I know, It's the LAW...so I shouldn't question it

jpete wrote:I'm saying they have similar ideological beliefs. Right or wrong?

jpete wrote:

pvolcko wrote:His thinking was that defending the constitution was accomplished only by preserving the union, one did not exist independently of the other. He did not want to preserve it through use of force, but he was not willing to have federal forts taken by force without an equal response of force. And so the fighting began, the blockades started, and the conflict blossomed into a full blown war.

I'm not going to go through point by point but what does the presidents "thinking" have to do with anything? GWB "thought" Iraq had WMD's. Doesn't make it true.

I "think" I shouldn't pay income and property tax. Want to bet the government will show me the error in my thinking?

samhill wrote:The lies I was referring to ? Just for openers I can remember seeing darn near blueprints of the cave complexes that AQ had built into the mountains, they were in all the mags at the time, multi levels, reinforced concrete, air ducts, all kinds of defenses. I was thinking at that time it had to be lies mainly because it would take a six lane highway to get the materials. Much the same for Hussan`s palaces except that was a doable thing but unless we built them I hardly think they would give the diagrams to the public. What happened to all the billions of U.S. dollars? Why is a private security firm needed in a war zone? How much have we paid Hali-burton for a nobid contract to rebuild things that didn`t need to be destroyed in the first place? Why wasn`t even one of the weapons produceing complexes or even the mobile trucks they had pictures of ever found? Those a just a few of the lies I question jpete or perhaps they were just un-truths. At least the economy was kept sound for us.

samhill wrote:I guess that means it all is there & noone has found them yet. Funny if the cia built them some one would likely remember. At least where they were last.

jpete wrote:Remember after the Kohbar(sp?) Towers bombing when Clinton lofted a couple ICBM's into Afganistan?

jpete wrote:I could recommend some reading.

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:Remember after the Kohbar(sp?) Towers bombing when Clinton lofted a couple ICBM's into Afganistan?

jpete wrote:I could recommend some reading.

I could recommend a little "Reading" to you too!

jpete wrote:Think you could stand to be without your Little Red Book that long?

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:I'm saying they have similar ideological beliefs. Right or wrong?

Only as it relates to the goals of the group they all belong too....& I dispute your characterization of the Council on Foreign Relations as having the dissolution of the U.S. as a goal. (very weak, illogical argument there jpete)

You misstate the goals of a group & then try to use your misstatement as the basis of an argument!?

samhill wrote:OK ! I hope you`ll forgive me here, I`m not as well schooled as others here butI suggested that Bush was telling an un-truth about the re-enforced caves in Afganistan. You said that they were indeed there & were infact destroyed by Clinton by a unknown type of flying object. I still don`t believe they ever were there. But what your telling me is that we didn`t find what was there but was destroyed by us at a earlier time by another Pres. & then used by Bush as propaganda as to why we couldn`t find O.B.L. Now I`m really confused about truth & un-true. Guess I better go see some movies.
By the way that was only 1 of my questions but please don`t address the others I have a headache.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

"The chief problem of American political life for a long time has been how to make the two Congressional parties more national and more international. The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right, and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in terms of procedure, priority and method..."

samhill wrote:A reinforced cave complex is not an open training camp. Guess I just got to go see that movie.

jpete wrote:On what basis do you think the CFR DOESN'T want to dissolve the borders between the three countries?

It's all right there in their book if you care to look. They aren't hiding anything.