G
Guest
Guest
haha love the ryhme stinky5 well done..
I have a dog avatar too Mr Plow do you want it??
I have a dog avatar too Mr Plow do you want it??
- Status
not offended.
have you seen the shirts with the graphic of a girl slightly pulling down her panties and underneath the caption reads "good bush". the other pic is of dubya and it reads "bad bush"
anyone familiar with the story that was going around a while back about port arthur being a psy-op?
have you seen the shirts with the graphic of a girl slightly pulling down her panties and underneath the caption reads "good bush". the other pic is of dubya and it reads "bad bush"
anyone familiar with the story that was going around a while back about port arthur being a psy-op?
G
Guest
Guest
never heard of it
http://www.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/portarthur.html
Just found this, the story goes something like the government set him up so they could bann the guns or something. Note: I have not fully read this link yet...
Just found this, the story goes something like the government set him up so they could bann the guns or something. Note: I have not fully read this link yet...
curtisrider
Eats Squid
:shock:
Alrighty then,
First of all, don't assume that Bush has any real power or is indeed clever enough to formulate and drive the foreign policy that America now pursues.
He is in essence a figurehead for those in his inner circle, (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Woflowitz in particular) who are some of the most powerful, influential and committed ideologues in the neo-conservative movement, many of whom also developed and drove the foreign policy of Bush Sr when he was in power.
Neo-Conservatism is the new-wave of ultra-right, isolationist, might=right, call-it-what-you-will, political thinking.
It supports the notion of pre-emptive war and the establishment of a single, or group of, "bad guys" against whom America (or whomever is in power) can pursue war in order to unite public opinion in support of a single, semi-authoritarian leader. In this respect, it IS similar to nazism in many ways, it just hasn't yet had the chance to kill as many people as the nazi movement did.
Neo-conservatives also hold great admiration for and have indeed worked closely with Israels' ruling political party, the Likud. In particular the neo-cons view Israels occupation and subjugation of Palestine as necessary and right and object strongly to the notion that Israel should participate in a peace process.
Think I'm kidding? Do some reading on neo-conservative theory, I reccommend reading Richard Perle, and Michael Leeden for some contemporary neo-con theory and Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz to understand it's origins.
Leeden in particular is a driving force between the ideology of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and basically believes that violence in the service of the spread of democracy is America's manifest destiny. As such, Leeden provides the philosophical justification for the war on Iraq.
When you're done reading, ask yourself this, what will we do when China decides that pre-emptive war, having been endorsed by the United States, is an acceptable means of conducting a nations foreign policy?
Also, don't blame Bush Jr for the sanctions that killed half a million Iraqis, his Dad and Bill Clinton are equally to blame for that. Blame him instead for the thousands of civilian deaths in Afghanistan in his other failed "catch the bad guy" war and blame him for the total breakdown of law and order in both Iraq and Afghanistan as he's pretty good at winning wars, but terrible at winning peace.
Not even the most left wing of us could argue that world isn't a better place without Saddam Hussein, but I doubt even the most right wing among you could argue that world is a better place for having been drawn into a war based on bare-faced lies. If you can argue that, Machiavelli would have been proud of you.
Want to know more? Check out Disinfopedia's entries on The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), scroll on down and check out the 25 founding members of this neo-con think tank. Also check out the entry on Neo-conservatives.
</rant>
First of all, don't assume that Bush has any real power or is indeed clever enough to formulate and drive the foreign policy that America now pursues.
He is in essence a figurehead for those in his inner circle, (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Woflowitz in particular) who are some of the most powerful, influential and committed ideologues in the neo-conservative movement, many of whom also developed and drove the foreign policy of Bush Sr when he was in power.
Neo-Conservatism is the new-wave of ultra-right, isolationist, might=right, call-it-what-you-will, political thinking.
It supports the notion of pre-emptive war and the establishment of a single, or group of, "bad guys" against whom America (or whomever is in power) can pursue war in order to unite public opinion in support of a single, semi-authoritarian leader. In this respect, it IS similar to nazism in many ways, it just hasn't yet had the chance to kill as many people as the nazi movement did.
Neo-conservatives also hold great admiration for and have indeed worked closely with Israels' ruling political party, the Likud. In particular the neo-cons view Israels occupation and subjugation of Palestine as necessary and right and object strongly to the notion that Israel should participate in a peace process.
Think I'm kidding? Do some reading on neo-conservative theory, I reccommend reading Richard Perle, and Michael Leeden for some contemporary neo-con theory and Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz to understand it's origins.
Leeden in particular is a driving force between the ideology of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and basically believes that violence in the service of the spread of democracy is America's manifest destiny. As such, Leeden provides the philosophical justification for the war on Iraq.
When you're done reading, ask yourself this, what will we do when China decides that pre-emptive war, having been endorsed by the United States, is an acceptable means of conducting a nations foreign policy?
Also, don't blame Bush Jr for the sanctions that killed half a million Iraqis, his Dad and Bill Clinton are equally to blame for that. Blame him instead for the thousands of civilian deaths in Afghanistan in his other failed "catch the bad guy" war and blame him for the total breakdown of law and order in both Iraq and Afghanistan as he's pretty good at winning wars, but terrible at winning peace.
Not even the most left wing of us could argue that world isn't a better place without Saddam Hussein, but I doubt even the most right wing among you could argue that world is a better place for having been drawn into a war based on bare-faced lies. If you can argue that, Machiavelli would have been proud of you.
Want to know more? Check out Disinfopedia's entries on The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), scroll on down and check out the 25 founding members of this neo-con think tank. Also check out the entry on Neo-conservatives.
</rant>
interesting point(s).
it's also interesting to note that after what was a publicity nightmare for bush in afganistan (since the U.S. totaly failed to capture about 90% of the so called masterminds of terror) he/they immeadeatly followed up with the axis of terror.
within a month of publicly failing in afganistan, every one had forgoten who they were hunting in favour of invading saddam.
at last count bush, and those who support him, are well on the way to killing more americans than the attack of sept 11.
before anyone jumps up and down about downplaying the world trade center attacks, bear two things in mind.
first is the fact that on at least 3 occasions now, bush (and those advising him, but lets say bush for ease for typing) has activly used tainted intel to push forward with plans that he didn't want stopped. the missing weapons and possibly non-existent plutonium deal are only the latest, not biggest.
second is the fact that the group pushing this course of action is activly working to involve as many countries as possible as this greatly increases the public perception that what is happening is right. remember that what 1 person does might be wrong, but that what 100 people do can sometimes be seen as aceptable.
i guess the other thing is that we will never know what happened, why, and how.
i do belive that what was/is now needed in the countries that america has finished with is a damn good police force, not an occupying army. unfortunatly, most of the countries involved can't muster a enough cops to police home, let alone any other country.
and yes, i do understand the american publics (and the worlds) need to see something done, as i lost a close freind in the attacks on the trade center. i just don't think that it should have been used as an excuse for an extended world tour by U.S. military.
it's also interesting to note that after what was a publicity nightmare for bush in afganistan (since the U.S. totaly failed to capture about 90% of the so called masterminds of terror) he/they immeadeatly followed up with the axis of terror.
within a month of publicly failing in afganistan, every one had forgoten who they were hunting in favour of invading saddam.
at last count bush, and those who support him, are well on the way to killing more americans than the attack of sept 11.
before anyone jumps up and down about downplaying the world trade center attacks, bear two things in mind.
first is the fact that on at least 3 occasions now, bush (and those advising him, but lets say bush for ease for typing) has activly used tainted intel to push forward with plans that he didn't want stopped. the missing weapons and possibly non-existent plutonium deal are only the latest, not biggest.
second is the fact that the group pushing this course of action is activly working to involve as many countries as possible as this greatly increases the public perception that what is happening is right. remember that what 1 person does might be wrong, but that what 100 people do can sometimes be seen as aceptable.
i guess the other thing is that we will never know what happened, why, and how.
i do belive that what was/is now needed in the countries that america has finished with is a damn good police force, not an occupying army. unfortunatly, most of the countries involved can't muster a enough cops to police home, let alone any other country.
and yes, i do understand the american publics (and the worlds) need to see something done, as i lost a close freind in the attacks on the trade center. i just don't think that it should have been used as an excuse for an extended world tour by U.S. military.
No he hasn't set out to rid the world of an entire race, but the ideologies of the neo-con and the nazi are frighteningly similar when compared head to head.
Both had the desire to create a master civilisation, the nazis wanted a unified, Aryan Europe, the Neo-cons want imposed democracy (now there's an oxymoron) wherever democracy doesn't exist now. Both supported pre-emptive war to achieve this master aim, yes, the nazis were pursuing pre-emptive war when invading Europe.
Both believe the people must see a clear cut, black and white "bad guy", the nazis had the jews, the U.S. have terrorists and 'rogue states'. Both believe the establishment of this bad guy will/would unite public support behind a semi-authoritarian leader.
Both supported the 're-armament' of already militarily powerful nations and used their desire to see their master plan carried out as well as the threat of 'bad guys' to achieve this goal. (Though in the case of the U.S. the desire for re-armament could be equally due to the fact that top officials in the administration have worked for some of the worlds biggest military hardware companies).
It's really crazy, chilling stuff to read some of this neo-conservative ideology and I strongly suggest you check out some of the authors from my earlier post if you want to see just how fucked up these people are.
Both had the desire to create a master civilisation, the nazis wanted a unified, Aryan Europe, the Neo-cons want imposed democracy (now there's an oxymoron) wherever democracy doesn't exist now. Both supported pre-emptive war to achieve this master aim, yes, the nazis were pursuing pre-emptive war when invading Europe.
Both believe the people must see a clear cut, black and white "bad guy", the nazis had the jews, the U.S. have terrorists and 'rogue states'. Both believe the establishment of this bad guy will/would unite public support behind a semi-authoritarian leader.
Both supported the 're-armament' of already militarily powerful nations and used their desire to see their master plan carried out as well as the threat of 'bad guys' to achieve this goal. (Though in the case of the U.S. the desire for re-armament could be equally due to the fact that top officials in the administration have worked for some of the worlds biggest military hardware companies).
It's really crazy, chilling stuff to read some of this neo-conservative ideology and I strongly suggest you check out some of the authors from my earlier post if you want to see just how fucked up these people are.
G
Guest
Guest
yeah amusing. but people dont think so and made a big deal out of it
G
Guest
Guest
no i wasnt wombat. Being the "the use of "nazi"" thread i thought id ask before id use it
G
Guest
Guest
think what you want. i used it becuz it was funny
- Status