Sparhawk

Iraq posing a threat to the US was certainly given as the reason for invading- too bad it hasn't been backed up by evidence...

I also just figured out how to stop the genocide in the Congo: We manufacture documents and refugees who say the government there hates America and is building chemical and biological weapons and is an imminent threat! Kick ass!

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

Mojo_PeiPei

The fact remains whether it is Iraq or Congo or East Timor and I quote ,"All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

With Saddam gone thats one less horrific evil in the world.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

apechild

I just outlined, in another thread, how Iraq posed a threat to the US.

If I may, I'll re-post an excerpt here:

...this war was necessary to preserve our global security... war was necessary because all diplomatic means had been exhausted.

The UN, through the empty rhetoric of 16 resolutions over the course of 12 years, proved itself unwilling or unable to enforce the will of the international community. It became irrelevant. As a result of this irrelevance, perhaps even in direct response to its proven inability to act, other nations became emboldened, audacious, and belligerent.

The order that exists when strong leaders have the conviction and fortitude to defend free nations from the threat of attack by tyrannical megalomaniacs had been deteriorating rapidly. The order that exists when people have reason to believe that their actions have consequences, that their wrongdoings will not go unnoticed, that their threats, provocations, and attacks will be resisted, was evaporating.

When Saddam Hussein first attacked Kuwait, he was quickly and soundly defeated. The Gulf War sent a very powerful message to others who might have entertained the thought of invading weaker nations to increase their wealth and power. And for many years we lived a relative peace.

But we allowed the internal squabbling of the UN member nations to weaken our resolve. Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright specifically sought the avoidance of conflicts - not their resolution - no matter what the long-term costs. Saddam soon began to realize that without effective leadership among those who might resist him, he could get away with almost anything.

Others came to the same conclusion. 16 resolutions and 12 years and nothing had changed.

On September 11th, 2001, Osama bin Laden and his followers sought to take advantage of our perceived apathy and weakness. That morning we learned that a couple of cave-dwelling half-wits dressed in rags actually believed they could destroy America. Now we stand to witness the escalating belligerence of Kim Jong-Il.

What have we learned from this?

Order can not exist when there is no one around to defend it and tyrants remain in power.

Indeed, a large portion of the threat posed by Iraq was its continued defiance of the US and the UN, and the effect that belligerance had on those who would seek our harm.

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

silent_jay

the us didn't think these countries posed any problem to them war crimes are war crimes wether they are a threat or not

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Tophat665

And neither did Iraq.

I realize that you have posted the party line on why it did and I may come back and pick it apart some time, but how many UN resolutions Iraq was in violation of has diddly-squat to do with the threat or lack their of they pose to America.

If being in violation of UN resolutions were a threat to the US, we would have to nuke Israel. (It's called <i>reductio ad absurdum</i>, I don't really think we should nuke Israel, or even send troops, though a stern talking to might be in order.)

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

nanofever

And Iraq did ? If you have any evidence that Iraq was harboring terrorists, creating WMDs or other "anti-american" activities please do post. I think that Bush guy might also be intrested in what you have to say.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

apechild

Are you guys serious?

Tell me you haven't seen this article yet: (link)

And what about the fact that virtually every member of the UN asserted that Saddam had indeed posessed WMD and had failed to produce any information about their whereabouts?

And what about the fact that Saddam was, to put it plainly, an enemy and had attempted to assassinate our President?

And what about my previous point about the importance of precedent, credibility, and the folly of appeasement?

Tophat, you wrote "I may come back and pick it apart some time."

Fine. Bring it.

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

nanofever

I forgot that "top secret" leaked memo's are the epitome of truth.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

apechild

Your hasty dismissal of that first example notwithstanding, allow me to repeat my three other points in the hope that perhaps you'll at least acknowledge them:

Virtually every member of the UN asserted that Saddam had indeed posessed WMD and had failed to produce any information about their whereabouts

Saddam was, to put it plainly, an enemy and had attempted to assassinate our President

One must consider the importance of precedent, credibility, and the consequences of appeasement

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

apechild

More, courtesy of Mr. Mojo in [this thread]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

Remember, I'm only responding to your previous challenge, when you wrote: "if you have any evidence that Iraq was harboring terrorists, creating WMDs or other "anti-american" activities please do post."

You're welcome.

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

Liquor Dealer

PARIS — France said Monday it will work with other nations to cancel billions of dollars in Iraqi debt and suggested that Saddam Hussein's capture would open the way toward mending relations with Washington.

Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin of France, one of the most persuasive and persistent critics of the U.S. decision to wage war in Iraq, said he hopes the capture will allow the international community to "regain its unity."

France's commitment toward reducing the outstanding debt came a day before U.S. special envoy James A. Baker was to arrive in Paris, one of five European capitals he will visit this week as part of an effort to encourage such moves.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105856,00.html

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

kandayin

Actually the Iraqi government stopped by Paris on their way back to Iraq monday and assured France in a meeting with 80 industrials that France will be needed for the reconstruction of Iraq and that it's their will to involve France, so France decided to whipe out the 3 billions debt during 2004

Ironcarrot

I was informed that this site was more intelligent than the average site and less prone to be led by propoganda yet this another french bashing thread that if anything highlights political diversity and interest in france, does the US fear political opposition so much that it must bash it at every occasion possible?

__________________
'Bart don't use the finger of death on your sister dear.'
'Its so clean and bland, I'm home!'
"I see you drive on the left side here.' 'No mam I'm just drunk"

apechild

Do you wish to discuss the issue and the article that was presented for discussion, or would you rather just criticise the forum and its membership?

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

Ironcarrot

I critqued the french bashing, this seems a tad more enlightened than the standard spam board however educated some of the posters are, there is still french bashing, am I not allowed to question unwarrented criticism of a country?

Liquor Dealer

We do, however attempt to bash them with an enlightened and intelligent approach.

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

Ironcarrot

LOL.

OK, but the question remains, a political power questions the Bush administration and is bashed on an international level.

The US did not meet them on a world wide political forum and present a convincing argument dispite influencing the weaker nations, Mexico, Turkey, England etc. But ignored all political avenues and issued thinly vieled insults with there routes in an occupied nation.

__________________
'Bart don't use the finger of death on your sister dear.'
'Its so clean and bland, I'm home!'
"I see you drive on the left side here.' 'No mam I'm just drunk"

Liquor Dealer

France attempted, unsuccessfully to start an international power struggle - I assume trying to restore some place for themselves other than the basement. They attempted to bully other nations in Europe to stand with them - sorry, but things didn't work out the way they wanted. I can give my views on why they didn't want anyone going into Iraq other than the UN or something of the like that wouldn't upset their apple cart, but I'msure you are aware of them by now. The apples spilled. We met the world on and in an international forum - the UN - the UN passed toothless resolutions and wimped out on enforcing them - I would imagine that France assumed that once the UN demonstarated once again that it has no balls the matter would be over and they could resume their dealing with Hussein. We are now at perhaps Plan B or maybe C. Noticed today that Both France and Germany want to talk about debt - now that they know they aren't going to get paid. If what happened in Iraq was a "thinly veiled threat", I'd hate to see what the results of all out pissed off would be.

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

silent_jay

Just because the UN wouldn't back military action doesn't reflect their lack of "balls".

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Mojo_PeiPei

Yeah it does, what LEGITIMATE authority do they have when they can't even properly and effectively enforce their own resolutions? League of Nations and Hitler ring a bell?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Sparhawk

They can't because we won't give them the authority to. Wanna know why? Because Libertarian gun-nuts start frothing at the mouth at the idea of superceding national sovereignty.

If you don't want the UN banging down your door, how the hell can you say in the same breath that you want it banging down someone else's? They can only go in when they are invited by all parties, or when the Security Council approves it-and there has to be a strong case for superceding sovereignty to get it through there (ie invading another country...).

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

silent_jay

yes thank you. people seem to think that the UN should invade no questions asked reminds me of something......but there is a protocol to follow and unilateral action against a nation is not it

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Mojo_PeiPei

I agree that there is protocol to follow, but when you blatantly violate international law such as Saddam did 16 times, being found in material breach of said resolutions on more then one occasion, something has to be done.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

silent_jay

something yes but it wasn't the right time, to this day there have been no WMD found and this is going to be a big selling point on the success of the war. Saddam's capture helped a lot intelligence wise, let's face it the CIA know what they are doing when they interrogate someone. But if there are no WMD the success of the war will always be in question. It was the main selling point for invasion.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Mojo_PeiPei

There has been no "smoking gun" found yet, what the Kay report has found was that Saddam did indeed have an ongoing WMD program running, that puts him in material breach of resolution 1441.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

silent_jay

that is true. things have been misconstrued between a weapons program and actual nukes, this is due to the media not being specific when the mention WMD it all seems to fall into the same catagory. was he not trying to buy something from Africa? i can't remember. i see your point but is that enough to go to war?

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Mojo_PeiPei

Depends on your perspective. For example the French said nothing could account for us going to war, not even if he had said weapons. Bottom line regarding the WMD's, if they aren't there (which I'll bet my life that they are) then this whole ordeal has been the biggest most massive failure of world intelligence. Saddam played the same games in 98' when Clinton was president, said he didn't have them. Then Hussein Kammel defects to Jordan and we find thousands of liters of anthrax. Nothing really happened to him then, Clinton flew in dropped a few bombs and left it at that.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

silent_jay

well that's just wrong if they said it no rogue nation should be in possession of WMD

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

saline

Frankly none of this is very specific or very damning. Do you actually think that our intelligence isn't involved with Al Qaeda or similar groups? We'd be stupid not to be trying to keep an eye on them from the inside and there's little reason to assume Saddam wasen't doing the same thing.

Quote:

And what about the fact that virtually every member of the UN asserted that Saddam had indeed posessed WMD and had failed to produce any information about their whereabouts?

What about it? What the hell are you trying to say here? Whats your point? It seems like you're trying to say "since every memeber of the UN said this it must hold some weight." which leads me to some questions. If the UN holds such weight why did we blatantly ignore them? Why, when the UN inspection team reported that there were no WMD in Iraq, didn't that hold any weight?

Quote:

And what about the fact that Saddam was, to put it plainly, an enemy and had attempted to assassinate our President?

Where should I begin with this horrible argument. Since we've tried to assassinate Castro numerous times he's clearly entitled to invade us right? Since we've killed the leaders of a number of South American countries we should be expecting an attempt at occupation soon right?

Since when is it the avowed policy of the United States to invade enemies. It sounds like the America you live in needs to grow the heck up. To bring the thread back to France and opposition to the war this may help clarify things. When dealing with serious issues it helps to at least act serious. The problem is the Bush administration wants to do big boy things but still act like little children. They want the responsibility to kill thousands without considering the consequences or opposing points of view.

Well it's time for a wake up call, the world isn't black and white. We weren't attacked on 9/11 because Al Qaeda hates freedom. We were attacked, and will be in the future, because of our patronizing and irresponsible policies in the Middle East.
(BTW, America should be blamed first when we're the ones responsible)

America is neither specifically blessed nor chosen by any god. Ignoring the truth doesn't make it go away and the sooner conservatives learn that the better off (and more liberal) we'll all be.

Quote:

And what about my previous point about the importance of precedent, credibility, and the folly of appeasement?

What about it, it's irrelevant. No one was appeasing Saddam. Bringing inspectors to his country is hardly appeasing him. If precedent is so important why did we violate the precedent against invading soverign nations? The precedent against being the aggressor.

If credibility is so important then why have we been caught in so many lies relating to even just the Iraq war? Too bad we lied about buying weapons materials from Niger. Too bad we lied about our plans for reconstruction. Too bad there are no WMD despite saying we knew where they were.

Quote:

Tophat, you wrote "I may come back and pick it apart some time." Fine. Bring it.

Consider it brought. Served right to you with a side of your ass on a plate.

__________________
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

"A riot is the language of the unheard."

"Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."

"The time is always right to do what is right. "

"One who condones evils is just as guilty as the one who perpetrates it."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

apechild

If I decipher your rantings correctly, you're stating that you think the CIA has most likely infiltrated Al Queda, that perhaps Saddam has as well, and that due to your speculation, any evidence linking Saddam and terrorists should be dismissed?

I think you should be dismissed.

There was no dispute that Iraq had violated some 16 UN resolutions. Even those who had opposed US calls to enforce those resolutions agreed that Iraq was in violation of them. Despite your sad attempts to restate my point and twist my logic, I think it makes a pretty plain case. Virtually everyone agreed that Iraq had WMD. Virtually everyone agreed that Iraq had failed to account for those WMD. A select few of those, however, thought that despite that, we should not hold Iraq accountable.

However, neither this, nor the fact that we have not yet found those weapons, negates the fact that Iraq had WMD and had failed to account for them. Hence, the threat.

Would you disagree with the assessment that the US is a threat to Cuba?

Again - the question was asked, what threat did Iraq pose to the US. I pointed out that, among other things, Saddam Hussein had tried to assassinate our president. That's a fucking threat, OK?

This ranting contains plenty of emotion-filled hyperbole. When you can present some rational, objective discourse, I'll be gald to respond in kind.

Ah yes, resort to blaming the victim of a horrific, cowardly act of indiscriminate mass murder.

Anyone who believe the US is to blame for 9/11 is a vile, disgusting, miserable being. May God have pity on you.

Saddam Hussein relinquished his soveriegny when he willfully violated the agreed to conditions of his surrender. Our action was not that of an aggressor, but of a defender.

What lies? We obtained evidence suggesting a possible link to Niger that was later discredited. We didn't lie about that. We certainly didn't lie about our plans for reconstruction either. Nor did we lie about WMD.

I can see clearly that you're quite fragile and extremely vulnerable to emotional arguments, but before you recklessly fling unsubstantiated accusations, float improbable conspiracy theories, and scream about how thousands of innocent men, women, and children should bear the blame for being ruthlessly murdered, your should take a moment to reacquaint yourself with reason.

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

Sparhawk

I think it's time for a look in the mirror...

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

apechild

Sparhawk, if you address my points and actually contribute to the discussion, I will actually pay attention to your comments.

If you want to troll around and heckle me, I will continue to ignore you.

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

Sparhawk

Oh how the irony drips...

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

Ustwo

I don't mind trolling, but it just doesn't really feel like fishing. Give me a 2lb rainbow on a flyrod over a 10lb one caught trolling in lake Michigan anyday.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

silent_jay

who to blame for sept. 11 is a tricky thing to discuss, the blame should fall on many different people and countries. i really don't want to get into that here at the risk i might be chastised for my opinion, but the US is not totally to blame for this tragedy.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

rogue49

apechild

More -

I wrote:
Now, having dealt with that threat, the landscape has changed.

Iran is allowing the IAEA unfettered access to its nuclear sites.

Libya is abandoning its weapons programs and allowing international agencies unfettered access to it's sites.

The war in Iraq showed the world that the US would no longer rely upon empty UN resolutions to protect itself. The war in Iraq showed the world that the US knows that a resolution is nothing without resolve.

Regardless of one's political ideologies, one has to see that the Bush administration has achieved extraordinary foreign policy victories since it began its prosecution of the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. And the threats against Americans and free people everywhere have been weakened.

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

smooth

No we don't have to see that because many of us don't believe that foreign nations have the right to impose their will on other sovereign nations.

I find your position--that imposing one's will on another somehow secures the threats against "free people"--internally inconsistent.

I don't agree that bullying people into acquiescence (as our actions have done to the Iranians and Libyans) is a ringing endorsement of freedom.

Iran, for example, has claimed that their nuclear program is an attempt to seek alternative power sources. So far, I don't have any evidence to suggest otherwise. I don't even know that I would care if I did have any. I don't think the human race would have gotten very far had some powerful nation-state roamed around squelching any technical advances it felt were contrary to its long-term interests--I mean, we wouldn't have ever gotten out of the damn stone age if that had happened!

I also don't understand why people think that other leaders of other nations are so irrational that they won't be able to stop themselves from nuking the Western world once they achieve the capability to do so. I don't even see how people believe that the leaders don't realize that their economic interests are tied to our economic well-being. It's the non-government actors that we ought to be concerned over--and that includes Western corporations as well as Eastern terrorists. Both are challenging our current model of nation-state governance.

For as much hatred as we're taught the Eastern world has towards us, it's amazing to me how little damage has actually been accomplished. We know that people have access to dirty bombs, suitcase devices, and etc. since we've been warned of the possibility for over twenty years now. I haven't seen one go off anywhere around the world, however. In fact, no one has even set off a large conventional bomb in LA.

apechild

Whether or not you agree with the game, you must at least be able to acknowledge that we're winning.

Imposing one's will is invading neighboring countries to steal their assets, as Saddam Hussein did in Kuwait. Imposing one's will is killing anyone who disagrees with you, as Saddam Hussein did for decades while he was in power.

Defending oneself against threats from one's enemies is not exactly "imposing one's will."

Agents of the Libyan government blowing up civilian jumbo-jets - that's bullying. Agents of the Iranian government sponsoring terrorists and encouraging terrorism - that's bullying.

Sitting down at the bargaining table and talking - that's diplomacy.

Remember, you didn't call it bullying before the war when you and your ilk told us to pursue "diplomatic means" in Iraq.

Um, Iran is sitting on more natural energy resources than they could every possibly need. Their OPEC's number 2 exporter. Why would they need nuclear energy? Please.

Consider it gun-control on a macro scale.

Gun rights advocates have used the exact same argument as yours above, substituting "leaders of nations" with "individuals" and "nuking the Western world" with "shooting people." Do you agree that felons and the mentally ill should not be allowed to own guns?

So, um, are you suggesting that we abandon our efforts to curb state sponsorship of terrorism and nuclear weapons proliferation and instead go after corporations? Dude, are you for real?

Hey don't sound too disappointed, smooth.

Whether you like it or not, the good guys are winning. Consider yourself lucky to have George Bush at your back.

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

smooth

I acknowledge that things certainly look like they are going according to plan. I don't agree that this is best for our long-term interests. Who is "we" in this statement?



Forcing a foreign nation to open itself to foreign inspection under threat of invasion is exactly bullying and imposing one's will. I don't know why you listed the examples you did other than to imply that I don't think those behaviors are inappropriate.

I actually do think those two examples that you cited were inappropriate. I also think our behavior is analogous. Regardless, Saddam's actions are irrelevant to our current dealings with Iran and Libya. Your point of posting them in response to my comments is lost on me.



Nice, "ilk"--I started a trend . Anyway, I certainly did call our demands at the bargaining table "bullying" then as I do now. What exactly are you "remembering" that indicates otherwise?

However, once again, the relevance of your points of example are lost on me. Either the government sponsored such attacks (war) or non-government agents did so (terrorism). I don't support either type of behavior, but that doesn't mean I condone analogous acts by my own government to curb theirs.



First of all, we aren't in any position to dictate whether someone else "needs" nuclear energy. Freedom (which you claimed to be in support of) includes the right to do what one pleases, not what one wants.

Also, given the free-market apologist that you are, I'm surprised you would fail to see how one would want to create alternative energy and sell the "old" tech to us while we continue to sit around with our thumbs up our asses, subsidizing the oil companies rather than pursuing alternative energy sources ourselves.




Well, I'm not a gun control advocate in the manner you are using the term. I believe we should use technology to make weapons and their uses more safe.

I also understand the distinction between controlling one's own population and attempting to "control" someone else's. We may argue about gun control in another thread, if you'd like. Personally I think it's ridiculous to keep bringing it up and arguing over it. I also wonder how you make the leap of logic from a perceived right to control the weapons our citizens own and use to the right to control weapons on a global scale.

Oh, and I do believe that felons should be able to possess weapons. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise if they really believe citizens have a fundamentally, deity-given right to possess them. I think that they have as much right to protect their families and selves as much as the next citizen. I haven't ever considered whether mentally ill people should carry weapons--but I haven't ever met one who did want one. I don't see any legitimate reason to deny them--we can't keep them from speaking regardless of how irrational them may sound. I don't think we should be inconsistent with how we establish a criteria for rights--either they are inaliable or they aren't.



Yes, I am for real. But I don't understand how you read my post to mean that we should abandon efforts at creating more peaceful international relations.

Odd how you twisted my statement, now that I've re-read it. Please don't do that anymore or I won't reply to you. I explicitly tied the economic well-being of devleping nations to ours and claim that their leaders are aware of those links. It wouldn't serve their purpose to start a nuclear war. Only one nation has used a nuclear bomb--and it wasn't the freedom hating Nazi's, Commies, Islamic fundies, or any other massive group of people our government often reduces to a caricature.


Interesting shot.

How do you infer that I'm disappointed? Following your logic, I would be pleased if a bomb destroyed my city and everyone in it (including me and my family). That's doesn't even make sense. I was pointing out that terrorists are not acting as irrationally or spontaneously as we are being led to believe.

George Bush does not have my back. The sooner you realize this the better off our country will be. He has never seen nor experienced anything like my lifestyle, and I doubt he has anything in common with you, either. He is set to secure the interests of the ruling party at cost to the people he likely believes to be insignificant to world affairs. He might care, on some level, if LA was nuked because of how that would adversely affect him, but he wouldn't mourn me or my family.

I agree that those in power are achieving their goals. I just don't think that their goals are in line with mine. This shouldn't be surprising since my group isn't in power. The surprising thing is that people like you, those who the group in power doesn't give a shit about, support their actions.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman