How to win a war on terror

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 9, 2004, 9:00 am

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... altop.html

Hawks tell Bush how to win war on terror
By David Rennie in Washington
(Filed: 31/12/2003)

President George W Bush was sent a public manifesto yesterday by Washington's hawks, demanding regime change in Syria and Iran and a Cuba-style military blockade of North Korea backed by planning for a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear sites.

The manifesto, presented as a "manual for victory" in the war on terror, also calls for Saudi Arabia and France to be treated not as allies but as rivals and possibly enemies.

The manifesto is contained in a new book by Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser and "intellectual guru" of the hardline neo-conservative movement, and David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. They give warning of a faltering of the "will to win" in Washington.

In the battle for the president's ear, the manifesto represents an attempt by hawks to break out of the post-Iraq doldrums and strike back at what they see as a campaign of hostile leaking by their foes in such centres of caution as the State Department or in the military top brass.

Their publication, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, coincided with the latest broadside from the hawks' enemy number one, Colin Powell, the secretary of state.

Though on leave recovering from a prostate cancer operation, Mr Powell summoned reporters to his bedside to hail "encouraging" signs of a "new attitude" in Iran and call for the United States to keep open the prospect of dialogue with the Teheran authorities.

Such talk is anathema to hawks like Mr Perle and Mr Frum who urge Washington to shun the mullahs and work for their overthrow in concert with Iranian dissidents.

It may be assumed that their instincts at least are shared by hawks inside the government, whose twin power bases are the Pentagon's civilian leadership and the office of the vice-president, Dick Cheney.

Such officials prevailed over invading Afghanistan and Iraq, but have been seen as on the back foot since the autumn as their post-war visions of building a secular, free-market Iraq were scaled back in favour of compromise and a swift handover of power next June.

The book demands that any talks with North Korea require the complete and immediate abandonment of its nuclear programme.

As North Korea will probably refuse such terms, the book urges a Cuba-style military blockade and overt preparations for war, including the rapid pullback of US forces from the inter-Korean border so that they move out of range of North Korean artillery.

Such steps, with luck, will prompt China to oust its nominal ally, Kim Jong-il, and install a saner regime in North Korea, the authors write.

The authoritarian rule of Syria's leader, Bashar Assad, should also be ended, encouraged by shutting oil supplies from Iraq, seizing arms he buys from Iran, and raids into Syria to hunt terrorists.

The authors urge Mr Bush to "tell the truth about Saudi Arabia". Wealthy Saudis, some of them royal princes, fund al-Qa'eda, they write.

The Saudi government backs "terror-tainted Islamic organisations" as part of a larger campaign to "spread its extremist version of Islam throughout the Muslim world and into Europe and North America".

The book calls for tough action against France and its dreams of offsetting US power. "We should force European governments to choose between Paris and Washington," it states. Britain's independence from Europe should be preserved, perhaps with open access for British arms to American defence markets.

http://members.shaw.ca/puddle01/MammaGo ... mbient.MP3

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » January 9, 2004, 9:13 am

All you have to do is read the first paragraph, then you start to wonder if this article came from a comic strip or not.

-edit- And I hate France just as much as the next guy, but treat them as enemies because they disagree with us? Makes sense. Saudi Arabia, sure. Rest of the article is a joke, a bad one.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » January 9, 2004, 9:27 am

Isn't this the kind of trash that she gets on Brotha and Cart's ass for posting?

Hyp - O - Crite - !

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » January 9, 2004, 9:33 am

Isn't this the kind of trash that she gets on Brotha and Cart's ass for posting?

Hyp - O - Crite - !

Fucking idiot.

Personally I loved this bit:

Such steps, with luck, will prompt China to oust its nominal ally

Try to stat a war then trust to luck! Pwn.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » January 9, 2004, 12:20 pm

Even here there is the assumption that *other* people are telling the *passive* president what decisions to make.

People keep thinking he's stupid. They keep underestimating him. It's going to get him reelected.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » January 9, 2004, 1:45 pm

Pahreiya - before you accuse anyone of hyprocrasy, check out the source of this artice: its not the equivalent of the National Revue or anything...This is a major British publication (you know like great Britain was the other major contributer of troops to Iraq?).

Adex - No one is saying people are dictating Bush's agenda or playing him like a puppet. What is being said is that people close to him are advising him in certain fashions. Thats no different from any other president or really any other head of state: the leader and his/her cabinet ultimately decide on what they will take, but if advice like the aforementioned manifesto is presented, it is up to them to decide how much credence to put in it.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 9, 2004, 2:01 pm

This is completely real and the authors of the book won't disagree with anything posted in it. They were just on Charlie Rose (I think that's his name?) on PBS on Wednesday night saying the same exact thing.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » January 9, 2004, 2:27 pm

Pahreyia wrote:Isn't this the kind of trash that she gets on Brotha and Cart's ass for posting?

Hyp - O - Crite - !

Well, the difference is that Brotha & pals post this, and advocate it....she just posted it, with no opinion...just posting a quote.

Trias · Post by **Trias** » January 9, 2004, 2:35 pm

hah thanks mammago garage music!

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 9, 2004, 3:20 pm

Bush is stupid, and more importantly, lazy.

You don't have to look far past his academic record to prove the above points, but if you really must, look at any off-the-cuff speaking he does.

Now, as to his decisions. It matters very very little if he makes his own decisions, because they're based on intelligence supplied by third parties. I honestly believe he was told they had rock solid proof that they would find WDM quickly post taking over Iraq. That doesn't mean that's why he went in there, but I have no doubt that's what he was told. So, unless you think G. W. Bush is some kind of holy prophet that knows all, his ability to make his "own" decisions is limited to what he's going to eat for lunch.

As to him being re-elected, probably, but that has little to do with him being under-estimated.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » January 9, 2004, 3:25 pm

Wulfran wrote:Pahreiya - before you accuse anyone of hyprocrasy, check out the source of this artice: its not the equivalent of the National Revue or anything...This is a major British publication (you know like great Britain was the other major contributer of troops to Iraq?).

I may just be an uninformed yankee wanker but I've seen next to nothing from any UK publication that really displays Bush or Tony Blair in a positive light since about 2 months after 9/11. I certainly see that they aren't guilty of publishing an opinion article as if it were fact, however, the "liberal media" of the UK far exceeds that of the US. And the fact that this article would come from Kyoukan, in my opinion, holds the same rightously indignant conotations as anything from Brotha or Cart's National Review articles.

This report was crap from the start and should never have been given the publicity it has. Let alone be posted here with the expectation of anything more than the Kyoukan & crew versus the Sons of Liberty shit flinging contest.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 9, 2004, 3:28 pm

Do you not know how to read? The authors of the book itself were saying the exact same thing on TV not two days ago. The report is not crap, it's spot on.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » January 9, 2004, 3:44 pm

The book demands that any talks with North Korea require the complete and immediate abandonment of its nuclear programme.

As North Korea will probably refuse such terms, the book urges a Cuba-style military blockade and overt preparations for war, including the rapid pullback of US forces from the inter-Korean border so that they move out of range of North Korean artillery.

Such steps, with luck, will prompt China to oust its nominal ally, Kim Jong-il, and install a saner regime in North Korea, the authors write.

The authoritarian rule of Syria's leader, Bashar Assad, should also be ended, encouraged by shutting oil supplies from Iraq, seizing arms he buys from Iran, and raids into Syria to hunt terrorists.

The authors urge Mr Bush to "tell the truth about Saudi Arabia". Wealthy Saudis, some of them royal princes, fund al-Qa'eda, they write.

The Saudi government backs "terror-tainted Islamic organisations" as part of a larger campaign to "spread its extremist version of Islam throughout the Muslim world and into Europe and North America".

The book calls for tough action against France and its dreams of offsetting US power. "We should force European governments to choose between Paris and Washington," it states. Britain's independence from Europe should be preserved, perhaps with open access for British arms to American defence markets.

We already aren't winning any popularity contests. And now that North Korea's been testing medium range ballistic missile delivery systems and China's putting people into space, let's piss them off something fierce, start another cold war, dump another national debt into a vaporware star wars program, construct a North American missile defense system, globalize the world under our own trade pressures and play World's police as we're the only ones who can dictate who gets to lead what countries.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 9, 2004, 4:03 pm

Ok, so you're only slamming Kyoukan for posting it? I thought you were slamming her because you thought the article was skewing what the authors want. Do you think she was posting this because agrees with the authors of the book?

Of course the book is proposterous, but that's what's written there.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » January 9, 2004, 4:10 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote: People keep thinking he's stupid. They keep underestimating him. It's going to get him reelected.

Oh please, if there is a God, I beg of him to never let that happen.
*knocks on wood*

-=Lohrno

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 9, 2004, 4:35 pm

On second thought, what the fuck are you saying Pahreyia? Do you agree with the authors of the book or do you agree with the article? You've hinted at both already.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » January 9, 2004, 4:47 pm

I disagree with both.

In my opinion, an introvertive foreign policy for the US would do wonders for the world and our place in it. Take 4 years to become everything but isolationist, cease the expansion of imports, cut trade ties with the Middle East, France, North Korea, China, most of Africa, cut "humanitarian" missions and "peacekeeping" duties to countries like Somalia, reduce the size of the military by moving out of the forward bases in Germany, South Korea and Japan and let the world do it's own thing for a couple years. Let's see how many come knocking on our door begging for our help in that time.

Then again, that's just my vengeful opinion.

As far as Kyoukan posting this trite article... I read it the same as if Brotha has posted another Right Wing opinion publication. This is still an opinion piece, it just is being reported as a matter of fact by the publisher of the press. The telegram has had a long history of not supporting Bush or Blair in the war on terrorism, and by covering opinion writings like this, especialy as assinine as it is, they're fostering the impression that any reasonable person would take this as any more than the comedic writings of a Saturday Night Live presidental skit writer.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 9, 2004, 4:50 pm

Ok, so your opinion is idiotic and shouldn't count for anything. I see.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 9, 2004, 5:30 pm

Vetiria wrote:Ok, so your opinion is idiotic and shouldn't count for anything. I see.

OOOOOH BURN. Complete lack of argument or reasoning, but BURN!! I feel all warm inside.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » January 9, 2004, 5:33 pm

Vetiria wrote:Ok, so your opinion is idiotic and shouldn't count for anything. I see.

So, aside from responding to my every post with a "wtf?!?!" like a clueless couch potato, did you have something to add to this topic?

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 9, 2004, 5:36 pm

How else are you supposed to respond to someone who's perfect nation would be in complete isolationism?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » January 9, 2004, 5:51 pm

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » January 9, 2004, 6:22 pm

Vetiria wrote:How else are you supposed to respond to someone who's perfect nation would be in complete isolationism?

Pahreyia wrote:In my opinion, an introvertive foreign policy for the US would do wonders for the world and our place in it. Take 4 years to become everything but isolationist

Hi, this link is made special, just for you!

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » January 9, 2004, 6:23 pm

EDIT: double post

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » January 10, 2004, 1:38 am

in give or take 50 years china is going to be the new world power, so why the hell not just enjoy ourselfs until then?

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 10, 2004, 2:12 am

Take 4 years to become everything but isolationist, cease the expansion of imports, cut trade ties with the Middle East, France, North Korea, China, most of Africa, cut "humanitarian" missions and "peacekeeping" duties to countries like Somalia, reduce the size of the military by moving out of the forward bases in Germany, South Korea and Japan and let the world do it's own thing for a couple years.

Call it what you will, that's isolationism and it's an idiotic view of how the country should be run.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » January 10, 2004, 2:39 am

pahreyia, while I may agree that the publication itself is left of center, I fail to see how anything in the article is misleading, untruthful, or opinionated. Now if you are going to accuse the article of being similar to the worthless garbage that brotha posts, please specify (by quoting) exactly which part of the article you feel does not do justice to ethical journalism. As it is, this article is NOT an editorial, yet you treat it as such.

As far as your opinion on United States foreign policy, it is outright barbaric and naive. In addition, you are directly contradicting yourself by stating isolationist theory, then saying that it is not isolationism. You, sir, are a fucking amateur.

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » January 10, 2004, 5:08 am

What, the PNAC advocates a frighteningly expansionist foreign policy? Why did nobody tell me this?

Seriously, while certainly chilling, this sadly does not come as anything new. This memo may be new, but the PNAC has been up to the exact same shenanigans since the start of Clinton's first term.

An aside, though...I would not be one to underestimate GW, per se, Adex, but I do have some serious concerns regarding the level of influence the PNAC camp have within his administration - and the PNAC *do* frighten me. A lot.

It is true that the President is entirely free to make up his own mind, but Rove certainly has a place on his shoulder, and in most of his larger policies, stands, and dealings, the President has shown himself to be fairly willing to lock-step with his PNAC pals.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » January 10, 2004, 7:20 pm

Xyun wrote:pahreyia, while I may agree that the publication itself is left of center, I fail to see how anything in the article is misleading, untruthful, or opinionated. Now if you are going to accuse the article of being similar to the worthless garbage that brotha posts, please specify (by quoting) exactly which part of the article you feel does not do justice to ethical journalism. As it is, this article is NOT an editorial, yet you treat it as such.

Okay.

The book demands that any talks with North Korea require the complete and immediate abandonment of its nuclear programme.

As North Korea will probably refuse such terms, the book urges a Cuba-style military blockade and overt preparations for war, including the rapid pullback of US forces from the inter-Korean border so that they move out of range of North Korean artillery.

Such steps, with luck, will prompt China to oust its nominal ally, Kim Jong-il, and install a saner regime in North Korea, the authors write.

Hi, welcome to the beginning of the 21st century's version of the cold war.

The authoritarian rule of Syria's leader, Bashar Assad, should also be ended, encouraged by shutting oil supplies from Iraq, seizing arms he buys from Iran, and raids into Syria to hunt terrorists.

The authors urge Mr Bush to "tell the truth about Saudi Arabia". Wealthy Saudis, some of them royal princes, fund al-Qa'eda, they write.

The Saudi government backs "terror-tainted Islamic organisations" as part of a larger campaign to "spread its extremist version of Islam throughout the Muslim world and into Europe and North America".

Yay, now we'll destabilize the Middle East by overthrowing yet another government. What do you think the Vegas odds are that Israel won't be Israel for much longer after this, let alone the escalation of recruitment into extremest organizations because of the "Zionist invasion" of Muslim homelands.

The book calls for tough action against France and its dreams of offsetting US power. "We should force European governments to choose between Paris and Washington," it states. Britain's independence from Europe should be preserved, perhaps with open access for British arms to American defence markets.

Sounds like Mafiosa tactics to me. Intimidation, coersion and "making an offer that they can not refuse."

This is nothing but an opinion piece on whose sabers to rattle if America wanted to fight another war in two hemispheres.

As far as your opinion on United States foreign policy, it is outright barbaric and naive. In addition, you are directly contradicting yourself by stating isolationist theory, then saying that it is not isolationism. You, sir, are a fucking amateur.

My exact words were all but isolationism. Basically, pull back and just have foreign relations through trade, favoring exports and limiting imports and interacting through the UN. Basically what most other countries in the world are doing. If you can't get past the term isolationism, fine, it's an escalation of isolationistic principles, but in that it goes no further than to limit the foreign policy to being a concerned party to the worlds affairs, not the crooked cops.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 10, 2004, 10:35 pm

The book the article is about is an opinion piece, the article itself is not. Good job on not being able to distinguish between the two.

Oops

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 11, 2004, 2:11 am

distinguish.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » January 11, 2004, 3:17 am

Anyone who thinks this is a straight up news article is either blind or delusional.

Where is there opinion?

Opinion:

In the battle for the president's ear,

Opinion:

the manifesto represents an attempt by hawks

He doesn't even bother to put quotes on this- which would atleast give him an excuse for putting opinion into here:

Their publication, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, coincided with the latest broadside from the hawks' enemy number one, Colin Powell, the secretary of state.

Opinion:

It may be assumed

Here's the best part:

demanding regime change in Syria and Iran and a Cuba-style military blockade of North Korea backed by planning for a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear sites.

The book demands that any talks with North Korea require the complete and immediate abandonment of its nuclear programme.

As North Korea will probably refuse such terms

Not only is there opinion mixed into the second quote, it's also inconsistent with what he said in the intro of the "article"- making it clear that he misrepresented what it said at the begining to grab the reader's attention.

I'm going to stop there. This is a sorry excuse for a news article, as well as being way off base.

Before you call me a hypocrite: I've never made any of the opinion pieces I've posted out to be anything more than what they are (and from what I see neither did kyoukan with this one). I used "article" a couple of times in a generic sense but it was obvious that I wasn't thinking of it as "just the facts" (e.g. "An article I completely agree with").

But attacking it because it is decidedly slanted ignores the real point,(sort of like miir arguing semantics all the time) which is the actual memo that was published.

Does anyone know what a neocon is?

The one line definition of what they are, from a neocon:

http://www.cfr.org/pub5343/max_boot/wha ... neocon.php

Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.

If you know what a neocon is, you shouldn't at all be surprised at this publication.

Personally I agree with us having a "tough stance" against ruthless dictators and actively encouraging democracies in said nations, rather than appeasing them (which we have done for far too long) and just saying we hope they become democracies one day, but most of the things neocons such as Perle suggest are a bit too extreme and unrealistic IMO.

Zaelath wrote:Bush is stupid, and more importantly, lazy.

You don't have to look far past his academic record to prove the above points, but if you really must, look at any off-the-cuff speaking he does.

So if you look past his academic record, the fact that he isn't an eloquent speaker proves that he's stupid and lazy?

The very idea that a man can "fake" his way through being a governor, through running businesses successfully, through being president, etc, etc, etc. is completely absurd. (and yes, I've read the rantings of that fired ex-cabinet guy)

And LAZY? Have you had a look at Bush's schedule lately? Being president is so demanding it's sickening. Not to mention the rigors a candidate must go through on the campaign trail. I remember Clinton being called all sorts of names, but even Limbaugh never called him "lazy." And yes, again to pre-empt the argument that is probably forming in your mind this very second, I realize he's had several vacations at his Crawford Ranch.

Xyun wrote: I fail to see how anything in the article is misleading, untruthful, or opinionated.

Xyun wrote:You, sir, are a fucking amateur.

You, sir, are fucking clueless. Why I bother typing that I don't know. I guess I hope that, against all odds, I can spark the flames of reason that have long since been extinguished in your drug scarred brain and get some semblence of rational thought flowing.

On a side note, here's something I read the other day on the subject of journalism:

May I begin with a brief comment on journalism? Won't be too boring, I promise. A Reuters report out of Washington yesterday began, "Looking to draw more Hispanics behind his re-election bid, President Bush on Wednesday will propose a temporary worker program to help millions of immigrants work legally in the United States, officials said."

Notice that the very first words of this news report are commentary: "Looking to draw more Hispanics behind his re-election bid . . ." That is sheer speculation, or analysis, if you like. It may be perfectly correct. But it is the lead in a news item.

The next sentence begins, "Facing a possibly close election next November, Bush is reviving an issue put on hold . . ."

More commentary — in the news story of a wire service! Journalism is becoming badly degraded, when we can hardly tell the difference between straight newsies and opinionists (like me). There should be a great, great, great gulf between Reuters and Impromptus. But there is much less of one than there should be.

miir · Post by **miir** » January 11, 2004, 5:23 am

Dude, go back to jacking off to photoshopped nude pics of Ann Coulter... your inane drivel has no place here.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 11, 2004, 7:16 am

Running businesses successfully? His daddy gave him two and he ran one into the ground and got indicted in a criminal investigation in the other; of which he was guilty of and got his daddy to use his political connections to bail him out. He didn't have even close to the requirements to get into harvard on his own and floated in on a alumni basis. He pussied out of serving in vietnam when his daddy, again, used his connections to get him a pussy position in the nat'l guard. He couldn't even handle that and went AWOL for the better part of a year until his daddy had to save him from a court martial.

Most Texans are so fucking collosally moronic that they would elect a spatula as governor if it was a Bush spatula. The man was completely surrounded with people who weren't fucking stupid (non-texans) so he wouldn't fuck up. He still managed to fuck up a lot, bible thumping shithead that he is. When the GOP selected him to run for president in that shady, back room kind of way the GOP likes to do things, they actually had to import smart people into Texas and actually teach Bush about other countries like Iraq and North Korea and fucking Russia because the stupid fucking yokel only ever left Crawford or Dry Hump or whatever toilet bowl cracker yard of a town he was raised one time in his entire life, and couldn't find Europe on a fucking map. Unfortunately they got Kissinger to teach him about other countries, so the end result is Bush thinking every other country other than the USA are a bunch of christian-baby-blood-drinking monsters that need to be obliterated from the face of the planet and replaced with theme restaurants and truck dealerships.

It is a testament to how fucking woefully crappy the state of US politics is in right now that such a fucking collosal rube could get elected as a dog catcher much less president of the united states. I'm frankly amazed the US even manages a 5% voter turnout every election. The man is an alcoholic, cocaine addicted born again jesus freak who should very seriously be rotting in a federal prison right now getting ass raped twice a day by a 400 lb. black man for the absolute plethora of laws he's broken. Instead he is president and now he has your country into a financial shithole that most of you people's great grandchildren will probably still be paying off. In half a term he managed to not only completely undo all the good Clinton did improving your country's reputation, but he's made it worse than it's ever been since the vietnam war. Not that he's bright enough to do any of that by himself. It sucks to see an honestly stupid man and permanent screw up that he is being led around by the nose by people who are both smart and probably evil while terminal tools like brotha and adex just nod their heads vacantly and listen to what they're told when their favorite small word using conservative talking heads inform them that he really is a champion of conservatism; just because he is a republican.

Trias · Post by **Trias** » January 11, 2004, 2:08 pm

sponge bob says, "ok ok, what am i now?"

patrick says, "i dunno...stupid?"

sponge bob says, "nooo, Texas!"

patrick says, "same thing!"

classic sponge bob!

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » January 11, 2004, 4:25 pm

kyoukan wrote:Most Texans are so fucking collosally moronic that they would elect a spatula as governor if it was a Bush spatula. The man was completely surrounded with people who weren't fucking stupid (non-texans) so he wouldn't fuck up. He still managed to fuck up a lot, bible thumping shithead that he is....actually had to import smart people into Texas...

Wow...um...I know you qualified that with the phrase, "most Texans," but I still can't help feeling a little insulted. Texas is a more politically diverse state than most people realize. Up until fairly recently (politically speaking), Texans tended to vote overwhelmingly Democratic. The shift towards this new (i.e. Reagan forward) "moral Republicanism" has certainly taken its toll here, but then again...it has pretty much in *all* rural areas of the country - and Texas has lots of rural areas.

Plus...well... the Bush family aren't real Texans, they just ham it up for the media. They aren't from here, and they don't really belong here. A large portion of the state was actually somewhat offended when Bush Sr. claimed Texas residency for tax purposes back during his presidential campaign. They were a wealthy New England family who did a little oil and land speculation in Texas a couple of generations back and got involved in local politics. Bush Sr.'s father, Prescott, I believe...or maybe his father was the one that started it. If I recall correctly (and I may not), they didn't even live here full time until the 80's. They need to get themselves back up to Connecticut or wherever, and stop playing cowboy down here.

Also - the town that they have residency in is Midland. The ranch is in Crawford, but the houses are in Midland. Midland is perhaps the wealthiest city in Texas - it is a playground of the idle rich. Lots of oil money there. The city actually boasts the only Rolls-Royce dealer in the state (and I think in a 4-state area). It's a tiny city comprised of the super-rich of Texas...all the proles that serve them live in neighboring Odessa.

All that said, though, and as much as I dislike GW....I do have to admit that I am a big fan of Barbara Bush. Having heard her speak before, she is witty, smart, charming, and not at all as slimy as the men of the family. Different genes, I suppose.

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » January 11, 2004, 4:28 pm

and yes...Karl Rove = teh devil.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » January 11, 2004, 8:20 pm

miir wrote:Dude, go back to jacking off to photoshopped nude pics of Ann Coulter... your inane drivel has no place here.

lmao that was great

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 11, 2004, 10:05 pm

I said most texans.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » January 12, 2004, 12:11 am

brotha wrote:I guess I hope that, against all odds, I can spark the flames of reason

You couldn't spark the flames of reason with a gallon of gasoline, a hundred thousand matches, and all the glory of Hephaestus imbued in your soul you vacuous twerp. The notion of neoconservatism, as is defined by your link, is evil at it's very core. It states, in essence, that we should use our might to promote our ideals. To use might, in this context, is to create war and thereby create death. History has shown time and time again that might does not make right. Clear examples are Hitler and Stalin. But these are not good comparisons because their ideals were not noble, and ours, namely freedom and democracy, are noble. However, by killing, we are not only taking away the very thing we are trying to give, but also committing a fucking crime against humanity.

Now, granted that you elusively stated how you do not support the extremities of this philosophy, your championing of the illegal war and occupation in Iraq in the past exemplifies your blind and maybe ignorant support of this notion.

A master of logic such as yourself should easily be able to understand this concept, and since you don't, it leads me to conclude, logically I might add, that you are a dimwitted pseudo-intellectual whose mind is trapped in a prison where oxymorons are the guards and contradiction is the fucking warden. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that you failed to graduate high school, a small stepping stone in the development of the American mind, and are taking stabs at my ability to use my brain to rationalize.

It would do your character and your reputation considerable good to stop spouting and promoting barbaric and down right atrocious ideals, because they, much like you, have been tested and they, much like you, have failed.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » January 12, 2004, 2:28 am

Xyun wrote:
brotha wrote:I guess I hope that, against all odds, I can spark the flames of reason
You couldn't spark the flames of reason with a gallon of gasoline, a hundred thousand matches, and all the glory of Hephaestus imbued in your soul you vacuous twerp. The notion of neoconservatism, as is defined by your link, is evil at it's very core. It states, in essence, that we should use our might to promote our ideals. To use might, in this context, is to create war and thereby create death. History has shown time and time again that might does not make right. Clear examples are Hitler and Stalin. But these are not good comparisons because their ideals were not noble, and ours, namely freedom and democracy, are noble. However, by killing, we are not only taking away the very thing we are trying to give, but also committing a fucking crime against humanity.

Now, granted that you elusively stated how you do not support the extremities of this philosophy, your championing of the illegal war and occupation in Iraq in the past exemplifies your blind and maybe ignorant support of this notion.

A master of logic such as yourself should easily be able to understand this concept, and since you don't, it leads me to conclude, logically I might add, that you are a dimwitted pseudo-intellectual whose mind is trapped in a prison where oxymorons are the guards and contradiction is the fucking warden. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that you failed to graduate high school, a small stepping stone in the development of the American mind, and are taking stabs at my ability to use my brain to rationalize.

It would do your character and your reputation considerable good to stop spouting and promoting barbaric and down right atrocious ideals, because they, much like you, have been tested and they, much like you, have failed.

1. Your inability to recognize the opinions that are so blatantly interspersed throughout that "article" completely negate any claim (albeit slim) you may have had to being an intelligent, thinking human being.

2. I'm not going to try to defend what the neocons suggest, but your assertion that if people die it's automatically wrong is a living, breathing monument to simplistic, worthless arguments.

3. I supported the war in Iraq for several reasons (we've had this debate many times, I'm not going to re hash it). I don't agree with you that because I supported it I therefore am unwittingly buying into the entire neoconservative argument. The fact that your string of logic took you down this path shows how strenuous your grasp of it truly is.

4. I've been tested and failed? /shrug it reads well but makes no sense whatsoever. But then again, nothing you say does- so I guess within that context it actually does make sense.

5. The very fact that you have to bring up me dropping out of high school shows how weak your arguments are.

One minute you say this:

Xyun wrote:Einstein was a drop out. Drop outs cannot speak truth, nor can they contribute anything worthwhile to this world except heresay. They are quitters!!

The next this:

Xyun wrote:This conclusion is further supported by the fact that you failed to graduate high school

Couldn't you atleast get your story straight?

I could tell you the circumstances surrounding why I dropped out- none of which you have the faintest clue of. I could post my SAT scores in a dick waving contest. I could respond a variety of ways. But that might send out the false impression that I actually care about or even respect what a meaningless, nonsensical, drug addicted loser thinks of me. Better to keep my mouth shut I think.

miir · Post by **miir** » January 12, 2004, 2:38 pm

That was breathtaking, Xyun....

You couldn't spark the flames of reason with a gallon of gasoline, a hundred thousand matches, and all the glory of Hephaestus imbued in your soul

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » January 14, 2004, 9:57 pm

1. Your inability to recognize the opinions that are so blatantly interspersed throughout that "article" completely negate any claim (albeit slim) you may have had to being an intelligent, thinking human being.

I will concede that the article is slightly opinionated, yet many of the phrases you quoted as examples of opinion are hardly so. For example, you quoted the phrase "In the battle for the president's ear". How is this an opinion? There has always been, and I assume always will be, a competition between lobbyists, the press, the congress, and even advisors to influence the president's decisions. Another one of your quotes: "demanding regime change in Syria and Iran and a Cuba-style military blockade of North Korea backed by planning for a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear sites." This is a straight fact, yet you are unable to recognize it thusly. If the inability to recognize opinion as opinion is ignorant, then the inability to recognize fact as fact is a hundred times more so.

2. I'm not going to try to defend what the neocons suggest, but your assertion that if people die it's automatically wrong is a living, breathing monument to simplistic, worthless arguments.

I never made such an assertion. Your accusation is so off base and out of context that I have to assume that you are either too stupid to understand what you read, or too impotent to make a logical response and thus you resort to underhanded debate tactics such as quoting me out of context. In either case, simplicity and worthlessness rest on your side of the fence, not mine.

3. I supported the war in Iraq for several reasons (we've had this debate many times, I'm not going to re hash it). I don't agree with you that because I supported it I therefore am unwittingly buying into the entire neoconservative argument. The fact that your string of logic took you down this path shows how strenuous your grasp of it truly is.

I too would not want to rehash my arguments for supporting the war if I were a brainwashed twit who to this day, does not realize that none of those arguments were ever valid. Because you do not realize that neocon philosophy was in fact the core reason for the war exemplifies your injudicious support of it.

4. I've been tested and failed? /shrug it reads well but makes no sense whatsoever. But then again, nothing you say does- so I guess within that context it actually does make sense.

5. The very fact that you have to bring up me dropping out of high school shows how weak your arguments are.

Yes, this might be true, in the same way that your arguments are weakened when you have to bring up my recreational drug use to support them.

I believe we are all a product of our environment, and from what I know of you and your environment, namely the sheltered peon infested town of Lubbock, Texas, where you hardly have to worry about locking your door to protect your property, much less running and hiding from fanatical ruthless authorities in fear of your life or the life of your loved ones, leads me to believe you have no fucking clue about the ways of the world and how they should be dealt with. It is far too easy to sit behind a computer and spout nonsensical solutions to problems you have no experience of, it is a much different thing to have convictions that you are willing to fight and die for. I question your willingness to live and die by your convictions simply because they are so detached from reality that any man with half a brain would throw them out for the squalid garbage that they are.

I bring up your lack of education because it is plainly evident that it, combined with the lack of education of your parents and furthermore your entire community, has led you to hold such imbecilic ideals. It is no coincidence that most of the rational free thinking people on this board look upon you as a brainwashed uninformed dolt who absorbs the propaganda of this administration as if it was the god damned gospel, and nothing said here will change that. So we are inclined, or at least I am, to verbally scold you anytime you feel the need to unsuccessfully attempt to have a rational discussion.

Better to keep my mouth shut I think.

About the only sensible thing in your entire post and still you fail to live by it.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » January 14, 2004, 11:31 pm

Xyun wrote:For example, you quoted the phrase "In the battle for the president's ear". How is this an opinion? There has always been, and I assume always will be, a competition between lobbyists, the press, the congress, and even advisors to influence the president's decisions.

It may be stating the obvious but it still leans more towards analysis than straight facts imo. Regardless, it's one of many examples in the article.

Xyun wrote:Another one of your quotes: "demanding regime change in Syria and Iran and a Cuba-style military blockade of North Korea backed by planning for a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear sites." This is a straight fact, yet you are unable to recognize it thusly. If the inability to recognize opinion as opinion is ignorant, then the inability to recognize fact as fact is a hundred times more so.

Insert recycled reading comprehension flame here: __________

Here is what I said:

Brotha wrote:"
demanding regime change in Syria and Iran and a Cuba-style military blockade of North Korea backed by planning for a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear sites.

The book demands that any talks with North Korea require the complete and immediate abandonment of its nuclear programme.

As North Korea will probably refuse such terms
Not only is there opinion mixed into the second quote, it's also inconsistent with what he said in the intro of the "article"- making it clear that he misrepresented what it said at the begining to grab the reader's attention.

I KNEW I should have bolded the part of that second quote that was blatantly an opinion, but again, against all odds I gave you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you'd get it. You continue to disappoint me

.

Xyun wrote:I never made such an assertion.

Xyun wrote:But these are not good comparisons because their ideals were not noble, and ours, namely freedom and democracy, are noble. However, by killing, we are not only taking away the very thing we are trying to give, but also committing a fucking crime against humanity.

You say they aren't good comparisons, call our ideals noble, then you say "by killing, we are taking away the very thing we are trying to give." Aren't you saying that since killing happens, regime change or any other actions taken against genocial dictators is wrong by default, unless we manage to do it without killing a single person? If you don't think that then you should clarify further.

Xyun wrote:I too would not want to rehash my arguments for supporting the war if I were a brainwashed twit who to this day, does not realize that none of those arguments were ever valid. Because you do not realize that neocon philosophy was in fact the core reason for the war exemplifies your injudicious support of it.

There's not much else I can say regarding this. You obviously aren't going to get it and my benevolence towards those less fortunate than me only goes so far.

Xyun wrote:I believe we are all a product of our environment, and from what I know of you and your environment, namely the sheltered peon infested town of Lubbock, Texas, where you hardly have to worry about locking your door to protect your property, much less running and hiding from fanatical ruthless authorities in fear of your life or the life of your loved ones, leads me to believe you have no fucking clue about the ways of the world and how they should be dealt with.

If you knew a thing about Lubbock you'd know practically the only thing there is a college called Texas Tech- it's a college town dipshit. I didn't grow up in Lubbock. I was there for a year going to college, got tired of it, then transferred to Houston.

But yeah, I've never had to "hide from fanatical ruthless authorities in fear," so I guess my opinion is invalidated. You got me there man!

Xyun wrote:I bring up your lack of education because it is plainly evident that it, combined with the lack of education of your parents and furthermore your entire community, has led you to hold such imbecilic ideals. It is no coincidence that most of the rational free thinking people on this board look upon you as a brainwashed uninformed dolt who absorbs the propaganda of this administration as if it was the god damned gospel, and nothing said here will change that. So we are inclined, or at least I am, to verbally scold you anytime you feel the need to unsuccessfully attempt to have a rational discussion.

You trying to lecture me on having a rational discussion is like Hitler chastising the United States for firebombing Tokyo. Give me a fucking break. You have an irrational hatred for Bush and anyone who supports him or any of his policies- it bleeds out of every one of your bitter posts.

But by all means, if you feel like you're doing something productive with your life by throwing tantrums at me everytime I disagree with you then keep on doing it. It really doesn't bother me and makes me feel like I'm doing my part for the community by being a counselor of sorts.

Lack of education for my parents and community? What are you talking about? Oops, I forgot (in his best hick accent) "Education? Are you some color lovin yankee from up north or somethin? Here down south we don't need no stinkin education. I know how to fire my daddy's shotgun, that's all the education I need."

There, do I fit better into your stereotype of people from Texas now?

You dig yourself in deeper and deeper with every post. I would advise you to stop, but it's just too entertaining.