[gmany3k]

http://www.cnn.com/S...les/brzezinski/

http://speakers.com/zbrzezinski.html


the grand chessboard.

[gmany3k]

this one gets into it but not until #5


http://www.larouchep...big_sept11.html

[ellisjersey92]

we are in this war because al quada bombed us. the democrats chose to think that iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror because it would make bush look bad. why did they do this? so they could get elected. that is their right. maybe it's why they lost the election.

i chose to beleive that iraq does have something to do with the war on terror. i'm not going to explain the history of saddam hussein and iraq and how he came to power in iraq but its a very bloody story.

the fact is that the middle east is a very unstable region. us going into afghanistan and iraq is the first step in making it a less anti-american and anti-israeli place. you can call it "world domination" "war for oil" "oppressing the arabs" or what ever you want to. i call it doing what is necessary to protect this country. in 5 years iraq and afghanistan will be on their feet and there will be 55 million arab people in the middle east that are able to stand up to people like saddam and bin laden. why will they be able to do this? because we came in and set up a democratic government. iraq has everthing to do with the war on terror. afghanistan and iraq were pretty much just us planting seeds. you can say we didn't have proof or that bush lied in front of congress to get the war approved. even if he did lie about the wmds i still think the war was the right thing to do. its that phrase "we're here to preserve democracy not to practice it". shady? yes. i still think it was the right thing to do. i'm not saying that bush did give phoney info in front of congress because there was evidence of iraq having wmds. he used sarin gas on iranians during the iran iraq war. the whole world knows about how saddam used sarin gas on the iranians and the kurds. peace nuts foam at the mouth when you ask them about the atrocities that saddam has committed but when you say lets take him down they say oh he isn't that bad. anyways, whether bush lied or not i still think saddam was a rotten apple in the middle east. proof or no proof. if you look at how saddam grew up and how he came to power you would know how dangerous this type of guy is. he doesn't deserve his own country. at least bush will be gone in 3 years. saddam would have been in there for life in iraq if we didn't take him down. why? because saddam has killed and continued to kill anybody that opposed his rule in iraq. its called an iron fist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i have this to say to you locojet.....if there really are ties to al qaeda in iraq, or there were, and the dems made up there being no connection to hurt the reps, then dont you think they would come out with some if not all of the evidence to defend themselves. the reps are taking a beating in the press and in general for this, and while i dont know how bush got reelected, i think it is really hurting their chances in 08, so why not show the voters some of that evidence?

and about the rotten apple....who are we to go around and pick and choose who we want to take out. not to mention the loss of americans lives, who appointed the US and bush in general, president of the united countries of the world? our country does some good things in terms of peace keeping around the world, but in this case, we brought instability to a part of a region that had too much of it to begin with. this is a huge point of mine, THIS ISNT SIM CITY OR ANY KIND OF GAME. IT IS NOT OUR RIGHT TO GO AROUND AND TAKE OUT GOVERNMENTS AT WILL, UNLESS THEY POSE A DIRECT THREAT TO US. iraq was no where close to a direct threat. north korea is more of a threat as far as im concerned, and they arent even considered a direct threat.

and another good topic of discussion...i noticed you mention israel, anyone want to venture onto that topic in a new thread? let me know and ill make it

[LocoJet]

the instability you speak of is temporary. like i said in 5 years there will be iraq and afghanistan as democratic nations. who appointed bush and the US president of the world? the terrorists. as far as providing proof to the democrats. where do they begin. during the debates kerry was spouting untruth after lie after inaccuracy and bush had to just sit there and say that isn't true, that isn't true, that isn't true. you don't like the explanation that bush gave to you so you said war for oil. you do what you want to. i'm just trying to explain it how i see it. this country wouldn't exist how it is today if the president could go over and take out another leader of a country for oil money. its like saying 1+1=3. it just doesn't add up. yeah. bush said to cheney "hey, i dont like saddam and they have a bunch of oil so lets buy stock in halibarton and go take out saddam." its one possibility. what i cant understand about someone that would beleive in this possibility is how could they sit there and not want to blow the *beep* out of the government for what they are doing and still call themselves an american? thats why i think democrats cooked all of this up to get elected. how can you sit there blase blase war for oil and call yourself an american? its like yeah, war for oil, happens all the time, we just have to wait till next election so evil mr bush will go away. what adds up to me is us trying to clean up the middle east one country at a time. good or bad that is what i think the cabinet has in store. just because you dont like the proof or dont even care to look at the proof doesnt mean there isnt any. if you dont think we have the right to go into countries that we think had a part in 9/11 that is your right. maybe we dont have the right to. i think we have the right to. what seems to be everyones problem is there is no proof of wmds or al quada. like i said in earlier posts. saddam used sarin on the iranians and kurds. everyone in the international community knows this. how were we to know he got rid of them? we were inspecting iraq and enforcing no fly zones since the end of the first gulf war. we were probably operating on the assumption that he could have them stockpiled in some secret bunker or something. as for al quada. i already posted the connection back on page 1 or 2. in the article it says how al quada bombed trains in madrid so that spain would pull troops out of iraq. spain capitulated. this is what i, and alot of other americans, call an al quada/iraq connection. if al quada didn't deal and work with saddam then why would al quada want us and our allies to leave? hasbala and hamas joined in to chop peoples heads off to get us and our allies to leave. hasbala and hamas are terrorist organizations. they aren't all terrorists. they would probably call themselves a resistance movement or islamic freedom fighters but they usually resort to bombing and decapitation to get what they want. logic tells me we should do the opposite of what these types of people want us to do. the opposite of that is to stay in iraq until it can stand on its own two feet.

[ellisjersey92]

there is a seperation to me between this administration and the country. i can be an american and believe in this country with out being a supporter of this administration and believing in its policy. to me, they dont go hand in hand.

i completely agree, like i said before, with us going into afghanistan and other countries that have to do with 9/11, i never said otherwise. bush did not have to stand there and take it. he could have said, this is why we went to iraq. we have a threat here, or a tie to al qaeda here, but it just isnt there. there is no reason for the government to keep it a secret, and it would benefit them to release that info. the fact is that the info has not been released, saying that there is no proof of any kind of 9/11 connection. as far as im concerned, you cannot connect 9/11 and iraq. if you show me some kind of evidence, any kind of evidence that there is a connection, then to me, it will justify the war. i am not choosing to ignore any kind of evidence. and keeping this friendly : you cant come up with any kind of evidence about why we went into iraq. now about the "connection" you talked about.... al qaeda claims, and i believe them, to be trying to defend the other arab and muslim countries. the obvious problem with them is that they used horrific, inhumane, ways of accomplishing their goal. now if their goal is true, then they can be "defending" iraq in their eyes by tryin to get countries out of iraq, but that doesnt mean they are connected to iraq. if a group wants soldiers out of a country, it doesnt mean they are automatically connected with that country, they may be thinking that they are defending the other arab countries, when they are really making things worse. and even if they were connected, which i know they arent, because of bush's lack of any kind of proof, your reason came about after we entered iraq. al qaeda trying to get us out of iraq is not a reason for us to go in, because if we hadnt have gone in, then there would be none of your proof, and that didnt exist beforehand, as a reason to go in. it came about from us going in.

like i said before, saddam has done some terrible things, but THIS WAR WAS NOT NECESSARY. the armed forces are stretched so thin now, that it did not make sense to go in and the kinds of things that happened mooe than ten years before we went into iraq, happen elsewhere in the world. is it a coincidence that the country happened to have huge oil reserves and it was in a region that was under fire already? sounds like easy picking to me. if this administration was genuinly after things like this, then we should be in east africa, north korea, cuba, liberia, and we should have had more than the 20 marines that we had in haiti. like you said, 1 + 1 = 3. the facts just dont add up.

[LocoJet]

i see what your saying dude but i've heard it all before. i think people do choose to ignore proof. they do it for alot of reasons. mostly because they dont like war. nobody likes war. if you like war you shouldn't be in a war. most people hate war and it is good that they do. again i think this war was neccessary.

if bush did have proof you probably wouldn't look at it considering you just wrote off what i told you about spain.

as for the rift between this republican administration and the american people. they are all pretty much democrats. a record 58 million americans voted for one candidate last election. that candidate was bush. i think kerry broke the record with 48 million people as well. the rift you speak of exists with every president. the rift you speak of existed between me and good ole blow job bill because of all of his social policies. he sure did blow a mighty fine sax though eh?

people blow out of proportion how stretched thin our military is right now. why? because they hate bush. plain and simple. i'm not one of these people so i dont know for a fact what goes on in their skulls but i think its because they sit on the left side in congress. a person from an anti bush peace organization called me tonight and asked if i could donate money to her cause as she told me that 100,000 iraqi civilians have been killed in the war. i know from reading on this site that the number is more like 25,000. 25,000 is a horrible amount of people so why not just tell the truth. it's like the neo *beep* when they say only 500,000 "undesirables" were killed in the holocaust. only it is in the opposite direction. my point is that the democrats are saying we have our military stretched too thin when we don't. it is thin but if a major war erupted we would be out of iraq and fighting somewhere else in no time. think about it.

i hate it when people ask why not n korea, sudan, iran? blah blah blah. like if we wern't in iraq right now they would be all for us going into one of those countries. give me a break. attacking n korea would be insanity. i already told you guys why a few pages back. its funny that democrats bring up iran and n korea after they chastised bush for calling those countries the axis of evil. they aren't the axis of evil but now they are? you voted for the 87 billion before you voted against it? grow a *beep*ing spine kerry. your a catholic evolutionist. you can do it man!

back to the whole wmd thing. we went into iraq for wmds right? we didn't find any. that doesnt look good. we went into afghanistan to find bin laden and we didn't find him. does it look bad? no. because the democrats already have their golden halibarton war for oil theory and it doesnt suit them to have one about afghanistan and bin laden. they are full of shit. i already told you guys this but kerry stood up there in one of the debates and said "i know where bin laden is he is in afghanistan." what he means is bin laden was last sighted there. same thing with the wmds in iraq. they were there and now they aren't. it is a known fact that they were there. i've seen video of dead iranian people that saddam killed with sarin. kerry says i know he is in afghanistan because he wants to make bush look stupid for going into iraq. i for one didn't fall for this line of shit. the fact is that in afghanistan and iraq killing or capturing bin laden is a bonus but what we really want out of those countries is to help set up governments that dont let guys like bin laden live there and set up training camps there. he was exiled from saudi arabia and now he needs a place to go. if your a government and you harbor or sponsor a terrorist that means you are a terrorist as well. that gives us the right to take you down. you didn't hear bush say this so there isn't any proof? you chose not to see this. it is naive to say that saddam had no connection to terrorists. saddam hates our guts and i dont think he has too high a regard for american life. kerry says different but he must have better intel than the rest of us. your right kerry. saddam wouldn't do something like that to his good buddy the usa. what most democrats dont realize is that people like saddam and bin laden have never even heard of a democrat or a republican. they just want to kill americans for the sake of killing americans.

here you go dude.

http://communistsforkerry.com/

communists, fascists, nuts in general like kerry and want him in office. why because he has no spine and he doesnt care about what this nation has fought for for the past 250 years. that thing is freedom. kerry sold everyone a load of shit so he could get elected. real american. not all democrats are like this but ask yourself why all of these anti-american types of people would want kerry as the president of the USA?

i like you and i like having someone to talk to about this stuff. we should open up another thread about israel.

[gmany3k]

seems I have been ignored.check out the links i posted the 3rd one
is hard to read and is very long but it tells things about the the pwers that be that you don't get educated on.it covers history from the 15th century to the present. you might even recognize some of the events, names etc.

[LocoJet]

i'm not ignoring you i'm reading it right now. i'll tell you what i think when i'm done.

[ellisjersey92]

im going to create the israel thing...but i have to address this first. i wrote off what you told me about spain because that isnt a reason we went in. that occurred after we went in, so it couldnt possibly be a reason to have gone in in the first place. i want proof that we had in our hands before we went in, because that is the only kind of proof that could justify the war IN IRAQ (i am going to keep them seperate in this) and it is the only kind of proof in general.

i was speaking for myself with the rift. obviously there are more people (dems) that agree with me, but i wasnt tryin to prove anything about numbers, i was just saying how i could be an american and not support bush.

as for kerry, i may support him in most of his issues, and i know you were addressing dems in general, but just reminding you that kerry's policy doesnt just slap onto me. i disagree with some of his policy too.

i would like for someone to point out the evidence that makes WMDs in iraq a proven fact. and iraq did not harbor terrorists, until there is some kind of evidence it did. of course there are going to be some people that hate america, but there are people in this country (non-arab) that hate america, they are in every country, so that is not a reasonable answer. that doesnt automatically connect them with terrorists. saddam may hate america since we stopped him from invading kuwait (i support that 100%) and he saw it as doing something that wasnt our concern. him hating america doesnt connect him to terrorists. he also may not have a high regard for american life, but do you have a high regard for the lives of people in senegal or new guinea or burma, like you have the regard for the lives of americans or english etc. just because he may hate america or he doesnt have a high regard for their lives, doesnt mean he is connected to terrorists, and THAT is naive. there is absolutely no evidence that you have come up with that connects iraq to al qaeda, other terrorist organizations, or to WMDs. you said yourself that the reason we have the right to take them down was if they were connected to terrorists. since there is no proof that they were, then there is NO justification for the war.

you think that i am naive to the situation and i have to see a signed paper from saddam himself saying he supported and harbored al qaeda or had WMDs to believe it, but that isnt true. i am not oblivious to the fact that other countries have ties to them, even if it isnt spelled out for me, but i truly believe that there is no connection with iraq. and until there is some kind of proof, i wont recognize the war in iraq as justified and i dont think anyone eles should.

[LocoJet]

it seems like the difference between you and i is that you require evidence that we had before we went in. if you want that kind of evidence then you'll have to ask mr. bush. i dont work for the cia so i dont have any for you. i do know that after we went in all the proof in the world started coming out of the woodwork. you have to admit that. thats cool that you want before hand proof and i dont blame you.

i value all human life. saddam is the one that values his life and all of his thugs life more than american lives. not me. saddam is the one that brought this upon himself. hopefully this conflict is resolved as soon as possible so that the iraqi people and our people can live in peace.

if you want to help people in other nations then take it up with the UN. the UN didn't want to help us with iraq so why would they want to help us with burma, chechnya, sudan, n korea or iran? they are ineffective as an international peace keeping organization as far as i'm concerned. just because people deny there is a war on or deny that a certain war should be fought doesn't mean that we live in peace. 9/11 was an act of war. taking out afghanistan wouldn't have done much on the war on terror if you look at the middle east as a whole.

[LocoJet]

i know exactly what your saying a1elbow. i know about all of the non partisan commissions. i do feel that bush was untruthful to the public about why we went. i still feel it was justified and i also feel that the terrorist link is alot stronger than anyone in this chat room will choose to beleive.

exposing someone like micheal moore isn't called bashing him. poor michael moore.

[LocoJet]

i didn't say it was perfectly acceptable. on the flip side i think its funny that people bash bush because they think that he lied but defend kerry for lying through his whole presidential campaign. you dont call this lying to usurp power or what you said before? he was lying to get elected. everyone knows that in american politics you have to weed through the bs but kerry took the cake in '04.

i always bring up kerry when i'm in a debate about iraq or terror or what have you because kerry was the only alternative to bush. thats why its important. i would never vote for someone like kerry. i dont agree with alot of things bush does and the same goes for democrats. i wish there was a party that was in the middle. i cant vote for one guy and tell myself that he will represent me as an individual. the point is that bush is the one that best represented me in '04. by alot i might add. i dont think it will change in '08 seeing as how the democrats want hillary to run. do they want to win? if the democrats can come up with a candidate that will protect the poor, my constitutional rights and believe in having a strong military i will vote for them. if there was a democrat that was like that he wouldn't be following the democrat party line. hillary is for sure not that person. bush most closely resembled that person in '00 and '04. thats why i voted for him. kerry is all for protecting the poor but thats about it.

[ellisjersey92]

i think we have come to some reasonable, moderate conclusions....next up is israel

[LocoJet]

i agree. we beat the crap out of it.