The United States of Terror

Jump to Last Post 1-18 of 18 discussions (159 posts)
  1. profile image0
    WizardOfOzposted 12 years ago

    Terrorist n. a person who uses or favours violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community.

    replyreport
    1. rhamson profile image74
      rhamsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Sounds like the US Congress to me.

      replyreport
      1. profile image0
        WizardOfOzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Agreed.

        replyreport
        1. profile image62
          logic,commonsenseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Me three!
          In November, they will face a jihad from the voters!

          replyreport
      2. donotfear profile image86
        donotfearposted 12 years agoin reply to this


        lol

        replyreport
        1. KFlippin profile image61
          KFlippinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          No doubt, this Democratic Congress has shown themselves to be very capable of shock and awe and terrorist like intimidation tactics to get what they want! 

          Who'd have thought it, Pelosi is actually a leader of terrorists; my, my, women have come such a long way in their journey these past many years after the 'vote'.  I wish I could be proud, but no, it's sad and embarrassing to strong and intelligent women everywhere to watch her alternately preen, then wobble, then preen again, and you wonder what bird of prey is stalking to pluck out her false wings.

          replyreport
          1. Randy Godwin profile image61
            Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Miss taking your xanax tonight KFC?  LOL!  Your screeching is especially petulant this evening!

            replyreport
            1. KFlippin profile image61
              KFlippinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              You do make me sad, feel so sorry for you, thought you'd speak up to the new Wizard persona, really hoped so, instead I find you personally attack me.  You've got more than that to contribute to the problems we all face, it's not a funny guy theme now - if it ever even was.  Think about it.

              UPDATE:  Went to the 'gun' topic and was very happy to see that you did speak up to that Wizard person, very happy, so a high five to you for doing so, and it seems odd you'd seek out me to attack when you clearly you .... can see clearly.

              replyreport
              1. Randy Godwin profile image61
                Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                So you were speaking up to the wiz by attacking Pelosi?  Forget what I said and take the whole bottle!  It sure can't hurt your thinking process!  Later Madame!

                replyreport
                1. KFlippin profile image61
                  KFlippinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  The Wiz and Pretty Panther are the same?  Is that what you mean?  Allrighty then......

                  replyreport
                  1. profile image0
                    WizardOfOzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    I have no sock puppets.

                    Thank you.

                    replyreport
                  2. Randy Godwin profile image61
                    Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    How did you get this out of what I said, KFC?  No wonder you are so confused!

                    replyreport
            2. profile image0
              PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              "sad and embarrassing to strong and intelligent women"

              Conservatives have Palin, Bachman, and now Sharron Angle.

              Tea Party Candidate Misfires in Senate Race

              I'll keep Pelosi, thank you.  smile

              replyreport
              1. KFlippin profile image61
                KFlippinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                You do that, keep her as long as the paper mache' holds up.

                replyreport
                1. profile image0
                  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Good one, K!

                  Pelosi:
                  http://exploded.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/halloween-pelosi.jpg

                  Bachmann:
                  http://lastpostofsanity.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/michelle-bachmann2.jpg

                  Palin:
                  http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Bq2bkhRbS-0/SsKFvvvGcbI/AAAAAAAACo4/W9gisIBem2s/s400/Sarah%2BPalin,%2BGovernor%2Bof%2BAlaska%2Bon%2BFlickr%2B-%2BPhoto%2BSharing!.png

                  Angle:
                  http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/06/09/sharron_angle_cavity_creep/md_horiz.jpg

                  Funny how anyone can be made to look crazy, huh?

                  replyreport
                  1. KFlippin profile image61
                    KFlippinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    Yeah, libs are good at being actually crazy and making others look crazy in their spin game, it's a well-honed defensive talent, kudos to libs for such talent and lamestream media backing smile ........but looking like paper mache', like you're a fragile qivering mask of foolery ..... that's just Pelosi, she's unique in that respect, and oh so original.

                    replyreport
                  2. Ralph Deeds profile image63
                    Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    Bachman and Angle make themselves look crazy which is easy because they are crazy.

                    replyreport
    2. wyanjen profile image73
      wyanjenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Rather than get into a detailed explanation, I just went ahead and used your own post to explain why you're wrong.
      (see bolded type)

      replyreport
    3. KFlippin profile image61
      KFlippinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You mean like the New Black Panthers, or whatever they call themselves these days?

      replyreport
  2. profile image0
    WizardOfOzposted 12 years ago

    US Death Toll in Iraq since 2003 - Dec 2009: 4287

    Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … alties.htm

    9/11 Death Toll: 2752

    Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeas … tc.deaths/

    Terrorism?

    replyreport
    1. Abwaan profile image60
      Abwaanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      ......???????

      replyreport
      1. profile image0
        WizardOfOzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        What is your question?

        replyreport
  3. Shadesbreath profile image81
    Shadesbreathposted 12 years ago

    I think a more honest definition would make at least some attempt to include what people actually mean when they say "terrorist" (like intentionally killing civilians for the purpose of making a political point), and it would have served you better too. 

    If you want to claim that the U.S. is bad for going to war and make a death toll comparison, do it.   Just say what you mean.  But a semantic word game destroys your credibility, proving right out of the gate that you have no interest in having an honest conversation on the topic.

    replyreport
  4. profile image0
    WizardOfOzposted 12 years ago

    a person.  Very good.  So, the US Defense force is full of terrorists?

    and to shadesofbreath, not my definition, its the Oxford definition.

    So far as my credibility goes, I am not trying to start a movement on hubpages and nor is my whole opinion meant to be contained in such a simple post.  However, although I am not claiming the US is bad or good, I do believe the US has a misconstrued understanding of terrorism. 

    You make a point about intentionally killing civilians.  The US is not innocent by that measure.

    replyreport
    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Let's put it this way----

      If you're not an American citizen, shame on you for trying to promote anti-American propoganda toward a Nation whose soldiers are doing all they can to honorably fight terrorism.
      and
      If you ARE an American citizen, shame on you for trying to promote anti-American propoganda.

      Gee, did I say shame on you?   Good.


      Now, if you were to question whether the current Obama Administration is causing terror or not, you'd have a valid question.   But you should've stated your title that way, in my opinion.

      replyreport
      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Shame on everyone?  Who knew you were a Universalist?

        replyreport
        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Come on, Ron.  You know I'm not a Universalist. 

          I'm just "universally" against Obama's hogwash.  The stigma of his horrid policies stinks up everything all across the board (I mean the board of...just everything;  it's a figure of speech).

          replyreport
          1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Maybe an anti-universalist?  Hell for everyone instead of salvation.

            replyreport
            1. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              I wouldn't wish hell on anyone.
              And oh Ron----you're fighting the Flame! lol.  This tangent of conversation is one that should be in the Christian Discussion thread.   Are you runnin' away?

              Anyhow, it's past my bedtime.  I'll leave you in the capable hands of the strong conservatives here.  I do pity you in that, 'cause they're on the winning side come November or 2012 or some future time!   See, I'm very optimistic.

              replyreport
              1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                No my friend, you are way past optimistic.  You are in fact delusional.

                replyreport
      2. profile image0
        WizardOfOzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Look Sweetcheeks,

        I can separate military policy from the Nation Whole.  Get over it.

        replyreport
        1. profile image0
          WizardOfOzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          If that reply was too coded for your restricted mind, I mean this; by the fact I oppose Western force in the Middle East does not mean I am spreading Anti-American propaganda.

          Whats next, you will start calling me a communist?

          I am a British and Australian citizen also, I don't support either of these countries in their military efforts.  It is not about national pride or national identity or solidarity, it is about murder of civilians, it is about lack of respect for human life, whether those lives are Iraqi, Afghan, American, British, Australia, Islamic, Christian, Secular. 

          Do you get that Brenda?

          replyreport
          1. profile image0
            Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I got it.
            I just totally disagree and think that you're way too quick to make a put-down about America.
            I got the "SweetCheeks" comment in your other post too,  thank you!  Makes me feel young again, SugarBun.  wink

            replyreport
          2. outdoorsguy profile image61
            outdoorsguyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            kind of like the beheading of people who dont agree with extremist Islam.  Killing jews becuase of  being jewish.  blowing up people at their places of worship.  tribal elders gang rapings young women for not being modest.  Kill little kids becuase their parents dont support jihad.  shooting people from hospitals and mosques. stone people to death for not following their brand of religion. 

            attacking military forces while surrounding themselves with women and babies. ( cowards)  Torturing kids becuase they stole bread.  holding entire communitys hostage by threatening to kill their children.   yep sounds Humane to me.

            replyreport
        2. Sab Oh profile image56
          Sab Ohposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          That is not an appropriate address to a lady. A little respect isn't too much to ask.

          replyreport
          1. profile image0
            WizardOfOzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Sab, don't talk to me about respect.

            replyreport
            1. Sab Oh profile image56
              Sab Ohposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              I would hope it wouldn't be necessary.

              replyreport
  5. profile image0
    ShadowKing!posted 12 years ago

    Sounds like every damn nation in this world. No nation is exempt from the essential definition of "terrorist". Singling out one country to bear the weight of a certain ideology is ignorance. However, if that nation is the forerunner of that ideology then they will be "singled out" as a nuisance.

    replyreport
    1. profile image0
      WizardOfOzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      So, sort of like when one country bombs the Sh!t out of another country for about 30 years and then that country gets fed up and sends a few mini-terror army dudes to blow some stuff up and hopes that the big mean country will leave them alone?  Sorta like that?

      replyreport
  6. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years ago

    Harry Truman

    replyreport
  7. Doug Hughes profile image60
    Doug Hughesposted 12 years ago

    I saw a bumper sticker last week -

    "Terrorism - War on a Small Budget"

    replyreport
    1. profile image0
      WizardOfOzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I like the sentiment.

      replyreport
    2. Pandoras Box profile image60
      Pandoras Boxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Well that sure ain't America. But then just think of all the money we could have saved...

      replyreport
  8. TMMason profile image60
    TMMasonposted 12 years ago

    Wiz, I see you for what you are.

    Angry and envious, just like the rest of the world.

    Angry the USA won't be like you, and envious you cannot be like the USA.

    It is a lethal combination and it is eating you up.

    Get some help... you have the Right to it.

    replyreport
    1. profile image0
      WizardOfOzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Massy, I am sure that makes sense through your nationalistic eye but I am not envious and nor am I angry at the USA.  I am not sure why you think these things.  Like I said before, I have even considered a visit, I reconsidered but not out of anger or envy.  Maybe one day I will visit, who knows.  Clearly, you have made your mind up about me, I can deal with that.  I won't lose sleep.  I don't assume you are a representative of your country.  I have met Americans before and some of them were pleasant some not.  Same as any other place.  I do find it entertaining that you think the world, not just me; we are all angry and envious.  That is very interesting.  Maybe you could come visit me in Australia, we have free health care here.  We also have very good research universities.  Maybe you could get yourself checked out while you are here.  Maybe they could sort out these bizarre notions of world wide America envy?

      replyreport
      1. Sab Oh profile image56
        Sab Ohposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        " Maybe one day I will visit, who knows"

        Whoa now, you gave your word that you would not.

        replyreport
        1. profile image0
          WizardOfOzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I lie all the time, its only human.

          replyreport
          1. Sab Oh profile image56
            Sab Ohposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            "I lie all the time"


            Well, now I can judge your character accordingly.

            replyreport
            1. profile image0
              WizardOfOzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Go for it.  I am sure your analysis will fit your cut and paste lifestyle very well.

              replyreport
              1. Sab Oh profile image56
                Sab Ohposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Just going by your own words

                replyreport
                1. profile image0
                  WizardOfOzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  This sort of reading will get you nowhere in life.  Language is more than words.  Are you playing the fool or are you just not aware of the second dimension?

                  replyreport
                  1. Sab Oh profile image56
                    Sab Ohposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    YOU said that you are a dishonest person who does not keep his word. I would hope that is not true, but you said it not me.


                    Oh, was THAT a lie? I see...

                    replyreport
                  2. profile image0
                    china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    It is hard having any kind of 'in-depth' communication with a flat-earther isn't it big_smile

                    replyreport
  9. Strophios profile image59
    Strophiosposted 12 years ago

    I actually wrote a paper on this centering around the United States use of a strategy of "Shock and Awe." Reading the strategy manual on which it was based was quite enlightening, and not a little disturbing. I have included an excerpt from the paper following the U.N.'s current working definition of terrorism.

    The current U.N. working definition of terrorism



        Operation Iraq Freedom was conducted based on the doctrine of Shock and Awe, which was first articulated by Harlan Ullman in his 1996 book 'Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance.' Shock and Awe, as articulated by Ullman, is an inherently terroristic doctrine, and any campaign that truly applies the principles of Shock and Awe can be fairly called “terroristic.” First, according to Ullman, “The basis for Rapid Dominance rests in the ability to affect the will, perception, and understanding of the adversary through imposing sufficient Shock and Awe to achieve the [...] goals of the conflict[.]” This is, as yet, not inherently terroristic; however, it could certainly be viewed as such, in the sense that “affect[ing] the will, perception, and understanding” could mean nothing more than terrorizing the target. This is certainly implied by the name Shock and Awe, which is nothing more than “terror” made politically acceptable. As one continues through the book Ullman uses a number of historical examples to illustrate the concept of Shock and Awe. Nearly all of them are terroristic. From the massive bombardments of World Wars one and two to the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki his examples include incredible factors of cruelty, terror, and often civilian deaths. What is even more telling is the extent to which Shock and Awe perfectly matches the U.N. definition of terrorism: “The fundamental values or lives are the principal targets and the aim is to convince the majority that resistance is futile by targeting and harming the few.” This matches perfectly with “the immediate human victims of violence [...] serve as message generators.” Both include the concept of threat and violence in the service of coercion, specifically against civilian targets (Ullman cannot possibly think that “by targeting and harming the few” he could effect the surrender of an army). Finally Ullman nigh on states the terroristic nature of his strategy, “While there are surely humanitarian considerations that cannot or should not be ignored, the ability to Shock and Awe ultimately rests in the ability to frighten, scare, intimidate, and disarm.” Not only does Ullman completely ignore the issue of civilian casualties but he states that the intent of Shock and Awe is to “frighten, scare, intimidate.” There is no conclusion but that Shock and Awe is intrinsically terroristic, a worrisome fact given that it was the strategy behind Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    This conclusion is held out by the further statements made by Ullman and by the Pentagon. From General Tommy Franks now infamous statement that "we don't do body counts" to UIlman's own statement in an interview that "You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted," and finally the statement of an unnamed Pentagon official that "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad.”

        The way the U.S. handled the aftermath of this operation, the occupation, finally proves its intention as a terrorist attack. Examined from any other prospective the U.S.’s handling of the occupation, and the extent to which they were prepared for it, is simply idiotic. The U.S. had an unworkable post-war plan, as Galbraith explains:



    Galbraith is exactly right in that the Bush administration thought it would be easy; however, he is incorrect in his assumptions. The U.S. did not expect the bureaucrats and police to return to their posts the next day; the U.S. expected that the populace would be in such a state of shock that it would not matter. The U.S. intended for the populace to be too terrorized, too awed, to act in any meaningful way. This is why the force the U.S. sent to occupy Iraq was too few by several hundred thousand; this is why the U.S. provided no plans for replacing the police force, or any immediate interim government. As Frederick Kagan observed about the doctrine of Shock and Awe:



    It is true that war is not about “breaking things and killing people” but terrorism is. Terrorism is about “breaking things and killing people” in such a way as to scare the people into doing what you want. This is precisely what the U.S. was expecting, that their terrorist attack would have scared the people into doing what it wanted, cowing them into submission. It did not, which is why it is in so much trouble there now.


    If you want more of the essay, I can post it. Likewise, if you want my citations I can post those too.

    replyreport
  10. earnestshub profile image83
    earnestshubposted 12 years ago

    I see Sarah Pailin is on top of the confusion. She wears a name tag so she knows who she is. A fine idea for when she gets lost in a trance while talking in tongues. smile

    replyreport
    1. Randy Godwin profile image61
      Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      She is an embarrassment to our country, Earnest!  At least to some of us.  It is very frightening she was able to even be considered for such a high public office.  This shows the amount of ignorance some on the right have about how qualified she is! 

      Not surprising unfortunately, considering those who supported Dubya for two terms!

      replyreport
    2. Kangaroo_Jase profile image78
      Kangaroo_Jaseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Earnest,
      Sarah Palin reminds me of an American version of one of our fish and chip shop ex-pollies, yet NOWHERE near as good looking smile

      replyreport
      1. profile image0
        WizardOfOzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Pants down? haha.  Are you saying Pauline or Palin is the hot one?

        replyreport
      2. earnestshub profile image83
        earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Hey Kanga! I'd forgotten about that crazy flake chucker! Mind you, her electorate is not the home of our greatest thinkers! lol
        Pailin and her are intellectual twins. Elma Fudds in drag. smile

        replyreport
        1. Randy Godwin profile image61
          Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          How dare you insult our Elmer Fudd like that, Earnest!  He speaks so much better than Palin!  LOL!

          replyreport
          1. Kangaroo_Jase profile image78
            Kangaroo_Jaseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Im saying Palin is the hot one Wizard, Pants Down is.... Ok, lets not go there lol

            replyreport
            1. earnestshub profile image83
              earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Pants down is no oil Painting that's for sure.

              Once Pailin opens her mouth she would put a Kelpie off it's dinner! smile

              replyreport
              1. Kangaroo_Jase profile image78
                Kangaroo_Jaseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                howwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwl!!!!!! lol

                replyreport
  11. Randy Godwin profile image61
    Randy Godwinposted 12 years ago

    Bush ordered the attacks on Iraq, not Obama.  I feel safe in saying this would not have happened under any other administration.  The info which allowed this to happen was manipulated and misconstrued by the Bush administration in order to enable this to happen.

    Remember the posters with the mobile biological weapons labs pictured on them?  It turns out they were made up to create the false impression of them actually existing at all.  Only a terrorist would manipulate people into going to war in this manner. 

    Like the weapons of mass destruction, the mobile labs didn't exist at all.  Whose heads rolled over this blatant act?  No one so far!

    replyreport
    1. Sab Oh profile image56
      Sab Ohposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      And of course all of this can be proven. That's why all those charges have been brought...oh, that's riiiiiiiight.... roll

      replyreport
      1. Randy Godwin profile image61
        Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        I don't think I have to prove Bush, not Obama started the Iraq War, do I?  Even someone of your ilk must know this!

        replyreport
        1. Sab Oh profile image56
          Sab Ohposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I don't blame you for trying to change the subject.

          replyreport
          1. Randy Godwin profile image61
            Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Not changing the subject at all!  The fabricating of the posters were admitted to!  Computer generated renderings " of info, that's all!  Or perhaps you have evidence they did exist after all?

            Here is one of many links you can check out.  Yes, it's wikipedia but it seems to cut to the chase.  Check out others if you like!  The Fox News version would probably be the best bet for you.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory

            replyreport
            1. Sab Oh profile image56
              Sab Ohposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              "in order to enable this to happen."


              When does the trial begin?



              p.s. LOL @ wiki !!!

              replyreport
              1. Randy Godwin profile image61
                Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Did you look elsewhere as I suggested?

                replyreport
                1. Sab Oh profile image56
                  Sab Ohposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Does 'wiki' roll say when the trial begins?

                  replyreport
                  1. Randy Godwin profile image61
                    Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    I never said there would be a trial, just that there should be.  I told you there were other links but you apparently are afraid  to look.  I don't blame you!  LOL!  It makes no difference, you obviously feel the war was worth whatever deception was needed to get us motivated to invade Iraq.

                    replyreport
        2. profile image0
          china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Hi Randy - you are wasting your time and thread space I think - the same people who believe that the invasion of Iraq was not based on lies and deceit probably agree with the other nuts who try to tell us that the nazi death camps were fabricated lies and Jewish propoganda.

          replyreport
          1. Randy Godwin profile image61
            Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I know it China Man!  But he needs feeding!

            replyreport
          2. Sab Oh profile image56
            Sab Ohposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I hope you are not actually casting accusations of Holocaust denial, Straw man.

            replyreport
            1. profile image0
              china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Still having trouble reading and understanding I see - maybe you could attend some of my classes

              replyreport
              1. Sab Oh profile image56
                Sab Ohposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                What a generous offer. Thanks, but no thanks. Just feel free to take care what you imply.

                replyreport
    2. Jim Hunter profile image59
      Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yes Bush did order attacks on Iraq after approval from Congress. Mr Obama has continued that action and seems content to stay there.

      Is Guantanamo Bay still operating??

      replyreport
      1. Randy Godwin profile image61
        Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        I don't think "seems content" accurately describes his actions.  And all of congress did not vote to go into Iraq as someone has already pointed out. 

        If the real intelligence had been made known to congress it is doubtful we would ever have invaded Iraq in the first place!

        replyreport
        1. Jim Hunter profile image59
          Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          All of Congress did not all vote in favor of attacking, but, since when did a unanimous vote become necessary? Did I miss something?

          Are we out of Iraq? 

          His inaction in that regard implies contentment to me.

          And well over a year since promising to close Guantanamo it still operates.

          I am all for giving him a chance to correct the mistakes he claims to have inherited, but he does nothing but point fingers, thats not leadership to me.

          replyreport
        2. profile image0
          china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          It is not doubtful - it is a certainty - Without the manufactured lies that 'justified' their actions it would not have been possible, even with the fundamentalist religious groups slavering at the thought of another 'crusade'.

          And without the lies they would not have been able to con our dimwit UK Prime Minister into joining and supporting their actions, without that support the US would have had NO significant world backing at all, except for those countries with US puppet governments who do not count on the world stage on their own.

          Also Obama has to contend with the entrenched forces such as the bankers, just under half the politicians and especially the military, he can't just 'pull out' because he does  not have the power to do so.

          replyreport
          1. Sab Oh profile image56
            Sab Ohposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I notice the theophobes never miss a chance to inject the subject of scary-scary religion into any and every topic.

            replyreport
            1. profile image0
              china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              sorry about mentioning that it was the religious vote that got Bush to the White House, it is only a fact, no need to be scared by it.

              replyreport
              1. Sab Oh profile image56
                Sab Ohposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                The majority of people in the US are religious.

                replyreport
  12. TMMason profile image60
    TMMasonposted 12 years ago

    Again your wrong, Chinamen...

    I don't buy the lie, story, British intelligence still stands by that info. And I know for a fact that the "Socialist NAZIs" slaughtered the Jews in the camps. Well many, many, of the lil socialist people in Europe, turned a blind eye.

    Americans on the right and in the middle are alot sarter then you arrogant leftists believe us to be. We have seen where the left has taken this world in the past and we will not allow it to be done again.

    You can all bash Bush all you want... the man is a progressive... do i need to explain further. We see you leant leftists and Progressives, where and for who you all are.

    replyreport
  13. jiberish profile image79
    jiberishposted 12 years ago

    If anyone is crazy it our own speaker of the house Ms Pelosi, who just this week said: "Unemployment checks are the fastest way to create jobs."  Someone please explain this to me cause I did not attend Harvard, maybe it's why I just don't understand.

    replyreport
    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Amen jiberish!
      Them people is....edjumacated fewls...is how I refers to 'em.

      replyreport
      1. AdsenseStrategies profile image65
        AdsenseStrategiesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Unemployment cheques put money in the pockets of people who would otherwise have a lot less money. In a society like yours, where the savings rate is essentially zero, money in the pocket gets spent. It gets spent at places that provide jobs, like mom-and-pop stores, car showrooms, WalMart, bookstores, and grocery stores. I am not saying I agree with the logic, because I haven't thought about it too deeply, but on the face of it, it does seem to make sense that the more money individuals have in their pockets, the better this is for businesses that sell stuff.

        replyreport
        1. Jim Hunter profile image59
          Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Unemployment checks will go to keeping the electric/water/ on and to the grocery store. I doubt very seriously the unemployed consider it play money.

          replyreport
    2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, attending Junior High School should give a person all the education necessary to understand such a basic concept.

      Some money is greater than no money.

      A person with no money may salivate at the sight of a twinkie, but he cannot buy one to eat.

      A person with some money can buy a twinkie.

      The twinkie is only available to be purchased if a guy bakes it, someone else ships it, and yet another person displays it and sells it. (job creation as a result of federal government spending)

      Nancy Pelosi gets mega campaign contributions from the twinkie company.

      FoxNews has something to bitch about which creates a need to hire screaming morons who are otherwise unemployable.

      Everyone wins! smile

      replyreport
      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        I'm not totally against unemployment checks!  They are a help to people who deserve them.
        My disagreement is with Pelosi in general, and I'm sure her stance on illegal immigration and "artistic license" and such nonsense would eat up the funds that should be going to the hardworking citizens.

        replyreport
        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          artistic license?

          replyreport
          1. profile image0
            Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Oh, something Pelosi said about how artists and etc. could focus on their "work" and still have health care, which of course leads me to believe she'd want the government to provide them a living in all areas.  I assume she's wanting America to become the modern version of ancient Greece or something.
            Whatever.  It does a man (or woman) good to earn their keep by the "sweat of their brow".   


            But hey, come to think of it, all us writers here on HubPages could ask Pelosi and the nonsense-Administration to take keer uv all uv us whilst we bask in our grrreatt artistic talllints!  LOL

            replyreport
            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              You may be onto something there. smile

              But I have to agree.  The state should be seperate from the arts (and the church)

              replyreport
            2. Uninvited Writer profile image77
              Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              You don't think artists and writers work hard?

              replyreport
              1. profile image0
                Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Of course they do, many of them!
                And my post was not to say that there aren't many hugely talented writers here on HubPages and elsewhere, because indeed there are!  I'm in awe of some Hubbers' writings and skill.  But personal writing shouldn't be put in the same category overall as a regular job.  Some people, privately and publicly, make a living at it, and that's great!  But I think Pelosi was opening the door to an ultimate situation that would cut way down on America's production of goods and services while we all become further and further under the thumb of her governmental-tyranny mindset.

                replyreport
                1. Uninvited Writer profile image77
                  Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Every society must have artists and writers, not everyone can create goods and services. Now making everyone do that...that would be tyranny.

                  Are you one of those people who don't believe arts and music have a place in education?

                  replyreport
              2. KFlippin profile image61
                KFlippinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Brenda wasn't implying that artists don't work hard, and her remark about a return to old Greece was apt given the political context, so I'm surprised at your persistent thrust to portray ill from her comments.  I've even written a villanelle of late about the sweat of the brow and sweat of the mind -- it's an age old ...... argument of sorts.

                The implications of Pelosi's gushing comments are nothing but reflective of Pelosi's mis-placed Goddess mentality.  God help us all if we should ever find ourselves saddled with her as President, 'udderly' frightening......

                replyreport
  14. KFlippin profile image61
    KFlippinposted 12 years ago

    Opening Post:  "Terrorist n. a person who uses or favours violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community."



    To Repeat:  "You mean like the New Black Panthers, or whatever they call themselves these days?"

    replyreport
    1. profile image0
      china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      ?

      replyreport
    2. profile image0
      WizardOfOzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It was boring the first time you said it.. I guess that's why nobody replied.

      Are you feeling unloved?

      replyreport
      1. KFlippin profile image61
        KFlippinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        No, but you are looking uninformed and poltically and factually biased!

        replyreport
        1. profile image0
          WizardOfOzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          tell me more.  You are not very forthcoming for one accusing others with broad statements lol

          With/Of; they both work wink

          replyreport
  15. Ralph Deeds profile image63
    Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago

    The book and movie "War Made Easy" document the United States' nasty habit of using military force to solve diplomatic and economic problems around the world.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5CF5pfVzLI

    replyreport
    1. profile image0
      WizardOfOzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Ralph, a voice of reason.

      Good day, Sir.

      replyreport
    2. KFlippin profile image61
      KFlippinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hope you enjoy your peaceful cup of coffee and choice of breakfast in the morning......

      replyreport
      1. Ralph Deeds profile image63
        Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Thanks. I shall. I wish you had taken the time to watch the YouTube trailer of the movie. [I sent a copy of the book and movie video to Carl Levin. Somehow I doubt that he took the time to read or watch it either. I did get a thank you note from one of his staffers.]

        replyreport
        1. KFlippin profile image61
          KFlippinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Actually, I will watch it.  But, nothing will ever make me see our country as somehow a bad place to be, a bad country to call home, a bad country that even the likes of China is superior to in any way.  We'll never know the actual numbers of people killed or imprisoned in China, Iraq, Iran, and across the world where war and death are the daily bread for those who have an undesirable opinion.

          replyreport
          1. Ralph Deeds profile image63
            Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I'm not saying the U.S. is a bad country. Just recognizing that it's an imperfect country. And one that's much less imperfect than most other countries.

            replyreport
            1. KFlippin profile image61
              KFlippinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              That would be a matter of purely political opinion - I daresay if the USA held such a low spot on the totem, was so much "less imperfect than most other countries" we would not have any sort of an immigration problem.

              The true intellectual discussion that those such as yourself bring to the table, would be at the table, regardless of any distress within our country, and that would be healthy for our country -- just not now when there is so much blatant intent to weaken us -- it serves no American.

              replyreport
          2. profile image0
            WizardOfOzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Air tight proof of your delusion.

            replyreport
  16. Uninvited Writer profile image77
    Uninvited Writerposted 12 years ago

    Will this peeing contest be over soon?

    replyreport
    1. KFlippin profile image61
      KFlippinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      ! Hope so.

      replyreport
  17. profile image0
    WizardOfOzposted 12 years ago

    Report me if you like.

    It would find it remarkable to be banned for such a statement.  If that is the mentality of the staff it would be a damn shame.  Do what you must.

    replyreport
    1. Sab Oh profile image56
      Sab Ohposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Wouldn't it be better for all of us to just try and communicate without personal insults and sexist remarks without needing to resort to 'reporting' and such? I'm sure it would be simpler to just exercise a little self control.

      replyreport
      1. Randy Godwin profile image61
        Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Your sarcasm kills me Sob!

        replyreport
  18. Randy Godwin profile image61
    Randy Godwinposted 12 years ago

    Apparently, Sob oh and KFC peed the most!  Congrats!  LOL!

    replyreport
    1. KFlippin profile image61
      KFlippinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Fried Chicken, Buckets of Pee-Gifting Iced Tea, and Well-Cooked Vegans -------mmmmmmmmmmmmm  My Favorite!

      replyreport
jump to first post
 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

 Necessary
 Features
 Marketing
 Statistics

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)