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

[Anonymouse]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by surferarmo

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.

I haven't discredited your source surfer, in fact I like the fact that it is a legitimate "mainstream" source. However I asked questions regarding the 'evidence' and the dubious nature of 'spies'. Relying on word of mouth is not any form of concrete evidence and I explained how historically, and in the court rooms of "law" of the State, testimony while important, is not the pivotal thing. Physical evidence far outweights testimony and accounts. For all we know these 'spies' were coerced into 'confessing'. Remmeber historically the State has always used such tactics to get enemies to admit things they would otherwise not admit. Now I am not suggesting they were coerced, but the fashion in which 'evidence' is presented, is not clear and open to question, hence I'm questioning it. I would like to see these "classified papers". Why are they not open to us?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by surferarmo

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

While Northwoods was indeed indicative of how the State operates, it matters not which administration is in power for all the State seeks is the rule of the majority by the minority, in essence they will go to any ends and any means to ensure their survival and make sure their will is imposed on the masses. Remember, the Emperor Nero burned Rome and blamed it on the Christians, the Nazis burned the Reichstag and blamed it on the Communists, and Sept 11th has been compared to that.



[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by surferarmo

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.

The UN was inspecting Iraq. Last I head their investigation was more thorough and the means was more diplomatic than the U.S. The UN was searching the alleged sites for "WMD" and it stated that Iraq had no possession of any WMD and it was not a threat, not even the extensive biological weapons Bush stated in his State of the Union. As far as the "receipt", have you seen it? Or is it another one of the many claims merely asserted by the State. I have long maintained that the State can assert any claim and it doesn't have to prove it. All it does is repeat via the media outlets and it becomes 'fact' in the minds of the masses. Say what you will there are no WMD in Iraq. Back in a few months ago prior to the war, Bush and the media all stated how Saddam possessed the weapons alleged. It was not a matter of "we believe he MIGHT have them", it was in fact quite certain, based on numerous speeches both Bush, Powell, as well as Rumsfeld gave, including the State of the Union. Thus now that there are no weapons, the premises are changing in order for the administration not to look bad. Whereas previously it relied on a certain level of certainty, now in order to somehow maintain legitimacy it states a completely other thing, namely that "Saddam was in the process of acquiring such weapons". But even back in the day when WMDs couldn't be found, the premises changed from deposing Saddam, to establishing democracy, to fighting terrorism. Do you not see the fraudelent nature of the mutation of premisis?



[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by surferarmo

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.

And my whole point was that under the free market economics, all is harmony, as Mises has stated. Only when States intervene do you have problems in the markets. That the State goes to war to monopolize political and economic power is not a myth it is a reality. The State itself is a political moinopoly on force, thus it tries to exert itself on monopolizing and intervening in other sectors of society.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by surferarmo[QUOTE][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.

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.

You are dodging the issue and evidence I raised by going off on a totally different rant. Why can you not fathom that this war was planned prior to September 11th? Your statements about Saddam choosing or not choosing UN has nothing to do with what I am talking about. If the neo cons had planned to attack long ago, there is nothing Saddam could have done to prevent such a move. You can choose to ignore the evidence of how attacking Iraq was nothing new, but an agenda long on the list of the neo-conservatives. September 11th merely gave the rulers a justification for perpetual war for perpetual peace. Attacking Iraq, North Korea and other "undesireables" was long on the list of the neo-Conservatives.

To quote the Guardian:

We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for xxxx Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Notice the names above? What was that recent CIA scandal of a "traitor" in which the name Libbey popped up?

The document is a blueprint for global U.S. hegemony and it points out to Syria, Iran, as well as North Korea, as being regimes that need to be changed to guarantee American global dominance. So with the document out a year before Sept 11th it is no wonder that the State did nothing to prevent the attacks of September 11th as it would provide a REASON for it to begin its warmongering.

The full article is here.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by surferarmo

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.

Wow we agree! Oh joy!

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by surferarmo

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.

I don't dispute the necessity of a "police" or "security force", my only contention is why is it monopolized and under the wing of the State. Why is it believed that only the State can provide security? Why can it not very well be privatized? From the viewpoint of the consumer, a monopoly is bad, thus a monopoly by the State on security production is bad, as it lowers quality, creates corruption, and a perverted use of the law.


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by surferarmo

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.

Good, then you should read up on the Austrian school of economics. You like to read alot of political and economic thoughts and theories even those who disagree with you, you should expose yourself to this.

https://www.mises.org

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by surferarmo

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

I am not denying Iraq not allowing the UN to inspect, however, remember it was the U.S. who put Saddam in power and the U.S. who funded Iraq and gave them the weapons it had. Thus when Saddam was no longer needed the U.S. used the UN to place those sanctions, only then when the UN was beneficial to US aims. Now it was a different matter as the UN was in conflict with American hegemony. It was the U.S. that started the Gulf War to begin with which made Saddam an enemy so any sanctions or "bad relations" afterwards can only be the fault of the U.S.


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by surferarmo

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?

No, further FDR wanted war, and anyone familiar with history cannot deny his war aspirations, his one sided "neutrality" and the oil embargo on Japan, which was pivotal since Japan was in war. FDR didn't set the stage for the modern growth of Big Government and the rise of oil monopolies, it merely accelerated it. Ever since the Civil War, with the Federalist Lincolnazi, the U.S. became a Nation, aka Empire, and ever since then it has concentrated more and more power under its wing through monopoly and war. War is the nature in which the State exists, and during war it passes more and more laws that limit more and more liberties, thus the Patriot Act at the onset of the "War on Terrorism" is indicative of this. The corruption and mismanagement of the State and the lack of difference between the two parties was evident in how the Patriot Act passed unanimously by Congress without even being read. Is that the behavior of "we the people are in charge of the government" or does that indicate the government is running on its own, unhindered and unchecked.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by surferarmo

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.

In order to understand the present, you must understand the past, only then can you build a future. That is the way it goes.

Orwell summed it up rather well when he stated that those who control the past, control the present, and ultimately build the future.

[jahannam]

Originally posted by surferarmo 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.

but then her TV would be off... how is she gonna watch C-Span?


lol

[xBaron Dants]

Originally posted by jahannam but then her TV would be off... how is she gonna watch C-Span?


lol

looooool!
so many questions, so little time to answer them all!

[anileve]

Anon, j'adore vos idees! Vous pouvez etre mon mentor?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve Anon, j'adore vos idees! Vous pouvez etre mon mentor?

What?

[anileve]

Bush - bad guy
Saddam – bad guy

Bush + Saddam = reason to keep abortion legal

Israel – major contribution to the wealth of the US; non-Muslim eyes in the Mid East

Iraq– reason for the Muslims to despise the US and the West; hold little or much political power and unity thus exposing themselves to constant intrusion.

Israel + Iraq = political battlefield for the wealthy and greedy

Politics = where the rich get richer, successful seek more power, and it makes for a good conversation at the dinner party to impress the gullible with the possession of supposed intellect, to control the masses (also see religion).

We = insignificant peons who argue about the morals and the right strategy, cast our judgment towards the government and “what we think is right”, who can argue till we turn blue , but innocent will continue dying and nations will continue conquering, long after we are all dead. Such is the cycle of life, this is our food chain, and like animals we need to exterminate each other, otherwise the world will become overly populated and start splitting at the seams.

Lets light up our cigars and discuss the things we can change, or what a loser Bill O’Reilly is. I personally prefer to bash the political Jerry Springer wannabe.

[anileve]

Originally posted by Anonymouse What?

Pas l'inquietude! Il ne vous ferait pas bon le savoir quand meme.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve Bush - bad guy
Saddam – bad guy

Bush + Saddam = reason to keep abortion legal

Israel – major contribution to the wealth of the US; non-Muslim eyes in the Mid East

Iraq– reason for the Muslims to despise the US and the West; hold little or much political power and unity thus exposing themselves to constant intrusion.

Israel + Iraq = political battlefield for the wealthy and greedy

Politics = where the rich get richer, successful seek more power, and it makes for a good conversation at the dinner party to impress the gullible with the possession of supposed intellect, to control the masses (also see religion).

We = insignificant peons who argue about the morals and the right strategy, cast our judgment towards the government and “what we think is right”, who can argue till we turn blue , but innocent will continue dying and nations will continue conquering, long after we are all dead. Such is the cycle of life, this is our food chain, and like animals we need to exterminate each other, otherwise the world will become overly populated and start splitting at the seams.

Lets light up our cigars and discuss the things we can change, or what a loser Bill O’Reilly is. I personally prefer to bash the political Jerry Springer wannabe.

Indeed, very lucid post.

However, that doesn't mean one should be apathetic and not critically think about the system we live in. While your analysis is correct, there is always an alternative, always two outcomes to a situation, two answers to a question. There is always an alternative.

After all eventually we have to rise up, change our thinking, and reclaim our individualism, so we aren't insignificant peons, or an ID card, or a social security number, or zombies, or political fringe groups. We are individuals, with spirits that far transcend the oligarchy that keeps our thinking shackled up. We must free ourselves from the ideological prisons of our minds which have been put in place for us by these same people we are critiquing. To reclaim individualism, means one must study the past, in order to understand the present, to be able to have any alternative for the future. The more apathetic we are, the more we will allow ourselves to be in such a situation. Time and time again, one oligarchy is replaced with another.

Man has studied history since the dawn of civilization yet it cannot learn from it or chooses not to, as surfers thinking is testament to it ( no offense surfer since you criticized me for bringing up the past ). We study the past in the hope of not repeating it. It is this very system which you allude to that has created a spiritual depletion in ourselves, and the dichotomy between our mind and body has gradually grown further and further apart thanks to institutionalized thinking of opinion polls and mass mindedness.

In our political conditioning we have grown to seek transcendence through material things, such as a good paying job, a high position, a nice car, to have influential friends, and the like. We don't seek spiritual transcendence which only the individual can experience, we seek material transcendence through the institutionalized world which only the masses can experience. We have forgotten in a sense of what it is to be human and instead seek ends via political means, ends that only political systems can guarantee which do not deliver to our individual spirit. The more society has become centralized under political systems, the greater the damage has been on us as individuals and the human race. Whereas prior to the rise of political systems we had war and suffering, now we have a thing called total war in which everyone is just another number or collatoral dmage. We have become mere zombies in an international game of self destruction.

Our minds are so trained to think in terms of collective statistics, that we have forgotten we are individuals. The "unemployment rate" or "the crimes statistics" or "45 % of the population" have all done their share to diminish our sense of worth and place us in lifeless institutional numbers and categories, to majoritarian terms. Once you collectivize humans into lifeless institutional groups, then you are able to look beyond the damage political systems inflict on the individuals. "20 soldiers have died in Iraq". Such words repeal the sense of what it is to be human. Who were these "20 soldiers"? They were individuals like you and I, caught in the cross fire of political systems. After all the fact that political systems in the 20th century have caused the deaths of some 200 million people, seems to not hinder statists or the lemmings that follow them. Joseph Stalin I believe said something along the lines of something such as when a few people die it is a tragedy, but when millions die it is a statistic. We can live with such information since it is just a number to us thrown into our minds by the endless bytes of 'news' from every orifice of communication.

Everything has been a "social problem" that must be solved via legislation. "Drug addicts" are bad they must be jailed or put in rehab. Nevermind examining why people go to drugs to begin with. Our souls have been drained so much, and our mind/body has been seperated so much, that we don't know any ways of seeking transcendence. Those souls that turn to drugs seek what they cannot get in this politicized world. The names such as "angel dust" or "ecstasy" suggest some form of spiritual euphoria. We don't want to understand why these people escape in such ways, instead we further their problems by throwing them into institutional worm holes to be "fixed" to get back into society to be the drones or lemmings they once were, and serve the state, and be another number.

If we don't change our thinking, then humanity will pay a price in the future, which will indeed end our time on earth. This may sound like some millenarian sect of the end of days, however it is a reality, one which is not too far from us, if we allow our thinking to be done by others.

Much love to you all.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve Pas l'inquietude! Il ne vous ferait pas bon le savoir quand meme.

I still don't get it.

[xBaron Dants]

Originally posted by Anonymouse I still don't get it.

Don't feel bad. I speak french fluently and I don't get it myself. I think anileve still needs some practice

Hats off for the verb conjugation though!