I personally dislike our current foreign policy. I want to puke everytime I hear Bush (to be fair Clinton as well) give grand speeches about promoting our brand of freedom worldwide and then here how we back up some dictator who values human rights less than (insert evil country or leader) does. It makes no sense at all.
I tend to be a moderate libertarian on domestic issues, but I'm 100% with the party when it comes to foreign relations. Friendship/trade with all, alliances/aid with no one.
Yes absolutely...we funnelled $billions in weapons. equipment and advice to Saddam Hussein. Do you remember that guy who the US regarded as a friend because he was the enemy of our enemy??
It?s called baksheesh. Protection money. He buys your expensive toys and in return you keep him in business.
>When did we get involved in Europe during WW2? 3 years after it started... The US attitude towards Hitler was not exactly hostile until Hitler went 'beyond his station'. Some of America's most influential and powerful families and dynasties, such as Rockefellers, the Harrimans and Bush's were extremely supportive of Hitler's master-race philosophy. Hitler and the Nazi party of Germany were funded by both the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and numerous private organizations both in the US and the UK during the decade and a half leading up to the outbreak of war. Whether WW2 could have been avoided if Hitler hadn't had all this financial help for his campaigns and ideas? That is an "if of history", but our actions sure didn't help.<
Wow, what a load of crap that is. You said a few bizarre things, but this is the kicker. Where on Earth do you dig up such hogwash?..........................
Sam,where is your proof that the invasion of Afghanistan was in the works pre -Sept 11 or what you are really saying that the U.S. has already have a an existing plan that was drafted years ago just in case it was ever needed?The former is very hard to defend because you should have facts to back it up ,but the latter is easy because the Pentagon has some roughly drawn plans which can be made real in case the U.S. needs them in which this was the case.And before you will say I prove your point,every nation has a plan in the works in which you have to defend or attack other countries just in case shit hits the can which is prudent.In the case of the Balkans,how about trying to prevent Ethnic cleansing of a people or are you just content of letting them all die like that just as long as America would not interfere.In any case,if America didn't interfere,there would have been an ethnic war which btw will surely drag the U.S. with a lot of casualties when it ends.Better stop it then before it would really erupt in a big way.
I also notice that you really hate the military and from your wording that you categoried almost all of those who are in the upper echelons of the military slimeballs .Have you ever been in the military or are you just hearing it secondhand?On every countries armed forces,there are many whether inthe top brass down to your basic footslugger who are honorable but will never be mentioned because those who are corrupt
who will always get the headlines .And that is how the U.S. military began to have a strong dislike with media and not because of the latter exposing the truth,but the way they start judging the whole military rather than the few members who did wrong.BTW,do not paint every politicians and every business leaders the same way as being corrupt,greedy,etc even though you acknowledge some exceptions.It is unfair to many of them even though some of them deserves it moreso.It's like me telling you that 99% of all legal secretaries I know are arrogant,liars and the like, even when I know the way I said it is misleading and very unfair.So be careful of that please.
SDW2001,thanks for some corrections,but is the last paragraph aimed for me or somebody else because I don't remember posting it.
SJO is a freak. Yet more completely unsubstantiated crap from her. The government sucks, Bush sucks, the military sucks, we are duplicit scum who care nothing for anyone, the government planned 9/11........it just goes on and on with her.
[quote]Wow, what a load of crap that is. You said a few bizarre things, but this is the kicker. Where on Earth do you dig up such hogwash?<hr></blockquote>
Regarding the actions of the Federal Reserve in funding Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party of Germany.. there are a number of well researched books. Eustace Mullins' "Secrets of the Federal Reserve", although not very elegantly written, is exhaustively researched. On the downside,it has been panned by some who view it as being 'anti-semitic' because it exposes controversial indiscretions (!) by the international banking community, which (coincidentally) happens to have (had) many Jewish people in positions of power, as we all know. Mullins worked in the Library of Congress (I seem to recall) and spent hundreds of hours in there dredging up ther necessary records. The book was published in the 1950s, and almost immediately banned...the entire first print run was seized and burned! Also try "Jekyll Island: a second look at the Federal Reserve", by G Griffin. But Steve666, probably everything out there that conflicts with your current understanding of the way the world works (or doesn't?) ...you will routinely put down as a conspiracy theory, or the ravings of some wacko.
Some facts on Eugenics (race 'science'): ie a short potted history:
The launch of the Eugenics movement was funded by Averell Harriman's mother in 1910, and the Eugenics Records Office was incorporated as a branch of the Galton National Laboratory in London. The Harrimans were responsible for the Bush family fortune and they were close to another Bush family backer, George Herbert Walker, a relative by marriage of Prescott Bush (great-grandfather to the current President). By the turn of the century, the Harrimans and the Rockefellers spent $11 million to establish a Eugenics Research Laboratory on Long Is. NY. Indiana meanwhile made sterilization of undesirables and the mentally ill compulsory as a result of Eugenics policies. The study of Eugenics was encouraged at Harvard, Columbia and Cornell. At the same time, similar ideas were being promoted by Ernst Haeckel whose ideas were to profoundly influence Hitler in his "master-race" ideology. The first International Congress of Eugenics was held in London in 1912 (Winston Churchill and Alexander Graham Bell were amongst its directors). By 1917, 15 American States had Eugenics laws, many making the sterilization of epileptics, mentally ill and common criminals legal.
In 1932, just before Hitler became dictator of Germany the Harrimans organized the Third International Congress on Eugenics at the Natural History Museum in New York. Mary Harriman was the director of entertainment for the event.
These super-wealthy American dynasties loved the idea of Eugenics because they believed themselves to be racially superior and wished to protect their racial purity.
The aim of Eugenics was to create a "master race" by forced sterilization and severe birth control of races considered to be "inferior", specially African Americans and others of color.
Averell Harriman personally arranged for the Hamburg-Amerika shipping line (controlled by Harriman, Prescott Bush and George Walker) to transport Nazis from germany to New York so they could take part in the Congress. The best known of these Nazis was Ernst Rudin, a psychiatrist at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, and his Eugenics Research efforts occupied an entire floor there...funded by the *Rockefellers*. He was elected President of the International Federation of Eugenics societies in New York. Rudin's Rockefeller funded policies resulted in the mass sterilization of 250,000 people in Germany during Hitlers rise to power, of people considered racially inferior. Rudin's ideas were inspired by the "Model Eugenical Sterilization Law" of 1922 by H. H. Laughlin the Eugenics "expert" in the US House of Representatives Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. In 1942, American psychiatrist Foster Kennedy called for the euthanizing of retarded children and between 1941 and 1943, >45000 people were compulsorily sterilized.
The Eugenics efforts continued after WW2, although because the Holocaust was becoming public knowledge, the terminology, such as 'master races, racial purity and sterilization' etc was dropped. After WW2, William H Draper took the reins. Draper was an advisor to Lyndon Johnson on these issues, and his policies found a firm supporter in future President George H .W. Bush. Bush arranged hearings in 1969 into the "dangers of there being too many black babies". Draper's son and heir was co-chairman for finance and head of fund raising for the Bush-Reagan presidential campaign of 1980, and a few years later, Bush persuaded Reagan to appoint the younger Draper to be the head of the U.N. Development Program, charged with supervising population control.
I don't think I need go on. I really don't want to, but I have made my point. I'm done with typing and I find that recalling this material is not much fun, or edifying. I have named names, dates and organizations. This is all verifiable, and is not some wacky conspiracy theory. I imagine you will dismiss all this by default, beacuse it comes from some stranger on a bulletin board. Just because this kind of gross material doesnt appear in standard history classes, you shouldnt dismiss it as being untrue because it falls outside of your comfort zone. To be honest, I find it profoudly sad and depressing that so many people in positions of authority, trust, wealth and connections in this country have abused their power in a very ugly fashion.
[quote]SJO is a freak. Yet more completely unsubstantiated crap from her. The government sucks, Bush sucks, the military sucks, we are duplicit scum who care nothing for anyone, the government planned 9/11........it just goes on and on with her.
SJO: Shut the **** up.<hr></blockquote>
SDW2001, if you want to win points in an argument, make some valid rebuttals. You sound like the kind of person who uses his fists rather than his words when he has run out of ideas. Even if what I post is unacceptable to your view of the world, do try to counter with a valid argument rather than stooping to name calling. Your attitude is naive and childish and your post puts out the image of a 14 year old boy in a tantrum. Come back when you have something to *say*.
<strong>The president sucks,he's a moron and a redneck,I have no respect for him or any of the other fascists in office.Civil rights are already being trampled on,most Americans don't have the guts to admit it.American foreign policy does suck,I'm American and ashamed of what is going on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are a moron for your uneducated response and the immature comment of calling him a "Redneck". Your determination of him and his office being fascist is a emotional and illogical response because you are probably brainwashed by your parents and/or peers. Or maybe worse, a blind fool.
I don't mind any criticism of our country or any of the political establishments. But when it is down right uneducated insults. It bothers me, because I have had my fill of listening to people like you. Post with some brains or don't at all.
You are on the extreme end for sure, but you have done a good job of stirring the pot . Americans spend too little time learning about the World and analyzing their (our)impact on it. Its refreshing to see such a discussion. I spend a lot of time with people from various parts of the world and most of them, while generally liking Americans, have the same "you don't get it" feeling about us. This feeling they have about us has confused and angered me, but after a long time I think that I finally appreciate it. Most Americans (not most of you here) are ignorant of what goes on more than 5 miles from their house. They get their news from watered-down US sources and they believe the Government line (more so now than in a long time). Do you really think the Arab World hates Americans because they "hate freedom" as W says? I think not. I think that many people in the World, while generally liking Americans, are disturbed by the constant presence of The US in their lives. We manipulate other countries for our benefit under the guise of "spreading freedom and democracy" . I think that what bothers my foreign friends most is not the action of the US government, but the continuous sugar coating of everything as being done to spread democracy and freedom and to help others. I think that they see our Government as very insincere and our people as too clueless to know it.
I read your historical diatribe and while some or most of your historical facts have some basis, your insinuation that the US favored or morally as well as financially supported Hitler (who were also enemies in WWI-germans) over that of the British Chamberlain and the Churchill governments as well as the past allies, who were still allies, seems more like historical conjecture. I find this, overall, to be inplausible at best. The US was a pacifist country all in all up to WWI when Wilson was in power and was still pacifist country until WWII. After Hitler invaded Poland and others before in 1939, Churchill consistently begged/solicited US help until the US formerly fought the war. You implied we delayed entry. In fact, we were fighting this war with the Lend-Lease act long before Dec 7, 1941.
So, I just don't get your angle when you insuate that the US's general policy was favoring and financing Hitler's war, abandoing our existing allies, in favor of a large anti-semetic, aryan view. I guess you could also conjecture that the famous American aviator Charles Lindberg supported Hitler, so did the US.
The fact is, the US gets called into action in this past century to bail out two tribal European wars. WWI was started in the Balkins in Sarejevo and ironically, it still goes on there. It was also after WWI, that Wilson created League of Nations, the predecessor to the United Nations. The UN was created in SF, an American idea, after the WWII under Truman.
I don't agree with your points of view. I don't believe all that US has done but in the end, generally its right in my view. You can look at something two ways and I don't share all your views despite having correct historical background (you leave out counter information in context). I don't believe that there is a conspiracy or a sinister plot like you share.
if you got out of your posh brentwood confines more and lived over here and be critised for everything american and hear all the stupid US sterotypes, you would be pretty offended and tired of it all. You start to appreciate the good and understand the bad. but, all you hear is the bad here (press and people). no one says anything positive about US. It is fashionable here to be anti-american. (culture, economy, technology, media, military, etc etc)
You are on the extreme end for sure, but you have done a good job of stirring the pot . Americans spend too little time learning about the World and analyzing their (our)impact on it. Its refreshing to see such a discussion. I spend a lot of time with people from various parts of the world and most of them, while generally liking Americans, have the same "you don't get it" feeling about us. This feeling they have about us has confused and angered me, but after a long time I think that I finally appreciate it. Most Americans (not most of you here) are ignorant of what goes on more than 5 miles from their house. They get their news from watered-down US sources and they believe the Government line (more so now than in a long time). Do you really think the Arab World hates Americans because they "hate freedom" as W says? I think not. I think that many people in the World, while generally liking Americans, are disturbed by the constant presence of The US in their lives. We manipulate other countries for our benefit under the guise of "spreading freedom and democracy" . I think that what bothers my foreign friends most is not the action of the US government, but the continuous sugar coating of everything as being done to spread democracy and freedom and to help others. I think that they see our Government as very insincere and our people as too clueless to know it.
Oh and the latest is the veto against educating Bosnian Police, because the ICC is in effect. Ok - the situation has eased up, but why won't USA play by a common standard? (I guess I alreay sort-of-know <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> )
Being best is worth nothing in the long run - doing good is worth everything, IMHO
USA has the potential for helping out a lot of people with peaceful means, it can really make a difference in the world.
I'll stop here before I make my self cry <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Oh and the latest is the veto against educating Bosnian Police, because the ICC is in effect. Ok - the situation has eased up, but why won't USA play by a common standard? (I guess I alreay sort-of-know <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> )
USA has the potential for helping out a lot of people with peaceful means, it can really make a difference in the world.
I'll stop here before I make my self cry <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
YodaMaster,
In today's opinion page from the International Herald Tribune on ICC. I'd like to see the ICC put the Dutch on trial for their overseeing the atocities of the Bosnian Peacekeepers. Oh, I forgot, the ICC exempted the Dutch and any previous engagement. How timely! See this below to get the counter argument to your Euro-centric viewpoint....
Europe should be more sensitive to American concerns.
< < Back to Start of Article
Tha allies
?
WASHINGTON We hear it said these days that the United States should show more sensitivity to the concerns and interests of its European allies. No doubt true. But it would be nice if the Europeans showed a little understanding now and then, too.
.
Take the current flap over the International Criminal Court. The treaty establishing the court goes into effect Monday. The Bush administration, which has withdrawn President Bill Clinton's ill-advised signature of that treaty, is demanding immunity from prosecution by the International Criminal Court for any American soldiers serving abroad as peacekeepers. American officials fear some independent-minded prosecutor, answerable to no one, might someday bring charges against an American for war crimes.
.
It is a legitimate concern. In 1999, during the war over Kosovo, there were some in Europe, and in the United States, who accused the American military of war crimes when it bombed Slobodan Milosevic's Serbia. Starting Monday they would be able to bring charges against American soldiers at the International Criminal Court. So the Bush administration has threatened to veto renewal of the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia in the UN Security Council if the necessary protections are not put in place for American peacekeepers serving in that mission. The Europeans so far have refused to make any concessions.
.
The dispute highlights much of what divides Americans and Europeans these days. Europeans, along with many other less influential and less worthy nations, are trying to advance their vision of international civilization, with a web of international laws and institutions assuming authority over individual nation-states. Not surprisingly, the world they're trying to create looks an awful lot like the European Union, where rules and laws are more important than military power. And not surprisingly, they're none too happy about the militarily dominant United States placing itself above or outside their new international legal system before it's even begun.
.
Americans are hardly hostile to international law -- the United Nations was their idea. But the United States has a special problem, one that its European allies ought especially to appreciate. As the world's most powerful democratic power, the United States is called upon - yes, called upon - far more frequently than any other nation to dispatch its troops overseas for any number of purposes. To liberate nations that have been invaded - like Kuwait or, say, France. To defend other nations threatened by invasion - like South Korea and Saudi Arabia or, not so long ago, Germany. Or to defend people threatened by genocide or ethnic cleansing, as in Bosnia and Kosovo.
.
Unlike even the strongest European powers, which have trouble projecting military force even on their own continent, America's entire global strategy is built around projecting military power anywhere at any time, which means the United States is always going to have far more soldiers vulnerable to some misguided International Criminal Court prosecutor than any other nation.
.
But that's only one way the court will have a disproportionate impact on America. It's no secret that the United States, precisely because it is the dominant economic, political, cultural and military force, is more often the target of ire around the world than, say, Luxembourg. Impoverished Egyptians and rich French farmers tend to blame America first. So whose troops are most likely to be hauled before the court on some war crimes charge? Even those who believe the International Criminal Court is a good idea have to admit, if they're honest, that the United States is going to be more vulnerable than other powers.
.
The treaty could have been fixed to deal with some of these problems. When the treaty was being negotiated during the Clinton administration, U.S. officials recognized the inherent problems and looked for ways to provide American troops some protection - such as giving the UN Security Council, where the United States has a veto, ultimate say. But Europeans rejected this "double standard" and opted for legal purity. And the Clinton administration, as some officials ruefully, if privately, admit, didn't try very hard to force the necessary changes. Clinton's last-minute signature of a treaty his officials knew to be badly flawed was, shall we say, less than entirely responsible.
.
So now the crunch point has come, and the Bush administration is quite rightly playing hardball. There's a lot at stake. Europeans argue that if the United States succeeds in getting special treatment then, as one European diplomat told The New York Times, "rogue states will be popping champagne corks." That kind of argument reveals the utopian silliness that animates too many Europeans these days. "Rogue" states will not voluntarily abide by an international court's rulings, no matter what the United States does or does not do. Not abiding by international rules, after all, is what makes a "rogue" a "rogue." But in the meantime, the United States, which has the lion's share of responsibility for defending the rest of the civilized world against rogue states, will have to worry every time it sends troops into hostile territory.
.
Can a more liberal international order be built by hobbling the most powerful defender of that order? That's a question our European allies might want to start asking themselves.
.
The writer, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, contributed this comment to The Washington Post.
I speak from the heart. I truly believe your beliefs are insane. You are so polarized it is ridiculous.
Your "finding of evidence" to suggest that the Bush family supported Hitler's agenda is absolutely and totally ludicrous. You are drawing conclusions and presenting information which is absolutely impossible to verify. One example:
[quote]and his policies found a firm supporter in future President George H .W. Bush. Bush arranged hearings in 1969 into the "dangers of there being too many black babies" <hr></blockquote>
I would LOVE to see the link on that one. You also have no idea what this statement meant in context, if it was ever made. Are you suggesting the Bush family is racist? Just say it, SJO. Stop dancing around it.
You also love to throw around the term "world view". It is a really a brilliant debating tactic, because anything we say can be dismissed as statements filtered through our own particular world view. You also have a world view, which I think most people would agree is "extreme left". It is quite obvious you vehemently oppose Bush and his administration, and will say absolutely anything to paint them a certain color.
Let me tell you why I can't stand people like you: You say anything, no matter how outrageous to slander folks you don't agree with. Calling the Bush family racist, saying the US supported Hitler, or WHATAVER, you will say it whether it is plausible or not, because it is in fact YOUR WORLD VIEW that is so inflexible, not ours.
For example, I am well known here as a staunch conservative. But, I think through each issue to determine my position on it. I also am willing to give credit to certain liberal politicians, such as Clinton, for certain things they have done that I see as positive, even though I seriously dislike them personally and poltically. You won't do this.
I was indeed angry the last time I posted. I stand by that post. Your views are unsubstantiated and extreme, which is not a good combination.
[quote]Sam,where is your proof that the invasion of Afghanistan was in the works pre -Sept 11 or what you are really saying that the U.S. has already have a an existing plan that was drafted years ago just...
snip<hr></blockquote>
What constititutes *proof*? Proof, it seems, a multistandard whereby events and actions that make us uncomfortable demand rigorous proof beyond all and eery doubt, yet official denials of wrongdoings, or platitudes that don't challenge mainstream 'thought' seem to require none whatsoever.
*yawn, whatever*
A good source of information on U.S. relations with Afghanistan, the Taliban, the planned pipeline by Unocal etc etc is "Taliban" by Ahmed Rashid.
OK OK OK OK OK.....before everyone in here kneejerks and calls him a terrorist because his name is Ahmed and his faith is presumably Muslim, (or a conspiracy theorist etc etc), just give me 10 seconds to add that Rashid according to the back liner notes) is a correspondent with Eastern Economic Review, and the Daily Telegraph. Having lived in England for a couple of years, (in Clapham, London and then Lozells Birmingham, as opposed to Mayfair or Knightsbridge to all those who automatically "think", from my current Brentwood, California address that I am some kind of snob)......draw breath........for the benefit of my fellow Americans who don't know this, "The Daily Telegraph" is one of Britains most conservative publications. I used to read it.
[quote]SJO: I speak from the heart. I truly believe your beliefs are insane. You are so polarized it is ridiculous.<hr></blockquote>
My beliefs? I was just giving you a concise history of the Eugenics movement, because someone called my allegations a "pile of unsubstantiated xxxx". The history of such policies are not my fantasies. I named a whole bunch of folk intimately involved in that area of "science", and if so care to run them through Google for example, you will find referenced medical, scientific and historical information which corroborates these links. I imagine though, that you don't wish to, since it seems that your mind is made up, and your mental pathways are carved in stone or are so closed minded about any gnarly history that appears to put your role models into a more unsavory light than is painted by the mainstream. If you want to give us all an alternative version of the history of Eugenics, or divorce it from some of America's most influential families, then lets hear it!
[quote]Your "finding of evidence" to suggest that the Bush family supported Hitler's agenda is absolutely and totally ludicrous. You are drawing conclusions and presenting information which is absolutely impossible to verify. One example: quote: and his policies found a firm supporter in future President George H .W. Bush. Bush arranged hearings in 1969 into the "dangers of there being too many black babies" I would LOVE to see the link on that one. You also have no idea what this statement meant in context, if it was ever made.
Are you suggesting the Bush family is racist? Just say it, SJO. Stop dancing around it. You also love to throw around the term "world view". It is a really a brilliant debating tactic, because anything we say can be dismissed as statements filtered through our own particular world view. You also have a world view, which I think most people would agree is "extreme left". It is quite obvious you vehemently oppose Bush and his administration, and will say absolutely anything to paint them a certain color. <hr></blockquote>
World view? Yes, other nations and peoples do exist outside of middle-class-white-bread-2-SUVs-in-the- garage-suburbia, by the way, and their rights to exist in peace and happiness are just as valid as ours.
I have never met Bush in person, and never likely to. He is probably a really nice and affable man, who loves his family and friends. No, I do not like many of his exclusionary policies, and I don't like the way the the election was hijacked by his like thinking buddies in the Supreme Court. If he was going to win, as conservatives always wish to point out, then why stop the count? It made the whole thing look fake. But that is beside the point. I don't personally think that Bush himself is an avowed racist, although if you look at his cabinet, he did nominate a number of people who cited Murray's "The Bell Curve", (a hymn to racism "justifyed' by bad science) as one of their 'literary inspirations'. Go look up some biographies.
[quote]Let me tell you why I can't stand people like you:<hr></blockquote>
There you go again. Why can't you debate sensibly rather than loosing off verbal hand grenades every time your whitebread-back-to-the-50s ideals are challenged?
[quote]You say anything, no matter how outrageous to slander folks you don't agree with. Calling the Bush family racist, saying the US supported Hitler, or WHATAVER, you will say it whether it is plausible or not, because it is in fact YOUR WORLD VIEW that is so inflexible, not ours. For example, I am well known here as a staunch conservative. But, I think through each issue to determine my position on it. I also am willing to give credit to certain liberal politicians, such as Clinton, for certain things they have done that I see as positive, even though I seriously dislike them personally and poltically. You won't do this.<hr></blockquote>
Why cant you give us some actual facts, rather than just stand there foaming at the mouth without actually saying anything which is a credible rebuttal? All you have done is bleat and swear and level personal insults at me because I cited some links, names and history that impinges upon your comfort zone. Yes, I concur that some of this stuff is not mainstream thought, but who ever said that mainstream history was the truth, the whole truth etc? that viewpoint is naive in the extreme. And, by the way, what people post regarding history and ideology doesn't necessarily reflect their personal view.
I don't quite understand why a staunch conservative like yourself gets so upset by racism anyway; I would have thought you guys would have been more proud about it, if honesty and integrity had anything to do with it. Inclusivity is alien to rightwing philosophy, and well you know it.
[quote]I was indeed angry the last time I posted. I stand by that post. Your views are unsubstantiated and extreme, which is not a good combination.<hr></blockquote>
Comments
Stuck in the Gulf By Damien Cave
] <a href="http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/10/29/central_asian_oil/index1.html"; target="_blank">http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/10/29/central_asian_oil/index1.html</a>;
mika.
[ 06-30-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
I personally dislike our current foreign policy. I want to puke everytime I hear Bush (to be fair Clinton as well) give grand speeches about promoting our brand of freedom worldwide and then here how we back up some dictator who values human rights less than (insert evil country or leader) does. It makes no sense at all.
I tend to be a moderate libertarian on domestic issues, but I'm 100% with the party when it comes to foreign relations. Friendship/trade with all, alliances/aid with no one.
Yes absolutely...we funnelled $billions in weapons. equipment and advice to Saddam Hussein. Do you remember that guy who the US regarded as a friend because he was the enemy of our enemy??
It?s called baksheesh. Protection money. He buys your expensive toys and in return you keep him in business.
mika.
>When did we get involved in Europe during WW2? 3 years after it started... The US attitude towards Hitler was not exactly hostile until Hitler went 'beyond his station'. Some of America's most influential and powerful families and dynasties, such as Rockefellers, the Harrimans and Bush's were extremely supportive of Hitler's master-race philosophy. Hitler and the Nazi party of Germany were funded by both the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and numerous private organizations both in the US and the UK during the decade and a half leading up to the outbreak of war. Whether WW2 could have been avoided if Hitler hadn't had all this financial help for his campaigns and ideas? That is an "if of history", but our actions sure didn't help.<
Wow, what a load of crap that is. You said a few bizarre things, but this is the kicker. Where on Earth do you dig up such hogwash?..........................
I also notice that you really hate the military and from your wording that you categoried almost all of those who are in the upper echelons of the military slimeballs .Have you ever been in the military or are you just hearing it secondhand?On every countries armed forces,there are many whether inthe top brass down to your basic footslugger who are honorable but will never be mentioned because those who are corrupt
who will always get the headlines .And that is how the U.S. military began to have a strong dislike with media and not because of the latter exposing the truth,but the way they start judging the whole military rather than the few members who did wrong.BTW,do not paint every politicians and every business leaders the same way as being corrupt,greedy,etc even though you acknowledge some exceptions.It is unfair to many of them even though some of them deserves it moreso.It's like me telling you that 99% of all legal secretaries I know are arrogant,liars and the like, even when I know the way I said it is misleading and very unfair.So be careful of that please.
SDW2001,thanks for some corrections,but is the last paragraph aimed for me or somebody else because I don't remember posting it.
[ 06-30-2002: Message edited by: Wil ]</p>
SJO is a freak. Yet more completely unsubstantiated crap from her. The government sucks, Bush sucks, the military sucks, we are duplicit scum who care nothing for anyone, the government planned 9/11........it just goes on and on with her.
SJO: Shut the **** up.
[ 06-30-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
Regarding the actions of the Federal Reserve in funding Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party of Germany.. there are a number of well researched books. Eustace Mullins' "Secrets of the Federal Reserve", although not very elegantly written, is exhaustively researched. On the downside,it has been panned by some who view it as being 'anti-semitic' because it exposes controversial indiscretions (!) by the international banking community, which (coincidentally) happens to have (had) many Jewish people in positions of power, as we all know. Mullins worked in the Library of Congress (I seem to recall) and spent hundreds of hours in there dredging up ther necessary records. The book was published in the 1950s, and almost immediately banned...the entire first print run was seized and burned! Also try "Jekyll Island: a second look at the Federal Reserve", by G Griffin. But Steve666, probably everything out there that conflicts with your current understanding of the way the world works (or doesn't?) ...you will routinely put down as a conspiracy theory, or the ravings of some wacko.
Some facts on Eugenics (race 'science'): ie a short potted history:
The launch of the Eugenics movement was funded by Averell Harriman's mother in 1910, and the Eugenics Records Office was incorporated as a branch of the Galton National Laboratory in London. The Harrimans were responsible for the Bush family fortune and they were close to another Bush family backer, George Herbert Walker, a relative by marriage of Prescott Bush (great-grandfather to the current President). By the turn of the century, the Harrimans and the Rockefellers spent $11 million to establish a Eugenics Research Laboratory on Long Is. NY. Indiana meanwhile made sterilization of undesirables and the mentally ill compulsory as a result of Eugenics policies. The study of Eugenics was encouraged at Harvard, Columbia and Cornell. At the same time, similar ideas were being promoted by Ernst Haeckel whose ideas were to profoundly influence Hitler in his "master-race" ideology. The first International Congress of Eugenics was held in London in 1912 (Winston Churchill and Alexander Graham Bell were amongst its directors). By 1917, 15 American States had Eugenics laws, many making the sterilization of epileptics, mentally ill and common criminals legal.
In 1932, just before Hitler became dictator of Germany the Harrimans organized the Third International Congress on Eugenics at the Natural History Museum in New York. Mary Harriman was the director of entertainment for the event.
These super-wealthy American dynasties loved the idea of Eugenics because they believed themselves to be racially superior and wished to protect their racial purity.
The aim of Eugenics was to create a "master race" by forced sterilization and severe birth control of races considered to be "inferior", specially African Americans and others of color.
Averell Harriman personally arranged for the Hamburg-Amerika shipping line (controlled by Harriman, Prescott Bush and George Walker) to transport Nazis from germany to New York so they could take part in the Congress. The best known of these Nazis was Ernst Rudin, a psychiatrist at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, and his Eugenics Research efforts occupied an entire floor there...funded by the *Rockefellers*. He was elected President of the International Federation of Eugenics societies in New York. Rudin's Rockefeller funded policies resulted in the mass sterilization of 250,000 people in Germany during Hitlers rise to power, of people considered racially inferior. Rudin's ideas were inspired by the "Model Eugenical Sterilization Law" of 1922 by H. H. Laughlin the Eugenics "expert" in the US House of Representatives Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. In 1942, American psychiatrist Foster Kennedy called for the euthanizing of retarded children and between 1941 and 1943, >45000 people were compulsorily sterilized.
The Eugenics efforts continued after WW2, although because the Holocaust was becoming public knowledge, the terminology, such as 'master races, racial purity and sterilization' etc was dropped. After WW2, William H Draper took the reins. Draper was an advisor to Lyndon Johnson on these issues, and his policies found a firm supporter in future President George H .W. Bush. Bush arranged hearings in 1969 into the "dangers of there being too many black babies". Draper's son and heir was co-chairman for finance and head of fund raising for the Bush-Reagan presidential campaign of 1980, and a few years later, Bush persuaded Reagan to appoint the younger Draper to be the head of the U.N. Development Program, charged with supervising population control.
I don't think I need go on. I really don't want to, but I have made my point. I'm done with typing and I find that recalling this material is not much fun, or edifying. I have named names, dates and organizations. This is all verifiable, and is not some wacky conspiracy theory. I imagine you will dismiss all this by default, beacuse it comes from some stranger on a bulletin board. Just because this kind of gross material doesnt appear in standard history classes, you shouldnt dismiss it as being untrue because it falls outside of your comfort zone. To be honest, I find it profoudly sad and depressing that so many people in positions of authority, trust, wealth and connections in this country have abused their power in a very ugly fashion.
SJO: Shut the **** up.<hr></blockquote>
SDW2001, if you want to win points in an argument, make some valid rebuttals. You sound like the kind of person who uses his fists rather than his words when he has run out of ideas. Even if what I post is unacceptable to your view of the world, do try to counter with a valid argument rather than stooping to name calling. Your attitude is naive and childish and your post puts out the image of a 14 year old boy in a tantrum. Come back when you have something to *say*.
<strong>The president sucks,he's a moron and a redneck,I have no respect for him or any of the other fascists in office.Civil rights are already being trampled on,most Americans don't have the guts to admit it.American foreign policy does suck,I'm American and ashamed of what is going on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are a moron for your uneducated response and the immature comment of calling him a "Redneck". Your determination of him and his office being fascist is a emotional and illogical response because you are probably brainwashed by your parents and/or peers. Or maybe worse, a blind fool.
I don't mind any criticism of our country or any of the political establishments. But when it is down right uneducated insults. It bothers me, because I have had my fill of listening to people like you. Post with some brains or don't at all.
You are on the extreme end for sure, but you have done a good job of stirring the pot . Americans spend too little time learning about the World and analyzing their (our)impact on it. Its refreshing to see such a discussion. I spend a lot of time with people from various parts of the world and most of them, while generally liking Americans, have the same "you don't get it" feeling about us. This feeling they have about us has confused and angered me, but after a long time I think that I finally appreciate it. Most Americans (not most of you here) are ignorant of what goes on more than 5 miles from their house. They get their news from watered-down US sources and they believe the Government line (more so now than in a long time). Do you really think the Arab World hates Americans because they "hate freedom" as W says? I think not. I think that many people in the World, while generally liking Americans, are disturbed by the constant presence of The US in their lives. We manipulate other countries for our benefit under the guise of "spreading freedom and democracy" . I think that what bothers my foreign friends most is not the action of the US government, but the continuous sugar coating of everything as being done to spread democracy and freedom and to help others. I think that they see our Government as very insincere and our people as too clueless to know it.
[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: Gringo Viejo ]</p>
I read your historical diatribe and while some or most of your historical facts have some basis, your insinuation that the US favored or morally as well as financially supported Hitler (who were also enemies in WWI-germans) over that of the British Chamberlain and the Churchill governments as well as the past allies, who were still allies, seems more like historical conjecture. I find this, overall, to be inplausible at best. The US was a pacifist country all in all up to WWI when Wilson was in power and was still pacifist country until WWII. After Hitler invaded Poland and others before in 1939, Churchill consistently begged/solicited US help until the US formerly fought the war. You implied we delayed entry. In fact, we were fighting this war with the Lend-Lease act long before Dec 7, 1941.
So, I just don't get your angle when you insuate that the US's general policy was favoring and financing Hitler's war, abandoing our existing allies, in favor of a large anti-semetic, aryan view. I guess you could also conjecture that the famous American aviator Charles Lindberg supported Hitler, so did the US.
The fact is, the US gets called into action in this past century to bail out two tribal European wars. WWI was started in the Balkins in Sarejevo and ironically, it still goes on there. It was also after WWI, that Wilson created League of Nations, the predecessor to the United Nations. The UN was created in SF, an American idea, after the WWII under Truman.
I don't agree with your points of view. I don't believe all that US has done but in the end, generally its right in my view. You can look at something two ways and I don't share all your views despite having correct historical background (you leave out counter information in context). I don't believe that there is a conspiracy or a sinister plot like you share.
if you got out of your posh brentwood confines more and lived over here and be critised for everything american and hear all the stupid US sterotypes, you would be pretty offended and tired of it all. You start to appreciate the good and understand the bad. but, all you hear is the bad here (press and people). no one says anything positive about US. It is fashionable here to be anti-american. (culture, economy, technology, media, military, etc etc)
[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: eat@me ]</p>
<strong>Samantha:
You are on the extreme end for sure, but you have done a good job of stirring the pot . Americans spend too little time learning about the World and analyzing their (our)impact on it. Its refreshing to see such a discussion. I spend a lot of time with people from various parts of the world and most of them, while generally liking Americans, have the same "you don't get it" feeling about us. This feeling they have about us has confused and angered me, but after a long time I think that I finally appreciate it. Most Americans (not most of you here) are ignorant of what goes on more than 5 miles from their house. They get their news from watered-down US sources and they believe the Government line (more so now than in a long time). Do you really think the Arab World hates Americans because they "hate freedom" as W says? I think not. I think that many people in the World, while generally liking Americans, are disturbed by the constant presence of The US in their lives. We manipulate other countries for our benefit under the guise of "spreading freedom and democracy" . I think that what bothers my foreign friends most is not the action of the US government, but the continuous sugar coating of everything as being done to spread democracy and freedom and to help others. I think that they see our Government as very insincere and our people as too clueless to know it.
[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: Gringo Viejo ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well put, Gringo Viejo, I think you express my thread better than I can
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Oh and the latest is the veto against educating Bosnian Police, because the ICC is in effect. Ok - the situation has eased up, but why won't USA play by a common standard? (I guess I alreay sort-of-know <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> )
Being best is worth nothing in the long run - doing good is worth everything, IMHO
USA has the potential for helping out a lot of people with peaceful means, it can really make a difference in the world.
I'll stop here before I make my self cry <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
Oh and the latest is the veto against educating Bosnian Police, because the ICC is in effect. Ok - the situation has eased up, but why won't USA play by a common standard? (I guess I alreay sort-of-know <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> )
USA has the potential for helping out a lot of people with peaceful means, it can really make a difference in the world.
I'll stop here before I make my self cry <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
YodaMaster,
In today's opinion page from the International Herald Tribune on ICC. I'd like to see the ICC put the Dutch on trial for their overseeing the atocities of the Bosnian Peacekeepers. Oh, I forgot, the ICC exempted the Dutch and any previous engagement. How timely! See this below to get the counter argument to your Euro-centric viewpoint....
<a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/63045.html"; target="_blank">http://www.iht.com/articles/63045.html</a>;
pasted below
Europe should be more sensitive to American concerns.
< < Back to Start of Article
Tha allies
?
WASHINGTON We hear it said these days that the United States should show more sensitivity to the concerns and interests of its European allies. No doubt true. But it would be nice if the Europeans showed a little understanding now and then, too.
.
Take the current flap over the International Criminal Court. The treaty establishing the court goes into effect Monday. The Bush administration, which has withdrawn President Bill Clinton's ill-advised signature of that treaty, is demanding immunity from prosecution by the International Criminal Court for any American soldiers serving abroad as peacekeepers. American officials fear some independent-minded prosecutor, answerable to no one, might someday bring charges against an American for war crimes.
.
It is a legitimate concern. In 1999, during the war over Kosovo, there were some in Europe, and in the United States, who accused the American military of war crimes when it bombed Slobodan Milosevic's Serbia. Starting Monday they would be able to bring charges against American soldiers at the International Criminal Court. So the Bush administration has threatened to veto renewal of the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia in the UN Security Council if the necessary protections are not put in place for American peacekeepers serving in that mission. The Europeans so far have refused to make any concessions.
.
The dispute highlights much of what divides Americans and Europeans these days. Europeans, along with many other less influential and less worthy nations, are trying to advance their vision of international civilization, with a web of international laws and institutions assuming authority over individual nation-states. Not surprisingly, the world they're trying to create looks an awful lot like the European Union, where rules and laws are more important than military power. And not surprisingly, they're none too happy about the militarily dominant United States placing itself above or outside their new international legal system before it's even begun.
.
Americans are hardly hostile to international law -- the United Nations was their idea. But the United States has a special problem, one that its European allies ought especially to appreciate. As the world's most powerful democratic power, the United States is called upon - yes, called upon - far more frequently than any other nation to dispatch its troops overseas for any number of purposes. To liberate nations that have been invaded - like Kuwait or, say, France. To defend other nations threatened by invasion - like South Korea and Saudi Arabia or, not so long ago, Germany. Or to defend people threatened by genocide or ethnic cleansing, as in Bosnia and Kosovo.
.
Unlike even the strongest European powers, which have trouble projecting military force even on their own continent, America's entire global strategy is built around projecting military power anywhere at any time, which means the United States is always going to have far more soldiers vulnerable to some misguided International Criminal Court prosecutor than any other nation.
.
But that's only one way the court will have a disproportionate impact on America. It's no secret that the United States, precisely because it is the dominant economic, political, cultural and military force, is more often the target of ire around the world than, say, Luxembourg. Impoverished Egyptians and rich French farmers tend to blame America first. So whose troops are most likely to be hauled before the court on some war crimes charge? Even those who believe the International Criminal Court is a good idea have to admit, if they're honest, that the United States is going to be more vulnerable than other powers.
.
The treaty could have been fixed to deal with some of these problems. When the treaty was being negotiated during the Clinton administration, U.S. officials recognized the inherent problems and looked for ways to provide American troops some protection - such as giving the UN Security Council, where the United States has a veto, ultimate say. But Europeans rejected this "double standard" and opted for legal purity. And the Clinton administration, as some officials ruefully, if privately, admit, didn't try very hard to force the necessary changes. Clinton's last-minute signature of a treaty his officials knew to be badly flawed was, shall we say, less than entirely responsible.
.
So now the crunch point has come, and the Bush administration is quite rightly playing hardball. There's a lot at stake. Europeans argue that if the United States succeeds in getting special treatment then, as one European diplomat told The New York Times, "rogue states will be popping champagne corks." That kind of argument reveals the utopian silliness that animates too many Europeans these days. "Rogue" states will not voluntarily abide by an international court's rulings, no matter what the United States does or does not do. Not abiding by international rules, after all, is what makes a "rogue" a "rogue." But in the meantime, the United States, which has the lion's share of responsibility for defending the rest of the civilized world against rogue states, will have to worry every time it sends troops into hostile territory.
.
Can a more liberal international order be built by hobbling the most powerful defender of that order? That's a question our European allies might want to start asking themselves.
.
The writer, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, contributed this comment to The Washington Post.
[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: eat@me ]</p>
I'll stop here before I make my self cry <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Someone call a doctor. We have a schizoid on our hands.
mika.
<strong>
rich French farmers tend to blame America first.
[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: eat@me ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Most of the french farmers are poor : there maybe some rich french farmer but it's the exception .
The only thing that brings money is the wine in a big appelation like Bourgogne or Bordeau.
I speak from the heart. I truly believe your beliefs are insane. You are so polarized it is ridiculous.
Your "finding of evidence" to suggest that the Bush family supported Hitler's agenda is absolutely and totally ludicrous. You are drawing conclusions and presenting information which is absolutely impossible to verify. One example:
[quote]and his policies found a firm supporter in future President George H .W. Bush. Bush arranged hearings in 1969 into the "dangers of there being too many black babies" <hr></blockquote>
I would LOVE to see the link on that one. You also have no idea what this statement meant in context, if it was ever made. Are you suggesting the Bush family is racist? Just say it, SJO. Stop dancing around it.
You also love to throw around the term "world view". It is a really a brilliant debating tactic, because anything we say can be dismissed as statements filtered through our own particular world view. You also have a world view, which I think most people would agree is "extreme left". It is quite obvious you vehemently oppose Bush and his administration, and will say absolutely anything to paint them a certain color.
Let me tell you why I can't stand people like you: You say anything, no matter how outrageous to slander folks you don't agree with. Calling the Bush family racist, saying the US supported Hitler, or WHATAVER, you will say it whether it is plausible or not, because it is in fact YOUR WORLD VIEW that is so inflexible, not ours.
For example, I am well known here as a staunch conservative. But, I think through each issue to determine my position on it. I also am willing to give credit to certain liberal politicians, such as Clinton, for certain things they have done that I see as positive, even though I seriously dislike them personally and poltically. You won't do this.
I was indeed angry the last time I posted. I stand by that post. Your views are unsubstantiated and extreme, which is not a good combination.
Have a nice day.
<strong>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Most of the french farmers are poor : there maybe some rich french farmer but it's the exception .
The only thing that brings money is the wine in a big appelation like Bourgogne or Bordeau.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey PowerDoc,
I did not write that. It was in the international herald tribute IHT today and was written by Robert Kaplan. Best.
snip<hr></blockquote>
What constititutes *proof*? Proof, it seems, a multistandard whereby events and actions that make us uncomfortable demand rigorous proof beyond all and eery doubt, yet official denials of wrongdoings, or platitudes that don't challenge mainstream 'thought' seem to require none whatsoever.
*yawn, whatever*
A good source of information on U.S. relations with Afghanistan, the Taliban, the planned pipeline by Unocal etc etc is "Taliban" by Ahmed Rashid.
OK OK OK OK OK.....before everyone in here kneejerks and calls him a terrorist because his name is Ahmed and his faith is presumably Muslim, (or a conspiracy theorist etc etc), just give me 10 seconds to add that Rashid according to the back liner notes) is a correspondent with Eastern Economic Review, and the Daily Telegraph. Having lived in England for a couple of years, (in Clapham, London and then Lozells Birmingham, as opposed to Mayfair or Knightsbridge to all those who automatically "think", from my current Brentwood, California address that I am some kind of snob)......draw breath........for the benefit of my fellow Americans who don't know this, "The Daily Telegraph" is one of Britains most conservative publications. I used to read it.
Does that make you feel any better?
[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
My beliefs? I was just giving you a concise history of the Eugenics movement, because someone called my allegations a "pile of unsubstantiated xxxx". The history of such policies are not my fantasies. I named a whole bunch of folk intimately involved in that area of "science", and if so care to run them through Google for example, you will find referenced medical, scientific and historical information which corroborates these links. I imagine though, that you don't wish to, since it seems that your mind is made up, and your mental pathways are carved in stone or are so closed minded about any gnarly history that appears to put your role models into a more unsavory light than is painted by the mainstream. If you want to give us all an alternative version of the history of Eugenics, or divorce it from some of America's most influential families, then lets hear it!
[quote]Your "finding of evidence" to suggest that the Bush family supported Hitler's agenda is absolutely and totally ludicrous. You are drawing conclusions and presenting information which is absolutely impossible to verify. One example: quote: and his policies found a firm supporter in future President George H .W. Bush. Bush arranged hearings in 1969 into the "dangers of there being too many black babies" I would LOVE to see the link on that one. You also have no idea what this statement meant in context, if it was ever made.
Are you suggesting the Bush family is racist? Just say it, SJO. Stop dancing around it. You also love to throw around the term "world view". It is a really a brilliant debating tactic, because anything we say can be dismissed as statements filtered through our own particular world view. You also have a world view, which I think most people would agree is "extreme left". It is quite obvious you vehemently oppose Bush and his administration, and will say absolutely anything to paint them a certain color. <hr></blockquote>
World view? Yes, other nations and peoples do exist outside of middle-class-white-bread-2-SUVs-in-the- garage-suburbia, by the way, and their rights to exist in peace and happiness are just as valid as ours.
I have never met Bush in person, and never likely to. He is probably a really nice and affable man, who loves his family and friends. No, I do not like many of his exclusionary policies, and I don't like the way the the election was hijacked by his like thinking buddies in the Supreme Court. If he was going to win, as conservatives always wish to point out, then why stop the count? It made the whole thing look fake. But that is beside the point. I don't personally think that Bush himself is an avowed racist, although if you look at his cabinet, he did nominate a number of people who cited Murray's "The Bell Curve", (a hymn to racism "justifyed' by bad science) as one of their 'literary inspirations'. Go look up some biographies.
[quote]Let me tell you why I can't stand people like you:<hr></blockquote>
There you go again. Why can't you debate sensibly rather than loosing off verbal hand grenades every time your whitebread-back-to-the-50s ideals are challenged?
[quote]You say anything, no matter how outrageous to slander folks you don't agree with. Calling the Bush family racist, saying the US supported Hitler, or WHATAVER, you will say it whether it is plausible or not, because it is in fact YOUR WORLD VIEW that is so inflexible, not ours. For example, I am well known here as a staunch conservative. But, I think through each issue to determine my position on it. I also am willing to give credit to certain liberal politicians, such as Clinton, for certain things they have done that I see as positive, even though I seriously dislike them personally and poltically. You won't do this.<hr></blockquote>
Why cant you give us some actual facts, rather than just stand there foaming at the mouth without actually saying anything which is a credible rebuttal? All you have done is bleat and swear and level personal insults at me because I cited some links, names and history that impinges upon your comfort zone. Yes, I concur that some of this stuff is not mainstream thought, but who ever said that mainstream history was the truth, the whole truth etc? that viewpoint is naive in the extreme. And, by the way, what people post regarding history and ideology doesn't necessarily reflect their personal view.
I don't quite understand why a staunch conservative like yourself gets so upset by racism anyway; I would have thought you guys would have been more proud about it, if honesty and integrity had anything to do with it. Inclusivity is alien to rightwing philosophy, and well you know it.
[quote]I was indeed angry the last time I posted. I stand by that post. Your views are unsubstantiated and extreme, which is not a good combination.<hr></blockquote>
Whatever.
[quote]Have a nice day.<hr></blockquote>
Oh, puhhleeease,
[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>