NationStates Jolt Archive

Begoner21;11677545']Actually, I'm pretty sure that his reasoning was more along the lines of: "hey, wouldn't it be great to liberate tens of millions of people from an oppressive ruler who has committed greivous breaches of the Geneva Conventions? Wouldn't it be great to remove an evil dictator who wishes to acquire WMDs if he does not have them already? Wouldn't it be awesome to stop a despotic regime from supporting anti-US terrorism? I'm not going to wait around for New York to become a smoldering pile of rubble before taking action." One of the undesired consequences was indeed Iran gaining additional regional influence. You can't always get what you want, but...

With all due respect, have you not been paying attention to the last 5 years?

It's just a question.

Begoner21;11681491']Former being the operative word. They left the highly lucrative oil business so they could render a service to their country -- boo, hiss! They should be celebrated for their patriotic decision.

1. Dick Cheney still holds stock in his former company as well as oil firms. Therefore he benefits when they do.

2. Why hasn't Dick ever released the names of the people he met with (energy execs) who "helped" him create our energy policy. This had to eb classified because...

Name a couple, if you please. I find him thoroughly trustworthy, unlike some conniving weasels who went on to become president.

"Saddam has given aid and comfort to Al queada, most noteably Zarkawi" GWB
FRom the senate intelligence committe reort released last week... A CIA report from 2002 (before the war) states that Saddam had no working relationship with Al Queada and considered them an enemy. He hated Al Quaeda nearly as much as we do. These sources come from former Saddam loyalists and cabinet memebers, as well as top ranking offical in his military staff. This portion of the report has recently been made public after being classsifed by the Republican Party. So, when Bush says that Saddam had a relationship with Al Quaeda and Zarkawi as recenlty as last month and it was known that this was not true back in 2002, you woulc call that a what? A minor squash of the truth. Or a LIE I could go on, but you won't budge anyway as you're mearly an apologist who through around buzzwords like "Islamo-fascist" etc. The only think this conservative hates is people like you who have hijacked my party and the truth. May God have mercy on your paid for souls.



Actually, supply went down. You know, total oil - Iraqi oil < total oil.

Yeah, and the supply went up from places like Venezuala and Saudi Arabia. So total world production went up, regardless of the situation in Iraq. Yeah, the Iraq war is going well, about as well as Afghanistan. The problem is that you're as myopic as the president thinking you can win this war with only weapons. You will never understand terrorism or its roots and fail to realize that your actions helps fuel the very thing you hope to eliminate. I've spent enough time on your bs here, as some of us still work for a living.

You act as if curbing power is a bad thing. Thomas Jefferson said, "That government is best which governs least."

Conservatives think that statement should only apply to corporations because they're "persons under the law." People are just plain old persons, so they don't count.

Conservatives think that statement should only apply to corporations because they're "persons under the law." People are just plain old persons, so they don't count.

I think that the statement should apply to both people and corporations. Do I think that we shouldn't have a police force to provide for the safety of the people? No, it would be ludicrous not to have a police force. Similarly, it would be absurd not to have an intelligence force to monitor terrorists to protect American citizens.

Begoner21;11681632']Ah, so because Bush is good at business, he therefore invadinig Iraq to benefit the oil business and himself? Maybe we should only elect poor, stupid presidents to be sure that they have no vested interest in anything!

I guess you didn't actually read any of the source material I provide.

I'm not too surprised. Why would you want mere 'facts' to interfere with a good 'prejudice'?

We're done here.

Boosted oil prices have little to do with the Iraq war; this is a problem that started back in 1999 and has continued to the present. The amount of Iraqi oil production lost from the war has now been recouped, and overall production is actually higher than its 2002 level. The real disruptions are coming from Venezuela and Nigeria; the amount of production lost in those two countries is almost as much as Iraq's total oil production.


On the contrary... you are thinking purely in terms of supply and demand. It reflects well on your education in business, but it is much less than half of the story in 'real world' application.

If you look at the price spikes of the last few years, the most noticable factor has been correlation to middle-east tensions. You can try to reconcile prices to barrel-outputs, but it won't work. Instead, plot prices against the lead-up to, and the occurance of destabilisations in the middle-east. Plot the market 'value' against the market uncertainty.


Also, windfall taxes would actually lead to even more problems; the last time one was imposed, the government ultimately made less than $80 billion over 8 years and impacted domestic production negatively, making us even more dependent on the expensive imported oil that had motivated the tax in the first place. If you want to do something about oil prices, let the market work.

The problem is that our oil industries are almost autonomous, and thumb their collective noses at market forces (they have a captive market - all the rules are out the window) and governmental ideas.

A strong government could bring oil in to line. It won't happen on the watch of an oil-baron.

Begoner21;11682258']Nobody at the CIA or whatnot is going to start a chain email saying that you wet your bed just because you told it to your mom over the phone. Grow up.

How do you KNOW?

Begoner21;11682568']I don't think the Constitution anticipated this eventuality. It needs to be updated to the present, where bloodthirsty, fundamentalist, Islamo-fascist terrorists are out to kill as many Americans as possible.


Absolutely... we want blood-thirsty, fundamentalist Christian(sounding)-fascists in control, to protect us from blood-thirsty, fundamentalist Islamo-fascists, don't we?

Absolutely... we want blood-thirsty, fundamentalist Christian(sounding)-fascists in control, to protect us from blood-thirsty, fundamentalist Islamo-fascists, don't we?

The Kingdom of Gilead versus The Caliphate. Sounds like an online RTS deathmatch doesn't it? :D

Begoner21;11682824']Law-abiding citizens should not be scared of the government.


Think before you speak.

What about the 'law-abiding' citizens in the Soviet Union after Stalin started trying to cement his hold on power?

The idea we have nothing to fear from government hinges entirely on the assumption is neither corrupt, not malign.

I'd say that was a dangerous assumption to ever make... especially here and now.

How do you KNOW?

Again, there are going to be non-biased watchdog organizations set up to monitor the viewing of security tapes and the like. A human cannot physically listen to all the phone calls/video tapes that are instrumental in a security system -- they will be analyzed by machine. When a human accesses the data, the information will be transmitted to the organization for verification, and the information may even be released into the public domain after a sufficient period of time.

The Kingdom of Gilead versus The Caliphate. Sounds like an online RTS deathmatch doesn't it? :D

Red versus Blue, with 'nukes, crucifixes and turbans' mods...?

I guess you didn't actually read any of the source material I provide.

I did read what you provided, and I found it in no way convincing. It was a bunch of unfounded speculation -- the type liberals frequently engage in. I only accept hard facts as proof -- circumstancial evidence, while it may be indicative of something, does not outright prove it. You simply pointed to weak circumstancial evidence.

Begoner21;11685636']Again, there are going to be non-biased watchdog organizations set up to monitor the viewing of security tapes and the like. A human cannot physically listen to all the phone calls/video tapes that are instrumental in a security system -- they will be analyzed by machine. When a human accesses the data, the information will be transmitted to the organization for verification, and the information may even be released into the public domain after a sufficient period of time.

Bullshit.

The tapping is 'historical'... it has already BEEN happening. There has BEEN no regulation.

Indeed, the current regime defied regulation, to carry out their illegal monitoring.

So - I place no faith in the assumption of 'watchdog organisations'.

Red versus Blue, with 'nukes, crucifixes and turbans' mods...?

That would be a disturbing film.

Of course there's also Empire Earth, AoE 2 or 3, and of course Counterstrike.

Begoner21;11685644']I did read what you provided, and I found it in no way convincing. It was a bunch of unfounded speculation -- the type liberals frequently engage in. I only accept hard facts as proof -- circumstancial evidence, while it may be indicative of something, does not outright prove it. You simply pointed to weak circumstancial evidence.

Unless you can prove my evidence 'wrong', it stands.

That's how debate 'works'.

You might also want to look into what constitutes 'circumstantial' evidence. You appear not to understand the term.

That would be a disturbing film.

Of course there's also Empire Earth, AoE 2 or 3, and of course Counterstrike.

Empire Earth and AoE I'll accept. I was never much of a fan of Counterstrike.

On the other hand, if they want to make a "Who Pwnz teh Gulf" edition of Civilisations, I'm there.

Absolutely... we want blood-thirsty, fundamentalist Christian(sounding)-fascists in control, to protect us from blood-thirsty, fundamentalist Islamo-fascists, don't we?

Bush is neither blood-thirsty nor is he fundamentalist. He is most certainly not a fascist.

Unless you can prove my evidence 'wrong', it stands.

That's how debate 'works'.

You might also want to look into what constitutes 'circumstantial' evidence. You appear not to understand the term.

Can you re-post whichever sources you were referring to? I was under the impression that you asserted Bush went to war with Iraq for some vested oily reason, and provided as a source an article about Bush's former oil companies, how he got some sort of rigging deal somewhere, etc. None of that supported your flawed conclusion.

Begoner21;11685644']I did read what you provided, and I found it in no way convincing. It was a bunch of unfounded speculation -- the type liberals frequently engage in. I only accept hard facts as proof -- circumstancial evidence, while it may be indicative of something, does not outright prove it. You simply pointed to weak circumstancial evidence.

The type liberals engage in? Post after post your only justification for your position is a blind unreasoning faith in the idea that "President Bush is only trying to protect us." You're the one throwing evidence to the wind for the sake of your comforting fairy tales and a believe in a wise, benevolent leader who will absolve you of your responsibility to participate in your democracy.

i.e. A fascist.

On the contrary... you are thinking purely in terms of supply and demand. It reflects well on your education in business, but it is much less than half of the story in 'real world' application.

If you look at the price spikes of the last few years, the most noticable factor has been correlation to middle-east tensions. You can try to reconcile prices to barrel-outputs, but it won't work. Instead, plot prices against the lead-up to, and the occurance of destabilisations in the middle-east. Plot the market 'value' against the market uncertainty.All absolutely true, but you have left out the most improtanta factor. The fact is that the reason there is a fear premium built into the price of oil right now is because the futures market is doing exactly what it was designed to do. Market supplies are as tight as they have ever been. The only producer in the world that reports any spare capacity at all is Saudi Arabia and they only report a spare capacity of 1.5 million barrels/day and it is all heavy, sour crude. What tis basically means is that any serious shut down and the world can't make up the difference.

The futures market was actyually designed to build the price of any possible future disruptions into the price of crude to avoid sudden, catastrophic shocks. Supplies may be adequate right now, but we are one more hurricane, one showdown wit Iran, one serious terrorist attack on a Saudi oil platform from an oil shortage. High prices right now force the market to adjust to future consequences slowly, before they happen so that when they do the price spike and economic hit are smaller.


The problem is that our oil industries are almost autonomous, and thumb their collective noses at market forces (they have a captive market - all the rules are out the window) and governmental ideas.

A strong government could bring oil in to line. It won't happen on the watch of an oil-baron.

They may be nearly autonomous here, but they are nowhere near autonomous on the world's stage. The fact is that oil and it's products are sky high everywhere in the world including China, Venezuela and even, comparitively, in the ME. They're not setting the oil price. They are powerless to do so. They operate in a global environment with a fungible commodity. In total, all US oil companies combine control about 12% of the world's daily crude output. That is not anywhere near enough market share to set prices. The only entity in the world with that power now is OPEC and they seem to have lost control on the downside.

The type liberals engage in? Post after post your only justification for your position is a blind unreasoning faith in the idea that "President Bush is only trying to protect us."

There is no way for me to know what goes on in Bush's mind, and there is no way for you to ascertain that either. However, judging by the actions he took since becoming president, I think an accurate conclusion would be that one of his top priorities was protecting the American people.

benevolent leader who will absolve you of your responsibility to participate in your democracy.

Paranoia -- very common among extreme liberals.

Begoner21;11685742']There is no way for me to know what goes on in Bush's mind.

;)

http://www.starting-a-home-business.org/images/Duh-Idiot.jpg

Begoner21;11685661']Bush is neither blood-thirsty nor is he fundamentalist. He is most certainly not a fascist.

Blood-thirsty - escalation of conflict in Korea, conflict in Iraq, conflict in Afghanistan, escalation of tensions in Iran, escalation of tensions in Lebanon, escalations of tensions in Palestine.

Bush foreign policy has been pro-conflict. Hence - blood-thirsty.


Fundamentalist - attempt to ban same-sex marriage, restrictions on stem cell science, claims to have been 'appointed by God' to lead the war in Iraq, special favouritism to Christian groups, pandering to fundamentalist Christian voters.

Bush domestic policy has CLAIMED to represent fundamentalist Christianity, with it's peculiar brand of retrictive conservatism. Hence - fundamentalist.


Fascist - discrimination based on gender-orientation, discrimination based on ethnicity, special security protocols for 'foreigners', special security protocols for those communicating with foreigners, seizure of foreign nationals both home and abroad.

Bush policy has consistently selected groups by gender orientation, ethnic of geographical origin, or skin colour, to restrict rights. This has been done in the name of 'nationalist' issues like 'homeland' security and safe borders. Hence - fascist.

Begoner21;11685666']Can you re-post whichever sources you were referring to? I was under the impression that you asserted Bush went to war with Iraq for some vested oily reason, and provided as a source an article about Bush's former oil companies, how he got some sort of rigging deal somewhere, etc. None of that supported your flawed conclusion.

So - it's not just the sources you failed to read, but my posts as well?

So - it's not just the sources you failed to read, but my posts as well?

Thanks for re-posting it -- much appreciated. If you think I'm going to go through 19 pages' worth of posts to find out the article which you're talking about, you're quite delusional.

Begoner21;11685938']Thanks for re-posting it -- much appreciated. If you think I'm going to go through 19 pages' worth of posts to find out the article which you're talking about, you're quite delusional.

I didn't repost it. I'm done wasting my time. If you didn't read ANY of my posts properly the first time through, I have no reason to believe you'll pay any attention the second time, either.

If you are going to make some effort 'at your end', I might think about doing some of the 'legwork' for you. While you are spitting buzzwords and catchphrases everywhere, with nothing more substantial to your 'argument' than "I'm right, and if you don't agree, it's because you are a 'liberal...", well, I see no reason to carry the bulk of the debate for you.

Blood-thirsty - escalation of conflict in Korea, conflict in Iraq, conflict in Afghanistan, escalation of tensions in Iran, escalation of tensions in Lebanon, escalations of tensions in Palestine.

Ah, yes, Bush was the one who escalated the conflict in Korea by test-firing some long range missiles. Bush was the one who continued North Korea's nuclear programme despite severe international pressure and a starving populace at home. Oh, wait, that was Kim Jong-Il! He also didn't escalate the conflict in Iraq or Afghanistan above a reasonable level. If 9/11 happened, we're not going to sit on our hands like Clinton -- we're going to go after the bastards and those who aid and abet them. It is also perfectly natural to "escalate" tensions between Iran and the US if Iran is denying UN resolutions and trying to obtain nuclear weapons. Tensions have not been escalated by the US in Palestine at all.

Bush foreign policy has been pro-conflict. Hence - blood-thirsty.

No, conflict happened to Bush's foreign policy. He simply responded to it. If a bully punches you in the face and you fight back, can you be deemed pro-conflict? Hell no, it's the bully's fault -- in this case, Osama bin Laden.

Fundamentalist - attempt to ban same-sex marriage, restrictions on stem cell science, claims to have been 'appointed by God' to lead the war in Iraq, special favouritism to Christian groups, pandering to fundamentalist Christian voters.

So all people who are against same-sex marriage are "fundamentalist"? RFLMAO. Fundamentalist is killing people who don't agree with your philosophy, not arguing peacefully against a measure which is immoral in the view of many for logical reasons (ie, it is an unnatural act). Restrictions on stem-cell science are not fundamentalist by any definition of the word -- it is characterized by opposition to secularism. The US has complete separation of church and state, therefore the government cannot be fundamentalist. And Bush does not favour Christian groups because they are Christian any more than Einstein was smart because he was white.

Bush domestic policy has CLAIMED to represent fundamentalist Christianity, with it's peculiar brand of retrictive conservatism. Hence - fundamentalist.

Really? Bush said "I represent fundamentalist Christianity"? No, I don't think he ever said anything even marginally close to what you assert. Hence -- bullshit.

Fascist - discrimination based on gender-orientation, discrimination based on ethnicity, special security protocols for 'foreigners', special security protocols for those communicating with foreigners, seizure of foreign nationals both home and abroad.

There is no discrimination based on gender or orientation. However, he is not in favour of people with a particular orientation performing certain acts. Should we allow incest, or should we ban it and run the risk of being called discriminatory? Bush feels the same way about gay marriage -- it is wrong and unnatural. And safety and security is not something inherently fascist -- you have nothing at all and you are weaving tenuous fabriactions from gossamer threads of reason. Hence -- fail.

I didn't repost it. I'm done wasting my time. If you didn't read ANY of my posts properly the first time through, I have no reason to believe you'll pay any attention the second time, either.

If you are going to make some effort 'at your end', I might think about doing some of the 'legwork' for you. While you are spitting buzzwords and catchphrases everywhere, with nothing more substantial to your 'argument' than "I'm right, and if you don't agree, it's because you are a 'liberal...", well, I see no reason to carry the bulk of the debate for you.

If you think I'm going to waste my time memorizing all the bullshit that spews from your mouth, then you're in for a disillusioning. I did, however, read all your posts and sources. I do not recall what source you're referring to because you never said anything about it. I asked you numerous times to tell me what you were talking about and you refused to do so. Do I expect you to remember everything I wrote since page 1? No, of course not. If I was going to bring up a dead point, I'd at least show the sources to which I was referring. You can't even do that much. Pathetic. You have exemplified to common liberal traits in that one post -- elitism and rudeness.

Begoner21;11686015']If you think I'm going to waste my time memorizing all the bullshit that spews from your mouth, then you're in for a disillusioning. I did, however, read all your posts and sources. I do not recall what source you're referring to because you never said anything about it. I asked you numerous times to tell me what you were talking about and you refused to do so. Do I expect you to remember everything I wrote since page 1? No, of course not. If I was going to bring up a dead point, I'd at least show the sources to which I was referring. You can't even do that much. Pathetic. You have exemplified to common liberal traits in that one post -- elitism and rudeness.

Curious. I exhibit 'liberal' traits... but, I'm non-partisan. As i said, you attack everything that doesn't agree with you as 'liberal'... which means you use the word as a hollow mockery of it's meaning.

Is everything that comes from my mouth 'bullshit'? Perhaps... but, since you haven't actually read any of my posts, I wonder how you'd know? Instead you concoct strawman versions of my arguement, and then ask me to prove them...

Indeed - if you have specific issue with my logic, my consistency, or what you perceive as a failure for me to support a claim - you'll have to show MER where YOU think the problem lies. At the moment, I am trying to work out how you expect me to show evidence for the claims you say I've made, when I believe your claims to be other than 'reality'.

i'm a gonna be honest with you guys...george bush is my hero. And not in the literal sense, as in, he isn't a superhero (aside from his uncanny ability to drink a whole bottle of Texas Pete in 7.8 seconds) that can fly or shoot webs out of his hands. He's a hero in that he's a great friend and does stuff even though he's unpopular. I mean, I was always the impression that America loved an underdog, but I guess I was wrong.

so here's to George! Here's to those times when we ate the green play-doh and you got sick and Laura sent you to bed! Here's to best friends!

Begoner21;11685992']Ah, yes, Bush was the one who escalated the conflict in Korea by test-firing some long range missiles. Bush was the one who continued North Korea's nuclear programme despite severe international pressure and a starving populace at home. Oh, wait, that was Kim Jong-Il!


North Korea imposed their own moratorium on missile tests. That self-imposed moratorium was continued while the US continued negotiations in good faith, which stopped at the end of last year, when the US Treasury Department cracked on on North Korea over claims that North Korea is creating fake US currency.

So - the testing which North Korea HAD been voluntarily with-holding, continued after the conditional negotiation failed.

Begoner21;11685992']He also didn't escalate the conflict in Iraq or Afghanistan above a reasonable level.


On the contrary. Iraq is in an undeclared civil war, and was invaded... for no real reason.

Begoner21;11685992']If 9/11 happened, we're not going to sit on our hands like Clinton -- we're going to go after the bastards and those who aid and abet them.


Who are 'the bastards'? After 9/11, we began pursuing Osama bin Ladin.. but the CIA decalred that pursuit dead last summer. (I believe they have, in the last week or so, claimed they intend to restart the hunt).

We put troops in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban (who are not Al Qaeda), and Iraq to fight Saddam (who is also not Al Qaeda).

In the meantime - those who have offered the most concrete aid, like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, we have made no actions against, at all.

It is a red herring. And you, for some reason, are buying it.

Begoner21;11685992']It is also perfectly natural to "escalate" tensions between Iran and the US if Iran is denying UN resolutions and trying to obtain nuclear weapons.


Iran has repeatedly pointed out they want 'peaceful' nuclear power.

Begoner21;11685992']Tensions have not been escalated by the US in Palestine at all.


It is not my fault you fail to keep abreast of even the most basic news occurances. Were you even aware that - after all the US push to get 'democratic elections' in Palestine, there WERE democratic elections - and that the US has continuously failed to recognise the elected government?

Or that the US was one of the parties to cut off aid to Palestine BECAUSE of those democratic elections?

Begoner21;11685992']
No, conflict happened to Bush's foreign policy. He simply responded to it. If a bully punches you in the face and you fight back, can you be deemed pro-conflict? Hell no, it's the bully's fault -- in this case, Osama bin Laden.


Bullshit. I lived in in the UK while the IRA were bombing supermarkets in London at Christmas. You take the 'conflict' to the cause of the tensions... you don't just start bombing the shit out of any nation that wears scarves on their heads.

Begoner21;11685992']
So all people who are against same-sex marriage are "fundamentalist"? RFLMAO. Fundamentalist is killing people who don't agree with your philosophy,


I'd like you to back that up. Where did you find THAT definition?

Begoner21;11685992']...not arguing peacefully against a measure which is immoral in the view of many for logical reasons (ie, it is an unnatural act).


I'm not wanting to argue the pros and cons of 'gay' sex on this thread... but I must point out ALL 'marriages' are 'un-natural'. 'Marriage' is entirely a human institution, it occurs nowhere in 'nature'.

Begoner21;11685992']
Restrictions on stem-cell science are not fundamentalist by any definition of the word -- it is characterized by opposition to secularism. The US has complete separation of church and state, therefore the government cannot be fundamentalist.


No - the US has claimed seperation of Church and State. The fact that the current regime uses a backdoor called 'faith-based initiatives' proves how shallow that lie is.

Begoner21;11685992']And Bush does not favour Christian groups because they are Christian any more than Einstein was smart because he was white.


I think you are wrong. Do you have any evidence?

Begoner21;11685992']
Really? Bush said "I represent fundamentalist Christianity"? No, I don't think he ever said anything even marginally close to what you assert. Hence -- bullshit.


Not in those exact words, that I know of. However:

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [ Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer

Begoner21;11685992']
There is no discrimination based on gender or orientation. However, he is not in favour of people with a particular orientation performing certain acts.


If gays are not allowed to get married, and straight people are... there is discrimination. It's really not that difficult a concept.

Begoner21;11685992']Should we allow incest, or should we ban it and run the risk of being called discriminatory?


Yes, we should allow incest. Providing it takes place between CONSENTING ADULTS.

Begoner21;11685992']Bush feels the same way about gay marriage -- it is wrong and unnatural.


As I said, I'm not going to argue about gay sex here... but MARRIAGE (which is what the Bush Regime is seeking a Constitutional Amendment for) is always 'unnatural'.

Begoner21;11685992']And safety and security is not something inherently fascist -- you have nothing at all and you are weaving tenuous fabriactions from gossamer threads of reason. Hence -- fail.

Safety and security is only half of what I said. It is the nationalistic overtones that are the hallmarks of fascism, coupled with the removal of civil rights, and the expansion of government powers to interfere in the lives of citizens.

In fact - everything that has been happening in the US, since Bush got into office.

[The Middle east conflict]... may have been the objectively "best" course of action, the same way dropping the nuke on Japan was the objective "best" course of action.


Yeah, nothing teaches an already smouldering, decimated, helpless country (Who is already in the proccess of surrendering.) who is in charge better than two nukes being dropped in major cities. 911 is insignificant compared to this atrocity. Approx 214,000 people, mostly civilians, were slaughtered.

I think an accurate conclusion would be that one of his top priorities was protecting the American people.

Correction:...one of his top priorities was protecting the pocketbooks of the upper echelon of American people. Not to mention padding his own!

Bush feels the same way about gay marriage -- it is wrong and unnatural.

You are quite correct, marriage is wrong and unnatural. To limit one's self to one mate and to limit the gene-pool in such a way is atrocious.

Oh wait, were you referring to the gay thing? To say that this is wrong and unnatural is pure ignorance. Humankind did not invent homosexuality, Mother Nature (Or God if you wish) did. There are numerous examples in NATURE(ie: the root word of Natural) of homosexual tendencies in a great number of species, ranging from tapeworms to primates.

^^PROOF^^:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/weektwelve.html
www.androphile.org/preview/Library/Articles/Werner/Werner20.24.htm
www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Topics/Gay/Text.html

Note how these are all .org's and .edu's (fairly reliable)

FLAME ON!

If gays are not allowed to get married, and straight people are... there is discrimination. It's really not that difficult a concept.




Most importantly in my mind, and I don't get why people don't mention this, it seems to me to be a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Begoner21;11685644']I did read what you provided, and I found it in no way convincing. It was a bunch of unfounded speculation -- the type liberals frequently engage in. I only accept hard facts as proof -- circumstancial evidence, while it may be indicative of something, does not outright prove it. You simply pointed to weak circumstancial evidence.

Using "liberals" as a swear word is not helping your case.

Most importantly in my mind, and I don't get why people don't mention this, it seems to me to be a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

That is a 'legal reason', if you will... that is what 'the law' says.

I'm aiming at a more visceral level... discrimination (whether legal or not) is simply treating people differently for some reason. Begoner said "There is no discrimination based on gender or orientation"... and I was just pointing out that that statement was utter arse.

The fact that 'the law' also argues against his platform, is just cream. :)

Begoner21;11685992']He also didn't escalate the conflict in Iraq or Afghanistan above a reasonable level. If 9/11 happened, we're not going to sit on our hands like Clinton -- we're going to go after the bastards and those who aid and abet them.

For the last fucking time: Iraq did not "aid and abet" the terrorists behind 9/11. What part of that is so difficult to understand? Would it be easier if I said it in Spanish, Portuguese, French, or German? If so, I'm sure a Spanish, Portuguese, French, or German speaking NSer would happily translate.

Begoner21;11685742']There is no way for me to know what goes on in Bush's mind, and there is no way for you to ascertain that either. However, judging by the actions he took since becoming president, I think an accurate conclusion would be that one of his top priorities was protecting the American people.



Paranoia -- very common among extreme liberals.

It's hardly paranoia to remain true to the ideals of the founding of this nation. i.e. one does not trust a government with power that can be abused, even if you trust that government not to abuse it.

We (America) went to war not because we were being taxed, but because after parliament agreed not to tax us we insisted that they also abdicate the right to tax us.

For you to trust Dubya with the authority to wiretap us with no warrants is not a healthy absence of paranoia, it is cowardly sheep-like behavior.

As for your "there will be a watchdog group..." nonsense. There is a watchdog group. It's called the judicial branch of our government.

I am not an extreme liberal. Extreme anythings advocate militant means to reach their goals. You're just a fascist.

i'm a gonna be honest with you guys...george bush is my hero. And not in the literal sense, as in, he isn't a superhero (aside from his uncanny ability to drink a whole bottle of Texas Pete in 7.8 seconds) that can fly or shoot webs out of his hands. He's a hero in that he's a great friend and does stuff even though he's unpopular. I mean, I was always the impression that America loved an underdog, but I guess I was wrong.

so here's to George! Here's to those times when we ate the green play-doh and you got sick and Laura sent you to bed! Here's to best friends!

Underdog? Harvard educated millionaire that only ever made money in his life by getting his daddy's friends to buy the businesses that he ran into the ground?

America loves and underdog when it's a person who uses talent, hard work, and some amount of virtue to create success with tremendous odds going against them.

Bush had everything handed to him his whole life, including the presidency of the USA and the popularity to do whatever he wanted. He's like a child that was given a blank check and used it to buy nothing bug Bubble Yum and stock in AOL.

Clinton made this country popular all over a large part of the world, and had detente with most the rest of it. Bush turned the world into our enemies in a moment when they loved us more than they ever had under Clinton. Through arrogance, stupidity, and greed he turned them into our enemies.

Clinton on the otherhand was a true underdog story. Son of an alcoholic salesman used his charisma and intelligence to work his way up to the most powerful political position in the world, and then turned a limping behemoth into a radiant giant. But even the darkest of villains in a Rags to Riches story will eventually recognize "I guess he had it in him all along, but I was too blind to see it." The elitist conservatives who hated Clinton and predicted his failure are now spending millions in propaganda to convince us that his success was a failure and Bush's failures success.

You must be the sort of moviegoer who thinks that the Blade Trilogy was gripping cinema.

Yeah, nothing teaches an already smouldering, decimated, helpless country (Who is already in the proccess of surrendering.) who is in charge better than two nukes being dropped in major cities. 911 is insignificant compared to this atrocity. Approx 214,000 people, mostly civilians, were slaughtered.

It may have been decimated and it may have been smouldering, but it was definitely not helpless. The Japanese were nowhere near surrender -- unless we agreed to their unrealistic demands, and even then it wasn't certain. The "fight to the death" culture in Japan was not going to let them surrender to the Americans or Soviets -- every military-aged man was recruited for the army. If the war had been taken to a more conventional conclusion, well over 1,000,000 people would have been slaughtered. No, it was completely correct to drop the bomb.

Correction:...one of his top priorities was protecting the pocketbooks of the upper echelon of American people. Not to mention padding his own!

I have no reason to believe that and you have no proof to back it up. Therefore, there is nothing to argue over. I cannot convince you that Bush is honest and you cannot convince me of the opposite without citing hard proof, and there is none of that.

You are quite correct, marriage is wrong and unnatural. To limit one's self to one mate and to limit the gene-pool in such a way is atrocious. Oh wait, were you referring to the gay thing? To say that this is wrong and unnatural is pure ignorance. Humankind did not invent homosexuality, Mother Nature (Or God if you wish) did. There are numerous examples in NATURE(ie: the root word of Natural) of homosexual tendencies in a great number of species, ranging from tapeworms to primates.

I do not prefer God to "Mother Nature." However, neither "Mother Nature" nor God intended for homosexuality to be a positive trait -- obviously, assuming homosexuality is a genetic trait, it is very disadvantageous for a species to have a high percentage of gay animals. A particular gene line cannot survive if those carrying are gay. It is unnatural because gay animals cannot reproduce and thus cannot pass on their genes. A male woodpecker having sex with another male woodpecker is as wrong as a guy having sex with a guy -- "Mother Nature" intended for sexual acts to result in offspring that would ensure the continued survival of a species.

For the last fucking time: Iraq did not "aid and abet" the terrorists behind 9/11.

If I give you $1000 dollars and tell you to give half of that to Al-Qaeda, am I aiding and abetting Al-Qaeda or not? That's exactly what Saddam did -- he funded Al-Qaeda either directly or through an intermediary (the Taliban).

Begoner21;11686350']If I give you $1000 dollars and tell you to give half of that to Al-Qaeda, am I aiding and abetting Al-Qaeda or not? That's exactly what Saddam did -- he funded Al-Qaeda either directly or through an intermediary (the Taliban).

Source?

Begoner21;11686343']
I do not prefer God to "Mother Nature." However, neither "Mother Nature" nor God intended for homosexuality to be a positive trait -- obviously, assuming homosexuality is a genetic trait, it is very disadvantageous for a species to have a high percentage of gay animals. A particular gene line cannot survive if those carrying are gay. It is unnatural because gay animals cannot reproduce and thus cannot pass on their genes. A male woodpecker having sex with another male woodpecker is as wrong as a guy having sex with a guy -- "Mother Nature" intended for sexual acts to result in offspring that would ensure the continued survival of a species.

On the contrary - almost all animals show some signs of 'gay' courtship... and the reasons are fairly logical.

1) Gay partners do not continue to compete for females that have already been 'won' or impregnated by the alpha male of the herd.

2) Gay relatives offer support to young, security, and help obtain resources for the strongest genes in the pool, whilst not contributing their own conflicting genes.

3) Gay relationships provide a bond between creatures that might otherwise instinctively battle... such as 'rival' males within a pack.

4) Gay relationships provide an extra reason to 'nurture' members of the pack.

5) Gay relationships provide extended families... which means surrogate parents in the event that the 'actual' parents are hurt or killed.


Contrary to your assertions, then - it is highly logical for a genepool to continuously throw 'gay' results regularly - since they help propel the genepool lineage through association.

In the human sphere, just as in the wild, people/animals will take greater risks for 'family' than they would for a stranger. The 'gay' gene (if we can call it that) merely increases the likely number of 'others' that might be considered 'family'

Begoner21;11686350']If I give you $1000 dollars and tell you to give half of that to Al-Qaeda, am I aiding and abetting Al-Qaeda or not? That's exactly what Saddam did -- he funded Al-Qaeda either directly or through an intermediary (the Taliban).

When did Saddam fund the Taliban?

When did he fund Al Qaeda directly?

Explain how you know he used the Taliban as an 'intermediary'.


What you have here is baseless assertions, no evidence.

We put troops in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban (who are not Al Qaeda), and Iraq to fight Saddam (who is also not Al Qaeda).

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, you damn well better be sure that it isn't really a duck. The Taliban have operational and financial ties to Al-Qaeda -- they harbor them and give them support so that they can continue their jihad against the US. They are no better than Al-Qaeda and complicit in 9/11.

In the meantime - those who have offered the most concrete aid, like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, we have made no actions against, at all.

I remember something along the lines of "no blood for oil" when the US invaded Iraq. I wonder what would happen if the US invades Saudi Arabia? Also, I would like to see proof of this supposed government funding of Al-Qaeda.

It is a red herring. And you, for some reason, are buying it.

Red herrings are delicious -- I try to eat them at least once a week. They go really well with rice and fried vegetables, although I guess baked potatoes wouldn't hurt either. They're not too expensive, either, which is another plus. Why shouldn't I buy red herrings?

Iran has repeatedly pointed out they want 'peaceful' nuclear power.

And because religious fundamentalists and Islamo-fascists say something, it must be true. Iran refused to allow nuclear technology to be "donated" to Iran by foreign countries, giving them nuclear power at a much cheaper price. I wonder why that would be?

It is not my fault you fail to keep abreast of even the most basic news occurances. Were you even aware that - after all the US push to get 'democratic elections' in Palestine, there WERE democratic elections - and that the US has continuously failed to recognise the elected government? Or that the US was one of the parties to cut off aid to Palestine BECAUSE of those democratic elections?

Oh, that's what you're talking about. Well, how many countries cut off aid after Hamas was elected? In fact, almost every single Western country stopped sending aid to Palestine after they elected terrorists into the government. Obviously, some of the money would be spent on rockets to kill Israeli civilians. The US wants peace, not war. Thus, it refuses to fund terrorist groups which are hell-bent on the destruction of Israel. Nothing wrong there.



Bullshit. I lived in in the UK while the IRA were bombing supermarkets in London at Christmas. You take the 'conflict' to the cause of the tensions... you don't just start bombing the shit out of any nation that wears scarves on their heads.

That's right, because we bombed the shit out of every nation that wears scarves on their head. Oh, wait, we only invaded 2 out of more than 10. Ah, well, you can't be right all the time.

I'd like you to back that up. Where did you find THAT definition?

I was giving an example of a fundamentalist action; fundamentalism, however, is not defined by that one particular action. I defined it more accurately later on.

I think you are wrong. Do you have any evidence?

No, I do not. You have no evidence to the contrary, either. Thus, we shouldn't argue about something since it cannot be proven one way or the other.

Yes, we should allow incest. Providing it takes place between CONSENTING ADULTS.

I was simply giving example of discrimination -- we are indeed discriminating against those who wish to have an incestuous relationship. However, there is good discrimination and bad discrimination.

Safety and security is only half of what I said. It is the nationalistic overtones that are the hallmarks of fascism, coupled with the removal of civil rights, and the expansion of government powers to interfere in the lives of citizens.

Nationalistic pride is evidence of a great country, the best in the world, not a fascist government. And which civil right did you lose? The right to disagree with the government? The right to protest? The right to be a Jew? No, you didn't lose any of those rights. Stop complaining.

What you have here is baseless assertions, no evidence.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199052,00.html

Begoner21;11686423']http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199052,00.html

*struggles to hold in laughter*

*struggles to hold in laughter*

What, you don't appreciate fair and unbiased sources? FOX News is not biased in any way. If you don't believe me, please provide a FOX News article which you feel is biased. Look at this story on FOX:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213927,00.html

Ooh, a Republican pleading guilty to fraud is on the ultra-conservative propaganda machine website. How do liberals reconcile those two conflicting ideas?

Begoner21;11682202']The right to life is more important than the "right" to privacy.
True, but putting the right to privacy in quotes doesn't help your case.

Begoner21;11682318']No, but nobody halfway around the world is going to care that I'll get punched in the face. I'll care, sure, the people who saw it happen might care. But somebody living in Bangladesh isn't going to give a shit.
This is why, when you wax lyrical about genocide under Saddam, I think that there's something else really on your mind.

Begoner21;11682364']Lol, to see what I'm talking about, read a fictional book written by a retard who thought we'd have an extremely fucked-up, high-tech world back in 1984 and who also made books about talking animals.
This guy things that privacy isn't a real right and that George Orwell was a retard. Dismissable I think.

Begoner21;11682403']Ah, the ACLU. The organization which seeks to help terrorists and pedophiles by hampering the government's ability to fight terrorism and crime. Don't you just love them?
*chuckle*

Begoner21;11682510']However, other than that and maybe a few other exceptions, I completely agree with you -- we can't lose anything by wiretapping everybody.
*chuckle*

Begoner21;11682824']That's different. Your house is your own private property, free from prying eyes -- nobody should see you naked in the shower. It is unlikely that a terrorist would allow a camera to be placed in his house, anyway.
How can there be private property without privacy?

Begoner21;11685644']I only accept hard facts as proof
Except when trying to come up with reasons to tap phones.

For the last fucking time: Iraq did not "aid and abet" the terrorists behind 9/11. What part of that is so difficult to understand? Would it be easier if I said it in Spanish, Portuguese, French, or German? If so, I'm sure a Spanish, Portuguese, French, or German speaking NSer would happily translate.

But but but... The running news montage in my head goes "Saddam... 9/11... Islamo-fascists... never forget the lessons... Bin Laden... Saddam... 9/11... never... fascist" You callin' my internal Bush monologue a liar?.

Begoner21;11682824']That's different. Your house is your own private property, free from prying eyes -- nobody should see you naked in the shower. It is unlikely that a terrorist would allow a camera to be placed in his house, anyway.
How can there be private property without privacy?

Begoner21;11685644']I only accept hard facts as proof
Except when trying to come up with reasons to tap phones.

Begoner21;11686508']What, you don't appreciate fair and unbiased sources? FOX News is not biased in any way. If you don't believe me, please provide a FOX News article which you feel is biased. Look at this story on FOX:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213927,00.html

Ooh, a Republican pleading guilty to fraud is on the ultra-conservative propaganda machine website. How do liberals reconcile those two conflicting ideas?

FOX news unbiased?

*sigh* Debunking your crap isn't even interesting anymore. Since you didn't answer before... The color of the sky is blue. In that vein of the patently obvious. Saddam was not linked with Al-qaeda, or the Taliban. Bush did lie to get us into Iraq. FOX news is most definitly biased.

An innocuous example would be their poll to get Reagan on the $10 bill. Once liberals found out about this poll it went from 76% yes to 90% no in a few hours. The next morning they changed it from "should Reagan be put on the $10 bill?" to "what bill should Reagan be put on, the $5, $10, or $20."

Begoner21;11681335']Yes, and what better way to satisfy the US demand for oil except by destroying Iraq's oil infrastructure for a matter of years? Due to the invasion of Iraq, the price of oil has risen -- it did not fall. Currently, Iraq's oil output is only slightly higher than it was before the war.
The important bit of that is - Iraq's output is higher. And the oil is priced in Dollars, so that the Euro didn't absolutely kane the Dollar in terms of its exchange rate from all of the trade it would have got.
Sure, we could send in a couple of super-soldiers.
Learning the language and culture of a country is not difficult. Arabic is not actually a particularly difficult language to learn (at least orally, I'm still poor at writing it, due to its relatively complicated alphabet).

Doing these things would take a couple of weeks of extra training, tops, with the more intelligent army servicepeople - and you're looking for the intellectuals in Iraq, because they're supposedly peacekeepers, a task which takes a good deal of discretion, and a knowledge of what the actual people of Iraq are looking for in a state, so that they can work to those aims, which is what will bring contentment and hence more peace.

You can send the soldiers that haven't exactly been bred for brains into Afghanistan, where they're still fighting the Taliban, it's reasonably close to a conventional war there, and cannon fodder is always handy in that kind of situation.
Or we could have sent in hundreds of thousands more regular troops.
Less is more in terms of deploying idiots to a sensitive situation.
The lack of law and order contributed to the current sectarian crisis
Yes, well done.
the insurgency stretched US troops to the limit
Correct. And it will continue to do so basically forever.
which did not allow them to police regular Iraqi civilians, who then turned to armed warfare against each other.
US troops were never "policing" Iraqi civilians, they left the ones that looked alright alone, and simply shot anyone carrying a gun - that's not really policing anything, that's just shooting first and asking questions later.

And the armed warfare is due to a power vacuum caused by the removal of Saddam - anyone who's anyone is now trying to blow up their rivals... nice one there...
What kind of messed up logic is that? Do you think he had chips implanted into his subjects' bodies so that he could tell what they were feeling? Almost nobody "looked favourably" upon Saddam, they just did not protest openly. Do you think that everybody who lives under any dictatorship likes the dictator simply because they're still alive? If so, you are pretty far gone from the land of reality.
*sighs*

OK, the only people left would be those who actively tolerated his regime through fear or actual support - that's a rather large fan-base, and it'll be no easy task to bring the Iraqis into the mood that the US wants them in - i.e. docile and democracy-loving.
Again, the government does not have an army to support it...yet. Nonetheless, no government is far better than Saddam's government at any rate.
The citizens of Iraq disagree.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/10017
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar06/Leupp31.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/24/earlyshow/main1649689.shtml
We have achieved one of our goals.
What, "Put Saddam in a show trial so he can laugh off any allegations he likes, and appeal absolutely everything we try to say against him"?
We have to achieve several more goals before we realize our foremost objective -- a free and stable Iraq. Eventually, when Iraq becomes a beacon of democracy in the region, the lack of Saddam will be a good thing, quite visibly.
Yes, on the other hand, this will never happen.
Yes, and Hitler really loved Stalin (he wrote all about his gay fantasies in Mein Kampf...oh, wait. He actually said he hated all the bolsheviks and wanted them dead). Nonetheless, Hitler overcame his dislike of Stalin to sign the Molotov-Ribentropp Pact and divide Eastern Europe between them. You must be quite naive if you think that a personal dislike translates into professional avoidance on the scale of global politics.
Stalin also hated Hitler...

The reason he let Molotov sign the pact was so that the USSR had two more years of weapon production before the inevitable conflict with Germany - Stalin's own words there.

The two circumstances were also rather different.

Neither Iraq or Afghanistan are global superpowers. Neither is going to invade the other. The two countries are opposed, but not to the extent that they know they'll seek to gain anything by an invasion and neither is particularly overcrowded.
The Iraqi government did not overtly orchestrate the attack. However, it did fund the Taliban and had connections with Al-Qaeda.
Ker-bullshit!
After seeing the success of attack #1, I'm pretty sure they'd want a bigger and better encore.
I'm afraid you couldn't possibly know that. Did you slip a bug into his whiskey or somesuch?

Seduce him, and then get him to reveal his evil plans in a bit of post-coital pillow talk?
And your question is like asking "why does buying a product from a company make it more profitable?" Al-Qaeda + Saddam's funding > Al-Qaeda + 0.
Since Saddam's funding = 0, it's actually more Al-Qaeda + Saddam's funding = Al-Qaeda + 0.
I don't like waiting around for hypotheticals to translate themselves into reality. We were so sure that Japan wouldn't dare attack us, either. Shit happens, but you should be prepared.
*sighs*

Oh the joys of state-endorsed paranoia.
Right, because we're going to win the war by giving the American public more reason to pull out of Iraq. If our strategy was to let the insurgency burn itself out, we'd be out of Iraq by January, 2009.
You do not understand how "Divide and Conquer" works.

Ask Deep Kimchi, he won't be as unnecessarily rude as I often am (sorry about that) due to being a fellow conservative to you, and he also has proper military experience and can describe the theory more articulately than I.
Ah, I see. I can assure there is nothing "faux" nor "Bushevik" about me, and I am certainly not being ironic about my political views.
That's rather a shame, and, yes, you are a Bushevik.

Begoner21;11686508']What, you don't appreciate fair and unbiased sources? FOX News is not biased in any way.

Well, if that's the game we're playing. Here's "proof" that he isn't trying to protect the US.

http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/001232.php

If you're going to call it biased, please provide proof. Otherwise stop asking us to prove that circles are round, squares have 4 equal sides, the sky is generally located somewhere in the direction of 'up,' or that FOX is biased.

Stuff.

Sorry if I don't answer today, but I'm being triple-teamed with long-ass posts. I really don't have enough time to answer all of it, but I'll try to do so tomorrow.

If you're going to call it biased, please provide proof.

A quote from that blog says "spare us the fucking benediction." That's commentary on the news from an anti-Bush angle (ie, bias). He also referred to Bush as "the failed 'oilman.'" FOX News simply delivers the news and doesn't say "blah, blah, blah, and so Democrats are elitist liberals."

Begoner21;11686508']FOX News is not biased in any way.
*chuckles mightily
If you don't believe me, please provide a FOX News article which you feel is biased.
Anything on here?

http://www.foxnews.com/specialsections/immigration/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/world/index.html - there?


As a sidenote - this is the most crap idea ever - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213921,00.html

And the FOX News site is horribly designed... eugh... tacky...

Ooh, a Republican pleading guilty to fraud is on the ultra-conservative propaganda machine website. How do liberals reconcile those two conflicting ideas?
By saying "that was the news, and they reluctantly had to post it, for fear of losing all credibility they still have for not actually covering the news".

You can send the soldiers that haven't exactly been bred for brains...less is more in terms of deploying idiots to a sensitive situation.

I really get pissed off when liberals say such things as "I support our troops because I want to pull out of Iraq." What they really mean is "I think our troops are fucking idiots." It's sad to see people who have no respect for our armed forces -- men and women who are laying their lives on the line to help their country and the world. For shame.

Anything on here?

You are just pointing to a catalogue of articles, none of which seem to be biased. Perhaps you'd like to point one out in particular?

As a sidenote - this is the most crap idea ever -

Crap or not, it is news. Here's the same article in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/15/world/middleeast/16iraqcnd.html?hp&ex=1158379200&en=e07a513eed965c9f&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Begoner21;11686671']A quote from that blog says "spare us the fucking benediction." That's commentary on the news from an anti-Bush angle (ie, bias). He also referred to Bush as "the failed 'oilman.'" FOX News simply delivers the news and doesn't say "blah, blah, blah, and so Democrats are elitist liberals."

The fact that it's saying bad things about Bush doesn't prove that it's biased. If I say that the bubonic plague is bad it doesn't mean that I have an anti-plague bias. It means that the bubonic plague kills lots of people.

The link I provided was clearly an objective and impartial appraisal of Bush's efforts. The media in general is full of blatantly Right-wing biased news. But Bush is soooooooooooooo bad that even if you're biased in his favor you have to admit that he's pretty bad.

Some more points indicating FOX's right wing bias (not really an appropriate term. The rest of the media is right-wing biased. FOX is just propaganda).

1. Brit Hume claimed that FDR wanted a plan similar to Bush's social security plan, and lied to make it appear to be the case. FOX Bias.

2. He also claimed that an American in Iraq has a better chance of surviving than an American in California. He did so by ignoring the fact that there are many millions more Americans in California than Iraq.

3. Even on the "hard news" they use phrases like "homocide bombers" because they're trying to show that they're soooo suportive of the US efforts in Iraq that they feel they have to break the story that insurgents are killing people. ALL BOMBERS ARE HOMOCIDE BOMBERS. We point out that some of them are suicide bombers because it shows how they are bombing.

4. They haven't fired Bill O'Reilly.

5. They will not interview liberals like Dennis Kuscinich (sp) or because he's "too out there" but they will interview conservatives like Jerry Falwell.

6. Their correspondents on the "10 Commandments in the Court House" story included Anne Coulter and a Right Wing fundamentalist minister. Not one athiest, or liberal religous leader (http://www.airamerica.com/stateofbelief/).

7. In the lead up to war they interviewed pro-war politicians and military personel, but when looking for anti-war people they only interviewed actors and singers despite the fact that professors, generals, and politicians were clamoring for airtime.

8. Then they chastized actors and singers for "thinking they have a right to speak about politics."

9. You think they're unbiased.

Begoner21;11686697']You are just pointing to a catalogue of articles, none of which seem to be biased. Perhaps you'd like to point one out in particular?



Crap or not, it is news. Here's the same article in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/15/world/middleeast/16iraqcnd.html?hp&ex=1158379200&en=e07a513eed965c9f&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The NY Times has a notorious right-wing bias. (http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/) If they say anything slightly bad about Bush, you know it has to be really bad. If they say something good about him, you know it's kinda bad. If they say something that just outrights kisses his ass, it could go either way.

Stuff about the FOX News on TV.

I'm referring to the print website, not the TV channel. I only have basic cable, so I have no clue what anybody says on FNC, so I can't really debate the accuracy of that. Please stick only to www.foxnews.com -- I cannot vouch for anything else. However, one thing.

Even on the "hard news" they use phrases like "homocide bombers" because...

Actually, I think that they're using it to differentiate between suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers.

Begoner21;11686686']I really get pissed off when liberals say such things as "I support our troops because I want to pull out of Iraq." What they really mean is "I think our troops are fucking idiots." It's sad to see people who have no respect for our armed forces -- men and women who are laying their lives on the line to help their country and the world. For shame.
You've rather skipped over the context.

In Iraq, intelligent soldiers are needed. People who are good at peacekeeping, with skills in languages, people with good minds, these are the people that should be helping the Iraqi people.

A bunch of idiots, on the other hand, will exacerbate the situation.

On the other hand, in Afghanistan, it's more of a "kill 'em all" type affair, and intelligent troops put there could have far better applications in Iraq (although if there were any going spare, it'd be handy to have them lying around in Afghanistan for purposes which don't just involve being rude and shooting people).

Two different situations, two different needs.

The NY Times has a notorious right-wing bias. (http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/)

It is notorious for liberal bias, actually:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times
http://www.timeswatch.org/

Begoner21;11686845']I'm referring to the print website, not the TV channel. I only have basic cable, so I have no clue what anybody says on FNC, so I can't really debate the accuracy of that. Please stick only to www.foxnews.com -- I cannot vouch for anything else. However, one thing.



Actually, I think that they're using it to differentiate between suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers.

No. They're not. The first time I heard the term they were using it to describe an attack where a terrorist attempted to crash an explosive laden car into a checkpoint, dying in the process.

The website is run by the same people. Same people, same bias. If you're going to treat it as a news source without familiarizing yourself with the POV of the people providing your information then you are deliberatly deluding yourself.

Begoner21;11686856']It is notorious for liberal bias, actually:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times
http://www.timeswatch.org/

Your mistaken, it's life that has the liberal bias. The NYT just does the best it can with the material it has ;)

Begoner21;11686856']It is notorious for liberal bias, actually:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times
http://www.timeswatch.org/

A conservative group trying to make it sound like a less conservative newspaper is liberal so that they can position themselves as centrist by comparison and a wiki entry manipulated by a reader for much the same reason do nothing to substantiate your point.

I showed you how a NYTimes reporter lied to support the Bush administration. That's a pro-Bush bias beyond what you think even FOX demonstrates.

All your links indicate is that there are a lot of conservatives who believe in the "liberal media" myth. It's a fiction Begoner. It's just a ploy that conservatives use to pretend that what everyone knows to be true is a liberal bias view, what they believe is center-right, so the "truth" must be just to the left of them. Where it always will be, if they get their way.

That's why so many people here think that PBS has a liberal bias, even though the guy in charge of it is a Bush appointee.

As Stephen Colbert put it (and I put it before him) reality has a liberal bias.

Begoner21;11686414']If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, you damn well better be sure that it isn't really a duck. The Taliban have operational and financial ties to Al-Qaeda -- they harbor them and give them support so that they can continue their jihad against the US. They are no better than Al-Qaeda and complicit in 9/11.


You are aware that one of the biggest funders, and the biggest provider of technology and aid to the Taliban, has historically been the US, yes?

I'm not saying I'm pro-Taliban, but we put them there. We built them up, and we used them, in our little Cold detente.

On the other hand, although Osama WAS involved in Taliban 'politics' early on, he parted company with them some time ago, to follow his own agenda.. from which was born Al Qaeda.

That's not to say there is NO connection - but you'd have to specify and then demonstarte exactly what it was.

Which still wouldn't explain how you think Saddam was involved in the whole affair.

Begoner21;11686414']
I remember something along the lines of "no blood for oil" when the US invaded Iraq. I wonder what would happen if the US invades Saudi Arabia? Also, I would like to see proof of this supposed government funding of Al-Qaeda.


It's not my fault you don't pay attention.

I wonder what would happen if the US invaded Saudi Arabia also. But, we won't... because despotic-regime or no, they are our business buddies. And that's where the bottom line REALLY is.

Begoner21;11686414']
Red herrings are delicious -- I try to eat them at least once a week. They go really well with rice and fried vegetables, although I guess baked potatoes wouldn't hurt either. They're not too expensive, either, which is another plus. Why shouldn't I buy red herrings?


Indeed. I'm not at all surprised.

Begoner21;11686414']
And because religious fundamentalists and Islamo-fascists say something, it must be true. Iran refused to allow nuclear technology to be "donated" to Iran by foreign countries, giving them nuclear power at a much cheaper price. I wonder why that would be?


How about 'sovereignty'? How about control? Iran might not want to become dependenty on an international fuel source that can be disconnected arbitrarily... that sounds kind of familiar, no?

Begoner21;11686414']
Oh, that's what you're talking about. Well, how many countries cut off aid after Hamas was elected? In fact, almost every single Western country stopped sending aid to Palestine after they elected terrorists into the government. Obviously, some of the money would be spent on rockets to kill Israeli civilians. The US wants peace, not war. Thus, it refuses to fund terrorist groups which are hell-bent on the destruction of Israel. Nothing wrong there.


The US wants peace? You must be joking, right? If we 'wanted peace', we'd stop keep invading other countries... it's quite simple.

As for money being spent on rockets to kill Israeli civilians:

1) You seem to have no problem with the fact that some of the money we give to Israel ends up killing Palestinian civilians.

2) Israel has blockaded the Palestinian 'legitimate' sources of revenue. Without aid, we - and everyone else, are DIRECTLY responsible for Palestinian death.

3) We aren't talking about random unallocated cash, here. The aid that the US has cut off, with it's allies, does things like paying the civil service, teachers, and healthworkers.

Begoner21;11686414']
That's right, because we bombed the shit out of every nation that wears scarves on their head. Oh, wait, we only invaded 2 out of more than 10. Ah, well, you can't be right all the time.


Two so far. One more lined up... maybe another. Bush still has two years in his reign.

Begoner21;11686414']
I was giving an example of a fundamentalist action; fundamentalism, however, is not defined by that one particular action. I defined it more accurately later on.


You were talking out of your arse.

Show me ANY dictionary or lexicon that uses the same bullshit definition you do.

Begoner21;11686414']
I was simply giving example of discrimination -- we are indeed discriminating against those who wish to have an incestuous relationship. However, there is good discrimination and bad discrimination.


No. There is not. There is only bad discrimination.

Begoner21;11686414']
Nationalistic pride is evidence of a great country, the best in the world, not a fascist government. And which civil right did you lose? The right to disagree with the government? The right to protest? The right to be a Jew? No, you didn't lose any of those rights. Stop complaining.

I'd be pretty willing to bet you couldn't define 'Nationalism'. I'd be willing to bet you'd argue against nationalism if it were presented in it's empirical form. I believe you ONLY accept 'nationalism' because it is so overpackaged you don't know what you are swallowing.

Did I lose any rights? How would I know? We didn't know our phone linmes were being tapped for some time. We didn't know our calls were being logged and collated until YEARS after the fact. We didn't know the SWIFT data was being collected until long after the fact. It seems fairly safe to assume that there are STILL a number of rights being abused we don't even know about.

Did I lose the right to protest the government? Actually - yes... since I could be picked up as an 'enemy combatant' if I was troublsome.... the definition is that vague. Did I lose the right to free speech? Yes - free speech has been attacked in this country - you can now only freely speak in 'designated areas', for example.

Did I lose the right to be a Jew? No - but it wouldn't have made any difference to me... not being a Jew, so it could have gone by unnoticed. If I had an Arabic name, though, I would find myself discriminated against.

Begoner21;11686423']http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199052,00.html

I'll ignore the nature of the source... instead, I'll just point out that "two members of Saddam's government" is NOT the same as Saddam or his government.

Begoner21;11686508']What, you don't appreciate fair and unbiased sources? FOX News is not biased in any way. If you don't believe me, please provide a FOX News article which you feel is biased. Look at this story on FOX:


Every source is biased to some extent. It is part of the historian or analysts trade to try to work out what is bias, so they can eliminate it.

Begoner21;11686508']
Ooh, a Republican pleading guilty to fraud is on the ultra-conservative propaganda machine website. How do liberals reconcile those two conflicting ideas?

Owning up to a story everyone already KNOWS is hardly a big step, now is it?

Begoner21;11686686']I really get pissed off when liberals say such things as "I support our troops because I want to pull out of Iraq." What they really mean is "I think our troops are fucking idiots." It's sad to see people who have no respect for our armed forces -- men and women who are laying their lives on the line to help their country and the world. For shame.

Could it be that they want to keep our troops alive? Could it be that they view our troops as human beings and not as cannon fodder for the Bushevik war machine?

You are aware that one of the biggest funders, and the biggest provider of technology and aid to the Taliban, has historically been the US, yes? I'm not saying I'm pro-Taliban, but we put them there. We built them up, and we used them, in our little Cold detente.

Not true at all. We funded the mujahideen and financed their resistance struggle against the Soviet Union. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, we stopped the funding. However, some former mujahideen later went on to fight other groups of mujahideen in a sort of civil war. The result of this was Afghanistan falling into Taliban hands. However, the US never funded the Taliban.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahedeen#Afghan_Mujahideen

I wonder what would happen if the US invaded Saudi Arabia also. But, we won't... because despotic-regime or no, they are our business buddies. And that's where the bottom line REALLY is.

There is myraid reasons for which we cannot invade Saudi Arabia. The first is anti-war protesters chanting their crazed "no blood for oil slogans." The second is that there is no conclusive proof of Saudi-sponsored terrorism against the US. The third is that we would lose many allies worldwide whose bottom line is cheap oil, even if ours isn't.

How about 'sovereignty'? How about control? Iran might not want to become dependenty on an international fuel source that can be disconnected arbitrarily... that sounds kind of familiar, no?

It doesn't make sense at all. The cost of building the plants, including the time spent, is far greater than allowing other nations to build the plants and then buying the fuel from them, especially since there is a provision allowing Iran to supply its own fuel if it is deemed trustworthy. There is no reason at all why Iran would not agree to that UN compromise. Also, highly enriched uranium -- the type used for nuclear weapons and not nuclear power -- was found in Iran. I wonder why that would be?

The US wants peace? You must be joking, right? If we 'wanted peace', we'd stop keep invading other countries... it's quite simple.

The US is one of the most peaceful countries in the world. Unfortunately, we are always being driven to war by circumstances outside our control, like terrorists who hate our freedoms and our affluence.

3) We aren't talking about random unallocated cash, here. The aid that the US has cut off, with it's allies, does things like paying the civil service, teachers, and healthworkers.

Sure, Hamas is working hard to present a facade of legality to the outside world. However, they spend an extremely large portion of their money on weapons and rockets. I am not going to allow money to go to a known terrorist organization -- I don't see how anybody but an extremely liberal would finance a terrorist organization, if they were in their right mind. People should be arrested for giving money to Hamas.

Two so far. One more lined up... maybe another. Bush still has two years in his reign.

Nothing else is "lined up." If Iran continues down the nuclear path, we may have no choice but to invade it, however.

No. There is not. There is only bad discrimination.

No, there is also good discrimination. For example, we "discriminate" against those who commit murder by tossing them in jail. Is that bad discrimination? Similarly, Bush believes gay marraige to be an unnatural act that needs to be stopped.

We didn't know our phone linmes were being tapped for some time.

Exactly my point. You didn't lose any rights -- you could still what you wanted on the phone. Hell, you didn't even suspect that you "lost" some "rights." You were being protected against terrorism at no cost to yourself, and you have the nerve to complain! You're letting the terrorists win if you don't allow phones to be tapped.

Begoner21;11688767']You're letting the terrorists win if you don't allow phones to be tapped.

You actually had me fooled for a while, I really thought you believed all the stuff you were saying.

This line however shows that you were having us all on in a well exectuted practical joke.

Hats off to you sir.

You actually had me fooled for a while, I really thought you believed all the stuff you were saying. This line however shows that you were having us all on in a well exectuted practical joke.

No, no, you must be confused. Letting the terrorists win certainly isn't a joke. If you stop Bush from allowing the phones to be tapped, that makes it easier for terrorists to execute their plans. They can communicate and formulate plans without the government knowing a thing about it. I don't understand why all the liberals think I'm being ironic with the things I say -- I'm not. It's like Cheney said: "it's hard to think of any category of information that would be more important to the safety and security of the United States. The recent ruling by a federal judge ordering an end to this program is just dead wrong. We are confident it will be reversed on appeal."

Begoner21;11688826']No, no, you must be confused. Letting the terrorists win certainly isn't a joke. If you stop Bush from allowing the phones to be tapped, that makes it easier for terrorists to execute their plans. They can communicate and formulate plans without the government knowing a thing about it. I don't understand why all the liberals think I'm being ironic with the things I say -- I'm not. It's like Cheney said: "it's hard to think of any category of information that would be more important to the safety and security of the United States. The recent ruling by a federal judge ordering an end to this program is just dead wrong. We are confident it will be reversed on appeal."

Sorry I find it difficult to put much store by the words of a man so dumb he confuses one his best friends with a duck and then shoots him.

Sorry I find it difficult to put much store by the words of a man so dumb he confuses one his best friends with a duck and then shoots him.

You may think that it's a bad thing that he shot his friend. I don't think so. It proves that he is constantly wary of perceived threats and is ready to act on his intuition. It shows that his senses have not become dull with age, but that he is alert. That's the kind of leader I want for a country -- one who is always on the lookout for threats to the US and ready to defend us against them, whether they be real or imagined.

Begoner21;11688876']You may think that it's a bad thing that he shot his friend. I don't think so. It proves that he is constantly wary of perceived threats and is ready to act on his intuition. It shows that his senses have not become dull with age, but that he is alert. That's the kind of leader I want for a country -- one who is always on the lookout for threats to the US and ready to defend us against them, whether they be real or imagined.

ROFLMFAO

Funniest post in a long time

Begoner21;11688876']That's the kind of leader I want for a country ...

One who shoots his allies in the face with a shotgun?

I'm not convinced...

Begoner21;11688876']You may think that it's a bad thing that he shot his friend. I don't think so. It proves that he is constantly wary of perceived threats and is ready to act on his intuition. It shows that his senses have not become dull with age, but that he is alert. That's the kind of leader I want for a country -- one who is always on the lookout for threats to the US and ready to defend us against them, whether they be real or imagined.

:D :D :D POTFM.

i pissed my bags laughing at that stupidity

Begoner21;11688876']You may think that it's a bad thing that he shot his friend. I don't think so. It proves that he is constantly wary of perceived threats and is ready to act on his intuition. It shows that his senses have not become dull with age, but that he is alert. That's the kind of leader I want for a country -- one who is always on the lookout for threats to the US and ready to defend us against them, whether they be real or imagined.

ROTFLMFAO! That nonsense is sig-worthy. I wish I had room for it.

Begoner21;11688876']You may think that it's a bad thing that he shot his friend. I don't think so. It proves that he is constantly wary of perceived threats and is ready to act on his intuition. It shows that his senses have not become dull with age, but that he is alert. That's the kind of leader I want for a country -- one who is always on the lookout for threats to the US and ready to defend us against them, whether they be real or imagined.

You know... you can't be real. Seriously. The "real or imagined" threats line is just too much. Whose puppet are you? you're a brilliant satirist.

Begoner21;11688767']
There is myraid reasons for which we cannot invade Saudi Arabia. The first is anti-war protesters chanting their crazed "no blood for oil slogans." The second is that there is no conclusive proof of Saudi-sponsored terrorism against the US. The third is that we would lose many allies worldwide whose bottom line is cheap oil, even if ours isn't.


Anti-war protestors tried to stop the Iraqi invasion. The warmachine went right ahead anyway.

There is no conclusive proof of Iraqi sponsored terrorism against the US. The warmachine went ahead anyway.

We DID loose many allies invading Iraq... but to say that oil wasn't a consideration for the US is ridiculous, cosidering our national 'appetite' for oil fuels.

Look at the nationalities of 9/11 terrorists. Look at the antionalities of those men who have thus far been identified as immediately responsible.

How many Iraqis? How many Afghans?

How many Saudis? Now - why did we invade Iraq.

(Answer, because it was easy).

Begoner21;11688767']
It doesn't make sense at all. The cost of building the plants, including the time spent, is far greater than allowing other nations to build the plants and then buying the fuel from them, especially since there is a provision allowing Iran to supply its own fuel if it is deemed trustworthy. There is no reason at all why Iran would not agree to that UN compromise. Also, highly enriched uranium -- the type used for nuclear weapons and not nuclear power -- was found in Iran. I wonder why that would be?


Why does the US have it's own oil process plants?

Why don't we just buy all of our fuel pre-prepared?

Begoner21;11688767']
The US is one of the most peaceful countries in the world. Unfortunately, we are always being driven to war by circumstances outside our control, like terrorists who hate our freedoms and our affluence.


Utter wank of the highest order. Not even worth responding to, except to ask if you can provide any evidence... because, from where I am sitting, the US must be one of the nations that has been involved in the MOST armed conflicts, of recent times.

Begoner21;11688767']
Sure, Hamas is working hard to present a facade of legality to the outside world. However, they spend an extremely large portion of their money on weapons and rockets. I am not going to allow money to go to a known terrorist organization -- I don't see how anybody but an extremely liberal would finance a terrorist organization, if they were in their right mind. People should be arrested for giving money to Hamas.


And the US sponsored the 'political wing' of the IRA. Of course... that's different... they were blowing up babies in a country other than the US, so it doesn't 'count'.

Begoner21;11688767']
Nothing else is "lined up." If Iran continues down the nuclear path, we may have no choice but to invade it, however.


Bullshit, and you know it. The 'pax americana' agenda called for invasion of Iraq and Iran before their puppet Bush even got into power.

Begoner21;11688767']
No, there is also good discrimination. For example, we "discriminate" against those who commit murder by tossing them in jail. Is that bad discrimination? Similarly, Bush believes gay marraige to be an unnatural act that needs to be stopped.


Arresting a murderer for an actual harm against another person is not 'discrimination', it is punishment for a crime against another. Just ebcause Bush gets wobbly feelings at the idea of two men 'going at it', doesn't justify amending the constitution to REMOVE rights from citizens.

Begoner21;11688767']
Exactly my point. You didn't lose any rights -- you could still what you wanted on the phone. Hell, you didn't even suspect that you "lost" some "rights." You were being protected against terrorism at no cost to yourself, and you have the nerve to complain! You're letting the terrorists win if you don't allow phones to be tapped.

Actually, since I am not 'native', I have never trusted the US government to leave my lines untapped. Not that I am worried about what I might say... I have no destructive agenda. Just, you'd have to be pretty gullible to suspect that the government does NOT have a corrupt agenda.

all i see here are two brainwashed people

one by the bush administration
one by the new york times

all i see here are two brainwashed people

one by the bush administration
one by the new york times

Doesn't it upset them that you ignore them to play on your computer?

Anti-war protestors tried to stop the Iraqi invasion. The warmachine went right ahead anyway.

If by "war machine" you mean the will of the majority of the US people and our democratically elected representatives, then you are correct. It's not like most rational Americans didn't want to go into Iraq.

There is no conclusive proof of Iraqi sponsored terrorism against the US. The warmachine went ahead anyway.

Iraq sponsored the Taliban and there were strong links to Al-Qaeda. However, that wasn't our only reason. They probably had WMDs and Saddam was a genocidal, oppressive, maniac.

We DID loose many allies invading Iraq... but to say that oil wasn't a consideration for the US is ridiculous, cosidering our national 'appetite' for oil fuels.

If we wanted more oil, we could have drilled in the ANWR. But, unfortunately, many liberals are against a good economy. And yes, oil was not a consideration at all.

(Answer, because it was easy).

If we wanted oil, it would have been much easier to invade Saudi Arabia. However, that was not our reason.

Why does the US have it's own oil process plants? Why don't we just buy all of our fuel pre-prepared?

Because it is cheaper to prepare it at home rather than import it. However, if a country built hundreds of hydro-electric dams, solar power plants, wind farms, etc., in exchange for the US giving up its oil processing plants, it would be a good deal.

Utter wank of the highest order. Not even worth responding to, except to ask if you can provide any evidence... because, from where I am sitting, the US must be one of the nations that has been involved in the MOST armed conflicts, of recent times.

You mean the first Persian Gulf War? We clearly had to go to war when one nation invaded another sovereign nation -- it is unacceptable to do so. You mean the war in Afghanistan? Almost everybody was backing us there. You mean the war in Iraq? Well, I guess the threat of NYC being reduced to a smoking pile of rubble is OK as long as America doesn't appear slightly more belligerent.

And the US sponsored the 'political wing' of the IRA.

Source, please?

Bullshit, and you know it. The 'pax americana' agenda called for invasion of Iraq and Iran before their puppet Bush even got into power.

Yeah, Bush was planning to invade Iran and Ahmadinejad just played into his hands by giving him an excellent excuse to do so. What next? Are you going to suggest it's a global conspiracy and Ahmadinejad is simply Bush's puppet?

Begoner21;11691729']If by "war machine" you mean the will of the majority of the US people and our democratically elected representatives, then you are correct. It's not like most rational Americans didn't want to go into Iraq.


There was nothing rational about the lust for blood that the US felt after 9/11. Once they had time to calm down, the people and their representation overwhelmingly have opposed.

That should tell you something... and that's why you don't make important decisions while you're mad.

Begoner21;11691729']
Iraq sponsored the Taliban and there were strong links to Al-Qaeda. However, that wasn't our only reason. They probably had WMDs and Saddam was a genocidal, oppressive, maniac.


You're very clever. More clever than the government, apparently... who have stoppd trying to link Saddam and Al Qaeda.

The government has also admitted he didn't have WMD's, and that it was selective reading of poor intelligence that suggested he might.

Plus... regarding genocidal, oppressive maniacs.... does this mean you'd approve of massed foreign armies in Washington?

Begoner21;11691729']
If we wanted more oil, we could have drilled in the ANWR. But, unfortunately, many liberals are against a good economy. And yes, oil was not a consideration at all.


It is 'liberal' to not want to despoil nature reserves? Even though many conservatives have also opposed it?

You really do use the term for anything that opposes your minisule width of policy, don't you?

If you are honestly bout to argue that oil wasn't even a consideration, we'll have to stop debating right here... no one could really be that convinced by propoganda...

Begoner21;11691729']
If we wanted oil, it would have been much easier to invade Saudi Arabia. However, that was not our reason.


Of course it wouldn't. Saudi Arabia has allies.

Begoner21;11691729']
Because it is cheaper to prepare it at home rather than import it. However, if a country built hundreds of hydro-electric dams, solar power plants, wind farms, etc., in exchange for the US giving up its oil processing plants, it would be a good deal.


I know you are faking, now... you can't seriously be arguing we should let a foreign power have control over our fuel supply.

Begoner21;11691729']
You mean the first Persian Gulf War? We clearly had to go to war when one nation invaded another sovereign nation -- it is unacceptable to do so.


Funny... we just did the exact same thing. I assume this is your pre-emptive approval for the US to be invaded?

Begoner21;11691729']You mean the war in Afghanistan? Almost everybody was backing us there.


Irrelevent to the number of wars...

Begoner21;11691729']You mean the war in Iraq? Well, I guess the threat of NYC being reduced to a smoking pile of rubble is OK as long as America doesn't appear slightly more belligerent.


NYC isn't a pile of rubble, never was... and now we know Saddam didn't even have WMD's. You are trying to justify murder on a large scale with paranoia.

I notice you missed a number of rcent conflicts... didnt work in your favour?

Begoner21;11691729']
Source, please?


You've never heard of Sinn Fein?

Begoner21;11691729']
Yeah, Bush was planning to invade Iran and Ahmadinejad just played into his hands by giving him an excellent excuse to do so. What next? Are you going to suggest it's a global conspiracy and Ahmadinejad is simply Bush's puppet?

We don't HAVE an excuse, except in the minds of the most extreme Islamophobes.

Begoner21;11691729']Source, please?
The sheer amount of AR-15s around in the RoI - or for a more formal bit here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army#Weaponry_and_operations and for more detail :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_IRA_arms_importation

Begoner21;11688876']You may think that it's a bad thing that he shot his friend. I don't think so. It proves that he is constantly wary of perceived threats and is ready to act on his intuition. It shows that his senses have not become dull with age, but that he is alert. That's the kind of leader I want for a country -- one who is always on the lookout for threats to the US and ready to defend us against them, whether they be real or imagined.
"Suicide Attack Quail - YOU DIE NOW!"

"Oh shit... sorry mate..."

The sheer amount of AR-15s around in the RoI - or for a more formal bit here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army#Weaponry_and_operations and for more detail :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_IRA_arms_importation

Those links say that guns were illegally smuggled from a gun dealer with links to organized crime in the USA. It's hardly as if the US government was complicit in the transaction.

Begoner21;11691831']Those links say that guns were illegally smuggled from a gun dealer with links to organized crime in the USA. It's hardly as if the US government was complicit in the transaction.
It most certainly was, I'll try and get a good source on this one (the dealings of the CIA are, after all, a bit difficult to get hold of information of).

There we go, right near the bottom of the very same article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_IRA#Support_from_other_countries_and_organisations

Begoner21;11691831']Those links say that guns were illegally smuggled from a gun dealer with links to organized crime in the USA. It's hardly as if the US government was complicit in the transaction.

It's common knowledge.

Just a quick trawl of the net throws up articles like this one:

"September 7, 1997

SAN FRANCISCO (CNN) -- Sinn Fein leader Martin McGuinness visited three Belfast prison escapees in a Northern California prison this weekend and called them "political prisoners" who should not be extradited to England.

McGuinness is chief negotiator for Sinn Fein, the political wing of the Irish Republican Army. Sinn Fein wants a united Ireland and an end to British rule in Northern Ireland.

McGuinness has been on a tour of the United States to drum up political and financial support. He returns home for peace talks on Northern Ireland this week -- Sinn Fein's first with Britain since 1921.

San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown proclaimed Saturday as "Martin McGuinness Day" and gave him the key to the city. "The struggle you are engaged in is a very noble one," Brown said."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9709/07/sinn.fein.visit/

The US has been an active financial and political supporter of Sinn Fein for decades. This article shows a Sinn Fein agent being accorded highest honours. Other Sinn Fein operatives have been active in the US, and prominent US figures have attended Sinn Fein rallies.

'Amusing', isn't it - that Sinn Fein's reign of terror in mainland England, was considered a "very noble... struggle" in the days before 9/11. i.e. - when 'terrorism' was something that only happenned to 'other' people.

Here's my take. Whether you see President Bush as Good or Not, I personally can care less. I will let History determine that. Yes he used WMD as one of the reasons for war. There was quite a lot more reasons than that though. For starters, Saddam did gas and killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. If you voiced against Saddam you were either jailed, tortured, or killed as for the women you beaten and raped. The women had no rights what so ever. So to me all of you who cries over Human Rights what gives. Do the Iraqi women not have any rights to education, to elections, to their own opinions. They UN is a dysfunctional organization and the French government had secret deals with Saddam RE: the oil for food which was in reality oil for blood. So with those to bodies I understand why they tried to prevent USA from any and all actions, which in itself is hilarious. As for the rest of the world who chose to do absolutely nothing, I ask you...Should the Iraqi women be allowed to have any rights at all? They now are allowed to go to schools which they do indeed do by the large numbers now, they have gone and voted at the elections and yes they are even allowed and they do voice their opinions without fear of being beaten or raped. As for those countries who chose to do nothing you have proven to me that you don't truly believe in Human rights, not at all. For those who did send help I thank you and am sure that the Iraqi People thank you for it to. This war could and should of been done more smoothly if only the world as a majority would of did some type of help and if they thought about the People of Iraqi instead of doing what the rest of the world does best by turining their backs and thinking that the problems would go away by themselves if they do nothing. As far as I'm concerned, Human Rights was a much bigger issue and more of a justification than the WMD arguement.

There we go, right near the bottom of the very same article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_IRA#Support_from_other_countries_and_organisations

Yes, it said that most US aid came from a group called NORAID, which had no relation to the US government. Aid did come from America, true, but not through the US government.

Begoner21;11691902']Yes, it said that most US aid came from a group called NORAID, which had no relation to the US government. Aid did come from America, true, but not through the US government.
Get your fucking glasses on and look at the case in the '80s where the CIA authorised a weapons shipment.

San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown proclaimed Saturday as "Martin McGuinness Day" and gave him the key to the city. "The struggle you are engaged in is a very noble one," Brown said."

Wow, a very liberal mayor of San Fransisco praised a political leader. I guess that just proves US support the for terrorist branch, no? I couldn't care less what some crackpot liberal mayor may have said, but in this case, he was not completely incorrect. The non-violent struggle in which the political arm was engaged was noble indeed, as it detracted from the horrible armed resistance.

Get your fucking glasses on and look at the case in the '80s where the CIA authorised a weapons shipment.

The CIA denied any involvement. It's the word of 5 terrorists against the government.

Here's my take. Whether you see President Bush as Good or Not, I personally can care less. I will let History determine that. Yes he used WMD as one of the reasons for war. There was quite a lot more reasons than that though. For starters, Saddam did gas and killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. If you voiced against Saddam you were either jailed, tortured, or killed as for the women you beaten and raped. The women had no rights what so ever. So to me all of you who cries over Human Rights what gives. Do the Iraqi women not have any rights to education, to elections, to their own opinions. They UN is a dysfunctional organization and the French government had secret deals with Saddam RE: the oil for food which was in reality oil for blood. So with those to bodies I understand why they tried to prevent USA from any and all actions, which in itself is hilarious. As for the rest of the world who chose to do absolutely nothing, I ask you...Should the Iraqi women be allowed to have any rights at all? They now are allowed to go to schools which they do indeed do by the large numbers now, they have gone and voted at the elections and yes they are even allowed and they do voice their opinions without fear of being beaten or raped. As for those countries who chose to do nothing you have proven to me that you don't truly believe in Human rights, not at all. For those who did send help I thank you and am sure that the Iraqi People thank you for it to. This war could and should of been done more smoothly if only the world as a majority would of did some type of help and if they thought about the People of Iraqi instead of doing what the rest of the world does best by turining their backs and thinking that the problems would go away by themselves if they do nothing. As far as I'm concerned, Human Rights was a much bigger issue and more of a justification than the WMD arguement.

Wow. That's.... big. DO they not have paragraphs in Tampa?

If the US concern was really humanitarian, one would assume that we must also be carrying out similar military actions in the Sudan... where a deliberate and well-publicised genocide has been going on for years... with a much higher bodycount.

The fact that we only get involved in Iraq (and have ignore Kurds being persecuted elsewhere in the Middle East), and don't get involved when it is China carrying out barbaric acts on Falun Gong members, or Sudanese genocide... suggests that 'human rights' isn't really the issue.

Begoner21;11691934']The CIA denied any involvement. It's the word of 5 terrorists against the government.

Denying something doesn't make it false. Holocaust deniers deny the Holocaust, but everyone knows it happened.

Begoner21;11691920']Wow, a very liberal mayor of San Fransisco praised a political leader. I guess that just proves US support the for terrorist branch, no? I couldn't care less what some crackpot liberal mayor may have said, but in this case, he was not completely incorrect. The non-violent struggle in which the political arm was engaged was noble indeed, as it detracted from the horrible armed resistance.

Stop the Presses! Begoner used the word 'liberal'!

Sinn Fein is the political wing of the IRA.

If you are willing to chose to accept Sinn Fein as separate from the IRA, but NOT to accept that the political wing of Hamas might be similalry separate from the militants, then you are nothing more than a hypocrite.

By the way - supporting the freedom fight of Sinn Fein? That's very liberal of you.

Denying something doesn't make it false. Holocaust deniers deny the Holocaust, but everyone knows it happened.

Because there are reams of documented proof of the Holocaust as well as physical artifacts. I see no reason to believe that the US sponsored a terror campaign against one of our major political allies. It is the say-so of 5 arms smugglers/terrorists against the government.

Begoner21;11691934']The CIA denied any involvement. It's the word of 5 terrorists against the government.

And Bush denied warrantless wiretaps. And Clinton denied Monica was helping him out both sides of the desk.

Lots of people have denied lots of things. They ahven't always been entirely honest in doing so.

If you are willing to chose to accept Sinn Fein as separate from the IRA, but NOT to accept that the political wing of Hamas might be similalry separate from the militants, then you are nothing more than a hypocrite.

I never said that I accepted that the Sinn Fein was separate from the militant branch of the IRA (nor did I say that I didn't). However, as long as the Sinn Fein did not support the IRA with funds or weapons, I see no way that the two are connected except in their common goal. The political wing of Hamas, however, still wants the Israeli state destroyed and funds militants to carry out their extremist work.

And Bush denied warrantless wiretaps. And Clinton denied Monica was helping him out both sides of the desk. Lots of people have denied lots of things. They ahven't always been entirely honest in doing so.

There was proof of their transgressions. If you wish to make me doubt that the CIA was truthful in their assertions, you need to provide at least an iota of proof. So far you have not done so.

Begoner21;11691959']Because there are reams of documented proof of the Holocaust as well as physical artifacts. I see no reason to believe that the US sponsored a terror campaign against one of our major political allies. It is the say-so of 5 arms smugglers/terrorists against the government.

"The annual New York dinner run by Friends of Sinn Fein, the American-based support group, is the party's single-biggest fund-raiser, usually netting about $400,000. "

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/11/05/sinn_fein_leader_may_cancel_us_trip/?page=2

Begoner21;11691959']Because there are reams of documented proof of the Holocaust as well as physical artifacts. I see no reason to believe that the US sponsored a terror campaign against one of our major political allies. It is the say-so of 5 arms smugglers/terrorists against the government.

I never said the CIA was wrong, only that just because they denied it, doesn't mean what they say is true.

Begoner21;11691934']The CIA denied any involvement. It's the word of 5 terrorists against the government.
*sighs*
In the United States in November 1982, five men were acquitted of smuggling arms to the IRA after they revealed the CIA had approved the shipment (although the CIA officially denied this).
If they were acqitted, you can be pretty bloody sure that it was CIA involvement.

If it wasn't the truth, the CIA would have gone "you liars!" and put them in jail forever.

Begoner21;11691978']I never said that I accepted that the Sinn Fein was separate from the militant branch of the IRA (nor did I say that I didn't). However, as long as the Sinn Fein did not support the IRA with funds or weapons, I see no way that the two are connected except in their common goal. The political wing of Hamas, however, still wants the Israeli state destroyed and funds militants to carry out their extremist work.

Do you not bother doing any research?

How are the 'goals' of Sinn Fein and the IRA 'different'?

Regarding your hypocrisy, which you are now rapidly trying to weasle out of: "The non-violent struggle in which the political arm was engaged was noble indeed"... that IS an approval for the political wing of the IRA. Thus - you support the politicisation of one terrorist organisation, while decrying the same thing in another. The difference between the two? Little more than colour of skin.

Thanks Grave_n_idle you have even given my point a better stance that America can not be the only country in this world to stand against the evil regimes. and to stand with the People this is not the USA's problems it is a world problem that it seems that the world is choosing to ignore. If the world would stop thinking that these problems will one day vanish and wake up in reality. America can not continue to be the nation that does the most while the rest of the world pretends that it's okay to do nothing. And as for the paragraph remark, what ever. This is a forum not English class.

"The annual New York dinner run by Friends of Sinn Fein, the American-based support group, is the party's single-biggest fund-raiser, usually netting about $400,000. "

Again, the Sinn Fein is not classified as a terrorist organization by the State Department, so there is nothing wrong with a fundraiser.

Begoner21;11692031']Again, the Sinn Fein is not classified as a terrorist organization by the State Department, so there is nothing wrong with a fundraiser.
The State Department is not the be-all and end-all.

Think a little. Don't just accept what you're told ffs.

If they were acqitted, you can be pretty bloody sure that it was CIA involvement. If it wasn't the truth, the CIA would have gone "you liars!" and put them in jail forever.

In the US, we have this wonderful tradition of "innocent until proven guilty" and "reasonable doubt." As long as there were some liberals on that jury, I'm sure they would have thought that the CIA approved it.

The State Department is not the be-all and end-all.

Alright, then give me a list of all countries which consider the Sinn Fein to be a terrorist organization.

Thanks Grave_n_idle you have even given my point a better stance that America can not be the only country in this world to stand against the evil regimes. and to stand with the People this is not the USA's problems it is a world problem that it seems that the world is choosing to ignore. If the world would stop thinking that these problems will one day vanish and wake up in reality. America can not continue to be the nation that does the most while the rest of the world pretends that it's okay to do nothing. And as for the paragraph remark, what ever. This is a forum not English class.

I'm not 'grading' you... I was just pointing out that it is almost impossible to make sense of that huge unweildy chunk of text. If you want to be taken seriously in debate... you have to provide some kind of coherent platform that people can understand to react to.

If what you want to do is rant, don't listen to my constructive criticism... but don't expect too much in the way of comprehension or response.

When you say America is "the nation that does the most while the rest of the world pretend that it's okay to do nothing"... wasn't the point of the Sudan comment... that the US is doing nothing? The same regarding Falun Gong?

The US gets involved where it is PROFITABLE to do so... financially, or politically.

Begoner21;11692047']In the US, we have this wonderful tradition of "innocent until proven guilty" and "reasonable doubt." As long as there were some liberals on that jury, I'm sure they would have thought that the CIA approved it.
Right... sorry about this everyone.

FOR FUCK'S SAKE, IT'S NOT DOWN TO LIBERALS, IT'S DOWN TO FUCKING CIA INTERVENTION, YOU FUCKING FUCKWIT.

If they were acquitted they were allowed to go home and live happily. How the fuck else could 5 gun smugglers get away with that?

Begoner21;11692050']Alright, then give me a list of all countries which consider the Sinn Fein to be a terrorist organization.
Almost every one, since it's an offshoot of the Provos.

Up until about 20 years ago, they weren't even allowed to run in NI.

Begoner21;11692031']Again, the Sinn Fein is not classified as a terrorist organization by the State Department, so there is nothing wrong with a fundraiser.

And, who decides how to define those 'terrorist' organisations?

There has been a long tradtion of fundraisers for the IRA in the US. I suspect that Sinn Fein hasn't been placed on the list of terrorist organisations, because it would be pretty damn embarrassing for the US government to have to explain why we are so 'anti-terror'... everywhere except Ireland.

When you checked this fact (you state it as fact, so I assumed you checked) did you notice if the IRA is on the list of terrorist organisations?

When you say America is "the nation that does the most while the rest of the world pretend that it's okay to do nothing"... wasn't the point of the Sudan comment... that the US is doing nothing? The same regarding Falun Gong?

The US gets involved where it is PROFITABLE to do so... financially, or politically.

We can hardly get involved in Darfur now, after our whole army is tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq, helping rebuild those countries and install a successful and powerful democratic government. If we had unlimited resources, we would also have gone into Darfur. Unfortunately, we don't. It's up to other countries to pick up the slack, but they're mostly peace-loving hippie commie liberals who don't want to go to war, no matter what. They did nothing in Rwanda and they're doing nothing in Darfur. It doesn't surprise me.

Begoner21;11692047']In the US, we have this wonderful tradition of "innocent until proven guilty" and "reasonable doubt." As long as there were some liberals on that jury, I'm sure they would have thought that the CIA approved it.

What about 'enemy combatants'? Held indefinitely, without charges and without trial.

Where is your precious 'innocent until proven guilty' there?

Right... sorry about this everyone.


Don't get yourself banned because the other poster is being obtuse.

And, who decides how to define those 'terrorist' organisations?

The equivalent of the State Department of foreign countries. Again, please show me which countries recognize the Sinn Fein as a terrorist organization. I'm willing to bet that very few, if any, do.

When you checked this fact (you state it as fact, so I assumed you checked) did you notice if the IRA is on the list of terrorist organisations?

As of 2005, the State Department classified the Real IRA as a terrorist organization. Here's the list:

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm

Begoner21;11692065']We can hardly get involved in Darfur now, after our whole army is tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq,


Your math isn't very good.

Perhaps you can explain how you arrive at this ridiculous conclusion?

Begoner21;11692065']
helping rebuild those countries and install a successful and powerful democratic government.


Helping rebuild these countries... at least ONE of which is in shambles because we made it that way.

You can't INSTALL a democratic government. This is obvious.. it wouldn't be 'democratic' if it was installed by a foreign power.

I think you are a troll...

Begoner21;11692065']
If we had unlimited resources, we would also have gone into Darfur. Unfortunately, we don't.


Nothing to do with it. The matter has never even been seriously discussed.

Begoner21;11692065']
It's up to other countries to pick up the slack, but they're mostly peace-loving hippie commie liberals who don't want to go to war, no matter what.


Some don't want to go to war because they don't think war is the solution to EVERY problem. Obviously, they use a different playbook to the Great Dictator in the white house.

I think you've reached a point of self-parody here... I'm now basically just debating with you out of interest... to find out which NS regular you are actually a puppet for.

Begoner21;11692065']
They did nothing in Rwanda and they're doing nothing in Darfur. It doesn't surprise me.

We did nothing in the Sudan, or for the Falun Gong. It doesn't surprise me.

How are the 'goals' of Sinn Fein and the IRA 'different'?

Their goals are not different. However, the means which they use to attempt to achieve those goals are diametrically opposed. One of them is attempting peaceful, democratic negotiation, while the other just blows stuff up. Please don't tell me you can't see any difference between the two.

Thus - you support the politicisation of one terrorist organisation, while decrying the same thing in another. The difference between the two? Little more than colour of skin.

Little more than the colour of skin?! Hamas is a terrorist organization because it kills innocent Israeli civilians. Sure, they may have one or two non-violent politicians, but that does not excuse the organization as a whole any more than Al-Qaeda would not be considered a terrorist organization of the Dalai Lama was on their payroll.

FOR FUCK'S SAKE, IT'S NOT DOWN TO LIBERALS, IT'S DOWN TO FUCKING CIA INTERVENTION, YOU FUCKING FUCKWIT.

Yes, liberals cannot stand it when someone disagrees with their incredibly narrow, paranoid view of the world. They resort to crude language and vulgarities to prove their point. You are aware that several children peruse this forum and that such language is not appropriate? I'll ask you to keep a civil tongue, thank you very much.

Begoner21;11692080']The equivalent of the State Department of foreign countries. Again, please show me which countries recognize the Sinn Fein as a terrorist organization. I'm willing to bet that very few, if any, do.

As of 2005, the State Department classified the Real IRA as a terrorist organization. Here's the list:

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm

Hate to break it to you, the 'Real IRA' isn't the same organisation as the "IRA" (More properly, perhaps, called the Provisional IRA).

I don't hold much faith in this comprehensive list of terror orgainsations, if the IRA isn't even on it.

(Especially since Sinn Fein IS linked to FARC, who are on the list).

I notice that list doesn't discriminate between the political and terror wings of HAMAS, either...

Begoner21;11692090']Their goals are not different. However, the means which they use to attempt to achieve those goals are diametrically opposed. One of them is attempting peaceful, democratic negotiation, while the other just blows stuff up. Please don't tell me you can't see any difference between the two.


And, while the goals of the political wing and the militant wing of HAMAS are the same, they also operate entirely differently... one through the political process, one through guns.

Exactly the same as the Sinn Fein/IRA model you like so much.

Begoner21;11692090']
Little more than the colour of skin?! Hamas is a terrorist organization because it kills innocent Israeli civilians.

What do you think the IRA were doing in London in the 80's? Licking people?

Begoner21;11692097']Yes, liberals cannot stand it when someone disagrees with their incredibly narrow, paranoid view of the world. They resort to crude language and vulgarities to prove their point. You are aware that several children peruse this forum and that such language is not appropriate? I'll ask you to keep a civil tongue, thank you very much.

Amused. "Liberal" = "narrow, paranoid view".

I think you have redefined the language to the point of nonsense now, don't you?

Perhaps you can explain how you arrive at this ridiculous conclusion?

We still need more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to secure the peace. We are stretched to the limit. We cannot just arbitrarily go to war against countries if they are doing something wrong -- we simlpy do not have enough troops. We have to take them one or two at a time.

You can't INSTALL a democratic government. This is obvious.. it wouldn't be 'democratic' if it was installed by a foreign power.

Well, a democratic government does not appear out of thin air, either. It needs to be installed -- the infrastructure for fair voting needs to be installed, for example. We didn't go so far as to give them electronic voting machines to ensure fairness, but we did establish a just voting system.

I think you've reached a point of self-parody here... I'm now basically just debating with you out of interest... to find out which NS regular you are actually a puppet for.

You're right -- maybe I did take it too far with that comment. But I would like to know why the French, for example, didn't send troops to Rwanda or Darfur? They have the military potential to do so? Why not, then?

Begoner21;11692090']Hamas is a terrorist organization because it kills innocent Israeli civilians. Sure, they may have one or two non-violent politicians, but that does not excuse the organization as a whole any more than Al-Qaeda would not be considered a terrorist organization of the Dalai Lama was on their payroll.

The IRA is also a terrorist organisation because it kills innocent Irish and British civilians. They have one or two non-violent politicians in the form of Gerry Adams and a few others, however this does not excuse the intertwined organizations of Sinn Fein and the IRA any more than Al-Qaeda would not be considered a terrorist organization of the Dalai Lama was on their payroll.

What about 'enemy combatants'? Held indefinitely, without charges and without trial.

Where is your precious 'innocent until proven guilty' there?

Their "guilt" is in that they are "combatants". Should these people be released to return to the war and continue to fight aginast the U.S.? Perhaps the U.S. should just fund the "insurgents (terrorists)" who keep blowing up their own people. Makes about as much sense.:headbang:

And, while the goals of the political wing and the militant wing of HAMAS are the same, they also operate entirely differently... one through the political process, one through guns.

The political wing of Hamas is a facade to the world of political legitimacy, yet they fund the terrorist activities of the Hamas terrorists. I do not differentiate between the two wings, as opposed the the Sinn Fein/IRA. One is purely political and has no connection to terrorist activities.

Begoner21;11692115'] We didn't go so far as to give them electronic voting machines to ensure fairness, but we did establish a just voting system.





It's a good thing you didn't give them electronic voting machines. It's much fairer that way if you know what I mean.

It's a good thing you didn't give them electronic voting machines. It's much fairer that way if you know what I mean.

I know exactly what you mean. You mean that you are a paranoid liberal who believes in a vast right-wing conspiracy to defraud the voters.

The IRA is also a terrorist organisation because it kills innocent Irish and British civilians...


I have always believed since the beginning of this that the IRA/SF need to be considered terrorist organizations. I would also like to see that classification added to several street gangs and drug cartels as well. Same difference to me.

Their "guilt" is in that they are "combatants". Should these people be released to return to the war and continue to fight aginast the U.S.? Perhaps the U.S. should just fund the "insurgents (terrorists)" who keep blowing up their own people. Makes about as much sense.:headbang:

You misunderstand my friend. The President of the US has an executive power which bestows upon him and only him the power to declare anyone in the US an "enemy combatant". The word "combatant" is used flimsily as the person does not have to have commited any kind of crime or taken part in armed conflict.

You misunderstand my friend. The President of the US has an executive power which bestows upon him and only him the power to declare anyone in the US an "enemy combatant". The word "combatant" is used flimsily as the person does not have to have commited any kind of crime or taken part in armed conflict.

That power is only conscionably used in the most serious of cases where the lives of American citizens are at stake. It has only been used several times so far in dire circumstances.

You misunderstand my friend. The President of the US has an executive power which bestows upon him and only him the power to declare anyone in the US an "enemy combatant". The word "combatant" is used flimsily as the person does not have to have commited any kind of crime or taken part in armed conflict.


These people being held were taken prisoner as a result of being involved in a battle against the U.S.

Begoner21;11692126']I do not differentiate between the two wings, as opposed the the Sinn Fein/IRA. One is purely political and has no connection to terrorist activities.

Ha.

Don't get yourself banned because the other poster is being obtuse.
Sorry... I'm pretty worked up about this.

The political wing of Hamas is a facade to the world of political legitimacy, yet they fund the terrorist activities of the Hamas terrorists. I do not differentiate between the two wings
You should, really, because they're two different organisations.
as opposed the the Sinn Fein/IRA. One is purely political and has no connection to terrorist activities.
Sinn Féin certainly does have a connection to terrorist activities, it's just another wing of the IRA.

Sinn Féin certainly does have a connection to terrorist activities, it's just another wing of the IRA.

Does it provide weapons or funding to the military arm of the IRA? No, it does not. The State Department does not classify it as a terrorist organization, and neither do I.

Begoner21;11692173']Does it provide weapons or funding to the military arm of the IRA? No, it does not.
Yes, it does.
The State Department does not classify it as a terroirst organization, and neither do I.
Seeing as you can't even spell 'terrorist', I'm not interested in your viewpoint.

Begoner21;11692173']Does it provide weapons or funding to the military arm of the IRA? No, it does not. The State Department does not classify it as a terroirst organization, and neither do I.

Well that changes everything doesn't it? If both the US State department and the power that is Begoner concur that Sinn Fein has nothing to do with the IRA, then it must be true!

No seriously. Sinn Fein is as much a political facade of the IRA as the HAMAS government is a political facade.

The only difference is that the US funds Sinn Fein.

Yes, it does.

Proof, please.

Seeing as you can't even spell 'terrorist', I'm not interested in your viewpoint.

I make one slight spelling mistake, and you jump all over me like a fat kid on cake. I have overlooked many of your spelling mistakes throughout this thread, yet you do not have the common courtesy to argue like a civilized person. Instead, you resort to vulgarity and take vindictive pleasure in criticizing my spelling. That's pathetic, even for an elitist liberal.

The only difference is that the US funds Sinn Fein.

We have already arrived at the consensus that the US does not fund Sinn Fein. The point that is still debatable is whether the US government willingly allows gun smugglers to conduct business with the Sinn Fein.

Begoner21;11692173']Does it provide weapons or funding to the military arm of the IRA? No, it does not. The State Department does not classify it as a terrorist organization, and neither do I.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the State Department doesn't classify the provos as a terrorist organization either, does it?

I apologize for my lack of "proper Debating" I will work on it.

Like I said earlier, the USA cannot be the do it yourselfer when it comes to the genocide of other countries. We need the World participation in solving these problems that exist in our world today.

We, the USA, cannot be expected to be the #1 donor of troop sacrifices and also the #1 finanial donor for all of the world's problems.

As you say, that we only get involved where it benefits us financially and politically, is a bunch of BS. We supposed went into Iraq for the oil then why is it costing me $90 to fill up my full size Ford Bronco.

Also, as the world continues to criticize America and President Bush I don't really recall hearing any solutions to these problems. Must be nice to be critics

Begoner21;11692190']...I make one slight spelling mistake, and you jump all over me like a fat kid on cake. I have overlooked many of your spelling mistakes throughout this thread, yet you do not have the common courtesy to argue like a civilized person. Instead, you resort to vulgarity and take vindictive pleasure in criticizing my spelling. That's pathetic, even for an elitist liberal.


It wasn't even a spelling mistake...just a typo. Don't sweat it though...when their ideas fail they resort to character assassination and feeble attempts to discredit you through simple things like this.

Begoner21;11692115']We still need more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to secure the peace. We are stretched to the limit. We cannot just arbitrarily go to war against countries if they are doing something wrong -- we simlpy do not have enough troops. We have to take them one or two at a time.


No - we are not 'stretched to the limit'.

Total number of troops available in the US: 2,361,289

Of which, total 'active': 1,421,950

Total number of troops in 'reserves': 860,000

Of which, total number in the Army or Air National Guards: 456,000


Number of US troops in Iraq: 133,000 (as of September 4th)

Number of US troops in Afghanistan: circa 20,000 (as of June 6th)

So - we have about 155,000 troops active in either Iraq or Afghanistan... that leaves more than 1.25 MILLION active US troops NOT in Iraq or Afghanistan.


Begoner21;11692115']
Well, a democratic government does not appear out of thin air, either. It needs to be installed -- the infrastructure for fair voting needs to be installed, for example. We didn't go so far as to give them electronic voting machines to ensure fairness, but we did establish a just voting system.


Was the US 'democratic' (ha!) government imposed by an external power?

Begoner21;11692115']
You're right -- maybe I did take it too far with that comment. But I would like to know why the French, for example, didn't send troops to Rwanda or Darfur? They have the military potential to do so? Why not, then?

I appreciate you retracting on the extremism.

Why didn't the French put troops in Rwanda? Two reasons... one being a different foreign policy. But - more importantly, the US is about the only nation that has a military DESIGNED to relocate en masse into sovereign territories!

If a nation like France wants to put troops in... Darfur, for example - they basically have to be there at the invite of the government... or they need to be being 'allowed' a staging point nearby.

On the other hand, the US military is DESIGNED to occupy foreign territory.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the State Department doesn't classify the provos as a terrorist organization either, does it?

According to the Wikipedia entry, it does:

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

Begoner21;11692190']Proof, please.



I make one slight spelling mistake, and you jump all over me like a fat kid on cake. I have overlooked many of your spelling mistakes throughout this thread, yet you do not have the common courtesy to argue like a civilized person. Instead, you resort to vulgarity and take vindictive pleasure in criticizing my spelling. That's pathetic, even for an elitist liberal.


You were right about this point. Bickering about small spelling errors is stupid. However classifying all who oppose your ill-informed position as "elitist liberals" is also pathetic.

Their "guilt" is in that they are "combatants". Should these people be released to return to the war and continue to fight aginast the U.S.? Perhaps the U.S. should just fund the "insurgents (terrorists)" who keep blowing up their own people. Makes about as much sense.:headbang:

Who says they are 'combatants'?

Begoner21;11692194']We have already arrived at the consensus that the US does not fund Sinn Fein. The point that is still debatable is whether the US government willingly allows gun smugglers to conduct business with the Sinn Fein.
No, you say that the US doesn't fund Sinn Féin. Anyone who does any research into the matter knows that Sinn Féin are funded by the US.

It's also not just debatable that the US willingly allows gun runners to trade with the Provos and the Real IRA, it's just true.

And regarding "proof" - Any money that goes "spare" from Sinn Féin goes to the funds of the IRA, and most members of Sinn Féin have been in / are in the Provos - a lot of money that supposedly goes to SF goes to the IRA instead, at the discretion of the Bursers in charge of its distribution.

Regarding the spelling issue - I'd like for you to point out some of my mistakes in this topic, please - just remember that I spell in Cambridge-style English, not American English.

We, the USA, cannot be expected to be the #1 donor of troop sacrifices and also the #1 finanial donor for all of the world's problems.

Why not: you have the best equipped armed forces and so are likely, all other things being equal, to be able to bring such operations to completion with smaller losses of troops compared to if other nations attempted them, and have the largest gross national income of all countries, so why shouldn't you also be the largest financial donor?

Begoner21;11692126']The political wing of Hamas is a facade to the world of political legitimacy, yet they fund the terrorist activities of the Hamas terrorists. I do not differentiate between the two wings, as opposed the the Sinn Fein/IRA. One is purely political and has no connection to terrorist activities.

Not at all - Sinn Fein is an offshoot of the IRA resistance... just as the HAMAS political wing is an offshoot of the militant.

Why differentiate between the white terrorists and their speakers, but not those with darker skins?

Amused. "Liberal" = "narrow, paranoid view".

I think you have redefined the language to the point of nonsense now, don't you?

Well, he doesn't really need to redefine language. The neocons have already done that for him.

You know... We don't torture people. We 'employ alternative interrogation techniques.'

We didn't violate the law by tapping phones without a warrant, or any intention of getting one. We "didn't use the FISA law."

The president was right when he declared "Mission Accomplished," because part of the mission was accomplished (his approval rating went up) but he didn't declare the mission accomplished because it was the seamen who put up the banner (at the White House's behest.)

It's not racist to make it harder for minorities to achieve financial freedom, but it is racist to make it easier for them to get into college, or feed their families.

It's not intolerant to hate homosexuals, while claiming that you don't hate them, you only hate homosexuality, but it is intolerant to claim that fundamentalist Christians are wrong to oppress homosexuals because you're defaming their religion.

I've said before that when conservatives speak it it's english because they certainly aren't speaking English, a language the rest of us recognize.

Begoner21;11692210']According to the Wikipedia entry, it does:

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

You mean the bit that states The United States Department of State and the European Union have taken the Provisional IRA off their lists of terrorist organisations due to the fact that there is a cease-fire?

Not at all - Sinn Fein is an offshoot of the IRA resistance... just as the HAMAS political wing is an offshoot of the militant.

Why differentiate between the white terrorists and their speakers, but not those with darker skins?

Exactly my point. The situation with the IRA/Sinn Fein and Militants/Hamas is the exact same. Sinn Fein and Hamas both provide political facades.

Begoner21;11692156']That power is only conscionably used in the most serious of cases where the lives of American citizens are at stake. It has only been used several times so far in dire circumstances.

Evidence.

This last week, we have been hearing about an English Muslim 'seized' as an 'enemy combatant', who was kidnapped from his home in the middle of the night.

What was the 'dire circumstance'... "Terrorism by Snoring"?

bush is ahorrid predident and anyone who thinks otherwise is blind and illetterate and has a bad "STRA-T-GER_EE" on how to run the country













biatchs

You mean the bit that states The United States Department of State and the European Union have taken the Provisional IRA off their lists of terrorist organisations due to the fact that there is a cease-fire?

If there's anything I hate the most, it's intellectual dishonesty.

...Why differentiate between the white terrorists and their speakers, but not those with darker skins?


I do not differentiate between either of those groups political and terrorist wings. They are all at fault and should both be considered terrorists.

Begoner21;11692173']Does it provide weapons or funding to the military arm of the IRA? No, it does not. The State Department does not classify it as a terrorist organization, and neither do I.

The State Department seems not to have noticed that the IRA kills people. If they don't call the IRA terrorists (by which, I assume, the meaning MUST be 'dangerous to yanks'), they won't call Sinn Fein terrorists, now, will they?

As a matter of curiousity... you state it as fact - can you PROVE that Sinn Fein does not pass supplies to the IRA?

Not at all - Sinn Fein is an offshoot of the IRA resistance...

Nope. If anything the other way round: Sinn Fein predates even the original IRA.

Nope. If anything the other way round: Sinn Fein predates even the original IRA.
Not the 1800's IRA, but it does predate what is usually meant by the IRA - i.e. the post-1914 groups.

Not the 1800's IRA...

???

More information, please.

Why not: you have the best equipped armed forces and so are likely, all other things being equal, to be able to bring such operations to completion with smaller losses of troops compared to if other nations attempted them, and have the largest gross national income of all countries, so why shouldn't you also be the largest financial donor?

Let me be more specific: It would help a lot more and things would of probably been a lot better in Iraq if the majority of the world would of shown some sort of Effort to help in the stablization of Iraq.

Yes I agree we, the USA, should play the biggest role however it would of been nice to have help with the world being United in this endeavor.

Nope. If anything the other way round: Sinn Fein predates even the original IRA.

It really depends on which Sinn Fein party you talk about. Since the 1920's there have been many political parties which have claimed to be the original Sinn Fein party. Historians debate on where the modern Sinn Fein party has it's roots.

bush is ahorrid predident and anyone who thinks otherwise is blind and illetterate and has a bad "STRA-T-GER_EE" on how to run the country




biatchs

...a more beaming font of knowledge and discourse has never been seen..you sir (or madam) are by far, the greatest debater in history!

Thank you for your little droplets of wisdom...my life is now complete.

bush is ahorrid predident and anyone who thinks otherwise is blind and illetterate and has a bad "STRA-T-GER_EE" on how to run the country

biatchs
Of course, this shows that even if you do think Bush is a horrid president you're not excluded from being blind and illiterate...

Let me be more specific: It would help a lot more and things would of probably been a lot better in Iraq if the majority of the world would of shown some sort of Effort to help in the stablization of Iraq.

Yes I agree we, the USA, should play the biggest role however it would of been nice to have help with the world being United in this endeavor.

The world would have been more "united" in this endeavour had the invasion been legal, been based on solid intelligence and actually been implemented competently.

???

More information, please.
Ach, never mind, I was talking of a differently named, but similar in scope organisation.

And Darius Dave - just whose puppet nation might you be?

I apologize for my lack of "proper Debating" I will work on it.

Like I said earlier, the USA cannot be the do it yourselfer when it comes to the genocide of other countries. We need the World participation in solving these problems that exist in our world today.

We, the USA, cannot be expected to be the #1 donor of troop sacrifices and also the #1 finanial donor for all of the world's problems.

As you say, that we only get involved where it benefits us financially and politically, is a bunch of BS. We supposed went into Iraq for the oil then why is it costing me $90 to fill up my full size Ford Bronco.

Also, as the world continues to criticize America and President Bush I don't really recall hearing any solutions to these problems. Must be nice to be critics

My thanks, friend... this is much clearer.

1) I agree that the world needs to have consensus to work on isues like humanitarian abuses... the problem is, we have one unruly member of our 'gang' who just WILL NOT wait for the starting gun - and who keeps changing the rules to suit themselves. Seriously -how much faith can be placed in the US interest in humanitarian concerns, when the government argued for a YEAR, whether it was 'okay' to torture prisoners if you hold them in Cuba.

2) The US has the second largest active armed forces in the world. California on it's own would rank 5th for GDP, if it were independent. If you HAVE more of the pie, you are going to be expected to share more of it.

3) Oil is key - but it isn't the consumer that is going to get rich. American politics is dominated by a few big groups... the oil, insurance, and medical industries. Watch the politics... every time the government takes firm action, one of those groups is going to get rich off of it. We may have paid more at the pump... and we may even have had a convincing 'excuse'... but the oil companies got rich.

4) Most of the world likes Americans... The people. At the moment, the US has managed to make itself collectively not the flavour of the month, however... and most of the blame can be laid at the feet of the current regime.

...actually been implemented competently.

...from what I understand to be the truth...since the U.S. is still occupying Iraq and attempting to stabilize and rebuild the country...we have implemented a successful military operation. Saddam Hussein and his politcal party are not in power and the people of Iraq are in a position to be more free than they have ever been in the past.

Let me be more specific: It would help a lot more and things would of probably been a lot better in Iraq if the majority of the world would of shown some sort of Effort to help in the stablization of Iraq.

The participation of UK, Korea, Italy, Australia, Poland, Romania, Georgia, Denmark, El Salvador, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Albania, Latvia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovinia, Estonia, Macedonia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Fiji, Canada, Japan, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Nicaragua, Spain, Honduras, Norway, Dominican Republic, Phillipines, Thailand, Hungary, New Zealand, Portugal, Singapore, Netherlands, Tonga and Iceland weren't sufficient?

...And Darius Dave - just whose puppet nation might you be?

...as a newbie to the forum I don't understand the question so I will have to answer that I am noone's puppet.:)

Nope. If anything the other way round: Sinn Fein predates even the original IRA.

I was using the phrase 'IRA resistance' so that I can avoid confusing the issue with terms like 'republican'. But, granted... the IRA officially 'comes later'.

...from what I understand to be the truth...since the U.S. is still occupying Iraq and attempting to stabilize and rebuild the country...we have implemented a successful military operation. Saddam Hussein and his politcal party are not in power and the people of Iraq are in a position to be more free than they have ever been in the past.

Ignoring the fact that invasion in order to bring about a regime change is illegal under international law?

Yay! A successful, albeit illegal*, military operation. Makes you feel good about yourself doesn't it?


* on the basis by which you justify it.

...from what I understand to be the truth...since the U.S. is still occupying Iraq and attempting to stabilize and rebuild the country...we have implemented a successful military operation. Saddam Hussein and his politcal party are not in power and the people of Iraq are in a position to be more free than they have ever been in the past.

Free to get blown up, mainly... or so it appears.

We took a 'stable' country, in which one group carried out horrid acts (or so we are told)... and turned it into a civil-war-torn country that is practically devolved to a feudal level... and in which dozens of groups carry out horrid acts on a daily basis.

...from what I understand to be the truth...since the U.S. is still occupying Iraq and attempting to stabilize and rebuild the country...we have implemented a successful military operation. Saddam Hussein and his politcal party are not in power and the people of Iraq are in a position to be more free than they have ever been in the past.

Do you even watch the news or read the papers? If you didn't know, there is a massive insurgency of terrorists and militants from surrounding countries such as Iran which are slowly dominating Iraq, due to the unprotected borders of the country, and the power vacuum that occured after Saddam's fall.

The country's democratically elected government is near powerless, out of touch with the people and sealed behind an American guarded concrete wall. The Iraqi people fear for their lives every day as the different factions fight amongst themselves and the US and UK. Villages and towns pass hands every few days.

This does not sound like the product of a competently handled military operation.

I was using the phrase 'IRA resistance' so that I can avoid confusing the issue with terms like 'republican'. But, granted... the IRA officially 'comes later'.

'Republican' with a big R should be sufficient to distinguish it from the 'republican' movement seeking the abolition of the British monarchy.

If people mistake it for a reference to some slipshod political party in the colonies they have naught but themselves to blame.

...from what I understand to be the truth...since the U.S. is still occupying Iraq and attempting to stabilize and rebuild the country...we have implemented a successful military operation.
Shot yourself in the foot there...

"since you're still occupying Iraq and trying to stabilise and rebuild the country" doesn't really suggest success, it suggests an extremely ill-thought out plan.
Saddam Hussein and his politcal party are not in power
And they weren't even allowed to run in the elections, which isn't very democratic, is it?
and the people of Iraq are in a position to be more free than they have ever been in the past.
They're in a position to be free... but they're not in the slightest.

They've got martial law, Iraqi Security death squads in their suburbs, the fact that they can't go out and do anything at all without being shot at / nearly blown up, women are treated worse and so on and so forth.

It's not freer, it's just broadcast as being freer.

Ignoring the fact that invasion in order to bring about a regime change is illegal under international law?

Yay! A successful, albeit illegal*, military operation. Makes you feel good about yourself doesn't it?


* on the basis by which you justify it.

I was never a fan of "International Law". No sense in even having a nation if you have to live by rules made by other nations.

'Republican' with a big R should be sufficient to distinguish it from the 'republican' movement seeking the abolition of the British monarchy.

If people mistake it for a reference to some slipshod political party in the colonies they have naught but themselves to blame.

"Naught but themselves to blame" hasn't stopped me having to do the 'do-keep-up' two-step for most of the thread... ;)

I was never a fan of "International Law". No sense in even having a nation if you have to live by rules made by other nations.
You deposed Saddam and the Taliban for thinking like that... nice one...

I was never a fan of "International Law". No sense in even having a nation if you have to live by rules made by other nations.

I suppose you never cared for other "International laws" such as the Geneva Convention?

I was never a fan of "International Law". No sense in even having a nation if you have to live by rules made by other nations.

At least we agree on this.

The idea of 'nations' is ridiculous and destructive.

...from what I understand to be the truth...since the U.S. is still occupying Iraq and attempting to stabilize and rebuild the country...we have implemented a successful military operation. Saddam Hussein and his politcal party are not in power and the people of Iraq are in a position to be more free than they have ever been in the past.

Or to descend into a full blown sectarian civil war or Iranian-style theocracy, of which the former is already happening and the latter a real possibility.

Yes, if you narrowly define success as removing Saddam from power, then yes it was a success. Do you honestly, though, think this mess we have landed ourselves in can be called a 'success'? If it was a success, (defined as whether Bush/Blair's aims were completed) then the Iraqi people would have embraced some sort of naive vision of freedom and democracy, a pro-US government would be eternally grateful for liberation and a few good oil deals would have been made. Possibly a few WMDs might have been found.

Success? I don't think so.

I was never a fan of "International Law". No sense in even having a nation if you have to live by rules made by other nations.

It's only the rules made by other nations that recognise you as having a nation in the first place, pal.

I suppose you never cared for other "International laws" such as the Geneva Convention?

No. I do not. As a country the U.S. can make and live y their own laws. Other nations do not follow the Geneva Convention...why should anyone else?

"Naught but themselves to blame" hasn't stopped me having to do the 'do-keep-up' two-step for most of the thread... ;)

Keeps you fit and healthy though.

I am however becoming somewhat alarmed at how many times I need to do the basic reading comprehension macarena these days.

No. I do not. As a country the U.S. can make and live y their own laws. Other nations do not follow the Geneva Convention...why should anyone else?
Oh yes they do!

As a country the U.S. can make and live y their own laws.

What grants the USA the status as a nation?

It's only the rules made by other nations that recognise you as having a nation in the first place, pal.


They did not always recognize that the U.S. was a nation...so International Law and the laws of other nations be damned. Useless to me, useless to the U.S.

No. I do not. As a country the U.S. can make and live y their own laws. Other nations do not follow the Geneva Convention...why should anyone else?

Well there are people in my country who rape women. There are people who mug others in my country. There are people who defraud others in my country. There are people in my country who murder others.

So if there are other people breaking all these laws, then why should I abide by them?

Oh yes they do!

Tell that to the people who are taken prisoner and beheaded in front of a camera.

Well there are people in my country who rape women. There are people who mug others in my country. There are people in my country who murder others. There are people who defraud others in my country.

So if there are other people breaking all these laws, then why should I abide by them?

Because they are the laws in your country. There is no One World Government...nor should there be.

They did not always recognize that the U.S. was a nation...so International Law and the laws of other nations be damned. Useless to me, useless to the U.S.

And your dislike of contemporary international law is based on the treatment given out to a bunch of farmers over a period of seven years in the C18th?

Tell that to the people who are taken prisoner and beheaded in front of a camera.

What nation carries out filmed beheadings?

Tell that to the people who are taken prisoner and beheaded in front of a camera.

Those people are state-less terrorist organisations who do not abide by the laws of the International community. Every nation I know of complies with the Geneva convention apart from certain rogue states.

Begoner21;11677700']Bush is an honest and moral man.

Only because he's to stupid to lie.

Really, when you look at the whole picture, Bush is average when it comes to intelligence, a fool when it comes to lying, and a retard when it comes to foreign policy.

And your dislike of contemporary international law is based on the treatment given out to a bunch of farmers over a period of seven years in the C18th?

No. Not only. It is also based on not wanting to have other nations controlling the U.S.'s interests. I do not believe the Geneva Convention nor the U.N. are much use in today's world due to the politics of the U.N. and the practice of some nations not following those laws yet expecting other nations to do so.

What nation carries out filmed beheadings?

Iraq and Afghanistan. While the terrorists are the group responsible for these acts they do act with either blessings or blind eyes turned of the governments of the countries in which they operate.

I was never a fan of "International Law". No sense in even having a nation if you have to live by rules made by other nations.

Good point. Indeed, I was never a fan of "Domestic Law" either. No sense calling yourself a free person if you have to live by rules made by other people....


Of course, we won't bring up the fact that this military action was conducted under the auspices of enforcing international law either...... right?

+

Iraq and Afghanistan. While the terrorists are the group responsible for these acts they do act with either blessings or blind eyes turned of the governments of the countries in which they operate.

So the people carrying out such acts do so wither with the blessings of, or blind eyes turned by, the governments that the US put in place?

Only because he's to stupid to lie.

Really, when you look at the whole picture, Bush is average when it comes to intelligence, a fool when it comes to lying, and a retard when it comes to foreign policy.

This is the total sum of your arguemnt?


Come on...give us something to work with...make yourself look more intelligent than how you characterize the President.

At least some of the other posters here are presenting civil and well thought out arguments...even though I disagree with them. I can at least say I respect their debate.

So the people carrying out such acts do so wither with the blessings of, or blind eyes turned by, the governments that the US put in place?

No. Of course not. They have done so with the blessings of the governments the U.S. deposed.

At least we agree on this.

The idea of 'nations' is ridiculous and destructive.

What are you on about? Should we just run wild and frolic in the meadows? Is that your commie utopia? Have you been listening to a bit too much Imagine while high?

*gets marshmallows*

*roasts marshmallows*

Yummy!

No. Of course not. They have done so with the blessings of the governments the U.S. deposed.

The governments no longer then exist, so why do the filmed beheadings continue to take place?

Also did filmed beheadings actually take place in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion? (honest question)

Good point. Indeed, I was never a fan of "Domestic Law" either. No sense calling yourself a free person if you have to live by rules made by other people....

I, however, DO believe in domestic law. I also believe that each nation can and should have it's own laws. But I also believe when those laws and actions of other nations threaten the peace, security, and interests of another nation they should have the ability to do something about it.


Of course, we won't bring up the fact that this military action was conducted under the auspices of enforcing international law either...... right?

+
Great point! You caught me sleeping on this one. Yes, that was one of the reasons..I would like to think of that particular reason as more of a justification...I still do not agree with it. If the U.N. had any actual power and followed through on thier laws then the U.S. may not have had to go to such extreme measures.

Begoner21;11692489']What are you on about? Should we just run wild and frolic in the meadows? Is that your commie utopia?

Sounds good to me.

By the way Darius, should I point out that the simple fact is that - under the US Constitution - the act of ratifying an international treaty (or law) has the explicit side-effect of codifying it into Domestic Law?

Country's pass domestic laws that they feel benefit them. Similarly, they only sign on to international instruments for the same reason. Diferentiating the two is a lame-assed semantic exercise with no basis in legal fact. If you don't like a specific international law - then elect representatives who promise to withdraw from the associated treaty. It is that simple.

But using them when it suits and dismissing them as irrelevant when they bite you in the ass is a hilariously hipocritical thing for a country to do. But it seems to be the order of the day. How many times have I head people in one breath dismiss the UN as irrelvant and in the next use resolutions as the justification for the Iraw War?


For a case in point regarding the dual nature of international treaties, as recently as 1996 the Congress ratified the War Crimes act that specifically made violations of Geneva Conventions by US soldiers a domestic crime. This was passed unanimously in the Senate thus reaffirming the US's domestic position on this treaty. Indeed, the Pentagon at the time pushed for that inclusion as they wanted to set a high standard before the world. Now, of course, it is suddenly an inconvenient and vague "international" treaty that needs retroactive clarification in a game of "cover thy ass" by the White House....


Just another "unimportant" international treaty....

Begoner21;11692489']What are you on about? Should we just run wild and frolic in the meadows? Is that your commie utopia? Have you been listening to a bit too much Imagine while high?

I didn't think you'd be able to drag youself any lower. Leave this thread if all you can do is fling insults.

The idea of "nations" is destructive because of nationalistic sentiment. The belief that one nation is better than others, and should not be held accountable by other nations despite sharing the same planet with the others.

The idea's of International law follow pretty closely to Domestic law.

The consensus of the population of a country votes in representatives that outlaw activities (crimes) commited by a minority of the population which are inherently destructive to the majority of the population i.e theft. If these laws are infractured, then the minority that commits the crimes are punished.

If there were some form of World government, which I think should be implemented and am confident will be in the future, the consensus of the population of the world's countries vote in representatives that outlaw activities (International crimes/Domestic crimes) commited by a minority of countries which are inherently destructive to the majority of the worlds population/countries population i.e. nuclear proliferation / environmental destruction / war / genocide. If these laws are infractured, those countries responsible would be invaded and the rogue government deposed.

But I also believe when those laws and actions of other nations threaten the peace, security, and interests of another nation they should have the ability to do something about it.

How exactly did Iraq post-Gulf War threaten the peace, security or interests of the USA?

No. Of course not. They have done so with the blessings of the governments the U.S. deposed.

After the fact......of course.

Before that they were tolerated... much as it is now tolerated for our ally in the war on terror - Pakistan - to sign a treaty with the Taliban and empty their jail of prisoners. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/15/wpak15.xml) Prisoners who are reported to include those who murdered Daniel Pearl.

Care to guess how many billions in arms and cash Pakistan has received over the past five years for their "support"?

With friend's like this - who needs enemies?

The idea of "nations" is destructive because of nationalistic sentiment.

If there are no nations, there is no government to rule those nations. Democracy is a form of government. Thus, you want to abolish democracy. I see. That's not to say that there would be no police force, no economy, no army, and society would flat on its face. It most certainly would. We have tried the idea of no nations -- we had that back before human civilization. If you wish, you can go back and live with the chimps. I prefer nations, and God bless America.

Begoner21;11692688']If there are no nations, there is no government to rule those nations. Democracy is a form of government. Thus, you want to abolish democracy. I see. That's not to say that there would be no police force, no economy, no army, and society would flat on its face. It most certainly would. We have tried the idea of no nations -- we had that back before human civilization. If you wish, you can go back and live with the chimps. I prefer nations, and God bless America.

Did you even read most of my post? Or was it just that one line? I'm not saying we should dissolve into some kind of world-wide anarchy, I'm saying we should join our democratic nations into a world-wide democratic government.

I'm saying we should join our democratic nations into a world-wide democratic government.

And I'm saying that we should colonize the moon and adapt so that we can eat moon rocks.

Begoner21;11692851']And I'm saying that we should colonize the moon and adapt so that we can eat moon rocks.

I presume that by that statement, you believe that a democratic world government is impossible?

Begoner21;11692851']And I'm saying that we should colonize the moon and adapt so that we can eat moon rocks.

That would be so cool!

They did not always recognize that the U.S. was a nation...so International Law and the laws of other nations be damned. Useless to me, useless to the U.S.

The US wasn't always a 'nation'. But, it was world recognition of the US as a nation, and a certain amount of reluctance to accept the Confederacy as sovereign, that kept other European forces from becoming involved in the so-called American 'Civil' War. Current 'American' history could have looked very different, without 'international law'.

Begoner21;11692489']What are you on about? Should we just run wild and frolic in the meadows? Is that your commie utopia? Have you been listening to a bit too much Imagine while high?

I'm afraid to say, I've never been 'high'. I'm also not much of a fan of Lennon.. so that kind of shoots your 60's flashback out of the water.

But, the idea of any artificially constructed 'division' is dangerous.. colour of skin, religious divide, arbitrary 'border'.... all the same risks.

Sounds good to me.

Has to be said... run wild... frolic... I'm not really seeing the bad.

Begoner21;11692688']If there are no nations, there is no government to rule those nations. Democracy is a form of government. Thus, you want to abolish democracy. I see. That's not to say that there would be no police force, no economy, no army, and society would flat on its face. It most certainly would. We have tried the idea of no nations -- we had that back before human civilization. If you wish, you can go back and live with the chimps. I prefer nations, and God bless America.

I'll go through it real slow for you:

1) Government is NOT equal to 'nations'. Villages can have government. A house can have government.

2) Democracy is A form of government... not ALL forms of government.

3) As a result, wishing to destroy ONE form of government, doesn't automatically extend to ALL others. Thus, "you want to abolish democracy is NOT a logical deduction.

4) Since 'nation' is not a requisite for 'government'... the assertion that removing the concept of 'nationalism' equates with 'abolishing democracy' is illogical. And wrong.

5) Since police, army, society... even economy... are not dependent on either democracy OR 'nations', that whole passage is redundant.

Has to be said... run wild... frolic... I'm not really seeing the bad.

We all know that liberals are hedonists, and usually immoral. Of course you wouldn't see what's wrong with regressing to an uncivilized manner of life and doing nothing all day.

We all know that liberals are hedonists, and usually immoral. Of course you wouldn't see what's wrong with regressing to an uncivilized manner of life and doing nothing all day.

Hello Begoner puppet regime/account.

Hello Begoner puppet regime/account.

That's one that I haven't heard before. The puppet of a puppet -- interesting, but false.

That's one that I haven't heard before. The puppet of a puppet -- interesting, but false.

Meh. It's just your use of the word liberal.

I can't help but note the surprising familiarity.

Begoner21;11692688']If there are no nations, there is no government to rule those nations. Democracy is a form of government. Thus, you want to abolish democracy. I see. That's not to say that there would be no police force, no economy, no army, and society would flat on its face. It most certainly would. We have tried the idea of no nations -- we had that back before human civilization. If you wish, you can go back and live with the chimps. I prefer nations, and God bless America.

You write tripe like this and complain that people think you're a troll?

He said he didn't approve of nations, not governments. If governments were cooperative rather than competitive that would satisfy the needs of the poster you're replying to. He was complaining about nations in their current form. Yet, you instead made up what he 'meant' and then argued against it. It's not even a strawman because it's so far from the reality of the original post that we are forced to regard you as less than sincere.

You write tripe like this and complain that people think you're a troll?

He said he didn't approve of nations, not governments. If governments were cooperative rather than competitive that would satisfy the needs of the poster you're replying to. He was complaining about nations in their current form. Yet, you instead made up what he 'meant' and then argued against it. It's not even a strawman because it's so far from the reality of the original post that we are forced to regard you as less than sincere.

Thank you very much.

We all know that liberals are hedonists, and usually immoral. Of course you wouldn't see what's wrong with regressing to an uncivilized manner of life and doing nothing all day.

I'm still not actually what the american spectrum calls 'liberal', but, whatever.

Faced with the choice of death and destruction of unlimited fronts, or dancing in the meadows... I really DON'T see what is so bad about the meadow option.

Thank you very much.

Once again, Jocabia turns up to nail someone on their logical fallacies.

Considering his history of hypocrisy and switched-positions, Begoner better hope Jocabia doesn't decide to do one of his famous papertrails...

Once again, Jocabia turns up to nail someone on their logical fallacies.

Considering his history of hypocrisy and switched-positions, Begoner better hope Jocabia doesn't decide to do one of his famous papertrails...

Indeed.

It's a pity American electronic voting machines don't leave paper-trails. Zing!

We all know that liberals are hedonists, and usually immoral. Of course you wouldn't see what's wrong with regressing to an uncivilized manner of life and doing nothing all day.

Since when has frolicing in meadows been opposed to civilization? or inherently exclusive to carrying out other more directly productive pursuits?

Begoner21;11692688']If there are no nations, there is no government to rule those nations. Democracy is a form of government. Thus, you want to abolish democracy.

Are you claiming that prior to the creation of nations there was no such thing as government?

You mean the bit that states The United States Department of State and the European Union have taken the Provisional IRA off their lists of terrorist organisations due to the fact that there is a cease-fire?

Quoted in the pitiful hope of a response.

In the ideal utopian society, true communism would be the form of "government". But due to the greed of some we are forced with going with the next best thing.

It would be reat to have a community that served itself but it would never last.

And a one-world government is probably the worst case scenario for freedom and liberty.

Since when has frolicing in meadows been opposed to civilization? or inherently exclusive to carrying out other more directly productive pursuits?

Sure, we can all frolic in the meadows in our free time. However, we must also contribute to society in some way. We must work for a living, not chase butterflies while naked for the whole day. Excessive frolicking in the meadows is at direct odds to civilization.

Excessive frolicking in the meadows is at direct odds to civilization.

Ego Little House On The Prairie was at odds with Western civilization.

How exactly did Iraq post-Gulf War threaten the peace, security or interests of the USA?

They had WMDs and sponsored Al Qaeda, of course. Don't you watch FOX News? ;)

[/sarcasm]

Sure, we can all frolic in the meadows in our free time. However, we must also contribute to society in some way. We must work for a living, not chase butterflies while naked for the whole day. Excessive frolicking in the meadows is at direct odds to civilization.

What's wrong with chasing butterflies while naked? :(

What's wrong with chasing butterflies while naked? :(

The lack of suitable receptacles in which to put the butterflies if they are caught?

The lack of suitable receptacles in which to put the butterflies if they are caught?

Indeed. There are only so many orifices in which you can place the butterflies once caught. Eventually, it gets mighty uncomfortable.