Moron Musicians For Kerry

[Rikk]

Originally posted by ELVIS
You are so full of crap on this, it's sickening...

That's not a response. I agree 100% with Ford on this. You don't start wars based on revenge tactics if there is no real reason you're attacking said country...meaning, if said country was not responsible for the bloodshed you want to avenge, there is no justification. Afghanistan did not produce a cleaning out of Al Quaida (mainly because that's not why they were really there) and Iraq had NOTHING to do with Al Quaida...it was about Haliburton and oil control. 9-11 has bought this administration so many licenses to get away with disgusting shit.

[Rikk]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Gee, I'm glad I tried to honestly explain why the Musicians For Change crap bothers me.

Now you are saying we shouldn't have gone in Afghanistan either? Obviously everyone had an emotional reaction to 9/11. But after that is over you act with logic. The leftists dunderheads in Hollywood and elsewhere only operate on emotion when it comes to foreign policy and military matters.

Yeah...these "leftists" don't want people dying for oil or money. You think Bush, Cheney and the others are so noble? If they were so busy worrying about protecting this country, they wouldn't be provoking half the countries in the world to hate the United States and starting wars with countries that (big surprise!) had no weapons of mass destruction nor ties to Al Quaida. If Bush is so worried about protecting humans from evil, why isn't he doing anything to stop a genocide no the verge of occurring in Africa? He's even fighting U.N. recognition of such an event (just as Clinton did in '94 concerning Rwanda).

I love when people protect Bush without presenting one fact and just attack "leftists" and just blindly sloganeer.

[wraytw]

Originally posted by Rikk
If Bush is so worried about protecting humans from evil, why isn't he doing anything to stop a genocide no the verge of occurring in Africa?

He's waiting for Canada to take the lead.

[Rikk]

Originally posted by wraytw
He's waiting for Canada to take the lead.

That was so ignorant and stupid, you have no idea. In Rwanda, Canada did take the lead!!! The only country that did stay and saved probably a few hundred thousand lives was Canada, you idiot. America refused to get involved and Belgium bailed out. But Canadian U.N. troops stayed and couldn't prevent 900,000 from being murdered with machetes, but still managed to save a lot of lives and keep the world aware of the genocide. This caused a lot of future U.S. embarressment.

I met the Major who was second-in-command of Canadian troops.

Next time, do your research before you make such a stupid comment.

[wraytw]

lol

I didn't think that the context of my post would go over your head so easily.

[Rikk]

Originally posted by wraytw
lol

I didn't think that the context of my post would go over your head so easily.

Okay...I catch what you meant now.

Even then, it's nothing I want to joke about. The stories the major told me about what he saw have haunted me. The U.S. should be pretty ashamed of themselves for still trying to call Rwanda a "civil war". There's no humor for me in people paying $30 a head to be killed by a handgun so that you don't have to suffer through a machete death.

Bush's whole "saving people from tyranny" argument is...as usual...bullshit.

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by Rikk
That's not a response. I agree 100% with Ford on this. You don't start wars based on revenge tactics if there is no real reason you're attacking said country...meaning, if said country was not responsible for the bloodshed you want to avenge, there is no justification. Afghanistan did not produce a cleaning out of Al Quaida (mainly because that's not why they were really there) and Iraq had NOTHING to do with Al Quaida...it was about Haliburton and oil control. 9-11 has bought this administration so many licenses to get away with disgusting shit.

You are wrong on all accounts. The U.S. is totally justified for LIBERATING Afghanistan and Iraq. I never stated it was done for revenge. If you think wars start and end nice & neatly in a pre-determined fashion and everything goes according to plan you may want to check out the von Schlieffen plan for France, just for starters.

The left's answer for everything.... "Haliburton!". Was it OK for Haliburton to be in Bosnia? You guys need to get your head out of your conspiritorial ass for you to be able to debate any of this stuff rationally. You base everything on 1/2 truths filled in with propoganda trash.

There are lots of sources that gave the US justification for an Iraq invasion (including the 9/11 report and a recent Senate Intelligence report, for starters) but I'll cite just one, that came out today.

Iraq Survey Chief Duelfer: Saddam Was Developing Nukes

Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapons development program at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003, chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer has told Congress.

In comments that received virtually no press coverage in the United States, Duelfer testified that Iraq was "preserving and expanding its knowledge to design and develop nuclear weapons." One Iraqi laboratory "was intentionally focused on research applicable for nuclear weapons development," the top weapons inspector said.

Duelfer's stunning assessment, delivered in March of this year, was first reported last week by renowned historian William Shawcross, in a column for Britain's Guardian newspaper.

The former U.N. weapons inspector, who replaced David Kay as head of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group last year, said that Saddam was financing his nuclear program by misappropriating funds from the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food Program.

According to Duelfer, Saddam was able to use Oil-for-Food to boost his military procurement budget to $500 million annually &$0150; a 100-fold increase from 1996 to 2003.

Most of the recent nuclear research took place at Iraq's notorious al Tuwaitha weapons facility, where Saddam had stockpiled over 500 tons of yellow cake uranium ore since before the first Gulf War.

Iraq was also in talks with North Korea on the possibility of importing a 1,300 km missile system, the ISG chief revealed. Foreign missile experts were working in Iraq in defiance of U.N. sanctions, and had helped Iraq redesign the al-Samoud missile.

Saddam's 500-plus-ton uranium stockpile was being monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the same agency that had responsibility for monitoring North Korea's nuclear program throughout the 1990s. In October 2002 Pyongyang stunned IAEA inspectors with the announcement that it was ready to produce nuclear weapons.

In June of this year, the U.S. Energy Department removed 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium from al Tuwaitha.

Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press at the time that the low-enriched uranium stockpile could have produced enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.

In March 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney said there was evidence that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but the claim was widely dismissed by congressional investigators as well as U.S. reporters.

[Big Train]

Two things:

The entertainment industry is full of liberals for a very basic reason. They are paid extremely well by the people for doing compatively little for society. So they feel a tremendous amount of guilt (some of them) for the lifestyle they are afforded with. So natuarally, they tend to lean emotionally towards liberal policies (most of which effect them negatively, economically speaking,which makes it an emotional decision). Hence you get these types of things, where people use their percieved "clout" with the people, to show them their is a better way. It always ends up being a pointless, self indulgent, naive exercise, but it is good press for them, as "down to earth" people, which is why it continues to go on. In the case of these particular artists, outside of Bruce, it is also a way to generate buzz about acts that otherwise were floundering. They are taking the Rondstat route.

Secondly, the "theory" of the oil pipeline has never been proven at all. It requires great leaps of logic and faith to even remotely connect those dots.

[Rikk]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
You are wrong on all accounts. The U.S. is totally justified for LIBERATING Afghanistan and Iraq. I never stated it was done for revenge. If you think wars start and end nice & neatly in a pre-determined fashion and everything goes according to plan you may want to check out the von Schlieffen plan for France, just for starters.

The left's answer for everything.... "Haliburton!". Was it OK for Haliburton to be in Bosnia? You guys need to get your head out of your conspiritorial ass for you to be able to debate any of this stuff rationally. You base everything on 1/2 truths filled in with propoganda trash.

There are lots of sources that gave the US justification for an Iraq invasion (including the 9/11 report and a recent Senate Intelligence report, for starters) but I'll cite just one, that came out today.

Iraq Survey Chief Duelfer: Saddam Was Developing Nukes

Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapons development program at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003, chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer has told Congress.

In comments that received virtually no press coverage in the United States, Duelfer testified that Iraq was "preserving and expanding its knowledge to design and develop nuclear weapons." One Iraqi laboratory "was intentionally focused on research applicable for nuclear weapons development," the top weapons inspector said.

Duelfer's stunning assessment, delivered in March of this year, was first reported last week by renowned historian William Shawcross, in a column for Britain's Guardian newspaper.

The former U.N. weapons inspector, who replaced David Kay as head of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group last year, said that Saddam was financing his nuclear program by misappropriating funds from the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food Program.

According to Duelfer, Saddam was able to use Oil-for-Food to boost his military procurement budget to $500 million annually &$0150; a 100-fold increase from 1996 to 2003.

Most of the recent nuclear research took place at Iraq's notorious al Tuwaitha weapons facility, where Saddam had stockpiled over 500 tons of yellow cake uranium ore since before the first Gulf War.

Iraq was also in talks with North Korea on the possibility of importing a 1,300 km missile system, the ISG chief revealed. Foreign missile experts were working in Iraq in defiance of U.N. sanctions, and had helped Iraq redesign the al-Samoud missile.

Saddam's 500-plus-ton uranium stockpile was being monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the same agency that had responsibility for monitoring North Korea's nuclear program throughout the 1990s. In October 2002 Pyongyang stunned IAEA inspectors with the announcement that it was ready to produce nuclear weapons.

In June of this year, the U.S. Energy Department removed 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium from al Tuwaitha.

Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press at the time that the low-enriched uranium stockpile could have produced enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.

In March 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney said there was evidence that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but the claim was widely dismissed by congressional investigators as well as U.S. reporters.

Do you know what a pseudo-scientific argument is? It's one in which you already have your conclusion and then just try and fit your premises in based on your already settled conclusion. Colin Powell tried this in December 2002. The American people bought it. I didn't. I could tell it was all bullshit. They had no evidence. And they still don't. To claim that Ahmed Chalabi fooled Bush and the intelligence investigators means only one thing...Bush sent America to war because one small group tricked him. Almost 1000 Americans are dead now (as well as thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians) because Bush based all of his intelligence on the words of one man? Kinda irresponsible, isn't it?

What did they solve in Afghanistan? How come Al Quaida seems more active than it's ever been?

What have they solved in Iraq considering they were there to save the people? Did getting an old man with a mustache really save the world from "weapons of mass destruction" conisdering this man has been a U.S. employee for over 20 years? How did it save the world considering any weapons they've found have been old weapons given to them by the U.S.? I guess the evidence of Saddam's treachery they like to point to (gassing Kurds in '88) sounds kinda ridiculous when he did such treacherous acts with U.S.-supplied chemical weapons.

Shouldn't a country be compelled to go to war instead of look for reasons for it? There are a great many dangerous countries in the world with nuclear weapons, run by dictators or leaders that were NOT on the U.S. payroll at one time. Gee...I guess North Korea (a country that actually DOES have a giant stockpile of nuclear weaponry) is not a threat. There was no compelling reason to send the U.S. to war, especially considering we've empowered this man and let him murder and brutalize his people for over 20 years now. What justification did we have to suddenly go in 2003? How did it save the U.S. from future terrorist attacks considering ever since Bush got into office we get more and more...snicker...orange alerts? We've also found NO evidence that Saddam had any intention of ever even thinking of attacking the U.S. And Saddam was a sworn enemy of Al Quaida. Don't you think the fact that Cheney and Rumself are now trying to site a 1994 meeting between that happened to include two low-level advisors of Saddam and Al Quaida is kinda weak? Doesn't that sound like trying to justify a conclusion you will stick to no matter what evidence is presented?

And don't look at Haliburton as a silly catchphrase. It's fucking important. I'd like to know why we need to keep half of Iraq unemployed and give all the contracts to American companies considering the least you could give Iraqi citizens after destroying their businesses, power supply and phone lines is the ability for employment in fixing these supplies themselves. That's not freedom they're facing...it's bloody military rule. Why do you think the people are so violent and angry? Do you really think these people hate freedom? How moronic an argument is that???

Furthermore, the typical response I've been seeing to any of mine or Ford's posts is to attack "leftist" thinking, to laugh at words like Haliburton, but to present no evidence contradicting any of our evidence.

Give it up...there's no justification for the war. If you even give me proof for the war's need (for which there is none), I ask you why we willingly kept Saddam there for 20 years in the first place.

Bush let the people down. It's time for change. Kerry is no saint. But he's better than a man that is causing the world to truly hate the United States (look around you) and is blatantly exploiting countries at a far greater rate than any President before him. If you want to give your tax dollars to destruction of Iraqi resources and then give more tax dollars to Haliburton to fix such destruction when said destruction was only marginally necessary because we put Saddam there in the first place and said destruction wasn't compelling and almost 1000 American troops should not be dead for it because America is no safer, then have fun. Me, I'll think about what my government is doing instead of blindly follow it. Questioning your government and asking questions is one of the greatest freedoms your country offers you.

[DLR'sCock]

Originally posted by Rikk
YES HE WILL!!

Enjoy the concert! I love both artists. Too bad I'm in Canada!

Hey Rikk, good to see ya bro!!!

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by Rikk
Did getting an old man with a mustache really save the world from "weapons of mass destruction" conisdering this man has been a U.S. employee for over 20 years?

This really says it all, as far as totally discrediting your every word. But, to be fair I will respond tomorrow when I have some more time. In the meantime you may want to specifically refute the facts I have stated, or respond to things I put out there instead of just trotting out the same old Pacifist, America-hating drivel.

Haliburton!!

[Rikk]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
This really says it all, as far as totally discrediting your every word. But, to be fair I will respond tomorrow when I have some more time. In the meantime you may want to specifically refute the facts I have stated, or respond to things I put out there instead of just trotting out the same old Pacifist, America-hating drivel.

Haliburton!!

Don't bother... The fact that you think Saddam didn't work for the American government makes you a joke in my eyes. But even worse, anyone that calls someone who questions their elected government an America-hater is completely ignorant in my eyes. I don't really need your response because you have no credibility to me.

Furthermore, I didn't respond to many of the specifics in your post because they were pure and utter nonsense. Quoting Cheney and listing questionable sources that Saddam was making nuclear weapons doesn't change the fact that you're ignoring the entire state of mind in which a war should be entered. You are clearly not an intellectual, and I'm tired of wasting my time with someone determined to not question any government action and can only yell in the face of the intelligent: "Haliburton!! "

Dude, one more thing...to accuse someone of being basically a blind pacifist because they argue that a country should be compelled to go to war really shows your attitude. Maybe you should serve in one and realize how unglorious an experience it really is and then realize that wars should only be fought to save one's country...not to exploit others. You have not listed any evidence for extreme duress under which a decision had to be made. And I've asked you twice now. Don't bother for a third attempt. Your arguing style sucks... You're just another stubborn redneck.

I'll be laughing at you this November when your corrupt buddy Cheney stops getting his giant stock option payouts because Haliburton is kicked out of Iraq. (And no, Haliburton is not the answer to everything...but its mere corrupt existence in the situation is pretty symbolic...dontcha think?)

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by Rikk
Don't bother... The fact that you think Saddam didn't work for the American government makes you a joke in my eyes. But even worse, anyone that calls someone who questions their elected government an America-hater is completely ignorant in my eyes. I don't really need your response because you have no credibility to me.

Furthermore, I didn't respond to many of the specifics in your post because they were pure and utter nonsense. Quoting Cheney and listing questionable sources that Saddam was making nuclear weapons doesn't change the fact that you're ignoring the entire state of mind in which a war should be entered. You are clearly not an intellectual, and I'm tired of wasting my time with someone determined to not question any government action and can only yell in the face of the intelligent: "Haliburton!! "

Dude, one more thing...to accuse someone of being basically a blind pacifist because they argue that a country should be compelled to go to war really shows your attitude. Maybe you should serve in one and realize how unglorious an experience it really is and then realize that wars should only be fought to save one's country...not to exploit others. You have not listed any evidence for extreme duress under which a decision had to be made. And I've asked you twice now. Don't bother for a third attempt. Your arguing style sucks... You're just another stubborn redneck.

I'll be laughing at you this November when your corrupt buddy Cheney stops getting his giant stock option payouts because Haliburton is kicked out of Iraq. (And no, Haliburton is not the answer to everything...but its mere corrupt existence in the situation is pretty symbolic...dontcha think?)

No, I will respond tomorrow when I have more time, like I stated before. In the process I'll try not to insult you like you have done to me. By the way I did not say you were an America-hater becasue you question your government. Besides, aren't you in Canada?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Rikk

I met the Major who was second-in-command of Canadian troops.

Did he still have his tail between his legs? Hmmm?

[freak]

Originally posted by FORD
I love the Indigo Girls. But they certainly don't disguise their political or philisophical viewpoints. That's why I'm surprised that they would have a fan who complains about musicians getting involved in politics.

Bruce Springstein, et al are decidedly *not* politicians or world leaders. Hence their having next to no credibility.

The indigo girls are different. When two chicks go down on each other, they pretty much have the lesbian credentials down pat. Besides, it's more a hormonal thing here as opposed to an intellectual one. Cunnilingus does not require a lot of deep thought.