Consider this; if the CIA had not funded, armed, and trained Osama and his men back when they were on our side fighting the “evil empire” would there have been a ‘9-11’? That was way back when dear old Grandpa Reagan was running the show, next in line was Daddy Bush (head of the Carlyle group - peddling arms and influence to the world) who was quite cozy with the Bin Laden family, and finally Bill Clinton who you, by some twisted leap of logic, want to blame entirely for the terrorist attacks on September 11th. Your ability to revise history to suit your needs is admirable but even if 70% of Americans believe that crap there are still some of us who pay a little better attention.

The Dixie Chicks took a stand that is unpopular in our country and that did take guts, especially in a country where just about any gibbering idiot can own a gun and shout such enlightened phrases as “nuke the bastards”. In this violent country it is courageous to stand against the rising tide especially when you have as much to lose as they do. I never cared for country music but I will give the Chicks a chance now.

Of course diplomacy is not always the answer but it is one answer, and the current administration did not explore that avenue to its fullest. Every time a missile was destroyed it wasn’t enough, when chemicals were incinerated they were too little too late, there was no appeasement possible with Bush hence no diplomacy. Will chem labs be found...maybe. And maybe they will be legitimate Iraqi labs working on WOMD, but I will wait to see what independent sources say about it, this administration needs that kind of vindication so bad I would not put it past them to try to fabricate it. But while you’re waiting maybe you should ask your President why it is that Donald Rumsfeld was involved in allowing an embargo against biological to be lifted so agents such as Anthrax, West Nile Virus and Clostridium botulinum (S.R.103-900, May 25, 1994, pg. 264) could be shipped to Saddam from American suppliers. Maybe you should be pissed off about that. Those weapons were used against us during the first Gulf War, or wait, are those dying from Gulf War syndrome faking it?

I like how you try to absolve our involvement in the poverty inflicted on the third world (soon to be coming to an American economy near you!) by pushing it all off on the dictators or warlords in their country. Who do you think props up those dictatorial regimes? Ask Afghanistan, they are having a hell of a time with warlords that we supported and funded to help us catch Bin Laden and when we walk away like we did after the first Gulf War, who is to blame for the monsters who take power? Remember the Kurds, they bet on the wrong team - team U.S.A. to help them out from under Saddam the FIRST time. What a gas.

So is it the poor dirt farmer with his poppy field and a rake while warlords and their enforcers drive their Ford Explorer’s and Dodge Durango’s toting American weapons given to them while they were helping us fight terrorism, or is it the U.S. who just can’t seem to keep their fucking noses out of everybody’s business? Using our tax money to oppress other countries and people most of our kids couldn’t find on a map with a hint and an hour to work it out! Yeah it is ALL THEIR FAULT! I didn’t do it personally so I am free of guilt...dick. Wake up and smell the colonialism.

Hey Les, once posted is there any way we can edit our posts? I did spell check it but somehow a sentence that should say ‘...allowing an embargo to be lifted against biological...’ ended up as ‘...allowing an embargo against biological to be lifted...’.

It is hard when you spew out all of this anger only to find upon re-reading it that it looks like english is your second language.

OK Iraq had NOTHING to do with 911!DUH!
There are worse leaders out there and people more wanting of liberation than Iraq.
Iraq was NEVER a threat to America!
I have an idea! Lets kill everyone who speaks thier mind. Then we will make Bush emperor
(because ya’ll think he is all knowing anyway).Then we will illegally take over other nations for our own gain (we have to pay for all the rich people’s tax cuts anyway).  You republican morons actully believe all the crap you are being spoon fed by the government?
screw your war!

Les, what the hell happened here? Did you show up as a target over on FreeRepublic, or something? Geez. What a bunch of morons who haven’t the faintest idea what America is really about.

These folks truly remind me of Germans during Hitler’s reign. We’re at the end of the Weimar Republic, if this is the real tone of the country.

Next step, Der Fuhrer. After that, I’m really worried. Fortunately, most of those folks seem to have disappeared?

Scott I have to admit that I haven’t a clue how I keep attracting these nutcases. The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that they see the word “Stupid” in the website name and think it’s an invitation to a place for stupid people to spew their ideas.

At least this allows me to keep an eye on the nutcases without too much effort. In case you missed it I put my reply to Pissed Off American in its own entry because I thought it was important enough to share with everyone. Or at least somewhat amusing.

it seems as if you wou;d be the type to critisize Bush. Oh well. we won the war because of him.
personally i am ashamed that the dixiechicks are from texas. i never liked them anyway.

We won the war because of Bush? We won the war because the Iraqi military didn’t even qualify as a bad joke let alone a serious threat. Not even Bush is so incompetent that screwing up that war would’ve been possible.

That said, he seems to be doing a great job screwing up the rebuilding of not only Iraq, but also Afghanistan. Let alone not finding a single WOMD that was the whole basis for us going there in the first place.

Bush didn’t win this war, our soldiers did. I support our troops and just hope for them to come home safe, I have a cousin out there and just wish he could come home. I agree completely with what Natalie Maines said about the president, the Dixie Chicks have my full support!

As far as I can tell Bush didn’t win the election either, he seems to make a habit of self declared victories. I never trust men with beady eyes set too close together…

It isn’t suprising that things aren’t going smoothly in either Iraq or Afghanistan. They are both clear examples of the danger of religous zealotry without a secular constitution and free thinkers to constrain it’s power.

So it’s got nothing to do with having the crap bombed out of their infrastructure then, and a shortage of necessities for living, coupled with inadequate local authorities to enforce any kind of order?

I personally don’t believe that all the disorder in these countries is down to the general populace being zealots, I think it’s more down to them being generally pissed off that they are now worse off since being liberated.

Infrastructure? That may have existed in Iraq, but it doesn’t explain Afghanistan. I didn’t say the general population were zealots, they aren’t the ones fermenting unrest. They are as apothetic to politics as citizens in most nations. Many were against the Iraq war, but I saw few objections to Afghanistan, and it is a genuinely international operation. The problem there seems to be remnants of the taliban that don’t want to relinquish power, and they are definitely zealots.

I raq is a more mixed bag, and I shouldn’t have lumped it together with Afghanistan. Whether or not you supported the action there (I supported the removal of Saddam, but not necessarily through an invasion/occupation), I don’t think anyone wants to just leave them to fend for themselves. The rebuilding needs to take place, and even if they are pissed off about not having basic services, I hope they realize terrorism won’t expedite matters.

Infrastructure? That may have existed in Iraq, but it doesn’t explain Afghanistan.

I fail to see how it cannot relate to both cases, in both countries they were invaded with the promise of a better life, in both countries they have suffered shortages of basic necessities since the war. In the case of Afghanistan the problems would seem to be as much from the people that were installed in place of the Taliban, as the Taliban guerillas themselves.

I raq is a more mixed bag, and I shouldn’t have lumped it together with Afghanistan. Whether or not you supported the action there (I supported the removal of Saddam

True they are both unique situations requiring a unique approach to solve their problems, it’s a shame the U.S has used it’s ‘one size fits all’ method to deal with them both. As for the removal of egomaniacal religiously motivated despots, who violate treaties and human rights (I include G W Bush among them), well yes I also agree with removing them, but not at cost of the populace.

the danger of religous zealotry without a secular constitution and free thinkers to constrain it’s power.

Here’s something to think on next time you watch American politics, yes of course you may say it’ll never happen in America, but isn’t it already on the way?

My point on Afghanistan is mainly due to my understanding that the people were already facing these shortages of necessities prior to the war.

..well yes I also agree with removing them, but not at cost of the populace.

Agreed, the populace should not suffer, but it should be noted that part of that suffering is due to sabotage (such as the water supply incident).

Here’s something to think on next time you watch American politics, yes of course you may say it’ll never happen in America, but isn’t it already on the way?

I was intended to equate their religious zealots with the potential (and in some cases existing) harm of religious zealots in our country.

Oh so we actually agree on more points than we disagree on then? :hugs: I feel like I was being nit picky now, sorry. :frown:

Oh and for the record I am from the UK, where we have so far at least managed to keep religion in it’s place as far as laws are concerned. Of course I am aware how easily that can change, after the BNP managed to get one of it’s pondlife candidates elected in Lancs recently, only to have him step down because of his own violent behaviour. (For those that are unaware BNP is our equivalent of the Klan, despite the fact that they now go around wearing suits and pretending to be respectable.)

I had thought we were making great strides in that area here in the US, but the current administration seems to have re-envigorated the religious zealots, particularly in places like Alabama where the Chief Justice is trying to bend the Constitution to his will, the Attorney General is abiding by the law, but agrees with the Justice (and the President wants him on the very court that the Chief Justice is disobeying), and the Governor is basing his tax policy on what he feels Jesus would want him to do (And if you do not agree with them you are infringing on the religious rights). Hopefully they will be good illustrations of the danger of mixing religion and politics.

Valhalla

I think the jab at Gov Riley is a little unfair.  His point is that poor people in Alabama are taxed at much higher rates than they should be.  I only live 45 minutes away from Bama and I concur with that.  People there are taxed on income starting at about $4500, sales taxes are quite high (while property taxes are low), and their schools are not that impressive!  When I got laid off from work, I received $275 a week from good old Florida.  A buddy of mine in Bama got about $180 a week.  Of course we Floridians have you “foreigners” pay our taxes for us at the beaches and amusement parks

I think sometimes people have such disdain for religion that they don’t consider things rationally when people mention it.  I think Riley’s rationale is good, no matter where it originates from.  We’ll see how they vote next week.

I may have been a little unfair to him, but with the chief justice, and attorney general there it is hard to ignor the religious implications. If you view his comments on their own they aren’t that bad, and they may have nothing to do with the comments of the other two, but it cannot be assumed that he isn’t trying to insert religion into a non-religious issue.

I don’t think I would visit a site named awolbush.com and expect to find truth.
But such is life and why it is great to be an American. I just wish more would hope Iraqis could have a chance and not be looking for justification to dispose of an evil leader like Saddam. I think his deeds were justification enough but I realize we Americans live a blessed life and some get nervous when they fear their own apple cart might get tipped over so can live happily no matter what is going on in the world as long as they aren’t asked anything.
I thank God our parents and grandparents didn’t have the same attitude when Hitler was on the scene and those two countries so many seem to think qualify as the rest of the world surely are happy and realize they now have freedom thanks to our ‘imperial quest.’

Thom, you need to study your history more before thanking God about what your grandparents did. America took an isolationist approach to the growing threat Hitler posed and the war was well underway before we ever got involved. In fact, the majority opinion at the time was that Hitler was a problem for Europe and didn’t concern us which is exactly the attitude you’re complaining about here.

It took Pearl Harbor to change enough minds to get us into the war. Had the Japanese never attacked us then Hitler may very well have gone on to overrun most of Europe. I would suggest you make certain you’re more familiar with American history before you try to make further claims like the one above.

I’m tired and i certainly didn’t read ALL of this, so forgive me if someone has already brought this up. FUCK NATALIE MAINES. I hate bush too, and my beef isn’t with maines’s statement, it’s with her apology.
She said something she felt. She should not be commended for this because that’s the way things are supposed to be. I’m not going to pat anyone on the back for speaking their minds, because voicing an poinion isn’t supposed to be a risk. Les, you say you’re a bit disappointed with her apology. I am ENRAGED. I am DISGUSTED. She’s got the balls to make a comment like that, a comment that’s going to make her look spicy, and feisty, and like she’s politically minded, which might in turn spread the dixie chick’s appeal outside of just country fans (it seemed to have worked on you). And then when she started LOSING money and fans, she apologizes. I’m not saying the initial statement was insincere, (how should i know how she feels about anything?) but it was cheapened to the point where it might as well have been by her cowardly, submissive apology. Now those who want to censor and bully us have one more succesful battle under their belts, and it’s going to be that much more difficult for the next person trying to express an unpopular opinion.  And the worst part is that now that all the flak has died down, she’s still being painted as a martyr, as if she had never apologized at all. Spineless asshole.

No one seems to think about the actual justification of the ‘Chickes comments. I’m a “fundie” Christian, probably moreso than Falwell, Robertson and many others. Yet I think we have no (Biblical) justification for offensive warfare, no matter how “just” the cause may be. Defensive warfare is one thing (where we defend the lands and people who agree to be united to us in law and governance), but offensive warfare is a completely different animal. Many will say that the offense is just pre-emptive defense, but would they really want to carry such an idea to its end? For example, would they really want to jail people who are “more likely” to commit theft, or murder, before there is a corpus delecti and mens rea proving the fact, simply based on speculation?

But even if the war in the Middle-East is justified, there is another question—namely, is criticism of a national leader kosher? To be consistent, we have to say that it is (or would one want to actually say that the Germans had no right to criticize Hitler, simply because he held political power?). However, as others have mentioned, we have to equally allow criticism of the criticism—those who do not agree with the ‘Chicks have the right (at least in this country, the USA) to voice their opinion and withhold their support of the ‘Chicks. Some want to paint the discontent with the ‘Chicks statements and the consequences associated with it as a form of censorship, but it is really just an example of the free-speech / free-market system. If you agree with them you can voice your opinion and provide monetary support, and if you don’t you can equally voice your opinion and withhold your monetary support. Neither option is repression or censorship. Both are prime examples of the intended function the American social and economic system.

I just think the Dixie Chicks Suck ass

I’m generally not a fan of Country music in general..

I generally don’t use generally, in general, so many times, generally speaking