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

[patlajan]

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.

Bad picture? That is one of my favorite photos. Recognize what the guy is standing on? It's the feet of Saddam's former statue. They should make a hallmark out of that one.

By the way, responding to these losers only legitimizes their existence.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by patlajan Bad picture? That is one of my favorite photos. Recognize what the guy is standing on? It's the feet of Saddam's former statue. They should make a hallmark out of that one.

By the way, responding to these losers only legitimizes their existence.

You've made 243 posts and I can't think of any that were exceptional threads.

What is the purpose of you on these boards?

[surferarmo]

Originally posted by jahannam 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

I will not leave you alone until you leave. Even then I will not leave you alone. Quite the contrary Jahannam. I would rather have you not post on my threads. In fact, I would rather have you not post at all.

[surferarmo]

Originally posted by patlajan Bad picture? That is one of my favorite photos. Recognize what the guy is standing on? It's the feet of Saddam's former statue. They should make a hallmark out of that one.

By the way, responding to these losers only legitimizes their existence.

Just kidding, I have the picture on my wall! HA!!!

[surferarmo]

OK. Here we go.

There is no pro-war sentiment that the Republican party stands behind. Liberals, and "those who expose themselves to subject critical thinking" have come up with this nifty euphimism to retort common sense. You are doing exactly what the liberals do, you put words in my mouth and took my writing out of context and went on to accuse me of saying "war is healthy." Never did I say or imply that. It is, however, necessary in the security interests of the United States. Preventive measures must be taken place to ensure the safety of American lives. This is a good segway to show how much you contradict yourself. So what if Bush was confident about their being WMDs. Evidence shows there were measures taken to produce, and payments to buy such arenal. The fact is Bush NEVER said he was 100 per cent certain that WMDs were in the hands of the Iraqi military. He is confident that there are WMDs. You see, you fail to see the objectivness in this situation. Now read this carefully so I dont have to explain myself again. Sure there are subjective truths in politics, but there is always some objectivness which you constant fail to touch on. The subjectivness lies in your interpretation of confidence. The objectivness lies in the fact that he NEVER stated there ARE WMDs in Iraq. Never was that done. Whether it was implied or not, is up to interpretation, but either way it comes down to a fact, and I have already stated it.

Another fact: you have no proof of the absence of WMDs in Iraq.

Your mind, open to liberal persuasion, has led you to believe that the ONLY purpose of the war is for economic interests, particularily that of oil. WRONG. Even liberal political science professors can admit that. As I have stated before, the war is taken to prevent the potential attacks of Iraq on America. Now there is one thing we both agree on. State intevention in the market spells corruption. I detest that such should ever happen, but I place the blame on Iraq and its state officials. Why did they intervene and limit the trade of resources to the U.S.? The Iraqi state intervened heavily with the Iraqi market, thus leading to corruption. The state then manipulated the economy to further its interests.

You constantly and wrongfully criticise the American government for not responding diplomatically to the crisis. You, and liberals like to ask "hey Bush, ever wonder why they attack us?" Well, when you are being swung at, I dont think you ask that person why they are swinging, you swing back, then ask. I am going to criticise Iraq. Why dont they wonder why we are attacking them? Why were the trade embargoes deemed necessary back in the 90's? Why did we enter into the Gulf War in the 90's? Why did the state intervene and limit economic progress with the U.S.?

I insist we stick with economy. Transactions are peaceful and mutually beneficial, we know this. That said, they only necesitate violence when a consumer or market fails to conduct themselves properly. Iraq, pulling away their trade to U.S. simply didnt hold their end of the bargain while we constantly held ours. When you pay for a big mac and receieve a hamburger you will complain, when your ultimatum (give me my money back or I am calling the police) is not answered, you resort to calling the police, an agency provided by the state to enforce the law so you get what you paid for. Point made.

I wonder why Iraq doesnt do the asking. On the contrary, it is us who are no longer willing to bow to the will of terrorist. It is us who will no longer be taken advantage of. There is no reason, in a capatilist society why everyone can not be wealthy enough to purchase the necessary comodities. I doubt you have ever taken a practical course like economics, but contrary to liberal paradigm, capatilism does NOT require the exploitation of some to provide capital for others. It does not work that way. When someone becomes wealthier, someone does not necessarily become poorer. That said, there is no bullying of the U.S. pressuring economic conformity. They are not poor because of us. They are distraught with disparity because of their state leader...Saddam. Tell him to get a grip, and there might be progress.

[Anonymouse]

Ok here we go with surfers refutation.

Originally posted by surferarmo There is no pro-war sentiment that the Republican party stands behind. Liberals, and "those who expose themselves to subject critical thinking" have come up with this nifty euphimism to retort common sense. You are doing exactly what the liberals do, you put words in my mouth and took my writing out of context and went on to accuse me of saying "war is healthy." Never did I say or imply that. It is, however, necessary in the security interests of the United States.

Security? The State is the last entity to provide "security". If the belief is that the State is ultimately there to provide security, it has failed miserably and it is now based on erroneous assumptions. We have already been through this. The only reason the United States has to provide "security" for its lemmings now is because it was initially the United States Empire that created these variables that are its antithesis. Remember, the State even goes so far as to hurt and harm its own people to justify its existence. The U.S. Government practiced bio and chemical warfare on the United States for decades. The theory that it was the U.S. that was responsible for Sept. 11 is not without reason, since the U.S. in the 60s wanted to commit acts of terrorism on the gullible American masses, then blame it on Cuba so it could have a reason to invade Cuba. This was called Operation Northwoods. But then again, all this is anathema for you or any Statist.

I never put words in your mouth surfer. To me, liberals and Republicans or Democrats or any Statist or political-system based person, are the same. So when you try to label me a 'liberal' it really has no bearing. Like I said, unlike you people ( and by you people I mean those of the political-system persuasion ) I do not live in rigid dogmatic labels. I find myself conservative, moderate, and liberal in many different issues.

Originally posted by surferarmo Preventive measures must be taken place to ensure the safety of American lives. This is a good segway to show how much you contradict yourself. So what if Bush was confident about their being WMDs. Evidence shows there were measures taken to produce, and payments to buy such arenal. The fact is Bush NEVER said he was 100 per cent certain that WMDs were in the hands of the Iraqi military. He is confident that there are WMDs. You see, you fail to see the objectivness in this situation. Now read this carefully so I dont have to explain myself again. Sure there are subjective truths in politics, but there is always some objectivness which you constant fail to touch on. The subjectivness lies in your interpretation of confidence. The objectivness lies in the fact that he NEVER stated there ARE WMDs in Iraq. Never was that done. Whether it was implied or not, is up to interpretation, but either way it comes down to a fact, and I have already stated it.

Since "preventive measures" can be taken in a variety of ways and interpreted many ways, there is no telling what constitutes a "threat" and anything can virtually be used as a "threat" against Pax Americana. Even its own citizens are a threat. Of course the United States even thinks youre a terrorist or at least a suspected terrorist, thanks to the odious Patriot Act. Furthermore, the arrogance in that statement suggests that American lives are somehow worth more than other peoples who are "lesser'. "Evidence" that shows there were "measures" taken to produces such weapons, are not concrete, and I critiqued your source and I would have liked some feedback on my questions asked. Furthermore, what might seem like "measures to produce" are not actually production. By that definition the U.S. can attack any country any where in the world as long as it thinks "there is some evidence to suggest that those people are taking measures or thinking about harming the U.S.". Well we know pretty much alot of the world is not too fond of the U.S. This literally means an attack on anyone. Hence "you are either with us, or against us". This is NOT what the forefathers envisioned. Those running the show do not care for what a Republic stood for, or anything of that nature. You surfer, and those like you who believe you have the power by voting, are only living in an illusion. In all my writings which you never seem to dispute the facts I raise, but only dwell on the trivial and marginal semantics and the constant jammering of "he said he believed Iraq would produce WMDs" only deal with the trivial surface issues, never the underlying ones. What do you have to say about Operation Northwoods?

Originally posted by surferarmo Another fact: you have no proof of the absence of WMDs in Iraq.

While this may seem like a clever attempt on your part to try to corner me with faulty logic, this defies every form of logic existent.

You see, in any court of law, or any legal procedure, it is upon the accuser to provide the physical evidence, or in other words, establish the certainty. If person A is accused of killing someone, the onus, or burden of proof is upon the accuser to prove that he committed the crime, not the other way around. Or if I am accused of a crime, I can't prove I didn't do it. It makes no logical sense. So in this instance, if it is the U.S. is the accuser, and is stating that Iraq had such and such weapons, it is upon them to prove, not the other way around. That is the way it works, I cannot change it. I didn't make this up, this is the way it works in any court of law which is of course an extension of the State. Thus the State itself has stated the definition of the accuser and accused and who the onus is upon, not I.

Originally posted by surferarmo Your mind, open to liberal persuasion, has led you to believe that the ONLY purpose of the war is for economic interests, particularily that of oil. WRONG. Even liberal political science professors can admit that. As I have stated before, the war is taken to prevent the potential attacks of Iraq on America. Now there is one thing we both agree on. State intevention in the market spells corruption. I detest that such should ever happen, but I place the blame on Iraq and its state officials. Why did they intervene and limit the trade of resources to the U.S.? The Iraqi state intervened heavily with the Iraqi market, thus leading to corruption. The state then manipulated the economy to further its interests.

I never stated that war is fought purely for economic interests. It is fought for a variety of interests, and in this instance, I already pointed out, that it is for oil, mainly for Israel, and also to establish American hegemony in that region, as it is an empire and deserves a foothold overthere. You blame Iraqi govt for interfering in economics? That is what the U.S. does all the time, it is common practice here, nevermind that issuing stupid paper money via the Federal Reserve, is not even a real commodity. No such "commodity" has ever proven to work in a free market. A commodity would be more like gold or silver or things of that nature. Since paper money is based on faith, so to is government.

Originally posted by surferarmo You constantly and wrongfully criticise the American government for not responding diplomatically to the crisis. You, and liberals like to ask "hey Bush, ever wonder why they attack us?" Well, when you are being swung at, I dont think you ask that person why they are swinging, you swing back, then ask. I am going to criticise Iraq. Why dont they wonder why we are attacking them? Why were the trade embargoes deemed necessary back in the 90's? Why did we enter into the Gulf War in the 90's? Why did the state intervene and limit economic progress with the U.S.?

Diplomatically? It wasn't even an option. Maybe in rhetoric, but the U.S. planned this war long ago, the neo conservatives had this in mind years before they actually took it to war. Bush planned to attack Iraq and remove Saddam days after Sept 11., even though on the eve of invasion he claimed that "every measure had been taken to avoid war."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

This is corroborated by Wolfowitz' acknowledgement of whether to invade Iraq or Afghanistan first the weekend after Sept. 11. Scroll down to the middle where you will see this question:

"Q: And then in the next few days, then there was the statement which now looks remarkably [prescient] when you said this is a campaign. At that point, I think it was the 13th, at that point was Iraq sort of moving into the scope, under the radar screen? What was your thinking at that point?"

And Wolfowitz responds to another question not too long after that one regarding Iraq:

"Q: So now there is the much-reported, I just want to make sure I get it right, famous meeting at --

It's been reported in a couple of different ways, and I'd like to get it in your words if I can, the famous meetings that first weekend in Camp David where the question of Iraq came up. I believe the President heard you discussing Iraq and asked you to elaborate on it or speak more about it. Can you give us a little sense of what that was like?

Wolfowitz: Yeah. There was a long discussion during the day about what place if any Iraq should have in a counterterrorist strategy. On the surface of the debate it at least appeared to be about not whether but when. There seemed to be a kind of agreement that yes it should be, but the disagreement was whether it should be in the immediate response or whether you should concentrate simply on Afghanistan first."

These transcripts are days after September 11th. So clearly we have the government lying all throughout about its intentions of trying to be "diplomatic" and changing its premises time and time again.

Originally posted by surferarmo That said, they only necesitate violence when a consumer or market fails to conduct themselves properly.

Market never fails, that is precisely how the market works. It is Statist or government intervention in the marketplace that causes it to fail. The market didn't fail in 1929 when the market crashed, it was premeditated and allowed to happen. As soon as it was in place then you had FDR come in with all his statist policies of making government bigger and badder. Ever since the Civil War, the U.S. has been an Empire, a Nation, with government constantly growing. That is when the U.S. ceased to be a Republic, if any history students still remember it was a Republic. It is in that regard synonomous with Rome.

Originally posted by surferarmo When you pay for a big mac and receieve a hamburger you will complain, when your ultimatum (give me my money back or I am calling the police) is not answered, you resort to calling the police, an agency provided by the state to enforce the law so you get what you paid for. Point made.

Under the marketplace that doesn't happen. Everyone gets out freely. Why do you want your money back? Why not have a private force of security instead of a state sponsored one? That is my whole beef. Why should security production be monopolized by the government, why can it not be privatized? You are making a valid point in that you are confirming the lack of monopoly in economics, yet showing that the state has monopolized security production and law. Essentially this creates a strange seperation of morality, in which the citizens of the state are held accountable to one set of laws, while government is not accountable.

Originally posted by surferarmo There is no reason, in a capatilist society why everyone can not be wealthy enough to purchase the necessary comodities. I doubt you have ever taken a practical course like economics, but contrary to liberal paradigm, capatilism does NOT require the exploitation of some to provide capital for others. It does not work that way. When someone becomes wealthier, someone does not necessarily become poorer. That said, there is no bullying of the U.S. pressuring economic conformity. They are not poor because of us. They are distraught with disparity because of their state leader...Saddam. Tell him to get a grip, and there might be progress.

You state alot of hodge podge and fuse it into one lump argument in this last paragraph. While you may believe I have not taken any economics courses, rest assured for I have. I have seen the Keynesians, and all modern "economics" is essentially based on applying it to the masses by the State. They all forget the central question that economics revolves around the consumers, which is the individual, and the only economic school of thought that answers this is the Austrian school of economics of Ludwig von Mises. It's not just a school of economics, it is a philosophy that goes beyond mere supply and demand curves. it is perhaps the modern backbone of libertarian thought. I bet you have never even heard of this have you?

Iraq is poor because of UN Sanctions and constant American bombings, anyone knows that, only the nerfbrains pretend not to know.

[fIReBuRntInHeLL]

Surfer could your brain more washed than it is??????????????

Wake up! we are all saved? !

we're in danger or something?

one thing I know Cheeney's and Bush's oil industries were in pretty bad condition, so the big boys decided to do some
" business". Your safety my love is B***S***


~~~peace~~~

[surferarmo]

I got to this late. But I shall prove that you have plagarised in the past, and that is a reason for me to be skeptical of your arguments. You plagarised extensively on the thread you made concerning property and ownership. You spend time looking it up. Yoe even admitted it. These arent insults, these are truths. If they are inseperable, then that is your problem, not mine.

[surferarmo]

Originally posted by fIReBuRntInHeLL Surfer could your brain more washed than it is??????????????

Wake up! we are all saved? !

we're in danger or something?

one thing I know Cheeney's and Bush's oil industries were in pretty bad condition, so the big boys decided to do some
" business". Your safety my love is B***S***


~~~peace~~~

Oh contraire, it is you who has been brain washed. Turn off your liberal TV screen and do some reading. Watch C-Span. Look in archives of the past, and see what led to today.

[surferarmo]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Anonymouse [B]Ok here we go with surfers refutation.




[QUOTE]Security? The State is the last entity to provide "security". If the belief is that the State is ultimately there to provide security, it has failed miserably and it is now based on erroneous assumptions. We have already been through this. The only reason the United States has to provide "security" for its lemmings now is because it was initially the United States Empire that created these variables that are its antithesis. Remember, the State even goes so far as to hurt and harm its own people to justify its existence. The U.S. Government practiced bio and chemical warfare on the United States for decades. The theory that it was the U.S. that was responsible for Sept. 11 is not without reason, since the U.S. in the 60s wanted to commit acts of terrorism on the gullible American masses, then blame it on Cuba so it could have a reason to invade Cuba. This was called Operation Northwoods. But then again, all this is anathema for you or any Statist.

I never put words in your mouth surfer. To me, liberals and Republicans or Democrats or any Statist or political-system based person, are the same. So when you try to label me a 'liberal' it really has no bearing. Like I said, unlike you people ( and by you people I mean those of the political-system persuasion ) I do not live in rigid dogmatic labels. I find myself conservative, moderate, and liberal in many different issues.[QUOTE]



[QUOTE]Since "preventive measures" can be taken in a variety of ways and interpreted many ways, there is no telling what constitutes a "threat" and anything can virtually be used as a "threat" against Pax Americana. Even its own citizens are a threat. Of course the United States even thinks youre a terrorist or at least a suspected terrorist, thanks to the odious Patriot Act. Furthermore, the arrogance in that statement suggests that American lives are somehow worth more than other peoples who are "lesser'. "Evidence" that shows there were "measures" taken to produces such weapons, are not concrete, and I critiqued your source and I would have liked some feedback on my questions asked. Furthermore, what might seem like "measures to produce" are not actually production. By that definition the U.S. can attack any country any where in the world as long as it thinks "there is some evidence to suggest that those people are taking measures or thinking about harming the U.S.". Well we know pretty much alot of the world is not too fond of the U.S. This literally means an attack on anyone. Hence "you are either with us, or against us". This is NOT what the forefathers envisioned. Those running the show do not care for what a Republic stood for, or anything of that nature. You surfer, and those like you who believe you have the power by voting, are only living in an illusion. In all my writings which you never seem to dispute the facts I raise, but only dwell on the trivial and marginal semantics and the constant jammering of "he said he believed Iraq would produce WMDs" only deal with the trivial surface issues, never the underlying ones. What do you have to say about Operation Northwoods?[QUOTE]

You critiqued my source? I told you where I derived the information. I received it from the wallstreet, and I read this Arabic Newspress that does report similarily to wallstreet. Two different papers on two sides of the world, reporting on a similar subject. They both reported on Saddam trying to attain methods of production for WMDs.

Northwoods is a dirty operation. Who was in office during the operation? I was until recently, ignorant of the event.


[QUOTE]While this may seem like a clever attempt on your part to try to corner me with faulty logic, this defies every form of logic existent.

You see, in any court of law, or any legal procedure, it is upon the accuser to provide the physical evidence, or in other words, establish the certainty. If person A is accused of killing someone, the onus, or burden of proof is upon the accuser to prove that he committed the crime, not the other way around. Or if I am accused of a crime, I can't prove I didn't do it. It makes no logical sense. So in this instance, if it is the U.S. is the accuser, and is stating that Iraq had such and such weapons, it is upon them to prove, not the other way around. That is the way it works, I cannot change it. I didn't make this up, this is the way it works in any court of law which is of course an extension of the State. Thus the State itself has stated the definition of the accuser and accused and who the onus is upon, not I.[QUOTE]

Ohh I believe you have made accusations. I am exposing you to subjective critical thinking. Either way, you have made accusations, and so have I. I provide proof, physical proof. A receipt for a down payment made to N. Korea for WMDs is physical proof. You accuse Bush of lying, when he clearly has not. If the Saddam allowed the UN to enter, U.S. probably would not have entered. You can blame Saddam for not accepting peaceful alternatives.



[QUOTE]I never stated that war is fought purely for economic interests. It is fought for a variety of interests, and in this instance, I already pointed out, that it is for oil, mainly for Israel, and also to establish American hegemony in that region, as it is an empire and deserves a foothold overthere. You blame Iraqi govt for interfering in economics? That is what the U.S. does all the time, it is common practice here, nevermind that issuing stupid paper money via the Federal Reserve, is not even a real commodity. No such "commodity" has ever proven to work in a free market. A commodity would be more like gold or silver or things of that nature. Since paper money is based on faith, so to is government.[QUOTE]

You missed the whole point. When I said that we dont need to conduct peacefully with eachother because we transact in the market, I meant that, transaction provides no good reason to be peaceful. It also does NOT provide a reason to go to war, but on the same hand, it doesnt mean I should be friends with them. Otherwise, I would be getting hitched to the woman who sells me slurpees at 7/11.


[QUOTE]Diplomatically? It wasn't even an option. Maybe in rhetoric, but the U.S. planned this war long ago, the neo conservatives had this in mind years before they actually took it to war. Bush planned to attack Iraq and remove Saddam days after Sept 11., even though on the eve of invasion he claimed that "every measure had been taken to avoid war."[QUOTE]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

[QUOTE]This is corroborated by Wolfowitz' acknowledgement of whether to invade Iraq or Afghanistan first the weekend after Sept. 11.[QUOTE]


You can pull up whatever you want. There is a difference between what was discussed and what was done. Saddam could have accepted UN inspections would have lended them more credibility. If the UN had been allowed to implement inspections, there would be assurance. If they came out clear, then fine with me. However, their refusal is cause enough to enter.


[QUOTE]Market never fails, that is precisely how the market works. It is Statist or government intervention in the marketplace that causes it to fail. The market didn't fail in 1929 when the market crashed, it was premeditated and allowed to happen. As soon as it was in place then you had FDR come in with all his statist policies of making government bigger and badder. Ever since the Civil War, the U.S. has been an Empire, a Nation, with government constantly growing. That is when the U.S. ceased to be a Republic, if any history students still remember it was a Republic. It is in that regard synonomous with Rome.[QUOTE]

Excuse me. Not my FDR. He set precedent for a more social market which I highly detest. His social programs are the sole cause of most of todays disparity. His programs are also those which create the intrinsic seperation of races and classes. You should have read my post more carefully.

[QUOTE]Under the marketplace that doesn't happen. Everyone gets out freely. Why do you want your money back? Why not have a private force of security instead of a state sponsored one? That is my whole beef. Why should security production be monopolized by the government, why can it not be privatized? You are making a valid point in that you are confirming the lack of monopoly in economics, yet showing that the state has monopolized security production and law. Essentially this creates a strange seperation of morality, in which the citizens of the state are held accountable to one set of laws, while government is not accountable.[QUOTE]


Wrong again. The citizen was breaking the law by not transacting properly. You should have received a big mac. You didnt get one and they had no intention of producing one. The state then protected your interests. Make sure (hope this doesnt happen) that if you being chased down the street by thugs, that you do not call the police. Let a security gaurd from Dennys come to the rescue.

[QUOTE]You state alot of hodge podge and fuse it into one lump argument in this last paragraph. While you may believe I have not taken any economics courses, rest assured for I have. I have seen the Keynesians, and all modern "economics" is essentially based on applying it to the masses by the State. They all forget the central question that economics revolves around the consumers, which is the individual, and the only economic school of thought that answers this is the Austrian school of economics of Ludwig von Mises. It's not just a school of economics, it is a philosophy that goes beyond mere supply and demand curves. it is perhaps the modern backbone of libertarian thought. I bet you have never even heard of this have you?[QUOTE]

I have heard of them. Keynes made his models based on the existing market, the market which FDR took the liberty to set foot in during his administration.

[QUOTE]Iraq is poor because of UN Sanctions and constant American bombings, anyone knows that, only the nerfbrains pretend not to know.[QUOTE]

Exactly. Now answer this: Why did the UN impose sanctions on Iraq?

And you know something, since we brought up FDR, and since you like to go back to historical causes of the war, I would argue that FDR had a substantial amount of causal activity in the commencement of the war. Would the government had been as involved in oil monopolies as they are today without his unprecedented intervention with the economy? Would there have even been oil monopolies?


And the reason I dont touch on some of your questions is because those of which I do not answer have little or nothing at all to do with the topic at hand. The enlightenment and the formation of the nation state doesnt really matter at this point. You look to the past to point the finger of blame. Someone is responsible in the present. Look forward, not back, look back sometimes, but not back all the time.

And gosh damnet, I forgot how to quote properly on this thing. Show me how. Please.