NationStates Jolt Archive

Making someone accountable for their crimes and not blaming the tool.. How could they?

" Louisville-based federal prosecutors have begun to take more cases to court in a revision of a 4-year-old program aimed at keeping more people convicted of gun-related felonies in prison longer"

http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2004/12/08ky/A1-backfire1208-7728.html

I believe the philosophical difference is:

If you punish someone for using a gun in the commission of a violent felony, you are punishing the act, and telling people that you don't want them to use guns to commit violent acts.

For people who just want to ban guns, they want to punish people who are, by and large, not engaged in violent felonies.

It's just as bad, or worse, than punishing people for drug possession, or possession of certain literary materials.

As a corollary, we supposedly have free speech in the US. Say anything you want, and it's very unlikely you'll be arrested - unless that speech results in bodily harm - you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater just to see the people stampede and smother each other.

I do think the law is silly, though. Murder and other violent crimes are already against the law. Why should we care if someone is killed with a gun, or strangled and tied up with duct tape and dumped in the bay?

I believe the philosophical difference is:

If you punish someone for using a gun in the commission of a violent felony, you are punishing the act, and telling people that you don't want them to use guns to commit violent acts.

For people who just want to ban guns, they want to punish people who are, by and large, not engaged in violent felonies.

It's just as bad, or worse, than punishing people for drug possession, or possession of certain literary materials.

As a corollary, we supposedly have free speech in the US. Say anything you want, and it's very unlikely you'll be arrested - unless that speech results in bodily harm - you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater just to see the people stampede and smother each other.

I do think the law is silly, though. Murder and other violent crimes are already against the law. Why should we care if someone is killed with a gun, or strangled and tied up with duct tape and dumped in the bay?


But most people don't want to "ban" guns. They just want to make sure only the "right" people can get guns to make things safer. This can be accomplished by giving the gov't more control over the lives of the citizenry. You know, kind of like the Patriot Act.

But most people don't want to "ban" guns. They just want to make sure only the "right" people can get guns to make things safer. This can be accomplished by giving the gov't more control over the lives of the citizenry. You know, kind of like the Patriot Act.

I've always wondered who the right people were. Police in the US are far more likely to shoot the wrong person as compared to an armed citizen. Far more likely to miss. Far more likely to have been found to have used force illegally. Armed citizens prevent far more crimes in the US (2.5 million per year without firing a shot) than police do by intervening. Armed citizens also kill three times as many felons - under justifiable circumstances.

Armed citizens are, by and large, self-selected. They have a self-perceived vision of civic duty. Some police are only doing it for the career.

I've always wondered who the right people were. Police in the US are far more likely to shoot the wrong person as compared to an armed citizen. Far more likely to miss. Far more likely to have been found to have used force illegally. Armed citizens prevent far more crimes in the US (2.5 million per year without firing a shot) than police do by intervening. Armed citizens also kill three times as many felons - under justifiable circumstances.

Armed citizens are, by and large, self-selected. They have a self-perceived vision of civic duty. Some police are only doing it for the career.

Well I think Chicago is a perfect example of the "right" people legally having firearms. The city enacted a registration policy, then in 1982, it stopped allowing registration of new firearms. Nowadays only those who contribute to the coffers of the Daley machine and police can legally carry handguns. And hasn't Chicago's crime rate dropped significantly since then?

Well I think Chicago is a perfect example of the "right" people legally having firearms. The city enacted a registration policy, then in 1982, it stopped allowing registration of new firearms. Nowadays only those who contribute to the coffers of the Daley machine and police can legally carry handguns. And hasn't Chicago's crime rate dropped significantly since then?

Obviously not. Here in Northern Virginia, where we can openly carry since July, and where we can get concealed handgun permits fairly easily (as long as you're not a criminal), our crime level is far, far below that of Washington D.C., where you can't even own a paintball gun.

Not that the violent felons in Southeast care - they get half their guns from the DC Police.

Well I think Chicago is a perfect example of the "right" people legally having firearms. The city enacted a registration policy, then in 1982, it stopped allowing registration of new firearms. Nowadays only those who contribute to the coffers of the Daley machine and police can legally carry handguns. And hasn't Chicago's crime rate dropped significantly since then?

Nope, Chicago and surrounding suburbs for a while were the murder capital of the country. Especially Gary, In., which is right next door. The gun laws worked well on the people who obeyed the laws in the first place.

Ah, but they have, Grasshopper!

* France has done many things that has hindered the world. They fought to keep their colonies, even as the other European nations were letting them go, esp. Vietnam and Algeria.
* They are under-represented in Afghanistan. *Canada* has nearly 4 times their troops there, and the French claim to be a world power!
* The French have a long history of harboring dissidents, including the Ayatollah Khomeni and Yassar Arafat.
* They were major players in the UN oil-for-food snafu.
* Invaded Egypt w/ UK while the 1956 Hungarian Revolution was going on. Had this not happened, Communism may have cracked much earlier.
* Jim Morrison died in France. Nuff said!

Of course not. But by the same token, they should not be trying to come up with "another pole" in International politics.

Be cautious to not cast flames.

oh have they, millipede?

* the US fought a fifteen year war in south east asia, and before them, the french had a go, with american political support. youre right about algeria. didnt they massacre a crowd of protestors or something?

*they may be under represented, but i myself think this is a good thing, because i was against that war too.

*your dissident is someone elses freedom fighter.

* im sure youre right about this too, i honestly dont know.

*now this one confused me. if what hadnt have happened, the hungarian revolution or the suez crisis?

*hehe, yeah ok. it wasnt france that killed him though.

yes but surely if this is the 'free world', they can take whatever view they want?

you cant fight fire with fire.

I believe the philosophical difference is:

If you punish someone for using a gun in the commission of a violent felony, you are punishing the act, and telling people that you don't want them to use guns to commit violent acts.

For people who just want to ban guns, they want to punish people who are, by and large, not engaged in violent felonies.



Because, of course, the average gun owner bought it to tie bows on kittens.

you cant fight fire with fire.

Yes, you can.

You create a 'fire-break' by burning the fuel out of the path of the blaze... using a small fire to 'combat' a large fire.

But, apart from that... carry on.

Because, of course, the average gun owner bought it to tie bows on kittens.


Usually, most guns don't get fired much. There's a lot of homoerotic stroking of the weapon with lube.

For those that get fired, most are fired at paper. If you consider the number of rounds purchased every year (billions), and the number of people actually murdered in cold blood with a firearm (1/4 of the gun deaths you read about - the rest are suicides which would have occured by other means anyway), you get a really low incidence of death.

Your bathtub, statistically speaking, is far more lethal. Sound odd to you?

Guns aren't evil, and I've seen it first hand. People are evil. After all, only people make you cry.

Usually, most guns don't get fired much. There's a lot of homoerotic stroking of the weapon with lube.

For those that get fired, most are fired at paper. If you consider the number of rounds purchased every year (billions), and the number of people actually murdered in cold blood with a firearm (1/4 of the gun deaths you read about - the rest are suicides which would have occured by other means anyway), you get a really low incidence of death.

Your bathtub, statistically speaking, is far more lethal. Sound odd to you?

Guns aren't evil, and I've seen it first hand. People are evil. After all, only people make you cry.

But, of course - you buy a bathtub for reasons other than killing things.

Well, I do... shouldn't make too many assumptions about other people.... Dr Crippen had rather a peculiar thing about baths, didn't he?

That's the problem... a gun is a lethal weapon. It is built to be a weapon, and, as a weapon, it is very good at what it does.

And, what it does, is kill... very well.

That's where the problem lies... how do you morally justify the pedalling of an item that is designed expressly for no other purpose than killing?

oh have they, millipede?

* the US fought a fifteen year war in south east asia, and before them, the french had a go, with american political support. youre right about algeria. didnt they massacre a crowd of protestors or something?

Dude, they were fighting a *war* in Algeria to keep it part of France. Algeria is/was historically the home of the Foreign Legion!
Kennedy got the US involved in Viet Nam to keep France in NATO. We can see how well that worked out. :rolleyes:

*they may be under represented, but i myself think this is a good thing, because i was against that war too.

How on Earth can you be against a war to unseat the Taliban? That's like being against WW2 to unseat Hitler!

*your dissident is someone elses freedom fighter.

Exactly. And because they're NOT mine, they are a dissident. :)
Think of the person you hate most. (And don't say you've never had one!) Now imagine how you'd feel if your longtime friend invites them to stay over their house.


* im sure youre right about this too, i honestly dont know.

Fear not. This is getting more and more play in the news, I have a feeling that it will rip open sometime before spring.

*now this one confused me. if what hadnt have happened, the hungarian revolution or the suez crisis?

Had Suez not happened at the same time, the US & NATO allies could have taken a harder line against the invasion of Hungary. As it was, there was no way to try to confront the east in 2 places at once without risking a much larger war. ESP with Korea on the backburner, Cuba about to hit the fan, and the French in Viet Nam.

*hehe, yeah ok. it wasnt france that killed him though.

No autopsy. No proof!! ;)

yes but surely if this is the 'free world', they can take whatever view they want?

In a your world, do you turn against your long-term friends when they become overly successful? Do you begrudge them winning something (read: Cold War)?


you cant fight fire with fire.

If I lobbed any incendiaries, they were wholly non-intentional.

Well in your case that's because you go around breaking into houses and murdering people randomly. That gives you lots of experience.

Oh, that's right, it's all my real-life experience assaulting people. I forgot. I thought it might have been all the range time and training classes I've taken...that doesn't count.

Silly me. ;)

Nope, Chicago and surrounding suburbs for a while were the murder capital of the country. Especially Gary, In., which is right next door. The gun laws worked well on the people who obeyed the laws in the first place.

I think Kecibukia already knew that. :) And I'm trying to figure out if you knew he knew...I think you did, but.... <looses train of though in circles within circles>

But, of course - you buy a bathtub for reasons other than killing things.

Well, I do... shouldn't make too many assumptions about other people.... Dr Crippen had rather a peculiar thing about baths, didn't he?

That's the problem... a gun is a lethal weapon. It is built to be a weapon, and, as a weapon, it is very good at what it does.

And, what it does, is kill... very well.

That's where the problem lies... how do you morally justify the pedalling of an item that is designed expressly for no other purpose than killing?

My wife would be dead today if she wasn't carrying a 357. That's a good moral justification. Or would you rather that her attacker be allowed to proceed and kill her with his bare hands? He didn't have a gun.

Usually, most guns don't get fired much. There's a lot of homoerotic stroking of the weapon with lube.


Not when I'm drinking a soda, man!!! Almost had to replace a keyboard.

I think Kecibukia already knew that. :) And I'm trying to figure out if you knew he knew...I think you did, but.... <looses train of though in circles within circles>

Careful with those thought circles. If you think you know where you are but are not sure where you were and how did you get where you are if you didn't know where you were, zen where you would be. Right?

But, of course - you buy a bathtub for reasons other than killing things.


Funny, the most use I get out of a firearm is actually shooting at targets--paper targets.


That's the problem... a gun is a lethal weapon. It is built to be a weapon, and, as a weapon, it is very good at what it does.

And, what it does, is kill... very well.

That's where the problem lies... how do you morally justify the pedalling of an item that is designed expressly for no other purpose than killing?

You're the one that says its only purpose is to kill. We're pointing out other uses.

And they don't always kill very well. There are several documented uses of firearms when the "victim" doesn't die. Most of the time, actually. It's not as efficient as you deem it to be.

So, bows are out with you as well? Darts? They were all designed to "kill things" initially, right? Yet there are accepted sports built around them, just as there are for firearms.

Careful with those thought circles. If you think you know where you are but are not sure where you were and how did you get where you are if you didn't know where you were, zen where you would be. Right?

<latches on to one word> Zen! Yes! Be the bullet! Oh wait, that means you'd be in a VERY cramped space....

My wife would be dead today if she wasn't carrying a 357. That's a good moral justification. Or would you rather that her attacker be allowed to proceed and kill her with his bare hands? He didn't have a gun.

Not at all - I am not anti-gun... I am just pointing out the dichotomy.

I am glad (actually glad, even though I have never met her... must be one of those empathy things) that your wife isn't dead. I am glad that she was carrying a gun to protect herself.

I, personally, do not want to carry a gun - but I DO want my wife to carry one, and I WILL want my daughter to carry, when she is older.

You have to look at my post - I am not arguing against gun use - I am saying that it is difficult for a 'civilisation' to justify trade in an item only intended for lethality.

I'm playing a game of Devilled Avocado (or something)... since I am, effectively, arguing against something that I don't fundamentally oppose...

My only reservation (as previously expressed in this thread... many pages ago) is that I think there should be better CONTROL over the distribution of weapons - better evaluation of who they are allocated to, better training for those using them, better regulation of HOW they can be stored, etc.

Funny, the most use I get out of a firearm is actually shooting at targets--paper targets.



You're the one that says its only purpose is to kill. We're pointing out other uses.

And they don't always kill very well. There are several documented uses of firearms when the "victim" doesn't die. Most of the time, actually. It's not as efficient as you deem it to be.

So, bows are out with you as well? Darts? They were all designed to "kill things" initially, right? Yet there are accepted sports built around them, just as there are for firearms.

And Football was originally played with a human head - but the 'dart', for example has followed an evolution AWAY from lethality.

Bows and guns, on the other hand, have been honed and perfected to provide more killing power for the same effort and space.

Yes - I oppose the liberal availability of guns AND bows - but consider a bow to be less of an issue, because they are much less used, and much harder to use.

But, why do you say "guns are out" for me? I have never expressed a desire to remove guns, or to stop them being available... I would just like to see them less readily available to the wrong hands... which is something of a murky area.

I've always wondered this.
It is out of cowardice. They know that when the force their skewed views on americans, they have to get the guns to suppress the dissent.

Yes, you can.

You create a 'fire-break' by burning the fuel out of the path of the blaze... using a small fire to 'combat' a large fire.

But, apart from that... carry on.

ah, sounds like vietnam!

And Football was originally played with a human head - but the 'dart', for example has followed an evolution AWAY from lethality.

Bows and guns, on the other hand, have been honed and perfected to provide more killing power for the same effort and space.

Yes - I oppose the liberal availability of guns AND bows - but consider a bow to be less of an issue, because they are much less used, and much harder to use.

But, why do you say "guns are out" for me? I have never expressed a desire to remove guns, or to stop them being available... I would just like to see them less readily available to the wrong hands... which is something of a murky area.

Okee doke, then. You aren't out to ban guns.

We'll just disagree with the level of control each other wants to have over other citizens. Having them less readily available to the wrong hands invariably makes them less readily available to the right hands as well. Government has yet to find a solution to that one.

I'd rather have the rules be less restricted so I can actually protect myself from those that own wrong hands. Those guys can get weapons easier than I can, if there are more rules due to the fact that I tend to follow the rules, and they don't. They cheat.

Dude, they were fighting a *war* in Algeria to keep it part of France. Algeria is/was historically the home of the Foreign Legion!
Kennedy got the US involved in Viet Nam to keep France in NATO. We can see how well that worked out. :rolleyes:


How on Earth can you be against a war to unseat the Taliban? That's like being against WW2 to unseat Hitler!


Exactly. And because they're NOT mine, they are a dissident. :)
Think of the person you hate most. (And don't say you've never had one!) Now imagine how you'd feel if your longtime friend invites them to stay over their house.



Fear not. This is getting more and more play in the news, I have a feeling that it will rip open sometime before spring.


Had Suez not happened at the same time, the US & NATO allies could have taken a harder line against the invasion of Hungary. As it was, there was no way to try to confront the east in 2 places at once without risking a much larger war. ESP with Korea on the backburner, Cuba about to hit the fan, and the French in Viet Nam.


No autopsy. No proof!! ;)


In a your world, do you turn against your long-term friends when they become overly successful? Do you begrudge them winning something (read: Cold War)?



If I lobbed any incendiaries, they were wholly non-intentional.

well i always thought that vietnam was a significant part of the USAs containment policy against communism?

im not against the removal of the taliban, but that is not what i believe the war was about. i believe it was about oil and the USAs freedom of expansion until everywhere has a muckdonalds within one mile or whatever. they only told you that it was about 'getting osama' and removing the taliban.

thats fair, its just i wish you would think otherwise. if my best freind started being freinds with george bush, first id pinch myself, then id stop liking him. i can see why the americans have an apparent loathing for the french, its just we look at it from oppisite perspectives.

ok, ill be waiting with baited breath.

very interesting, i must read about it one day.

ok, ill do an ill-informed autopsy. it was heroin wasnt it? there, definately not the french.

in my world, if my freind started telling me i was wrong, id listen to him. because he could probably see what i was doing better than i could.

i didnt mean you getting angryish, i dont mind that, i meant the war against trrrrsm.

Just a related issue:
The USA does not need to behave like a giant Millitia, considering it has one of the world's strongest millitary capacities. In the UK, it is illegal to own a weapon without a permit, and even then such weapons are usually limited to antiques, hunting rifles, paintball guns and the like. Fully armed weapons usually require some sort of weapons range permit.
May I point out our gun crime ratio (that's a %, so don't give me the "of course it's lower, you have a smaller population" excuse) is far lower than that of the USA?

Okee doke, then. You aren't out to ban guns.

We'll just disagree with the level of control each other wants to have over other citizens. Having them less readily available to the wrong hands invariably makes them less readily available to the right hands as well. Government has yet to find a solution to that one.

I'd rather have the rules be less restricted so I can actually protect myself from those that own wrong hands. Those guys can get weapons easier than I can, if there are more rules due to the fact that I tend to follow the rules, and they don't. They cheat.

Yes - it is a dichotomy.

The average 'liberal', I would assume, is less about banning guns - and more about trying to lessen the risks in a very violent society... which may entail talk of limiting, or even banning, guns... but the 'gun' is not the enemy... it is a victim, if you will - of the desire to IMROVE society.

The average gun-owner isn't about killing things, but is interested in protecting him/her self, or their family, or their property... or maybe they are just a sport-shooter. But, putting guns into the hands of legitimate interests ALSO increases the possibility that the 'wrong hands' are going to get them.

Both sides can see sense in the other side. Both sides have legitimate concerns.

How do you resolve a dichotomy?

The ONLY viable way I can see, that can please BOTH parties, is compromise... and, if you don't please both parties, your dichotomy continues.

The compromise (as I see it) is to alleviate 'liberal' worries about "baddies" with guns, by doing all you can to verify that trustworthy individuals, trained in the use, and with the capacity to SECURE those weapons; are the target market. Thus - you preserve the 'right' to bear arms AND you are seen to reduce the risk element of gun availability and ownership.

Of course, with expanding population - it will all eventually become irrelevent... since population density seems to be the factor that has MOST influence in the 'right to bear arms' issue.

Not at all - I am not anti-gun... I am just pointing out the dichotomy.

I am glad (actually glad, even though I have never met her... must be one of those empathy things) that your wife isn't dead. I am glad that she was carrying a gun to protect herself.

I, personally, do not want to carry a gun - but I DO want my wife to carry one, and I WILL want my daughter to carry, when she is older.

You have to look at my post - I am not arguing against gun use - I am saying that it is difficult for a 'civilisation' to justify trade in an item only intended for lethality.

I'm playing a game of Devilled Avocado (or something)... since I am, effectively, arguing against something that I don't fundamentally oppose...

My only reservation (as previously expressed in this thread... many pages ago) is that I think there should be better CONTROL over the distribution of weapons - better evaluation of who they are allocated to, better training for those using them, better regulation of HOW they can be stored, etc.

[homer voice] Devilled Avocado's! MMMMM!!

Ok, We can agree to disagree on that one. I feel that since almost 80% of criminals obtain their weapons illegally, further regulation on LAC' obtaining/uses/storage/etc. would be useless. I support tougher sentencing and enforcement on felons who commit crimes while allowing LAC's to freely carry/defend themselves/ etc.

Just a related issue:
The USA does not need to behave like a giant Millitia, considering it has one of the world's strongest millitary capacities. In the UK, it is illegal to own a weapon without a permit, and even then such weapons are usually limited to antiques, hunting rifles, paintball guns and the like. Fully armed weapons usually require some sort of weapon's range permit.
May I point out our gun crime ratio (that's a %, so don't give me the "of course it's lower, you have a smaller population" excuse) is far lower than that of the USA?

Of the 40,000 to 50,000 deaths by firearm in the US, only a fraction of those are murder. Roughly 11,000 were were not suicides. Suicides are not prevented by eliminating handguns - these people are proven to switch to another method.

Of the 11,000, only between 3000 and 4000 are actual criminal homicides. The rest are killings by police, or justifiable homicides.

Incidents involving a firearm represented 7% of the 4.9 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault. So, 93% of violent crime occurred without a gun. Your solution would not reduce that crime.

And, just as in the UK, 80 percent of the guns used in actual criminal acts are from illegal sources. So they don't care about your gun law.

In addition, the US Department of Justice reports that gun-related violence and crime is at its lowest period since statistics were first collected - starting a drop that began in 1994. The drop is most pronounced in US States where concealed carry permit issuance was liberalized. Additionally, 2.5 million criminal acts were aborted by the presence of an armed citizen who DID NOT fire their weapon. So, in your system, we could add those 2.5 million violent crimes to the mix, since they would not be prevented. Remember, the majority of those 2.5 million criminals are NOT carrying a gun!

Yes - it is a dichotomy.

The average 'liberal', I would assume, is less about banning guns - and more about trying to lessen the risks in a very violent society... which may entail talk of limiting, or even banning, guns... but the 'gun' is not the enemy... it is a victim, if you will - of the desire to IMROVE society.

The average gun-owner isn't about killing things, but is interested in protecting him/her self, or their family, or their property... or maybe they are just a sport-shooter. But, putting guns into the hands of legitimate interests ALSO increases the possibility that the 'wrong hands' are going to get them.

Both sides can see sense in the other side. Both sides have legitimate concerns.

How do you resolve a dichotomy?

The ONLY viable way I can see, that can please BOTH parties, is compromise... and, if you don't please both parties, your dichotomy continues.

The compromise (as I see it) is to alleviate 'liberal' worries about "baddies" with guns, by doing all you can to verify that trustworthy individuals, trained in the use, and with the capacity to SECURE those weapons; are the target market. Thus - you preserve the 'right' to bear arms AND you are seen to reduce the risk element of gun availability and ownership.

Of course, with expanding population - it will all eventually become irrelevent... since population density seems to be the factor that has MOST influence in the 'right to bear arms' issue.

There was a thread earlier where I stated that if there "HAD" to be some sort of training/database, I would accept it if it contained only the base level of information (passed a reasonable test & name) but didn't include info such as what guns you owned etc.

High Urban density/crime is where the majority of American gun deaths/crime occur. I feel that goes back to social issues and tougher crime control,

Devilled Avocado
:rolleyes:
You certainly didn't mean Devil's Advocate, definately not :p

Of the 40,000 to 50,000 deaths by firearm in the US, only a fraction of those are murder. Roughly 11,000 were were not suicides. Suicides are not prevented by eliminating handguns - these people are proven to switch to another method.

Of the 11,000, only between 3000 and 4000 are actual criminal homicides. The rest are killings by police, or justifiable homicides.

Incidents involving a firearm represented 7% of the 4.9 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault. So, 93% of violent crime occurred without a gun. Your solution would not reduce that crime.

And, just as in the UK, 80 percent of the guns used in actual criminal acts are from illegal sources. So they don't care about your gun law.

In addition, the US Department of Justice reports that gun-related violence and crime is at its lowest period since statistics were first collected - starting a drop that began in 1994. The drop is most pronounced in US States where concealed carry permit issuance was liberalized. Additionally, 2.5 million criminal acts were aborted by the presence of an armed citizen who DID NOT fire their weapon. So, in your system, we could add those 2.5 million violent crimes to the mix, since they would not be prevented. Remember, the majority of those 2.5 million criminals are NOT carrying a gun!
I like your case. However, there's only one point I can really counter perfectly: "And, just as in the UK, 80 percent of the guns used in actual criminal acts are from illegal sources. So they don't care about your gun law."
Yes, but this is where percentages fail: overall, we have a lower gun crime ratio, I didn't say we didn't have gun crime. In fact, ours are MORE LIKELY to be from illegal sources, as getting them legally is so extremely difficult. We still have less gun crime, even if, as you say, more gun crime is the price you pay for less other crime (robbery, rape, etc.)

Of the 40,000 to 50,000 deaths by firearm in the US, only a fraction of those are murder. Roughly 11,000 were were not suicides. Suicides are not prevented by eliminating handguns - these people are proven to switch to another method.

Of the 11,000, only between 3000 and 4000 are actual criminal homicides. The rest are killings by police, or justifiable homicides.

Incidents involving a firearm represented 7% of the 4.9 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault. So, 93% of violent crime occurred without a gun. Your solution would not reduce that crime.

And, just as in the UK, 80 percent of the guns used in actual criminal acts are from illegal sources. So they don't care about your gun law.

In addition, the US Department of Justice reports that gun-related violence and crime is at its lowest period since statistics were first collected - starting a drop that began in 1994. The drop is most pronounced in US States where concealed carry permit issuance was liberalized. Additionally, 2.5 million criminal acts were aborted by the presence of an armed citizen who DID NOT fire their weapon. So, in your system, we could add those 2.5 million violent crimes to the mix, since they would not be prevented. Remember, the majority of those 2.5 million criminals are NOT carrying a gun!


and UK rape, assault and robberies have skyrocketed. So less dead people by guns but more injured and permanently traumatized.

and UK rape, assault and robberies have skyrocketed. So less dead people by guns but more injured and permanently traumatized.
Interesting. Show me a statistics page and I'll be more willing to buy that argument. It's interesting, but now I think about it, I'd rather fall back on the facts.

[homer voice] Devilled Avocado's! MMMMM!!

Ok, We can agree to disagree on that one. I feel that since almost 80% of criminals obtain their weapons illegally, further regulation on LAC' obtaining/uses/storage/etc. would be useless. I support tougher sentencing and enforcement on felons who commit crimes while allowing LAC's to freely carry/defend themselves/ etc.

But, people don't work like that.

People prefer prevention over cure... and they get all moody and finger-pointy when prevention isn't sufficient.

Example: the 9/11 commission - to find out why people weren't MORE READY for a terror-attack. (I have my own theories about that one...)

Let's look at an example: A man comes running towards you with a gun, weilding it in a menacing way, and yelling that he is about to blow your brains off. As he slows and begins to sight, you draw your own gun, and point back... telling him you WILL shoot.

What do you do?

a) Give a reasonable amount of warning and time, and wait to see what the assailant does?

b) Give a reasonable amount of warning and time, then fire a 'warning shot' over his head... possibly giving him time to shoot you?

c) Give a reasonable amount of warning and time, then fire a 'warning shot' INTO his head?

d) Let him fire first - if he shoots, you will shoot back?

But, people don't work like that.

People prefer prevention over cure... and they get all moody and finger-pointy when prevention isn't sufficient.

Example: the 9/11 commission - to find out why people weren't MORE READY for a terror-attack. (I have my own theories about that one...)

Let's look at an example: A man comes running towards you with a gun, weilding it in a menacing way, and yelling that he is about to blow your brains off. As he slows and begins to sight, you draw your own gun, and point back... telling him you WILL shoot.

What do you do?

a) Give a reasonable amount of warning and time, and wait to see what the assailant does?

b) Give a reasonable amount of warning and time, then fire a 'warning shot' over his head... possibly giving him time to shoot you?

c) Give a reasonable amount of warning and time, then fire a 'warning shot' INTO his head?

d) Let him fire first - if he shoots, you will shoot back?

In Virginia, warning shots are illegal. It's called negligent discharge of a firearm. If he already has a gun out, you really don't have time to say anything, and you are not required to. So, I would just pot him in the head and be done with it.

There was a thread earlier where I stated that if there "HAD" to be some sort of training/database, I would accept it if it contained only the base level of information (passed a reasonable test & name) but didn't include info such as what guns you owned etc.

High Urban density/crime is where the majority of American gun deaths/crime occur. I feel that goes back to social issues and tougher crime control,

If it was up to me.. the test would be a basic psychological profile, to reduce risk of the 'dangerous' gun owners.

They would take your name, and probably a Social Security number, or somesuch - just to prove that you were you.

Also - imagining me still in charge for a while - there wouldn't be a governmental record of what guns you owned, but every legitimate supplier would be required to ask for proof of residency (etc) and keep record of what weapon they were selling to that property (cross referenced with identity... like Utility Bill and Drivers License, for example).

Finally, (with me still being in charge) - local police (or some other organisation) would be encouraged to provide gun-safety education, and gun-security education, to gun owners. Preferably, they would conduct occasional checks on gun security (visiting permit-holding houses from time-to-time, to ensure that guns were being stored safely and responsibly) ideally under lock-and-key.

(Note: in that last instance, the executors of the security check, would ONLY be allowed to check security... they would have NO remit to count, or catalogue).

That's what I would institute, if the paper was in my hands to sign.

Interesting. Show me a statistics page and I'll be more willing to buy that argument. It's interesting, but now I think about it, I'd rather fall back on the facts.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/798708/posts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/1120018.stm

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=570

The rape statistics were stated earlier in the thread as well as similar sources for the rest.

If it was up to me.. the test would be a basic psychological profile, to reduce risk of the 'dangerous' gun owners.

They would take your name, and probably a Social Security number, or somesuch - just to prove that you were you.

Also - imagining me still in charge for a while - there wouldn't be a governmental record of what guns you owned, but every legitimate supplier would be required to ask for proof of residency (etc) and keep record of what weapon they were selling to that property (cross referenced with identity... like Utility Bill and Drivers License, for example).

Finally, (with me still being in charge) - local police (or some other organisation) would be encouraged to provide gun-safety education, and gun-security education, to gun owners. Preferably, they would conduct occasional checks on gun security (visiting permit-holding houses from time-to-time, to ensure that guns were being stored safely and responsibly) ideally under lock-and-key.

(Note: in that last instance, the executors of the security check, would ONLY be allowed to check security... they would have NO remit to count, or catalogue).

That's what I would institute, if the paper was in my hands to sign.

Psychological profiles change depending on life situations. Just because you're fine at age 24 doesn't mean you're not a paranoid schizophrenic at age 35.

And your psychological makeup has little to do with your propensity for violence. I had this explained to me by an Army psychologist who validated my selection for sniper training. It has more to do with your life situation, which changes continually.

He didn't think the psychological screening did anything except filter out the absolute crazies, which never constitute a majority of criminals.

If someone has a valid license, and then without your knowledge becomes hooked on meth, what then? Now he hasn't slept for seven days and is a raving paranoid. Your system isn't working.

In Virginia, warning shots are illegal. It's called negligent discharge of a firearm. If he already has a gun out, you really don't have time to say anything, and you are not required to. So, I would just pot him in the head and be done with it.

Exactly. Where there is a perceived risk, you err on the side of caution... you choose prevention over cure.

And, that is what most 'liberals' (I think) are doing - they are envisioning a high-risk scenario, and trying to lower that risk.

I don't AGREE with their METHOD, but I understand their INTENT.

Of course, I might be wrong... and all 'liberals' might be gun-hating looney-toons.

If it was up to me.. the test would be a basic psychological profile, to reduce risk of the 'dangerous' gun owners.

They would take your name, and probably a Social Security number, or somesuch - just to prove that you were you.

Also - imagining me still in charge for a while - there wouldn't be a governmental record of what guns you owned, but every legitimate supplier would be required to ask for proof of residency (etc) and keep record of what weapon they were selling to that property (cross referenced with identity... like Utility Bill and Drivers License, for example).

Finally, (with me still being in charge) - local police (or some other organisation) would be encouraged to provide gun-safety education, and gun-security education, to gun owners. Preferably, they would conduct occasional checks on gun security (visiting permit-holding houses from time-to-time, to ensure that guns were being stored safely and responsibly) ideally under lock-and-key.

(Note: in that last instance, the executors of the security check, would ONLY be allowed to check security... they would have NO remit to count, or catalogue).

That's what I would institute, if the paper was in my hands to sign.


For me, the Psych test and "safety" checks are to arbitrary and could/would lead to abuses...

" you were spanked as a child?" (potential for violence)
"your gun safe isn't rated to 20K degrees and no dual comination locks in a locked room while disassemble w/ ammo in a separate locked room in the residence? (unsafe)

Proof of residency OK but not the record keeping. Too often has a tendancy to lead to confiscation/registration.

Psychological profiles change depending on life situations. Just because you're fine at age 24 doesn't mean you're not a paranoid schizophrenic at age 35.

And your psychological makeup has little to do with your propensity for violence. I had this explained to me by an Army psychologist who validated my selection for sniper training. It has more to do with your life situation, which changes continually.

He didn't think the psychological screening did anything except filter out the absolute crazies, which never constitute a majority of criminals.

If someone has a valid license, and then without your knowledge becomes hooked on meth, what then? Now he hasn't slept for seven days and is a raving paranoid. Your system isn't working.

It's not a cure. It is a protection.

Condoms don't stop pregnancy 100% of the time... so why use them? Because they do stop some pregnancies.

Gun Psychology testing wouldn't weed out all of the danger, but it would help.

And, yes - your psychology is a variable thing... which is why I would like to see the testing extended... maybe an annual thing?

But then again, I think you should have to pass a driving-test every year to retain a license to drive...

Exactly. Where there is a perceived risk, you err on the side of caution... you choose prevention over cure.

And, that is what most 'liberals' (I think) are doing - they are envisioning a high-risk scenario, and trying to lower that risk.

I don't AGREE with their METHOD, but I understand their INTENT.

Of course, I might be wrong... and all 'liberals' might be gun-hating looney-toons.

I understand the general intent of most people wanting gun control (not necessarily banning) but also disagree w/ the methods. That "percieved risk' is also arbitrary and has the potential to be taken to illogical extremes (a ban on computers for a potential risk of hacking for example)

Unfortunately forall 'liberals', gun-hating looney-toons (I like that) describe themselves as 'liberal'.

It's not a cure. It is a protection.

Condoms don't stop pregnancy 100% of the time... so why use them? Because they do stop some pregnancies.

Gun Psychology testing wouldn't weed out all of the danger, but it would help.

And, yes - your psychology is a variable thing... which is why I would like to see the testing extended... maybe an annual thing?

But then again, I think you should have to pass a driving-test every year to retain a license to drive...

You are operating on the assumption that someone who would commit a violent crime with a firearm is mentally unbalance in some way.

It's rarely true. Very rarely. Instead of psychological testing, you need to know more about their life situation.

Of course, this would lead (as crime statistics would be used as the basis of the criteria selection) to the disarming of poor people.

Here in the US, murder by gun amongst white middle-class people or higher occurs at a LOWER rate than it does in Switzerland.

Might be a racist policy, that.

For me, the Psych test and "safety" checks are to arbitrary and could/would lead to abuses...

" you were spanked as a child?" (potential for violence)
"your gun safe isn't rated to 20K degrees and no dual comination locks in a locked room while disassemble w/ ammo in a separate locked room in the residence? (unsafe)

Proof of residency OK but not the record keeping. Too often has a tendancy to lead to confiscation/registration.

Any system is open to abuses. The current system is open to abuse, that isn't a valid reason to NOT try to improve things.

Just as a by-the-way... what if being spanked as a child really was more likely to put you in the kill-crazy category? I don't believe it is, but why mock it?

I don't see why the TRADER keeping tabs on what he sold to you should lead to confiscation - unless the TRADER is allowed to confiscate, which seems unlikely.

Other than that, government agents would have to be specifically legitimated in pursuit of a threat/crime, before they would be allowed access to those documents held privately by a TRADER... just the same as any other Warranted procedure.

So - if someone was murdered, and the weapon could be identified - a federal body MIGHT be able to get a warrant to track past owners of THAT weapon.... which should be fine... since the legitimate owner would report it 'stolen' if someone took it....

You are operating on the assumption that someone who would commit a violent crime with a firearm is mentally unbalance in some way.

It's rarely true. Very rarely. Instead of psychological testing, you need to know more about their life situation.

Of course, this would lead (as crime statistics would be used as the basis of the criteria selection) to the disarming of poor people.

Here in the US, murder by gun amongst white middle-class people or higher occurs at a LOWER rate than it does in Switzerland.

Might be a racist policy, that.

Quite the opposite (about mentally unbalanced, I mean). Read my posts in the "Roots of Violence" thread, to see where I am actually heading there.

But, a mental imbalance (for example a propensity towards extreme violence) would facilitate gun-violence... as it would for non-gun-violence.

You could weed out that 'risk' (which looks good in terms of risk limitation, and, therefore appeases 'liberals').

I'm not discounting life situation, either. Someone who has repeatedly been arrested for beating-up his wife, for example, should be considered high-risk in terms of gun ownership.

how about just allowing arms that were available when the second amendment was written. Nobody needs an ak47, period.

how about just allowing arms that were available when the second amendment was written. Nobody needs an ak47, period.

read back in the thread, we've covered this.

And if you don't read back, we'll come to take your computer, because the Founding Fathers, when they wrote the first amendment, never anticipated the Internet...

how about just allowing arms that were available when the second amendment was written. Nobody needs an ak47, period.

Been answered several dozen times already. Here was the last one.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7658897#post7658897

well i always thought that vietnam was a significant part of the USAs containment policy against communism?


It had to be billed as that, ultimately. Check out Barbara Tuchman's "March of Folly". There is also quite a bit of proof that had Kennedy "made nice" with Ho that Vietnam would have become Sweden-like, and not hardline Communist.

im not against the removal of the taliban, but that is not what i believe the war was about. i believe it was about oil and the USAs freedom of expansion until everywhere has a muckdonalds within one mile or whatever. they only told you that it was about 'getting osama' and removing the taliban.

First, Afghanistan has no oil. (I assume you are talking about Iraq?)
Second, McDonalds will only go into a country that will not go to war with the US or its allies.
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/telegraph_15dec96.html
("Those outside the McDonald's family, on the other hand, are dealt with ruthlessly, most noticeably by the United States. Vietnam, Iraq, Cambodia and Somalia are all Big Mac-free zones.")


thats fair, its just i wish you would think otherwise. if my best freind started being freinds with george bush, first id pinch myself, then id stop liking him. i can see why the americans have an apparent loathing for the french, its just we look at it from oppisite perspectives.

I have no problem with the French people. One of my best friends is from Grenoble. I just hate the "French attitude" towards the US, which has been a major fixture of French governmental policy since the 3rd Republic. It's a mixture of snide cultural superority mixed with a desire to do the very least while taking the most credit.
It's similar to how the French feel about "American Cowboys", I'm sure. But as my lineage is Slovak, we're still smarting from being betrayed in 1938, thanks.


ok, ill do an ill-informed autopsy. it was heroin wasnt it? there, definately not the french.

Kind of late, no? His cadaver has been worm food since 1971...


in my world, if my freind started telling me i was wrong, id listen to him. because he could probably see what i was doing better than i could.
Even if he was owed 8 BILLION dollars by that same person you hate?


i didnt mean you getting angryish, i dont mind that, i meant the war against trrrrsm.
I'm guessing you're fairly young. I'm 31, and college was only 10 years ago. If you ever have the misfortune to lose people you know in such a way as having a plane crash into a building on purpose, you might change your mind.
No, the two guys were not close friends of mine. But another buddy of mine was supposed to be there that afternoon for lunch.

Yes - it is a dichotomy.

The average 'liberal', I would assume, is less about banning guns - and more about trying to lessen the risks in a very violent society... which may entail talk of limiting, or even banning, guns... but the 'gun' is not the enemy... it is a victim, if you will - of the desire to IMROVE society.

The average gun-owner isn't about killing things, but is interested in protecting him/her self, or their family, or their property... or maybe they are just a sport-shooter. But, putting guns into the hands of legitimate interests ALSO increases the possibility that the 'wrong hands' are going to get them.

Both sides can see sense in the other side. Both sides have legitimate concerns.

How do you resolve a dichotomy?

The ONLY viable way I can see, that can please BOTH parties, is compromise... and, if you don't please both parties, your dichotomy continues.

The compromise (as I see it) is to alleviate 'liberal' worries about "baddies" with guns, by doing all you can to verify that trustworthy individuals, trained in the use, and with the capacity to SECURE those weapons; are the target market. Thus - you preserve the 'right' to bear arms AND you are seen to reduce the risk element of gun availability and ownership.

Of course, with expanding population - it will all eventually become irrelevent... since population density seems to be the factor that has MOST influence in the 'right to bear arms' issue.

The problem is, with freedom, there is no compromise. That is the crux of the issue blocking your potential solution. We may see what we can do to compromise, but because we value our freedom (and everyone else's freedom as well) more than another's opinion/suggestion that is actually contrary to freedom, the other's opinion/suggestion loses out, and the compromise doesn't occur.

The US wasn't based on "getting along" with your neighbor. It was about the individual and the individual's freedom. Yes, it's normal to associate with your neighbors and build relationships, however the US government wasn't designed to facilitate that. We're supposed to be responsible, competent human beings who can do that without regulation or controls on everyone. The problem is, there are those that see most humans as irresponsible and incompetent, and wish to control the actions of others to their OWN satisfaction. That's the one right they don't have. I don't have the right to tell you what to do anymore (or less, for that matter) than the government does.

So now what? I'm not willing to compromise my ideals for the sake of soothing someone's concern (fear of what I MAY do, but haven't)--nor should I have to.

But, people don't work like that.

People prefer prevention over cure... and they get all moody and finger-pointy when prevention isn't sufficient.

Example: the 9/11 commission - to find out why people weren't MORE READY for a terror-attack. (I have my own theories about that one...)

Let's look at an example: A man comes running towards you with a gun, weilding it in a menacing way, and yelling that he is about to blow your brains off. As he slows and begins to sight, you draw your own gun, and point back... telling him you WILL shoot.

What do you do?

a) Give a reasonable amount of warning and time, and wait to see what the assailant does?

b) Give a reasonable amount of warning and time, then fire a 'warning shot' over his head... possibly giving him time to shoot you?

c) Give a reasonable amount of warning and time, then fire a 'warning shot' INTO his head?

d) Let him fire first - if he shoots, you will shoot back?

They already have the firearm out and is running toward me already threatening me?

There is no opportunity to retreat before he could fire. I'd not give any time, and shoot two to the chest. Any self-defense training instructor would tell you to do the same. You don't wait. Period. Not if the threat is as you described. You pull and shoot immediately.

I like your case. However, there's only one point I can really counter perfectly: "And, just as in the UK, 80 percent of the guns used in actual criminal acts are from illegal sources. So they don't care about your gun law."
Yes, but this is where percentages fail: overall, we have a lower gun crime ratio, I didn't say we didn't have gun crime. In fact, ours are MORE LIKELY to be from illegal sources, as getting them legally is so extremely difficult. We still have less gun crime, even if, as you say, more gun crime is the price you pay for less other crime (robbery, rape, etc.)

I'm concerned with all crime in general--since it heavily outweighs just firearms murders in particular.

Firearms are used (as noted previously) 2.5 million times per year in the US to stop crimes. I'm looking at the global picture. If I wanted to stop just firearm related crimes, then I might look at something remotely resembling gun control. However, since I want to be able to stop all crime better, I still need the best tool for the job--a firearm.

If there were no crime or power-hungry greed in the world, I wouldn't need the gun. Until then, it's more valuable as a legal tool, than a banned one.

It had to be billed as that, ultimately. Check out Barbara Tuchman's "March of Folly". There is also quite a bit of proof that had Kennedy "made nice" with Ho that Vietnam would have become Sweden-like, and not hardline Communist.


First, Afghanistan has no oil. (I assume you are talking about Iraq?)
Second, McDonalds will only go into a country that will not go to war with the US or its allies.
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/telegraph_15dec96.html
("Those outside the McDonald's family, on the other hand, are dealt with ruthlessly, most noticeably by the United States. Vietnam, Iraq, Cambodia and Somalia are all Big Mac-free zones.")



I have no problem with the French people. One of my best friends is from Grenoble. I just hate the "French attitude" towards the US, which has been a major fixture of French governmental policy since the 3rd Republic. It's a mixture of snide cultural superority mixed with a desire to do the very least while taking the most credit.
It's similar to how the French feel about "American Cowboys", I'm sure. But as my lineage is Slovak, we're still smarting from being betrayed in 1938, thanks.



Kind of late, no? His cadaver has been worm food since 1971...


Even if he was owed 8 BILLION dollars by that same person you hate?


I'm guessing you're fairly young. I'm 31, and college was only 10 years ago. If you ever have the misfortune to lose people you know in such a way as having a plane crash into a building on purpose, you might change your mind.
No, the two guys were not close friends of mine. But another buddy of mine was supposed to be there that afternoon for lunch.



no, i was talking about afghanistan. i think youll find that in the eighties, unocal, halliburton and enron were desperate to build an OIL pipeline through afghanistan so they could join up withthe caspian sea and pakistan. when relations with the taliban (americas then best mates for defeating the communists) broke down after al quaida bombed the african embassies, the deal was off. come bushes presidency, the war on trrr and what do we find? were invading afghanistan. thats why i think its an unjust war.
so mcdonalds will not go into a country that attacks the US? that makes me think that its another reason for the west to attack somewhere and install a west-freindly government so that muckdonalds can open a few more restaurants.

good for you, i have no problem with french people either, and as im not french, i cannot really comment on the french 'attitude', sorry.

i think the next bit is about britain appeasing at the munich crisis? im ashamed of that myself, but im not sure we were in a position to do anything anyway.

ive been trying to work this out but i cant, sorry, could you explain it a bit more?

im 18, and no, i havent lost anyone except through old age and illness. if i was affected by september the 11th or if anything was to happen in the UK like that (although i doubt it will) i would definitely have a different perspective. but i would still be very dubious about the war on trrrsm.

Of course I agree. Did you read the bottom of my post?

Untrained civilians shooting at trained troops has lower odds of survival true, however, there are a lot more civilians than troops and the US has a fairly high percentage of vets.
How many people in Fallujah regularly went hunting or to a firing range? Accuracy plays a large role in lethality.

Because, of course, the average gun owner bought it to tie bows on kittens.
Most kittens hate that you know. It annoys the hell out of them.

Funny, the most use I get out of a firearm is actually shooting at targets--paper targets.



You're the one that says its only purpose is to kill. We're pointing out other uses.

And they don't always kill very well. There are several documented uses of firearms when the "victim" doesn't die. Most of the time, actually. It's not as efficient as you deem it to be.

So, bows are out with you as well? Darts? They were all designed to "kill things" initially, right? Yet there are accepted sports built around them, just as there are for firearms.
How about the boomerang?

Just a related issue:
The USA does not need to behave like a giant Millitia, considering it has one of the world's strongest millitary capacities. In the UK, it is illegal to own a weapon without a permit, and even then such weapons are usually limited to antiques, hunting rifles, paintball guns and the like. Fully armed weapons usually require some sort of weapons range permit.
May I point out our gun crime ratio (that's a %, so don't give me the "of course it's lower, you have a smaller population" excuse) is far lower than that of the USA?
No, you murder ratio is lower. Your non-murder crime stats are higher.

They already have the firearm out and is running toward me already threatening me?

There is no opportunity to retreat before he could fire. I'd not give any time, and shoot two to the chest. Any self-defense training instructor would tell you to do the same. You don't wait. Period. Not if the threat is as you described. You pull and shoot immediately.
What if the gun has an orange tip?

The reason that people have the right to bear arms is in the case of a corrupt government; it was written during a time when many people were against the idea of a federal government, fearing that giving too much power to it would screw them over. Any law infringing this right, except in extreme cases (mental illness, criminal record) is unconstitutional.

Banning guns doesn't work anyhow; crime rates go up when you take away people's right and ability to defend themselves.

It's a good thing that that cop had a gun yesterday when the idiot shot up Damageplan. I contend that if everyone in that room had had a gun, he would have gotten one bullet off before he died. That is how you save lives.

What if the gun has an orange tip?

As a potential advantage, I've painted the barrel of my 1911 (granted it doesn't protrude until it cycles) bright orange.

HA HA!

no, i was talking about afghanistan. i think youll find that in the eighties, unocal, halliburton and enron were desperate to build an OIL pipeline through afghanistan so they could join up withthe caspian sea and pakistan. when relations with the taliban (americas then best mates for defeating the communists) broke down after al quaida bombed the african embassies, the deal was off. come bushes presidency, the war on trrr and what do we find? were invading afghanistan. thats why i think its an unjust war.

So the minor fact that that was where the Taliban & the terrorists *were* doesn't trump some pipeline deal? I hate to tell you this, but from my chair, you're hating Hitler because the SS had snappy tailors...

so mcdonalds will not go into a country that attacks the US? that makes me think that its another reason for the west to attack somewhere and install a west-freindly government so that muckdonalds can open a few more restaurants.

Hey, I'm of the opinion that anything that brings the world together is a *good* thing. The Olympics. World Cup Soccer (Football, to you?). McDonalds... hey, if Au Bon Pain or Bass makes it big, I'm all for it! I use Heinz products myself...
I've been to (and by that, I mean spent at least 3 days to several months in) Iceland, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Poland, Slovakia, Austria, Czech Republic, Canada, Luxembourg, and England.
IMHO, we're not all that different.
I also really enjoyed London. To me, it's just a strange part of Boston with driving on the wrong side of the road, poorer restaurants and warmer weather...


good for you, i have no problem with french people either, and as im not french, i cannot really comment on the french 'attitude', sorry.

C'est la vie.

i think the next bit is about britain appeasing at the munich crisis? im ashamed of that myself, but im not sure we were in a position to do anything anyway.

Had the Sudetenland not been given away, there was a VERY good chance that Hitler would never have been able to invade ANYWHERE. Almost 1 out of 3 of the tanks Hitler invaded Russia with were from the Czechoslovak armouries.

ive been trying to work this out but i cant, sorry, could you explain it a bit more?

Which? That Jim Morrison has been dead since 1971 (thus making an autopsy exceedingly difficult), or that your "friend" is truly netural and would do what is in your best interest? France was owed over 8B USD (6.5B Pounds, in 2000) before the Iraq War. I hold them about as neutral as I hold the Swedes in WW2: only in Name.

im 18, and no, i havent lost anyone except through old age and illness. if i was affected by september the 11th or if anything was to happen in the UK like that (although i doubt it will) i would definitely have a different perspective. but i would still be very dubious about the war on trrrsm.

That's certainly your right, and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, but merely to illustrate why I (and many Americans) think the way I do.

As a potential advantage, I've painted the barrel of my 1911 (granted it doesn't protrude until it cycles) bright orange.

HA HA!
That'll be useful.

What if the gun has an orange tip?

Defense instructors are of two minds on that topic. How do we know that it wasn't just pained, so people would assume it was a toy?

How do I know he's not just going to beat on me with it? :)

Basically, if you're being assaulted, you are allowed to fire, legally, regardless of the weapon.

So the minor fact that that was where the Taliban & the terrorists *were* doesn't trump some pipeline deal? I hate to tell you this, but from my chair, you're hating Hitler because the SS had snappy tailors...


Hey, I'm of the opinion that anything that brings the world together is a *good* thing. The Olympics. World Cup Soccer (Football, to you?). McDonalds... hey, if Au Bon Pain or Bass makes it big, I'm all for it! I use Heinz products myself...
I've been to (and by that, I mean spent at least 3 days to several months in) Iceland, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Poland, Slovakia, Austria, Czech Republic, Canada, Luxembourg, and England.
IMHO, we're not all that different.
I also really enjoyed London. To me, it's just a strange part of Boston with driving on the wrong side of the road, poorer restaurants and warmer weather...



C'est la vie.


Had the Sudetenland not been given away, there was a VERY good chance that Hitler would never have been able to invade ANYWHERE. Almost 1 out of 3 of the tanks Hitler invaded Russia with were from the Czechoslovak armouries.


Which? That Jim Morrison has been dead since 1971 (thus making an autopsy exceedingly difficult), or that your "friend" is truly netural and would do what is in your best interest? France was owed over 8B USD (6.5B Pounds, in 2000) before the Iraq War. I hold them about as neutral as I hold the Swedes in WW2: only in Name.


That's certainly your right, and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, but merely to illustrate why I (and many Americans) think the way I do.


ok, im not against the talibans removal! this is obviously a good thing. but i do not believe that that was the US governments reason for attacking afghanistan. i believe its all a charade which unfortunately most of america and britain has fallen for, so that the governments can do what the want.
i also am not against the hunt for osama bin laden and al quaida, as they are criminals plain and simple. but you cannot kill people to stop them killing you. this just breeds more terrorists. hopefully that clears up my opinion of the war on trrrr.

i am a socialist and an environmentalist, so therefore i think you can guess why im against muckdonalds? im with you on the rest of that paragraph though. yes, football.

agreed, it was a bad thing that we appeased with hitler, but im not sure that he wouldnt have been able to invade anywhere.

hehe, the french debts. is america not owed anything by iraq?

agreed, just replace 'americans' with 'britons'.

The key phrase is "the people", which has been held by several SCOTUS decisions to mean individual persons. There has been no SCOTUS opinion that contradicts this interpretation of "the people", as it would invalidate all our other individual rights. Also, if you read the background material for the writing of the Constitution, you'll realize that from George Mason to Thomas Jefferson, they all believed that the "militia" is composed by default of all able-bodied males between 18 and 45 years of age. This has been enshrined in US Law, which formalizes that age group. Most males in the US on this board are in the militia whether we want to be or not, and under law must obey an order to be called up.

The militia is NOT the Coast Guard, or National Guard. It is the body of males in the US.

The Founding Fathers believed that if every man had a rifle in his house, then a "well regulated" militia could be called out to defend the nation on a moment's notice. The government was not going to buy those weapons - we were expected to keep them.

A very prominent historian named Belisiles tried to debunk this - and he was discredited and laughed out of academia.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It says Well regulated militia. Well regulated as in has funding.

If every man had a rifle in his house, that just means he went out and bought a gun. And if your gonna be like that, then how about we issue guns to everybody? We have goverment fundings, everybody has a gun, we have a large militia, and everybody would be a lot more polite.

:sniper:

hehe, the french debts. is america not owed anything by iraq?
The Dems wanted to make them pay hefty reparations(sound familiar?) but Bush told them basically to shove it.

ok, im not against the talibans removal! this is obviously a good thing. but i do not believe that that was the US governments reason for attacking afghanistan. i believe its all a charade which unfortunately most of america and britain has fallen for, so that the governments can do what the want.

Sorry, I only have so much a stomach for conspiracy theories. I give that one even less than the one that Churchill knew about Pearl Harbor, told Roosevelt, and that the two of them consipired to do nothing so as to get the US in the war. (Read: I really can't put any stock into it at all...)

i also am not against the hunt for osama bin laden and al quaida, as they are criminals plain and simple. but you cannot kill people to stop them killing you. this just breeds more terrorists. hopefully that clears up my opinion of the war on trrrr.

Actually, that's the best way. Good lord man! Suppose that the 11 March Madrid bombing had happened at Pimlico Station? As in:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4081383.stm
Actually, I believe it just decreases the number of terrorists heading for targets outside of Iraq.
BTW, I see your keyboard does have "e" and "o". Can you please type "terror"?

i am a socialist and an environmentalist, so therefore i think you can guess why im against muckdonalds? im with you on the rest of that paragraph though. yes, football.

I am also an environmentalist. I believe in a number of social issues (equal rights, civil liberties, livable wages). You certainly have the right to be against whatever you want to be. I personally refuse to buy Chinese whenever possible, and will not see any movies starring Susan Sarandon.


agreed, it was a bad thing that we appeased with hitler, but im not sure that he wouldnt have been able to invade anywhere.

Without Czechoslovakia, he'd never have been able to take Poland and the low countries/France. Basically, it was setting up the dominoes his way. Denmark? Maybe. Belgium and France? No way. Without the East settled, UK & France would have won the "Phoney War" of 1940.

hehe, the french debts. is america not owed anything by iraq?

Surprisingly, little. The Saddam regime owed the US nothing, and the current government will (we hope!) become self sufficient. Trust me, I'm not estatic about 87 Billion USD going out of the country.

agreed, just replace 'americans' with 'britons'.

Ayep. :)

guns don't kill people, they just make it a hell of a lot easier. :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :rolleyes: :mp5: :) :mp5:

guns don't kill people, they just make it a hell of a lot easier. :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :rolleyes: :mp5: :) :mp5:
This is actually a good thing, since if it wasn't so easy it would rely much much more on advanced training and/or size and strength. Guns are called the great equalizer for a reason.

To me, life is a universal right, unabridgeable and unalienable. The right to bear arms is a right granted to us by the government primarily to reassure citizens that they will not be asked to disarm and unilaterally submit to the government.

A gun's only purpose is to destroy life. Our food sources are not dependant on the existence of guns. Even recreational gun usage can be replaced with crossbows, although the entire idea of recreational killing is still disgusting to me.

Guns can kill. People will fear being killed. So, people fear guns and those who wield them. If power can be inspired by fear, then ultimately, it is people demanding power that will have guns.

I may be liberal. I may be extremely to the left. But I have my reasons.

~ CD

life is neither universal nor a right, if your dying of cancer were is your right to life, starvation? no right to life there either. hit by a truck/car, nope no right to life there either. guns do not kill people. people and bullets kill people. small test place a gun on the table, walk about 10 feet away from the gun, stand in front of said gun, now call it names, piss it off, give it the bird, hum did it go off and kill you i think not. the 2nd amendment is there specifically so that if our government goes all oppresive on us and so that we can rise up and sieze it back. as for the military grade weapons arguement the british tried to keep us from having the best quality firearms for the time, buy outlawing the possession of these particular firearms, (can't remember the name of them but they offered better accuracy than the colonists weapons) therefore we have the 2nd amendment. now i personally feel that there should be much more regulation of firearms, namely better background checks, and hell some psychology tests would work nicely also. my 2 cents. thank you. :mp5:

Constitution of the United States, Amendment II:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Founding Fathers did not simply state "...The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed," which is what is on the exterior of the National Rifle Association's corporate headquarters. They chose to include the sole reason of WHY the people have the right to bear arms. Your right to bear arms in the United States has nothing to do with your personal freedom or the right to defend yourself. It has everything to do with the security of the free State. If the country is invaded (a valid concern in 1791) a militia would have to be called to defend it. Likewise, if a violent anti-American militia were to take arms against it (Shay's Rebellion, for example) a militia would need to be called to fight it. Finally, if the government becomes so oppressive that it no longer resembles that defined by the Constituiton, it is the duty of every patriot to take up arms against it (hence the use of the term "free State" rather than "State").

Nowadays, we have the Army, the Navy (including the Marines), the Air Force, the Coast Guard, the National Guard, various State Guards, Civil Defense...the list goes on and on. These serve the State's purpose of the well-regulated militia. So, unless you plan on overthrowing the government, should it become too un-American, or fighting against a force opposing the State, you have no reason under the Second Amendment to own a gun. In like manner, if you so choose to be a part of the militia, you should probably register with someone, as the clause includes the phrase "well regulated."

wow, nicely argued except for one thing. Militias are a citizen based army of nonsoldiers. they are primarily private citizens who take up arms at the request of their government. technically the army, not navy or marines strangely enough, is unconstitutional, as they are professional soldiers. private citizens make up a militia thus private citizens have the right to bear arms. :sniper:

are you a part of your local millitia?if no then you do NOT have a constitutional right to bear arms.read it slowly this time.


just so you know militias are illegal in the USA, cause we have a government run military. interesting isn't it. ohh and the national guard does not count as a militia as it run and paid for by the government. federal government that is.

So LAWs, and maybe ATGMs should be legal for any able-bodied 18-year-old to own? How about shoulder-launched SAMs, the better to shoot down Evil Government attack helicopters? A few Tomahawk launchers, to blow up Evil Government C^3 sites so they can't mount an offensive against your peace-loving home town? What the heck, why not get an old C-130 Hercules and a few MOAB (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm)s, so you can bomb those oppressive bastards to oblivion?


i'm all for private ownership of every kind of FIREARM, not missile launchers, grenade launchers, tanks(wait may want one of them :D ) jet fighters, battleships, MOABS, and so forth too much specialized training to use effectively and way to easy to spot. so lets keep the argument to firearms and not run off into the silly realm fo ohhhh what about nukes, and space based laser satellites.

Oh, and by the way. You are America. I seriously doubt you have to worry much about your country being invaded to the point where Joe Normal has to step in to lend a hand.

But lets just say... hypothetically, like, you were to be invaded and you army decimated. What chance would an 'organised milita' have against a force strong enough to decimate the US army.


wow missed vietnam and the viet cong didn't we? kicked americas ass pretty effectively don't you think.

I am a liberal who does not support gun control. With that said, first of all, I am tired of the perpetual invocation of the 2nd amendment. This isn't about the right of the man to have a gun--it's an outmoded amendment, when the US didn't have an extensive professional army/police force and had to do more with defending the colonies against foreign forces. When it's invoked, it isn't in the spirit of how it was intended. Secondly, gun control isn't a "Liberal" thing. Mainstream of America supports gun control and registration--including the Brady Bill. Actually only the rightwing and libertarians don't support gun control in any form.

so when does freedom of speech become and outmoded amendment? if it is there than it's there, you can't/shouldn't pick and choose which amendements are valid. either they all are or none of them are.

just so you know militias are illegal in the USA, cause we have a government run military. interesting isn't it. ohh and the national guard does not count as a militia as it run and paid for by the government. federal government that is.

http://www.ct71st.com/ct71st.html

BTW, there is likely a militia in your state:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/link2mil.htm

wow missed vietnam and the viet cong didn't we? kicked americas ass pretty effectively don't you think.
Actually if you look at strength levels after the Tet Offensive we had them beat. Problem was the political situation was fucked up bad back home.

Of course, there are a lot more people willing to fight in the US than there were in Vietnam. And probably better trained. The infrastructure and terrain is a bit better as well.

I have a few things, its true, guns dont kill people, people kill people, but without a gun, how are you going to kill them? A knife? HAAA! Go into a bank and see what happens if you hold up a knife and say "gimme your money!" I believe in allowing hunting guns. But no Semi-Auto, and no hand guns.

just FYI check out japans murder rate, they have one the most repressive gun laws around, and their murder rate is still ri-cock-ulously high cause you can still kill someone with a knife, rock, scissors, ets. this was not a personal attack, just an FYI i'm for regulating not banning firearms.

um, I haven't finished reading this thread, but... I'm very sure if someone "invaded the States" they would not be foot soldiers who are running around... I think they would probably bomb the States, in that case, what is a machine gun gonna do? And I think I remember something about how the 2nd ammendment was written when countries WERE invaded with foot soldiers? I think people need to think about WHEN these things were written and the situation at the time.


(don't mean to be picking on you or anything, because there are more people than just you on your side)

Take note: You said in the War of 1812! Yes, the Americans attack the Canadas (and they burnt the white house)... but that was a very different kind of combat than that which would be held today in current Canada and the United States.

By the way, I'm not against the right to bare arms, but I also don't agree that it was written so people could own anti-aircraft guns or anything! Remember what it meant when it was written.

well remeber what words were like back then so lets ban freedom of speech cause the words have changed since then. BAH. wait religion has changed also ban it. it wasn't the same as back then. just because they did not have auto/semi-auto weapons does not mean that the 2nd amendment is in valid, i'm for regulation, intelligent ownership of firearms.

um, I haven't finished reading this thread, but... I'm very sure if someone "invaded the States" they would not be foot soldiers who are running around... I think they would probably bomb the States, in that case, what is a machine gun gonna do? And I think I remember something about how the 2nd ammendment was written when countries WERE invaded with foot soldiers? I think people need to think about WHEN these things were written and the situation at the time.


(don't mean to be picking on you or anything, because there are more people than just you on your side)

Take note: You said in the War of 1812! Yes, the Americans attack the Canadas (and they burnt the white house)... but that was a very different kind of combat than that which would be held today in current Canada and the United States.

By the way, I'm not against the right to bare arms, but I also don't agree that it was written so people could own anti-aircraft guns or anything! Remember what it meant when it was written.

sorry about this i'm not picking on you personally an invasion is when you send troops, you can not invade a country if all you do is bomb it that would constitute an attack.

just FYI check out japans murder rate, they have one the most repressive gun laws around, and their murder rate is still ri-cock-ulously high cause you can still kill someone with a knife, rock, scissors, ets. this was not a personal attack, just an FYI i'm for regulating not banning firearms.

WHat type of regulations are you for exactly?

The people making the comparison of your homosexual friend were every bit as wrong as you are for making the same type of comparison about people who own and use firearms for enjoyment or defence. They were wrong, and so are you.

I, personally, also don't appreciate your brand of slippery slope arguments. I didn't yell, or scream or get angry. I simply don't think you have the slightest inkling of what this issue is about or entails. Now that I know there is a legal definition for idiot, I will retract my statement branding you as such. However, I stick by my statement that you do not know what you're talking about when it comes to guns or the gun control issue.

I would also like to address what happened to your friend. Anytime a person is murdered it is a tradgedy. Especially if that person was murdered for being different. I say 'different' and not 'gay' because there are many other people who have been singled out and either abused or murdered because they fell outside the norm. I also challenge you to find a group in history that has not been chased or persecuted for ideals, culture or beliefs. I really am deeply sorry for your loss, and you definitely have a distinct event to color your view, but what you refuse to acknowlege, at least from what I've read, is that there was a person behind the gun that murdered your friend. It wasn't a gunshot that was the cause of death for Matthew Sheppard, and it probably wasn't a gunshot that caused the death of Teena Brandon (even though she was shot at some point), but in both cases, there were people who took it upon themselves to do something horrible and evil, without regard for anyone but thier own drunken selves, regardless of what tool was used.



When you lumped me, and just about everyone here into the group of people capable of unprovoked, cold blooded murder, you had better believe I, and probably every other person here took it personally.

I do my very best to love, care for, and yes, protect those in my charge, and the people who try to do them or myself harm will be held responsible for thier actions, not the machines that don't know any better. I will also take to task people (like yourself) who attempt to malign or slander or demean those people and principles I uphold as important.

I have, and continue to hold dear that all people should be treated with kindness and compassion, and that people have an obligation to help, and not harm the people around them. In every case in comes down to people, not things. That I am willing to take responsibility for myself, and demand that those around me do the same, does, in fact, make me morally superior.

Actually, Brandon Teena was an acquaintance of mine. I was present at the vigil outside the courthouse when the case was heard against Lotter and Nissen. Lotter, I'm happy to say, got the death penalty, though it has yet to be carried out, and I love nothing more than to score a set of box seats for his execution. I've nothing but contempt for John Lotter.

Greg Nissen, on the other hand, he played ball with the DA, turned state's evidence on Lotter, and got 25 years. I only wish he'd gotten the airdance, too.

Meanwhile, in Austin, Texas, in 1999, Lauryn Paige, aka Donald Fuller...was found in a Southeast Austin ditch, stabbed over 60 times...one of those stab wounds was a nine-inch gash that left her nearly decapitated. Gamaliel Coria, who admitted in open court to murdering Lauryn, got 40 years, eligible for parole in 20. This is highly disgusting, considering that I'm sure if Lauryn had been a genetically-born woman, rather than a transsexual...and had not been turning tricks (which was, thanks to employment discrimination the only way Lauryn could survive,) I'm quite sure Coria woulda been doping the airdance...I suspect he isn't BECAUSE Lauryn was different...and that tells me the legal system values the lives of people like me less than they value the lives of "normal" people.

I've now given you a few clues about who and what I am...I think you're bright enough to put two and two together and come up with four...and maybe now you understand better why I hold the views I do.

And in the case of Brandon Teena...two friends of Teena's were also shot to death that night...a straight couple...and only thier two-month-old baby was left to survive. If you ever saw "Boys Don't Cry" well...that film didn't even do justice to what Brandon was put through. I saw that movie once and will never see it again, because I cannot emotionally handle seeing it again. I own a copy of that on DVD...not to watch it...but to remind me of WHY I fight for, and struggle for, and speak out for...the causes I do. I sat in that theatre after "Boys Don't Cry" for 45 minutes, unable to get out of my seat, numb, wrung out, and crying. I couldn't move. And Brandon was only an acquaintance, as opposed to a friend....like Terrianne.

Meanwhile, Robert Eads, another friend, died because he was a female-to-male transsexual, died of ovarian cancer, because he could not find an oncologist willing to treat him for his cancer...because of his differences...until it was too late. He went through 20 doctors before he found one willing to treat him. HBO released a documentary about him a couple years ago, called "Southern Comfort."

Tyra Hunter, in Washington, D.C. was left to die, broken and bleeding on the pavement, while EMS paramedics who were supposed to try to save her life...mocked her instead! Can you imagine spending the last minutes of YOUR life, broken and bleeding on the pavement, while the people who are supposed to try to save your life stand around and make jokes about you, instead...just because you are different? Can you imagine the anger my community feels over these crimes?

Yes, in case you haven't yet figured it out...I, too, am a transsexual. And I fear for MY life at the hands of some hate-monger. Too many people I have known and loved...too many people I have cared for...have been killed by whackos with guns, just because they were different. And this is why I support background checks, hate crimes laws, and stiff punishments for perpetrators of violent crime.

You can see over 200 reasons why I support background checks...and why I support hate crimes laws, by going to http://www.rememberingourdead.org
Go there if you wish. You'll see the faces of over 200 people who were KILLED by whackos with guns, knives, you name it. And I'm pissed. I want the violence against my people to stop. Whatever it takes!

Among the faces you will see on that website are Lauryn Paige, who I mentioned in this posting...Brandon Teena, also mentioned in this posting...you will see Tyra Hunter there...and you will see my own dear friend, Terrianne Summers.

Go look at that page, and maybe then you will better understand my attitude, and my stance, and my reasons for it. Or maybe some of you will think we are freaks who deserve to die. I know some of you will.

And two final notes:

1. Lauryn Paige's murderer, Gamaliel Coria, got a very light sentence, while The Texecutioner (GW Bush) was still hanging in as Gubnor of Texas.

2. Sheriff Laux is now in charge of, and warden of...the very death row in Nebraska where John Lotter now rots, and waits his appointment for the airdance. Still can't wait for that one, and I only wish I could get box seats to watch that piece of human shit die.

this reply is 1337!

this reply is 1337!

Imagine how un-elite you are since you were 3 posts too early... :rolleyes:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It says Well regulated militia. Well regulated as in has funding.

If every man had a rifle in his house, that just means he went out and bought a gun. And if your gonna be like that, then how about we issue guns to everybody? We have goverment fundings, everybody has a gun, we have a large militia, and everybody would be a lot more polite.

:sniper:

Funding from where? There was no income tax until the 20th century.

And everyone having a gun does work. Switzerland isn't exactly a murder capital.

guns don't kill people, they just make it a hell of a lot easier. :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :rolleyes: :mp5: :) :mp5:

Any weapon makes killing easier.

just so you know militias are illegal in the USA, cause we have a government run military. interesting isn't it. ohh and the national guard does not count as a militia as it run and paid for by the government. federal government that is.

I'd really love to see the proof that that law actually exists. Link, please.

wow missed vietnam and the viet cong didn't we? kicked americas ass pretty effectively don't you think.

Exactly.

just FYI check out japans murder rate, they have one the most repressive gun laws around, and their murder rate is still ri-cock-ulously high cause you can still kill someone with a knife, rock, scissors, ets. this was not a personal attack, just an FYI i'm for regulating not banning firearms.

Doesn't matter which of the three sides you're on, you're spouting fact. :) Now we just have to show you a few more things that prove regulation doesn't work either. :D

Actually, Brandon Teena was an acquaintance of mine. I was present at the vigil outside the courthouse when the case was heard against Lotter and Nissen. Lotter, I'm happy to say, got the death penalty, though it has yet to be carried out, and I love nothing more than to score a set of box seats for his execution. I've nothing but contempt for John Lotter.

Greg Nissen, on the other hand, he played ball with the DA, turned state's evidence on Lotter, and got 25 years. I only wish he'd gotten the airdance, too.

Meanwhile, in Austin, Texas, in 1999, Lauryn Paige, aka Donald Fuller...was found in a Southeast Austin ditch, stabbed over 60 times...one of those stab wounds was a nine-inch gash that left her nearly decapitated. Gamaliel Coria, who admitted in open court to murdering Lauryn, got 40 years, eligible for parole in 20. This is highly disgusting, considering that I'm sure if Lauryn had been a genetically-born woman, rather than a transsexual...and had not been turning tricks (which was, thanks to employment discrimination the only way Lauryn could survive,) I'm quite sure Coria woulda been doping the airdance...I suspect he isn't BECAUSE Lauryn was different...and that tells me the legal system values the lives of people like me less than they value the lives of "normal" people.

I've now given you a few clues about who and what I am...I think you're bright enough to put two and two together and come up with four...and maybe now you understand better why I hold the views I do.

And in the case of Brandon Teena...two friends of Teena's were also shot to death that night...a straight couple...and only thier two-month-old baby was left to survive. If you ever saw "Boys Don't Cry" well...that film didn't even do justice to what Brandon was put through. I saw that movie once and will never see it again, because I cannot emotionally handle seeing it again. I own a copy of that on DVD...not to watch it...but to remind me of WHY I fight for, and struggle for, and speak out for...the causes I do. I sat in that theatre after "Boys Don't Cry" for 45 minutes, unable to get out of my seat, numb, wrung out, and crying. I couldn't move. And Brandon was only an acquaintance, as opposed to a friend....like Terrianne.

Meanwhile, Robert Eads, another friend, died because he was a female-to-male transsexual, died of ovarian cancer, because he could not find an oncologist willing to treat him for his cancer...because of his differences...until it was too late. He went through 20 doctors before he found one willing to treat him. HBO released a documentary about him a couple years ago, called "Southern Comfort."

Tyra Hunter, in Washington, D.C. was left to die, broken and bleeding on the pavement, while EMS paramedics who were supposed to try to save her life...mocked her instead! Can you imagine spending the last minutes of YOUR life, broken and bleeding on the pavement, while the people who are supposed to try to save your life stand around and make jokes about you, instead...just because you are different? Can you imagine the anger my community feels over these crimes?

Yes, in case you haven't yet figured it out...I, too, am a transsexual. And I fear for MY life at the hands of some hate-monger. Too many people I have known and loved...too many people I have cared for...have been killed by whackos with guns, just because they were different. And this is why I support background checks, hate crimes laws, and stiff punishments for perpetrators of violent crime.

You can see over 200 reasons why I support background checks...and why I support hate crimes laws, by going to http://www.rememberingourdead.org
Go there if you wish. You'll see the faces of over 200 people who were KILLED by whackos with guns, knives, you name it. And I'm pissed. I want the violence against my people to stop. Whatever it takes!

Among the faces you will see on that website are Lauryn Paige, who I mentioned in this posting...Brandon Teena, also mentioned in this posting...you will see Tyra Hunter there...and you will see my own dear friend, Terrianne Summers.

Go look at that page, and maybe then you will better understand my attitude, and my stance, and my reasons for it. Or maybe some of you will think we are freaks who deserve to die. I know some of you will.

And two final notes:

1. Lauryn Paige's murderer, Gamaliel Coria, got a very light sentence, while The Texecutioner (GW Bush) was still hanging in as Gubnor of Texas.

2. Sheriff Laux is now in charge of, and warden of...the very death row in Nebraska where John Lotter now rots, and waits his appointment for the airdance. Still can't wait for that one, and I only wish I could get box seats to watch that piece of human shit die.

No one has the right to tell you how to live your life. I certainly don't hate you, nor hate what you are--that's foolish. Hating someone for who they are, as opposed to what they do to others, against their will, is completely irrational.

I don't understand those that hate people for what they are.

Several great harms have befallen people you care about and people that you share similarities with, and for that most of us are going to sympathize with you.

However, we can also see you're blaming the wrong thing. Keep fighting for stiffer punishments for those that attack anyone. Don't strip the right for others from defending themselves as they see fit. I don't want you to lose the right to have a shotgun. You haven't done anything to actually lose the right. You haven't attacked anyone.

Yes, you're going to run into a hellacious number of jackasses that will give you a hard time about who you are. Probably an inordinate amount of them. No, it's not nice or fair. The only way you're going to really get peace is to make as many people aware that you aren't the "freak" the ignorant ones mistake you for--that involves getting out, and not locking yourself away from the world.

I never guessed that you were a transexual at all--the thought never even crossed my mind. Because it didn't matter. And it still doesn't. I only saw, and still only see, a person who's lost someone they love, is in a great deal of unresolved pain, and is attacking others' rights because of it. I was saying seek counseling for your pain and suffering, not for who you are.

You're going in the right direction, you're just missing the target--go for the crime itself, not the tool used to enact it.

If anyone feels like reposting this one, so Bucksnort actually sees it, it would be most appreciated.

Sorry, I only have so much a stomach for conspiracy theories. I give that one even less than the one that Churchill knew about Pearl Harbor, told Roosevelt, and that the two of them consipired to do nothing so as to get the US in the war. (Read: I really can't put any stock into it at all...)


Actually, that's the best way. Good lord man! Suppose that the 11 March Madrid bombing had happened at Pimlico Station? As in:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4081383.stm
Actually, I believe it just decreases the number of terrorists heading for targets outside of Iraq.
BTW, I see your keyboard does have "e" and "o". Can you please type "terror"?


I am also an environmentalist. I believe in a number of social issues (equal rights, civil liberties, livable wages). You certainly have the right to be against whatever you want to be. I personally refuse to buy Chinese whenever possible, and will not see any movies starring Susan Sarandon.



Without Czechoslovakia, he'd never have been able to take Poland and the low countries/France. Basically, it was setting up the dominoes his way. Denmark? Maybe. Belgium and France? No way. Without the East settled, UK & France would have won the "Phoney War" of 1940.


Surprisingly, little. The Saddam regime owed the US nothing, and the current government will (we hope!) become self sufficient. Trust me, I'm not estatic about 87 Billion USD going out of the country.


Ayep. :)


well i simply do not trust bush 'n' blair (WMD, anyone?) and that is what i believe the real motive is.

bombing and attacking countries (and the people that live in them) is NOT the way to defeat trrrism. if the UK harboured trrrsts, and the US invaded, and my house got bombed, and my family was killed, (albeit accidentaly) what would i do? i wouldnt say, 'oh isnt this a great war? im glad my family was sacrificed for the safety of the americans.' i would become a trrrst myself. and this is exactly whats happening in the middle east at the moment.
sorry i cant type trrrr (see?).

obviously we are in agreement about the next bit, which is good, but whos susan sarandon?

but also if he didnt have the sudetenland he may have waited until the german economy was ready for war, which might have lead to allied defeat?

(to armed bookworms as well) well there you go you learn a new thing everyday.

Actually, Brandon Teena was an acquaintance of mine. I was present at the vigil outside the courthouse when the case was heard against Lotter and Nissen. Lotter, I'm happy to say, got the death penalty, though it has yet to be carried out, and I love nothing more than to score a set of box seats for his execution. I've nothing but contempt for John Lotter.

I'm sorry. I cannot and will not support the death penalty. The death penalty is a direct violation of the 8th amendment to the Constitution. No one has ever watched an execution and come away feeling good about it. I understand you're anger, but more death and suffering is never the answer.


I've now given you a few clues about who and what I am...I think you're bright enough to put two and two together and come up with four...and maybe now you understand better why I hold the views I do...Yes, in case you haven't yet figured it out...I, too, am a transsexual

The reason I didn't know the first time or this time what your gender is or was (drum roll please) I don't care. I don't care. Wait....wait....nope, still don't care. I....DON'T...CARE. You, and all of those people you listed are and were people, humans, and I am a huge contributor and supporter of human rights groups. None of those people deserved to be treated like that and I am very saddened to hear about anytime someone is murdered for no reason other than being different. I covered that in my last post.

T.just because you are different? Can you imagine the anger my community feels over these crimes? And I fear for MY life at the hands of some hate-monger. Too many people I have known and loved...too many people I have cared for...have been killed by whackos with guns, just because they were different. And this is why I support background checks, hate crimes laws, and stiff punishments for perpetrators of violent crime.

I'll be blunt. Brandon Teena would have been quite safe at my house. Why? Because I have guns and dogs in my house. Had someone tried to break into my house, if the dogs didn't get 'em, I would have. Period. If you are being threatened, if you are being harassed, or stalked or persecuted in any way (lean closer) YOU NEED A GUN. The police don't want to be involved, it's too dangerous, they sit back and wait to take the report. You have to be responsible for yourself and for those you care about around you. Think about that. That's what the 2nd amendment is about. That's what we're talking about. Don't you see? When the Germans came for the Jews, they had been disarmed, and they were slaughtered. When the Tutsi's came for the Hutu's, they were disarmed and they too, were slaughtered. DON'T BE THEM!

You can see over 200 reasons why I support background checks...and why I support hate crimes laws, by going to http://www.rememberingourdead.org
Go there if you wish. You'll see the faces of over 200 people who were KILLED by whackos with guns, knives, you name it. And I'm pissed. I want the violence against my people to stop. Whatever it takes!

Education. And, the solution to almost every problem, which is loving-kindness and compassion.


And two final notes:

1. Lauryn Paige's murderer, Gamaliel Coria, got a very light sentence, while The Texecutioner (GW Bush) was still hanging in as Gubnor of Texas.

Unfortunately, the murder of prostitutes is not generally taken as seriously as it should. Look at how long the Green River killer managed to operate, what was it, 20 years? I'm willing to bet ya a $100 that had he been going after well to do society girls, they'd have found him a lot quicker. And that goes for prostitutes of any gender. Which is why (drum roll please) prostitution is one of those other things that needs to be unbanned and regulated.

2. Sheriff Laux is now in charge of, and warden of...the very death row in Nebraska where John Lotter now rots, and waits his appointment for the airdance. Still can't wait for that one, and I only wish I could get box seats to watch that piece of human shit die.

Again, I understand your anger. More death is not the answer. More suffering is not the answer. But you will never convince me that any human is a peice of shit. They are human. They may be lost, they may be confused or angry or mentally ill, but they are still human. They deserve, just like every human, loving-kindness and compassion.

I'm very sorry, and I know you must be very angry and hurt. But, to be honest with you, I don't really like guns all that much. They're just like a toothbrush to me. You have to have one, you have to know how to use it, but you're never really going to be 'attached' to it like a nice guitar or a painting or something. I need one to protect myself, my family, and my friends, which, believe it or not, includes you if you're in my company.

Namaste.

I love at how people always use the word "liberal" as an insult. It's like a buzzword for the right-wing. :rolleyes: I would say more but since getting personal wont solve anything I wont.

You can say the same thing about the word "conservative" many in the left-wing use it as an insult... I'm not going to stop talking because I hate talking about politics because to the "2-year-old Reversion Phenomena" that inflicts the majority of people when they discuss politics. Just pointing out that everybody get treated like that.

well i simply do not trust bush 'n' blair (WMD, anyone?) and that is what i believe the real motive is.

It is certainly your right to not trust Bush and/or/nor Blair. I don't trust them 100%, either. But by the same token, I don't trust them 0%. International politics is kind of a mix of one part James Bond, one part wild west, one part poker and one part roulette.
Everyone *though* he had WMDs. The French, the UK, the Russians, the US... I mean, hey, it's just like when everyone was wrong about Hitler's intentions in 1935. Or the effects of mass mobilization in 1914.

It's easy to armchair quaterback. Figuring out what to do at the time is the hard part. I'm not saying that the reasons for the war proved to be right. But WMDs aside, why go to war? For Saddam trying to assassinate Bush Sr? Not likely. Much easier to bribe a turncoat to assassinate him. For oil? Not likely. Even if the war/post war period in Iraq went 100% peaceful, it'd not have helped the current financials all that much.

bombing and attacking countries (and the people that live in them) is NOT the way to defeat trrrism. if the UK harboured trrrsts, and the US invaded, and my house got bombed, and my family was killed, (albeit accidentaly) what would i do?

Conversely, what has the UK been doing in Northern Ireland? The Russians in Chechnya? The US in Waco/Ruby Ridge? It amounts to the same thing, my friend. And it IS the way to defeat tErrOrIsm.

i wouldnt say, 'oh isnt this a great war? im glad my family was sacrificed for the safety of the americans.' i would become a trrrst myself. and this is exactly whats happening in the middle east at the moment.
sorry i cant type trrrr (see?).

As far as I see it, no. There are 28 MILLION people in Iraq. Just how many houses do you think the US/UK/Allies have bombed by accident?

obviously we are in agreement about the next bit, which is good, but whos susan sarandon?

Semi-famous actress. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000215/
Her first really famous role was in the Rocky Horror Picture Show.

but also if he didnt have the sudetenland he may have waited until the german economy was ready for war, which might have lead to allied defeat?

The Germany economy was perfect for war in 1937. He was at a point of capacity, he NEEDED to start looting foreign capitals for gold and resources.
They'd used the Spanish Civil War for a testing ground for new weapons.
They had the maximal army allowed under the Versailles Treaty (never mind that each man was basically an instructor).
They had reoccupied the Rhur Valley and it's all-important iron and coal.
The Allies were weak militarilly -- England with it's absurdly well trained but small army, France with the Maginot Line. Neither had invested enough money into aircraft or tank design. And sadly, the King of Belgium was simply not the man his father was in the First War.
Nope... the war would have gone even better for Germany had it started even earlier. As time went by (1939/1940), England began a massive air improvement campaign (Hurricane, Spitfire, radar stations...), and France was better prepared... and some of the fleet defected w/ DeGaulle.

For oil? Not likely. Even if the war/post war period in Iraq went 100% peaceful, it'd not have helped the current financials all that much.

Uh, we're there to stabilize our oil supply and to hopefully reduce dependence on OPEC states and Saudi Arabia. If you think differently, you need to watch less Fox and try some of the other news services.


Conversely, what has the UK been doing in Northern Ireland? The Russians in Chechnya? The US in Waco/Ruby Ridge? It amounts to the same thing, my friend. And it IS the way to defeat tErrOrIsm.

Whoa, what? WRONG!

The UK is in Northern Ireland because it's their last vestage of imperialism they'd like to try and keep. And force is definitely NOT the way to beat terrorism, but it is a way to get more people to be terrorists. And I don't know if you remember or not, but there was a huge backlash in this country about the way both Waco and Ruby Ridge were handled. When cops shoot unarmed 12 year old boys, they have stepped WAAYYY over the line from enforcement to brutality. Ironic that you'd post this in the gun control thread as that's exactly the kind of the the founding fathers of this country were trying to prevent.

I'm not mad or anything, but I definitely think you're off on those two statements. :)

Uh, we're there to stabilize our oil supply and to hopefully reduce dependence on OPEC states and Saudi Arabia. If you think differently, you need to watch less Fox and try some of the other news services.

Aha. So... stabilize the US oil supply by invading a country we import barely any oil from... throwing a country into chaos... and they're in the middle east. In order to become less reliant on the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Quataris, Emirates (our friends/allies)... care to say HOW becoming more dependent on Iraqi oil make sense? Sorry, this doesn't hold water to me.

I'd like to watch Fox news, actually. Buy me a TV, will ya? :)

Just because I have a POV different from you does not mean I got mine there any more than you got yours from Franken. :)


Whoa, what? WRONG!

The UK is in Northern Ireland because it's their last vestage of imperialism they'd like to try and keep. [/QUOTE]

As opposed to Gibralter or the Falklands?


And force is definitely NOT the way to beat terrorism, but it is a way to get more people to be terrorists.

Right. And killing Nazis had nothing to do with the defeat of National Socialism.


And I don't know if you remember or not, but there was a huge backlash in this country about the way both Waco and Ruby Ridge were handled. When cops shoot unarmed 12 year old boys, they have stepped WAAYYY over the line from enforcement to brutality.

Yet ironically, Janet Reno is not in jail. Go figure.


Ironic that you'd post this in the gun control thread as that's exactly the kind of the the founding fathers of this country were trying to prevent.

Post what? A simple conversation between a Yank and a Brit?


I'm not mad or anything, but I definitely think you're off on those two statements. :)

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Me? I'm against tyranny in all forms. And I don't believe the US is being tyrannical in Iraq.

Aha. So... stabilize the US oil supply by invading a country we import barely any oil from... throwing a country into chaos... and they're in the middle east. In order to become less reliant on the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Quataris, Emirates (our friends/allies)... care to say HOW becoming more dependent on Iraqi oil make sense? Sorry, this doesn't hold water to me.

It does, you just have to remeber not to leave out the whole 'getting away from the Saudi's' angle. According to neocon theory, the US needs to maintain an influence in the middle east to protect the oil supply, and doing business with the Saudi's has been painful, tedious and expensive. Now, if we set up a puppet government in Iraq, we can suck out the Saudi oil without having to mess with the Saudi's. I didn't say I agreed with it or that it would work, I'm just saying that's what the current administration is trying to accomplish and why. For the record, I don't think it will work.

I'd like to watch Fox news, actually. Buy me a TV, will ya? :)

Just because I have a POV different from you does not mean I got mine there any more than you got yours from Franken. :)

I'll wait till the after Christmas sales. ;)



The UK is in Northern Ireland because it's their last vestage of imperialism they'd like to try and keep.

As opposed to Gibralter or the Falklands?

Nobody wants those. Tourist trap with monkeys or a remote island with sheep. Ya.



Right. And killing Nazis had nothing to do with the defeat of National Socialism.

Nazi's were elected. Then started declaring war on anyone and everyone, so, that's not quite a good comparison.

Yet ironically, Janet Reno is not in jail. Go figure.

Ya know...it wouldn't take much to convince me that the ones who did the shooting should not be cops anymore and probably should do some jail time. Both of those were really really uncalled for.



Post what? A simple conversation between a Yank and a Brit?

No, that you'd post a comment about those two events in here. Being a Brit, you might have a much different veiw on how those events took place. Americans generally don't like military style police tactics. We definitely are uncomfortable seeing police with automatic weapons. I'm not sure what the cops in the airports with M16's think thier going to do with those, because if they ever open up with one, they're probably going to kill people they don't intend to. Shotguns, cool, big 'ol hog leg revolvers on a state trooper, cool, M16's and MP5's, not cool.


That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Me? I'm against tyranny in all forms. And I don't believe the US is being tyrannical in Iraq.

Ya, me too. A lot of us over here don't like it either. I voted against it. I don't think force is the way to combat terrorism. If you look at the aftermath of both the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents, there became a real distrust of Federal law enforcement here. Of course, we're trying the same kind of tactics is Iraq and the line of people willing to blow themselves up seems to reach around the block. You're better off trying to beat terror through economics, rather than the military.

It is certainly your right to not trust Bush and/or/nor Blair. I don't trust them 100%, either. But by the same token, I don't trust them 0%. International politics is kind of a mix of one part James Bond, one part wild west, one part poker and one part roulette.
Everyone *though* he had WMDs. The French, the UK, the Russians, the US... I mean, hey, it's just like when everyone was wrong about Hitler's intentions in 1935. Or the effects of mass mobilization in 1914.

It's easy to armchair quaterback. Figuring out what to do at the time is the hard part. I'm not saying that the reasons for the war proved to be right. But WMDs aside, why go to war? For Saddam trying to assassinate Bush Sr? Not likely. Much easier to bribe a turncoat to assassinate him. For oil? Not likely. Even if the war/post war period in Iraq went 100% peaceful, it'd not have helped the current financials all that much.


Conversely, what has the UK been doing in Northern Ireland? The Russians in Chechnya? The US in Waco/Ruby Ridge? It amounts to the same thing, my friend. And it IS the way to defeat tErrOrIsm.


As far as I see it, no. There are 28 MILLION people in Iraq. Just how many houses do you think the US/UK/Allies have bombed by accident?


Semi-famous actress. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000215/
Her first really famous role was in the Rocky Horror Picture Show.


The Germany economy was perfect for war in 1937. He was at a point of capacity, he NEEDED to start looting foreign capitals for gold and resources.
They'd used the Spanish Civil War for a testing ground for new weapons.
They had the maximal army allowed under the Versailles Treaty (never mind that each man was basically an instructor).
They had reoccupied the Rhur Valley and it's all-important iron and coal.
The Allies were weak militarilly -- England with it's absurdly well trained but small army, France with the Maginot Line. Neither had invested enough money into aircraft or tank design. And sadly, the King of Belgium was simply not the man his father was in the First War.
Nope... the war would have gone even better for Germany had it started even earlier. As time went by (1939/1940), England began a massive air improvement campaign (Hurricane, Spitfire, radar stations...), and France was better prepared... and some of the fleet defected w/ DeGaulle.


i, and millions of others around the world, KNEW that saddam hussein did not have WMDs. ill have to get beack to you on the bit about it being like saying hitler wasnt all bad in 1935. maybe it will be, and i will be wrong. but im 100% sure i am right.

the reason all the governments want oil is because it is a big money maker. and its running out. they are now trying to make sure they control all the oil fields, so that they can squeeze every last drop of profit out of it.

its a rare event when i support ANYTHING my government does. id like to know more about ruby ridge and waco (markreich or roach cliffs), ive never heard of them. but force is NOT the way to defeat trrrism, prosperity is.

ok, lets say that 12000 iraqis have been killed in the invasion (a fair statement?). of these 12000 people its their freinds and family that become the trrrsts to avenge their death. lets say these people are closely related to 25 people each. thats 25 people per death that have a good chance of feeling a need for revenge. of course, not all will shoot americans, but most will turn against the americans.

aha, thanks.

yeah thats a possibility, but maybe if he had wiated, the german economy may have been developed into a indestructable war winning machine? maybe the lufwaffe would have had a long range bomber that could have finished off britain and reached the soviet industrial areas east of the ural mountains?
all what ifs.

The british aren't going to invade (most likely) so I'm for banning all assualt weapons. Just rifles for hunting, thats the only reason people need them.

The british aren't going to invade (most likely) so I'm for banning all assualt weapons. Just rifles for hunting, thats the only reason people need them.

Man, have not been reading this thread. Go back through some of the other pages and get back to us. Sheesh.
:rolleyes:

It does, you just have to remeber not to leave out the whole 'getting away from the Saudi's' angle. According to neocon theory, the US needs to maintain an influence in the middle east to protect the oil supply, and doing business with the Saudi's has been painful, tedious and expensive. Now, if we set up a puppet government in Iraq, we can suck out the Saudi oil without having to mess with the Saudi's. I didn't say I agreed with it or that it would work, I'm just saying that's what the current administration is trying to accomplish and why. For the record, I don't think it will work.

But the Saudis routinely overproduce for our benefit. It's an interesting theory, but I am not sure I buy it. At least not wholly: several of the major Saudi oil fields are not reachable from Iraq. I also don't think the Saudis wouldn't figure this out. ;)


Nobody wants those. Tourist trap with monkeys or a remote island with sheep. Ya.


And they want N. Ireland? The place that considers the potato the pinnacle of culinary delight? The place where you can only tan INDOORS? Sorry, I need better reasons. :)



Nazi's were elected. Then started declaring war on anyone and everyone, so, that's not quite a good comparison.

Er?? The point was that killing is no way to get rid of terrorists.
My counterpoint is that terrorists, like Nazis, have a finite number. Eventually, in any conflict, one side breaks. There has never been a negotiated peace without one side losing, ever. The National Socialists (NAZIS) were defeated by the Allies, not at the voting booth. To me, this is an ideological struggle akin to the 1940s: only the debate is not Democracy (+Communism) vs. Socialism, it's Occidental Civilization vs. Radical 13th Century Theocracy. And I'm not entirely sure which scares me more. :(



No, that you'd post a comment about those two events in here. Being a Brit, you might have a much different veiw on how those events took place. Americans generally don't like military style police tactics. We definitely are uncomfortable seeing police with automatic weapons. I'm not sure what the cops in the airports with M16's think thier going to do with those, because if they ever open up with one, they're probably going to kill people they don't intend to. Shotguns, cool, big 'ol hog leg revolvers on a state trooper, cool, M16's and MP5's, not cool.

I am *not* a Brit. I live in Connecticut. The guy I was speaking with (Taverham high) is a Brit.
Really? I felt MUCH safer at my job here in NYC (right across the street from Grand Central) during the RNC when the soldiers and police officers WERE walking around with M4s and M16s and extra dogs. Why? Easy. Not are they there to protect ME, but just their presence makes anything (even petty theft) that much less likely.


Ya, me too. A lot of us over here don't like it either. I voted against it. I don't think force is the way to combat terrorism. If you look at the aftermath of both the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents, there became a real distrust of Federal law enforcement here. Of course, we're trying the same kind of tactics is Iraq and the line of people willing to blow themselves up seems to reach around the block. You're better off trying to beat terror through economics, rather than the military.

Really. Then how to do it? THESE PEOPLE WANT TO DESTROY OUR WAY OF LIFE.
Thats because the Gov't at the time used terror methods against it's own people. Had Johnson used such methods against the Black Panthers in the 60s, there'd have been a second Civil War!

We are *not* using the same tactics in Iraq. We are not going after civilians. We are do not attack Mosques (the Iraqis go in first), we do give them as much lattitude for their culture as we possibly can... have we killed people by accident? Sure. We also didn't ask their former President to lie to to the world for a dozen years. Or for every scum of the Earth mercenary to go to Iraq to fight in the streets.

Economics? How?!? Give aid? I think that we proved how well that worked with Afghanistan in the 80s... :(

i, and millions of others around the world, KNEW that saddam hussein did not have WMDs. ill have to get beack to you on the bit about it being like saying hitler wasnt all bad in 1935. maybe it will be, and i will be wrong. but im 100% sure i am right.

Then why didn't you guys bring out the proof? Why didn't somebody GO to Saddam and tell him to allow open inspections?!? :confused:


the reason all the governments want oil is because it is a big money maker. and its running out. they are now trying to make sure they control all the oil fields, so that they can squeeze every last drop of profit out of it.

Sorry, but the price of oil was lower pre-invasion. Invading Iraq, even in the long term, is of dubious benefit to the US's (or any nation's) pocketbook. And it'd have been much easier to kill Saddam and place someone new in his chair by coup d' etat. After all, that's how he got the job.


its a rare event when i support ANYTHING my government does. id like to know more about ruby ridge and waco (markreich or roach cliffs), ive never heard of them. but force is NOT the way to defeat trrrism, prosperity is.

You may find this changing as you get older. I was much more "protesty" when I was 17 than now when I'm 31. And lemme tell ya, you don't feel different. But you've changed.

Just type them into Google. Be careful though there are some very right and left wing takes on the whole thing. Maybe go to BBC or MSNBC first.

Prosperity is simply not the answer, period. Ipso facto: as long as you have a currency-based economic system, you will have rich and poor. Because of this, you will have strife. But without currency, you lose all modernity. We will someday overcome this mobius. But not any day soon. :(


ok, lets say that 12000 iraqis have been killed in the invasion (a fair statement?). of these 12000 people its their freinds and family that become the trrrsts to avenge their death. lets say these people are closely related to 25 people each. thats 25 people per death that have a good chance of feeling a need for revenge. of course, not all will shoot americans, but most will turn against the americans.

So... hypothetically: if your Uncle was in the British Army (in uniform), and he died fighting the Argentines in Port Stanley, you'd take up arms against Argentinians as a terrorist? The Iraq invasion was a fight between two armies.

Now, if the Americans came into my home and shot my father, then I can see your scenario playing out. But that'd be the exception, not the rule...

Also, are you aware that 30-60% of all terrorists killed in any engagement have been foreign nationals and NOT Iraqi citizens?

yeah thats a possibility, but maybe if he had wiated, the german economy may have been developed into a indestructable war winning machine? maybe the lufwaffe would have had a long range bomber that could have finished off britain and reached the soviet industrial areas east of the ural mountains?
all what ifs.

Yeah, that's the trouble with armchair debates, eh? :)

But the Saudis routinely overproduce for our benefit. It's an interesting theory, but I am not sure I buy it. At least not wholly: several of the major Saudi oil fields are not reachable from Iraq. I also don't think the Saudis wouldn't figure this out. ;)

I'm pretty sure they would get a say in the matter. Also, I think the plan is to drop a lot of the support for Saudi Arabia because they are a pain in the ass. We're currently building 14 military bases all over Iraq, so it's obvious to me that we're going to be there a while.



And they want N. Ireland? The place that considers the potato the pinnacle of culinary delight? The place where you can only tan INDOORS? Sorry, I need better reasons. :)

Ya, they want N. Ireland because the english want to maintain a presence on the Emerald Isle. I don't know why other than they're English and are a pain in the butt.

Er?? The point was that killing is no way to get rid of terrorists.
My counterpoint is that terrorists, like Nazis, have a finite number. Eventually, in any conflict, one side breaks. There has never been a negotiated peace without one side losing, ever. The National Socialists (NAZIS) were defeated by the Allies, not at the voting booth. To me, this is an ideological struggle akin to the 1940s: only the debate is not Democracy (+Communism) vs. Socialism, it's Occidental Civilization vs. Radical 13th Century Theocracy. And I'm not entirely sure which scares me more. :(

That's where I disagree. The culture of that area of the world is markedly different from Europe. There are tribes in Iraq that have blood fueds going back over 200 years. You kill one of their family members, the rest of the family make it a point to try and kill you. Not very peaceable. And, lately, I'm not so sure who the 13th century theocracy is in your statement. I think you mean the Iraqi's and Muslims in general, but the Christian Right (which is niether Christian nor right, IMHO) here in this country is about one bill shy of reinstituting the Inquisition.

I am *not* a Brit. I live in Connecticut. The guy I was speaking with (Taverham high) is a Brit.

Sorry, my bad, I got cornfused. :confused:

Really? I felt MUCH safer at my job here in NYC (right across the street from Grand Central) during the RNC when the soldiers and police officers WERE walking around with M4s and M16s and extra dogs. Why? Easy. Not are they there to protect ME, but just their presence makes anything (even petty theft) that much less likely.

I still don't like it. It gives off too much of a police state vibe for my tastes. And those weapons won't do any better against people than a pistol will, and there's less chance of hitting something on the other side, which is especially worrysome in a place like Manhattan. I'd also like to point out during the RNC there were multiple police abuses of protesters and other people who happened to be in the way during the RNC, and I didn't like that at all. I'm not in favor of strongarm police tactics. Security is better and more effective when it is subtle. The overt is too easy to avoid, and over powerful weapons leave too great a margin for error.



Really. Then how to do it? THESE PEOPLE WANT TO DESTROY OUR WAY OF LIFE.
Thats because the Gov't at the time used terror methods against it's own people. Had Johnson used such methods against the Black Panthers in the 60s, there'd have been a second Civil War!

I want to destroy our current way of life. I tried to do it on Nov. 2 of this year and I will try and do it again on the first Tuesday of Nov. in 2006. And I will make it a point to tell everyone who will listen for more than 2 minutes why this administration, along with the Republican party and why the Democratic party is corrupt, hypocritical and deceitful. I do not like the defacto 2 party system, and I certainly do not like the way that soft money and corporate interests have been allowed to influence our democracy and legislation. I don't vote Dem or Rep, and I strongly advise you not to either. (take the test @ www.lp.org)

We are *not* using the same tactics in Iraq. We are not going after civilians. We are do not attack Mosques (the Iraqis go in first), we do give them as much lattitude for their culture as we possibly can... have we killed people by accident? Sure. We also didn't ask their former President to lie to to the world for a dozen years. Or for every scum of the Earth mercenary to go to Iraq to fight in the streets.

We are killing civilians in Iraq. That's because the Iraqi army has dissolved, and those that still had the impetus to fight are doing so as militia or Mehdi Army. Now about half the time our boys wind up in a fire fight, or shoot suspicious people on the street over there, they're immediately put up on murder charges, which is bullshit. We've damaged and bombed several mosques and every scum of the earth mercenary (mostly S. African SADF, but one of the big American contractors is Blackwater out of N. Carolina) people are already one the ground in Iraq, under contract by the good 'ol U S of A. I'm willing to bet we start letting them do the shooting so we have plausible deniability.

Economics? How?!? Give aid? I think that we proved how well that worked with Afghanistan in the 80s... :(

Que? The Russians used these EXACT tactics in Afghanistan in the 80's while we were funding the 'terrorists'. See, they weren't terrorists back then, they were freedom fighters. that neat little rifle that Bin Laden is always photographed with was paid for with US tax dollars. We were fighting in Afghanistan by proxy, and we even had 'advisors' on the ground there.

i'll tell ya this: it's not as simple as they (the Pres and his boys) want to make it out. It's not a 'they're bad terrorists and were protecting the American people' thing at all. There are definitely (to quote Frank Herbert) plans within plans. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Isreali's blew that up in the 80's. They might have had some chemical weapons left over from the Iran-Iraq war of 80-88 (I think that's right), but those aren't weapons of mass destruction. These neocons in power now are showing almost blantant imperialist goals and it's not going to protect us from 'terror', it's only going to subject us to more problems.

The british aren't going to invade (most likely) so I'm for banning all assualt weapons. Just rifles for hunting, thats the only reason people need them.

Haven't read the thread, have you?

Firearms aren't guaranteed in the constitution to hunt with, nor to repel an invading force. It's there to protect us from our own government.

life is neither universal nor a right
I'm not going to take sides on the guns argument, but I'm going to stop you here. The right to life is an actual right. That's why murder is illegal. the Right to Life is also recognised in the UN Charter of Human Rights, 1948.

Then why didn't you guys bring out the proof? Why didn't somebody GO to Saddam and tell him to allow open inspections?!? :confused:



Sorry, but the price of oil was lower pre-invasion. Invading Iraq, even in the long term, is of dubious benefit to the US's (or any nation's) pocketbook. And it'd have been much easier to kill Saddam and place someone new in his chair by coup d' etat. After all, that's how he got the job.



You may find this changing as you get older. I was much more "protesty" when I was 17 than now when I'm 31. And lemme tell ya, you don't feel different. But you've changed.

Just type them into Google. Be careful though there are some very right and left wing takes on the whole thing. Maybe go to BBC or MSNBC first.

Prosperity is simply not the answer, period. Ipso facto: as long as you have a currency-based economic system, you will have rich and poor. Because of this, you will have strife. But without currency, you lose all modernity. We will someday overcome this mobius. But not any day soon. :(



So... hypothetically: if your Uncle was in the British Army (in uniform), and he died fighting the Argentines in Port Stanley, you'd take up arms against Argentinians as a terrorist? The Iraq invasion was a fight between two armies.

Now, if the Americans came into my home and shot my father, then I can see your scenario playing out. But that'd be the exception, not the rule...

Also, are you aware that 30-60% of all terrorists killed in any engagement have been foreign nationals and NOT Iraqi citizens?


Yeah, that's the trouble with armchair debates, eh? :)


why didnt we show you proof? do you remember the millions of people across the globe protesting in february 2003? all of them knew saddam did not pose a threat to us. the iraqis published a huge dossier detailing the history and destruction of their WMDs. dr hans blix was in iraq searching for weapons, before he got out of the way of the immenent allied attack. he himself said not long ago he wanted more time to complete his inspections. theres your proof.

yes, its no benefit to america. but it is a benefit to the owners and CEOs of big multi nationals. that what i believe the war was about. lining their pockets.

not if i can help it i wont.

we have rich and poor in this country, you have rich and poor in yours, theres no strife. when i say prosperity, i mean not poverty, which is what i believe to be pure evil.

no, although i believe the battle for the falklands was wrong and a waste of life, it was a JUST war. the argentinians thought it belong to them, we thoughtit belonged to us, we had a fight about it. the war in iraq was about securing an area for economic reasons, regardless of whos there or what other people think. also, what really amazes me, is that the people of the western world allowed a PRE EMPTIVE attack to go in for no reason. even in the middle ages, european monks established that a preemptive attack was unjust unless it was by the underdog.

if 30 - 60% of fighters in iraq are not from there, then why on earth did we attack? does this not show you that attacking iraq has escalated the problem of terrorism?

im with you about the coup d'etat or a small scale secret mission or something, if it was used to remove saddam hussein for humanitarian reasons.
or america could have given the iraqis help to overthrow him, then we wouldnt see the problems we have now.

Haven't read the thread, have you?

Firearms aren't guaranteed in the constitution to hunt with, nor to repel an invading force. It's there to protect us from our own government.
Then why do Felons lose the right to own a firearm?

That is too ironic. Since the one who bans felons is the one they would be used against.

Then why do Felons lose the right to own a firearm?

That is too ironic. Since the one who bans felons is the one they would be used against.

The right to bear arms isn't for criminals to protect themselves against government, but so that the rest of the people can defend their liberties from government tyranny.

The right to bear arms isn't for criminals to protect themselves against government, but so that the rest of the people can defend their liberties from government tyranny.

But then you have to remember that the government tyrrany is subjective. How do you objectively say it tyrrany. King George didn't think so but we still did a revolution.

But then you have to remember that the government tyrrany is subjective. How do you objectively say it tyrrany. King George didn't think so but we still did a revolution.

Which the greater number of American colonists didn't support.

So, in fact, the so called "War of Independence", was in fact, a tyrrany by a minority.

But that infringes the right to bear arms. To me that is unconstiutional.

ok, most laws would be un-constitutional. but that part of the constitution doesn't deal with new issues like terrorism, street crimes, drugs.

i belive we need to have some laws to make it hard for a hardened criminal to get one. but we also need to have it so that if he does get his hand on a gin and into your home, you yourself can reach over and get one to protect your family

I'm pretty sure they would get a say in the matter. Also, I think the plan is to drop a lot of the support for Saudi Arabia because they are a pain in the ass. We're currently building 14 military bases all over Iraq, so it's obvious to me that we're going to be there a while.

Maybe. I do know that the house of Saud in and of itself is a real mess.
Yes, we'll be in Iraq for at least the next 10-15 years. Which makes sense: it's Islamic Fundamentalism which is the biggest threat to the West today.


Ya, they want N. Ireland because the english want to maintain a presence on the Emerald Isle. I don't know why other than they're English and are a pain in the butt.

Which still works out according to my first post. ;)


That's where I disagree. The culture of that area of the world is markedly different from Europe. There are tribes in Iraq that have blood fueds going back over 200 years. You kill one of their family members, the rest of the family make it a point to try and kill you. Not very peaceable. And, lately, I'm not so sure who the 13th century theocracy is in your statement. I think you mean the Iraqi's and Muslims in general, but the Christian Right (which is niether Christian nor right, IMHO) here in this country is about one bill shy of reinstituting the Inquisition.

Right. Versus the Teutonic Warrior or Samuari tradition of Germany and Japan? How the *hell* did the perception of the Japanese go from relentless warlords to manufacturers of good radios? Or the Germans from the Bosch (Franco-Prussian War through 1946) to these leftist environmentalists that are good at designing cars?

People change, and no culture is one sided. You may as well say that due to their culture, all Russians are alcoholics and all British are snobby. And all Americans are red meat eating, gun toting cowboys. :(

The blood fued idea in the Middle East -- yes, it is a component of their culture. So is fasting during Ramadan and freeing a slave if you break your fast. Yet I don't think the Arabs in Darfur are keeping their oaths.
Islam, Christianity, Judism -- none are religions of intolerence, hate or war. They've been perverted that way by some.

Re: Christian Right: I'm assuming that you're younger. Back in the day (1980-1992), we had 12 YEARS of a GOP White House. And that was the heydey of the CRs. Even back then they didn't get boo done. For all their boisterious talk, they just aren't important enough or mainstream enough to get something done. Thank goodness.

But that's the difference the CR can't be effective as we enlightened types keep them in check. The Taleban has no such leash.


Sorry, my bad, I got cornfused. :confused:

S'ok. I've been called much worse things than "British". :D


I still don't like it. It gives off too much of a police state vibe for my tastes. And those weapons won't do any better against people than a pistol will, and there's less chance of hitting something on the other side, which is especially worrysome in a place like Manhattan.

Crime went down. That alone proved their worth.
You feel uneasy about police and soldiers guarding areas with rifles? Imagine how a would-be attacker feels. All of a sudden, that handgun or even Uzi he might have doesn't make him feel any better.
I was in Poland in 1983. Trust me, we're as close to a police state as McDonalds is to Morton's Steakhouse.


I'd also like to point out during the RNC there were multiple police abuses of protesters and other people who happened to be in the way during the RNC, and I didn't like that at all. I'm not in favor of strongarm police tactics. Security is better and more effective when it is subtle. The overt is too easy to avoid, and over powerful weapons leave too great a margin for error.


And none of them were deserved, right?
The police at the GOP were no better or worse than those at the DEM convention.

Care to give an example? I believe the opposite: you NEED to project security for it to be effective! Dealing with people in a crowd control situation is not like in a mall where everyone is just shopping...


I want to destroy our current way of life. I tried to do it on Nov. 2 of this year and I will try and do it again on the first Tuesday of Nov. in 2006. And I will make it a point to tell everyone who will listen for more than 2 minutes why this administration, along with the Republican party and why the Democratic party is corrupt, hypocritical and deceitful. I do not like the defacto 2 party system, and I certainly do not like the way that soft money and corporate interests have been allowed to influence our democracy and legislation. I don't vote Dem or Rep, and I strongly advise you not to either. (take the test @ www.lp.org)

And I applaud your efforts. Good luck!
You're active in your beliefs, and that is no small thing. But you are doing so by trying to change the system, not killing those that don't agree with you. If the Islamic terrorists were reasonable people, we woulnd't have to deal with them in this fashion.

As things stand, however, I have no motivation to ever vote DEM due to gun control and their twisted belief that we need to give money to the poor. That's why aside from two votes for Perot, I've never voted for a DEM Presidential Candidate.

If there was ever a NON GOP candiate that I could agree on enough issues for, I would go that way, as I am a registered Independent and also dont like the two party system. So far, I have seen no such candidate.


We are killing civilians in Iraq. That's because the Iraqi army has dissolved, and those that still had the impetus to fight are doing so as militia or Mehdi Army. Now about half the time our boys wind up in a fire fight, or shoot suspicious people on the street over there, they're immediately put up on murder charges, which is bullshit. We've damaged and bombed several mosques and every scum of the earth mercenary (mostly S. African SADF, but one of the big American contractors is Blackwater out of N. Carolina) people are already one the ground in Iraq, under contract by the good 'ol U S of A. I'm willing to bet we start letting them do the shooting so we have plausible deniability.

Yes. And the terrorists are also killing civilians in Iraq. Not a good situation.
Well, 3 times anyway.
We should be so lucky.


Que? The Russians used these EXACT tactics in Afghanistan in the 80's while we were funding the 'terrorists'. See, they weren't terrorists back then, they were freedom fighters. that neat little rifle that Bin Laden is always photographed with was paid for with US tax dollars. We were fighting in Afghanistan by proxy, and we even had 'advisors' on the ground there.

That's my point. We need to cut off terrorist funding WHILE using those tactics. The Soviets didn't lose because the tactics were bad. They didn't lose because their military wasn't up to it. They lost because unless you destoy the other side's infrastructure, it's a stalemate. The USSR couldn't fight a stalemate in Afghanistan while also challenging the US in the nucelar arms race, the space race, in Nicaragua, supporting Cuba, etc. It was just too much.
We started this shit by using the Islamic Fundamentalists as pawns against the USSR. Then we won the game and left the on the board without putting the box away. Now they've made it to the 8th rank and formed a whole new game against us.
We need to win. Fortuntunately, the US has the bankroll and is very good at stopping funds from moving around the world too easily. We need to keep killing their pieces while ensuring they can't make new ones.


i'll tell ya this: it's not as simple as they (the Pres and his boys) want to make it out. It's not a 'they're bad terrorists and were protecting the American people' thing at all. There are definitely (to quote Frank Herbert) plans within plans. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Isreali's blew that up in the 80's. They might have had some chemical weapons left over from the Iran-Iraq war of 80-88 (I think that's right), but those aren't weapons of mass destruction. These neocons in power now are showing almost blantant imperialist goals and it's not going to protect us from 'terror', it's only going to subject us to more problems.

Yes, I'm a Dune fan as well. But even ol' Frank wasn't deep enough for me to know that Paul was the chosen and wouldn't die (ever) when he survived the box. :D

Actually, there was proof he had them as late as 1991-1994.

They're also fighting terrorists in someone else's country, which I wholeheartedly agree with. I'd rather Baghdad be blown to hell than Baltimore.

And I applaud your efforts. Good luck!
You're active in your beliefs, and that is no small thing. But you are doing so by trying to change the system, not killing those that don't agree with you. If the Islamic terrorists were reasonable people, we woulnd't have to deal with them in this fashion.

As things stand, however, I have no motivation to ever vote DEM due to gun control and their twisted belief that we need to give money to the poor. That's why aside from two votes for Perot, I've never voted for a DEM Presidential Candidate.

If there was ever a NON GOP candiate that I could agree on enough issues for, I would go that way, as I am a registered Independent and also dont like the two party system. So far, I have seen no such candidate.


Not for nthing, but giving money to poor is a democrat trait. So you'll never find a Democrat condidate that you can vote for. Gun Control is a iffy, but in principle its better than nothing. I still see don't understand why you hate having licenses for guns.

But the Two-Party System works fine. Name a Party that has your beliefs on those issues besides Repubs? Most Libertarians always vote republican so you can't get their votes for their own party.

They're also fighting terrorists in someone else's country, which I wholeheartedly agree with. I'd rather Baghdad be blown to hell than Baltimore.


id suspected you might have this opinion for a while, and i nearly asked you if youd rather see innocent iraqis killed so that america could be 'safer', but i didnt because i thought it would be too antagonistic. but unfortunately youve proved my fears wrong.

We need to win. Fortuntunately, the US has the bankroll...

What a quaint concept.

Is that based on the increasing national debt, or the fact that the internal economies of most American governmental bodies are bankrupt?

why didnt we show you proof? do you remember the millions of people across the globe protesting in february 2003? all of them knew saddam did not pose a threat to us. the iraqis published a huge dossier detailing the history and destruction of their WMDs. dr hans blix was in iraq searching for weapons, before he got out of the way of the immenent allied attack. he himself said not long ago he wanted more time to complete his inspections. theres your proof.

I recall the protests. I also recall people protesting the Civil War draft. :D
You kept saying "knew". *How* did they know? Divine providence? Did they SEE the sites? The majority of people in the American South were pro slavery in 1820. They knew slavery was no threat to the world. Were they right?

Yes, they published a dossier. Then kept refusing to let us SEE the sites, and could not provide even ONE videotaped destruction of the stockpiles.
Yes, Blix and team were there, and from what I read in the NY Times, kept getting denied access during inspections.
That's not proof there were no WMDs, it's just proof that Saddam was good at keeping the world on the back burner.


yes, its no benefit to america. but it is a benefit to the owners and CEOs of big multi nationals. that what i believe the war was about. lining their pockets.

Well, of course they will make some profit out of it. That's the way the game works. I'm not saying it's right, but it's what we have. HOWEVER, I think you're off base here: they benefit FROM the war, they don't CAUSE the war.


not if i can help it i wont.

Yes, I know. That's how I felt at your age, too. By the way, changing to be less against the system is not what you think it is. I'd try to explain it to you, but there is little point. You'd never believe me anyway. Still, everyone gets a different life experience. Good luck. :)


we have rich and poor in this country, you have rich and poor in yours, theres no strife. when i say prosperity, i mean not poverty, which is what i believe to be pure evil.

Ah, that's a bit different then. I'd be all for eradicating poverty, if only there was a way to do so that made any sense.


no, although i believe the battle for the falklands was wrong and a waste of life, it was a JUST war. the argentinians thought it belong to them, we thoughtit belonged to us, we had a fight about it. the war in iraq was about securing an area for economic reasons, regardless of whos there or what other people think. also, what really amazes me, is that the people of the western world allowed a PRE EMPTIVE attack to go in for no reason. even in the middle ages, european monks established that a preemptive attack was unjust unless it was by the underdog.

And I believe it was to liberate 28 million people from a butcher and sons.

And I don't care a whit about some monks who lived 500 years ago. They lived in an era of slow moving armies with seige equipment. Messages travelling in the space of days was considered quick. They didn't have to worry about Vlad the impaler showing up from Romania in a few minutes and destroying their walled city with a missile. Or a 747.


if 30 - 60% of fighters in iraq are not from there, then why on earth did we attack? does this not show you that attacking iraq has escalated the problem of terrorism?

It works as does a magnet -- we fight there instead of here. And Saddam WAS bankrolling Palestinians and other terrorist groups.


im with you about the coup d'etat or a small scale secret mission or something, if it was used to remove saddam hussein for humanitarian reasons.
or america could have given the iraqis help to overthrow him, then we wouldnt see the problems we have now.

That was tried in 1992, but failed because of world opinion and Clinton's resolve. Just about all of the Iraqis that took part in the uprising were killed.

I'd still have preferred it that way, but since we're on it this way, I have no course but to support this unless things radically change.

And, BTW, we are now WAAAAY off topic. :D

What a quaint concept.

Is that based on the increasing national debt, or the fact that the internal economies of most American governmental bodies are bankrupt?

There has always been a national debt. Get over it.

Such as?

id suspected you might have this opinion for a while, and i nearly asked you if youd rather see innocent iraqis killed so that america could be 'safer', but i didnt because i thought it would be too antagonistic. but unfortunately youve proved my fears wrong.

Have I? I am NOT for any innocents being killed anywhere. Please reread what I posted -- if we need to fight the terrorists anyway, it's better to fight them there than here. And by here, I mean anywhere that's not a site where Muslim Fundamentalists live.

There has always been a national debt. Get over it.

Such as?

"Get over it"? Ah, I see... well, then, I bow to your superior economic expertise.

I'm sorry to bring it up, but have you any idea HOW America funds it's 'national debt'?

Just curious, oh Sage One.

I pray you to enlighten me, as to how Bush spending money in an uncontrolled 'leaky bucket' pattern, is a good thing.

"Get over it"? Ah, I see... well, then, I bow to your superior economic expertise.

I'm sorry to bring it up, but have you any idea HOW America funds it's 'national debt'?

Just curious, oh Sage One.

I pray you to enlighten me, as to how Bush spending money in an uncontrolled 'leaky bucket' pattern, is a good thing.
How did we get here from guns...?

Not for nthing, but giving money to poor is a democrat trait. So you'll never find a Democrat condidate that you can vote for. Gun Control is a iffy, but in principle its better than nothing. I still see don't understand why you hate having licenses for guns.

But the Two-Party System works fine. Name a Party that has your beliefs on those issues besides Repubs? Most Libertarians always vote republican so you can't get their votes for their own party.

That's exactly my point... and that is why we now have a one party system.
Gun control should not be iffy. We need to enforce what we have now and stop trying to shackle law abiding citizens.

I only agree with the GOP about 50-66% of the time. That beats the DEMS and the Libertarians, but still...

I *dont* hate gun licensing:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7582730&postcount=77
I favor requiring a gun license, just like you need a driver's license.

That said:
* All 50 states will have the same licensing requirements. That means that Massachusettes and New Hampshire will have to agree on how to license.
* States will still have some latitude. For example, you can get a driver's license at 14 in New Mexico.
* Once I have this license, I can carry my concealed handgun in all 50 states.
* There will be no ban on any specific weapons, just licensing endorsements. As drivers can get CDL, motorcycle, etc, gun licenses will likewise have full automatic and the like.
* Guns will be registered with the states, just like cars are.

...I think this is a fair compromise, really. IMHO, neither side will ever win the gun debate without giving a little.
_________________
Before you debate my points above, please go back and read from post 77 up a few pages. I will not debate things I've already answered. :)

How did we get here from guns...?

Dunno. Still working on that.

As the Welsh band "Goldie-Looking Chain" once put it...

"Guns don't kill people, rappers do..."

"Get over it"? Ah, I see... well, then, I bow to your superior economic expertise.

I'm sorry to bring it up, but have you any idea HOW America funds it's 'national debt'?

Just curious, oh Sage One.

I pray you to enlighten me, as to how Bush spending money in an uncontrolled 'leaky bucket' pattern, is a good thing.

Excellent, thanks.

By issuing bonds and collecting taxes.

*poof* Consider yourself enlightened.

When you come into office with a 3 month old recession, you need to make some waves. Now I would really, really love to see the debt reduced. But since it's not happening, I'm not going to give myself ulcers either. I'm just quietly paying off my mortgage as fast as possible, making some other investments, and buying lots of ammo and supplies for the Economic Civil War of 2017.

...damn it, I've said too much.

;)

How did we get here from guns...?

Because Markreich needs guns so he can kill terrorists in Muslim-Land, as Daddy Bush ordains.

Or something.

?

Excellent, thanks.

By issuing bonds and collecting taxes.

*poof* Consider yourself enlightened.

When you come into office with a 3 month old recession, you need to make some waves. Now I would really, really love to see the debt reduced. But since it's not happening, I'm not going to give myself ulcers either. I'm just quietly paying off my mortgage as fast as possible, making some other investments, and buying lots of ammo and supplies for the Economic Civil War of 2017.

...damn it, I've said too much.

;)

And, there we agree.

The shit is en route to the fan, and certain individuals are inclined to give it a little added impetus.

Be interesting to see how the Economic Civil War lines would be drawn up - since the money-making is centred on areas of accumulated wealth - primarily on coasts, and the economically non-productive areas are centred on land-ownership - primarily inland... effectively a 'war' of the 'red and blue'.

And, there we agree.

The shit is en route to the fan, and certain individuals are inclined to give it a little added impetus.

Be interesting to see how the Economic Civil War lines would be drawn up - since the money-making is centred on areas of accumulated wealth - primarily on coasts, and the economically non-productive areas are centred on land-ownership - primarily inland... effectively a 'war' of the 'red and blue'.

More or less. I think it's kind of like being a Jets fan and having to watch the Eagles play the Patriots. You like the sport and hate the home team... but can't root for the away team either...

Yes. I just happen to believe that the certain individuals are not just the current Prez.

That's not how I really see it. With property values going up just about everywhere and home ownership at almost 70%... there are more haves than ever before. I don't see it as red v. blue so much as I see it as inner city v. suburbia. Red/blue, black/white, the colors won't matter so much as the divide between the guy who can't feed his kids and the guy with his two BMW X5s and why they each hate the other.

Because Markreich needs guns so he can kill terrorists in Muslim-Land, as Daddy Bush ordains.

Or something.

?

You seem to have the mistaken belief that I really like Bush.

It's not that I like Bush so much as I hate generational welfare, gun control, and limits on civil liberties.

More or less. I think it's kind of like being a Jets fan and having to watch the Eagles play the Patriots. You like the sport and hate the home team... but can't root for the away team either...

Yes. I just happen to believe that the certain individuals are not just the current Prez.

That's not how I really see it. With property values going up just about everywhere and home ownership at almost 70%... there are more haves than ever before. I don't see it as red v. blue so much as I see it as inner city v. suburbia. Red/blue, black/white, the colors won't matter so much as the divide between the guy who can't feed his kids and the guy with his two BMW X5s and why they each hate the other.

The thing about 'property ownership'... is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are both under investigation for almost Enron-ific malfeasance... they have both guaranteed home loans that far outstretch their ability to pay - which means, if the average punter is forced to stop paying mortgage payments (like by the deepening of Recession into Depression), the government-affiliates are screwed, the government is screwed, the banks get all the property (but have no property value) so even the banks are screwed (yay!).

And, of course, the National Debt is bailed, year on year, by borrowing against other currencies - and those other nations are looking at Bush's version of 'fiscal responsibility', and at his global politics, and they are getting more than a little nervous about continuing to bouy the American economy.

What it will boil down to then, is people in the heart-land, effectively squatting on the bulk of the land, while people in the border-states effectively control the last vestiges of economy and industry.

Nobody will have easy access to any resource, the ones on the cost will be starved of foods, except by import, the ones inland will be starved of raw materials...

What a cheery vision.

You seem to have the mistaken belief that I really like Bush.

It's not that I like Bush so much as I hate generational welfare, gun control, and limits on civil liberties.

It's more a case of, "If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem".

It's more a case of, "If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem".

Yes, that about sums it up. Now, if only everyone could agree as to a workable solution... (I don't know if I should :) or :( myself here...)

Yes, that about sums it up. Now, if only everyone could agree as to a workable solution... (I don't know if I should :) or :( myself here...)

Happily, I already have a workable solution - as I posted in the "This is the greatest and best thread in the world" thread...

ON PAGE = http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=380348&page=8&pp=15

Post = http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7680906&postcount=110

"I think we need to form a secret society (you know, hollowed out volcanoes, henchmen, etc) to locate a small tropical island someplace, and set up a non-Blair, non-Bush, non-Hypnotoad society..."

The Hypnotoad thing makes sense in the context of the thread... honest.

:)

The thing about 'property ownership'... is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are both under investigation for almost Enron-ific malfeasance... they have both guaranteed home loans that far outstretch their ability to pay - which means, if the average punter is forced to stop paying mortgage payments (like by the deepening of Recession into Depression), the government-affiliates are screwed, the government is screwed, the banks get all the property (but have no property value) so even the banks are screwed (yay!).

Which will burst "the real estate bubble" and put wall street back a boost. :)
BTW, that's not quite Enron-esqe: they weren't cheating their shareholders out of their retirements.

Ah, but then it all comes back to self reliance, my friend. Only an idiot would take a 20-30 year mortgage that is more than 25-33% of his take home pay!

Fear not for the banks (didn't we have this discussion before?), they will always survive. I know you're looking forward to widespread economic ruin and all, but I don't see it quite happening that way.
Even should there be some failures, it would take something like a nuke leveling Chicago to really screw the economy.

BTW- Should oil ever get back under $30/barrel, look to see the Dow approach 15,000 and gold to go back to around $200/oz. Heck, that ALONE could pay for a Freddie Mac bailout.


And, of course, the National Debt is bailed, year on year, by borrowing against other currencies - and those other nations are looking at Bush's version of 'fiscal responsibility', and at his global politics, and they are getting more than a little nervous about continuing to bouy the American economy.

Until the Chinese get shaken down. If they don't let the Yuan move freely and don't cool down their economy, they're due for a serious implosion.


What it will boil down to then, is people in the heart-land, effectively squatting on the bulk of the land, while people in the border-states effectively control the last vestiges of economy and industry.

It's been worse. No, I don't feel good about that as a possible scenario.


Nobody will have easy access to any resource, the ones on the cost will be starved of foods, except by import, the ones inland will be starved of raw materials...

Not likely. You miss that whole infrastructure thing, and the fact that even if the dollar became the New Peso, we'd still be able to feed and clothe ourselves with relative ease. This country is uniquely blessed in the WORLD by its preponderence of roads, trains, planes... you think that some bank failures are going to keep companies from doing business or farmers from planting? Never mind that we have an amazing preponderance of skilled labor.

Sure, the standard of living could drop... But for total economic collapse? It is not in the cards without a major event that would have to make 9-11 look like the National Pinochle Championship.

This is not to say that there are going to be nothing but good times ahead, though.


What a cheery vision.

Not one I hope to see happen...

I don't believe that I have the right to own a firearm because it's in the Constitution. I believe it's because I have the right to the most effective form of personal protection that I can carry myself and be responsible for.

I also believe that I should have the right to the only form of protection that has effectively kept my wife and I alive for the past two years.

We have no effective alternative, and had it not been for concealed carry of firearms, we would both be dead.

So I'm not believing in something on the basis of dogma, statistics, the Constitution, or superstition. I'm believing on the basis of facts that I've seen on the ground, that directly apply to me.

Even the person who threatens us with death has said that the only reason he stays away from us is our guns. He said that he's not afraid of the police, but he is afraid of me.

Happily, I already have a workable solution - as I posted in the "This is the greatest and best thread in the world" thread...



Damn it, doesn't ANYONE provide hyperlinks when they reply besides me? ;)

Damn it, doesn't ANYONE provide hyperlinks when they reply besides me? ;)

I humbly offer up my appol o gees...

The relevent post has been redressed, according to correct Markreich protocols.

Which will burst "the real estate bubble" and put wall street back a boost. :)
BTW, that's not quite Enron-esqe: they weren't cheating their shareholders out of their retirements.

Ah, but then it all comes back to self reliance, my friend. Only an idiot would take a 20-30 year mortgage that is more than 25-33% of his take home pay!

Fear not for the banks (didn't we have this discussion before?), they will always survive. I know you're looking forward to widespread economic ruin and all, but I don't see it quite happening that way.
Even should there be some failures, it would take something like a nuke leveling Chicago to really screw the economy.

BTW- Should oil ever get back under $30/barrel, look to see the Dow approach 15,000 and gold to go back to around $200/oz. Heck, that ALONE could pay for a Freddie Mac bailout.

Until the Chinese get shaken down. If they don't let the Yuan move freely and don't cool down their economy, they're due for a serious implosion.

It's been worse. No, I don't feel good about that as a possible scenario.

Not likely. You miss that whole infrastructure thing, and the fact that even if the dollar became the New Peso, we'd still be able to feed and clothe ourselves with relative ease. This country is uniquely blessed in the WORLD by its preponderence of roads, trains, planes... you think that some bank failures are going to keep companies from doing business or farmers from planting? Never mind that we have an amazing preponderance of skilled labor.

Sure, the standard of living could drop... But for total economic collapse? It is not in the cards without a major event that would have to make 9-11 look like the National Pinochle Championship.

This is not to say that there are going to be nothing but good times ahead, though.

Not one I hope to see happen...

1) I didn't say Enron-esque, I said Enron-ific... a term I just created, to show an equivalence of scale of badnitude (another word I just created).

The problem I envision with the infrastructure, is a lot of walking... America is sadly lacking in it's ability to control or feed it's own carbon economy.

Personally, I think, 100 years from today, people will be looking back at the closing titles of "Fight Club", as some outstanding feat of prophecy.

Here's looking for Silver Linings!

(But only seeing gathering clouds, so far).

I humbly offer up my appol o gees...

The relevent post has been redressed, according to correct Markreich protocols.

The Markreichian ambassador graciously accepts, and thanks the Grave_n_idle's efforts. May I offer you this Neon Tetra cookie? :)

1) I didn't say Enron-esque, I said Enron-ific... a term I just created, to show an equivalence of scale of badnitude (another word I just created).

Ah! Be sure to send me the whole dictionary when you're done. I have a Ouija Board tuned to Dr. Johnson, and he's very interested in this sort of thing. :)


The problem I envision with the infrastructure, is a lot of walking... America is sadly lacking in it's ability to control or feed it's own carbon economy.

We have an absurdity of coal, a fair amount of gas & oil (short term), and a lot of nuclear. Throw in solar and wind becoming economical in the sort of environment you mentioned, and it doesn't look THAT bad.

Personally, I think, 100 years from today, people will be looking back at the closing titles of "Fight Club", as some outstanding feat of prophecy.

Actually, I love that movie. Saw it in the theatre 3 times, own the DVD (watched quite a few times). But then, I'm not about owning things. Bought a Chrysler 300M, not a BMW 5 or 7 series. House is under 1500sq ft. Everything in my golf bag totals to under $500. etc.
Ok, I confess. I do own about 800 books.


Here's looking for Silver Linings!
(But only seeing gathering clouds, so far).

"The good old days weren't always good, tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems." -Billy Joel

The Markreichian ambassador graciously accepts, and thanks the Grave_n_idle's efforts. May I offer you this Neon Tetra cookie? :)

As a wise philosopher once wrote... "Mmmmm, Cookie.... urggghhhhh"

(It's really hard to try to type an approximation of the patented Homer Simpson 'doughnut' response...)

I don't believe that I have the right to own a firearm because it's in the Constitution.

Close!

I think it was Jefferson who said that the first 10 Amendments were immutable rights granted by God and could not be restricted or infringed upon by government. And that all the rights listed in the Bill of Rights were there there to ensure that in the future they would still be gaurunteed.

(just adding that in support for the gun control debate ;) I agree with you 100%)

Ah! Be sure to send me the whole dictionary when you're done. I have a Ouija Board tuned to Dr. Johnson, and he's very interested in this sort of thing. :)


Would that be a Blackadder reference? If so, I would have to allocate a precious Cool Point to Markreich. (The first, I think, since Riven Dell earned a Cool Point for a cool name).


We have an absurdity of coal, a fair amount of gas & oil (short term), and a lot of nuclear. Throw in solar and wind becoming economical in the sort of environment you mentioned, and it doesn't look THAT bad.


Ah, if only the one who could spell had gotten in... I notice you totally missed the correct spelling of Nukular.

Yes - the US has boat-loads of alternative energy - but most of it is ALMOST ready to use, rather than being 'on tap'. Hence, when Bush throws a wobbly in the House of Saud, Americans start getting worrying gas bills.

And, if it all goes pear-shaped - THAT isn't the best time for trying to switch from an ingrained carbon-economy to alternative power.

Hence, I envision, much walking.


Actually, I love that movie. Saw it in the theatre 3 times, own the DVD (watched quite a few times). But then, I'm not about owning things. Bought a Chrysler 300M, not a BMW 5 or 7 series. House is under 1500sq ft. Everything in my golf bag totals to under $500. etc.
Ok, I confess. I do own about 800 books.


I also saw "Fight Club" in theatres 3 times, own the DVD, and have more books than the average rational individual claims any need for (although most of my library is multiple thousands of miles from my current location).

Truly a movie 'of the time'.


"The good old days weren't always good, tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems." -Billy Joel

I can't believe you quoted Billy Joel at me. I feel somehow violated. :)

Then why do Felons lose the right to own a firearm?

That is too ironic. Since the one who bans felons is the one they would be used against.

Because felons forfeit their rights. Most of them.

But then you have to remember that the government tyrrany is subjective. How do you objectively say it tyrrany. King George didn't think so but we still did a revolution.

King George had subjects, not free citizens. Huge difference.

Close!

I think it was Jefferson who said that the first 10 Amendments were immutable rights granted by God and could not be restricted or infringed upon by government. And that all the rights listed in the Bill of Rights were there there to ensure that in the future they would still be gaurunteed.

(just adding that in support for the gun control debate ;) I agree with you 100%)

Which proves that Jefferson (or God) wasn't too hot on definitions.

Let's see... they were "immutable" (meaning they couldn't me 'muted'), and yet, they were added as "Amendments" (meaning they were NOT there in the first draft - and thus, were 'muted').

Hmmm. It's a thorny one.

Maybe. I do know that the house of Saud in and of itself is a real mess.
Yes, we'll be in Iraq for at least the next 10-15 years. Which makes sense: it's Islamic Fundamentalism which is the biggest threat to the West today.

Er? :confused: Religious fundamentalism of ANY root is a serious threat to the security of the world. Both the Islamic Wahabi fundamentalism of Saudi Arabia and the extreme Christian Evangelical fundamentalism that seems to be pervasive thoughout our current administration. The British intelligence service wrote a paper about fundamentalist religious governments, the USA was listed as one of them.

Right. Versus the Teutonic Warrior or Samuari tradition of Germany and Japan? How the *hell* did the perception of the Japanese go from relentless warlords to manufacturers of good radios? Or the Germans from the Bosch (Franco-Prussian War through 1946) to these leftist environmentalists that are good at designing cars?

People change, and no culture is one sided. You may as well say that due to their culture, all Russians are alcoholics and all British are snobby. And all Americans are red meat eating, gun toting cowboys. :(

One thing that you're missing is that unlike here or in Europe, the culture and religion in that part of the world are nearly inseperable. Unlike here or Europe, which is relatively secular, and Japan that had a nearly 10 year occupation and reconstruction sponsored by the US, which greatly influenced the course of Japanese society, the middle east has been largely closed to western influence and ideas. It could even be argued that there is more of a movement for Islamic isolation based on the Iranian Islamic revolution.

The blood fued idea in the Middle East -- yes, it is a component of their culture. So is fasting during Ramadan and freeing a slave if you break your fast. Yet I don't think the Arabs in Darfur are keeping their oaths.
Islam, Christianity, Judism -- none are religions of intolerence, hate or war. They've been perverted that way by some.

I seriously disagree with the last one. Not that in theory they're not, but in practice, they most definitely are. Let me give you a few examples: 9/11. War in Iraq, Isreal/Palestine, just to hit the big ones.

Re: Christian Right: I'm assuming that you're younger. Back in the day (1980-1992), we had 12 YEARS of a GOP White House. And that was the heydey of the CRs. Even back then they didn't get boo done. For all their boisterious talk, they just aren't important enough or mainstream enough to get something done. Thank goodness.

But that's the difference the CR can't be effective as we enlightened types keep them in check. The Taleban has no such leash.

The Taliban was pretty much eliminated by us. And, I don't know how well you paid attention to the last election, but 'enlightened' isn't a word I'd use to describe the average American voter.

S'ok. I've been called much worse things than "British". :D Ya, me too.



Crime went down. That alone proved their worth.
You feel uneasy about police and soldiers guarding areas with rifles? Imagine how a would-be attacker feels. All of a sudden, that handgun or even Uzi he might have doesn't make him feel any better.
I was in Poland in 1983. Trust me, we're as close to a police state as McDonalds is to Morton's Steakhouse.

There's huge difference between a lull in petty crimes in the 8 block radius that was cordoned off, and real solutions to lowering crime. How many people had to walk way out of their way? How many people were stopped and searched just for being in the wrong place, or looking 'suspicious'? (4th amendement violations)



And none of them were deserved, right?
The police at the GOP were no better or worse than those at the DEM convention.

Care to give an example? I believe the opposite: you NEED to project security for it to be effective! Dealing with people in a crowd control situation is not like in a mall where everyone is just shopping...

Yeah, they were different and the way the protests were handled were very different. Protestors to the GOP convention were forced to protest in a fenced in area blocks away from the event? (First Amendment violations)

Read this part very carefully: the Bill of Rights are NOT negotiable. Not on 9/10/2001 and certainly not now. Franklin said it best "He who gives up liberty for temporary security deserves niether. That's what started this thread, what does the second amendment mean? Well, it is a right. It is a responsibility. By denying protestors access to peacably assemble in front of the GOP convention, they were denied their 1st Amendment rights, by having tons of police searching anyone and everyone who came close and was not invited or just walking by, they were denied thier fourth amendment rights. I find it extremely infuriating to have these people abuse these rights in the name of security. If one really believes in the American way of life, it starts at home, and by attempting to remove or diminish these rights degrades America more than 20 9/11's ever would.

As things stand, however, I have no motivation to ever vote DEM due to gun control and their twisted belief that we need to give money to the poor. That's why aside from two votes for Perot, I've never voted for a DEM Presidential Candidate.
If there was ever a NON GOP candiate that I could agree on enough issues for, I would go that way, as I am a registered Independent and also dont like the two party system. So far, I have seen no such candidate.

You shouldn't vote for the DEMs if you don't like them. But you shouldn't settle for the party that's closer, just to be on the winning side.



Yes. And the terrorists are also killing civilians in Iraq. Not a good situation.
Well, 3 times anyway.
We should be so lucky.

But, not as many as we are thanks to our more powerful standoff weapons. Insurgent vs. civilian cannot be 100% determined through thermal or night vision equipment. Killing just one Iraqi civilian put us in the same boat as the 9/11 attackers or the first World Trade Center bombers: murderers for a cause. But because it's our cause, it's supposed to be OK. Well, to me it's not. I cannont support the death penalty for the same reason. Every person who is wrongfully killed is someone's brother, uncle, father mother or sister. The loss of which to any family is devastating, and unacceptable to a civilized society. Barbarism is barbarism, whether it comes in the form of planes, Apache attack helicopters or 'torture light' on some tropical island.



That's my point. We need to cut off terrorist funding WHILE using those tactics. The Soviets didn't lose because the tactics were bad. They didn't lose because their military wasn't up to it. They lost because unless you destoy the other side's infrastructure, it's a stalemate. The USSR couldn't fight a stalemate in Afghanistan while also challenging the US in the nucelar arms race, the space race, in Nicaragua, supporting Cuba, etc. It was just too much.
We started this shit by using the Islamic Fundamentalists as pawns against the USSR. Then we won the game and left the on the board without putting the box away. Now they've made it to the 8th rank and formed a whole new game against us.
We need to win. Fortuntunately, the US has the bankroll and is very good at stopping funds from moving around the world too easily. We need to keep killing their pieces while ensuring they can't make new ones.

We can better cut off their funding by moving to a more sustainable energy policy. We can cut off their motive by not supporting intrigue in developing nations. We can better change their motives and perceptions of us by staying out of the problems in the middle east and by forstering free and fair trade around the world, instead of being a moralistic arms peddler.



Yes, I'm a Dune fan as well. But even ol' Frank wasn't deep enough for me to know that Paul was the chosen and wouldn't die (ever) when he survived the box. :D

Who isn't? ;)

Actually, there was proof he had them as late as 1991-1994.

Let me remind you: chemical weapons are NOT weapons of mass destruction. The Isreali's destroyed Iraq's nuclear program and they never tried to restart it.

They're also fighting terrorists in someone else's country, which I wholeheartedly agree with. I'd rather Baghdad be blown to hell than Baltimore.

How long before they bring it here again? We keep assuming that it would be middle eastern terrorists, but keep in mind that much of Singapore and Malaysia is Islamic, large parts of India and South East asia are also Muslim. And as tough as we are, and for all the money we have, we can't fight the whole world.

"There is no path to peace, the path is peace."

Not really, the Constitution itself only grants powers and describes the general function of government. The bill of rights specifically puts constraints upon the power any government entity can hold.

Which proves that Jefferson (or God) wasn't too hot on definitions.

Let's see... they were "immutable" (meaning they couldn't me 'muted'), and yet, they were added as "Amendments" (meaning they were NOT there in the first draft - and thus, were 'muted').

Hmmm. It's a thorny one.

I'll admit, I don't stick to just what the Constitution says. I like to read what the framers wrote to get a better sense of what they were trying to accomplish. Silly me. :rolleyes:

Protestors to the GOP convention were forced to protest in a fenced in area blocks away from the event?


Killing just one Iraqi civilian put us in the same boat as the 9/11 attackers or the first World Trade Center bombers: murderers for a cause.
The same thing ocurred at the DNC but because it wasn't republicans commiting the transgression the media sort of let the story fall through the cracks.


Actually it doesn't. You could say killers for a cause about us, although if you actually look at what we are doing the civvie casualties have been extremely light and we do as much as possible to avoid them. You cannot, however, call us murderers. They specifically dove those planes into the WTC towers to kill as many civilians as possible and also to try and destabilize an economy that millions if not billions of people depend on in some way. They purposely kill iraqi children in an attempt to terrorize other IRAQIS into siding with them. They kill innocent foreigners in an attempt to make other members of the coalition back off. They bombed Madrid in an unfortunately successful attempt to influence Spain's election. Of course, the fact that they were found a year later plotting to kill the Spanish's high judges sort of shows once again that Danegeld is a stupid fucking policy. To equate us with them, however, is some of the stupidest black and white thinking possible.

Actually it doesn't. You could say killers for a cause about us, although if you actually look at what we are doing the civvie casualties have been extremely light and we do as much as possible to avoid them. You cannot, however, call us murderers. They specifically dove those planes into the WTC towers to kill as many civilians as possible and also to try and destabilize an economy that millions if not billions of people depend on in some way. They purposely kill iraqi children in an attempt to terrorize other IRAQIS into siding with them. They kill innocent foreigners in an attempt to make other members of the coalition back off. They bombed Madrid in an unfortunately successful attempt to influence Spain's election. Of course, the fact that they were found a year later plotting to kill the Spanish's high judges sort of shows once again that Danegeld is a stupid fucking policy. To equate us with them, however, is some of the stupidest black and white thinking possible.

OOOhhhh!! :mad:

Inteligent responses make me have to think, which I don't do well on the weekends... ;)

I was trying to use a little hyperbole to make a point. I was also hoping I could reinforcethat the violence goes and has gone both ways. Busted, I apologise.

Danegeld?

I am defintely against the current administrations flagrant violations of the Bill of Rights, from the Patriot Act to the statement that the Geneva Convention is 'quaint and antiquated'.

I don't remember it to the degree and the DNC convention, and I read their online rags and blogs.

Danegeld?
The term was coined when the scandinavian peoples raided various european countries. Only those who defended their land with cold steel kept their culture and "freedom", athough since it was a feudal society there was only so much to go around, while those that tried to appease the raiders ended up either being enslaved or losing everything of value.

I recall the protests. I also recall people protesting the Civil War draft. :D
You kept saying "knew". *How* did they know? Divine providence? Did they SEE the sites? The majority of people in the American South were pro slavery in 1820. They knew slavery was no threat to the world. Were they right?

Yes, they published a dossier. Then kept refusing to let us SEE the sites, and could not provide even ONE videotaped destruction of the stockpiles.
Yes, Blix and team were there, and from what I read in the NY Times, kept getting denied access during inspections.
That's not proof there were no WMDs, it's just proof that Saddam was good at keeping the world on the back burner.



Well, of course they will make some profit out of it. That's the way the game works. I'm not saying it's right, but it's what we have. HOWEVER, I think you're off base here: they benefit FROM the war, they don't CAUSE the war.



Yes, I know. That's how I felt at your age, too. By the way, changing to be less against the system is not what you think it is. I'd try to explain it to you, but there is little point. You'd never believe me anyway. Still, everyone gets a different life experience. Good luck. :)



Ah, that's a bit different then. I'd be all for eradicating poverty, if only there was a way to do so that made any sense.



And I believe it was to liberate 28 million people from a butcher and sons.

And I don't care a whit about some monks who lived 500 years ago. They lived in an era of slow moving armies with seige equipment. Messages travelling in the space of days was considered quick. They didn't have to worry about Vlad the impaler showing up from Romania in a few minutes and destroying their walled city with a missile. Or a 747.



It works as does a magnet -- we fight there instead of here. And Saddam WAS bankrolling Palestinians and other terrorist groups.



That was tried in 1992, but failed because of world opinion and Clinton's resolve. Just about all of the Iraqis that took part in the uprising were killed.

I'd still have preferred it that way, but since we're on it this way, I have no course but to support this unless things radically change.

And, BTW, we are now WAAAAY off topic. :D


yes, i do keep saying we 'knew' saddam had no WMDs. and it was by 'divine provedence' or something. what i couldnt figure out was what would saddam husseins motive be for destroying us all in 45 minutes (the big claim in the UK that bliar used was saddam could launch WMDs in 45 minutes)? so, he attacks us. then what? hes the aggressor, hes the one in the wrong, so, that would be a basis for a just war. that i would have supported. BUT, tose claims have proven to be unjustified, which leaves be to ask how did YOU know you were right? because of something the government told you. which was a lie.
no, they were wrong about slavery, and maybe i will be wrong, but at the minute i believe im in the right.

yes, saddam wasnt completely complying with the UN inspectors, and previously he hadnt complied at all. but im pretty sure hans blix said that he thought relations were improving.

well, i believe that they did cause the war, to me its blindingly obvious, but obviously youre entitled to your opinion.

please do explain it to me, you never know, i might believe you!

there is an easy way we can solve poverty. if the west stopped being so selfish and keeping these people in poverty, that would sovle it. dropping all third world debt would be a start.

again, youre entitled to youre opinion. i know mine.

about the monks, the philosophy remains the same, where ever or when ever you are. its transferable, it worked in the 12th century, it works now.

yes, and the USA funds the israelis. does this mean saddam could have pre emptively attacked the US?

i thought it failed because the US didnt give the nessescary support to the rebels immediately after the gulf war? didnt bush snr encourage them to rise up and them left them to it? actuaaly i think he left them to it because of the rules of engagement or the cease fire agreement or something.

indeed, but i shall support the iraqi people, definitely not the british and americans.

yes, soon we shall have to agree to disagree.

Have I? I am NOT for any innocents being killed anywhere. Please reread what I posted -- if we need to fight the terrorists anyway, it's better to fight them there than here. And by here, I mean anywhere that's not a site where Muslim Fundamentalists live.

if you go and fight a war, people will be killed. and due to americas military might, more of your enemies will be killed than your soldiers. i said innocents because i believe the war was unjust, so therefore EVERYONE who is killed or hurt is a innocent victim.
its quite understandable that you dont want war where you live, neither do i, but dont the iraqis get a say in it? do you think they want war?

Damn I thought this one was dead

The same thing ocurred at the DNC but because it wasn't republicans commiting the transgression the media sort of let the story fall through the cracks.


Actually it doesn't. You could say killers for a cause about us, although if you actually look at what we are doing the civvie casualties have been extremely light and we do as much as possible to avoid them. You cannot, however, call us murderers. They specifically dove those planes into the WTC towers to kill as many civilians as possible and also to try and destabilize an economy that millions if not billions of people depend on in some way. They purposely kill iraqi children in an attempt to terrorize other IRAQIS into siding with them. They kill innocent foreigners in an attempt to make other members of the coalition back off. They bombed Madrid in an unfortunately successful attempt to influence Spain's election. Of course, the fact that they were found a year later plotting to kill the Spanish's high judges sort of shows once again that Danegeld is a stupid fucking policy. To equate us with them, however, is some of the stupidest black and white thinking possible.

I disagree. I think that the WTC was an act of terror (yes), but not that it's goal was to kill "as many civilians as possible" - which could have been acheived by dropping the aircraft into some of the more densely populated residential areas. The World Trade Centre is a symbol - a symbol for the Capitalism that lies at the heart of American culture, a symbol for Americn wealth, and a symbol for America's alliances.

Sure, the Statue of Liberty would have been a better target for a purely symbolic 'hit', but it's also a smaller target, and in a slightly more difficult location.

I think you may be missing the point of the original post - I don't read it as saying that killing one Iraqi civilian TRULY equates the Occupation with 9/11 terrorists... more that every civilian casualty an American soldier allows is PERCEIVED as the same thing - civilian casualties caused by another power trying to promote their ideology.

Regarding Iraqi 'insurgents' killing other Iraqis... that is, unfortunately, often the lot of collaborators. Benedict Arnold wasn't exactly greeted with milk-and-cookies for trying to avert a war.

Are you seriously telling me that, if another national power (that vastly outnumbered and outgunned the US) landed on American sovereign territory, deposed the legitimate government, seized strategic targets, and began making systematic sweeps of the cities, killing anyone that was armed.... and this carried on for a year.... YOU would be sitting their as a voice of pacifist reason? YOU wouldn't be resisting that Occupation? You wouldn't pick of the occassional collaborator?

Then why didn't you guys bring out the proof? Why didn't somebody GO to Saddam and tell him to allow open inspections?!? :confused:
The demand was made. Saddam complied.


Sorry, but the price of oil was lower pre-invasion. Invading Iraq, even in the long term, is of dubious benefit to the US's (or any nation's) pocketbook. And it'd have been much easier to kill Saddam and place someone new in his chair by coup d' etat. After all, that's how he got the job.
Yes, so far the Iraq war has not been good for the price of oil. This does not remove oil from the pool of possible real motives for the war. Either the war "didn't work", or the purpose wasn't to lower prices, or something a bit more complicated. Who benefits when oil prices are high? I think the big picture has to do with securing oil for the US against China. We might be entering an economic cold war with China, and our government is trying to obtain/maintain control over middle east oil. It may not be worth the effort at all, but neo-cons don't really understand economics. They think they can just force anything.

The term was coined when the scandinavian peoples raided various european countries. Only those who defended their land with cold steel kept their culture and "freedom", athough since it was a feudal society there was only so much to go around, while those that tried to appease the raiders ended up either being enslaved or losing everything of value.

"Danegeld" is an archaic Middle English term, for an Anglo-Saxon tax, levied to (supposedly) pay for an armed resistence to Danish invaders on English soil, which continued, even after the conflicts as a form of illegitimate land-tax.

Not sure where you got your definition from, my friend.

In post 9/11, the nearest thing to "Danegeld" are the tax costs to the American population that are sponsoring Bush's "War on Terror", and so-called "Homeland Security".

I'm not going to take sides on the guns argument, but I'm going to stop you here. The right to life is an actual right. That's why murder is illegal. the Right to Life is also recognised in the UN Charter of Human Rights, 1948.
I don't trust the UN's opinion on what constitutes a right, but I'll have to agree that the right to life is indeed a human right. At least in the sense that you mentioned it. The RTL should not be construed to mean "society" has an obligation to keep you alive.

The demand was made. Saddam complied.

Yes, so far the Iraq war has not been good for the price of oil. This does not remove oil from the pool of possible real motives for the war. Either the war "didn't work", or the purpose wasn't to lower prices, or something a bit more complicated. Who benefits when oil prices are high? I think the big picture has to do with securing oil for the US against China. We might be entering an economic cold war with China, and our government is trying to obtain/maintain control over middle east oil. It may not be worth the effort at all, but neo-cons don't really understand economics. They think they can just force anything.

Try a quick Google search on PNAC or the "Pax Americana".

"Pax Americana" is a manifesto drawn up, (before Dick-and-Bush even got into power the first time) which details American 'foreign policy'. Several current administration figures are involved in PNAC in high-level positions - including Dick, and Jeb Bush, as well as highest-level Intelligence forces figures.

The "Pax Americana" details how America is going to 'bring peace' in the Middle East by overthrowing regimes - Iraq was on the list, as is Iran.

In other words, long before 9/11... long before the travesty of the 2000 'election', Iraq was being invaded, whether or not they complied with weapons inspectors.

if you go and fight a war, people will be killed. and due to americas military might, more of your enemies will be killed than your soldiers.

Check. But then the West also has a "weakness": that we hold life dear.


i said innocents because i believe the war was unjust, so therefore EVERYONE who is killed or hurt is a innocent victim.

Um... innocent, even after being proved guilty?
As I said, there will always be some innocent victims, and that's tragic. And it MUST be kept as the exception, not the rule.
But EVERYONE on the other side is a victim? Hogwash.


its quite understandable that you dont want war where you live, neither do i, but dont the iraqis get a say in it? do you think they want war?

Did I get a say in:

the bombing of the USS Cole,
the Lockerbie Incident,
the bombing of the WTC,
the flying of 747s into and destruction of the WTC,
the flying of a 747 into the Pentagon,
the plane that crashed into the woods in Pennsylvania,
the bombing of the US Embassies in Nairobi & Dar es Salaam
the Achille Lauro hijacking
the hijack (17 days) of TWA flight 847 in 1985
the Berlin nightclub bombings
the 1972 Olympics
the Moscow Theatre siege
the Bali bombing
the 11 March bombing in Spain
the suicide bombings by Palestinians
the beheading of CIVILIANS in Iraq
... and so on?

How many times do you let the guy in the parking lot hit you before you hit back?!?

These people do NOT want to negotiate with the West. They do not want peace.

Only Libya has seen the light, and that's after being whacked in 1986, suffering almost 20 years of sanctions and seeing how Iraq went!

Maybe America has a greater say in the world than most, but I'm not telling you to grow a beard and keep your women ignorant and enslaved. Nor am I saying you must only eat McDonalds and watch Friends or Star Trek.
That's the difference.

Try a quick Google search on PNAC or the "Pax Americana".

"Pax Americana" is a manifesto drawn up, (before Dick-and-Bush even got into power the first time) which details American 'foreign policy'. Several current administration figures are involved in PNAC in high-level positions - including Dick, and Jeb Bush, as well as highest-level Intelligence forces figures.

The "Pax Americana" details how America is going to 'bring peace' in the Middle East by overthrowing regimes - Iraq was on the list, as is Iran.

In other words, long before 9/11... long before the travesty of the 2000 'election', Iraq was being invaded, whether or not they complied with weapons inspectors.
I think you're referring to "Rebuilding America's Defenses"

I printed the whole thing. It gets pretty boring about half-way thru. It's basic message seems to be, "now that we won the cold war, we need an expensive and expansive military more than ever." It contains no real reason why this should be the case. I actually agree with much of the technical stuff though.

Er? :confused: Religious fundamentalism of ANY root is a serious threat to the security of the world. Both the Islamic Wahabi fundamentalism of Saudi Arabia and the extreme Christian Evangelical fundamentalism that seems to be pervasive thoughout our current administration. The British intelligence service wrote a paper about fundamentalist religious governments, the USA was listed as one of them.


I agree, any fundamenalist movement is dangerous. And I'd like to see the Wahabis reigned in by the Saudis, too.

Ok, do me a favor: start CITING what the hell these Christian Fundamentalists have done, and I'll go with it.
I'm Catholic, and really have no opinion on them anyway. But I think your comparison is extreme. They're not, for example, BEHEADING people. Sheesh!


One thing that you're missing is that unlike here or in Europe, the culture and religion in that part of the world are nearly inseperable. Unlike here or Europe, which is relatively secular, and Japan that had a nearly 10 year occupation and reconstruction sponsored by the US, which greatly influenced the course of Japanese society, the middle east has been largely closed to western influence and ideas. It could even be argued that there is more of a movement for Islamic isolation based on the Iranian Islamic revolution.

There is no where that culture and religion are insperable. By that logic, Rome (or indeed, ANY of Europe!) should have never gone Christian. Constantinople would not have been able to go Muslim. People are people. They adapt to whatever works.

Yes, and there will be a heavy US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan for at least 10 years. You don't think that they'll help to shift the whole region towards Western ideas?

They want isolationism? Great!
Terms:
Give us Bin Laden and Zarqawi, and all the Taleban bank accounts in compensation for victims and rebuilding Iraq & Afghanistan. Each nation that wants isolationism will make a treaty with the UN that they will not harbor terrorists that strike outside their own borders.
...I don't see that happening, do you? :(


I seriously disagree with the last one. Not that in theory they're not, but in practice, they most definitely are. Let me give you a few examples: 9/11. War in Iraq, Isreal/Palestine, just to hit the big ones.

Call me an optimist, but I don't believe that all Islamics are evil, just that BRANCHES of the religion have been perverted by charlatans.


The Taliban was pretty much eliminated by us. And, I don't know how well you paid attention to the last election, but 'enlightened' isn't a word I'd use to describe the average American voter.

The Taleban was mostly eliminated in Afghanistan. But they're still around. I'm not the guy that lets a few dandelions live in the autumn to fight a new crop in the spring. We've got them on the run. Let's FINISH the job and not be stuck like were were with Saddam after Gulf War I.


There's huge difference between a lull in petty crimes in the 8 block radius that was cordoned off, and real solutions to lowering crime. How many people had to walk way out of their way? How many people were stopped and searched just for being in the wrong place, or looking 'suspicious'? (4th amendement violations)

Many people stayed out of the city for the convention, but I don't know of anyone that stayed out because of the guards.
I certainly went anywhere I wanted to.
I never saw anyone searched around Grand Central or Penn Stations.


Yeah, they were different and the way the protests were handled were very different. Protestors to the GOP convention were forced to protest in a fenced in area blocks away from the event? (First Amendment violations)


You tell me. The DEMs did it first in Boston. Was that and more or less right?
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/conventions/articles/2004/07/21/protest_zone_draws_ire/


Read this part very carefully: the Bill of Rights are NOT negotiable. Not on 9/10/2001 and certainly not now. Franklin said it best "He who gives up liberty for temporary security deserves niether. That's what started this thread, what does the second amendment mean? Well, it is a right. It is a responsibility. By denying protestors access to peacably assemble in front of the GOP convention, they were denied their 1st Amendment rights, by having tons of police searching anyone and everyone who came close and was not invited or just walking by, they were denied thier fourth amendment rights.


So, um... why do you think I'm pro-protest zones? All that I said I was PRO security, not the same thing.

I find it extremely infuriating to have these people abuse these rights in the name of security. If one really believes in the American way of life, it starts at home, and by attempting to remove or diminish these rights degrades America more than 20 9/11's ever would.

Agreed.


You shouldn't vote for the DEMs if you don't like them. But you shouldn't settle for the party that's closer, just to be on the winning side.

It's not about being on the election's winning side. But if you really need a pair of shoes and you're a size 10, what do you buy: the 11s, the 7s or the 5 1/2s? (I refuse to go barefoot.)
Do I NOT vote because I don't agree with any party 100%? How about 75%?
I'd have happily voted for ANYONE other than Bush, if there was someone out there that had more qualities in common with me.


But, not as many as we are thanks to our more powerful standoff weapons. Insurgent vs. civilian cannot be 100% determined through thermal or night vision equipment. Killing just one Iraqi civilian put us in the same boat as the 9/11 attackers or the first World Trade Center bombers: murderers for a cause.

If you can come up with a better way to win, I'm all ears.
As it stands, though, we're coming late into a war that's been going on for years (pls. see my post above re: terrorist attacks)


But because it's our cause, it's supposed to be OK. Well, to me it's not. I cannont support the death penalty for the same reason. Every person who is wrongfully killed is someone's brother, uncle, father mother or sister. The loss of which to any family is devastating, and unacceptable to a civilized society. Barbarism is barbarism, whether it comes in the form of planes, Apache attack helicopters or 'torture light' on some tropical island.

Sorry, I'm more of an eye-for-an-eye guy.


We can better cut off their funding by moving to a more sustainable energy policy. We can cut off their motive by not supporting intrigue in developing nations. We can better change their motives and perceptions of us by staying out of the problems in the middle east and by forstering free and fair trade around the world, instead of being a moralistic arms peddler.

Yes, but that takes TIME. It took over a hundred years to get from steam engines to an efficient internal combustion engine. Even with today's rapid rate of scientific advancement (something the terrorists would eliminate!), it'll proabably take 20-30 years for us to halve our dependece on oil and natural gas.
WE CANNOT GO ISOLATIONIST. It never works.
* It didn't work before WW1
* It didn't work before WW2
* It doesn't work now, if only because our economy is three times larger than the #2 world economy.
* They will still come after us. Our very EXISTANCE is anathema to the radical islamics.


Let me remind you: chemical weapons are NOT weapons of mass destruction. The Isreali's destroyed Iraq's nuclear program and they never tried to restart it.
The 1982 airstrike? Ah yes... That wass a serious delay delt them. But destroyed? Hardly.


How long before they bring it here again? We keep assuming that it would be middle eastern terrorists, but keep in mind that much of Singapore and Malaysia is Islamic, large parts of India and South East asia are also Muslim. And as tough as we are, and for all the money we have, we can't fight the whole world.

We don't need to. We need to combat the RADICALS. I have no beef with any race or religion except those that would kill me on the street.

"There is no path to peace, the path is peace."

"Unless you keep up with the times, it's likely to all go up in flames."

the bombing of the USS Cole,
the Lockerbie Incident,
the bombing of the WTC,
the flying of 747s into and destruction of the WTC,
the flying of a 747 into the Pentagon,
the plane that crashed into the woods in Pennsylvania,
the bombing of the US Embassies in Nairobi & Dar es Salaam
the Achille Lauro hijacking
the hijack (17 days) of TWA flight 847 in 1985
the Berlin nightclub bombings
the 1972 Olympics
the Moscow Theatre siege
the Bali bombing
the 11 March bombing in Spain
the suicide bombings by Palestinians
the beheading of CIVILIANS in Iraq


Of which, only the last one actually involves Iraq, though, right?

See, this is why America is losing the "War on Terror"... they have managed to create a huge shadow that they are fighting against - some kind of evil Islamic conspiracy.

So - a Muslim is involved in an attack on American Soil, well then - send troops out to kill some Muslims...

And, the beauty of it is... Bush is laughing at the American people.. because he is persuading the Middle East that he is the GOOD guy, and that it is the will of the American people that the US wage war on Islam... meantime, he is holding Ramadan celebrations in the White House...

It's not really a giant evil muslim conspiracy, just a previously largish one supported by many islamic states. And he left out the deliberate bombing of children in Iraq.

I think you're referring to "Rebuilding America's Defenses"

I printed the whole thing. It gets pretty boring about half-way thru. It's basic message seems to be, "now that we won the cold war, we need an expensive and expansive military more than ever." It contains no real reason why this should be the case. I actually agree with much of the technical stuff though.

Not just a matter of having a military - but actually detailing how that military is to be used, on a global scale, to 'further US interests'.

The thing Americans should be wary of (and might be, if any of them actually paid attention to what their government was saying/doing OUTSIDE of the 3-minute-soundbite editions they grant the media) is that, this kind of expansion has been done before - and it can only work if you can fill your 'war coffers' from your conquest.

At the moment, the US has gained little back (except for a tighter grip on oil supply), and the American populace is footing the bill.

ANd what THAT means is, if Bush is stymied in his expansionist policies, and the 'Pax Americana' isn't acheived, the United States will be left with an economy reminiscent of Germany, after World War 2.

The report was written five months before the attacks of Sept. 11 and is authored by six members of the current administration, including Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, I. Lewis Libby, along with 21 other people who attended meetings or contributed papers for the report. Bookman goes on to explain what the plans are for world military domination and how Bush has mirrored those plans so far. "In essence, it lays out a plan for a permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make the plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1018-03.htm

Guns kill people, and so do people! You talk about responsibility! Most people who own guns are NOT responsible. WE DONT NEED GUNS! If there are no guns, then there is no need for people to arm themselves for protection. No guns = Zero Deaths because of Guns.

Would that be a Blackadder reference? If so, I would have to allocate a precious Cool Point to Markreich. (The first, I think, since Riven Dell earned a Cool Point for a cool name).

Oh, shut up Baldrick. ;)


Ah, if only the one who could spell had gotten in... I notice you totally missed the correct spelling of Nukular.

I had a speech impediment when I was a child, until I was 8 or 9. I don't make fun of people for things like speech impediments or birthmarks or whatnot.


Yes - the US has boat-loads of alternative energy - but most of it is ALMOST ready to use, rather than being 'on tap'. Hence, when Bush throws a wobbly in the House of Saud, Americans start getting worrying gas bills.

True that the solar/wind stuff isn't up to snuff yet. But coal and nuclear are still solid.


And, if it all goes pear-shaped - THAT isn't the best time for trying to switch from an ingrained carbon-economy to alternative power.
Hence, I envision, much walking.

I think you've got a solid idea, but might be reaching too far in your conclusions.


I can't believe you quoted Billy Joel at me. I feel somehow violated. :)

"You can cry in your coffee but don't come bitchin' to me..." - Sorry, couldn't resist. :D

Of which, only the last one actually involves Iraq, though, right?

See, this is why America is losing the "War on Terror"... they have managed to create a huge shadow that they are fighting against - some kind of evil Islamic conspiracy.

So - a Muslim is involved in an attack on American Soil, well then - send troops out to kill some Muslims...

And, the beauty of it is... Bush is laughing at the American people.. because he is persuading the Middle East that he is the GOOD guy, and that it is the will of the American people that the US wage war on Islam... meantime, he is holding Ramadan celebrations in the White House...

But they were all involving Islamic radical terrorists. Which is what we are fighing in Iraq.

It's not America vs. Muslims. It's Western Civilization vs. Muslim Fundamentalism.

Guns kill people, and so do people! You talk about responsibility! Most people who own guns are NOT responsible. WE DONT NEED GUNS! If there are no guns, then there is no need for people to arm themselves for protection. No guns = Zero Deaths because of Guns.
Actually in areas where one grows up around guns and is taught to use them properly the firearm murder rate is lower than the UK's. This does include several cities as well.

It's not really a giant evil muslim conspiracy, just a previously largish one supported by many islamic states. And he left out the deliberate bombing of children in Iraq.

Sorry, I'm typing on only 1 cup of coffee so far. I'm sure I missed much more than that, but thanks for the addendum.

The demand was made. Saddam complied.

If you call compliance allowing inspections to sites only after a 2 day warning, then yes. Me? That tells me that they're hiding something. :(


Yes, so far the Iraq war has not been good for the price of oil. This does not remove oil from the pool of possible real motives for the war. Either the war "didn't work", or the purpose wasn't to lower prices, or something a bit more complicated.

That's pretty much my take on it. I've said multiple times that oil may have been a secondary issue, but is certainly wasn't a primary one.


Who benefits when oil prices are high? I think the big picture has to do with securing oil for the US against China. We might be entering an economic cold war with China, and our government is trying to obtain/maintain control over middle east oil. It may not be worth the effort at all, but neo-cons don't really understand economics. They think they can just force anything.

That's a good question...

Guns kill people, and so do people! You talk about responsibility! Most people who own guns are NOT responsible. WE DONT NEED GUNS! If there are no guns, then there is no need for people to arm themselves for protection. No guns = Zero Deaths because of Guns.

Duh. 93 percent of violent crime in the US (and that means more than death - it means rape, assault, mayhem, etc) is NOT committed with a firearm.

It's committed by someone being bigger and stronger than someone else. The only hope that a smaller and weaker person has is carrying a gun. The police not only will not arrive in time to stop a violent act, they have no legal obligation to do so in the US (SCOTUS, Wilson vs. District of Columbia).

So the next time you face a rapist, ask him to let you call the police, and ask him to wait until the police arrive before he starts intruding into your rectum.

You'll probably wish you had a gun, but you won't have one. And talking him out of it isn't going to work.

yes, i do keep saying we 'knew' saddam had no WMDs. and it was by 'divine provedence' or something. what i couldnt figure out was what would saddam husseins motive be for destroying us all in 45 minutes (the big claim in the UK that bliar used was saddam could launch WMDs in 45 minutes)? so, he attacks us. then what? hes the aggressor, hes the one in the wrong, so, that would be a basis for a just war. that i would have supported.

Not everyone thinks the way we do. It's not a matter of aggressor=wrong to him. If he could do that, he'd be a hero forever.

BUT, tose claims have proven to be unjustified, which leaves be to ask how did YOU know you were right? because of something the government told you. which was a lie.

Not really. I don't believe that International politics is a matter of right or wrong in absolute terms. A lot of it is a matter for survival. And I would shed no tears for Islamic Fundamentalism going the way of National Socialism, the American Confederacy, the Spanish Inquisition, Communism or Anarchism.
Sure, all are around to some degree today... as poor shadows of their former... uh... "glory".


no, they were wrong about slavery, and maybe i will be wrong, but at the minute i believe im in the right.

...which is exactly how they felt. :)
I'm not trying to be offensive, just pointing out that over time the popular opinion may not always turn out to be the right one. Your Prime Minister Chamberlain for example, was accoladed after the Munich Conference.


yes, saddam wasnt completely complying with the UN inspectors, and previously he hadnt complied at all. but im pretty sure hans blix said that he thought relations were improving.

12 years of subversion. Don't you think time was up? The terms of the peace treaty were for full, open inspections. He failed, breaking the peace treaty. *poof* this is a legal continuance of the 1991 war.


well, i believe that they did cause the war, to me its blindingly obvious, but obviously youre entitled to your opinion.
please do explain it to me, you never know, i might believe you!

Okay, let me ask it this way: aside from conspiracy, has any proof come out? Were any officials shown to be on the take from these multi national corps?

I can't think of anyone implicated in illegal dealings with starting the war. I mean, who supposedly is paying Bush and Blair and Kwasniewski?
(Haliburton was a no-bid contract... a stupid breach of the free enterprise system, but not proof that Haliburton started the war...)

And, how about Afghanistan? Is someone paying off all of Nato?


there is an easy way we can solve poverty. if the west stopped being so selfish and keeping these people in poverty, that would sovle it. dropping all third world debt would be a start.

Um... so let me ask you this: when you go to a pub or restaurant, do you routinely pay for murderers to eat with you? Most of the impoverished nations are led by juntas and dictators that use food as a weapon against their own people.
Further: it's selfish to want payment for your services? What sort of job do you work/will you want to get when you join the workforce? Unless you join the Peace Corps or some such organization, you're doing business just the same thing.
I give some money away to charity. But I'm not about to start working for free. Why should the Western nations?


about the monks, the philosophy remains the same, where ever or when ever you are. its transferable, it worked in the 12th century, it works now.

Sure. And slavery still works. The stone-grinding windmill still works. The ox cart still works. It doesn't mean that it hasn't been supersceded.


yes, and the USA funds the israelis. does this mean saddam could have pre emptively attacked the US?

He was already, illegally "painting" our warplanes in the no fly zones.


i thought it failed because the US didnt give the nessescary support to the rebels immediately after the gulf war? didnt bush snr encourage them to rise up and them left them to it? actuaaly i think he left them to it because of the rules of engagement or the cease fire agreement or something.

That, and many of the allies would not stand for it. Syria, for example.

indeed, but i shall support the iraqi people, definitely not the british and americans.

That's your right, but I reserve my right to think you're wrong.


yes, soon we shall have to agree to disagree.

And that's not necessarily a bad thing. No one's right about everything. :)

Oh, shut up Baldrick. ;)

I had a speech impediment when I was a child, until I was 8 or 9. I don't make fun of people for things like speech impediments or birthmarks or whatnot.

True that the solar/wind stuff isn't up to snuff yet. But coal and nuclear are still solid.

I think you've got a solid idea, but might be reaching too far in your conclusions.

"You can cry in your coffee but don't come bitchin' to me..." - Sorry, couldn't resist. :D

Cool Point awarded for Blackadder references. :)

Normally - I am willing to live and let live... but, as far as I can tell, Bush's "Nukular" affectation is a deliberate attempt to persuade the Democrats that he isn't that 'bright', and to persuade the average American that he is an 'everyman' - which, I think, is a big insult to the American population... but, unfortuantely, most of them seem to be lapping it up.

While Coal and Nuclear sources are pretty good, the loss of the Oil economy would be much more of a strain than either could comfortably expand to compensate for.

Oh, and please tell me that: ""You can cry in your coffee but don't come bitchin' to me..." is a quote from Billy Joel's version of Big Shot, not the J.Lo abomination...

But they were all involving Islamic radical terrorists. Which is what we are fighing in Iraq.

It's not America vs. Muslims. It's Western Civilization vs. Muslim Fundamentalism.

On the contrary, many would see it more as: "Nations who support Israel in their illegal occupation" v's "Victims of Western-sponsored aggression".

Or maybe: "Western capitalism" v's "Islamic tradition and religious freedom".

Or maybe: "Christian fundamentalism v's Islamic fundamentalism"

Or maybe: "Western" oil concerns v's "Middle East" oil concerns.

Or maybe: Isolated terrorist attacks (many of which are commited by, or have links to, Muslims) v's a concerted war on ALL of Islam.


And, of course - there were no "Islamic Radical Terrorists" IN Iraq, until the US occupied their sovereign soil...

Cool Point awarded for Blackadder references. :)


Graci.

Normally - I am willing to live and let live... but, as far as I can tell, Bush's "Nukular" affectation is a deliberate attempt to persuade the Democrats that he isn't that 'bright', and to persuade the average American that he is an 'everyman' - which, I think, is a big insult to the American population... but, unfortuantely, most of them seem to be lapping it up.

I'm not sure it's deliberate. He mixes his metaphors in a way that puts even his old man to shame...

While Coal and Nuclear sources are pretty good, the loss of the Oil economy would be much more of a strain than either could comfortably expand to compensate for.

True. I'm just pointing out that it wouldn't turn the US's economy to be on par with Ecuador's overnight. Italy, maybe. Perhaps even Brazil's...

Oh, and please tell me that: ""You can cry in your coffee but don't come bitchin' to me..." is a quote from Billy Joel's version of Big Shot, not the J.Lo abomination...

They're both abominations.
But I'll meet you any time you want in our Italian restaurant... :D

On the contrary, many would see it more as: "Nations who support Israel in their illegal occupation" v's "Victims of Western-sponsored aggression".

Or maybe: "Western capitalism" v's "Islamic tradition and religious freedom".

Or maybe: "Christian fundamentalism v's Islamic fundamentalism"

Or maybe: "Western" oil concerns v's "Middle East" oil concerns.

Or maybe: Isolated terrorist attacks (many of which are commited by, or have links to, Muslims) v's a concerted war on ALL of Islam.

Sure. But many others see it as: "Nations that believe women are good for something besides producing children and cleaning the house" vs. "Arabs".

Or maybe: "People who think you should be allowed to do anything" vs. "People who think you should be allowed to do nothing".

Or maybe: "People who advance the planet through science and technology" vs "People who consider anything past an abacus to be a device of Satan."

...either way, it's still down to one side vs. the other. The side the blinks first, as with the cold war, will lose.


And, of course - there were no "Islamic Radical Terrorists" IN Iraq, until the US occupied their sovereign soil...

Hard to say. I'd count the ruling class as radicals, what with them gassing and torturing their own people and all...

And, of course - there were no "Islamic Radical Terrorists" IN Iraq, until the US occupied their sovereign soil...
*cough*Abu Nidal*cough*

*cough*Abu Nidal*cough*
As if that in and of itself is enough to invade a country? Next on the list would be:
North Korea
China
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Iran
Syria
Sudan
Libya
NOT ENOUGH TROOPS IN THE WORLD!

I never said it was, but Grave_n_idle made a false statement to try and support his analogies, it had to be corrected.

As if that in and of itself is enough to invade a country? Next on the list would be:
North Korea
China
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Iran
Syria
Sudan
Libya
NOT ENOUGH TROOPS IN THE WORLD!

Ok, who leaked you the list?!? ;)

Check. But then the West also has a "weakness": that we hold life dear.



Um... innocent, even after being proved guilty?
As I said, there will always be some innocent victims, and that's tragic. And it MUST be kept as the exception, not the rule.
But EVERYONE on the other side is a victim? Hogwash.



Did I get a say in:

the bombing of the USS Cole,
the Lockerbie Incident,
the bombing of the WTC,
the flying of 747s into and destruction of the WTC,
the flying of a 747 into the Pentagon,
the plane that crashed into the woods in Pennsylvania,
the bombing of the US Embassies in Nairobi & Dar es Salaam
the Achille Lauro hijacking
the hijack (17 days) of TWA flight 847 in 1985
the Berlin nightclub bombings
the 1972 Olympics
the Moscow Theatre siege
the Bali bombing
the 11 March bombing in Spain
the suicide bombings by Palestinians
the beheading of CIVILIANS in Iraq
... and so on?

How many times do you let the guy in the parking lot hit you before you hit back?!?

These people do NOT want to negotiate with the West. They do not want peace.

Only Libya has seen the light, and that's after being whacked in 1986, suffering almost 20 years of sanctions and seeing how Iraq went!

Maybe America has a greater say in the world than most, but I'm not telling you to grow a beard and keep your women ignorant and enslaved. Nor am I saying you must only eat McDonalds and watch Friends or Star Trek.
That's the difference.


the west holds its own existance dear, i think.

i was under the impression that the september the 11th attacks were carried out mostly by saudis?
when i said EVERYONE is a victim, i didnt just mean iraqis, i meant all the soldiers that are there. as per usual, the working classes are doing the ruling classes dirty work.

no, you did not get a say in these events, but, with all due respect to the victims, these actions were, in my opinion, the third world getting its own back. you have to think WHY these events happened, because there must be a reason. and i believe the reason is that the western world has kept these people in poverty.

again with all due respect, if youve been stealing his parking place for hundreds of years, hes likely to be a bit pissed off with you, so thats why hes hitting you.
i know they do not want to negotiate with the west, buts that becasue they see us as evil, just as we see them as evil. dont we always say 'no negotiating with trrrrsts'?

so you think the right way to stop the fighting is to force them into submitting to your way of life?

well no your not, but if i was from the middle east i think you might do.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.0/GunFacts4-0-Screen.pdf


4.0 just came out. Read the whole thing.

They're both abominations.
But I'll meet you any time you want in our Italian restaurant... :D

Well, Mama, if that's movin' up then I'm....movin' out!

the west holds its own existance dear, i think.
And would you call that a good or a bad thing?


i was under the impression that the september the 11th attacks were carried out mostly by saudis?

Ah, so this is a class issue for you. I can’t help you there, as I don’t believe in such things.
However, my point with “the list” was that they were/are ALL perpetrated by Islamic militants.


when i said EVERYONE is a victim, i didnt just mean iraqis, i meant all the soldiers that are there. as per usual, the working classes are doing the ruling classes dirty work.

“The 3rd World getting its own back”? Bullocks. In a world that is civilized, such actions are attacks on civilization itself! This is unconscionable.

Your example fails immediately, BTW.
Note that ALL of these terrorist nations are Islamic in nature, and none of them are not. Angola does not blow up discotecs in Germany. You don’t see Laotians flying planes into buildings.
If it was a true class struggle, it’d be sub-Saharan Africa (and not the Middle East, which is not 3rd World per se… Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Palestine… these are all 2nd world nations. Yet a 3rd world Islamic nation like Chad doesn’t produce very many terrorists!


no, you did not get a say in these events, but, with all due respect to the victims, these actions were, in my opinion, the third world getting its own back. you have to think WHY these events happened, because there must be a reason. and i believe the reason is that the western world has kept these people in poverty.

I’ve stolen nothing from nobody. My father escaped Czechoslovakia in 1969. If you want to make my guilty by association for being an American… then you give me carte blanc to go after ALL Islamics, not just the terrorist militants. (Which I do NOT want to do!)

And how has the west kept Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran in poverty? These are rich nations! Why aren't the Central Africans or Senegalese taking hostages?
It doesn't wash.


again with all due respect, if youve been stealing his parking place for hundreds of years, hes likely to be a bit pissed off with you, so thats why hes hitting you.

So instead of complaining to management (the UN?), or confronting me with a lawsuit or grievence, he starts pummelling me. Or, rather, he finds my nephew or son and blows up his car.
Sorry, I don't see that as a way a planet can retain civility.


i know they do not want to negotiate with the west, buts that becasue they see us as evil, just as we see them as evil. dont we always say 'no negotiating with trrrrsts'?
so you think the right way to stop the fighting is to force them into submitting to your way of life?

Not MY way of life. As I've said, I don’t want to see them suddenly watching Friends, wearing Tommy Hilfinger and eating McDonalds.

But I expect them, if they want to live in peace, to FOLLOW THE RULE OF LAW. That means no terrorism.
I likewise find the poisoning of the Ukrainian Presidential Candidate to be not only illegal, but also a terrorist act. Those who did this must be caught and brought to justice.

So, if we should negotiate with terrorists, should we also negotiate with the "Antichrists"? Should people like Milosovich not be tried? How about Mguabe or Saddam Hussein? Hitler? Pol Pot? Stalin?
It works out to the same thing -- you begin negotiations with people that consciously work to destroy cilvilization. They don't value your side worth spit! They want to DESTROY you and your whole culture and style of life... in fact, everyone that does have THEIR style of life!


well no your not, but if i was from the middle east i think you might do.

Ah, but there is proof to the contrary:
The Japanese didn’t stop Kendo to start fencing. They didn’t give up Bento boxes for “super value meals”. The Germans aren’t playing American Football instead of Soccer (Football). And they certainly haven’t given up snitzel for pizza. I haven't seen many Baseball fields in England, either. :)

(This is not to say any of these things don’t exist in these nations, it just shows that Americans don’t force people to change… they tend to do it by themselves.

Taverham, if you want a real education on why Islamic countries and civilization in general has been on a massive decline that was NEVER brought on by the West, and is completely self-induced, you should read Naipaul (he wrote two books on the subject).

And if you want to know in advance, he doesn't have a lot of nice things to say about the West and imperialism, either.

He's a first hand guy - he's gone to those countries and spoken with the people who live there.

Look for Naipaul on Amazon.com or google him for excerpts.

Well, Mama, if that's movin' up then I'm....movin' out!

Movin' on is a chance that you have to take
Any time you try to stay - together
Whoa
Say a word out of line
And you find that the friends you had
Are gone - forever

So many people in and out of my life...

I agree, any fundamenalist movement is dangerous. And I'd like to see the Wahabis reigned in by the Saudis, too.

Ok, do me a favor: start CITING what the hell these Christian Fundamentalists have done, and I'll go with it.
I'm Catholic, and really have no opinion on them anyway. But I think your comparison is extreme. They're not, for example, BEHEADING people. Sheesh!

You're right. The Christian Conservatives in this country don't behead people. But they are more than happy to use lethal injection. The death penalty is the death penalty and is cruel and unusual and thus a Constitutional violation, regardless of the methods used to dispatch the person.

How about abortion clinic bombings? How about the sniping of those same clinic workers? How about the insistance on inserting their moralty and values into our educational system? Those don't count? Admittedly, this country is much different in culture than the ones in the Middle East, however, the goals are the same: a theocracy.



There is no where that culture and religion are insperable. By that logic, Rome (or indeed, ANY of Europe!) should have never gone Christian. Constantinople would not have been able to go Muslim. People are people. They adapt to whatever works.

Yes, and there will be a heavy US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan for at least 10 years. You don't think that they'll help to shift the whole region towards Western ideas?

Maybe. I'm hoping we're not in Iraq or Afghn. for 10 years. That would be frightfully expensive in terms of men and equipment. I can only speculate about whether or not there will be a positive influence on those people, but I could also speculate that there will be a negative influence on the people we have over there.

They want isolationism? Great!
Terms:
Give us Bin Laden and Zarqawi, and all the Taleban bank accounts in compensation for victims and rebuilding Iraq & Afghanistan. Each nation that wants isolationism will make a treaty with the UN that they will not harbor terrorists that strike outside their own borders.
...I don't see that happening, do you? :(

Like I said, if only it were that cut and dry. The average American views this thing as having started on Sept. 11, 2001, while the average middle easterner views this conflict as having started in the mid 1970's or even earlier in 1948. We have been messing around in mid-east affairs for almost a half a century due to our dependence on foreign oil, and due to our support of Isreal since its inception. I'm not sure if they want isolation, but I am pretty sure they would like for us to stop meddling in their affairs. Take Saudi for example. Everyone I know that's been over there says Americans besically run that country, and many of the well paying jobs in the oil industry or other decent jobs besides camel herding go to Americans. The Saudi's have a very poor national infrastructure despite their great wealth and the per capita income of the average Saudi has been decreasing for the past 20 years. What the average Saudi sees is Americans taking work from them and enforcing a government they hate. We run their military and police forces, so everything that a poor Saudi boy doesn't like, has an Amercan face and rifle.



Call me an optimist, but I don't believe that all Islamics are evil, just that BRANCHES of the religion have been perverted by charlatans.

Of course not, that would be a gross generalization. But keep in mind, poverty plus illiteracy plus religion is a dangerous mix.

The Taleban was mostly eliminated in Afghanistan. But they're still around. I'm not the guy that lets a few dandelions live in the autumn to fight a new crop in the spring. We've got them on the run. Let's FINISH the job and not be stuck like were were with Saddam after Gulf War I.

I seriously doubt that the Afghani's are going to allow the Taliban to come back. First, some of the money supporting the Taliban was American. Why? Because the Taliban disallowed poppy farming in exchange for American capital as part of our stupid war on drugs. Now that the Afghani's are starting to grow poppies again, they're starting to make some good cash again, and will probably like that better than being poor. Don't EVEN try to tell me they're not.


Many people stayed out of the city for the convention, but I don't know of anyone that stayed out because of the guards.
I certainly went anywhere I wanted to.
I never saw anyone searched around Grand Central or Penn Stations.

Why did people feel they needed to leave for the convention?


So, um... why do you think I'm pro-protest zones? All that I said I was PRO security, not the same thing.

Being pro-security at the expense of constitutional rights is just wrong. The right to peacably assemble and the right to freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for grievances are all first amendment rights. Moving the protesters someplaces else is NOT pro-security. I don't mind security, I do think it's necessary, but not to the degree it was taken. As for the Democrats: they suck too. They intentionally tried to keep Nader and others off the ballots in a great many states, which is just as bad as the Reps did. The Reps and Dems also made sure to keep the other candidates out of the debates. Why? I think it's simple, the message by even average third party candidates make so much more sense than the pap the two major parties are spewing, that the two majors know they would have serious problems.


It's not about being on the election's winning side. But if you really need a pair of shoes and you're a size 10, what do you buy: the 11s, the 7s or the 5 1/2s? (I refuse to go barefoot.)
Do I NOT vote because I don't agree with any party 100%? How about 75%?
I'd have happily voted for ANYONE other than Bush, if there was someone out there that had more qualities in common with me.

I have hope for you, really.

Take the test @ ww.lp.org



If you can come up with a better way to win, I'm all ears.
As it stands, though, we're coming late into a war that's been going on for years (pls. see my post above re: terrorist attacks)

Agreed, but I just don't think this is the way to go about it. We also nee to fees up and take responsibility for the actions that we did in the past that has prolonged and aggravated this war.

Sorry, I'm more of an eye-for-an-eye guy.

'An eye for an eye wil make the world blind.' - Mahatma Ghandi. I can't go with you there. I can say 'live and let live'.


Yes, but that takes TIME. It took over a hundred years to get from steam engines to an efficient internal combustion engine. Even with today's rapid rate of scientific advancement (something the terrorists would eliminate!), it'll proabably take 20-30 years for us to halve our dependece on oil and natural gas.

But our current energy policies and politics are pushing us even further into oil dependence and not putting a priority on getting us off of our fossil fuel addiction. And, it didn't take a hundred years to get where we are not with engine technology. There were highly efficient engine designs as early as the 1940's. These were scrapped for larger more powerful and inefficent engines at the behest of the oil companies.

WE CANNOT GO ISOLATIONIST. It never works.
* It didn't work before WW1
* It didn't work before WW2
* It doesn't work now, if only because our economy is three times larger than the #2 world economy.
* They will still come after us. Our very EXISTANCE is anathema to the radical islamics.

I never said isolationist. I said to forgo military involvment and military aid in many of the developing nations we deal with. We should close the Army School of the America's. End the stupid war on drugs and start to move to a position of economic availability. We should be militarily isolationist, but open for business.


The 1982 airstrike? Ah yes... That wass a serious delay delt them. But destroyed? Hardly.

But damaged enough so that they couldn't get it back up and running. By the way, the Bush administration consisitently called chemical weapons 'WMD' and they're not, the administration knows they're not and used the ignorance of the American people to get approval to further their 'Pax Americana' agenda.



We don't need to. We need to combat the RADICALS. I have no beef with any race or religion except those that would kill me on the street.

Start here. I thouroughly believe that our use of force overseas to assist bery large and powerful corporations has led us to the path were on now.


"Unless you keep up with the times, it's likely to all go up in flames."

'There is no path to peace, the path IS peace' -- Dalai Lama

*cough*Abu Nidal*cough*

Abu Nidal... the Palestinian?

The Palestinian who opposed the PLO, and was, purportedly responsible for the deaths of PLO memebers (The PLO being cited as 'terrorists' quite frequently on these threads...)

The Palestinian 'terrorist' that Saddam himself apparently had killed?

Sorry - how does that support your point?

If anything, it proves the opposite - Saddam (allegedly) 'retired' at least one Islamic Radical Terrorist found on his soil...

Well, considering that Saddam knew that Nidal was in Iraq and pretty much where he was the entire time the only thing his death right before we invade means to me is that Nidal had dirt on Hussein that might have bought him life in prison instead of death.

Take Saudi for example. Everyone I know that's been over there says Americans besically run that country, and many of the well paying jobs in the oil industry or other decent jobs besides camel herding go to Americans. The Saudi's have a very poor national infrastructure despite their great wealth and the per capita income of the average Saudi has been decreasing for the past 20 years. What the average Saudi sees is Americans taking work from them and enforcing a government they hate. We run their military and police forces, so everything that a poor Saudi boy doesn't like, has an Amercan face and rifle.


Actually there are at least as many if not more europeans working in Saudi than americans. Most of those jobs are highly technical in nature and the Saudi schools ain't exactly up to snuff. Combine that with the complete subjugation of half their workforce and it's a recipe for disaster.

No doubt by now you will have noticed that i am an utter n00b to Nationstates (even though i was here once, a long time ago). This is not an arguement based on anything in the thread above, im not gonna read through the trash above, as i know this debate inside out, you see, i have heard it a few times before. I have read the first and last page, and that was enough to get the opinion gist..... ::Dives in::

So you dont like the muslims eh? You dont like terrorism? You dont like seeing your citizens coming off the back of a Hercules in a coffin? And you definately dont like seeing your citizens being pulled out of bombed embassies, government offices, and office blocks?

Diddums.

Dont pick a fight if you cant handle the consequences.

Admittedly us Western nations didnt pick the fight in this centuary, and it kinda wasnt our fight in the first place, but being empire building types, we just couldnt keep our noses outta other peoples' business. And, yes, we did pick the fight. No matter how much you argue about who bombed who first, and the Russians, you are still missing the point. Empire building europeans waded into the middle east on a mish to build an empire to rival Alexander the Great. We Brits were pretty good at it as well, until other business caught our attention, and the strain of trying to hold down nations that by their nature couldnt be ruled by others finally got too much. So we just dropped it, walked away, gave up, let them fight each other. Frankly the USA should take a lesson from history, and do the same. These peoples just wont give in too you. No mattter how much C4 you ram down their throats. They cant, its a matter of pride for them.

One thing that all "Civilised" nations must learn is that personal pride, strengthened by a religion that is part of every part in life, is just too strong to beat. We may not believe in their philosophy, but we have to remove our noses.

Believe it or not, our society used to be very much like theirs. Christianity was a part of everything, and civil rights were restricted in many of the same ways. Addmittedly most nations gave capital/corporal punishment for everything but treason the boot a fair few years ago but some (::ahem:: you listening americans?) still havnt. Most nations gave women a hell of a lot more rights last centuary, but even legal rights havnt managed to wipe out chauvanism. As for eqaulity on sexuality, dont even get me started.

What i am trying to say is that from our own experience we should have spotted that some things in life take longer than others to develop. Until the West starts setting an example by always sticking to peaceful means to change the world, the fundamentalists will not take notice. You teach a kid to stop doing something by hitting it, then it will hit the next person doing something that it doesnt like... Not a good way forward. As Ghandi famously showed, you can free nations from enslavement without firing a shot, or even throwing a fist. Sure some of your own number may die, but for a just cause that was acceptable. So we must show all nations that peace is more benificial from war. We must make our democracy as transparent as possible to show that this way trustworthy leaders can be elected, and we the people must learn to respect others, and not to think our nations are all conquering/the best in the world. We are not. We never will be. There is no measure of best for a nation that i would subscribe to, and there is no reason any nation should be viewed as the best/the leader.

::hits rock bottom::

Well im outta breath now.

Answers and hatemail on a postcard please.

You're right. The Christian Conservatives in this country don't behead people. But they are more than happy to use lethal injection. The death penalty is the death penalty and is cruel and unusual and thus a Constitutional violation, regardless of the methods used to dispatch the person.

Sorry, but the death penalty is NOT a CC issue only. There are MANY people of many religions that are pro or against it. Me? I'm for it as it is no more cruel than the offense it is being used to correct for. For example, a quadruple arson murder. It is also not unusual -- in most cases where the death penalty is to be used, the criminals CAUSED death!


How about abortion clinic bombings? How about the sniping of those same clinic workers? How about the insistance on inserting their moralty and values into our educational system? Those don't count? Admittedly, this country is much different in culture than the ones in the Middle East, however, the goals are the same: a theocracy.

Oh, PLEASE.
1) Show me where I said it was okay.
2) We went over this ground about thirty pages back.
Anyone who does those things SHOULD GET THE DEATH PENALTY. (Funny how well that works out, eh?)
By the way: why is abortion okay and the death penalty not? (Note: I'm FOR both!)
Morality and values? Is school prayer allowed again? Are they teaching the Golden Rule? Hardly. Yes, there is lotsa funding for abstinence only sex ed. Which I disagree with.
Can you point out ANY other "morality and values" being forced into the educational system?


Maybe. I'm hoping we're not in Iraq or Afghn. for 10 years. That would be frightfully expensive in terms of men and equipment. I can only speculate about whether or not there will be a positive influence on those people, but I could also speculate that there will be a negative influence on the people we have over there.
It will likely be longer. How much do you think we spent on Europe from 1945-2004?
Everything settles down over time. We've barely been in Iraq 2 years. Berlin didn't really settle down until well after the airlift...


Like I said, if only it were that cut and dry. The average American views this thing as having started on Sept. 11, 2001, while the average middle easterner views this conflict as having started in the mid 1970's or even earlier in 1948. We have been messing around in mid-east affairs for almost a half a century due to our dependence on foreign oil, and due to our support of Isreal since its inception. I'm not sure if they want isolation, but I am pretty sure they would like for us to stop meddling in their affairs. Take Saudi for example. Everyone I know that's been over there says Americans besically run that country, and many of the well paying jobs in the oil industry or other decent jobs besides camel herding go to Americans. The Saudi's have a very poor national infrastructure despite their great wealth and the per capita income of the average Saudi has been decreasing for the past 20 years. What the average Saudi sees is Americans taking work from them and enforcing a government they hate. We run their military and police forces, so everything that a poor Saudi boy doesn't like, has an Amercan face and rifle.

Right. And the failure of the Arab nations to govern themselves caused this. The Ottoman Empire was the "sick man of Europe" for 100 years before finally falling in 1918. The Arabs were one a mighty economic, philosophic, militaristic, scientific, religious, and cultural force. Then around 1600, they started to slide. And they've done little since then.

And the fact that one house controls all of Saudi Arabia. It's corruption central.


Of course not, that would be a gross generalization. But keep in mind, poverty plus illiteracy plus religion is a dangerous mix.

Poverty and illiteracy ususally ensure each other. Religion then runs a pickup game. This has been going on since about 4000 BC. :(


I seriously doubt that the Afghani's are going to allow the Taliban to come back. First, some of the money supporting the Taliban was American. Why? Because the Taliban disallowed poppy farming in exchange for American capital as part of our stupid war on drugs. Now that the Afghani's are starting to grow poppies again, they're starting to make some good cash again, and will probably like that better than being poor. Don't EVEN try to tell me they're not.

Of course they are.
But Afghanistan will need support for years. It's not only a matter of allowing; they're going to need at least a generation of successful Democracy to work it.


Why did people feel they needed to leave for the convention?

It was a great excuse to use vacation days. :)
Besides, I know people who religiously avoid the city on days when the President (any US President) is in town due to the traffic snafus, New Year's Eve, during a parade down the Canyon of Heroes (Avenue of the Americas/5th & 6th Ave areas) etc. Basically, lots of us here in NYC just do point A to B to C in a given day, and want to get home to our families. We're not interested in having to deal.
You ever take an alternate route home if the highway is backed up?


Being pro-security at the expense of constitutional rights is just wrong. The right to peacably assemble and the right to freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for grievances are all first amendment rights. Moving the protesters someplaces else is NOT pro-security. I don't mind security, I do think it's necessary, but not to the degree it was taken.

And I'm still agreeing with you. I just have no problem with the Guard and the Police patrolling with dogs and rifles.


As for the Democrats: they suck too. They intentionally tried to keep Nader and others off the ballots in a great many states, which is just as bad as the Reps did. The Reps and Dems also made sure to keep the other candidates out of the debates.

Actually, the GOP wanted Nader in the debates, at least in 2000. I don't recall this year hearing anything about it.


Why? I think it's simple, the message by even average third party candidates make so much more sense than the pap the two major parties are spewing, that the two majors know they would have serious problems.

Maybe. We had 7 Presidential candidates here in CT, and I doubt if any of them would generate much support, as most of the 174 towns are conservative and the 6 cities are run by the Democratic machines....


I have hope for you, really.
Take the test @ ww.lp.org


Yeah, that's what Sister Mary Richard used to say, too.
I took the 7 or 9 point litmus test when I visited the University of Connecticut dairty barn in September. (BTW, they have the best milkshakes in the known universe, and I've been to 87.54% of all sectors. Watch out for the Ferrengi in sector 389!)
Anyway, I hit on 2, was neutral on 2, and felt the rest were issues I just didn't care much about. I'll give it a whirl later tonight. Lunch time is almost over. :)


Agreed, but I just don't think this is the way to go about it. We also nee to fees up and take responsibility for the actions that we did in the past that has prolonged and aggravated this war.

Exactly. We made Hussein, and now we've unmade him. And we're cleaning up our own mess.


'An eye for an eye wil make the world blind.' - Mahatma Ghandi. I can't go with you there. I can say 'live and let live'.

Yeah. And look where that got him. :(


But our current energy policies and politics are pushing us even further into oil dependence and not putting a priority on getting us off of our fossil fuel addiction. And, it didn't take a hundred years to get where we are not with engine technology. There were highly efficient engine designs as early as the 1940's. These were scrapped for larger more powerful and inefficent engines at the behest of the oil companies.

Right. The real steam engine came out in 1802.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_engine
It took pagers 18 years to get from doctors in the 1978 to everyone in 1996!

I am not defending the oil companies here, but often in life, the cheaper solution wins. Otherwise Betamax would have beaten VHS.


I never said isolationist. I said to forgo military involvment and military aid in many of the developing nations we deal with. We should close the Army School of the America's. End the stupid war on drugs and start to move to a position of economic availability. We should be militarily isolationist, but open for business.

Ah. You mean ISOLATIONISM. :D
Look... the whole point of International Politics is to resolve issues with other nations. If you do what you're suggesting, you're going to be the punchingbag of the planet. *Everyone* plays this game. Why do you think the French are in the Ivory Coast? The Chinese in Tibet?


But damaged enough so that they couldn't get it back up and running. By the way, the Bush administration consisitently called chemical weapons 'WMD' and they're not, the administration knows they're not and used the ignorance of the American people to get approval to further their 'Pax Americana' agenda.

That's politics.
Yes, I know that's very jaded of me.


Start here. I thouroughly believe that our use of force overseas to assist bery large and powerful corporations has led us to the path were on now.

It's also kept the economy humming along.
Yes, I know that's very jaded of me.


'There is no path to peace, the path IS peace' -- Dalai Lama

Yeah, and look where HE is today. Very likely he'll have no successor, at least not one that isn't a Communist puppet.
Face it, when it comes down to it, force is the final arbiter in this world. And Tibet is the perfect example of how NOT to fight Communism. If they behaved more like Solidarity or Charter 77, they might win someday.
As it stands, they're "also rans" in world history, like the Etruscians or Hittites.

Actually there are at least as many if not more europeans working in Saudi than americans. Most of those jobs are highly technical in nature and the Saudi schools ain't exactly up to snuff. Combine that with the complete subjugation of half their workforce and it's a recipe for disaster.

Well, that's kinda my point, it's not Saudsi's doing the work and getting paid, it's foreigners.

Poverty, illiteracy, religion and oppression are almost always a deadly combination.

Yeah, and look where HE is today. Very likely he'll have no successor, at least not one that isn't a Communist puppet.
Face it, when it comes down to it, force is the final arbiter in this world. And Tibet is the perfect example of how NOT to fight Communism. If they behaved more like Solidarity or Charter 77, they might win someday.
As it stands, they're "also rans" in world history, like the Etruscians or Hittites.
Going the way of Angkor Wat. Basically a completely peaceful city that was sacked by barbarians because in the end the priests wouldn't allow the rest of the populace to defend them. Ain't life a bitch.

Sorry, but the death penalty is NOT a CC issue only. There are MANY people of many religions that are pro or against it. Me? I'm for it as it is no more cruel than the offense it is being used to correct for. For example, a quadruple arson murder. It is also not unusual -- in most cases where the death penalty is to be used, the criminals CAUSED death....

First, of course the Dalai Lama will have a successor. He is his own successor. His full title is: His Holiness, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama. This is his 14th time around.

I can sum up our differences in a couple of statements:

I don't believe in war except in a very very few explicit cases. It is expensive, it is destructive, and it takes generations for the anger to subside after it's over with. As far as the gun control, international politics issue is concerned, I think the Swiss have it right. The Swiss have a small country, but a powerhouse economy based on banking and engineering. Because of their gun policy, the Germans marched around Switzerland in WWII. Of course they have had corruption problems, but so have we.

I do believe in individual freedom and the sanctity of life. The current course of the US Government led by Republicans does not share those beliefs in my opinion. I cannot support the death penalty. I cannot support a war based on false pretenses and I will not support any policies that oppress peoples in other lands for our benefit or goals, as has been done in S. America or the Middle East.

Abstinence only education or the creationism education are examples of fundamentalists creeping into schools. You are either for the seperation of church and state, both subtle and overt of you are not. I am for the separation of church and state, because my beliefs and the beliefs I want to reflect on my children may or may not be shared by those of other religions. I want children to be taught language, math and science in school based on the latest scientific theory, not religious dogma.

You're talking to a dyed in the wool Libertarian. And you're going to have a hard time convincing me that any type of military force is necessary. You're also going to have a hard time convincing me that 'pre-emptive' action is going to solve anything.

Peace through superior economics. That will always be the answer. The founders of our country knew that over 200 years ago, and it hold true today, more than ever.

And would you call that a good or a bad thing?



Ah, so this is a class issue for you. I can’t help you there, as I don’t believe in such things.
However, my point with “the list” was that they were/are ALL perpetrated by Islamic militants.



“The 3rd World getting its own back”? Bullocks. In a world that is civilized, such actions are attacks on civilization itself! This is unconscionable.

Your example fails immediately, BTW.
Note that ALL of these terrorist nations are Islamic in nature, and none of them are not. Angola does not blow up discotecs in Germany. You don’t see Laotians flying planes into buildings.
If it was a true class struggle, it’d be sub-Saharan Africa (and not the Middle East, which is not 3rd World per se… Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Palestine… these are all 2nd world nations. Yet a 3rd world Islamic nation like Chad doesn’t produce very many terrorists!



I’ve stolen nothing from nobody. My father escaped Czechoslovakia in 1969. If you want to make my guilty by association for being an American… then you give me carte blanc to go after ALL Islamics, not just the terrorist militants. (Which I do NOT want to do!)

And how has the west kept Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran in poverty? These are rich nations! Why aren't the Central Africans or Senegalese taking hostages?
It doesn't wash.



So instead of complaining to management (the UN?), or confronting me with a lawsuit or grievence, he starts pummelling me. Or, rather, he finds my nephew or son and blows up his car.
Sorry, I don't see that as a way a planet can retain civility.



Not MY way of life. As I've said, I don’t want to see them suddenly watching Friends, wearing Tommy Hilfinger and eating McDonalds.

But I expect them, if they want to live in peace, to FOLLOW THE RULE OF LAW. That means no terrorism.
I likewise find the poisoning of the Ukrainian Presidential Candidate to be not only illegal, but also a terrorist act. Those who did this must be caught and brought to justice.

So, if we should negotiate with terrorists, should we also negotiate with the "Antichrists"? Should people like Milosovich not be tried? How about Mguabe or Saddam Hussein? Hitler? Pol Pot? Stalin?
It works out to the same thing -- you begin negotiations with people that consciously work to destroy cilvilization. They don't value your side worth spit! They want to DESTROY you and your whole culture and style of life... in fact, everyone that does have THEIR style of life!



Ah, but there is proof to the contrary:
The Japanese didn’t stop Kendo to start fencing. They didn’t give up Bento boxes for “super value meals”. The Germans aren’t playing American Football instead of Soccer (Football). And they certainly haven’t given up snitzel for pizza. I haven't seen many Baseball fields in England, either. :)

(This is not to say any of these things don’t exist in these nations, it just shows that Americans don’t force people to change… they tend to do it by themselves.


i think you got the order of your quotes mixed up? never mind, ill do my best.

i would say the west holding its culture and ideals dear is an extremely bad thing, as i am a socialist and environmentalist living in a culture of capitalism and waste. but this doesent mean i want the people killed. just the system.

i dont just think this is a class issue, the entire world is a class issue for me. yes they were all committed by islamic militants. i didnt really understand this bit.

i think it is the third world getting its own back. as long as we allow the situation in sub sahaelian africa (and poverty around the world) to continue, we can never, and should never call ourselves civilised. rich, yes, but civilised, no. they are not the same thing.

which example?
i think the reason that the vast majority of trrrsts come from islamic areas is that usually these areas are not quite as poor as the nations of africa. therefore i think they have more time to concentrate on being trrrsts rather than growing food and finding firewood. i admit this is a shakey theory, but its the only reason that i can think of. i dont think this is a religious struggle, it is just enflamed by religion.

i dont think we are to blame for these peoples troubles, i believe that it is the ruling classes and the system we imposed on them. and that we have biased the system into our favour.

did the allies have backing from the UN when they invaded iraq?
indeed, fighting is not a way to retain any sense of civility we have.

i know YOU dont, i dont either, i was taking the west as a whole. yes it means no terrorism, but it also means no poverty and aggression from the richer nations.

i didnt mean that we should negotiate with the actual terrorists, but if we concentrated more on solving the problem at its source, then there would be no trrrsts to negotiate (or not) with.

as for the destruction of my culture, i want to destroy my culture.

yes, i know none of these things happened, but i was thinking of an intire change of system.

First, of course the Dalai Lama will have a successor. He is his own successor. His full title is: His Holiness, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama. This is his 14th time around.

Right... Listen, I'm not looking to belittle anyone's faith here, but as a non-Believer (and one who's heard very, very often about Jesus's Roman Centurion father, etc...), how about this: the person who *was* before they become Dali Lama.
There have been, I believe, multiple Lamas at the same time before, no? Just like the Catholic Church had it's Avingnon Popes?

I can sum up our differences in a couple of statements:

Go for it, you'll probably be in the ballpark! :)

I don't believe in war except in a very very few explicit cases. It is expensive, it is destructive, and it takes generations for the anger to subside after it's over with. As far as the gun control, international politics issue is concerned, I think the Swiss have it right. The Swiss have a small country, but a powerhouse economy based on banking and engineering. Because of their gun policy, the Germans marched around Switzerland in WWII. Of course they have had corruption problems, but so have we.

That's fine, until war is brought to you. Belgium has never asked to be invaded, for example. Poland wishes everyone would take the Mediterreanian route. And let's not even talk about what used to be Jugoslavia...
Life is indeed easier when you get to choose your duties and obligations.

And of course, based on Nazi gold the Swiss got to keep.
Agreed. Corruption occurs anywhere you have goods.

I do believe in individual freedom and the sanctity of life. The current course of the US Government led by Republicans does not share those beliefs in my opinion. I cannot support the death penalty. I cannot support a war based on false pretenses and I will not support any policies that oppress peoples in other lands for our benefit or goals, as has been done in S. America or the Middle East.

The Death Penalty has been around since Og ruled that Grog killed Thod for no good reason.

Ah. You realize of course that the School of the Americas has been around since 1946 (Truman, Democrat), renamed SoA under Kennedy (a Democrat) and was never shut down by any President, ever?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_americas

Carter's Middle Eastern policy got our Embassy taken and hostages held for 444 days. Clinton meddled in Somalia and we had the joy of the pictures of seeing our guys pulled through the steets as they were denied real air support and tanks by that President.

Basically, nobody in office runs it perfectly. Or even 80%.
But I'm not convinced a Lib candidate would make any better or worse decisions. Sorry, that's just how it seems to me.


Abstinence only education or the creationism education are examples of fundamentalists creeping into schools.

There is no school system teaching only creationism. And, btw, it's the Theory of Evolution. When it gets made into the Law of Evolution, that'll settle it. Same way we don't have alternative theories on gravity these days.

You are either for the seperation of church and state, both subtle and overt of you are not. I am for the separation of church and state, because my beliefs and the beliefs I want to reflect on my children may or may not be shared by those of other religions. I want children to be taught language, math and science in school based on the latest scientific theory, not religious dogma.

Exactly true. Yet I fail to see how having creationism and evolution both taught is dogma. Consider the Papal Bull of 1302. Now THAT'S dogma! :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unam_Sanctam

So basically: You don't want your kids to be taught something alternative to what you believe. That doesn't sound any better to me than the CC mom who doesn't want her daughter to know about condoms.


You're talking to a dyed in the wool Libertarian. And you're going to have a hard time convincing me that any type of military force is necessary. You're also going to have a hard time convincing me that 'pre-emptive' action is going to solve anything.

You show me a time where peaceful means worked against an armed group bent upon the elimination of the other, and I'll listen. I can't think of a single time in history that it's worked. (NB: The British wanted to keep India as a piece of their Empire. They did not want to destroy the Indian way of life and eradicate all those who did not convert to the Church of England).
Me? I prefer America not to go quietly into the gas chamber.


Peace through superior economics. That will always be the answer. The founders of our country knew that over 200 years ago, and it hold true today, more than ever.

And it's totally unworkable. These people do not want money. They do not want a better life for themselves. They want riteousness in their mind's eye, and to kill the infidel.
It wouldn't have worked against the Communists, Nazis, or even the Anarchists. It won't work here, either... because it has that little flaw: people inherently don't want to be told by outsiders that they need help.

i think you got the order of your quotes mixed up? never mind, ill do my best.

Well, if somebody would also quote by the line, it'd be easier. ;)

i would say the west holding its culture and ideals dear is an extremely bad thing, as i am a socialist and environmentalist living in a culture of capitalism and waste. but this doesent mean i want the people killed. just the system.


Aha. So once you take power, you're going to destroy Shakespeare's Theatre, Big Ben/Parliament, the BA Eye and the stock market?
To me, that's the waste.
I won't even go into how when everyone is paid to do a job how it quickly turns into a case of "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us"...

i dont just think this is a class issue, the entire world is a class issue for me. yes they were all committed by islamic militants. i didnt really understand this bit.

Look at it this way: Your example fails in so much that you're trying to prove terrorism is an economic effect, whereas it's a dogmatic one. The truely poor nations of the Earth are NOT where the terrorists are from!


i think it is the third world getting its own back. as long as we allow the situation in sub sahaelian africa (and poverty around the world) to continue, we can never, and should never call ourselves civilised. rich, yes, but civilised, no. they are not the same thing.

Aha. So it's uncivilized to let somebody go poor, and therefore it's okay for them to kill innocent people because they're part of a nation that lent money to their nation, which squandered it?
Sorry, I think that's a tough sell. And I call it Barbarism.

Also: Name a single act of terrorism ever carried out against the West by a non-Islamic radical.


which example?
i think the reason that the vast majority of trrrsts come from islamic areas is that usually these areas are not quite as poor as the nations of africa. therefore i think they have more time to concentrate on being trrrsts rather than growing food and finding firewood. i admit this is a shakey theory, but its the only reason that i can think of. i dont think this is a religious struggle, it is just enflamed by religion.

Aha. So you're insinuating that things are so bad in Chad that people are living on substinance levels, whereas people in Yemen are able to have the "leisure time" to learn to become tErrOrIsts?
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

Chad purchasing power parity - $1,200 (2004 est.)
Yemen purchasing power parity - $800 (2004 est.)

... and I can make examples like these all day long.
Heck, if you'll spot me a grand:
South Africa purchasing power parity - $10,700 (2004 est.)
Saudi Arabian purchasing power parity - $11,800 (2004 est.)

It's clearly NOT (just) an economic thing! Sure, the guys who blow themselves up in Palestine do it for the money for their families... and for the glory they think they'll get as well as the 72 virgins in the afterlife!

Let me ask you another one: The terrorism that was in Northern Ireland. Was it not religious in nature?
How about the gas attack in the Japanese subway by the cult?


i dont think we are to blame for these peoples troubles, i believe that it is the ruling classes and the system we imposed on them. and that we have biased the system into our favour.

You mean, the system that we live in? Ah, how horrible for these nations to have to try to work according to the same rules the whole world operates in.
(Sorry man, I think you're being utopian here.)

BTW, we, the people ARE the government.

did the allies have backing from the UN when they invaded iraq?
indeed, fighting is not a way to retain any sense of civility we have.

If the rest of the Security Council & Mr. Annan weren't making money hand over fist in the Oil for Food scam, they might have joined us.
Helping a dictator to kill his own people is not a way to retain any sense of civility.

i know YOU dont, i dont either, i was taking the west as a whole. yes it means no terrorism, but it also means no poverty and aggression from the richer nations.

Why no poverty? Because you don't like it?
As long as there is money, there will be rich and poor. Even in Sweden they have this phenomenon.
What aggression?

i didnt mean that we should negotiate with the actual terrorists, but if we concentrated more on solving the problem at its source, then there would be no trrrsts to negotiate (or not) with.

What source? Poverty? You still have yet to prove that poverty causes terrorism. :)


as for the destruction of my culture, i want to destroy my culture.

Then I wish you luck, but I think you're missing the boat. I almost think that you're suffering with guilt ala the hippies of the 60s who felt bad that they were dealt good cards in life.

yes, i know none of these things happened, but i was thinking of an intire change of system.

To what? A utopian world wide socialist paradise with no poverty, ala "Star Trek"? It's been tried before and has never worked out. Not even on a commune level for very long. People are inherently status based.

PS- I like debating you. You definitely have your own POV! :)

Also: Name a single act of terrorism ever carried out against the West by a non-Islamic radical.What counts as an act of terrorism carried out against the West? Does it count if it happens on the soil of a Western country against that Western country? In which case Oklahoma city bombing, IRA, ETA, etc. etc.

What counts as an act of terrorism carried out against the West? Does it count if it happens on the soil of a Western country against that Western country? In which case Oklahoma city bombing, IRA, ETA, etc. etc.

That is what I'm asking. His idea is that the 3rd world is using terrorism to fight somekind of class war. My point is that all terrorism is either politically or religiously based.

It has to be against a western asset. An embassy, an airline, a building, whatever.

None of the ones you list are economically based bombings, BTW. And none were done against Western Civilization, but are all based on religous or political grounds.

None of the ones you list are economically based bombings, BTW. And none were done against Western Civilization, but are all based on religous or political grounds.I wasn't actively following all the faeces being flung around here, so I only picked up on your challenge of pointing out terrorist attacks against the West that were not carried out by islamic extremists. Those were attacks against the West, and were not carried out by islamic anythings.

As for what "really" causes terrorism and why is it "really" used, those issues I won't touch with a 10-foot pole.

I've always wondered this.

Because liberals are far-left fascist extremists. :mad:

Well, if somebody would also quote by the line, it'd be easier. ;)


Aha. So once you take power, you're going to destroy Shakespeare's Theatre, Big Ben/Parliament, the BA Eye and the stock market?
To me, that's the waste.
I won't even go into how when everyone is paid to do a job how it quickly turns into a case of "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us"...


Look at it this way: Your example fails in so much that you're trying to prove terrorism is an economic effect, whereas it's a dogmatic one. The truely poor nations of the Earth are NOT where the terrorists are from!



Aha. So it's uncivilized to let somebody go poor, and therefore it's okay for them to kill innocent people because they're part of a nation that lent money to their nation, which squandered it?
Sorry, I think that's a tough sell. And I call it Barbarism.

Also: Name a single act of terrorism ever carried out against the West by a non-Islamic radical.



Aha. So you're insinuating that things are so bad in Chad that people are living on substinance levels, whereas people in Yemen are able to have the "leisure time" to learn to become tErrOrIsts?
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

Chad purchasing power parity - $1,200 (2004 est.)
Yemen purchasing power parity - $800 (2004 est.)

... and I can make examples like these all day long.
Heck, if you'll spot me a grand:
South Africa purchasing power parity - $10,700 (2004 est.)
Saudi Arabian purchasing power parity - $11,800 (2004 est.)

It's clearly NOT (just) an economic thing! Sure, the guys who blow themselves up in Palestine do it for the money for their families... and for the glory they think they'll get as well as the 72 virgins in the afterlife!

Let me ask you another one: The terrorism that was in Northern Ireland. Was it not religious in nature?
How about the gas attack in the Japanese subway by the cult?



You mean, the system that we live in? Ah, how horrible for these nations to have to try to work according to the same rules the whole world operates in.
(Sorry man, I think you're being utopian here.)

BTW, we, the people ARE the government.


If the rest of the Security Council & Mr. Annan weren't making money hand over fist in the Oil for Food scam, they might have joined us.
Helping a dictator to kill his own people is not a way to retain any sense of civility.


Why no poverty? Because you don't like it?
As long as there is money, there will be rich and poor. Even in Sweden they have this phenomenon.
What aggression?


What source? Poverty? You still have yet to prove that poverty causes terrorism. :)



Then I wish you luck, but I think you're missing the boat. I almost think that you're suffering with guilt ala the hippies of the 60s who felt bad that they were dealt good cards in life.


To what? A utopian world wide socialist paradise with no poverty, ala "Star Trek"? It's been tried before and has never worked out. Not even on a commune level for very long. People are inherently status based.

PS- I like debating you. You definitely have your own POV! :)

yeah ok clever clogs, i cant be bothered to try to work out how to do this fancy stuff.

the stock market, yes, the other stuff, no. to me the waste is oppertunistic capitalism, and the idea that everyone should get rich quick and stuff the consequences. because there will be no world for our children to get rich quick in if we subscribe to this idea.

no they are not from the Lower Economically Less Developed Countries, but they are from the Less Economically Developed Countries. people from the LELDCs have to concentrate on purely surviving, where as those from LEDCs do have more time to concetrate on getting theyre own back. prior to the russian revolution, lenin always said that the revolution would have to come from the middle classes because the working classes would not be able to carry out a revolution. taken up a level, we are the oppresive ruling classes, the LEDCs are the middle classes and the LELDCs are the working classes.

ok, let me say i am enirely against violence, like i said, violent people are criminals. the trrrsts themselves shouldbe punished. my view is that it is poverty that CAUSES trrrsm, not that it EXCUSES it.

i cant name an act of trrrr that wasnt caused by the west or by the islamic militants, because of what i said above. of course, the religion is now a major part of trrrsm, but the root cause is poverty. of this i am in no doubt.

that is EXACTLY what i am insinuating.

no it is not just an economic thing, especially not to every individual trrst, where religious propoganda comes into play. it is an economic thing to the leaders of trrsts groups, who are just as bad as western capitalists, becasue they are jealous of our wealth and power, and they want some of this. the only way they can possibly get to anywhere near the wealth of our ruling classes is through violence. this (justified) greed trickles down to the lower members of the groups. if you lived as a normal person in iraq, would you not be jealous of the people in america with ipods?

trrrsm in northern ireland is about power. it just has a religious veil. and now i come to think of it i believe all religion to be about power and wealth.

surely the system only works for a small minority of people, i.e. the west? now why should we impose a system that works fine for us (in the short term) and leaves them out in the cold? yes i am being utopian, but why could we not make it work?

im pretty sure i have no say in what my country does, that was proved when i went on the anti war marches, just to be ignored. im also sure that its even worse in the USA.

ive heard of this oil for food thing, but i havent really read about it, sorry. and getting rid of saddam hussein was not what the war was said to be about. if it had of been, i would have been more acceptant of it.

i absolutely do not like poverty, do you?
yes, but does there really need to be, in this 'advanced era' people dieing of malnutrition? no. we can easily bring the rich and poor gap closer together.
the aggresion is the war on trrrrr.

you have yet to give a cause for trrrsm.....

i do feel guilty, i wish i could do more to stop it, but only if we work as a team will anything happen.

the only reason that communism has failed (it wasnt total comunism either) is that it was surrounded by capitalistshaviong a good time, and the leaders become power crazed.

yeah, i think this debate might last in a continuing stalemate until the end of the world. although i obviously cannot agree with you, i do have respect for you. unlike most right wingers, you seem to have thought about things.

yeah ok clever clogs, i cant be bothered to try to work out how to do this fancy stuff.

It's actually quite simple, and I have faith in your abilities. All you have to do is cut and paste the [=] flag at the beginning of a replied post in front of each "piece", then past the [/] quote from the end at the end of each piece, leaving room for your replies.

the stock market, yes, the other stuff, no. to me the waste is oppertunistic capitalism, and the idea that everyone should get rich quick and stuff the consequences. because there will be no world for our children to get rich quick in if we subscribe to this idea.

Getting rich quick is lucky. Getting rich is good planning.
By your rationale, there should never have been paper money, joint stock companies, or bonds, either. Never mind paid interest. Which means you'd never HAVE the other things, either.

no they are not from the Lower Economically Less Developed Countries, but they are from the Less Economically Developed Countries. people from the LELDCs have to concentrate on purely surviving, where as those from LEDCs do have more time to concetrate on getting theyre own back. prior to the russian revolution, lenin always said that the revolution would have to come from the middle classes because the working classes would not be able to carry out a revolution. taken up a level, we are the oppresive ruling classes, the LEDCs are the middle classes and the LELDCs are the working classes.

Actually, that's not quite right. Revolution only occurs when the middle class has something to fight for (a loss of status, a percieved wrong). This is how the American, French, Russian and all the Revolutions of 1848 started.

That said, however, it only works within a single nation. International class struggle didn't EVER happen before, and this is obviously not it, either. Even the spread of Communism was done with Nationalism, not in the International mode that Marx & Engles wanted/expected.
Or else, why aren't the Surinams and Romanias of the world taking revenge?
Fact is, you can't name a single non-Islamic state that has international terrorism.

ok, let me say i am enirely against violence, like i said, violent people are criminals. the trrrsts themselves shouldbe punished. my view is that it is poverty that CAUSES trrrsm, not that it EXCUSES it.

And you've yet to prove that poverty causes tErrOrIsm. So far, all you've posted has been your opinion (which I'm not saying you're not allowed to have!), but haven't given any examples of "economic based terrorism".

i cant name an act of trrrr that wasnt caused by the west or by the islamic militants, because of what i said above. of course, the religion is now a major part of trrrsm, but the root cause is poverty. of this i am in no doubt.

Can you name *any* time it has happened? I still must disagree that poverty is a root cause rather than a contributing/secondary or even terciary one!

that is EXACTLY what i am insinuating.

So.. IF (as you say) it's uncivilized to let somebody go poor, and therefore it's okay for them to kill innocent people because they're part of a nation that lent money to their nation, which squandered it... then you've got a problem.
Because now you're just saying that you want economic revolution and to destroy the world, without the "big, greedy" nations doing anything about it.

If that's your arguement, then I must point out that you're not seeking to redress wrongs, but to "level the playing field". This will not work, because some people are inherently more industrious then others. Unless you level the field every few years, you'll be back where you started before long.


no it is not just an economic thing, especially not to every individual trrst, where religious propoganda comes into play. it is an economic thing to the leaders of trrsts groups, who are just as bad as western capitalists, becasue they are jealous of our wealth and power, and they want some of this. the only way they can possibly get to anywhere near the wealth of our ruling classes is through violence. this (justified) greed trickles down to the lower members of the groups. if you lived as a normal person in iraq, would you not be jealous of the people in america with ipods?

I still point out that there is no "ruling class". Or is the guy living in the Bronx on $18,000/year an oppressor? :confused:
Shoot, are *you* an oppressor? ;)

Well, that cinques it up then, no? It's a matter of the "them" hating us for what we have. Guess what? That doesn't make flying airplanes into buildings right, either.

This is our divide: you believe that some nations are keeping other nations down. I believe that some nations are blessed by good geography and leaders and have pulled ahead.

trrrsm in northern ireland is about power. it just has a religious veil. and now i come to think of it i believe all religion to be about power and wealth.

It isn't about power. It's about religious intolerance.
That could be!

surely the system only works for a small minority of people, i.e. the west? now why should we impose a system that works fine for us (in the short term) and leaves them out in the cold? yes i am being utopian, but why could we not make it work?

Um, if that were true, then how do you explain the economies of Japan and South Korea? How do you explain China, Indonesia and even Vietnam today?
Futher, how about Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic? India?

Sorry, the capitalist system is an equal opportunity enricher.

WHAT leaves them out in the cold?
Each nation, just like each person in a society, must be responsible for their own welfare!

im pretty sure i have no say in what my country does, that was proved when i went on the anti war marches, just to be ignored. im also sure that its even worse in the USA.

Depends. But what I think people have lost sight of in today's "now now now" world, is that things aren't resolved in a 30 minute sitcom.

ive heard of this oil for food thing, but i havent really read about it, sorry. and getting rid of saddam hussein was not what the war was said to be about. if it had of been, i would have been more acceptant of it.

Here's a starter:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4015907.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4054851.stm
There are links to more stories as well.

i absolutely do not like poverty, do you?
yes, but does there really need to be, in this 'advanced era' people dieing of malnutrition? no. we can easily bring the rich and poor gap closer together.
the aggresion is the war on trrrrr.

Of course I don't LIKE poverty. I don't like bellbottoms, either. ;)
I'm with you that people should not be dying of malnutrition.
As for the gap between rich and poor, I'm not sure you can close the gap without being inherently unfair. Making the rich pay special taxes to redistribute wealth is no better than making a man work for no pay.
These things existed hundreds of years before the war on tErrOr. They'll likely exist long after it's a memory like the Crimean or Boer Wars are to us.

you have yet to give a cause for trrrsm.....

Fundamentalist clerics inciting violence in order to achieve their own ends. Pure and simple. Same way the Somali (and other African) warlords do. Only the warlords don't have a "bring down the US" agenda, (cf.) the Iranian Revolution.


i do feel guilty, i wish i could do more to stop it, but only if we work as a team will anything happen.

Right. Beat the terrorists by cutting off their funding, getting nations to not allow these training camps/religious schools, and killing or capturing the ones that exist. Just like we all did against the Nazis.

the only reason that communism has failed (it wasnt total comunism either) is that it was surrounded by capitalists haviong a good time, and the leaders become power crazed.

Not quite. I've been for 4 Communist nations in my life. Communism failed because quite simply it goes against 2 great truths:
a) Communism is not possible with currency. As long as you have an economy based on individual worth, it will fail.
b) People are inherently indowed with a desire to provide better for themselves and their children.

yeah, i think this debate might last in a continuing stalemate until the end of the world. although i obviously cannot agree with you, i do have respect for you. unlike most right wingers, you seem to have thought about things.

I'm not so much a right winger (at least, not in American terms) as I am a pragmatic.

Fact is, you can't name a single non-Islamic state that has international terrorism.I don't know about Taverham high, but Ireland's still there. A nationstate where the main religion is roman catholicism, and from where terrorists have attacked (at least) Northern Ireland and England.

Ugh.

This is officially the thread that wouldn't die.

I so don't care anymore. You Repubs draft all the youngsters you can and go try and fight everyone who looks at us funny. Just wait for me to get to my cabin in the mountains.

Ugh.

This is officially the thread that wouldn't die.

I so don't care anymore. You Repubs draft all the youngsters you can and go try and fight everyone who looks at us funny. Just wait for me to get to my cabin in the mountains.

Don't forget the reloading set. :D

Luckily, it hasn't got long before being banished for becoming too large.

I don't know about Taverham high, but Ireland's still there. A nationstate where the main religion is roman catholicism, and from where terrorists have attacked (at least) Northern Ireland and England.

That's less international terrorism than it is interfaith/political... but you do have a point that it can be viewed that way.

The difference is that the IRA does not want to kill every Briton they find. They just want them out of N. Ireland. Unlike, say, the Taleban, which wants the total destruction of Western Civilization and conversion of every man, woman and child.

IMHO, that's quite a difference.

It's actually quite simple, and I have faith in your abilities. All you have to do is cut and paste the [=] flag at the beginning of a replied post in front of each "piece", then past the [/] quote from the end at the end of each piece, leaving room for your replies.

ah yes, but blinking heck thats time consuming.


Getting rich quick is lucky. Getting rich is good planning.
By your rationale, there should never have been paper money, joint stock companies, or bonds, either. Never mind paid interest. Which means you'd never HAVE the other things, either.

hehe, the only reason i dont want to get rid of the other buildings is that they are interesting. they could be kept as monuments to capitalism. just like auschwitz.



Actually, that's not quite right. Revolution only occurs when the middle class has something to fight for (a loss of status, a percieved wrong). This is how the American, French, Russian and all the Revolutions of 1848 started.

well, by my reckoning, the middle classes do have something to fight for. all the money that rich people have.


That said, however, it only works within a single nation. International class struggle didn't EVER happen before, and this is obviously not it, either. Even the spread of Communism was done with Nationalism, not in the International mode that Marx & Engles wanted/expected.
Or else, why aren't the Surinams and Romanias of the world taking revenge?
Fact is, you can't name a single non-Islamic state that has international terrorism.

i would say that, for the normal people of the middle east, this is a class struggle, but for the leaders no, for they just want power and money.
i know i cant name a non islamic example of trrrrsm, but ive explained why before. although, it has just occured to me that the US and UK are trrrsts. there you go, the US and the UK commit international trrrsm.



And you've yet to prove that poverty causes tErrOrIsm. So far, all you've posted has been your opinion (which I'm not saying you're not allowed to have!), but haven't given any examples of "economic based terrorism".

no i cant give you detailed examples because it is my theory. the evidence is the current situation. my theory ties in with this.


Can you name *any* time it has happened? I still must disagree that poverty is a root cause rather than a contributing/secondary or even terciary one!

yes, now. as above, i believe that the root cause of trrsm is poverty. its just not the right way to go about becoming affluent.


So.. IF (as you say) it's uncivilized to let somebody go poor, and therefore it's okay for them to kill innocent people because they're part of a nation that lent money to their nation, which squandered it... then you've got a problem.
Because now you're just saying that you want economic revolution and to destroy the world, without the "big, greedy" nations doing anything about it.

ok, i made clear my position on trrrsm itself. i dont want an economic revolution, i want a social revolution, where people in the west become alot more humane. because, again, if we want to preach to these people about being civilised, we cannot perpatrate incivil behaviour ourselves.


If that's your arguement, then I must point out that you're not seeking to redress wrongs, but to "level the playing field". This will not work, because some people are inherently more industrious then others. Unless you level the field every few years, you'll be back where you started before long.

im not sure that they are, and if that is true, does that mean that capitalism itself is entirely unfair?



I still point out that there is no "ruling class". Or is the guy living in the Bronx on $18,000/year an oppressor? :confused:
Shoot, are *you* an oppressor? ;)

there is a ruling class, it is the CEOs and their helpers the politicians. we are in the same position as the people in africa, its just they treat us slightly better so that we dont revolt. hes not an oppressor, im not an oppressor, youre not an oppressor. in capitalism, the only people who arent oppressed are the owners and CEOs.


Well, that cinques it up then, no? It's a matter of the "them" hating us for what we have. Guess what? That doesn't make flying airplanes into buildings right, either.

no it doesent, ive already stated that. but is it ok for big powerful america to bomb them?


This is our divide: you believe that some nations are keeping other nations down. I believe that some nations are blessed by good geography and leaders and have pulled ahead.

but then in that case what chance does sub sahelian africa ever stand?


It isn't about power. It's about religious intolerance.
That could be!

well if it does be (?), then surely my arguement has some significance?


Um, if that were true, then how do you explain the economies of Japan and South Korea? How do you explain China, Indonesia and even Vietnam today?
Futher, how about Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic? India?

japan, south korea and probably poland are in the west (or 'north'). the others are emergent economies, now becoming affluent. but i dont think capitalism is sustainable, but we still love it.


Sorry, the capitalist system is an equal opportunity enricher.

capitalism is simply NOT equal oppertunities. does a person born in chad have the same chance of 'succeeding' as me? no. if it is anything, its an extremely unfair system with a tiny minority having the most of the wealth.


WHAT leaves them out in the cold?
Each nation, just like each person in a society, must be responsible for their own welfare!

but how can chad ever hope to become as affluent as the west if the west holds all the power and wealth?


Here's a starter:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4015907.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4054851.stm
There are links to more stories as well.

of those articles, it said how saddam hussein made money from fraud against the UN, did it not? and the second one said how kofi annans SON wa spart of this. this has nothing to do with the UN.


Of course I don't LIKE poverty. I don't like bellbottoms, either. ;)
I'm with you that people should not be dying of malnutrition.
As for the gap between rich and poor, I'm not sure you can close the gap without being inherently unfair. Making the rich pay special taxes to redistribute wealth is no better than making a man work for no pay.
These things existed hundreds of years before the war on tErrOr. They'll likely exist long after it's a memory like the Crimean or Boer Wars are to us.

just because theyve existed forever doesnt mean we have to keep them now. in fact doesnt it show that theyre not working and need to be replaced?


Fundamentalist clerics inciting violence in order to achieve their own ends. Pure and simple. Same way the Somali (and other African) warlords do. Only the warlords don't have a "bring down the US" agenda, (cf.) the Iranian Revolution.

surely this agrees with my arguement?


Right. Beat the terrorists by cutting off their funding, getting nations to not allow these training camps/religious schools, and killing or capturing the ones that exist. Just like we all did against the Nazis.

i was talking about stopping poverty, because then trrrsm will stop.


Not quite. I've been for 4 Communist nations in my life. Communism failed because quite simply it goes against 2 great truths:
a) Communism is not possible with currency. As long as you have an economy based on individual worth, it will fail.
b) People are inherently indowed with a desire to provide better for themselves and their children.

well ok then, when we abandon capitalism (and i am ABSOLUTELY sure this will happen, but possibly not if the world is uninhabitable soon.) we must eradicate these two things.


I'm not so much a right winger (at least, not in American terms) as I am a pragmatic.

well ok then, to the right of me.

That's less international terrorism than it is interfaith/political... but you do have a point that it can be viewed that way.My understanding of "international terrorism" isn't that the object of the terrorist group is to attack a particular foreign nation and its citizens more or less because it happens to be that particular foreign nations and it happens to have citizens. You'd have a better basis arguing that most of islamic extremist terrorists have nothing to do with international terrorism, because they attack people of different political/social views/faiths in their own countries, or at least countries they perceive to be their own.

In my view, there absolutely is international terrorism based in the Republic of Ireland, because terrorist organizations based there carry out terrorist attacks in foreign nations.

The difference is that the IRA does not want to kill every Briton they find. They just want them out of N. Ireland. Unlike, say, the Taleban, which wants the total destruction of Western Civilization and conversion of every man, woman and child.

IMHO, that's quite a difference.In ideology, yes it is quite a difference. In practice though, why is it that different? Let's say islamic terrorists "just" wanted USA out of, I dunno, Hawaii and Alaska? Would 9/11 then somehow be "less terrorism" or something?

My understanding of "international terrorism" isn't that the object of the terrorist group is to attack a particular foreign nation and its citizens more or less because it happens to be that particular foreign nations and it happens to have citizens.
Then why has no one attacked Japan? The whole concept of international terrorism is most CERTAINLY that they're aiming for particular nations. There's a reason Canadians sew those flags into their backpacks when they're travelling, and it isn't just because they like needlepoint!


You'd have a better basis arguing that most of islamic extremist terrorists have nothing to do with international terrorism, because they attack people of different political/social views/faiths in their own countries, or at least countries they perceive to be their own.


No they don't. They attack people of different p/s/f in other countries. Very, very few terrorists actually do anything within their OWN nations, as they'd easily go to jail. Bin Laden is a Saudi, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is Kuwaiti...
Most of the terrorists in Iraq are foreigners, drawn to "jihad" like moths to the flame.


In my view, there absolutely is international terrorism based in the Republic of Ireland, because terrorist organizations based there carry out terrorist attacks in foreign nations.

I'm not sure about that. I'd wager that the majority of the IRA's work is done in Ireland. Northern Ireland is only foreign to the IRA if you're British. ;)


In ideology, yes it is quite a difference. In practice though, why is it that different? Let's say islamic terrorists "just" wanted USA out of, I dunno, Hawaii and Alaska? Would 9/11 then somehow be "less terrorism" or something?

Depends. Do the terrorists own Hawaii and Alaska? :D
Of course not. But as I've said, the IRA won't kill you just for being British. They might rough you up and threaten you, but won't just shoot you on princple, unlike, say, all the dead humanitarian aid workers in Iraq.

ah yes, but blinking heck thats time consuming.

Yes, but it's considerate and *so* much easier to read.


hehe, the only reason i dont want to get rid of the other buildings is that they are interesting. they could be kept as monuments to capitalism. just like auschwitz.

Dude, that's bad. I've BEEN to Auschwitz, and it is NOT a monument to anything except insanity. The place is simply horrible beyond words.


well, by my reckoning, the middle classes do have something to fight for. all the money that rich people have.

Cute idea, but in general, the middle class USUALLY advances over time. For example, you'll find a middle class 2004 Brit is much better off in terms of almost everything (lifestyle, diet, transport, whatever) than his great grandfather was. This is not USUALLY true of the poor.
The great riddle of the middle class is that the middle class will only fight when it feels threatened into becoming the lower class.


i would say that, for the normal people of the middle east, this is a class struggle, but for the leaders no, for they just want power and money.
i know i cant name a non islamic example of trrrrsm, but ive explained why before. although, it has just occured to me that the US and UK are trrrsts. there you go, the US and the UK commit international trrrsm.

I have to still disagree. Otherwise, they'd be killing their own mullahs and declaring a Communist state. Seriously! Read up a bit on the United Arab Emirates and tell me that it wouldn't be a VERY easy Communism to run as opposed to... Bulgaria.

Really.
This seems to me a bit of calling the guy working two jobs to keep food on the table a bad father for never spending time with the kids.
I'm not saying you have to wave the flag and support everything like a robot. But that's really beyond the pale.


no i cant give you detailed examples because it is my theory. the evidence is the current situation. my theory ties in with this.

If you can't give detailed examples to your theory, it's not a theory but a belief. :)

Okay, let me ask you this: ever hear of Pavlov's dog?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov
You're putting an end effect to a situation that does not have any bearing on it. Like the dog salivating when you ring a bell.

Or perhaps, a better example:
(C) Monty Python and the Holy Grail
BEDEMIR: Quiet, quiet. Quiet! There are ways of telling whether
she is a witch.
CROWD: Are there? What are they?
BEDEMIR: Tell me, what do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2: Burn!
CROWD: Burn, burn them up!
BEDEMIR: And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1: More witches!
VILLAGER #2: Wood!
BEDEMIR: So, why do witches burn?
[pause]
VILLAGER #3: B--... 'cause they're made of wood...?
BEDEMIR: Good!
CROWD: Oh yeah, yeah...
BEDEMIR: So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEMIR: Aah, but can you not also build bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #2: Oh, yeah.
BEDEMIR: Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1: No, no.
VILLAGER #2: It floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1: Throw her into the pond!
CROWD: The pond!
BEDEMIR: What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1: Bread! VILLAGER #2: Apples! VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1: Cider! VILLAGER #2: Great gravy! VILLAGER #1: Cherries!
VILLAGER #2: Mud! VILLAGER #3: Churches -- churches!
VILLAGER #2: Lead -- lead!
ARTHUR: A duck.
CROWD: Oooh.
BEDEMIR: Exactly! So, logically...,
VILLAGER #1: If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of
wood.
BEDEMIR: And therefore--?
VILLAGER #1: A witch!
CROWD: A witch!
BEDEMIR: We shall use my largest scales!


yes, now. as above, i believe that the root cause of trrsm is poverty. its just not the right way to go about becoming affluent.

You are correct: terrorism is not the right way to go about becoming affluent.
But right now, to me you're only saying that witches burn because they are made out of wood. It *might* be true, but... :)
What do you mean, "yes, now"? You're pointing to the post 9/11 world as a result of poverty?
I'm sorry, but I can rattle off dozens of places poorer that are not terroristic, and even more times when people were poorer and DID not go terroristic.


ok, i made clear my position on trrrsm itself. i dont want an economic revolution, i want a social revolution, where people in the west become alot more humane. because, again, if we want to preach to these people about being civilised, we cannot perpatrate incivil behaviour ourselves.

The two tend to go hand in hand.
More humane? Incivil behaviour? Like what? :confused:



im not sure that they are, and if that is true, does that mean that capitalism itself is entirely unfair?

OF COURSE it's unfair. Life is unfair. You're not the same as everybody else. You might be faster or slower, smarter or dumber, better or worse looking. An equal society is one where everyone can COMPETE on their own MERITS, not where everyone is kept in a perfect line!
However, it's not entirely unfair. Not at all. It just forces you to work with what you've been dealt with.


there is a ruling class, it is the CEOs and their helpers the politicians. we are in the same position as the people in africa, its just they treat us slightly better so that we dont revolt. hes not an oppressor, im not an oppressor, youre not an oppressor. in capitalism, the only people who arent oppressed are the owners and CEOs.

Um... no. We are *not* in a Plutocracy, Timocracy, or even a Corporatism.
Want proof? The same rules that apply to you and me apply to rich people. Martha Stewart went to jail. GE had to clean up the mess they made on the Hudson River.
Beyond that: How on Earth are you and I oppressed? I go where I want, do what I want, and say what I want...

While this does tie into your "give the "excess" of the West away" idealism, it's not really the way it is, at least from my (and I daresay) most of our chairs.


no it doesent, ive already stated that. but is it ok for big powerful america to bomb them?

So we agree that it's wrong for them to fly planes into buildings.
Ipso facto, it HAS to be okay for us to bomb them in retaliation. If a 12 year old punk comes up to you and whacks you in the head, do you just let him get away with it?


but then in that case what chance does sub saharian africa ever stand?

Without solid leadership, right where they are now: screwed.
And no, I don't consider that to be my problem.


well if it does be (?), then surely my arguement has some significance?

Of course it does. Your whole argeument has signifigance. I've never said you're wrong, you'll note. I've said I've disagreed with you, and that I think you're off on some points. But I'm also doing this with the benefit of 31 years of age. I have no desire to correct you, as it wouldn't work anyway. What I *am* trying to do is to show that all this is NOT black and white, and you may not quite have it worked out yet. Lord knows I don't.


japan, south korea and probably poland are in the west (or 'north'). the others are emergent economies, now becoming affluent. but i dont think capitalism is sustainable, but we still love it.

But they are *all* nations that were previously NOT democratic/republics that had capitalism, and they're thriving. Japan alone has been thriving for 50 years.
Capitalism must be sustainable, if only because it buried Communism, National Socialism, Mercantilism, Monarchy, and Imperialism. :)

BTW- the other reason it's sustainable is because over time, the population CHANGES. Consider your life. Sure, there are things from your family's past around. But most of them haven't survived. Odds are very much against your folks still having their first washing machine (or car, or whatever).


capitalism is simply NOT equal oppertunities. does a person born in chad have the same chance of 'succeeding' as me? no. if it is anything, its an extremely unfair system with a tiny minority having the most of the wealth.

I never said it was. I said it was an "equal opportunity enricher". The system doesn't care who or what you are, just that you can do X at time Y and get rewarded with Z.
Actually, yes, IF that Chadian gets *out* of Chad. Or are you saying that the random Chadian isn't as good as you? ;)
Seriously. You'll never make the whole world equal in the way you're thinking. The west could give Chad a trillion bucks tomorrow, but it wouldn't help -- it's a matter of having good leadership shephard the nations assets well. And that's clearly not happening since de-colonialization started in the 50s.


but how can chad ever hope to become as affluent as the west if the west holds all the power and wealth?

How did India break away from England? How did *IRELAND* of all places become an economic power? It takes solid leadership and a building process over years. If someone came up to my friend's father (he's from Cork) and told him Ireland would be where it is today, he'd not take the bet at 100-1 odds.


of those articles, it said how saddam hussein made money from fraud against the UN, did it not? and the second one said how kofi annans SON wa spart of this. this has nothing to do with the UN.

Those are just the 10,000 foot view. The UN has CLASSIFIED all of it's own documents on this scandal. :(


just because theyve existed forever doesnt mean we have to keep them now. in fact doesnt it show that theyre not working and need to be replaced?

So what is the solution? Just taking from "the rich" and giving it way won't do anything except slow the world economy down: there's no reason to work.
This is why Communism failed.
So what needs replacing?


surely this agrees with my arguement?

It agrees that radicals are inciting the Islams to commit terrorist acts. It does NOT bear out that they do so because they're broke.


i was talking about stopping poverty, because then trrrsm will stop.

Not on your life. How about the Basques or IRA? Have they stopped? :(
Poverty and terrorism are NOT inherently linked! Otherwise, the very poor of our OWN nations would be blowing up banks!


well ok then, when we abandon capitalism (and i am ABSOLUTELY sure this will happen, but possibly not if the world is uninhabitable soon.) we must eradicate these two things.

Aha. Eradicate currency? So you're going back to the barter system? I'd sure love to live in that world. "Hey Charlie! I have 6 fish! Can you trade me a razor, and four 2x6 boards for them?"
The only other way is to have so much of everything, that nothing has any value. This MIGHT happen some day, but it's at least ten generations away from us today.

Destroy people's love for their children? Have you gone nutter on me?!?


well ok then, to the right of me.

My friend, I have a suspicion that even Jane Fonda might be to the right of you on some issues. ;)

The whole concept of international terrorism is most CERTAINLY that they're aiming for particular nations.You were saying IRA operating from the Republic of Ireland doesn't count as international terrorism because they attack England because of something else than England being full of the English. My point was that, strictly for figuring out if it counts as international terrorism, it doesn't matter why those attacks are carried out. Terrorist organization from one nation carries out terrorist attacks in another nation = international terrorism.

Very, very few terrorists actually do anything within their OWN nations, as they'd easily go to jail. Bin Laden is a Saudi, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is Kuwaiti...First, I did say "or at least countries they perceive to be their own" -- and they tend to view at least the whole of the islamic Middle East as "their country."

Second, maybe you've missed all the news about the islamic extremists (under the banner of Al-Qaeda, for example) carrying out all those terrorist attacks in Saudi-Arabia (here are a few of the recent ones (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3760099.stm)), but terrorist attacks in that area by islamic extremists are orders of magnitude more common than anywhere in the Western world.

Most of the terrorists in Iraq are foreigners, drawn to "jihad" like moths to the flame.Which parts of the insurgency do you consider "terrorism"? All of it, or just the assassinations and attacks against civilian targets? A large part of the attacks against shi'ite muslims and assassinations of shi'ite clergy is carried out by (ex?)Saddam loyalists. I do not doubt that the part I'd rather call guerrilla warfare is now mostly fought by foreigners.

I'm not sure about that. I'd wager that the majority of the IRA's work is done in Ireland. Northern Ireland is only foreign to the IRA if you're British. ;)The Republic of Ireland does not claim to own Northern Ireland, and if you really used that logic then it would also work wonderfully for the islamic extremists (especially the South-East Asian islamic superstate ideas supported by many members of Jemaah Islamiah). And while I haven't got any numbers to show you, you are certainly aware that there has been a significant number of IRA terrorist attacks in England. Is it a minority and how big of a one isn't even that important if you truly wish to exclude terrorist attacks by people from RoI to NI from the definition of international terrorism.

Of course not. But as I've said, the IRA won't kill you just for being British. They might rough you up and threaten you, but won't just shoot you on princple, unlike, say, all the dead humanitarian aid workers in Iraq.I think the 21 people who died in the two Birmingham pubs on November 21st 1974 would disagree. Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1201270.stm) you can find a few others who might as well. I wouldn't call blowing up bridges, buses, railways/trains, busy commercial areas, or firing mortars at an airport "roughing someone up and threatening them". And that's just in London and the one attack in Birmingham, there's plenty more in the whole of England. If you consider international terrorism to be defined based on legal borders of nations, then we can dig up the dozens of attacks with civilian casualties in Northern Ireland.

You were saying IRA operating from the Republic of Ireland doesn't count as international terrorism because they attack England because of something else than England being full of the English. My point was that, strictly for figuring out if it counts as international terrorism, it doesn't matter why those attacks are carried out. Terrorist organization from one nation carries out terrorist attacks in another nation = international terrorism.

Right, excepting that the terrorists may already be living in N. Ireland, which makes them national terrorists like the Basques...
Yes, that (=) is a valid arguement. I'm just not sure that they're attacking another nation, or if they're a minority of the same nation. This one is stickier than most...


First, I did say "or at least countries they perceive to be their own" -- and they tend to view at least the whole of the islamic Middle East as "their country."

Fair enough. I confess, I missed the "perceive" word. :)


Second, maybe you've missed all the news about the islamic extremists (under the banner of Al-Qaeda, for example) carrying out all those terrorist attacks in Saudi-Arabia (here are a few of the recent ones (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3760099.stm)), but terrorist attacks in that area by islamic extremists are orders of magnitude more common than anywhere in the Western world.

Nope, I'm well aware of them. And I agree that they more common/as common.


Which parts of the insurgency do you consider "terrorism"? All of it, or just the assassinations and attacks against civilian targets? A large part of the attacks against shi'ite muslims and assassinations of shi'ite clergy is carried out by (ex?)Saddam loyalists. I do not doubt that the part I'd rather call guerrilla warfare is now mostly fought by foreigners.

No, not all of it.
I'd define it thusly:
* Insurgents are people that are fighting for their own nation. The terrorists really don't care about the Iraqi people.
* Terrorists are anyone who specifically targets civilians, or infrastructure. Let's face it, blowing up a water purification plant is not going to harm the occupation forces nearly as much as the people in the region. Ditto the power grid.

Absolutely. Most Iraqis are *not* terrorists.


The Republic of Ireland does not claim to own Northern Ireland, and if you really used that logic then it would also work wonderfully for the islamic extremists (especially the South-East Asian islamic superstate ideas supported by many members of Jemaah Islamiah). And while I haven't got any numbers to show you, you are certainly aware that there has been a significant number of IRA terrorist attacks in England. Is it a minority and how big of a one isn't even that important if you truly wish to exclude terrorist attacks by people from RoI to NI from the definition of international terrorism.


True, but the IRA does. Like the Islamics, the Irish national front has several splinters, and some are renegade.
Of course. But the attacks in England are also less common than those on N. Irish soil.
As I've said, I'm not sure if it should be excluded or not...


I think the 21 people who died in the two Birmingham pubs on November 21st 1974 would disagree. Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1201270.stm) you can find a few others who might as well. I wouldn't call blowing up bridges, buses, railways/trains, busy commercial areas, or firing mortars at an airport "roughing someone up and threatening them". And that's just in London and the one attack in Birmingham, there's plenty more in the whole of England. If you consider international terrorism to be defined based on legal borders of nations, then we can dig up the dozens of attacks with civilian casualties in Northern Ireland.

Yes, you're right here, that is a good counter example. Yet these style of attacks died off awhile back, certainly since 9/11. (Thank God). I still hold that the IRA, however, does not want to exterminate/convert every last Briton, however...

Dude, that's bad. I've BEEN to Auschwitz, and it is NOT a monument to anything except insanity. The place is simply horrible beyond words.


well i think capitalism is insanity.


Cute idea, but in general, the middle class USUALLY advances over time. For example, you'll find a middle class 2004 Brit is much better off in terms of almost everything (lifestyle, diet, transport, whatever) than his great grandfather was. This is not USUALLY true of the poor.
The great riddle of the middle class is that the middle class will only fight when it feels threatened into becoming the lower class.


ok, but how much closer has this advance brought us to being as rich as the ruling classes? not at all.


I have to still disagree. Otherwise, they'd be killing their own mullahs and declaring a Communist state. Seriously! Read up a bit on the United Arab Emirates and tell me that it wouldn't be a VERY easy Communism to run as opposed to... Bulgaria.


well i think ive used all my arguments up on this. but i stand by them.


Really.
This seems to me a bit of calling the guy working two jobs to keep food on the table a bad father for never spending time with the kids.
I'm not saying you have to wave the flag and support everything like a robot. But that's really beyond the pale.


but by your definition, the trrsts are trying to impose their lifestyle on us. what are we doing with the war on trrrr? imposing our lifestyle on them.


If you can't give detailed examples to your theory, it's not a theory but a belief. :)


no, its my theory on the way the world really works today. please see below for a new piece of evidence.

sorry, i really didnt understand what that pavlovs dog and the python script was about. but i am very tired. could you explain it in laymans terms?


You are correct: terrorism is not the right way to go about becoming affluent.
But right now, to me you're only saying that witches burn because they are made out of wood. It *might* be true, but... :)
What do you mean, "yes, now"? You're pointing to the post 9/11 world as a result of poverty?
I'm sorry, but I can rattle off dozens of places poorer that are not terroristic, and even more times when people were poorer and DID not go terroristic.


now for my (hopefully) final devastating argument...

9/11. what happened? the world trade centres and the pentagon were attacked. what are these places? they are the iconic trademark buildings of capitalism and US military power. now tell me that trrrism is not based on economic injustice. if the trrrsts wanted to destroy the USAs way of life, then they would have attacked the statue of liberty. i hope this closes the argument, but im sure youll find something.
and my reason for trrrsts only coming from the LEDCs holds. if i had to walk 20 miles a day for water or firewood, and relied on aid for food, then im not going to have the time or energy to attack the west.


The two tend to go hand in hand.
More humane? Incivil behaviour? Like what? :confused:


yes they do, but there needs to be a change in peoples attitudes before the economic system changes.
incivil and inhumane behaviour like poverty and bombing iraq and afghanistan.


OF COURSE it's unfair. Life is unfair. You're not the same as everybody else. You might be faster or slower, smarter or dumber, better or worse looking. An equal society is one where everyone can COMPETE on their own MERITS, not where everyone is kept in a perfect line!
However, it's not entirely unfair. Not at all. It just forces you to work with what you've been dealt with.


this is where our main difference lies. i believe that it doesnt have to be this way. why should everyone have to struggle? you are happy to keep slaving away because the ruling classes keep you content.


Um... no. We are *not* in a Plutocracy, Timocracy, or even a Corporatism.
Want proof? The same rules that apply to you and me apply to rich people. Martha Stewart went to jail. GE had to clean up the mess they made on the Hudson River.
Beyond that: How on Earth are you and I oppressed? I go where I want, do what I want, and say what I want...


yes, i was quite amazed when that woman was convicted, i admit. but it leads me to think that this was done so that you would feel ok in your environment. it was done so that you would say exactly what you said then. it stops you from revolting.
we are oppressed in that we have to work, in your case every week day in my case every weekend and at school to survive in a world that is completely tweaked to someone elses advantage, i.e. the ruling classes. they take all the profit, that you have made for them, giving you enough to keep you happy. also i think that we in the UK and US are becoming less and less free all the time, what with your patriot act and our anti trrrrr laws.


While this does tie into your "give the "excess" of the West away" idealism, it's not really the way it is, at least from my (and I daresay) most of our chairs.


yes, i am definitely in the minority on this, but i dare say this will change soon when the rich/poor divide is astronomically far apart.



So we agree that it's wrong for them to fly planes into buildings.
Ipso facto, it HAS to be okay for us to bomb them in retaliation. If a 12 year old punk comes up to you and whacks you in the head, do you just let him get away with it?

no i wouldnt have let him get away with it, but thats because it was an unprovoked attack. also, is 'them' the nations of iraq and afghanistan? because i think that the people in these countries had nothing to do with 9/11. a tad unfair, no?


Without solid leadership, right where they are now: screwed.
And no, I don't consider that to be my problem.


so you think that its their own fault that they are in the situation they are in? i quite disagree. i blame international trade biased in favour of MEDCS (majorly economically developed countries). also international debt, which is a never ending sink hoe for LEDCs.


Of course it does. Your whole argeument has signifigance. I've never said you're wrong, you'll note. I've said I've disagreed with you, and that I think you're off on some points. But I'm also doing this with the benefit of 31 years of age. I have no desire to correct you, as it wouldn't work anyway. What I *am* trying to do is to show that all this is NOT black and white, and you may not quite have it worked out yet. Lord knows I don't.


ah thats alright, it just seemed you were begining to not take me seriously, dont worry i get that a lot. likewise.


But they are *all* nations that were previously NOT democratic/republics that had capitalism, and they're thriving. Japan alone has been thriving for 50 years.
Capitalism must be sustainable, if only because it buried Communism, National Socialism, Mercantilism, Monarchy, and Imperialism. :)


aha, the famous claim, capitalism beat communism. well, on the face of it yes, but that was not communism. communism requires the entire world to be communist for it to work. the economy of soviet russia was based on a socialified capitalism.


BTW- the other reason it's sustainable is because over time, the population CHANGES. Consider your life. Sure, there are things from your family's past around. But most of them haven't survived. Odds are very much against your folks still having their first washing machine (or car, or whatever).


yes, the population changes. it gets bigger. there are two geographical schools of thought on this. one is an economistic view, by esther boserup. it says that the population will increase but just when population reaches an unsustainable level against the resources, technology will find a way to increase the resources, allowing population to increase indefinitely, in a series of jumps. the other is by malthus, an environmentalist. he said that as popultion increased geometrically (1,2,4,8 etc) and its 'doubling time' decreses each time it doubles, and resources increase arithmetically (1,2,3,4), there would be a time when eventually the population would outstrip the resources, leading to war and famine. this is the theory i, as a geography student, subscribe to. now you may say 'yes, but population growth is natural', but i would say not excessive population growth that we see in LEDCs. this is brought about by capitalism. as these people are so extremely poor, they must have large families in order to survive. if they were as rich as us, they wouldnt have large families. prosperity brings a reduction in the growth rate of a country. this is the reason why capitalism is unsustainable, even discounting what is happening now, where the poor are revolting against the rich.


I never said it was. I said it was an "equal opportunity enricher". The system doesn't care who or what you are, just that you can do X at time Y and get rewarded with Z.
Actually, yes, IF that Chadian gets *out* of Chad. Or are you saying that the random Chadian isn't as good as you? ;)
Seriously. You'll never make the whole world equal in the way you're thinking. The west could give Chad a trillion bucks tomorrow, but it wouldn't help -- it's a matter of having good leadership shephard the nations assets well. And that's clearly not happening since de-colonialization started in the 50s.


of course im not saying that, do you really think a radical left wing pinko like me would think that? good leadership is a benefit, but do you really think that the nations of subsahelian africa have any chance of one day becoming as rich as the USA? would the USA allow it?


How did India break away from England? How did *IRELAND* of all places become an economic power? It takes solid leadership and a building process over years. If someone came up to my friend's father (he's from Cork) and told him Ireland would be where it is today, he'd not take the bet at 100-1 odds.


but do you think that the people in those countries should have to suffer poverty for all those years whilst their leaders build their wealth up? yes, at one time all MEDCs where in poverty situations, but saying that 'they should because we did' is not good enough. its just petty, we have the chance to change the world for the better, and i think we should take it.


Those are just the 10,000 foot view. The UN has CLASSIFIED all of it's own documents on this scandal. :(


maybe they have, but how about the classified pages in the 9/11 report?


So what is the solution? Just taking from "the rich" and giving it way won't do anything except slow the world economy down: there's no reason to work.
This is why Communism failed.
So what needs replacing?


see above, communism hasnt been tried fairly yet.
i think i was refering to capitalism, thats what needs replacing.


It agrees that radicals are inciting the Islams to commit terrorist acts. It does NOT bear out that they do so because they're broke.


yes, i meant my argument that religion is used to incite it, thankyou.


Not on your life. How about the Basques or IRA? Have they stopped? :(
Poverty and terrorism are NOT inherently linked! Otherwise, the very poor of our OWN nations would be blowing up banks!


ok, my statement wasnt very clear. i meant the islamic trrrsm. (but i do think the IRA has stopped, its just the unionists who cant let go).
no, the very poor of our nations would not be commiting trrrsm, because they are kept just happy enough.


Aha. Eradicate currency? So you're going back to the barter system? I'd sure love to live in that world. "Hey Charlie! I have 6 fish! Can you trade me a razor, and four 2x6 boards for them?"
The only other way is to have so much of everything, that nothing has any value. This MIGHT happen some day, but it's at least ten generations away from us today.

Destroy people's love for their children? Have you gone nutter on me?!?


that was me off in my ultimate fantasy world, sorry, but like you said, one day it could be the only way.
plus about the children thing, i cant remember what it was about, but i know i wouldnt have meant it like that, so no.


My friend, I have a suspicion that even Jane Fonda might be to the right of you on some issues. ;)

hehe, yes, the only thing i dont do 'left' is writing, to my continuing annoyance

9/11. what happened? the world trade centres and the pentagon were attacked. what are these places? they are the iconic trademark buildings of capitalism and US military power. now tell me that trrrism is not based on economic injustice. if the trrrsts wanted to destroy the USAs way of life, then they would have attacked the statue of liberty. i hope this closes the argument, but im sure youll find something.
and my reason for trrrsts only coming from the LEDCs holds. if i had to walk 20 miles a day for water or firewood, and relied on aid for food, then im not going to have the time or energy to attack the west.

Bullshit. Firstly the ONLY thing that taking out the Statue of Liberty would have done is really really piss us off and MAYBE kill 500 people at most. It would have been replaced by something tastefully non-french :p . Hitting the trade centers was an attempt to destabilize our economy and kill a shitload of people. It quite properly did the latter, but it really didn't deal a death-blow to our economy by any means. The attack at the pentagon was as a symbolic gesture worthless compared to taking out either the White House or the Monument.

Bullshit. Firstly the ONLY thing that taking out the Statue of Liberty would have done is really really piss us off and MAYBE kill 500 people at most. It would have been replaced by something tastefully non-french :p . Hitting the trade centers was an attempt to destabilize our economy and kill a shitload of people. It quite properly did the latter, but it really didn't deal a death-blow to our economy by any means. The attack at the pentagon was as a symbolic gesture worthless compared to taking out either the White House or the Monument.

sorry my angry, sweary freind, i think you got the wrong end of the stick. im not really interested in the effects of 9/11 (well not on this particular debate between me and markreich, which somehow is about the cause of trrrsm). what i was talking about was the symbolic nature of the attacks.

markreich, please reply! im on tenterhooks here.

well i think capitalism is insanity.

Comparing Capitalism to Aushwitz is beyond absurd. Capitalism DOES NOT actively taking goods from people, work them to near death, and then sends them to the ovens!
I seriously suggest you go read “Maus” (at the very least!) to get a little background, here. As insane as you consider capitalism, it is NOT genocide!


ok, but how much closer has this advance brought us to being as rich as the ruling classes? not at all.

Really? I think quite a bit!
1) The divide between rich and poor, said to be so huge, is much smaller now than under Monarchy. Back then, the King owned EVERYTHING.
2) I’m middle class. I own a car, a television, and a home. I’ll grant, they’re not as opulent as some, more than others. Sure, I don't have a silver plated samovar. But I could, if I was willing to work for it.
3) The number of people above the poverty line goes UP every year!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,949901,00.html

* The only thing redistribution of wealth does is make everyone poor. Communism/Socialism in this bent can only exist without currency, as we’ve debated before.
* There is no such thing as a ruling class, except in your lexicon. :)



well i think ive used all my arguments up on this. but i stand by them.

That's fine. You just haven't convinced me. ;)


but by your definition, the trrsts are trying to impose their lifestyle on us. what are we doing with the war on trrrr? imposing our lifestyle on them.

They *ARE* trying to impose their lifestyle on us! Their entire message is that the modern Western world is evil and those that do not believe Islam are to be destroyed! I’d call that an imposition, no?
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=16814
and here they are, *having DONE it*:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1165983.stm

We aren’t. We didn’t attack them first, and we certainly aren’t forcing them at gunpoint to switch to Christianity or atheism!



no, its my theory on the way the world really works today. please see below for a new piece of evidence.

It's not evidence; it's an example through a filter. And one that is not very difficult to refute, BTW. :)


sorry, i really didnt understand what that pavlovs dog and the python script was about. but i am very tired. could you explain it in laymans terms?

My point was that you’re saying that because of A leads to B and B leads to C, A must lead to C. But this is not really the case.
Here's another example:
1)February turns into March
2) March turns into April
3) April turns into May
Therefore, because it is a month, May must have an "r" in it.


now for my (hopefully) final devastating argument...

9/11. what happened? the world trade centres and the pentagon were attacked. what are these places? they are the iconic trademark buildings of capitalism and US military power. now tell me that trrrism is not based on economic injustice. if the trrrsts wanted to destroy the USAs way of life, then they would have attacked the statue of liberty. i hope this closes the argument, but im sure youll find something.[/QUOTE]

The Statue of Liberty is a nice landmark in the harbor. It doesn’t really have anything do to with our “way of life”. If they terrorists WERE really going to wage economic war, why didn’t they hit Wall Street? Or the Federal Reserve? Or Fort Knox? Or the Chicago Mercantile Exchange?
There are many better targets to hit. With this one, you've actually argued against yourself!

Destroying the Statue of Liberty (for most Americans) would be a shock, but it’d change us about as much as if they blew up the London Eye. Or maybe Greenwich Observatory.



and my reason for trrrsts only coming from the LEDCs holds. if i had to walk 20 miles a day for water or firewood, and relied on aid for food, then im not going to have the time or energy to attack the west.

Er... you’re whole argument here hinges that:
1) The poor in rich countries are too sated.
2) The poor in poor countries are too busy trying to survive.
3) The poor in the “moderately poor” nations that aren’t involved in terrorism… you have no answer for.
vs.:
1) The Radical Islamics want to kill us and destroy western culture.
Sorry, I like my explanation better. :)



yes they do, but there needs to be a change in peoples attitudes before the economic system changes.
incivil and inhumane behaviour like poverty and bombing iraq and afghanistan.

POVERTY IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE DEVELOPED WORLD.
Is it the winning team's fault that the other team lost?

Furthur, whom do you blame for all the poverty before there was America? Before England? Before Rome?
It’s a fact: existence of currency = inequity of ownership in goods.

Ok, I’ll take you at your word about Afghanistan and Iraq. Therefore, by your own arguement, you are FOR the genocide, rape and destruction in Darfur. :(


this is where our main difference lies. i believe that it doesnt have to be this way. why should everyone have to struggle? you are happy to keep slaving away because the ruling classes keep you content.

Because I believe that welfare is an inherent failure that cannot be sustained. The US’s Great Society, the UK in the 80s, and Germany & France today prove it.

I’m not content. I work everyday to improve myself and improve my status. Not just for material gain, but in terms of charity, fitness, education, etc. And I don’t call work slavery, as I am fairly paid for my services.

BTW, this whole ruling class thing is great propoganda, but moot, since ANYONE can become rich and/or powerful in the Western World.


yes, i was quite amazed when that woman was convicted, i admit. but it leads me to think that this was done so that you would feel ok in your environment. it was done so that you would say exactly what you said then. it stops you from revolting.

Not likely. It didn’t make a whit’s difference to me. I want the Enron boys and Tyco boys’ to go into the clink for a long time, too. I’m very much pro law enforcement, so long as individual liberties are not trampled on. It was done because she BROKE THE LAW.


we are oppressed in that we have to work, in your case every week day in my case every weekend and at school to survive in a world that is completely tweaked to someone elses advantage, i.e. the ruling classes. they take all the profit, that you have made for them, giving you enough to keep you happy. also i think that we in the UK and US are becoming less and less free all the time, what with your patriot act and our anti trrrrr laws.

Aha. So you don’t consider your own home, computer, and personal effects advantages? Someone worked, got cash, and bought them all. That’s fair.

Name me one thing you could do before that you can’t do now. Just one.


yes, i am definitely in the minority on this, but i dare say this will change soon when the rich/poor divide is astronomically far apart.

Unlikely. If it will ever happen, it will when the Middle Class feels threatened with becoming lower class. And as for the rich/poor divide, it was ALWAYS exist while currency does.


no i wouldnt have let him get away with it, but thats because it was an unprovoked attack. also, is 'them' the nations of iraq and afghanistan? because i think that the people in these countries had nothing to do with 9/11. a tad unfair, no?

Not at all. Afghanistan WAS led by the Taleban, you know. Personally, I’m all for getting into some sort of coalition with the Saudis and hunting out the radicals there, too. But Osama WAS hiding out there, and the Taleban gov't would not turn him over. Remember?


so you think that its their own fault that they are in the situation they are in? i quite disagree. i blame international trade biased in favour of MEDCS (majorly economically developed countries). also international debt, which is a never ending sink hole for LEDCs.

**YES**. These nations generally had poor leadership. Else why did some nations (Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa…) do well after de-colonization while others did not?

And that doesn’t even count that mostly these “failed states” went into BORROWING debt, not trade debt!

You seem to think that just because someone or some nation is poor that they should be given a free ride. I wonder if your ideas will change once you start paying taxes. ;)



aha, the famous claim, capitalism beat communism. well, on the face of it yes, but that was not communism. communism requires the entire world to be communist for it to work. the economy of soviet russia was based on a socialified capitalism.

Funny, that’s NOT what I read in the Manifesto (and I’ve read that at least 6 times now). Communism is WORKING for world-wide revolution. That’s the GOAL, not a REQUIREMENT.

And that’s a cop-out. All the folks whom I speak with say “true Communism has never been tried”. Well, neither has true Democracy. Yet it’s pretty obvious which system works better in practice.
If it can’t be done in practice, it’s a perpetual motion machine or a Dyson Sphere: a neat idea, but not actually useful. Which, given the failure of Communism, is true.


yes, the population changes. it gets bigger. there are two geographical schools of thought on this. one is an economistic view, by esther boserup. it says that the population will increase but just when population reaches an unsustainable level against the resources, technology will find a way to increase the resources, allowing population to increase indefinitely, in a series of jumps. the other is by malthus, an environmentalist. he said that as popultion increased geometrically (1,2,4,8 etc) and its 'doubling time' decreses each time it doubles, and resources increase arithmetically (1,2,3,4), there would be a time when eventually the population would outstrip the resources, leading to war and famine. this is the theory i, as a geography student, subscribe to. now you may say 'yes, but population growth is natural', but i would say not excessive population growth that we see in LEDCs. this is brought about by capitalism. as these people are so extremely poor, they must have large families in order to survive. if they were as rich as us, they wouldnt have large families. prosperity brings a reduction in the growth rate of a country. this is the reason why capitalism is unsustainable, even discounting what is happening now, where the poor are revolting against the rich.

There is also a rebuttal to both: The as technology advances, (and it advances at an ever faster pace) that it cancels out resource depleatment for all intents and purposes.
Example: there used to be mountains of used tires all over the US. Today, they’re being turned into energy, something impossible 20 years ago. Man has taken a waste product and made it valuable.
Example 2: The yields from just about any farmed acre of land in the world has at least doubled since 1700. Chickens used to average 2lbs in 1920. Today, they’re closer to 5.

Poorer nations also have a much higher mortality rate, which keeps the population growth down.

THE POOR ARE NOT REVOLTING AGAINT THE RICH. It’s not happening ANYWHERE in the world. I still can’t see how you can ignore that this is an Islamic-radical vs. West fight! Why isn’t Harlem revolting, eh? How about the poor areas of London? Even your argument that "they're pacified because of X..." cannot be believed. How can it be true in EVERY "rich" nation?


of course im not saying that, do you really think a radical left wing pinko like me would think that? good leadership is a benefit, but do you really think that the nations of subsahelian africa have any chance of one day becoming as rich as the USA? would the USA allow it?

If Africa were to come together as a couple of bigger nations, yes. They have the natural resources. They have the population. It COULD happen, it’s just not likely because every sandlot despot wants his own personal fief.

The USA has no say in it. Why do you think the dollar is so weak right now against the pound and the Euro? Do you think we set up the Chinese to become an economic power? Heck, no!


but do you think that the people in those countries should have to suffer poverty for all those years whilst their leaders build their wealth up? yes, at one time all MEDCs where in poverty situations, but saying that 'they should because we did' is not good enough. its just petty, we have the chance to change the world for the better, and i think we should take it.

If they won’t revolt, then YES. We revolted against YOU, and at the time Philadelphia was the second largest city in the British Empire!
It has to be good enough. Or are you the paternal overseer of the whole world?
For example:
Your grandmother is 90. She’s very sick, but will probably live for another 5-10 years. Eventually, she’ll need to go into a nursing home. She has (over her life) amassed $100,000 USD. It’s not a fortune, but it’s hardly chump change.
NOW: If she goes into the nursing home with the cash, she’ll lose it all as the payments suck it away. If she goes with nothing, the state will pay.
QUESTION: Do you ask/make her sign the money over to you?

If you vote yes, then you’re saying she can’t make her own decisions. (Like those Africans.)
If you vote no, then you’re willing to throw away the money she slaved (your term) her whole life to earn.
What do you do?

You see, nations are like this, too. Where do you think all the money “to make everyone equal” would come from? Unless it’s via private donation, it’s WRONG.


maybe they have, but how about the classified pages in the 9/11 report?

How about them? There are people whom have access to those pages. But more importantly, it’s not the Islamic Terrorists censoring them, are they? After all: the UN deal is them covering their own crimes. The 9/11 reports are censored to protect PEOPLE whom may become targets.
The UN is saying they've done nothing wrong... let them prove it!


see above, communism hasnt been tried fairly yet.
i think i was refering to capitalism, thats what needs replacing.

As answered: Yes, it has, unless you start lobotomizing everyone. And, for that matter, Capitalism hasn’t been tried fairly yet, either. After all, there are still Communist nations in the world. :)


yes, i meant my argument that religion is used to incite it, thankyou.

And I’m in full agreement with that. Just not that it’s economically based. That’s a secondary, or even terciary issue.


ok, my statement wasnt very clear. i meant the islamic trrrsm. (but i do think the IRA has stopped, its just the unionists who cant let go).
no, the very poor of our nations would not be commiting trrrsm, because they are kept just happy enough.

Wanna bet? If your theory were true, the 1992 LA Riots would never have stopped! All these poor folks went out and LOOTED much of downtown LA after the Rodney King verdict. Yet, they stopped and did NOT fight against the National Guard. Why? Did grabbing some shoes and stereos make them un-poor? No! Because it was a racial/political thing! JUST LIKE the Islamic fight.


that was me off in my ultimate fantasy world, sorry, but like you said, one day it could be the only way.
plus about the children thing, i cant remember what it was about, but i know i wouldnt have meant it like that, so no.

I said one day, it MIGHT happen. :)
Thanks. The point was one reason that Communism failed was because people inherently strive to better themselves and to make a better life for their children. Thus, as long as you have currency, Communism/Equality of Goods is hosed

Taverham,

None of the 911 hijackers were poor. Most were upper middle class, and a few were from wealthy families.

Osama himself does not mention the poor, or really give a hoot about the poor. He never casts himself as a defender of the poor.

The reason he and his followers fight is this:

They believe in a strict interpretation (theirs) of Islam.
Ideas outside that interpretation pose a survival threat to their culture.
The US is the primary source of those ideas, and the center of strength of those ideas (in his mind).
He was awakened to this when the US, at Saudi invitation, stationed non-Muslim troops in Saudi Arabia (Islamic Holy ground). Saudi Arabia IS NOT POOR.
He has never mentioned class.
He never mentioned the Palestinians until after the recent invasion of Iraq.
He believe that since he "defeated" the Soviet Union, he can do the same to the US, and by extension to Western Civilization, which he holds responsible for the downfall of the Caliphate (his record of the troubles begins in 1258).

It is NOT about the Left, or Capitalism, or Class Warfare, or anything else except SURVIVAL OF A SMALL SET OF INCOMPATIBLE IDEAS.

And it is a war to the knife.