Reading about the CIA doesn't inspire confidence
"Ironically, Bush had it right when he was first running for president. That was when he advocated a more modest foreign policy for the United States..." Yeah - remember that? Also Bush's smirking denunciation of the "nation building" that went on during the Clinton administration. Even then, Bush knew full well that the American people did not care for our government to be police, arms dealer, and political architecture of the world. What a disgraceful, lying sack of **** HE turned out to be! (3 hrs ago | post #3)
Sure, Bernie. Iran is gonna target the Unites States of America for a military or nuclear strike, hu? I guess Iran's just one big suicide bomber of a nation, is it? We had better heed the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower: "Pre-emptive war IS war." Words so obviously self-evident they shouldn't even have had to have been said at all, but - in light of the Iraq catastrophe - apparently they must be. Repeatedly. (Saturday Aug 2 | post #2)
Is military action right course on Iran?
It IS interesting - and somewhat dismaying - to find that word censored. Why doesn't Topix just decree that we're not to discuss religion or politics at all? (Saturday Aug 2 | post #13)
Is military action right course on Iran?
Yes; ALL the nation's so-called "liberal " major mainstream conglomerate-owned newspapers energetically beat the drums of war for the corporate-driven invasion of Iraq. And none, you'll note, today support an immediate and complete end to the occupation, either. And you're right: G.W. Bush is not "the one" we and the rest of the world need to worry about; there isn't any "one." He's just the key figurehead for the military-industria list Neocons who primarily engineered and continue to support the ongoing catastrophe in Iraq and who press for still further wars of aggression and "nation building." It will be the same old same old with any of their other figureheads at the helm. Just ask John McSame, who promised us that "there will be more wars." Before, that is, he figured out that this isn't what most Americans want. (Thursday Jul 31 | post #5)
Is military action right course on Iran?
Maybe not. Everybody knows that those Commies were godless, after all. However, in a private meeting with some visiting heads of state, George W. Bush - current Commander-in-Chief over the world's most deadliest arsenal of WMDs - disclosed that it was God who had instructed him to invade Iraq. So...who is it we have to worry about, again? (Thursday Jul 31 | post #2)
Is John McCain, messy maverick, qualified?
What Bush brought to Iraq is chaos, death, and destruction, plus a foreign military occupation. That's freedom? Anyone who thinks so is invited to go live there. Some 4 million Iraqis have already chosen not to, and left. The fact that the occupation still shows not a sign of ending, ever, despite the wishes of the so-called "sovereign prime minister" representing the will of his people - some 96% of whom wanted the U.S. out years ago - says excactly for Bush what you've just said of McSame. Both are solidly in the Neocon camp, and can hardly be trusted not to follow the Neocon blueprint for occupation without end and wars without end. (Monday Jul 28 | post #50)
Is John McCain, messy maverick, qualified?
I think maybe it's awareness of that constant geographic peril that's actually what's made SOME of us here a little more courageous and LESS willing to let fear drive us into the arms of militant fascism in the name of security. We're used to it. I can say this: we'd better live up to the name "home of the brave," or we won't be the land of the free too much longer. And terrorism - which aims precisely to influence politics through mass fear - will have prevailed. (Monday Jul 28 | post #42)
Is John McCain, messy maverick, qualified?
Willya lookit that! A leg has sprouted already... (Monday Jul 28 | post #40)
Is John McCain, messy maverick, qualified?
This HAS to be the most feeble attempt I've seen thus far to smear Obama by what other people have done or said. Is this actually coming from right-wing talking points, or are you attempting to give this one legs on your own? (Monday Jul 28 | post #39)
New York Times defends decision not to run McCain's op-ed, says...
You know, hu? You personally examined every shipment that ever left the United States to Iraq without exception. Because that's the only way you KNOW. Otherwise, sorry - you beLEEEEEEV. When I'm right, I'm right. And I was right - disputing you is worth squat. I knew it would be, which is why I don't bother really getting into it. A good mind closed is pretty much good for nothing. Anyway, if you feel anything even remotely CLOSE to desparation over a topic board discussion, I applaud you for at least feeling SOMEthing. (Wednesday Jul 23 | post #296)
New York Times defends decision not to run McCain's op-ed, says...
If anyone ever thought we should trust the crosscurrents of politics, greed, power, lies, and hatred to produce accurate assessments of what another nation will do someday, somehere down the line, the catastrophic and clearly unnecessary invasion of Iraq should have put the lie to THAT. We'd do better to prognosticate by examiing the entrails of sacrifical beasts. Just think back on what the clairvoyants told us before we let them do their worst: "There is NO DOUBT" Iraq has WMDs. "We KNOW where they are." "We'll be greeted as liberators." "The war will pay for itself." The war will last "six days, six weeks - I doubt if it will last six months." Etc. Etc. Yada yada yada ad infinitum ad nauseum. Makes ya sick. Maybe you want to trust false prophets and liars like these to tell us who's going to someday develop the means to someday deliver weapons to U.S. soil and someday maybe attack us... I sure as hell don't. Real intelligence and international cooperation has intercepted and prevented MANY potentially disasterous terrorist attacks. That's the only way should be done. Combating terrorism by waging wars in foreign theaters is like combating organized crime by carpet bombing Las Vegas. The "cure" is worse than the disease. Much worse. Remember this quote of Dwight Eisenhowers, which is so self-evident no one should even have had to say it: "Pre-emptive war IS war." Duh. (Wednesday Jul 23 | post #294)
New York Times defends decision not to run McCain's op-ed, says...
McSame! I LOVE it. That's his name from this point on! (Wednesday Jul 23 | post #290)
New York Times defends decision not to run McCain's op-ed, says...
Now a quick lesson about what it means to be "human." It is not about beLEEEEF per se, but it IS about emotion. BeLEEEEEV it or not, human beings are mostly driven by and concerned with each other on an emotional level. You know this; you deride it all the time. Emotions are the most fundamental and basic way that people connect and interact with one another. It's why we are human and not clumsily mobile meat-based computers that eat. A mother seeing her child blown to bits by a drone does not act as if she is observing charred meat fall apart and blood ooze out of it. She acts as if she has lost the person she loves most in all the world. Someone who foregoes most of their time to, say, care for an elderly or diabled person is not doing so because it is the most rational course of action or in their own best interest. Are you receiving me, here? Or no? Anyway, you come across as one of the very worst specimens found in human nature: a souless cynic whose emotions are so repressed as to be all but dead. I hope for your own sake that it's largely just a charade - a topic board avatar of sort. But if you take anything from this exchange, let it be this: "He who stands for nothing will fall for anything." (Wednesday Jul 23 | post #289)
New York Times defends decision not to run McCain's op-ed, says...
I'm not about to take on every one of your so-called "facts" one by one. I haven't the time, I find that excercise dreadfully tiresome, and besides I know it won't matter worth a damn. Not only that, but half the time you're "responding " to someone other than me - to that cartoon liberal in your head, anyway. Your "fact-base " is practically your religion, upon which you stand in all your self-aggrandizatio n. So I'm gonna shoot just one little hole in your foundation, your faith, which is enough to call the entire edifice into question as nothing but a crumbling pile of dung, and let you sink into it right up to your neck. I researched your so-called "fact" that the U.S. gov't did not supply chemical weapons to Iraq in the past: ya know, back when Saddam was - gasp! - gassing his "own people." What I found were many, many accounts refuting that so-called "fact." I've posted them immediately before posting this one. No doubt you'll decide to beLEEEEVE them erroneous, as opposed to your golden fact-base, which you beLEEEEEV to be true. But, see where I'm going here? Either you'll have to concede that there is a hole in your precious edifice, or else you'll have a badly needed epiphany in realizing that even your "facts" can ultimately come down to opinion. Please - no need to thank me. (Wednesday Jul 23 | post #288)
New York Times defends decision not to run McCain's op-ed, says...
Here ya go: The US not only helped arm Iraq with military equipment right up to the time of the Kuwait invasion in 1989, as did Germany, Britain, France, Russia and others, but also sold and helped Iraq to integrate chemical weapons into their US-provided battle plans while fighting Iran between 1985-1988. http://www.counter punch.org/boles101 0.html Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene. http://www.commond reams.org/headline s02/0908-08.htm CBS) Newly released documents show that U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, played a leading role in building up Iraq's military in the 1980s when Iraq was using chemical weapons, a newspaper reports. http://www.cbsnews .com/stories/2002/ 12/31/world/main53 4798.shtml http://www.democra cyrising.us/conten t/view/30/74/ (Wednesday Jul 23 | post #286)
Like what you see?
Create your own Topix Profile
Olympics