Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
Your thoughts on Iraq
    #889732 -

OK, they said they would let weapons inspectors back in but Jr seems dead set on war.

What is really going on here?

Is Saddam just stalling or is Bush hell bent for his head?



--------------------
***The Real Shroomery nigger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Your thoughts on Iraq [Re: PGF]
    #889743 -

its done to late now.
there will be war in iraq.


--------------------
RIP Acidic_Sloth

Sunset_Mission said:
"larry the scary rex
verily scary when thoroughly vexed
invoke the shadows and dust, cast a hex
mercifully massacring memories masterfully
relocate from Ur to 8th density and become a cosmic bully
mulder and scully couldn't decipher his glyphs
invoke the shadows and dust, smoke infernal spliffs"
April 24th 2011

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Your thoughts on Iraq [Re: PGF]
    #889746 -

Iraq may have nuclear weapons in as little as 2 months. If Saddam is stalling or diverting attention from his weapons progroms he will only need to hide it for another 2 months until he can blow up a few major American or Israeli cities. We need to make sure that we get him out of power and destroy his weapons program now, not 2 months from now, it could be too late. But if Saddam is serious that we will surrender now, than it must be unconditional, we do not have time for negotiations when there is so much at stake so soon. If Saddam agrees to unconditional surrender now then that?s great and war can be averted, but if not then we have little choice but to take him out or sit and wait for him to take us out.



--------------------
"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Your thoughts on Iraq [Re: PGF]
    #889877 -

In reply to:
Is Saddam just stalling or is Bush hell bent for his head?


All of the above. We know Saddam can't be trusted and lately I'm not to sure about Bush.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Your thoughts on Iraq [Re: Ellis Dee]
    #890251 -

In reply to:
If Saddam agrees to unconditional surrender now then that's great and war can be averted, but if not then we have little choice but to take him out or sit and wait for him to take us out.

How can he surrender when no declaration of war has been made?


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Your thoughts on Iraq [Re: PGF]
    #890262 -

Here is what I see..

Sadam agreed to the demands that Bush and the UN has made with one exception, disarmerment. Their is nothing said about dismantleing his weapons.

Bush is just crying, saying that Sadam is just going to block efforts again. I really think that he is trying hard to get a war going before inspectors have a chance to get in the country....

I say lets see if he will block the inspectors this time.. Nobody knows for sure.


--------------------
GabbaDj

FAMM.ORG             

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Your thoughts on Iraq [Re: GabbaDj]
    #890269 -

>I say lets see if he will block the inspectors this time.. Nobody knows for sure

Sudam has repeatedly (or his lackeys) that "Yes, inspectors come to Iraq", then they limit where they go, when they go. Wait a while, then announce "Yes, inspectors come to Iraq, no limitations." I don't think he has followed through with the no limitations yet. I don't think he is serious, just a smoke and mirrors deal.

I also agree that Bush wants to keep his momentum and attack with no hurdles.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Your thoughts on Iraq [Re: PGF]
    #890456 -

"Your thoughts on Iraq?"

If it achieved nothing else, the offer of the Iraqi government to accept without conditions the return of United Nations weapons inspectors has exposed the most essential truth of contemporary international politics: the Bush administration wants war. Its hysterical claims of "weapons of mass destruction" have never been anything else but a means of manufacturing a public justification for war. The Bush administration has responded angrily to the diplomatic note of the Iraqi foreign minister-demanding that it be ignored by the UN-because it knows that Saddam Husseins concession deprives the United States of the fig leaf of a pseudo-legal pretext for invading Iraq, destroying its government, seizing its oilfields and reducing the country to what would be, in effect, semi-colonial status.

Last weeks maneuvers by the Bush administration at the United Nations were based on the assumption that Iraq would never be able to comply with the provocative and draconian resolutions that the United States intended to ram through the Security Council. Moreover, the resolutions would leave it to the United States to decide whether or not Iraq was in compliance. The Bush administration was confident that this arrangement would inevitably provide the United States, within weeks if not days, with a casus belli. It would simply declare that Iraq was in "noncompliance" and initiate hostilities.

At least for the moment, this scenario has been somewhat disrupted-though there is no reason to believe that the United Nations will not soon bend to American pressure. The Bush administration will get, in all likelihood, both the resolutions and the war it wants.

For more than a half-century every American administration has invoked the specter of Munich 1938-when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain caved in to Hitler and handed Czechoslovakia over to the Nazis-to justify its own aggressive imperialist politics. America habitually cloaks its actions in the mantle of resistance to aggression. But this latest attempt to cast Bush as a modern-day equivalent of Churchill, standing firm in the wilderness against those who would compromise with a ruthless tyrant, attains a degree of mendacity that no other administration has ever achieved. For nothing so closely recalls the methods employed by the Nazi regime in its willful fabrication of the Czech crisis and its conduct of the negotiations in Munich in September 1938 than the tactics that have been pursued by the Bush administration in relation to Iraq.

By the summer of 1938, the Hitlerite regime had come to see war as a necessary response to a mass of socioeconomic contradictions for which the Nazis had no rational solution. The crisis that arose over the Sudetenland had far less to do with the specific issues seized upon by Hitler to justify an attack on Czechoslovakia-principally, the alleged mistreatment of the German minority-than to the aim of leading elements within the Nazi regime to find a pretext for war. In fact, as many historians have demonstrated, Hitler was less interested in obtaining concessions from Czechoslovakia than he was in getting an excuse to start a war.

In his masterful biography of Hitler, the historian Ian Kershaw relates that the Nazi leader was distressed that British and French concessions at Munich allowed Germany to seize the Sudetenland without a shot being fired. Hitler signed the documents that allowed the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia with reluctance. "For him, the document was meaningless. And for him Munich was no great cause for celebration. He felt cheated of the greater triumph which he was certain would have come from the limited war with the Czechs which had been his aim all summer" [Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis (New York and London, 2001), pp. 122-23].

George Bush is not Adolf Hitler and his administration is not the American equivalent of the Nazi regime. But the foreign policy of this government is being shaped by ruthless and reckless sections of the US ruling elite who are aggressively demanding the use of war as a means of realizing the global geo-strategic and economic ambitions of American imperialism. A sampling of articles that have appeared within the last two days in the Wall Street Journal reflects the views of the elements within the capitalist class that exercise immense influence within and upon this administration. In a column entitled "Finish the War" Victor Davis Hanson wrote on Tuesday that the United States "must invade, conquer and pacify" Iraq.

"The liberation of Iraq is more a question of when, not if," Hanson declared. "Even the delay in reckoning with Saddam has produced some positive effects. The administration has refined its casus belli both here and abroad."

On the same day, George Melloan, the deputy editor of the Journal, declared that Bushs ultimatum to the United Nations sets the stage for the ouster of Saddam Hussein. He continued: "How it will be done will be up to the US military. But for now, the situation is well in hand."

In another article, published on Monday and entitled "Saddams Oil" the Journal bluntly asserted that "the best way to keep oil prices in check is a short, successful war on Iraq that begins sooner rather than later."


The Bush administration-which finds itself confronted with a worsening economic crisis amidst a scandal that is completely discrediting the corporate pillars of American capitalism among the broad mass of the working population-sees in war a distraction from deepening and intractable domestic problems.

If the administration succeeds in getting its war against Iraq, it will prove to be a prelude to bigger and even bloodier atrocities.


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Your thoughts on Iraq [Re: PGF]
    #890502 -

Iraq = Bush re-election campaign.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Your thoughts on Iraq [Re: PGF]
    #890526 -

"What is really going on here?"

my honest opinion: most likely an effort to maintain the prevailing social order


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Your thoughts on Iraq [Re: Lallafa]
    #891112 -

"Iraq = Bush re-election campaign."

exactly.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Your thoughts on Iraq [Re: foghorn]
    #891179 -

In reply to:
"Iraq = Bush re-election campaign."

exactly.


Kind of odd to be campaigning for re-election when your not even up for re-election... Of course thinking any deeper in to the matter may require using your brain, which liberals seem to have a hard time doing.


--------------------
"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Your thoughts on Iraq [Re: Ellis Dee]
    #891214 -

RG, I respect your opinions no matter how wrong I believe them to be. That said, prior to our invasion of Iraq back in Jr's pop's time, Iraq was a friend of the US.

His country is not filled with radical Islamists like Iran. That is one reason we supported his dictatorship.

In short, Hussein was never and is not now a threat to the US.
He invaded Kuwait because they were slant drilling.

The only reason I can guess that we want to invade him again is for leverage in the region. Oil is important and we want it and we are planning on taking control of it.

If this ends up like Korea did, think how great it would be to have our own military bases in the mid-east. By the end, I see us occupying Iraq for many many years.

All this terrorist bullshit is nonsense.


--------------------
***The Real Shroomery nigger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Your thoughts on Iraq [Re: Ellis Dee]
    #891255 -

What? You don't think he's going to run again?
Every president's first term is pretty much one big re-election campaign.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Your thoughts on Iraq [Re: Ellis Dee]
    #891337 -

Dude, how did you reach the conclusion that I was a liberal? From that statement? So I guess anyone who opposes Bush on the war MUST be a liberal huh? Kind of simplistic don't you think?

Of course thinking any deeper in to the matter may require using your brain.

btw, I am NOT a liberal. I just don't like Bush's foreign policy.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Your thoughts on Iraq [Re: Phluck]
    #891565 -

Of course he's going to run again, IN 2 YEARS! He is not currently up for re-election. He will be in 2 years!

A president's job is not their campaign. They are seperate. Period.


--------------------
"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Your thoughts on Iraq [Re: infidelGOD]
    #891570 -

If you're not a liberal that I apolagize for my rash judgment.


--------------------
"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Your thoughts on Iraq [Re: PGF]
    #892424 -



"Oh...oh...Allah Akbar! Oh..yes...god...is...so...fucking...GREAAAATTT!!"

Those two guys are always up to no good!


--------------------
At this stage of human evolution,the truth about the meaning of life is too unattainably simple for us to comprehend,as contemporary thought is too bogged down with the notion that the answer to the riddle is so elusively complex. - Tonya Harding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Your thoughts on Iraq [Re: ChronicPride]
    #892524 -

This is not really the forum for silly pictures,
but I see you're canadian, so I fully understand why you
are posting this crap in this forum........kids in the hall comes to mind.....


--------------------
***The Real Shroomery nigger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Your thoughts on Iraq [Re: Lallafa]
    #892626 -

War and Political Stasis

In times of great political unrest, politicians who find themselves at odds with popular sentiment are forced to resort of extreme methods of impeding the process of fundamental change. War, simply put, is the last and most extreme method of impeding societal change. By providing an external enemy, a government prone to war will relieve internal pressures towards change and maintain the status quo by the simple method of fear and uniform distraction. The citizenry of a war-state will forgo political agendas during the interim of a war itself, essentially freezing the dynamics of the political landscape. Moreover, those that choose to ignore the state of war and still press home provocative policy will be faced with a legislative wall through which only matters of war find the 'fast track';. Amongst the masses, the ingrained tendency is to oppose a war (if at all) up until the point where our brothers and sisters are on the battlefield, at which point we feel that even if we do not support the ideal behind the War itself, we must at least support our fellow citizens. Again, there tend to be those who don't adhere to this unconscious doctrine for a myriad of reasons, but they tend to be labeled and expelled from the community as either 'dissident' or 'sympathizer. 'What this creates, in essence, is uniformity and unconditional surrender of free will. If one sees the political arena of any given nation as a battlefield of ideals, then a very effective method (perhaps the MOST effective) for provoking 'peace'on this battlefield is to generate an actual, physical, battlefield in reality. Upheaval can be conditionally subdued, unrest can be smothered, ideals can be invalidated.

"Why are we talking about Alaskan Oil fields when we're are war?"
"This is no time to criticize The President, he';s leading a war. He can't do everything."

Enter the War on Terrorism, extended now towards Iraq. If you look at Bush's political background, his basis for invading Iraq is perfectly obvious: Iraq is home to the second largest untapped oil reserves in the world. For political reasons, the United States, the largest consumer of Oil in the world, has very limited access to Iraqi Oil. We've tried to coerce Saddam Hussein through economic channels -attempting a war of Capitalism - we've tried to starve his people into agreeing to an 'oil for food' situation. It hasn't worked. (Iraqi oil tends to go to two places : France and Russia. We find these two countries vehemently opposing the War on Iraq, though they never really come right out and saying why. The veil of politics must be maintained.) When Iraq was sending us oil, after we put Hussein in power, we were more than happy to let him have weapons of any sort that he wanted, indeed, Iraqi security against a possible external threat was American energy security. Here we could draw a comparison between the United States allowance of Israeli weapons of mass-destruction (up until the point where Iraq ceased being an ally, of course) on the basis that it aided United States security. It was only when Hussein stopped giving us what we wanted at the prices we desired that he became a worldwide threat. And after September 11th, it was this background that generated his status within the Axis of Evil. Bush was trying to link Iraq to the terrorist act that occurred in New York - not because he had evidence, but because a prolonged war which enjoyed such a high percentage of public backing (Lets Roll) would provide just the sort of domestic political tranquility that every president desires. Especially when the situation (both economic and physical) was beginning to sour for the United States. Can we really doubt that the weather is changing? Can we doubt that, instead of getting better, economic conditions around the world are getting worse? Can we doubt that our own American Lifestyle has an integral part to play in the reasons 'why';? These are all priming factors for upheaval, and even if Bush isn't smart enough to realize it, his advisors are. Revolution could easily have been on the horizon, and there are still signs of unrest: look to California with the legalization of medical marijuana (going against nearly 50 years of Supreme Court wisdom and a whole different 'war' and the illegalities of the Pledge of Allegiance have sprouted up in the past few years. But issues like these that in peacetime would have been at the forefront and a cause for a great diffusion of free thought have taken a back seat to Bush's war. And there is no sign that he has any intention of letting up. Indeed, letting up would be unjustifiable for as long as he has the people of the United States allied behind him (for false reasons or not), war is the best way for him to maintain political stasis at home. All he has to do is keep it up for 4 to 8 years and he's done his duty to America.

And everyone remember, this is a New Kind of War. Victory will not be easy, and it will not come quick.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* My thoughts, Iraq, war, and genocide Ellis Dee 1,840 14 03/18/03 04:11 AM
by Anonymous
* Support US war on IRAQ
( 1 2 all )		 LordMorham 4,843 29 09/20/02 09:56 AM
by LordMorham
* UN approval for multinational force in Iraq?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 shakta 3,170 62 09/05/03 08:48 AM
by Autonomous
* It is not in America?s interest to invade Iraq. RonoS 2,573 12 09/27/02 12:03 AM
by downforpot
* Iraq Lenore 1,048 2 12/06/01 08:17 PM
by Innvertigo
* To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq:
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 JohnnyRespect 5,300 70 06/30/03 05:17 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Blix: Iraq had no WMD since 1991
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 Xlea321 7,105 106 09/23/03 03:43 PM
by infidelGOD
* Bush slams door on U.N. inspectors pattern 1,065 16 04/23/03 08:40 PM
by Evolving

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,228 topic views. 3 members, 64 guests and 28 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.