Aren't you Americans extremely angry?

Dear Seekerof:

Nostradamus? That charlatan medieval quack? I don’t think so. Superstitious I’m not. No, it’s purely me that’s speculating here. Albeit it’s a highly “educated” guess. We’ll just have to wait and see what actually happens.

I never said that Clinton or the Democrats were “tree-huggers”. I guess I was referring to myself when I used that term because I view it as synonymous to the word liberal. But that was a mistake. In normal language use, both words, liberal and conservative are positives for me. But when applied to politics it’s a whole different ball of wax. Both parties, Republican and Democrat use these normally useful words to label one another negatively.

Bill Clinton and his opportunistic wife are both sleazebags. So, as far as I’m concerned both parties, Republican and Democrat behave — nearly — the same once in office. E. g. Charlie Rangel and Nancy Pelosi just blasted Hugo Chavez for his anti-Bush comments. I thought that was a little “odd”.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Nostradamus? That charlatan medieval quack? I don’t think so. Superstitious I’m not. No, it’s purely me that’s speculating here. Albeit it’s a highly “educated” guess. We’ll just have to wait and see what actually happens.

An "educated guess" is nothing but a PC whitewashing of 'prediction' or 'prophecy', maybe even 'fortune-telling.' But yeah, we can all wait and see on this situation. Crystal balls not required.

I never said that Clinton or the Democrats were “tree-huggers”.

I concur. No you did not. I did.

I guess I was referring to myself when I used that term because I view it as synonymous to the word liberal.

In most conventional circles, it is synonymous, along with 'peacenik', etc., but even though you might be liberal in your views, I do not necessarily see you as a "treehugger."

In normal language use, both words, liberal and conservative are positives for me. But when applied to politics it’s a whole different ball of wax. Both parties, Republican and Democrat use these normally useful words to label one another negatively.

Agreed.

Bill Clinton and his opportunistic wife are both sleazebags.

Shhhhh, not too loud. Better edit that out real quick.

So, as far as I’m concerned both parties, Republican and Democrat behave — nearly — the same once in office. E. g. Charlie Rangel and Nancy Pelosi just blasted Hugo Chavez for his anti-Bush comments. I thought that was a little “odd”.

Nah, not odd.
I saw it as a 'family' thing--ie: I can bash my family, dog, or car, but you cannot or I can do what I want in my house but god forbid if you come into my house and do likewise.
"House" = the US
"Family, dog, and car"= Bush
In house "bash" = Rangel and Pelosi, etc.
Outside coming into "my house" = Chavez

I hope you understood what I am getting at.

[edit on 7-10-2006 by Seekerof]

Infortunately, your "house" is being eaten away by old house bores right under your nose.

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree

Infortunately, your "house" is being eaten away by old house bores right under your nose.

Yo....it is spelled unfortuantely.
You pulled such from the Liberal Dictionary?

Great to read through all the comments. In particular those of our right wing forum members. I've noticed that they hardly ever back up their loose statements with any evidence.

No matter what Putin or al Gore said have said in the days prior to the invasion of Iraq, it is the Bush Administration that was in power, they should have taken responsibility for this failure, not Al Gore or Vladimir Putin.

The evidence on the question of whether the former Iraqi Regime did possess Weapons of Mass Destruction or not should have been of crucial importance to decide whether a country should be (pre emptively) invaded.

Who was responsible for providing this evidence. The United Nationed, under command of Hans Blix. Read the following source carefully

The United Nations chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, tried yesterday to forestall war by offering his most positive assessment yet of Iraqi disarmament. Although he is supposed to have a neutral, civil servant role, providing objective facts, he tried to secure more time for his inspection teams and delay the onset of conflict, in direct opposition to the US-British rush towards war.

He stressed that Iraq had made "substantial" progress in destroying the Samoud 2 missiles, that no evidence had been found of biological and chemical weapons and that some documentation, apparently of limited value, had been handed over by Iraq.

...


He [Blix] added pointedly: "We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks - lethal weapons are being destroyed."

Mr Blix said that while at first resisting the destruction of the missiles, Iraq had now accepted that they should be destroyed.

Mr Blix said that he had found no evidence yet of hidden arsenals of VX nerve gas in spite of using radar to search for underground arsenals.

Andy Oppenheimer, a specialist in nuclear, biological and chemical weapons at Jane's Terrorism and Security Monitor, said: "They have not found a smoking gun.

British and US intelligence agencies say they have provided Mr Blix and his team with valuable information - including the existence of the Samoud 2 missiles - which, they say, would not have been discovered or admitted to by the Iraqis without their help.

Mr Blix yesterday made no reference to this. Instead, he questioned the value of the intelligence provided to him. He said inspectors had been unable to verify some claims about hidden Iraqi weapons and he asked again for more information about suspect sites. He referred to "intelligence claims" about mobile biological weapons laboratories. He said his inspectors had found mobile food testing and seed processing equipment but no evidence of proscribed activities.

The strongest attacks on British and US intelligence came from Mohamed El Baradei, head of the UN's international atomic energy authority. He said that suspect aluminium tubes were not destined for equipment that could be used to refine uranium for nuclear weapons use.

The Guardian UK

I refrain from personal attacks myself, though I'd suggest the few among us who felt it necessery to make dirty insinuations such as ''you are an Anti-American'', to back their statements up with evidence (I do not mean Fox News). rather than making loose statements like this.

One person stated a link to a google search, the site that came up on top of the list was called the Right Wing News stating the following article: If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People

However, does it matter what others say? No, because they are not in power, they did not make the decision of going at war. In addition, the propaganda and lies that have been used made people really think Saddam formed a threat to Western civilization. Personally, I find it pretty childish to suggest that because ''other said so, so we can say the same'', that's how most of used to act in elementary school.

In response to my point above, it has become crystal clear that the Bush Administration and the British government did want to begin a war. If not, they would have certainly tried to do everything to prevent it from escalating.

Blix strongly stressed the need for more time. Which governments did not want to give him the requested time, even when progression was already made and the Iraqi regime seemed to be cooperating? The US administration and the British government. In contrast, many other countries did want to give the UN inspectors more time, all in order to prevent it from becoming a war.

To answer the question of backing up my statement of US soldiers going to war unprotected or not well protected I've stated two sources here.

February 2003, (CBS) Twelve years after chemical and biological weapons were discovered in Iraq’s arsenal during the Gulf War, U.S. forces massing for a possible attack on Iraq are still not properly prepared to encounter such weapons.

Politicians, current and former military members and even Congress’s own General Accounting Office tell Mike Wallace that American soldiers do not have enough training or equipment needed to survive a chemical or biological attack.

CBS News

and:

The chem-bio masks and overgarments issued to line troops, the Army warns in a new handbook hastily developed for field commanders, are not sufficient to protect against intense concentrations of contaminants that could be encountered in a chemical or biological research or storage facility.

Source

This brings us to the following point, or the Bush Administration did not care about its troops, which I find a ridiculous thought, or the Bush Administration did not expect its troops to be attacked by chemical and biological weapons.

I read another comment from someone who said: ''we have the cajones to stand up to ruthless dictators and smack them down in the dirt'' People who are in the believe that the US led coalition went to Iraq for liberating the Iraqi people should really educate themselves. As I mentioned earlier on, in Darfur, Somalia and other places are Arabian militants killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians. That's where our armed forces could do some great work. Or the rogue state of North Korea, which forms an actual threat to the US (and others).

Furthermore, the situation has not been improved. Let me remember you of the statement Mel Gibson made in the Patriot on the war of independence: Why should I agree to trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? Have you heard of how many people are currently being tortured again in Iraq? Have you heard how many Iraq veterans are now opposing the war? There should be a reason for it, don't you think?

New York. The war in Iraq has resulted in a whole new generation of Islamist radicals and in an increased level of terrorism threat which is higher than it was on September 11th 2001, New York Times newspaper reads today.
These conclusions are part of a secret report of the US Special Services which was drafted in April 2006. The report is the first official assessment of global terrorism the US Secret Services have made since the beginning of the war in Iraq, the newspaper notes.

NY Times.

The bottom line is in my opionion that those who are responsible should take their responsiblity not blame others. That the war is based on an unjustifiable claim, and finally, that the invasion of Iraq increased the terrorism threat.

[edit on 7-10-2006 by Mdv2]

Originally posted by Mdv2

I've been thinking about this for a while, why has the American people not been pressing for the resignation of the government?

you want the answer?

most americans dont feel the same way you do....your views are in fact are of a minority in the US....thats why when people of your ilk made the last election into a pro-war vs anti-war campaign...anti-war people lost.

the problem was...kerry wouldnt take a stand....bush took an aggressive stand. yet the supporters of the democratic party made it into an anti-war campaign.

its good to be open to all options....but dont be so flexible that when ever the wind blows, you tell people what they want to hear. Thats a mistake....

...but dont make everything an absolute either....find the middle ground.

WMD, Nulear Weapons, Dictatorships, Democracy. We see the same things bandied around all the time as reasons for Iraq, but Iraq is the place Our Governments have gone into; why?

Zimbabwe: Surely as bad a dictatorship as any. (Yes I know they had elections, that doesn't mean it isn't a dictatorship).

N.Korea: don't see the troops going in there do we?

Saudi Arabia: The place is even named after the Absolute Rulers there, but is anyone planning an invasion?

Haiti: That country just scares me, I simply cannot imagine daily life there. But I don't see an Amphibious assult taking place do I?

Cuba: Being going a long time, no troops though.

etc etc

Why Iraq? There must be more reason. (Please there must be!)

Conservatives (Republicans) and Labour (Democrats) there is a third sizeable party here The Liberals, but no one seems to take them seriously, they keep up a fight though. If neither of these seems to be any better than the the other, as many posters say, then how does it get changed? New US laws would tend to stop any open dissent, in the UK open dissent would get you arrested on an incitement brief.

What can we do? All here seem to be in the same boat, wanting things to be different, but unable to openly express how that can come about. How have our worlds come to this? Citizens (which is the answer to one of my earlier questions) in the modern world are so out of the loop in Politics, there is no real discussion.
Everyone I speak too says the best solution to crime here is to actually make prison a horrible place to be and make criminals serve ALL their sentence (no parole). The "Youth of today" are indisciplined, rude and stupid, and think nothing, it seems, of killing those who try and make a stand. But Politicians say there must be another cause and set up a committee to find out what it is.

Rambling, I know, but the Original Poster wanted to know if Americans were angry, well I am, it seems we all are. Frustration seems to be a major player here. We don't know Why things are this way, we don't really understand Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran etc. We want to know, but it seems we are frustrated at every turn by politicians and lobbyists and big money.

Frustration. Makes us all angry.

Pete

I'd just like to add, it's often quoted to people who support the war that we were lied to about WMD. Well, for me anyway, that was just one aspect. I don't personnally care whether he had a nuclear bomb or an air pistol, i'd still support the war.

I also don't buy into the idea that because we haven't acted in other couintries (yet) then we shouldn't have acted here. It implies that unless we act against all dictatorial countries then we shouldn't act against some. You've got to start somewhere.

Aren't you Americans extremely angry?

Yes, but more due to the fact that during the last election, I learned what we all suspected back in 2000....that our votes no longer seem to count. I watched as nearly every person in my polling place was wearing a non-Bush sticker, and yet somehow he carried my district.

As for the war, I agreed, and still do, that Saddam needed to go...but not for the reasons publicly stated. He was more of a wild card threat to our economy than any threat of WMD's (which he did have, he simply had about a month to ship them out unimpeded...so duh, of course no finding of them, just like he shipped out jets, etc. to Syria, Iran or simply buried them in the sand). Those familiar with international currency, oil markets, OPEC, reserve currencies, etc. will know what I mean by economic threat.

What really burns me is that it doesn't seem that our military leaders understand one thing about guerilla warfare. The ONLY way to fight a guerilla war successfully is to win support of the populace. It's a PR war, not a tactical one. That's it. There is no other way. If the people in large don't want you there, you can spend resources from an endless coffer, and STILL not succeed. Seems we have failed miserably here, and the best thing to do is just walk away and let them choose their own leaders. If it's another warlord...well, they can live with the consequences, imho.... My suggestion is an independent, and mass-sweeping poll, "Do you want the US out?". If the answer is yes, then there you go...pick up and leave, and any fallout was simply chosen by the majority.

Originally posted by tsloan

Talking points? This sounds like the sewage spit from that fat @$$ child molesting supporter Rush...I would back up before defending anyone with a (D) or (R) beside their names...Cause as far as I know the (D) and (R)'s of this "GRAND" political system and the people who just fall in line to support them no matter how corrupt they KNOW the person is are the ones responsible for the shape this country is in.

Another typical inflamatory emotionally charged remark from a liberal.

Look what I don't see a lot of is a clear cut plan for a solution to the problems liberals are so comfortable to complain about. If you don't like this country you have 2 options in my opinion.

1) Be a part of a solution with a plan of action.

2) Get out.

Oh and by the way tsloan, before telling someone to "back up" be prepared to "step up."

Funny that your only argument has to ridicule me for an obviously typing error late at night.

As far as I'm concerned, you are nothing more than a poorly informed neo-con loving troll.

Every time anyone here presents a valid point against your opinion.
your automated response is to resort to simplistic regurgitations of "YOU LIBERALS!"

You refuse to acknowledge any possibility that many of us are patriots who are deeply concerned
about what is happening to our country.

I do my best to refrain from personal attacks, but you made it personal.

What you don't seem to grasp, is that your posts here give everyone the impression that you
are nothing more than a misguided ignorant fool.

Originally posted by Gazrok

Yes, but more due to the fact that during the last election, I learned what we all suspected back in 2000....that our votes no longer seem to count. I watched as nearly every person in my polling place was wearing a non-Bush sticker, and yet somehow he carried my district.

You hit that one right on the head. I have never witnessed such an uprising against a president before. I told my wife "it doesnt matter what the people think, they are going to steal the eletion again" but when they did steal it, I felt this overwelming dread. I thought I was ready for it but I wasnt. I didnt want Kerry in either, I really feel they are both run by big corporate.

We never even tried to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, we just bludgeoned the place with military might. Now we have a military foothold in a very hostile land.

I have to address something else, something seekerof said. "Treehuggers" as if that is a bad word. How do you twist your logic into believing that it is somehow a bad thing to try and support the ecology? Especially trees, our main source of oxygen! It is so warped that some people take the corporate POV and not want to support something that supports your ability to breathe! Most of the trees cut go to paper products, like toilet paper, paper towels and of course reams of printing/writing paper. All of which an be replaced with hemp paper that will renew 3 times per season. As opposed to 20 to one hundred years. Just a prime example of letting the corporations dictate your reality.

Are we as a species going to wake up in time to save ourselves? Be a critical thinker, if your political veiw has to be left or right no matter what the result, then you are warping reality to fit your ideal. Why are some of you so inflexible in your thinking? If the republicans were supporting less government control, and making sure the Fed stays out of each states business and is not globe trotting its military around the world for power, then they are being what they claim to be. They are not though, they have become politcally liberal. A neo-con is a liberal!

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

you want the answer?

most americans dont feel the same way you do....your views are in fact are of a minority in the US....thats why when people of your ilk made the last election into a pro-war vs anti-war campaign...anti-war people lost.

Only if you question your christain friends at church.

By the way, Yoda (the little guy in your avatar) was an intellectual, spiritual liberal witch!

Go Yoda!

Yes, I am an angry American. Some one posted the Alex Jones's InfoWars.com wasn't a credible news site. Where the hell have you been? He's reported for years about the corruption within both major parties including the the use of male prostitutes by some members of Congress,both the Clinton and Bush Administrations as well as many so called civic leaders. The mainstream press belittled these reports. Now just before what appears to be a critical election they decide that they going to out a NeoCon Republican? Please spare me! All the major news networks are losing their already thin crediblity to folks like Alex Jones who report the facts and not fluff like who's Anna Nicole Smith's bastard child's father is or Paris Hilton getting a DUI. That's all tabloid crap better left for the checkout aisle at the supermarket. These guys(CNN,FOX, et al) are out to sell you a product and once you've bought it, they could care less if you're satisfied, they're there to make money and would rather entertain you than inform you.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Only if you question your christain friends at church.

By the way, Yoda (the little guy in your avatar) was an intellectual, spiritual liberal witch!

Go Yoda!

Haha, right on the button

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

Are you kidding me? The last thing to go is your freedom of speech! What kind of American are you? The constitution of the United States has been torn apart and rewritten, our bill of rights are being rewritten and you as an American should be damned mad!! Anything less makes you un-American!

I am not kidding, and you are proving with your statement that "you have not lost your freedom of speech".....

Claiming that i am anti-American because I am stating my opinion does not prove your point...

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Yeah right, the only thing this nation has to fear buddy, is fear itself. So why would our government promote fear, and not ignore it? Terrorism does no good without making you people fearful. So why is our government instilling fear in our people? You tell me how they are going to take our freedom? Tell me. You cant, the only way our freedom can be taken is by our government. You think we are so weak that anyone else can take our freedom? Explain how the terrorists can do it.

Could you tell us how is the "government of the U.S. instilling fear"?....

If there is no freedom of speech why is it that you are not in jail right now because of "your opinions"?...


How can terrorists take freedom?.... Look at what happened in Spain...El Partido Popular is the party system in Spain that most spaniards vote for, yet because of the attacks in Madrid many people changed their votes because they were afraid and though that going along with the demands of the terrorists was going to make them safer.... They soon found out that the terrorists were not to keep their words as they continued trying to make terrorist attacks in Spain.

The Islamic terrorists are the ones using fear trying to change people's opinions, not the governments.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Dear Seekerof:

Precisely my point. The fact that we get NO oil from Iran as you say is about to change. Pretty soon we’ll be getting ALL their oil — for free! Ain’t that grand?

Really?... I hear some people claim that the coalition invaded Iraqi for the oil but where is the oil?... Where are the oil tankers coming from Iraq taking all the oil away from Iraq?....

Do you even know how much money people in Iraq pay for oil?.... do you know why they "pay akmost nothing for that oil which is extracted in Iraq"?....

Now people are once again claiming the coalition is going after Iran for oil, who cares if the Iranian regime has threatened the U.S., Israel and other western nations?.... Who cares if they lied for almost 20 years about their nuclear research?.... They are telling the truth now and they only want the technology for peaceful purposes right?... i mean even senior clerics in Iran have given a new fatwa stating that it is alright for Iran to have nucelar weapons and to use them if the whole world has them....

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2006/02/19/wiran19.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/19/ixnewstop.html

They only want the technology for peaceful purposes....

Oh and who is to forget, now North Korea is threatening to use nuclear weapons for testing and most of the world is trying to stop them... i guess NK also has tons of oil and the western powers are going after it for it huh?...

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree

If you are not OUTRAGED by what this administration has done, then you either have a vested interest
in war profiteering, or you suffer greatly from ignorance in it's most dangerous form.

Actually the ignorance seems to come from those who, like yourself make claims such as...

"Oh, if you disagree with my opinions you are profiteering from the war or are ignorant".....

Please don't try to call others ignorant when "you" make such an unfounded and "ignorant" claim.....

Originally posted by Muaddib
How can terrorists take freedom?....

By scaring the US into doing it, or at least the US using them as an excuse to do it.

Examples...Patriot Act, Signing Statements, Terror Alert System, Extraordinary Renditions, International and Domestic Spy Programs, Redefining or Ignoring International Laws and Treaties, Silencing Whistleblowers/Dissidents, etc. etc.

This government is all too often willing to trade little bits of freedom here and there for "security."

[edit on 7-10-2006 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by Hal9000
Muaddib, not to pick on you, but you certainly seem like someone with a conflict of interest.

Really?.... How is that?....

Originally posted by Hal9000
What do you think is the “agenda of the left” is? Do you think their agenda is to bring this country down? Or is it to keep it from falling down. I don’t consider myself of the far left, but I like to consider myself a free thinker. It is my opinion that the current administration and this war in Iraq that will lead to our downfall.

It is my opinion that it is people like yourself who keep making claims that "leaving alone Islamic terrorists is going to make everything better in Iraq and the whole world".... That is what will bring the downfall of the U.S. and the world to submit to Sharia law/Islamic extremism...

Originally posted by Hal9000
I have to wonder when I read your post then in your signature you have…
...............
This sounds more like a free thinking liberal comment, yet you are supporting the corporate aggression that is this war? With all due respect, it sounds like you have some issues to resolve.

it actually sounds like what the coalition is doing, or trying to do... The coalition ousted Saddam who was a butcher and killed many of his own people and the coalition is in Iraq fighting against inrugents and terrorists who are trying to take control of Iraq... Iraqis in the northern and southern regions of Iraq, which is where most Iraqis live btw but for some reason those from the left never tell you this, are living in relative peace and they are still thanking the coalition for what they did....

The quote doesn't say "let's allow atrocities to happen".....in fact it is stating that something must be done, sometimes this "something" means war. War is not pretty and it also brings suffering, but as the quote say I'll rather try something than "not do anything "...

Originally posted by Hal9000
Let’s face it folks, we are doing more damage to ourselves than any terrorist can do, all because of this stupid war. You can go along and support it if you wish, but I guarantee you it was not for anything as noble as defending ourselves or spreading democracy or what ever.

You and others who think like you have to face the fact that "leaving terrorists alone" is not going to make the problem go away, otherwise 9/11 would have never happened, or the attacks in Britain or the attacks in Madrid, among the hundreds of attacks which are happening all over the world.

You let Islamic extremism run rampart and soon enough there will be more genocides like what has been happening in Sudan where over 2.5 million people have been exterminated by Islamic extremism and millions more have been displaced since 1983...

BTW, you can have your own opinion but it is still your opinion, as mine is only my opinion.

I am waiting to see what kind of evidence you come up with which proves that I am getting anything from the war in Iraq...

[edit on 7-10-2006 by Muaddib]