1 Rusty, Did you catch, "Maxim Magazine's", coverage of the 9-11 Truth Movement? It is actually, quite fair and balanced. http://www.911blogger.com/files/MAXIM-MARCH-2006-911-Conspiracy-Theories.pdf

2 Were there pictures of hot chicks? Because I don't go to Maxim to read the articles.

3 They have articles in Maxim. Imagine that.

4 Yeah, it was the JOOOOOOOOOZ that did it. Where ya been greg? Didja beat the pedophilia charges?

5 Yeah, Rusty. There are some hot pics! OOOOooooohhhh YYEEEEEAAAAHHH, she's the shy one, she's ever soooo shy. (Yank, Yank) Check it out man, they say it's the next, "who shot J.F.K." We've penetrated the market now and it will, at the very least, become part of the American Lore. Hell Fire, we might go on and do some good. BOOOOOYYYYAAAAA!

6 That Maxim article is pretty funny, I guess it beats the other magazines it normally gets published in, "U.F.O Weekly" "Black Helicopters Magazine" and "MAJESTIC12 MONTHLY"

7 Dear Dr. Shackleford, To tolerate these "alliances" with muslim countries, calling them "strategic," as if it is in our interests to have "alliances" with these people. An "alliance," of course, traditionally means a two-way street of aid between two countries who's interests intersect in some way. However, it is plainly not true that US and Saudi Arabian, or Egyption, or any of our other so-called "allies" in the region intersect at all. Each country pays lip service to the cause of freedom and Republicanism (if even that), while in turn reaping support in money, business or at the very least the stability of knowing you're not going to be on America's shitlist for the next few years. What does America gain in return? Precious little. We have (had?) bases in Saudi Arabia; in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan routinely contradict our wishes and even their own rational interests by tolerating, even encouraging the Wahhabist and other Islamofascist traditions within their own borders, in a desperate effort to buy their own crumbling, intolerable governments some more time by outsourcing the righteous hatred any even semi-reasonable man would feel against them, to Israel or the United States or whatever. So, what does America gain from these alliances? Nothing in particular that is worth all the money, pain and simple fact that we're supporting, by and large, the people who wish to destroy us with our own money and effort. America attempts, through these alliances, to gain what it can never have: moral sanction under the current code of altruistic, relativistic ethics that by and large the world follows. It is an attempt to say, "Hey, look! We're not at war with the arab world, honest! We're helping you guys out, see?" Of course, the money and recognition fail to do even that. The only thing that will save America's image, either to the American people (who are hopelessly confused as to our purpose in the region now, with all the contradictory mishmash of BS that is being fed to them from both sides - and I, for one, cannot blame them for their confusion) or those sane people in the world at large, is a principled stand for freedom, individual rights, liberty - all of the things that have made this country great, and which we should rightly be proud of. Yet we are lead by a band of cowards who are afraid of principles on principle. "Realists" who have made deals with the devil for some nebulous gain and very real losses, both existentially and morally. Can you honestly say Bush is concerned with spreading freedom in the middle east when he allows this disgusting spectacle of a constitution to be written by Iraqis, who have had no tradition as a freedom-loving peoples, and no philosophical enlightenment to guide their actions? Can you say he has interests in fighting terrorism when he attacks Iraq, no doubt a cog in a huge terrorist machine in the region, yet gives money, support, protection and recognition to Saudi Arabia and Egypt? The plain fact of the matter is the American people - myself included - are no longer sure what, exactly, we're there for. We are taking no principled stands against anything - up to and including Islamofascism in Afghanistan or Iraq! Bush has been quoted as saying, "Democracy is democracy," as if that institution is a good all by itself. Well, he's reaping the consequences of such foolish sophistry - in the form of constitutions that open the door to combining church and state and large portions of the leadership in Iraq and Afghanistan who hate America and love Islamism. What are we fighting for? The "self determination of nations"? That went well the last time we tried it. Democracy? Who in God's name would wish to die, not even for their own right to vote, but for some stranger's right to vote themselves into another Islamic dictatorship? Freedom? I don't see any principled support for individual rights anywhere in the region, least of all from Americans. American safety? How is America made more safe by sacrificing the heroism of brave American soldiers so that Muqtada Al-Sadr, who tried his even best to kill them, can have a shot at kicking them out legally? This war is a farce. Not for all the reasons the cowardly leftists give, but because its a war that must be fought - and must be fought, not just on the material realm, with our plethora of bombs, guns, bullets and brave soldiers who trust in their leaders to use them wisely, but also on the moral realm, in defense of seperation of church and state, of individual liberty and of the right for each man to live as he wishes, so long as he does not attempt to make another free man to do something by force. Yet, from even the mostly-admirable Kurdistan on down to Afghanistan, and our "allies," this is precisely what the Bush administration has refused to do. And we will pay for it, when both endeavors in the middle east fail miserably for lack of spiritual (moral/ethical) leadership that does not involve killing the infidel. Islamism is a hard thing to sell. It makes men miserable, poor, and often dead. But when its the only game in town, it is still what men will flock to.

8 The post above by fucktard is what you get for letting the moron back in.

9 I assure you IM he as nbot let back in he goes around the features.

10 The heck? Where did that come from?

11 Seems to me we either have to decide whether or not we can have alliances with muslim countries in the fight against islamofascism. If we can, then maybe the UAE is one that we should pursue. According to some, they've been an ally in the past. If, on the other we've decided that arabs are the enemy and we need to write them off, then we need to say so and move on. I hate to say it, but I agree with the latter. I don't think any of them can be trusted and we just need to proceed from that. I don't see any way the US can finesse these relationships to our advantage. The networks and ties are so complex, we'll never really know who are friends are. But we should at least keep from handing over our ports to countries that are knowingly harboring elements whose stated goal is the destruction of The West. And I still cannot understand why a the country that has landed men on the frikkin moon, can't seem to run its own ports for godsake.

12 There is no advantage to be gained in dealing with totalitarians. Our history has been riddled with so-called "pragmatists" dealing with totalitarians of all stripes, and getting bitten in the ass for it. From South American "our bastards," Josoph "arguably not as bad as Hitler" Stalin, and many others, no act of support in totalitarianism has ever - repeat, ever - netted us any long-term benefit. Islamism is, by its nature, an anti-freedom establishment. The first step before any relations at all - even diplomatic - with any country, especially arab ones, is "Respect individual liberty, seperate church and state, denounce terrorism publically and loudly." Otherwise, all we're dealing with is another totalitarian who will continue to take our money and support and sell us out at the first possible moment.