PDA

View Full Version : Pure Evil....everyone should read this...


p00g0blin
February 22nd, 2003, 09:35 AM
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11835&c=206

everyone should read this mess. basically some government officials are trying to END that thing we call privacy. giving the government so much unchecked power that it is honestly scary. i know its a long article...but it wont take you long to realize how bad this is. they will try to push this through during the war...if that materializes...and it is historically easy to push acts through during war times. just like the first Patriot Act was. if you cant be bothered to read this...then i feel sorry for you. this also does NOT only affect America....cuz our dictator (Bush) WILL go after the rest of the world if he gets the chance. world domination? yes..that is his goal. READ!

p00g0blin
February 22nd, 2003, 09:38 AM
"Stripping even native-born Americans of all of the rights of United States citizenship if they provide support to unpopular organizations labeled as terrorist by our government, even if they support only the lawful activities of such organizations, allowing them to be indefinitely imprisoned in their own country as undocumented aliens. (Section 501) "

thats a sample from the article. yay for the land of the free...the stripping of american citizenship...not from immigrants...from people BORN IN AMERICA!

PastorsGirl
February 22nd, 2003, 10:58 AM
Crap, thats insane.....! This just confuses me and scares me even more!!!!:(

Arker
February 22nd, 2003, 11:15 AM
holy ####
i read it all, and damn. that's effed up.

SoCalDirtRider
February 22nd, 2003, 11:16 AM
wow jeff...
I was sitting here at work reading that and my boss came by and read it as well..and we both just took a deep breath and wondered what the heck is going on.

This article and these actions that they are trying to do..violate some of the most basic rights in the bill of rights as a citizen. This is very concering. I think everyone should read this and understand what it means..it also states that all this secret and confidential information about you, could be access, without court order or even affiliation with a terrorist group.

Here are a couple more of the "amendments" that would be made by this..
-Giving the government secret access to credit reports without consent and without judicial process. (Section 126)
-Enhancing the government’s ability to obtain sensitive information without prior judicial approval by creating administrative subpoenas and providing new penalties for failure to comply with written demands for records. (Sections 128 and 129)
-Allowing for the sampling and cataloguing of innocent Americans’ genetic information without court order and without consent. (Sections 301-306)
-Permitting, without any connection to anti-terrorism efforts, sensitive personal information about U.S. citizens to be shared with local and state law enforcement. (Section 311)

Moto-X Alex
February 22nd, 2003, 01:21 PM
I don't know if you guys ever studied McCarthyism in school, but the Patriot Act makes that seem like kindergarden play. When the Patriot Act went into effect, I realized what a horribly insane man Bush is. This slipped through with so little fanfare, and was so confusing that people just didn't get it. We should all be marching in the streets against this insanity. As a matter of fact, I think I am now considered a terrorist for even writing this.

Clinton may have been a hustler, but our national debt and the economy was better than it had been in decades and he never tried to pull any of this rhetoric "hocus pocus". If Clinton was impeached for his indescretion with a girl and the media, Bush should be locked in jail for what he is doing to all of us, and our "freedom".

drew
February 22nd, 2003, 01:44 PM
Thats taking it all a bit fair.

If that gets passed then the US government can pretty much do what it wants - to its own people

You guys would lose pretty much all of your privacy.

I agree that governments need to do something to fight the sources of terrorism, but thats going too far.

Thats crazy!! :eek:

big brother will be watching

Moto-X Alex
February 22nd, 2003, 01:54 PM
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.html

drew
February 22nd, 2003, 02:00 PM
Be careful what you put in that Google search.

The government may now spy on web surfing of innocent Americans, including terms entered into search engines, by merely telling a judge anywhere in the U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. The person spied on does not have to be the target of the investigation. This application must be granted and the government is not obligated to report to the court or tell the person spied upon what it has done.

RedRider19
February 22nd, 2003, 03:35 PM
Ack, this is all creepy. If anyone in Canada or Australia is willing to let me live with them, PM me :D .

OK anyway...speaking of all this spying mumbo jumbo, here's a good article (yes, its from a video game website, but its still good) about Echelon. I had a better one, but lost it. oh well, check it out.

http://planetdeusex.com/features/articles/echelon/

EDIT: found it...here ya go

http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html

Arker
February 22nd, 2003, 04:13 PM
for you non-techies that have heard the name Carnivore and dont know what it is, here is a article about it written back in 2000

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,37503,00.html
The FBI project codenamed: CARNIVORE
has been the target of many hacker attacks and was at one point during it's development setback do to such an attack

There is a newer fbi project in the process of completion codenamed: MAGIC LANTERN
http://www.msnbc.com/news/660096.asp?0na=x21017M32

how safe do you feel now.....

durrty
February 22nd, 2003, 04:26 PM
i do work for computer and internet companys and your so called privacy is not as private as you think!! i dont like it anymore than you or the rest of the world but there really is nothing you can do everytime you use a credit card you get tracked every time you do anything electronically its logged somewere and if someone tries hard enough they can get most of that info BUT unless some one IS on the look out for you it would be really time consuming for somebody to filter all of one persons info out


WW3

drew
February 22nd, 2003, 04:30 PM
But the point is.

The authorities should need a GOOD reason to look at that information. Before they needed to convince a judge that they suspect you of illigal activities and said informationcould prove you did it.

Now it seems they only need suspesion. Not credable proof.

AusFMX
February 22nd, 2003, 05:32 PM
look a kangaroo!....

durrty
February 22nd, 2003, 06:03 PM
it is easier than you think to get that info for 50 bucks you can get more than you need about some one do a people search on yahoo and click on one of the banners selling background search services youl crap your pants if youve never seen that

drew
February 22nd, 2003, 06:05 PM
But again.

I thought this thread was talking about the authorities using that information??

And again, before this they had to get a warrent to use the information against you.

durrty
February 22nd, 2003, 06:10 PM
thats true politics are bu11sh1t

February 22nd, 2003, 07:36 PM
Insanely ghey! Why would they want to lower themselves to saddams level? Spying on their own people... sheesh!

p00g0blin
February 22nd, 2003, 11:06 PM
im not protecting saddam...but one of things that is so great about Bush is how he has known to pay people to lie for him. a lot of the things you hear about Saddam are NOT true...they have been proven to be lies told by Bush...yet people still believe them. people want justice for 9/11 so lets bomb Iraq. hello people....saddam didnt do it. Bush failed to find Osama...so now he has moved onto a new target. its pathetic...he is so transparent..he is a terrorist..he deserves to be impeached....but people want to believe in this war and our president. come on....if this war goes through..that bill this thread is about will probably go through. Bomb Iraq...lets LOSE ALL OUR RIGHTS TO PRIVACY WHILE WE ARE AT IT!! f that. f this war and f the president. what a psychopath.

motoxmadman
February 23rd, 2003, 03:38 AM
good said, i think bush will lead to the end of the world..

drew
February 23rd, 2003, 04:14 AM
and if you're at war, then bush can push the bill through without much media attention.

Robbo66
February 23rd, 2003, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by RedRider19
Ack, this is all creepy. If anyone in Canada or Australia is willing to let me live with them, PM me :D .

hahaha!
if u want. bring ur moto to perth,WA and pay for ur food!
lol
someone fill me in a little, i dont quite understand whats going on.. but you people are making me worried, and will this somehow what ever it is.. affect australia?

jakestein
February 23rd, 2003, 04:26 AM
i thought saddam was unfit to rule a country that is crazy

jakestein
February 23rd, 2003, 04:30 AM
it will b like citzien #765-987-001 is buy a rug that could b used for knealing on better check it out.

drew
February 23rd, 2003, 04:38 AM
I looked up the term 'democracy' in the dictionary on google. It listss 5 points, and last one is

The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Doesn't this bill contradicte that?? :confused:

jakestein
February 23rd, 2003, 04:39 AM
Drew for president or is it Prime Minister

drew
February 23rd, 2003, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by jakestein
Drew for president or is it Prime Minister urgh, no way dude. Way too much responsibility.

But, you gotta ask yourself, how different would it be if Gore was won (which he should of - damn rigged voting).

See thats another thing that you guys have. A messed up voting system!!

jakestein
February 23rd, 2003, 04:44 AM
Our is ok 100% the ppl but the us's seems a little complicated

drew
February 23rd, 2003, 04:58 AM
ours is 1st past the post. Im not entirely sure what that means, but its something like the winning party has to get so many 'seats' in the main house, then it is in power. If no party gets the majority, then a coilition is formed.

The US one goes on electorial college's, dating way back to when the US constitution was formed, or something like that. Each college gets so many votes depending on some historical reason, something to do with how many cows were in the region when they set up. The peopl of the region cast there vote, and the college can choose to either use the peoples decision, of use their own disrection, and it all turns to bullcrap, and bush wins becuase his daddy was a president and his brother rigged the florida vote.

Oh no, maybe thats way off. oh well :p :D
Some interesting reading here (http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm), the people voted for gore, but bush won because of the system :rolleyes:

p00g0blin
February 23rd, 2003, 09:31 AM
like i said before...if this bill passes and Bush stays in office...everyone should be worried. Bush will most likely take over Canada first...and then work on the rest of the world. eventually Australia would find the US at it's doorstep. now call me paranoid...cuz im not at all. but Bush is out of control. i have no doubts he is thinking about world domination...no doubts at all.

Kyle_FMX
February 23rd, 2003, 12:31 PM
jeff thats some scary stuff...i read the entire article...and wow...id have to say that that man is blind to everything else but his own wants and wills...that is scary...so how do you think that will affect canada?...i probably dont understand it as well as you do but it seems to me that he's gonna run the US into the ground and take as many people or countries as he can with him all in the name of 9/11....and i mean ####...just cuz he cant find Osama he has to go and find a new target?...its ####....so has this law/act whatever it is been passed? or is this something he is trying to pass?
later

p00g0blin
February 23rd, 2003, 12:43 PM
its something i suspect they will try to pass during the war. the more people this information gets to, the better. they were trying to keep this act a secret...not let the people know about it..just force feed it through congress during the war. but thankfully someone leaked it. the whole act is available online..buts it SOOOO LONG that you will fall asleep reading it. link that to everyone you can...post it everywhere....make EVERYONE aware of it...there is a possibility this can be blocked BEFORE reaching congress. then we can hope they wont have time to revise it before we elect (hopefully) a new president. if we elect Bush again....CANADA HERE I COME!!!

Arker
February 23rd, 2003, 12:44 PM
trying to, if a war starts, it will pass, no problem

Arker
February 23rd, 2003, 12:44 PM
beat me by a second:(

p00g0blin
February 23rd, 2003, 12:45 PM
i also wanna say it makes me happy to see everyone come together on this subject. i was afraid people would be immature about this and make this into a "bomb the middle east....kill them all....revenge for 9/11!!!" thread. and it didnt. thanks.

p00g0blin
February 23rd, 2003, 12:48 PM
oh sorry...didnt answer one of your questions. about affecting Canada...im not sure how this bill itself would affect you guys. no one knows that. but i asked someone else their thoughts on how Bush getting re-elected would affect Canada...they said they wouldnt be surprised if a hostile takeover of Canada was launched. that is definetly a possibility...Bush is such a psycho that i would never put it past him. but a "hostile takeover" might not be needed. Bush could launch an economic takeover of Canada. hopefully we will NOT have to worry about that. 2 years until a new president is elected. i WILL vote for the first time in my life to get this a-hole out of office. problem is....we've got Lieberman to worry about in the next election...and he is WORSE than Bush!!! oh man...im voting for Nader.

drew
February 23rd, 2003, 12:49 PM
Jeff, this is more to do with peoples human rights.

And if some people could be dumb enough as to turn that into a stupid pointless discussion about all muslims being killed for somethin only a few did, then they are immature and naive.

Not all muslims want to destroy the west, not all muslims were involved in 9/11.

And more to the point its not just the middle east that has issues with america's foreign policy.

Also, this bill wont affect what happens in the middle east, it will affect YOU (americans) living honest lives in your own country.

drew
February 23rd, 2003, 12:50 PM
I cant see Bush 'taking over' Canada. That would be a real silly move. He would lose any support he has with the rest of the world (including Great Brition and all the commonwealth countries)

p00g0blin
February 23rd, 2003, 12:52 PM
i see what you are saying...but come on...his war on Iraq is horribly silly. he would be an IDIOT if he goes through with this full force. like i said...i would NEVER put it past him to NOT takeover Canada. you can plainly see that he wants to rule the world...a blind man can see that. im not saying you cant...dont take that the wrong way. :)

drew
February 23rd, 2003, 12:56 PM
lol

I totally agree he is power hungry, way too power hungry.

I also agree that Sadaam should be removed from power. However, i DO NOT agree that war is the best way to do it, maybe as a LAST resort, but i dont think we've reached that point yet.

I think Georgie is trying to save face a little with his campaign against Iraq. He lost out on finding bin laden and so he's looking for someone else to blame.

All i can say is that i hope that come the next election georgie and all his cronies dont get back into power.

p00g0blin
February 23rd, 2003, 01:00 PM
there is a slim chance of him being re-elected...but "slim chance" as we all know does not mean "no chance". and the possibility of him rigging it like the last one was is not out of the question, either.

Bob693
February 23rd, 2003, 04:15 PM
Ok first, Bush didn't and couldn't rig the election, I mean come on how can someone rig the presidential election these days. if that was possible than Bush 41 wouldn't have lost to Clinton if they knew how to rig them. To say stuff like Bush is power hungry and he might invade Canada is just ridiculous. Of course the guy is a little power hungry what guy who runs for president isn't? We invaded Afganistan and turned it over to the people, we are going to Iraq to get rid of Saddam not take over the country, sure we will help run things for a year or two but they are already working on a knew government for Iraq. It's not becoming the next state of the union.

p00g0blin
February 23rd, 2003, 04:26 PM
ok...simply...i wont say your opinions and thoughts are ridiculous...please dont say mine are. he is a BIT more than just a little power hungry. come on man...that is plain to see. you say he didnt/couldnt rig the election...other people say he can and did. you are no more right than i am since none of it has been "proven". he wouldn't take over canada? thats ridiculous? ok. i bet you wouldnt think he would rape us of our privacy either...BUT i think the link i posted shows he wants to do just that. all in the name of fighting terrorism you might say...i disagree. Bush is a terrorist...he is fighting HIS war...not a war for this country. he is NOT helping me or you in any way. he is helping big business. if that is the president you want to believe in...fine by me. like i said before..you are entitled to your opinion.

p00g0blin
February 23rd, 2003, 04:32 PM
a few other interesting points...

this is all from Shannon Larratt's IAM page. id link it...but its useles..you cant view it. the writing is all his. this is actually where i got that link for the bill.

"Thought I should mention that the ACLU has got their analysis of the "coming Bush dictatorship" up. Here's a quick summary of some of the points they raise about the new laws the fascists that seized control of America are trying to force on the citizens (or should I say, prisoners of war):


-No questions asked surveillance of all kinds: credit reports, medical records, searches, wiretaps, visa and travel info, email copies, etc., all without a warrant, disclosure, or consent. Even if the searches are fully illegal, agents are protected from prosecution. Note that these searches do not even have to meet the definition of terrorism.
-Removal of bans on investigation based solely on political or religious affiliation.
-The above searches can be done on the behalf of foreign governments, including dictatorships and governments engaging in major human rights violations. In addition, foreign governments can extradite citizens without treaty approval or consideration of their legal system.
-Any person who stalls on helping the feds in providing the above records is also up for significant prosecution.
-Creation of a national DNA database without court order or consent, and unrelated to any criminal activity. That is, they want a DNA database of every single American (not just criminals).
-Broadened definition of "terrorism" to include many forms of legal protest and minor civil disobedience, as well as unknowingly supporting groups involved in "terrorism". People "found guilty", even if they were unaware of it can be exiled without trial, imprisoned without trial, and so on.
-Anyone involved the above can be executed on the spot if agents deem fit.
-"Guilt by association" crimes, even if you were unaware of the other person or organization's activities. That is, if you donate money to your church, and then your church supports a protest group that's deemed "terrorist", you are legally a terrorist yourself.
-Using encryption technology is effectively made illegal. Any computer "crime" that has encryption involved has five years of jailtime added to it.
-Arrests do not have to be made public (that is, if you're arrested, no public record needs to be kept, so you just disappear).
-Gives the government the right to use "secret evidence" in trial without the option for the defense to challenge it. That is, they can say "we know this about you (make up something), but we can't tell you how we know" and it's treated as legitimate evidence.
-Massively increased ability for the government to institute gag orders and hide trial records. That is, not only blocking accountability, but also blocking the ability of the public to challenge it.
-Corporations that are "patriotic" (ie. support the coup) are shielded from prosecution, even if they commit blatant crimes and human rights violations.
-Immigrants can be deported without notice or evidence of crime, even if they are here fully legally. These cases are exempt from habeus corpus review. These immigrants can be deported to any country, even if the person faces execution in that country, and even if that country has no government at all.

Yay for the land of the free!

I really wonder — are the citizens of the former United States of America willing to see it turn into a Bush military/corporate dictatorship? What does it take to push America to the brink of revolution and civil war? Because if this bill really goes through, every trace of what made America the shining beacon of liberty will be gone...

Oh, and remember how America finally agreed to share it's "intelligence" with the UN weapons inspectors? According to the inspectors, the information they've been given is total "garbage" that hasn't panned out into anything but false leads and lies.

In other news, Holocaust-denier Ernst Zundel is set to be extradited to Germany to face charges (Germany has a very strict policy on that type of speech/hate-speech), and Canada has said that even though he's a Canadian (permanent resident status) and hosts his site in America, they will not honor his application for refugee status.

Now, Zundel is a hateful ###k and in some ways I really don't give a damn if he burns... but... I'm a German citizen and I'm also wanted on freedom-of-speech related crimes in Germany and could face real prison time there if I was forced to return. If Zundel is successfully extradited, while I highly doubt the same would happen to me, it opens that door.

It makes me very uncomfortable when nations conspire to punish people for freedom-of-speech issues that are fully legal in the country they were uttered. That is, to give an analogy, it's legal for me to smoke pot in Amsterdam. Let's say that's where I live, and I hold a dual Dutch/American citizenship. It would be fundamentally wrong for America to be allowed to extradite me and prosecute me for "crimes" that I committed that weren't even crimes in the locale where they were committed.

Think it can't happen? Think again.

My years working with Internet casinos very clearly illustrated that point — quite a few entrepreneurs who moved to the Caribbean and ran businesses out of Antigua, etc. where they were fully legal found themselves arrested and imprisoned when they flew to America to visit friends and family."


now tell me one GOOD thing about Bush. it would be ridiculous to think that anyone could find ONE GOOD thing this man has done for this country.

Bob693
February 23rd, 2003, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by p00g0blin
[now tell me one GOOD thing about Bush. it would be ridiculous to think that anyone could find ONE GOOD thing this man has done for this country. [/B]

His tax cut.

p00g0blin
February 23rd, 2003, 08:54 PM
i guess that one hasn't effected me yet. im still paying the same taxes i was when Clinton was in office. and money is not my issue here....my freedom is. my privacy as well. that is MUCH more important to me than tax cuts (real or not) will EVER be. id rather be broke and free than a rich POW.

LPB
February 23rd, 2003, 10:04 PM
i didnt read all the words but im glad to say i am happy to live in aus

OSIRIS
February 23rd, 2003, 11:11 PM
yea, me too LPB:( its just not cricket

walters689
February 24th, 2003, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by p00g0blin


-Creation of a national DNA database without court order or consent, and unrelated to any criminal activity. That is, they want a DNA database of every single American (not just criminals).
-Broadened definition of "terrorism" to include many forms of legal protest and minor civil disobedience, as well as unknowingly supporting groups involved in "terrorism". People "found guilty", even if they were unaware of it can be exiled without trial, imprisoned without trial, and so on.
-Anyone involved the above can be executed on the spot if agents deem fit.
Arrests do not have to be made public (that is, if you're arrested, no public record needs to be kept, so you just disappear). .

this is scarry. it reminds me of the matrix, but those peolpe are under the beleif they are happy. however I doubt it will be possible for such a bill to pass threw govenment.

p00g0blin
February 24th, 2003, 03:46 AM
im pretty sure thats what people were saying before the FIRST Patriot Act went through.

Tracktor
February 24th, 2003, 02:09 PM
Here we go again.......

If the war in Iraq is wrong then what, exactly, were we doing in Bosnia? Talk about something we shouldn't have been involved in!
First people who don't like Bush first say he doesn't have any power, then the next thing is that he's going to take over the world! Do some research on how are government "works" (I am using that term loosely). The president doesn't have enough power to take over his own country, much less the world. The idea is laughable.
It's telling to see that if things did go the way you are talking about, the first thing you would do would be to run. Get a friggin spine! Stand up, fight and die for what you believe in if you truly believe..........Giles

p00g0blin
February 24th, 2003, 02:31 PM
calling someone spineless on the internet is tough. anyways....like i said before. if you disagree with me...FINE...but dont insult me or anyone else. these conversations can exist without insults. we all have our opinions...and although you think you are...you are no more right or wrong than anyone else. you THINK you are right....but since we have no idea what is to come...you are not. neither am i. this thread was started to bring awareness...that is all. some people are able to appreciate that. some arent.

p00g0blin
February 24th, 2003, 02:44 PM
wait hold on...who said i was willing to die for this country? hell no im not. im not dying for someone else's land or someone's flag. f that. see ya later...canada here i come..ill be packing if you need me. how about this...YOU go die for america. since you are so full of spine and all.

Greg Strange
February 24th, 2003, 02:54 PM
Its good to see Poogs got views of his own and doesn't get sucked in by the properganda of the massess! Die for your country shouldnt it be DIE FOR YOUR CORPERATION?

Look at this: Total Information Awareness Office. I know Poog is right. Oh yeah, its a military web site.........not a conspiricy web site. The real deal.......they dont 'know all' yet but they sure 'see all'.........

http://www.darpa.mil/iao/TIASystems.htm

Greg Strange
February 24th, 2003, 02:58 PM
Dont you think they eye is a bit dodgy; ever heard of the evil eye? The all seeing eye? The eye of horus (as mentioned by that idiot satanist Crowley)? Well go look up information and decide for yourself.

Notice the eye again at the top of the pyrimid in the UK intelligence logo>?

Greg Strange
February 24th, 2003, 03:00 PM
On your money??? In your mind? As Dr Dre said ' with my mind on my money and my money on my mind'. Makes you think eh?

Greg Strange
February 24th, 2003, 03:02 PM
Satanists.... (notice the salute)....

Greg Strange
February 24th, 2003, 03:02 PM
Satanist..........ever heard of 'the blind leading the blind'? Have you EVER thought what it means? Try...........believe what you want to believe but dont reject the truth.

Tracktor
February 24th, 2003, 03:12 PM
Greg, don't worry I've done my research. Remember, just because a website says it's true, doesn't mean it is.
America is the greatest country in the world. This does not make it perfect by any means.
Poog, you didn't answer my question about Bosnia. I never said you would be willing to die for your country. I said the opposite, like most people today, if it somes down to it you will run. But, you will still die, just a little later, maybe.
I would fight and die for my country. Not for Bush, or the congress, or for a corporation, but for the constitution and what it stands for. To guarantee my children live in a country with as much opportunity as I live, yes, I would die.
If this land is not your land, not your flag, why do you even care what is happening to it?
Greg, if you were a little more literate, you would be alot more credible.....................Giles

Greg Strange
February 24th, 2003, 03:22 PM
Well the reason why I'm not 100% literate at the moment is because I'm at work and I can't take all day thinking about what I'm going to type; I've got a diploma in English Language and Litereature so I hope I'm not that illiterate. I just type my thoughts as they come.

'il·lit·er·ate' (adj)

1.) *Unable to read and write.
*Having little or no formal education.

2.) *Marked by inferiority to an expected standard of familiarity with language and literature.
*Violating prescribed standards of speech or writing

I would be guilty of the last one on number 2. Believe me I'm not dumb......

Bob693
February 24th, 2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Greg Strange
Satanists.... (notice the salute)....

well then I guess there alot of satanist in Texas becuase here that means "hook um horns" the university of texas'. there are handsignals that are made the same way all over the world but have different meanings. that proves nothing

walters689
February 24th, 2003, 04:15 PM
can somebody please tell me what the patriot act is? sorry

Greg Strange
February 24th, 2003, 04:17 PM
It also happens to be used in witchcraft for about 1000 years to protect against the evil eye (eye of horus......what the egyptions call it). Hmm....so seeing as Bush has decided to use a illuminati sign for his 'Total information Awareness' office, one might see a connection?

Look at those pictures. Witchcraft has been around alot longer than some cowboys making hand signs, no offence. No - I'm not saying Bush is an anti-christ but there is definately something shady about him. Plus his links to the Freemasons dont help.

Greg Strange
February 24th, 2003, 04:19 PM
The patriot act means if you dont get in line with Bush's views (against Iraq) you are basically guilty of treason and can be deported. Or if you support Iraq etc. Kind of like Stalinist USSR.

walters689
February 24th, 2003, 04:27 PM
patriot act, why are there not hundereds of americans being trialed under it. got a link?

p00g0blin
February 24th, 2003, 04:33 PM
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011025_hr3162_usa_patriot_bill.html

there ya go. the Patriot Act. the link i put in the beginning of this thread is the link to the ACLU's review of the proposed Patroit Act II.

walters689
February 24th, 2003, 04:43 PM
as somebody said this relates to hebeus corpus. this act that does not allow a fair trial, contradicts the basis of hebeus corpus. " right to a fair trial" i was under the belief that that writ was in american law also.

ont.freerider
February 24th, 2003, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Tracktor
Poog, you didn't answer my question about Bosnia. I never said you would be willing to die for your country. I said the opposite, like most people today, if it somes down to it you will run. But, you will still die, just a little later, maybe.
I would fight and die for my country. Not for Bush, or the congress, or for a corporation, but for the constitution and what it stands for.

i know jeff wont respond to that because he doesnt respond to idiotic posts very often, unless they are mine!

if you truly believe in your country and value it fight for it. i believe that. i know i would go fight for canada and die for this country if me dying WAS FOR SOMETHHING IMPORTANT!!!!! if you want to go die for what the constitution stands for, then thats good, go for it, thats what we should be fighting for, but we are not. you can go fight for it. might as well bring a different flag of your own, cause everyone else will be fighting for OIL!

like i said, i would die for canada, i feel i owe this country alot, its great, im glad it has not assimilated to america Too much too. But i would not fight and die for this country if it was not fighting for something useful. american soliders from 1939-1945 died for their country, they fought for it, but they fought for freedom, you got to enjoy what they died for. now it seems as though they have died for nothing because one moron comes into office and f's up the country and plays with its freedom. i feel horribly sorry for those men and can only thank them for the 50 plus years they gave us! and now what, we gotta get a few more million killed for 50 yrs more?? f' america, F its war, F its leader!


and i HIGHLY doubt america is the best country in the world, thats why all of us are happy we are not you! hmm if you were the best, we would all want to be like you! HA fat chance in that! canada's population is going to go up soon thats for sure.


and if your war kills me too, then that sucks, but what can i do but say shame on you for killin MORE innocent people, but that wouldnt be anything new to you, god cant even count how many innocent lives you taken, id just be another one added to the list!
So america Get on your f'n knees and kiss my canadian f'n bacon with you and your war! peace!

Bob693
February 24th, 2003, 09:01 PM
well F you too! How was that an idiotic post? You think everyone is dying to be Canadian? RFLMFAO If Canada's population goes up and, I asssume you mean people leaving here to abandon their country if needed for a war, then I hope you keep the chicken #### bastards because we don't need them! Saying we would be fighting for oil is stupid propaganda from people like your even stupider prime minister. If any one has oil on their minds its the French and the Germans.

ont.freerider
February 24th, 2003, 09:14 PM
i dont think they are chicken #### for comin here, they are smart. why fight for bush???

and i didnt mean just canada, why do people from aus on here say they dont want to be there, why do canadians on here say that, why do peeps from sweeden and other places in europe say that..............

think open mindedly brotha! dont close your mind to it all!

p00g0blin
February 24th, 2003, 10:06 PM
if you dont think we are going to take that oil..then you are sadly mistaken. fighting with Bush lover's is pointless...im out of this RIGHT NOW.

Ont. said F' america...he didnt say F' Bob or any other one person on these boards...please please leave the personal insults off of here. thanks. (that is sincere, i promise)

p00g0blin
February 24th, 2003, 10:08 PM
wait..one last thing...please define the term "chicken ####". meet me in real life and call me that...i promise you it wont be pretty. sorry if that is immature..it is...but im proving a point. calling someone chicken #### cuz they wont fight for this country...try again. i wont fight for this country...and in no way am i a chicken ####. no one has ever called me that and that is probably for a reason.

Bob693
February 24th, 2003, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by p00g0blin
if you dont think we are going to take that oil..then you are sadly mistaken. fighting with Bush lover's is pointless...im out of this RIGHT NOW.

Ont. said F' america...he didnt say F' Bob or any other one person on these boards...please please leave the personal insults off of here. thanks. (that is sincere, i promise)

Saying F America is the same thing because I am an American and I love my country and I am not going to sit here while some Canadian talks crap about my country. About the oil, sure we are going to make the Iraqis pay us back for liberating them but that will only be a small portion of what the Iraqi people will get instead of it going to the tyrant that is running the country now. You all act like we are going to go take all their oil and that is just not the case. If the bush administration wanted Iraq's oil all to themselves they wouldn't be trying to build a coalition and get UN support they would just bomb the hell out of them and take it, but we're not. You all are acting like the US government is some evil empire when they do more for the world than any other nation has. We give 100 times more aid to other countries than anyone else and many places would be far worse off without us. Can you say the same about Saddam. Do you know how he treats his people? I just don't understand your blame America first mentality. Name one other nation that has done as much for the rest of the world. We beat Hitler, we beat communism, and we will beat these muslim extremest too. As far as the chicken #### thing, it wasn't directed at anyone in particular but if there is a draft and you run to Canada, then yes I think you are a chicken ####. there is a difference between not being scared to fist fight someone and being willing to fight and die for your country. I have ancesters that have fought in every war this country has fought starting with the American Revolution so if I am needed, you can bet your sweet ### I will be there.

p00g0blin
February 25th, 2003, 03:44 AM
agreeing to disagree is where im leaving this one. later.

jakestein
February 25th, 2003, 05:19 AM
america didnt beat the nazis alone the reason america has been so powerful the last 35 years in its economy is it milked england dry before it joined ww2 they were the only country to keep up to the demand for merchant boats ect. that england lost at battle england have been paying the usa back with huge gold deposits every year since.

Insane
February 25th, 2003, 06:16 AM
Some may find this interesting:

"A War for Oil? Not This Time," by Max Boot

(This op-ed article by Max Boot first appeared in The New York Times, February 13, 2003. Permission has been granted for distribution and further republication, in English and in translation abroad and in the local press outside the United States.)


By Max Boot
Senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of "The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power"

Munich — When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld visited "Old Europe" last week, the placards and protesters lining his path were a visceral reminder of what the Bush administration already knew: Solid majorities in key European countries think that greed is our motive for wanting to depose Saddam Hussein. In fact, in a recent Pew Research Center poll 75 percent of respondents in France, 54 percent in Germany and 76 percent in Russia said that America wants to invade Iraq because "the U.S. wants to control Iraqi oil."

Although Americans are divided on the wisdom of an invasion, only 22 percent of us subscribe to the cynical view that it's just about oil. Even Jimmy Carter, hardly a hawk, rebutted the accusation at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony: "I know my country, I know my people, and I can assure you that's not the policy of my government."

What accounts for this trans-Atlantic disconnect? To answer that question, start by considering the accusation on the merits: Is America going into Iraq in search of "black gold"?

The charge has a surface plausibility because Iraq does have the second-largest known reserves in the world. But we certainly don't need to send 250,000 soldiers to get at it. Saddam Hussein would gladly sell us all the oil we wanted. The only thing preventing unlimited sales are the United States-enforced sanctions, which Baghdad (and the big oil companies) would love to see lifted. Washington has refused to go along because Saddam Hussein flouts United Nations resolutions. This suggests that our primary focus is the threat he poses, not the oil he possesses.

It's true that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would lead to the lifting of sanctions and a possible increase in oil exports. But it would take a lot of time and money to rebuild Iraq's dilapidated oil industry, even if the regime didn't torch everything on the way out. A study from the Council on Foreign Relations and the James A. Baker III Institute at Rice University estimated that it would take three years and $5 billion to restore Iraqi production just to its pre-1990 level of 3.5 million barrels a day. That would increase total world production by only 1.3 percent, and might not reduce prices at all if other countries cut output or banded together to keep prices stable.

Some optimists think a postwar Iraq would stiff OPEC and slash prices radically. This seems unlikely, if the experience of Kuwait is anything to go by. While oil prices spiked before the Persian Gulf war and plummeted afterward, the long-term impact has been close to nil. Kuwait hasn't exactly been offering to fill up American sport utility vehicles free out of gratitude for being liberated. It hasn't even carried out its pledge to allow direct foreign investment in state-owned oil fields.

As with Kuwait, a liberated Iraq would likely remain an enthusiastic member of OPEC because it would need to establish its nationalist credentials and maintain amicable relations with its oil-cartel neighbors.

For that matter, would our government really want a steep drop in prices? The domestic oil patch -- including President Bush's home state, Texas -- was devastated in the 1980's when prices fell as low as $10 a barrel. Washington is generally happy with a range of $18 to $25 a barrel, about where oil was before the strikes in Venezuela and jitters about Iraq helped push prices over $34 a barrel. If we were really concerned about cheap oil above all, we'd be sending troops to Caracas, not Baghdad.

The other possible economic advantage in Iraq would be for American companies to win contracts to put out fires, repair refineries and help operate the oil industry, as they did in Kuwait. What's the total value of such work? It's impossible to say, but last year Iraq signed a deal with Russian companies (since canceled by Saddam Hussein) to rebuild oil and other industries, valued at $40 billion over five years.

Yet the White House estimates the military operation alone would cost $50 billion to $60 billion. (Others suggest the figure would be far higher.) And rebuilding of the country's cities, roads and public facilities would cost $20 billion to $100 billion more, with much of that money in the initial years coming from the "international community" (read: Uncle Sam).

Thus, if a capitalist cabal were running the war, it would have to conclude it wasn't a paying proposition.

This doesn't mean that oil is entirely irrelevant to the subject of Iraq. It does matter in one very important way: Oil revenues make Saddam Hussein much more dangerous than your run-of-the-mill dictator, because they give him the ability to build not only palaces but also top-of-the-line weapons of mass destruction.

Americans recognize this. Europeans don't. Why not? Here's my theory: Europeans are projecting their own behavior onto us. They know that their own foreign policies have in the past often been driven by avarice -- all those imperialists after East Indian spices or African diamonds. (This tradition is going strong today in Russia and France, whose Iraq policies seem driven at least in part by oil companies that were granted lucrative concessions by Saddam Hussein.)

Nobody would claim that America's global intentions have always been entirely pure. Still, our foreign policy -- from the Barbary war to Kosovo -- has usually had a strain of idealism at which the cynical Europeans have scoffed. In the case of Iraq, they just can't seem to accept that we might be acting for, say, the general safety and security of the world. After more than 200 years, Europe still hasn't figured out what makes America tick.

Insane
February 25th, 2003, 06:17 AM
And this:

IT'S NOT ABOUT OIL
by JOHN CHUCKMAN • Monday January 13, 2003 at 12:55 PM


WHY THE BUSH TANTRUM OVER IRAQ?

IT'S NOT ABOUT OIL

Printed on Monday, January 13, 2003

By John Chuckman
YellowTimes.org Columnist (Canada)

(YellowTimes.org) – I do get tired of reading claims that oil is the reason why Mr. Bush wants to attack Iraq. Perhaps, commentators pick oil because it seems to give clarity where there is so little, evoking the slightly romantic image of 19th century troops in pith helmets scrambling for colonial resources.

I don't want to be guilty of discouraging Americans from giving up on their horribly wasteful and polluting SUVs, for there are many important reasons to encourage them to do so, but at least for now, oil supply is not one of them.

Yes, of course, Bush's light-truck constituency cares about oil, and Iraq's reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia's. But the notion that a great power needs physically to control sources of a plentiful raw material is simply outdated. The nationalization of oil reserves, a world-wide phenomenon of a few generations ago, is something not likely to be undone, and, besides, a very comfortable modus vivendi has grown up between producing and consuming governments.

Anything resembling American expropriation of Middle East oil fields would produce tidal waves, not just in the Arab world, but in places like Mexico and Venezuela. I cannot think of a better way of causing al Qaeda recruits to line up in a dozen countries much the way alarmed, idealistic young Britains lined up in 1914 to fight "the damned Bosch." Even with the hillbilly-crowd running the White House, I think it safe to say this approach is not on.

Iraq's reserves are of no value to Iraq unless their production is for sale. No matter who runs Iraq, it is a sure bet that its oil will flow for as long as the reserves hold out, at prices worked out under those cozy arrangements of producing and consuming countries. In recent years, it has only been America's harsh economic restrictions on Iraq that prevented a possible glutting of the oil market.

Iraq's reserves represent a gigantic future revenue stream, many hundreds of billions of dollars. Bush's crowd definitely wants this future revenue stream put into hands that are friendlier to American policy.

The uncertainty that Saddam Hussein represents for American policy-makers is not uncertainty over the availability of oil, it is uncertainty over what Hussein may choose to do with the revenue stream over the decade or so possibly left to his rule, and it is the uncertainty of what Israel may do in response.

Hussein's army is not a serious threat to Israel. Its leadership and equipment make it inferior in almost every respect to the IDF, and it certainly doesn't have the United States supplying round-the-clock military intelligence, new technical capabilities, a bottomless supply of spare parts, and diplomatic pouches full of cash.

But Hussein with a small nuclear arsenal is quite another matter. Israel is a small country, and just two or three nuclear devices could devastate its highly-urbanized population. And you wouldn't need missiles to achieve this. School buses, delivery trucks, aircraft, or fishing boats are all more accurate delivery systems than Iraqi Scuds.

That is the reason why Israel not only has nuclear weapons but has more of them than it would at first appear to need as a deterrent. The concept at work here is having a deterrent that compensates for Israel's small size vis-à-vis a threat from a much larger country or a group of countries.

The United States, it seems almost childishly unnecessary to say, does not care about how wicked or unpleasant Hussein may be. Nor does it care about his record on human rights. The truth is that he is no worse than the many cutthroats the U.S. cozily does business with.

The problem with Hussein is that he won't play the game under rules the U.S. has laid down. Oh, he has cooperated in the past, and for considerable periods of time he was treated as one of America's useful clients, receiving many special favors. He was especially useful when he went to war against revolutionary Iran and ground down that nation's ardor and resources and young people with years of bloody conflict.

America's role in that conflict was the same utterly amoral one it has so often taken where it saw that the shedding of someone else's blood might achieve some desired dirty work.

But when it became clear that Hussein was working to arm himself with nuclear weapons, an excuse to flatten him and remove his capacity had to be found. Ergo, America's secret diplomatic wink at his intention to invade Kuwait, setting him up for Desert Storm. This was a conflict that also had little to do with oil, except that possession of Kuwait's reserves would swell Hussein's revenue stream and speed the day when the U.S. would be required always to address him as "sir."

After killing perhaps a hundred thousand innocent people with its bombing, destroying much of Iraq's water and sanitation systems (something not widely known in the U.S.), its electricity grid, and much other infrastructure, the U.S. never expected Hussein to survive in power. How much better to let internal pressures do the work rather than U.S. troops, it being certain that the coalition would have collapsed over an invasion of Iraq itself. All the arguments militating against an invasion today were the same then. No-fly zones, intended to irritate and embarrass him, CIA plottings, and, most of all, a murderous embargo were supposed to quicken events.

The policy has miserably failed. Hussein remains firmly in control, and no opposition worth mentioning exists. And talk about evil, more than a million Iraqis have died prematurely since Desert Storm as a result of America's embargo combined with the devastating effects of bombed water and sewer facilities. The U.S. unquestionably bears a terrible moral responsibility for all that death.

So despite clear evidence that Hussein had nothing to do with al Qaeda, had no nuclear weapons, had no ready prospect of having any, and ignoring the many valid arguments against invasion, the Bush crowd seized the opportunity offered by the angry haze around 9/11 to topple him.

Bush displays classic American impatience and petulance about having a problem cleared away as quickly as possible, even if it is done at the cost of other people's lives. What Bush is really telling the world is that instead of allowing a patient U.N. regime of inspections continue until the day Hussein departs the scene, he would rather start a war that will kill tens of thousands more innocent Iraqis, infuriate millions of people in other countries, and be done with the matter.

Bush has no reasonable successor to put in Hussein's place, and, as with almost all the U.S.'s inglorious postwar interventions, the poor people of Iraq will certainly be left afterwards in their smoking, rat-infested ruins to cope. The U.S. has no more patience for long-term assistance and planning than it does for the long-term efforts at diplomacy and international cooperation that could readily maintain the status quo.

Of course, Mr. Bush has a very noisy cheering section in Mr. Sharon and Mr. Netanyahu and their American supporters. It really is not possible for America to damage and cripple Iraq enough to satisfy them.

Were the policy summed up in concise and accurate terms, "Do you favor killing maybe another hundred thousand people (mostly civilians as is always the case in modern war) in order to get Iraq quickly off our diplomatic plate?" I wonder just how many Americans would continue supporting Bush? Of course, Mr. Bush's teams of hacks and propagandists do not use such terms when addressing Americans, and all Mr. Bush's words to them are charged with cheap emotions rather than facts.

But many of the world's leaders have conspired to blunt Mr. Bush's drive to war. We now hear from Mr. Bush an entirely different argument from what we heard not many months ago. The issue now is clearly weapons, not garbage about terror or evil or the need for democracy in the Middle East. But, of course, if the issue is truly weapons, an efficient inspection regime is all that is required, not a major war. In effect, Mr. Bush's pathetic arguments have been turned diplomatically on their heads.

This change is thanks to the brave efforts of some genuine statesman. Perhaps, it is most of all is owing to the heroic efforts of Mr. Blix and his team of U.N. inspectors. If Mr. Blix succeeds in stopping Bush's rush to war, he will be one of the most deserving candidates for the Nobel peace prize on record.

The inspectors work against tremendous odds. Bush has pulled out all the stops in trying to browbeat, coax, or bribe others nations to support his goal. He has forgiven loans, dropped strictures, hinted at reprisals, and thrown around tons of money, and Mr. Blix has worked against a nasty White House campaign to harass and vilify him.

Of course, Bush's attitudes are inextricably linked to the experience of his father. If you don't think that such highly personal attitudes often play a role in history, you haven't studied enough of it. But in this case, they are embarrassingly evident to the whole world and should have no influence in a matter of such profound consequences.

John Chuckman encourages your comments: jchuckman@YellowTimes.org

YellowTimes.org is an international news and opinion publication. YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source, http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated.

Insane
February 25th, 2003, 06:19 AM
Even more:

If It's War,
It's Not Just For The Oil
By Rachel Stockman


As we approach a potential war with Iraq, many people in this country and abroad are accusing the United States of waging war because Iraq offers a valuable resource of oil. Sitting on one of the largest oil fields in the world, followed by Saudi Arabia, a free Iraq would certainly offer the United States a sizeable prize to fuel our economy and keep our cars and trucks going on the road.


“Oil is the commodity that makes the world go round,” said oil market analyst David Yergin. And while America represents a mere 4% of the world’s population, we are the biggest users of oil in the world. “We are the biggest users because we have more output than anybody else,” said Red Cavaney, President of the American Petroleum Institute, the trade association that represents America’s oil and natural gas industry. “When you talk about us being only 4% of the world’s population, it tells you that we have so much economic output that your workforce and your people are very efficient users of energy to produce the goods and services that the world demands.”


Following Canada, Saudi Arabia supplies much of the oil we consume. In fact, the Middle East and Mexico provide 60% of the crude oil America consumes. Thus, it is evident how fundamentally dependent America is on foreign crude oil imports, especially those that come from the Middle East where it is the easiest and the cheapest to extract.


According to National Public Radio’s profile, Worries in the World Oil Markets Regarding Possible U.S Action Against Iraq (All Things Considered, October 22, 2002), if the United States were to take control of Iraq, we could output as much as five million barrels of oil a day - five times the amount of oil that is drilled today. A consequence of a successful U.S. effort to disarm Iraq could significantly lower the price of oil unless Saddam Hussein sabotaged his oil fields, leaving the U.S. with a costly mess that would take years to reconstruct.


The concern remains, however, that Saddam Hussein poses a real threat to oil importing countries, like the United States, England, France, Russia, China, etc. as well as to other Middle Eastern countries in the region, like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. By threatening to use weapons of mass destruction, he could dictate the availability and the price of oil as he tried to do in the early 1990’s by invading Kuwait, which caused the Gulf War. “It was clearly Saddam Hussein’s intent to control the very valuable supply of oil that comes from the Middle East,” said Cavaney. “The man has clearly demonstrated that he is after power and that he will take lives without regard for anything else and put the world’s supply of oil in his hands.”


But, should there be a war in Iraq, there are still many people who argue that it would ultimately be a war fought for the control of oil. Anti-American sentiment is fueling Middle Eastern people’s minds. They view America’s threat of war as evidence of imperialistic behavior. But, Cavaney said, “Anytime somebody becomes a unique power, a sole power, which is what the U.S. is to the world, there are people who are envious; there are people who make assumptions that their gain was my loss. There is always going to be a certain amount of tension, a certain amount of people - possibly in the have-not category - who would blame the U.S. for those kinds of responsibilities.”


Cavaney points out that from a scientific and technological viewpoint, a war with Iraq purely for oil is probably not necessary. Revolutionary techniques, like 3-D seismic technology (which can do inside the earth what an MRI can do to a patient) makes drilling for oil no longer a game of guesswork. And while Saudi Arabia and Iraq have the largest reserves of oil in the world, the U.S. has discovered unlikely resources of crude oil and other fossil fuels in the Gulf of Mexico, West Africa, in the Rocky Mountains, and Alaska.


Whether America ends up embarking on war with Iraq or not, Cavaney indicated that it won’t be because of an interest in colonialism or imperialism as some have suggested. “We don’t go in and occupy countries and stay there,” he said. “We set things up and allow people self determination. Would you rather have a free and open society determining where the oil goes, or would you rather allow somebody who has a record in murdering people and possibly using weapons of mass destruction to control our oil and future oil reserves?”

Insane
February 25th, 2003, 06:54 AM
Ok now quickly what I think..

Im not American but Im with Bush 100% on the war issue.

The war is not over oil, its over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the fact America is scared those weapons will get into the hand of terrorists.

Its not that hard to understand, if it was oil, why have they given Iraq years and years to disarm? After September 11 anything is possible in this world and I for one will feel a little safer knowing Sadam has been disarmed one way or the other. Sadam is the only person ever to use weapons of mass destruction on his own people and god know what else or what else he is capable of.

What makes anyone out there think he wouldn't use weapons of mass destruction on the US, its allies or anyone else for that matter if he had the chance? He could start a war on a scale none of us have witnessed by simply attacking a couple of his neighbours.

Or even worse how would you like Muhamad the loony towel head dropping into your neighbourhood with a dirty nuclear bomb or a backpack full of anthrax or some ####? I think it would ruin my day.... I mean all Sudam has to do is hand out a little radioactive or chemical crap to some terrorist group or even to a fanatical lone person to attack the US or its allies like Australia where I happen to live and alot of people will die.

Think about the Anthrax attack or the sniper shootings last year in the US, They managed to install "terror" in thousands of people. The first made them scared to leave home and the second people where scared of a mundain task like opening the mail.

I think given the opportunity Saddam would use or pass on some nasty things Im scared just thinking about, the first chance he got.. After all he has already tried once that we know about to assasinate a US president.

The war can be stopped by Iraq by simply disarming.. All they have to do is keep the deal that they agreed to at the end of the first gulf war and that was to disarm. I don't want a war and I don't think the American government wants one either, all they want is Saddam to disarm although its got to the point in my view where he needs to be removed from power one way or the other now. Enuff is enuff Sadam has had chance after chance after chance, the world can no longer afford to simply shake a finger and say naughty boy, It must use force now as a threat to Sadam for the sake of peace.

For the children of this worlds sake, I hope peace prevails and Sadam is disarmed in the end, even if it means war is needed to do it.

BTW Im not one of George Bush's greatest fans infact I could probaly say I dislike him. I just happen to agree with him over the fact something needs to be done about Sadam.

My 0.01 cents worth... (If I was a Iraq citizen I would probally be shot for this..... Also worth thinking about)

Bob693
February 25th, 2003, 01:29 PM
Finally, a voice of reason.

p00g0blin
February 25th, 2003, 01:43 PM
a voice of reason for YOUR side. keep that in mind. there are articles supporting both sides of this. just because someone wrote an article about this crap doesnt make it right.

Tracktor
February 25th, 2003, 02:01 PM
Ont., the reason Poog has not replies is more likely that he doesn't know. Most of the rhetoric against the war is what the media is programming you to say.
Canada exists freely at our sufferance, as do many countries around the world. Evil or not, America is the single most powerful country in recent history.
It is cowardly, or chicken**** to run when things get tough. Look it up in the dictionary, my man. If all you are is words and would not stand up for what you believe in, then I feel sorry for you. As far as whoopin ###, who is acting like an internet tough guy now?
If you truly do not think Saddam is a threat to future world peace, then you have not done your homework. Maybe a war is what this generation needs to give it some backbone and cull out the weak. We have had it too good for too long, eh?.........Giles

p00g0blin
February 25th, 2003, 02:11 PM
i already stated what i said was immature...and i stated my reason for saying it. im not going back to that.

some people do not believe it is cowardly to not engage in war. some people do not believe in using military forces to resolve conflict. i am one of those people. i am not a coward, as previously stated, i just stand by what i believe in. do i care one bit if you THINK i am a coward? nope. but i do care when people try to force their beliefs on others and make them try to believe that the way they live or think is more "right" than anyone else's.

as for not replying to you before...i have been meaning to step out of this argument...not for reasons of not knowing...for reasons of choosing your battles. i never meant this thread to become a political dispute. it was put here to educate people of an act that might be shoved through congress during our upcoming time of war. that is all. it took a wrong turn...not saying there is anything wrong with political debate..it is healthy. but i was singled out for unknown reasons and no one has the right to tell me what to answer or to put me on trial in any way shape or form. that said...im done. later.

Tracktor
February 25th, 2003, 02:25 PM
I apologize, I did not see your response regarding the immaturity part.
I don't think this is about forcing beliefs on anyone, merely standing up for what you believe in. It has been an interesting discussion, even the lunacy from Greg.
That said, I respect your right to bow out..........Giles

ont.freerider
February 25th, 2003, 06:38 PM
you beat the nazi's on your own eh? huh, thats a new one, so maybe they should rename it to America world war II, instead of WORLD war II! ya frigin dolt!
thats so ignorant its unbelievable!

better sign up your country needs you....for oil


i can lodge a few americans at my place, best make a reservation though peeps, spots are gonna go fast!

ont.freerider
February 25th, 2003, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Tracktor
If all you are is words and would not stand up for what you believe in, then I feel sorry for you. Maybe a war is what this generation needs to give it some backbone and cull out the weak.


i would stand up for what i believe in, i said that already, and i said if canada needed me i would go and help, IF I BELIEVED IN IT! i dont believe in what america is fighting for. and if canada goes to help F canada then.


and this generation needs a war?? WOW, i dont know where to start reaming you for that one...... hey, maybe we can make this an annual thing then!


there are so many american Ignorant comments, i am gonna say now that i am out of this, cause all im gonna keep doing is shoving your ignorant statements back in your face one by one, and it wont do anygood. so im out of this, ive said my peace. good luck on your oil hunt boys, try not to get us ALL killed.

bermblastermx02
February 25th, 2003, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by ont.freerider
you beat the nazi's on your own eh? huh, thats a new one, so maybe they should rename it to America world war II, instead of WORLD war II! ya frigin dolt!
thats so ignorant its unbelievable!

better sign up your country needs you....for oil


i can lodge a few americans at my place, best make a reservation though peeps, spots are gonna go fast! haha uncle ont. can i come? ill give u money to stay ur place. haha

Tracktor
February 25th, 2003, 07:02 PM
Sadly, you did not catch the irony in that comment.........Maybe you need a speedo if I'm going to fast for you............Giles

Bob693
February 25th, 2003, 10:11 PM
Who said America won WWII by themselves? I said we beat them and communism but said nothing about all by ourselves.You want to talk about ignorant why don't you read what was written and not add things. I was making the point that in the past we have been on the right side of history and that we will be again. You are not talking crap about our allies so there is know need to defend them. but how quickly you bash us as if we have been the bad guys the last 100 years. But hey, look how quickly you are willing to say F Canada, you are willing to support your country only when you agree, and if not then F you Canada and you turn your back. Wow you sure are a loyal guy.

Bob693
February 25th, 2003, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by jakestein
america didnt beat the nazis alone the reason america has been so powerful the last 35 years in its economy is it milked england dry before it joined ww2 they were the only country to keep up to the demand for merchant boats ect. that england lost at battle england have been paying the usa back with huge gold deposits every year since.

Ok, so you are saying the only reason America's economy is so good is because England is paying us in gold every year from what they owe us from WWII. Wow that is a new one on me. England must sure have alot of gold to be able to support us for so long. I can promise you we give more to other countries than is given to us. If we collected on all that we have lent out it would wipe out our national debt, and that is pretty big. But we don't do that because it would bankrupt alot of other places and screw up the world's economy.