(V): "....would be nice if some others could broaden their awareness."

That's not meant as a slight. I mean it really would be a wonderful thing.

(V): Says it all. I knew you would understand it....would be nice if some others could broaden their awareness. :o)

The Usurper: Aye, the tools of our leaders. Throughout history it's all been the same.

Czuch: No you lost Vietnam, those who took over made it prosperous, as for Cambodia... you are missing the point... Chinese!!!!!!! If the war had spread then direct Chinese involvement was going to happen I recon. That would have led to a war no one could win.

Czuch: I didn't I just expected Bush (and those 'guiding' him) to be truthful as much as possible. Not make up stories of weapons bunkers that were so vague. You could tell from interviews with officials like Ms Rice that something was up.

No Pres can perform miracles. But they can at least show intelligence and wisdom and not be pushed and pulled by interested parties.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," [Hermann] Göring shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," [Gustave M. Gilbert] pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare war."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

(Nuremberg Diary, pp. 278–79)

(V): The only way to have one the Vietnam war would have to taken on the suppliers of arms to the North Vietnamese

I am not saying the US had a great plan to win in Vietnam, they learned nothing from the French failure at dien ben foo (or however it is spelled, dont have time to look it up right now) but the french messed up and underestimated the Vietnamese and the US didnt learn a thing and did the same mistakes all over again.

It was against the law for the US to bomb the supply route to the viet cong by way of the ho chi mihn trail because it went through Cambodia, and it was our government who ultimately got in the way of our successful help there.

Anyway, even if you are right and there was no way to win in the jungle, ultimately we have won, because Vietnam is more prosperous now than then, and they are our allies more now than ever, and they are happy we helped them, and they are better off for it!

Iraq will be no different....

(V): they are then thinking that the Pres is God and can perform miracles


Funny, when Bush was President, thats what was expected from him, to perform miracles, to the point where every disaster was blamed on him... but no such lofty expectations from the Bam.

(V): Either that or it is coincidence number 1,647,248,506,354,035,503,344,445. lol

I think it must have been a safety precaution, in case something went wrong with the plan & they got caught in the act.

Actually, a lot DID go wrong. Had all the flights departed on schedule, then the crashes could have been no more than 20 minutes from first to last. Then NORAD wouldn't have been accused of a stand down order. As it was, for example, Flight 93 took off 41 minutes late.

So it appears there were contingent plans. Flight 77 couldn't make it to the Pentagon, or whichever plane was supposed to hit it....so they used a missile or small military plane. WTC 7, maybe, was the target of one of the planes, but had to be demolished in the afternoon when a plane didn't get there. It was likely the headquarters of operation (CIA and other secret agencies had space in the building).

The Usurper: 4 days before.... Mmmmmmm. That's like they kinda knew something was about to happen.

Czuch: The only way to have one the Vietnam war would have to taken on the suppliers of arms to the North Vietnamese. Not really a good idea. The US thought they could win it in the jungle.. .. no way, it was impossible. Even if they had taken out the main armies, there would have been a guerilla war after that would have killed and killed and killed.

(V): I agree with you, not disputing that at all. Of course no Pres can solve this deepening crisis, and certainly not right away. I was only taking an opportunity to point out another of those 9/11 mysteries. lol

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed Executive Order 01-261 September 7, 2001, four days before the WTC tragedy of Sept. 11, which paves the way for a declaration of martial law in his state. The governor, in his EO, delegated to, “...the Adjutant General of the state of Florida all necessary authority....to order members of the Florida National Guard into Active Service.”

Immediately after the second WTC tower fell, Governor Bush signed EO 01-262 to make Florida the first state to declare a state of emergency though his state did not experience any terrorist events that day. Governor Bush is reportedly the only governor in the U.S. outside of NY and D.C. to make a declaration of martial law in the wake of the WTC tragedy. Interestingly, Governor Bush's declaration came before authorities in New York or Washington, D.C. declared states of emergency."

http://proliberty.com/observer/20011008.htm

[Verrrrrrrrrry interesting]

The Usurper: No Pres could make the markets recover just like that, they are two screwed at the mo and short on cash thanks to bad debts, no money to lend, reduced sales and alot of people worrying more about losing their homes, jobs, etc.

There is a lack of trust in the USA economy and those who were supposed to be .... wise in the matters of money. Until that is restored.... ....

Czuch: Ever heard of the plans to use a bio-engineered fungicide on the USA to kill poppy and cannabis plants. It was supposed to only affect these two plants. It was to be used in Florida and got approved, but the courts reversed the decision as they were unsure that the fungicide (Fusarium oxysporum) would remain stable and not mutate and start attacking all plants.

The Columbian Government earlier vetoed plans by the USA to test a similar fungicide on the same grounds.

(V): "better find the Pres a large deposit of gold."

Apparently a large deposit of gold is one of the things missing from beneath the WTC. Another unsolved mystery.....

Czuch: Not at the moment. Too soon. It is gonna take time to correct what has gone wrong, and if anyone thinks an instant upturn is going to happen because of a new Pres (it wouldn't have mattered if McCain got elected the same situation would still be happening) they are then thinking that the Pres is God and can perform miracles and wipe out all the debt, fraud, etc just with a wave of a wand... better find the Pres a large deposit of gold.

Czuch: So you believe the Vietnam war was a just cause, and that we should have stuck it out to victory? And you interviewed some people in Vietnam who hold this view?

It is estimated that 2-4 million died in Vietnam during the war. It is known that we dropped more bombs in Vietnam that we did in WWII. Are you suggesting we just didn't kill enough of them to break the will of the Vietcong & North Vietnamese? Or what?

Also a question for you, just a general one. If you support our intervening in other countries for the betterworld of the world, why do you call yourself a conservative? That's a progressive policy.

So let's say you are a progressive on foreign policy, not a conservative. Are you a conservative at home? Well, you support welfare to the rich, so I guess not. Hmmmm...these terms keep getting twisted out of their proper & historical meanings.

But back to foreign policy. A true progressive believes we can better the world by intervention. So the motives are good. But I ask you, if a dictatorial power, or an imperial power (same thing) wants to spread its influence & force abroad, what will it claim? Why, it will claim to be a progressive power, trying to better the world & help people, etc.

So the question then is this...how do you distinguish between a truly progressive motive and a motive that is imperial but pretends it is progressive? Do you think that, by definition, if the U.S. is doing it, it is always progressive, and if someone else is doing it (like Russia or China) it is always oppressive? Or do you look to the evidence at hand, on a case-by-case basis, or perhaps at historical patterns?

Czuch: "This sucks, I have to be to work in 20 m inutes and need a shower and a 15 minute drive.... whoops!"

Ok, be careful. We've time for this debate later (I hope).

"Really? You have someone who has personally been there conducting personal interviews with the common people today????"

I thought you meant you fought in Vietnam. I keep forgetting your age, you remind me so much of Archie Bunker. lol

I'll look into that and get back with you. Have a good day at work.

The Usurper: Often in a dictatorship, people go the way of the dictators.

The Usurper: There are plenty of voices from Vietnam who speak a different tale about the Vietnamese than you do.


Really? You have someone who has personally been there conducting personal interviews with the common people today????

Czuch: "Problem is, I USED to think like you, and I have seen things more clearly and my opinions have already changed!!"

Too bad you changed. Often in a dictatorship, people go the way of the dictators.

This sucks, I have to be to work in 20 m inutes and need a shower and a 15 minute drive.... whoops!

Czuch: "I have personally been to Vietnam...."

There are plenty of voices from Vietnam who speak a different tale about the Vietnamese than you do.

The Usurper: Problem is, I USED to think like you, and I have seen things more clearly and my opinions have already changed!!

The Usurper: But I do blame America for Vietnam


I have personally been to Vietnam.... the overwhelming majority of the people there, both in the north and in the south told me that they are glad for our efforts there and their ONLY regret is that we bailed on them like we did!!!!

The same will be true in Iraq, I know it I have first hand knowledge of it, problem is, It will take 20 years for me and Bush to be proven right!

Czuch: "Its not just that I personally prefer it, i think it is absolutely the right thing!"

I'm glad you are following your conscience, even if I believe your information is bad. If you are following your conscience, then perhaps in time you'll get better informed and see things more clearly, and your opinions will change. There is hope for a man who does & believes what he thinks is right.

Czuch: "If we just hadnt sanctioned them for being (BEEP) they would be a thriving and prosperous nation, without the need of our money and support????"

Yes, without sanctions they'd have rebuilt and been just fine. It is US meddling with THEM that caused their problems. Saddam wouldn't even have come to power except WE initiated the coup. Learn some history.

The Usurper: not what I personally prefer.

Its not just that I personally prefer it, i think it is absolutely the right thing!

The Usurper: yes it is in our interest to have a stable and prosperous middle east... but it is in the best interest of the whole world as well, and in the best interest of the Iraqi people too, a win win win situation, thats a good thing, not bad!

Czuch: "you dont like it, I do...."

That's the bottom line for you, you like it so however you can justify it, you will. I'm different from you. I consider whether a thing is right, not what I personally prefer. And I think the Iraqi people have to like it, not you or me. Now, the Iraqi people hate us. And for good reason. We just went in and destroyed their civilization.

Spin it how you want. Hitler did. Bush did. Caesar did. I call it as I see it. I call it tyranny.

You say I blame American first. No I don't. I don't blame America for WWII. I don't blame America for 1776. I don't blame America for WWI. But I do blame America for Vietnam, and for Iraq, and for many other crimes against humanity. If my son committed murder, I'd blame him too.

The Usurper: re you for liberating the Iraqis, or for "imposing limits and regulations and rules on them"?


Forcing out their backwards government... that, in effect, are the imposed limits and regulations.....

Czuch: If we just hadnt sanctioned them for being (BEEP) they would be a thriving and prosperous nation, without the need of our money and support????

Czuch: "As far as I am concerned, when you take my money to support yourself, then I have a right to impose limits and regulations and rules on you..."

Are you still talking about Iraq? Talk about spinning an argument! Make up your mind, are you for liberating the Iraqis, or for "imposing limits and regulations and rules on them"?

I know what the U.S. is there for. To control the Middle East, most especially the oil supply, and to impose our will on the inhabitants, in order to do so.
This is not secret knowledge. No rocket scientist is needed to understand it.

The Usurper: The point is that Iraq or the UN can sanction us all they want to and we will be just fine... saddam sucked at taking care of his people, otherwise, our sanctions could not hurt them! You have to blame saddam and his tyrannical ways for any problems Iraqi people had.... but thats right, you are part of the blame america first and for everything crowd!!!! You dont think Iraq has any blame for their own poor situation???

The Usurper: No self-interest on our part,

Of course there is self interest on our part! Nobody is arguing differently?

As I just explained, our interest included not having to spend the next thousand years taking care of them, giving them a chance to prosper for themselves, free from the burden they put on the rest of the world, which would have NEVER happened unless we helped it to happen by force!

You ask why then not everyone??? That is partly why, because not everyone is a burden on us... we do not feed the Russian kids, or chinas kids... they may have burdens but not to the extent where it effects us so much yet.

Plus we have only so much we can do to help, one place one cause at a time, someday we can get to them all, but it takes time, I raq was the right place and the right time, it had to be done, and the mixture of excuses and reasons and time and place all lined up, and it happened..... you dont like it, I do....

Czuch: "Really??? A people who are starving to death and relying on the outside world to feed and clothe them and to monitor their government for them, these are people we have no right to liberate????"

You just don't know history. The Iraqi children were starving in the 90s because of the sanctions WE imposed. This we have even admitted. Madeline Albright, Secretary of State under Clinton, said that 500,000 Iraqi children dying as a result of our sanctions was "worth it," in order to "contain" Saddam Hussein.

Czuch: "I am asking about liberating people who are asking to be liberated, which clearly the majority of the Iraqi people were...."

No they weren't. Just how many excuses for invasion will you believe from proven liars? Iraq connected with al-queda! Oops, no. Iraq has WMDs! Oops, no. Oh, I know! Poor Iraqis want to be free of Saddam Hussein! That's it. So let's ride to the rescue. No self-interest on our part, you see, we just want to be helpful. It's what we do in the world, our official policy. To be helpful to others all through the world. We call it Unrealpolitik.

"I am sure that if you were arguing my side, you would be able to find some nice bible quotes explaining how order comes from chaos, or something like that..."

If I were assigned your side in a debate, who knows what I might come up with? But in that case I'd be on the wrong side of the debate & the wrong side of history, so I'd better get ready to do some serious spinning.

"You have been there?"

Have you?

"If and when the majority of the American people believe as you do that the US government is using a theoretical WMD against its own people, in secret and harmful ways, and we become unable to do anything about it ourselves, then by all means, the Russians or Chinese or whomever would be more than welcome in coming here and trying to liberate us!!"

Be careful what you wish for. A people can only free themselves. If we are to be liberated, we must liberate ourselves from our darker half. No one can do this for us.

There is no such thing as democracy at the point of a gun. That is democracy's anti-thesis. Only in this age of mass propaganda can a people be fooled into believing such twisted nonsense.

The Usurper: Really??? A people who are starving to death and relying on the outside world to feed and clothe them and to monitor their government for them, these are people we have no right to liberate????



You take away our giving them my money and you take away our paying to monitor saddam, and you take away all our aid and our responsibility to them and for them, then I can agree with you, we have nothing to do with them at all, let them all rot in hell as far as i care....


But as a good socialist you should understand this better? You support that if we give banks money we have a right to monitor them more closely and regulate them, basically govern them? You supposrt that if we give you food stamps, we can impose limits on what you can buy with them, right? Thats the way of the world, if I support you, I can make the rules for you too. You must have heard from your parents at one time "as long as you live under my roof"....You dont like them telling you what to do, then move out, dont be beholden to them anymore.

As far as I am concerned, when you take my money to support yourself, then I have a right to impose limits and regulations and rules on you...

That includes doing what I deem necessary to make you more stable and prosperous and self reliant in the future as I possibly am able to!

The Usurper: I am sure that if you were arguing my side, you would be able to find some nice bible quotes explaining how order comes from chaos, or something like that...

The Usurper: But we've brought slaughter and chaos to Iraq,

You have been there?

The Usurper: If and when the majority of the American people believe as you do that the US government is using a theoretical WMD against its own people, in secret and harmful ways, and we become unable to do anything about it ourselves, then by all means, the Russians or Chinese or whomever would be more than welcome in coming here and trying to liberate us!!!

Let me know when we get there please

The Usurper: t were right to liberate a people not asking to be liberated..

Ive not been clear, I am asking about liberating people who are asking to be liberated, which clearly the majority of the Iraqi people were....

If you are not asking to be liberated, then why bother?

Czuch: "do you believe it is okay to use military force for the purpose of liberating people from an unworthy, and otherwise evil regime?"

The simple rule is to stay out of people's business. Unworthy? The U.S. regime is also unworthy. Evil? The U.S. regime is also evil in many ways. Does that justify Russia, or China, or somebody else coming to "liberate us" from our oppressive government?

But even if, for the sake of argument, it were right to liberate a people not asking to be liberated....let us assume the evil ruler is killing all his subjects and not using chemical weapons we supplied him with to do it, as in our old friend Saddam's case (remember we put him in power & he was our ally up until Gulf War I)....let's assume it is a genuine rescue of a people desperately oppressed....well then, maybe a case could be made for that, like rescuing a child from abusive parents.

And that, naturally, is what the U.S. claims its mission was in Iraq. If that's true, why stop at Iraq? Why not rescue the Chinese and the Russians and every oppressed people the world over? Since we are so wise & wonderful, why not just police the whole world for everybody's good...even if they don't recognize that good for themselves? Even you ought to be able to recognize how anti-democratic, anti-libertarian, anti-freedom such a concept really is. Every people has the fundamental right of self-determination. It is on this right we ourselves stood, when we declared our independence in 1776.

And it isn't the case at all that we are spreading liberty, even in Iraq. It's the cover story. But we've brought slaughter and chaos to Iraq, not liberation. We have killed, not healed. We've brought more oppression, in the guise of a puppet-democracy. The only Iraqis we've freed are the dead ones...we freed them from the sorrows of life. It doesn't take a genius to see this, only a fairly impartial observer.

I've reached my 500 word limit.

(V): It's pure economics, no-one has much confidence in the market at the mo.

Dont you think that a presidents economic policies have anything to do with the consumer confidence level?

I can agree that in general the markets act independent of any president, that the markets had gone too high and for too many wrong reasons, and it was due for a correction, and that correction had started before Bam got elected...

but, if a president starts implementing policies that are contrary to a healthy market, cant that have an effect as well? (speaking hypothetically of course)

Czuch: Yes. It means that wall street isn't confident in his plan. That's a huge drop. He should have taken Regan's approach to the stock market fall of 87. Regan left it alone to do its own thing. It not only bounced back, but it flourished. Obama's plan should have at least softened the downward trend but it seems to have made it worse.

OTOH, it takes months for the stock market to correct itself. One analysis says there is tons of money just waiting for the stock market to show signs of a recovery and then it will soar to new heights. We'll see.

Czuch: Nope, the downfall was already in process before he got elected and by the way things happened (fraud, etc) .. The financial market has not and will not recover for some time. It's pure economics, no-one has much confidence in the market at the mo... I wouldn't buy shares now, in case another big mess in the market comes to light (eg the $50 billion hedge fund fraud)

People over here have seen some shares tumble from £100 per share to £3 per share.

Dow Jones Stock average is down 32% since Obama got elected.... does it mean anything about his ideas and policies and that of the democrats who control the country?

The Usurper: If they were that bad, then they must be planning some use for us. But from what I heard on that interview with the Canadian defence minister... I don't think they are 'bad'.

As to vampires.... I know the real story on that as in energy drainers, demonic possession... tricky, some may be just an unintegrated part of the person psyche (as told in Jewish lit), and in other cases it's not so simple. Possession is one of those subjects that can be tricky.

The Usurper: Since you seem to like the use of appropriate words.....

answer this for me.... do you believe it is okay to use military force for the purpose of liberating people from an unworthy, and otherwise evil regime? Could you give me your answer from , legal, and moral, and historic perspectives, and include references to back up your claims, in 500 words or less please?