When in doubt, drag out 911 fear and dread.
The real question is:
Would you be willing to die in Iraq for the reasons he tried to sell?
Would you be willing to send your children to die?

If not, it is time to STOP the madness!

The madness originates with your muslim beliefs that has spawned this worldwide campaign of Islamic terrorism that has reached our shores, and we will see to it that the madness stops.
MARK

Reality check, Skiddy.

There was no connection between Iraq and 911.
I am not a Muslim.
You clealy believe that the war in Iraq makes us safer against Islamic fundamentalist attacks. Most Americans do not believe this.
The speech tonight will do nothing to gain him further support.

I see that Mr. Bush neglected to give us an update on those WMDS -- whether our military found them or not.

Another thing.
Why of why would anyone believe ANYTHING bush says anymore?
He lied to go to war and the people now know and believe that.
Americans are only foolish to a certain point; they will not suffer a KNOWN LIAR.
He has lost all credibility and all he can do is dig into his 911 well of dread, the amazing trick that got the liar reelected.

Kerry would have done better:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/opinion/...=rssnyt&emc=rss

We are fighting a WAR ON TERROR. Get that through your semen filled penut sized brain. We are fighting a movement here. Rabid Islamc militancy. The goal of these rabid muslim pigs is the destruction of western civilization so they can take the world back to the dark ages. And yes, Peter Pan, we are safer because of this war. These stupid suicidal pgs are fighting in Iraq and not elsewhere in the western world. You sound like you're overdus for your next beef injection. Idiot.

And that's all you got to hang on to. Grow up Boo Boo and get a towel for the back of your ears.

Would you be willing to send your children to the 7-11 for a jug of milk if you accepted the fact that they may DIE for nothing and I mean nothing but a jug of milk?

Would you be willing to send you children to DIE for anything at all? I dont' think so.

Would you be willing to put your children in HARMS WAY (not necessarily die) for something..like a jug of milk? Yes, people do it all the time.

Is what is happening in the ME now immeasurably more important than a jug of milk?

Would you have been willing to put your children in harms way for unfair export rules, or unfair taxation? Probably not. If most peole thought that way 240 years ago USA and much of the rest of the world would still be British colonies.

What is happening over there is not a nice thing but the alternative is unthinkable.

Some of you have been BRAINWASHED!
911 and Iraq -- NO CONNECTION.
There was no need to ever invade Iraq.
The "war on terror" and the Iraq war -- DIFFERENT.

So Iraq has never been a sponsor of terror? Oh do educate us here.

Do you remember the reasons given by liar bush to go to war, or not?
I really don't understand how you can be satisified with this liar as your leader.

[quote=Thaiquila,Jun 28 2005, 05:50 PM]
Reality check, Skiddy. There was no connection between Iraq and 911.

Do you have proof of this?

[QUOTE] I am not a Muslim

I thought you were. I think I confuse you with Osmanli.

[QUOTE] You clealy believe that the war in Iraq makes us safer against Islamic fundamentalist attacks.

Nothing in 4 years with the Al Qaeda poster boys constantly encouraging the followers to do so.

[QUOTE] Most Americans do not believe this.

Im frequently in the minority.

[QUOTE] The speech tonight will do nothing to gain him further support.

I dont think he was seeking support for himself.
MARK

Good point Boh but lost on the likes of TQ. More people in the US have been murdered domestically since this war began then the number of our finest KIA overseas. No outcry over our domestic violence from the left, however. Mindless drones they are.

T HA T
IS
A LL!

I beg to differ sir.

Root cause is the phrase of the day.

If the people of the region were happy with their station in life there would have been no problem. So terrorisms 'root cause' is what needs fixing. Finding the terrorists one at a time would never end the problem because the 'root cause' would continue to create more and more. The root cause need not be a direct contributor to the problem (although in this case I believe it was directly involved for different reasons)

Most any of the regimes in the area could have been targetted for a solution to the 'root cause' but Iraq was unique in several ways.

1. Geographically it is ideal, completing a democtratic circle around Syria. and is nearly the center of the geographic area. (Think dominoe effect)

2. It stood out as the most brutal existing regime which the US and other western countries installed to afford security to the west at the cost of pain and suffereing to its people. This was bad policy, pure and simple, but it is a fact of history. If this tactic had been used during the Carter years against the Sha (which was the most brutal) there would be little or no problem today (including but not limited to hate of the west). Correcting problems even if one causes them on ones own is still a good thing as compared to ignoring the problem and hoping it will go away.

Until one has corrected the 'root cause' one has not corrected the problem.

Interesting idea, root cause.
Do you really think America is rich enough to start wars all over the globe indefinitely?
It tends to make us even more hated, and ultimately it is weakening us and countries like Russia are licking their lips and laughing at us as they get richer and stronger.

No, one can try for 12 years or so to talk with them and get them to meet one half way (which still doesn't take away the root cause) and try to influence them with financial stress (which ususally makes it even worse on the populace. A lot of children died fro starvation and lack of medical attention, but Saddam got 120 new and unclaimed Al Samud missles, and no telling what else, during that time).

Hated by the root cause but not by those harmed by the root casue.

T HA T
IS
A LL!

Don't be stupid. To suggest that there is no connection between 9/11 and US Middle East policy is a joke.

As for the invasion of Iraq, the US stayed consistent. A conditional cease fire was signed between Saddam and the US at the conclusion of the 1991 Iraq war. Under the Clinton Administration, Saddam stopped meeting the conditions of that cease fire, and as such the fighting resumed. In 2003, when he refused to comply with UNSC resolution 1441 Saddam again broke the conditions of the cease fire. Again, as such, the coalition mobilized for a third time and fighting broke out for a third time.

good article today in the National Review. MARK

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mcc...00506290912.asp

Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?

The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)

Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?

Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?

Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted:

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.


There's more. Stephen Hayes’s book, The Connection, remains required reading. But these are just the questions; the answers — if someone will just investigate the questions rather than pretending there’s “nothing whatsoever” there — will provide more still.

I haven't read "The Connection" but I will check it out. As always, National Review is top notch. The best privately run political publication in the world, as far as I am concerned.

Bush stated two reasons that he declared war on Iraq.

1. That Saddam had wmd's and was threatening to shoot them at the U.S.
2. That Saddam harbored and supported terrorism.

The first reason is a flat out lie, as we can now see by the absence of any weapons found.

The second reason is hypocritical, since the U.S. has committed acts of terror itself on El Salvador, Panama, Guatemala, and Mexico to name only a few... http://www.neravt.com/left/invade.htm ...so does this give, let's say Russia, freedom to attack the U.S. as part of their "war on terror"? No, the U.S. would be appalled at the very mention of this. The United States, citizens and government, believe in their own global superiority to the point of believing that anything done by the U.S. to other countries is some how "better" for the other country, when the majority of people here in the states don't care about foreign casualties, and dead innocent civilians...to them, as long as it doesn't happen tho the U.S., it doesn't matter...it is this kind of thinking that is being enforced by the Bush administration.

To everyone who supports the war, if you truly supported it, without hesitation or cowardice, you would go to your local military recruitment office and sign up for service...but most of you support it as long as it's not you fighting over there, and you can put a stupid "support the troops" bumpersticker on your car. Be careful of what you support if you're not willing to fight to defend it.

No, believing Saddam had WMDs was Bush's reasoning for pushing for UN weapons inspectors. The fact that Saddam refused to comply with UNSC Resolution 1441 was the Casus Belli.

As for your terrorism argument, it is the usual leftist strawman.

I assume you have, as your name implies and avatar implies, taken up a Kalashnikov rifle and fought in the name of the Fidelistas, or at least moved to Cuba and enlisted in the Cuban military? If you REALLY cared, you would go to Bolivia and try to incite la revolucion. You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, after all.

You're right, I wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, which is why I'm a member of the NCDM (National Commission for Democracy in Mexico) who funds and supports the guerrilla movement in Chiapas Mexico known as the EZLN (Ejercito Zapatista de Liberacion National) who is fighting for their freedom from U.S.-backed Mexican government oppression.
I am ready and willing to take up arms and fight in Mexico, and have sent word to the EZLN through the NCDM that I am ready to join the movement. The only thing that might keep me from fighting with them is that I am not a native of Mexico, but I have yet to hear word of their policy...so I wait and support them through the NCDM by fighting a political war against NAFTA, IMF,and the WTO, and we have contacted several members of Congress several times to inform them of happenings in Mexico. I can't fight in the war without their approval, and I wait in readiness for that approval...consider me a reserve in the EZLN military. You must be ready to fight for what you believe in!

Ah yes, US backed Mexican oppression.

By which you mean, Mexico dares have a government which would dissent from the Marxist ideology of a small band of guerillas. Then again, you seem to be the type that holds the Fidelistas up as the ideal of a democratic society.

Nevermind the fact that the reformist Vincente Fox won power through the freest and fairest elections in Mexican history, VIVA LA REVOLUCION!

See, in the 60s when they were fighting Che's movement, the Bolivians (and US Special Forces advisors) finally caught up to him and he was killed. The Body lay so obliterated that the only way to really identify him was to take his hands and send them in to for identifacation.

Got this from when I was in the Boy Scouts and my scoutmaster (one of them anyways) was a former Green Beret who moved up from being a Ranger. One of his buddies in the Green Berets was an advisor down in Bolivia during the 60s.

Now - I have to admire Guerilla if he is really going down there to do it. Apparently he has made plans and therefore, deserving of some respect.

Not quite totally obliterated.



That is pretty obviously Che Guevara.

Yep, this is true, he did win in the election by more democratic means than ever have been in Mexico, but, if you do your homework on the EZLN, you will see what exactly they are fighting for...I'll give you a hint, it has to do with NAFTA.

CHE VIVE!!!!

I have. They basically just hate capitalism and are fighting against the spread of globalization, even though obvious historical trends show that ecnomic integration into globalization categorically leads to vast improvement in the lives of the people. All websites I could find about them prominently featured the red star of communism.

Uuuggghhh...you have whittled them down into a nice, easy to digest package haven't you...now, look further into their fight...why specifically do they fight?

Um, no, I simply came to a conclusion you don't like.

They feel cheated by capitalism and globalization, thus they fight against it. They are severely misguided.

######, you still don't get it, all you do is generalize everything...so I'll tell you why they fight...

When NAFTA was being put into action in 1993-1994, the Mexican government was a big part of that agreement, and needed to comply with its terms or be left out; therefore, in order to comply with the terms set out by NAFTA, Mexico abolished Articulo 27 (27th Article) in their constitution which garunteed land distribution to the poor. The article was put in place after the revolution in Mexico in the early 1900's so that they would not have to fight amongst eachother for land ever again. By abolishing this article, and signing NAFTA, the land was up for sale by the Mexican government to the highest-bidding multi-national corporation. The people of Chiapas were displaced and could no longer produce for their economy because of the rule by large companies who now owned their land. The people of Chiapas then formed the EZLN to fight against the "democratic" government who stole their land. On Jan. 1st, 1994, the Zapatistas (EZLN) siezed several municipalities in Southeast Chiapas. The fight continues today with a recent successful cease-fire declared by both sides so that there may be a resolution to appease both sides. This may not lead to a resolution, but it is hope for the time being. The Zapatistas still control and maintain a guerrilla force in the majority of Chiapas.

Yeah, that is pretty much what I just said.

THEY FEEL CHEATED BY CAPITALISM, so they fight against it.

I am not arguing that they have not been wronged, as I am very much opposed to Eminent Domain of any kind, only that guerilla warfare is probablly not the best way to attain their interests.

Hasnt it been about 10 years since they fought anybody? MARK

Dude! Thanks for ruining my bullshit story to screw with guerilla. I applaud you.

Good job!

Bush's speech was a big prime time flop and the same old package of lies and distortions.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9339.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/29/1434206

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050627/27bush.htm

http://tinyurl.com/d7bd8

EZLN

Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional

Año 22 de la lucha y 12 de la guerra contra el olvido y la mentira

· First Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle (Declaration of war) - Jan '94
· Second Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle - June '94
· The Third Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle - Jan '95
· Fourth Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle - Jan '96
· Fifth declaration of the Lacandon Jungle - July '98

12 years of what has occurred.

This guy is

another of these guys



Che does not live, the revolution was a failure and is almost dust in the winds of history.


Zapatistas announce a Red Alert
By Ruth Vela
Published Jun 29, 2005 10:25 PM

For only the third time in 11 years, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) in Mexico has issued a Red Alert.

It comes after the Mexican government massed thousands of troops in areas where the EZLN has supported the self-government of indigenous peoples.





T HA T
IS
A LL!

Fascinating, you all have barely scratched the surface of the Zapatista movement and therefore you feel compelled to condemn it based on generalities and ignorance of the struggle...stick to what you know, because you are just making yourselves look like idiots.

I would say you are the one who has barely scratched the surface veneer of the idealistic image created to suck in the idiots. MARK

Nomad, do you have a belief system? Do you have a code of ethics that you honestly try to obey? Do you think that a virtual discussion forum is just zeros and ones, and it's ethical to refer to people as semen-brained, rabid pigs, etc.? Do you have no substantive, intelligent thing to say? Is your mother still proud of your behavior?

I would like some clarificacion por favor. (I love how this topic has so much Spanish in it). The articulo you mentioned was about property redistribution to the poor? Let me tell you what your story sounded like to me. I may be wrong, which is why I'm asking for info.

Mexican government gave them land because they were poor and fought a lot. Mexican government didn't want them fighting, so promised to "redistribute" the land to them. (Communism). Then they decided to get rid of the articulo to join NAFTA.

Now, it sounds to me like these people are fighting over the fact that land, which never belonged to them in the first place, was taken away by the same people who gave it to them.

Oh, and Guevara sucks.

CHE ESTA MUERTO!!!

Don't like Guevara? You're not alone! Buy a shirt!
Say it Loud and Proud

The EZLN and the Zapatista movement existed long before January 1, 1994. It is coincidence that their ten or eleven days of armed skirmishes started the same day as NAFTA became law (or so Marcos was quoted in an interview). But the EZLN and FZLN surely do struggle against globalization such as NAFTA.

I corresponded with the FZLN this month. The rebel army has not had a battle since January 11, 1994. This third 'red alert' is the first since the massacre of Acteal on December 22, 1997. I worked with the survivors of the massacre, visited Zapatista communities such as Polho and Acteal Bajo, spoke with soldiers and officers of the Mexican Army up to two-star general, and lived among them (even spent many days occupying a small Mexican Army base outside X'oyep).

It is no coincidence that the history of the EZLN and the Zapatista movement in general is intertwined with non-violent protest, including the incredible non-violent expulsion of the Mexican soldiers from X'oyep by unarmed little Tzotzil Maya women on January 3, 1998. I met those women; they're fearless.

Since this is off the topic, please PM me if you want more details.

Wonder what all the crap from Gorilla about joining them to fight or this recent cease fire he imagines. Possibly to avoid appearing to be so hypocritical. MARK

My good friend conveniently forgets the incidences of August 25th and August 26th and August 29th 2002.

Likewise, in our ignorance, our, want to be revolutionary friend, da guerrilla, seems as well clueless as to the Zapatista reality unfolding as I alluded to before:

Maybe thre Da Guerrila needs another cause Viva la Revolution!!!



Mexico hails rebel 'initiative'


Subcomandante Marcos has hinted at change


The Mexican authorities have welcomed the Zapatista rebels' apparent plan to renounce their armed struggle and take up political action.

President Vicente Fox's spokesman said there would be no legal hurdles for the rebels to join the mainstream politics.

The rebels on Monday issued a statement pledging to announce "a new political initiative" in the coming days.

The Zapatista campaign for more indigenous rights has been largely peaceful for more than 10 years.

The rebel group took up arms against the Mexican state in the south-eastern state of Chiapas - Mexico's poorest state - in January 1994, when at least 150 people died in clashes.

'Red alert'

Presidential spokesman Ruben Aguilar told reporters that the rebel statement apparently aimed at joining the political life was good for the nation.
"We celebrate [it]," Mr Aguilar said.

"In no way will there be any legal impediment to the Zapatistas joining the political life of the country, through whatever organisation they decide to construct."
The spokesman added that the rebel move "opens the possibility for dialogue as an instrument to reach agreements".

The Zapatistas statement was issued from their Chiapas strongholds and signed by their military leader Subcomandante Marcos.

"With the approval and support of the broad majority of its members, the EZLN [Zapatista National Liberation Army] will undertake a new national and international political initiative," it said.

It followed another statement which last week put communities controlled by the rebels on a "red alert" while EZLN members gathered to discuss their future.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4632355.stm

T HA T
IS
A LL!

Biggest BUNCH OF CRAP Ive ever heard. They declared war on Mexico and threatened to take Mexico City and to defeat the Mexican Army or accept their surrender. Their non violence IS NOTHING more than a reflection of their inability to project violence. MARK

Thanks, Dixon/Mark, for that purely opinionated opinion. As I wrote in the letter that was published in the Washington Post in March 2001, the EZLN is a ragtag army. They knew they no more could have marched to the federal capital than the ragtag Sandinista Army could have marched to Harlingen Texas (as Reagan ridiculously suggested). In fact, they got only as far as San Cristobal de Las Casas, far from the state capital at Tuxtla Gutierrez. When they did go to Mexico City in 2001, Marcos was symbolically disarmed by his own men, and they went totally unarmed. Some of my teammates accompanied them, even though we rejected the last resort to violence. As Las Abejas have always insisted, we object to the methods of the revolution, but not to its objectives.

The armed image of the comandantes with their rifles and bandoleros is their way of saying they will resort to violence as a last resort. Zapatista autonomous communities such as Polho forbid weapons, drugs or alcohol.

Hablas espanol, Dixon? Has leido el FZLN todavia? How many graduates of the Kroc Institute (MA in peace studies, Notre Dame Univ.) have you worked with? I have. What do you actually know - even from the Internet - about the movement?

I now live in a country where people are afraid they'll lose face if they admit they don't know something. I have no idea how many million things I don't know. The conflict in Chiapas - I know something about that. Hmm, this looks like a mascadero: - no, it's a ski instructor.

You essentially agreed with my statement that they dont have the ability to project violence. I think all those MA in peace studies have convinced you that non- vilolence is their nature. They are Che Guevara wanna bes. Not merely standing up for the rights of the oppressed but siezing those rights at the point of a gun. They would resort to violence whenever they thought it would be effective.
MARK

Who would resort to violence as a last resort? 99% of all nation-states, 99% of all professing Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, etc. - even if their official religious scriptures forbid it. Would you, at some point either as an individual or as a member of some group, resort to violence? If not, join the crowd I'm with. No, non-violence is not the natural nature of natural humans, but if 'all behavior is learned,' the modern world teaches violence and not peace.

I still can't figure out if Marcos (Sebastian Guillen) is a Marxist now, if he ever was. I suspect he went to the Lacondon jungle long before 1994, hoping to foment a Marxist-Che sort of violent revolution. But after he sat at the feet of elders of the Tzotzil, Tzeltal, Chol, Mam and Tojolobal Mayas, he threw away books like Chairman Mao's red book.

Violence, of course, was imported to the New World by Spanish Catholic conquistadores and Spanish Catholic priests who believed it was God's will for them to commit genocide against the Mayas. However, violence was not totally foreign to indigenous people. We asked Antonio Gutierrez how the Tzotziles resolved conflict prior to the Zapatista conflict. He replied that for centuries, differences were always resolved non-violently by community councils of elders.

To repeat my position, as a pacifist Christian I can never bless , condone or tolerate any acts of violence by professing believers of the Prince of Peace. I hope you share that position. In my arrogant opinion, the only "Jesus" worth trusting and emulating is the pacifist Jesus.

Violence was IMPORTED to the new world? Hardly. The indigineous peoples of South America held up one of the most violent and bloody civilization in world history.

Not that the Conquistadors were anything to admire either.

My point is that the Zapatista would resort to violence as soon as they thought it would be to their advantage. It is groups like the Zapatista who teach and perpetuate the use of violence.
Im an atheist. If the Zapistas were to again use armed revolt to sieze authority, I wouldnt blame the Mexican government for using overwhelming violence to kill every one of them. MARK