Premier Rock Forum

First off, I want to thank ikilledfredmertz for not judging me too harshly on this. I edited my original post accidentally while in class because I wanted to point out to Brad that I'm not a total cocksucker. Now that that's covered, I shall move on.

1. This post was made after watching Rudy Guliani(?)'s speech that I taped off TV from the Republican Convention. I'm sorry for those who got offended by my "it happened" statement but now you know why it was said.
2. Maybe I believe or endulge into conspiracy theories too much, but it seems to me that we've been left in the dark.
A) I don't think that the terrorists acted alone. The Middle East is full of oil that unlike the oil we have is easily changed into gasoline. What better way to have an excuse to invade this area than set them up for something like this. I pray to God that I am wrong, but at the same time I'm really afraid I might not be. I trust the GOP as far as I can throw a fire hydrant.
B) If Osama attacked us because we lent support to Israel and helped them along the way like he has stated, then why didn't he just attack Israel instead of us. It makes more sense to me to go after the primary source of hatred than the secondary.
C) Iran, who have alot of money invested in us have never been questioned as to whether they played a part in this attrocity. If they wanted to, then our dollar could be worth less than the peso in a heartbeat. Maybe they're thinking in the long term when it comes to fucking us over.

These are just halfwit theories based upon my own paranoia. Don't take them seriously, please.

Angry_Dragon wrote:I edited my original post accidentally while in class because I wanted to point out to Brad that I'm not a total cocksucker.

As a total cocksucker myself, I can sympathize. I say some pretty damned foolish things. Regularly.

You made a mistake. A pretty severe one, in my estimation. You even pissed off the so beautiful Mr. Chimp. But you're moving on. Fair enough. Drop the explanations and be done with it.

In the spirit of being good citizens of this beautiful forum, let's kill this nonsense and be good to one another. If only to piss off Those Who Would Have Us Live In Fear And Turmoil.

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:

Angry_Dragon wrote:I edited my original post accidentally while in class because I wanted to point out to Brad that I'm not a total cocksucker.

As a total cocksucker myself, I can sympathize. I say some pretty damned foolish things. Regularly.

You made a mistake. A pretty severe one, in my estimation. You even pissed off the so beautiful Mr. Chimp. But you're moving on. Fair enough. Drop the explanations and be done with it.

In the spirit of being good citizens of this beautiful forum, let's kill this nonsense and be good to one another. If only to piss off Those Who Would Have Us Live In Fear And Turmoil.

Friend Dragon:

I would be the first to agree that we maybe have 1/10th of factual understanding regarding what happened and I also think that most folks intuatively sense the larger "forces" operating around us.

I too was pissed off by Giuliani's speech, but you know, he was there in the middle of it. He helped to bring the fine city forward.

That being said, I did feel that his sentiments were being whored out.

But that doesn't change the fact that it was a massive unforgivable and unforgettable tragedy, one that I feel will never embrace Shakespeare's formula of "tragedy plus time equals comedy."

With a little more context perhaps I wouldn't have reacted so hard, and I could pull a Two Many Helicopters if I tried to lay it all out.

I won't apologize for this:

Mr. Chimp may have been seeing red when he wrote:But this was a very shitty shitty way to present a shit attitude on a sensitive topic.

for I would have reacted the same way regardless of who might have said it.

I feel that way every time the President of Vice Cheney opens his mouth.

But I will state that, unlike our current administration, I was happy that you took the time to analyze everything that happened after your original post and that you provided clarification. Thanks.

Whew. Back at the base of the mountain. Relief.

Peace.

Jim

Thanks Chimp. Wow, maybe we really did descend from you.

Especially when they are telling us that it's the logical and it's a dishonest and simple minded American president telling us the illogical.

all right....i have no love lost for gwb, but i don't wish him dead. i wish osama bin laden and the rest of the al qaida organization dead. as little as i have in common w/our president ideologically, it's a hell of a lot more than i have in common w/osama bin laden.

i venture to guess you are in the same boat. and yet you are willing to take al qaida's word for it.

i don't think gwb understands the situation, but i think he's closer to the truth than the people who are trying to kill us. maybe accidentally closer to the truth, but still closer to the truth.

1. Why do you think it's unreasonable to be upset at the US for suporting Israel or occupying their holy lands or imposing sanctions on Iraq

whoa now. where did i say any of this?

although iraq owes its decade-plus of misery--leading up to and not including this most recent debacle--far more to saddam hussein and his cohorts than anything having anything to do with us.

how were we supposed to provide for the iraqi people when they had an intractable leader who waged war on many of them and oppressed them all, while refusing to comply with the u.n. for years and years? i have never understood this--the u.s. is criticized, often justly, for being interventionist and perhaps imperialist, but now we are supposed to have provided for the iraqi people, when they were under the thumb of a man who hates us and didn't like them much more? it's asking a bit much.

the war is a disaster. i'm not debating the war.

2. What is the "they hate our freedom" evidence

the tip of the iceberg:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,36 ... 78,00.html

"On the other hand, Qutb's works have also influenced al-Qaida, which, under the leadership of the flamboyant and camera-loving Bin Laden, seems to aim at a global jihad that will end with all men under direct, unmediated rule of Allah."

it's not fundamentally a political battle. i just don't believe that. i don't think it can be analyzed effectively on those terms, and seeing it as such gives one a false sense of perspective. it's not that simple.

Mr. Chimp wrote:.. and I could pull a Two Many Helicopters if I tried to lay it all out.

YEAH!

I'd lay out for you Mr. Chimp, but my heart is in another place.

tmidgett asked:

"how were we supposed to provide for the iraqi people when they had an intractable leader who waged war on many of them and oppressed them all, while refusing to comply with the u.n. for years and years?"

There are many, many recent examples of tyrannical, oppressive dictators being overthrown by their own people- in many cases, despite U.S. support for those dictators. A short list- Ceausescu, Suharto, Marcos, Duvalier. One big difference between Saddam and these other guys is that the U.S. didn't have crippling economic sanctions imposed against those other countries. But they did against Iraq. Far from "providing for the Iraqi people," we were killing them and strengthening their leader with these sanctions.

Ceausescu, Suharto, Marcos, Duvalier

saddam hussein was refusing to comply with u.n. resolutions

these were u.n. sanctions, placed against iraq for saddam's failure to comply w/u.n. resolutions

granted, the u.s. and u.k. were prime movers in keeping the sanctions in place

and granted, the sanctions were harsh and poorly calibrated, hence the (late) attempts to adjust them via the oil-for-food program etc.

but what teeth does the u.n. have if they refuse to sanction countries whose leaders are a proven threat to their neighbors, simply b/c those leaders might not comply w/u.n. resolutions regardless of sanctions?

i can't blame the u.s., to the exclusion of saddam hussein, for the suffering of the iraqi people under saddam hussein. the blame for their suffering lies primarily with him and his regime.

there's a lot to dislike about the u.s. relationship w/iraq, of course. we propped up saddam in the first place. we seem to have implied that it was ok w/us if he went into kuwait. we have just blasted apart most of their country under false pretenses, and we are on the verge of leaving them to their own devices while still in a state of chaos. there are terrible problems with our country's foreign policy, and i don't think any of us would argue too much about many of them.

tmidgett wrote:there are terrible problems with our country's foreign policy, and i don't think any of us would argue too much about many of them.

WHAT?!?! shut it, pinko! USA! USA!

the whole US/Saudi thing seems to be as messed up as the whole US/Israel thing. i don't pretend to understand bean one about it, but from what i've heard from some smart-folk, both the Saudis and the Israelis have a lotta money propping up our economy. and if it came down to it, if folks like them decided to "pull the plug" so to speak, the US would be rather devastated. that's the way i've heard it anyways.

i think maybe the problem with the sanctioning of Iraq was that we went and got our hands dirty, but didn't necessarily do a whole lot to make things any better. and as a result, people are inclined to pin the starving to death of over a million kids on the US. obviously this doesn't happen in a vaccuum. without saddam, there wouldn't have been any intervention in the first place. but considering saddam as a given, the US opened the door to criticism by poking our nose in and not doing things as well as they maybe should've.

it's like my friend's tascam porta 2 HS. the right side of the stereo buss wasn't working anymore. so i offered to take a look and see if there was anything i could do to remedy the situation. and there wasn't. so it then became this thing, where there was a problem, and i got involved, but i didn't do anything to fix the problem. but in the process, i became, in a way, associated with the problem.

granted, that porta 2 HS wasn't involved in over a million people dying, that i'm aware of. but still, y'know?

i think maybe the problem with the sanctioning of Iraq was that we went and got our hands dirty, but didn't necessarily do a whole lot to make things any better.

yeah

standard-issue foreign policy from the "new american century" crowd and their predecessors

kind of a nightmare

i don't want to seem as if i am defending it