WillieThePimp said:

Bill... go eat your asparagus. It's getting cold.

But, to answer the question, I'm no asslicker or propaganda puppet. I just choose to live in the real world and have realistic opnions about real world topics. You can only play the hand you're dealt. And all the pie-eyed dreams about wishing you were playing another are wasted. Grow up. Join us. You could do a lot of good if you could accept how this is the way things are and change them than sitting around and bitching that the world isn't already what you want.
[This message was edited Wed Sep 25 16:51:11 PDT 2002 by AaronForever]

AaronForever said:

The way the world is portrayed in the mass, corporate owned/controlled media is only ONE very myopic and heavily politicized viewpoint. It's not the "real world" by any means. Pull your head out and challenge yourself to quesiton the hand that feeds you once in a while. Yes, you can still have your CNN, NBC, etc. but consider alternative viewpoints as well and THEN make up your own mind. I guarantee you'll have a diffenrent opinion, I know you're not that stupid. If you need help finding alternative perspectives just ask and I'll be glad to assist.

soulpower said:

No, he's totally not. Here's the story...

http://www.zmag.org/aliqa.htm :
"The Peoples Democratic Party of Afghanistan...carried out a coup d'etat in 1978, toppling the corrupt regime of Daoud. The people welcomed the change. The PDPA was initially popular. It pledged important social reforms and democracy... the United States decided to destabilise the regime by arming the ultra-religious tribes and using the Pakistan Army as a conduit to help... The Americans were laying a bear-trap and the Soviet leadership fell into it. They sent the Red Army to ...sustain the PDPA regime by force. This further exacerbated the crisis and the United States gave the call for a jihad against communism. The Pakistani military thought it would help the jihad if a Saudi prince came to lead the struggle... the Saudi regime suggested Ossama Bin Laden to the CIA. He was approved, recruited, trained and sent to Afghanistan where he fought well. In one action Bin Laden led his men to attack a mixed school (boys and girls) and kill all the teachers. The US watched this approvingly. The rest is history. The Soviet Union was defeated and withdrew its forces in 1989. A civil war followed and a coalition government consisting of forces loyal to Iran, Tadjikistan and Pakistan came to power. Instability reigned. Then Pakistan hurled the Taliban (students) it had trained in special seminaries into the battle with open support from the Pakistan Army. Kabul was captured and gradually the regime extended its rule to the rest of the country. American think-tanks till [May 2001] were talking of using the Taliban to further destabilize the Central Asian Republics! Now the US and Pakistan are waging war to topple a regime they created."

Sorry to take the wind out of your flag...

WillieThePimp said:

Bill, I've already done all of that. I studied the media for 3 years. I know how it works. I know where to find alternate viewpoints. But then, you were trying to school me on the dangers of biogen corn, when I've worked in it for TWELVE YEARS and know how it works inside and out. You know, there are people that are as smart or smarter than you that don't agree with you Bill, and actually do know more than you do on specific topics.

What's the problem? Are you jealous that I'm not so bound by ideology that I make up my own mind about issues instead of falling in line with all the other liberals that I count myself among? The media that tells you what opinion to have is just or more skewed as anything else. Try getting off the plantation. It's easier to see out here.
[This message was edited Thu Sep 26 16:06:29 PDT 2002 by AaronForever]

WillieThePimp said:

I so totally am dude.



Like to hear it? Here it goes...



Yeah, now first off, we all know that the media is bad, right? We've been schooled in that bourgeois anxiety-based bullshit since we first began to suspect that Led Zeppelin was actually interested in more than just speed guitar and occult imagery. (Damn they went corporate on us! )

The media is biased; they are in thrall to special interests, etc. etc... Except for Z-mag! Thank heavens for Z-Mag! That beacon of righteousness in these foggy foggy times! Too bad Noam Chomsky and Ali Abunimah don't get enough air time these days. tsk tsk. (I wonder if Noam is negotiating the movie rights for his best-seller 9-11. Pity the poor dissidents.)

Speaking of media, I like the way Willie starts this discussion with some stupid Mad-magazine type ad that has been circulating on the internet for months. Way to challenge mainstrean media to get at the truth!

Anywho...WillieTheChimp cuts and pastes this little chestnut:



What's interesting about this? Well for one thing, it's mediated by our good friend Bill!; those ellipses aren't there for dramatic effect! No siree Bob. They are important elements of the argument that Pimpy conveniently leaves out. Please click the link for the whole story. I know, I know I hate it when people replace actual thought with googled-up hyperlinks -- it seems so dirty -- but here we are.

Here's the content of the second ellipses from the original article:



There are two bits of dishonesty going on here. First WillieThePimp's (which I won't spend much time on, because it's just dumb and/or lazy): Willie fails to point out that the US was not undermining a reformist government, but rather a repressive one that had come in after the reforms they had sponsored were being undermined by fanatics (Even the author calls thema "Pol-Pot faction.")

The more serious bit of dishonesty, however, is on the part of Tariq Ali (the author of this article who Willie fails to cite btw). Notice Ali's use of the word "Meanwhile." On the one hand this word maintains historical accuracy (or rather it doesn't not maintain it) because it puts it in rough proximity to other events, events which are apparently happening too fast and furiously for Ali to get a grip on until he's ready; on the other hand it blurs any historical cause and effect. It allows Ali to blame the US government for something it did not do: support a fundamentalist regime!

Go Willie! Go Willie!



"The rest is history"... "The rest is history" ... Ahhh, the love song of the dumbass. You know Willie, just because you put some propagandist's rant in bold type doesn't make it true. The US watched approvingly as Bin Laden killled school children? Where does Ali get this info from? Don't you want to know that? That could be important. It's all about the media baby!



I'm sorry, I cannot imagine any scenario, from the 1920s to the present, where you could get a coalition of forces loyal to Tadjikistan, Iran, and Pakistan. These countries were all competeing against one another for control of the region!



Oh, so I was right?



Okay dumbass, for the most part think tanks tend to be private foundations or university affiliated. There are exceptions (like the Rand Corporation, which was originally created by the air force in 1946), but does Ali make this distinction? Is this distinction important for your argument? Since you really don't have much of an argument, I would imagine not.

Also, don't you agree that the Taliban was not fit to rule any country? Please note that this is different than saying they are not fit to exist. I know you like things in black and white, but try using some of that grey matter that you haven't yet smoked away.



Bite me.

I tell you what Willie, or Bill, or whatever name you're going by these days, why don't you go back to squatting in the chatroom, defending Stalin, and spamming people with porn links. That was more your speed.







.
[This message was edited Wed Sep 25 21:37:41 PDT 2002 by 2the9s]

Damn ! i thought this was a thread about pussy.
(keep it short ladies, Please keep it short)

XxAxX said:

YES

Oh, and don't mind Aaron, Wille...he can't see through reality to the other side like we can. But that is his choice.

Ciao,
Suzie

"Bush's war plan is guaranteed to produce more terrorists. Even if this country were to become some insane, 21st-century version of Sparta -- armed to the teeth, guards on every foot of "our" borders [given the U.S. military is out protecting U.S. corporate investment imparatives all over the planet... that means all over the fucking planet!] -- we still wouldn't be safe. Not only would we not be safe, we would not have a nickel left for schools or health care or roads or education or mass transit or anything resembling civilization. This is nuts." - Molly Ivans (populist)

i.e. Bush is trying to $ell the very idea of putting out fire with gasoline.

2the9s said:

Grace said:

sorry, I neither know you nor have we ever had any interaction whatsoever on this site, as far as I can recall. If so, please refresh my memory. If not, shut your fucking face and do not presume to comment on what I can or cannot see.



[This message was edited Thu Sep 26 16:02:55 PDT 2002 by AaronForever]

SkletonKee said:

Al Gore is a moron who will stop at nothing to further his political career. I am SOOO not impressed by Gore, Daschle, Gephart or any of those communist liars who have endless complaints and nothing constructive to offer.

Did I mention that Gore is a jerk-off?

teller said:

or that he, Clinton, Daschle and the rest of the Democrats were ready to go to war with Iraq in 1998 but are doing an about-face now that Bush is in office?

AaronForever said:

Exactly!!! It's all a lot of posturing for the camera!!!

Game, set and match 2the9s.

I think he just towelled you up Willie boy.

teller said:

the UN was also on board at this time.

AaronForever said:

Does anybody or any entity give a crap about truth or national security? Nooo-ho-ho...

Someone heard Bush blasting a Prince song from the White House and his limousine, "The War" , hee hee,

Sheryl McCarthy, September 26, 2002 in the Long Island, NY Newsday:
"The United States has a history of meddling in other countries' affairs, and then leaving them to clean up the mess. For an example of a U.S.-engineered regime change, look at the overthrow of Iran's government (because it dared to nationalize British Petroleum) and the propping up of the shah. His reign brought misery to the Iranians and led to the rise of the ayatollahs, the taking of American hostages and bad relations with Iran until this day.

"Second, our real aims are shrouded in hypocrisy. President George W. Bush keeps saying Hussein is evil, that he gassed the Kurds, attacked his neighbors and is developing terrible weapons. But the United States twice betrayed the Kurds and backed Hussein in his war on Iran. This war isn't about keeping terrible weapons from being developed but about who gets to keep them, since the United States, Israel, Britain, Pakistan and India all have nuclear weapons.

"Third, the Bush administration has failed to link Saddam Hussein to terrorism against the United States. The roots of the Sept. 11 terrorists weren't in Iraq, but in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, countries that, bizarrely, are now our allies. But they have been amenable to U.S. control, while Iraq has not.

"Fourth, every administration needs a bogeyman, an enemy to gather national support against. When George Bush Sr. was called a wimp, he made war on Iraq and ran his ratings up. When Bill Clinton was facing impeachment hearings, he bombed Iraq, postponing the hearings and giving him a boost. Now George W. Bush, who won a dubious election, looked weak in the days following Sept. 11 and has been unable to get Osama bin Laden, is beating the war drums again.

"The Gulf War wasn't about protecting Kuwait's sovereignty, but about securing access to the oil in the region. So is this one. "They keep saying they want a regime change because they want control of the oil fields," Washington state Congressman Jim McDermott said recently.

"And while he agrees that Hussein has repeatedly violated the UN's directions to disarm, "that does not give us the right to peremptorily strike a country. Once you go down that road, when does it stop?"

"This war is being presented as a war against evil, but the real motives are to protect oil and to protect Israel. The Bush administration should tell the truth: that Hussein's a loose cannon who wants to control the Persian Gulf region - not an evil thing in itself, except that the United States wants control."
http://www.commondreams.o...926-05.htm

WillieThePimp said:

so we shouldn't start cleaning up our own messes now?



GEE! no shit?? so what... as soon as a lunatic comes to power in any of those countries, they'll get taken out too. but i don't see it happening.



funny that the dateline on this article is the same day it's revealed that Al Queda are in Baghdad. oops. guess she should have waited a day.



nevermind that hijackers backed by bin Laden knocked down the WTC and and smashed up the Pentagon. so quickly we forget... or was that just a bad dream we're all waking up from?



actually, the war in Kuwait was to protect our stock market, in which the Kuwaiti royal family is heavily invested.




i'm more interested in when it starts. he's been showing that the UN is ineffectual for 10 years. when do they decide they want to stand for something?



so proven by whom? where? and if so, so what? what's wrong with protecting an ally?

I got your back Aaron...glad to see a voice of reason.

AaronForever said:

But dude, we have a lunatic running this country right now. What if a third world separatist former Soviet state decided that the United States is wrong for having nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and went in the name of "peace" to the UN trying to drum up support for an attack against the USA. The USA cannot deny that it has weapons of mass destruction, but Iraq on the other hand, we have no "beyond the shadow of a doubt" proof that they have weapons that can affect anyone outside of their immediate area in the middle east. So put yourself in the Iraqi people's shoes for a minute and think of how you would feel.

Oh, and by the way, I was against an attack on Iraq during the Clinton administration as well, and I blamed Clinton for the same kind of political diversion tactics as I blame Bush for. I supported the invasion of Iraq in 1991, only because I do not believe in military annexation like Iraq tried on Kuwait. I don't think it is right that the USA, in past history annexed the Native Americans land. They should have made a cooperative effort with the Natives. Anyhow, I know the real reason the USA got involved in 1991 was strictly for oil, because they care nothing about humanity.

Bush needs to be stopped. I just don't know how.

POOK for President!

JDODSON said:

there's a difference between idiocy and lunacy.



they'd be laughed out of the UN, and rightly so. i understand your point, but you have to deal with the reality of the situation, and this doesn't fall within those parameters.



no? have you read the news? why is Tony Blair of all people, a guy up for re-election, and has EVERYTHING TO LOSE politically, in our corner? because of that dossier that was made public. is it so hard to think that the Bush administration and Blair have information that you and I don't? for fucks sake, i sure hope they do!




I am. They want Hussein gone too. Speak to some people from Iraq. And recall how quickly the Republican Guard surrendered in 91 when we went in there. These people have no love for Saddam. They're waiting for the opportunity and inspiration to remove him. We can be that inspiration. Or we can do it for them. Either way, they won't be crying any tears for Saddam Hussein once his regime is ousted.




So, basically, you're saying, "let's wait and see if he uses a weapon against another country." Correct? I'm sorry, but by then it's too late. Can you fathom the consequences? I can. That's why I say act now.

I want IHOP

AaronForever said:

I'm glad to see that at least you admit that he is an idiot.



I know you hate conspiracy theories, but what if Blair is simply afraid of Bush, and that Bush and the other iron mountain cats have pulled the strings on this whole situation to bring about the new world order?

I would support an attack on Hussein with certain exceptions. One, that the people be warned before the impending doom upon them, and two, that before the attacks, that peacekeeping forces help to bring the innocent Iraqi people to safety before we eliminate Babylon. And three, that we get rid of Hussein and his regime quickly, like, within one month. If we rush the innocent people to safety in Iraq, we could research weather patterns in the area in a weeks time, and drop a small nuclear weapon on the entire central Iraq area, and then send in protected troops to search the area for Iraqi army outposts, and to be sure that Saddam is gone. We have nuclear weapons, let's use them and use them right if we are going to do it. And, since Bush is so adamant about fulfilling Biblical prophesy, let's just get it over with...I don't like this particular earth anyhow.

But I know one thing, if me or any of my family is affected deeply by this warmonger president of the USA, I will personally assure that a revolution will start, because I will not go to war for devils, only against them when they bother me personally.

For every bit of conspiracy theory that is a distortion, there's a dozen other verified events that show the US is perfectly prepared to support terrorism against regimes that it wants to help destroy and to turn a blind eye to (and even facilitate) atrocities committed by a useful ally. In other words, the US has done what some Arab states have done, which is support terrorist groups willing to do what it takes to create havoc.

What disturbs me most is that now the US has actually stated that the presomption of a threat is enough to invade a country. If that's the case, I guess it should let Pakistan and India go to war, since they clearly are a threat to each other. If Bush had been president in the 40's, I guess the US would have invaded the USSR before it got the bomb or as early as possible. Bush thinks no other country should be able to equal or surpass America's might -- which I hope never happens, but please give me a break about the US being the defender of Good, freedom and all that. It is no different than other states that have dominated the world or a continent in the past.

Right now, I'm sorry to say that Bush is showing a side of America that is not so pretty...After the Cold War, the consensus was that there would be a world community, one big family of nations among which the US would dominate, but still be careful not to throw its weight around too often. By even contemplating action on Iraq without the backing of a UN resolution, Bush has told the world that America's so big it doesn't absolutely need the approval of allies and other key players. That was a very disturbing message, considering it's the only superpower.

And then there is the matter of the elections... The war drums are being used the garner support for the republicans. No doubt the case is being made that voting for the Dems is just gonna stiffle the national resolve - but oh please be careful not to say it's a vote for Saddam. Too obvious...

JDODSON said:

of course he is! i can't stand him! that doesn't mean he's wrong about this, though.



oh boy.




the doom is already upon them. that would be their dictator. and they know what's coming. the Iraqi propaganda media is saying that we're going to attack them. they know it's coming. they just don't know why.



impossible. this is war. who's to say that if we started escorting people out of danger, we moved some guilty parties to safety in the shuffle?



whoah... hold on. you want to nuke Iraq??? okay, so we move the innocents to safety, nuke Baghdad. what's the point of moving them? they won't be able to return home. we won't be able to go in there and finish the job.



conspiracy theories and biblical prophesy. really, you get nowhere in debate when this is your logic.




do you feel the same about Hussein? bin Laden? isn't that what they've done and hope to do? why are you against going to war with them? nevermind, i know why. it's easier to be a voice of dissent against your own leadership becaues you know very well that you'll never be in any sort of civil war/revolution here in the US. it's much harder to want to make the tough decisions, which is going to war in Iraq.