gaaboard.com

Well said Sean Penn

http://podcast.medianext.com/stations/kcbs/media/mpeg/Sean_Penn_s_Letter_to_President_Bush-1174766920.mp3 (http://podcast.medianext.com/stations/kcbs/media/mpeg/Sean_Penn_s_Letter_to_President_Bush-1174766920.mp3)

Stained and blood soaked underwear, feck he gets into him ok? his daughters, get it as well. Diddnt think he had it in him, has Penn an other agenda here? anyonr know if he is entering politics?

Four and a half years ago, I addressed the issue of war in an open letter to our President. Today I would like to again speak to him and his, directly. Mr. President, Mr. Cheney, Ms. Rice et al: Indeed America has a rich history of greatness -indeed, America is still today a devastating military superpower.
And because, in the absence of a competent or brave Congress, of a mobilized citizenry, that level of power lies in your hands, it is you who have misused it to become our country's and our constitution's most devastating enemy. You have broken our country and our hearts. The needless blood on your hands, and therefore, on our own, is drowning the freedom, the security, and the dream that America might have been, once healed of and awakened by, the tragedy of September 11, 2001.

But now, we are encouraged to self-censor any words that might be perceived as inflammatory - if our belief is that this war should stop today. We cower as you point fingers telling us to "support our troops." Well, you and the smarmy pundits in your pocket, those who bathe in the moisture of your soiled and bloodstained underwear, can take that noise and shove it. We will be snowed no more. Let's make this crystal clear. We do support our troops in our stand, while you exploit them and their families. The verdict is in. You lied, connived, and exploited your own countrymen and most of all, our troops.

You Misters Bush and Cheney; you Ms. Rice are villainously and criminally obscene people, obscene human beings, incompetent even to fulfill your own self-serving agenda, while tragically neglectful and destructive of ours and our country's. And I got a question for your daughters Mr. Bush. They're not children anymore. Do they support your policy in Iraq? If they do, how dare they not be in uniform, while the children of the poor; black, white, Asian, Hispanic, and all the other American working men and women are slaughtered, maimed and flown back into this country under cover of darkness.

Now, because I've been on the streets of Baghdad during this occupational war, outside the Green Zone, without security, and you haven't; I've met children there. In that country of 25 million, these children have now suffered minimally, a rainstorm of civilian death around and among them totaling the equivalent of two hundred September 11ths in just four years of war. Two hundred 9/11s. Two hundred 9/11s.

You want to rattle sabers toward Iran now? Let me tell you something about Iran, because I've been there and you haven't. Iran is a great country. A great country. Does it have its haters? You bet. Just like the United States has its haters. Does it have a corrupt regime? You bet. Just like the United States has a corrupt regime. Does it want a nuclear weapon? Maybe. Do we have one? You bet. But the people of Iran are great people. And if we give that corrupt leadership, (by attacking Iran militarily) the opportunity to unify that great country in hatred against us, we'll have been giving up one of our most promising future allies in decades. If you really know anything about Iran, you know exactly what I'm referring to. Of course your administration belittles diplomatic potential there, as those options rely on a credibility and geopolitical influence that you have aggressively squandered worldwide.

Speaking of squandering, how about the billion and a half dollars a day our Iraq-focused military is spending, where three weeks of that kind of spending, would pay the tab on a visionary levy-building project in New Orleans and relieve the entire continent of Africa from starvation and the spread of disease. Not to mention the continued funds now necessary, to not only rebuild our education and healthcare systems, but also, to give care and aid to the veterans of this war, both American and our Iraqi allies and friends who have lost everything.

You say we've kept the war on terror off our shores by responding to a criminal act of terror through state sponsored unilateral aggression in a country that took no part in that initial crime. That this war would be fought in Iraq or fought here. They are not our toilet. They are a country of human beings whose lives, while once oppressed by Saddam, are now lived in Dante's inferno.

My 15-year-old daughter was working on a comparative essay this week (you can ask Condi what a comparative essay is, as academic exercises fit the limits of her political expertise.) My daughter's essay, which understood substance over theory, discusses the strengths of the Nuremberg trial justice beside the alternate strategy of truth and reconciliation in South Africa, and I quote: "When we observe distinctions between one power and another, one justice and another, we consider the divide between retribution and reconciliation, of closure and disclosure." I can't do her essay justice in this forum, but at its core, it asks how, when, and why we compromise toward peace, punish for war, or balance both for something more.

This may focus another soft spot in the rhetoric of both sides. We're told not to engage in the "politics of attack." To "keep away from the negative"...Well, Mr. Bush, when speaking of your administration, that would leave us silent, and impotent indeed.

So, in conclusion, I address my remaining remarks to the choir: We all played nice recently at the sad passing of former President Ford. Pundits and players on all sides re-visited his pardoning of Richard Nixon with praise, stating that a divided nation found unity. But what of that precedent on deterrence now? Where is justice now? Let's unite, not only in stopping this war, but holding this administration accountable as well. Without impeachment, justice cannot prevail. In our time, or our children's. And let's make it clear to democrats and republicans alike that we are not willing to wait on '08 to hear them say again: "If I'd known then, what I know now."

Even in a so-called victory, what we saw yesterday was a House of Representatives that couldn't bring itself to represent either conscience or constituents. It's a tragedy that the Democratic Party's leadership in Congress refuses to allow the House to vote on Barbara Lee's amendment for a fully funded, orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year. Elites circled the war wagons against this proposal, and postponed the day of reckoning that must come as soon as possible - a complete pullout of U.S. military forces from Iraq.

There are presidential candidates who understand this. We do have candidates of conscience. As things stand today, I will be voting for Dennis Kucinich, who has fought this war from the beginning. You might say Kucinich can't win. Well, we have an opportunity to re-establish the credibility of democracy as viewed by the world at large.

We can fire our current president. We can choose the next president. You and me, the farmer in Wisconsin, the boys at Google, and Bill Gates.

It's up to us to choose. Why don't we choose?!

Powerful stuff and spot on the mark.

It is not spot on the mark, who the fcuk does Penn thin k he is bringing the fact that Bush's children are not involved in the war???? I understand that he holds all Republician thinking in contempt and has a hatred of Bush however he does have an agenda and that is to have the yanks pull out and let Iraq implode by virture of the fact their security forces are not yet up to the task of defending all of the various factions within the Country.

Bush's kids have the option of going into the military or not and they have chosen not to, that is their right and Penn had no class nor business involving them in his argument.

The yanks have to get out but ffs now that they are in there at least have them stay until the country is fit to ensure the safety of ALL of it's citizens.

Bush is a nightmare and I get that but Penn would do well to attack the man and leave the rest of his family out of his argument, it would add to his argument some of which I agree with.

Quote from: stew on March 30, 2007, 09:21:18 PM
It is not spot on the mark, who the fcuk does Penn thin k he is bringing the fact that Bush's children are not involved in the war????

Penn is absolutely correct and within reason to ask that question, and he gives the very valid reason -- surely you are aware that there are so many who don't have a choice? So many who are press-ganged into service there, but so few of the politicoes' kids. 

Quote from: stew on March 30, 2007, 09:21:18 PM
I understand that he holds all Republician thinking in contempt and has a hatred of Bush however he does have an agenda and that is to have the yanks pull out and let Iraq implode by virture of the fact their security forces are not yet up to the task of defending all of the various factions within the Country.

Are you for real? Do you really think that the Iraqi 'security' forces are ever going to be "up to the task of defending all the various factions..." whilst the US (and Britain, et al.) still occupy the country? Really?

 One of Michael Moore's better stunts was interviewing Senators and Representatives in Washington and asking them if their children were in Iraq. Not one single politician in the Capital had a child serving in Iraq.

I doubt if Penn is bothered whether the Bush's law breaking offspring are in Iraq but it is a valid question to ask the man who has sent so many American children to their deaths whether his kids are going or not.

Stew consistantly defendes the indefensible Bush administration on this site which shows how much he is out of touch with opinion in this country. It also shows how living in the States and being in the line of fire of it's awful media can change your view of events.   

  "It also shows how living in the States and being in the line of fire of it's awful media can change your view of events."

  Could you explain what you meant by this statement Muppet!

 The US media is hardly objective is it.

At one stage over 60% of Americans beloeved Iraq was responsible for 911 despite the fact that Iraq has never in it's history attacked the US. The following is as recent as 13th march 2007.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/13/MNG7UOK2D61.DTL (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/13/MNG7UOK2D61.DTL)

  Vice President Dick Cheney, lashing out at Democrats for the first time since the felony conviction of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, his former top deputy, resumed his controversial claims Monday that the war in Iraq is the central front in the worldwide U.S. response to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Cheney linked Iraq and al Qaeda even though post-invasion reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the presidential Commission on Intelligence Capabilities found no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda before the U.S.-led invasion on March 19, 2003.

In remarks to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, Cheney contended that U.S. Marines face al Qaeda operatives in Anbar province, that the U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown has unmasked al Qaeda car bomb operations in Baghdad and that Osama bin Laden has promised to make Baghdad the capital of a radical Islamic empire reaching from Indonesia to Spain.

"As we get farther away from 9/11, I believe there is a temptation to forget the urgency of the task that came to us that day, and the comprehensive approach that's required to protect this country against an enemy that moves and acts on multiple fronts," Cheney told the annual conference of the pro-Israel group, which interrupted his speech at least 27 times with applause.

"Iraq's relevance to the war on terror simply could not be more plain," Cheney said. He said al Qaeda terrorists have made Iraq the central front in the U.S. war against terrorism.

The U.S. invasion, occupation and counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq over the past four years has claimed the lives of at least 3,193 U.S. soldiers, wounded 23,785 other GIs and cost taxpayers more than $400 billion.

Cheney spoke as part of the Bush administration's public relations offensive to win congressional support for the president's decision to send at least 26,100 additional U.S. combat and support troops to Iraq to try to stem bloodshed in Baghdad and Anbar province.

The administration also seeks congressional approval of an additional $100 billion to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Cheney has long contended that the U.S. invasion of Iraq four years ago this month was justified in part because of suspected ties between Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

But a 148-page report released by the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee in September showed that U.S. intelligence agencies disagreed with Bush administration claims of links between Hussein and al Qaeda.

Cheney's hard-hitting remarks represented a symbolic rejoinder to some critics' contention -- and some Democrats' hopes -- that the vice president might be sidelined by the federal felony conviction of Libby last week.

Libby, facing sentencing June 5, ran afoul of a special prosecutor's investigation into an effort by Cheney to smear a prominent anti-Iraq war critic who raised questions about Bush's effort to justify the Iraq invasion with claims that Hussein tried to buy nuclear weapons materials in Africa.

Cheney spoke six days after Libby, his former chief of staff and national security adviser, was convicted for obstruction and false statements.

"When members of Congress pursue an anti-war strategy that's been called slow bleed, they're not supporting the troops, they're undermining them," Cheney declared. "When members of Congress speak not of victory but of time limits, deadlines or other arbitrary measures, they're telling the enemy simply to watch the clock and wait us out."

The US media were too gutless to print the truth and lamely towed the government line for the last 4 years. Rupert Murdock has over 70 publications in the US. The editors of each of those were asked whether they were for or against the war in Iraq. All of them were for it. So much for freedom of the press. The few journalists that did speak out were castigated and some even lost their jobs. In any other civilized country the rest of the press would be outraged at this, but not the States. They sat on their hands as fellow hacks were punished for publishing anti-Bush articles.

It is odd for us to observe Hollywood celebreties making political speeches but with an impotent press corps who else can do it?
 

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on March 30, 2007, 09:35:36 PM

Penn is absolutely correct and within reason to ask that question, and he gives the very valid reason -- surely you are aware that there are so many who don't have a choice? So many who are press-ganged into service there, but so few of the politicoes' kids. 

The US millitary is made up completely of volunteers. No one is forcing anyone to join. Everyone who joins the active military, reserves and National Guard is aware that they may see active duty in a war. Penn is weakening his argument by using the Bush twins to support it.

Quote from: muppet on March 31, 2007, 12:22:17 AM

Stew consistantly defendes the indefensible Bush administration on this site which shows how much he is out of touch with opinion in this country. It also shows how living in the States and being in the line of fire of it's awful media can change your view of events.   

I find that you get a much more diverse range of opinion from the media in the US than you do in Ireland. Analysis from the left, right and centre is easily available on just about any subject. Much of it, especially from the right, I disagree with, but there is nothing wrong with having your views challenged.

  "The US media were too gutless to print the truth and lamely towed the government line for the last 4 years. Rupert Murdock has over 70 publications in the US. The editors of each of those were asked whether they were for or against the war in Iraq. All of them were for it. So much for freedom of the press. The few journalists that did speak out were castigated and some even lost their jobs. In any other civilized country the rest of the press would be outraged at this, but not the States. They sat on their hands as fellow hacks were punished for publishing anti-Bush articles."

Rupert Murdock has been manipulating and controlling what gets air time so as to keep in touch and appease his fellow liberal scumbags in this country for years
none other than the master himself Phil Bronstein of the San Francisco comical as its commonly known, in reading your typical closed ended biased post, i knew this article
had to have been pushed by either the Comical, the NY times or the Washington post and lo and behold...........
Those Bastards in the major news outlets are the root problem of what is going on in this once great country and before all you liberal sympathizers get up on your hind legs with your Anti everything Bush agenda, remember that Clinton did us no favors either in his 8 yrs but Murdock's outlets were surprizingly quiet with such stories as his part in war crimes against innocent Serbs,  selling Military secrets to China or letting Bin Laden slip through his fingers when he had him cornered amongst other Fcuk ups in the oval office :o need i say more but thats right Clinton was a Democrat.
The likes of Penn, Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Baldwin and our very own Gobshite Bono should be lined up against a wall and shot with a ball of each others shite, who the Fcuk do they think they are with their holier than thou attitude, they are a bunch of ordinary over paid half wits that just got lucky but think they have something to teach us lowly folk who can't think for ourselves.
As for the editors all being coerced into voting to go to war in Iraq, i think you'll find that that was a vote taken in '03 when the whole world believed Saddam had WMD's but again the liberals are able to turn this story around to have it suit their own agenda.
Was Bush the only one that believed he had them, i thought not. Even your very own Hillary voted to go to war in Iraq which might i add has been egg on the face of Murdock and the rest of his liberal Cronies in the news media since her decision to run in '08.
Of all people, i would have thought Irish people would be well aware of the danger and power of the media when they have an agenda to push, we only lived it ourselves.............................
I can only suspect that you do not reside in this country Muppet :-\

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54932

Muppet i just came on this interesting article but you'll never believe it, i could not find it anywhere in the far left reaching
SF Comical nor did i hear any snippet of it on any of Murdocks wonderful truth searching networks.
I rest my case, if you boy's that would try to have me Believe that propaganda and Anti everything Bush isn't very much alive and well
in this country that's headed for the Shitter then some of you are no better than thon p***k Penn >:(

Well said Mr Penn. Out-FOXed? Just some of us..

Did I miss something in reading that?  I don't see that he said anything bar "don't attack Iran, as it's a great country", typical shite spouted by hollywood liberal lefties imo (time was i was a liberal lefty, in fact I still am, but I hate this whole Bush bad, Democrats are godlike shite).  So, what does Sean suggest Bush does from here?  There's no point in berating the fact that they went in there in the first place, that's done, obviously Sean does like an auld 'i told you so', but what about the future, yeah, don't attack Iran, I agree, but 'Iran is a great country', indeed Sean??

Quote from: J70 on March 31, 2007, 05:27:45 AM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on March 30, 2007, 09:35:36 PM

Penn is absolutely correct and within reason to ask that question, and he gives the very valid reason -- surely you are aware that there are so many who don't have a choice? So many who are press-ganged into service there, but so few of the politicoes' kids. 

The US millitary is made up completely of volunteers. No one is forcing anyone to join. Everyone who joins the active military, reserves and National Guard is aware that they may see active duty in a war. Penn is weakening his argument by using the Bush twins to support it.

Did you see that Michael Moore documentary J70, Fahrenheit 9/11; technically they may all be volunteers, but in practice there's very little that's voluntary about it. It's de facto conscription for underprivileged and the poor.

I used to like Sean Penn in Sharpe - he was good as the villian in Goldeneye aswell

Quote from: Tyrones own on March 31, 2007, 06:26:55 AM
... was a vote taken in '03 when the whole world believed Saddam had WMD's but again...

Sorry TO, but that snippet of incredible inaccuracy blows a hole a mile wide in your own piece. Seems to me you're totally blind to the massive propaganda you're being fed there.

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on March 31, 2007, 01:04:26 PM

Quote from: J70 on March 31, 2007, 05:27:45 AM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on March 30, 2007, 09:35:36 PM

Penn is absolutely correct and within reason to ask that question, and he gives the very valid reason -- surely you are aware that there are so many who don't have a choice? So many who are press-ganged into service there, but so few of the politicoes' kids. 

The US millitary is made up completely of volunteers. No one is forcing anyone to join. Everyone who joins the active military, reserves and National Guard is aware that they may see active duty in a war. Penn is weakening his argument by using the Bush twins to support it.

Did you see that Michael Moore documentary J70, Fahrenheit 9/11; technically they may all be volunteers, but in practice there's very little that's voluntary about it. It's de facto conscription for underprivileged and the poor.

How? No one is holding a gun to their head forcing them to join. There is no compulsory military service like in many other countries. Sure, the military offers carrots such as tuition assistance to entice people to join, but whether or not some one joins to take advantage of those bonuses is entirely a decision for themselves. Its not like they have no other option in life.

Turk, how dare you confuse Sean Penn with that English twat Sean Bean! Ever since I first saw Bean trying to play an IRA man in 'Patriot Games', I haven't been able to contain my laughter any time I see him!

Back to the issue at hand. While Penn does tend to rand, he does indeed raise some very good points. Perhaps he was out of line having a go at the twins, but in fairness he does ask if they supported their Dad's policy in Iraq, and if so, why weren't they doing their patriotic duty, instead of leaving it to the next high school dropout ambushed by army recruiters.

Quote from: J70 on March 31, 2007, 02:10:01 PM
How? No one is holding a gun to their head forcing them to join. There is no compulsory military service like in many other countries. Sure, the military offers carrots such as tuition assistance to entice people to join, but whether or not some one joins to take advantage of those bonuses is entirely a decision for themselves. Its not like they have no other option in life.

In theory yes, in practice no. Catch that Moore documentary if you can, it's an eye-opener.

Quote from: gallsman on March 31, 2007, 02:19:41 PM
Perhaps he was out of line having a go at the twins, but in fairness he does ask if they supported their Dad's policy in Iraq, and if so, why weren't they doing their patriotic duty, instead of leaving it to the next high school dropout ambushed by army recruiters.

Maybe they don't support dad's decision to invade Iraq, maybe they did at the time, based on the hysteria that was whipped up at the time re WMD, but in hindsight, they think probably dad shouldn't have bothered, maybe they don't particularly care cos it's going on in Iraq and that's pretty far away.....  Regardless, they probably think it's not really something they have a need to discuss with Mr. Penn. 
BTW I thought he was better in "When Saturday Comes" than Patriot Games, the accent was way off in that.

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on March 31, 2007, 01:09:17 PM

Quote from: Tyrones own on March 31, 2007, 06:26:55 AM
... was a vote taken in '03 when the whole world believed Saddam had WMD's but again...

Sorry TO, but that snippet of incredible inaccuracy blows a hole a mile wide in your own piece. Seems to me you're totally blind to the massive propaganda you're being fed there.

You better believe we're being fed massive amounts of propaganda but its from the likes of your buddy Moore and that idiot Cindy Sheehan who by the way,
in a interview with her Berkeleyite tree hugging friends said that if she had it to do over again, she would never have allowed the media to exploit her son's death.
Of Course,i can't seem to find any of that information in the said liberal rags.
I don't expect you to know this since it obvious you rely solely on what your fed through the major media outlets, let me explain what goes on when some one's son or daughter is killed in combat
The family is contacted directly to they're home by one or more of the mainstream outlets, mind you at a time of Mourning, Frustration, anger, any and all of the human emotions
that are present when we lose someone, be it for any reason let alone war.
Now they start off sorry for your loss and all the rest of it then they go straight to work on the agenda, what is your belief of this war?, do you think we should be in Iraq or Afghanistan fighting this war, what would you want to say to Mr Bush and his administration with what he has brought to your doorstep.
If they get the answers they're after then wholla you have a cindy Sheehan on your hands, if they don't get the answers they want the phone call is cut short and they're gone.
So much for "we're sorry for the loss of this great soldier" or any other type of support for the families at this time of heart break but they do fully support the troops cause Penn said so
right? They are lobbying to try to cut funding from them, how's that for support.
What's going on here couldn't be more wrong and its unfortunate that people like most here on this board are and can only go off what is transmitted across the ocean, there are two sides to every story but when the media have an agenda then what chance do any of us have to any real truths in any situation.
So FoSB if what im being fed here is Propaganda then please enlighten me with where you're getting your real information from.

Quality speech Mr. Penn, hold the Bush administration accountable for all thier actions, Nixon fell from office for a lot, lot less.

Not a Moore fan, he wants to keep this Left V Right propaganda going.  Sean Penn is correct in everything he said but he would also need to include the Democrats as the vast majority of them voted for this illegal war knowing full well it was based on lies.   

What we have is one party in the disguise of two and most people cannot see through it. Clinton also committed war crimes and was as much involved in the drugs for guns deals during the eighties while Governor of Arkansas as Reagan, North and the Bush Crime Family etc.  Those deals initially brought crack cocaine to the slums of LA and NY but that's another story. Clinton now goes on regular vacations with his great buddies, George H and George W, together they have some belly laughs at the gullible public.

I was never for the Iraqi war, never fell for the propaganda. Whatever WMD they had in the first place was sold to them by the US. It's immaterial in any case as the reasons for war had nothing to do with WMD. It had nothing to do with freeing Iraq from a brutal Dictatorship, a Dictator the US put in place. It had a lot to do with oil. Saddam started selling his oil in Euros and became dispensable, now Iran is doing the same. This illegal war has gone completely according to plan and we are told otherwise. They have closed down the oil wells, the price of crude oil has quadrupled. There is a civil war in Iraq and the US military has a strategic position in the Middle East for its future illegal wars.

With at least 100 years US governments haven't cared about its citizens lives. Remember Kissinger's famous quote regarding US troops and US foreign policy?  We are lied to regarding the number of dead US soldiers in Iraq, it is closer to 15K than 3K.  None of the controlled media mention DU and its harm for present and future generations. Bush is not looking for funding for the army but for Halliburton, Bechtel and his dad's Carlyle Group.

Now the propaganda machine moves on to Iran. Where next, Seria? Lebanon? It's time for us to stand up and be counted.

"Bush is not looking for funding for the army but for Halliburton, Bechtel and his dad's Carlyle Group."

Yea Seamus and once again let me flip the coin over for you so that you can see the other side too.
I rest my case :D

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54932

Quote from: Tyrones own on March 31, 2007, 05:16:56 PM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on March 31, 2007, 01:09:17 PM

Quote from: Tyrones own on March 31, 2007, 06:26:55 AM
... was a vote taken in '03 when the whole world believed Saddam had WMD's but again...

Sorry TO, but that snippet of incredible inaccuracy blows a hole a mile wide in your own piece. Seems to me you're totally blind to the massive propaganda you're being fed there.

You better believe we're being fed massive amounts of propaganda but its from the likes of your buddy Moore and that idiot Cindy Sheehan who by the way,
in a interview with her Berkeleyite tree hugging friends said that if she had it to do over again, she would never have allowed the media to exploit her son's death.
Of Course,i can't seem to find any of that information in the said liberal rags.
I don't expect you to know this since it obvious you rely solely on what your fed through the major media outlets, let me explain what goes on when some one's son or daughter is killed in combat
The family is contacted directly to they're home by one or more of the mainstream outlets, mind you at a time of Mourning, Frustration, anger, any and all of the human emotions
that are present when we lose someone, be it for any reason let alone war.
Now they start off sorry for your loss and all the rest of it then they go straight to work on the agenda, what is your belief of this war?, do you think we should be in Iraq or Afghanistan fighting this war, what would you want to say to Mr Bush and his administration with what he has brought to your doorstep.
If they get the answers they're after then wholla you have a cindy Sheehan on your hands, if they don't get the answers they want the phone call is cut short and they're gone.
So much for "we're sorry for the loss of this great soldier" or any other type of support for the families at this time of heart break but they do fully support the troops cause Penn said so
right? They are lobbying to try to cut funding from them, how's that for support.
What's going on here couldn't be more wrong and its unfortunate that people like most here on this board are and can only go off what is transmitted across the ocean, there are two sides to every story but when the media have an agenda then what chance do any of us have to any real truths in any situation.
So FoSB if what im being fed here is Propaganda then please enlighten me with where you're getting your real information from.

=

Yes TO, insofar as I can make out, you're blinded by propaganda, and please don't bombard me with the names of any 'liberal' or 'conservative' commentators -- I'm strictly coming from a common-sense perspective.

I was in New York 4 years ago, when a couple of Irish-Amercians articulated to us about how proud they were of the Yanks invading Iraq. When my pal pointed out to them that that invasion and occupation was in essence no different from the British invasion and occupation of Ireland they disappeared very quickly, and could not find the words to  defend the indefensible. Are you really telling  me, that it's OK for Iraq to be invaded and occupied, and that that is different in some way than Ireland's invasion and occupation? Spare me the US propaganda please, and note too that that same propaganda is wearing ever thinner.

And you stil have not addressed my 'whole world believed Saddam had WMDs', -- will you at least acknowledge just how ludicrous that statement was? It bears absolutely no relation to reality whatsoever, and the only resonance it has firmly resounds within the Murdoch controlled media.,

Quote from: Tyrones own on March 31, 2007, 09:22:16 PM
"Bush is not looking for funding for the army but for Halliburton, Bechtel and his dad's Carlyle Group."

Yea Seamus and once again let me flip the coin over for you so that you can see the other side too.
I rest my case :D

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54932

I thought it was very obvious that from my last post where I stand with regards to the Democrats and Republicans, they are both the same, massively corrupt, no difference whatsoever.  The Democrats proved this, as if proof were needed, when they did not repeal the draconian Patriot Acts and The 2006 Military Commissions Act when they took over control of Congress and Senate. Ron Paul a Republican from Texas is the only one from that gang worth considering for President.  I am a Constitutionalist and we all know what happened to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, especially since 911.

My common sense tells me that in posting this dung from Penn in the first place and the resounding Agreeing with him amongst most of you that
it wreaked of Bush hating, you seem to have toned it down a little with respect to your last post being that it was the first of many to actually state
that there is no difference what so ever in the Democrats and republicans.
I am not a huge supporter of Bush at all but what i was taking offence to was the fact that Penn and the rest of them are self confessed Bush haters and
are out there pushing this crap down the throats of public opinion to forge they're own agenda. If this is the kind of material that some of you base your opinions on, well it is well and truly wide of the mark imo
That's all im going to say on this matter because most of you with the exception of a few do not reside here in this country, its a non argument for anyone who isn't living it on a daily basis, its apples and oranges at that point.

Quote from: Tyrones own on April 01, 2007, 01:06:58 AM


That's all im going to say on this matter because most of you with the exception of a few do not reside here in this country, its a non argument for anyone who isn't living it on a daily basis, its apples and oranges at that point.

I live in the States but believe this is of importance to everybody worldwide because we are either already in World War 111 or on the brink of it.

   Listening to and quoting a nobody like Penn spewing his hatred is going save us from the brink of world war iii,
   is that the next of it Seamus?

Quote from: Tyrones own on April 01, 2007, 01:06:58 AM

My common sense tells me that in posting this dung from Penn in the first place and the resounding Agreeing with him amongst most of you that
it wreaked of Bush hating, you seem to have toned it down a little with respect to your last post being that it was the first of many to actually state
that there is no difference what so ever in the Democrats and republicans.
I am not a huge supporter of Bush at all but what i was taking offence to was the fact that Penn and the rest of them are self confessed Bush haters and
are out there pushing this crap down the throats of public opinion to forge they're own agenda. If this is the kind of material that some of you base your opinions on, well it is well and truly wide of the mark imo
That's all im going to say on this matter because most of you with the exception of a few do not reside here in this country, its a non argument for anyone who isn't living it on a daily basis, its apples and oranges at that point.

Sean Penn's agenda is a lot less dangerous than the US governments agenda, not just the current one, the majority of them with all their fecking outrageous actions in various countries throughout the world, not just Iraq - Venezuela, Vietnam, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba, Afghanistan, Guatemala, Haiti, Colombia - the list goes on and on.

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa.html

Quote from: gallsman on March 31, 2007, 02:19:41 PM
Turk, how dare you confuse Sean Penn with that English twat Sean Bean! Ever since I first saw Bean trying to play an IRA man in 'Patriot Games', I haven't been able to contain my laughter any time I see him!

Ho ho!!!!  :P

QuoteRupert Murdock has been manipulating and controlling what gets air time so as to keep in touch and appease his fellow liberal scumbags in this country for years

This is the most ludicrous claim I've seen on this site and that takes some doing. Saying Murdock is a liberal is like saying Hitler was a Communist. I suppose we are to believe that the Murdock owned Fox news is a beacon for all Liberals.

Quote
none other than the master himself Phil Bronstein of the San Francisco comical as its commonly known, in reading your typical closed ended biased post, i knew this article
had to have been pushed by either the Comical, the NY times or the Washington post and lo and behold...........
Those Bastards in the major news outlets are the root problem of what is going on in this once great country and before all you liberal sympathizers get up on your hind legs with your Anti everything Bush agenda, remember that Clinton did us no favors either in his 8 yrs but Murdock's outlets were surprizingly quiet with such stories as his part in war crimes against innocent Serbs,  selling Military secrets to China or letting Bin Laden slip through his fingers when he had him cornered amongst other Fcuk ups in the oval office  need i say more but thats right Clinton was a Democrat.

Like any Republican sympathiser you think that by ranting incoherently any debate will end in a confused stalemate. ' Innocent Serbs ' don't make me laugh.   

QuoteAs for the editors all being coerced into voting to go to war in Iraq, i think you'll find that that was a vote taken in '03 when the whole world believed Saddam had WMD's but again the liberals are able to turn this story around to have it suit their own agenda.

It just shows how successful the propaganda in the states is, either that or Tyrone's own hasn't been in touch with the outside world for a decade.

QuoteWas Bush the only one that believed he had them, i thought not. Even your very own Hillary voted to go to war in Iraq which might i add has been egg on the face of Murdock and the rest of his liberal Cronies in the news media since her decision to run in '08.

TO I don't fit into your cosy little bipartisan farce. Hillary is not my 'very own'. My disapproval of Bush and his corruption does not automatically mean that I blindly agree with the other side. I take each issue on it's merits. To be honest I see the Democrats as soft republicans meaning that with there is no discernable left wing politics there.

QuoteOf all people, i would have thought Irish people would be well aware of the danger and power of the media when they have an agenda to push, we only lived it ourselves.............................

Of all people I would have thought Irish people would be well aware of the danger and power of an imperial superpower that unilaterally annexes small countries for resources and to gain a strategic advantage.

 
In all of you're rants about how wrong everything is and how Bush's administration is corrupt bla bla bla, you haven't exactly
given us the answers to how all this can be fixed, throw enough shite, some of it will eventually stick seems to be the order of the day.
Since you're obviously an expert in the field of international affairs not to mention US politics can you turn away from the Anti Bush agenda for
a second and enlighten us with you're expert view on how all of what is and has went on in the middle east for years now can be repaired ::)
Answers on the back of a postage stamp please.

Tyrones own take a look at Democracy Now, this will give you a better insight into how the media is controlled. I only watch the likes of CNN and FOX for as laugh although I must admit Bill O'Reilly's brainwashing garbage sometimes gets me going. Talk radio is 90% controlled by right wing propaganda so your liberal media comment is way off the mark. Don't get me wrong, they have their fair share of propagandists as well.

Try finding alternative methods of finding your news, people who really love their country and do not have a left or right agenda. Along with common sense that is where I find the truth.

Quote from: Tyrones own on April 01, 2007, 04:28:23 PM

 
In all of you're rants about how wrong everything is and how Bush's administration is corrupt bla bla bla, you haven't exactly
given us the answers to how all this can be fixed, throw enough shite, some of it will eventually stick seems to be the order of the day.
Since you're obviously an expert in the field of international affairs not to mention US politics can you turn away from the Anti Bush agenda for
a second and enlighten us with you're expert view on how all of what is and has went on in the middle east for years now can be repaired ::)
Answers on the back of a postage stamp please.

Start by getting both the Republicans and Democrats, save the odd few, out of office. Not an easy job when we've got Diebold and a conditioned public.

Get big corporation out of politics and dare I say it, religion.

 Typical response. No rational answer to any charge merely more ranting, muck throwing and abuse.

It would take rather more than a postage stamp to outline the chronic errors made by the Bush administration is Iraq.

They could do worse than have listened to the Pentagon who argued for 300,000 troops to deal with the risk of a counterinsurgency. They told us they would 'shock and awe' the opposition and they would be welcomed with open arms. Wolfowitz said there was no need for extra troops. Having made the blunder of going into Iraq they compunded it by doing it on the cheap which of course has cost them Billions. Bush told us in 2003 operations had ceased and the conflict had ended. If he was a CX he would have been fired after such a gross miscalculation.

TO ignores this and basically blames everyone with the pathetic 'what would you have done?' and somehow manages to point the finger at anyone but Bush and his chronies. Any critic is dismissed despite the blatently obvious evidence that they screwed up royally. Thousands have died, the US have basically gambled the US economy on the outcome. Any more blunders and it could all come tumbling down including the Irish economy.

If the Russkies and Venezuela join Iran by trading their oil in Euro it's disaster.  
   

   

Bill O'Reilly brainwashing people  :D

If you think he is capable of that you are missing a brain. he is a conservative political commentator/interviewer who has his own skeletons, he pontificatesalright and he has no time for liberal academics who he holds in the highest contempt, but if you think he is out to brainwash people you are a muppet.

 "Try finding alternative methods of finding your news, people who really love their country and do not have a left or right agenda. Along with common sense that is    where I find the truth. "
 
Couldn't have said it better myself Seamus,  thats the exact reason i personally had a problem with Penn's self confessed agenda from the get go.
It flies in the face of that very statement.

As for muppet, again in all of that, not one single answer to the question put forth. I didn't ask you to outline Bush's chronic errors, ah what's the point............ ::)
Carefull you don't fall outta that tree!

Quote from: stew on April 01, 2007, 06:40:31 PM
Bill O'Reilly brainwashing people  :D

If you think he is capable of that you are missing a brain. he is a conservative political commentator/interviewer who has his own skeletons, he pontificatesalright and he has no time for liberal academics who he holds in the highest contempt, but if you think he is out to brainwash people you are a muppet.

O'Reilly can only brainwash the gullible of which you seem to be one. Name calling from the unintelligible yet again, easy to see why you are an O'Reilly fan. How many millions of dollars does he get to spew his garbage? That guy would sell his mother for a few bucks. I know Rush Limbaugh was earning 30M a year during the Clinton era. He earns more when Democrats are in power, wonder who he votes for?

Incidentally O'Reilly started off as a liberal mouth piece and jumped ship when he found out he could earn more as a Neo-Con propagandist. He earned $20 million in 2001 on one contract alone. Immoral characters like O'Reilly would say anything for way less, he has sold his soul years ago.

Dave VonKleist challenged him to an open and fair debate over six months ago, an offer he will not accept a he knows full well Dave would have him for supper. Dave has all the evidence on his side, O'Reilly only has smoke and mirrors and name calling.

 Tyrone's Own asked the folowing:

Quoteenlighten us with you're expert view on how all of what is and has went on in the middle east for years now can be repaired

TO hiding behind a question that has remained unsolved for thousands of years is neither an argument nor a coherent policy.

Answer this, do you agree with the Bush administration's policies in the Middle East?

Quote from: Seamus on April 01, 2007, 09:28:53 PM
Incidentally O'Reilly started off as a liberal mouth piece and jumped ship when he found out he could earn more as a Neo-Con propagandist. He earned $20 million in 2001 on one contract alone. Immoral characters like O'Reilly would say anything for way less, he has sold his soul years ago.

Dave VonKleist challenged him to an open and fair debate over six months ago, an offer he will not accept a he knows full well Dave would have him for supper. Dave has all the evidence on his side, O'Reilly only has smoke and mirrors and name calling.

What did this von Kleist challenge O'Reilly to a debate on?

Is this the main guy who claims there was a "pod" on the underside of United 175?

I see he's been on Coast to Coast a few times...

Quote from: muppet on April 01, 2007, 02:31:49 PM

QuoteRupert Murdock has been manipulating and controlling what gets air time so as to keep in touch and appease his fellow liberal scumbags in this country for years

This is the most ludicrous claim I've seen on this site and that takes some doing. Saying Murdock is a liberal is like saying Hitler was a Communist. I suppose we are to believe that the Murdock owned Fox news is a beacon for all Liberals. [/b] [/b]

Quote
none other than the master himself Phil Bronstein of the San Francisco comical as its commonly known, in reading your typical closed ended biased post, i knew this article
had to have been pushed by either the Comical, the NY times or the Washington post and lo and behold...........
Those Bastards in the major news outlets are the root problem of what is going on in this once great country and before all you liberal sympathizers get up on your hind legs with your Anti everything Bush agenda, remember that Clinton did us no favors either in his 8 yrs but Murdock's outlets were surprizingly quiet with such stories as his part in war crimes against innocent Serbs,  selling Military secrets to China or letting Bin Laden slip through his fingers when he had him cornered amongst other Fcuk ups in the oval office  need i say more but thats right Clinton was a Democrat.

Like any Republican sympathiser you think that by ranting incoherently any debate will end in a confused stalemate. ' Innocent Serbs ' don't make me laugh.   

A little enlightenment for the Muppet, some info on his Buddies ::)

  http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/210507/rupert_murdoch_clinton_new_york

 Tyrone's Own you have ducked and dodged every poster that asked any simple or specific question. Your only defense of Bush is to say 'what would you have done' or to call people silly names. You don't even pretend to offer an intelligent defense of his actions.

Quotein '03 when the whole world believed Saddam had WMD's

You fail to respond to any of your gaffs when they are pointed out but I'm going to stick with just this one. The only country in the world that believed the above is the one with the strictly controlled right-wing media. Even the British public never bought it. The British public however know how to do war, as the Irish know only too well. They don't see valid criticism of a crazy war as an attack on their own troops or even more idiotically as being unpatriotic. No constituency with the confidence or freedom to think for themselves would. Their support is a given, however they will rightly castigate a politician for leading them into an idiotic conflict.   

You will never see misguided Brits ( or any other country I can think of ) waving flags on the main streets of every hicksville with 'honk if you support our troops' banners.

  The right wing propaganda in the States meant it was occupational suicide for anyone to speak out against the war. That sort of intimidation does not happen in a free country. The Bush administration has sadly done so much damage to the reputation of the States around the world it might take decades to recover. People like yourself merely seek to increase the number of decades.

Whether or not I agree with Penn is irrelevant. It is just great to see that not all Americans blindly tow the Bush line and that more of them are finally speaking out.

  "You don't even pretend to offer an intelligent defense of his actions."

Just exactly where in any of my posts did i make any attempt to defend Bush, he is a puppet just like the
last one and the next one!

"The only country in the world that believed the above is the one with the strictly controlled right-wing media"

Did you not take the time to read the link i left for you? "Strictly controlled right wing media". You're joking, right ::)
Muppet it has to be painful for Yourself, Penn, Moore and the likes to carry around so much pent up hatred, in that global warming little world
that you live in,very sad actually :'(
By the way, didn't you have anything to offer on the post put to you, obviously not!
Same old, Left wing good, right wing bad :D  Jaysus i get a great rise out of the tree huggers, you're some craic ;D

Quoteto have the yanks pull out and let Iraq implode by virture of the fact their security forces are not yet up to the task of defending all of the various factions within the Country

And the US IS up to the task?  Catch a grip!  The Americans being there has more to do with the problem than the solution.

Quote from: Star Spangler on May 23, 2007, 10:26:54 AM

Quoteto have the yanks pull out and let Iraq implode by virture of the fact their security forces are not yet up to the task of defending all of the various factions within the Country

And the US IS up to the task?  Catch a grip!  The Americans being there has more to do with the problem than the solution.

If the security forces are as sectarian as some reports would suggest then the only thing the coalition forces done was take out one group of maniac's and replace them with another plus train them and arm them to the teeth.

I suppose from Gee Dubya's point of view as long as they're pro American then it'll all be worth it for the oil of course.

Quote from: Tyrones own on May 23, 2007, 02:23:56 AM


  "You don't even pretend to offer an intelligent defense of his actions."

Just exactly where in any of my posts did i make any attempt to defend Bush, he is a puppet just like the
last one and the next one!

"The only country in the world that believed the above is the one with the strictly controlled right-wing media"

Did you not take the time to read the link i left for you? "Strictly controlled right wing media". You're joking, right ::)
Muppet it has to be painful for Yourself, Penn, Moore and the likes to carry around so much pent up hatred, in that global warming little world
that you live in,very sad actually :'(
By the way, didn't you have anything to offer on the post put to you, obviously not!
Same old, Left wing good, right wing bad :D  Jaysus i get a great rise out of the tree huggers, you're some craic ;D

By attacking any criticism of Bush you could be seen to be defending him.

BTW the link, like your argument, doesn't work.

Quote from: muppet on May 23, 2007, 12:27:39 AM
Tyrone's Own you have ducked and dodged every poster that asked any simple or specific question. Your only defense of Bush is to say 'what would you have done' or to call people silly names. You don't even pretend to offer an intelligent defense of his actions.

Quotein '03 when the whole world believed Saddam had WMD's

You fail to respond to any of your gaffs when they are pointed out but I'm going to stick with just this one. The only country in the world that believed the above is the one with the strictly controlled right-wing media. Even the British public never bought it. The British public however know how to do war, as the Irish know only too well. They don't see valid criticism of a crazy war as an attack on their own troops or even more idiotically as being unpatriotic. No constituency with the confidence or freedom to think for themselves would. Their support is a given, however they will rightly castigate a politician for leading them into an idiotic conflict.   

You will never see misguided Brits ( or any other country I can think of ) waving flags on the main streets of every hicksville with 'honk if you support our troops' banners.

 

QuoteThe right wing propaganda in the States meant it was occupational suicide for anyone to speak out against the war.

That sort of intimidation does not happen in a free country. The Bush administration has sadly done so much damage to the reputation of the States around the world it might take decades to recover. People like yourself merely seek to increase the number of decades.

Whether or not I agree with Penn is irrelevant. It is just great to see that not all Americans blindly tow the Bush line and that more of them are finally speaking out.

1) Does the name Cindy Sheehan mean anything to you in relation to "occupational suicide to speak out against the war" tell me who in your opinion was pushing that agenda?

2) With regards to "the only country that believed Saddam had wmd's was the one strictly controlled by the right wing media" my answer to that ludicrous statement was in the link that i posted
and surprise surprise, it was removed but let me explain what it was: Headline Quote "Rupert Murdock under investigation for the removal of any Negative reporting of Both Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary before going to press" I would love your thought on that one after all the past rants you've had about exactly where Mr Murdock stands morally and politically?

3) "The British Public ??? know how to do war" Now you've really out done yourself with that statement, That really is the most idiotic thing that i have personally read in my life.
The British Crown forces, not the Public, Fought the IRA for 35 years and could do nothing with them you Blinkered leftist gobshite.

4)The only reason that you see true patriot's out waving flags in support of freedom in this country is to boil the shite in soft bellied liberals like yourself, its obviously working :D
   regardless of who is commander and chief you'll find these people will always fight and show support for the freedom of this country, which of course is where the main fundamental
   difference lies between these people and the liberal left. Lets be everybody's friend and show our love and peace for one another, when are you people going to remove the blinkers
  for once and realize that what and who we're fighting, be it here or over there, don't want to be friends with me or you, the flower power of the sixties no longer exist!

5) The political correctness is what is truly going to see us off, Bush has our Men and Women fighting these extremists with their hands tied behind their backs for fear of offending someone!
    If that's how it's to be then bring the home and lock down our borders. If anyone doesn't like it then be on the next plane back to whichever great country in which you fled
    in the first place!!!
   


                                     

Quote from: Tyrones own on May 24, 2007, 02:58:01 AM

Quote from: muppet on May 23, 2007, 12:27:39 AM
Tyrone's Own you have ducked and dodged every poster that asked any simple or specific question. Your only defense of Bush is to say 'what would you have done' or to call people silly names. You don't even pretend to offer an intelligent defense of his actions.

Quotein '03 when the whole world believed Saddam had WMD's

You fail to respond to any of your gaffs when they are pointed out but I'm going to stick with just this one. The only country in the world that believed the above is the one with the strictly controlled right-wing media. Even the British public never bought it. The British public however know how to do war, as the Irish know only too well. They don't see valid criticism of a crazy war as an attack on their own troops or even more idiotically as being unpatriotic. No constituency with the confidence or freedom to think for themselves would. Their support is a given, however they will rightly castigate a politician for leading them into an idiotic conflict.   

You will never see misguided Brits ( or any other country I can think of ) waving flags on the main streets of every hicksville with 'honk if you support our troops' banners.

 

QuoteThe right wing propaganda in the States meant it was occupational suicide for anyone to speak out against the war.

That sort of intimidation does not happen in a free country. The Bush administration has sadly done so much damage to the reputation of the States around the world it might take decades to recover. People like yourself merely seek to increase the number of decades.

Whether or not I agree with Penn is irrelevant. It is just great to see that not all Americans blindly tow the Bush line and that more of them are finally speaking out.

1) Does the name Cindy Sheehan mean anything to you in relation to "occupational suicide to speak out against the war" tell me who in your opinion was pushing that agenda?

2) With regards to "the only country that believed Saddam had wmd's was the one strictly controlled by the right wing media" my answer to that ludicrous statement was in the link that i posted
and surprise surprise, it was removed but let me explain what it was: Headline Quote "Rupert Murdock under investigation for the removal of any Negative reporting of Both Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary before going to press" I would love your thought on that one after all the past rants you've had about exactly where Mr Murdock stands morally and politically?

3) "The British Public ??? know how to do war" Now you've really out done yourself with that statement, That really is the most idiotic thing that i have personally read in my life.
The British Crown forces, not the Public, Fought the IRA for 35 years and could do nothing with them you Blinkered leftist gobshite.

4)The only reason that you see true patriot's out waving flags in support of freedom in this country is to boil the shite in soft bellied liberals like yourself, its obviously working :D
   regardless of who is commander and chief you'll find these people will always fight and show support for the freedom of this country, which of course is where the main fundamental
   difference lies between these people and the liberal left. Lets be everybody's friend and show our love and peace for one another, when are you people going to remove the blinkers
  for once and realize that what and who we're fighting, be it here or over there, don't want to be friends with me or you, the flower power of the sixties no longer exist!

5) The political correctness is what is truly going to see us off, Bush has our Men and Women fighting these extremists with their hands tied behind their backs for fear of offending someone!
    If that's how it's to be then bring the home and lock down our borders. If anyone doesn't like it then be on the next plane back to whichever great country in which you fled
    in the first place!!!
   


                                     

Cindy was quite happy to have her son take advantage of all the educational benefits that American servicemen and women ca take advantage of, until he was killed and then she became a zealot against the war, where was she before her son died??? I know that is horrific but i live close to other parents who have lost their sons and they are dignified in their loss and they support their army and you dont see them seeking publicity after their loved ones died.

Americans seem incapable of learning from history, they are mired in another vietnam and their politicians are going to feck it up again and history will judge them harshly and find them wanting.

1) Does the name Cindy Sheehan mean anything to you in relation to "occupational suicide to speak out against the war" tell me who in your opinion was pushing that agenda?

Never heard of her.

2) With regards to "the only country that believed Saddam had wmd's was the one strictly controlled by the right wing media" my answer to that ludicrous statement was in the link that i posted
and surprise surprise, it was removed but let me explain what it was: Headline Quote "Rupert Murdock under investigation for the removal of any Negative reporting of Both Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary before going to press" I would love your thought on that one after all the past rants you've had about exactly where Mr Murdock stands morally and politically?

Your answer to the statment that the US was the only country that believed Saddam had WMD is that Murdock likes the Clintons! Hans Blix told the world that he had found no WMDs and only one country belittled his and the UN's position. The US media backed up their leader and nearly everyone else declared their misguided patriotism. It didn't take history long to show that they were utterly wrong. 

3) "The British Public  know how to do war" Now you've really out done yourself with that statement, That really is the most idiotic thing that i have personally read in my life.
The British Crown forces, not the Public, Fought the IRA for 35 years and could do nothing with them you Blinkered leftist gobshite.

I was refering to the publics behavior when their country is at war. There is no need to artificially generate public support for their troops. You don't have government bans on media coverage of casualties like you get in the States. Your second statement is completely irrelevent and BTW I am a confirmed capitalist not that you would ever bother asking.

4)The only reason that you see true patriot's out waving flags in support of freedom in this country is to boil the shite in soft bellied liberals like yourself, its obviously working
   regardless of who is commander and chief you'll find these people will always fight and show support for the freedom of this country, which of course is where the main fundamental
   difference lies between these people and the liberal left. Lets be everybody's friend and show our love and peace for one another, when are you people going to remove the blinkers
  for once and realize that what and who we're fighting, be it here or over there, don't want to be friends with me or you, the flower power of the sixties no longer exist!

This paragraph says it all. Can you actually think for yourself or do you speak Fox news all the time.

5) The political correctness is what is truly going to see us off, Bush has our Men and Women fighting these extremists with their hands tied behind their backs for fear of offending someone!
    If that's how it's to be then bring the home and lock down our borders. If anyone doesn't like it then be on the next plane back to whichever great country in which you fled
    in the first place!!!

Bush has created more extremists than Bin Laden ever could. The entire world knows that Iraq was no threat whatsoever to the US. Headbangers like yourself who prefer to kill thousands first and shot anyone who asks questions later will never learn that people you try to destroy will always strike back. Just like the IRA you mentioned above. Any occupying force will face attacks on their homeland eventually.

1) Of course you Haven't, that suits :D

2) Part of a transcript from CNN of all networks back in '05:
                                                                                                  "At any point along the way, Saddam Hussein could have avoided war by complying with the just demands of the international community. The United States did not choose war. The choice was Saddam Hussein's.
When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of governments who did not support our decision to remove Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."
So obviously you're answer to #2  is only your left leaning opinion and im sure you know what they say about opinions :D

3)
Is this not a free country, are these people not entitled to show their support in any way they see fit without being judged
and insulted by the leftists comments like "artificial". I don't think Artificial comes into it when your talking about true Americans out showing and supporting their beliefs >:(
And BTW, you've some head about yourself, i personally don't give a damn what you are :D

4) Another cop out just like #1, No doubt one of us needs to start to think for ourselves ;) sorry Mr. Penn

5) This view presumes that if we were not in Iraq the terrorists would be leaving us alone. The reality is that the terrorists have been targeting America for years, long before we ever set foot in Iraq and may i bring it to your attention, Before Bush took office :o I am well aware that people such as yourself would love to impose the belief that our country's history began in the year 2000

We were not in Iraq in 1993 when the terrorists tried to blow up the World Trade Center in New York. We were not in Iraq in 1998 when the terrorists bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. We were not in Iraq in 2000 when the terrorists killed 17 American sailors aboard the USS Cole. And there wasn't a single American soldier in Iraq on September 11, 2001, when the terrorists murdered nearly 3,000 people in the worst attack on our home since Pearl Harbor. But here let me lift the rug so you can commence to sweeping ::)
So to close, i feel it was only a matter of time till he would have been a huge threat to US security!

US anti-war mother ends protest
Cindy Sheehan in Amsterdam - 20/05/2007
Cindy Sheehan's son died fighting in Baghdad in 2004
Cindy Sheehan, the bereaved mother who became a figurehead for the US anti-war movement, is abandoning her fight after growing disenchanted with the campaign.

She has camped outside President Bush's ranch since 2005, demanding a meeting over the death of her son in Iraq.

But announcing the end of her campaign, she also hit out at Democrats and anti-war campaigners who put "personal egos above peace and human life".

She said she had sacrificed her health, her marriage and her finances.

In a letter on the Daily Kos website titled Good Riddance Attention Whore - a reference to the abuse she says she has suffered, Ms Sheehan said: "I am going to take whatever I have left and go home.

"I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost."

'War machine'

Cindy Sheehan became a "postergirl" for the US anti-war movement after she set up her protest camp outside the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas in August 2005.

She said she has spent all the money from the survivor's benefits paid for her son's death and everything she earned from speaking and book fees and that she owed large hospital bills.

"I have been called every despicable name that small minds can think of and have had my life threatened many times."

She said her son Casey, who died in Baghdad in April 2004, was "killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think.

   
Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol
Cindy Sheehan

"Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives.

"It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most."

Ms Sheehan criticised the US anti-war movement for often putting "personal egos" first.

"It is hard to work for peace when the very movement that is named after it has so many divisions."

She said that one-time allies among the Democratic Party had turned on her when she no longer limited her protests over the Iraq war to the Republican Party.

The US will rapidly descend into "a fascist corporate wasteland," she said, if "alternatives to this corrupt 'two' party system" are not found.

Ms Sheehan said she was resigning as the "face" of the US anti-war movement.

She said she would "never give up trying to help people in the world who are harmed by the empire of the good old US of A, but I am finished working in, or outside of this system."

It's a shame that it took the death of her son in an illegal war to wake her up. Now she has come to understand that both the criminal Democrats and Neocons are in bed together. 
My prayers will always be with Cindy Sheehan.

Nancy Pelosi and Co did their expected u turn regarding the time table for troop withdrawal. The first actions she should have taken when gaining control of the house was to repeal the draconian Patriot Acts and 2006 Military Commissions Act along with the indictments or impeachments of Bush, Chaney. Rumsfeld etc. She has now proven that she along with the Democrats are taking orders from the same corrupt cartel as their friends in the Republican Party, something that is very obvious with a long long time. Of course it is not obvious nor ever will be to the FOX and CNN addicts.

Quote from: Declan on May 29, 2007, 12:10:10 PM

US anti-war mother ends protest
Cindy Sheehan in Amsterdam - 20/05/2007
Cindy Sheehan's son died fighting in Baghdad in 2004
Cindy Sheehan, the bereaved mother who became a figurehead for the US anti-war movement, is abandoning her fight after growing disenchanted with the campaign.

She has camped outside President Bush's ranch since 2005, demanding a meeting over the death of her son in Iraq.

But announcing the end of her campaign, she also hit out at Democrats and anti-war campaigners who put "personal egos above peace and human life".

She said she had sacrificed her health, her marriage and her finances.

In a letter on the Daily Kos website titled Good Riddance Attention Whore - a reference to the abuse she says she has suffered, Ms Sheehan said: "I am going to take whatever I have left and go home.

"I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost."

'War machine'

Cindy Sheehan became a "postergirl" for the US anti-war movement after she set up her protest camp outside the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas in August 2005.

She said she has spent all the money from the survivor's benefits paid for her son's death and everything she earned from speaking and book fees and that she owed large hospital bills.

"I have been called every despicable name that small minds can think of and have had my life threatened many times."

She said her son Casey, who died in Baghdad in April 2004, was "killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think.

   
Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol
Cindy Sheehan

"Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives.

"It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most."

Ms Sheehan criticised the US anti-war movement for often putting "personal egos" first.

"It is hard to work for peace when the very movement that is named after it has so many divisions."

She said that one-time allies among the Democratic Party had turned on her when she no longer limited her protests over the Iraq war to the Republican Party.

The US will rapidly descend into "a fascist corporate wasteland," she said, if "alternatives to this corrupt 'two' party system" are not found.

Ms Sheehan said she was resigning as the "face" of the US anti-war movement.

She said she would "never give up trying to help people in the world who are harmed by the empire of the good old US of A, but I am finished working in, or outside of this system."

That line says it all right there Seamus, it was a point i had made at the start of this thread but of course was shot down with nonsensical rhetoric ::)

 This thread is  bit like trying to explain to Trigger that Rodney's name is not Dave.

Tyrone's Own will just reply with the usual American anti-left, anti-democrat nonsense.

To back his argument he has used lots of pro-Republican propaganda.

1. I don't live in the States so I haven't heard of Cindy Sheehan. It is not convienient to my argument as from other posters it appears that by speaking out she has suffered enourmously.

2. I'm going to labour this point to highlight Tyrone's Own serious problem with fact and propaganda and also his inability to follow either an argument or logic.

Quote2) With regards to "the only country that believed Saddam had wmd's was the one strictly controlled by the right wing media" my answer to that ludicrous statement was in the link that i posted
and surprise surprise, it was removed but let me explain what it was: Headline Quote "Rupert Murdock under investigation for the removal of any Negative reporting of Both Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary before going to press" I would love your thought on that one after all the past rants you've had about exactly where Mr Murdock stands morally and politically?

The charge was that only one country believed Saddam had WMDs. The rebuttal was that Murdock was under investigation for preferential reporting of the Clintons. If this is considered logical I will now follow that logic and point out that Pluto is not really a planet. This debate continued with the reply:

Quote2) Part of a transcript from CNN of all networks back in '05:
                                                                                                  "At any point along the way, Saddam Hussein could have avoided war by complying with the just demands of the international community. The United States did not choose war. The choice was Saddam Hussein's.
When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of governments who did not support our decision to remove Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."
So obviously you're answer to #2  is only your left leaning opinion and im sure you know what they say about opinions

It was the US who chose to go to war. Quoting a US news network as some sort of unquestionable source show how far you have missed the point. By 'Many intelligence agenices' of course you mean the CIA and Mossad. Read Fiasco (http://www.amazon.com/Fiasco-American-Military-Adventure-Iraq/dp/159420103X) and you will see that the CIA did not ever say Saddam had WMDs. In fact no one in the CIA had even met the informant on whose information the decision to go to war was based. Colin Powell was wheeled out as the only credible member of Bush's cabinet to convince the world that war was necessary. He has since admitted misleading the world and describes it as the low point in his life.

You are attempting to rewrite history and are failing misreably. When that becomes obvious you fire out typical anti-left insults.

3.

QuoteIs this not a free country, are these people not entitled to show their support in any way they see fit without being judged
and insulted by the leftists comments like "artificial". I don't think Artificial comes into it when your talking about true Americans out showing and supporting their beliefs
And BTW, you've some head about yourself, i personally don't give a damn what you are

Have you heard of the Patriot Act? Try taking a trip to Cuba and you will see just how free your country actually is. In early 2003 Rupert Murdock had 70 odd US publications. The editor of each was surveyed and asked did they support going to war with Iraq. All of them said yes. So much for freedom of the press.
 
4.

QuoteThe only reason that you see true patriot's out waving flags in support of freedom in this country is to boil the shite in soft bellied liberals like yourself,

::)

5.

Quote5) This view presumes that if we were not in Iraq the terrorists would be leaving us alone. The reality is that the terrorists have been targeting America for years, long before we ever set foot in Iraq and may i bring it to your attention, Before Bush took office  I am well aware that people such as yourself would love to impose the belief that our country's history began in the year 2000

We were not in Iraq in 1993 when the terrorists tried to blow up the World Trade Center in New York. We were not in Iraq in 1998 when the terrorists bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. We were not in Iraq in 2000 when the terrorists killed 17 American sailors aboard the USS Cole. And there wasn't a single American soldier in Iraq on September 11, 2001, when the terrorists murdered nearly 3,000 people in the worst attack on our home since Pearl Harbor. But here let me lift the rug so you can commence to sweeping
So to close, i feel it was only a matter of time till he would have been a huge threat to US security!

Eh did I miss something or was there really a Gulf war in 1991? That of course is another story.  ::)

QuoteSo to close, i feel it was only a matter of time till he would have been a huge threat to US security!

Saddam had no terrorist network. The furthest his hopelessly outdated missiles could travel was Israel and the US had demonstrated they could be easily countered with Patriot missles. The threat to US soil was about as real as Waterford attacking Donegal by launching sliothars from The Nire.

No doubt you will respond by calling me a liberal pinko or something but get this. The Democrats have disgraced themselves throughout this farce. How many of them were brave enough to stand up and vote against invading Iraq in 2003? None of Murdock's editors covered themselves in glory either. In my view they are just as bad as they failed to articulate any alternative action to the Government's and therefore failed democracy and ultimately the world.

Every single day in Iraq there is a tragedy as bad if not worse than the Omagh bomb ( in terms of human loss ). Every single day.

Muppet - You're wasting your time here. There is none so blind as those who don't want to see.

Sacrifice, Pain, and Grief
by James Carroll

This article was published on Monday, May 29 - Memorial Day, 2007:

The nation pays its respects today to those who have fallen in America's wars. The central ritual of our communal bereavement takes place with a wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknowns in Arlington , Va. Because those remains are anonymous, they are fitting representatives of the entire legion of war dead, who are the focus of affection on Memorial Day.When we send men and women off to battle for the sake of the nation's greater good, we promise that, should they not return, their sacrifice will always be remembered. It is the minimum such heroes are due. But because the nation is at war today, the observance has special poignancy, and added pain. Like numerous graves at Arlington, the grief of all too many families is fresh. Given the kind of war this is, however, the mourning is for more than departed individuals.

Is it presumptuous to imagine we can know something about those whose lives were lost, perhaps even the "unknowns"? The military women and men who have been killed in war wanted more from life than they got. They began by believing in a higher cause, but ended up, from every frontline report, caring most about the buddies to their right and left. They saw the horrors of combat, but what really frightened them was the threat of moral collapse as feelings of anger, fear, and, perhaps, revenge replaced the stately cohesion of the drill.

Trained in glory, they died in absurdity. On Memorial Day, can we pay tribute to the dead without falsifying what befell them?

"If at the end of a war story you feel uplifted," the Vietnam novelist Tim O'Brien wrote, "or if you feel that some small bit of rectitude has been salvaged from the larger waste, then you have been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie." O'Brien says that the hallmarks of truth, when it comes to war stories, are obscenity and evil. "You can tell a true war story if it embarrasses you."

Such dark notes are struck by the chroniclers of every war, going back to Homer, but they seem especially apt when those being mourned have fallen in a war that, even before its end, has already shown itself to have been mistaken from its first trumpet.

That recognition compounds American grief on this Memorial Day. In addition to the bright faced young men and women for whom taps has sounded, "a secure sense of the goodness of the social order is irretrievably lost and must be mourned." The psychiatrist Jonathan Shay, treating veterans, wrote that in response to Vietnam, but the observation applies equally to Iraq.

Even the most diehard of American commanders and politicians show signs of recognizing the strategic and (therefore) moral futility of the war in Iraq, which is why they are tangled in the impossible snares of what-to-do-now. The nation, meanwhile, has a larger problem, which is only apparently less pressing: How to reckon with the strategic and moral damage the United States has done and is still doing to the shared well-being of the human family?

In addition to the lives it has needlessly destroyed, the war has helped ignite the most volatile region on earth; it has polluted US relations with former allies; and it has resuscitated the armed suspicions of former enemies. What of more value has been lost than the golden opportunity at the end of the Cold War to further empty nuclear arsenals, to midwife international structures of law, to heal the planet's poisoned environment, to address the global crisis of southern poverty?

Memorial Day is a time of social grief. We deliberately call to mind the names and faces of the dead. We attend to their selfless patriotism, and the courage with which they conducted themselves. We insist that, no matter how misbegotten the cause in which they died, they did not die in vain.

In the glorious past, that faith depended on carrying wars forward to the point of victory, which alone redeemed the mortal loss. But now, we eulogize the heroes without approving the war that killed them. Because today's national desolation must include a larger grief for lost American virtue, the determination that the fallen not have died in vain requires that their sacrifice be taken as a fuller opening to the truths both of what our leaders have wrought, and of the responsibility that belongs to us all.

The proper memorial to the war in Iraq is its immediate end.

QuoteEven the most diehard of American commanders and politicians show signs of recognizing the strategic and (therefore) moral futility of the war in Iraq

Declan read Fiasco by Thomas E. Ricks. Most of the commanders were against starting the war or more particularly the lack of:
1. An objective ( getting rid of Saddam was enough foresight for Bush but not for military planners )
2. A strategy ( not merely how to beat Saddam but how to win the war )
3. An exit strategy

It clearly lays the blame at the feet of politicians and while some aspects of the military made big errors at least they continuously assess themselves searching for improvements. My faith in the US was restored to a large extent by reading Ricks interviews with the various powers in the Pentagon.

Quoteread Fiasco by Thomas E. Ricks

Coincidentally its on my holiday reading list.

  OK then, if the 3 of ye could have said at the start that there actually is no difference in any of the Democrats or Republicans, be it in the White house
  or capitol hill, i wouldn't have had to spend my precious time trying to remove your blinkers as far as page 5 on this thread.
  I'd like to hang around lads and bullshit but there are others just like you believe it or not who need all the help they can get in
  opening there eyes  :o
  Seriously though, congrats on finally admitting the similarities :D

I have stated from the very start that we have one party in the disguise of two. When somebody gives out about the Bush Administration you mistakenly call them liberals.

If anything the Republican side of the party is the more evil. They gave us The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and were the main instigators in having us surrender our liberties for fake security based on total lies.

If Hillary becomes the next President, which seems likely, we will have at least 30 years of Bushes and Clintons, can anybody see the big picture?

  I have no problem at all with people giving out about Bush, i do enough of it myself but the term "giving out"
  is a bit of an understatement if you go back over some of the posts, that's all.

Quote from: Seamus on May 31, 2007, 11:22:48 AM
If Hillary becomes the next President, which seems likely, we will have at least 30 years of Bushes and Clintons, can anybody see the big picture?

Frightening isn't it - if this transpires, can it really be called a democracy?

Quote from: stephenite on June 01, 2007, 02:15:13 AM

Quote from: Seamus on May 31, 2007, 11:22:48 AM
If Hillary becomes the next President, which seems likely, we will have at least 30 years of Bushes and Clintons, can anybody see the big picture?

Frightening isn't it - if this transpires, can it really be called a democracy?

I wouldn't take it for granted just yet that Hillary will win the Democratic nomination. Yes, she'll raise the most money and her machine will do everything in its power to leave her standing last, but a lot of Democrats voting in the primaries will be very aware of the fact that her presence at the top of the Democratic ticket will bring the Republicans out in droves in the general election no matter how shite their own candidate is.

Personally, I'm hoping Gore gives it another go. Himself and Obama would be quite a formidable Democratic pairing, in my opinion.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney seems to be on the ascendency at the moment, but I'm not sure his candidacy can survive the detailed analysis of the tenets of the Mormon faith (not that, from my perspective, it is any crazier than much of the rest of the Christian, and especially the fundamentalists' versions)! Fred Thompson just threw his hat officially into the ring. He seems to have the social conservatives in the Republican party buzzing, and he certainly has star power, so he might be in the final running. Can't say he appeals to me in the slightest though.

The Bilderberg Group meeting starts today at the Ritz Carlton in Istanbul. They, not the electorate will select the next President. Ron Paul would run away with both the nomination and the Presidency but for Diebold.

QuoteThe Bilderberg Group meeting starts today at the Ritz Carlton in Istanbul. They, not the electorate will select the next President. Ron Paul would run away with both the nomination and the Presidency but for Diebold.

A certain M McDowell is also one of the Bilderberg chosen ones. Where do people think he will end up? EU Commisioner?

Quote from: Seamus on June 01, 2007, 11:27:50 AM
The Bilderberg Group meeting starts today at the Ritz Carlton in Istanbul. They, not the electorate will select the next President. Ron Paul would run away with both the nomination and the Presidency but for Diebold.

Diebold is all that is keeping Ron Paul from winning the Republican nomination and the general election?

Dyee see when the yanks started taking advice from Hollywood stars esp before Eastwood's Carmel and Reagan's stewardship - that's when you knew we're dealing with a powerful abomination.

Quote from: J70 on June 01, 2007, 10:20:03 PM
Diebold is all that is keeping Ron Paul from winning the Republican nomination and the general election?

He won the debates by a landslide in all polls and I mean a landslide. Lack of funds is another issue and of course the blacklisting by the controlled media. He would make America great again but alas it will never be. The North American Union is already signed, soon to be followed by a One World Government. Even at that he still would have some shot at the Presidency only for Diebold. He is the only Republican candidate out there that is not a puppet. This of course will guarantee he will never get nominated.