme form of Islam and Al Qaeda as a cavity on your tooth. You would not sit around and hope that it just went away would you? You would not follow a policy of appeasement and think that, “If I don’t touch that little cavity it won’t hurt me” would you?

You see, the problem here is that you have to take care of that cavity because if you wait too long, that little cavity in your tooth will eventually work its little way down to the root and hurt you, rather, it will give you some tremendous pain. This is why you go to the dentist and let him drill out the cavity and fill it up so that it does not hurt you ever again.

The one thing to note is that cavities can sometimes sneak up on you without you knowing about them at all. This is why you go to the dentist and let him perform preemptive maintenance an oral evaluation (take X-Rays, etc.).

Applying this to politics, the United States is the dentist; he is examining the teeth (rest of the world) for any potential problems (or cavities). If he finds anything that could be a problem, he immediately gets rid of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J-turbo, I find your post to be lucid, to the point, relatively nice, and oh so truthful, especially on the subjects of pollution and the behavior "former" British Empire.

Europeans tend to think of Americans as wasteful polluters because we continue to drive gas guzzling monsters, mainly because we can! It is NOT America's fault that the price of petrol in Europe is more than twice what it is here. My best guess is that we don't tax the shit out of it the way European Nations apparently do. One wonders why a 60-70% income tax rate isn't enough to support their national health care system--they have to tax everything else as well?? The average tax rate on fuel varies from state to state, but I doubt that it accounts for more than 40% of the total retail amount per gallon, even in the highest gas tax state--California.

The point is if we had to pay $5 per gallon instead of $ 2.25 or so, we would be much desirous to buy gas conserving cars, including the new gas-electric hybrids than we are now. Gas guzzling, however, does not equate to pollution; indeed, when I was in the Army back in 1984, it was bloody nigh impossible to buy a car in Europe and bring it back to the States because the pollution restrictions here at the time would have, in most cases, necessitated a whole new engine specially tuned to handle the emissions requirements. I don't know whether this has changed recently or not (e.g. European anti-emissions standards catching up to the US standards?).

It has always seemed incredible to me how anyone could honestly believe that we were "Imperialistic" in any way. Even Teddy Roosevelt's "speak softly and carry a big stick" policy (not too far different than the current administration, actually, at least in principle) did not involve us interferring with some potentate's sovereignity other than to secure the safety of Americans or American businesses abroad (see for example

http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/Morocco.htm).

In the days of the British Empire, native people in the empire were second class citizens, when they were free at all. At least we gave native peoples the right to vote, eventually, be it the Indians, Cubans, Okinawans, or Filipinos. And we didn't use our "colonies" for penal colonies either. Or shoul I say lifetime indentured slavery, er, servitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J-turbo, I find your post to be lucid, to the point, relatively nice, and oh so truthful, especially on the subjects of pollution and the behavior "former" British Empire.

Thanks! The same to you! :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just have one more comment on pollution and then I will stop because this topic is about the Iraq aftermath.

When it comes to pollution, both Europe and the rest of the world should not be left out of the equation for being big polluters of the environment. Rather, they are probably worse polluters of the environment than the US.

Europe and the rest of the world pollute the environment on an energy generation standpoint. When it comes to producing energy that is free of carbon dioxide emissions - nuclear power is the way to go.

An increasingly growing hostile movement against nuclear power has taken place in Europe. What has this led to? It has led Europe and the rest of the world to rely heavily on electricity generation from fossil fueled plants; primarily natural gas and coal – two major contributors in the release of carbon dioxide emissions. As you all know, carbon dioxide emissions are greenhouse gasses and they contribute to global warming.

It is estimated that in FY 2002, nuclear power contributed to 20% of the energy produced in the US. The other 80% came from energy produced from fossil fueled plants and “other sources”. The other sources of power come from renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, etc.

It is estimated that in FY 2002, nuclear power contributed to 17% of the energy produced in the rest of the world. The other 83% came from fossil fuels. Europe and the rest of the world do not rely on renewable energy sources as highly as the United States does.

My source for all of this lovely information comes from the following article published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT):

The Future of Nuclear Power:

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

So again I ask you. Who is polluting who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving back on topic................... On a more important note, President Bush has proven that the United States will not let the safety, sovereignty, and freedom of the US and the rest of the world be dictated by the highly uneducated, jealous, and envious mob/thug crowds protesting on the streets of Europe and everywhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J-Turbo said

President Bush has proven that the United States will not let the safety, sovereignty, and freedom of the US and the rest of the world be dictated by the highly uneducated, jealous, and envious mob/thug crowds protesting on the streets of Europe and everywhere else.

Australia is part of the everywhere else; it is part of the rest of the world. We have protests about all manner of things, just like you do in the US, some even against Australia being in Iraq.

What is your President Bush doing in Australia to stop these dictators from taking away our safety, sovereignty and freedom? I have seen nothing.

Is our freedom robbed from us because of these protests? I doubt you could say yes to that. If anything Australia is a freer country than the US is. For evidence just ask your countrymen who have visited here and those who have elected to stay here and of course we Aussies.

Then there are the highly uneducated people in these rallies. Where did that come from? How do you know what their education standard is? Some of those who march in rallies have university degrees, some are politicians, doctors, professors, business men and women and environmentalists. But they are uneducated??? (Shaking my head in incredulity here)

And then there is this jealous and envy thing you mention. Are really saying that you believe we in Australia are jealous of your way of life. Where, as some one else said in a recent posting, we should all carry firearms with us because one day soon we will come across some one else who is carry arms and he might shoot first.

How do you explain that in Canada they have a higher number of firearms per head of population than the US does and yet only have something like 65 gun related deaths a year compared to the US having 11500 give or take a few with Australia having even less, less guns per head and less deaths that are gun related.

Would you now say that it is safer to live in the US than Australia or Canada for that matter?

I know this has nothing to do with your original posting on Iraq but it has every thing to do with what you have written above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Australia is indeed part of the everywhere else. However, it is one of the US’s strongest allies. Look, when I say the “rest of the world” I am only talking about those countries who are not allies with the US on the war on terror.

It is okay to protest and they have the right to do so. The point that I was trying to make is what happens when you listen to these people.

The Vietnam Conflict in this country is a perfect example. Most of the people who were protesting at that time believed that we should not have been there or have gotten involved – at all. Washington believed that we had to send troops to stop the spread of Communism, one of the most despicable forms of government on earth.

As we all know, war has its ups and it has its downs. We were doing very well for a long time. When things looked like they were going very bad in Vietnam, people started worrying and panic began to set in. People forgot how to maintain focus and how to keep a positive outlook on things. If Washington just would have let the US run its course in Vietnam, i.e., maintain focus and let the Generals and Commanders in the field do their job – we would have probably won the war.

However, over time the protests became stronger (due to a very wide variety of issues all of which I am not going to mention for times sake) and a very terrible thing happened – Washington began to listen to the protesters. Instead of letting things run the course and keeping focus Washington decided to throw it all away. They decided to listen to the protests and soon, panic began to set in Washington. So what did Washington do about all of this? They decided to take the running of the Vietnam Conflict out of the hands of the Generals and Commanders in the field and put it in their own. Based on my studies, I believe that this is the reason that we lost the war in Vietnam along with not putting troops on the ground in the north to shut down the supply lines and for fear of bringing China into the war.

Then there are the highly uneducated people in these rallies. Where did that come from? How do you know what their education standard is? Some of those who march in rallies have university degrees, some are politicians, doctors, professors, business men and women and environmentalists. But they are uneducated???

I say this because I have been to couple of these things before and I was awed at what I saw. I did not see any doctors or businesspersons (probably because they have brains). Sure as hell did not see any politicians. I did see some university degreed people there. I have yet to meet anyone with engineering, computer science, or any other scientific degrees at one of these things. I meet all the people with lame degrees in Family Studies (why didn’t that guy just get a degree in eating lunch?), Communications (a waste of tuition!), my personal favorite Landscape Design (now there is a real winner for you!).

Most of the people that I met at these things were just upset at life in general. They are all upset that their lives haven’t turned out the way that they wanted them to and so, being the followers that they are, they follow the mob of other lowlifes like themselves and focus their rage and anger against Bush and the war in Iraq. Now that I think – maybe their protesting is a good thing. Maybe they just need some way to get it all out of their system. I don’t know. Also, when you ask these people why they are protesting the war you are going to get some really dumb and illogical statements that make no sense whatsoever. I am serious.

Also, I have done a lot of traveling in my lifetime and I know that in other countries (lets exclude Australia for now) there is a overwhelming effort to keep the average citizen as dumb as possible.

Have you been to and American university now-and-days? You are going to be amazed as to how many foreigners you are going to see. The most amazing thing to me is that when you ask someone from another country as to why they have come to America to study you are going to hear responses like, “Well, in this country, I have the opportunity to do something like this” etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

j-turbo! Those protesters -- they know so much that isn't so. Taking direction from someone that does their thinking for them. And, as for Firefox saying (paraphrasing) that appeasment would deminish terrorism, I wonder if he really believes that? (the UK's appeasing Hitler didn't stop WWII, did it?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×