NationStates Jolt Archive

*according to weapons inspectors Hans Blix and that guy who speaks to extraterrestrials (I posted a link to his website earlier) whose predictions have never been wrong yet

the deputy commander of U.S. Central Command announced Wednesday that the military is updating its war plan for attacking Iran. Lt. Gen. Lance Smith claimed the update was a routine matter. Smith said "We try to keep them current, particularly if our region is active." The announcement came on the same day that both President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice issued new warnings to Terhran. Meanwhile former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has issued a warning of sorts -- to the United States. He said the Bush administration must know if they launch an attack, there possibly could be a nuclear retaliation by Iran.
democracynow.org

Well, of course. What's the point of getting nuclear weapons if you're not going to reataliate?

Has Iran admitted they have nuclear weapons? So far the evidence of them having them is even flimsier than for Iraq.

Hm, that would suck.

He [Hans Blix] said the Bush administration must know if they launch an attack, there possibly could be a nuclear retaliation by Iran.
democracynow.org

Ah, so we should take defense advice from a Sweish man? How many wars has Sweden won? Have they done anything of note since the early 1700s? No.

Anyway, Iran does not have the capabilities to hit us with a nuclear bomb using military means. That would take an ICBM, which they do not have. Yes, could try to attack with terrorist tactics, but I imagine security would be alert enough to intercept something if we went to war with the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism.

But that's just my opinion.

And I'm glad you're back. Some of your posts are really funny.

Ah, so we should take defense advice from a Belgian man? How many wars has Belgium won without US help? Less than one.

Anyway, Iran does not have the capabilities to hit us with a nuclear bomb using military means. That would take an ICBM, which they do not have. Yes, could try to attack with terrorist tactics, but I imagine security would be alert enough to intercept something if we went to war with the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism.

But that's just my opinion.

And I'm glad you're back. Some of your posts are really funny.
Iran wont do it by launching--it will be an act of terrorism most likely.
(p.s. this story isnt funny tho)

Ah, so we should take defense advice from a Belgian man? How many wars has Belgium won without US help? Less than one.

Hans Blix is Swedish.

Going to file that under "D" for Duh.

Of course we are going to get our asses handed to for attacking Iran. Same concept with North Korea. They both saw how we barged in and demolished Iraq, so they have been prepping for that war since March 2004.

Hopefully, rather than attack NYC, they go for the white house to take out Bush.

they will prly attack NYC tho for 2 reasons
1) its Jewish population 2) its the financial capital of the country

Iran wont do it by launching--it will be an act of terrorism most likely.

So if they used an ICBM, it wouldn't be terrorism, but if they go door-to-door, it is? So the means define whether an act of war is terrorism, not the intent or its ends. I must have missed the memo.

Going to file that under "D" for Duh.

Of course we are going to get our asses handed to for attacking Iran. Same concept with North Korea. They both saw how we barged in and demolished Iraq, so they have been prepping for that war since March 2004.


i have a prety good feeling the american military can hold their own in iran...

Hans Blix is Swedish.

Really? My mistake. I'll edit my post. Anyway, my point still stands. Sweden hasn't won a war, or done anything truly important, since the first half of the 1700s.

I'm not worried about North Korea or Iran. In all of history, the only democracies to have been defeated by totalitarian states have been France and Belgium.

i have a prety good feeling the american military can hold their own in iran...
it wont just be Iran...

Really? My mistake. I'll edit my post. Anyway, my point still stands. Sweden hasn't won a war, or done anything truly important, since the first half of the 1700s.

Your ignorence of Swedish as well as Belgian, oh, alright, European, history speaks for itself.

PSST! You might want to look into the Napoleonic wars. There is a reason Norway ended up becoming Swedish territory in the early 1800s.

So if they used an ICBM, it wouldn't be terrorism, but if they go door-to-door, it is? So the means define whether an act of war is terrorism, not the intent or its ends. I must have missed the memo.

An ICBM requires resources only a nation-state possesses. Thus, a country, not an organization, would launch an ICBM, making it an act of war. If an organization did it (example: Al Qaeda), then it would be terrorism.

That isn't a perfect definition, but I hope it helps.

Really? My mistake. I'll edit my post. Anyway, my point still stands. Sweden hasn't won a war, or done anything truly important, since the first half of the 1700s.

I'm not worried about North Korea or Iran. In all of history, the only democracies to have been defeated by totalitarian states have been France and Belgium.
Under Bush America IS a totalitarian state tho

i have a prety good feeling the american military can hold their own in iran...

I didn't mean in Iran, I meant at home.

Under Bush America IS a totalitarian state tho

Which is why we have elections, a constitution, free markets, a powerful private sector, public dissent, checked and balanced government, et cetera.

Under Bush America IS a totalitarian state tho
(raises one eye-brow)

i have a prety good feeling the american military can hold their own in iran...
I say let´s try it out!!! We won´t know for sure untill they try. :)

Dear GOD! My sarcasm-o-meter is going ballistic!!

Which is why we have elections, a constitution, free markets, a powerful private sector, public dissent, checked and balanced government, et cetera.
we have stolen/hacked elections, a constitution thats being watered down in the name of fighting terrorism, free markets that only benefit the wealthiest 1%,a powerful private sector that only represents corporate greed and the looting of the american people, no checks and balances but one party tyranny and a subverted media

Dear GOD! My sarcasm-o-meter is going ballistic!!

heh.

we have stolen/hacked elections, a constitution thats being watered down in the name of fighting terrorism, free markets that only benefit the wealthiest 1%,a powerful private sector that only represents corporate greed and the looting of the american people, no checks and balances but one party tyranny and a subverted media


look on the bright side...interrest rates on home lones are insanely low...comparatively...or at least when you live in a small town in the middle of nowhere.

Ah, so we should take defense advice from a Sweish man? How many wars has Sweden won? Have they done anything of note since the early 1700s? No.

Anyway, Iran does not have the capabilities to hit us with a nuclear bomb using military means. That would take an ICBM, which they do not have. Yes, could try to attack with terrorist tactics, but I imagine security would be alert enough to intercept something if we went to war with the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism.

But that's just my opinion.

And I'm glad you're back. Some of your posts are really funny.

The could bomb the American Empires new Colonys, Isreal and Iraq... I would, lest I become a colony of Coporate America. Best to die honourably that in league with the new Nazis.

;)

Domestic terrorism employing a Nuke is extreamly unlikely. The US's domestic terrorists are usualy of the right-wing whacko catagory, which is currently more interested in blowing up all of the middel-east than their oun country(Please note that I am not accuseing conservatives of being whako, but their are extreamists). Additionaly, the domestic terrorists in the US are mostly compleatly isolated from human interaction.

Middel-eastern terrorists is far more likely, especialy since the likely suppliers of of such materials to terrorists are Iran and North Korea, and North Korea has Russia, China, SK, Japan, the US, and I'm sure some other countries in the region ready to put the beat-down on them should they try anything funny.

Iran has announced that it has a Nuclear program; It has been attempting to make a deal with the Russians on obtaining Uranium. Iran claims that it is only interested in makeing nuclear powerplants, but in a region where oil is cheaper than watter, most people find this explaination for their nuclear research extreamly unlikely.

As for the millitary makeing plans for invadeing Iran, it has had such plans in file cabinets for years, and is only updateing them. This is a perfectly reasonable course of action to take in order to leverage our millitary power in order to convince Iran to give up nuclear research without a war. The millitary is as much a part of diplomacy as anything else. An up to date plan for millitary action sends out the message that we are ready to take millitary action should it prove neccesary.

The could bomb the American Empires new Colonys, Isreal and Iraq... I would, lest I become a colony of Coporate America. Best to die honourably that in league with the new Nazis.
*gets offended, checks his stocks, and gives a big 'ol "Hile Bush!*

Actually he is French, he works in Sweden...but he is truly French...

No, no he isn't. He was born in Uppsala.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix

Actually he is French, he works in Sweden...but he is truly French...
He's Swedish. Born in Uppsala in 1928.

we have stolen/hacked elections, a constitution thats being watered down in the name of fighting terrorism, free markets that only benefit the wealthiest 1%,a powerful private sector that only represents corporate greed and the looting of the american people, no checks and balances but one party tyranny and a subverted media

2000 Election: Gore 48%, Bush 48%, Nader 3% Other 1%. Electoral votes win it for Bush.

2004 Election: Kerry 48%, Bush 51%. In Ohio, the most contested state, Bush won by 118,000 votes. Yep, sounds to me like he stole it.

As for the Constitution, I assume you are refering to the Patriot Act. I actuallly agree with you that the Patriot Act is a bad thing; I don't like. However, as long as the Second Amendment exists as a guarantor, our Constitutional rights cannot be taken away, because we will remove the government from power.

Free markets benefit everyone. Of course the richest get the biggest return; they are able to put in more money. But, their tax dollars go to fund government welfare, so no one really suffers. Obviously, there are exceptions, but the system works as perfectly as any system can.

The private sector allows people to make money, and improve their lot in life. If that is bad...well, it isn't so I can't really argue that.

One party tyranny? The Republicans were elected because people were tried of Democrats pessimistic whining about everything and blaming America for the world's problems. If they'd show some optimism, maybe they'd do better.

Subverted Media? Let's take a look:

Anti-Bush: NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, some internet, most newpapers & magazines
Pro-Bush: FOX, some internet, most books.

I think all in all it's pretty even.

look on the bright side...interrest rates on home lones are insanely low...comparatively...or at least when you live in a small town in the middle of nowhere.
:D
but in my neck of the woods the cost of housing is off the charts and itll be worth nothing at all after NY gets nuked :(

The could bomb the American Empires new Colonys, Isreal and Iraq... I would, lest I become a colony of Coporate America. Best to die honourably that in league with the new Nazis.
this is exactly whats happening--you hit the nail on the head--at some point during the final battle the extraterrestrials will reveal themselves and help in the fight against these new nazis but the army of killer clones with no allegiance to anyone will run amok

Really? My mistake. I'll edit my post. Anyway, my point still stands. Sweden hasn't won a war, or done anything truly important, since the first half of the 1700s.Actually he is French, he was born in Sweden...but he is truly French...Citizenship and Passport...

BUSH :mp5:

Iran has announced that it has a Nuclear program; It has been attempting to make a deal with the Russians on obtaining Uranium. Iran claims that it is only interested in makeing nuclear powerplants, but in a region where oil is cheaper than watter, most people find this explaination for their nuclear research extreamly unlikely.

However, we all know that oil is running out, plus there are many advantages to nuclear generation of energy. It would be irresponsible not to invest in alternative energy generation research while you still have income from oil. Iran has admitted that they have a nuclear program, has agreed to inspections from the international community, including the US. They simply won't shut it down on a whim.

Maybe they'll use it as a trampolin to get nuclear weapons, maybe not. What the Europe-Iran talks are focusing on is how to conduct inspections to make sure they're not doing the latter. US stubborness could derail these talks.

George W. Bush :sniper:

Which is why we have elections, a constitution, free markets, a powerful private sector, public dissent, checked and balanced government, et cetera.

You are free if your Rich. Otherwise, you are just a wage slave just like Nelson Mandella said you were. Slaves.

You work for shit and pittance and get just enough to survive... I mean do you have ANY idea how Rich your corporations were you would know the first thing you have to do is tear them the hell down. They have no loyalty but to money and no sympathy for anything that doesn't make them money. They are the criminals that run your media, they say they need something and your government creates WARS for them.

You have a constitution that was honourable, but has been set aside by the Patriot Act overriding your constitution... You are no longer free. You have rigged elections and the UN is not allowed to check them, like they do and all the other countries in the world are scared to death of you.

You public dissent is evident by the fact you are NOT allowed to see it. and those that do dissent and quietly whisked away like Alex Jones when he asked George Bush a simple question.

Your whole country is one big fact denial that has no idea what it's governemnt does outside its border, or for that matter, you have no idea that the military conducts urban warfare experiments to take over its own cities or that the military has been working with law enforcement to not police the communities but to "control populations". I even watched footage of them calling the first terrorists "George Washington and Thomas Jefferson" Because they went after English...

Holy CRAP do you have any idea how much you are in a totalitarian state you would just be having a bird. Well.. Dream on and the Rich get Richer... When they find a way to make money by melting down your bones into some product they can sell, you'll be laughing then...

The rest of the countries of the world will fight you, and win... Because we have the drive to know we are not fighting on the side of the new fascists, we are fighting for freedom, freedom for all... not just freedom for the American Empire.

Actually he is French, he was born in Sweden...but he is truly French...Citizenship and Passport...

Still wrong. He is a Swedish diplomat and has been a member of the Swedish government, something non-Swedes cannot be. Are you pulling this out of your ass?

Domestic terrorism employing a Nuke is extreamly unlikely. The US's domestic terrorists are usualy of the right-wing whacko catagory, which is currently more interested in blowing up all of the middel-east than their oun country(Please note that I am not accuseing conservatives of being whako, but their are extreamists). Additionaly, the domestic terrorists in the US are mostly compleatly isolated from human interaction.

Middel-eastern terrorists is far more likely, especialy since the likely suppliers of of such materials to terrorists are Iran and North Korea, and North Korea has Russia, China, SK, Japan, the US, and I'm sure some other countries in the region ready to put the beat-down on them should they try anything funny.

Iran has announced that it has a Nuclear program; It has been attempting to make a deal with the Russians on obtaining Uranium. Iran claims that it is only interested in makeing nuclear powerplants, but in a region where oil is cheaper than watter, most people find this explaination for their nuclear research extreamly unlikely.

As for the millitary makeing plans for invadeing Iran, it has had such plans in file cabinets for years, and is only updateing them. This is a perfectly reasonable course of action to take in order to leverage our millitary power in order to convince Iran to give up nuclear research without a war. The millitary is as much a part of diplomacy as anything else. An up to date plan for millitary action sends out the message that we are ready to take millitary action should it prove neccesary.
for Bush the only form of diplomacy is invasions. some muslim can setoff a suitcase nuke in NYC easily. Homeland security is a total joke under Bush

Bush is an idiot. He probably will move into Iran, Iraq will be more dangerous than it was before he went in, and we're gonna get nuked. PERFECT.
Thanks a lot, Dubya
He deserves to get shot, because he has messed up our country and the world so much.

Under Bush America IS a totalitarian state tho

Um, right. That's why you've still got freedom of speech, have not been arrested for your views, and Michael Moore has not been quietly disappeared.

Actually he is French, he was born in Sweden...but he is truly French...Citizenship and Passport...
Ánd when is that supposed to happened? It is not mentioned in his biography. Never heard of a French national that can become the Swedish under secretary of state.

Bush is not the reason I have my freedom of speech. He is the reason people are losing freedoms, though. Gays can't get married. Why? Bush is a southern bum who doesn't like those stupid gay liberals.

Actually, gays won't be able to get married soon.

Sure they will. It's being contested across the nation, and same sex marriage licenses are being handed out again in some places.

Bush is not the reason I have my freedom of speech. He is the reason people are losing freedoms, though. Gays can't get married. Why? Bush is a southern bum who doesn't like those stupid gay liberals.

even though i may not buy into the bush is satan view everybody else here seems to have, i do agree that that was to far...however much i may not like the fact that gays can get married...it is their right. i think the only issue i have with it is that i don't think gays should get married under God for the simple fact that the bible defines marriage as being between man and woman...if they want to get married under the state...go for it

You are free if your Rich. Otherwise, you are just a wage slave just like Nelson Mandella said you were. Slaves.

You work for shit and pittance and get just enough to survive... I mean do you have ANY idea how Rich your corporations were you would know the first thing you have to do is tear them the hell down. They have no loyalty but to money and no sympathy for anything that doesn't make them money. They are the criminals that run your media, they say they need something and your government creates WARS for them.

You have a constitution that was honourable, but has been set aside by the Patriot Act overriding your constitution... You are no longer free. You have rigged elections and the UN is not allowed to check them, like they do and all the other countries in the world are scared to death of you.

You public dissent is evident by the fact you are NOT allowed to see it. and those that do dissent and quietly whisked away like Alex Jones when he asked George Bush a simple question.

Your whole country is one big fact denial that has no idea what it's governemnt does outside its border, or for that matter, you have no idea that the military conducts urban warfare experiments to take over its own cities or that the military has been working with law enforcement to not police the communities but to "control populations". I even watched footage of them calling the first terrorists "George Washington and Thomas Jefferson" Because they went after English...

Holy CRAP do you have any idea how much you are in a totalitarian state you would just be having a bird. Well.. Dream on and the Rich get Richer... When they find a way to make money by melting down your bones into some product they can sell, you'll be laughing then...

The rest of the countries of the world will fight you, and win... Because we have the drive to know we are not fighting on the side of the new fascists, we are fighting for freedom, freedom for all... not just freedom for the American Empire.

Rather than writing a huge rebuttal that won't persuade you anyway, I'll just ask you a simple question: You don't live in America, do you?

People don't even realize this, but everything that happened to the Roman Empire when it fell is happening now. Our economy is terrible, people are coming in through our borders, and we have all of our troops in one location because of a stupid cause. "Saddam has WMD's" Yeah right.

Yes. I also live in Washington D.C., but I don't like the Redskins. It's the same thing.

I was wondering when Skapedroe would return....

2000 Election: Gore 48%, Bush 48%, Nader 3% Other 1%. Electoral votes win it for Bush.

2004 Election: Kerry 48%, Bush 51%. In Ohio, the most contested state, Bush won by 118,000 votes. Yep, sounds to me like he stole it.
Bush hacked the vote in Ohio with the help of the FBI and republican owned voting machines

As for the Constitution, I assume you are refering to the Patriot Act. I actuallly agree with you that the Patriot Act is a bad thing; I don't like. However, as long as the Second Amendment exists as a guarantor, our Constitutional rights cannot be taken away, because we will remove the government from power.
Bush wants more Patriot Acts with expanded powers and with his one party tyranny he could pass it

Free markets benefit everyone. Of course the richest get the biggest return; they are able to put in more money. But, their tax dollars go to fund government welfare, so no one really suffers. Obviously, there are exceptions, but the system works as perfectly as any system can.
not really-there is no more welfare really to speak of for the people and Bush is also working to gut SS next. The free market hurts the people cause all the good jobs get exported and Bush thinks this is a good thing too

The private sector allows people to make money, and improve their lot in life. If that is bad...well, it isn't so I can't really argue that.
in theory yes but Under Bush No

One party tyranny? The Republicans were elected because people were tried of Democrats pessimistic whining about everything and blaming America for the world's problems. If they'd show some optimism, maybe they'd do better.
name one thing for their to be optimism about since Bush seized power

Subverted Media? Let's take a look:

Anti-Bush: NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, some internet, most newpapers & magazines
Pro-Bush: FOX, some internet, most books.

I think all in all it's pretty even.
all that media is subverted with the sole exception of the internet and airamerica

Bush is not the reason I have my freedom of speech. He is the reason people are losing freedoms, though. Gays can't get married. Why? Bush is a southern bum who doesn't like those stupid gay liberals.

Bush does not hate gays. He is simply against changing the definition of marriage to suit three percent of the population. There is a huge difference.

Um, right. That's why you've still got freedom of speech, have not been arrested for your views, and Michael Moore has not been quietly disappeared.


Free is decided by what laws the state has to control what you do. Right now everyone is living on that "fine knife edge" Bush could, with the laws in place now, declare martial law and the law says he can.

The Patriot Act suspends all your rights. So, in essence... Free Speech is not a right you have anymore. Well, actually, all he has to do is say "your a terrorist" and poof, your rights are gone and no one has to ever hear from you.

In fact, interestingly enough, its been used already to deal with drugs... Like why can't you guys ever figure out that drug problems are to be treated, not punished... It's like you have no more respect for human life.

I digress, anyways, lots of people are preparing for the coming war... I just hope we live through it.

Bush hacked the vote in Ohio with the help of the FBI and republican owned voting machines


Bush wants more Patriot Acts with expanded powers and with his one party tyranny he could pass it


not really-there is no more welfare really to speak of for the people and Bush is also working to gut SS next. The free market hurts the people cause all the good jobs get exported and Bush thinks this is a good thing too


in theory yes but Under Bush No


name one thing for their to be optimism about since Bush seized power


all that media is subverted with the sole exception of the internet and airamerica

I don't suppose you could back that up with evidence?

[QUOTE=Hell-holia]both saw how we barged in and demolished Iraq, so they have been prepping for that war since March 2004.
QUOTE]


your history is a little fuzzy. i beleive it was march 2003 that the US invaded iraq
irrelevant tho

Bush does not hate gays. He is simply against changing the definition of marriage to suit three percent of the population. There is a huge difference.

The definition of marriage already includes gays:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

Bush does indeed hate gays.

However, we all know that oil is running out, plus there are many advantages to nuclear generation of energy. It would be irresponsible not to invest in alternative energy generation research while you still have income from oil. Iran has admitted that they have a nuclear program, has agreed to inspections from the international community, including the US. They simply won't shut it down on a whim.

Maybe they'll use it as a trampolin to get nuclear weapons, maybe not. What the Europe-Iran talks are focusing on is how to conduct inspections to make sure they're not doing the latter. US stubborness could derail these talks.
nuclear power causes cancer clusters--so do shower curtains and Aquanet hairsprays as well

Bush is the biggest WMD out there. He killed thousands of Iraqi civilians with America troops. So did Saddam Hussein, but Bush had the approval of the Republic Majority Congress.

Bush does not hate gays. He is simply against changing the definition of marriage to suit three percent of the population. There is a huge difference.

No, its called discrimination. You are not allowed to have the same rights as me because you are left handed is about the same thing.

It's exactly what a republic is designed to avoid. One that says "You have rights that cannot be removed and we are all to be treated equal. Well, unfortunately, except for your who are homosexual, you are not allowed to marry the one you love like everyone else, please allow our bigots and ever increasingly outdated religions persecute you. If you don't mind."

If one person ever had the audacity to say that in front of me I would slap their face like the bigot they are.

I don't suppose you could back that up with
evidence?



http://www.conspiracytheoriesarealltrueandeverybodywhohatesbushasoneoftheirown.com (http://

http://www.conspiracytheoriesarealltrueandeverybodywhohatesbushasoneoftheirown.com)

Thank you for that very literal definiton of marriage.

You are free if your Rich. Otherwise, you are just a wage slave just like Nelson Mandella said you were. Slaves.

You work for shit and pittance and get just enough to survive... I mean do you have ANY idea how Rich your corporations were you would know the first thing you have to do is tear them the hell down. They have no loyalty but to money and no sympathy for anything that doesn't make them money. They are the criminals that run your media, they say they need something and your government creates WARS for them.

You have a constitution that was honourable, but has been set aside by the Patriot Act overriding your constitution... You are no longer free. You have rigged elections and the UN is not allowed to check them, like they do and all the other countries in the world are scared to death of you.

You public dissent is evident by the fact you are NOT allowed to see it. and those that do dissent and quietly whisked away like Alex Jones when he asked George Bush a simple question.

Your whole country is one big fact denial that has no idea what it's governemnt does outside its border, or for that matter, you have no idea that the military conducts urban warfare experiments to take over its own cities or that the military has been working with law enforcement to not police the communities but to "control populations". I even watched footage of them calling the first terrorists "George Washington and Thomas Jefferson" Because they went after English...

Holy CRAP do you have any idea how much you are in a totalitarian state you would just be having a bird. Well.. Dream on and the Rich get Richer... When they find a way to make money by melting down your bones into some product they can sell, you'll be laughing then...

The rest of the countries of the world will fight you, and win... Because we have the drive to know we are not fighting on the side of the new fascists, we are fighting for freedom, freedom for all... not just freedom for the American Empire.
Krackonis is a patriot and a genius

http://www.conspiracytheoriesarealltrueandeverybodywhohatesbushasoneoftheirown.com (http://

http://www.conspiracytheoriesarealltrueandeverybodywhohatesbushasoneoftheirown.com)

Ha, that made my day.

nuclear power causes cancer clusters--so do shower curtains and Aquanet hairsprays as well
I didn't say it was perfect. But it can be reasonably safe and clean. And much less stinky than oil. And, anyway, when oil runs out, which it will as soon as in two decades, there'll be no choice but to use something else.

Actually, gays won't be able to get married soon.

They will in this country... See.. Up here we don't like discrimination, actually it's against the law.

Here's something stating Bush's lies.

http://bush-lies.blogspot.com/

Good. Discrimination should be against the law, but Bush wants it to be the law.

Um, right. That's why you've still got freedom of speech, have not been arrested for your views, and Michael Moore has not been quietly disappeared.
Bush holds press conferences with fake reporters asking fake questions that he already knows the answers to--anyone even mildly critical of Bush never gets called on (remember Helen Thomas) and Bushs term isnt over yet so the disappearances could happen at anytime after his recklessness causes more terrorism

Whenever Bush holds a real press conference, he always can't respond to their questions. The press conference asking about what mistakes he made:
"Uh, uh, you should have given me that one in advance. I can't really think of anything."

*according to weapons inspectors Hans Blix and that guy who speaks to extraterrestrials (I posted a link to his website earlier) whose predictions have never been wrong yet

the deputy commander of U.S. Central Command announced Wednesday that the military is updating its war plan for attacking Iran. Lt. Gen. Lance Smith claimed the update was a routine matter. Smith said "We try to keep them current, particularly if our region is active." The announcement came on the same day that both President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice issued new warnings to Terhran. Meanwhile former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has issued a warning of sorts -- to the United States. He said the Bush administration must know if they launch an attack, there possibly could be a nuclear retaliation by Iran.
democracynow.org

having a nuke.. and having the capability to strike the United States are two very different issues. Pakistan has nukes, but it dosn't have a missle capable of crossing the middle east let alone strike the US.

This is besides the fact that the US would never INVADE Iran.. it is infesable to ever hope to control the country as it is large and very nationalistic.. instead there would be military STRIKES probably to destroy suspected necular sites and other military targets

Krackonis is a patriot and a genius
WTF does that make me then?

Bush holds press conferences with fake reporters asking fake questions that he already knows the answers to--anyone even mildly critical of Bush never gets called on (remember Helen Thomas) and Bushs term isnt over yet so the disappearances could happen at anytime after his recklessness causes more terrorism

Riiight...

I digress, anyways, lots of people are preparing for the coming war... I just hope we live through it.

You know that saying "i hope we live through this" was also said before the Iraq war? Nothing happened, but it is true that Iran has always been a bigger threat than Iraq for Nuclear Weapons along with North Korea. I think we should stomp out A.Q. Kahn and his nuclear weapon smuggling oraganization first if we are to ever to invade Iran. Also bush could use some points from the American citizens and get some better respect if he wants suport, and we need to finnish up the job in both Iraq and Afghanistan because we are way overstretched

Actually, Bush is going to invade Iran. That's his diplomatic solution. He talks to the UN, they say no, he does it anyway.

Actually, Bush is going to invade Iran. That's his diplomatic solution. He talks to the UN, they say no, he does it anyway.

Damn Bush for not letting the Frenchies and criminal regimes of the UN make our decisions for us!

Ah, so we should take defense advice from a Sweish man? How many wars has Sweden won? Have they done anything of note since the early 1700s? No.

Ah yes.... Let's see.... Okay, Sweden won the last war they were involved in, in the 1800s, they were involved in the Napoleonic Wars.

1521-1523: The Swedish won their war for freedom, and were liberated.

1524-1536: Sweden conquers Denmark, but ends up with only a small amount of land.

1554-1557: War with Russia, no loss or gain of land.

1563-1570: Lost a War with Denmark, had to pay to get some of their land back.

1563-1568: War with Poland, no loss or gain of land.

1570-1595: 25 Years war with Russia. They captured Narva (now an Estonian city), A part of Ingermanland (A Baltic province), and Estonia (In the Baltics)

1600-1629: The Second Polish War: Sweden captured:
Livland including Riga (The Baltics)
Prussian ports (Elbing, Pillau, Braunsberg Fischhausen, Lochstädt and Memel)
The Danzig trade

1610-1617: The Ingermanland War: Sweden Captured:
+ Kexholms län (southeast of Finland)
+ Nöteborg, Jama, Kopore and Ivangorod with counties, that is western Ingermanland (Baltic province)

1630-1648: The Thirty Years' War (In Germany): Sweden Captured:
+ Kexholms län (southeast of Finland)
+ Nöteborg, Jama, Kopore and Ivangorod with counties, that is western Ingermanland (Baltic province)

Lots of stuff in between then and the next one, lots of land gain and loss, until finally

1813-1814: The Napoleon War of King Karl XIV Johan: Sweden Captured:
+ Norway

So there.

I was wondering when Skapedroe would return....
are you on paradise beach super?

If anybody should have been attacked, it should have been Saudi Arabia. They are known to harbor terrorists, and the only reason we aren't attacking them is because we get oil from them. All terrorists in 9-11 were Saudi Arabian. We knew that. What did we do? Attack Iraq for absolutely no reason. Wouldn't you rather attack the people that have the Al Queda in their country than the people with "connections"?

...

Don't bother. Malkyer's ignorance of history has been proven already.

We should be getting support from at least three other countries. We don't like the French people because they don't like Bush.

Ah yes.... Let's see.... Okay, Sweden won the last war they were involved in, in the 1800s, they were involved in the Napoleonic Wars.

1521-1523: The Swedish won their war for freedom, and were liberated.

1524-1536: Sweden conquers Denmark, but ends up with only a small amount of land.

1554-1557: War with Russia, no loss or gain of land.

1563-1570: Lost a War with Denmark, had to pay to get some of their land back.

1563-1568: War with Poland, no loss or gain of land.

1570-1595: 25 Years war with Russia. They captured Narva (now an Estonian city), A part of Ingermanland (A Baltic province), and Estonia (In the Baltics)

1600-1629: The Second Polish War: Sweden captured:
Livland including Riga (The Baltics)
Prussian ports (Elbing, Pillau, Braunsberg Fischhausen, Lochstädt and Memel)
The Danzig trade

1610-1617: The Ingermanland War: Sweden Captured:
+ Kexholms län (southeast of Finland)
+ Nöteborg, Jama, Kopore and Ivangorod with counties, that is western Ingermanland (Baltic province)

1630-1648: The Thirty Years' War (In Germany): Sweden Captured:
+ Kexholms län (southeast of Finland)
+ Nöteborg, Jama, Kopore and Ivangorod with counties, that is western Ingermanland (Baltic province)

Lots of stuff in between then and the next one, lots of land gain and loss, until finally

1813-1814: The Napoleon War of King Karl XIV Johan: Sweden Captured:
+ Norway

So there.

No, my point still stands. Nothing important since the early 1700s (you forgot the Great Northern War), except for the Napoleonic Wars, in which Sweden and Norway fell to Napoleon. That's odd, considering they didn't fight in those wars.

Bush does not hate gays. He is simply against changing the definition of marriage to suit three percent of the population. There is a huge difference.
its also an unconstitutional difference

its also an unconstitutional difference

How so?

damn you guys... :mp5:

kick both Fass and VonWitzleben ib the uppsala...twice!

why?...why dont you let Malkyer make a fool of himself one more time...

you guys really think i dont know where Blix is from?...after all you are not n00bies...you should know me better.

No, my point still stands. Nothing important since the early 1700s (you forgot the Great Northern War), except for the Napoleonic Wars, in which Sweden and Norway fell to Napoleon. That's odd, considering they didn't fight in those wars.

Sweden never fell to Napoleon, and neither did Norway. You really are this ignorant of history, aren't you?

Bush is unconstitutional. He is limiting people's freedoms in this supposed "land of the free"

Hopefully, rather than attack NYC, they go for the white house to take out Bush.

Bush wont be there by the time the missles get there. He has Air Force One to get him out of the target area that he created himself.

If they really want to attack the Republican party, they will attack the southern states that continuously vote Republican time and time again. Like Texas and Louisiana and Alabama. That's the kind of strategy that will cause a significant political shift.

Ah, so we should take defense advice from a Sweish man? How many wars has Sweden won? Have they done anything of note since the early 1700s? No.

Anyway, Iran does not have the capabilities to hit us with a nuclear bomb using military means. That would take an ICBM, which they do not have. Yes, could try to attack with terrorist tactics, but I imagine security would be alert enough to intercept something if we went to war with the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism.

But that's just my opinion.

And I'm glad you're back. Some of your posts are really funny.

Good Point. I believe we as a nation should always remain alert, but not to the point where we believe every warning thrown at us is based on fact.

Ah yes.... Let's see.... Okay, Sweden won the last war they were involved in, in the 1800s, they were involved in the Napoleonic Wars.

so what you're saying is...the guys that led the sweedish in that war are still alive and giving strategic advice? damn...i'm moving to sweeden.

Your ignorence of Swedish as well as Belgian, oh, alright, European, history speaks for itself.

PSST! You might want to look into the Napoleonic wars. There is a reason Norway ended up becoming Swedish territory in the early 1800s.
Meh, after the 30 Years War the Swedes went downhill. They were still formidable in the early 1800's but they've been getting weaker ever since.

I didn't say it was perfect. But it can be reasonably safe and clean. And much less stinky than oil. And, anyway, when oil runs out, which it will as soon as in two decades, there'll be no choice but to use something else.
I agree but nuclear power is not the way to go and its entirely unsafe especially as plants age

Meh, after the 30 Years War the Swedes went downhill. They were still formidable in the early 1800's but they've been getting weaker ever since.

We haven't fought a war since then, so...

Here's something stating Bush's lies.

http://bush-lies.blogspot.com/

that site is a laugh.. i could poke holes in that baloon of hot hair so fast a you could run a sauna by it

I think we should let the terrorists attack the highly Republican states. Then in 2008, all states will go Democrat!

wow, I start reading a thread about Irans nuclear capabilities and terrorism and when i skip to the end I'm greeted by "thank you for that very literal definition of marriage" and so on.

Just in case it hasn't already been said, Iran has admitted they have nukes, America will probably take military action and there is NO nuclear threat to the US whatsoever, Its simple strategic logic. Iran does not have ICBM's (Testing such weapons is impossible to do in secret and since the advent of sattelite reconasaince they couldn't realistically be built without America knowing) they Don't have the heavy intercontinental bombers necessary to deliver them by air (And if they did America has one of the most sophisticated air defense networks in existence, it would not get to any target of strategic, political or economic importance before it was shot down)
And it would be easier to smuggle Elephants into America than nuclear weapons.

Sweden never fell to Napoleon, and neither did Norway. You really are this ignorant of history, aren't you?

If you took the time to look at the huge quote at the beginning of my post, you'd have seen that it was Irinistan, not me, who said that.

Next time, read the post.

And OceanDrive, I do not appreciate your comment. When I stand up for what I believe, I am a fool? Isn't it perhaps you're just afraid that I'm right. So far, I've used only logic and my own observations in this debate. I am not a fool, by any stretch.

Were I to insult you for having differing beliefs, I'm sure I would be maligned as ignorant and intolerant, yet when you do it it's fine? Disgusting.

WTF does that make me then?
your good you just need to be liberated

having a nuke.. and having the capability to strike the United States are two very different issues. Pakistan has nukes, but it dosn't have a missle capable of crossing the middle east let alone strike the US.

This is besides the fact that the US would never INVADE Iran.. it is infesable to ever hope to control the country as it is large and very nationalistic.. instead there would be military STRIKES probably to destroy suspected necular sites and other military targets
suitcase nukes...

If you took the time to look at the huge quote at the beginning of my post, you'd have seen that it was Irinistan, not me, who said that.

Next time, read the post.

No, he said no such thing. Sweden was involved in the Napoleonic wars. It defeated Denmark - Napoleon's ally - and thus gained control of Norway.

Neither Norway nor Sweden ever fell to Napoleon. My comment on your ignorance of history still stands. And you are the one who needs to work on your reading comprehension skills.

I'm not worried about North Korea or Iran. In all of history, the only democracies to have been defeated by totalitarian states have been France and Belgium.

Not quite. There is that matter of the Poland in 1939. :(

Riiight...
its all been documented on airamerica--Bush has been using male prostitutes in his fake press conferences

That's a good point that nobody in the Bush administration will think of when they invade Iran.

WTF does that make me then?

Well, I guess it depends on the context he meant it and the context you mean...

I am thinking he thinks that my line of thinking about "freedom for everyone" and "seeing the cohersive forces in our society"...

Or, he could know I am not American and I am patriotic ot MY country... But I don't think so...

In any case, I am hopeful that the American people will pull themselves out of this turn off their "Corporate Consumer Slave Boxes" they call TV's and look at their communities, they're planet and reach out and learn.

So if you are thinking that you are patriotic, think carefully about that that means. It means taking a stand and doing whats right, for your country. It's easy to deriding naysayers who don't wear little flag on their lapels and it's easy to slam someone who is basically saying "quit your jobs for we are destroying the earth" or something like that. But what amount of caring must have amounted in that person to actually say that?

The entire American population is being taking on a corporate driven ride of green grass and trees with SUVs climbing hills and no end to the prosperity in sight, unless the terrorists win...

The trees are dying, the Suvs are polluting and the terrorists were made for you to hate. If anyone here can honestly say they did not know that Saddam and Bin Laden were both CIA assets I'll give them 10 bucks.

I mean Saddam was just "replaced" as the new terror generating bad guy... Ever since 93 they have been trying to get Bin Laden to register in the Asmerican mind as a "horrible bad spooky evil person" and it finally worked... Good for you, you bought it. I guess George Bush Sr's deals with Bin Ladens dad paid off.

I mean, it's history, it's recorded, try looking on the BBC archives or something NOT American. American TV and journalism white washes everything, and for good reason... Look at what happen to those two investigative reporters who went after a phamculatical company, nailed to the wall for reporting the truth. Its a hard thing to do, stick to your guns, especially when people are paid to write bad things about you for years afterward.

You should watch the Corporation, its a 3 hour documentary describing the habits of Corporate America... Including that nice "IBM NY division" leased the machines for gassing people in Poland concentration camps. They created "innovative solutions" to their "business needs".

IBM - The FINAL solution to all your gassing needs.

I guess maybe, I'm a patriot and a complete asshole.

How so?
Bush attempted to desecrate the constitution to institutionalize discrimination

And how has this gotten into the Napoleonic Wars?
This was a discussion about Iran and WMDs

The only type of people I discriminate against are Bush-lovers.

You know that saying "i hope we live through this" was also said before the Iraq war? Nothing happened, but it is true that Iran has always been a bigger threat than Iraq for Nuclear Weapons along with North Korea. I think we should stomp out A.Q. Kahn and his nuclear weapon smuggling oraganization first if we are to ever to invade Iran. Also bush could use some points from the American citizens and get some better respect if he wants suport, and we need to finnish up the job in both Iraq and Afghanistan because we are way overstretched


I meant World War 3... American vs the World.

What? You think we are going to LET you come and take all our resources while you destroy your own, and our planet? Hell no... It will happen, just a matter of time.

that site is a laugh.. i could poke holes in that baloon of hot hair so fast a you could run a sauna by it
DailyKos is good

The only type of people I discriminate against are Bush-lovers.

Stop spamming the thread with disjointed, singular posts, please. You are just driving the page count up for no reason, and it is ruining the thread's cohesion..

That was actually one of the only one-liners I wrote. I have been a part of this discussion for quite a while now, so back. :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

off.

That was actually one of the only one-liners I wrote. I have been a part of this discussion for quite a while now, so back. :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

Don't make me post links to your other posts. You have been making disjointed posts ever since your joined this thread and it has gone on for far too long. Refrain from doing it henceforth, please, lest I notify the mods.

off.
EDIT BUTTON!!!!!!!!

And ruining the thread's cohesion?co·he·sion (k-hzhn) The intermolecular attraction that holds molecules and masses together. How is me posting ruining how the thread holds together?

You know what, I don't sit around doing this. I don't know all of the features. I don't do this 14 hours a day. I have a life.

And ruining the thread's cohesion? How is me posting ruining how the thread holds together?

well...exactly like that...


anyway...back to the topic.

i don't really think america is near as much of a mud-hole as this thread is implying. I do agree that we have some major problems, though...


EDIT: the edit button...down, and to your right...

i don't do this often either...this is probably the 4th day i've been in the forums in the past month

I don't go typing paragraphs in my posts, so don't get mad at me for that. What are you going to the the mods? I'm ruining the cohesion of the thread by posting short messages? This is a way for me to express myself, so I can do it in whatever way I want to.

I don't go typing paragraphs in my posts, so don't get mad at me for that. What are you going to the the mods? I'm ruining the cohesion of the thread by posting short messages? This is a way for me to express myself, so I can do it in whatever way I want to.

no, now you're ruining the cohesion by being completely off-topic...

to remind everybody what has happened so far...
Iran has nukes, the sweeds are good military advisors, bush sucks, and america is going to hell in a handbasket(or so i'm told)

I don't go typing paragraphs in my posts, so don't get mad at me for that. What are you going to the the mods? I'm ruining the cohesion of the thread by posting short messages? This is a way for me to express myself, so I can do it in whatever way I want to.

You are doing it on purpose to spam up your post count, especially as you seem incapable of using the edit feature. The mods will be notified shortly.

Bush is unconstitutional. He is limiting people's freedoms in this supposed "land of the free"
There is no RIGHT to legal marriage. NONE. Now, if there was a homosexual-friendly church(Of which there are a few, but not many) that they wanted to get married at they could. The government couldn't do jack shit about it. The legal institution of marriage, however, is something else entirely. If they would drop the word marriage from the lawbooks entirely and have only civil unions for all couples then the pissant religious bastards couldn't whine about it. But that would be the sensible course, so of course it won't be followed. Friggin morons.

There is no RIGHT to legal marriage. NONE. Now, if there was a homosexual-friendly church(Of which there are a few, but not many) that they wanted to get married at they could. The government couldn't do jack shit about it. The legal institution of marriage, however, is something else entirely. If they would drop the word marriage from the lawbooks entirely and have only civil unions for all couples then the pissant religious bastards couldn't whine about it. But that would be the sensible course, so of course it won't be followed. Friggin morons.

Marriage is in no way a religious institution, so there is no reason to drop the name. Marriage is a civil union.

Ah yes the famous democracynow.com, a constant source of humourous, biased bs.

so anyway, what is the real, un-biased, un-tainted, factual, real possibility that we will attack iran, and if we do, same deal for geting nuked...

Hans blix does have something of a track-record in making accurate statements about atomic weapons.

In fact, he's got a track record as a cassandra of sorts.

Sigh. Iran isn't going to do anything. They want nukes because it's pride to them. Besides, their most influential party just happens to be american educated iranian engineers.

Bush aside... I've been thinking about this whole Iran thing... Why go to war with all these enemies anyway?

Wars are so... unelegant. Costly, often causing many innocent casualties on both sides, and in the end the rich win. But then again, the rich always win whatever happens. Whom has the gold, makes the rules, eh?

Still rather then war... How about switching to a system of simply targeting the offending foreign leaders directly and personally without any warning whatsoever. Suckerpunch them, so to say. With spiked knuckles with curare on the spikes.

Those stealth planes and bombers could do so much more then just fly about unseen and bomb military targets. Not to mention these missilebase-esque submarines. Pretend you are all friendly and appeasing to these dictators then in one fell swoop destroy every single dictatorial palace with airstrikes, submarine strikes and who knows what kind of strikes when they least expect it. Sure, it'll be expensive, but so is war really and if you really want shock and awe and to kill all dictators, why not just do it all at once. The other powers would boo and hiss of course, but none of them want to start a thermonuclear war over the worlds collective po-dunk dictatorships. So it'll blow over. And sure, there will be innocent casualties, but less then these dragging wars, I'd imagine.

I'm sure you'll get quite a few dictators quite dead that way. And of course, assassination ought to be quite convenient as well. Place every dictator hereby under a ban of total extermination. Be they theocrat ayatollahs, military junta leaders or rogue monarchs with a desire to go back to the good old dark ages. Rather then conquering their countries, just focus each and every military effort on killing the leaders, and just about nothing else. Generally these countries don't really have fleets or intercontinental missile's with which to march on us. So they can't really do much against it. Rather then have the next guy try to become dictator, who is then hunted with missile's as well.

Sure a few of them will escape and go into hiding, but still... Rather then all out wars... If you are going to kill the enemy anyway, why not just kill the head of the serpent and ignore the rest.

There will be a bunch of anarchy no doubt, but as soon as any anarch becomes a dictator, again... Make them go boom.

Eventually you'd think they'd catch on and decide that maybe they'd better become friendly democracies.

If they still don't, nuke the least significant dictatorship entirely into oblivion. Again, innocent deaths a-many... Buuuut many other innocent lives shall be spared as they realize the futility of resistance!



Okay, back to reality... Bush starting a war on Iran is not the smartest thing he can do, but unfortunatly he never made the wisest decisions in any matter that does not involve fattening his considerable personal wallet. Sure, he'll make boatloads of cash out of it one way or the other if he invaded. But America's struggling economy would have the financial burden of yet ANOTHER war upon it.

The USSR bled to death over things like that...

But then again, Bush seems to love killing America softly with his song...

Marriage is in no way a religious institution, so there is no reason to drop the name. Marriage is a civil union.
If mariage was a civil union only Bush wouldn't be able to declare that Gays shouldn't marry and its only between man and women. (yes I know I said 1 man and many woman lol)

If we instead use Civil Unions in place of marriage than all problems would be solved.

This is a way for me to express myself, so I can do it in whatever way I want to.
Not exactly. You follow the rules of the site, which includes not spamming and following moderator advice. Stop spamming the thread, Gonjika.

Everyone else, stay on topic too. Petty arguments win no votes with me.

Yeah Iran is next.... It is way more warranted than the war in Iraq and I doubt the nuclear bomb thingy is true these conspiracy hardly ever are..... Join my region City of the damned

Under Bush America IS a totalitarian state tho

You have GOT to be joking. The US, regardless of who the president may be, is nowhere near to being a totalitarian state. That is just ludicrous. Last I checked, totalitarian states do not permit the massive amounts of protest and dissent evident among the US populous. Nor do they permit the free access to the internet US citizens enjoy and the freedom to post whatever they want as far as criticism, abuse and insults to the president and government go. To say the US and Bush are totalitarian is a childish 'sour-grapes' comment that the Democratic candidate lost. And I'm a Democrat. Been one since the mid 70's.

If mariage was a civil union only Bush wouldn't be able to declare that Gays shouldn't marry and its only between man and women. (yes I know I said 1 man and many woman lol)

If we instead use Civil Unions in place of marriage than all problems would be solved.

You already use marriage, which is a civil union. In no way does the government recognise the religious aspect of it. If you don't sign that marriage certificate, your priest can declare you married all he wants - you still won't be married.

Seriously it's only Americans I've met who have some sort of idea that marriage is a religious institution or that the term "marriage" is in some way religious and impervious to change. It is none of those things.

You have GOT to be joking. The US, regardless of who the president may be, is nowhere near to being a totalitarian state. That is just ludicrous. Last I checked, totalitarian states do not permit the massive amounts of protest and dissent evident among the US populous. Nor do they permit the free access to the internet US citizens enjoy and the freedom to post whatever they want as far as criticism, abuse and insults to the president and government go. To say the US and Bush are totalitarian is a childish 'sour-grapes' comment that the Democratic candidate lost. And I'm a Democrat. Been one since the mid 70's.
its closet totalitarianism

We should be getting support from at least three other countries. We don't like the French people because they don't like Bush.


Actually, no. The reason we dont like France is they are too pathetic and too stupid to win a war. look up the marginot line. An ingenious idea. (note the sarcasim).

And in Va and Nc I know there is a strong dislike for the french because we are actually patriots (kind of like in Colonial days, isn't it, the patriots part that is). The french look down on us and treat us are though we are useless, which is the major reason. dont argue with me about this, I have put more thought into it then you are even capable of Gonjika.

Gonjika, please refrain from several short posts in a row, and from smily spam. It does affect the readability of the thread. If you have several things to say at once, compose a single, longer post please.

Actually, no. The reason we dont like France is they are too pathetic and too stupid to win a war. look up the marginot line. An ingenious idea. (note the sarcasim).

And in Va and Nc I know there is a strong dislike for the french because we are actually patriots (kind of like in Colonial days, isn't it, the patriots part that is). The french look down on us and treat us are though we are useless, which is the major reason. dont argue with me about this, I have put more thought into it then you are even capable of Gonjika.

There was no thought in that. It was just xenophobic tripe based on usubstantiated, and poor, rhetoric. Try again!

If we instead use Civil Unions in place of marriage than all problems would be solved.

Interestingly, that's exactly what was on an NPR program I'd heard about a year ago. And, even more interestingly, it was mentioned that because the word Marriage was being used that it would fail. Funny.

Personally, I think that this should go even further. Why require the Civil Union? Why can't (say) a 70 year old woman and her 45 year old daughter (widowed, never married, whatever) declare themselves a legal entity? If they're co-paying for a home, etc, they should have "spousal rights" (taxes, medical decisions, etc) just like in a civil union...

Keep it on topic please.

*according to weapons inspectors Hans Blix and that guy who speaks to extraterrestrials (I posted a link to his website earlier) whose predictions have never been wrong yet
democracynow.org
And, right there, you have 3 reasons not to believe a word about it. C'mon, your sources are Hans "I see no-think" Blix, a guy who speaks to ET and democracynow? Sheesh...you really are digging deep now.

I sure hope he is right.