Oh, wow. This, like, set off a lightbulb in my vacuous head! I so agree with, like, the administration now! Possum, other than making yourself feel good, the strings of insults don't really accomplish anything. Seriously, if you're not trying to really persuade people of your point of view, what are you doing? Wanna do something good for America? How about trying something that could bring us together instead of driving us further apart? I'm not saying this problem is limited to you, and I'm not saying I'm free of guilt in my BBS career either. Lord knows. Let's put it this way: if someone here doesn't respect other posters with whom he or she is supposedly conversing, just don't post. What's the point? To just display hatred for different points of view? Again, that's not limited to Possum, but his/her rhetoric is especially "angry" today.
I think Possum's posts are quite entertaining. It's like, 'this is what treeman would say if he was really drunk one night and felt like pissing everyone off'...
Hmmmmm ... You know, I'm starting to sense some sort of theme here ... I think Possum might be jealous that people are hugging trees instead of him. Poor un-hugged Possum.
treeman, Mrs. JB, thanks for the proper perspective. LMAO! Bizarre when I get serious, ain't it? So who will follow Mrs. JB's kind lead and offer Possum a big hug? um, not me, actually... but I encourage everyone else... what? STAY AWAY! Don't TOUCH ME!
Thank you treeman. B-Bob sorry I usaslly don't resort to namecalling but it just pisses me off to no end to here people talk bad about our president/country and act like this war is all his fault. If people want to blame someone they should blame the one person who could of prevented this war and chose not too.
Possum, once you are finally able to master the QUOTE function, we'll talk about hugging. (Obviously I'm safe for quite a while).
Oops must of clicked the reply with quote instead of edit button. Thats twice today that I have done that. Well now that thats all cleared up how about that hug buttercup.
Thank you. PBS isn't exactly the bastion of yellow journalism. Everything I've pointed out in terms of who these people are and what they've promoted is completely factual. Here is some of Wolfowitz's document. In this little sections you'll see the strategy of unilateral action, the establishment of a new world order, deterring a larger role in the world for other nations, and maintaining clear access to Middle East oil. It's basically a grand big brother role for the US in the world where we make all the important decisions and make sure all of the children know their place and it all starts with Iraq. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/wolf.html Paul Wolfowitz, then-under secretary of defense for policy, supervised the drafting of a 1992 policy statement on America's mission in the post-Cold War era. Called the "Defense Planning Guidance," it is an internal set of military guidelines that typically is prepared every few years by the Defense Department. This policy guidance is distributed to military leaders and civilian Defense Department heads to provide them with a geopolitical framework for assessing their force level and bugetary needs. The 46-page classified document circulated for several weeks at senior levels in the Pentagon. But controversy erupted after it was leaked to The New York Times and The Washington Post and the White House ordered then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney to rewrite it. Key Points/Excerpts: · The number one objective of U.S. post-Cold War political and military strategy should be preventing the emergence of a rival superpower. "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia. "There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." · Another major U.S. objective should be to safeguard U.S. interests and promote American values. According to the draft document, the U.S. should aim "to address sources of regional conflict and instability in such a way as to promote increasing respect for international law, limit international violence, and encourage the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems." The draft outlines several scenarios in which U.S. interests could be threatened by regional conflict: "access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism or regional or local conflict, and threats to U.S. society from narcotics trafficking." The draft relies on seven scenarios in potential trouble spots to make its argument -- with the primary case studies being Iraq and North Korea. · If necessary, the United States must be prepared to take unilateral action. There is no mention in the draft document of taking collective action through the United Nations. The document states that coalitions "hold considerable promise for promoting collective action," but it also states the U.S. "should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies" formed to deal with a particular crisis and which may not outlive the resolution of the crisis. The document states that what is most important is "the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S." and that "the United States should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated" or in a crisis that calls for quick response.
So whats your point? Yeh this proves we shouldn't be liberating Iraq. That we shouldn't be punishing So Dam Insane for his war crimes and crimes against humanity. It definatly proves Bush is a war monger.
For one thing it proves it's not some tree hugging conspiracy, and that it's based in fact. I guess you still can't understand that just because people are against war under the current circumstances in Iraq, it doesn't mean they believe Saddam is a good guy and shouldn't be punished. Or that they think Saddam is fair and honorable as a leader. Do you see anything other than the most simplistic angle of things? By the way I agree with Treeman and others it is funny.
Please help this simple man. I didn't read anything that made me want to protest this war. I guess it's becuase I don't have a decent grasp on reading comprehension. Maybe you in your infinite wisdom could simplify for me. Show me the conspiracy.
I'm not saying you should want to protest the war. What I was saying was simplistic is the way you think that if anyone doesn't want this war that means they think Saddam shouldn't be punished or would disagree that Saddam has broken the UN resolutions, and is authoritarian and cruel as a leader. Also no one is saying there is a conspiracy. They are saying people who were Bush Sr.'s administration and supported pre-emptive strikes, abandoning the policy of containment. Those same people are now in the President's administration, and the Bush doctrine is very muh in line with the ideas listed above. To somehow classify these facts as a crazy tree-hugging conspiracy and act like people who bring this out in the open are somehow ignorant or favor doing nothing in response to Saddam is simplistic. It's simplistic to think that if someone doesn't like the actions of another the only reaction is war, and anyone who's against that war favors doing nothing. There are other options about what can be done that people can support. From your posts it doesn't seem as if you can grasp any of those other options. It's all one side or the other.
No one is saying there is a conspiracy? Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Its one thing to say we shouldn't go to war with Iraq that we should find a diplamatic way to solve this problem. That you think Bush is not handling this the proper way. Its a totaly different thing to say we are at fault for this war and were doing it because we want to dominate the world. He (TIMING) is in fact saying there has been a conspiracy by our government for years and he is shifting the blame for this war from Insane and his regime to Pres Bush and his administration. Am I wrong? OK so where do you stand? Are you for or against this war? If you are against it why and what are you in favor of doing?
Is Clinton a part of the conspiracy too, because his Director for Gulf Affairs at the National Security Council, Kenneth Pollack, is the author of the book "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq". Under Clinton he was the principal working-level official responsible for implementation of U.S. policy toward Iraq. Here is the essay that his book is based on. This guy was on Clinton's National Security Council. Oooooh, conspiracy.
I'm against the war in the way it has been carried out. I do believe at some point military force might have been needed. But the weapons inspectors were coming up with a definitive time table. They are the experts who've been on the ground there. Why not let them come up with their time table, and then use that as the deadline for military action. That alone would have helped win more allies in a meaningful way to go at this. There is also the slight possibility with that kind of unified position that Saddam may have disarmed. It's doubtful, but possible. Secondly long ago the U.S. should have talked with other nations, and pointed out Saddam's refusal to abide by the Resolutions. The U.S. could have come up with a plan then that put military combat as a result if Iraq didn't comply. The difference is that other nations would have been in on the planning, and less likely to see it as the U.S. just using it's muscle to bully it's way into doing whatever they wanted regardless of anything else. Instead the U.S. came and said 'You do it the way we want, or you're irrelevant.' People who may have been with us before aren't going to respond positively toward that. The main point for me, though is not waiting until the Inspectors came up with their time table and using that as the time for war. Iraq was destroying some weapons, and with greater world unity that could have continued or even been successful. If not then we have greater support as war approaches.
So you're telling me that 12 years isn't enough definitive time? I think its obvious that So Dam Insane had no intention of disarming. If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you. Uh once again, thats what we have been doing for 12 YEARS! Thats exactly wha they tried to do when the French treehuggers stepped in and said "we will veto any resolution that has a ultimatum of war in it." Thats why we had no choice but to say 'You do it the way we want, or you're irrelevant.' Last I heard there are 40 nations backing us. The only reason they even started to destroy the few weapons they were destroying is becuse we started sending troops to Iraq's borders.
Yes, you are wrong. You obviously lack the powers of reading comprehension and you clearly cannot deny that officials in this administration have been working for this war for a decade and now have a National Security Strategy largley based on the writings of Wolfowitz's 1992 document. It's in black and white, clear as day. Run along now little possum.
Replace this graphic with a My reading comprehension is just fine apparently yours is affected by your paranoid delusions. You clearly cannot deny that you have been claiming there has been a conspiracy to start this war for a decade based on the writings of Wolfowitz's 1992 document. It's in black and white, clear as day. Now go hug a tree little Timing.
