...in many ways we should also be more outraged about what we are doing to our fellow man. We sit back and allow our governments to torture people, invade other countries etc. We need to protest more. We need to write more letters to our politicians. The current Australian and American governments are a disgrace to humanity. I dont believe thier lies and propaganda. If the reason for invading Iraq was for humanity reasons, then why dont we also invade Zimbabwe and other such countries. The truth is its about oil, and we sit back and do nothing about the attorcities our goverments commit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Xd0Q2Auz4

...in many ways we should also be more outraged about what we are doing to our fellow man. We sit back and allow our governments to torture people, invade other countries etc. We need to protest more. We need to write more letters to our politicians. The current Australian and American governments are a disgrace to humanity. I dont believe thier lies and propaganda. If the reason for invading Iraq was for humanity reasons, then why dont we also invade Zimbabwe and other such countries. The truth is its about oil, and we sit back and do nothing about the attrcities our goverments commit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Xd0Q2Auz4

I could not agree more. A case in point,

Capture someone, keep them in a secret CIA prison for 3 years and guess what, they confess they masterminded every major terrorist act in the last decade.

Oh, did I mention he confessed without cohersion. What idiot would behieve that!

He probably also confessed to be the mastermind behind the JFK assassination.


Whether he is the mastermind or not, the confession has not and cannot have any credibility. We cannot treat people like this.



Peter.

Whether he is the mastermind or not, the confession has not and cannot have any credibility. We cannot treat people like this.Nor can we lock them up indefinitely for years without a trial, just because we suspect they may be guilty.
I have written to our "dessicated coconut" on many occasions only to receive standard pre judging comments that "these people are terrorists". How do we know, if we don't send them to trial ?

George Bush and John Howard, have bought untold shame on both of our countries.

Are we talking about global warming here, or are we just bush bashing?

It's sad how America is seen as the problem here. Radical Islam has been doing this crap for centuries, and only now have the resources to do it on a very large and very noticeable scale, yet somehow it's all bush's fault for wanting to protect Western Civilization from a clear and un-denied (by the Radical Islamics) attempt to destroy anything and everything that is not Islam.

I don't think sawing off heads on TV, dragging dead, mutilated bodies through the streets, training children to hate and kill and commit suicide, or killing women and children in the name of God are the kinds of values we should allow to continue.

BTW, you've been watching too much 24. "Torture" in the eyes of the US is water-boarding, loud music and being forced to shave your beard. Damn ruthless Americans!

"I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan," he said. "For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head."

All this thread is going to do is start fights, so I would suggest it stops now before it gets out of hand.

POW's don't get trials. Nor do they get released until the war is over, which in this case may be never.

POW's don't get trials. Nor do they get released until the war is over, which in this case may be never.

This guy will never be released, they said that last night. He will be a viable threat to (civilized) humanity until he dies, and likely afterwards. He openly and happily admitted what he did. Experts say he's trying to martyr himself, make himself comparable with OBL, and say he's probably responsible for 80% of what he claims.

He was bragging about what he did when he was first captured years ago. He's only trying to play our system, like they always do by saying he was tortured, and they always succeed because we're too PC and too nice and too damn worried what the rest of the world will think of us.

It's pathetic. The US is at war, we need to start acting like it or we will end up with another Viet Nam, and we will end up losing. We can't afford to lose this war. We can't afford to let a nut job like the leader of Iran take control of Iraq, which is exactly what he's trying to do. He openly admits he wants to destroy Israel, the US and all of Western Civilization (and he needs Iraq to do it), yet people continually blame bush. Pathetic.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/FukNRekd/owned/withoutzionism.jpg

Even OBL openly claimed the terrorists need Iraq to succeed. Doesn't anybody pay attention to what the enemy says?

POW's don't get trials. Nor do they get released until the war is over, which in this case may be never.

That may be true but the Geneva Convention applies to POWs. As far as I understand it is not being applied to the current group of detainees.

As far as I understand it is not being applied to the current group of detainees.

How so?

And don't forget this clause...

POW status also applies to captured members of irregular forces who are under responsible command; have a fixed distinctive sign (such as an insignia, uniform or other marking) recognizable at a distance; carry arms openly; and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

I don't think wearing a burka or murder apply.

I do not understand the 'How so?' question. The post I responded to was equating the (alleged) terrorist detainees to POWs. It is my understanding they do not have this status and therefore the strictures of the Geneva Convention do not apply.

I fail to understand the logic that would allow me to say because someone else behaves in a barbaric manner it is okay for me to behave in a barbaric manner; which is the logic that seems to be applied in the case of these detainees. I can think of three reasons for treating people, no matter what their alleged or real status, in a decent and humane manner; one is because it is the correct thing to do, another is because it degrades the one doling out the treatment and it is pointless. During the Korean and Vietnamese wars by all accounts captured US personnel were subjected to treatment that ranged from the equivalent of water boarding and sleep deprivation to much worse. Did anyone believe the confessions of the ones subjected to this did anyone think better of the perpetrators of the wrong treatment. The US and other countries are involved in a war on terror but this does not excuse emulating the behaviour of the other side even to the smallest degree. This, unfortunately, is the conundrum a humane society faces when confronted by terrorist acts; if you lower yourself to the level of your opponents you have lost the cause. I agree that probably many of the detainees cannot sensibly be released because they do pose a threat. Some of them probably pose more of a threat now as result of their treatment. Why is it not possible to simply confine them in a humane and diginified manner? It is questionable whether much information of value has been obtained by the treatment some have been subjected to. It is certain that the image of the US has suffered and some people who may have dithered have been pushed in the direction of extremism.

I'm trying to figure out how/why you think the US is treating the terrorists barbarically. If you for one second believe the US is treating the terrorists the same way the terrorists are treating everyone else (who is not Islamic), then you're misguided. Sure, there may be a few exceptions, but those are treated with harsh punishment when they're found out.

Do me a favor, give me ONE example of how the US is acting barbaric like the terrorists are. Just one. (And not an example of a single soldier murdering someone, then getting 100 years in prison for it, which is how we are dealing with those individuals.)

Show me where the US has dragged a body through the streets, cut off a head, hidden behind women and children, hidden in schools, dressed as women to gain an advantage in an attack, attacked women and children on purpose repeatedly, etc etc etc.

Do you honestly believe the US is as barbaric as these terrorists? Do you honestly think we're "stooping to their level" ?? Then show me, because aside from the baseless rhetoric I've heard from the bush-bashers, we're not.

Also, that guy bragged about what he had done before being water-boarded.

i always liked benny.

...in many ways we should also be more outraged about what we are doing to our fellow man. We sit back and allow our governments to torture people, invade other countries etc. We need to protest more. We need to write more letters to our politicians. The current Australian and American governments are a disgrace to humanity. I dont believe thier lies and propaganda. If the reason for invading Iraq was for humanity reasons, then why dont we also invade Zimbabwe and other such countries. The truth is its about oil, and we sit back and do nothing about the attorcities our goverments commit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Xd0Q2Auz4

dude.. dont you know anything about our government?

we live under a consitantly mean natured set of 'rulers'... cases in point:

-Iran Contra
-the entire 2nd iraq war
-Vietnam
-Watergate type crud
-the first Bush election
-how long it took us to get into WW2
-HOLDING ANYONE WITHOUT CHARGES!
-constant funding of guerilla groups that may help us make $ in small countries
-refusal to sign non proliferation treaty
-total undoing of UN and geneva convention work
-refusal to sign into international courts
-massive tax exemption for huge well-off companies that need no tax breaks
-refusal to court marshal higher officers, but total willingness to blame systematic torture on barely post-teens from the middle of america!!! this IS evil. if you do not see this as evil, you probably have horns and a bifrucated tounge.
-that whole thing where we like to fake terrorist attacks to use as an excuse to goto war for profit. (not saying it is the case in any specific instance, just that the US Govt. has documented their desire and ability to do so)
- The list goes on, dude.

man. people seem to think that if they ally themselves with the horrific brute that is the US govt, they can somehow gain some profits..

sadly, it is probably true.

I'm trying to figure out how/why you think the US is treating the terrorists barbarically. If you for one second believe the US is treating the terrorists the same way the terrorists are treating everyone else (who is not Islamic), then you're misguided. Sure, there may be a few exceptions, but those are treated with harsh punishment when they're found out.

Do me a favor, give me ONE example of how the US is acting barbaric like the terrorists are. Just one. (And not an example of a single soldier murdering someone, then getting 100 years in prison for it, which is how we are dealing with those individuals.)

Show me where the US has dragged a body through the streets, cut off a head, hidden behind women and children, hidden in schools, dressed as women to gain an advantage in an attack, attacked women and children on purpose repeatedly, etc etc etc.

Do you honestly believe the US is as barbaric as these terrorists? Do you honestly think we're "stooping to their level" ?? Then show me, because aside from the baseless rhetoric I've heard from the bush-bashers, we're not.

Also, that guy bragged about what he had done before being water-boarded.

Rekd you are not reading carefully enough. I did not say the US was emulating on a one-for-one basis the behaviour of some of the extremists. I said that the logic being applied to explain or excuse activities such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation or other treatment that is not dignified or humane is that it is okay because the other guys are worse. You come close to saying that explicitly. If you set your standard of comparison low enough you can always claim the high ground. I simply believe that some of the documented and admitted activities of US, British and, yes, Canadian governments and armed forces personnel are not up to the standard that should prevail in a civilised society.

Rekd you are not reading carefully enough. I did not say the US was emulating on a one-for-one basis the behaviour of some of the extremists. I said that the logic being applied to explain or excuse activities such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation or other treatment that is not dignified or humane is that it is okay because the other guys are worse. You come close to saying that explicitly. If you set your standard of comparison low enough you can always claim the high ground. I simply believe that some of the documented and admitted activities of US, British and, yes, Canadian governments and armed forces personnel are not up to the standard that should prevail in a civilised society.

I guess when you claimed

if you lower yourself to the level of your opponents you have lost the cause.

I figured you thought we had done that, when very clearly we have not. I agree we have not been saints, but we have done much more than most others to protect innocent life. Even to protect the 'not so innocent' lives of those we fight against.

Again, it's sad how America is seen as the problem here.

POW, enemy combatant, whatever you want to call them. The ones that are still at gitmo will probably never be released and don't fall under the geneva convention.

Are we talking about global warming here, or are we just bush bashing?
I guess what I am trying to say is, since we feel it is important to introduce a global warming forum into a CNC forum, because we think it is important, there are also other important issues too.
No Matt, not Bush bashing, but accountability yes. Please NEVER make the mistake that questioning the government of the day is the same as blaming the people of America / Australia. You seemed to introduce the concept of people blaming America. Most Americans if given the choice would not follow the path they are now taking, if it wasn't for the government of the day.

I hate terrorism as much as you, trust me, I entertain wicked ideas of what I would like to do to them if I ever met one. BUT..... there is a right way and a wrong way for us to go about our bussiness, and even though it may seem justifiable, torture and country invading are not the ways. The problem with these methods are lots of innocent victims are harmed in the process.

I am very cynical of the motivation of our governments. If they were genuinely concerned about freeing Iraq's people, they would be as equally concerned about fighting for the rights of oppressed people in other countries too. I don't believe the torture and invasion is about fighting against terrorism.

Deleted

Mariss

i always liked benny.

You no longer like somebody because they have a different view to you? I guess this just about sums up the problem.

A lack of tolerance (and probably understanding) for others that share the planet.

It's not a new problem. It just seems to be getting worse. :(


Cheers,

Peter.

dude.. dont you know anything about our government?

we live under a consitantly mean natured set of 'rulers'... cases in point:

-Iran Contra
-the entire 2nd iraq war
-Vietnam
-Watergate type crud
-the first Bush election
-how long it took us to get into WW2
-HOLDING ANYONE WITHOUT CHARGES!
-constant funding of guerilla groups that may help us make $ in small countries
-refusal to sign non proliferation treaty
-total undoing of UN and geneva convention work
-refusal to sign into international courts
-massive tax exemption for huge well-off companies that need no tax breaks
-refusal to court marshal higher officers, but total willingness to blame systematic torture on barely post-teens from the middle of america!!! this IS evil. if you do not see this as evil, you probably have horns and a bifrucated tounge.
-that whole thing where we like to fake terrorist attacks to use as an excuse to goto war for profit. (not saying it is the case in any specific instance, just that the US Govt. has documented their desire and ability to do so)
- The list goes on, dude.

man. people seem to think that if they ally themselves with the horrific brute that is the US govt, they can somehow gain some profits..

sadly, it is probably true.

Robert I need some clarification on the highlighted paragraph? Please splain that to me!

Now for the sentence highlighted in red! I will give my life and blood before I will ever submit to international law!

Mike

Robert I need some clarification on the highlighted paragraph? Please splain that to me!

Mike

He is obviously just ranting without anything substantial to back him up, nor any validity to the current problem.

I could go through his post line by line and debunk or defuse almost all of it as it does not relate to our current problem, but it's not worth the time. Any effort to explain any of those situations to him would simply be a waste of bandwidth, so I ignored it. :)

No Matt, not Bush bashing

Oh, really?

George Bush and John Howard, have bought untold shame on both of our countries.

There is more shame when you feel your own country (and mine) and especially the current leaders trying to defend them are to blame for a problem that has existed for thousands of years.

Oh, really?



There is more shame when you feel your own country (and mine) and especially the current leaders trying to defend them are to blame for a problem that has existed for thousands of years.

Thousands of years, benny, thousands of years.

Thousands of years, benny, thousands of years.

Actually no not thousands.

The current terrorists are happy with the state of affairs that existed about a thousand years ago when their ancestors had successfully invaded a whole bunch of places. They are upset about what happened during the past 300 to 800 years when they were booted out of these places.

Anyone see 300 yet, you Rekd? VERY errie parallels to our current situation with our own inner politics and attempt at preservation of culture.

I really like how foreigners put down the US on a daily rant, or tell us to submit to international law.

Just be sure to drop off a "Thank You Card" to my uncles who made sure your not speaking German...while your at it...maybe even a card for my cousins too who will try and make sure your not forced to read the Koran anytime soon.

I'm just disappointed in our Presidents lack of aggressive leadership with Syria and Iran. Those countries should be potholes :)

Thousands of years, benny, thousands of years.

One of my coworkers was talking to an afghan student here just after the russians left his country. He asked the student what was going to happen, "..now that you've kicked the russians out?" The response was pretty revealing in terms of the culture in the middle east as a whole. He said "We'll go back to what we were doing before they came. Fighting amongst ourselves."

The tribal clashes have gone on for thousands of years, yes, but the Great Satan US has only been around for a little over a couple of centuries. For being the new kids on the block, we've managed to endear ourselves to them pretty well. We're amongst their biggest customers, and biggest enemies.

Bernard Lewis' book What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East does a very good job of giving insight as to why the middle east began to lag behind the 'west' technologically, and why we are it's enemies. Sure, a lot of people who read it criticize Lewis for innacuracy, racism, failing to answer his own question....but for me it was very consistent with the personalities I've dealt with first hand in the here and now.

Bashing Bush and the GOP isn't going to change anything in the minds of middle easterners, any more than electing Hillary is. They're going to hate us. If we withdrew totally from all middle eastern countries, they'd hate us. They don't even like themselves, and the suicide bombing of innocent children in their own countries is proof.

To everyone who claims that this whole Iraq thing is about Big Oil (which it is) and we shouldn't be doing it, then quit driving your cars, using foreign based 'fossil fuel' energy, and quit doing anything that gives any middle eastern country a profit. Set them free, make them independent, and DO YOUR PART! Quit being a hypocrite.

I think we should use up all the foreign oil as fast as we can till it is all gone. Then, the middle east can go back to living on goat meat and dates, we can leave, take out of their countries everything that isn't bronze, and let them go back to bashing each other over the head. No oil, no problem.

Disclaimer #1: The power to run my CNCs comes directly from US mined coal fired energy. The power to build my one of my CNCs came from a combination of natural gas-fired, hydroelectric, coal, and nuclear (pronounced 'knu-kya-ler') from S. Kalifornia. God (and Unocal) only knows where the gas for my car originates from.

I really like how foreigners put down the US on a daily rant, or tell us to submit to international law.

Just be sure to drop off a "Thank You Card" to my uncles who made sure your not speaking German:)

that was a WORLD WAR look at the history books , and see what ALL the allied forces did , many brave men died to to preserve our freedom , many of my family fought and died or fought and survived ,
show some respect to what is beyond your blinders

as for terrorists their throats should be cut on the spot

that was a WORLD WAR look at the history books , and see what ALL the allied forces did , many brave men died to to preserve our freedom , many of my family fought and died or fought and survived ,
show some respect to what is beyond your blinders

as for terrorists their throats should be cut on the spot

Your taking me out of context. I respect those that lost/risked their lives US or allied. I'm talking about the US bashers, foreign and domestic.

But other contries need to take off their blinders. Australia, UK, Canada, France, Spain, Europe. Their going to get breeded out my muslim immigrants, who will in turn birth islamofascistism.

France is lost as far as I'm concerned, Oz / France has already had their riots between locals and muslims in the streets. They will breed them out slowly

do you understand muslims account for 2/3 of the world (religious)population
the radicals are not even a mere fraction of that population there are many decent hard working muslims living all over the world including the US
the issue is how as a world full of people how do we live and accept one another , if we catagorize all muslems as terrorists , as time goes by watch the s@%t fly

do you understand muslims account for 2/3 of the world (religious)population
the radicals are not even a mere fraction of that population there are many decent hard working muslims living all over the world including the US
the issue is how as a world full of people how do we live and accept one another , if we catagorize all muslems as terrorists , as time goes by watch the s@%t fly

No, but they reamin bystanders and let themselves get rolled over.

Sort of like how German peeps let Nazi's run everything. Islam = Submit.

Show me a free Islamic Nation, their religion dictates their lives. Islam (Middle East culture) and Christianity (The West) will never mesh.

I have yet to see an Islami leader openly slam the radicals or hold protests defending the the oppression of our culture

I won't go so far as to categorize all muslims as terrorists, but after reading the quran, they are far less tolerant of christians than christians are of them....in fact they're far less tolerant of any religion....

"2:99 Verily We have revealed unto thee clear tokens, and only miscreants will disbelieve in them."
......literally translated: only evil people don't believe as we do.

..better yet:
"2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers."

Their religion has a clear and unmistakable dictate. Those who don't opt to slay us where they find us, like right here in our own country...you know, the one that allows them to freely practice their chosen religion?....are obviously more pragmatic in their approach. Its a bit tougher to bully when you're not in the majority.

Just stumbled on this really fun website!
http://www.globalincidentmap.com/home.php

Nope, that was not a rant. I recognize that as regurgitating NPR talking points in hopes it emulates superior knowledge of these issues as well informed. Disregarding the core problems of each and ignores the acts of evil that lays claim to intentions with much bigger plans for death and destruction in its path. So it goes. Tie the hands of government to protect and serve, then unleash the likes of the ACLU on anyone attempting to do the job once placed in a life or death situation as an occupational hazard.

On another note:

Strange how some can feel cheated when a company that pays millions of dollars in taxes gets a 10% relief of the burden. In their mind, that is a subsidizing big business. At the same time wishing their business(which isn't very profitable on its own) was subsidized by a government which they despise. They've had the best mind numbing training public funds can buy........after all, it is following the NPR business model. Not to mention passing on the Blame America first psychobabble of Nazi Propaganda Radio as a relevant source. NPR would be proud!

It makes one think their jealousy, envy and desires are emotions they expect to be satisfied by the government at all costs. Even if it means using emotion to enact their ideals over what is fair and poignantly beneficial to them while taking advantage of someone else. Hmmmm, isn't this the very same thing they deride the USA for? So many times, I see a common thread of their complaints they argue against, ends up being something similar they wish to do or control in a different breath.

It's the tale that wags the dog, ain't it? Or would that be TAIL? depends on who tells the story don't it?

DC

Great, now I understand why its right to torture people and invade their countries, even if 99% of them have nothing to do with the problem.
That is what my initial post is about.

It's terrible isn't it?

Just think of all those in the world trade center that day. They all died and never once probably gave a thought about Islam or their politics or ideology.

Great, now I understand why its right to torture people and invade their countries, even if 99% of them have nothing to do with the problem.
That is what my initial post is about.

That's just psychobabble. Why don't you just add rape and pillage to the list of crimes? What a load of crap!

At least our countries have leaders with balls, even if some of the citizens dont.

God help the world if Al gore had stolen the election.

Now I understand why two wrongs make a right. I'm learning heaps.

All will cometh in time.

See, it's better to get rid of thousands upon thousands over there so there is no risk of killing another 3k of our citizens over here. http://www.thesignindustry.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/thumbs.gif

Criticizing your government or your leaders is not unAmerican or anti-patriotic. It's good practice as a CITIZEN. If the elected officials do not act in the interests of those they serve, then they are in office illegally, committing illegal acts. That simple. Please tell me how my brothers in arms dying in Iraq is helping democracy or freedom in America? Does anyone think for a second that a dictator like Saddam is going to tolerate or allow organized criminals (terrorists) to live and train in his country when they could undermine him? I find that hard to believe when he had absolutely no problem gassing and bombing hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen. Obviously Saddam was Muslim, but he was not a "true" muslim by their definition.

As to drawing parallels to the movie 300...when George W. Bush leads the charge on an attack, I will give him two big thumbs up and lay my life down for him. Also, Greece didn't attack Persia. Leonidas didn't exit Greece to meet Xerxes on his territory, he made a stand in his own country. Please don't make Georgie out to be noble. My dog has traits that man will never learn, and is probably smarter. As long as he continues to sacrifice my friends and family like meat to the grinder I will continue to criticize his every move and effort. A retard who managed to win a national election that hinged on "hanging chads" in the state where his OWN brother was the governor was all the redflag I needed to realize we are in deep ****. The honorable thing to do would have been to concede defeat due to ethics regarding the situation. I know that Al Gore wouldn't have the balls to retaliate, for that I am glad that Bush was in office. We should have stopped in Afghanistan. That was justified. We had good intel. Iraq is about finishing daddy's f-up. Nothing more. When you can show me some benefit gained for one wounded, maimed or dead soldier, sailor or marine then I will acquiesce. And please don't say cheap gas. I'd rather your car sit on blocks in your front yard than have your gas-swilling SUV wandering about the lanes of traffic as the reward for one-legged marines and soldiers. Cheap gas is not a hallmark of democracy. It is a function of free trade and capitalism.

As a veteran of Bosnia, Haiti, and Somalia I understand what it is like to be under fire and experiencing hell. I know what confusion and chaos war can be. The mistakes and bureaucratic bull**** that costs people their lives and prevents a mission from being completed. Finish this war? For what? Every service person swears to uphold the constitution first and foremost, then the lawful commands of his superiors. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say we are in the business of "nation-building" and exporting democracy. We should withdraw immediately and let Iraq implode.

When the power vaccuum starts pulling Syria and Iran in, we backdoor them and cut off their supply routes and start mowing them down as they retreat to their respective countries. There is no defense in them leaving their country to take advantage of such a situation. That would be a morally and legally justifiable position for us as a nation and power. We would also have managed to eliminate millions of Islamo-fascists, with very little of our weapons and manpower. Abandon them and let them cut eachothers heads off. When they step foot out of their own country, cut them down. Manage them as separate herds of sheep, instead of as lone coyotes. We should be isolating them as nations and allowing them all the exporting of crude oil the system will tolerate. We don't need them for any other purpose. If they decide to get wily and stop selling to us, we prevent them from selling to anybody else. If the world wants to complain we sever the infrastructure from inside the exporting nations. The only way it will be rebuilt is if we allow it. We turn the violent nature of the islamo-nazis on themselves. No flights in or out. No importing. We cut them off globally. Only when we dedicate ourselves whole-heartedly to ending "violent Islam" will I support the war on terror. I'm tired of half-assing things. We don't need to stoop to their level. We simply change the rules of engagement. No more man-for-man. We act as a monolithic force, impenetrable and immovable. We stop all conduct that goes against the welfare of the world. Plain and simple.

Ah, yes and kind hearted lads are they, that we have put under interrogation pressures that some call torture. What would you do, given the task of gaining information to protect 99% OF THE WORLD that would prefer to live in peace, free from oppressive religions and ruthless tyrants? Then what would you do when 33% didn't like how you got the information even though it saved more than it hurt? You'd think they were fricken ingrates, but carry on for the other 66% that do appreciate the security measures.

If that is not a system you would prefer not to live under. Why would you not want to grant the same gift you have been given by the unfortunate price of someone else's blood? Was that blood wasted on you or me?

This region is far to important to leave to the wolves that teach more hatred that threatens to deliver death to anyone they see as an infidel. They prove that time after time with mass murder of their own in grocery markets and school yards. It is not that we do not want to help in all areas this crap is going on. That is a direct result of military budget cuts that leave us far too short of boots on the ground to handle it more efficiently. If the UN had any human compassion instead of arrogance, they would also step up as a United front against the actions of terrorist supporters. Instead they turn a blind eye to it as status is more important than responsibility to world order. They just want to make sure the US keeps funding the sorority party, but have little else to offer.

Pitching conspiracy theories and presumptions of sinister motives and dirty laundry on our side is no more proven intentional than a hot day proves Global Warming. The media puts it out there as bait and some are predisposed to buying into it. Like minds sing and their choir carries their echoes.

It took real men to perceive WWII for what it was. We might just need more men like that in the near future.

DC

I wasn't arguing for or against the war on terror and keeping the peace. Just the excuses and half-ass tactics used to employ it. I for one have served and would serve again if it makes a difference. As Patton said, "Why die for your country when you can make the sons-of-*****es die for theirs?" I understand the sacrifice the armed forces make. I appreciate it every single day I draw breath as I know freedom isn't free. I just want more for my "blood money" than cheap gas and a "warm fuzzy" for combating terrorism. If my brothers-in-arms must die, make the enemy suffer for every death caused. When every Islamic extremist capable of making babies is dead, the problem will cease. Until that day, we are fighting a war that cannot be won. Hard line tactics in a hard line scenario. It's not getting any softer, we are. We don't have to torture or rape and pillage. We just need to kill, kill, kill until there aren't any more extremist "volunteers" to kill. When we turn the arid desert into fertile ground from the millions of corpses and gallons of blood they shed, we will have stopped the export of their brand of terror. If that also means killing the women and children of the "old guard" then so be it. A 12 year old boy with an AK47 is just as lethal as a 21 year old man. As long as they have the means to propogate their brand of evil, they will.

Technically, I wasn't responding to your post WYLD.

I do sincerely wish were were not put into the postion of need to kill anyone. And I agree it has not been handled very well in many respects, but i am no armchair general either.

I can understand our reserved action in order to gain the trust of the majority of the population. However, limitations in action do prolong the stay. Meanwhile we have beaurocrats at home playing political games that do more harm than good.

DC

All will cometh in time.

See, it's better to get rid of thousands upon thousands over there so there is no risk of killing another 3k of our citizens over here. http://www.thesignindustry.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/thumbs.gif

And I though that the 3000+ Afgan POWs who died, many in overcrowded shipping containers at a POW camp shortly after the invasion would have been enough.


Obviousy it was not. :confused:


Peter.

And I though that the 3000+ Afgan POWs who died, many in overcrowded shipping containers at a POW camp shortly after the invasion would have been enough.


Obviousy it was not. :confused:


Peter.

In case your unaware. http://www.democracynow.org/afghanfilm.shtml

Peter.

Really, I could care less about this post, & think this cat. Should be Removed from www.cnczone.com.

I come here to talk (cnc) shop, Not listen to the same crap that is already on TV!


.

Three topics to avoid, SEX, POLITICS and RELIGION in every situations. Well, maybe the first one we can give an exception.

So, with the situation on global warming that we are in, religion won't count for S#*T if we don't try to stop it. Ask the Pope or the Imam to save us from the heat wave or ice age thats going to happen. You believe they would?

But then again, at the rate at which religion is creating such a rift between man, (of course with the help of some terrorists) I think it will kill us all off faster than an ice age or a heat wave would.

I just have one thing to say though. I am glad I am not a part of the religions that have been in the news and have any association with terrorism.

How do I explain to my children that religions that have supposedly one ultimate being that controls all in this world can create such a havoc and suffering. I really wouldn't know how to.

Please keep this discussion civil PLEASE! If not the offending partie(s) will be BANNED, I will become the Donald Trump of CNCzone, with the hand pump as I ban you. :)

This is the tail end of an article titled
Roots and Nature of Terrorism Against Civilization

The aim of the terrorists in Iraq is to prevent the democratic transformation of society. The objective of the neighboring Arab governments, with the notable exception of Iran, is to protect their countries from possible negative consequences of the developments in Iraq. Iran alone is interested in prolonging the American military presence. Seemingly, this policy contradicts the Iranian leadership’s utter rejection of a secular and democratic Iraq. However, from Iranian perspective, it serves the country’s interests. Thus, Iran pursues a three-pronged foreign policy. It supports terrorism inside Iraq. It also attempts to control the Iraqi Shi’its politically and financially. Finally, Iran maintains pressure on Iraq’s neighbors through other terrorist organizations outside Iraq.

And herein lies an opportunity for American diplomacy. All affected Arab countries are interested in peace and stability in the region. Iran’s actions indicate that its policy is detrimental to both. Moreover, Iran’s military buildup, especially its aggressive pursuit of nuclear weapons, is a threat to their existence. Syria is humiliated and isolated. The reaction of the Lebanese people to the murder of Rafiq Hariri was a total shock to the generals and old guard politicians in Damascus. They see democracy gaining the upper hand in Lebanon and Iraq. They don’t like these developments. Internationally, they feel isolated. Domestically, they are concerned about their future. Cracks within the unified elite are inevitable. Like Libya before, Syria is ready to abandon its long standing anti-Americanism and join the West.

Again, Islam is not the enemy. The overwhelming majority of Muslims are not the enemy. Arab governments are not the enemy. The real enemies of civilization are those terrorists who represent the worst of European thinking, Socialism and Fascism, and their embittered soul-mates in the West.

The protection of Western civilization should be our most important objective. The war will continue, soldiers and diplomats will have full employment. Yet the division over Iraq must not result in a festering split between the United States and Europe. The terrorists of the twenty first century and the governments in the Middle East and South East Asia do not really have much in common. The latter know that they must modernize and reform. The terrorists’ goal to eliminate the West does not leave room for any meaningful compromise with the Muslim majority. Theoretically, the terrorists could make common cause with the disgruntled Left in the West. But they are no match for the military, economic and moral superiority of the West. At the end, the forces of freedom and democracy will win because they represent a positive future. And terrorists will lose because negativism and nihilism never made people content and happy.



Highlights by me.

I have no problem with any of that Matt.
My problem is the torture of people, and the illegal invasion of countries.
Napoleon once said " There are only two forces in the world, the sword and the spirit. In the long run the sword will always be conquered by the spirit. "

People may be suppressed for a while, but unless you change their mindset they will always eventually rise again.

I question the "Spirit of our leaders who say things like this " There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. "
Donald Rumsfeld (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/donaldrums148142.html)
These are the people who have led us into such combat. I believe there are more diplomatic methods that could achive the desired results a lot more eficiently and with less blood shed.

The current methods of force, and torture are not the answer.

Please keep this discussion civil PLEASE! If not the offending partie(s) will be BANNED, I will become the Donald Trump of CNCzone, with the hand pump as I ban you. :)

Hi Paul,

To me this discussion has been a civil one. Can you explain who, and what part of the discussion is offensive? I'm happy for you to do it via PM if you wish.

I really don't understand.

Cheers,

Peter.

Benny,

I find it a bit ironic you cringe at reports of interrogation methods you call torture on terrorist/insurgent/thugs, many of which were actively engaged or connected to plots of mass death. Then you quote one of the most ruthless men of war history that created so much death and destruction in a 17 year span, it is mind boggling. Napoleon didn't need to touture for any information. The policy was anyone left standing was mowed down. There is a fairly good chance you are bound to get all the needles if you destroy the whole farm. Eventually that caught up to him.

He makes Sadam look passive, Hitler look lame and America look like it was tamed by angry feminist mobs.


Makes me wonder how he would handle the current state of world affairs. And if would you still be proud enough to quote him if he did it in his usual style.

Here is another of his quotes.

"There is no place in a fanatic's head where reason can enter."


DC

Not ironic at all. The point is, ( and it was probably not obvious ) is that even a well known leader in war, had to concede that the sword was not as strong as the spirit.

world history ( man) has been dictated and created thru war and violence ,the power rise and fall of nations has been through defeat ,
there has always been and always will be an enemy , its called human nature with the thirst for greed , power , and ego tripping

the freaks at the present time work on fear , the problem is the nations that are fighting them kill them or take them as pow's and treat them well,
for them what fear do they have to worry about , they die and get 50 virgins or the get caught then thrown in jail and forced to eat pizza ,real tough ,
slow painfull deaths may be a thing to fear for them , being dragged to the street and stoned to death by the people they spit on in their own homeland ,may be something to concider .
how do we deal with this and hold our moral beliefs , or do we put our morals aside and fight to win

I wasn't arguing for or against the war on terror and keeping the peace. Just the excuses and half-ass tactics used to employ it. I for one have served and would serve again if it makes a difference. As Patton said, "Why die for your country when you can make the sons-of-*****es die for theirs?" I understand the sacrifice the armed forces make. I appreciate it every single day I draw breath as I know freedom isn't free. I just want more for my "blood money" than cheap gas and a "warm fuzzy" for combating terrorism. If my brothers-in-arms must die, make the enemy suffer for every death caused. When every Islamic extremist capable of making babies is dead, the problem will cease. Until that day, we are fighting a war that cannot be won. Hard line tactics in a hard line scenario. It's not getting any softer, we are. We don't have to torture or rape and pillage. We just need to kill, kill, kill until there aren't any more extremist "volunteers" to kill. When we turn the arid desert into fertile ground from the millions of corpses and gallons of blood they shed, we will have stopped the export of their brand of terror. If that also means killing the women and children of the "old guard" then so be it. A 12 year old boy with an AK47 is just as lethal as a 21 year old man. As long as they have the means to propogate their brand of evil, they will.

That's one of the most disgusting uncivilized cruel statements I have heard "this week"...in fact wait, that might be the second most...given that I came by this video the other day...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17344.htm

Hi Paul,

To me this discussion has been a civil one. Can you explain who, and what part of the discussion is offensive? I'm happy for you to do it via PM if you wish.

I really don't understand.

Cheers,

Peter.


Yes, Peter, if promoting, justifying, and actually encouraging murder in that fancy manner is actually "a civil discussion" for ya, then I have no idea what the heck kinda civilization you are bragging about! ... Pathetic!

Take a look at that video, which does not describe even a fraction of what actually goes on in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and the list goes on and on...a whole damn long list of cruel scenarios, the heros of which are either the American troops or those sponsored and supported by the American government (as is the case with the Israeli forces)!

And, to all those who actually suggested that killing "those Muslims" is the solution, hey dudes, there are more than 1.6 billion Muslims in this world...so your "billiant" solution of just "kill, kill, kill,...", as somebody stated, WILL NOT WORK...so, you better take a deep breath for a min, put your civilized mask on for another, and think of trying to understand and educate yourself about those people... because trust me, there are a whole damn lot of those around; all over the place...and their number is growing tremendously, particularly in the states...so you will have to live with them, some way or another, and you will have to try to face those stereotypes you have, instead of taking the easy way to do nothing but rant about them.

Oh, and fizzissist, let me add that what I refered to by "educating yourselves about Islam and Muslims" does NOT mean to just google a couple versus of the Quran and paste them, regardless of their original context. If I were to do the same thing with the bible or any narrative-style book, it will be but a joke! So, let's just not even go there!

My problem is the torture of people, and the illegal invasion of countries.

Benny, tell me which country we invaded illegally, and who we tortured. (By torture, I mean physically harming, like cutting off fingers, bamboo shoots, etc, not water-boarding and loud music and sleep deprivation.) You're making a lot of broad, unsubstantiated statements without anything to back it up. We are at war, and the US policy is first and foremost the protection and safety of innocent life. We go out of our way to do that, often to the extent that our own boys are getting shot trying to make sure they're not killing innocents. A friend of mine that's been in Iraq 3 times (and got a Purple Heart from his first tour there) told me there are 7 steps our boys must take before they can engage the enemy.

Now, consider we've been at war for 4 years now. Then look at the casualty rates. Then look at any other war that lasted that long and tell me how the numbers add up. (FYI, as you'll read below, the VAST majority of Iraqi deaths are at the hands of other Muslims, not the American forces)

It's really pathetic that the media does not tell the whole story because they're afraid it will bring down their ratings. It's sad that so many people just go on believing it and passing judgment without knowing the facts.

That's one of the most disgusting uncivilized cruel statements I have heard "this week"...in fact wait, that might be the second most...given that I came by this video the other day...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17344.htm




Yes, Peter, if promoting, justifying, and actually encouraging murder in that fancy manner is actually "a civil discussion" for ya, then I have no idea what the heck kinda civilization you are bragging about! ... Pathetic!

Take a look at that video, which does not describe even a fraction of what actually goes on in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and the list goes on and on...a whole damn long list of cruel scenarios, the heros of which are either the American troops or those sponsored and supported by the American government (as is the case with the Israeli forces)!

And, to all those who actually suggested that killing "those Muslims" is the solution, hey dudes, there are more than 1.6 billion Muslims in this world...so your "billiant" solution of just "kill, kill, kill,...", as somebody stated, WILL NOT WORK...so, you better take a deep breath for a min, put your civilized mask on for another, and think of trying to understand and educate yourself about those people... because trust me, there are a whole damn lot of those around; all over the place...and their number is growing tremendously, particularly in the states...so you will have to live with them, some way or another, and you will have to try to face those stereotypes you have, instead of taking the easy way to do nothing but rant about them.

Oh, and fizzissist, let me add that what I refered to by "educating yourselves about Islam and Muslims" does NOT mean to just google a couple versus of the Quran and paste them, regardless of their original context. If I were to do the same thing with the bible or any narrative-style book, it will be but a joke! So, let's just not even go there!

Another outburst like that will likely result in a ban. (Yes, I will ban you before I let your rude comments and personal attacks get this thread closed. ;) )

Now back to the show.

We're talking about RADICAL Muslims. Not the 1.5 billion moderates. If you fail to make that distinction, then you are simply making the broad assessment that ALL Muslims are terrorists. I find that highly doubtful and highly offensive. Especially when you title your response with

Oh, please, I can't stand ignorance, and blind grouping of people!

Most of the violence in Iraq and other ME countries is Muslim vs Muslim. Muslims killing themselves to kill other Muslims. Innocent Muslims. Women and children Muslims. And if they can kill a few Americans at the same time, so much the better in their eyes.

I have been studying the Quran for several months now and there is a lot of the "convert or die or pay" methodology in it. If it is, in fact, to be taken word for word, then it's no wonder there is a large number of RADICALS that are taking it to the extreme.

Looking for an independent unbiased news source?

You call that an unbiased news source? That is the worst form of bias I have seen next to a KKK site!

DC

Rekd, please, tell me your just kidding...I can't believe you're in this world, yet you are wondering about "the torture that the American government enjoined in".

What do you call this?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11944.htm ---short version on Abu Ghraib

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17242.htm --- longer version on Abu Ghraib

or this

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13597.htm --- Guantanamo Bay Style of Torture

It's a long list, trust me!

And, PLEASE, don't tell me those Americans involved were just "bad apples", because that excuse is getting old, AND because there's happening to be a whole lot of such incidents...and if a tree has so many damn bad apples, then I think we should stop blaming the apples and instead look at the tree and the roots, because there's definitely something going severly wrong in there.

And, I have no clue what and what not you classify as "torture", according to your weird list earlier, but trust me, the CIA, and the troops, are trained and do know the most suitable torture style for each victim. Here's an axample for ya...if we look at Abu Ghraib, the vast majority of the ugly torture was sexual, directed at both the male and the female Muslim detainees. And, nope that's not a coincidence, because they know that they have a kinda conservative culture, and thus that's what will affect them physically and more importantly, PSYCHOLOGICALLY the most. The same vicious game is that in Guantanamo Bay, although all we have about the conditions in Guantanamo are based on the stories of those few British detainees that were released. And I have no reason to not believe them, because if the American government is prohibiting any media personnel or pictures to be taken in there, then that obvioiusly proves nothing but the fact that there's a whole lot of horrible things going on in there that the American government doesn't want the world to see, and more importantly, its own tax-payers!

So, stop talking about different kinds of torture, as if it matters...all what matters is the fact that those are HUMANS, just like you, me, and everyone is...dehumanizing "others" is not getting us anywhere!

You also mentioned that you've been studying the quran, I've been doing that as well, simultaneously with the Bible, and that's why I know very well that the way you cite from it is very crucial to the meaning. The same can be said about the bible, but since the bible does not address military-related aspects that comprehensively, it's not that obvious to some. I'd like, however, to see your references from the Quran, if you wanna say that it's Islam and the Quran that are responsible for this!

And, I've just seen the illegal-invading-of-countries comment, I don't have time to comment on that one right now...maybe some other time, although for God's sake, it's too obvious!

And, One of Many...I call that an unbiased source because it allows me to see the OTHER side of the story, after watching CNN or FOX. From my experience with the media, I don't trust any one-source..I find it to be worth it to actually take the time and explore different sources which usually gives me a sense of truth and reality somewhere in between. There's always something going behind the scenes, yet still, we should take the time to try to get to what's really going on, instead of sitting here judging and dehumanizing of people, which is not gonna solve anything at all!

Oh, and fizzissist, let me add that what I refered to by "educating yourselves about Islam and Muslims" does NOT mean to just google a couple versus of the Quran and paste them, regardless of their original context. If I were to do the same thing with the bible or any narrative-style book, it will be but a joke! So, let's just not even go there!

Uh, how 'bout we go there.

I did not "..google a couple of versus of the Quran and paste them...", I've read a lot of it, the interpretations are pretty clear, even to the casual observer, and what I put up is in context. I couldn't care less what you choose to do with any other book. We're talking about a huge cross section of people who have chosen to interpret the verses EXACTLY as I did.

Difference being, they have elected to practice it. So, we'll just have to assume by your defending them, you're one of them?

"There is no place in a fanatic's head where reason can enter."

So true; and it does not matter whether the fanatic is one who kills and maims indiscriminantly for some misguided religio-political reason or whether the fanatic is just supporting his government in misguided and uncivilized behaviour. A fanatic is a person with a mind closed around their own beliefs and not open to rational discussion.

Don't meally mouth around, the US government is supporting torture; waterboarding, sleep deprivation and similiar treatment are torture; they all exist on a continuum. There are two 'justifications' that seem to be put forth excusing this behaviour; one is that they do not fall into the legal definition of torture the other is that this type of activity is okay because the bad guys are soooo bad it is okay for the good guys to be just a little bit bad.

Balderdash!! Torture is wrong, torture was wrong when practised during the Inquisition, torture was wrong when practised by the Waffen SS in the Second World War, torture was wrong when practised by the North Korean authorities in the Korean War, torture was wrong when practised by the North Vietnamese authorities in the Vietnam War. Torture always has been wrong. Torture always will be wrong.

Torture is the imposition of mental or physical suffering with the intent of changing the victim's beliefs or behaviour. In the case of torture the intent is as important as the act.

Torture doesn't work, if your definition of 'work' is the extraction of reliable information. Anyone willl break under torture and, if magazine articles I have read are to be believed, this reality is included in the training of some operatives who are taught to tell as much as possible; true, false, doesn't matter, mix the wheat with the chaff to confuse your interrogator.

I find it both disgusting and terrifying that there seems to be such widespread and vehement support for torture in the US. The terrifying comes about because here we have the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world unable to recognize the wrongness of its actions. This is a country that holds itself up as an example of civilized democratic behaviour under the rule of law; it stamps "In God We Trust" on its coinage. What god; the Old Testament version who allowed an old man who claimed insult to call bears from the woods to rend the young people allegedly guilty of the insult, or the New Testament version who allowed his Son to be crucified and atone for the sins of Humanity. Personally I believe in neither but I do believe that torture is not compatible with the behaviour and lifestyle espoused by the Son, whoever that individual may have been.

eng, Do you think the terrorists are on the moral high ground compared to Western civilization? (a simple yes or no will suffice)

For the record, I am not and have not studied the Bible as I have the Quran, so I am not going to try to compare the two. Suffice it to say, if I were to take the Quran literally, which is how you are supposed to take it because it's not allowed to be "interpreted", then I would deduce that if you are not a Muslim practicing Islam, you are to be converted (BY FORCE if necessary) or killed, or you are to pay a "tax" while losing many (most) of the rights afforded true Islamics.

As for torture, there are levels I'm willing to accept. That stops at physical deformations. (Cutting, burning, breaking etc). If being "a little bad" means saving lives, I'm all for it. You're not going to successfully fight hatred with love. Not in the case of the radicals we're fighting.

I now have a brother-in-law who lived in that area of the world. He moved here for a number of reasons, but I was surprised to find out what all of them were. I spoke with him the last few weeks on the situation in Iraq, the state of the Muslim world, the current view of America and/or war from a modern Muslim standpoint.I also spoke with a large number of family/friends of his that still live there.
I found that believing all of the "fair and balanced" news reports, no matter where they come from, still leave a lot to be desired. This is not a poke at anyone, (so don't start flaming me). There are always at least two sides to the story. Unfortunately, either there exists a lot of political bias in the news media, or the news simply attempts to push people by emotion and reaction, whichever makes money. I imagine a little of both, sometimes.

Out of this 1.6 billion Muslims, how many live in the U.S., the evil, vile, West? I believe a large number of them do,(not the majority, not even close, but still a respectable number) and are quite satisfied at their choice. Religious intolerance in the Arabic countries of the world is beyond comprehension. Muslims in America are left to worship as they see fit.
According to my BIL, there are a large number of Muslims in that region of the world (as much as 75-80 percent!) who would jump at the chance to live in America, or have a democracy, etc.
To the majority of Muslims in the world, America is seen as a land of peace and opportunity (I am guessing they have never been in Harlem or downtown Dallas, etc.*shudder*) BUT- at the same time, we are seen as bullies. We push our way around international laws, we have had instances of torture (that got way overplayed in the news), we posess nuclear weapons and will not allow other countries to develop nuclear power (for reasons good and bad, they agree), etc.
Even though we are viewed as bullies, and oil hungry, SUV driving, cell phone and credit card waving, ignorant sloths by some, there are literally MILLIONS of followers of Islam who would love to be here in the States, in a democratic country, etc.
Take a poll of the number of people leaving the countries that harbor terrorists (or that have terrorists flocking to them), versus the numbers you see on the news of people flocking to there to train in terrorist camps, and I think you will find that a large number of Muslims in that area are VERY intolerant of that closed minded thinking of the insurgents and terrorists. They simply want nothing to do with them, and are leaving for bluer skies.

The BIL and I spoke at great lengths about the Quran, and the intended meanings of the passages contained therein. Turns out that they are "subject to interpretation" as lead by the Imam at the mosque, or by how you feel Allah (or Muhammed, even) leads you to view them. This leads to controversy, as every sect of Islam has a different view on what the Quran says/means. At the far end of the struggle, you have the insurgents, who take the Quran, and twist it to fit their religious ideals and beliefs, and try to use religion to serve them. Thankfully, this faction is an embarrasment to all other sects of Islam, and they are also (thankfully) in the minority.
You can argue with any of the above that you like, but it comes from the BIL and at least a dozen other minds from that area of the world, who are completely immersed in it. This is not a report courtesy of Fox news. :)

Now, what are we doing in Iraq? We are protecting our oil interests, we are spreading "democracy" (at least as an idea), we are killing terrorists, etc.
Oil interests? Never! Not a Texan, you say. I retort, yes. I am a Texan, and I can see it happening.
Democracy, as it stands as an idea, would be great to spread in that region, if you could just get them to stop killing each other over their religion. The problem is that no one there wants to make a separation of religion and state.
It is always intertwined.
A lot of those killed are not terrorists, you say? Why are they shooting American troops? Why are they enacting acts of cowardice by sending their 10 year old child into public strapped with a bomb? If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and shoots back, then guess what?
I agree, personally with SOME of what we are doing there. I am on the fence, moreover. I don't agree with what we are doing all the way. I think that removing Sadaam from power could have been done differently, or with more tact.
I also think we have botched a number of operations and cost thousands of lives from ALL countries involved, simply to satiate the "humanitarian" mindset and be politically correct. Applying yourself to the rules of engagement, and observing the Geneva convention (although that would be picking and choosing, wouldn't it? :)) when it comes to war is of course acceptable, but to force valuable information from someone that could save thousands of our sons,daughters, brothers, and sisters, both here and abroad, is worth it. Sign me up. For those who disagree with torturing or other acts of "inhumanity", I have a video of a gentleman named Daniel Pearl I would like to show you. This is how they treat their prisoners. I would like to put you in a similar situation, in the middle of a war, and see how PC you can stay. :D
The events at Abu Ghraib were a tragedy. Some of the goings-on at Guantanamo are despicable. I don't approve of such behaviour, as it is unbecoming of officers, and any of us as a nation.
I do, however, completely understand the need to extract information in a wartime setting. To another American I would ask, if you could save the victims of 9/11 with a few simple actions, would you? How about the Madrid train bombings? How about the daily tragedies in the Holy Land?
I believe there is waaaayyyy too much criticism of what we are doing over there, versus support of our family that are supporting our right to bicker like this, and enable a whole other country to argue the same way, just without any bombing and small arms fire.

I might add that I know a variety of American Muslims, who are quite offended by the actions of the terrorists. They all agree that "This is specifically what Islam is NOT about. It is a religion of peace, but there are those who would always misinterpret anything, if it serves them or their ideals".

Flame me, chastise me, etc. I don't care. Everyone else posts their opinion, now I have posted mine, as well as the opinions of a few people who have been living in that hell.
After all, when it comes to my opinion and what I think, what am I but a Monday morning quarterback? If I were to run this war, I would have botched it WAAAYYY worse than we are currently.
"never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups"

Maybe Napoleon had the right methods then. To kill them all and ask no questions later? He espoused the ends justify the means along with separating ones conscience to do what needs to be done to gain the upper hand without remorse. I do not see where that leaves much of a chance for peace in changed minds. That is trading one fear and ugly tactic for another. The only other option left for us is to raise the white flag and get down on prayer matts as obedient losers. We are not their enemy, their leaders are creating them as enemies against the world that does not conform to their ideology.

I am not saying all torture is the right thing to do, but indiscriminate mass murder for the sake of ones God is the aggressor in this war. Their reward is unquestionable authority and absolute power under threats far worse than the kinds of interrogation pressure the US is allowed to use. Yet they get a free pass with no accountability. There are no easy answers to dealing with growing fanatics. You either go in peace as they see conversion, or you die trying to fight it. Even if they don't kill you, there is no place in their social fabric that you will be accetped as an equal. The exact kind of prejudices we have been fighting to eliminate for many years in the US. It is alive and being justified as prefered to war.


Is there a high road when dealing with the lowest vermin on the planet that still believes subjugating non-believers of their brotherhood to suffer do or die consequences? Then sends them out to other parts of the world for the same hateful causes?

My perspective of this conflict is to free at least a portion of the region of radicals to give the moderates a chance at self governing without a Dictator. I thought that was the high road. How we get there has always had its low side in any armed conflict.

I wouldn't be the first to admit I don't have it all figured out, but doing nothing has accomplished nothing, but let it grow to near insurmountable proportions. People are dying at their hands in high numbers and not a protesting pain in the ass says a word to stop that. I am afraid if we do not fight it now, it is not a matter of IF it is WHEN mushroom clouds go off in the US and our allies. I would rather support the side that has what I conclude are our best interests and the interests of a free Iraqi people, than join those that smear the US as the bigger problem. The real war is only against those that want to control Iraq against the will of the people. Most realise that what little peace there is, is because of the American GI presence.


DC

I wouldn't be the first to admit I don't have it all figured out, but doing nothing has accomplished nothing, but let it grow to near insurmountable proportions. People are dying at their hands in high numbers and not a protesting pain in the ass says a word to stop that. I am afraid if we do not fight it now, it is not a matter of IF it is WHEN mushroom clouds go off in the US and our allies. I would rather support the side that has what I conclude are our best interests and the interests of a free Iraqi people, than join those that smear the US as the bigger problem. The real war is only against those that want to control Iraq against the will of the people. Most realise that what little peace there is, is because of the American GI presence.

DC

I agree with just about everything you said especially the part about "doing nothing"

Doing nothing has gotten us where we are today. How long ago was war declared on US? How long have we ignored that declaration? How many lives have been lost because of ignoring that declaration? How many more?

I take exception to what you said about "what little peace there is".

From what I've heard (from people there in Iraq), 15 of 19 provinces are peaceful and thriving. But that doesn't sell newspapers so it doesn't get reported. Then, all of a sudden, all of Iraq is in civil unrest. Or so you'd think if you didn't have the desire for truth.

I suppose that "little" word does change the context in what I meant to convey.

I don't intend to sound like a hard liner that is insensative to human decency. But the very culture of the violence we fight against does not get the same outrage and microscopic judgements as our un-intentional mistakes or miscalculations.

DC

I suppose that "little" word does change the context in what I meant to convey.

I don't intend to sound like a hard liner that is insensative to human decency. But the very culture of the violence we fight against does not get the same outrage and microscopic judgements as our un-intentional mistakes or miscalculations.

DC

If you go by the media's representation then yes, "little peace" is appropriate albeit inaccurate.

Well, what I failed to include was where mass violence IS a greater problem. Discluding where there is calm in the face of our occupation as a double edged form of comfort that we do offer the moderates. Showing their appreciation turns them into targets.

Only recently have some felt safe enough to begin reporting the locations of combatants to protect the innocents they hide among being trapped in the cross fire. I think that is a chilling realism as to whom they know has more concern for them on the right side of the conflict.


DC

Great idea guys let sit back and do nothing, and when some terrorist kill your son or rapes your daughter because his religious beliefs told him to do so, then lets talk again!

Great idea guys let sit back and do nothing, and when some terrorist kill your son or rapes your daughter because his religious beliefs told him to do so, then lets talk again!

They'll just blame the US (Bush) for it. "Damn that Bush shouldn't have given that land to the Jews to begin with!" (nuts)

/sarcasm

if you are not a Muslim practicing Islam, you are to be converted (BY FORCE if necessary) or killed, or you are to pay a "tax" while losing many (most) of the rights afforded true Islamics.


And you thought that went out with the Ottoman Empire didn't you?

Hah! Guess again.


Posted GMT 3-18-2007 18:29:1

Baghdad (AINA) -- Muslims in the Dora neighborhood of Iraq are forcing Assyrians (also known as Chaldeans and Syriacs) to pay the jizya, the poll tax demanded by the Koran which all Christians and Jews must pay in exchange for being allowed to live and practice their faith as well as being entitled to 'Muslim protection' from outside aggression.

At least two cases have been reported to a government employee -- who wishes to remain anonymous -- in which the Christian Assyrian wives were instructed to go to a certain mosque and pay, which they did out of fear. The stated reason for the payment was "we do the fighting and you pay to support."

The jizya has been collected since the arrival of Islam in 630 A.D. The last systematic collection was by the Ottomans (Turks), which came to an end only in 1918, when the Ottoman empire was defeated and partitioned in World War One.

Just stepping to one side for a second.
While I know some may find this thread a problem, and talking about such issues too confronting, I really appreciate those who are batting for both sides with conviction, and the on the whole, people been civil in this debate.

I think this is warming, that we can talk about such issues and yet not become hostile towards each other. ( Few small exceptions maybe)

The truth is, most of us can see each others side of the argument and even understand where they are coming from.

Judging by the ammount of posts in a short ammount of time, this sort of thing needs to be aired from time to time.

Keep up the great work guys. This is the best discussion I've been reading for a long while.

massajamesb,

If common Americans can make these connections and have meaningful conversations with common Iraqi's and Muslims in general. One would think the media could do the same by reporting stories that bring forth much more unity of countries for the common good of both. In many ways, they are profoundly responsible in instigating emotional frictions that carry around the world. When there are two sides to a story, the one that gets dropped has lesser powers of the pen in cronyisms. Not to mention less chances for pats on the back at award ceremonies too!

If it makes you feel part of the "large group".......here is your Flame!(flame2):withstupi :D

DC

massajamesb,

If common Americans can make these connections and have meaningful conversations with common Iraqi's and Muslims in general. One would think the media could do the same by reporting stories that bring forth much more unity of countries for the common good of both. In many ways, they are profoundly responsible in instigating emotional frictions that carry around the world. When there are two sides to a story, the one that gets dropped has lesser powers of the pen in cronyisms. Not to mention less chances for pats on the back at award ceremonies too!

If it makes you feel part of the "large group".......here is your Flame!(flame2):withstupi :D

DC


I feel that it is the negativity prevailant in the news media that stirs up a lot of social, political, and religous unrest, and is mistaken for political "siding". Not to say that there is no "politickin" involved with the media, but moreover, emotional topics make money, and news reporters follow the smell of money.

I can't say I blame them, as they have to eat too. The only problem is that they don't report the rest of the story to make it "fair and balanced". It is unfair to the Muslims in the world who embrace the West and its' ideals, values, and morals. It is also extremely unfair to the Americans, Brits, Aussies, and any other country who is involved in this, or carries an opinion.
To only be shown one side of the story, and to formulate an opinion as a result will succeed in creating ignorance and bias. I don't mind admitting ignorance on my part. Better that than to walk around with my nose in the air, looking down on those who think differently.

Thanks for the flaming, I know I probably deserve some at some point :D
Although I would ask that no one consider me to be "flaming". :D Them's fightin' words :)

Dear All,

I expect the last person you want in this is a Brit, but I think some points should be made.

1) The IRA killed about as many people in its terrorist campaign against the "Brits" as died in "The Twin Towers".

The IRA campaign lasted somewhat longer than 9/11.

Both sides were/are nominally Christians.

Same body-count.

Who funded it? Well, some funds were paid by a few big checks signed in New York City, by those fooled by "Patriot Games" sentimentality. Why? Because they had a romantic dream about a historic injustice and bought into it. And incidentally, bought explosives to eviscerate entirely innocent people in the UK.

Were the other side blameless? Absolutely not, but I happen to think that the UK Government was a bit less evil than the IRA. Just a bit.

2) I think that there are other people in the Middle East who may share the feelings of the people who paid for the IRA bombs in my country. It does not make them any more wicked, but, like those in NYC, they need enlightenment.

3) It is unlikely that the US can preach an enlightening message when people are held, off-shore, in a cynical attempt to circumvent international law.

4) There will be more recruits to the terrorist cause if the "land of the free" bends rules of its own making.

5) There is absolutely no chance of removing terrorism by military means. It can only be removed by dialogue and a generous foreign policy by those in government, and an attempt to appreciate someone else's point of view.

6) This is the "war" where words matter more than guns.

Best wishes

Martin

I disagree. The last time I checked, there have been British souls over there fighting for the cause as well, not to mention the impact of the war and terrorism on the U.K. Feel free to voice what you feel.
However, I don't think the war on terrorism is a war of words. It will take much more than that. Violence will beget violence, sure, that much is true.
The problem is, the main thing that will slow the hatred of the terrorists is for the U.S. to withdraw its' interests in Jerusalem, and let the Palestinians and Jews duke it out over the holy land. This is where a lot of the terrorists get their ideas that all Americans are anti-Islam, and they carry this ignorant message to others like them who have skewed views the same as theirs.

This is a religion and religious ideals war. There does not seem to be any way to reason with them, and bargaining (I guess?) is out of the question. This is not my choice, but what these radicals have set in front of them. I did not force their hand to blow up anything, here or abroad, and neither did my country or any other. They did what they did of their own consent and made their own choices to instigate a war against their ideals.
I can toss religious "Christian" pamplets at them while they shoot at me, but I doubt I will get far. I have enough trouble fending off the Jehovas witnesses at my front door, and they don't have guns.:)

Dear All,

I expect the last person you want in this is a Brit, but I think some points should be made.



Martin,

Very well put. I am sure that a lot of the conflicts that we are witnessing are partly as a sesult of more and more of the globes wealth is ending up in fewer and fewer hands.

As a result there is a growing proportion of the the globes population who are disenfranchised, missing out and not happy with the situation. And, I can only see it getting worse. So, when some radical says "Follow me I'll lead you out of this", listens to these people, and makes them feel like people, they get support.

As Pink Floyd observed;

"There's too many home fires burning. And not enough trees."

Peter.

As Pink Floyd observed;

"There's too many home fires burning. And not enough trees."

Peter.

Dear Peter,

That's a gentle come-down for my angst-ridden post!

Thank-you

Which Floyd album???

Best wishes

Martin

Dear Peter,

That's a gentle come-down for my angst-ridden post!

Thank-you

Which Floyd album???

Best wishes

Martin

The Final Cut. song, Not now John

Cheers,

Peter.

The Final Cut. song, Not now John

Cheers,

Peter.

Oh b#gger!

Don't have that CD.

Must go.

BW

Martin

Alright, it's been a long day...now back to the show lol


Difference being, they have elected to practice it. So, we'll just have to assume by your defending them, you're one of them?

Here's your problem...you are just obsessed about "us and them". The same sick concept of "you're either with us or against us". So, if someone's opinion does not agree with yours to a certain degree, then they are labelled as "THEM", or damn "OTHERS"! From my point of view, that's a sick classification.
Regardless of MY religion or belief, I am just somebody who's been to that part of the world, specifically to Palestine, and has witnessed how the typical day of an average person looks like back there. I haven't been to Iraq, so all my Iraq-related opinions are based on various media sources. However, when it comes to Palestine, and Islam and Muslims in general, I speak from a personal experience. So, I'd appreciate it if you don't start with that "them and us", or "you and us"...it's getting way too old!



Don't meally mouth around, the US government is supporting torture; waterboarding, sleep deprivation and similiar treatment are torture; they all exist on a continuum. There are two 'justifications' that seem to be put forth excusing this behaviour; one is that they do not fall into the legal definition of torture the other is that this type of activity is okay because the bad guys are soooo bad it is okay for the good guys to be just a little bit bad.

Balderdash!! Torture is wrong, torture was wrong when practised during the Inquisition, torture was wrong when practised by the Waffen SS in the Second World War, torture was wrong when practised by the North Korean authorities in the Korean War, torture was wrong when practised by the North Vietnamese authorities in the Vietnam War. Torture always has been wrong. Torture always will be wrong.

Torture is the imposition of mental or physical suffering with the intent of changing the victim's beliefs or behaviour. In the case of torture the intent is as important as the act.

I find it both disgusting and terrifying that there seems to be such widespread and vehement support for torture in the US.

Yes, thank you, Geof, that's the point...I cannot agree more!

eng, Do you think the terrorists are on the moral high ground compared to Western civilization? (a simple yes or no will suffice)

For the record, I am not and have not studied the Bible as I have the Quran, so I am not going to try to compare the two. Suffice it to say, if I were to take the Quran literally, which is how you are supposed to take it because it's not allowed to be "interpreted", then I would deduce that if you are not a Muslim practicing Islam, you are to be converted (BY FORCE if necessary) or killed, or you are to pay a "tax" while losing many (most) of the rights afforded true Islamics.

As for torture, there are levels I'm willing to accept. That stops at physical deformations. (Cutting, burning, breaking etc). If being "a little bad" means saving lives, I'm all for it. You're not going to successfully fight hatred with love. Not in the case of the radicals we're fighting.

The answer to your first question cannot be a simple yes or no. This is due to the fact that the term "terrorist" nowadays has been used so loosely. For the people in this part of the world, anyone fighting against the allied troops in Iraq for instance is a terrorist/insurgent/etc...while for many others, it's those same soldiers who are considered to be "terrorists".
So, recalling the fact that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", there's no yes or no answer to that. However, I am also against that dilemma of "eastern versus western civilization" or "clash of civilizations"! It's nonsense to me...because looking at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, for me, those are not any less cruel or uncivilized than the act of september 11, for instance.

Now, with respect to the tax and jizya statement, perhaps this clarification may help.

"Non-Muslims were required to pay a levy or jizya. The jizya was not paid as a bribe for practicing their faith, but rather as compensation for not serving in the army, protection for Crusading armies and tribal warfare. While we see many people nowadays screaming that the jizya is a tool of inequality, they fail to see that there is a tax levied on Muslims as well, the zakat, which non-Muslims are NOT required to pay.
Therefore, the Jizya tax guarantees the Christians and Jews complete protection under the Islamic state. If an enemy country attacks the Islamic country, the Islamic country has a duty to defend the Christians and Jews and the Christians and Jews are not even obliged to fight!
Usually, verse 9:29 of the Quran is used to to show that Muslims must fight the nonMuslims residing within the Islamic State, until they pay the Jizya, claiming that that shows discrimination. However, this also applies to the Muslims who do not pay their Zakat! Abu Bakr (an early Muslim leader) fought against the Muslims who didn't pay Zakat. So how does this discriminate against the Christians and Jews?
This is completely justified. If they go against the Islamic rule and government they deserve to be punished. What else was Abu Bakr supposed to do? In America if someone does not pay their taxes they can go to jail. Does that make America unjust? In China they kill tax evaders (A New York Times article describes the context and details of one businessman who was executed in China for tax evasion (11 Mar. 2001))."

This section is from an article that was given to me in a History class that I've taken last semester. And yes, the professor was American, a very intelligent knowledgeable person that I highly respect, so if you wanna call him "biased or brain-washed or whatever", then what shall I say...go for it!

And with regard to your statement that the Quran is not allowed to be interpreted, I am not sure what you mean by that. It's true that the quran is in Arabic, and any translation is not considered as informative or comprehensive as the Arabic original version. However, what I was referring to by "how to cite from the quran, or the bible, is crucial to the meaning" is that according to my Quran and Bible studies, it's believed that the quran was not revealed all at once; it was revealed in sections, linked to a specific occasion or event throughout a 23-year span. So, if you wish to study the quran intellectually, you would be wasting your time if you just wanna take the English translation and start reading with no references to the reason or cause of that specific verse or chapter. So that's all I meant by that.

Also, regarding your comment on "the level of torture that you are willing to accept", then I frankly feel so sorry for ya. Perhaps a psychology class/course may help ya out to realize how, in many cases, a psychological torture can be significantly more harmful than a physical one; especially that its effect usually lasts for years, or perhaps forever!

Massajamesb

I agree and respect many of the points you suggested, but I do disagree with some.

Regarding your statement that billions of those people in the Muslim world would love to come and live in the US, I partially agree with that. I do know that those people, like all of us, just want to live, get a decent job, and bring up their kids in a peaceful environment.
However, from my experience with the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, stating that many of them would wish to come and live in the states isn't really accurate, SURPRISINGLY enough. As you people may or may not know, there are 4+ million Palestinian refugees living awfully tough lives on the Palestinian borders since 1948 and 1967. They were offered at various occasions to be given citizenships in the countries they are residing at, which would obviously dramatically improve their living conditions. However, the vast majority of them refused. We may think they are crazy to turn down such an offer, however, to those people, Palestine means something...the land, the atmosphere, the nationality, the holy places...all of that means LIFE for them. Yes, it is true that they WISH to be able to live like the people in the states do, in terms of freedom and peace of mind (i.e. no Israeli occupation, no humiliating checkpoints, no F-16 and Apache warplanes above their heads day and night), however, I don't think stating that they would love to move and live in the US strongly applies to those people. They would love to have similar dignified living conditions, however, as long as that's within their own country. But, as is the case with anything, there are exceptions to every rule.

With regard to the Video of Daniel Pearl, I did watch that one, it's indeed disgusting and terrifying. However, taking that as a justification for torturing and murdering a whole nation or even a group of people, will lead us nowhere but into a vicious circle. Because, by the same token, every one of those who lost a beloved one in that region of the world, during the so called war on terrorism (starting in Afghanistan, then Iraq, and who knows where it's heading to; Iran, Syria, etc) can say exactly the same thing; justifying why it is OK to torture and kill Americans, or atleast American soldiers on their own land. So, this is all am talking about...a vicious circle!

If we can discuss this with eng, I'd think a Brit is welcome too. It is on everyone's mind. I just wish it could be much simpler to resolve amicably.

Everyone seems to have a solution. Like it's just a snap of the fingers and it microwave popcorn, war over. One sides idea of a reasonable end is another's loss of dignity and world standing. Then again if we walk away, the bloodshed to date might look small in comparison.

From what I have read. The Brit's better get busy enlightening from what may be coming threats of their own Islamic problems. Let us know how the dialog goes with the home grown cells you have there. It just might work on the global version of terrorist too.

If you and the terrorists know these words that matter more than guns, how come there was ever a problem over there in the first place?:D

Meanwhile we will make room at the off shore enlightening isle, just in case you find some unsavory types that need a room at the Inn! I'd bet it has better accommodations than what they had at home and sadly it's all free on us.

Generous foreign policy is what we do best. I think the deal with N. Korea will cost us in taxes for years to come and we still might not see the end to this little monster shooting duds over Japan if they ever get off the pad.

DC

1) The IRA killed about as many people in its terrorist campaign against the "Brits" as died in "The Twin Towers".

The IRA campaign lasted somewhat longer than 9/11.

Both sides were/are nominally Christians.

3) It is unlikely that the US can preach an enlightening message when people are held, off-shore, in a cynical attempt to circumvent international law.

4) There will be more recruits to the terrorist cause if the "land of the free" bends rules of its own making.

5) There is absolutely no chance of removing terrorism by military means. It can only be removed by dialogue and a generous foreign policy by those in government, and an attempt to appreciate someone else's point of view.

6) This is the "war" where words matter more than guns.



I absolutely agree, martinw. In fact, the death toll among the American troops in Iraq alone is 3,219, which indeed IS greater than the number of Americans killed on 9/11. (Let alone the 655,000 Iraqi people killed thus far, and I don't wanna even start with the death tolls of both sides in Afghanistan...it's pathetic!).
But the point is, yes, the answer to all of this cannot be through force. Because, as I've stated ealier, it will lead us nowhere but into *a vicious circle*!

"Here is your problem"?

Who are you, the judging authority above all ready to set the record straight according to your world view?

When you do the "us and them" thing you disagree with.......you can then state that the concept of OTHERS is sick? Doesn't that make you a little sick too?

Geesh, In the movies, vampires cannot see themselves in a mirror either. For someone unbiased, I'm thinking I need garlic hanging around my neck reading some of your justifications for evil acts while chastising those you disagree with or the wording they choose.

I must ask, were you born in the US or do you have allegiances elsewhere? I think your religious affiliations should be part of the discussion also. It should not be a hidden part of your presence here, but it would make clearer, some of the reasoning behind your perspectives.

DC

"Here is your problem"?

Who are you, the judging authority above all ready to set the record straight according to your world view?

When you do the "us and them" thing you disagree with.......you can then state that the concept of OTHERS is sick? Doesn't that make you a little sick too?

Geesh, In the movies, vampires cannot see themselves in a mirror either. For someone unbiased, I'm thinking I need garlic hanging around my neck reading some of your justifications for evil acts while chastising those you disagree with or the wording they choose.

I must ask, were you born in the US or do you have allegiances elsewhere? I think your religious affiliations should be part of the discussion also. It should not be a hidden part of your presence here, but it would make clearer, some of the reasoning behind your perspectives.

DC

Well, One of Many, I suggest you stop trying to lead the flow of this discussion into a personal level.
For the record, the "Here's your problem" comment of mine that you seem to have a problem with, was aimed at the person who started judging and labeling me and my beliefs.

I do not claim or believe that "I know it all"; not even close, and I DID emphasize that the media at our time is a disaster; which brings up the crucial need on our part to take the time and the effort to explore various media sources in order to have a grasp on what's truly happening in our world. And also for the record, show me one single statement I said that "justified acts of evil"-according to your accusations.

*hint hint* :bs: you may need to scroll up! lol

And nope, I don't think that my religious beliefs are relevant to this discussion. Simply due to the fact that regardless of whether I tell you I am a Christian or a Muslim, a Jew or a Hindu, you'll find some category among those religious beliefs to classify me into..given nowadays' weird and unjustifiable classifications!

So, relax and take a deep breath...all those personal comments/attacks or whatever you wanna call them, don't make any difference to me, and I won't really take the time to address them. I am here for an intellectual discussion; other than that, I'd rather invest my time into something more useful and productive.

How many people discussing this topic have served in the military in any capacity or been under fire? How many have voted for or against the politicians making these policies? How many have served in some capacity for the country they love?

War is hell. Point blank simple. He who kills the most, the fastest, wins. It has always been this way. War is waged when diplomacy fails. When the enemy does not believe in diplomacy, pull no punches. My views do not need to be justified by the villainy of past wars or actions of past warlords/generals. When confronted by a "peaceful" majority of Muslims who tolerate "radical" Islam, this behavior cannot be tolerated. We do not live in a world where we can accept the possibility of another Hitler or WWII. We cannot rely on the accepted practices preached by the very people whose inaction or inappropriate action allowed these circumstances to come to fruition. When politicians policies brought us to the point where we were then committed to a war, they need to put up or shut up. Full on or pull out. No more lip service. Give all or give nothing. And give everything. That is the choice. This isn't about Christians vs. Muslims. This is about the freedom to live how you choose or the acceptance of living how they choose for you to live. Some gave all. All have not gave some. Many give nothing.

I am not some armchair general. I have been shot at by 12 year old boys in Mogadishu. I have been shot at by intolerant Christians in Bosnia. I have been shot at by intolerant Muslims in Bosnia. I have been shot at by terroristic rebels in Colombia, who coerce, torture and extort those who get in the way of their export of cocaine. When death confronts you, you accept death or reject it. By rejecting death, you accept life. Life affirming decisions require that you meet the threat with an equal or greater force. Or you don't so that they may live and perpetrate their brand of violence on another. Anyone who stands in the way of your freedom deserve no mercy for they grant none. Accept their impedence on your freedom and you live as a slave, not a free person. Do not pay lip service to your freedom, if you are not willing to earn it. Put up or shut up. I did not sweat or bleed in ****hole countries that my leaders sent me to so that I could be sacrificed like a lamb to the slaughter. If I must die in the name of others freedom, then I will die as a lion, inflicting as much death as humanly possible. That is what soldiers do. They kill so others may know peace.

Generous foreign policy is what we do best.
DC

you sure about that!!!
within two weeks of illegal tarriffs being hit on our lumber i was out of a good job , they tryed to outright crash our economy period

i'm not out to open a whole other can of worms but i don t agree with policies of the many governments

bottom line is some people are talking with anger and hatered , Afganistan needed to be hit they indeed harboured terrorists , Iraq got hit because someone said they did ,
just as other countries in this world the leaders of those countries were ruthless killers who tortured and killed "their own" people , many of those INNOCENT people have lived and suffered due to their governmental iron fist rulings , now many of those people are being judged by a mob like mentality for living there , though they would have been shot dead if they tryed to leave , these are the same people that come home to sit on the floor to play with their children and thank God that the family was safe for another day , picture yourself being that guy on the news who is running crying thru the streets with your three year old drenched in blood lifeless daughter or son , ya look your own kid in the eye and think about it , i have !!!
most of those people want there governments taken down

don t let anger or hatred jade who is the true enemy , because the hatred will become become a vicious circle that won t go away

at the same time i hold strong on the beleif the terrorists should have there throats slit on the spot

as for the coran their profit mohamid beleaved if you can t convert them kill them ,but later in his years went against that belief and said there had to be peace
many things can be interpreted wrong , another mans words , books etc

How many people discussing this topic have served in the military in any capacity or been under fire? How many have voted for or against the politicians making these policies? How many have served in some capacity for the country they love?

War is hell. Point blank simple. He who kills the most, the fastest, wins. It has always been this way. War is waged when diplomacy fails. When the enemy does not believe in diplomacy, pull no punches. My views do not need to be justified by the villainy of past wars or actions of past warlords/generals. When confronted by a "peaceful" majority of Muslims who tolerate "radical" Islam, this behavior cannot be tolerated. We do not live in a world where we can accept the possibility of another Hitler or WWII. We cannot rely on the accepted practices preached by the very people whose inaction or inappropriate action allowed these circumstances to come to fruition. When politicians policies brought us to the point where we were then committed to a war, they need to put up or shut up. Full on or pull out. No more lip service. Give all or give nothing. And give everything. That is the choice. This isn't about Christians vs. Muslims. This is about the freedom to live how you choose or the acceptance of living how they choose for you to live. Some gave all. All have not gave some. Many give nothing.

I am not some armchair general. I have been shot at by 12 year old boys in Mogadishu. I have been shot at by intolerant Christians in Bosnia. I have been shot at by intolerant Muslims in Bosnia. I have been shot at by terroristic rebels in Colombia, who coerce, torture and extort those who get in the way of their export of cocaine. When death confronts you, you accept death or reject it. By rejecting death, you accept life. Life affirming decisions require that you meet the threat with an equal or greater force. Or you don't so that they may live and perpetrate their brand of violence on another. Anyone who stands in the way of your freedom deserve no mercy for they grant none. Accept their impedence on your freedom and you live as a slave, not a free person. Do not pay lip service to your freedom, if you are not willing to earn it. Put up or shut up. I did not sweat or bleed in ****hole countries that my leaders sent me to so that I could be sacrificed like a lamb to the slaughter. If I must die in the name of others freedom, then I will die as a lion, inflicting as much death as humanly possible. That is what soldiers do. They kill so others may know peace.



Hi WYLD,

It's good to get a view from someone who has been on the front line, so to speak. I'm not trying to bait you, but can I ask a question that I have trouble finding an answer.

As you have stated, once you get to the stage of pointing guns at each other, then its basically no holds barred. And I can accept this.

So, what is this term "Unlawful combatant" all about?

The coalition went into Afganistan to remove a reigheim. They came accross people who shot back. These people were wearing no uniform, just defending their patch, trying not to be shot, captured whatever.

When they are caught they are deemed as not playing fair. Labelled an unlawful combatants and are not POWs, get to stay at the "Inn" and are charged with "attempted muder"

How does that work? If somebody invaded the land of Oz, I reckon I should be able to pick up my cricket bat (Don't own a baseball bat, let alone a firearm) and have a go at them, and whether I was in a uniform or my pajamas should matter. Especially if I was being shot at.

It just doesn't seem right to me.

Cheers,

Peter.

Massajamesb

I agree and respect many of the points you suggested, but I do disagree with some.

Regarding your statement that billions of those people in the Muslim world would love to come and live in the US, I partially agree with that. I do know that those people, like all of us, just want to live, get a decent job, and bring up their kids in a peaceful environment.
However, from my experience with the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, stating that many of them would wish to come and live in the states isn't really accurate, SURPRISINGLY enough. As you people may or may not know, there are 4+ million Palestinian refugees living awfully tough lives on the Palestinian borders since 1948 and 1967. They were offered at various occasions to be given citizenships in the countries they are residing at, which would obviously dramatically improve their living conditions. However, the vast majority of them refused. We may think they are crazy to turn down such an offer, however, to those people, Palestine means something...the land, the atmosphere, the nationality, the holy places...all of that means LIFE for them. Yes, it is true that they WISH to be able to live like the people in the states do, in terms of freedom and peace of mind (i.e. no Israeli occupation, no humiliating checkpoints, no F-16 and Apache warplanes above their heads day and night), however, I don't think stating that they would love to move and live in the US strongly applies to those people. They would love to have similar dignified living conditions, however, as long as that's within their own country. But, as is the case with anything, there are exceptions to every rule.

With regard to the Video of Daniel Pearl, I did watch that one, it's indeed disgusting and terrifying. However, taking that as a justification for torturing and murdering a whole nation or even a group of people, will lead us nowhere but into a vicious circle. Because, by the same token, every one of those who lost a beloved one in that region of the world, during the so called war on terrorism (starting in Afghanistan, then Iraq, and who knows where it's heading to; Iran, Syria, etc) can say exactly the same thing; justifying why it is OK to torture and kill Americans, or atleast American soldiers on their own land. So, this is all am talking about...a vicious circle!



Okay, I will concede your point on most of the Palestinians being content where they are, and why. I believe I mentioned something along those lines at one point, if not, no biggie. Most Palestinians (though I do not feel comfortable speaking for all of them :)) see the Holy land as their "heaven on earth", if you will. There is nothing wrong with them seeing it as such, but unfortunately, there is a war going on over this land. The results of this DO push people out of the country. The point remains that a large part of the worlds' Muslim population would love to be in a "Free" country.

My mention of Daniel Pearl is a specific case I used to prove a bigger point.
I am not interested in torture (by "midevil" standards, as some would group all forms of torture). I am not giving allowances for water torture, blowtorch and pliers, ripping off fingernails, Rosie O'Donnel Christmas specials,Richard Simmons workout videos, or other unethical forms of treatment. However, I have no problem with wartime tactics that allow for the greater good. Acting on a level equal with a barbarian makes us nothing better than the barbarian, yes. That is true. However I do believe that certain methods of "physical persuasion" allow us to make more progress in the war than losing another 3000 soldiers, and aid ALL of us to prevent more terrorist attacks.

Though I disagree with some of what you say, I must say I appreciate you not taking the discussion on a personal level, as well as the majority of other posters here.

No, I think what has been asked of you is relevant, to which you speculate you are being judged/classified on a personal level, so you judge on a personal level with a flare of intellectual superiority.

The pulpit and allegiances to which we cling, guides our modes of thinking on a subconscious level and the information we seek to support that allegiance. I am not ashamed of my Christian and American allegiances. Therefore it is incumbent on you to state both of yours and not be ashamed either.

When the tables are turned back on you, you get a bit defensive too. Although you think you get to lay the ground rules for the discussion and avoid what might reveal you for the intellectual bias you infer. At this point, the media source you chain yourself to is a pretty good indicator of some bias.

Nothing personal as far as an attack. I would call my drivel a bit of introspective observation of what you emphatically state as factual information you believe is more valid to the discussion no matter how flawed. If you choose to take it personally, what can I say. We all have our weaknesses. Some of mine are wondering if I am supposed to do an about face and smear my own country for getting involved.

It does seem a bit ridiculous to deal with the murderous marches put on by ideologies that have not allowed discussions for real peace as the holy lands lay now. Meanwhile they send out militant people all over the world to use force that instigates and perpetuates the vicious circle of death. They proclaim the plan is to rule all of the world under intolerance and oppression of 9th century mentality.

I don't have anything to offer. I just find it interesting to see where OTHERS come from when they think they have it all figured out and everyone else is to dense to listen.

I will give you credit for knowledge on both sides cultural perspectives. However I do read you as a team player and wonder where that fits in here.

DC

Eng, be proud and represent who you are.

I'm proud to say I'm an American http://www.thesignsyndicate.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/usaflag.gif with all the values and morals my family has fought to protect and serve

[QUOTE=massajamesb;274405]
However, I don't think the war on terrorism is a war of words. It will take much more than that. QUOTE]

Dear massajamesb,

I was not trying to say that the "war on terrorism" can be "won" by patiently arguing with "fanatics" with high explosives and steel bolts hidden about their person.

To make terrorism more difficult (and that is about as close to "victory" in this "war" as one can hope to achieve), I suggest that it might be an idea to
attempt to persuade those who actively or tacitly support terrorism that it is not in their interests to do so. On a pragmatic level, yes I can see that there will be those who argue for using guided missiles to "persuade" the active supporters, but using the same method on their tacit supporters is probably not a good idea at any level, and would be entirely counter-productive.

There is almost certainly more chance of non-violent persuasion working if those taking the "high moral ground" are seen as squeaky clean, rather than somewhat flexible in their "morality". That is just a practical observation, not an ethical one.

I hope this doesn't offend anyone.

Best wishes

Martin

That was more of a sarcastic jab at our government for offering up tax dollars as diplomatic "economic assistance" which basically amounts to bribery. Especially to countries that despise our success and ignore agreements that promote trust among gentlemen. We don't always seem to learn the lessons of the past.

DC

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle

im proud to be an american who is proud to form his own oppinions.

currently my oppinion is clouded with the reflected shame of 30 years of terrible foreign policy..

Hmmmm that takes us from President Carter & two terms of Clinton which led us to the mess were in right now with N. Korea, China and leaving Osama alive

Now, I can partially agree with you there http://www.thesignsyndicate.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/beer-1.gif

[QUOTE=massajamesb;274405]
However, I don't think the war on terrorism is a war of words. It will take much more than that. QUOTE]

Dear massajamesb,

I was not trying to say that the "war on terrorism" can be "won" by patiently arguing with "fanatics" with high explosives and steel bolts hidden about their person.

To make terrorism more difficult (and that is about as close to "victory" in this "war" as one can hope to achieve), I suggest that it might be an idea to
attempt to persuade those who actively or tacitly support terrorism that it is not in their interests to do so. On a pragmatic level, yes I can see that there will be those who argue for using guided missiles to "persuade" the active supporters, but using the same method on their tacit supporters is probably not a good idea at any level, and would be entirely counter-productive.

There is almost certainly more chance of non-violent persuasion working if those taking the "high moral ground" are seen as squeaky clean, rather than somewhat flexible in their "morality". That is just a practical observation, not an ethical one.

I hope this doesn't offend anyone.

Best wishes

Martin

Good points. I understand what you are saying now, thanks for the clarification. Though I feel I should point out that some of what I say should be taken light-heartedly.:) I am sure anyone who reads my posts can sort through the B.S. for the real topic :)

As far as what you say, I agree that it wouldn't be a bad idea to get potential terrorists to stop looking at us as bullies, or anti-Muslim. That is part of the message I have been trying to convey. I don't disagree with some of our reasoning for going to war (not all, not by a long shot), but I think that the war on terrorism itself could be more easily conquered by a different approach to international relations. The only problem is, it has been proven over the years by some of these extremists that they are going to hate me simply because I am not Muslim, or arabic, or whatever. They feel compelled to violently and through physical force prove their point.

I have been told numerous times I am going to hell just because I am not Baptist (Methodist,Catholic, whatever), and I don't lose any sleep over that. However, they just throw pamplets at me and scream at me that I am one big loser S.O.B. To date they have yet to bomb me or shoot at me, though I am sure some of them want to.:D
My tactics in dealing with religous fanatics differs depending on how they treat me, in other words. I really don't want either side looking down their nose at me, and telling me they are better than me, simply based on their belief structure. I am sure they all feel the same.

I think cnczone is plenty interesting enough without having these types of discussions. There are lots of super-interesting and knowledgeable people here and yet I may or may not agree with their beliefs on matters like these. We need to keep in mind that this forum is truly international therefore other members are bound to have different opinions about these matters. I just think that these threads don't add anything positive to this forum.

I think cnczone is plenty interesting enough without having these types of discussions. There are lots of super-interesting and knowledgeable people here and yet I may or may not agree with their beliefs on matters like these. We need to keep in mind that this forum is truly international therefore other members are bound to have different opinions about these matters. I just think that these threads don't add anything positive to this forum.There are 100 plus new posts per day in CNC zone. Its your choice which ones you read and post in. If the issues here are too confronting, don't read them. But don't try and tell the rest of us what we should and shouldn't discuss. There is obviously a lot of people who do want to talk about such issues.

I think cnczone is plenty interesting enough without having these types of discussions. There are lots of super-interesting and knowledgeable people here and yet I may or may not agree with their beliefs on matters like these. We need to keep in mind that this forum is truly international therefore other members are bound to have different opinions about these matters. I just think that these threads don't add anything positive to this forum.

This has been discussed, and it has been asked of all of us that we keep it civil and clean. So far so good, eh? I think that most of the nastiness has been curtailed.

Honestly, I hear about global warming all over the television, the last place I want to hear about it is on the Zone. BUT..... Admin says he wants the topic open for discussion, and so have many others.
I just choose not to participate.:)

If this topic does not sit well with any certain members, then don't discuss it with those of us open minded enough to keep it civil and talk about it. Everyone is just as welcome to state their opinion as they are welcome to not state anything at all.

I think cnczone is plenty interesting enough without having these types of discussions. There are lots of super-interesting and knowledgeable people here and yet I may or may not agree with their beliefs on matters like these. We need to keep in mind that this forum is truly international therefore other members are bound to have different opinions about these matters. I just think that these threads don't add anything positive to this forum.

Dear Skippy,

I think that I agree with you in most ways. What on earth has a "robust" , and perhaps angry debate about global politics, terrorism, or foreign policy have to do with a CNC forum? Very little. I think, however that it is interesting.

Everybody on CNCZone exchanges ideas about technical matters quite freely and politely. Yes, we disagree, and debate the points without rancour. That is why it is so much fun, and enormously useful to us all.

Unfortunately, our view of the world, is largely shaped by the "media" that beams the news into our homes, and is selective. I am not suggesting a conspiracy on this front, it is just the way that it is.

There are few opportunities to discuss these matters with people from another country, the other "guy in the street" thousands of miles away on an informal basis.

Surely, even if it is off-beam, that's a worthwhile experiment?

Best wishes

Martin

...Yes, we disagree, and debate the points without rancour. That is why it is so much fun, and enormously useful to us all.

Unfortunately, our view of the world, is largely shaped by the "media" that beams the news into our homes, and is selective. I am not suggesting a conspiracy on this front, it is just the way that it is.

There are few opportunities to discuss these matters with people from another country, the other "guy in the street" thousands of miles away on an informal basis.

Surely, even if it is off-beam, that's a worthwhile experiment?

Best wishes

Martin

Well put; if someone wants to participate they are free to do so. Even if they do not they can still learn from reading and if they do not even want to do that they can also click on a different post.

Hi WYLD,

It's good to get a view from someone who has been on the front line, so to speak. I'm not trying to bait you, but can I ask a question that I have trouble finding an answer.

As you have stated, once you get to the stage of pointing guns at each other, then its basically no holds barred. And I can accept this.

So, what is this term "Unlawful combatant" all about?

The coalition went into Afganistan to remove a reigheim. They came accross people who shot back. These people were wearing no uniform, just defending their patch, trying not to be shot, captured whatever.

When they are caught they are deemed as not playing fair. Labelled an unlawful combatants and are not POWs, get to stay at the "Inn" and are charged with "attempted muder"

How does that work? If somebody invaded the land of Oz, I reckon I should be able to pick up my cricket bat (Don't own a baseball bat, let alone a firearm) and have a go at them, and whether I was in a uniform or my pajamas should matter. Especially if I was being shot at.

It just doesn't seem right to me.

Cheers,

Peter.


Greetings Phomann!

I've visited your country once. Spent a week with a beautiful young lady at Pambula Beach.
I take what someone says at face value with an eye on their actions. If their actions seem to differ from what they are saying, then I do not give them the satisfaction of debate based on deception.
That being said, I believe you are being honest when you say you aren't trying to bait me. So here go my replies to your questions:

Unlawful combatant is a convenient term used by politicians who wear boots too big for their feet. I doubt anyone thought of Genghis Khan as a "genuine" general, though he had one of the largest armies in the world at that time. He was also very successful at what he did. Does that mean that his victories were any less so because he wasn't recognized as anything other than the leader of a mob? In my world, being the world of the rational and sane, of nature and science, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and ****s like a duck, it's a goddamned duck. A terrorist operating on behalf of Al Qaeda or Hamas or Fatah or the IRA is just as much a soldier as the man he shoots, bombs or tortures.

This is the same point of view that the police have of any citizen who acts outside the interests of society. That is why they do not hesitate to shoot first and ask questions later. We happen to live in a country where our God-given rights are proudly displayed in the document we call the Constitution, under the section entitled Bill of Rights, Amendments 1 through 10. This was done in case some narrow-minded power-hungry son-of-a-***** couldn't quite grasp what God granted us when he made us in his image, free will and all. Because of that fact, and that fact alone, we have the system of courts and enforcement agencies. All bound by the same rules. We can afford to play by those rules, because essentially everyone who is a citizen is playing the same game as defined by Hoyle.

The problem is, as a nation led by a man who overstepped his legal bounds, we cannot treat these aggressors as soldiers without legitimizing the force they represent, ie Al Qaeda. If we did so, and paid regards to the Geneva Conventions along with a half a dozen treaties we have signed as a power in the past 50 years, we would then have a sovereign power with no land it could call its base of operation. This goes against the bureacratic mindset, where everything has rules and regulations, and can be shown graphically using pie charts and power point presentations. Does not compute. To get around this flawed thinking they come up with the term Unlawful Combatant.

To be perfectly honest, the enemy doesn't play by our rules so unless we kill or capture them, we have no recourse. The few who are captured are paraded as "leaders" and "masterminds" because this provides a sort of camouflage for our leaders actions. It gives the illusion of results and accomplishments. Our greatest accomplishment as a nation at war has been to produce a ridiculously large number of casualties and deceased on our side. We have the advantage of superior training, firepower and numbers. We refuse to use them effectively.

You are facing a dilemma, moral or psychological. The paradigm you have been living with is to obey rules. When those rules no longer have any bearing on the outcome of a situation, ie all hell breaks loose, and the existing infrastructure and the accompanying bureaucracy cannot respond adequately and in a timely manner, do you cry foul and wait for them to make things right, or do you act on your own, because you believe it the right thing to do? If you value your life, the lives and well being of your family and friends, the inviolate sanctuary of your home and property, you act. Using a cricket bat, shotgun, kitchen knife or your bare hands. If you do not value these things, then you sit idly by and wait for things to fix themselves. If you're alive to see that happen, that is.

But please do not mistake me...Afghanistan was a nation that had a government propped up by a terrorist organization. What we did in retaliation for 9/11 there was justified. Iraq is not. When dealing with first, second, or third world nations, we do not need to seek an international courts approval to receive a no-knock search warrant. We kick in their front door, their back door, crash through their windows and bring down the roof to accomplish our mission. Or at least that's the idea. The spectacle that is paraded in the name of "defending our freedom" is a watered-down sample of a generic brand soda. It is not the original-recipe award-winning celebrity taste-tested and average-joe approved beverage that kicks your taste buds asses and stomps a mudhole in them before walking it dry.

This is not a matter than can be considered in terms of "American" wrong & right, or "military" wrong & right, but only "human" wrong & right. What hell hath we wrought? As you well know there are many different religions, societies, cultures, races and nations. We do not all play by the same rules. There is no International Book of Hoyle on Terrorism and Modern Warfare.

As a parting note...are you aware of why we humans are the custodians of the planet and top of the evolutionary foodchain? It has nothing to do with our big brains or our opposable thumbs. A 98 lb. chimpanzee has more upper body strength than the average 160 lb. human male. We have no claws or fangs. Ever wonder why animals in nature are fearful of humans? It is instinct, burned into their genetic memory. We are the most blood-thirsty, violent creatures on the planet. We are the only species to kill every living creature including ourselves. We commit murder and wage war. No other creature does this as well as we do. I know that ants invade other colonies, as do bees and wasps...but for all the "killer bee" attacks and ant invasions, we can kill more of them with a simple forest fire or chemical cocktail in an afternoon than they have ever killed in the history of our existence. Think about that. It's what we do. Always have, always will.

Greetings Phomann!
Unlawful combatant is a convenient term used by politicians who wear boots too big for their feet. I doubt anyone thought of Genghis Khan as a "genuine" general, though he had one of the largest armies in the world at that time. He was also very successful at what he did. Does that mean that his victories were any less so because he wasn't recognized as anything other than the leader of a mob? In my world, being the world of the rational and sane, of nature and science, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and ****s like a duck, it's a goddamned duck. A terrorist operating on behalf of Al Qaeda or Hamas or Fatah or the IRA is just as much a soldier as the man he shoots, bombs or tortures.

But please do not mistake me...Afghanistan was a nation that had a government propped up by a terrorist organization. What we did in retaliation for 9/11 there was justified. Iraq is not. When dealing with first, second, or third world nations, we do not need to seek an international courts approval to receive a no-knock search warrant. We kick in their front door, their back door, crash through their windows and bring down the roof to accomplish our mission. Or at least that's the idea. The spectacle that is paraded in the name of "defending our freedom" is a watered-down sample of a generic brand soda. It is not the original-recipe award-winning celebrity taste-tested and average-joe approved beverage that kicks your taste buds asses and stomps a mudhole in them before walking it dry.


Let me first express my respect to your and anyone's personal experiences. It is indeed informative to hear from those who have witnessed what "war" is all about.

However, I would also like to ask you exactly the same question that phomann asked earlier, and which you did address, however, it didn't really answer my questions.

I'm sorry, but using your own perspective, I still don't get it. War is hell, yes, but how does your whole description of war and combats fits or justifies the typically-American concept of "Unlawful Combatants" who do not qualify for POW status, and who are, as a result, held IN CAGES indefinitely without any charges whatsoever.
I donno about you guys, but personally, I find it way too hard to understand what gives a government or anybody the right to classify some people as being "not worthy of human rights"...and nope, now am not even talking about violations of Human Rights' records, UN resolutions, or Geneva conventions... what's puzzling me at this moment is the pathetic concept itself...who are you or who am I to decide that a person is to be deprived of the very basics of human rights? I believe that NOBODY has or should have such authority.

Moreover, with regard to your very last statement, regarding what soldiers do; "...kill so others may know peace."
I kind of understand where you're coming from with that, however, that statement just reminded me of many Palestinian people back in that part of the world who conveyed somewhat the same ideology. Many of them sacrificed everything they have so that their families and people "may know peace" one day.
The only difference I can see between your case and theirs is that they don't have a fancy uniform, neither they have sophisticated weapons to fight and resist with; therefore they end up utilizing their own bodies as weapons. Now, before anyone starts jumping on me for this statement, I am totally against suicide bombings, and as far as am concerned, that's against both the bible and the quran. But what am trying to do is to convey how the people in that part of the world feel, which just came back to my mind as I was reading WYLD's very last statement. And if we think about this for a minute, it will become apparent to all of us the fact that when a soldier among us declares such a statement, he's viewed as a hero and a patriot, while when someone in that part of the world dares to suggest such a concept, he's deemed as an inhumane terrorist! To me, the double-standard approach is kind of sad and obvious.

Now, I can't avoid not taking a minute to look at this statement of yours.

"When dealing with first, second, or third world nations, we do not need to seek an international courts approval to receive a no-knock search warrant. We kick in their front door, their back door, crash through their windows and bring down the roof to accomplish our mission. Or at least that's the idea. "


Although, this is one of those statements I personally find to be totally offensive, uncivilized, and demonstrates nothing but complete blind grouping and classification of people, however, I should give you credit for stating that. Simply because, YES, THIS IS THE SPIRIT that the American and allied troops have -and are actually trained to have- as they are fighting in that part of the world. I should in fact thank you for stating that, because that itself refutes many of the popular claims, including some that were made in this same forum, regarding how the troops in Iraq are ordered to go through I donno how many steps (were they 12 steps?) before they even attack anybody or any place. So, yes, you're honest, at least, and I must give you credit for that one!

One last quick note regarding ur interesting statements...you described anybody belonging to such organizations, INCLUDING BOTH Fateh and Hamas, as mere terrorist who should be looked at as a soldier, and thus treated and tortured as such. Let me just remind ya that by stating that, you are actually stating that every single non-Israeli person in the Holy Land is a terrorist. This is because the people over there either support Hamas or Fateh (which by the way, the US government supports as well). So, I just had to clarify that, because it doesn't make any sense!

But afterall, it boils down to the fact that you have your opinions and experiences and I have mine... So, what can I say!

Okay, I will concede your point on most of the Palestinians being content where they are, and why. I believe I mentioned something along those lines at one point, if not, no biggie. Most Palestinians (though I do not feel comfortable speaking for all of them :)) see the Holy land as their "heaven on earth", if you will. There is nothing wrong with them seeing it as such, but unfortunately, there is a war going on over this land. The results of this DO push people out of the country. The point remains that a large part of the worlds' Muslim population would love to be in a "Free" country.

My mention of Daniel Pearl is a specific case I used to prove a bigger point.
I am not interested in torture (by "midevil" standards, as some would group all forms of torture). I am not giving allowances for water torture, blowtorch and pliers, ripping off fingernails, Rosie O'Donnel Christmas specials,Richard Simmons workout videos, or other unethical forms of treatment. However, I have no problem with wartime tactics that allow for the greater good. Acting on a level equal with a barbarian makes us nothing better than the barbarian, yes. That is true. However I do believe that certain methods of "physical persuasion" allow us to make more progress in the war than losing another 3000 soldiers, and aid ALL of us to prevent more terrorist attacks.

Though I disagree with some of what you say, I must say I appreciate you not taking the discussion on a personal level, as well as the majority of other posters here.

Well, massajamesb, I think we do have a fairly common perspective when it comes to discussing the Palestinian issue, in terms of the way they feel about their land and their situation. My only comment, however, would be on the following statement; "...war going on over this land. The result of this DO push people out of the country." Rather than providing my own personal opinion about that (which will probably lead some people in here to pay attention at nothing but what my so-called "religious affiliations" would likely be), I would instead let an Israeli historian share his own knowledge and experience with us. Please, do check this article, the author of which is an Israeli University professor who's been residing in that part of the world and who's done a significant amount of historical and political research in that field.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17368.htm

Other than that, I still disagree with any justification whatsoever of torture/murder in any form...yes, even if some might call it; "physical persuasion"! Again, the main reason I am against that is because I believe that torture and humiliation to any human would result in nothing but implanting hatred, both in the victim involved as well as into many generations that are yet to come!

Let me first express my respect to your and anyone's personal experiences. It is indeed informative to hear from those who have witnessed what "war" is all about.

However, I would also like to ask you exactly the same question that phomann asked earlier, and which you did address, however, it didn't really answer my questions.

I'm sorry, but using your own perspective, I still don't get it. War is hell, yes, but how does your whole description of war and combats fits or justifies the typically-American concept of "Unlawful Combatants" who do not qualify for POW status, and who are, as a result, held IN CAGES indefinitely without any charges whatsoever.
I donno about you guys, but personally, I find it way too hard to understand what gives a government or anybody the right to classify some people as being "not worthy of human rights"...and nope, now am not even talking about violations of Human Rights' records, UN resolutions, or Geneva conventions... what's puzzling me at this moment is the pathetic concept itself...who are you or who am I to decide that a person is to be deprived of the very basics of human rights? I believe that NOBODY has or should have such authority.

Moreover, with regard to your very last statement, regarding what soldiers do; "...kill so others may know peace."
I kind of understand where you're coming from with that, however, that statement just reminded me of many Palestinian people back in that part of the world who conveyed somewhat the same ideology. Many of them sacrificed everything they have so that their families and people "may know peace" one day.
The only difference I can see between your case and theirs is that they don't have a fancy uniform, neither they have sophisticated weapons to fight and resist with; therefore they end up utilizing their own bodies as weapons. Now, before anyone starts jumping on me for this statement, I am totally against suicide bombings, and as far as am concerned, that's against both the bible and the quran. But what am trying to do is to convey how the people in that part of the world feel, which just came back to my mind as I was reading WYLD's very last statement. And if we think about this for a minute, it will become apparent to all of us the fact that when a soldier among us declares such a statement, he's viewed as a hero and a patriot, while when someone in that part of the world dares to suggest such a concept, he's deemed as an inhumane terrorist! To me, the double-standard approach is kind of sad and obvious.

Now, I can't avoid not taking a minute to look at this statement of yours.

"When dealing with first, second, or third world nations, we do not need to seek an international courts approval to receive a no-knock search warrant. We kick in their front door, their back door, crash through their windows and bring down the roof to accomplish our mission. Or at least that's the idea. "


Although, this is one of those statements I personally find to be totally offensive, uncivilized, and demonstrates nothing but complete blind grouping and classification of people, however, I should give you credit for stating that. Simply because, YES, THIS IS THE SPIRIT that the American and allied troops have -and are actually trained to have- as they are fighting in that part of the world. I should in fact thank you for stating that, because that itself refutes many of the popular claims, including some that were made in this same forum, regarding how the troops in Iraq are ordered to go through I donno how many steps (were they 12 steps?) before they even attack anybody or any place. So, yes, you're honest, at least, and I must give you credit for that one!

One last quick note regarding ur interesting statements...you described anybody belonging to such organizations, INCLUDING BOTH Fateh and Hamas, as mere terrorist who should be looked at as a soldier, and thus treated and tortured as such. Let me just remind ya that by stating that, you are actually stating that every single non-Israeli person in the Holy Land is a terrorist. This is because the people over there either support Hamas or Fateh (which by the way, the US government supports as well). So, I just had to clarify that, because it doesn't make any sense!

But afterall, it boils down to the fact that you have your opinions and experiences and I have mine... So, what can I say!


Greetings Eng8248!

I think if you reread my statement regarding Unlawful Combatants you will realize that I am critical of the current administration. I am duly obligated to do so, both as a citizen and as a former member of the U.S. Armed Forces who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. That retard from Texas playing dress-up in daddy's clothes is a criminal. At the least, he is guilty of revoking no less than 3 of the 10 Amendments known as the Bill of Rights. At worst, he is guilty of treason for acting on information that he demanded be found, for the express purpose of making war on Iraq.; knowingly sending US Citizens to their deaths (putting them in harms way) for his own personal beliefs that are at odds with the welfare of our country (an illegal act of war, based on statement made previous); and gross mismanagement of an administration that is the SOLE representation of our country to the rest of the world.

Again, if you reread my statement regarding having a moral or psychological dilemma, you will realize that you and only you are responsible for your actions. If you depend on others to do your bidding, you will end up a slave. No government has your best interests at heart. By definition, a government is a group of people who govern, with consent or without. That doesn't seem to be in line with the thinking of what a Free Nation represents. No one has the right to deny you anything. Just as you have no right to deny anyone else anything. Unless of course you deny them the right to violate your physical, mental, or emotional wellbeing and of those whom you care about, along with your property. In that case, you can choose to have your day with your maker and sort it out after you take care of business, or you can take the moral high-ground that no man should kill another man...while being killed by another man.

I personally have no regard for someone elses feelings when they mean me harm. Until and unless I put my weapon into action, I am not a threat to anyone. To provoke me when I am performing the duty that I am required by law and my own ethical canon, is ignorant and hypocritical. It is also lethal. To live with hatred poisoning their soul or die by lead poisoning, makes no difference to me, so long as I return home alive and sound. I am not there for vacation or of my own free will. I am performing a service that is determined to be necessary for my country by the people given that authority.

As for being heroic or patriotic, I am neither. A hero is someone who performs an act of bravery with disregard for his own well-being in the interests of others. I am selfish. I will not put myself in jeopardy if I can help it. That does not mean I will not help out a brother in arms, but don't expect me to take a bullet for you, when the end result is the same: a dead American soldier. I will put fire downrange and defend your position to my last breath, but on my own terms. A patriot is someone who drapes themselves with the flag and spouts the party line in the name of Our Nation. I am a son of liberty. I will fight to my last breath so that true believers in liberty may experience it. I care not one bit about this president and his cabinet or that president and his cabinet. I have a strong dislike for politicians and the policy they enact and foist upon us, the citizen. I make no statements for the purpose of receiving praise or adoration. I make statements that are as truthful as I am capable of perceiving. I don't make standards or put them on other people. Live and let live. Harm me, and I'll get Old Testament on your ass. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.

You seem to be of the impression that my statement regarding a first, second, or third world country is specifically targeted at our current mission in Afghanistan and Iraq. What you're neglecting to include in that impression is that we are also engaged in skirmishes, military action and a "drug war" all over the globe at the exact same time. It just doesn't get its share of print. When I was in Somalia, someone asked why we didn't just bomb them back to the stone age instead of putting feet on the ground. The response was that they already were in the stone age, why waste bombs. That is offensive to me. That my life is considered to be worth less than metal and gunpowder, for a country whose internal strife does not affect me in the least. There are people in American who don't know that Somalia is a country, or where to find it on a map. For me to be put in harms way because some politician decided we should be involved militarily when the citizens of our country are ignorant of the situation is offensive.

No where in any of my "interesting" statements did I say that members of Hamas, Fatah, Al Qaeda, or the IRA are mere terrorists who should be looked at as a soldier and thus treated or tortured as one. What I did say was that they kill, bomb and torture soldiers and so should themselves be considered soldiers for the purposes of war. The only mention of torture was in regards to terrorist actions towards soldiers in fancy uniforms with sophisticated weapons, to use your own words. And the fact that Palestinian citizens were ignorant or manipulated enough to elect a terrorist organization into power no more legitimizes Hamas or Fatah's political beliefs than tying velvet "reindeer" antlers to my dogs' head makes him Dasher or Prancer.

American governments' position on foreign governments' should not be confused with what is right or just. You are an individual. Only you make those decisions for yourself. If you don't believe that the government is acting in your best interests, do something more than *****ing and writing a letter to your Congressman or woman. They are part of the establishment. The same institution whose actions you are railing against. Please don't base an argument against what our government is doing militarily, by using so-called facts that are again based on foolish decisions made by that same government made when "recognizing" the government of Palestine. Also don't confuse recognition with support. Your eyes recognize breasts. Bras support breasts. Your eyes are not bras. Use some logic when constructing your argument. You will be more effective in communicating your point. My last point...do not confuse the American government with the country of the United States of America. They are two separate entities. Think of the government as some unnecessary article of clothing like a handkerchief, and the country as the body. You can make the handkerchief as big and gaudy as you wish, but the body does not need it to function. It is pomp and circumstance. It is ether.

:violin:

Private Sub thread_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles thread.Click
Dim This_Thread As Boring_X_100
Using space As New wasted_space
Start_This.wasted_space.Clear()
For Each wasted_space As space In No.Value
This_Thread As Boring_X_100 = Not interesting.Now
Next
End Using
End Sub

:violin:

:violin:

Private Sub thread_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles thread.Click
Dim This_Thread As Boring_X_100
Using space As New wasted_space
Start_This.wasted_space.Clear()
For Each wasted_space As space In No.Value
This_Thread As Boring_X_100 = Not interesting.Now
Next
End Using
End Sub

:violin:

Hey Hey!!! We were starting to talk about breasts and bras!!! .......It was just getting interesting!!

(I didn't get the eyes-bras logic, but I did find it amusing)

Quote: "Just think of all those in the world trade center that day"
Although I have taken this statement out of context, it reminds me of when I was in Brussels and there was a remembrance service for for the people that died in the world trade center and the speaker requested one minute's silence for the +/- 3,000 that died in the world trade center and for the other 50,000 people that die every day of hunger. Helps put it into perspective a bit.

For a true comparison. The only thing that would put that into perspective would be to show if those 50,000 people were intentionally starved to death and by who. Darfur is a good case in point. 2-2.5 million people driven from their homes and hardly a peep out of the UN to rectify it. 10,000/month die. Genocide doesn't enrage the world as much as the US helping free 2.5 million people from oppressive regimes.

I have seen a similar comparison to gun deaths in the US verses annual coalition forces deaths in the war. Yet we don't see mass protests over gun deaths at home. Instead the US gets to take the heat for all deaths in an attempt to offer the majority some semblance of security.

DC

Damned if we do, damned if we dont

Hi WYLD,

Thanks for answering my previous email. I understand where you are coming from. You write wery well. I Don't agree with all of it but that's OK, we are allowed to have different views.

The last time I was in Washington DC, I went and saw the "Bill of Rights", and actually read it. It is one of the most impressive texts I have read. I could not get over the forward thinking of the people who constructed it. But as you noted, the current government is not treating it with the respect it deserves.

I really think that Australia could do with a similiar document. It reminds the government what the rights of the people are.

The Magna Carta is also an impressive document. They both came into existence as of a result of the people realising that freedom is something to be protected and guarded. Something that is above the government of the day.

Anyhow, I'd glad you enjoyed Pambula. Our family spent a week camping at Tathra, about 1/2 an hours drive north of Pambula as it was booked out ( Obviously too many tourists :) ) That whole cost is a beautiful spot.

Cheers,

Peter.


Greetings Eng8248!

I think if you reread my statement regarding Unlawful Combatants you will realize that I am critical of the current administration. I am duly obligated to do so, both as a citizen and as a former member of the U.S. Armed Forces who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. That retard from Texas playing dress-up in daddy's clothes is a criminal. At the least, he is guilty of revoking no less than 3 of the 10 Amendments known as the Bill of Rights. At worst, he is guilty of treason for acting on information that he demanded be found, for the express purpose of making war on Iraq.; knowingly sending US Citizens to their deaths (putting them in harms way) for his own personal beliefs that are at odds with the welfare of our country (an illegal act of war, based on statement made previous); and gross mismanagement of an administration that is the SOLE representation of our country to the rest of the world.

Again, if you reread my statement regarding having a moral or psychological dilemma, you will realize that you and only you are responsible for your actions. If you depend on others to do your bidding, you will end up a slave. No government has your best interests at heart. By definition, a government is a group of people who govern, with consent or without. That doesn't seem to be in line with the thinking of what a Free Nation represents. No one has the right to deny you anything. Just as you have no right to deny anyone else anything. Unless of course you deny them the right to violate your physical, mental, or emotional wellbeing and of those whom you care about, along with your property. In that case, you can choose to have your day with your maker and sort it out after you take care of business, or you can take the moral high-ground that no man should kill another man...while being killed by another man.

I personally have no regard for someone elses feelings when they mean me harm. Until and unless I put my weapon into action, I am not a threat to anyone. To provoke me when I am performing the duty that I am required by law and my own ethical canon, is ignorant and hypocritical. It is also lethal. To live with hatred poisoning their soul or die by lead poisoning, makes no difference to me, so long as I return home alive and sound. I am not there for vacation or of my own free will. I am performing a service that is determined to be necessary for my country by the people given that authority.

As for being heroic or patriotic, I am neither. A hero is someone who performs an act of bravery with disregard for his own well-being in the interests of others. I am selfish. I will not put myself in jeopardy if I can help it. That does not mean I will not help out a brother in arms, but don't expect me to take a bullet for you, when the end result is the same: a dead American soldier. I will put fire downrange and defend your position to my last breath, but on my own terms. A patriot is someone who drapes themselves with the flag and spouts the party line in the name of Our Nation. I am a son of liberty. I will fight to my last breath so that true believers in liberty may experience it. I care not one bit about this president and his cabinet or that president and his cabinet. I have a strong dislike for politicians and the policy they enact and foist upon us, the citizen. I make no statements for the purpose of receiving praise or adoration. I make statements that are as truthful as I am capable of perceiving. I don't make standards or put them on other people. Live and let live. Harm me, and I'll get Old Testament on your ass. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.

You seem to be of the impression that my statement regarding a first, second, or third world country is specifically targeted at our current mission in Afghanistan and Iraq. What you're neglecting to include in that impression is that we are also engaged in skirmishes, military action and a "drug war" all over the globe at the exact same time. It just doesn't get its share of print. When I was in Somalia, someone asked why we didn't just bomb them back to the stone age instead of putting feet on the ground. The response was that they already were in the stone age, why waste bombs. That is offensive to me. That my life is considered to be worth less than metal and gunpowder, for a country whose internal strife does not affect me in the least. There are people in American who don't know that Somalia is a country, or where to find it on a map. For me to be put in harms way because some politician decided we should be involved militarily when the citizens of our country are ignorant of the situation is offensive.

No where in any of my "interesting" statements did I say that members of Hamas, Fatah, Al Qaeda, or the IRA are mere terrorists who should be looked at as a soldier and thus treated or tortured as one. What I did say was that they kill, bomb and torture soldiers and so should themselves be considered soldiers for the purposes of war. The only mention of torture was in regards to terrorist actions towards soldiers in fancy uniforms with sophisticated weapons, to use your own words. And the fact that Palestinian citizens were ignorant or manipulated enough to elect a terrorist organization into power no more legitimizes Hamas or Fatah's political beliefs than tying velvet "reindeer" antlers to my dogs' head makes him Dasher or Prancer.

American governments' position on foreign governments' should not be confused with what is right or just. You are an individual. Only you make those decisions for yourself. If you don't believe that the government is acting in your best interests, do something more than *****ing and writing a letter to your Congressman or woman. They are part of the establishment. The same institution whose actions you are railing against. Please don't base an argument against what our government is doing militarily, by using so-called facts that are again based on foolish decisions made by that same government made when "recognizing" the government of Palestine. Also don't confuse recognition with support. Your eyes recognize breasts. Bras support breasts. Your eyes are not bras. Use some logic when constructing your argument. You will be more effective in communicating your point. My last point...do not confuse the American government with the country of the United States of America. They are two separate entities. Think of the government as some unnecessary article of clothing like a handkerchief, and the country as the body. You can make the handkerchief as big and gaudy as you wish, but the body does not need it to function. It is pomp and circumstance. It is ether.

Quote: "Genocide doesn't enrage the world as much as the US helping free 2.5 million people from oppressive regimes."
Let's take Iraq as an example. We go there (yes, your country (US) and mine (Australia)) to a place that has six different ethnic and religous groups that generally hate each other and is led by a cruel dictator and we invade their country to "set them free" and give them "democracy". What a joke! With Sadaam they already had the only type of government that would work in this situation. Under our supposed "democratic" system, the group that has 1,000 more people than any other group gets to win the "elections" and we think this is democracy and that we've done them a favour by "setting them free"? This is nothing other than naive western thinking. I think it is just lucky for us that up until now the arab nations have never been united because we have certainly given them plenty of reasons not to like us, those of the west.

Imagine if we were to reverse the situation to see what would happen. Let's say Iran for example were to say, I think those Americans have Weapons of Mass Destruction, let's kick their door down (attack) and see for ourselves. Can you imagine the end result?
Certainly, the most ridiculous phrase I ever heard was: "a pre-emptive strike of self defence". I guess it's just lucky that there are those gullible enough to actually swallow this guff.

Thank you Phomann!

Yes, I was a tourist, but the young lady I spent the week with was very much an Aussie. I will forever love your country! I also spent a week in Auckland and have to say that I'm quite jealous of the Aussies and Kiwis.

I'm glad that you can appreciate where you are coming from, just as much as I appreciate where you are coming from. I enjoy hearing others' points of view, simply because it gives me a compass reading from which to reevaluate my position. I do not make statements with hopes of swaying people in regards to a point, but rather as a reality check and possibly polarizing effect.

No single administration or string of administrations has the RIGHT to affect people generations down the line, and yet every single day they make decisions that will have those long-reaching effects.

If I had my way, when a politician or public official abuses their power for whatever reason, they would be tried for treason and if found guilty, their head severed and displayed on a pike. This would be shocking, grotesque and effective. Not many people would be foolish enough to attempt the sort of atrocious behavior that commonly occurs now. Not that they wouldn't think about it, but they would find a profession in a different field. The consequences are too severe. As well they should be considering the number of people they impact with their decisions and acts.

Skippy...

Thank god someone has brought up the point that I find most valid to declare the Iraq War as being illegal.

A pre-emptive strike of self-defence.

This is not tolerated in our own criminal or civil legal system. Therefore it is not to be tolerated by our government. Period. End of Story.

Iraq never was and never will be a threat to the USA. And if you think they will be, let's consider logistics: They are a 98% landlocked nation will no real navy capable of carrying the numbers of troops and supplies necessary for an invasion. Their airforce does not have a plausible global airstrike capability compared with other nations. They were the worlds' 4th largest military before Desert Storm, and after we left. They do not have the means to transport their army within striking distance of the US without us knowing about it before they step foot off their own soil.

So, that leaves terrorist elements operating in, around and out of Iraq. That is no more the nation of Iraq being a threat to us, than a burglar in Oakland is a military threat to Canada. Sure, theoretically the burglar from Oakland could travel to Canada and burglarize their homes and properties at gun point, but the odds are maddeningly small. And he is still one man, not a nation.

Terrorists are individuals acting according to a plan devised by themselves or other members of the organization. They are not speaking for the government or through the government. Micheal Jackson is NOT The United States of America. Michael Jordan is NOT The United States of America. Johnny Depp is NOT The United States of America. Brad Pitt is NOT The United States of America. Elvis is NOT The United States of America. They are individuals who may happen to be well known, and have lived in America (in light of Depp moving to France in protest of the war...)but they are no more The United States of America than your drunken trailer-trash Camaro-driving mullet-wearing neighbor is the moon. And I am not comparing Michael Jackson to a muslim terrorist from the middle east, but they both perpetrate their own brand of evil. An individual is an individual is a warm body with their own mind and their own actions.

We both have countries where elections can be won and lost by 1000 votes or less and we are still united and don't try to kill each other. Had some been so indifferent in the 1770's in the US and 1840's in Australia, we might be in the same turmoil as the middle east is now. With a glimmer of hope "It'll never work" is a cop out for those who already posses it. If the world will swallow the BS of Global Warming, it will be gullible enough to react just about anything. It is not just a western mentality, it is the only country with the guts to do what everyone else only talks tough on.

I think we are forgetting the 17 resolution that the UN kept as a running tally of warnings from the international community. I think we are forgetting many the other nations that had information that SOMETHING needed to be done. There is plenty of documented and verified ties to funding terrorism and much of what is coming out is from Sadaam's own file cabinets. We were naive at least 16 times to let this continue through the oil for food program in good faith.

What always gets me about socialist oil rich countries is why they still have slums and starving people, but the Dictators have multiple huge palaces.

We already had several failures of intelligence on 9/11. No time was a good time, but putting it off was too big a risk. I am not for continued hostilities, but I do have high hopes for the Iraqi people being out from under Sadam and his regime. Sure, Sadaam's regime kept the factions at bay. The privileged class could have peasants shot for just a rumor. Hitler's Government was functional too. Does that mean they earned free reign from outsiders to let them proliferate that mentality? Which is what did happen with Hitler and Sadaam had his eye's trained on other parts of those regions claiming himself as the leader of the Arab world or some such thing. When would there be support to ever uphold the the obvious resolutions, let alone what we don't see coming? It's pretty easy to say, "What a Joke" when that Joke has everyone's best interest at stake. I am an optimist and refuse to take the side of the defeatist cut and run. If we can't support the gift of freedom and democracy, maybe we don't deserve either.

Every major plot of land has it sorted history the current inhabitants are not proud of. Chances are, it was inherited through someone else's blood and aggression. It is easy to ignore the gory history when it does not effect us, now that we share in its many treasures. Forever we will be painted as villains......until we fail to defend it, then its gone and the next heathens take our place.

Here is another sorted history reverse situation too?Who is in Need of Liberation? (http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/May/2o/Australia%20or%20Iraq%20-%20Who%20is%20in%20Need%20of%20Liberation%20By%20Yamin%20Zakaria.htm);)

DC

WOW...One Of Many, I wanna buy you a beer! http://www.thesignindustry.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/fnd%20(8).gif

If the world will swallow the BS of Global Warming, it will be gullible enough to react just about anything.


Surely you meant to say "If the world will swallow the BS of no Global Warming, it will be gullible enough to react just about anything" :)



There is plenty of documented and verified ties to funding terrorism and much of what is coming out is from Sadaam's own file cabinets.


The only reason the coallition gave for invading Iraq was "WMDs" We all remember Powell's unconvincing speech to the U.N. When there were no goodies to be found the reason then changed to terrorism. There was never any love lost between Sadaam and Al Quaeda. They despised each other. I guess must be talking about state sponsered terrorism.

I remember a country sponsoring terrorists in Niquagra in the 80s. I think Co. North called them freedom fighters.

Then the same country sponsored terrorists in Afganastan. They were called the Northern Alliance with an up and comming leader by the name of Osama.

Then there was the support of a middle east tyrant by the name of Sadaam, suppling him with the means to develop chemical weapons that were used on the Iranians. Oh, and then the Kurds. I could never understand why one was acceptable, but the other was not?

And the story goes on, and on.

Cheers,

Peter.

Hey skippy, ever heard the US say it was going to "wipe some country off the map" ??

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Ever heard the US say it was going to destroy Islam?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Surely you meant to say "If the world will swallow the BS of no Global Warming, it

Surely you meant to say "If the world will swallow the BS of man made global warming, it will be gullible enough to react just about anything" :)

Hey skippy, ever heard the US say it was going to "wipe some country off the map" ??



.

No........ but I do remember someone saying that they were going to "bomb them back into the Stone-Age."

Martin

No........ but I do remember someone saying that they were going to "bomb them back into the Stone-Age."

Martin

I suppose this could be considered very efficient. It would remove the terrorist threats, it would isolate a very large portion of the world's petroleum reserves in a radioactive wasteland reducing Green House gas emissions and the ensuing Nuclear Winter would turn around Global Warming man-made or otherwise for a few years or decades.

I suppose this could be considered very efficient. It would remove the terrorist threats, it would isolate a very large portion of the world's petroleum reserves in a radioactive wasteland reducing Green House gas emissions and the ensuing Nuclear Winter would turn around Global Warming man-made or otherwise for a few years or decades.


Dear Geof,

Looks like it could kill loads of birds with one stone.

Actually, the guy who said it came up with the solution for another country..

Tell the Vietnamese they've got to draw in their horns or we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age.
--Gen. Curtis LeMay, May 1964


Best wishes

Martin

Dear Geof,

Looks like it could kill loads of birds with one stone.

Actually, the guy who said it came up with the solution for another country..

Tell the Vietnamese they've got to draw in their horns or we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age.
--Gen. Curtis LeMay, May 1964


Best wishes

Martin

A lot of the sentiments expressed in this thread and which I have heard elsewhere are pretty much identical to this. Things don't change much do they?

Somewhere in this thread someone posted the comment about those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it. So I suppose a bunch of troops will have to hunker down for a 50 year stay in Iraq and 75 years in Afghanistan. That was how long the British kept them pacified back in the last two centuries wasn't it?

Surely you meant to say "If the world will swallow the BS of man made global warming, it will be gullible enough to react to just about anything" :)

That's more better! :D

Did I read BEER? Cuz, I'm all out of home brew...:(

DC

That's more better! :D

Did I read BEER? Cuz, I'm all out of home brew...:(

DC

Nothing beats a good home All Grain Batch :)

A lot of the sentiments expressed in this thread and which I have heard elsewhere are pretty much identical to this. Things don't change much do they?

Somewhere in this thread someone posted the comment about those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it. So I suppose a bunch of troops will have to hunker down for a 50 year stay in Iraq and 75 years in Afghanistan. That was how long the British kept them pacified back in the last two centuries wasn't it?

Dear Geof,

Sorry, I don't know much about the Anglo-Afghan wars except that there were three of them between 1839 and 1919. They lasted a total of about six years.

Here is a potted history (of dubious accuracy probably).

I think the general picture during this period was that Britain would install a puppet leader in Afghanistan to carry out a British directed foreign policy. When the locals got fed up with the puppet, they would rise up and overthrow him. ( This didn't occur that frequently because the local tribes were usually too busy fighting amongst themselves to organise a concerted revolt). To put down the revolt, the British Army, comprising largely of Indian troops, would then come over the Khyber Pass, fight brief and bloody wars with the locals, and install another puppet. The whole process would then repeat.

Rudyard Kipling wrote these sobering lines on the matter....

It does no good for the Christian health to hustle the Asian brown,
For the Christian riles, and the Asian smiles and weareth the Christian down.
At the end of the fight is a tombstone white on the grave of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear: "a fool lies here, who tried to hurry the East".


Food for thought

Best Wishes

Martin

Hey skippy, ever heard the US say it was going to "wipe some country off the map" ??

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Ever heard the US say it was going to destroy Islam?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

our president called it 'a holy war'.

duh.

So, have we migrated from Global Warming to whatever this is now.....*chuckle*

Right you are Peter. Hind sight is so crystal clear. It is a roll of the dice when vicariously creating allies out of ill repute that later prove to have the integrity of con men and murderous thugs. At the time, it was thought to be expedient to offer weapons against a mutual foe without doing the actual dirty work.

The chemical weapons transfer had to be the dumbest move, next to conveniently leaving a top secret laptop connected to the internet for easy foreign access to satelite or missle information. Both kind of make you go, duh! from an "accidiental" loss of security standpoint.

DC

global warming wasnt personal enough for most, so....

So, have we migrated from Global Warming to whatever this is now.....*chuckle*

duplicate deleted

our president called it 'a holy war'.

duh.

Because OBL called it a "holy war" long before that.

duh.

But it's ok, I'm used to people blaming US and Bush for things that happened before-the-fact.

:)

our president called it 'a holy war'.

duh.
DUH.

If you'd pay a little attention to what was actually said, you'd find that the president was stating that the individuals (..I can't use the term 'them') responsible for direct attacks on American soil had themselves stated it was a holy war. It is NOT a holy war to us, it is to ....whoops....those individuals.

Look up 'jihad'.

There is little doubt he paid attention. What he probably heard was a short snippet sound bite on NPR. Their commentary has the innate ability to spin stories out of tangled webs into music for the fan bases ear. It is the chicken and egg sequential puzzle all over again. What came first, smear merchant news or the self serving apathetic view that it coddles to?

While it is true the President did use those words, NPR knows its audience could care less about context of any Bush statement. If the illusion creates forward motion furry that can be used against this administration, with an efficacy in the form of a placebo on the sadist listener, they have fulfilled the first portion of the agenda. The faithful Stepford Wife type listeners will do the rest.

DC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRUuebdjKik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTOwpnq5t5A

We are told we are fighting for justice and democracy and yet we dont do the same things ourselves. How can anyone respect us when we do the opposite.
Why has it taken 5 years to bring him to trial?
To those who blanketly say he was caught, so therefore he is guilty, why dont we try him as we would any one else and find out what really happened?
We is it that just before our fedaral election things start to move with his sham trial?
Why is this system deemed not fit for American citizens, and yet is ok for the rest of the world? If its not fit for American citizens then why is the American government running it?

I do not trust Davids admission of guilt. A person would say anything to escape that hell hole. After 5 years of emotional and physical torture, I don't blame the guy.

It seems very suss to at one minute plead not guilty, but then 3 hours later after Davids lawyers are kicked out of the court to then have David change his plea to guilty.
I am even more cynical than I was before. I strongly urge people to not now sit back and accept this illegal court arrangement.

History is going to record our current governments as the most evil, and manipulating ever.

Benny,

Systematically tortured? Would that be 100% truth or 1% truth. I'd bet it's a least 99% BS. Most have nothing to be tortured for. We don't really know, but you can believe what you can read into those pictures. I think they should consider themselves lucky to still breath air. This is probably more in line with the way they treated woman in their own homes.

What is the US supposed to do with these enemies? Release them and let them kill us another day? What sense would that make. I mean, would it look better if we just let them loose to kill them on the battle field so you wouldn't see this ugly side and no one would have to chase sadistic reports in an attempt to guilt our nation into some kind of embarrassing surrender?

This is what happens in wars. That pitiful video says nothing of how he got there. It's only more of the bias that tries to make the US look like the bad guy. He chose to support the wrong side to which there are consequences.

Hicks in reality? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks)

It used to be considered treasonous to have greater sympathy for the enemy than what that enemy was or is doing to your own countrymen for an unjust cause. Like systematically trying to kill our guys and anyone that helps. The enemies cause is to support and continue the oppression of others within their society. You would not welcome that here, but that is their ultimate goal. Where should we start the process to prevent its advance. People that call for protests totally ignore the treatment of OUR prisoners. Think about what would happen there if they had the similar people protesting the beheadings and abuse that the insurgents deliver. We all know it would be a barbershop call.....NEXT!

If you are going to root for the underdog, root for the ones that want freedom from the regimes that treat dogs better than women. Freedom from leaders that support teaching children to hate with intolerance and sends those children out to kill anyone that gets in their way. What about the people that had their heads removed. Can you rally support to protest the thugs that did that? If you have seen those videos and still have sympathy for the likes of Hicks, John Walker etc., you are being guided by something other than patriotism.

We can say that guns won't fix this. Well, they obviously think guns, bombs and killing innocents will do as they see it. Their brand of peace is not civilized enough to support a united freedom. Cultural hatred and revenge has a higher priority than any lasting peace. The kind of peace many Americans under the anti-war banner take for granted.

I'd challenge any of the anti-whatever's to try living under those conditions that they do not want the US fighting to circumvent the advance of. It is why these people leave the home land and are welcomed by our motto on the statue of liberty. The very opportunities much of the world admires in the US. Immigrants still holding the dream, knowing full well it is not likely to ever come in their lifetime to their own countries. What we don't want to encourage, are immigrants with no allegiances to our nation, while they take advantage of our security, opportunities and hospitality, yet offer nothing in return. Soon, the problems they had in their own country will have followed them here. Unwilling to stand up for the gift of being here and support the fight against those who sent them here in the first place. We already seem to have enough of our own not supporting the principles and gift of democracy here.

DC

Systematically tortured? Would that be 100% truth or 1% truth. 5 years without a trial and been held in solitary confinement 23 hors a day is torture enough.
What is the US supposed to do with these enemies?Send them to trial, and find out if they are guilty. The same thing they do with a person caught at a murder scene.
He chose to support the wrong side to which there are consequences.
You know that for sure do you? You pre judged him already ? You examined the evidence did you?

If its good enough for the rest of the world, then why isnt it good enough for your citizens caught there too?

Dont you feel any concern that most lawers even ones in your country say that the court system in Gitmo is illegal?

Are you ignoring the documented information on this poor soul? The documentation has been supported in several instances. In war there is guilt by association and letting them go is NOT an option. The evidence you grasp on to free him is thinner than what supports his guilt. Would you support releasing him to kill more of our troops? If he deserves a second chance, it may be his last. And if so, can someone place any Coalition forces deaths by him on your head, since you "presume" his innocence.

You seem sure that the US military is wrong. Same circumstantial evidence. It may not be perfect, but it has brought more freedom to the world than any militarized force on the planet. If you choose to think otherwise, that is your opinion, but it won't make it true.

The lawyers that don't like Gitmo are primarily ACLU types. That is not even defendable as a reliable source of what is Illegal! What they defend as Legal would make you laugh!

DC

You didnt consider my previous questions. You have put yourself higher than the law. READ MY LIPS, "I dont say he is innocent" I expect a fair trial and not 5 years of prejudging.
Answer my previous questions. individually please.

It is evident by some things you say that you havnt followed the case closely, and have done some last minute reading.

Benny, if I'm not mistaken, he's not a felon. He didn't rob a liqueur store. Enemy combatants, (uniformed or not) can be held LEGALLY for the duration of the war. That means he will likely never get out. (with any luck, that is.)

Too bad if he was just a spectator, or it was his job to attend to the wounded.
Someone said he did something bad, and we just accept that without a trial that required EVIDENCE.
My issue is not his guilt or non guilt ( although you seem to know better than me ) My issue is there has been no trial for 5 years, and no one seems to be interested in finding out what really happened above what they think happened.
This enemy combatant thing is a tired old excuse for negligence. Its a crock.
The USA, and BRitish wont submit thier citizens to this scheme, but expect the rest of the world to accept it. Ask your self why.
Dont you get embarressed bandying the crap statements that the government trys to BS its citizens with. I recon they laugh at those who accept these statements and run with them.

Im really sorry guys, but this may come as a shock. Politicians lie. Even more of a shock, you and me have been sucked in by them on more than one occasion. Its hard to admit to have been sucked in, but its true.

I like what WYLD writes. His words have the ring of truth.

Here are a few thoughts about the situation.

Things the Bush administration can not admit (if they are true):

1) The Iraq invasion was not about WMD's. It was not to help the citizens rid themselves of a Hitlerian ruler. It was not because Iraq was a base for terrorists. It was for two reasons: Saddam's open defiance of the U.S. and U.N. and his belief that the west didn't have the balls to follow words with actions created the opening for an invasion to accomplish two goals: install a permanent military base in the area from which to project the will of the administration, and to carry out reprisal for the WTC attacks. (The Iraqis weren't directly responsible, but they were dancing in the streets and Saddam was thumbing his nose at the U.S.)

2) The above plan was carried into action without an exit strategy - because the plan was to install a puppet government and maintain a huge military base. Since it cannot be admitted outright, now the calls to pull out must be answered with equivocations, evasions, and political maneuvers, including amplification of threats in the area to justify the need for continued military presence. Expect the escalation of the Iran threat to continue. The intransigence of Saddam was symptomatic of the religious-rule mindset of that culture and its ingrained belief that infidels are weak. Iran is following the path of Iraq, as it must. And it plays right into the master plan.

3) The constitution is some inconvenient wallpaper for the administration (and their opponents). Any war without a declaration of war is unconstitutional. Congressional approval to carry out a military action without a declaration of war is extraconstitutional at the least. It allows military force and the lives of men like WYLD to be used as instruments of a hidden foreign policy that is contrary to the interests of most of the people of the U.S. Once the country is immersed in the mess, the mess can then be used as justification for all kinds of unconstitutional extensions of government power, from ignoring Geneva convention and other treaties, straight through to violation of the first ten amendments to the constitution.

4) It has been mentioned that Bush Jr. is trying to finish Bush Sr.'s unfinished job. Recall that Bush Sr.'s unfinished job is the implementation of a New World Order. Something he kept talking about as his underlying motivation, until someone started asking loudly about where the constitution, the bill of rights, and U.S. sovereignty fit into the plan, after which he shut up about it. But he never backed off that agenda, or the reasons he gave for it. One world government (with the U.S. as the leader). A study of the history of empire building reveals this as a plan of imperialism on a scale never before attempted. Events show that all strategies point to this goal. This explains the attempts to make the constitution irrelevant, and the attempts to show why we need to use force all over the globe. It defies logic that the administration would pursue goals of energy restriction based on ignorance of high school level science, until you consider that it can be used as justification for an attempt to exert control over developing countries that are becoming economic powerhouses in their own right. What the policies do, and what we are told they are expected to accomplish are different things altogether.

I'll never be a politician, and I will never get my way. But if it were up to me, I would prefer Thomas Jefferson's approach to foreign entanglements. The foreign policy of a country should at least reflect the values, interests, and intentions of the citizens of a free country. Military force should be used to absolutely devastate an attacker. It should never be used as an instrument of social engineering policy. It saddens me that our citizen-soldiers are patrolling streets in a land where we are hated. We should declare victory and get the hell out of there, and promise to bomb them to kingdom come if they threaten us. Unfortunately, once we are immersed in a situation with fuzzy morality, just as in the past, people are going to die, a lot of them, whichever course we take. When the democrats finally get their way, all of the people on the ground in those foreign lands who believed anything we said and lent assistance in any way will be subject to horrific reprisals.

On a wider scale, a scary thought is the parallels to be seen with other imperialist empires just before they crashed. Observe the sickening economy, outsourcing of jobs, increase in government interference in all aspects of life, depletion of the tax base, and debasement of the currency all happening at the same time as an unprecedented expansion of the welfare state and continually increasing military entanglements. The chicken has stopped dropping golden eggs, and the frivolous waste of those eggs can only continue for as long as the assets we are now consuming instead of building can hold out.

--97T--
Please devastate my arguments. I don't wish to be correct in any of this (except for my respect for a man who shoots straight and speaks the truth).

There's only ONE way to fight this evil, and that's by becoming an Orgone Warrior.

Click the link below to learn how to buy or make your very own Orgone Blasters to battle the New World Order!!

http://www.tearingdownstrongholds.com/battle.htm

Benny,

This Hicks guy was caught on a battle field. He is being considered and has chosen a lifestyle as a defector of civilized humanity. His ties to one terror organization was enough to detain him indefinitely, whether or not he was a nurse maid or spectator in training. In any simple capacity he was aiding the enemy. His country of origin means nothing. Where he was and what he was caught doing there is clear enough for most reasonable men to surmise.

Hicks trial was started then halted because some question it was an illegal trial. Then to investigate how to classify him and then how the law should be applied. Now his lawyers are trying to attach his status in the best description possible that gains him a better chance of skating the charges. Some of those delays are created by his own defense team. Maybe it would be best to hand him over to the AU justice system. Then someone else will take the heat for his treatment and risk releasing him to fight again.

IMHO we can draw hyper-attention to one individual that some speculate to be getting a raw deal. This ignores all the other atrocious activities of the people that he aligned himself with and fought along side. He wasn't a tourist on vacation caught in a bad situation. The choices he made put him where he is today. I have no more sadness for him than I do for the American perpetrators in pictures smiling about prisoner humiliation. These kind of individuals make all of us all look like the problem. Too many civilians would rather lay the results of combat on the US than the ideology that provoked this war. The very people we are trying to help become insignificant.

Even in a US trial of a convicted murderer, a "Fair" trial is more than what they give their victims. They get to bleed the system for another 20+ years of fairness. There is no justice for the victims when misdirected public sympathy trumps it for no good purpose other than emotion.

DC

Dear all,

How about setting aside the acrimony for a bit and try and see the effects of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib on the countries the "West" sought to punish, or perhaps, "enlighten" and "liberate".

It has been a total disaster. Afghanistan and Iraq are in an even worse state.

Meanwhile, our illegal detainment and perhaps torture of foreign nationals inflames and recruits more individuals to a cause that will harm us further.

Isn't it time to stop doing "the proud stuff" and....get real?

Best wishes,

Martin

IMHO, another nation that wants to pass judgment on the US ought to be sticking their neck out a lot further than what has been offered so far. The sitcom narrow scope negative perspective is no help, but acrimony in and of itself.

Passing that judgment in the form of a pessimistic view, calling the efforts of brave men a disaster is taking credit away from them for trying to limit a senseless slaughter. The senseless slaughter is what the other side IS doing and no one is screaming about it 1/4 as much as the POW that were trying to kill our troops and anyone that assisted them.

These countries were already disasters waiting to happen....all over the world, if anyone is still connected to that reality. We will see how it all plays out while your countries deal with the growing radical problems in your own nations. My prayers are with you and yours, but somehow I do not see that as a reciprocal blessing.

At least admit the detainment of combatants takes them out of the battle field without killing them. There are now watchdogs in place to curtail abuses to which our own people do not get the benefit of from the enemies side. And again no one hounds them on an international level.

Where is the international community? Why won't they help do the dirty work and support the long term goals of peace in a much more unified expedient manner. I suspect it would send a resounding message to to world at large the UN is doing its job.

But, Nope all we deserve is the sanctimonious rhetoric whiners have to offer since there full support is out of the question.

For that, I would say the rest of the world bares some of the responsibility for piss poor cooperation to help make this process fail by doing little and nothing. That to me, is more sadistic than trying to keep POW's alive to send back home to their families.....some day.

I may have it totally wrong, but that is my view and it wasn't manipulated by any doom and gloom, smear merchant media outlets.

DC

The senseless slaughter is what the other side IS doing and no one is screaming about it 1/4 as much as the POW that were trying to kill our troops and anyone that assisted them.
...
Where is the international community?
...
Nope all we deserve is the sanctimonious rhetoric whiners have to offer since there full support is out of the question.


Well said.

My prayers are with you and yours, but somehow I do not see that as a reciprocal blessing.

DC

Dear One of Many,

Could I just make a couple of points?

If you think that I feel any ill-will towards the people of the USA, or its troops, you are very much mistaken. However, I do not feel under any obligation to agree with the decisions of its Government or mine.


Even if the reasons of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were completely altruistic, it does not necessarily follow that the invasions were, or still are, the best practical way of reducing the risk of terrorism. They might go some way in that direction, but if the invasions themselves encourage people to become terrorists, to some degree they are counter-productive. I can quite see that some may disagree, but my opinion is that they have done more harm than good. That is just a pragmatic point, not a moral one. Of course, this is being argued with the benefit of hindsight, but that doesn't mean that past mistakes should not be recognised.


Best wishes

Martin

Even if the reasons of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were completely altruistic, it does not necessarily follow that the invasions were, or still are, the best practical way of reducing the risk of terrorism. They might go some way in that direction, but if the invasions themselves encourage people to become terrorists, to some degree they are counter-productive. I can quite see that some may disagree, but my opinion is that they have done more harm than good. That is just a pragmatic point, not a moral one. Of course, this is being argued with the benefit of hindsight, but that doesn't mean that past mistakes should not be recognised.



Considering talking and politics HAS NOT WORKED IN THE LAST 30 YEARS (terrorism has gotten much worse, not better), I fail to see how it would work now.

:) Just an observation.

Considering talking and politics HAS NOT WORKED IN THE LAST 30 YEARS (terrorism has gotten much worse, not better), I fail to see how it would work now.

:) Just an observation.

No what did not work prior to 9/11 was interrogators dismissing the claim by a arrested terrorist that plans were in progress to hijack planes and crash them into building. Also what did not work was pigeonholing reports from fields agents that they had been approached by flying school operators about students who only wanted to fly not take off and land. Also what did not work was ignoring then-in-place security guidelines which called for passengers who bought tickets on short notice or with cash to be subject to greater security checks.

What is not working now is invading a country that was known to harbour and support terrorists, i.e. Afghanistan, then with that operation incomplete invade a country that did not, according to many reports harbor or support terrorists, and get totally bogged down in a situation that cannot be won by conventional military techniques.

Well said.

X2.

IMHO, another nation that wants to pass judgment on the US ought to be sticking their neck out a lot further than what has been offered so far. The sitcom narrow scope negative perspective is no help, but acrimony in and of itself.

Where is the international community? Why won't they help do the dirty work and support the long term goals of peace in a much more unified expedient manner. I suspect it would send a resounding message to to world at large the UN is doing its job.


DC

you talk about passing judgement on the US ???
yet you feel educated enough about the international community to pass judgement upon it ???


though many nations didn t agree with the going to war with iraq , many nations have soldiers in iraq fighting ,
it s this type of arrogance and ignorance from some people toward the rest of the world that pisses off the international community more so than anything ,

as far as the dirty work goes in iraq ,(Bushes oil ) that was the choice of the US government , well against the wishes of the international community , tell me WHO should carry on with the dirty work ? yet many international soldiers are fighting in iraq
give Bush a gun to finish what HE and DADDY started



cnczone is a part of the world wide web ,which has brought us all together thru a common interest but when we speak about world politics here we not only represent ourselves but our nation ,and i personally won t spit on a mans shoes till i've looked him in square the eyes first

"Where is the international community?"
As you already know, they didn't and still don't agree with the illegal attack on Iraq. We can thank ourselves (the governments of the anglo countries) for ruining this country which has now passed the point of no return. Many of you may say Iraq was a dump in the first place, maybe, but it certainly had some rich cultural heritage. Do a search just to see what used to be in their museum which is no longer.
Another favourite BU..SH.t statement of mine was "you're either with us or against us".
I really wasn't surprised when I used to regularly see graffitti here in different countries of Europe that said: Axis of Evil: Bush Blair Sharon. I don't agree with that statement, I'm only saying that I not surprised to see people's reactions.
Oh and two more things, leave God out of this because "No" we are not doing God's work in this matter (whether one believes in God or not). Secondly, no one is criticising the solders fighting there in Iraq. I feel genuinely sorry for them. This war, sorry I meant to say attack, like all others was mandated by people at the top and is being carried out by the people at the bottom. Those at the top just get to fill their coffers with more loot after yet more military contracts are awarded.
By the way, REKD any chance of some help with a programming code? No, seriously folks, I add my bit just to show that there is more than one opinion in these matters regardless of whether I am right or wrong. Regarding the US, I don't believe I'm USA bashing and it's not my intention.

You can debate whether we should have gone to Iraq or not, that’s what free speech allows. You can be committed to your side of the debate, no issue with passion. What you can’t do (even though thousands try) is to create fact from fiction. Facts that are known:

Highpoints of Islamic Terrorism against the West in the last 3 decades:

1979 Fifty two US citizens held hostage in Iran by radicals
1983 US Embassy in Beirut bombed 63 people killed including 17 US citizens
1983 Marine Barracks bombed 241 US marines killed
1983 American Embassy in Kuwait bombed 6 killed
1984 US Embassy annex bombed, 24 killed 2 US
1984-1985 Flight 221 Kuwait Airways, TWA 847, Achille Lauro
1986- Bombing of La Belle Discotheque
1988- Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103
1993 – 1st World Trade Center bombing
1996 Khobar Towers Bombing
1998 Africa US Embassy bombing
2000 US Cole Bombing
2001 WTC attacked over 3000 civilians killed

199X Clinton administration though Saddam had WMD’s.

President Clinton http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/

Madalin Albright http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/01/iraq/

Sandy Burger http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm

What Today’s critics were saying back a few years

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

US HOUSE and Senate approval of war on Iraq

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) passed by the House and Senate in October 2002

UN on IRAQ

Prior to 2002 the UN had passed 16 resolutions on Iraq to cease WMD development and comply with inspections, including 1441 all of which Saddam basically ignored.

Afghanistan and Al Qaeda

The Taliban had given safe haven to Al Qaeda to train, plot and logistics attacks based from Afganistan are well documented.


Bottom line:
Pacifism on Islamic radicals didn’t work leading up to 2001.

Afganistan
1. Al Qaeda and radical Islam recruited, trained and developed plans to attack US interests and civilians.
2. Afghanistan was a safe haven for Al Qaeda to carry out training, logistics and development of attacks on US civilians.
1 + 2 justify Afghanistan invasion to protect US civilians.
Iraq
3. Saddam was a renegade leader with a history of WMD possession and usage on his own people.
4. Saddam defied UN resolutions.
5. World leaders thought Saddam had WMD’s in the late 90’s thru 2003.
6. The US Senate and House voted to authorize war on Iraq.
7. UN Resolution 1441 declares IRAQ in material breach or previous resolutions and this was their final opportunity for compliance, Saddam didn’t.
3+4+5+6+7 equals Bush wasn’t on his own and the war is legitimate and legal and was supported by 70 percent of the US Congress.
And if that isn’t enough add these: Saddam took Oil for Food money and fraudulently used it to his own gain and not the UN’s mandate. Saddam was responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen leaving mass graves all over Iraq.

I can accept opinions, we all have them. But so much of the anti war rhetoric today is emotion and has nothing to do with facts.

I don’t like war, nobody does. I don’t like the fact that over 3000 US soldiers have died.
An argument can be made we’ve tried to make war to humane with high accuracy bombs minimizing collateral damage, maybe we should have used B52’s and kept our military men and women safer.

The simple fact is the news media could care less about truth and fact, and too many people don’t spend the time to find the truth, they just believe their bias.

I didn't mention Islamic terrorism, I was talking about Iraq which has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism even though Bush has unseccessfully done his best to link the two.
"the war is legitimate and legal and was supported by 70 percent of the US Congress" Yes I forgot to add illegal in the eyes of the rest of the world of which the US is just a part. In the eyes of the US, the Iraq invasion was/is legal the same as Guantanimo is legal.

1979 Fifty two US citizens held hostage in Iran by radicals
1983 US Embassy in Beirut bombed 63 people killed including 17 US citizens
1983 Marine Barracks bombed 241 US marines killed
1983 American Embassy in Kuwait bombed 6 killed
1984 US Embassy annex bombed, 24 killed 2 US
1984-1985 Flight 221 Kuwait Airways, TWA 847, Achille Lauro
1986- Bombing of La Belle Discotheque
1988- Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103
1993 – 1st World Trade Center bombing
1996 Khobar Towers Bombing
1998 Africa US Embassy bombing
2000 US Cole Bombing
2001 WTC attacked over 3000 civilians killed

[The Taliban had given safe haven to Al Qaeda to train, plot and logistics attacks based from Afganistan are well documented.


.

i can agree with taking down Afganistan ,they did indeed harbour terrorists and those mountains should have been leveled
iraq on the other hand had no weapons , suddam posed no immediate threat to the rest of the world only his world (iraq)
i will not buy the idea of anyone being there for humanitarian reasons either ,
there are other countries with just as ruthless rulers as him that noone talks or cares about ,who has the right to police what is happening in other countries ? if we are to help one shouldn t we morally help them all or do we help the ones who have something that we need or desire


i will always beleave that we should show no mercy to any terrorist , they know no reason nor will they ever , they in theyre own twisted minds are at holy war

these are the people that we are all at war with

.....i can agree with taking down Afganistan ,they did indeed harbour terrorists and those mountains should have been leveled.....

Levelling mountians is a bit extreme, and impractical given the size of the mountains. However, there was really no alternative to invading Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban and their support for Al Qaeda.

But a bit of notice should have been taken of history; look at Martin's post further up. Any thought of introducing democracy to Afghanistan was sheer idiocy. The only way to keep things under control there is to allow one of the tribal chiefs to gain the upper hand with the clear understanding; "you allow your people to threaten any other country and we will come in and bop you and set up someone else".

Invading Iraq was bordering on lunacy; there was simply nothing to gain from it. Iraq did not pose a threat to the rest of the world. If/when it did pose a realistic threat then a brief invasion to set up a regime with the same conditions as Afghanistan might have been sensible. Like Afghanistan any thought of introducing democracy was idiocy.

The situation as it exists now is that Afghanistan is slowly sliding away from Western control but any threat to do a repeat invasion is hollow. Iraq is teetering on civil war and is simply going to be a sinkhole in which US and British lives continue to be lost. Or alternatively, all US and British troops pullout leaving the country to settle its internal situation on its own. And install a regime that is going to yu unfriendly, to say the least, to the West no matter what side it is on internally.

For what?

Phil,

Well put! About the legality .... Here is what the U.S. constitution says:

"The Congress shall have power .....

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "

It looks to me as if the legislative branch has abdicated its responsibility over these matters to the executive branch.

And it looks as if the whole government has decided to ignore the rest of it, too.

Inconvenient Wallpaper.

The troubles that the document was intended to forestall are upon us now.

--97T--

I was talking about Iraq which has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism even though Bush has unseccessfully done his best to link the two.


The reasons for war against Iraq was well stated. Premptive before Saddam became a nuclear power. Nuclear ability in Saddam's hands was unnacceptable. Look at the end of the 2003 state of the union speech: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

And to that end it's been a success.

"the war is legitimate and legal and was supported by 70 percent of the US Congress" Yes I forgot to add illegal in the eyes of the rest of the world of which the US is just a part.

Again read the context of the UN resolutions on Iraq. Saddam was illegal in the eyes of the UN.

I didn't mention Islamic terrorism, I was talking about Iraq which has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism even though Bush has unseccessfully done his best to link the two.

Um....... WHAT?!?!

You need to go back and do some research on your own instead of relying on the MSM talking points.

Iraq provided bases to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). Following the invasion in 2k3, U.S. sanctions applicable to state sponsors of terrorism against Iraq were suspended and President Bush announced the removal of Iraq from the list on 25 September 2004.

Get your facts straight. Perhaps you confused Iraq's involvement with 9/11 with Iraq's involvement with terrorists.

Saddam's payments of $25k (US equivalent) to the families of suicide bombers was humanitarian aid, and not a subsidy or reward that could have been considered supporting terrorism.

".....Saddam Hussein represents a grave threat to the United States, and I have concluded we must use force to deal with him if all other means fail. That is the core issue, and whether we vote on it now, or in January, or in six months time, that is the issue we all have to confront.....
...... I say to the United Nations and our allies that America is united in our resolve to deal with Saddam Hussein, and that the U.N. must act to eliminate his weapons of mass destruction. ...... I say to Saddam Hussein, "Disarm, or the United States will be forced to act......"

It looks to me as if the legislative branch has abdicated its responsibility over these matters to the executive branch.



In regards to the military action in Iraq, Congress ok'd it. Sorry to disappoint.

The reasons for war against Iraq was well stated. Premptive before Saddam became a nuclear power. Nuclear ability in Saddam's hands was unnacceptable. Look at the end of the 2003 state of the union speech: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

And to that end it's been a success.
.....

Well I guess considering he did not have any weapons of mass destruction and was nowhere near becoming a nuclear power it is possible to claim this level of success.

Seems like a lot of lives have been lost to do something that was not needed in the first place.

And don't trot out all the guff about terrorists acts before 9/11. This one was the catalyst for both Afghanistan and Iraq.

The reasons for war against Iraq was well stated. Premptive before Saddam became a nuclear power. Nuclear ability in Saddam's hands was unnacceptable. Look at the end of the 2003 state of the union speech: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

And to that end it's been a success.


"Preemptive" Based on that argument, we should arrest all of humanity.
We sould arrest them on the basis that http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/AGP.Net/Components/documentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=33522

Ok Sadam has been executed, there are no WMDs. Whats the excuse now.

You cant go and upset the majority of a countries people just because there are a few who are your enemy.

It would have been far better to send in a few snipers to take out the offending leaders than upset a whole nation.

Who was it that set up Saddam in the first place ?

Just admit it, our governments are not squeaky claen. You are not been dissloyal to your country by admitting this. On the contraray actually.

Enough is enough and its our duty to say so.

You cant go and upset the majority of a countries people just because there are a few who are your enemy.

It would have been far better to send in a few snipers to take out the offending leaders than upset a whole nation.

-quote


Okie dokie, I can think of another group or two of people who should have used this logic. Unfortunately for them and us, it doesn't seem to be that simple. :) I am pretty confident that a suggested assasination would still get the whole country up in arms (no pun intended).

This has turned into a supposed "holy war", one in which the West has taken up arms against Islam, according to the people we are trying to stop.
Kill one of them, all of them, or the leader of them, and they will still look at us the same, with complete and utter distaste.

The terrorists we are trying to stop or impede don't like the U.S., never have, never will. Being diplomatic with them doesn't make them like us any more. They hate us. The end. They cannot agree to disagree, and in fact loathe the very idea.
There are 3000 + soldiers who I am sure would have loved to see that ideal work, and it seems there is a growing number that would agree with them, sadly at it is.

How many years went by that we literally left Iraq, Bin Laden,Al Quaeda, etc. alone, and ignored them? That is pretty much the most nonviolent approach I can think of. How did that work out for the U.S. and other nations? Not well I suppose? Or have the many outcomes of our collective laziness been forgotten?

I am all for a better diplomatic approach to some of the issues here, but how can you get any more lenient than ignoring the problem completely?

Given this approach, I feel that the U.S. would still be under attack by a number of "bleeding hearts", for the way we handled the situation. I have noticed that I live in the most criticized country in the world, and no matter how much foreign aid we give, no matter how diplomatic we try to be, we are still looked down upon by a number of people as evil and arrogant s.o.b.'s

I knew I was doing something right.....:D

OK Class,

Let us try a brief experiment. There is no harm in that.

Over the week-end, ask all the people you meet a few simple questions

1) "Do you think that the invasion of Afghanistan has made you safer from a terrorist attack"


2) "Do you think that the invasion of Iraq has made you safer from a terrorist attack"

Answers on the desk on Monday morning.

Best wishes

Martin

OK Class,

Let us try a brief experiment. There is no harm in that.

Over the week-end, ask all the people you meet a few simple questions

1) "Do you think that the invasion of Afghanistan has made you safer from a terrorist attack"

2) "Do you think that the invasion of Iraq has made you safer from a terrorist attack"

Answers on the desk on Monday morning.

Martin
Ok Martin, let's try a brief experiment...no harm in that, right?

1) "Do you think that not sending troops into ANY country for ANY reason makes you safer from a terrorist attack?"

2) "In practical terms, the previous question not withstanding, what would make you safer from terrorist attacks?"

There. Easy questions, easy answers. Get 'em correct and you're qualified to be president.

-----------------------
Answers to today's homework:
1) Since we haven't experienced too many terrorist attacks on US soil since invading Afghanistan, I'd be inclined to think it could be true, if only slightly.

2)Since we haven't experienced too many terrorist attacks on US soil since invading Iraq, I'd be inclined to think it could be true, if only slightly.

For those of you in Jolly Auld England, you've got 5 surveillance cameras for every citizen on your streets, so you're already immune to terrorist attacks, huh?

....For those of you in Jolly Auld England, you've got 5 surveillance cameras for every citizen on your streets, so you're already immune to terrorist attacks, huh?

As always you exagerrate. I am sure I read somewhere it is only four.

And part of the reason for those cameras is because Jolly Olde England had a bit of trouble in the past with terrorists from Northern Ireland. Terrorists that received support in cash and equipment from sympathisers in the United States of America.

But I suppose it is the old story; one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

I want to issue a challenge to those who think its all ok to be invading others countries. Watch this video http://video.google.com/url?docid=1130731388742388243&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=oil+factor&vidurl=http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D1130731388742388243%26q%3Doil%2Bfactor&usg=AL29H23ZR8b7SuVzcv4p-dykyCYLRW5PhQ

The challenge isnt to watch the video in its entirety. The challenge is to admit you have been tricked and lied to, the same way I have been tricked and lied to. Its very hard to admit when you are wrong or have been someone else's stooge. You could keep arguing to try and save face, but I think you are bigger than that.

I'll watch it...but I bet it's about oil. Evil Big Oil. Evil Big Old Oil...or as Rachel Ray likes to say, "E B Oh Oh".

Why no hue and cry when we went into the Balkans? Has everyone forgotten about the AMBO pipeline, Corridor 8, Macedonia, Unocal, and .... OIL???? And before someone tries to tell me all about how that was a humanitarian effort....in the words of Penn & Teller....B@## S&!%

Draw some lines on the big map between where the oil is, and the customers. That's where the pipelines go, either directly, or to the ports where the ships load it up.

Geez. I mean, its not like the russians wanted to take over Afghanistan to save the religious treasures from the Whack-a-bans, or even have the poppy fields for themselves.

Yes, we're in Iraq because of oil. We'd be in Iran too if we could get away with it...so would France, fer chrissakes.

Every single one of us in this discussion uses oil. Lots of oil. Lots and lots of oil. Be ye for it, or agin it, we're in those countries to achieve a 'stability' of commerce that is to our economic advantage. Always been that way.

Wanna change that? Then STOP CONSUMING OIL. Quit *****in' about Bush, and stop supporting the evil big oil machine. Bush'll go away...and that's what y'all want, right?

If you're not going to stop using oil at levels that require us to find it outside our borders, at prices you like to pay, then maybe you should consider supporting the guys that are trying to get it to ya.

....If you're not going to stop using oil at levels that require us to find it outside our borders, at prices you like to pay, then maybe you should consider supporting the guys that are trying to get it to ya.

What percentage of US oil consumption comes from the Middle East?

Yes, we're in Iraq because of oil. We'd be in Iran too if we could get away with it...so would France, fer chrissakes.

Every single one of us in this discussion uses oil. Lots of oil. Lots and lots of oil. Be ye for it, or agin it, we're in those countries to achieve a 'stability' of commerce that is to our economic advantage. Always been that way.

Wanna change that? Then STOP CONSUMING OIL. Quit *****in' about Bush, and stop supporting the evil big oil machine. Bush'll go away...and that's what y'all want, right?

If you're not going to stop using oil at levels that require us to find it outside our borders, at prices you like to pay, then maybe you should consider supporting the guys that are trying to get it to ya.


wouldn t that be refered to as common thievery

Every single one of us in this discussion uses oil. Lots of oil. Lots and lots of oil. Be ye for it, or agin it, we're in those countries to achieve a 'stability' of commerce that is to our economic advantage. Always been that way.

Wanna change that? Then STOP CONSUMING OIL. Quit *****in' about Bush, and stop supporting the evil big oil machine. Bush'll go away...and that's what y'all want, right?


Glad you can admit that it is about oil.
I wonder if the same amount of money that has been spent on the war (100 billion including clean up ? Estimating ) was spent on building solar fields or geothermal wells, would have solved the same problem. You would be world leaders in renewable energy, and never have to rely on another country for fuel. (See we have come full circle and this thread does belong in the global warming section :) )

http://video.google.com/url?docid=11...-dykyCYLRW5PhQ (http://video.google.com/url?docid=1130731388742388243&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=oil+factor&vidurl=http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D1130731388742388243%26q%3Doil%2Bfactor&usg=AL29H23ZR8b7SuVzcv4p-dykyCYLRW5PhQ)

So I see, stating something I observe of the International community and gather in the media makes me ignorant and arrogant? Should I become emotionally distraught? Last I checked, criticism was not a one way street. Whether or not that's fair play, I leave up to the reader. If we are remotely equals in the scheme of these discussions, each point of view may state something factually true......although it may be hard to read let alone admit. Most reasonable men can still prosper from the exchange without umbrage.

Let me draw my distinction between having critical and cynical perspectives of our Governments to which our people are mutually represented.

Some of the fading support imparted by the critical media's constant harping over what is being done to the enemy verses what the enemy and its supporters are doing or having proclaimed intentions of doing around the world. The attention span and short term focus to fight barbaric attacks with tenacious care does not sit well with the 30 minute crime-drama mentality as packaged and delivered by the majority of these messengers. Making mountains out of a mole hills confuses and manipulates the plot enough to question who the real bad guy's are.

There are subtle differences between being critical of our nations decisions and cynical to the point of conspiracy by our troops against Iraq for their resources. I have yet to see anything that obligates Iraq to give us anything as far as I know. There is plenty to be critical about how it is being handled, but even many of those are hyperbolic faults while trying to doing the better of the lesser evils to be chosen in the bigger picture. The contagious cynical negativity portrayed in the media achieves nothing more than undermining the intentions in our valor as it erodes public support by capturing the attention of those predisposed to finger pointing. Moreover, ill will is multifaceted in terms of laying blame for the actions of a few on the many. Like when there is a terror attack on nations that support the war, no matter how trivially, where in the media and the public of that nation blames American involvement to be the one that brought it on them.

The big picture, I hope is to bring a gift of peace to middle east that they have never known. Although initially may have no vested cultural interest in it, due primarily to the Totalitarian Leadership they are accustom to . I speculate, only because they will not consider or embrace diversity in a mono-theocratic state, then expect that for the remainder of the world as superior to freedom and democracy.

I sincerely do not believe I am being ignorant or arrogant. Just like you, I am expressing my opinions based on what I gather as relevant to the situation. When ever I have issued complaints about a condition, to which I place myself as the complainer, whom has no positive outlook and/or obligation to help resolve that condition. The response is normally "Put up or Shut up and stay out of the way. You only complicate the issue without assisting in the solution." Obviously we are not fighting this alone, but some of the carping overshadowing the progress into disaster is intellectually disingenuous.



Let's take a look at the International commitment helping in this conflict. There is even less commitment to the global issues on terrorism. If it is a fact that most of the International community admits terrorism is an illegal act. How is it any reasonable person can call fighting its spread "illegal". The amoral ambiguity is deafening! That 13% is certainly due Honor and respect.Also lets not forget that these 147,000 total are trying to do the job of 300-400,000.


U.S. Forces in Iraq ~130,000
U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD: 3245


Non-US Coalition Forces: ~17,000
Non U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD: 255

Australia 2
Bulgaria 13
Denmark 6
El Salvador 5
Estonia 2
Hungary 1
Italy 33
Kazakhstan 1
Latvia 3
Netherlands 2
Poland 19
Romania 2
Slovakia 4
Spain 11
Thailand 2
Ukraine 18
United Kingdom 134



1 United Kingdom ~7,200 1,300 ~8,500
2 South Korea ~2,300 ~2,300 ~1,100 (?)
3 Australia ~850 ~541 ~1,400
4 Poland 900
5 Romania 865
6 Denmark 460 ~35 (NATO and UNAMI) ~500
7 El Salvador 380
8 Georgia 300 550 (UNAMI) 850 ~2,400 (?)
9 Azerbaijan 150
10 Bulgaria ~150
11 Latvia 136
12 Albania 120
13 Czech Republic 100
14 Mongolia 100
15 Lithuania ~50
16 Armenia 46
17 Bosnia & Herzegovina 37
18 Estonia 34
19 Macedonia 33
20 Kazakhstan 29
21 Moldova* 12
UNAMI Fiji ** 150
Hungary *** 0 Withdrew troops: Mar. 2005
Nicaragua 0 Withdrew troops: Feb. 2004
Spain 0 Withdrew troops: Late-Apr. 2004
Dominican Republic 0 Withdrew troops: Early-May. 2004
Honduras 0 Withdrew troops: Late-May. 2004
Philippines 0 Withdrew troops: mid-Jul. 2004
Thailand 0 Withdrew troops: Late-Aug. 2004
New Zealand 0 Withdrew troops: Late-Sep. 2004
Tonga 0 Withdrew troops: mid-Dec. 2004
Portugal 0 Withdrew troops: mid-Feb. 2005
Singapore**** 0 Withdrew troops: Mar. 2005
Norway 0 Withdrew troops: Oct. 2005
Ukraine 0 Withdrew troops: Dec. 2005
The Netherlands 0 Withdrew troops: Mar. 2005
Japan 0 Withdrew troops: Jul. 2006
Italy 0 Withdrawal troops: End of Nov. 2006
Slovakia 0 Withdrew troops: End of January 2007

An argument can be made we’ve tried to make war to humane with high accuracy bombs minimizing collateral damage, maybe we should have used B52’s and kept our military men and women safer.

Phil,

Whether you thust a knife into ones belly, or push a button a couple of hundred miles away, the result is basically the same, someone dies. In fact more innocent victims dies with the high accuracy bombs

A case in point. When the chase for Sadaam was one, coallition intelligence, and I use the term loosely, believed Sadaam was meeting at a restaurant he frequented. So what did they do? They dropped a "high accuracy" bunker bomb on the restaurant. Rased a city block as I recollect. Killing scores of innocent people. Oh, by the way no Sadaam.

Who in there right mind would order such a thing? Would this person have ordered the same strike if Sadaam popped up in a local New York Restaurant? I don't think so. So does that mean that the Iraqi civilian's life is less valuable that that of a New Yorker? Or just that there are more lawyers in New York?

And then there was the Smart Bomb on a truck load of terrorists in Pakistan. Oh, thats right, they weren't terrorists at all, it was a wedding party. But anyone could make that mistake.

Smart bombs kill more innocent vistoms than their intended targets. BTW they are not as accuract as the media portray. You only get to see the nose camera video of the ones that work.

On of the most disgusting images on the Iraq invasion was that of some 700+ cruise missles being launched of the coallition ships at the start of the invasion. The Military and Media were reacting like it was a New Years eve fireworks show.

Did any one realise that each and every one of the missiles has to land somewhere?

The problem with Smart bombs is that they are only as smart as the thick-head pushing the button.

Don't be fooled by the 'Smart bomb' spin of the military, there is nothing humane about them. That also goes for 'surgical strike' and the other buzz words.

By the way, collateral damage is a term for how many people you kill. Made up by arms salesmen to help them sleep at night.

Cheers,

Peter.

. Like when there is a terror attack on nations that support the war, no matter how trivially, where in the media and the public of that nation blames American involvement to be the one that brought it on them.


Let's take a look at the International commitment helping in this conflict. There is even less commitment to the global issues on terrorism. If it is a fact that most of the International community admits terrorism is an illegal act.

ignorane and arrogance was not intended as a direct shot at you personally

noone is blaming the US for terror attacks being brought onto other nations ,
it needs to be understood that the rest of the world is concerned about attacks as well as you are , the coporation my wife works at has a white powder scare almost weekly , this crap hits home for many people not only the US ,


what i don t understand is how one country can stand up and say we are going to war and either your with us or against us ,then expect everyone to follow , especially when that country turned it s back to the UN
you are either part of the UN or you are not
you want to go to war , go for it , thats your choice

the iraq war was started because it was quote "they HAVE weapons of mass destruction" which they didn t ,
now the iraq soldiers who are fighting in their own home land against invaderers are refered to as terrorists ,
look at the kids who grew up in an honest hard working family who have watched their parents die and lost what comfort they did have , how do you think they are going to look at the rest of the world as they grow up , they will be a true product of their environment
will revenge become part of a 1000 years of fighting ,some of those countries have been fighting each other so long i'm sure they have forgotten what started it , these things can carry for a long time

it is quite clear that many there don t agree with the way we live but at the same time it is quite clear many here feel the same toward them ,and it is due to ignorance and miss understanding on both sides , we know what we know and its easy to make assumptions of what the other guy is doing based on hearsay ,
i used to know some young guys who had escaped iraq , because of their religion they were nearly gutted
they were very smart very pleasant and very interesting gentlemen who loved and appreciated the freedom of north america just as many of those people have or had the impression north america was a utopia where people held there hands out to help others who were perfect stangers
we can t destroy that image for the decent people who live under those circomstances because for them the world really does become an evil place with no utopia
for them what would there be to live for but to do for the good of man and destroy the evil ones

House 1:
The four-bedroom home was planned so that "every room has a relationship with something in the landscape that's different from the room next door. Each of the rooms feels like a slightly different place." The resulting single-story house is a paragon of environmental planning.

The passive-solar house is built of honey-colored native limestone and positioned to absorb winter sunlight, warming the interior walkways and walls of the 4,000-square-foot residence. Geothermal heat pumps circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground.

These waters pass through a heat exchange system that keeps the home warm in winter and cool in summer. A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof urns; wastewater from sinks, toilets, and showers cascades into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern.

The water from the cistern is then used to irrigate the landscaping around the four-bedroom home, (which) uses indigenous grasses, shrubs, and flowers to complete the exterior
treatment of the home.

In addition to its minimal environmental impact, the look and layout of the house reflect one of the paramount priorities: relaxation. A spacious 10-foot porch wraps completely around the residence and beckons the family outdoors.

With few hallways to speak of, family and guests make their way from room to room either directly or by way of the porch. "The house doesn't hold you in. Where the porch ends there is grass. There is no step-up at all." This house consumes 25% of the energy of an average American home.

(Source: Cowboys and Indians Magazine, Oct. 2002 and Chicago Tribune April 2001.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------
House 2:
This 20-room, 8-bathroom house consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year. The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, this house devoured nearly 221,000 kWh, more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, the house burned through 22,619 kWh, guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of this energy consumption, the average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. Also, natural gas bills for this house and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. In total, this house had nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for 2006.

(Source: just about anywhere in the news last month online and on talk radio, but barely on TV.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
House 1 belongs to George and Laura Bush,
and is in Crawford, Texas.

House 2 belongs to Al and Tipper Gore,
and is in Nashville, Tennessee.



Practice what you preach

Crude oil imports into the US as of Jan '07 (1000barrels/day)
Canada 1851
Saudi Arabia 1563
Mexico 1435
Nigeria 1106
Venezuela 955
Those 5 countries account for 72% of US imports. We're currently importing 514 from Iraq.

As of 2005, the US imports about 60% of it's oil...and we consume some 320,500,000 gal of gas per day.

(for the record...my vacation to Thailand with friend totaled over 16,856mi, divided by 52mpg, = over 324gal of fuel....minimum. That's just me alone! I'm wasting it, but Algore is saving the planet...)

-----------------------------------------
On the linkage of Iraq to terrorists....from the DOJ, Nov 4, 1998 (that's Bill Clinton's team, btw) we have this:
"...Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the
National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and
its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically
including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

Maybe some will recall that Bill Clinton, champion of the warm and fuzzy peace for all the republicans can do no good party, bombed a Sudanese factory and religious retreats (that his administration tried to label as terrorist training camps) in Afghanistan.

...To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.

Mr. Cohen elaborated in March in testimony before the September 11
commission.

He testified that "bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program."

I gotta say, I'm confused. Why is it that there's a clear link in '98, but after Bush is elected it's bad intel? While I believe that the current administration is headed by people with a clear agenda, there is a clear continuity in the overall mission from one party to the next......

.....and that mission is to make money for the people in control.

Answers to today's homework:
1) Since we haven't experienced too many terrorist attacks on US soil since invading Afghanistan, I'd be inclined to think it could be true, if only slightly.

2)Since we haven't experienced too many terrorist attacks on US soil since invading Iraq, I'd be inclined to think it could be true, if only slightly.

For those of you in Jolly Auld England, you've got 5 surveillance cameras for every citizen on your streets, so you're already immune to terrorist attacks, huh?

Dear fizzissist,

The Government of the UK attempted to convince a highly sceptical population that our country was in danger from Iraqi WMD and that UK forces should form part of the coalition forces for the Iraq invasion. As it turned out subsequently, the "evidence" of WMD that the government produced was extremely thin, if not bogus. Anyway, UK forces were deployed.

A while later four UK citizens who had been to some radical establishment in Pakistan killed about 50 people with suicide bombs on the London Underground. Before doing so, two of them made videos stating that they were "fighting" because of the UK's position on Afghanistan and Iraq. An opinion poll later indicated that a worrying number of Muslims in the UK had at least some sympathy for the bombers' views.

Since then, this UK government (which has always had a tendency for control-freakery) has attempted, with some success, to introduce quite repressive legislation curtailing our civil liberties and increasing State snooping.

Naturally, the public is told that these measures are needed for the "War on terror". What a mess.

I think that the latest figures for spy-cams is one for each 12 citizens in the UK. Yes, the cameras tracked the bombers, and no, they didn't make a blind bit of difference.

Best wishes

Martin

...Since then, this UK government (which has always had a tendency for control-freakery) has attempted, with some success, to introduce quite repressive legislation curtailing our civil liberties and increasing State snooping...

I think there are a lot of initials or names that can substitute for UK.

Phil,
In fact more innocent victims dies with the high accuracy bombs

A case in point. When the chase for Sadaam was one, coallition intelligence, and I use the term loosely, believed Sadaam was meeting at a restaurant he frequented. So what did they do? They dropped a "high accuracy" bunker bomb on the restaurant. Rased a city block as I recollect. Killing scores of innocent people.

And compared to, say, only 5 B-52's dropping tons of dumb bombs over a minimum of a square mile in the same area to try to achieve the same effect with the same intel would have killed LESS people?

Wow. Just, wow.

Must be the new math.

Yeah, I guess you're right, sending a bomb into a window of a building is much worse than blowing up the entire block.

And compared to, say, only 5 B-52's dropping tons of dumb bombs over a minimum of a square mile in the same area to try to achieve the same effect with the same intel would have killed LESS people?

Wow. Just, wow.

Must be the new math.

Yeah, I guess you're right, sending a bomb into a window of a building is much worse than blowing up the entire block.

But doing either without being successful in attaining the intended goal indicates a certain lack of competence.

I would be more impressed by less posturing and rhetoric and more success in defining and reaching goals; without complaining that 'our allies don't back us up'.

And compared to, say, only 5 B-52's dropping tons of dumb bombs over a minimum of a square mile in the same area to try to achieve the same effect with the same intel would have killed LESS people?

Wow. Just, wow.

Must be the new math.

Yeah, I guess you're right, sending a bomb into a window of a building is much worse than blowing up the entire block.

You completely missed my point. I never compared "Smart bombs" to B-52 's so I don't know what maths you are acrediting to me.

My point was if someone ese used "smart bombs" to level restuarants or wedding parties in the west, it world be unacceptable.

Cheers,

Peter.

My point was if someone ese used "smart bombs" to level restuarants or wedding parties in the west, it world be unacceptable.


Smart bombs...like an intelligent system that deploys a bomb into a restaurant or bus or train station and blows itself up....like a suicide bomber???

ignorane and arrogance was not intended as a direct shot at you personally

it s this type of arrogance and ignorance from some people toward the rest of the world that pisses off the international community more so than anything , ,

At face value, I take that as you perceived "my point of view" as representative of all Americans showing ignorance and arrogance, who question the International Community. After all, it was in direct response to my criticisms of the international community, for such a minimalistic show of commitment.

Food for thought. The UN agreed that Sadaam and/or Terrorism was becoming a Global problem that drew attention, but no urgency? Global Warming as a global commitment gets a lot more cooperation. Though not proven human caused, nor proven human cured. And it's not even an immediate existing threat.

The issues I have with the UN is that it is propped up by the US and refuses to act against countries that support terrorism. Which in turn, those unwilling to act may as well be accused of propping up terrorism. Kind of like the US getting blamed for propping up pollution by not signing the Kyoto Accord? If the UN is not going to do any uniting, then why continue to fund it or give it any more legitimacy than it gives us.

no one is blaming the US for terror attacks being brought onto other nations ,
it needs to be understood that the rest of the world is concerned about attacks as well as you are , the coporation my wife works at has a white powder scare almost weekly , this crap hits home for many people not only the US ,

Take a look around the media and see all the blame that gets placed on the US. It doesn't even need to be terror related. There is a conspiracy for almost every terror situation that gets tied to my country or indirectly through our allies.


what i don t understand is how one country can stand up and say we are going to war and either your with us or against us ,then expect everyone to follow , especially when that country turned it s back to the UN
you are either part of the UN or you are not
you want to go to war , go for it , thats your choice

The quote was "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." In other words, if other nations do not help fight it, they by default let it thrive by turning a blind eye as it's someone else's problem. Same as "Together we stand, Divided we fall."

the iraq war was started because it was quote "they HAVE weapons of mass destruction" which they didn t ,
now the iraq soldiers who are fighting in their own home land against invaderers are refered to as terrorists.

SNIP

There were a plethora of reasons to take action against Sadaam. Too many people grab onto hind sight realities as if we should have trusted Sadaam(a terrorsit in his own right) was 100% honest about WMD's. I do not call it a war on Iraq, only its leadership. Many of the combatants are not Iraqi and have come into the country to KILL Americans. When that isn't convenient they KILL Iraqi's. People that commit mass murder to perpetuate countries into oppressive tyrannies fit into the terrorist classification by default.

DC

I wouldn't want any one to miss out on an opportunity of viewing this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1130731388742388243&q=oil+factor

Smart bombs...like an intelligent system that deploys a bomb into a restaurant or bus or train station and blows itself up....like a suicide bomber???


Exactly...

....There were a plethora of reasons to take action against Sadaam. Too many people grab onto hind sight realities as if we should have trusted Sadaam(a terrorsit in his own right) was 100% honest about WMD's. I do not call it a war on Iraq, only its leadership. Many of the combatants are not Iraqi and have come into the country to KILL Americans. When that isn't convenient they KILL Iraqi's. People that commit mass murder to perpetuate countries into oppressive tyrannies fit into the terrorist classification by default....DC

Okay if you take your plethora at face value invading Iraq was justified. However, the net result of invading Iraq has been to create a situation where non-Iraqi's have entered Iraq to fight the American troops and incidentally or non-incidentally murder innocent Iraqis. Yes they are terrorists, not by default but by action.

So what are you going to do about it? Send in hundreds of thousands more US troops? You don't have them.

What do you propose?

It is unlikely the US will leave Iraq within our lifetimes. To do so would be an admission of wrongful invasion and/or defeat. I think US troops will stay until Iraq achieves some stability on her own. Even after stability, I think the US will maintain an installation as in Japan, Germany, South Korea, Bosnia, and elsewhere around the world. Personally, I think that is the true hidden agenda of the US government and Bush is just the guy at the helm right now.

My perception prior to the invasion was the international community wholeheartedly agreed that Saddam was getting ready to do more mischief and was ferverently working on ways to do it. His track record was poor. What Bush did was call the UN's hand: Do something about him or shut up and accept the consequences, just don't blame the US for not doing something. The world was cringing at the potential backlash but George W. was certain we could handle it if we all pull together as a team (oh by the way, which one's Pink? :) )

Unfortunately, Bush (or his planners) committed the same mistake the US made in Vietnam. They believed the mere presence of The Mighty US Armed Forces would make enemies cower and buckle and give up their violent ways. Surprise, this is not the case.

So how do we resolve this? Personally, I think we have to wait for the old men to die spend the next few decades converting the children to more Western ideas. The children want Levis, Coca Cola, and MTV. If they get that stuff, they won't want to die for a religion. Of course, much of their culture will be bleached out in the process and we will have another country of blathering mindless consumers...

Ya know, I've been reading this for so long and had managed to not get drawn in. Damn.

At face value, I take that as you perceived "my point of view" as representative of all Americans showing ignorance and arrogance, who question the International Community. After all, it was in direct response to my criticisms of the international community, for such a minimalistic show of commitment.


Take a look around the media and see all the blame that gets placed on the US. It doesn't even need to be terror related. There is a conspiracy for almost every terror situation that gets tied to my country or indirectly through our allies.




The quote was "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." In other words, if other nations do not help fight it, they by default let it thrive by turning a blind eye as it's someone else's problem. Same as "Together we stand, Divided we fall."



.

DC
yes that was directed at your comment ,
i don t feel the need to ruffle anyones feathers , i take a man on face value not necessarily on a few chosen words thats all
there are a good number of Canadians in Afganistan fighting the taliban (who are terrorists) and trying to help the people to rebuild their country ,
sure our numbers do not weigh similar to that of the US but neither does our population to support those number , we ask for no appreciation ,and we sure do not get any offered .
the war against terrorism is a world battle that everyone is preparing for and taking security measures against ,we all see the problem on the rise

i'm going to step out on a limb and say :
much of the world does see the US as being an arrogant country ,ever though many if not most of the people are not , most i beleave are are decent honest and hard working ,for the most part i would blame it on the politicians ,

i said we represent our country when we are talking world politics on the information highway because we are talking amongst each other ,we are not politicians we are grunts working our way thru life ,maybe on different ground but were all trying the best way we know how
this is when words can have an impression on others

as far as media goes ,that is a two way street
it wasn t that long ago Canada had faced a mass media bashing from the US because we didn t agree with US politics
being refered to as the retarded cousins from the north was nothing but arrogant , ignorant and down right insulting , not to meantion weve taken a good number of heavy hits from the US government over the past few years in which we will never see restitution , outright ripped off !!
wasn t that long ago that WE were refered to as harbouring terrorists ,if that kept going what would have been next , drop a bomb on my house ?

Bush is a freak that the world will be happy to see gone out of power ,he himself is dangerous to the rest of the world and to your own home land and to the many good people of your nation

In part, exactly my point!

It is in the WORLD'S best interest to take a more active role in this global sized conflict. Our mission is not to kill people and loot the countries resources. People can debate that if they must, but lunatics hear voices too. There are far to many honorable people in this conflict to lay conspiracy over sincerity of 147,000 lives on the line for oil. Peace and prosperity are priceless and it is the gift that keeps on giving.

The media paints the face on this war, in whatever angle shows the most wrinkles. Whatever expression gets the worst reaction. The contrived impressions on the viewer help formulate public opinion. It takes root and feeds off more bad news in a perpetual state of cynical bias. Had that be more pervasive in past wars, the world would be a lot worse shape as far as freedom.

No one likes terrorism, but even less like seeing war used against it to bring peace. Staying united in that goal shows the greater good intentions than the side that is willing to mass murder indiscriminately. It takes a lot less warm enemy bodies and firepower when they have no rules. If the international community could step up and show how it should be done, we might get these people to stop killing sooner.

DC

problem is how many counties do we need to walk thru

.....Ya know, I've been reading this for so long and had managed to not get drawn in. Damn.

Why the damn? I think you inject a note of sanity. Possibly both too optimistic and too pessimistic; if that is not impossibly contradictory. Where is the US going to find the troops to stay there through our lifetimes; re-introduce the draft? How do we change the culture there? Think about it; the US is a bit over 300 years old as a nation. OBL goes on about the 'injustice' of Islam being booted out of Spain around 300 years ago. When they had no right being there in the first place having invaded it some 800 years earlier!!!!!

The whole culture there is antithetical to democracy and Western societal values; in this Iraq and Afghanistan are similar. I think this is the most fundamental mistake that has been made by the US, the current UK government and the Canadian govt. In our countries loyalty to country is generally as important or more important than competing loyalties such as to family or religion. This was well exemplified in the US Civil War when family members where on different sides of the conflict; each having a different view of country.

In a great many countries, Iraq and Afghanistan among them, the primary loyalty is to family or religion or a blend of the two. There is essentially no national loyalty in the sense of doing what is best for the nation as a whole rather than using the nation to further improve the status of the family (or tribe). When they get an opportunity to take part in 'democratic' elections they merely vote to further the interests of their family, tribe or religious group. Which is what happened in both countries. They have absolutely no interest in compromising and getting along amicably.

Had the US government, and all the bleeding hearts now criticising the government, recognised this at the get go they would have realised what was needed in both cases. Go in, bonk a few heads, figuratively speaking, install a puppet regime as has been done in the past, then get out leaving the clear understanding that if the puppet got out of line his head would be the next to get bonked.

Do I think this is fair, democratic, equitable. That is irrelevant, it probably would have worked. It would have been more humane to never have created the situations in these two countries in the first place; both were very largely a result of short term expedient cold war policies. Both were ignored until the situation became intolerable. Both are quagmires that will claim many more US and other lives.

The damn is because I think politics has become a stalemate with little effective change and I should know better than to allow myself to think that things will change. More to the point, I think most things governmental will become increasingly beauracracized and quagmired. Wouldn't it be great if government agencies had to be run more like a business with efficiency and customer satisfaction as the standards?

I don't think it will take too many troops to maintain a presence. Especially for the nature of conflict in the region. Compared to the installations in Germany (to defend from the Russians) and in South Korea (to keep out the NKs), I think the numbers would be comparatively small after some period of stabilty. When that will come, I have no idea. I do believe the US occupation is creating as many angry youths as it destroys. I suppose that is some form of perverse job security for the military.

"When they get an opportunity to take part in 'democratic' elections they merely vote to further the interests of their family, tribe or religious group. Which is what happened in both countries. They have absolutely no interest in compromising and getting along amicably."
Can you clarify how this is different from anywhere else? By that I mean, most religious peoples on the planet Earth will vote as their leaders tell them. So why are Westerners less apt to blow up their own children in protest of not getting their way?

Also, the idea for a puppet government might have been avoided after what happened to the Shah in Iran. He was ousted by the religious kooks in part because he had such strong Western views. Perhaps the administration felt it was not viable unless the Iraqis chose their own leader.

Did anyone see this video ?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1130731388742388243&q=oil+factor

Did anyone see this video ?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1130731388742388243&q=oil+factor

The first time you posted that up it gave me an error message :confused: Now it works?
Wierd

EDIT: Benny, next time you would like to prove a point, please just send a link to the cliff notes or the "for dummies" book. That video is 1 1/2 hours long! I would normally concede an argument before boring myself for that long!

Could be the hour and a half that changes your life :)

Hmm 911 "and" global warming in one thread.....The day that changed the world eh...2 things changed for me no more IRA bombings as we'd maybe have got the OK on "shoot to kill" and suicide bombers less than 2 miles from my home... I don't blame it on America or Americans in fact I believe they have as little say on these things as I do! Now I'm off to watch Benny's 90 minute film :D As a P:S 4 of those cameras are on my house and I love em :lol: Greetings from the CCTV capital of the world pmsl

Hmm 911 "and" global warming in one thread..... As a P:S 4 of those cameras are on my house and I love em :lol: Greetings from the CCTV capital of the world pmsl

Funny, ain't it, how 9/11 and global warming really are kinda related?

You love those cameras 'on' your house? I can't wait till the UK finally removes the last vestiges of freedom and privacy and puts 'em IN your house! All in the name of security, of course. Just think of how safe you'll be then!!

Benny, I tried to watch the video. Unfortunately, I can't get too far through it. It is chock full of propaganda, scare tactics, conspiracy theories, doom and gloom, misinformation, and cheesy Hollywood techniques. I will admit it probably works really well on most TV watchers.

Some highlights about why it doesn't connect with me:

- The stupid music/soundtrack is annoying. It's that same fake scary junk used to unconsciously evoke a mood of deep concern instead of letting the arguments do the work. It's distracting and I feel like I'm getting jerked around by that pulp instead of listening to something intellectual. It's that reality TV trick to create emotional drama when there isn't any.
- The implication that Iraq was complying with weapons inspectors prior to the US invasion. Iraq was not complying. Saddam was toying with them. The inspectors reported weekly about not being able to access areas they believed weapons existed.
- Showing people in slow motion to emphasize what horrible demons they are is insulting. It's a Hollywood trick and is used in combination with the silly music to make someone a bad guy.
- Trying to ally people's fears of an uncontrolled population boom with oil consumption and the war in Iraq.The claim that oil is responsible for the population growth is rediculous. Apparently, medical advances are irrelevant. It's just oil based transportation. If it were all nuclear powered, we could accomplish the same thing and then the worrywarts would cry about nuclear waste. Pardon me, that should be nucular. :)
- The claim that the US will run out of oil by 2010. Preposterous. A whopper of a lie. Such a doom and gloom scare tactic, that's where I couldn't make it any farther.

I'm sorry, all that video did was discredit it's makers. If you have a point to make, you should be able to do so without the music, without the slow motion, without the celebrity Voice You Trust, without showing the dead bodies of children in a war, without trying to use other emotional issues as tie-ins (like population growth and CIA involvement in Central America).

EDIT

I meant add that arguing the President lied and misled is one thing. Using lies and scare tactics as the argument techniques merely demonstrates that people behave like people regardless of what side they are on. If one side wishes to demonstrate moral superiority, it should not use the same approach as the implied inferior side.

END EDIT

.....we could handle it if we all pull together as a team (oh by the way, which one's Pink? :) )



Dear Caprirs,

That is the fifth reference to PF on this thread. We are, indeed, all doomed.

Best wishes,

Martin

Funny, ain't it, how 9/11 and global warming really are kinda related?

You love those cameras 'on' your house? I can't wait till the UK finally removes the last vestiges of freedom and privacy and puts 'em IN your house! All in the name of security, of course. Just think of how safe you'll be then!! Heres what you missed out The day that changed the world eh...2 things changed for me no more IRA bombings as we'd maybe have got the OK on "shoot to kill" and suicide bombers less than 2 miles from my home... I don't blame it on America or Americans in fact I believe they have as little say on these things as I do! Now I'm off to watch Benny's 90 minute film Why cant you wait?

....You love those cameras 'on' your house? I can't wait till the UK finally removes the last vestiges of freedom and privacy and puts 'em IN your house! All in the name of security, of course. Just think of how safe you'll be then!!

I have driven around large and small cities and towns in residential, industrial and commercial areas in both the US and the UK. I feel more secure and more private with the surveillance cams than I do with the signs along the streets that proclaim "All suspicious activity will be reported to the local police".

Still I guess to each their own.

What did we expect?

The Husband and Wife team that made it are activist film makers. This is not the first conspiracy/propaganda/mock-umentary film they have done. They all have the Michael Moore-esch tone without the Hollywood backing for higher quality film. Their web site takes credit for these films being self funded. I think that has a lot more to do with the credibility of the information and how it is pieced together into a story, so no one can take issue with what they put in it, right or wrong. Common these day to hamstring pictures of actual events that don't have anything to do with the narration being delivered, but builds their case out of conjecture, packaged for easily influence minds that search out dirt to fit the injustices they have been hand fed elsewhere.

These people know what they say and think cannot be legally disputed without proof to the contrary, so therefore they would prefer you just take their word for it. I see a documentary as something that is documented and easily referenced by doing similar research. I gather that makes this a greater opinion based piece of fiction or theory than well documented. There are plenty of people in Washington that would love to hang this administration if there were anything of greater substance to this.

DC

I have driven around large and small cities and towns in residential, industrial and commercial areas in both the US and the UK. I feel more secure and more private with the surveillance cams than I do with the signs along the streets that proclaim "All suspicious activity will be reported to the local police".

Still I guess to each their own.

Dear Geof,

I cannot agree on that one!

I would much rather be "reported to the authorities", by a curtain-twitching local than a remote State stooge spy-cam operator who is rewarded by the number of hits he gets each day.

Best wishes

Martin

I heard that spray paint can deplete the ozone,
so I took all my spray cans and emptied them out into a garbage bag, and then tossed it to the curb, Then I realized, that's not good for the environment.. it would just sit in a land fill, so I took it into my back yard and set it on fire,boy was that a mistake, cause it went off like a bomb! panicing to put it out I, I found the closest stream to toss it into! that flaming gooey mess quickley drifted away downstream. So Now I feel I have done my part to help global warming....Which is what this thread is about right?

I love it here in the USA and I love my country, I think anyone who says anything against our country is a traitor. I don't believe in biting the hand that feeds me, I have been fed and raised in this country. I think the terrorists should be locked up in prison forever, never let out to see the light of day again, end of story. I am a machinist and I deal with the facts, I am not political, I feel a man needs to work for a living and spend time with his family, I do both of those things. I see a lot of people, especially arabs and other foreigners that want everything given to them, and they spend a lot of time stirring up things around the world and causing trouble. I cannot figure out why they don't just mind their own business and work and raise their families and stop blaming the UNITED STATES for their own stupidity and personal problems. I will tell you right now, that the UNITED STATES will put you between a rock and a hard place if you don't stop messing with us. I am a white american, my family came from Ireland, but I claim no citizenship there, just american citizenship, and thats it. I hate what is happening to our country, people putting some other name in front of america when they tell someone who they are, that is a wimpy way of living, I think the country is filled with a lot of wimps nowadays, someone needs to stand up with me and tell everyone here in the states the truth instead of lying all the time. America Love it Or Leave It !!!!!!!

Have a nice day

I I think the terrorists should be locked up in prison forever, never let out to see the light of day again, end of story.

Barney,

Presumably you would would want to prove they are terrorists first? Nobody has said that terrorists shouldn't be punished. Lets just make sure they are guilty first.

Peter.

- The implication that Iraq was complying with weapons inspectors prior to the US invasion.
- Trying to ally people's fears of an uncontrolled population boom with oil consumption and the war in Iraq.
- The claim that the US will run out of oil by 2010.


Just in case you missed it the first time. :D

..Presumably you would would want to prove they are terrorists first? Nobody has said that terrorists shouldn't be punished. Lets just make sure they are guilty first.


So, with that premise, Bill Clinton illegally, and immorally, tried to bomb Osama Bin Laden without benefit of trial?

Bill Clinton also bombed a "milk factory" in the Sudan, without those people benefitting from a trial. Oh yeah, then there's the Chinese embassy in Baghdad he bombed. All those people didn't even get to choose an attorney.

Now, if we can just get Hirraly elected, we can change the world into realizing that we're good guys, and no one else will die....on either side.

I'm sorry, but I get real tired of the naivete. I don't like any more than some of you the action of taking people who are truly innocent and subjecting them to abusive interrogation techniques. There is the problem however that many of these people simply do not think the way we do.

Does anyone believe for 2 seconds that if they had the resources they wouldn't be HERE doing exactly that, and much worse, to US?? Look what they do to their own people on both a religious AND sectarian level.

....and Rekd, sorry to burst your bubble, but we're already out of oil. Don't you remember the oil crisis of the '70s where we learned we'd be out in 30yrs?? They couldn't possibly have been wrong, could they? :)

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/03/30/569/ This is a picture of a man who demonstrates kindness even toward those who seek to destroy him.
Have you seen it anywhere?

Back to global warming. I have for you a history of the future I found while playing with my temporal inverter projector apparatus:

It is the year 2,507. What will be called The Second Dark Ages started 400 years ago. The Second Renissance is still 500 years in the future.

The world is ruled by a fundementalist religion that demands strict orthodoxy from all. There is a nearly perpetual state of war between it and a large Far Eastern Empire over who will dominate the earth's remaining 2 billion inhabitants.

The technology of Western Civilization has been lost. It will not be rediscovered for another 500 years. The Second Dark Age technology consists of crude internal combustion engines, vacuum tube radio communication and coal powers everything.

Oil extraction, nuclear, semiconductor, medical and gas turbine technology is either lost or impossible because the infrastructure for it was destroyed when Western Civilization finally fell to the Second Barbarians.

What passes for technology is coal powered. Locomotives burn coal, coal powers crude electrical plant generator steam turbines. Vacuum tubes require only metal and glass; they form the apex of Dark Age electronics. Those in the hinterlands burn wood for heat and cooking.

The air is soot-filled and smoggy in the cities. The rivers are poisoned with coal mining runoff. The countryside is denuded of remaining forests. Disease is rampant, longevity measures 40-years.

No one remembers "global warming", "protected species", "animal rights", "save the eviroment", "hate speech", "diversity" or "democracy". The last living memory of these terms or what they meant died 350 years ago. If explained today, you get a confused look or a hearty laugh. People are back to being what they are between civilizations again.

The serene earth continues as it always has for 4 billion years. It may be a little warmer or a little cooler than it was 500 years ago. Species, "protected" or not, have passed into extinction while other, new species are differentiating by adaptation. Mountains continue to build and erode to the pace of a clock so slow only they can hear. Rivers, "polluted" or not, continue to course in their familiar million year old channels. The earth's ecology is neither fragile or in need of protection. It just continues to do what it has done for 4 billion years.

The last "protectors" of the enviroment died 400 years ago. Everything they sought to protect took its own natural course. They should have paid effort to protect what truly was fragile; democracy and civilization. It will take another 500 years before people are arrogant enough again to appoint themselves protectors of the earth. That will be in 3,007.

Mariss

Mariss; we might disagree on some topics but your Second Dark Ages story is a bit difficult to argue against; gloomy though it is. On a lighter note have you considered trying to follow the footsteps of Asimov, et al?

Funny you mention that. My heros were Isaac Asimov, Arthur C Clarke and Robert Heinlein when I was a kid. I think I read everything each of them ever wrote. They unleashed my imagination at an early age and made me realize the majestic power of time, the mystery and intricacy of the universe and the smug foolhardiness of beliving you truly understand something completely.

Mariss

You are aware, that there is no future? It is being made nano second to nano second as we speak right now. If one could travel in time there could be no forward travel. I put it to you then, how could one go where nothing exists. I also say that if we, the humans on this Earth, do not do someting soon the disasters depicted in the movie " The Day After Tomorrow" will come true. If the oceans warm up and lose thier salinity we are in deep dodo! Be carefull what and who you believe. If one was to go metephysical, then Revelation is not all the far away. Heed the warnings, or the darkness cometh!

!

It is in the WORLD'S best interest to take a more active role in this global sized conflict. Our mission is not to kill people and loot the countries resources. People can debate that if they must, but lunatics hear voices too. There are far to many honorable people in this conflict to lay conspiracy over sincerity of 147,000 lives on the line for oil. Peace and prosperity are priceless and it is the gift that keeps on giving.


No one likes terrorism, but even less like seeing war used against it to bring peace. Staying united in that goal shows the greater good intentions than the side that is willing to mass murder indiscriminately. It takes a lot less warm enemy bodies and firepower when they have no rules. If the international community could step up and show how it should be done, we might get these people to stop killing sooner.

DC

Dear One of Many,

I cannot disagree with anything that you said there.

I realise that there are those that have regarded my ramblings on this thread as being less than "on-side", or worse, anti- USA. It was never my intention.

When the invasion of Afghanistan was first mooted, I was not optimistic, given the history of those who had gone before. A more powerful voice than that of history said " We owe the USA one, they saved our #ss not too long ago". A debt to be honoured. Now that's really old-fashioned.

The problem comes when continued military action in Afghanistan and Iran stirs up a vipers' nest of militant terrorism around the world, and one that might make the situation worse than it was before.

If that militant terrorism causes death and carnage in your own country, you can say "yes, maybe we are prepared to pay that price in order for other countries to be better off", or you can say " no, those other countries are not going to be better off as a result of our actions, and it isn't worth it".

Is that defeatist, or realistic? Probably both, I suspect.

Best wishes

Martin

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/03/30/569/ This is a picture of a man who demonstrates kindness even toward those who seek to destroy him.
Have you seen it anywhere?
Thanks Phil, I will remember to show that picture to the children in these picture http://www.thefourreasons.org/victimsofwar.htm
That aught to reassure them. What the hell are they complaining about ?

I dont suppose you saw the video in its entirety that I posted earlier ?
Do you know about depleated uranium missiles, and cluster bombs.
War is not the answer, diplomacy is. Its all very well to say that diplomacy didnt work in the past. I suggest the guys who were doing the diplomacy were the wrong people for the job.

SPEEDRE,

Perhaps you are unaware of my temporal inverter project. The physics is a little muddy but it relies on the deep symmetry embedded in the universe. For every electron there is a proton, its symmetrical opposite. The sum of the charges cancel to zero. You as a biological being are symmetrical, the mirror image of you about the symmetrical axis cancels to zero were it subtracted from the non-reflected half. Energy is the symmetrical opposite of mass as Einstein proved. Mass subtracted from energy cancels to zero. The list is endless.

Time is not impervious to the laws of symmetry. A past second has a reflected future second that cancels to zero when summed. We call that sum "the present".

The temporal inverter adds a positive signed offset to the reflection point (the temporal axis of symmetry). If that offset value is 1 day then the reflection returned is 1 day in the future.

I have proof. I am writing this at 5PM on April 1, 2007. I know when I get up tomorrow, April 2, 2007 and read this forum at 4:59 PM, I will see my message appear precisely 1 minute later.

Mariss

Martin,

I'd say you weren't trying hard enough, but it looks like you found something to disagree with.

My guess would be, everyone is anti-something or other. I am anti-pessimistic, because I see the greater harm is terrorism than what we are trying to accomplish there, that could ultimately reduce its appeal around the world. We can choose freely where to draw the line between right and wrong. In my estimation, this conflict chose us. Mistakes will be made, but the bottom line is the moderate Iraqi's and Afghani's have the best chance at freedom without vile rulers that harbor, cultivate and utilize terrorism as a political repercussion. Reprisals around the world only prove the point that blame does not get placed on those doing the reprisal, but the US fighting the same ruthless mentality elsewhere. I am not fooled a minute that these thugs would stop and chat with you to reach a diplomatic agreement with both parties still standing. They do not abide by reasoning with the infidel.

The previous wars that Afghanistan had were fundimentally ideology based in marxism and communist rule. The only reason the soviets were pushed back was from US support of weapons against communism. The Mujahideen would not have had a chance otherwise. Unfortunaely for us, the Mujahideen don't hold any loyalties to non-muslim nations. The meetings of the minds in Washington can only chose what options they have at the time. Since we do not know all of the gory details, it might be jumping the gun to critisize the results of the conclusion.

I am certain that the choice for war is not an easy one. That choice is not made by one person alone, although the person at the top gets to claim it, good or bad. Defeatism is leaving before the job is done or harping about how things are going. Terms like quagmire, failed or illegal war are good examples. We as civilians get so little information reported on who, what and where anything realistic is happening. The void is filled with pessimistic ramblings of defeatists and spreads like a virus. We have to seek out information on our own that shows the progress, admit the losses, regroup and move forward.

To not fight terrorism is not going to stop it. Submission is what they expect. The UN doesn't see a need to stop it even though it should have a moral obligation to do so. I do not believe you can have peace without war and terrorism survive as it is these days.

DC

Mariss,

One little technical addendum -

All semiconductor technology was lost in 2014, shortly after the doddering, bloated bureaucracies of the World Economic Union experienced the collapse of the EuroDollar, brought about by a policy of creating ever more currency to pay for imported fuel and durable goods, the domestic manufacture of which were effectively outlawed in the member countries by restrictive regulations and crushing taxes.

As the currency became worthless, trade came to a halt and food shortages were experienced within weeks after the fuel to transport food
ran out. Threatened with the specter of revolution, the World Economic Union quickly printed up the New World Dollar and fixed the value by decree, while at the same time the Joint Security Council passed the Humanitarian Proclamation requiring all trading nations to accept the new currency at the stated value and to resume food and fuel shipments until the crisis had passed.

The supplier nations, finding nothing that they could buy with the new currency, and having suffered total collapse of their own economies, refused to comply. Or rather, they did not have the goods to ship anyway, not being able to force their people into the fields to collect the harvest. Acting under the authority of the Humanitarian Proclamation, naval forces were dispatched to the shores of a few of the weaker countries in an attempt to enforce the policy.

A former friend of the Union, a benevolent dictator known for keeping order in his country, suddenly became belligerent and publicly denounced the policy, daring the Union to make good on its threats. Facing the imminent depletion of the last of the fuel for its fleet, and already having to put down insurrections in its home territories, the Union began a widely publicized campaign of shelling the capitol of the belligerent country, publicly announced as the Humanitarian Police Action. Immediately the neighboring countries loudly objected, and one of them managed to sink a warship with an ancient torpedo smuggled within range on a small boat. Emboldened by this, return fire began raining on the rest of the fleet from all countries in the region.

The enraged and panicked Joint Security Council passed a secret resolution authorizing the use of a single tactical nuclear cruise missile to restore order. The missile was launched at 10:00 PM local time on October 5, 2014. The announcement was immediately made that all hostilities were to cease immediately under Operation Humanitarian Peace, or the nuclear option would be used against any aggressor nation.

At approximately 2:00 AM on October 9, 2014, submarines stationed a few miles offshore from their targets simultaneously launched low-flying cruise missiles with nuclear warheads into the heart of Washington, Brussels, New York, and London, managing to detonate all but the one destined for New York. With no nation claiming responsibility, the Joint Security Council fixed blame on the only nation with the resources to launch such an attack, and immediately launched a portion of their ICBM arsenal, targeted at the largest industrial centers in China, with a number of them programmed to detonate in the atmosphere to disrupt communications. Five minutes later, satellites detected the simultaneous launch of over two dozen large rockets from remote locations in China. Before another half hour had passed, rockets were being launched from all over the earth.

The Joint Security Council's Shield of Justice program was barely operational, having undergone preliminary testing only, but it went into action and did its job admirably, intercepting and exploding the huge nuclear payloads of the first dozen or so of the incoming rockets shortly after they re-entered the atmosphere. The nuclear hardened satellites and their ground stations withstood the resulting EMP electrical surges five times beyond what they were designed for before finally failing, after which the remaining re-entry vehicles sailed unmolested to their targets.

The electromagnetic pulses generated by the atmospheric nuclear detonations wiped out all semiconductor devices and electrical power generating facilities on earth, save a few hardened military installations. The payloads from the bombs that reached their targets obliterated the factories that manufactured the semiconductors, along with the people who had the knowledge to produce them.

With no electrical power, no running water, no sewer treatment, no garbage pickup, no refrigeration, no vehicles or fuel for transportation, no medicine, and no communications, the cities of the World Economic Union and their foes burned for weeks.

Within a few years, environmentalists and their intellectual allies in government had literally accomplished every one of their goals. Save for an increased level of background radiation, there was no more global pollution. The overpopulation problem had been decisively resolved; cholera, dysentery, and exposure having wiped out thousands of times the number of victims from the bombing. Fossil fuel use had fallen to practically zero. No longer were millions of commoners polluting the earth by wastefully driving private vehicles wherever they wanted. Private property and the right to ownership were no longer operative principles, as bands of thugs raided and murdered and plundered all but the best - defended areas, moving on when food or water ran out. It took a village to survive, as survival depended on defending small plots of farmland from the raider gangs. Earthen structures were the only shelters capable of supporting life with the meager amount of firewood available, while being fire resistant enough to withstand the attacks of the raider gangs.

Mankind had finally achieved the ideal communal, interdependent, sustainable, non-polluting status that was the aim of the leftists who, being city dwellers and intellectuals without survival skills, were generally the first to perish. The injustice of it all was that they never got to enjoy their triumphant victory.

And the rest is history.

It must be stated that the foregoing account could be in error. A Heisenberg muon may have passed through the transcriptor deflection plate just as we activated the inverter. There was an anomalous current signature in the deflector compensator supply that is hard to explain otherwise. But 85% of the committee's calculations have discounted this possibility, therefore we can claim with statistical certainty that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the final conclusion. The 15% of dissenters on the committee will be censured for obstruction of science, and their efforts will not deter the committee in its goals in the future. This unfortunate incident has been included in the interest of scientific integrity, but it should in no way be allowed to sway the public opinion, since the scientific consensus has been restored.

--97T--

Dear One of Many,

I think, at last, that I have discovered something on which we can completely agree.

Both of us are optimists and pessimists.

1) Military solution. You optimist, me pessimist

2) Diplomacy. Me optimist, you pessimist.

Best wishes

Martin

That is fair, although that is taking me for granted.

I WAS optimistic about diplomacy until it failed 17 times in the UN, twice in war conflicts with Iraq, and many more times aiding and supporting the very ideology we are fighting now. If we are going to consider this a failure, the quagmire started with failed diplomatic efforts to accept the terms of the terrorist’s demands to bring peace.

Our reluctance to react to the many acts of war against us prior to 9/11 was part of the diplomacy phase. The message it sent only embolden them to grow unabated.

What if anything, at this point has changed to revisit the process of diplomacy when the enemy has no intentions of coming to the table unless we agree to stay out of any conflicts they proliferate around the world?

If we are the roadblocks between them and total domination, how do you propose we defend the defenseless? Remaining passive may help us in the short term, but at some point we become the end target. Taking down the top dog is inviting and romanticized through eons. So is defending ones ideals. Either support the side you are on or help defeat it internally.

We can both be careful with what we wish for, but doing nothing wasn't working out so well either.



DC

....We can both be careful with what we wish for, but doing nothing wasn't working out so well either....DC

Doing something doesn't seem to be working very well at the moment. It is a pity you cannot stretch your mind around the concept that doing the wrong something or doing the correct something incompetently can maybe be worse than doing nothing. When you have done nothing you can always change and start doing the correct something. When you have done the wrong something you are stuck with its aftermath.

Doing something doesn't seem to be working very well at the moment. It is a pity you cannot stretch your mind around the concept that doing the wrong something or doing the correct something incompetently can maybe be worse than doing nothing. When you have done nothing you can always change and start doing the correct something. When you have done the wrong something you are stuck with its aftermath.

I'd have to disagree on that. One of your fine countrymen once penned the line "Even if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

I do agree that the current approach isn't successful. The West tried diplomacy for decades and it failed to curb the fanatic nutjobs. Bush and his posse rightly determined that a new approach was needed. His choice of action and implementation suck wind though.

The only path I see is a long seige where we infect the younger minds with Western thoughts and wait for the old fanatics to die.

I'd have to disagree on that. One of your fine countrymen once penned the line "Even if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

.

Dear Caprirs,

I guess that the line I've been arguing all along is something like this.

A house is on fire, and lots of people want to put the fire out. One of the options is a really large tanker of liquid.. problem is......

.....it's a gasoline tanker.

Best wishes

Martin

Applied correctly, the gasoline tanker can be used to put the fire. Unfortunately, we don't have sufficiently clever thinking people making such decisions.

I honestly believe that Bush's key failure was expecting the military to become social engineers and policemen. Donald Rumsfeld was a helluva good defense secretary. As a military commander, he was tough to beat. However, once the Iraqi military was defeated, he was done although Iraq was just getting started.

Doing something doesn't seem to be working very well at the moment. It is a pity you cannot stretch your mind around the concept that doing the wrong something or doing the correct something incompetently can maybe be worse than doing nothing. When you have done nothing you can always change and start doing the correct something. When you have done the wrong something you are stuck with its aftermath.

Do we detect a note of peity?

I dont suppose you saw the video in its entirety that I posted earlier ?


Yes, lots of emotion and words lacking in supportable facts. I shouldn't have waisted my time, my fault, when I heard Ed Asner I should have just stopped knowing full well how he is.

I'd have to disagree on that. One of your fine countrymen once penned the line "Even if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

I do agree that the current approach isn't successful. The West tried diplomacy for decades and it failed to curb the fanatic nutjobs. Bush and his posse rightly determined that a new approach was needed. His choice of action and implementation suck wind though.

The only path I see is a long seige where we infect the younger minds with Western thoughts and wait for the old fanatics to die.

I am well aware that choosing to do nothing is a choice so I don't quite get the point of your disagreement.

And I disagree that the West tried diplomacy for decades; the West in many cases chose to support the fanatic nutjobs because it was expedient to do so. I mentioned this in an earlier post.

And I don't see much hope in your 'infect the younger minds' approach; the planners and leaders of the 9/11 nineteen were young and Western educated in some cases. The young nutjobs that bombed London Transit were born and educated in the West. The young nutjobs that allegedly plotted bombings and asassinations in Canada were born and/or educated in the West. The young nutjobs who led to the current bans on fluids and gels in carry-on baggage were born and/or educated in the West. When Islamic immigrants leave their original countries where they are subject to religious oppression, from a different sect of the same religion, they very often insist that their new country accept and accommodate the symbolism of their oppression, even when it conflicts with established norms in their new country. Furthermore they rarely, if ever, express opposition, dismay, contempt, disapproval or whatever toward terrorist activities perpetrated by people of similar beliefs.

Your seige might work if it is a true seige and persists long enough. Do you really see the countries that have exported terrorists truly being placed under seige? Nothing in, nothing out...look up the meaning of seige...for maybe three generations. Also review what countries would have to be subject to the seige; most of the 9/11 planners were Saudis.

In an earlier post I had mentioned what I think is the impossibility or even irrationality of expecting to introduce Western democracy to these countries. You posed the question; "....By that I mean, most religious peoples on the planet Earth will vote as their leaders tell them. So why are Westerners less apt to blow up their own children in protest of not getting their way?

The "most religious..." is correct; but we Westerners are not among the 'most'. And I suspect we are less likely to blow up our children, or more correctly other people's children, because by and large Westerners, when they adhere to a religion, adhere to one that has got past the 'blowing up the innocents' stage. It wasn't always that way; look back in history. A few centuries ago the response of a Catholic Monk to perceived heresy among the citizens of the city of Beziers was 'kill them all God will find his own'.

The gulf that separates Western values from Islam is something that spans centuries; expecting to spend a few years working the social and cultural changes that will be needed to bring true democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan is totally unrealistic. Almost a thousand years separates us from the time of 'kill them all' solutions; present day society in Iraq and Afghanistan is basically not that much different now to what both the Christian World and the Islamic World were like back then. The country which gave rise to the principles on which the United States form of democratically elected government are based had, a thousand years ago, a social structure not that much different to present day Afghanistan and its people where subject to an oppressive religion that dictated most of their daily activities and even erected large structures that broadcast signals telling the faithful when to pray, not much different to Iraq.

The country was Great Britain, but it was not yet Great Britain it was a group of islands inhabited by Common people who lived and died according to the whim of their 'Tribal Chieftain' or 'Tribal War Lord' to use the Afghani designation, although the name used on those islands back then was 'Baron'. Over many centuries changes ensued: The Magna Carta which gave the Common people some freedoms and security and constrained, to some extent, the powers of the State as embodied by the Barons. The War of the Roses which consolidated rule under a single king in England. The Reformation which started a process limiting the influence of the monolithic oppressive religion. The efforts by diverse English kings to wrest State control from the Church and vest it in their own hands. The Act of Union which finally consolidated all the Nations on the group of islands into the United Kingdom. And the establishment of widespread Public Education, first in Scotland, which led ultimately to a much more informed populace that had the knowledge to seek out more say in the manner in which they were governed.

All these developments took place before the creation of the United States. The form of government created for this new Nation was designed by people who had been educated in schools and universities, either; in Scotland, founded by Scots or founded after the Scottish pattern. These people had a knowledge of what had gone before in history and endeavoured to design a truly democratic government; of the people, by the people and for the people, with checks and balances to ensure that it did meet its goal. They did not dream it up out of thin air and they did not have it imposed on them from outside sources.

Democracy is not something that can be imposed from outside. It has to grow from within and its origin has to be with the people who will be governed. Afghanistan is not ready for it and Iraq is not ready for it and they will only be ready for it, if ever, by their own will and effort.

Dear Geof,

Top man.

Best wishes

Martin

The gulf that separates Western values from Islam is something that spans centuries; expecting to spend a few years working the social and cultural changes that will be needed to bring true democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan is totally unrealistic.


The gulf that seperates Western values from Islam has nothing to do with social or cultural influences, likes or dislikes. It has to do with the West supporting Israel. The real problem is a deep abiding hatred Islam has for Israel and that can directly be traced back to a Biblical account of a man named Abraham and his wife Sarah rushing a promise God had made them. The promise of a son. Sarah got in a hurry and gave her maid to Abraham to concieve a child......the result is the hatred we see today because a large percentage of Muslims are decendents from that son named Ishmael.

God promised in the Bible that He would bless those that blessed Israel and curse those that cursed her. Those that are blessing her now would be well advised to stay the course.

Mike

Hmm, muslims are the bastard descendants of Abraham? Sure wish I were more educated in the relationship of these 3 religions.

It is to bad you cannot read into my statement you quote as "wrapping my mind around your precept of wrong" as in being careful of what I wish for. What we do might not be perfect, but at least I have faith in our forces to do their best for the Iraqi people that want freedom from near lawless and totalitarian oppressive ideologies.

Doing something doesn't seem to be working very well at the moment.

Maybe you are giving to much credit to the wrong media if it doesn't seem to be working well. You must have more faith in what the news reports as the sum total of the facts verses what they won't report, since sincere progress stories do not support their bias. Manipulating cynics is easy when they are known to have short attention spans that can't connect the long term dots that brought us to the point we are now. Cynics cannot separate where that proper responsibility for acts of evil truly lies despite the results trying to fight it. Instead they place hyped emphasis on anything perceived wrong on the coalition forces as the greater evil than what the combating factions do wrong against each other that are near impossible to control. Not to mention the external influences we do not have the boots on the ground to prevent.

The real pity is reading comments from people that one would expect to know the difference between right and wrong, but cannot make the correlation to who Iraq's real enemies are. Even if that turns out to be Iraqi's that cannot find it in themselves or change their cultures to live in peace.

I know my opinions here count for nothing. I am still thankful to be a part it, even if I am wrong in my principles, my intentions are good.

DC

It looks to me (right now) that this last jog in strategy, the troop surge, will work if it's not prematurely derailed by our socialist party. They are trying very hard to do just that.

If our socialists maintain control of the houses in '08 and get shrillary or osama bama in, we are in a world of hurt as a nation.

Geof

My attempt at disagreement was choosing nothing and choosing the wrong something can be the same choice. Poorly worded on my part.

By past diplomacy, I meant trying to be friends with the nutjobs. You are right about Western support for many of them when it was convenient for us such as the rebelling Afghans fighting back the Soviets. Once the Soviets were gone, so was the US and the Afghans were left with no support from anyone. Are we surprised they don't like us?

I'd like to know how the Western based terrorists managed to become so "Dark Ages". There are tens of millions of Muslims living happy Western lives and hundreds of millions of non-Muslims living happy Western lives. We are all pretty frustrated with our governments but we don't act out violently, especially towards non-government targets. So what made these tiny groups vulnerable to the teachings of nutjobs when all the other Muslims reject such ideas? Is it the same susceptibilty that made the Columbine kids go nuts?

For evidence of how people's thoughts and perceptions are manipulated in brief time spans, look at North and South Korea. Only a couple generations past, these people were as one. Now, SK is approaching Japan in global success while NK residents think Kim is some kind of supernatural being. The only change was control of the media and the police about fifty years ago. One group was nurtured by the West while the other oppressed by two egos.

I think that is what is needed in radical muslim countries. Kill the old fanatic control freaks and the shape the media around Western ideals. It will take a long time for old ideas to die and for young people to reject them.

That is the idea behind the seige. Essentially total Western control of Iraq perhaps using your suggested puppet government along with Western economics until they are sufficiently grown up to stand on their own. Look at the success of Japan, Germany, and South Korea. Compare them to the uncontrolled experiments like Russia and China which are trying to modernize but having to learn all the lessons the long hard way.

Diplomacy:

To us, it means negotiating, treating the other party with respect, expecting the other party will do the same.

To them, it means another step in the process of the dhimmification of the infidels.

Negotiating with an implacable foe means you will compromise, they will not.

Religious fanatics will not change their root premises and embrace western values just because they can see our way of life and because we are nice to them. They are taught total obedience and strict adherence to their religious dictates, and this is all tied into their concept of machismo. They are taught that the west is weak, that infidels are weak, and that they are destined to dominate and subjugate all infidels. Losses on the battlefield or occupation of their territory are only temporary setbacks, they will never give in. It would be a sin for them to switch over to the weak side. They cannot ever respect a society that lets its women act like men and go around with naked heads. Alcohol, drugs, pornography, mindless drivel on television, mindless weaklings for political leaders, unsupervised obese children, every aspect of western society that they see confirms what their Imams tell them. They tell them that infidels are weaklings, that their lives mean nothing, and that in the long historical run, the infidels will be destroyed or dominated completely.

This long view of their goals makes them partially correct. They knew in advance and predicted out loud that the infidels would not have the stomach for a long occupation. Although we might have the power to kill them all, we will not have the will to impose the kind of control it would take to rule them. Our restraint in the use of force, the value we place on the life of an enemy, the gentleman's code of any conflict, these are weaknesses that are viewed with total contempt. Our every action reinforces their view of us. Especially when they watch with derision the actions of our own socialist political parties as they work to poison the entire useless strategy from within. They know that a democracy of people who value life, including the life of an enemy, will never be able to carry out a long term strategy to dominate them. And to them, it is only an issue of who will dominate who.

To them, 'peace' means waiting and preparing for a more opportune time to attack.

To them, 'negotiating' means finding out what the other side is willing to give up in permanent advantage, for some temporary concession (like 'peace').

To them, there is no dishonor in lying, cheating, or attacking an infidel. Lying and cheating are standard negotiation tactics in the marketplace and in interpersonal relationships.

Trying to negotiate with them as if they were using the same root premises that we hold is utter folly.

Running over their country, knocking over their government, and then hoping that they will forget their ancient hatreds for rival tribes and western infidels, and willingly cede local power to an elected government is utter folly.

A military attack strategy that does not include decisively ruining their ability to attack outside their borders followed by immediate withdrawal is utter folly.

A foreign diplomatic policy that hopes to win over the hearts and minds of the people there is utter folly.

To a people who abhor the idea of mind control, thought police, genocide, and the like, these people are inscrutable. It seems we cannot grasp their mindset. We cannot outlaw their thoughts, their convictions, their religion, their culture. And yet it teaches that our lives are less than worthless, that we are to be subjugated or destroyed. It teaches that their own lives are expendable in attaining the goal. It insures that their leaders can not and will not ever negotiate in 'good faith' on any kind of terms that are comprehensible to us.

They know our premises, and use them with derision and contempt to their own advantage. We don't know their premises, and keep on trying to base strategy on the idea that the people on the ground over there are just like us, if you go deep enough.

If the U.S. thought they could pull off the invasion of Iraq and end up with a puppet government and a large military base to dominate the area from, it is apparent that they have miscalculated on the cost. The Republican plan is doomed to fail from the outset, and the Democrats are working to foil it for political gain. The only way for the new government to gain any kind of stability is to install draconian controls that would make the late Saddam blush. And the west does not have the stomach for it. When western forces withdraw, those who helped the invaders will suffer reprisals so horrific that the western press will be loathe to publish it.

I predict that the western world is not ready to admit that some cultures are implacably against a western code of values that places human life at the top of the list. And I predict that we are not done paying the costs for this miscalculation.

Watch and see if any of this applies to the current situation where Iran has taken some U.K. soldiers hostage. The soldiers will not be returned until the west makes some huge concessions, or makes a credible threat that the consequences will be all out of proportion to any gain the Iranian government can get by torturing the hostages and putting out videos of their disgrace, with the female wearing proper head covering. Does England have the stomach to make such a credible threat? To the Iranians, the lives of the hostages are worth only what they can gain in concessions. And their own lives are expendable in achieving their long term goal. Giving the hostages back without some huge concession is not possible for the Iranian leaders. The only calculation that will mean anything is, how many Iranian lives are worth more than the disgrace of giving back the hostages? Versus what kind of long term strategic concessions are worth giving up by the U.K. and the U.S. to get the hostages back?

--97T--

How are the Muslims different from the Japanese of WWII? They too felt honor in laying down their lives for their "divine" emperor. I'm certain you've heard the term kamikaze. They also treated women as second class citizens and thought of Westerners as equal to dogs. Have they changed merely because we nuked them? Or is there some other fundamental difference which allowed them to change where the Muslims cannot change?

How are the Muslims different from the Japanese of WWII? They too felt honor in laying down their lives for their "divine" emperor. I'm certain you've heard the term kamikaze. They also treated women as second class citizens and thought of Westerners as equal to dogs. Have they changed merely because we nuked them? Or is there some other fundamental difference which allowed them to change where the Muslims cannot change?

Sheesh!!!!! Talk about a loaded question. Which I will partly answer by going around in circles a bit and throwing aspects of it back at you.

Take this sentence: They also treated women as second class citizens and thought of Westerners as equal to dogs.

In the Culture/Society that I described as being the one that originated Western Democracy women were treated as second class citizens. members of that same Culture/Society who colonized the North American continent treated the original inhabitants of this continent worse than they treated dogs. So to paraphrase your questions; 'How are the Muslims different from these people?'. Is there some fundamental difference that allowed them to change?

In other words, just in case I am circling too much, a comparison equally as valid as your Japanese/Muslim comparison can be made between the Founding Fathers of the United States and Muslims. And the same question asked; '...is there some other fundamental difference which allowed them to change...'

I think you will agree fundamental differences do exist. I think you might also agree that while the two comparisons are equally valid it is an equality between zeroes; neither comparison is a good one.


Regarding your kamikaze reference I think there is no similarity and will go into this in greater depth.

You probably know that kamikaze translates as 'divine wind' but do you know what the divine wind is or how the kamikaze tradition arose? It dates from several centuries ago when the Mongols were wandering around Asia and other places conquering and occupying. They never conquered and occupied Japan but they made two attempts. I do not know if both attempts were by the same Mongol Emperor or how separated they were in time but both attempts were similar and failed in the same manner. Large invasion fleets sailed from the mainland shore of the Sea of Japan. The Japanese knew they were coming and they also knew they were so large that the Japanese had no realistic expectation of repelling them.

What did happen in both cases was an enormous Typhoon, the Divine Wind, which totally destroyed the fleets. No other attempts were made by the Mongols. However, these events left a mark on Japanese society which was manifested in the Kamikaze warrior tradition. The Kamikaze warriors were not just anyone going out and slaughtering a bunch of innocents so they could enjoy the pleasures of 70 virgins in Paradise. Kamikaze were dedicated young men who were willing to sacrifice their lives in an attempt to spare their country almost certain destruction.

How are the Muslims different from the Japanese of WWII? They too felt honor in laying down their lives for their "divine" emperor. I'm certain you've heard the term kamikaze.

Last I heard, the Japanese didn't routinely target and kill women and children, nor did they hide behind women and children, nor did they dress up as women to hide their identity, nor did they blow up their women and children or use them INSIDE cars used as car bombs to sneak past check points

There are huge differences, and to ignore them is ignorant at best.

BTW, I read the other day that the UK (or some other western military) asked it's soldiers if they would consider dying for the cause. (i.e. if their bombs malfunctioned, would they consider crashing their plane into the ground to take out the target)

Yep. Big difference between kamikazes and terrorists.

Last I heard, the Japanese didn't routinely target and kill women and children, nor did they hide behind women and children, nor did they dress up as women to hide their identity, nor did they blow up their women and children or use them INSIDE cars used as car bombs to sneak past check points

There are huge differences, and to ignore them is ignorant at best.

BTW, I read the other day that the UK (or some other western military) asked it's soldiers if they would consider dying for the cause. (i.e. if their bombs malfunctioned, would they consider crashing their plane into the ground to take out the target)

Yep. Big difference between kamikazes and terrorists.

I put the Bolding in the quote.

I think, considering a while back you were threatening to bar a young fellow from posting because he was using intemperate language, you are displaying a double standard here.

Caprirs was responding to one of my posts and posing a question. I hardly feel calling him ignorant was warranted or polite.

Hmm, muslims are the bastard descendants of Abraham? Sure wish I were more educated in the relationship of these 3 religions.


"the result is the hatred we see today because a large percentage of Muslims are decendents from that son named Ishmael"

Made bold and under lined just for your enjoyment. Maybe you should educate yourself more in at least one of those religons.

Mike

I put the Bolding in the quote.

I think, considering a while back you were threatening to bar a young fellow from posting because he was using intemperate language, you are displaying a double standard here.

Caprirs was responding to one of my posts and posing a question. I hardly feel calling him ignorant was warranted or polite.

It wasn't meant to be un-polite. It was meant to point out the lack of knowledge he had on the subject.

The definition of ignorant is very simple:

1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

It also differs greatly from "stupid", which would be unwarranted or not polite (and which I think you confused ignorant with). But I did not use that term because 1) I don't think it applies and 2) it would be against the rules.

If it makes you feel better, I will gladly change it to read more like "to ignore them (the differences) is uninformed on the subject at best". ;)

I don't think Caprirs did ignore the points you mentioned. He was posting in the context of a discussion about the feasibility or probability of being able to introduce Western Democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq or to Muslim people. He did use the term Muslim, not Islamists, so I think the points you raised were not really in the discussion.

Not much of poster, I read more, but here is my take on this.
No huge WMD stockpiles of nuclear biological or chemical on every street corner as we were led to believe. No delivery system such that Iraq presented a "clear and present danger" to the US. Bushiepoo himself said Iraq had nothing to do with the WTC attacks (or building 7). Hillary and Leahy both expressed outrage at Halliburton moving their HQ to Dubai after billions of known war overcharges (war profiteering now). No bid contracts by KBR (Halliburton sub). Iraq Study Group wants to privatize Iraqi oil (Operation Iraqi Liberation-OIL). Demorepublicrats may cry about their side or opposite sides or both, no matter. Same coin, both sides are blank.

Congress is asleep at the wheel and the shop needs to be retooled completely. They have no interest in ending war other than to keep their jobs. Hopefully that will not happen (their jobs). They confuse the importance of the country with the importance of their own culpable skins. By their abdication of war authority I see it as they refused to do their jobs and should be fairly tried and fairly hung in the court of public opinion. Of course, they wouldn't have voted for it if they'd known. That's tripe and we all know it.
What puddingheads! Don't they investigate stuff like fruit fly genitalia all the time?
They voted for it and they are to be held accountable.

The other side says manipulated intelligence to steered us into a war. If so, where are the investigations into false intelligence? Doing CYA methinks.

Please DON'T speak that global war on terror mess. Think. If Al Quaeda and the Taliban were truly the global terrorist masterminds they are portrayed to be, then would it not make sense to pay better attention to our border security? Why not move the NTC to the US borders?

Isn't it just a little disingenuous to send all troops overseas just so that none in the homeland experience minor discomfort and suffer no risk? What was the danger to the Homeland?

It's not a war. Congress never declared war, but Bushiepoo still likes to claim he's a war president and compare himself to "real" war presidents. Illegal war? I have never heard of a legal war. Does somebody give permits for that?

For Afghanistan, where is Bin Laden? Isn't that supposed to be where the attacks originated? A bunch of guys in a cave? Still in a cave? The new (world order) hide and seek champions with the best military in the world after their butts? Forget hearts and minds, bring smoke off of 'em. They don't want to die for Allah, they want others to do so.

Its time that for a little national circumspection, and disregard party lines. I am not against war. I am against stupid war. I am against war "just because" some money/power mongering politicos said so.

I submit that the taxpayers are being raped for profit and fun from the town and state level on up. Expect taxes to increase. Look forward to a carbon tax to support Global warming technologies. What supports your money other than an idea and faith?
The system may not be broke, but its being gamed right now.

Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city, it might be better to change the locks. ~Doug Larson

my .001 cents, inflation adjusted
I now return you to your regular programming schedule.

Dirt Dobber, bravo.

Somebody who is paying attention. If only more people would turn on their BS meters and stop letting the puppeteers shove their hand up their puppet-ass, something besides wasting breath could be done.

Too many people actually think that the government establishes what can and cannot be done. Well, it can, but only because people keep falling for the lies they are told. And keep following the rules established by the liars.

Spines in humans were expressly evolved for the purpose of standing upright. We need less jellyfish, and more people with spines. Vote with your feet. Don't like something, don't allow it to continue. If this means going somewhere else, or stomping someone, carry on.

Too many people confuse legal with moral. Once legislation is enacted, via the Congressional route, both federal and state, it becomes law. Which is then enforced. So something that was legal yesterday is illegal today... how moral is that? And there are so many moral vagaries which are very much legal.

A good citizen isn't always the one who follows the rules, but one who speaks at appropriate times to appropriate listeners about appropriate subjects...or prevents innappropriate speech to inappropriate listeners about inappropriate subjects. And of course, sometimes you have to kick a little ass to open peoples ears and get them to shut their mouths.

Freedom of speech is only free if you're willing to fight for that right. It's not just free for the people who are supported by the party in power. When any person takes any of your rights, you either abdicate them (the rights), or you retain them. This takes resolve. Often this entails physical action. Someone cannot take something from you, unless you allow them to.

Wyld, I see it like this.
The gov has no power not expressly granted by the Constitution or by the People for whom it was written. So said the Framers. Good enough for me.

The gov HAS NO MONEY. It has our money and we have a say what happens with it. So how can they just magically increase taxes? They can't. Seems I read about some big brouhaha got started over taxation without representation quite some time ago. I believe it has come round again, no representation. You can't overload a mule or it will balk. They just don't know when to stop loading the mule, yet.

The gov changes every 4 years but the lobbyists and corporations do not.
I do not vote for the corporations, but they are allowed to have a greater say in proposed legislation because they have more money, therefore access.

Anyone that cannot see this should look at campaign contributions. Why do corps give to candidates of both parties? When gambling its called "hedging the bet."
I never figured why a $250K job costs $100 million (at least) to get. Seems a poor return on investment so far, at least for the People.

I am not Dem or Repub. I am not not anti-business. I am an American. I expect all others in my country to be the same, to do what is right and what is called for by the majority of the People by popular vote. Those that would make war on me or mine may expect the same, by profligate use of any means available to hand without remorse. There are different kinds of war. It is still war and espouses time proven principles.

"[The natural right to be free of the debts of a previous generation is] a salutary curb on the spirit of war and indebtment, which, since the modern theory of the perpetuation of debt, has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating." --Thomas Jefferson

It's not a war. Congress never declared war

Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502:

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress


Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
<<NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 - [H.J. Res. 114]>>

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations;

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President ``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677;

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region, and that Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688;

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary resolutions, while also making clear that ``the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable;

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.>> assembled,


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.


SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to-- (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.


SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.-- (1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) <<NOTE: President.>> Reports.--The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Approved October 16, 2002.


LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
--H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45) (S.J. Res. 46):

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-721 (Comm. on International Relations).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Oct. 8, 9, considered in House.
Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate.

PNINMO...
That's all very well and good, however there is one small caveat. Just a minor smidgen of something foul about the whole thing. Ok, there are actually several, but let's hit the highlights, shall we?

First, nothing in our Constitution allows us to fight on another country's behalf. Period. If the powers are not granted by the Constitution, they do not exist.

Two, we do not fall under a heirarchy established by the U.N. In fact, the U.N. is powerless to execute anything. The can make all the resolutions they want, but without acquiesence of the nations they are trying to foist it on, it is not enactable. In fact until about 4 years after WWII, the U.N. did not exist. We, the U.S., helped establish it. Almost completely single-handedly and financially. Think about that. Also think about who the largest financial contributor is in the U.N. From any time since its inception.

Three, that is not a declaration of war. Period. Look for the legislation passed that brought us into WWII & Korea for a correct example.

Four, and by far the most important, is this action truly acting on the behalf of the welfare of the citizens of the United States of America?

PNINMO...
That's all very well and good, however there is one small caveat. Just a minor smidgen of something foul about the whole thing. Ok, there are actually several, but let's hit the highlights, shall we?

First, nothing in our Constitution allows us to fight on another country's behalf. Period. If the powers are not granted by the Constitution, they do not exist.


Who said we were fighting on another countries behalf, and if so what country?


Two, we do not fall under a heirarchy established by the U.N. In fact, the U.N. is powerless to execute anything. The can make all the resolutions they want, but without acquiesence of the nations they are trying to foist it on, it is not enactable. In fact until about 4 years after WWII, the U.N. did not exist. We, the U.S., helped establish it. Almost completely single-handedly and financially. Think about that. Also think about who the largest financial contributor is in the U.N. From any time since its inception.


I completely agree. The UN is a political consensus organization that people put too much importance on.


Three, that is not a declaration of war. Period. Look for the legislation passed that brought us into WWII & Korea for a correct example.


I won't disagree here either, it's not a war in the sense of a declaration of war. But it did put on the books congress authorized the military action.


Four, and by far the most important, is this action truly acting on the behalf of the welfare of the citizens of the United States of America?

Lot's of opinions on both sides of the fence, but in reality that won't be answered until it's in the history books.

I don't see the posts of late have anything to do with Global warming or CNC.Topics seem to be very political and serious.Hope you guys don't mind a little pun or dry humor.
My solution to Global warming,Iwill run my air conditioner all year round.
Larry

Last I heard, the Japanese didn't routinely target and kill women and children, nor did they hide behind women and children, nor did they dress up as women to hide their identity, nor did they blow up their women and children or use them INSIDE cars used as car bombs to sneak past check points


Japan of old times certainly did things that would not be considered acceptable by today's Geneva Convention. Instilling terror into the local populace is the same result regardless of specific technique.

[quote]There are huge differences, and to ignore them is ignorant at best.[/quote[

Ignoring those differences presumes I knew about them. I do not. Please notice that I am asking legitimate questions because I'm not an expert, unlike so many of the State Department officials in this thread who have all the answers. I apologize if my wording isn't correct.

I'm trying to understand why we perceive some cultures are capable of change and others are perceived to be unfixable. We've demonstrated in several locations around the world that cultures can be altered like post-Nazi Germany, South Korea, and Japan. We have also found places where we failed, like Vietnam and Somolia. Does the US claim all the credit when things go right but label others as permanently broken when we fail? That's some ego we must have, i.e. "If the US cannot get a culture to change, that means it is impossible to do."

We "cut and ran" in Vietnam and Somalia.

"the result is the hatred we see today because a large percentage of Muslims are decendents from that son named Ishmael"

Made bold and under lined just for your enjoyment. Maybe you should educate yourself more in at least one of those religons.

Mike

And the point of this gibberish is? You are trying to provide for my enjoyment? You don't think I'm educated enough "in at least one of those religons"?.

I love the church lady critique. The holier than thou approach.

I wish I could learn everything before I die, unfortunately life is too short. I have all the formal education a normal person can stand. I went "all the way" in school. That only leaves learning from life, and that's what I do now.

Yes, lots of emotion and words lacking in supportable facts. I shouldn't have waisted my time, my fault, when I heard Ed Asner I should have just stopped knowing full well how he is.

Its an emotional topic Phil.
Words lacking in supportable facts ? Like WMDs, the words that sent us to war in the first place ? Other words like "there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

This war is not the answer. Smart diplomacy is. People who make these sort of statements are not smart diplomats.

The pictures dont lie Phil. Did you see the deformed babies as a result of the depleted uranium shells? How about the kids with one or no legs ?

This war is in-excusable.

http://video.google.com/url?docid=1130731388742388243&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=oil+factor&vidurl=http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D1130731388742388243%26q%3Doil%2Bfactor&usg=AL29H23ZR8b7SuVzcv4p-dykyCYLRW5PhQ

How are the Muslims different from the Japanese of WWII? They too felt honor in laying down their lives for their "divine" emperor. I'm certain you've heard the term kamikaze. They also treated women as second class citizens and thought of Westerners as equal to dogs. Have they changed merely because we nuked them? Or is there some other fundamental difference which allowed them to change where the Muslims cannot change?

Caprirs,

I'm not entirely sure. I know you can't trust much of what you read in history. It may be the shock of a terrible new weapon, and the shock of seeing their invincible leader publicly capitulate after a lengthy REAL war where everyone suffered privation for the cause. On the other hand, I believe it is much more likely that the difference lies in the dominant philosophy held by the individuals of the population. I'm speaking from ignorance here, but it seems that there were elements of industriousness and personal honor in that philosophy that may have led many of them to eventually embrace the ideas of peaceful coexistence, since the system offered to them allowed the kind of lifestyle they wanted and rewarded industriousness and personal honor (in some measure). Significantly, it also left them their emporer, powerless but alive. I think that the technology - embracing, partly industrialized culture of Japan was radically different from the typical Muslim culture. I think that, despite the differences, there were fundamental premises that were shared with the western philosophy of life that are not present in Muslim culture. And I think that is why a policy that pretends to treat Iraq as if it were postwar Japan is doomed to fail.

In Japan, we bombed an industrial society back to the stone age, then helped them recover. In most of the middle east, they haven't gone much past the stone age. If we help them recover to where they were before we got there, we will be back where we started from. A people who do not value what we have to offer will not suffer 'reform' gladly. Their premises, their values, their ambitions, and their actions are dictating that they will be ruled by brutal force, one way or another. I am in the minority but I believe our policy should be one of hands-off containment, believing that it is not in our interests to be the ones ruling them by brutal force.

The Koran reads an awful lot like the Old Testament. We don't use the Old Testament for guidance on how to treat others, we outlaw that kind of behavior. Muslims enact it into law. In Japan, fanatical devotion was to their emporer, who was shown to be fallible, or at least not invincible. Substitute that for a supernatural being who prescribes your every daily routines and who stands above mortal leaders, and you have something different.

There are many more differences, but to my poorly informed judgement, these are the most important.

--97T--

Japan of old times certainly did things that would not be considered acceptable by today's Geneva Convention. Instilling terror into the local populace is the same result regardless of specific technique....


Practically every culture/country/regime, whatever you call them, of significance did things in the past that are now considered unacceptable. This includes the UK, US, Belgium, France, Germany and others.

The key phrase is 'in the past'; for some it is a century or two and maybe a bit more, for some it is more recent. The key difference between activities pursued by Japan and many other countries was in timing, not much else.

....I'm trying to understand why we perceive some cultures are capable of change and others are perceived to be unfixable. We've demonstrated in several locations around the world that cultures can be altered like post-Nazi Germany, South Korea, and Japan. We have also found places where we failed, like Vietnam and Somolia. Does the US claim all the credit when things go right but label others as permanently broken when we fail? That's some ego we must have, i.e. "If the US cannot get a culture to change, that means it is impossible to do."

I think your perception that some cultures were changed under US influence is faulty. Both Germany and Japan have underlying cultures not that much different in principle to British or US culture. Both have a history which included a feudalistic stage which devolved into a system that was highly similar to the constitutional monarchy of Britain. After the second world war the largest contribution from the US and other countries was economic; both in outright financial support but even more importantly in providing financial stability and a market for products. I think the situation was much the same in Korea and I don't really think the US failed in Vietnam; last time I checked Vietnam seemed to be developing a healthy economic situation tracking the footsteps of Japan and Korea. Somalia was a failure; Somalia is not much different to a coastal Afghanistan.

I do have to agree it is "some ego" that the US has. That is in my view the biggest flaw in the US; an overweaning self confidence even when it is misplaced and a stubborn refusal to consider any form of criticism as valid even when it is intended to be helpful.

And I am going top rephrase your last sentence: (Externally imposed) Culture change is so impossible even the US cannot do it.

Like everyone else, I've been fed both propaganda and truth since birth. As I age, I'm surprised how much propaganda I consumed throughout my life without knowing what it was and despite how naturally cynical I am towards authority. As 9T7 states, a lot of the history books we all learned from are written by the survivors/winners and don't paint a truly objective picture of events. Thus, my understanding of world events and cultures is pretty limited. I have a degree in mechanical engineering and have made a living as a production engineer and am now trying to learn the trade of being a machinist not world historian or politician.

So maybe a re-phrasing of my question is needed? What would it take to change the culture of Iraq into a one less tolerant of violence against itself? The Saudis are obviously not saints by any stretch, but they do allow us to operate our military from their soil and no one is blowing up their schools. (I'm well aware of the origins of the 9/11 guys). Iran is not blowing it self up. Nor is Syria, Jordan (except one incident), Egypt, or even Bosnia. So to point to Islam as the only cause cannot be true. What are the other elements that keep some Muslim countries operating smoothly?

....What would it take to change the culture of Iraq into a one less tolerant of violence against itself? The Saudis are obviously not saints by any stretch, but they do allow us to operate our military from their soil and no one is blowing up their schools. (I'm well aware of the origins of the 9/11 guys). Iran is not blowing it self up. Nor is Syria, Jordan (except one incident), Egypt, or even Bosnia. So to point to Islam as the only cause cannot be true. What are the other elements that keep some Muslim countries operating smoothly?

An Iron Fist:

Afghanistan under the Taliban was not blowing itself up.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was not blowing itself up.

Bosnia, and all the fragments of the former Yugoslavia, were not blowing themselves up under Communist domination.

Or you, the ruling family, manipulate things so that your malcontents don't blow things up at home; they go and do it someplace else and permanently remove themselves in the process.

Offhand I think the current crop of terrorist bombers have the field much to themselves. In years past there were bombers from the IRA and from Sikh extremist groups but they are not active now.

Well, that's the idea behind "exporting democracy" fighting to unencumber them from a system that our government believes is too restrictive (read, unable to influence). That's what the first Iraq war was about too...poor little Kuwait. :( What a crock of **** they brew, and people eat it up


Who said we were fighting on another countries behalf, and if so what country?


I completely agree. The UN is a political consensus organization that people put too much importance on.



I won't disagree here either, it's not a war in the sense of a declaration of war. But it did put on the books congress authorized the military action.


Lot's of opinions on both sides of the fence, but in reality that won't be answered until it's in the history books.

Hmm. So people dying in Iraq, for Iraqis benefits is an opinion? Again this is how the government wants you to read it, as doing something for the poor Iraqis who simply want Levis, Coca-Cola & McDonalds, because there really isn't a good reason for any of our service people to die fighting in another country on another country's behalf. And just because something is or isn't in a history book does not make it so, or even fact. Chrissakes, you should read some of the history books made during the Communist era in Russia. What a good belly laugh those are! And that's not an opinion. Lenin was a monster, but they portray the Americans and the rest of the Allies as if we were the harbingers of Satan's reign on earth.

Not meant as a personal attack, but a point of view is not necessarily an opinion. Seeing the forest for the trees is a good tactic of survival...that's why so many people get lost...literally & figuratively. They lose sight of the bigger picture.

Japan of old times certainly did things that would not be considered acceptable by today's Geneva Convention. Instilling terror into the local populace is the same result regardless of specific technique.

[quote]There are huge differences, and to ignore them is ignorant at best.[/quote[

Ignoring those differences presumes I knew about them. I do not. Please notice that I am asking legitimate questions because I'm not an expert, unlike so many of the State Department officials in this thread who have all the answers. I apologize if my wording isn't correct.

I'm trying to understand why we perceive some cultures are capable of change and others are perceived to be unfixable. We've demonstrated in several locations around the world that cultures can be altered like post-Nazi Germany, South Korea, and Japan. We have also found places where we failed, like Vietnam and Somolia. Does the US claim all the credit when things go right but label others as permanently broken when we fail? That's some ego we must have, i.e. "If the US cannot get a culture to change, that means it is impossible to do."

Since when are officials in the State Department or elsewhere in the government "experts"? Sure there might be a few, but government jobs don't pay as well for the same level of expertise in the civilian world. The military has plenty of people who are really good at what they do...and lots more who aren't. Simple fact. A uniform or a suit does not make one an expert...an expert is one who has shown an ability exceeding their position. That's what makes them experts. Please don't confuse professional with expert. I'm a professional machinist, but certainly not an expert machinist.

now , ok
i am a muslim and live in the middle east , i am 36
however my mother is british and i have been in the states many many times.
i jumped from page 9 to page 22 of this thread.
i will finish it later, as i dont have much time

but from what i have been reading, i really understand all point of views in this thread.

there are many point i want to share my thought with you all.
but for now
i hope we can make a differance between common poeple and governments.
i have read and understand quran all my life.
and belive me there are nothing in it that tell us to kill people or perform any terrorist attacks.

also i think democracy can not be imported or exported (by force)
its simply must be from within the heart of the country that wish to really apply it.

war in iraq. i really dont understand what usa are doing there. oil?, making another base in the area?, i dont understand, but whatever there doing , right or wrong, its not seems to be working.
i am sure when bush is out, us will be out or iraq as well.
not because he doing it , but simply there are no reason for us to go out now, and make it appear as its a mistake. what will happen next ? i think war between iraqs themselfs.

however not all islamic countries are like that.
here in egypt, we muslims, chrisians, and even some jewish live all togther, there are some struggles offcourse between some people, but whenever i read about it, i find out that most of them are uneducated, poor people, that they have all the time in the world to think about silly things to feel they have a cause and they are doing god wishs.

i wish we could all just live in peace, i wonder how many WORLDS can be saved if fraction of what spent on the military was spent of them.
can u imagine what can be the case if the usa gave what they spent on war to iraqs instead of bombing them ?, offering them new jobs, factories , schools , etc, etc
i belive it could be one of the best countries in the region
how many guys will leave his good paying job to go fight with someone else and for what? for nothing ?.
people go to desprate measures when they are desprate,
poeple steel food when they are hungy
people fight each other when they have nothing to lose.

give them a life and they wont give it away.

there are no winners and losers in any war, there are only losers.

max_imum2000,

As a U.S. citizen, I think perhaps there could be some justification for making sure another country that is a declared belligerent cannot carry out nuclear war or keep missiles capable of reaching other countries. What is happening in Iraq is far beyond this.

Beyond that, we cannot give them a life to give away. Just as you say democracy has to come from within, so does the good paying job. Before you can have good paying jobs, you must have the right to own property and the freedom to do what you wish and keep what you earn. These rights need to be respected by the government and by society at large. Once people have made their own fortunes, that is when they will not give it away. If it is just given to them, it is of little value to them, because they do not own it. We can't export prosperity any more than we can export democracy, and for the same reasons.

The U.S. will declare victory and pull out eventually. As long as the only productivity in the area is from oil, and as long as the government has a monopoly on that oil, there will be trouble with idle hands and idle minds, just as we have in our inner cities here.

In the meantime, please realize that our federal government does not speak for the people on the ground here. Just as everywhere else in the world, government is structured to keep good honest men out. There are a few, but the treatment they receive is enough to dissuade the rest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo6KIusCBoU

--97T--

Ever heard of Posada Carriles?

Posada Carriles was detained in Venezuela in 1976 and convicted of masterminding the downing of the Cuban jet off Barbados. But he managed to escape from prison in 1985.

He was also sentenced to eight years' jail in Panama in a bomb plot to assasinate Castro during an Ibero-American summit in 2000.

Posada Carriles was detained by U.S immigration officials in May 2005 for entering the Unites States illegally.

U.S authorities have refused to extradite him to Venezuela or Cuba, claiming he might be tortured there.

Posada Carriles was freed on bond by a Texas court on Thursday (April 20, 2007).

Selective application of anti-terrorist laws smacks of hypocrisy, as does refusal to extradite based on claims of the possibility of torture.

There is plenty of hypocracy to go around. I say, let the guilty pay for their bloody deeds with their own blood! Although an attempt is not the same as success, it does not normally get the same penalty.

Since Canada does not have capital punishment, they do not extradite anyone that could face a death penalty IF found guilty in a trial. So, in effect, as long as terror suspects have done nothing wrong in the land they seek refuge without the death penalty for killers, they are being harbored and protected from the very death they seek to deliver at will.

Where is the justice in that? A safe haven is exactly what they intended, when it is their chicken$hit neck on the line.

DC

...Since Canada does not have capital punishment, they do not extradite anyone that could face a death penalty IF found guilty in a trial....DC

I believe that is the case.

What is the relevance to the little snippet I posted?

I you still hiding behind the excuse; "We are bad but that's okay because other people are badder"?

What makes you think I do not consider the stance taken by the Canadian govt to be hypocritical.

I see a parallel in the hypocrisy, and I chose to post my take on it. Some of it in agreement and some of it rhetorical contradiction.

Harboring suspected killers from nations with a death penalty IF found guilty, in relation to, harboring attempted assassins from torture has it irony. Regardless if either is conflicting with justice served. Had the guy been executed for killing innocents on that plane, we wouldn't have to deal with his escape, capture or continued rampage against humanity. Freeing him on bond was dense to say the least. I'm guessing we have not seen the end of his sequels.

So what, you don't seem to mind pointing out the hypocrisy of what your neighbors do, but you appear to get a bit touchy when mirrored circumstance reflects both our ironic political stumblings? What makes you think I meant that personally toward you, as if I were questioning what you think of your own nation? Although, you must admit, you have stated many of your positions against the US policies and I'd be estimating a 10:1 ratio of what you ever say against your own nation.

As if taking the moral high ground were something either of us can boast about by pointing to the others nations faults. Moreover, when neither of us are directly responsible for what our nations chose to do on these matters.

DC

Mostly you have lost me but let me just make clear I consider torture wrong no matter who are the practitioners. In the case of some countries/cultures I do not expect better behaviour; in the case of other countries/cultures I do expect better behaviour. I you wish to construe this as criticism so be it.

Since Canada does not have capital punishment, they do not extradite anyone that could face a death penalty IF found guilty in a trial. they are being harbored and protected
DC


what facts do you have to base these findings on ?

It is one of your laws? That leaves them free to roam in your land and untouchable by the nations that they may have committed crimes against. Specifically, those that are known to have links to the deaths of that nations citizens.

The obvious ways to avoid the risk of the death penalty and torture or even prison, are not that tough to comprehend. Showing mercy for someone that gave no mercy is not justice for the victims or their families, it is pacifist for the living and at best, a meal ticket, free room and board, not to mention free health care for the rest of the maggots life. Then there is also the possibility of that escaping issue.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in the case United States v. Burns, (2001), has determined that Canada should not extradite condemned persons, unless they have assurances that the foreign state will not apply the death penalty. This is similar to the extradition policies of other nations such as France, Italy, Israel, Mexico, and Australia, which also refuse to extradite prisoners who may be condemned to death.

There are plenty of cases to back that up.

DC

there are cases to the contrary , one judge can out rule another quite easily
you ve been listening to much to bushes accusations we are a safe haven , i m still waiting for the bombs to fly our way over that one ,i really don t beleave that one will ever die off till we eventually do go to war
people like to paint canadains in some sort of slate picture without understanding anything about us , i personally grew up with a gun in one hand and an fishing rod in the other ,and i m not scared to use em either ,
i absolutely hate the bleeding heart self rightious society of modern day man ,its in my country its in yours and many others , but at the same time i respect a passive logical man , logic and mercy drive a moral and wise society , a society without one of the two can not be called civilized
as people we tend to justify our actions by pointing our fingers at everyone else and passing judgement on them , its human nature , it releives us of our own guilt !!!

in my opinion a lot of canada's problems stem to no good draft dodging dope smokin squatting hippies who escaped here to bred like rabbits , they should have been dragged back to the boarder by their hair years ago ,

it seems to me that both our countries share an equal issue , the hippy generation eats up a large portion of the vote which has a large dictation on what is the social flavour of the day or whats politically correct (contradiction of terms)

I hope you registered that gun.

Everybody in Canada knows law abiding Canadians can't be trusted with unregistered hunting rifles.

--97T--

Nothing wrong with wars :)

For all my adult life I have worked in the defence industry. The more armed conflicts there are the more requirements for my products. Which means more money for me *yum*

The fact that others (as I pointed out to my doctor recently) can have a differing opinion without being dragged off to a field and shot in the back of the neck is soley due to the fact that we, as a country, can defend ourselves with these weapons and cannot be invaded by nutter countries.

The fact that people here are able to express differing opinions is solely due to the fact that we live in a democracy. This democracy is protected by the stuff I make and by wars which stop mental dictators wandering across the planet saying "I think I'll invade there on Monday".

I hope you registered that gun.

Everybody in Canada knows law abiding Canadians can't be trusted with unregistered hunting rifles.

--97T--

register gun ,what gun ?

almost all deaths in canada with shotguns and riffles are suicides


the gun registry was designed as a government money grab which backfired

I did a little checking, and it appears that it isn't just gun registration, it's PEOPLE registration. You need to have prior permission from Big Brother (possession and acquisition license) to buy ammunition, and you need to have a separate registration for each firearm in your possession.

Maybe you fall under the strictly defined amnesty program. And maybe they'll dismantle the whole thing. But according to the government website, it looks like the laws are still in effect.

--97T--

Aparently in the States you can make your own gun without any registration (not automatic, not silencered and assuming you are legaly entitled to own a gun)... you just have to serial number it and you can't sell it or give it away. Here's a link... Bowman's post is educational

http://www.cnczone.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-19446.html

Here in the UK we aint allowed guns. That doesn't, however, stop them being seemingly relaitively easy to acquire judging by the amount of idiotic gang members in Manchester shooting each other... which I guess aint a bad thing all things considered.

I did a little checking, and it appears that it isn't just gun registration, it's PEOPLE registration. You need to have prior permission from Big Brother (possession and acquisition license) to buy ammunition, and you need to have a separate registration for each firearm in your possession.

Maybe you fall under the strictly defined amnesty program. And maybe they'll dismantle the whole thing. But according to the government website, it looks like the laws are still in effect.

--97T--

you must have a lot of time on your hands

FAC can be easy aquired thru a firearm safety course or hunter training course which would make sense

you need to have a FAC in order to buy weapons and have them registered ,
i can agree with needing the for an FAC in order to purchase a gun because i don t feel the need to have some crackhead be able to walk into a store and buy a weapon ,

the gun registry is prone to failure because many gun owners refuse to have their weapons registered , and the estamates tha government shows for the number of weapons that still need to be registered is no where near accurate
they have no idea of how many guns are in this country

what they should have done was have stiff jail sentences for having hand guns which are being smuggled in due to the loose gun laws south of the boarder
there is no need for hand guns , and as far as protecting my home goes if someone wants to break in in the middle of the night i'd prefer the shot gun , it s quick and scatters so i don t have to be so concerned about a proper aim to blow the sucker away

hand guns which are being smuggled in due to the loose gun laws south of the boarder
there is no need for hand guns , and as far as protecting my home goes if someone wants to break in in the middle of the night i'd prefer the shot gun , it s quick and scatters so i don t have to be so concerned about a proper aim to blow the sucker away

It is NOT the failure of gun laws 'south of the border' that guns are smuggled into your country, it is YOUR failure that allows them in.

Your statement that you'd prefer a shotgun over a handgun, that there is no need for handguns, shows an abject lack of knowledge of firearms and defensive firearms in particular.

Given your lack of knowledge and understanding, it is actually better that you have nothing.

It is NOT the failure of gun laws 'south of the border' that guns are smuggled into your country, it is YOUR failure that allows them in.

Your statement that you'd prefer a shotgun over a handgun, that there is no need for handguns, shows an abject lack of knowledge of firearms and defensive firearms in particular.

.

did i suggest it was a FAILURE south of the boarder ?
can you not just walk into a gun store and purchase a weapon ,
if you have that right so does some crackhead ,which shows loose laws ,
problem is some of those weapons are coming into our country ,at which handguns are have always been highly regulated , and they are falling into the hands of the wrong people , and we need stiffer penelies to deter these freaks from having them , it s not MY failure it s the idiot government's failure

here the sole need in Canada for firearms is hunting , the state of living here is relatively safe most of us do not feel paranoia and the need to defend our homes with weapons ,but if crackheads and idiots keep aquiring them we will feel the need

and my use of a firearm needs not to be questioned by anyone who has seen me shot

did i suggest it was a FAILURE south of the boarder ?
can you not just walk into a gun store and purchase a weapon ,
if you have that right so does some crackhead ,which shows loose laws ,
problem is some of those weapons are coming into our country ,at which handguns are have always been highly regulated , and they are falling into the hands of the wrong people , and we need stiffer penelies to deter these freaks from having them , it s not MY failure it s the idiot government's failure

here the sole need in Canada for firearms is hunting , the state of living here is relatively safe most of us do not feel paranoia and the need to defend our homes with weapons ,but if crackheads and idiots keep aquiring them we will feel the need

and my use of a firearm needs not to be questioned by anyone who has seen me shot
"hand guns which are being smuggled in due to the loose gun laws south of the boarder" Is what you said.

Two components to that statement. 1) the smuggling is taking place, and 2) we have "loose" laws. The first statement says there is something illegal taking place, by either your fellow citizens or mine, but the second component does by its very nature present an insult by the use of the word "loose". "Due" to our ......shall we imply from your statement...'irresponsible' laws?? Isn't that what you really mean?

can you not just walk into a gun store and purchase a weapon ,
if you have that right so does some crackhead ,which shows loose laws

You are clearly ignorant of US laws, or you wouldn't be making such a patently stupid statement.

Since you'll no doubt want to make some reference to the recent VT shooting, you might want to first look at the laws of Virginia, frequently pointed to as a state with "loose" gun laws....
http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_PurchaseEligibility.shtm and those aren't the FEDERAL laws that must also be applied.

I'll gladly take "loose" over "draconian" laws any day.

.....Since you'll no doubt want to make some reference to the recent VT shooting, you might want to first look at the laws of Virginia, frequently pointed to as a state with "loose" gun laws....
http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_PurchaseEligibility.shtm and those aren't the FEDERAL laws that must also be applied.

I'll gladly take "loose" over "draconian" laws any day.

Yes, interesting isn't it that in a State where concealed hand guns may be carried, I believe that is the case if not I am sure I will be corrected, it is possible for someone to go on a rampage and kill so many people over such a long time.

I believe one of the primary arguments in favor of permitting concealed weapons is that they diminish the chance that someone will try to pursue criminal activity because they are not sure whether they will get their comeuppance. The problem with this is that it does not work with someone who is irrational.

Also going on about loose versus tight versus draconian does not get you anywhere. Everyone, whether they own a gun or carry a gun is law-abiding until they commit a criminal act. The big problem is that if the criminal act is shooting someone it is a bit tough on the shootee.

[QUOTE=fizzissist;289796
Since you'll no doubt want to make some reference to the recent VT shooting, .[/QUOTE]

why would i want to be so ignorant ?


it floors me how defensive people get about their guns
i like guns but i don t treat them as i would my first born
it would seem quite obvious our criminals would be either buying them from
upstanding citizens or criminals on your side ,which do you think that would be ?? i don t think i can walk into any gunshop down there and buy a gun , or could i ?

http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html
http://www.vpc.org/press/0602rank.htm

do you not see problem ?

i think guns should be out of the hands of idiots thats all, if you beleave different then good for you ,

you must have a lot of time on your hands

FAC can be easy aquired thru a firearm safety course or hunter training course which would make sense

you need to have a FAC in order to buy weapons and have them registered ,
i can agree with needing the for an FAC in order to purchase a gun because i don t feel the need to have some crackhead be able to walk into a store and buy a weapon ,

the gun registry is prone to failure because many gun owners refuse to have their weapons registered , and the estamates tha government shows for the number of weapons that still need to be registered is no where near accurate
they have no idea of how many guns are in this country

what they should have done was have stiff jail sentences for having hand guns which are being smuggled in due to the loose gun laws south of the boarder
there is no need for hand guns , and as far as protecting my home goes if someone wants to break in in the middle of the night i'd prefer the shot gun , it s quick and scatters so i don t have to be so concerned about a proper aim to blow the sucker away

here the sole need in Canada for firearms is hunting , the state of living here is relatively safe most of us do not feel paranoia and the need to defend our homes with weapons ,but if crackheads and idiots keep aquiring them we will feel the need

i think guns should be out of the hands of idiots thats all, if you beleave different then good for you


So, you agree that not registering your long guns is a crime. You agree that you have to get yourself registered first. And you acknowlege that the law is so unpopular that many otherwise law-abiding citizens are risking prison to disobey it.

And you may not have studied the issue too carefully -- a scattergun is preferable to some for home defense because of its lethality, not because you don't have to aim it. At the ranges typically found in a home defense situation there isn't much scatter. And you do have to not only aim any weapon, you are responsible to know what your target is and what is behind it before you consider discharging the weapon. Many people don't prefer a shotgun for home defense because of the risk of hitting an unintended target, because of the scattering issue and because of downrange penetration capability. You might not want to kill your loved ones in the next room.

You speak of 'need' for weapons, and say that it is only for hunting. It looks like the greenies are taking over your government. Next, your overlords will decide that you don't need them for hunting, either. Therefore you have no need for them at all.

You should consider that the most important reason for possession of firearms is preventive -- not for defense from thieves, but for the psychological effect it has on your overlords. History shows that the only thing that restrains any form of government is the threat of losing their positions, and in the end, perhaps violent overthrow. It also shows what happens when the means for that possible overthrow are finally taken away from the people. Just do a google search on 'death by government', and you will see that a disarmed population is at more risk from its own government than by any outside agency or any gang of criminals. The numbers are staggering.

On the other hand, I sort of agree with you. I think that people who don't think anyone can be trusted with weapons shouldn't be trusted with weapons themselves. Perhaps those who seek to deny me my right to self-defense don't deserve that right themselves.

Perhaps every society gets the kind of government it deserves, after all.

--97T--

Yes, interesting isn't it that in a State where concealed hand guns may be carried, I believe that is the case if not I am sure I will be corrected, it is possible for someone to go on a rampage and kill so many people over such a long time.

I believe one of the primary arguments in favor of permitting concealed weapons is that they diminish the chance that someone will try to pursue criminal activity because they are not sure whether they will get their comeuppance. The problem with this is that it does not work with someone who is irrational.

Also going on about loose versus tight versus draconian does not get you anywhere. Everyone, whether they own a gun or carry a gun is law-abiding until they commit a criminal act. The big problem is that if the criminal act is shooting someone it is a bit tough on the shootee.

Geof,

The university had a no - weapons policy enacted into law. Just last January, a bill was introduced in the state legislature that would prevent universities from abridging an individual's right to carry if they had a concealed weapons permit (something criminals and madmen don't usually go through the trouble to do, what with background checks). Citing the need for the university to make people on campus "feel safe", the university applauded in the press when the bill was killed.

The problem with criminals and madmen is that they respect no law.

The problem with gun control is that unless you have an extremely oppressive police state with routine home searches & such, you are never going to get all of the guns to disappear. And yet, criminals and madmen can still find ways to get weapons anyway.

The gun ban did nothing to stop the madman. Further, it did nothing to protect the victims. The gun ban wasn't about protecting victims, it was about making the leftists on campus "feel" better, while making it a crime for a legally armed citizen to carry a weapon on campus. If the aim was to enhance safety, the gun ban would have included armed policemen in every hallway (obviously not workable).

The preventive rationale you cited is operative and demonstrable now. It is the reason why retirees from Canada are disproportinately preyed upon by the criminal element in the worst areas in Florida. The goblins know that a Canadian license plate means a helpless disarmed victim inside, where now that concealed carry licensed must be issued to law abiding citizens, the outcome might be in doubt if they try to assail a local resident. The statistics on this are alarming.

The preventive rationale would be lost on a madman -- maybe. We should notice he didn't go into a police department or a shooting range to do his evil work. But, if there were a few armed citizens among the victim pool, there is a slight chance that someone might have been able to shoot back. However slight that chance is, the stories of the teachers blocking the doors with their bodies to prevent him from gaining entrance are disturbing in the extreme. Anyone with the presence of mind to block a door, knowing that the door will be shot through, might have preferred that chance to confront the intruder with a weapon instead. I know I would.

--97T--

Here is something I received in an email yesterday. If it does not belong here then the mod's can feel free to delete it.


> Congressional Leaders Moving To Pass Gun Control Without A Vote!
> -- McCarthy bill would treat gun owners even worse than terrorists
>
> Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
> 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
> Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
> http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm
>
> "Another gun rights group, the Gun Owners of America, is adamantly
> opposed to the [McCarthy-Dingell] legislation. It said the measure
> would allow the government to trample privacy rights by compiling
> reams of personal information and potentially bar mentally stable
> people from buying guns." -- Associated Press, April 24, 2007
>
> Thursday, April 26, 2007
>
> This is going to be a knock-down, drag-out fight. GOA continues to
> stand alone in the trenches, defending the rights of gun owners around
> the country. It's not going to be easy.
>
> Gun control supporters want to pass gun control within the next couple
> of weeks. And that's why, even if you took action earlier this week,
> you need to do so once again.
>
> All the gun haters (who have been keeping silent for a while) are now
> coming out of the closet and into the open. Take the notoriously
> anti-gun senator from New York -- Chuck Schumer. He has been very,
> very excited this week. Recent events have given him a platform, and
> the excuse, to push legislation that he had sponsored years ago --
> legislation that never got through Congress.
>
> You see, Senator Chuck Schumer has been, in past years, the Senate
> sponsor of the McCarthy bill (HR 297). And the recent murders at
> Virginia Tech have given Senator Schumer the pretext he has been
> looking for. Appearing on the Bill O'Reilly show earlier this week,
> Schumer did his best to make a reasonable-sounding pitch for more gun
> control.
>
> He told O'Reilly on Monday that while he and Rep. McCarthy had
> previously worked together on this legislation, he now wants Congress
> to take up HR 297 quickly. "The Brady Law is a reasonable limitation,"
> Schumer said. "Some might disagree with me, but I think certain kinds
> of licensing and registration is a reasonable limitation. We do it for
> cars."
>
> Get the picture? First, he wants the Brady Law strengthened with the
> McCarthy-Dingell-Schumer legislation. Then it's off to pass more gun
> control -- treating guns like cars, where all gun owners are licensed
> and where bureaucrats will have a wonderful confiscation list.
>
> In the O'Reilly interview, Schumer showed his hand when he revealed
> the strategy for this bill. Because it could become such a hot potato
> -- thanks to your efforts -- Senator Schumer is pushing to get this
> bill passed by Unanimous Consent in the Senate, which basically means
> that the bill would get passed WITHOUT A VOTE.
>
> This is a perfect way to pass gun control without anyone getting
> blamed... or so they think. We need to tell every Senator that if this
> bill passes without a vote, then we hold ALL OF THEM responsible. (Be
> looking for a future GOA alert aimed at your
> Senators.)
>
> On the House side, the Associated Press reported this past Monday that
> "House Democratic leaders are working with the National Rifle
> Association to bolster existing laws blocking" certain prohibited
> persons from buying guns. Of course, there are at least three problems
> with this approach:
>
> 1. It's morally and constitutionally wrong to require law-abiding
> citizens to first prove their innocence to the government before they
> can exercise their rights -- whether it's Second Amendment rights,
> First Amendment rights, or any other right. Doing that gives
> bureaucrats the opportunity to abuse their power and illegitimately
> prevent honest gun owners from buying guns.
>
> 2. Bureaucrats have already used the Brady Law to illegitimately deny
> the Second Amendment rights of innocent Americans. Americans have been
> prevented from buying guns because of outstanding traffic tickets,
> because of errors, because the NICS computer system has crashed -- and
> don't forget returning veterans because of combat-related stress. You
> give an anti-gun bureaucrat an inch, he'll take a mile -- which we
> have already seen as GOA has documented numerous instances of the
> abuses mentioned above.
>
> 3. Finally, all the background checks in the world will NOT stop bad
> guys from getting firearms. As we mentioned in the previous alert,
> severe restrictions in Washington, DC, England, Canada, Germany and
> other places have not stopped evil people from using guns to commit
> murder. (Correction: In our previous alert, we incorrectly identified
> Ireland as the location of the infamous schoolyard massacre. In fact,
> it took place in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996 -- a country which at the
> time had even more stringent laws than we have
> here.)
>
> McCARTHY BILL TREATING GUN OWNERS WORSE THAN TERRORISTS
>
> HR 297 would require the states to turn over mountains of personal
> data (on people like you) to the FBI -- any information which
> according to the Attorney General, in his or her unilateral
> discretion, would be useful in ascertaining who is or is not a
> "prohibited person."
>
> Liberal support for this bill points out an interesting hypocrisy in
> their loyalties: For six years, congressional Democrats have
> complained about the Bush administration's efforts to obtain personal
> information on suspected terrorists WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.
>
> And yet, this bill would allow the FBI to obtain massive amounts of
> information -- information which dwarfs any records obtained from
> warrantless searches (or wiretaps) that have been conducted by the
> Bush Administration on known or suspected terrorists operating in the
> country.
>
> In fact, HR 297 would allow the FBI to get this information on honest
> Americans (like you) even though the required data is much more
> private and personal than any information obtained thus far by the
> Bush administration on terrorists.
>
> And all of these personal records would be obtained by the FBI with no
> warrant or judicial or Congressional oversight whatsoever!!!
>
> Get the picture? Spying on terrorists is bad... but spying on honest
> gun owners is good. After all, this horrific intrusion on the private
> lives of all Americans is presumed to be "okay" because it's only
> being used to bash guns, not to go after terrorists and criminals who
> are trying to kill us.
>
> As indicated in earlier alerts, this information could include your
> medical, psychological, financial, education, employment, traffic,
> state tax records and more. We don't even know the full extent of what
> could be included because HR 297 -- which can be viewed at
> http://thomas.loc.gov by typing in the bill number -- is so
> open-ended. It requires states to provide the NICS system with ALL
> RECORDS that the Attorney General believes will help the FBI determine
> who is and who is not a prohibited person. Certainly, an anti-gun AG
> like Janet Reno would want as many types of records in the system as
> possible.
>
> The provision that would probably lead to the greatest number of
> 'fishing expeditions' is that related to illegal aliens. Federal law
> prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill requires all
> "relevant" data related to who is in this country illegally. But what
> records pertaining to illegal aliens from the states would be
> relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what records are not
> relevant?
>
> ACTION:
>
> 1. Please take a moment to communicate your opposition to HR 297 --
> even if you already sent your Representative a note earlier this week.
> We have provided a new letter (below) which provides updated
> information relating to the battle we are fighting.
>
> House leaders are talking about bringing up this bill soon. And Sen.
> Schumer (in his interview with O'Reilly) even hinted at the fact that
> the bill could come up WITHOUT the ability to offer pro-gun amendments
> -- such as a repeal of the DC gun ban or reciprocity for concealed
> carry holders -- provisions that could potentially serve as killer
> amendments.
>
> Also -- oh yeah, this is going to upset you -- Senator Schumer told
> O'Reilly, "I got to tell you, a lot of NRA people, they support this."
> Can you believe that? Senator Schumer is claiming to speak for you!
> That's why it's so important that you once again tell your congressman
> that Schumer is wrong... that you're a supporter of gun rights who
> OPPOSES the anti-gun McCarthy-Dingell bill.
>
> 2. Please circulate this e-mail and forward it to as many gun owners
> as you can.
>
> CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action
> Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your
> Representative the pre-written e-mail message below. And, you can call
> your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
>
> ----- Pre-written letter -----
>
> Dear Representative:
>
> As a supporter of Second Amendment rights, I do NOT support HR 297,
> the NICS Improvement Act. I hope that you will OPPOSE this bill and
> urge your party leadership to either kill it outright or to allow
> other pro-gun amendments to be offered (repeal of the DC gun ban,
> reciprocity for concealed carry holders, etc.).
>
> In its current form, HR 297 will treat gun owners even worse than
> terrorists, giving the FBI a mountain of private information on
> law-abiding Americans like me.
>
> How is it that, despite all the criticism over the Bush
> administration's attempts to obtain personal information on suspected
> terrorists without a court order, this bill would allow the FBI to
> obtain massive amounts of information on ME -- information which
> dwarfs any warrantless searches (or wiretaps) that have been conducted
> by the Bush Administration on known or suspected terrorists operating
> in the country.
>
> And all of this personal information would be obtained by the FBI with
> no warrant or judicial or Congressional oversight whatsoever!!!
>
> How is it that spying on terrorists is bad, but spying on honest gun
> owners is good?
>
> Again, I hope that you will oppose HR 297. Gun Owners of America will
> continue to keep me informed on the progress of this bill. Thank you.
>

....The problem with criminals and madmen is that they respect no law....

Anyone with the presence of mind to block a door, knowing that the door will be shot through, might have preferred that chance to confront the intruder with a weapon instead. I know I would.

--97T--

I agree with both of these; particularly the second one. There have been similar shootings in Canada and a common feature is that people seem to be too passive. People have been trained to wait for the police and don't do anything rash; like throwing furniture at the shooter.

Unfortunately there is no simple solution.

On the other hand, I sort of agree with you. I think that people who don't think anyone can be trusted with weapons shouldn't be trusted with weapons themselves. Perhaps those who seek to deny me my right to self-defense don't deserve that right themselves.

Perhaps every society gets the kind of government it deserves, after all.

--97T--

who said that noone can be trusted with a gun , what is so wrong with someone having to proove they are competent to handle a gun in order to buy one ,
everyone in the world understands it is your god given right as an american to own a weapon , yet most countries in the civilized world have strict regulation or outright bans on firearms , there is no denying that the US has a rediculous percentage of gun deaths per capita than the rest of the world , why would this be ? could it be the wrong people have guns in their posession , no of course not !t must be something else
i stand by what i said before there is no need for hand guns other than for shear violence be it offense or defence ,chances are if there wasn t so many of them in your country you probably wouldn t feel the need to have one yourself ,
does america have a problem that its citizens would have to live in a state of fear , does life revolve around your gun or is life all about apple pie ,
we all know that the US constitution dictates that you have the right to bear arms and the gun rights activist clench ever so strongly to that rule ,
but was that rule not created way back in the days of the wild wild west
i'm not knocking the country or its people , yes it is a right , and while living in a free country myself i can understand the need for rules ,i may not agree with all of them but in a democratic society we the people have the right to make the rule ,its not about big brother (though he's probably watching) its about creating a safer place to raise our families , and a few rules to keep less weapons in the hands of dangerous people is n t going to affect the honest compitent people who should have the right

derstap,
You asked why people get so defensive about their guns?

Quite simple. If you aren't defensive about your guns, you won't be able to be defensive about anything. The 2nd Amendment stands to insure the 1st.

The links you provided just happened to be an AP article, not written by anyone well versed on the subject, and containing misleading information. The second link is a vehemently anti-gun organization. Hardly objective on the subject by any measure, and they make no bones about it.

When Australia decided to gather up all the "assault" weapons and other evil guns, the supply of large diameter PVC pipe mysteriously dried up. Gee...I wonder why. Shovels were probably also in short supply.

In England you may only keep your gun at a "club". Well, that certainly helps with home defense, doesn't it?

Then there's the farmer who used his shotgun against an intruder and went to jail. That's an example of draconian laws. Well documented, that one.

Since there are many who think a shotgun is THE ideal home defense weapon, make sure you put your hearing protection on before pulling the trigger. Don't believe me? Put yourself in a small space and light one off. Can you say loud? Can you say permanent hearing loss? Never mind that there is a myriad of reasons they can be more of a handicap than benefit.

Btw, you DO have to aim a shotgun, and you have to aim it just as carefully as any other firearm at the distances you'd encounter in a home situation. As 97T points out, you also have the responsibility to consider what is behind your target....just like any other firearm.

If you really are interested in US gun laws, here's a good, reliable place to start...
http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/

but was that rule not created way back in the days of the wild wild west
We're a little light on the history, aren't we?? That 'rule', which is a RIGHT, was intended to provide the people with a means of defense against criminals, period. The obvious intent at the time was that we could defend against a corrupt or criminal government. THAT hasn't changed. Criminals is criminals.

derstap,

Since there are many who think a shotgun is THE ideal home defense weapon, make sure you put your hearing protection on before pulling the trigger. Don't believe me? Put yourself in a small space and light one off. Can you say loud? Can you say permanent hearing loss? Never mind that there is a myriad of reasons they can be more of a handicap than benefit.

Btw, you DO have to aim a shotgun,/[/url]

yes i agree a shotgun needs to be aimed to hit a target and i see you guys will never let me live that one down , i never said it was the ideal home defence , i do not own weapons for defence purposes .

permanent hearing loss would be a small price to pay to safe my families lives under a circumstanse ,since i would be willing to die to protect them

we have our own stupid laws about home protection that puts law biding citizens at risk of being persecuted by the law for protecting our property
if i shot an intruder dead i have to proove within a reasonable doubt my families lives are at risk or i go to jail for murder , solution is to put a knife in his hand ,
a friend caught a guy stealing his car , the guys leg was sticking out of the car while he was trying to hotwire it , so my friend slammed the door breaking the guys leg , 6 months later he was in court being sued for assault causing bodily harm ,the clown almost won the suit

our system is nowhere near perfect either

Sorry....don't mean to sound so defensive, or angry...it's just that we're on a real sensitive subject..That of the security of me and mine. I take it pretty seriously.

A book that sheds some interesting light on what we're discussing here, basically a cultural outlook on self-protection, is The Cowboy, the Samurai, and the Mountie.

It addresses the gun laws of different countries and how they relate to the cultures of those countries. One important thing to note is that less guns doesn't guarantee less crime....just look at Mexico, where guns are illegal.

Sorry....don't mean to sound so defensive, or angry...it's just that we're on a real sensitive subject..That of the security of me and mine. I take it pretty seriously.


.

i probably come across as offensive anyhow , it s my nature

who said that noone can be trusted with a gun , what is so wrong with someone having to proove they are competent to handle a gun in order to buy one ,

You did, by saying someone should have to prove their innocence rather than someone else having to prove their guilt. It's the difference between a right and begging permission from some ministry. If you have to beg permission, it isn't a right. And the acknowlegement of that right in the founding document was intended to prevent people from having to beg permission.

everyone in the world understands it is your god given right as an american to own a weapon , yet most countries in the civilized world have strict regulation or outright bans on firearms , there is no denying that the US has a rediculous percentage of gun deaths per capita than the rest of the world , why would this be ? could it be the wrong people have guns in their posession , no of course not !t must be something else

You obviously have not counted deaths of disarmed citizens at the hands of their own governments in your calculation there. The numbers are overwhelming evidence that it is safer to live in a land of armed citizens. Have you read any of the history on this?

Now, citizen - on - citizen criminal shootings do happen. Why would this be? Because we are into the third generation of welfare dependence, that's why. The government pays women to have children and cuts the money off if the daddy lives at home. The brats are sent to public schools where they are taught values that undermine every traditional American value. And the role models are pimps and drug dealers with bling and cadillacs. Money for nothing pays for drugs, alcohol, and boredom. The popular culture in these neighborhoods celebrates gangsta-ism, lawlessness, and victim mentality. You've got a few more years before the same thing happens in cities like Toronto, where it's already begun. The values of a neighborhood change when all of the businesses and people with traditional values leave for safer ground and better schools. Pretty soon the city government is taken over by people who play to these themes. Bureaucracies are established that are shot through with people of low mentality and even lower morals. Then, you can't depend on the common courtesy and friendly respect for rights that are part of your core culture any more. Wanna come take a tour of Detroit? And no, it's not a color thing, it's a philosophy thing. Anyone can fall into the trap. Few climb out.

It's not the guns that are the problem. These cities already have restrictive gun laws. Most crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns. The legally disarmed victims leave, some before and some after a loved one has been assaulted. Gun crimes went down after the 'shall issue' laws on concealed weapons permits were passed, because it made victimizing people more dangerous.

And again, it's not a right if you have to beg permission.

i stand by what i said before there is no need for hand guns other than for shear violence be it offense or defence ,chances are if there wasn t so many of them in your country you probably wouldn t feel the need to have one yourself ,
does america have a problem that its citizens would have to live in a state of fear , does life revolve around your gun or is life all about apple pie ,
we all know that the US constitution dictates that you have the right to bear arms and the gun rights activist clench ever so strongly to that rule ,
but was that rule not created way back in the days of the wild wild west
i'm not knocking the country or its people , yes it is a right , and while living in a free country myself i can understand the need for rules ,i may not agree with all of them but in a democratic society we the people have the right to make the rule ,its not about big brother (though he's probably watching) its about creating a safer place to raise our families , and a few rules to keep less weapons in the hands of dangerous people is n t going to affect the honest compitent people who should have the rightThe reason for the second amendment was for protection against an over-powerful government, not just home protection. It was enacted way before the 'wild west' days. And it was in recognition of the fact that governments that disarm their own people often end up enslaving or killing them. Something that was borne out in horrifying fashion in the last century.

It's not a question of 'need'. You don't get to decide whether I 'need' what I want, be it a weapon, a toy, a car, what kind of house, or how much energy. If you fall for that, someone will soon be deciding what and how much YOU need of anything.

I've never felt safer than the times I've spent at a shooting range, or at a gathering of second amendment supporters. Think about that for a second.

And I use them as toys for sporting purposes. I hope never to 'need' one, and I vow never to be without one if I ever 'need' it. Because if the time ever comes when you 'need' one, then you REALLY REALLY need it!

A democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch. The U.S. is a constitutionally limited republic, not a democracy. The socialists would like to make it a democracy, partly by undermining limitations on government power, and partly by educating everyone in their government schools that it is a democracy. It most assuredly is not.

The citizens of your country enjoy some vestigial freedoms left over from better days, like the U.S. If you think it is a 'free country', just try to assert your ownership over a piece of land sometime (instead of renting it from the government). Try employing someone. Try publishing something unpopular. Better yet, try to get any of your ministries to acknowlege the source of man's rights as being owned by the individual rather than being granted by the state if, when, and how the state sees fit.

As I said before, the only thing that keeps your overlords from taking everything you own or earn is the possibility of revolt. An armed populace is the only dependable last resort to keep a government restrained. It's better for us if our servants don't want to be an occupying force in our neighborhoods, trying to rule us by force rather than by consent.

Punishing law abiding citizens while not making a dent in the ability of the black market to supply guns will not save lives, it will cost lives. The kind of government presence it would take to confiscate all guns in existence is clear; not only would we not want to live under such a government, but they clearly could not get all the guns -- and the disarmed victims would still be unable to protect themselves from madmen or their own government. No thanks.

--97T--

And again, it's not a right if you have to beg permission.


I've never felt safer than the times at a gathering of second amendment supporters. Think about that for a second.


--97T--
there are clubs for that ???
thanks i ve thought about it more than a second , crazy !!!!
the way you talk about governments are you part of one of those militant groups or something ,

do you not need a lisence to drive , and really was it all that difficult

You did, by saying someone should have to prove their innocence rather than someone else having to prove their guilt. It's the difference between a right and begging permission from some ministry. If you have to beg permission, it isn't a right. And the acknowlegement of that right in the founding document was intended to prevent people from having to beg permission.



You obviously have not counted deaths of disarmed citizens at the hands of their own governments in your calculation there. The numbers are overwhelming evidence that it is safer to live in a land of armed citizens. Have you read any of the history on this?

Now, citizen - on - citizen criminal shootings do happen. Why would this be? Because we are into the third generation of welfare dependence, that's why. The government pays women to have children and cuts the money off if the daddy lives at home. The brats are sent to public schools where they are taught values that undermine every traditional American value. And the role models are pimps and drug dealers with bling and cadillacs. Money for nothing pays for drugs, alcohol, and boredom. The popular culture in these neighborhoods celebrates gangsta-ism, lawlessness, and victim mentality. You've got a few more years before the same thing happens in cities like Toronto, where it's already begun. The values of a neighborhood change when all of the businesses and people with traditional values leave for safer ground and better schools. Pretty soon the city government is taken over by people who play to these themes. Bureaucracies are established that are shot through with people of low mentality and even lower morals. Then, you can't depend on the common courtesy and friendly respect for rights that are part of your core culture any more. Wanna come take a tour of Detroit? And no, it's not a color thing, it's a philosophy thing. Anyone can fall into the trap. Few climb out.

It's not the guns that are the problem. These cities already have restrictive gun laws. Most crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns. The legally disarmed victims leave, some before and some after a loved one has been assaulted. Gun crimes went down after the 'shall issue' laws on concealed weapons permits were passed, because it made victimizing people more dangerous.

And again, it's not a right if you have to beg permission.

The reason for the second amendment was for protection against an over-powerful government, not just home protection. It was enacted way before the 'wild west' days. And it was in recognition of the fact that governments that disarm their own people often end up enslaving or killing them. Something that was borne out in horrifying fashion in the last century.

It's not a question of 'need'. You don't get to decide whether I 'need' what I want, be it a weapon, a toy, a car, what kind of house, or how much energy. If you fall for that, someone will soon be deciding what and how much YOU need of anything.

I've never felt safer than the times I've spent at a shooting range, or at a gathering of second amendment supporters. Think about that for a second.

And I use them as toys for sporting purposes. I hope never to 'need' one, and I vow never to be without one if I ever 'need' it. Because if the time ever comes when you 'need' one, then you REALLY REALLY need it!

A democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch. The U.S. is a constitutionally limited republic, not a democracy. The socialists would like to make it a democracy, partly by undermining limitations on government power, and partly by educating everyone in their government schools that it is a democracy. It most assuredly is not.

The citizens of your country enjoy some vestigial freedoms left over from better days, like the U.S. If you think it is a 'free country', just try to assert your ownership over a piece of land sometime (instead of renting it from the government). Try employing someone. Try publishing something unpopular. Better yet, try to get any of your ministries to acknowlege the source of man's rights as being owned by the individual rather than being granted by the state if, when, and how the state sees fit.

As I said before, the only thing that keeps your overlords from taking everything you own or earn is the possibility of revolt. An armed populace is the only dependable last resort to keep a government restrained. It's better for us if our servants don't want to be an occupying force in our neighborhoods, trying to rule us by force rather than by consent.

Punishing law abiding citizens while not making a dent in the ability of the black market to supply guns will not save lives, it will cost lives. The kind of government presence it would take to confiscate all guns in existence is clear; not only would we not want to live under such a government, but they clearly could not get all the guns -- and the disarmed victims would still be unable to protect themselves from madmen or their own government. No thanks.

--97T--

I think I am going to print this out and hang it on the wall. Very well spoken. I agree completely.

I am of the understanding that marijuana, heroin, pcp, etc are all illegal, in fact very illegal. You don't have to apply for a license, sit out a waiting period, or wait until you are 21. They are illegal, period.
They are also available anywhere you go. Making something illegal and supposedly stopping the import and production of it, does not make it stop existing. It does not really make it any harder to obtain. The price just goes up, that's all.
I worked in dowtown Dallas for a period of time, and there are a number of places down there the cops refuse to even patrol. Supposedly, everyone down in this area is a "victim" of society, I suppose that means they are all innocent, and the guns they have are evil, not the people using them.
The argument would be made that if handguns were outlawed, this area would be safer.
Please, I insist, you go first and check it out :)

there are clubs for that ???
thanks i ve thought about it more than a second , crazy !!!!
the way you talk about governments are you part of one of those militant groups or something ,

do you not need a lisence to drive , and really was it all that difficult


I'm about as militant as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were.

I see you rethought your initial reaction and edited out 'pathetic'.

I understand that your education, your media, and much of your culture consider individual rights 'pathetic' or 'crazy'.


Why don't you check out this page here --
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

Then go to those who've taught you this stuff and get them to explain how and why "it can't happen here". Get them to explain popular opinion, Weimar Germany, gun control, and the election of Hitler, since this was a modern western civilized state.

May your papers always be in order,

--97T--

...I am of the understanding that marijuana, heroin, pcp, etc are all illegal, in fact very illegal. You don't have to apply for a license, sit out a waiting period, or wait until you are 21. They are illegal, period.
They are also available anywhere you go. Making something illegal and supposedly stopping the import and production of it, does not make it stop existing. It does not really make it any harder to obtain. The price just goes up, that's all.
I worked in dowtown Dallas for a period of time, and there are a number of places down there the cops refuse to even patrol. Supposedly, everyone down in this area is a "victim" of society, I suppose that means they are all innocent, and the guns they have are evil, not the people using them.
The argument would be made that if handguns were outlawed, this area would be safer. ....

The argument could be made that if the drugs were not illegal the area may be safer.

I'm about as militant as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were.

I see you rethought your initial reaction and edited out 'pathetic'.


--97T--

didn t george chop down someones cherry tree ,rebel

i figured nothing good comes from sounding rude so i pulled it ,
militant was more of a pun , you come across as so anti government i had this picture in my mind of a guy sitting at the computer in his camo gear ready to go to the secret malitia training camp
i outright think society is screwed to begin with,but the police and governments do serve some good ,
besides unlike many countries in this world we can boot them out

The argument could be made that if the drugs were not illegal the area may be safer.

I don't know if I would refer to downtown Dallas as safe, no matter what was legal:) There are some things that are just beyond hope:D

Why don't you check out this page here --
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM


--97T--

it very well could happen here , or anywhere for that matter ,one thing in history remains the same and that is every great nation eventually falls ,but to live in fear of the unknown wouldn t be living , to be always in fear of the government that i vote in to power wouldn t be living , we live in a democratic society ,that is why we have so many stupid laws majority rules or mob rules which ever comes first ,eg: here the bleeding heart self rightous allow a contrrolled safe injection site (crack house) on my tax dollar, now the same sort of freaks have all gone so far as to try to ban my smoking in my car all of which i bought with the remainder of my dollar , this isn t a government thing it's a people thing , it s a social thing ,and society is on a self rightious kick of dictating how everyone should live
i don t fear the government by any means , i fear society ,

george carlon hit it right when he said that these politicians who we call idiots , are the best we have to offer

Been a lot of talk about guns in this thread. The most important words (to me) I've seen are want, need, and rights. I can only see the world through my blinders, and I'll try to describe what it looks like from here.

I only have 4 guns now. I say only, because I would have 40 if I didn't work for myself. I have a rifle, 300 win mag, 2 shotguns, 12 ga wingmaster and a 10 ga goose gun. I have 1 pistol, a 44 mag that I bought when I needed it for potection from a psycho ex sub-contractor. I never had to shoot the guy and I live in another state now, so I guess I don't need it now. I keep it because I want to. I like it. It's really a lot of fun to shoot. I don't expect everyone to understand that guns can be fun and can bring joy to some of us, but to say that handguns are only good for killing people is just wrong. Don't get me wrong, if anyone enters my house with ill will they will get the full .44 dia piece of lead. My gun of choice for protection.

I consider gun ownership a basic right of law abiding citizens, within limits. When I bought my pistol I had to pass a background check and wait 3 days. No big deal! When the government tells me I have to have a license to own a gun, then we have a problem. That's the equivalent of getting permission from the government to own what I consider personal property. No government should dictate to it's citizens what they need and don't need.

There has been some hand waving to substantiate licensing guns by comparing it to a drivers license. Hogwash! Owning a gun doesn't endanger any other person any more than owning a 20 lb container of propane for the bbq. Gonna register propane bottles next? Driving a car, on the other hand, endangers every other person on the road. There is a real reason to test and license everyone that drives on public streets. Driving a car on public streets is not a right. That argument doesn't extend to gun ownership by lawful citizens.

Then there was the firearm safety course argument. I took the course and fully believe it was overdue for new hunters. I could have aced the final without the course because I was taught gun safety at an early age. I believe in the concept, because of the clueless people that were enrolled with me. This course is needed because hunting is not a right. When you hunt, you can be a danger to everyone else in those woods or even people outside the woods.

Happiness is a warm gun mama-Beatles White Album....Bang, bang, shoot, shoot

it very well could happen here , or anywhere for that matter ,one thing in history remains the same and that is every great nation eventually falls ,but to live in fear of the unknown wouldn t be living , to be always in fear of the government that i vote in to power wouldn t be living , we live in a democratic society ,that is why we have so many stupid laws majority rules or mob rules which ever comes first ,eg: here the bleeding heart self rightous allow a contrrolled safe injection site (crack house) on my tax dollar, now the same sort of freaks have all gone so far as to try to ban my smoking in my car all of which i bought with the remainder of my dollar , this isn t a government thing it's a people thing , it s a social thing ,and society is on a self rightious kick of dictating how everyone should live
i don t fear the government by any means , i fear society ,

george carlon hit it right when he said that these politicians who we call idiots , are the best we have to offer

It's good that you checked out that link, but it's bad that you concluded that the link means I am fearful. Like I said a few links up, the U.S. is not a democracy, and for good reason.

"How soon we forget history... Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. "

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

"When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."

"When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen."

The above quotes are all attributed to George Washington. It is my opinion that he and Thomas Jefferson were pretty well correct in their interpretation of history. They weren't just militants; they attempted to encode into law a set of restrictions on government power in recognition that rights belong to the individual, and are not permissions granted by some ministry. It would be foolish to dismiss their wisdom without proof to the contrary. That link I gave you is proof that they were correct.

Have a nice day,

Global warming is finally giving us some nice weather (or is it just springtime?)

--97T--

PS -- about the government that you voted into power -- have you ever noticed how all of the political parties and candidates are skewed away from the idea of individual rights and limitations on government power? How much choice do you really get on voting day, when it boils down to a choice between a socialist democrat and a communist democrat?