[quote]Traci L. Billingsley, a spokeswoman for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, said that its own investigation began in April 2004, after federal officials declined to prosecute.
nytimes.com/2006/02/28/nyreg … etain.html[/quote]
eh…?
(“We’re from the Government, we’re here to help you.”)
[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote]Traci L. Billingsley, a spokeswoman for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, said that its own investigation began in April 2004, after federal officials declined to prosecute.
nytimes.com/2006/02/28/nyreg … etain.html[/quote]
eh…?
(“We’re from the Government, we’re here to help you.”)[/quote]
More “rogue government officials” who don’t realize yet that “the Constitution, as currently written, is obsolete.*”
*“You know you’re a Neocon if . . . #3”
More like he did his best to show some people in the arab world that even a reasonable minded person could become US President if not for the criminal actions of the Republican election thieves.
That IS a nutbar article. Sheesh. I didn’t think Forumosa had posters who actually take crap like that seriously. How about this? “Because of the ridiculous asymmetry of Gore’s indictment…” Asymetry? Nothing could be more asymetrical than the American response to 9/11! The dubious invasion of Afghanistahn aside, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and a lot more than 3000 Iraqis were killed during an American liberation that few there wanted in any way, shape or form.
I’m gobsmacked. I thought the original poster was being ironic by posting that story. Please tell me that is in fact the case.
I know it’s hard for you to believe, but not everybody on this forum is a foaming at the mouth liberal.
I notice you’re sporting the Brecher and Smith piece on your website that equates Gitmo to Nazi concentration camps. Talk about asymetrics and a lack of balance…
I know it’s hard for you to believe, but not everybody on this forum is a foaming at the mouth liberal.
I notice you’re sporting the Brecher and Smith piece on your website that equates Gitmo to Nazi concentration camps. Talk about asymetrics and a lack of balance…[/quote]
Not to pile on here, dearpeter, but you also have links to Chomsky articles on your site as well, so I think I’d be just a little more circumspect about throwing around the “nutbar” epithet.
Since when is liberal a bad word? By liberal, I suppose you mean people who think there is too much energy wasted by the human species killing in the name of profit.
My Web site has active content. I don’t control it. Should I put a CNN feed up as well for balance? (Just kidding.) I just read the Brecher and Smith article you object to. What’s so radical about it? It says Gitmo inmates should be charged, tried, or released. I agree with that. It says Gitmo prisoners are tortured. That may be a stretch, but then again, maybe not. I do believe there was torture happening there when it was first opened (but I wouldn’t really know - I didn’t see it for myself). Clearly, what amounted to torture was allowed to happen at Abu Ghraib.
What the US is doing to Afghanistahn and Iraq amounts to collective punishment no matter how you slice it. Neither country attacked another country. Both invasions were “preemptive” wars that coincidentally happened to generate huge profits for Bush’s pals.
I’d like to see any of you foaming at the mouth non-liberals take on Chomsky in a debate.
What’s your explanation for the 2.5 million refugees who have returned to Afghanistan since the U.S. took out the Taliban? How does your narrow leftwing ideology grok that?
This is fun. Let me repeat that:
US military removes Taliban. 2.5 MILLION refugees subsequently return.
Considering that Chomsky’s arguments tend to disintegrate by dint of their inherent incoherence and hypocrisy, I can’t really see the point of debating him. For example, see: Hitchens, Christopher.
I don’t have an ideology. I think the left-right view of things is ridiculous. I take a supposedly right-wing view of many things, and a left-wing view of others. Others, I’m not clear on at all.
So what if 2.5 million returned to Afghanistahn? That’s beside the point. I was glad the Taliban went down myself, but I don’t think it was right to rewrite the traditional modern conventions of war declaration in order to achieve that. Should the US invade every country that is run by an oppressive regime?
Critiquing Chomsky in a sentence or two is pretty silly. If you want to examine the Chomsky-Hitchens feud, that should probably go in another thread.
As for the original posting… do any of the Forumosian liberal foamers make repost articles by David Icke or Alex Jones? I doubt it. It’s not worth posting stuff by obsessive fringe propagandists.
According to the UN it’s more like 4 million out of an estimated 8 million. That’s pretty good, Al Gore should be ashamed.
You said it! :bravo: :bravo: :bravo: :bravo: :bravo:
:s
Well I for one think 2.5 to 4 million refugees returning to Afghanistan is a tremendous achievement. But you’re right, it’s not quite the “point”. The point is that we toppled an oppresive regime that was decidedly harboring Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of the United States. 9/11 wasn’t the first time they’d hit us either.
Too bad we didn’t have about 140,000 more troops, $200 billion more dollars and our complete attention and maybe we could have finished the job of wiping out theTaliban and tracking down Osama bin Laden and Mullah Muhammed Omar right – but no you big-hearted chumps just had to show the love to the Iraqi people too.
Sometimes I think you guys just care too much for your own good.
Did anyone see the movie, Lord of War? That movie was over the top but still totally rooted in reality. There are too many guns in all these foreign lands that the US seeks to pacify. And we all know where the guns came from - all the ‘pacifistic’ Western countries.
Of course for Cheney and his ilk, the fun (and profit) is in the challenge.
Prior to the Bush administration’s rewriting of international realpolitik, there was a long tradition among world powers to admit that it is functionally difficult to export one’s own modus operandi to foreign places without resorting to colonialist brutality. The neo-cons seemed to think they knew different, or else they were just out to make money.
About the return of millions of Afghans, I wonder if that presently lawless country can handle such an influx. I really don’t think things are gonna work out as nicely as some Bush boosters do.
But whatever. My words aren’t gonna make a dent in anyone’s blinders. But I’d put my money on Al Gore over GWB in any test of any kind of ability or prowess whatsoever, except for the ability to spout effective, nationalistic, agressive diatribe.
And Gore might not have got the whole world hating America. There were other possible reactions to 9/11. That damage is going to take a long time to repair. A few years ago I’d have travelled to any country in the world. Not anymore. Thanks George. And I’m not even American.
Oh right, because before the invasion of Iraq, the world was all just berries and cream, right? It’s not as if there were any dangerous countries in Africa, Central America, South America, Central Asia, or the Balkans, right?
You said it! :bravo: :bravo: :bravo: :bravo: :bravo:[/quote]
Al Gore, September 23, 2002
commonwealthclub.org/archive … peech.html
Al Gore should be ashamed of … what?
Telling Bush that hunting down bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taleban were more important than starting a new war in Iraq before Afghanistan was settled?
So, how’s Afghanistan today?
[quote]At the Senate hearing, Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, painted a similarly stark picture of Afghanistan.
While the government has made progress in disarming private militias, Maples said, his agency estimates that violence from the Taliban and other anti-coalition groups in Afghanistan increased 20 percent last year.
“Insurgents now represent a greater threat to the expansion of Afghan government authority than at any point since late 2001, and will be active this spring,” Maples said in his written statement.
Afghan insurgents increased their suicide attacks almost fourfold and more than doubled their use of improvised explosive devices, he said.[/quote]
Chewey, your OP is just as shameful. Tug at my heart a little more just to pick on an obvious clown, one of many, including those in the house, with a photo of a man juumping to his death. Proceed that by a biased article too. Shame on you. Shame, shame on you manipiulative con man. Fuck what that writer thinks of Al Gore and the dumb things he says and does. Shame on you. You just topped Al Gore.
Chou
[quote=“spook”]Too bad we didn’t have about 140,000 more troops, $200 billion more dollars and our complete attention and maybe we could have finished the job of wiping out theTaliban and tracking down Osama bin Laden and Mullah Muhammed Omar right – [b]but no you big-hearted chumps just had to show the love to the Iraqi people too.
Sometimes I think you guys just care too much for your own good[/b].[/quote]
Ba ha ha 
:bravo:
[quote=“dearpeter”]Since when is liberal a bad word? By liberal, I suppose you mean people who think there is too much energy wasted by the human species killing in the name of profit.
My Web site has active content. I don’t control it. Should I put a CNN feed up as well for balance? (Just kidding.) I just read the Brecher and Smith article you object to. What’s so radical about it? It says Gitmo inmates should be charged, tried, or released. I agree with that. It says Gitmo prisoners are tortured. That may be a stretch, but then again, maybe not. I do believe there was torture happening there when it was first opened (but I wouldn’t really know - I didn’t see it for myself). Clearly, what amounted to torture was allowed to happen at Abu Ghraib.
What the US is doing to Afghanistahn and Iraq amounts to collective punishment no matter how you slice it. Neither country attacked another country. Both invasions were “preemptive” wars that coincidentally happened to generate huge profits for Bush’s pals.
I’d like to see any of you foaming at the mouth non-liberals take on Chomsky in a debate.[/quote]
Dude . . . Afghanistan was aiding and abetting Osama and Company . . . I disagree with you. Afghanistan needed to be invaded, and cleared of the rif raff. Now, Iraq . . . that’s another matter . . .
Bodo
Lord of war was over the top, but highly entertaining mr. dearpeter. I would not have travelled to any nation on the planet though. Libya has scared me for quite sometime. N.Korea? I would not know how to get in with out offending a lot of governmental bureaucrats across the planet. Israel has been a hot bed all my life and I was born in '63. I’ll not digress furhter than this, 'cept to say I could name many more.
Spook you are probably a Jarhaed fan…that movie sucked dude. Wimpyassgenerationxpieceoflipwannabewarrior. That world was created for him. Bodo’s just lost in rage. Chill dude. And I of course have been too freaking moralistic. Gao bo han seems to be getting a grip. And Richardm, well he is just spot on (as usual) in this little squabble y’all are having.
haha, little laugh here, its a good day.
Chou
Chou, duuuuuuuuuuuude. I’m NOT lost in the rage (am I?). I thought Afghanistan/Taliban sucked - they sheltered terrorists who attacked the U.S. on 9/11 - and on top of it they treated women BADLY. Since I’m a woman, I don’t take too kindly to those fellahs (the Taliban) makin’ women wear burkahs, and not allowing them to obtain and education, and all that nonsense. ‘Sides, they were ruining the country, blowin’ up statues of Buddha and shiite like that.
Iraq, on the other hand, is a completely different matter. Didn’t need to go there. Think it was a mistake from the start. Amazed that Bush and Co. snowed Congress (Democrats), and the British, etc. into going along with him.
Bodo
Yes Bodo, you’re totally uncontrollable. And I tell you, I’m so so glad chou thinks I’m getting a grip. If he didn’t approve of me I’d just curl up in bed and cry for days. Be still, my heart.