Ahmadinejad "The U.S needs freedom most of all!"

No body openly supported Saddam, firstly. Second of all, America had no right to enter Iraq! It was a war for oil, it had nothing to do with WMD's or Saddam being a dictator; and it's funny how ignorant Americans LOVE the fact that we took out one evil dictator, but we pay other dictators a bunch of money just for going along with Americas agenda.

In fact, we live in a country who kills Democratically elected officials of other countries and REPLACE them with dictators who rape and kill... So who really deserves to be hanged?

 

According to who? Who gets to determine such rights?

Which is why we replaced Saddam with another more pliant dicta...er...wait a minute...

 

Umm yeah its called world politics and everybody does what is in their best interest.
And how much oil did we steal? please quantify the amount we stole in the Iraq War for "oil" and your units

 

Our Constitution determines which war is justified and it says if a country is not a direct treat to the USA, we have no right to attack them (paraphrazing)

I'm not talking about Iraq, but Iran in the 1970's, our CIA assasinated a democratically elected leader and replaced him with the Shah (a dictator who raped and killed his people)

I obviously don't have an exact number.. However, I've talked to recruiters before, who told me, "I can get in a lot of trouble for saying this, but the war in Iraq, is JUST about the oil."

Why do you think so many of our soldeirs come home with PTSD? or why we lose more soldiers to suicide than in active combat? I'm sure they're not as convinced as you are, that these wars are "justified"

 

The answer is not a single solitary drop of oil was ever stolen from Iraq. This proves as a fact it was not a war of oil.

The war was approved by congress and came to fruition by the votes of liberal democrats who viewed the same intelligence as the President and came to the same conclusion that nearly the entire planet did. Iraqi WMDs were a real and present threat.
That being said your argument does have weight in the fact that the war was legally over the second it was shown there was no threat. However due to the power vacuum the inital military action created leaving would have made the situation even worse. It was not a war over oil, it was however a significant error in intelligence caused indirectly by Saddam himself contributing to the illusion Iraq was in posession of WMDs.

 

I'm not going anywhere,seeing all the bums go hungry while those of my type hunt for a living in the NEW US thrills me.The US is going down,and I love it.

 

And when it does go down, just about every single "problem" liberals think they have to fix, will intensify.

There is something satisfying about knowing that.

 

Um...who should get to determine if a country is a threat to us or not? Annonymous users named "the13thfloor" or elected representatives?

Which they should not have. But that was decades ago. Now we are doing the opposite of that, and you are still complaining.

LOL! uh huh

It does not matter what they think...they agreed to a contract. The contract did not say "you only have to obey orders you agree with". No one forced them into the military. Some of them actually lied to get in.

If you do not want to be bound to the terms of service, DO NOT GO INTO THE MILITARY. That does not seem hard to understand to me. Military service is 100% voluntary today.

 

You know when a country is a threat to your national soveignty; when they ATTACK you or threaten to attack you.

Anyone with half a brain knows the same rich entities which were in charge then, are still in charge now. The Vietnam war was decades ago, as was America putting the Japs in Concentration camps; It's as though you're saying "Ahh screw history! Nothing in history ever happens TWICE..."

Actually, more often than the soldiers lying, the recruiters LIE! They'll assure you you'll have a house,car and, all the fine women, but first you have to sign on the dotted line and fight a BS war! Btw, what do you think happens with oil prices when we go into war with any oil rich country? Speculation causes them to skyrocket! Bush, (an oil man,) probably loved doubling the value of his families business due to brain-dead Americans being afraid of every Muslim they see!

See, you have the mentality that's portrayed in Orwell's book "1984," and it goes something like "War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is strength."

Whereas I'm more of the mentality of "The freedom of speech is the freedom to say 2+2=4" But if Big Brother said "2+2=5" People like you would swallow it whole, and never give it a second thought.

 

You did not answer my question. You just gave your personal opinion on when you personally think something is a threat. That is not what I asked.

I asked who should get the Final Say as to when something is a threat.

So you will forever hold that over America's head, no matter what we do? Is that what you're saying?

Then it is your job as an adult to verify what they say before signing a contract.

You should not need a babysitter if you are a grown man. It is your job to know what you are signing and why.

Bush did not have the final say. Congress could override him at any time. Bush did not elect himself into power the 2nd term...the American masses decided to re-elect him.

The President is not a king.

LOL

You have the mentality that nothing is ever your own fault. And no one else is ever responsible for their own actions.

 

Well, the president and Congress are supposed to have the Final Say, although that's been utterly useless now, hasn't it? Do you know what "evidence" the congress went off to attack Iraq? Water purifying trains purchased from Great Brittan! Then people wonder why Muslims in these Middle Eastern Countries hate us! It's not because we slaughter innocent civilians while at the same time pushing this "fighting for your freedom" propaganda, no! They hate us ONLY because we are free and prosperous, and it is their lives goal to kill Americans just so no Country ever advances. Right? Well, that's what the Government would have one believe.

Woah! You're acting this is the only corrupt thing our government has ever done! Yeah, I guess it's better for your argument NOT to mention warrantless wire-tapping, spying on citizens, Genocide, lying to get us into war and, even "Proposed A Top Secret plan from 1962 stating intent among the Joint Chiefs of Staff to stage terrorist attacks, including killing innocent civilians, to provoke war with Cuba." These documents were recently Declassified, look up "Operation Northwoods"

Our Government is corrupted to the core and most of them should be tried for High Treason, and kicked out of office!

I don't sign anything without reading it, that's why I didn't join the Army! But about the president not being a "king" well if that's the case, the citizenry should rise up and demand a repeal to the Patriot Act, the NDAA2012-2013, HR 347 and, CISPA! And further demand an immediate renstatement of the posse comitatus act, which has been violated by the declaration of Martial Law by Obama, during Hurricane Sandy in parts of NY and NJ.

LOL- How would any of this be MY fault? I'm 24 years old! I was 12 during 9/11! Y'all should've been questioning the government immediately! It's so funny to me that both Bush and Obama have warned the public not to "Give in to any CRAZY conspiracy theories;" they'd hate for people to actually think

 

Why? Do you disagree they should have the final say?

If so...who exactly should?

Again, this is merely your opinion. And unless you are suggesting that you personally should get to override the majority, this is irrelevant.

The fact that you do not agree with the majority is not evidence that the system is broken.

According to who? Who gets to decide that?

Gee, you think all the other adults should be held to the same standard that you are holding yourself to?

They can already do that. Thats what congressional elections are for. Either the majority does not agree with you, or they are indifferent.

 

Well, no I'm okay with Congress having the final say. However, I think any elected official should strictly adhere to their Constitutional Oath that they took when going into office!

Well frankly, the Majority agrees with me on many of these issues, including the war in Iraq and the possibility of government involvement during 9/11!

They took an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution; The rights our forefathers secured for us! But Obama, Bush and, many other "elected officials" have trampled all over our rights!

The "Majority" isn't always right, either! We are not a Democracy- Democracys have been defined as "Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner." We are a Republic, and this means we are ruled by LAW. What is America's Supreme Law of the Land? The Constitution; and if a politician violates this, they've betrayed their own country!(Treason)

That's not entirely true either, because the "majority" of several states wanted to legal Marijuana, and the federal government said NO! (I'll lose the money from the LEGAL drug companies)

 

Well, their opinion overrides yours. And they do not agree with you. Sorry.

LOL, no they don't. There has been no government action at all that shows either of those things. The majority is not electing people into power that agree with you on those issues.

Obama continued the Bush timeline in Iraq. Bush was elected again AFTER starting the Iraq war, and the majority still did not elect a congress to override him even after that. The empirical evidence does not support your conclusion.

If the majority agreed with you, Bush and Obama would not have been re-elected for a 2nd term.

We fit the definition of democracy.

Explain to me why you believe we do not fit that definition.

LOL, so what is your solution if not democracy?

Are you the wolf or the sheep in that analogy?

Not sure where you got the idea that a Republic and a Democracy are mutually exclusive. We fit both definitions.

Um...it is currently legal here in Colorado. So much for your theory, heh heh.

You could technically be arrested for it, but only by federal agents. Denver and colorado lawmen will not arrest you for it. We have pot dispensaries all over the place in Denver. There is one in the next building over from me. It has gotten a little annoying actually. I smell that (*)(*)(*)(*) all day.

 

Agree with me or not, they took an oath to "defend and uphold" the Constitution, from ALL enemies foreign and domestic. When in reality, they ARE the Domestic enemies of the Constitution. But one should also remember that alot of soldiers took that same oath, and sometimes take it VERY seriously!

Actually, it's funny how you worded it. Because you're suggesting that we have free and open elections! Don't forget, Barrack Obama acted like a Peace candidate in 2008, saying the Iraq war was unjustified! In fact, 90% of people in America at one time said the Iraq war was unjustified, and 70% thought that Bush should be questioned regarding 9/11, but the media played off 70% of the populace as "conspiracy nut-jobs!"

Bush got a second term because people were scared due to 9/11, and he fit the bill as the person who was going to "fight the evil terrorist." Again, the majority is not always right. Sometimes (like this and the issue of gun control) the "Majority" makes a knee-jerk reaction, and agrees to stupid **** due to fear. But the American government knows how to push our fear buttons so we submit, and eventually become complacent (much like you are)

Perhaps we do. But we disagree on the role of the Constitution. The Constitution is literally the supreme law of the land! It has been ruled in several court cases that no law, no politician and, no UN treaty can violate our Constitutional Rights! It is there to protect the people from tyranny! and it is a scary thing for our officials to be abolishing it. Which they are!

Well, it will take some time either way. Americans are just now waking up to the truth. I think in about 20 years, the "majorities" mindset will change substantially. Hopefully, to the degree of strict adherence to our Constitution, putting an end to this useless and expensive "War on drugs" and, actually willing to cut some government, if anything it'll be because we just can't afford it anymore. I mean, in reality they're printing, borrowing, taxing and, the money is based off of nothing but bad debt. Obama and Biden would have you believe you can "spend your way out of it," but in reality, we're just digging ourselves in deeper!

Btw, I suppose I'd be the sheep, as my vote never makes a difference!

My solution is to only put people in office who know and abide by the Constitution; as I said, that's a LONG way away! But it will happen, because when drones are flying over peoples heads, spying in your house with heat vision, people are going to wish they had the right to bear arms, to protect their family from the domestic weaponized drones! I know, MOST Americans think that'll never happen. But tons of economist know that the dollar will crash causing civil unrest. Obama has declared martial law AND executed American citizens; So what do you think he'll do when people realize their money is worthless and start rioting in the streets?

Well again, the majority vote, or members of government should never be able to violate the Constitution, as it is the supreme law of the land!

Okay well you've inadvertently proven my point; So if the "feds" just don't like you, they can kick in your door, and charge you for every gram in the place. That's not freedom either! The idea the government has some inherent right to tell us what we can and can't ingest, is absolutely insane! Not to mention that alcohol is more deadly than all other illicit drugs combined.

 

I have seen no credible proof to the contrary. The fact that the majority do not agree with you is not evidence that elections are rigged.

According to who exactly?

Elections are the ultimate poll, because they sample the entire voting population.

According to who?

You keep projecting your personal opinion as if it is objective fact. This is extremely ironic coming from a conspiracy theorist. What makes you more trustworthy than the government?

We have already agreed that elected representatives get the final say in it's interpretation.

LOL, you said it, not me.

IMO, that analogy is wrong. They would all be wolves because they can all vote.

What if I disagree with your choices? what if the majority disagrees with your choices?

Who gets the final say as to whether or not the Constitution has been violated? Your or our elected representatives?

NAMBLA probably feels the same way about laws that prevent them from having consensual sex with minors. They think they do not have freedom because of that. Explain to me why you think they are wrong.

You cannot pick and choose. Other people may not agree with you on what "freedom" is. It is not objective.

 

Again, the Constitution is NOT my opinion. It is the Supreme Law of the Land nothing/no one can override it, I don't care if the majority "wants" to or not, it is our founding document! If you don't like that, move to the UK.

 

Amen to that.

It operates exactly like cointelpro.

Just to remind folks...

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic
which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed
with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .

 

No, they lie because they are politivians. That is what politics are about. It's not about leading, it's about getting as much money and power that you can.

 

Your interpretation of it is.

LOL! You do understand that it has been altered many times, right? What did you think the Amendments were? Who passed those if not the majority?

There is no law, anywhere, in our government that cannot be changed with a large enough majority.

 

Article 13

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article [II]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Article [III]

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Article [IV]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Article [V]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Article [VI]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Article [VII]

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Article [VIII]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Article [IX]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article [X]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



Everything in bold is what Obama's trying to change.(Except this and the former sentence.)

 

It's always been a voluntary army for the children of the rich. That is why our wars drag on; the ruling class has nothing to lose. Chickenhawks are traitors. Their property must be confiscated and they must be deported. The slavish peasants who are "proud to die taking a rich kid's place" don't belong here either. They are what is really dragging us down, because we far outnumber the gutless rich and can easily overthrow them.

 

There are two ways to achieve poverty in this world, too much government and too little. Too much government and the bureaucrats take everything that isn't nailed down, too little and theives and brigands will do likewise.

 

If it was really objective, we would have no judicial branch. The fact that you personally think something is "obvious" does not make it so.

 

A republic can be defined as "100 million sheep voting on which pre-owned political wolf will eat them." You Constitutionazis ought to find other ancient scribblings to treat as a Bible. The rule of law is the law of the rulers.