Ol' man Bush and his vired army boys

[Shura Balaganov]

Bush Lawyers Say No Vote Needed to Attack Iraq
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - White House lawyers have concluded that President Bush does not need congressional consent to launch an attack on Iraq, The Washington Post reported Monday, citing administration officials.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=2&cid=578&u=/nm/20020826/ts_nm/bush_iraq_congress_dc_7
What the f$^%&@#?
Back to discussion about "paying your dues", I am not supporting this moron without Congressional consent.
Shura

[Rufus BugleWeed]

Congess and the UN will not consent until after Saddam delivers his bomb. Why do you favor reaction to proactive?

[Thomas Paul]

Yeah, if he doesn't tell Congress everything how will the NY Times print our battle plans!

[Jason Menard]

Shura,
Congress does not control the military, the President does. Congress makes laws. So while the Congress is the body which can declare war (being somewhat a legal act and all), the President does not need their permission to undertake a wide variety of military options. Congressional support is often sought, sometimes after the fact, when military action is planned however, although this is not legally necessary.

[Shura Balaganov]

Great stuff, gentlemen. :roll: How about this:
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0601-01.htm
Now, keep in mind, when replying, that some of your opponents might not give a rat's arse about either Republicans or Democrats, and just want to find out what is going on behind closed doors. For a few simple reasons, for instance, planning their future and future of their kids. Hey, maybe it is time to get out of big US cities, who knows....
Shura
[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: Shura Balaganov ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
Now, keep in mind, when replying, that some of your opponents might not give a rat's arse about either Republicans or Democrats, and just want to find out what is going on behind closed doors.

Exactly! I am sure that is exactly what Sadaam is thinking.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

Saddam could be spending the wealth of his nation fighting aids, cancer, raising the standard of living for Palestinians.
Looks to me like he'd rather dominate the gulf.
The US has given up it's colonialist ways.
Shura?

[Jason Menard]

Apparently though history teaches us nothing, and most of the world's view towards Saadam is what Neville Chamberlain's and a fair portion of Europe's view towards Hitler was, until it was too late of course. Some people never learn.

[Shura Balaganov]

Ha, that struck a nerve!
I personally don't care what Saddam thinks either... He is probably not the best choice , but certainly not the worst (your favorite Hitler being example, or even Stalin). Now, "poor" Europe knew there was nothing to worry about in Hitler, untill some "world-domination-sick" boys stepped in and financed him and his buddies... But that's off topic...actually, it is very on topic, since we can trace all this crap back directly to father-Bush... Someone who's nose is in crap should stop making jokes about others not smelling very well...
Rufus, I do not favor reaction. This war is imminent. Bush wants it, I think even Saddam wants it. So they'll both get it. Even if NY Times prints war plans, then what? You want a war, but don't want casualties? Someone has been watching too many John Wayne movies. :roll: All these satellites, invisible bombers and unmanned planes make your head spin, as well as some boy's in Bush's house. What the heck? So what now, we are going to stop progress because we are afraid that some Middle Eastern/Asian nation develops a nuke or bio-weapon? How about a simpler plan: JUST STOP FREAKIN' PISSING THEM OFF!
Anyhow, I am neither attacking anything nor trying to get this thread closed...
Shura

[Rufus BugleWeed]

We don't want any war. We've been waiting patiently for the last ten years for somebody to quietly put a pistol to Saddam's temple and blow his brains all over the pillow.
We'll give a new despot a longer leash.

[Anonymous]

Yesterday I saw an interview of Al Sharpton.He had some interesting things to say about Farrahkhan and his views on Saddam.
How long before a new puppet controlled by the US is installed in Iraq?

[Michael Morris]

So what now, we are going to stop progress because we are afraid that some Middle Eastern/Asian nation develops a nuke or bio-weapon? How about a simpler plan: JUST STOP FREAKIN' PISSING THEM OFF!

Who's pissin' who off? Americans by nature would by far rather let sleepin' dogs lie, but when one of a pack of mongrels comes up and bites you in the ass while your back is turned, it's time to deal with all of them.
Michael Morris

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
Now, "poor" Europe knew there was nothing to worry about in Hitler, untill some "world-domination-sick" boys stepped in and financed him and his buddies...

What are you talking about?

So what now, we are going to stop progress because we are afraid that some Middle Eastern/Asian nation develops a nuke or bio-weapon? How about a simpler plan: JUST STOP FREAKIN' PISSING THEM OFF!

"We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analysing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a programme would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators." -- Neville Chamberlain
Here are some more Neville Chamberlain quotes on appeasement (although let's not forget that French PM �douard Daladier also signed the 1938 Munich Agreement, Chamberlain is just more quotable).

"First of all I must say something to those who have written to my wife or myself in these last weeks to tell us of their gratitude for my efforts and to assure us of their prayers for my success. Most of these letters have come from women -- mothers or sisters of our own countrymen. But there are countless others besides -- from France, from Belgium, from Italy, even from Germany, and it has been heartbreaking to read of the growing anxiety they reveal and their intense relief when they thought, too soon, that the danger of war was past.
If I felt my responsibility heavy before, to read such letters has made it seem almost overwhelming. How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing."
...
"Since I first went to Berchtesgaden more than 20,0000 letters and telegrams have come to No. 10, Downing Street. Of course, I have been able to look at a tiny fraction of them, but I have seen enough to know that the people who wrote did not feel that they had such a cause for which to fight, if they were asked to go to war in order that the Sudeten Germans might not join the Reich. That is how they are feeling. That is my answer to those who say that we should have told Germany weeks ago that, if her army crossed the border of Czechoslovakia, we should be at war with her. We had no treaty obligations and no legal obligations to Czechoslovakia and if we had said that, we feel that we should have received no support from the people of this country...."
...
"However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbor, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war simply on her account."

These attitudes sound very prevalent today in many parts of the world, don't they?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <slacker>:
Yesterday I saw an interview of Al Sharpton.He had some interesting things to say about Farrahkhan and his views on Saddam.
How long before a new puppet controlled by the US is installed in Iraq?

slacker, the topic has been calm so far. Stop instigating please.
[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
Ha, that struck a nerve!
I personally don't care what Saddam thinks either... He is probably not the best choice , but certainly not the worst (your favorite Hitler being example, or even Stalin). Now, "poor" Europe knew there was nothing to worry about in Hitler, untill some "world-domination-sick" boys stepped in and financed him and his buddies... But that's off topic...actually, it is very on topic, since we can trace all this crap back directly to father-Bush... Someone who's nose is in crap should stop making jokes about others not smelling very well...
Rufus, I do not favor reaction. This war is imminent. Bush wants it, I think even Saddam wants it. So they'll both get it. Even if NY Times prints war plans, then what? You want a war, but don't want casualties? Someone has been watching too many John Wayne movies. :roll: All these satellites, invisible bombers and unmanned planes make your head spin, as well as some boy's in Bush's house. What the heck? So what now, we are going to stop progress because we are afraid that some Middle Eastern/Asian nation develops a nuke or bio-weapon? How about a simpler plan: JUST STOP FREAKIN' PISSING THEM OFF!
Anyhow, I am neither attacking anything nor trying to get this thread closed...
Shura

Thank you for being here and trying to educate these poor souls. I personally don't have the patience to do so.

[Michael Morris]

Thank you for being here and trying to educate these poor souls. I personally don't have the patience to do so.

Typical response of a nameless coward. What you probably mean to say is you don't have the balls or intillect to do so.
[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: Michael Morris ]

[Anonymous]

I think we have already concluded that I am a nameless coward and that you are a great American hero. No need to bring that point again.
Do you really think that we would have Husseins or Milosevics if they don't serve someone's purpose?

[Shura Balaganov]

Originally posted by <Anonymous>:

Thank you for being here and trying to educate these poor souls.

I don't want to educate anyone, they are all grown boys and girls. What I DO want is for myself (maybe) and a few people I know to be able to live in NYC, knowing that there will NOT be a freaked out local "king", pissed at US government (or our reps, no differentce) who desides next to nuke the city.
New Jersey is just not a viable alternative... :roll:
Jason, since you brought Chamnberlain up... here's some links that kinda describe what I'm talking about:
http://www.lpdallas.org/features/draheim/dr991216.htm
http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm
http://www.rememberjohn.com/Nazis.html
http://www.rense.com/general26/dutch.htm
Briefly, it goes like this:
yada-yada...George H. W. Bush's father, Prescott, and his maternal grandfather, George Herbert Walker... both Bert Walker and Prescott Bush were powerful financial supporters of Adolf Hitler. yada-yada... Walker was president of Union Banking Corporation, a firm that traded with Germany and helped German industrialists consolidate Hitler's political power...blah-blah...Walker helped take over North American operations of Hamburg-Amerika Line, a shipping line and cover for I. G. Farben's Nazi espionage unit in the U. S. Hamburg-Amerika smuggled in German agents...George H. W. Bush's father, Prescott, was a board member of Union Banking and a senior partner in a Union Banking affiliate, the investment firm Brown Brothers, Harriman. The U. S. government investigated both Bert Walker and Prescott Bush, and under the Trading with the Enemy Act seized all shares of Union Banking, including shares held by Prescott Bush. The government held that "huge sections of Prescott Bush's empire had been operated on behalf of Nazi Germany and had greatly assisted the German war effort"
My point being, that there would be no Hitler threat without someone creating one. And europeans realized that. Except, they couldn't predict that someone very powerful really wanted Hitler to be.
Shura
[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: Shura Balaganov ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
My point being, that there would be no Hitler threat without someone creating one. And europeans realized that. Except, they couldn't predict that someone very powerful really wanted Hitler to be.

So, your revising history to blame the rise of Hitler and the start of WW2 on financing from some individual Americans? Did somebody spike your vodka Shura?
Also, if you're going to quote something that you would have us accept as fact, please at least use respectable resources. :roll:

[Shura Balaganov]

Yeah, someone spiked my vodka alright!
Ok, I was lazy to get credible sources, 'cause they are all over the web, so I picked top 4 from Google... www.tarpley.net is has parts from book "George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography", with quotes from 37 different published sources...just do search on bush nazi, you'll get hundreds of hits; pick ones you think are credible. Now, a lot of these link start looking at Bushes at 1942, overlooking what happened in 1932-33. hey, I was just curious at one time, and this country is so great all this info is publicly availiable
Since I came from country that used to write history the way people in power wanted it to be, I try to look at history with a grain of salt; some things just can't be fully trusted.
I guess I am more Democrat than I thought... :roll:
Shura

[Michael Ernest]

More good reasons why google hits are no substitution for credibility -- you can match just about anything with Nazi and get a hit or two, maybe even a published (and therefore credible) work. For example:
Abraham Lincoln Nazi - more than 10,000 hits including this one.
Tommy Hilfiger Nazi - this reminds me of more than one graduate school rant passing as "research."
Boy Scout Nazi - hey, Hitler had to start somewhere
cheese sandwich Nazi - and he had to eat
[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
you'll get hundreds of hits; pick ones you think are credible.

Actually you'll get a more telling picture if you do the search with "bush", "nazi", and "conspiracy".
But how about this link: The Indiscreet Charm of the Bush Nazi Web Conspiranoids.
However the fact remains that this has nothing to do with anything. You failed to answer the question I posed to you though. I will try again and even expand on it:
As you seem to be imlpying, are you saying you believe that the rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany and the start of WW2 was because of financing from a few individual Americans, as opposed to the more way out theories like an Axis land grab, a policy of Anglo-French appeasement, the effects of the Treaty of Versailles on Germany, and a European populace easily manipulated by playing on feelings of anti-Semitism and xenophobia?

I guess I am more Democrat than I thought

Don't worry, I hear they are working on a cure.

[Anonymous]

Did anybody see CNBC's Squawk Box poll on "Do you support a war on Iraq"
53% voted no.Good going

[Thomas Paul]

Does anyone take any of these polls even a little bit seriously?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <slacker>:
Did anybody see CNBC's Squawk Box poll on "Do you support a war on Iraq"
53% voted no.Good going

Yeah, an internet poll is a pretty good scientific survey of where people stand on an issue. :roll: How many of the respondants were Americans? How many were Europeans? How many lived in the Middle East? I'm sorry, that poll is worth what? Even if we were to take those poll numbers as having some value, it should be noted that the populace of many nations was also against a war with Germany in WW2. So what's your point?

[Joel Cochran]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Does anyone take any of these polls even a little bit seriously?

53% of poll takers and 4 out of 5 dentists recommend disregarding all such polls as statistical manure. The other 47% (and 1 dentist) could not be reached for comment.

[Shura Balaganov]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
As you seem to be imlpying, are you saying you believe that the rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany and the start of WW2 was because of financing from a few individual Americans, as opposed to the more way out theories like an Axis land grab, a policy of Anglo-French appeasement, the effects of the Treaty of Versailles on Germany, and a European populace easily manipulated by playing on feelings of anti-Semitism and xenophobia?

No, I am not implying it. I am saying that there was someone who financed Hitler and Nazi party campaign. And it was a well financed campaign indeed! And with some luck and money and a very good speaker skills Hitler won. And then, as we all know, great leaders can lead the nations...
:roll:
Jason, your link seems to make fun of a few publications; as a pure loser, "writer" doesn't mind personally attacking other authors; although he does bring some, credible in his mind, sources, which are no different than the others. However, you can't deny this book: Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time
by Carroll Quigley, history professor at Georgetown University (did somebody say Washington???), and one of the mentors of Bill Clinton (I know this will make your face change... ) Anyhow, I don't assume you would call a nightstand book of former president a "conspiracy theory", would you? :roll:
These polls (as well as history and "public opinion") are subject to massive manipulation. Just look at Bush's "apporval rating" poll a few months back, somewhat 92%? I am supposed to believe this? :roll:
Jason Menard: Don't worry, I hear they are working on a cure.
You mean WW3?
Shura
[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: Shura Balaganov ]

[Randall Twede]

responding to the original post, i read this today.

If invoked, the War Powers Act, passed in 1973 late in the Vietnam War, would prohibit the president from waging war for more than 60 days without congressional approval or a declaration of war by Congress.

[Shura Balaganov]

Even putting all conspiracy theories away, how many documents do you think get classified (as in red-ink "CLASSIFIED") every year? And why? Matter of national security, mostly. Besides military and intelligence information, what else is classified? I would say, "issues". Scandals. Situations you wouldn't want regular people to know. Anything that might cause opinion shift or panic. In this day and age - it must be almost everything. By now, if I'd be CIA, I'd have an almost full picture of what type of info will cause what type of mass response. And act accordingly.
Hey, but maybe I am the only one like that, and all these boys in power are cool and caring... :roll:
Shura

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
And with some luck and money and a very good speaker skills Hitler won.

That's a rather simplistic view of Hitler's rise to power. Naturally it totaly ignores political, social, and economic conditions in post WW1 Germany.

Jason, your link seems to make fun of a few publications; as a pure loser, "writer" doesn't mind personally attacking other authors; although he does bring some, credible in his mind, sources, which are no different than the others.

Well there's a couple of things to look at, one such as the author (and this is one reason why Tarpley is automatically suspect), and the site hosting the information (such as a conspiracy site for example). In addition does the information pass the common sense test? Understanding that absolutely nothing is impossible, how plausible are the author's theories? How well are these theories supported with historical and documented fact, versus how much conjecture is involved along with the author's own interpretation of events. Can these theories stand up to academic peer review?

However, you can't deny this book...

Why not? I haven't read it. Have you?

one of the mentors of Bill Clinton

And this is why I can't deny it?

Anyhow, I don't assume you would call a nightstand book of former president a "conspiracy theory", would you?

Haven't read the book, don't know anything about it, but why not? What about Clinton's presidency would lead me to think that he was a particularly credible person himself? Being President doesn't mean that you are immune from flights of fancy. The Reagans for example consulted an astrologist frequently (well, Nancy did at least). Clinton supposedly had a deep interest in UFO's. President's have their little eccentricities too.

These polls (as well as history and "public opinion") are subject to massive manipulation. Just look at Bush's "apporval rating" poll a few months back, somewhat 92%? I am supposed to believe this?

While it is true that polls are only of limited value, there is a bit of a difference between an informal internet poll and a scientific poll conducted by an internationally respected organization such as Gallup. The "official" Presidential approval ratings polls have been being conducted by Gallup for some time now and are a recognized measuring stick of public sentiment regarding a President's performance in the areas polled.
That 92% approval rating was almost immediately following 9/11 (not "a few months back"), and you can pretty much expect to see such results in those conditions. The remarkable thing about his approval rating is that he was able to keep it above 70% for 10 months (if I remember correctly), which is unprecedented. I believe it is currently in the 60's range overall, but varying of course depending on the different areas covered by the poll.

[Shura Balaganov]

Me: However, you can't deny this book...
Jason Menard: Why not? I haven't read it. Have you?
Actually, I am reading it right now. Very enlightening. The amount (and authority) of quoted documents is just amaizing.
Jason Menard: That's a rather simplistic view of Hitler's rise to power. Naturally it totaly ignores political, social, and economic conditions in post WW1 Germany.
That was actually the premise, because otherwise you get swamped with all other noise. Yeah, conditions were good, and they used mass media a lot better... the point is, he still would've lost despite all this, if not the financial support. Just like Ralph Nader could never win last elections :roll: unless, for instance, energy group would deside to support him instead of Republicans (again, overly simplified for the sake of example).
Jason Menard: Can these theories stand up to academic peer review?
That's exactly the problem. Historians and political science professors are in a very politicized seat. Again, simplified, but they are the ones who can guide what is being taught to future scientisrs, as well as how...anyway, obviously, noone will pay to a guy who, say, teaches communism. So professors learn what they can and can't say. They will not want to jeopardize their careers because there is a chance to expose Bush or other, not when they have kids and mortgage and bills...So their credibility is a suspect in the first place. International review is actually a better judge here, because some professor from France has very little to do with US propaganda...Again, my wishful thinking
Jason Menard: there is a bit of a difference between an informal internet poll and a scientific poll conducted by an internationally respected organization such as Gallup
Scientific? How is it more scientific than Internet poll? :roll: Is it because it is accepted as best out of worst? Is it more or less scientific than TV station ratings? Because a few months back someone called me from that poll, and I happened to be home that day...a good tennis game was on, so I watched TV (wich I never do during day time). So when they called me and asked if I watched tv today , I said yes, but how scientific is that?
Anyhow, back to the topic... are we going back to old cold war days?
Shura

[Shura Balaganov]

Here's an interesting article...because its author, Mark Saltsberg - professor of Physics in University of Houston, says that this article will NEVER be publishedin US press.. therefore he prints it in Russian.
http://www.ng.ru/ideas/2002-08-28/1_america.html
Here's a very brief translation of basic ideas, and Map or Michael Matola can translate the rest if they wish...

After living in USA for the last 23 years, and 45 previous in USSR, I - with regret - started noticing striking similarities between many social and political tendencies in both countries. In last 3-4 years it became obvious to me that America is building communism without quite noticing it.
The same democracy that brought wealth and power to this country and wich in last 220 years was a role model of government, started recently changing into something that has no good name. Actually, it has. Dictatorship. But not of proletariat, but of unscrupulous, arrogant and incompetent minority.
This minority is now supported by more and more americans, who are ideologically brainwashed by Hollywood liberals, black leaders and incompetent university professors. Communism can't be built without support of majority of people. Exactly what wrote Fedor Shalyapin about Bolshevism: "Equality lead to disparagement of anyone who stuck his head out above water level."

He goes on about a lot of topics that lately seem to be taboo: problem of uneducated minorities, disappearance of american hero, racism, attempts of uneducated minorities to achieve equality with "western-eurpoean" culture, unwillingness of minorities to study such disciplines as physics, math, chemistry and mechanics, etc. etc. He also states that there is no way this article will be published in US (free country - hahaha ). Because it will be attacked by both black leaders and white liberals.
The point is, that I am not the only one noticing weird things happening. And since Jason wanted some serious academic comments, here's a start. Author above might seem a little extreme first, but there's no smoke without fire...
Shura
[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: Shura Balaganov ]

[Rufus BugleWeed]

disappearance of american hero

Whadduh yaa mean? Haven't you seen? Dr. Phil is getting his own show.
I was hoping this thread would die, so Jamie could have some fresh crow for dinner.
On a more serious note...
The type of behaviour ( rambling ) you mentioned, is common in old men.
Maybe you can find someone around here who will dispute, "USSR Communism is not all bad and US Capitalism is not all good."

[Thomas Paul]

No smoke without fire? In this case there isn't even smoke. Some tired old professor mumbles about blacks and Hollywood liberals taking over the USA and we are supposed to take this seriously? Please!

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Michael Morris:

Who's pissin' who off? Americans by nature would by far rather let sleepin' dogs lie, but when one of a pack of mongrels comes up and bites you in the ass while your back is turned, it's time to deal with all of them.
Michael Morris

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh myyyyyyyyyy gggggooooooooooddddddddddddd hahahahahahahahah
Who is financing Israil with money and weapons to fight with palastein.
Who has placed their milatry in Saudi Arabia.
Personally I adore US citizens for their cool headedness but the US forgien polocies are the worst. They make others fight for their benifit.

[sridhar satuloori]

This war against Iraq may side line war against terror

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by <anonymous>:

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh myyyyyyyyyy gggggooooooooooddddddddddddd hahahahahahahahah
Who is financing Israil with money and weapons to fight with palastein.

And which countries have been fighting with Israel since 1948? Here's a question for you... between 1948 and 1967, the Arab countries owned the west bank... so why didn't they set up a Palestinian state? Why is a Palestinian state in the west bank so important to the Arab world only since Israel occupied the west bank?

[Anonymous]

Why U$ support Israil?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by some anonymous pansy:
Why U$ support Israil?

Because they are the only democratic regime in that part of the world and they also share our basic values and belief structures. In addition, there is a larger Jewish population (and a very politically organized one) in the US than there is in Israel. The Jewish lobby in this country is very powerful and is supported by a very powerful Christian lobby, and they of course lobby the government to take actions that are in Israel's best interests. The vast majority of American citizens seems to support this.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by sridhar satuloori:
This war against Iraq may side line war against terror

I think they are related. One won't sideline the other.