Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law? chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 11 (view)

Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law? Posted: 6/13/2005 7:38:29 PM
Hi Foxefire, I think we have to put this all in context. Blacks were specifically targeted by hatefull people. The Blacks complained and ask for protection from Law makers but instead the laws condoned the continued lynching of Blacks. Whites, Mexicans, Indiginous Americans and Indians were lynched too but none so specifically targeted and dehumanised as the Blacks. This apology is merely a recognition that the law should have protected Blacks. It does not mean the lynching of other races was ok. Is it really too much to ask for? What does the Senate lose?

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 25 (view)

How does the rest of the world see the USA? Posted: 11/17/2004 12:06:15 PM
Hi Cana, As someone who studied to University level in a former British Colony in Africa, I must point out that it is the very rare exception rather than the norm to meet a University Graduate from a Commonwealth recognised University that betrays the ignorance you defined in your last post. You see the Education system is still laced with colonialism so we were taught a great deal about the western world. An average 16 year old child from a standard school in the commonwealth (Former Britsh Colonies) will have a fairly good grasp about the economic activity in the Prairies, Manhattan or even on the great lakes. Such a child can discuss the Rhine lands, the Himalayas, the Ngoni Migration, The rise and Fall of the Kanem Bornu Empire, Mansa Musa, The French Revolution, the Slave trade, Sir William Wilberforce, the European Wars (that you call the World Wars I & II - Colonial mentality?), The Maharjah's, South American Sugar and Rubber, Communism, Capitalism etc in an essay written in the Queens English just after successfully completing a Qualitative Analysis experiment in the Chemistry Laboratory. He will then spell out Newtons 3 laws of motion, calculate the range of a projectile, disect a frog in the Biology lab, define a bill of lading and then revise for a French exam. Do not take my word for it, please visit these schools yourself or check out their curriculums on the web. It is highly likely that you engaged people who were not well educated. There are many of these around. You will also do well to note that the western world is glamourous to people from less wealthy nations. It is therefore only natural that they will be more inquisitive than their American counter parts who generally have everything they could possibly need to survive within a small radius from their homes.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 19 (view)

How does the rest of the world see the USA? Posted: 11/16/2004 3:08:13 PM
How does the rest of the world see the USA? Well after these elections, there is certainly some shift. Most of the world is surprised and I include Europe, Africa and the Middle East where I have friends. American citizens are generally not perceived as bad people in their individual right they just come across as less knowledgeable of the world beyond US Shores. Most people outside the US take issue with US Policy not US Citizens. (Forget the terrorists, they are crazed at the best of times.) Some of the views presented on this net have created in me the impression that Americans cant bring themselves to accept the reality that their country, in effecting US policy, does in fact cause harm to other countries and their people. It is a very understandable position especially if one considers the source of news and information Americans have to go by. It is massively dominated by pro-American propaganda. The news is also almost exclusively inward looking and the few pieces of foreign news are reported with bias. It is amazing that many Americans actually believe they are targets of terrorism because of democracy and the American way of life. I am convinced that if more Americans started being more inquisitive and knowledgeable of the world beyond their shores, the world would be safer.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 43 (view)

Best President of all time? Posted: 11/11/2004 12:58:42 PM
William Jefferson Clinton. Head and Shoulders above and beyond.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 9 (view)

when arafat dies... Posted: 11/11/2004 7:54:40 AM
Arafat symbolizes different things for different people and like any other human being he had a good side and a bad side. Some consider him a terrorist while his fellow Palestinians looked up to him as a brave man who fought hard for their freedom. He no doubt kept the Palestinian issue on the world’s agenda. To this I give him credit. There are many marginalized people around the world like the Kurds, and the people of Darfur and their sad stories are relegated to aid and humanitarian issues. When Tony Blair meets Bush soon, it will be to suggest getting involved in the Palestinian issue as the main avenue to stem international terrorism. We all know terrorism was up there on the list of considerations as Americans went to the polls early this month. That is Arafat for you.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 47 (view)

Re: Why Kerry is bad Posted: 11/1/2004 5:26:32 PM
Loukus, I said the leader should be Multi-focused. A Multi-focused approach would have dealth with Osama bin Laden while averting the evil he meant to wreck on America. Failing to concentrate on OBL while he went into Iraq, while in itself also proof of Bush's folly, is an example of operating within the limits of single focus. I get the feeling you are a product of highly skewed news media, what is it with the labeling and all? I have no clue what a liberal is but if it means knowing that Iraqi civilians have a right to life then I am a proud liberal. If it means I cant be deceived by Bush and Carl Rove, then I am a liberal. If it means I can tell that Bush serves Special interests over Americans, I am a red bloodied liberal. If it means I am well informed about the causes of war, then I aspire to be known as a true liberal. If it means I stand for good men standing together against evil - here I am, a proud liberal. To me you are an innocent brainwashed victim of mass disinformation. Please save yourself from prejudice.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 43 (view)

Re: Why Kerry is bad Posted: 11/1/2004 3:47:20 PM
No Lokus, Bush has not responded well under pressure. As President of the US one has to be Multi-focused. Osama did not just aim at killing Americans he also attempted to harm the US Economy and in turn the comforts enjoyed here. Responding to him required astuteness and not just the bare knuckles that have actually put US troops in the reach of the terrorists without securing the homeland. A wise leader would have brought out the braveness of Americans. Bush did the opposite. Just look at how the Israelis go about it. Keeping Americans scared is counter productive and plays directly into the wishes of the terrorists. Bush has been out manouvered and only people who think the sound of a missile means power are still hoodwinked. The measure of strength is not standing steadfast it is in being wise. History is replete with examples of Rulers who stood firm against all wisdom. Napleon Bonaparte, Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, Adolf Hitler, including but not limited to Saddam Hussein. They made their mark in history by going down with their Kingdoms. Join the wining side.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 39 (view)

Re: Why Kerry is bad Posted: 11/1/2004 2:44:06 PM
Lokus, Riding Iraq of Saddam was a fortunate bye-product. It could have been a good reason for going into Iraq but It was NOT the reason that BUSH went into Iraq. My point is Bush does not have the Humanitarian credentials or compassion to free suffering people from Tyranny. He is only claiming to have saved them as a face saving tactic. And please be informed that Weapons inspectors were finally kicked out of Iraq by Bush after they failed to find any WMD. The inspectors were begging for any intelligence and none was forth coming. Actually the US handed them some information about "Yellow Cake" from Niger. Dr Hans Blix and his team disproved that evidence as fake in a day. Did you say Bush has established a political ally and free market in the Middle East? Dear Lokus please tell me you dont believe that. This is Geo-politics 101. For your information Iraq was an ally of the US and a free market economy before the 1991 US-Iraq war and Saddam was the darling President then. I know its hurts to think that the US could have sided with Saddam but sniff, sniff, it is a fact. And the painfull tears aint yours, dear Lokus - they are from Iraqis who perished during that period.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 34 (view)

Re: Why Kerry is bad Posted: 11/1/2004 11:33:36 AM
Lokus, Please support which ever candidate or position you will but never for one minute entertain the thought that the war in Iraq was to save poor Iraqis from Saddam. The clearly stated objective was to rid Saddam of stock piles of WMD that the US Administration suspected he had. That Kerry also thought these stock piles existed does not absolve the Bush administration of the consequences. The completely dishonest and disgusting argument of saving poor Iraqi souls from Saddam was only fronted when the failure to find WMD become clear. It was about saving face NOT saving Iraqi lives. Having Saddam behind bars and ready to face justice was not important at all. You will do well to recall that Saddam was given the option of seeking refuge in a third country as the only way to avert war. This is well documented. Truth should not suffer for political expedience

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 29 (view)

Re: Why Kerry is bad Posted: 11/1/2004 7:32:13 AM
Mysteries and Realities It is a mystery when one says Kerry is not strong because he has evaluated his opinion on the war in Iraq based on the realities of hard facts on the ground. It is a mystery when Bush shoots down Kerry for saying the Iraq war was the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time when the reality is that the lack of WMD, 9/11 commission and the intelligence estimate drew up those conclusions. It is a Mystery that Kerry, an American who actually fought in battle for his country, can be deemed unfit for command while the reality is that the present Commander-in-Chief shied away from the challenge.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 123 (view)

Re: So, John Kerry should win, right? Posted: 10/29/2004 9:34:57 PM
KryptosDaddy, Oh yes Americans should be left to decide who their next President will be. It is only fair. As the world's largest economy with interests around the globe, it is naive to expect no critism or praise for its actions from Non US Citizens. The fact is the US affects more people around the globe. Not only US citizens find themselves at the receiving end of US policies. For example many Israeli citizens have a keen interest in what happens in the US and for very good reason. Their survival depends on it. Palestinians are oppositely but equally affected. I think US citizens should get more involved in global matters in this new world order.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 80 (view)

It WAS wrong to go into Iraq. How is the US Safer? Posted: 10/29/2004 5:28:01 PM
Misaligned Your name says it all. Rather than challenge the bitter facts i spelt out, you took the Saddam way out and started name calling. I am yet to hear an coherent fact backed argument that has stood the test of time as to if the US and the world is safer for having invaded Iraq. Not one individual in here has been able to publish any argument that has stood up to logic. I challenge you to try. I am dying to understand your point of view. Try being respectfull as you do it.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 15 (view)

Who are You For?.,,,, Posted: 10/12/2004 8:32:31 PM
Wish you guys the best election ever. It amazes me how differently the world sees American leaders. In Europe for instance, Bush is so unpopular, he would lose even if he didnt have an opponent. Bill Clinton and to some extent, Ronald Reagan on the other hand were very popular. But at the end of the day it is only US citizens that get to vote the leader of the world. And the US leader does affect the whole world directly and indirectly. So please vote, even if it is the lessor of two evils. Think of it as your God given responsibility and gift to the world. Good Luck

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 18 (view)

Church Mouse vs Picpip Posted: 10/11/2004 8:17:51 PM
Hi Guys, Even a Center for Strategic studies in Israel has reached the conclusion that US efforts in Iraq are NOT strategic to the war on international terrorism. Here is the link below. I agree with the argument that when fighting terrorists the strategy is to "dry the swamp" and not "swat the mosquitoes". http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041011/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_terrorism Where is Church_Mouse? I should be declared the winner!!!

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 3 (view)

2nd debate Posted: 10/8/2004 10:04:49 PM
I think Kerry took the debate to Bush. There is no doubt he has extreme strenght of character. I liked the WMD Weapons of Mass Deception line.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 41 (view)

How Was Iraq A Threat? Posted: 10/8/2004 12:18:44 PM
Brundle, Ofcourse something should always be done to correct such evils. That is far from the point. The issue of contention is that GWB misled the US into war. He said he was going in to look for WMD. Removing Saddam was only a fortunate by product. It will help to recall that GWB advised Saddam to flee to a third country as a way to avoid the war. In other words GWB would have been happy to have Saddam just out of power but safe and free in a third country. If the objective was to remove Saddam, the war would have been fought very differently, at far less cost and the US would now have the extra responsibility of ridding the world of despots all over the globe. We all know that is not the case.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 15 (view)

Church Mouse vs Picpip Posted: 10/7/2004 11:18:37 AM
Any one seen Church_Mouse recently??? I hope he is digesting the latest ISG report on Iraq's WMD proram. I can only say - I TOLD YOU!!!

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 13 (view)

Church Mouse vs Picpip Posted: 10/4/2004 2:48:38 PM
Dear Church, Phew, you are indeed a man with issues. Clearly this is not part of our debate but I will respond just as well. The positive side of it is you have aired your views as you see them. I have no problem with that but would just like to request (and I have done this before) that you look at the other side of the argument. Please read the following response with the understanding that I am not challenging or negating your point of view. I am kindly requesting you and anyway else to take the time to see the other side even if you do not agree with it and never will. Yes Arabs and other people of this earth deserve to enjoy the freedoms enjoyed by People in Canada, Australia, England, France, Italy, Germany etc. I agree but I have since learnt, through my interaction with different cultures of this world that we must all be careful when we recommend or try to impose a set of values on a different set of people. It is mind boggling but there are some cultures that do not tolerate the kind of freedoms espoused by the west. From my experience, Arabs are one such culture. I lived amongst them for many years and in the most liberal of Emirates - Dubai. There is no democratic governance in the UAE, but don’t mess with their Rulers. My experience is that generally speaking, westerners, using their vast resources and influence have a tendency of imposing their values on other cultures. That is why the world’s second largest fresh water lake is called Lake Victoria (After Queen Victoria of England) never mind that it is located in that heart of Africa. Are we to believe Church, that generations and generations of local East Africans just did not have the capacity to name it? The Royal Geographic Society of London has it down in its records that the source of the River Nile was discovered by an English man known as John Hannington Speke in 1862. This tends to imply that the locals of that area just could not notice that the great river started at that point. And I am just talking about names. Can you imagine what else they did to the local indignant cultures and religions? Now the world is dotted with numerous such examples and it is not only westerners who impose their values. Their influence is just spread wider than any other race or culture. But back to our dear Arabs. Unlike many other cultures, theirs is one that has resisted strongest. I guess it has to do with Islam (for they are predominantly Moslem) being a religion and a way of life as well, unlike many other wide spread faiths like Christianity. The Arabs clearly resent anyone or thing that tries to change that. It may be irrational to you and me, but as long as you engage them on their turf, you need to respect their culture. Now the other thing I need you and other members in this forum to ask themselves as honestly as possible is :- Why do Islamic Militants detest and target the USA? The US army has pounded them, defeated them, smoked them out of fox holes, and done everything militarily possible to subdue them but they will not go away. Why? Why is it that they have so much hatred that they will give up their lives to hurt the US? I would really like to know what you all think in here?

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 33 (view)

How Was Iraq A Threat? Posted: 10/1/2004 12:04:58 PM
Hi All. I must apologise. Church_Mouse opened up another thread in which the issues will be debated. I have now posted my arguments there. Please refer to that thread from now on. It is Church Mouse vs Picpip Sorry for any inconvenience

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 2 (view)

Church Mouse vs Picpip Posted: 10/1/2004 12:01:43 PM
Coming on the heels of the Presidential debate much of what I have to argue here is not news. If indeed you have read my previous postings you will acknowledge I held these positions already. I make it clear here, I am not a Kerry agent, campaigner or sympathiser. Dear Church, I take great exception with the leadership qualities and style of President Bush because I am of the opinion that by invading Iraq he instead galvanized terrorists and divided the civilized world. In the interest of space and time and to keep our arguments short and sweet, I will state what I think are acceptable facts but request that in an initial response you just highlight what you want me to prove. Moving on, below are the premises of my position. Anti-US terror by so called extreme Islamic pretenders, if I may define it as such, did not start on September 11th 2001. As far back as April 15th 1986, President Reagan authorized the bombing of the Libyan cities of Tripoli and Benghazi in response to such a terrorist attack. The US reserves the right to protect itself. Unlike many other countries it has the awesome reach and power to do this. The US had the right to go in after Osama bin Laden, his Alqaeda and the tyranical Taliban regime that housed them. President George Bush (GWB) was right to pursue and execute that war. President George Bush was rightly suspicious of Iraq's intentions especially since they acted suspiciously by kicking out UN inspectors time and again. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html GWB was right to threaten the use of force by building troop numbers in Kuwait in September 2002 if Saddam and Iraq continued to play monkey games. The UN was right in unanimously passing a 15 to 0 resolution in November 2002 (1441) forcing Saddam to comply. The weapons inspectors were right to go into Iraq and on failing to find weapons of mass destruction they were right to seek assistance from countries with powerful and well developed Spy agencies e.g CIA, FBI, MI5, etc. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C76710%2C00.html GWB was wrong to break ranks with allies who doubted Intelligence on Iraq's capabilities preferring to have the UN Inspectors complete their work. The French went as far as threatening a Veto at the UN. http://www.palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20030122221229971 The current state of the conflict, albeit hindsight, is additional testimony to my belief. GWB was wrong to invade Iraq before the UN inspectors had been given enough time to prove the existence or not of Saddam's WMD program. Again albeit with hindsight the fact that no weapons were found on the ground proves my point. As a result of the Invasion of Iraq some good came to the Iraq people. Dictator Saddam was removed and is now in jail awaiting overdue justice and the death sentence. Let me state it clearly, this was a good by product of the war. There is a common English saying; “every cloud has a silver lining”. GWB was wrong to get into Iraq without a plan to win the peace. Again here we can have debates that he could not have foreseen the turn of events. With due respect to you Church, I beg to differ. The voices of governments and other groups and individuals that cautioned against the adventure into Iraq warned about this very scenario. The Arab League’s Secretary General Mr Amr Mousa toured European and American capitals in early September 2002 and went on record advising that such a move would “open the gates of hell”. http://www.metimes.com/2K2/issue2002-36/reg/arab_league_chief.htm I would like to believe that a super power like the US has overwhelming resources to plan such a mission. Lesser rag tag armies have managed to stabilize countries with populations more fractious than Iraq’s. Examples RPF in Rwanda 1994, NRA in Uganda 1986, Nigeria in Liberia 2001, Tanzania in Uganda 1979. In my opinion this lapse of judgment has led to four catastrophic scenarios. 10.a). Iraq is unstable and now has no go areas controlled by terrorists. As we debate the US army and Iraqi troops are engaged in a firefight in Sammarah (10/1/2004) trying to bring this "no go" area under control. 10 b). Iraq’s are still dying in great numbers. Accurate statistics are hard to come by but my own estimates have them above 40,000 (both civilian and combat casualities). I use a simple ratio that assumes that for every US soldier killed 40 Iraq’s have died. Just today the US army lost a soldier but claimed it had killed 96 insurgents. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041001/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_041001131316. Yesterday 9/30/2004, 54 civilians were killed in a terrorist bomb blast. In effect Iraqi's have had a dictator treaded for terrorists. (ok ok ok I pulled this sound bite off last night's debate - but it is accurate) 10. c) Iraq is now a breeding ground for the world's most vile terrorists. People so vile and devoid of the slightest ingredient of human decency. Al Zarqawi, a beast by any definition, and other terrorists have conglomerated in Iraq and have recruited angry jobless Iraqis. 10.d) GWB diverted resources from the better defined and justified war effort aimed at tracing and eliminating the criminal infidel Osama bin Laden and his Al qaeda. You have to realize Church, that UBL’s apparent invincibility is in itself motivation for Al qaeda’s terrorist cells. 11. With all this GWB says he would do it again and the same way. Yes he sounds resolute but in my opinion he has exhibited poor and very very very costly judgment. I dont need to spell out the blood and treasure the US has expensed. He is resolute in error. It is for the last point above (13) that while I give GWB credit for toppling Saddam, I am convinced his stand does not foster world peace and the struggle against terrorism. Right now he only sounds tough but his actions have actually put the US and its coalition partners in harms way. The Spain train bombing and the beheadings are some ghastly examples. His attitude is only uniting terrorists and dividing the civilized world. I am not a Democrat but Clinton put it well when he said "Wisdom and Strength are not opposing values". We need Wisdom. Over to you Church Mouse

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 31 (view)

How Was Iraq A Threat? Posted: 10/1/2004 11:22:16 AM
Coming on the heels of the Presidential debate much of what I have to argue here is not news. If indeed you have read my previous postings you will acknowledge I held these positions already. I make it clear here, I am not a Kerry agent, campaigner or sympathiser. Dear Church, I take great exception with the leadership qualities and style of President Bush because I am of the opinion that by invading Iraq he instead galvanized terrorists and divided the civilized world. In the interest of space and time and to keep our arguments short and sweet, I will state what I think are acceptable facts but request that in an initial response you just highlight what you want me to prove. Moving on, below are the premises of my position. Anti-US terror by so called extreme Islamic pretenders, if I may define it as such, did not start on September 11th 2001. As far back as April 15th 1986, President Reagan authorized the bombing of the Libyan cities of Tripoli and Benghazi in response to such a terrorist attack. The US reserves the right to protect itself. Unlike many other countries it has the awesome reach and power to do this. The US had the right to go in after Osama bin Laden, his Alqaeda and the tyranical Taliban regime that housed them. President George Bush (GWB) was right to pursue and execute that war. President George Bush was rightly suspicious of Iraq's intentions especially since they acted suspiciously by kicking out UN inspectors time and again. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html GWB was right to threaten the use of force by building troop numbers in Kuwait in September 2002 if Saddam and Iraq continued to play monkey games. The UN was right in unanimously passing a 15 to 0 resolution in November 2002 (1441) forcing Saddam to comply. The weapons inspectors were right to go into Iraq and on failing to find weapons of mass destruction they were right to seek assistance from countries with powerful and well developed Spy agencies e.g CIA, FBI, MI5, etc. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C76710%2C00.html GWB was wrong to break ranks with allies who doubted Intelligence on Iraq's capabilities preferring to have the UN Inspectors complete their work. The French went as far as threatening a Veto at the UN. http://www.palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20030122221229971 The current state of the conflict, albeit hindsight, is additional testimony to my belief. GWB was wrong to invade Iraq before the UN inspectors had been given enough time to prove the existence or not of Saddam's WMD program. Again albeit with hindsight the fact that no weapons were found on the ground proves my point. As a result of the Invasion of Iraq some good came to the Iraq people. Dictator Saddam was removed and is now in jail awaiting overdue justice and the death sentence. Let me state it clearly, this was a good by product of the war. There is a common English saying; “every cloud has a silver lining”. GWB was wrong to get into Iraq without a plan to win the peace. Again here we can have debates that he could not have foreseen the turn of events. With due respect to you Church, I beg to differ. The voices of governments and other groups and individuals that cautioned against the adventure into Iraq warned about this very scenario. The Arab League’s Secretary General Mr Amr Mousa toured European and American capitals in early September 2002 and went on record advising that such a move would “open the gates of hell”. http://www.metimes.com/2K2/issue2002-36/reg/arab_league_chief.htm I would like to believe that a super power like the US has overwhelming resources to plan such a mission. Lesser rag tag armies have managed to stabilize countries with populations more fractious than Iraq’s. Examples RPF in Rwanda 1994, NRA in Uganda 1986, Nigeria in Liberia 2001, Tanzania in Uganda 1979. In my opinion this lapse of judgment has led to four catastrophic scenarios. 10.a). Iraq is unstable and now has no go areas controlled by terrorists. As we debate the US army and Iraqi troops are engaged in a firefight in Sammarah (10/1/2004) trying to bring this "no go" area under control. 10 b). Iraq’s are still dying in great numbers. Accurate statistics are hard to come by but my own estimates have them above 40,000 (both civilian and combat casualities). I use a simple ratio that assumes that for every US soldier killed 40 Iraq’s have died. Just today the US army lost a soldier but claimed it had killed 96 insurgents. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041001/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_041001131316. Yesterday 9/30/2004, 54 civilians were killed in a terrorist bomb blast. In effect Iraqi's have had a dictator treaded for terrorists. (ok ok ok I pulled this sound bite off last night's debate - but it is accurate) 10. c) Iraq is now a breeding ground for the world's most vile terrorists. People so vile and devoid of the slightest ingredient of human decency. Al Zarqawi, a beast by any definition, and other terrorists have conglomerated in Iraq and have recruited angry jobless Iraqis. 10.d) GWB diverted resources from the better defined and justified war effort aimed at tracing and eliminating the criminal infidel Osama bin Laden and his Al qaeda. You have to realize Church, that UBL’s apparent invincibility is in itself motivation for Al qaeda’s terrorist cells. 11. With all this GWB says he would do it again and the same way. Yes he sounds resolute but in my opinion he has exhibited poor and very very very costly judgment. I dont need to spell out the blood and treasure the US has expensed. He is resolute in error. It is for the last point above (13) that while I give GWB credit for toppling Saddam, I am convinced his stand does not foster world peace and the struggle against terrorism. Right now he only sounds tough but his actions have actually put the US and its coalition partners in harms way. The Spain train bombing and the beheadings are some ghastly examples. His attitude is only uniting terrorists and dividing the civilized world. I am not a Democrat but Clinton put it well when he said "Wisdom and Strength are not opposing values". We need Wisdom. Over to you Church Mouse

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 27 (view)

How Was Iraq A Threat? Posted: 9/30/2004 10:26:42 AM
No no no Church Mouse, While the rules and the intended discipline are ok, the attitude of your last post lends itself to a climate of restriction and quite frankly and for luck of a better word borders on intimidation. I cannot debate you under the threat of rebuke ("I will abandon this debate" and "I will no longer debate you"). That will not fly, Church Mouse. We came to debate AS EQUALS. If I state something you dont like, please tear it apart. I will gladly retract it or present the counter argument backed up with the facts as I know them. Some times things stated as fact are a result of ones environment and not necessarily of mal intent. Case on record : you were under the impression Arabs only used AL in their names and not EL. We should cultivate a climate where you, me or any one else in here understand they are infallible and not superior. I come here to listen to your side and present mine freely and fairly. To me standard rules of debate would apply and I would request the following; 1. No insults 2. Respect for each other 3. No threats 4. Classified Information cannot be used. 5. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. 6. Any other member of this forum can participate From my experience a debate involves drawing conclusions, developing positions and discussing ideas. Without this, facts are just for libraries. There should be a free flow of ideas. Is this ok, Church?

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 42 (view)

Re: i hate michael moore Posted: 9/30/2004 9:36:07 AM
Yo Church, Wazzup!! Ok let me get down to answering you. It would be reckless of me to say I believe "everything" in this movie is true. A few things were new to me, like the Bush and Bin Laden family dealings. While they may or may not be true I cant vouch for those without seeking further education. I am more aligned with the message of his documentary - that much I will let you know. I have been to his website and he lists the facts stated in his movie and adds back up documentation - something you seem to encourage. Yes, I am inclined to believe Michael Moore has his country at heart. The first time I saw Michael Moore was on a TV discussion panel on BBC and he was very impressive and definately pro American. He is certainly not a Bush fan, does not agree with the Patriot act and is opposed to the war in Iraq. In my opinion this is being mistaken for being anti- American and I think that is very unfair and that school of thought violates the principles of free speech, choice, thought and expression. In fact if Michael Moore did not have his country at heart (his community - Flint and the US soldiers and their families as well) he certainly would never have made that documentary. That comes across quite clearly in the movie. I never give anyone a blanket belief envelope. Michael Moore presents his case in a very compelling way and in the debates that have followed his documentary he has exhibited a tendency and willingness to listen to the views of those who disagree with his movie. Unfortunately many (In fact all I listened to) who opposed it, argued from premises that were clearly a result of not having seen the documentary. That kind of attitude has denied this debate a lot of life and education and that is very unfortunate. That is where I stand. I would like to hear your side irrespective of your beliefs and positions on Michael Moore and his work. In otherwords UNCONDITIONALLY. I wish you had accorded me the same respect. Picpip

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 37 (view)

Re: i hate michael moore Posted: 9/28/2004 12:54:32 PM
Church Mouse, Have you seen this Documentary film? I just did and would be very willing to discuss the areas that your agree or disagree with. I seriously would like to know why you despise this documentary. Please just dont insult or label me, it is all I ask.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 17 (view)

Re: Why do Kerry's voters have no clue why they are voting for him? Posted: 9/28/2004 12:49:25 PM
Irsshadow, You have a point there about Kerry changing his mind to suit the times. Maybe he does it too often but looking at how the various seats of Governemnt in Washington are designed, I get the impression one has to pursue win-win politics to get things done. That however is my personal opinion but I beleive it is also the key to the quagmire we have in Iraq on the one hand. However while Kerry might change his mind often I cant forget that when when he was on his way to safety, he actually, in a split second decsion, turned his boat round, steered it in harms way, his own life now on the line, to rescue a fellow american. I am led to believe that his core is solid and well focused when the ball is in his court. We also need some hard ball but quick Military decisions on those terrorists in Iraq and an exit strategy on the other hand. My two cents.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 21 (view)

How Was Iraq A Threat? Posted: 9/28/2004 12:30:39 PM
It is really very disappointing to note that I cannot find any pro Gulf War 2 individual on this forum that can engage in a candid and disciplined debate without hurling insults at me. I really want to understand such a persons point of view. What drives one to believe the war in Iraq is a good thing? Please let me hear your side, peacefully. What makes one believe GWB is actually good for the war on Terror? Convince me. Here is your chance. I will, no doubt, debate your argurments but I am willing to see your side.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 63 (view)

Re: Iraq - What a mess... Posted: 9/24/2004 1:52:21 PM
At the risk of being misunderstood again, I will throw a spanner into this well oiled machine. My aim is to get some of you to see the otherside of the argument. Please I beg you. Dont agree, just see it. Here is what I believe 1. The US is the world's only super power 2. The US reserves the right to protect itself. Unlike many other countries it has the awesome reach and power to do this. 3. The US had the right to go in after Osama bin Laden, his Alqaeda and the tyranical Taliban regime that housed them. 4. Presdient George Bush was right to pursue and execute that war. 5. President George Bush was rightly suspicious of Iraq's intentions especially since they acted suspiciously by kicking out UN inspectors time and again. 6. GWB was right to threaten the use of force if Saddam and Iraq continued to play monkey games. 7. The UN was right in unanimously passing a 15 to 0 resolution forcing saddam to comply. 8. The weapons inspectors were right to go into Iraq and on failing to find weapons of mass destruction they were right to seek assistance from countries with powerfull and well developed Spy agencies e.g CIA, FBI, MI5, etc I hope we are all agreed upto this point. Now I know many of youtake issue with the following two points. Lets discuss them rather than hurl insults please. 9. GWB was wrong to break ranks with allies who doubted Intelligence on Iraq's capabilities and program. The current state of the conflict, albeit hindsight, is testimony to my belief. 10. GWB was wrong to invade Iraq before the UN inspectors had been given enough time to prove the existance or not of Saddam's WMD program. Again albeit with hindsight the state of affairs on the ground proves my point. 11. As a result of the Invasion of Iraq some good came to the Iraq people. Dictator saddam was removed and is now in jail awaiting overdue justice and the death sentence. Let me state it clearly, this was a good by product of the war. 12. GWB was wrong to get into Iraq with a plan to win the peace. Again here we can have debates that he could not have foreseen the turn of events. With due respect to you all in here I beg to differ. The voices of governments and other groups and individuals that cautioned against the adventure into Iraq warned about this very scenario. I would like to believe that a super power like the US has overwhelming resources to plan such a mission. Lesser rag tag armies have managed to stabilise countries with populations more fractious than Iraqs. Examples Rwanda, Yemen, Uganda, Nigeria in Liberia, Tanzania in Uganda. This lapse of judgement has led to three catastrophic scenarios. 12.a). Iraq is now unsafe for Iraqis as well 12. b) Iraq is now a breeding ground for the world's most vile terrorists. People so vile and devoid of the slightest ingredient of human decency. Let us say a prayer for the poor Iraqis and the Americans and other nationalities who have been targeted as an excuse by these less than human terrorists. 12.c) GWB diverted resources from the better defined and justified war effort aimed at tracing and eliminating the criminal infidel Osama bin Laden and his Al qaeda. 13. With all this GWB says he would do it again and the same way. Yes he sounds tough and committed but in my opinion he has exhibited poor and very very very costly judgment. I dont need to spell out the blood and treasure the US has expensed. It is for the last point above (13) that while I give GWB credit for liberating Iraq, I am convinced his stand does not foster world peace and the struggle againt terrorism. Right now he only sounds tough but his actions have actually put the US and all its dependants in harms way. His attitude is only uniting terrorists and dividing the civilised world. I am not a Democrat but Clinton put it well when he said "Wisdom and Strength are not opposing values". It might feel like weakness but acting to ensure that the civilized world speaks and acts as one against terrorism will actually make the world safer. The world had sympathy when 9/11 occured, but it was mainly America's wrath that was justifiably aroused. And by that horrendous act, Americans were ready to expense blood and treasure to bring terrorism to its knees. You need to realise poor Philipinos were not equally motivated. While we may curse them for heeding to the terrorists threats, let us take time to see the world from their perspective as well. We may disagree but please lets try to seek reasons for why people act in ways we dont agree with. I hope you will debate the issues raised here in the same light.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 7 (view)

Re: '94 assault weapons ban Posted: 9/24/2004 12:50:37 PM
I am hard pressed to know why people living in relatively peacefull, law abiding communities like the US should need semi-automatic assault weapons. Some of these guns are more sophisticated and powerfull than those used by standing armies in many countries of the world. The fact is most civilians in the US will not arm themselves and so criminals who have access to such weapons and evil intent have a much better chance of executing crimes. I guess it is an issue of backgrounds and the environments in which we were raised. For me no guns any time.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 28 (view)

Re: LIBERATING IRAQ WAS THE RIGHT CHOICE Posted: 9/16/2004 7:35:22 PM
Probably Snoug. So where are your arguments?

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 24 (view)

Re: LIBERATING IRAQ WAS THE RIGHT CHOICE Posted: 9/16/2004 6:23:41 PM
Oh my God Irsshadow. You have now decided to lie outright!!! Your last posting goes even against the findings of the 9/11 commission and even your very own arguments. That you know where Osama is, is as false as it is untrue. Be carefull with such allegations by the way. If Osama carried out a terrorist attack today, the US could be accused of having stood by while he killed innocent civilians. Let us not lose the value of life. I am sorry but at this juncture you have digraced from the path of intellectual discourse I cannot participate in this tirade anymore.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 21 (view)

Re: LIBERATING IRAQ WAS THE RIGHT CHOICE Posted: 9/16/2004 8:32:04 AM
Yna6 please lets not play hide and seek on a such a matter of life and death. The US was the Chief supplier of Arms to Iraq during their 8 year war with Iran. Russia supplied Iran. Maybe they never supplied the AK 47 but they sure as well supplied the fighter jets and other conventional and biological war material. Anyway this is a fact and I will not be caught debating it. Here is a link that will put it beyond doubt for you. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/02/IN123519.DTL No where did I say it is JUST american killing now. I attributed very many of the tragic Iraqi deaths to murderous insurgents. Please let me know what is making you continously skirt and misrepresent the issues I raise. Yes the US is trying to maintain order in Iraq. The US is obliged to do so under international law. Some towns are out of their control though. They are being controled by murderers very much like Saddam Hussein. Yna6 please re-read my postings before going off track again.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 19 (view)

Re: LIBERATING IRAQ WAS THE RIGHT CHOICE Posted: 9/15/2004 8:10:23 PM
Irsshadow I cant let the conclusions of your postings go unchallenged. I hope you will have the good grace and fortitude to engage me at an intellectual level. I will let you know that my objective is to seek more inquisitiveness of the issues causing the facts by people who argue like you do. I harbour a strong belief that your are simply misguided and misinformed and are making conclusions from wrong premises. In an earlier posting you drew up a list of facts. I am so confident of my arguments that I will accept everything you stated as a truthfull fact except the number of Iraqis killed since the war broke out in March 2003. Let me help you to arrive at a more realistic figure. By the way I am concerned about all Iraqi citizens who have lost their lives as a result of the conflict since it started. That includes those killed in combat, friendly fire, precision bombs gone astry, lawlessness and by insurgents. Over 1000 US troops have died in that war since it started. Lets work in ratios. For every US soldier who lost his life, how many Iraq soldiers died in battle? 2?, 3?, 15 maybe? perhaps 23? Battalions were wiped out before the majority of them took to their heels. Many of their corpses were shown on International TV like CNN. So even at a very conservative 23 per US soldier killed we would soon arrive at 23,000 Iraqi soldiers dead. Now forget all those killed in combat. What about those killed by insurgents. Just yesterday 58 died. Two days before 47 had been killed. Then there was that air strike that killed over 20. in Just 4 days over 110 Iraqis have died. You recall this idiotic guy Moqtada El Sadr who was holed up in the Holy Shiite Shrine in Najaf. US troops pounded his useless group and by the admission of the US army over 250 insurgents paid the ultimate price in two days of fighting alone. There have been several suicide bombs. You remember the cleric who was blown to pieces and could only be identified by the ring on his finger. Over 100 Iraqis died in that incident. Then you remember when they were doing their annual pilgrimage and several bombs went off. Over 150 died. Are you still hanging onto that 15,000 figure or do you want me to go on? It is not good to have people dying but let us have the courage to admit the painfull truth. While Saddam killed very many Iraqis, the US intervention has as of now had the effect of increasing the rate at which they are being killed. They are not being killed by the US but neither are they being protected by the US right now. I will go as far as admiting the US does not have the capacity to protect them. Now let me ask you some questions. What kind of feelings do you think are in the hearts and minds of Iraqis whose Fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers and children have suffered horrific and needless deaths as a result of the American occupation? Love or Hatred? Dont you ever stop to wonder what they wish would happen to the US for causing them such suffering? What about those who dont stop at wondering and wishing. Those who strap bombs to themselves or get hold of a RPG? Dont you ever ask yourself what drives them to carry out such terrible acts of violence? Do you really think it is just because the US has a modern economy, with democratic governance? Come on!!! By the way you were right about France, Germany and Russia collaborating with Saddam. I am sure you are unaware that the US government was the chief arms supplier of Iraq right upto and before the 1991 gulf war. Please add this to your list of facts to complete the picture. It is good Saddam is no more, but Iraq is far from peace as well. The US did not go into Iraq to save Iraqis from Saddam. The US claimed they went in looking for WMD. The French, Germans, Russian and the UN who as you say had been dealing with him, doubted the existance of WMD. In the end there were NO WMD. The US had no plan for peace and so Iraq is in shambles. The US also took the eye off the chief terrorist, Osama Bin Laden. The one guy who mannged to kill almost 3000 US Citizens in one day!!! Now he is still on the loose. His Alqaeda is spreading faster and has many more serpent heads. And we have very lethal and angry Iraqis waiting to sign up to his deadly and evil designs. With all this, you see a safer US? Please!!!!!!! Because President Bush says it was right to go to war with such conviction does not mean it was right. He is a steadfast man with very poor judgment. A real threat to world order and peace.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 5 (view)

Re: It WAS wrong to go into Iraq. How is the US Safer? Posted: 9/12/2004 5:04:28 PM
Ok Yna6, good points you raise there but now you are changing the argument. Saddam was a horror through and through. I hated him more than you can imagine. The problem with this debate is that two issues are being mixed up. 1. The security of the US. 2. The freedom of the Iraqi people. Lets be very honest the US did not go into Iraq for point 2 above. The argument was point 1 above. There are even UN resolutions to this effect. Yes Saddam blocked UN inspectors time and again and totally booted them out in 1998. When the US turned up the heat in early 2003 he let them in and gave them full access to all areas including his own palaces. They found nothing. Dr Hans Blix literary begged the US, UK and any other governments to give him information about anything they knew. There was an issue about a substance called "Yellow Cake" that was supposed to have been bought from Niger. The CIA had toyed with this theory for weeks and it managed to sneak into Tony Blairs argument for the war. Dr Hans Blix and his team disproved it in A DAY. One Day.!! I am glad Saddam is gone. But he was supposed to have been booted in 1991 during the first gulf war. You recall the US government encouraged uprisings against him and the poor souls that listened and heeded the call deserve a day of remembrence, dont you think? But we shall blame all this on Saddam. If one argues the US should not have gone into Iraq as part of its war on terror. The counter argument is that Saddam was a murderous dictator and any one arguing against that war doesnt not seem to realise this. This kind of argument does not foster a healthy and educative discussion of the issues. It forces fainter hearts into hiding. If the US had gone into Iraq to remove him, I would still be clapping my hands. Because if that was the objective the war would have been fought very very differently. Alliances would have to be formed and there certainly would have been a plan to win the peace. As a correction, It is a fact that Iraqis are now dying at a faster pace since hostilities started than they were during Saddams reign. They are in the tens of thousands by now. I am not saying the US killed them, NO. Neither am I saying Saddam was better for having killed less. I am stating facts. Go to the Red Cross and MSF websites. It is all there. 1000 US troops have been killed. Think for a minute, how many Iraqi combatants were killed during these fire fights? Lets think ratios, for every US soldier killed how many Iraq soldiers must have been killed? Think of all the civilians that have been caught in the cross fire. Think of all the people that the terrorists have killed. Add all this up. Saddam was a killing machine, now Iraqis are facing several killing machines.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 3 (view)

Re: It WAS wrong to go into Iraq. How is the US Safer? Posted: 9/12/2004 8:54:02 AM
Hi Snoug. I made it a point to state facts. They are quite bitter to you clearly but facts all the same. It would be a good point forward if you atleast bothered to state the counter facts that you think I left out. And who told you the soldiers are all happy to be fighting? It is their duty we must all respect. And God knows I do. I just feel sick to be sitting here in comfort and let politicians endager more people on falsehoods. We have to avoid a repeat of Vietnam.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 1 (view)

It WAS wrong to go into Iraq. How is the US Safer? Posted: 9/11/2004 8:06:44 PM
Listening to political debates as we rememeber the victims of 9/11 I am compelled to post this article as a reality check on some politicians who are hell bent on misguiding the American public. Here are some FACTS. 1. Sadam never threatened the US. Yes he refused to bow to the US but he never ever threatened to use weapons of mass destruction against the USA. He did threaten the Arabs historical foe, Israel, but unless we are arguing Israel and the USA are one and the same, he never threatened the US. 2. Saddam actually complied with the UN Resolutions. He just was not believed. 3. Saddam ensured Iraq was not a territory that was used for training Terrorists. He never tolerated religious extremism. 5. Iraq is now a festering ground that is spewing out vile and crazed terrorists every day. 4. Sadam was a cruel dictator who killed his own civilians. 5. More than 3 times as many Iraqi's have died since the war started compared to the period of Sadam's terror. 6. Osama bin Laden ochestrated a plan that killed almost 3,000 Americans on 9/11. 7. Osama bin Laden carried out the Bombings of the US embassie in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi that killed a few US Citizens and over 200 Kenyans and Tanzanians. 8. Osama bin Laden is still on the loose and is still threatening Americans and their allys. 9. There was more global good will in support of the US on 9/12 right through the war in Afghanistan until the US decided to go into Iraq. So explain to me again, How is the US safer?

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 36 (view)

Re: So, John Kerry should win, right? Posted: 9/7/2004 2:02:25 PM
Hi Playboi, Respectfully ofcourse, I understand. I lived in the Middle East for 7 years. Have visited all countries there except Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel. I have friens from those countries though and yes we talk and discus issues. Playboi, you are someone who really means well, I think. From your postings you are definately a good patriot. I would just like that patriotism to be wrapped in the truth from both sides. I have lived under a very cruel dictatorship - Would you know Idi Amin Dada? So I know what fear and bloodshed are from a victims point of view. I also suffered two wars, so I know what an AK 47, a hand grenade, a land mine, a RPG and long range missiles can really do especially to civilians and soldiers. You can bet I treasure liberation and freedom with my kind of experience. I think I am in a better position to understand the mind frame of an Iraqi.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 32 (view)

Re: Terrorism Posted: 9/7/2004 1:49:22 PM
Playboi honestly, how wrong can you get? The change I would be happy to see is if Americans can get more inquisitive of their global surroundings and maybe demand better perfomance from the US government especially on human rights and justice issues that affect other nations. The US is by no means the Evil Empire but neither is it the bastion of human rights with its present policies. The problem is that US Citizens, (and they are the some of the worlds most decent people) are so blind folded by constant propaganda so much so that they are shocked when citizens of other countries dont return what they (US Citizens) believe are good intentions. Case in point - Iraq. How can one depose (a crude barbaric mass murderer like) Saddam and one is not greeted with open arms? It defeats logic doesnt it? Americans should be asking why and not waiting for Fox News to tell them. I once attended a talk show on BBC and one of the Panelists was Mr. Michael Moore long before he made his documentary film. The audience was keenly surprised that as an ordinary American citizen he had such wide and knowledgeable grasp of global issues outiside the US. I was not surprised by his film. President Clinton's former White House Aide, Mr Rubin, was a panelist too and he was equally remarkable but then again he had been in government so it was not surprising he could be in the know. Dont believe me is my message. Just get to know how the US government works and its dealings with other countries, please. The world will change.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 30 (view)

Re: Terrorism Posted: 9/6/2004 9:28:22 PM
Playboi it is such a pity that the world is not as Rosy as you have been led to believe. Yes the US government helps other countries. Now let me get you in on the bitter truth about that help. It is given only if it serves the best interests of the US. It is not due to some over bearing virtue and will to do good. It looks like it, but I am sorry to let you know it is not that simply. Do you know that the US governmemt through the IMF and World bank lends money to third world countries with conditions that would require those countries to spend that money paying US Companies to provide needed services, and to add insult to injury, at such high interests rates so that these poor countries will forever remain in debt? I am giving you only facts man. Open your eyes please. God Bless the world. By the way dont believe me, take your time and check out everything I have posted. If only I can get someone to ask questions and not follow Fox News blindly, the world begins to become a better place. I can understand feelings to reject the views I present here.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 34 (view)

Re: So, John Kerry should win, right? Posted: 9/6/2004 9:10:40 PM
Now palyboi, therein lies the problem. I have simply argued that the reasons to go to war were wrong and secondly the war was executed badly. I have not in anyway stated that he was a good guy. He was an evil guy who should be shot on the spot. The US did not go into Iraq with the noble cause of liberating Iraqis. It is just a face saving way to explain why US troops have occupied Iraq and no weapons of mass destruction have been discovered. Get to terms with this please. Infact I wish the US, for all its power, had a policy of eliminating Dictators globally. The world would be so much happier. The record of the US with global dictatorship is however dismal. The US propped up Sadam's regime before 1991 and thru the 8 year Iran, Iraq war. The US propped up the Dictatorial government of Mobutu Sese Seko Kuku Wazabanga of Zaire (now DR Congo) upto the end of the cold war. The South American popular President Ayende was killed by rebels bank rolled by the US. The dictatorship in Nicaragua could not have survived an extra day without US support. The Apartheid regime of South Africa survived a few extra months and extended Mr Mandela's jail term a bit due to props extended by Mr Ronald Reagan and Mrs Margaret Thatcher. Osama Bin Laden was created by the US to fight the soviet occupation of Afghanistan in 1979. There was a gang of rebels in Namibia known as UNITA and led by a thug called Jonas Savimbi - his equipment was specially flown in by the US and a good ally Aparthied South Africa. There was another group of thugs in Mozambique (RENAMO) also bank rolled by the US and Apartheid South Africa. Is what we have in Saudi Arabia democracy? The list is endless guys. The US is no angel. So stop wondering why the US has enemies. Bush is a resolute guy, I will give him that. He just has extremely poor judgment. Iraq will be sorted out by the Iraqi people and the US better work towards that and fast.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 31 (view)

Re: So, John Kerry should win, right? Posted: 9/6/2004 12:46:30 PM
No Shayne you could not be further from the truth. Fox news is hardly all encompassing. If you want balance try the BBC World service. They have their bad point but in the lot these guys tell you even what you prefer not to know. About this Iraq war, for one it was totally a blunder. Yes Sadam was a bad guy who should have been contained but the way the war was executed was wrong wrong wrong wrong. As a result we have strange terrorist groups morphing up everywhere carry out the most horriofic acts. Just the other day they slaughtered 12 Nepalese. Why honestly put these poor people in harms way. The US should have persued Osama Bin Laden and concentrated on eliminating him. He is the one who killed almost 3000 Americans anyway. Sadam was hot air and certainly not worth 975 loving American men and Women and THOUSANDS of Iraqi civilians (Yes Americans you need to value other citizens lives as well). Goerge Bush goes around saying that Sadam failed to comply with the UN on the weapons of Mass destruction, but in the final analysis Sadam had actualy complied only that Bush failed to believe him. The weapons inspectors led by Dr Hans Blik would have verrified that and saved billions of US tax payers money. The way power plays in the Middle East dictated that he (Sadam) could not make this known as his enemies (and there were several) would overthrow him. You need to understand the underlying reasons folks dont just swallow Fox news stuff, please. And I dont accept the argument that there was no way to know that his weapons program had been destroyed. How comes a US Citizen and former arms inspecter, Mr Scot Ritter knew this and stated it very clearly that Sadams program was beyond repair? Nuclear and Biological susbstance scientists all over the world knew that Sadam did not poses the wherewithall to reconstitute this program.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 39 (view)

Re: Michael Moore Posted: 9/6/2004 12:29:29 PM
Folks in my very informed opinion, Michael Moore provides a much needed balance to the news media that feeds the people of this country. It is a commom joke in Europe and other parts of the world that Americans are the richest but most ignorant people on earth. Looking the kind of news that is consumed here, it is hardly surprising.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 28 (view)

Re: Terrorism Posted: 9/6/2004 12:21:57 PM
Guys Guys Guys, Come on!!!! Dont you ever stop to ask yourself one fundamental question? Why does the USA have such enemies? Why do those Arab groups come together to carry out such heinous acts against the US and its citizens in particular? Why dont we have Congolese attacking Russia? Why dont we have Fijians bombing South Africans? Why aint Arabs smoking out Argentinians? Why do these terrorists persistently and consistently over the last few years continue to target the US? Why do we have Arabs hitting Americans? Why aint Africans, Indians or Russians bombing the US? Let me hear some arguments.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 29 (view)

Re: are you more turned on screwing someone elses partner Posted: 9/6/2004 10:09:16 AM
It is amazing Gothic the differences we all have and how we accomodate them. I think that is the beauty here. The raunchiest and best sex I have is with a friend and we are not even dating. I would hardly say it was just **cking. We seriously go out of our way to make sure we have good sex. If she thinks I have been lousy or great she will let me know and like wise. Are we in love? certainly not the romantic kind. We care about each other and will do a movie, dinner, discuss work related issues, lend money, do groceries help each other out and basically all the things normal friends do. We even discuss our dates. But we also have this understanding that when one's hormones are raging, it is only polite of the other to put the fire out. That said I would not have sex with a stranger like say a prostitute. It is at this point that I relate to you and I really understand where you are coming from.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 3 (view)

Re: What is the best way to eat her? Posted: 9/6/2004 9:10:56 AM
Hi Zee, thanks for the tip. But you see there is this "follow her lead". It is not like they put my tongue at a particular spot and shift it as they want. Welll they do and I usually end up with pussy joice allover my mouth and chin. And I also have a problem asking her about which spot I should pay attention to, It kinda kills the thrill of discovery if you follow my drift. I basically want to get to the scenario - like with my first girlfriend - where she cant wait to get me there. That is how I would measure success.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 117 (view)

Re: YAY FOR BOOBS Posted: 9/6/2004 8:54:08 AM
I love boobies but I like them pert and not so big. Orange sized ones with nice sharp nipples will do it. But I will still date a woman without boobies and not lose any sleep at all. What I will not and refuse to give up on is BOOTY. Ohhh that is what rules my world.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 26 (view)

Re: Ladies? ... Do You Prefer Men Circumsized or Natural? Posted: 9/6/2004 8:50:38 AM
Hi all, Just to throw a spanner in the works. I was also hoping to find out what the ladies preference is. It is amusing to know there are all these myths out there about uncircumcised guys. I am uncut and yes when erect the skin rolls back and the head comes out. I cant imagine putting my dick in my pants with the skin rolled up, it is very sensitive. So in a way we uncut guys have retained our sensitivity and that skin (it is not extra) provides very welcome protection very much like our eye lids in a dusty wind. About hygiene, it comes naturally.There are all these stories about diseases and stuff, nothing of the sort has ever happened to me. It is like washing behind your ears, you will do it if you are a clean person. One just needs to pull back the skin and wash the area. It feels nice and clean after words.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 1 (view)

What is the best way to eat her? Posted: 9/6/2004 8:34:39 AM
Ok Ladies now I need honest tips from you preferably based on your experiences. No books and scientific reviews and talk show opinions here please. How really should a guy deliver the best oral sex? (Apart from being in a warm and comfortable setting with love in the air, candles etc.) I have heard a guy should concentrate on that clitoral area where the labia meet way north of the actual vagina. Some video even said we should not waste time inserting our tongues in the lady. Is this all true? I have noticed that in porn movies the lesbians tend to concentrate on the clitoral area. Is that what you are looking for? I have given head but with mixed results. One past girlfriend would literaly push my head down as soon as we exchanged greetings but the two that followed wanted me inside them with the regular equipment immediately.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 4 (view)

Re: all right ladies fess up... Posted: 9/6/2004 8:23:08 AM
Is that all Zee? Come on!! Give us the gory details. Come on gals, come on.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 27 (view)

Re: are you more turned on screwing someone elses partner Posted: 9/6/2004 8:15:14 AM
Hi Gothic, I beg to differ. I think it is really up to one. From my experience as long as no one is hurt, I am not about to dictate my values on other people. Some people just have a much higher sex drive than others. It does not mean they dont care about their partners in sex. In my opinion such people are just sexually more expressive. I hardly think they do it because the Mets game isnt on tonight or they finished their assignment to early.

picpip

Joined: 9/5/2004

Msg: 6 (view)

Re: MINDBLOWING SEX!!! Posted: 9/5/2004 9:27:35 PM
If the sex is good and you both consent just keep at it. I dont subscribe to one developing problems at a mental level because they are no longer a couple. Naturally you are both attracted to each other sexually so just go ahead and do the natural thing. I am impressed by the fact that you both know you dont relate on other matters. My two cents

Show ALL Forums