Good christian Bush melts Iraqies alive

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Anarchy 2 : One Thread

I found this in a blog but give the person credit for it's research. http://www.beautykills.vze.com/ Residents in Fallujah reported that innocent civilians have been killed by napalm attacks, a poisonous cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel which makes the human body melt. Since the U.S. offensive started in Fallujah earlier this month, there have been reports of “melted” bodies which many believe is caused by napalm. "Poisonous gases have been used in Fallujah," 35-year-old Fallujah resident, Abu Hammad said. "They used everything -- tanks, artillery, infantry, and poisonous gas. Fallujah has been bombed to the ground." Hammad was living in the Julan district of Fallujah which witnessed some of the heaviest attacks.

Other residents of that area also said that banned weapons were used. Abu Sabah, said; “They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud… then small pieces fall from the air with long tails of smoke behind them." He said that pieces of these strange bombs explode into large fires that burn the skin even when water is thrown on the burns.

Phosphorous arms and the napalm gas are known to have such effects. "People suffered so much from these," Abu Sabah said."

From The Free Internet Press (originally from the Sunday Mirror - not the most trustworthy of sources) :

"US troops are secretly using outlawed napalm gas to wipe out remaining insurgents in and around Fallujah.

News that President George W. Bush has sanctioned the use of napalm, a deadly cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel banned by the United Nations in 1980, will stun governments around the world.

And last night Tony Blair was dragged into the row as furious Labour MPs demanded he face the Commons over it. Reports claim that innocent civilians have died in napalm attacks, which turn victims into human fireballs as the gel bonds flames to flesh.

Outraged critics have also demanded that Mr Blair threatens to withdraw British troops from Iraq unless the US abandons one of the world's most reviled weapons. Halifax Labour MP Alice Mahon said: "I am calling on Mr Blair to make an emergency statement to the Commons to explain why this is happening. It begs the question: 'Did we know about this hideous weapon's use in Iraq?'"

Since the American assault on Fallujah there have been reports of "melted" corpses, which appeared to have napalm injuries.

found info mentioned this in the well, fuck. post http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."

President Clinton announces that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 is the largest in U.S. history

Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.

This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."

OFFICIAL TREASURY REPORT SHOWS FOURTH YEAR OF DEFICIT GROWTH, DESPITE ECONOMIC RECOVERY http://www.cbpp.org/10-14-04bud.htm

Fiscal Year 2004 ended on September 30, and today the Treasury Department reported that the deficit for 2004 was $413 billion, or 3.6 percent of Gross Domestic Product.[1]

At 3.6 percent of GDP, the 2004 deficit marks the fourth consecutive year of fiscal deterioration, the first time this has happened since the U.S. entered World War II. At 3.6 percent of GDP, the 2004 deficit is up from the 2003 level of 3.5 percent of GDP and is the highest level since 1993. The deficit increased in 2004 even though the recession officially ended in November 2001. This is the first time since before the Depression of the 1930s that the deficit has continued to increase this far into a recovery. At $413 billion, the 2004 deficit was $36 billion higher than the 2003 deficit, which stood at $377 billion. The growth of deficits has largely reflected stunning revenue declines. Federal tax revenues this year are at their lowest level, measured as a share of the Gross Domestic Product, since 1959. In contrast, federal spending in 2004, measured as a share of GDP, is slightly below its average level of the last four decades



-- X (FUlosht@tek.com), December 03, 2004

Answers

I pronounce this board officially dead

-- (...@..com), December 03, 2004.

NAPALM! What in the flying fuck do we need to be using napalm for? At least in Vietnam the government could pretend that it was only for clearing out the jungle...but this is Iraq! Where's the fucking jungle?

No wonder Bush pulled out of the International Criminal Court...

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 03, 2004.


YEAH, I believe it too! Let's all believe everything bad about America that any internet nutcase can dream up. I can't wait for the "chemtrails sighted over Iraq" posts to start popping up, but when they do, remember you heard it here first.

Bazooka Joe

-- 2 (1@3.4), December 04, 2004.


The whole world hated hitler and ignored it till they could no longer ignore it. The whole world hates Bush. I hope history repeats itself so we don't get nuked. Just think how many lives would have been saved if we had the bomb in 1938?

-- Bill Brasky (brasky@groundzero.com), December 04, 2004.

Joe,

I didn't hear it first from this guy. I've seen interviews on the news where soldiers have said "...so then we called in some reenforcements and some napalm..."

There is footage of these "melted bodies" out there, if you're up to it. It's pretty nasty. Michael Moore got ahold of some and featured it in Farenheit 9/11--which in my opinion was a little over the top, to show napalm victims--but the footage is there if you need proof.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 04, 2004.



of cource the military are using this shit, their evil scum, even worse than the iraqis theyre fighting and they know they can get away with it.

-- bob (bob.bob@bob.bob), December 04, 2004.

It's not the soldiers' fault...they've been getting the shaft from the Bush administration more than anybody else...it's the people in power, the generals, ect. The average soldier doesn't have a say in this stuff. But I think we need an investigation into who ordered the napalm attacks and whoever did needs to be tried by the international criminal court for war crimes.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 04, 2004.

I respected Bush sr. for going against his pledge not to raise taxes because we did fight a war during his term. I voted against him because I felt 12 years of a republican puppet was enough. He did lower the deficit 1 year and I hope his SOB son does the same as a lame duck. We are in another dreaded vietnam. If melting these folks can get them stop the resistance well then it is bittersweet like the A bomb's we dropped. I hope it works for a quick end. God bless our troops. I disagree with the war but I love our boys fighting for us. love the girls too. If there is a light at the end of the tunnel maybe it is the end of corporate TV and radio. We need to protest that. We need the ugly truth for the simpletons so next time they don't vote for hitler II. We need to fight the FCC's censorship. We need to take back the airwaves even if we had to give folks like Ako. his channel to spew his facts. We need to get Wallace(braveheart) balls to take our country back.

-- Bill Brasky (brasky@groundzero.com), December 05, 2004.

The media is free to report whatever they want - just because you don't like the news or think some nuts claim is not getting reported, doesn't make Bush a hitler.

And just because you claim he's a hitler doesn't make him so. \

a) you don't have a clue as to what a National Socialist Workers Party was so can't possibly make an analogy with the GOP.

b) you confuse claims with proof.

c) you confuse enemies claims with settled, incontroverible proof.

If we were using Napalm why hasn't the big anti-Bush media jumped on this one? They didn't pull punches before. You know the Military faked out CNN...why can't the enemy use psych-ops too? Or do you believe no one else would lie for tactical advantage?

Washington lied all the time to fake out the British during our revolution... the Boston Massacre was lied about to fan flames of resistence... and so today the LEFT lies all the time about this or that atrocity to fan flames of their zealots.

Hey any would be Wallaces... bring it on. You wanna have a revolution? Well, if you start shooting be prepared to be shot at. The Left thought it could intimidate the Right with bully boy UNion thugs and strong arm tactics thinking they'd get a pass from the Media. But we have the internet and alternative media now and the Right isn't going to let you ram rod your garbage down our throats anymore.

We're beating you in your own game and you're mad. Grow up.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.


It's true dictator would have posted if he saw something like this. I posted this because the fake kobe sbm posts stopped being deleted. IF US troops are secretly using outlawed napalm all we would get were claims and bodies. bill i like ur ideas but i don't see the end of corporate tv and radio any time soon. if tax gets reformed 23 cents for each dollar and they deduct from our weekly pay checks, then the unlikely draft happens a revolution could start. http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/20/reforming.tax/index.html

-- (Blah@blah.com), December 06, 2004.


Anti,

I wasn't trying to say that napalm was NOT used, for all I know it was. What I was bellyaching about was seeing someone post some probably b.s. article (and there are plenty of them out there) and everyone jump on it like it was Gospel. Where is Dan Rather standing on a barrel of Napalm, if this is true? If it's true and the left-wing press doesn't care, what is the reason for THAT? Is there some good reason to use napalm (we) don't know about?

Bazooka Joe

-- 2 (1@3.4), December 06, 2004.


It was meant to be obnoxious because the kobe sbm articles were not deleted. The title itself is over the top.

-- X (Fulosht@tek.com), December 06, 2004.

Liberal media my ass. You claim the media has a "pro-Kerry bias". Maybe. But the mainstream media still doesn't have the balls to ever come down really hard on the government. If there is a sinister "liberal media" out there, where the hell have they been???? Where were the cameras at the Battle of Seatle, when peaceful protesters demonstrating against the WTO were brutaly attacked by police, including a parent holding a child in a front pack (clubbed in the face by a pig).

Where were they in Miami, when anti-Bush protesters were dispersed with tear gas and shot point-blank with rubber bullets? Where were they at the protests at the Democratic and Republican conventions, where protesters from all sides of the political spectrum were treated to batons and special on-site "holding cages" for speaking their minds? Where were they just a few weeks ago in LA, when ARMORED TANKS showed up at an anti-war protest?

Where was Dan Rather in 2002, when the Bush administration tried to overthrow a democracy in Venezuela? You'd think Ted Koeppel would be creaming himself over the fact that 1 in 4 of our "smart bombs" hit a civilian target. Why has the "liberal media" forgotten all about the fact that someone in the White House leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent and that TRAITOR is still at large? Why has the liberal media not trekked outside of Kabul to see that the majority of Afghanistan is still the hellhole that it was four years ago? The media has acted like a cheerleader for the military during the last two wars. You turn on CNN and all you see are flag-inspired graphics and heartwarming interviews with soldiers. Liberal media? When have we ever had a liberal media? Throughout history, the mainstream media has served as a public relations medium for the establishment. Today is no different. Big buisiness owns the media; primarily the big defense companies. That Lockheed Martin is just a cesspool of subversive activity.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 06, 2004.


For a "Liberal Media" they sure ignore the School of the Americas in Ft. Benning, GA. Look it up. School of Assassins it is better known as. And it also seems that the "enlightened" people of this board, left AND right, ignore this one, seeing as how Ive posted on this subject before and had no responses.

The School of the Americas is much worse that any Napalm attack. The School of the Americas trains people to be Hitler.

-- Dick Tator (inneedofliberty@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.


Anti,

Try typing in "battle of seattle" in Google and see what you come up with. There's lots. Where did you hear about it if not from the major media? Of course they reported it, and if I remember right, most were critical of the government. What's your point?

Where were they in Miami, when anti-Bush protesters were dispersed with tear gas and shot point-blank with rubber bullets? Where were they at the protests at the Democratic and Republican conventions, where protesters from all sides of the political spectrum were treated to batons and special on-site "holding cages" for speaking their minds? Where were they just a few weeks ago in LA, when ARMORED TANKS showed up at an anti-war protest?

Where did you read about these? The major media. They were there and covered all of them, obviously.

When have we ever had a liberal media? Throughout history, the mainstream media has served as a public relations medium for the establishment. Today is no different. Big buisiness owns the media; primarily the big defense companies. That Lockheed Martin is just a cesspool of subversive activity.

This is just nuts. The media makes money for itself by having you tune in, and you aren't going to if they ape the government handouts. People have looked at the political leanings of the reporters who actually choose how to write and what to write on, and they are all left wing (with a few exceptions such as the WSJ and Fox TV). I'm suprised you don't accept that.

Tator,

For a "Liberal Media" they sure ignore the School of the Americas

IMO, there's something on this several times a year, every year. What else do you want?

Bazooka Joe

-- 2 (1@3.4), December 07, 2004.



What do I want??? I want the "Land of the Free" to help spread freedom and peace thought the world. Not the exact opposite. A school in America that teaches torture technics isnt what I would call an American Value.

-- Dick Tator (inneedofliberty@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.

Googled it. Got plenty of political blogs, a few articles from alternative publications like Z, the New Republic, and the Nation (all great magazines, by the way), coverage from BBC, tons of stuff from the local press in Seatle and all over the west coast, but almost nothing from the mainstream media.

"where did you read about these? The major media. They were there and covered all of them, obviously."

Actualy, the big news outlets completely ignored Miami, although all the IndyMedia channels were screaming about it. Googlethis stuff, Joe. You'll find next to nothin from the corporate media. The protests at the conventions were covered (and actualy covered relatively well), although they didn't show the on-site cages that they would use to hold protesters that goot too rowdy...

And the tanks in LA got NO attention from the mainsteam media, which just astounded me. I mean, ARMORED TANKS show up at an anti-war protest...you'd think our "liberal media" would be bursting at the seams with Tienamen Square references and investigations into who ordered the tanks there. But there was none. No one stood up to our government. At least not in the major media. But we do have ALTERNATIVE sources, as Joe pointed oiut earlier. IndyMedia is a great one. So is Democracy Now!.

"IMO, there's something on this several times a year, every year. What else do you want?"

I've never seen those commies at CNN do an investigative piece on the School of the Americas. You'd think a subversive hotbed like CNN would be the first to jump on the fact that our government is training terrorists, drug dealers, and killers.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 07, 2004.


Armored tanks? You mean there are un-armored tanks anti-bush?

Let's see... did these "tanks" have wheels? If so, then they were "armored cars" such as SWAT is likely to have, not "tanks" which run on treads like a bulldozer.

Was there a large cannon sticking out from a turret thingy? If so, chances are, that was a tank - but if it had wheels, then it wasn't.

It could have been an APC *(google it). BUT I highly doubt it was a tank. The only tanks in the US arsenal right now are M-60s and M-1s and as both are extremely heavy beasts, I doubt the LAPD allowed them to roll on streets as their weight could easily collapse bridges and sewer lines.

Back to the drawing board anti-Bush!

-- hey wassup? (anonymous@yahoo.com), December 08, 2004.


IndyMedia reports it as being an LAV-25 Marine Warrior tank. I suppose it could have been an Armored Personnel Carrier, but in the picture I saw, there was a big fucking cannon sticking out the front.

Why the fuck are we arguing over the exact model of the tank? The point is THERE WAS AN ARMORED MILITARY VEHICLE AT A PEACEFULL PROTEST! Doesn't this bother anyone???

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 08, 2004.


Anti,

I'll give you this, there aren't many good articles directly from ABC, etc., but you can read people posting on what was ON the networks, meaning it was covered.

The LAV 25 is apparently an 8 wheeled vehicle used in part for carrying mortars, and there is a turret on top with a gun. Pity they didn't use it on the protestors, now THAT would have made the papers!

Bazooka Joe

-- 2 (1@3.4), December 08, 2004.


Words mean things. A tank is not a LAV *(Light Armoured Vehicle). A tank is a vehicle mounted on treads which weighs over 20 tons and has a massive cannon (in excess of 76mm). Anything with wheels is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED a "tank".

But what does accuracy matter for someone like you?

-- wassup? (anonymous@yahoo.com), December 09, 2004.


Straight from the Marine Home Page:

Primary function: Provide strategic mobility to reach and engage the threat, tactical mobility for effective use of fire power, fire power to defeat soft and armored targets, battlefield survivability to carry out combat missions.

Well that sounds appropriate for taking on a bunch of hippies protesting, eh?

Armament: M242 25mm chain gun, M240 7.62mm machine gun mounted coaxial to the main gun

A chain gun for christ's sake. Do you think that's necessary for a group of vegetarian, dreadlocked kids with picket signs?

and last but not least, Weight: 24,100 pounds (10,941 kilograms) Combat Weight: 28,200 pounds (12,802.8 kilograms)

oh, excuse me. It's not quite 20 tons. This "Light Armored Vehicle" only weighs 14. And it doesn't have treads. Whoops!

Damn those hippies, we need something with a chain gun and a bigass cannon on the front to keep them eating tofu. You fucking dolt.

-- U msut Feers Me (Dubyalovesblow00@hotmail.com), December 09, 2004.


Hey Wassup,

Get your head out of your ass! It's an armored military vehicle carrying big fucking guns! The point is not whether or not it has treads, the point is that OUR GOVERNMENT IS SENDING ARMORED MILTARY VEHICLES WITH CHAIN GUNS TO PEACEFULL PROTESTS! Doesn't that scare you at all?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 09, 2004.


It doesn't scare me, for one simple reason: As soon as the peaceful protest turns into a RIOT, or vandals start destroying things, everyone will start saying, "why didn't the government DO SOMETHING!. Couldn't they have reasonably KNOWN this would get out of hand?" Look at the morons that brought their small children to the WTO and bitched about that later. Nope, until people who assemble peacefully really STAY peaceful, you can't expect the .gov not to attempt to live up to its responsibility to protect the populace, which it did. One good thing about the 8 wheeled special, it's not as easy to flip over by a bunch of idiots as a police car is.

Bazooka Joe

-- 2 (1@3.4), December 09, 2004.


The cops started the violence in Seatle, not the protesters. It was a peaceful protest, and shit didn't turn ugly until the cops started busting heads. The parents that brought their kids had no reason to believe it would be violent; why should they expect that in a functioning democracy, police clad in riot gear will start shooting rubber bullets for no reason?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 09, 2004.

Didnt Richard Goldsteen say that AntiWTO statements where grounds for arresting?? I dont see how anyone can accept this as an American Value. Conservitives confuse me... they are all big on values but are the first ones on the "Kick Their Ass" bandwagon. Death and Violence, while nessesary sometimes, isnt always the answer. Expecially not for a political issue like the WTO.

-- Dick Tator (inneedofliberty@yahoo.com), December 10, 2004.

Give me a break anti,

The stated purpose of the protest was to *disrupt* the conference, not just peacefully protest. If you want to disrupt the government, you shouldn't be suprised if the government disrupts YOU. I've been to anti-abortion protests in D.C. that had tons of people, and outside of having some pro-abortion people screaming obscenities at us, never had the police crack heads, and of course, none of us destroyed anything. Did the police go over the line? Yes they did, and I think the chief got axed for it. Did the police have the right to order a crowd they felt unruly to disperse? Yes they did. Did they ALSO have the right to use pepper spray, etc. on people who did NOT disperse? Yes they did.

Is someone a moron who shows up to a protest with small children that intends on disrupting a government function? Yes, they are.

Tator,

Didnt Richard Goldsteen say that AntiWTO statements where grounds for arresting??

Show me a link, and I'll agree he said it, but just because one guy said something idiotic, that doesn't mean the government is collapsing. When unions were being formed in this country at the beginning of the century, the police used firhoses and dogs on them, and even killed protestors. That didn't have anything to do with the patriot act, or the president. The country lived through it, and you apparently think those were the good old days. You are better off NOW than you were 50 or 100 years ago, so even though I don't want you two to give up on trying to improve things, don't get confused and think things are worse now than they used to be, you are far less likely to pay the penalty for your actions now than previously, which should show you the country has progressed.

Bazooka Joe

-- 2 (1@3.4), December 11, 2004.


I never said that things where better then... ever hear of the Espionage Act, 15 June, 1917 or the U.S. Seditoin Act, 16 May, 1918. Or the Bonus Army of 1932. Things have always been shit. Nothing has changed.

-- Dick Tator (inneedofliberty@yahoo.com), December 12, 2004.

Tator,

If you want one to look up, look up the "alien and sedition acts" from 1798. The last act is the best! The country still keeps going though, and at least our leaders aren't poisoning each other...

Bazooka Joe

-- 2 (1@3.4), December 13, 2004.


I remember those... I just couldnt find the book I have on stuff like that to remind me what they where called. I do remember that they were found UnConstitutional a short time later.

-- Dick Tator (inneedofliberty@yahoo.com), December 13, 2004.

"Published originally at EtherZone.com : www.EtherZone.com http://www.etherzone.com/2004/tuma122004.shtml

WHAT IS A CONSERVATIVE? FIVE NECESSARY INGREDIENTS

By: Kevin Tuma

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" --Ronald Reagan

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away." --Barry Goldwater

As we enter the twilight years of the American experiment--with a Republican Party in supreme power--a question comes to mind: What is a conservative?

It's a matter of uncertainty whether we've had a conservative in the White House since the Nineteenth Century. There were no conservative Presidents in the last century who were Democrats. There were no obvious Republican conservatives in the Oval Office, either. Eisenhower certainly wasn't a conservative. Nixon was openly socialistic.

Ronald Reagan wasn't a conservative, either, at least in governance-- although he espoused conservatism forcefully on a rhetorical level. Perhaps in that sense, we may define Reagan as a rightist philosopher, like Robert Taft or Barry Goldwater. Unfortunately Reagan's beliefs did not transfer into presidential leadership--due in large part to the fact that Reagan was an anachronism, and he had already outlived the effective lifespan of conservatism itself.

Conservatism--in this day and age of flexible meanings for words--is mostly illusion. It retains a few free market platitudes, but for the most part, it is fakery. It has become a product label for an inferior substitute product, like the 80s label of "New Coke". Faux conservatism rules America. It bears very little resemblance to the real thing. Real conservatism will never rise from the ashes until we at least grasp what it stands for.

Before we define what conservatism is, perhaps we should define what it is not.

* Fascism is not conservatism. It is left-wing socialism with bombs and machine guns. Communism is essentially the same thing. There is no ideological gulf separating Communism and Fascism, facades aside.

* Capitalism is not conservatism. It complements conservatism, but does not override its principles. Conservatism is a political and social concept. The corporation is not more important than the Constitution.

* A Theocracy is not conservatism. It is a bastard state. Christians who empower tyranny in the guise of doing God's Will apparently never understood Christ's admonition of "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

* Neo-conservatism isn't conservatism, either. (See "Fascism", above.)

Inflammatory labels aside, I am not here to call George W. Bush dirty names. I am only attempting to clear up what is and is not a conservative. Apparently there is a great deal of misunderstanding of this concept, since conservatives have not held any real political power in our system for a long, long time.

Allow me to state what should, by now, be extremely obvious: GW Bush is not--by any definition--a conservative. Neither are Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Bennett, George Will, or a bunch of other people on Capitol Hill who apparently never guessed what their Oath of Office was supposed to represent. All these people are, at most, political moderates. And their President is a liberal.

Bush is a happy socialist who has yet to veto a single spending bill. He has maintained a massive post-Clinton bureaucracy without even giving lip service to reducing the size and scope of federal government. Bush has greatly expanded the government's role in our lives. He has thrown tidal waves of money at education, medicare, and farm subsidies. He has monstrously inflated the government's police powers, in complete contravention to the Bill of Rights. He has racked up the biggest deficit in American history. A small tax cut or two, perched decoratively atop a towering mountain of free spending and federal expansionism, does not make the mountain into a conservative one.

Even John Kerry, a Massachusetts liberal ideologue, figured out that Bush isn't a conservative. People often allude to the fact that Bush and Kerry were both members of the conspiratorial fraternal organization "Skull & Bones". Skull & Bones is trivia. Of much greater importance to us is the fact that the two candidates had no real ideological differences. The bitterly fought race for the White House in 2004 was a contest between two liberal socialists with minor variations in their personal rhetoric.

There is no "right wing" in our system at present--at least anywhere near the reins of power. The entire political spectrum is left- oriented, and we are now seeing a sort of angry tribal factionalism, like feuds between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

The artful pretense of GOP conservatism ended on 9-11-01. With a Great Cause to trumpet, Republicans were allowed to openly embrace federal power. Not too ironically, that was when most of the established news media stopped throwing brickbats at Republicans, and started tossing posies instead.

There are five ingredients necessary for conservatism. These are fundamentals:

-The first necessary ingredient for a conservative is a belief in smaller government. Particularly at the federal level. Statism is Leftism--an all-powerful, centralized government. Conservatives oppose this, embracing state's rights and a smaller, less centralized federal government. This is the foundational cornerstone of conservatism.

-The second necessary ingredient for a conservative is a belief in national sovereignty and isolationism. Conservatives do not believe in foreign aid or foreign entanglements. They revere American sovereignty. Yes, conservatives do believe in a strong national defense--but national defense as mandated by the Constitution and the Monroe Doctrine. An invasive military empire is not mandated. Therein lies a crucial difference.

When Woodrow Wilson tried to get the US into the League of Nations, conservatives opposed him. When Franklin D. Roosevelt was aggressively lobbying to get the US into the Second World War, conservatives opposed him. Conservatives have scorned the UN. They are not practitioners of global military interventionism. Conservatives believe in defense of our national borders, not aggression---and real security based on not meddling in the affairs of other nations. Conservatives believe in "Fortress America"...not Pax Americana.

-The third necessary ingredient is a belief in the Rule of Law--- beginning with the Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights is essentially sacrosanct. A conservative does not believe in a "living Constitution".

The only way a conservative would ever alter the Constitution would be by constitutional amendment. He would never seek to override it with power-grabbing legislation. The passage of the USA-Patriot Act-- an Orwellian abomination, all the way down to its namesake-- established pretty firmly just how many conservatives are left in Washington DC.

-A fourth necessary ingredient to conservatism is a belief in traditional values. It is here that politics over such things as Roy Moore's Ten Commandments come into play. However, traditional values, are, by their very nature, regressive. It is true that there is no constitutional separation of church and state, as commonly stated, but there is also Freedom of Worship, and a generalized restriction of government authority. Therefore no allowances exist for the federal government to dabble in the religion business one way or the other. Real conservatives, being strict constructionists, would protect the religious rights of the individual without exploiting Christianity for seizure of power.

-The fifth necessary ingredient to conservatism is adherence to principle. The stubborn instinct to stand firm on issues, rejecting political expediency, in other words. Conservatism cannot exist without an ideological backbone, because one of the most basic philosophies behind conservatism is preservation of tradition. Traditions cannot survive in the absence of principles.

The national leadership of the Republican Party has willfully broken from all the above.

We should do away with the terms "paleoconservative" and "Old Right". These only tend to confuse things, lending passive legitimacy to 'neo-conservatism'. A neo-conservative is no more a conservative than a bird is an amphibian. In the cold light of reality, there are no "paleocons" and "neo-cons". There are only a handful of conservatives and a bunch of leftward-leaning Republicans who are fakes. Real conservatives, in power, are rarer than hen's teeth these days.

We do have one shining example of a conservative left in this country.

No, it isn't Patrick J. Buchanan, or any of his peerage. Pat is a very well-educated--but self-deceiving--mainstream Republican. He is apparently more interested in selling books than taking a coherent stand on issues. Intelligent, yes. Principled, no. (The same description also fits his mentor, Richard M. Nixon.)

The one prominent example of a conservative left in our system is a congressman by the name of Dr. Ron Paul. He appears to be our last surviving American statesman. Unlike GW Bush, Paul is a real Texan as well as a real conservative. He is also widely known in libertarian circles, and he once ran for President on the Libertarian Party ticket. Because he runs under the GOP banner, he is frequently referred to as a "libertarian hybrid". Which is precisely to the point.

What is a conservative? A conservative is a libertarian who believes in traditional values.

That is not to suggest "libertarian" and "conservative" are completely synonymous. There is a large anarchist wing within the libertarian movement, and anarchists are incompatible with any constitutional state, because they oppose all forms of government. Hence, it cannot be said that all libertarians are conservatives.

But are all real conservatives libertarians? Yes.



-- X (..@..com), December 22, 2004.


Good post. I expected it to be complete horse shit when it started out with a quote from Ronald Reagan, but I was wrong. It's very true what you said about conservatism. Even though I consider myself a very liberal person, I do agree with a lot of elements of TRUE conservatism, such as gun rights, isolationism, and limited federal government. At the same time, though, I am pro-environment, pro-heavy regulation of big buisiness, and support a lot of social programs to help the poor, such as universal healthcare (or health insurance) and low-cost housing. I just think most of these should be administered on a state or local level rather than federal, because if the federal government is good at one thing, that is throwing a bunch of money around and getting nothing done.

I would really call either party "liberal". It seems to me that both combine elements of liberalism and conservatism...they both expand federal control, but decrease regulation on big buisiness and the environment...in short, they take the worst aspects of conservatism and combine them with the worst aspects of liberalism.

-- Anti-Bush (comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 22, 2004.


I am not Kevin Tuma but I am converted.

-- (...@..com), December 22, 2004.

I'd really like to see KOBE try to defend the fact that Dubya is using napalm in Iraq.

-- Anti-Bush (comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 22, 2004.

Sorry, that was a poor response. You have been very accommodatin even writing praise, so thanks. Those who are not pro envirment ect ect are few and are usually found on the top floor of corporations. I would like to see it also...

-- X (..@..com), December 23, 2004.

There is a large anarchist wing within the libertarian movement, and anarchists are incompatible with any constitutional state, because they oppose all forms of government. Hence, it cannot be said that all libertarians are conservatives.

*Waves and Smiles*

We are out there and we sit and wait. :p

-- Dick Tator (inneedofliberty@yahoo.com), December 23, 2004.


Tator, i am interested. please point me in a direction so i can read more. maybe a website or book. U can refuse np.

-- X (..@..com), December 23, 2004.

www.lp.org

Just think like these people but be militant about it.

-- Dick Tator (inneedofliberty@yahoo.com), December 23, 2004.


thanks, comrade.. I will review. I will let u know what i think if u are interested. Either way No need to worry about me being judgemental of ur beliefs.

-- X (..@..com), December 23, 2004.

What are we doing in Iraq? I was reading up vietnam And the reason we did not win was because we were trying to fight a convential war. One of the strategies were making contact with the enemy then sending in air strikes, The VC were long gone by the time any bombs landed. The enemy attacked and withdrew when it wanted.The few times the Vc Directly Confronted americans, their loses outnumbered americans 4 to 1. What they did was return to their old ways because of americans advanced weaponry and numbers.

"Lightly movine guerilla Bands, umhampered by a base to defend and well served intelligence by residents of the countryside, can paralyze the action of an infinitely larger number of troops."

So recieving this information new to me I look to find out our strategy in Iraq.. and stumble on this article http://braden.buzzword.com/discuss/msgReader$629?mode=day

The United States' invasion of Iraq was not a great idea. Its only virtue was that it was the best available idea among a series of even worse ideas. In the spring of 2003, the United States had no way to engage or defeat al Qaeda. The only way to achieve that was to force Saudi Arabia -- and lesser enabling countries such as Iran and Syria -- to change their policies on al Qaeda and crack down on its financial and logistical systems. In order to do that, the United States needed two things. First, it had to demonstrate its will and competence in waging war -- something seriously doubted by many in the Islamic world and elsewhere. Second, it had to be in a position to threaten follow-on actions in the region.

Under the best of circumstances, this was not something the United States had the resources to achieve. Iraq is a complex and multi- layered society with many competing interests. The idea that the United States would be able to effectively preside over this society, shepherding it to democracy, was difficult to conceive even in the best of circumstances. Under the circumstances that began to emerge only days after the fall of Baghdad, it was an unachievable goal and an impossible mission. The creation of a viable democracy in the midst of a civil war, even if Iraqi society were amenable to copying American institutions, was an impossibility. The one thing that should have been learned in Vietnam was that the evolution of political institutions in the midst of a sustained guerrilla war is impossible. the Army was lured into counterinsurgency warfare. No subject has been studied more extensively by the U.S. Army, and no subject remains as opaque. The guerrilla seeks to embed himself among the general population. Distinguishing him is virtually impossible, particularly for a 20-year-old soldier or Marine who speaks not a word of the language nor understands the social cues that might guide him. In this circumstance, the soldier is simply a target, a casualty waiting to happen.

-- Asterothe (..@..com), December 25, 2004.


If interested post any info u have or clear up what i may have been mistakened on

-- (...@..com), December 25, 2004.

www.cryptome.org .....!:-| .....

-- zz (zzztztz@sfkh.zzztztzz), December 28, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ