You can all thank Mr. Bush for saving your life.

[surferarmo]

Read this, an excert from the wallstreet journal. You should read the Wallstreet Journal more than you read Aristotle. There goes that conspiracy theory that you all took from the matrix...a good movie with bad philosphy. Sorry, the "real world" ridden with conspiracy doesnt exist. Thank you Bush.

This article proves that Saddam and Associates were in the planning stages of WMDs. Not only were they planning, they were in the middle of developing, and were only deterred by President Bush. Thank God Gore is not our President.


*Article excert begin*
U.S. investigators have uncovered records of Hussein's spies suggesting the ex-ruler aimed to develop long-range delivery systems before turning to chemical arms.

"Iraqi government documents showed that Baghdad made a down payment to North Korea in late 2002 of $10 million for delivery of a Nodong missile. But North Korean officials couldn't deliver the weapon because they were being watched too closely by the Bush administration.
*article end*
From Wall street Journal. If you want the direct link, I can provide it some other time, or you can find it yourself.

[Anonymouse]

They were in the "planning" stages? I find this even more laughable than the other reasons for attacking "Eye Raq", namely the "They had WMD", or "They are tied to Al Qaeda", or "They're jealous of our lifestyle and 'freedoms'", or "They have biological weapons", or "Saddam is evil and it is not a democracy".

No matter how you try to justify the American bullying and eventual attack on Iraq ( I hate stupid Republicans who say Eye Raq ), Bush and Co. lied, since their premises mutated throughout, and even if they were "in the process" of getting WMD, they still didn't have it, we were told something else. Now "evidence" can be cooked up by any one, any organization or government about any country that they are in "the process" of getting nuclear weapons.

Israel is the only country in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons, why aren't they harassed about it?

Surfer, I'm surprised you would discredit the Matrix and the philosophy inside of it, simply off hand, by not even studying it. I bought a book about the philosophy from the movie and it is indeed more than some can handle, and in fact it is really professional level philosophy, there is a fusion of classical philosophy, religion, as well as eastern thought expressed in the movie.

We've been over the issue of 'conspiracy' before. Government is a conspiracy, since it is based on secrecy. Moreover, conspiracy is recognized in all legal systems, you of all people should know this since youre an aspiring politician, in the works with your Wall Street Journal education.

A more critical reader would ask, who are these 'U.S. investigators'? Why are they relying on the word of mouth of 'Saddam's spies' who have all the interest to lie and get some sort of good deal cut for them. Anyone who is familiar with legal matters, knows that witness testimony or the testimony of anyone else is very speculative and can be influenced by a variety of factors. How do we know that these 'spies' were not coerced into admitting such things, since government uses methods of coercion. After all, many of the Nazi war criminals were coerced into lying and admitting things they did not do, during the show trials known as 'Nuremberg'. As far as the missile purchase, where are these 'documents'? Are they classified? So this means they are kept in secret, hence involving a conspiracy? Where do you want to begin this surfer? If 'we the people' are the 'government', why can't we demand to see this document or any of the other myriads of documents that are 'classified', obviously we are not in charge of the government and it's the other way around.

Pardon my skepticism, but can you provide the link or date of that article?

[surferarmo]

First off you are either lying, in denial, or ignorant of the statement the Bush administration regaurding WMDs. There is something you must understand. While you give credibility to CNN MSNBC and other liberal "balanced" news sources, you are blinded by ficticious accusations only to give liberals more credibility. I will provide you the link. The fact that you want the link already tells me you are interested, and curious. Open your mind and read it thoroughly. Dont read it with a closed mind trying to find ways to articulate some sort of discreditation.

Here is something to ponder. Bush never said there were WMDs!!! Those words were taken out of context. I can do the same with your words condeming the war, and turn it into words commending the war. He clearly stated, as had Cheney, that they were not sure of WMDs in Iraq. They knew Saddam was a threat. When they were asked questions by the media such as: "what will you do when you find the weapons of mass destruction?" Bush and Cheney responded, "The weapons of mass destruction..." You can see how I illustrated that those terms were completely taken from context, and twisted.

The reason you dont perceive Saddam as a threat is because of the previous administration. Clinton cut our military, took attention from Saddam in particular and lowered public awarness of the situation. Bush has brought it back, and after 8 years of ignorance of the threat of Saddam, it is brought back into the light, and all you can do is deny it.

I have a question for you anon. As you even admitted, they were in the process of constructing WMDs. They already had missles, but they were converting them to biological weapons. Knowing this, is reason to use physical deterrents, especially after using the UN and other diplomatic measures. Are you proposing we be attacked first to give legitimate warrant for reprecussions? Bush

And by the way, its not only Republicans that say "eye raq." What a stupid comment and ignorant comment and accusation. Most people, in fact, mispronounce it, regaurdless of political persuasion.

And the Matrix, tho a good movie, has some bad philosophy in it. I am currently studying philosophy, and have gone over the matrix quite often. There are many things that are unsound. Valid yes...but sound...no.

The link can not be provided. My friend sent it to me, and it is from the Wallstreet journal which cost 79 dollars a year to suscribe to via net. You can find it though in the archives or I can have him send it to me again when appropriate.

I dont lie Anonymouse. I sight my sources, unlike some people I know.

[surferarmo]

forget it. i am blowing on the flames.

good pun

bad picture.

there would otherwise be no point. i would come on here, and be as lame as jahannam...doing nothing but chatroom foruming...which...would...lead me to do useful stuff...Yes...Pun intended.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by surferarmo First off you are either lying, in denial, or ignorant of the statement the Bush administration regaurding WMDs. There is something you must understand. While you give credibility to CNN MSNBC and other liberal "balanced" news sources, you are blinded by ficticious accusations only to give liberals more credibility. I will provide you the link. The fact that you want the link already tells me you are interested, and curious. Open your mind and read it thoroughly. Dont read it with a closed mind trying to find ways to articulate some sort of discreditation.

I don't know whether the desperate blindness of the Bush administration and the neo-cons is rubbing off on you, but you sure seem to be in the same panic stricken paranoid state of labeling dissenters or objectors as "leftist" much like the Buxxxxes label those that disagree with their authoritarian tactics as "terrorist".

I never gave credibility to to CNN or MSNBC or FOX or anyone. I never state that I did. I never gave "liberals" more credibility. I am not a liberal, nor a conservative, I don't confine myself to rigid labels and I float along the political spectrum.

However, you in your blindness have labelled me as such simply because it helps give you some sort of 'order' to deal with. That is how the Buxxxxes think as well, you're either a supporter of the holy crusade, or a "terrorist". Such rigid thinking saves such people from ultimately questioning their own logic and the information they are being indoctrinated with. Critical thinking is not a prescribed thing in the world of mass mindedness that we call politics.

Of course if you were really loved republican theory, you would be more inclined to call yourself a 'libertarian' than one of the two masks of the modern autocrats.

Here is something to ponder. Bush never said there were WMDs!!! Those words were taken out of context. I can do the same with your words condeming the war, and turn it into words commending the war. He clearly stated, as had Cheney, that they were not sure of WMDs in Iraq. They knew Saddam was a threat. When they were asked questions by the media such as: "what will you do when you find the weapons of mass destruction?" Bush and Cheney responded, "The weapons of mass destruction..." You can see how I illustrated that those terms were completely taken from context, and twisted.

But in their reasoning and logic it was already implied that Iraq was in possession of such weapons. Do you also forget the endless references to such statements from both the media as well as the administration? Bush and Co went on even to state that they are "confident" and "sure" that Iraq has those weapons, and Colon Powers fraudulent demo presented to the UN was another attempt to rarify this as 'fact'.

The reason you dont perceive Saddam as a threat is because of the previous administration. Clinton cut our military, took attention from Saddam in particular and lowered public awarness of the situation. Bush has brought it back, and after 8 years of ignorance of the threat of Saddam, it is brought back into the light, and all you can do is deny it.

Your thinking is shaped by the State and its indoctrination agency, the state media. That is the way it goes. The state teaches you to be subservient and it creates enemies for you to fear in order to justify your support of it, and maintain its existence and expansion, as that is the only way it can survive. The fact that most of the people like you, who are protecting the Bush administration, or for that matter the current State of America, and not paying attention to the lessons of the past, and exercising critical thinking, shows how the State mind controlling works. That it was the U.S. that was responsible for creating Al Qeada and Saddam, is unheard of today. At the least, the "terrorists" that exist are merely people who are fighting for their independence from U.S. hegemony because it is the U.S. that has spread into other countries' business, aided Israel, and bombed these peoples homes into stoneage, and that is sufficient enough to create anti U.S. sentiment and elements. Such things are rarely questioned by statists or those who support statism and the continued oppression of other peoples.

I have a question for you anon. As you even admitted, they were in the process of constructing WMDs. They already had missles, but they were converting them to biological weapons. Knowing this, is reason to use physical deterrents, especially after using the UN and other diplomatic measures. Are you proposing we be attacked first to give legitimate warrant for reprecussions? Bush

Once again, I never admitted anything but merely for the sake of argument I stated "EVEN IF", that still doesn't give reason for Bush to attack. There are many countries in the world in the process of such things, does that mean we should attack them? And who is the United States to decide the fate of other peoples? Such racist and chauvinistic thinking is how States work and you can thank the Enlightenment for that, the "us vs them" mentality, or the 'we are better than them" mentality. You also forget to be objective in your analysis because it was originally America that sold Saddam its weapons and the ability to make such things in the first place.

And by the way, its not only Republicans that say "eye raq." What a stupid comment and ignorant comment and accusation. Most people, in fact, mispronounce it, regaurdless of political persuasion.

Most often I have heard of Republican military officials and militarists on CNN or FOX spout "Eye Raq" in their jargon.

And the Matrix, tho a good movie, has some bad philosophy in it. I am currently studying philosophy, and have gone over the matrix quite often. There are many things that are unsound. Valid yes...but sound...no.

You speak as if there is only one philosophy in the Matrix. What is not sound about it? There are many philosophies in the Matrix. How is it that your class hasn't touched on this?

The link can not be provided. My friend sent it to me, and it is from the Wallstreet journal which cost 79 dollars a year to suscribe to via net. You can find it though in the archives or I can have him send it to me again when appropriate.

I dont lie Anonymouse. I sight my sources, unlike some people I know.

Either way, the arguments and questions I presented to any skeptical and critical thinking mind cannot be ignored and for the most part, demorats and republicats ignore them altogether. This is just yet another attempt to legitamize imperialism. Why do you support the coercion and terrorization of innocent people? If you want to create an argument for truly republican theory, or what the framers of the Constitution had in mind, this is not it, and in fact this is an Empire, a Nation, not a Republic, and it compares with Rome, which also started out as a Republic. Eventually Empires such as this become to extended, too vast, wasting resources, soldiers in all the frontiers, they eventually collapse. It is the basics of chaos theory, in which all systems move towards disorder. The Framers didn't dream of the U.S. being a bullying aggressor and expanding and subjugating and bombing other peoples, that is only what Empires do.

No political scientist nowadays dare state this.

In fact I wouldn't even consider "politics" a science. You can't put the world into a test tube.

[surferarmo]

Originally posted by Anonymouse I don't know whether the desperate blindness of the Bush administration and the neo-cons is rubbing off on you, but you sure seem to be in the same panic stricken paranoid state of labeling dissenters or objectors as "leftist" much like the Buxxxxes label those that disagree with their authoritarian tactics as "terrorist".

I never gave credibility to to CNN or MSNBC or FOX or anyone. I never state that I did. I never gave "liberals" more credibility. I am not a liberal, nor a conservative, I don't confine myself to rigid labels and I float along the political spectrum.

However, you in your blindness have labelled me as such simply because it helps give you some sort of 'order' to deal with. That is how the Buxxxxes think as well, you're either a supporter of the holy crusade, or a "terrorist". Such rigid thinking saves such people from ultimately questioning their own logic and the information they are being indoctrinated with. Critical thinking is not a prescribed thing in the world of mass mindedness that we call politics. So in this case, you and the media are complete liars.

I dont believe racism has anything to do with this war. If we were to get in any way with peoples of different ethnicity, then you could claim racism on every account. Such a cheesy unsubstantiated arguement is not worth my time.

As for the matrix, if you read my discourse on that I specifically stated "the matrix has SOME bad philosophy." Some meaning, there is more than one philosophy, and some of the philosophies are exceptional, others are completely lame.

Of course if you were really loved republican theory, you would be more inclined to call yourself a 'libertarian' than one of the two masks of the modern autocrats.



But in their reasoning and logic it was already implied that Iraq was in possession of such weapons. Do you also forget the endless references to such statements from both the media as well as the administration? Bush and Co went on even to state that they are "confident" and "sure" that Iraq has those weapons, and Colon Powers fraudulent demo presented to the UN was another attempt to rarify this as 'fact'.




Your thinking is shaped by the State and its indoctrination agency, the state media. That is the way it goes. The state teaches you to be subservient and it creates enemies for you to fear in order to justify your support of it, and maintain its existence and expansion, as that is the only way it can survive. The fact that most of the people like you, who are protecting the Bush administration, or for that matter the current State of America, and not paying attention to the lessons of the past, and exercising critical thinking, shows how the State mind controlling works. That it was the U.S. that was responsible for creating Al Qeada and Saddam, is unheard of today. At the least, the "terrorists" that exist are merely people who are fighting for their independence from U.S. hegemony because it is the U.S. that has spread into other countries' business, aided Israel, and bombed these peoples homes into stoneage, and that is sufficient enough to create anti U.S. sentiment and elements. Such things are rarely questioned by statists or those who support statism and the continued oppression of other peoples.



Once again, I never admitted anything but merely for the sake of argument I stated "EVEN IF", that still doesn't give reason for Bush to attack. There are many countries in the world in the process of such things, does that mean we should attack them? And who is the United States to decide the fate of other peoples? Such racist and chauvinistic thinking is how States work and you can thank the Enlightenment for that, the "us vs them" mentality, or the 'we are better than them" mentality. You also forget to be objective in your analysis because it was originally America that sold Saddam its weapons and the ability to make such things in the first place.



Most often I have heard of Republican military officials and militarists on CNN or FOX spout "Eye Raq" in their jargon.



You speak as if there is only one philosophy in the Matrix. What is not sound about it? There are many philosophies in the Matrix. How is it that your class hasn't touched on this?




Either way, the arguments and questions I presented to any skeptical and critical thinking mind cannot be ignored and for the most part, demorats and republicats ignore them altogether. This is just yet another attempt to legitamize imperialism. Why do you support the coercion and terrorization of innocent people? If you want to create an argument for truly republican theory, or what the framers of the Constitution had in mind, this is not it, and in fact this is an Empire, a Nation, not a Republic, and it compares with Rome, which also started out as a Republic. Eventually Empires such as this become to extended, too vast, wasting resources, soldiers in all the frontiers, they eventually collapse. It is the basics of chaos theory, in which all systems move towards disorder. The Framers didn't dream of the U.S. being a bullying aggressor and expanding and subjugating and bombing other peoples, that is only what Empires do.

No political scientist nowadays dare state this.

In fact I wouldn't even consider "politics" a science. You can't put the world into a test tube.

You have fallen victim to your own philosophy. You organize me with the administration. Your closed mind only allows you to to understand that I support the war because I am Republican, however, my party platform has nothing to do with my support for the war, my common sense can account for that.

The reason the administration has legitimacy to attack Iraq and not France is because france never invested interest in seeing us blown off the face of the earth! DUH! It doesnt really matter why they want us destroyed, every country is connected via market. People have sold to us, we have sold to people, does that mean we need to be peaceful with eachother? This was a theory of capitalism before WWI when people realized that economic policy would not create peace. The fact that you blame the market for such political disparities today is weak. By claiming that it was our fault for selling such items, is to say it was their fault as well. There was a mutual beneficial transaction. They exhanged money, we exchanged arms, and thats how it goes. Are we supposed to be peaceful while they threaten to bomb us, just because we have done business with them? An immature proposition such as this is surprising coming from you Anon. We should only be peaceful if they intend on being peaceful. If the intend to be war-like, then we will take preventitive measures.

You have just concurred with my articulations demonstrating how Bush and his administration never said there were actually WMDs. It is beside the fact that they implied confidence of their suspicions, they never actually claimed the presence of WMDs. Thus, your claim that Bush is a liar is extremely false and misguided, not to mention fallacious since you agreed that Bush never said such a thing.

If you read my discourse carefully in regaurds to the Matrix, you would have read "the matrix has SOME bad philosophy" Meaning there are more than one philosophies present, and some of them are bad. This is the last I go with this irrelevant tangent.

[surferarmo]

Actually, political scientists say this all the time. Do you think you invented these arguements? LOL. You copied and pasted it from a proffessor of political science who him/herself is a political scientist. Please, for your next post, copy and paste from a proffessor at my school!

[jahannam]

Originally posted by surferarmo forget it. i am blowing on the flames.

good pun

bad picture.

there would otherwise be no point. i would come on here, and be as lame as jahannam...doing nothing but chatroom foruming...which...would...lead me to do useful stuff...Yes...Pun intended.

will you leave me alone?
the fact that I'm not interested in posting about "aboosh Bush" in YOUR threads doesn't make my other posts lame...
loser

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by surferarmo You have fallen victim to your own philosophy. You organize me with the administration. Your closed mind only allows you to to understand that I support the war because I am Republican, however, my party platform has nothing to do with my support for the war, my common sense can account for that.

Actually I haven't fallen victim to anything. I am only pointing out what, to me at least, is obvious, namely you admitting youre a Republican, and now supporting the administration in its perpetual war for perpetual peace. My mind is far from closed in fact it is very open. It is your mind which is not subjective to rigorous critical thinking, which is why you either can't, or do not choose to see the flawed nature of the war party and its aims and premises.

Your support for the war, stems from your indoctrination from that party platform. It is your ties to "Republicans" that leads to your conclusion that "war is healthy" and citing the reasons for it, are tied exactly to the administration. The fact that neo conservatives believe in the 'great need' for 'pre-emtive strikes' around the world, and if now it is argued that Iraq is a 'pre-emptive strike', then your support of this war stems from exactly that. Now you may choose to not see the correlation here, or simply can't, that is not for me to dispute. what I am merely interested in, is tying the relationship between how we think and how that comes from how we are taught to think, by the way we are influenced and by what we are influenced with. Your thinking is very institutionalized thinking, now I am not suggesting any moral high ground on my behalf, because I am placing myself outside of the sphere of political systems in how I view this situation, whereas you maintain yourself within that circle. I am merely interesting in critical thinking. Ultimately I see that war is not healthy, for the state, for the economy, and for the average people, statists on the other extreme, and those who think in terms of political systems( you ), believe in war because that is how political systems are maintained.

Originally posted by surferarmo The reason the administration has legitimacy to attack Iraq and not France is because france never invested interest in seeing us blown off the face of the earth! DUH! It doesnt really matter why they want us destroyed, every country is connected via market. People have sold to us, we have sold to people, does that mean we need to be peaceful with eachother? This was a theory of capitalism before WWI when people realized that economic policy would not create peace. The fact that you blame the market for such political disparities today is weak. By claiming that it was our fault for selling such items, is to say it was their fault as well. There was a mutual beneficial transaction. They exhanged money, we exchanged arms, and thats how it goes. Are we supposed to be peaceful while they threaten to bomb us, just because we have done business with them? An immature proposition such as this is surprising coming from you Anon. We should only be peaceful if they intend on being peaceful. If the intend to be war-like, then we will take preventitive measures.

On the contrary it is the marketplace that is harmonious because people as you pointed out, cooperate in order to benefit, the cost benefit analysis of any marketplace transaction is always peaceful. To quote Murray Rothbard, "On the market...there can be no such thing as exploitation. But...a conflict of interest...whenever the State or any other agency intervenes...On the market all is harmony". It is only the state meddling in economics that creates problems, for government and economics contradict each other. For you see, in economics, any monopoly is bad from the viewpoint of the consumers, and in what capitalism really means, not statist capitalism. Under capitalism, economics is centered around the consumers, i.e. individuals, not the state. From this view monopolies are bad in economics. Government on the other hand, is a territorial monopoly of force ( law and order).

However when this issue is raised it is usually either ignored, since the obvious incompadibility of the two are in conflict. Either the principles for which economics is based on are all flawed and capitalism is nothing but a joke, and government is really what is behind everything, and we can kiss our individualism and the idea of the consumer and the free market goodbye, or economics is right, and government is the one established on erroneous principles. However, you will find most politicized people tend to reject the initial, and hold on to the latter, which is only in how we think, which is again, what this is all how about, our thinking, our ability or inability to think critically of what we hold dear in our minds, our ideological prisons.

You stating "that doesn't mean we need to be peaceful with each other" is the high point of your politically indoctrinated mind. The mere fact that you think in such terms of political camps and constant war mongering is obvious of how your thinking is influenced by these political systems. The fact that in the principles of economics and in the free market there is no war, and in government and political systems there is, shows the conflicting nature of the two, and as is always the case, the government always brings problems to the people and the markets because of its behavior.

So your assertion that "it doesn't matter why they want us destroyed" is tantamount to saying "you dont care" and therefore you can go ahead and do whatever you want with the lives of people in any country. It saves yourself examining the REASONS why they want you destroyed, in other words critically thinking. No one just wants to destroy anyone for the fun of it, or because they are "jealous' that we have SUVs or American Football, or Entertainment Tonight. Why they want us destroyed is imperative to understand the flaws of this government and ultimately its intrusions into the lives of other people.

Originally posted by surferarmo You have just concurred with my articulations demonstrating how Bush and his administration never said there were actually WMDs. It is beside the fact that they implied confidence of their suspicions, they never actually claimed the presence of WMDs. Thus, your claim that Bush is a liar is extremely false and misguided, not to mention fallacious since you agreed that Bush never said such a thing.

Maybe you dont or cant remember when Bush and his henchmen were so confident that Iraq had these "wmds" but I do. What about all these false claims in his state of the union address that are now no where in sight and not even talked about? In all his speeches larded with saintly oils, he would rant on and on about their certainty. What about Colon Powers fraudulent memo submitted to the UN? I never admitted to anything surfer, I am merely stating so for the sake of your argument which is still flawed despite whether Bush knowing or not. Now I raised something you don't answer. If they are so confident that the people will support them, why not be honest, they just want to colonize Iraq, both for oil, and for Israel, and that is their goal. Why do they have to use Machiavellian tactics to achieve those ends? And ultimately, this proves that the government is its own power, and the people 'having power' is just a bullxxxx illusion, and on that one day of fools called Election day they make you believe you really are worth something.

Originally posted by surferarmo If you read my discourse carefully in regaurds to the Matrix, you would have read "the matrix has SOME bad philosophy" Meaning there are more than one philosophies present, and some of them are bad. This is the last I go with this irrelevant tangent.

Start another thread if you want to talk about the philosophy or philosophies of the Matrix and what isn't sound about it, as there are unsound things, with everything and anything.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by surferarmo Actually, political scientists say this all the time. Do you think you invented these arguements? LOL. You copied and pasted it from a proffessor of political science who him/herself is a political scientist. Please, for your next post, copy and paste from a proffessor at my school!

I didn't copy and paste anything above. I never said I invented my thoughts and they certainly are not "copy and pasted" and I welcome you to prove otherwise. For if you state something, the onus is upon you to establish proof, which is certainty. Having no substance in your own thoughts, and clinging to the rehashed ad homenm tactis might get you some satisfaction, but we both know inside youre lacking some substance. With that said, my thoughts herein are an amalgamation of thoughts, ideas, and philosophies that I have produced based on the influence from other peoples and their work. That is the way the world works. it is all basd on interaction and influence. But going back to my previous statement, I wouldn't go so far as to put political science into a "science", as I said you can't put the world into a test tube. You may agree or disagree, but I see political "science" more dealing with philosophy than actual science, unless you consider the government ruling over the lives of individuals through coercive tactics and programming how people think, then I would consider it a science. Which definition do you prefer?