PDA

View Full Version : Is this what you'd expect from your Military?



Ultimate Charizard
15th May 2006, 12:01 AM
Im sorry i had to get this off my chest. Been looking at random things on the Internet and came across a site with Video clips from the War in Iraq. Ill send people the link if they want but i wont for now incase its advertising.
The last person i showed this too had previously always brought up the 'Im happy to live in a country with a Military force i can be proud of' argument. He does live in America and when i showed him this clip his opinion quickly changed.

I dont want to turn this political but ive seen a video, whether it was aired on tv im not sure where there was an Injured Iraqi 'soldier' (no armour just an AK by his side) lying on the floor screaming injured. It took the US troops about 50 yards away 4 shots to kill him. The previous 3 were nowhere near. Now im no military tactician, so whether a man 'neutralised' but injured still classes as a target for a kill im not sure however im pretty sure hearing a bunch of trigger happy yanks (sorry i mean respected soldiers) whooping and cheering with remarks of 'yeah got im' and 'lets find another and do that again' is something to be proud of.
The next video reffered to what Music the US forces liked to be played over their Intercom system while in a conflict situation.
Im not trying to make a general slur, i have US friends and i know your not all violent gun-toting mindless fools (i dont even include TMM in that bracket ;)), and im not trying to say the UK army is any better (we have things to be ashamed of during this war too) but i find the whole attitude towards the US military force cocky and arrogant, especially when they did all this in front of TV cameras.
Im not saying the entire armed forces are like this either. But having these Primates reprisenting your country, and then having another Chimp leading them saying 'we are doing out part in Iraq'.....can you possibly agree with them?
Any thoughts?

mr_pikachu
15th May 2006, 12:17 AM
...I'll almost certainly be flamed for this post, but oh well. All I have to say is that a couple of morons in the armed forces doesn't make the military as a whole bad. Trying to argue that every person in the military has good intentions would be idiotic; many of the incidents in Guantanamo Bay are proof enough of that. But I have to believe that the vast majority of U.S. (as well as U.K. and other allied nations') soldiers take this war very seriously. It's not an action-packed video game, it's a life-or-death struggle. I think that most of the soldiers in this war realize that, and it's a shame that small clusters of imbeciles are present to disgrace the military as a whole.

Ultimate Charizard
15th May 2006, 12:25 AM
Well if you get flamed it wont be from me. I tried to make the same point that i wasnt blaming the entire Armed forces. I understand it is just a couple of idiots who are treating this whole thing like a Giant video game. However the scale doesnt really matter. Unfortunately the public dont get to meet, and get the opinion of every soldier involved. Its the things we see on these reports that mould our opinions. Its simply infuriating to see this sort of attitude present in the people who are supposed to be responsibly acting on behalf of their country.

Roy Karrde
15th May 2006, 01:26 AM
Damn you UC for starting this while Im away! Now first off this is the first major war in the info age. This shit has happened since before WW2 does it make it right? Well remember these guys go through hell every God damn day, and deal with bastards that would do worse if the tables were turned. To call them anything but heroes. For placing their lives on the line each day, while serving their country. None of them knowing if they will ever see their loved ones again. Well these guys are heroes.

Ultimate Charizard
15th May 2006, 02:35 AM
Oh Please!. Ill agree that hate for your enemy is understandable but ffs, enemy or not these are real people, soldiers like themselves.
Im not talking about terrorists or Suicide Bombers or whatever. During the war on Iraq the troops we were attacking werent Terrorists as the Propaganda pushers wanted us to beleive, they were Soldiers. The regular Iraqi army, the one were working alongside now. Theyre leader may have been an evil son'bitch but at the end of the day they were just Soldiers following orders just like our own troops. Being a muslim, wearing a turban or having a beard does not make you a terrorist, they were just Iraqi soldiers doing their job. And now the refusal to withdraw which i fully beleive isnt a need to 'see actions through' more a good staging ground to move into Iran. There is no need for Military presence in Iraq anymore. We have our man, now leave them to it. The only reason these men are risking their lives everyday is because the Locals dont want them there and Bush wont pull them out!.
The way the soldiers in the clip i saw were acting reminded me of school bullies kicking a wounded dog.

How can you call any Soldier a hero? Yes i agree they put their lives on the line, they have a dangerous job but thats what it is. A Job. The way you say it anyone who signs up to the army is a hero. Why? Becasue he fired a gun? Because he shot an unarmed man? I know people that have signed up for the British armed forces, and you know why they signed up.

Its good pay and i only have to stay 5 years, then i drop out and find a normal job.
Its not like were going to go to war anytime soon
Im well aware there will be men like this in the British Army, dont get me wrong im not attacking the US only, its just the US that gave the example. These men i would not call heroes.
Are the Dozen or so British Soldiers killed by US friendly fire heroes? The ones that didnt get to see any actual combat time? What were there heroic actions? Improving the US aim?

Look im not meaning to rant. Im not attacking the US Military ok so before all the patriots arrive to flame me (oh our boys are heroes we always bail you out BS) I will say i respect the skill of the majority of your armed forces (Ours are better though ;)) however the actions of these idiotic individuals was just downright irresponsible. Especially the 'lets do that again' part which basically translates to 'lets go find another injured guy with no way of defending himself and take potshots untill one of us manages to kill him'. And i have no doubt that its the idiots that act like this are in the military so they can shoot, and kill and do it legally.
I also use the term 'injured guy' loosely as the word 'fairground target' would have been more apt.

mr_pikachu
15th May 2006, 04:10 AM
Well, I'm not sure I agree with the part about defining heroism. I mean, if someone signs up for the armed forces - knowing full well that he or she may die in the process - for the intent of serving one's country, I'd call that a bit heroic. Some people might prefer to call it something like taking a gamble, but I think there's some noble heroism in that sort of action. It may not be on the same level as, say, someone who rushes into a burning building to save someone (the military equivalent of which would be combat, which some soldiers never experience). But I still think that displays a degree of heroism.

I have to disagree with calling these punks heroes, though. Yes, stress can have severely detrimental effects on those in combat. I fully believe that it can cause permanent psychological and physiological damage. But to me, that still doesn't seem to be an excuse to treat real, living people as video game characters. When something like this happens, there's a little thing called a court-martial that tests the legitimacy of those actions. (Not to mention that if they were traumatized by the violence, I don't think they'd be wildly celebrating causing more chaos.) Such actions, from my standpoint, more than negate any "typical" war heroism (see first paragraph) which may have otherwise been displayed.

Ultimate Charizard
15th May 2006, 05:37 AM
I just watched the video again, as i said i cant post it on here, not only is it advertising but the site has chosen to sponsor itself with 'sites of an adult nature' so i wont be posting it on a board like this however, before anyone would like to say its all 'heat of the battle' the Whooping and cheering came after the kill, all Soldiers were stood around not looking too bothered so im assuming they werent in combat and i couldnt see a weapon on the victim.
The interview with one of the soldiers afterwards was where the quote came from and this was an interview for CNN.
(Soldier)"You know he's dead now (starts to smile)...but its a good feeling and your like 'Hell yeah that was awesome, damn lets do it again'"

Thats the exact quote and the soldier in question was just some young punk that wouldve looked more at home in a Bill and Ted movie.
Again anyone who does want to see this ask me and ill PM you the address. Whether you look is your own choice.

nightcrow
15th May 2006, 09:42 AM
UC, you're an idiot, yet another ignorant fool who really has NO CLUE.

not flaming, it's a statement i believe.

HELLO. these men are killing people on a daily basis. could you handle knowing you are killing someone who probably has a wife and children and is only doing what he is doing because he was told to? well it is exactly the same as the fight the american soldiers (or any soldier at that) have to fight. you have to distance yourself from it, make it a game, make it something unreal so the reality of it doesn't make you insane. i know, my father was in the military and spent years in the middle east. my dad wasn't even on the field but he still came back a very different person. the work the military does has to be pretty much the hardest job to do, both physically and mentally. so stop complaining about what they have to do to make it impersonal while you sit on your lard ass complaining about OMG HOW UNETHICAL IT IS. OH GOD.

sorry this is kind of a bitter subject for me. nothing personal.

Magmar
15th May 2006, 11:35 AM
How much longer before we've wiped out all the Iraqis? Seriously, how many of them ARE there? Sounds like we're killing tons of them every week.

I'm SO sick of this war.

-B

Ultimate Charizard
15th May 2006, 12:04 PM
Ok Nightcrow. You go ask your dad if its ok to make a game out of using an injured enemy soldier as Target practice then cheering. This wasnt a combat situation is what im trying to get across. The US soldiers werent crouched or protecting themselves, they were all leant by cars watching their buddies take this one injured guy out and then celebrating.
The report was (as ive already said) for CNN and even the reporters voice didnt exactly sound too happy. I understand being at war isnt exactly a fun thing but there are lines that arent crossed. Do you condone the acts of the US soldiers in Vietnam? (again, sorry if im picking on the US). Sure alot of them came back changed but there were charges and reports of plain rape and pilliaging of Viatnamese villiages. Is that ok because it was at war? Because they were morally 'switched off'?.
I know thats a bit of an extreme example but soldiers or not they still have rules. Surely im not the only one that can see the point im trying to make?

Blademaster
15th May 2006, 03:42 PM
Surely im not the only one that can see the point im trying to make?

(raises hand)

No, I understand, too. And that's all I'm gonna say, 'cuz I'm not in the mood to argue about the war, Monkey W. Bush, or whatever else.

Later.

-Blade

phaedrus
15th May 2006, 08:04 PM
the question for america is: are arabs people?

of course, once that is defined, everything else is set in its course.

Co1
16th May 2006, 12:12 AM
Hi all, I read these forums a lot but I don't often post. Either way I thought i'd offer my two cents.

Upon reading your account of the video, UC, I kind of said to myself, "What's the big deal?" I know that's harsh, but let me explain.

That kind of behaviour is not new to modern warfare at all. It's been going on since World War I (considered the first modern war by most). The thing is though that now, like someone else mentioned, soldiers are being forced to do their jobs with a TV camera following them the whole time. And then the stories being reported cast the military in a horrible light. Ultimately, the behaviour of those soldiers wasn't exactly something to write home about. But we watch these Hollywood sugarcoated war movies with Tom Hanks or Nicolas Cage talking about duty and honour and we have this heroic noble version of soldiers. TV cameras and Hollywood rarely take into account the hellish conditions soldiers are exposed to, so it's really easy for all of us eating our dinners in front of the TV to say, "Those soldiers are awful!" without actually having a clue.

It's not reserved to one specific nationality. This has been done by the British, Americans, Canadians, Australians, Russians, etc, throughout the twentieth century. The problem lies with the fact that we're all sitting at home with our cushy lifestyles. It makes it impossible to actually comprehend what's actually going on over there.

Gavin Luper
16th May 2006, 05:18 AM
As an Australian, I hold our military in very high regard, as do most aussies. However, as much as I respect and am grateful for what soldiers (Australian, American or otherwise) do - and what they sacrifice - I cannot turn a blind eye to this kind of crap. I'm sure it goes on in many armies, though it would seem to be most prominent in the American military - quite simply because that "shoot 'em up", trigger-happy attitude sprung up largely out of the dubious social cauldron that is America.

Going to war would be hell, I have absolutely no doubts about that. And, as UC and mr_pikachu said, war can and does have massive impacts on soldiers, both psychologically and physiologically (thanks Brian).

But that doesn't validate this kind of behaviour in any way. I haven't seen the video, but by the description given, it sounds like little more than cruel, unwarranted murder. You can talk about being "morally switched off" all you like, but the truth is that you need to cope with your responsibilities as a soldier in a mature way: that is, accept the reality of what you are doing and wield the weapons you hold with nobility and seriousness, not with the reckless stupidity and immaturity of a child reared on Rambo and violent video games. I don't believe my 'cushy' life prevents me from comprehending this particular situation: these soldiers are in no condition mentally to be fighting a war. They are behaving incredibly foolishly. I understand it's often necessary to detach oneself from the situation when first coping with killing, but the situation depicted in the video is detachment taken to a dangerous and unnecessary level.

What I'm trying to say is, this is very, very wrong and disturbing (not that this is the first I've heard of this kind of thing) and I don't think it's comforting to find that these are the kind of people who are defending our countries. Obviously not all of them are like this, and many soldiers today would, I think, have very high levels of integrity and maturity. That said, this is still appalling.

Hmmm.

Cheers!

nightcrow
16th May 2006, 07:27 PM
Ok Nightcrow. You go ask your dad if its ok to make a game out of using an injured enemy soldier as Target practice then cheering. This wasnt a combat situation is what im trying to get across. The US soldiers werent crouched or protecting themselves, they were all leant by cars watching their buddies take this one injured guy out and then celebrating.
The report was (as ive already said) for CNN and even the reporters voice didnt exactly sound too happy. I understand being at war isnt exactly a fun thing but there are lines that arent crossed. Do you condone the acts of the US soldiers in Vietnam? (again, sorry if im picking on the US). Sure alot of them came back changed but there were charges and reports of plain rape and pilliaging of Viatnamese villiages. Is that ok because it was at war? Because they were morally 'switched off'?.
I know thats a bit of an extreme example but soldiers or not they still have rules. Surely im not the only one that can see the point im trying to make?


Of course it's not right in a moral sense, but you try to tell me war in itself is in any way moral. Besides, the men often put in these situations are often adults, but that doesn't mean they are grown up-- a very good example of this is vietnam. All in all many of them are still kids in a sense.

Also, by having someone else do the dirty work for the rest of us, i think it's only fair we turn a blind eye to certain people's "immorality".

Chris
16th May 2006, 07:44 PM
How can you call any Soldier a hero?

I'm going to bite at this bit, because how many times do you wake up in the morning and think, "well, I might actually die today!" - those in active service in Iraq are facing that prospect daily right now. Regardless of whether it's their job, I still have an infinite amount of respect for them. They could have chosen a far cushier option.

Ultimate Charizard
17th May 2006, 02:57 PM
Ok i misphrased that comment. I didnt mean to negate what theyre doing out there and i have nothing but respect for the men and women doing their jobs properly. Rather that it was their choice to do it. It is their jobs and although dangerous there are thousands of dangerous jobs out there that have a very real risk to life and limb but we dont consider them heroes because 'they werent doing it for their country' or 'it was their job to do that'

Ill bet you the troops out there dont consider themselves heroes, except maybe these immature examples i brought out.

I notice a couple seem to be questioning my attitudes to war itself. This is not a 'is war bad' debate at all. I am questioning the actions of a small group (possibly even one squad) of soldiers who are treating this entire situation as a giant video game. An excuse to turn Murder into fun.

Ultimate Charizard
17th May 2006, 03:05 PM
Of course it's not right in a moral sense, but you try to tell me war in itself is in any way moral. Besides, the men often put in these situations are often adults, but that doesn't mean they are grown up-- a very good example of this is vietnam. All in all many of them are still kids in a sense.

Also, by having someone else do the dirty work for the rest of us, i think it's only fair we turn a blind eye to certain people's "immorality".


You have absolutely no idea do you.
As someone who has volunteered for service but was turned down (medical reasons) its the people like you that bother me. You seem just as immoral as these idiots im picking out. Your basically saying as long as your not in danger then who cares what they do.
Trying to liken the attitude of a solider to childlike is plain moronic. Right, so a good portion of our kids are no more mature than 5 year olds...what shall we do, i know lets train them to be killing machines and arm them to the teeth.

Immorality has no place anywhere. They have a job to do and theres a way to do it properly without becoming immature murderers.

Roy Karrde
17th May 2006, 03:05 PM
Ok i misphrased that comment. I didnt mean to negate what theyre doing out there and i have nothing but respect for the men and women doing their jobs properly. Rather that it was their choice to do it. It is their jobs and although dangerous there are thousands of dangerous jobs out there that have a very real risk to life and limb but we dont consider them heroes because 'they werent doing it for their country' or 'it was their job to do that'

Actually many people do, down here in Texas we have something called the 'Hero's Parade' put on each year on September 11th or around that time by a local Radio Host, Russ Martin. Each year thousands upon thousands go on a parade from downtown Dallas to either Texas Stadium or somewhere else. This parade consists of Police and Firefighters from all over Texas, along with Military officers. To me Police, Firefighters, and Military are heros, I know none of those men or women consider themselves heros, but they are. Getting up everyday and doing a job in which you put your life on the line for others is what I consider a hero and is why I made the statement above a few nights ago.

To find out more about the Hero's Parade, along with the Police and Firefighter Foundation which pays money to the family of Police and Firemen that have fallen in the line of duty, follow the link below. Yet be warned about Adult Material on the other pages of the site. http://www.russmartin.com/listeners_foundation.asp

Ultimate Charizard
17th May 2006, 03:11 PM
Right this Hero business needs clearing up now.

The way i see it, Enrollment into a force which would put your lives at risk, such as the ones Roy has mentioned does not automatically make you a Hero. The actions you do while there define your 'hero status'. The ones that give their lives doing this job are heroes. The ones that sit around and get out of the tough jobs, or just make a mockery of everything they stand for are not.

The reason this infuriated me so much is simply because they appear no better than the one we went in after. Saddam was wanted for needless murder and Genocide. Exactly the same as what these 'soldiers' (and i use the term loosely) were doing.

And i dont want to start a political debate but most of the support for these guys seems to be coming from the US posters while the non Americans seem to be getting my point....can i just ask would you have been so defensive if it wasnt 'your boys' i was questioning?

Ultimate Charizard
17th May 2006, 03:21 PM
And just to 'lighten the mood' heres your typical on the street reaction to war. Asking your average Amercian who we should invade next. Not 'if' we should invade, 'who' we should invade.

http://ebaumsworld.com/2006/02/invade.html
i will link this one since theres nothing offensive on that page.

The suggestions were....
Iran (cos there may be a revolution or something soon)
Korea (cos their trouble)
Italy
India
Pakistan
Russia
China
France (cos they werent out allies)
Sri Lanka (the friend of the person suggesting this said "really? ive never heard of it)
Brazil (the same guy that picked out Russia and China..also said Canada but he sounded drunk anyway)
The Middle East in general
And one very eloquent gentleman that stated 'we'll make a big f##kin glass crater out of the middle east!"

And also just to point out, that the Couple that said France, the one that Said Korea and another that said Iran all pointed to Australia when asked to pick out their choice on the map.

Roy Karrde
17th May 2006, 03:29 PM
I would think that I would act the same way, the insurgents have killed civilians, attacked and mamed soldiers everyday, and captured non military targets to auction off. Yet when we fight them we are supposed to show them dignity? How could we expect any soldier U.S., Chinese, Japanese, British, anyone. To expect to treat their opponent with dignity and humility when their opponent does not do the same? Now I am not saying that we should start capturing civilians and auctioning them off like the Insurgents do, or use their tactics. Yet War is a dirty buisness, and the Geniva Convention does not apply to these Insurgents, so they should not expect nor should we expect any soldier to treat them any different no matter if they are wounded or not. Especially when a Insurgent could be carrying a bomb or some explosive to make himself a mayter when the soldiers approach.

As for the song being played during battle, I know if I was out there with bullets flying over my head, I would want something to take the tension off or something to listen to during the hours upon hours of constant fighting. Yet that is just me, maybe you would rather hear the screams and constant gun shots around you.

Edit: As for your list I really would like to see some concrete percentage, I would think the first two would apply since they have or are in the process of having Nukes and have threatened to attack us or attack our allies. The rest probably ranges around the 1% and are just idiots talking their asses off, or people with a grudge against those countries.

nightcrow
17th May 2006, 04:40 PM
You have absolutely no idea do you.
As someone who has volunteered for service but was turned down (medical reasons) its the people like you that bother me. You seem just as immoral as these idiots im picking out. Your basically saying as long as your not in danger then who cares what they do.
Trying to liken the attitude of a solider to childlike is plain moronic. Right, so a good portion of our kids are no more mature than 5 year olds...what shall we do, i know lets train them to be killing machines and arm them to the teeth.

Immorality has no place anywhere. They have a job to do and theres a way to do it properly without becoming immature murderers.



I know what I am talking about, you are the one who doesn't. My father was enlisted and I lived near the biggest military base in Europe and visited the hospital there every once in a while with school. Don't tell me I don't know. You have no right to say they act "immoral" when these people are losing appendages, becoming metally disabled, and losing their lives in a much bigger quantity than you probably realise. Like I said, seeing these things lets me turn a blind eye to random acts of immaturity that might be displayed by the soldiers, which is actually a lot rarer than is portrayed. People will do anything to make americans look bad remember?

Ultimate Charizard
17th May 2006, 04:46 PM
Right ok, look at this way. The 'Insurgents' as you keep putting it see this action on the TV. Of an American soldier taking potshots at a Defenceless Iraqi then cheering and celebrating the kill.
What do you think that does to the Iraqi. It doesnt make them want to be nice to Americans thats for sure. The 'Enemy' arent the only ones capable of evil. Just cos you say theyre good doesnt always mean that they are.

Saying 'well they did it first' doesnt count either. Its a case of 'Were right and your wrong because we say so!

Roy Karrde
17th May 2006, 05:00 PM
Most of the Insurgents dont need a reason like this to attack a american soldier. The ones that were attacking us back in 03 and 04 needed one, and this would have most likely spawned off more hatred and uprising back then. Yet that was two to three years ago, and those insurgents now want to come to the table and be a part of this country's future. That is why in the last few months you have heard news stories about the new Iraqi Government talking about how they are negotiating and talking with the Insurgents. The time where stories like these would have caused a uprising from the insurgents is over. The insurgents that are left now, and most likely the man featured on the video are the ones that are coming in from over the borders, the ones like Al Qaeda and Iran who will benifit from seeing a Religous Theocracy in Iraq. The Insurgents that were fighting us are mostly fighting them right now as they try to keep them from pouring into their country. There are alot of clashes happening on the borders where the two factions are fighting eachother, you just barely hear about it.

As for the Iraqi people hating us, remember that news now days is Infotainment, Death and Destruction sells, dead bodies of Iraqi's sells. What doesn't sell is stories about Schools being built, fresh water being sent to Villages, Entire Villages that were in the process of being starved out by Saddam are now being replinished and thriving. People over there are able to actually have freedom and not state run Television or being able to have to be hushed in what they say. The protests against American troops and against a certain elected representative that you see over there from time to time, how many times do you think you would have seen it during Saddam's rule? How many times were any of those people able to protest against the killing squads? The rapes? The Children being forced into Military Service? My point being is most people over there are enjoying freedom that they never dreamed of, but you never hear any of that on Television becuase selling News against the Iraq war drives in Ratings.

By God I am glad we didn't have this technology during World War 2, if we did how long do you think America would have stayed in a battle against Japan or Europe? People would be complaining that videos of American troops beating or slaying Nazi soldiers would only make the Enemy hate us more, or that the war against Japan was useless becuase we were losing in the Pacific.

mr_pikachu
18th May 2006, 04:33 AM
And i dont want to start a political debate but most of the support for these guys seems to be coming from the US posters while the non Americans seem to be getting my point....can i just ask would you have been so defensive if it wasnt 'your boys' i was questioning?

Just to clarify, I live in America, and I think the group of soldiers that have been referenced are absolute morons. I support the military as a whole; the vast majority of the men and women who put their lives on the line are doing it to protect their country, not to find some perverse thrill. However, people who treat such a serious situation as an entertaining game do little more than stain the reputation and the efforts of those who would undertake such difficult tasks in a more appropriate manner.

Don't get me wrong; obviously, the intense conflict of war is something you can't ever really understand unless you've been in it yourself. I'm not going to say I understand the things that soldiers in heated combat must go through, because I haven't been through them myself. However, while unusual coping mechanisms for the trauma are understandable for such unusual circumstances, I think that celebrating a kill and seeking out more people to blow away (apparently for sport, rather than as part of a mission) goes a bit too far. Still, that's just the opinion of someone who's never been in a life-or-death situation, so take it as you will.

Leon-IH
18th May 2006, 10:20 AM
What I'd Like? no.
What I'd Expect? yes.

Dark-San
18th May 2006, 10:28 AM
[b][size=3] I'm not so sure of the whole Iraq war concept. However I will explain a misconception that people would think that being in the military is equivalent to a hero. Actually by being in the military, it is more of a job commitment. The only difference is just the risk factor is that you may lose your life in the line of duty.

@Leon-IH~ If you have nothing to add onto this topic, kindly do not post this unnecessary reply.

Dark Dragonite
18th May 2006, 12:23 PM
Before people get all flamey about my take on this, think about it:

There are some bad soldiers, who enjoy the kill, raping women, scaring children, so they aren't all innocent, BUT, there are innocents who just needed help with college who are dying not for their country, but for Bush.
Bush, and his rich buddies get money off the gas price spike, he has a lot ov vested interest in oil, and refineries, and his buddies with the steel industry building all the guns, tanks, planes, etc...
Meanwhile, children are dying, how many leaders of the USA have children in the military, I believe 1....when asked if they would let their children go, the answer was a resounding no...

If the people of Iraq are resorting to women and children killing themselves to try and get the invaders out(yes, we are the invading country, no better than Germany, or England in the imperialistic days), they obviously don't want us there, they live different lives, are not Christian, and don't want us pushing this garbage on them, they aren't stupid.

All the money spent, and lives lost, could have rebuilt a country, like ours, or theirs, hell, I'm sure their leader could have been bought off, money talks, bs walks...

Roy Karrde
18th May 2006, 02:44 PM
Meanwhile, children are dying, how many leaders of the USA have children in the military, I believe 1....when asked if they would let their children go, the answer was a resounding no...


That is why we have a All Volunteer Military, most parents would never want their child to go off to the military becuase it is placing their child in harm's way. That's why a child cannot volunteer to the military until they are considered a Adult and are able to make decisions on their own. It doesn't matter if 1 representative has a child in the military or all of them do. In the end it is a child's decision. That being said I'm not going to respond to the War for Oil BS and other stuff, it's not worth my time.

Blademaster
18th May 2006, 02:46 PM
Um, why are we even talking about this? Who here can attest that shooting an unarmed man and then laughing about it is either good or a good quality for any military force? Why is our military even IN Iraq? Iraq has no terrorists, oil, or Bibles - WTF is Bush looking for there? Are we helping these people or what?

Dark Dragonite
18th May 2006, 04:35 PM
Roy, most of these "volunteers" don't figure they will die for a cause they don't believe in...this country doesn't want to be at war, and looked down upon like we are. "Volunteer" to most of our army, was supossed to mean training, maybe seeing a little action if there was a worthy cause, then getting help with college, and a career. Yes, I'm sure most of them realize they could die, but I'm sure they thought it would be more of a heroic, defending their country, not invading someone else's...

Oh, and the whole government not having their children in the military was to show what even they feel about it, who knows, maybe a few have kids that want to serve, but their parents don't want them to, they know what kind of a cause, and fight it is.

For those who volunteer, it's their only chance at a better life, instead, it's the end of their lives...that doesn't sit well with me.

Roy Karrde
18th May 2006, 04:44 PM
Oh Please, they know what they are doing when they sign up. Unless they are all incredibly stupid, they know there is the possibility of being placed in harm's way which is why they go through boot camp and other training programs, which are ment to prepare you for active combat. The ones that do not see combat are sent into different programs that train you for that position such as if you were going into IT or Computer work. As for not believeing in the the cause, do you know each and everyone of these soldiers? Most of them in Iraq seem to believe in the cause, most reinlist when they get back home to go back and serve again. They believe in this cause and they believe what they are doing for their country is right.

As for the dieing aspect, may I remind you that this war has had the lowest, casulty rate of any major war that we have ever been in. Yes there are ones dieing for their country over there, but that number is much lower than any other war. Most of them right now are helping train the police, work with the civilians in rebuilding, and hunting down the insurgants/terrorsts with the Iraqi army. Of course you don't hear much about that becuase good things do not sell, that's why the Iraqi war has been out of the news lately, the casualty count is near zip right now, so instead of focusing on the stablizing Government, and the Iraqi children who can now go to school instead of being a part of Saddam's army, they would rather focus on the Border issue becuase it's the next big topic, and it will drive home the ratings, that good news out of Iraq wouldn't.

Dark Dragonite
18th May 2006, 04:59 PM
Is this a "major war"?
How do you categorize it as one?
This is the President's vendetta, finishing his daddy's war, were we threatened by Iraq? No
Was there a threat of terrorists in Iraq? not likely...the only reason the terrorists want to kill us, is because we are being imperialistic...why the hell are we in the middle east? Are we bringing peace with guns, and bombs?

The only "major war"s were World War I and World War II, it was stopping Germany from just taking over other countries, and killing innocent people(not just the Jews), can you really put this "war" in the same category? Or are we the invading force, trying to change Iraq to how we want it?

Roy Karrde
18th May 2006, 05:09 PM
Major war being any major offensive that has involved combat in the last 50 years, including the Korean War and the Vietnam War. The first Gulf War was basically nothing in which we rolled over the area with almost no combat. We're we threatened by Iraq before this war? The constant attacks at our no fly zone in Iraq, the constant cat and mouse game Saddam played with Weapon Inspectors were more than enough to Attack Iraq. Yet Clinton only had the balls to do it when he was being Investigated by the Congress. BTW how do you explain Clinton's airstrikes in 98? Were those just him wanting to be Bi Partisian or did he actually feel like Saddam's constant cat and mouse game with Weapon Inspectors were being harmful?

As for connections to terrorism, during the Clinton years Iraq was routinely listed as the world's largest funders of terrorism. Paying the familys of Suicide bombers at first $25,000 to attack Isreal, and then upped it to $50,000. Saddam also funded the Allied Democratic Forces a Ugandan Terrorst Organization with links to Bin Laden. If you want anything concrete, how about Bin Laden's fighters attending training camps in Iraq to learn document forging and bomb making skills? Along with Iraqi intelligence agents meeting with Bin Laden in Sudan, Turkey, Afghanistan, and Prague. Along with Bin Laden meeting with Iraqi's Special Security Organization. Yet lets forget all of that, it's eaiser to say that there was not a threat of terrorists in Iraq and that we had no reason to attack them.

Ultimate Charizard
18th May 2006, 05:20 PM
Before i start this post i want to make it clear. I will be referencing 9/11 and am in no way belittling the event, or making it sound less monstrous, simply that it will get a point across.

To be honest Roy, before 9/11 the average American thought of Cuba or South America if you mentioned the word terrorist and had no interest, or barely even knowledge of the middle east. The events of 9/11 changed that and gave the world a whole new target.
The Gulf war was an act of invasion on Iraq's part and the UN intervened. This is an act of invasion on our part, but when your the biggest bully in the playground, who's going to intervene.
Its like this whole argument that Iran should be invaded because theyre dabbling with nuclear tech. So what. Who says that the 'good guys' such as the USA and the UK are able to be trusted with the big guns?

And before you start giving figures about who supported who, can you find the figures of the cash raised and Paid to the IRA from the USA, including any given by celebrities and Charity Fundraisers. The same money that was used to Fund the terrorist Bombings over here. By your logic that means the USA is a home for terrorism and deserves to be attacked.

Dark Dragonite
18th May 2006, 05:30 PM
I aggree UC, plus, if you've heard anything about the leader in Iran, he says anything we do against him, will hit Israel, yes, an open, bold threat...and he didn't say the world, just the US, he knows what type of president fixed his winning of 2 elections

Roy Karrde
18th May 2006, 06:51 PM
I would think before 9/11 people would assosiate terrorism with the Oklahoma City bombings, and the bombings of the two African Embassys by Al Qaeda since both were huge news events, but then again I could be wrong. As for the invasion, so what if we are the invaders. We didn't go in there for territory, or for a resource, we went in there for a regime change and to scare the fuck out of everyone else in the Mid East * Look at Syria and them giving up Nukes *. We got attacked on 9/11 and we finally had a President that was willing to step up and do something about it, instead of the complete cat and mouse games Clinton played with Bin Laden and Saddam for 8 years.

As for Iran, there are safeguards we place on our nukes to make sure that they do not get shot off, the same goes with the Nukes in France, Britain, and other First World Countries that carry Nukes. Can you tell me that the President of Iran, who has openly said that he wants to bring about the end of the World to complete his nutty religion, will place those same safeguards? Can you tell me that the President of Iran who has said that Isreal should be wiped off the face of the Planet should have nukes? There are some countrys that can have nucular weapons and power becuase they know the responcability of having them. And there are some countries that should not have nucular weapons and power. Iran is one of them.

Also DD you gotta be one of the biggest conspiracy therorists around. Yeah Bush fixed two elections. That gave me the biggest laugh of the night. Considering how many lawyers were involved in both, and how blood hungry CNN and CBS were to report anything negative about Bush, there would be a better chance of Gore and Kerry trying to fix the elections.

Dark Dragonite
18th May 2006, 07:48 PM
Ok, first election: He won by Florida, the state his brother runs, and I will admit, decently...anyway, he won due to confusing ballots, supossedly...hanging chads weren't counted, etc...
Second election: HJe won by Ohio, with their new electronic ballots, where I know people who voted Kerry, and the screen said thank you for voting for George W. Bush...the guy who invented the system said on TV: "I will do whatever I can to help Bush win"

We haven't gotten anything out of the invasion?

Higher gas prices...prove Bush has no money in the oil industry...
Rebuilding contracts with his personal buddies...

You can throw the title "conspiracy theorist" all you want Roy, since you like turning a blind eye, We finally have a president who allowed the terrorists to successfully attack us to start the friggan war...

Answer this: Do you honestly think the country would have allowed Bush to go into Iraq with no 9/11?
Have you ever heard the man speak? he's an idiot...

"People don't need to worry about security. This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America." —George W. Bush, on the deal to hand over U.S. port security to a company operated by the United Arab Emirates, Washington, D.C., Feb. 23, 2006

"And I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company." —George W. Bush, defending a plan to allow a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates to manage ports in the United States, aboard Air Force One, Feb. 21, 2006

Aren't those Arab people the same who hate us, and he called terrorists, and part of the axis of evil?

The man has the lowest presidential rating ever at 29% and falling...

Roy Karrde
18th May 2006, 09:44 PM
First let me ask you what having his brother run the state has anything with the first election? It was Gore who was recounting the 2000 ballots, but only in the Democrat Counties, apparently he didn't want to recount the ballots in the Republican Counties becuase they weren't important.

In the 2004 Election thousands of Lawyers were ready for any possible recount, yet Kerry wisely decided not to do Gore's hissy fit. And if there was a recount then Bush could have asked for a recount of several of the states that Kerry barely won in, I believe New England was one in which only 1,000 votes seperated the winner. Basically what I am getting at there were 3 states where the difference was smaller than the one in Ohio that Bush could have asked to recount, and if he had won all three of those states then Ohio would not have mattered.

Now for the Invasion part, we have gotten higher gas prices, but we barely got any oil from Iraq before the invasion. Most of our oil came from Canada and Venezula *sp *. If Bush was really in this for Oil then he would have gone after those two countries since that is where our real oil comes from. France and other European countries have more of a stake in Iraq's Oil.

For the Contracts. Check out Halluburton, they are the only company capable of rebuilding Iraq, they have been the only company for years that are capable for rebuilding. They were used during the Clinton Administration and even before that for Rebuilding Efforts. Yet we are supposed to give the contracts of rebuilding a country, to less able, and less powerful companies so they can do a Half Assed Job, just becuase it has your panties in a twist that Cheney used to work for them? I would think and hope that most of the elected representatives in Washington and everyone else, would care more about getting the job done right with the most able body worker, than to care about silly partican politics.

Also would the country want to go to war in Iraq before 9/11? I dont know, the country didn't seem to have much of a problem with bombing the living shit out of Iraq in 98 when Saddam was playing mind games with the UN. I think they would probably have supported it, if Bush did the same thing as he did and step up and said "I'm not Clinton, I have had enough"

Also for the Terrorists to attack, let me remind you that the first WTC was attacked by Terrorists in 1993, and Clinton did nothing. We also had our Embassies bombed and Americans killed and Clinton did nothing. We had Intel that told us that Bin Laden wanted to take down a major U.S. Landmark and Clinton let Bin Laden go when he had the chance to capture him. So which President let a Terrorist attack happen again?

As for the Arab people, it is quite racist of you to group them all in as terrorists. The UAE has helped us alot in stopping Terrorism, and the Port deal wouldn't have really mattered anyway since the U.S. has always controlled security at our ports. Also I can never remember the UAE being a part of the Axes of Evil, I always thought it was Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.

Also his approval rating is around 30 to 34% but President approval ratings always flucturate.

Ultimate Charizard
18th May 2006, 10:02 PM
Well when it comes to the oil prices your view is very 'small picture'.
If for example nothing had been done, and Iraq (and other Middle East countries) decided not to supply Europe with Oil then Europe would also have to go to the same Sources the US use. Now supply and demand dictates that with High Demand and Limited supply prices would rise globally.
And you keep stating all these Attacks on American citizens but as ive already mentioned Terrorism isnt just aimed at America. You havent mentioned anything of the American support, training and Funding of a military faction resorting to bombing innocent targets over here in England.

Roy Karrde
18th May 2006, 10:12 PM
Yes and I appologise about that UC, in reality I would rather have a grandious debate with you on MSN rather than on here since the topic on here seems to change as rapidly as the hour. As for American Support for Terrorism, yes we did support military factions, we also supplied money to Iraq back when we were fighting with Iran. I would hope that this country has learned from that and changed from it's past actions in the past. In truth all countries supply terrorism in sometime in their history, either directly or indirectly. Yet in truth Saddam's financing and training of Bin Laden's terrorists had dangerous reprocussions all over the world. The same could be said for the U.S. and their supply for terrorism in Europe, yet the truth is that is one of many reasons that we went after Iraq. We wanted to stop Bin Laden and the finance and training Al Qaeda was reciving and Iraq was their chief supplier. Not to mention Iraq has been known to harbor terrorsts such as the first WTC bomber.

Dark Dragonite
18th May 2006, 10:54 PM
Does anyone else find it interesting that Osama Bin Laden is behind all of this, when the Bush family has had close ties to the Bin Laden family for years?

Roy Karrde
18th May 2006, 11:10 PM
Yeah except the Bin Laden family has like 80 members, some are hard working U.S. Citizens that have never met that member of their family. Also Osama has basically been kicked out of his family, and the family no longer has contact with him when he showed his psycological ties. I mean every family has a black sheep in them, it's not fair to damn a entire family for the actions of one.

Ultimate Charizard
18th May 2006, 11:17 PM
And in the same respect its not fair to damn a whole country/nation/religion based on the actions of a few madmen.

Roy Karrde
18th May 2006, 11:33 PM
The difference being that you don't damn the country, you damn the man and take him out. You follow that by trying to rebuild and change the autrocities the man did to that country so that they may re-enter the world as a stable, upright society. And anyone to damn a religion for the actions of a few idiots, should remember that every religion has had idiots use it to create death in destruction.

Dark Dragonite
19th May 2006, 07:54 AM
there had to ba an alternative...there was too much collateral damage...the damning of one man, and "taking him out", which, right now he is in court, and God only knows how long that will take, and the result, and how many Iraqi civilians were killed wrongly by our forces? How many buildings, homes just wiped out by our "righteous justice"?
there could have been a real simple solution, get your best snipers, someone could have done it with 1 shot, and a lot less than the 2000+ soldiers we lost, and thousands they lost...

Gengachu
19th May 2006, 10:47 AM
What I'd Like? no.
What I'd Expect? yes.
That pretty much sums up my feelings on the issue. I'm against us being there at all.

Chris
19th May 2006, 12:27 PM
there could have been a real simple solution, get your best snipers, someone could have done it with 1 shot, and a lot less than the 2000+ soldiers we lost, and thousands they lost...


You're kidding me, right?

Please, please tell me you're joking.

Roy Karrde
19th May 2006, 12:57 PM
there had to ba an alternative...there was too much collateral damage...the damning of one man, and "taking him out", which, right now he is in court, and God only knows how long that will take, and the result,

Result: Pretty much he will be dead by next year. Most likely hanged infront of all of Iraq.


and how many Iraqi civilians were killed wrongly by our forces? How many buildings, homes just wiped out by our "righteous justice"?

War is a ugly buisness, but how many buildings, homes, and civilians were going to be wiped out by Saddam if we didn't step in? He was going after Nukes, we know that. There was the possibility of him still having WMDs which he used to kill Hundreds of Thousnads. So I will ask you this, how many Iraqi Civilians have to be killed before we step in? 100,000? 1 Million? 10 Million? How much money and training needs to go to Al Qaeda before we step in? How many more Iraqi Funded Al Qaeda attacks need to happen till we step in? How many Al Qaeda officers does Iraq need to defend and provide shelter to until we step in?


there could have been a real simple solution, get your best snipers, someone could have done it with 1 shot, and a lot less than the 2000+ soldiers we lost, and thousands they lost...

You're kidding right? For one we have a law against the assassination of foreign officials and leaders. Second he had ten or twenty doubles of himself, so we run the risk of assassinating one of them. And then we are in all different kinds of shit, becuase Saddam would double his attempts to get weapons and then point the blame on the assassination on a smaller target. Now lets say just by chance we do kill Saddam. That we do get lucky and hit him and not one of his lookalikes that he has and uses for Public appearances. Then his son takes power, his son that runs rape houses and picks women and little girls up off the street and rapes them over and over. His son that is so psycotic that he makes the leader of Iran and North Korea look like the saints.

So how about we wipe his two sons out while we are at it? Then you have a massive power vaccume in place in which you run a damn good risk of getting some one just like Saddam in power since it would be some one promoted inside his orginization. Then you are back to Square One, only now it's worse becuase Iraq is pissed as hell and looking for revenge, and we have lost any and all chance of going into Iraq, becuase the U.S. now has a repetation on par with the Mafia of going out and knocking off anybody we don't like.

Dark Dragonite
19th May 2006, 01:29 PM
I'm the conspiracy theorist, but you're speaking of WMDs that were never found, and Bush admitted he went on false information...

Roy Karrde
19th May 2006, 01:35 PM
At the time we did not know that he didn't have him. Saddam was playing a cat and mouse game of letting inspectors in to certain places while not in others. He would make them wait outside for hours on end for no apparent reason. Lets not forget that he has used WMDs in the past on his own people which led to the Genoside killing of hundreds of thousands. So he did have them in the past. Also the information of him having Chemical WMDs was varified by many, MANY intelligance agencies, from the CIA, to British, to French, to Italian, to other intel services. All saying there was a possibility he still had WMDs.

Anyway I will quit rambling, he had them in the past, used them on his own people. Still had the plans to reactivate the program as his own audio tapes point out, and was activly trying to get Nukes as British Intel stands by even today. Those are the facts of Saddam's WMD program.

Dark Dragonite
19th May 2006, 07:34 PM
He never used nukes...he used nerve gas on the kurds...which, Roy, if you didn't know, we helped him develop...Saddam was the lesser of the 2 evils, and we helped him defeat Iran years ago...The US, as in

Quote of Dubya: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
August 5, 2004

Well, he's right about that...

who supplied Hussein with such weapons back in the 1980's? That would be the US to help Iraq beat Iran in the Iran-Iraq war (along with other countries). And when Hussein used chemicals on his own people, and we knew of it, what did we do? We remained on friendly, diplmatic ties with him to serve, as the State dpt called it, "our interests." This was done IN SPITE of HEATED opposition in Congress.

"Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true

want more proof of the Bush's right hand man pedling weapons to Saddam in the 80's?

http://www.nsmnj88.com/multimedia/videos/rumsfeld_&_sadam_high.wmv

The Duelfer report, ISG called off the search for WMD, even for movement across the Iraqi border, in June of this year. Now if you have a problem with these findings, take it up with them - write to them - I'm sure they have time to answer you now that they're not searching for WMD anymore.

Roy Karrde
19th May 2006, 07:41 PM
Where, did I ever say he had nukes? Point it out please. Now what I did say is that he was trying to get Nukes, which is true, I have posted the British Intel link of 2004 three times on this forums, and I will not post it a forth. If you want the proof then go look for it yourself. Also I have never said we didn't give Saddam weapons, we did, the problem is he started using them against his own people and would have continued if the UN didn't place sanctions on him in 1992. Saddam never complied with those sanctions fully and thus that alone could be used for War. Saddam financed Al Qaeda which could be used as a reason of war against him. Saddam tried to have a former President assassinated, which could be used as a act of war against him. Saddam shot at U.S. aircraft in the no fly zone, which could be used as a act of war against him. The list just goes on and on and on.

Dark Dragonite
20th May 2006, 12:01 AM
Well, actually, you mentioned on pg.2 that we "went in to scare the **** out of them, look how Syria and them gave up nukes."
Hence, I assumed, like most people, when you mention WMD, you mean nukes...yes, nerve gas can be deadly, but a nuke is probably the most destructive weapon around.
Isn't the other reason you stated we went in was to find WMD?

Why was US aircrafts in the no fly zone...isn't it a no fly zone?

Roy Karrde
20th May 2006, 01:26 AM
US aircrafts were patrolling the No Fly Zone, it was set up by the UN to keep Saddam from launching anymore WMDs on his own people. Saddam never had nukes, he was trying his best to accuire them, and I never have said he had them. He did have Nerve Gas which is why we went in, which is considered a WMD. Syria on the other hand was already close to finishing or had finished their Nukes, and when they saw us go into Iraq, they agreed to give up their Nuke program and turn it all over to the UN.

Ultimate Charizard
20th May 2006, 03:25 AM
Right so simply the development of nuclear technology is a threat of war? I though technological advancement was a part of any country. Or does this again go down to "were ok to have them but we say your not"?

Your basically admitting that the US would have pencilled in Syria as the next target for invasion simply because they have nuclear tech. Its the same reason they want to go into Iran and Iran dont have weapons grade tech, they have a Nuclear Power Plant, for cheaper, cleaner energy (the same reason the US say theyre looking to advance Nuclear Tech)
It basically boils down to one thing. The USA are (Politically) self serving Bullies.
Oh and btw The UK Prime Minister has actually admitted that he acted on inconclusive information over the presence of WMD's. He was just more interested in keeping good relations with 'Dubya' (god knows why) and blindly followed him into war.

Roy Karrde
20th May 2006, 01:18 PM
Development of a nucular bomb will lead to the threat of sanctions by the UN and inspections by the IAEA. The last thing this world needs is every country in the Middle East developing Nukes. Especially countries such as Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Now I never said the US would have penceled in Syria as the next target for invasions, what I was trying to say was the US was making a statement. No longer would we just sit idly by and allow unstable countries gain control of one of the most powerful weapons known to man, and just wait until they use them against us or our friends.

Now if you believe Iran wants to build a Nuclear Power Plant, then you really havn't been keeping up with events. Iran has turned down deals to have Uranium inriched in Russia and thus preventing them from getting the materials needed to make a Nuke, and allowing them to still keep a Nuclear Power Plant, and they have turned down the deal for a free light water reactor. Basically we were giving them the tech for a Nuclear Power Plant as long as they did not build a Heavy Water Reactor, which can produce the materials needed for a Nuke.

Iran wants a Nuke, and they most likely want to use it to either attack Isreal, or to attack Europe. Both have been targets mentioned by Iran in the last few weeks as possible targets for them to hit when they get their Bomb. Mind you this is the Iran President making these threats.

Also the UK Prime Minister may have admitted to have acted on inconclusive information on WMDs, yet WMDs wasn't the main reason we went to war against Iraq. It was one of the NINE reasons and UN rule violations that Iraq had broken in the last few years, each one could be used as a excuse to invade. The media has just chosen to focus on the WMD aspect of the war and not the other eight reasons.

Razola
24th May 2006, 05:43 AM
Basically. unstable counties having nukes is a bad thing.

Blademaster
24th May 2006, 12:18 PM
Basically. unstable counties having nukes is a bad thing.


...

Ummmmmmmm...

The United States has nukes...

O_o

Roy Karrde
24th May 2006, 12:25 PM
The US also has safeguards on their Nukes, submits to the IAEA, and does not want to use their nukes to wipe countries off the face of the map becuase their religion says so. To compare any major nation with nukes, to Iran or any other middle east country striving to recieve nukes at the moment. Just amazes me beyond anything, so I hope that you are kidding.

Blademaster
24th May 2006, 12:38 PM
Yeah, I am - I wouldn't compare the U.S. with Iran or some other religious-nutcase country (though GWB himself is a religious nutcase).

But this country isn't the most stable on Earth - you gotta agree with me on THAT, at least... :p

Roy Karrde
24th May 2006, 12:42 PM
Lets see, we have been in several wars since the creation of nukes, we have only used them on one occasion. We have not had a coup of our government, we have never had a dictator rise to power, the country is still run by the people and for the people, and we peacefully ellect a new leader every four to eight years. Would you mind telling me how this country is unstable? Becuase from all that I have seen the country is quite stable.

Dark Dragonite
24th May 2006, 01:17 PM
well, the last 2 elections weren't that peaceful, the people for whom this country is run do not approve of what the president is doing, but he does it anyway...
Dictator- a ruler who is unconstrained by law ...well, we have wire taps happening without the balancing departments of government approving them, Bush threatens to veto anything he doesn't like...
Even you have to admit, the "checks and balances" haven't been working too well recently...
We have a president selected not by the vast voting majority, but by electoral votes, which do not accurately portray what the people want...
In a sense, Democracy is flawed...and we are perfecting each flaw for others to see...

Roy Karrde
24th May 2006, 01:36 PM
well, the last 2 elections weren't that peaceful,

Did anyone die during them? Was anyone placed in prision for going against the mainstream? Were their mass rioting in the streets?


the people for whom this country is run do not approve of what the president is doing, but he does it anyway...

Presidential Approval numbers rise and fall, as is the way of politics. The President should never have to base his or her Presidency on what the people do and do not approve of. Clinton did that and it was disasterous for the country. Anyway the reason I say that, is that a President is prevy to information every day that the common people do not recieve, and thus needs to make decisions based on that information, and we base our opinions on those decisions even while not knowing the full story. I for one would never ever want a President that governs by how the people feel at the moment, a President should look beyond that and do what he or she thinks is best for the country in the long term.


Dictator- a ruler who is unconstrained by law ...well, we have wire taps happening without the balancing departments of government approving them, Bush threatens to veto anything he doesn't like...

The last time I checked the constitution, the President had the right to veto, although I could be wrong and some one could have snuck in and changed it with some white out. The wire taps from all that I have heard are legal, if they were not then we would be having hearings on par with Watergate right now, instead we have a few people making noise for the sake of being re-elected and that is it. And we have not had a President that is anything near a dictator at any time of our history, we have had a Governor, but not a President. If we did, we would have State run television, State run Newspapers, people being jailed for voting against him, or people being killed for voting against him. For further info see: Saddam Hussain


Even you have to admit, the "checks and balances" haven't been working too well recently...

As far as I know, bills are still passed by congress, and the President still has veto power over them, Congress has the power to check on the President, and the Supreme Court still has the power to strike down a law.


We have a president selected not by the vast voting majority,

Bush was ellected with more than 4 million more votes in 2004


but by electoral votes,

As set forth by the founding fathers, if we didn't have the system every politician would be in Texas, California, and New York. You have the most amount of the population in those three states and if you win them then you basically get a majority vote.


which do not accurately portray what the people want...

No it doesn't portray what you want. Most people were fine when Bush was ellected and were sick of Gore's whining and only wanting to recount Democrat counties in Florida. If you're guy had won then I am sure you would be singing a different tone right now.


In a sense, Democracy is flawed...and we are perfecting each flaw for others to see...


No system is perfect, yet Democracy right now is the best inperfect system that we have. It is constantly evolving and changing, yet at the same time we must not forget some of the reasons why the founding fathers placed some of those rules in place such as the Electoral College. People alot smarter than you or I, thought long and hard so that we could have the best inperfect system available, and we must not forget that, and have the forsight to see past our own political bigotry to see why those systems are in place.

Dark Dragonite
24th May 2006, 01:54 PM
Explain the Patriot Act, by what it says, if I so much as openly bash President Bush to a certain extent, I can be arrested as a terrorist...

We had people thinking up the electoral college how many decades ago? Things have changed, and a president would not be picked from NY, Texas, or Cali if we went by Majority votes, he/she would be elected by the majority of the country, for who they want in office. Doesn't the Electoral college make it so that NY, Cali, Texas have a bigger say in who wins?

You're quick to remark, but had Gore or Kerry won, you'd be singing a different tune yourself, wouldn't you?

62,040,606
-59,028,109
3,012,497

987,503 off...I bet they feel their votes didn't matter...how many people do you think don't bother voting, because in this system, if you're a democrat in a republican state, your vote really doesn't mean anything...if it went by majority...I could 99.99999999999% guarentee voting numbers would go up dramatically.

Ultimate Charizard
24th May 2006, 02:02 PM
Since i missed the earlier posts ill bring this point up now.

It was said that the US are stable because they have guidelines on Nukes and dont want to use them, having only had to once before.

Now by having HAD to resort to using nukes you mean completely levelling 2 highly populated civilian cities in Japan.

Before you start banging on about how the rules are there for countries to abide by, the rules wouldnt even be there if it wasnt for America deploying nuclear weapons. The US was the first to employ nuclear weaponry and im just curious to ask how many other atomic bombs have been used in history?

Roy Karrde
24th May 2006, 02:14 PM
Explain the Patriot Act, by what it says, if I so much as openly bash President Bush to a certain extent, I can be arrested as a terrorist...

Yes becuase we have had so many people arrested for openly bashing President Bush. Oh God I hope they release Michael Moore soon, and I hope they release Cindy Sheehan soon and all the other people that bash President Bush. How about reading the act next time before making assumptions?



We had people thinking up the electoral college how many decades ago? Things have changed, and a president would not be picked from NY, Texas, or Cali if we went by Majority votes, he/she would be elected by the majority of the country, for who they want in office. Doesn't the Electoral college make it so that NY, Cali, Texas have a bigger say in who wins?

NY, Texas, and Cali hold most if not the majority of the people in this country. If you went by Majority vote and when most of the people in those three states then it would be a easy ride.


You're quick to remark, but had Gore or Kerry won, you'd be singing a different tune yourself, wouldn't you?

If either had won I would have acknowledged that the system did it's job. Yet if Gore did win after whining and whining and only recounting Democrat Counties instead of all the Counties, then I would be a bit pissed that we have a baby in the White House. Luckily he didn't win.


I bet they feel their votes didn't matter...how many people do you think don't bother voting, because in this system, if you're a democrat in a republican state, your vote really doesn't mean anything...if it went by majority...I could 99.99999999999% guarentee voting numbers would go up dramatically.


Actually I bet it would go down, mostly in the mid western states and in rural states in which people would give up since all the big states that have 10 mil or more people would gain all the coverage, and their state wouldn't matter much., but I guess to you those votes didn't matter much right? Also I was going by a rounding total, he won near 4 million more votes and was one of the largest amount of votes a President has recieved. As for the people that vote democrat in a republican state, in most state elections we have it divided up into counties, such as Dallas county is a Democrat county and most of the time they vote democrat. Now if you truely want to change your state's colors you go out and campeign and you talk to people. People make a difference, look at Cindy Sheehan, not the most sane person ever, but she got people to listen to her.


Now by having HAD to resort to using nukes you mean completely levelling 2 highly populated civilian cities in Japan.

Yes I do, becuase in that situation we were at risk of killing millions in a ground campeign. We used it twice, knew the responcability of our actions, and wanted to finish a long and bloody war, that if continued would kill Civilians and Soldiers on both sides. Is that a excuse to use them now? No becuase we have better technology and we learn from our actions, you learn from your actions and we used them at the best possible manner to finish a war that would take millions of more lives, and a war that Japan could not possibly win.


Before you start banging on about how the rules are there for countries to abide by, the rules wouldnt even be there if it wasnt for America deploying nuclear weapons.

I beg to differ, at the moment we were developing our Nukes, so was Russia, and a host of other countries. Eventually some one would use the weapon against another country and the rules would eventually be put in place. The difference being would the weapons be used to bring a peaceful end to a war? Or would they be used to start a war?


The US was the first to employ nuclear weaponry and im just curious to ask how many other atomic bombs have been used in history?

We have lucked out and had none, want to roll the dice and give Iran nukes and see how long that lasts?

Ultimate Charizard
24th May 2006, 02:34 PM
So you used the Nukes at the best possible time to save millions of lives....you forgot to say 'american' lives. Or are you counting those millions of japanese civilians as 'unnavoidable casualties of war?'
Have you ever read about what happens to people in a nuclear explosion? There is never any excuse for their use in my opinion but saying one lot can have them and another lot cant is hyprocticism.

Roy Karrde
24th May 2006, 02:40 PM
The Japanese are a proud people, their Military was prepairing for a Coup so that they could continue on fighting. Civilians were being armed for the preperation of a invasion. They were going to fight house to house if they had to. That is why their leader had to record his message of surrender since the military was planning a Coup just after the second Nuke. If we had landed, it would have been worse than DDay, yes it would have lost thousands of American lives, along with Russian lives as they were preparing to invade also. But the damage and death to the Japanese people would be ten fold than any of the nukes. We would have to fight the Civilians every step of the way, along with their military. We would be dealing with a Insergency afterwards that would make the Iraqi one look like child's play, and the country would be in economic and structure ruin for years to come.

I guess the question should be, which is worse, the nuking of two towns and the killing of thousands, or the complete destruction of a country, and the killing of millions?

Dark Dragonite
24th May 2006, 06:00 PM
the decision to drop bombs is one thing, but the US gave no warning to droping Nukes, which, being different from bombs in the suffering, and extended period of the land being uninhabitable...You give this country too much credit, and way too much leeway in the decisions made...

Heald
24th May 2006, 06:43 PM
Judas Priest, such flagrant partisanship, with some of you taking what people like Michael Moore and other such folk as gospel and others unable to fault Bush whatsoever. None of you are exactly giving much, if any, evidence to back up your hyperbolic claims, and I mean both sides of the argument. Bush is not a dictator, the US is perfectly stable enough to have nukes and the US Election System has only come under fire ever since a couple of anti-Bush morons whined about it and decided to give half the country a bad name. Gore may have won the popular vote but he lost the electoral vote, get over it, he lost fair and square under the current election system and believe it or not to change the election system would require not just a constitutional amendment but a constitutional redraft. It has not happened since and is unlikely to happen again.

On the other hand, people who are defending Bush aren't really citing any examples, they are just calling Democratic politicians names and saying that recent Democratic Presidents were terrible without any justification, nor can they accept any negative criticism any Republican politicians get. Yes, politics is subjective and you are allowed to debate but this isn't debating, this is just two sides calling each other names and, if I recall, this was actually a discussion on whether we'd expect our/your military to kill defenceless soldiers mercilessly.

Also, you cannot compare the US nuking Japan to modern day standards. It was a war - if America had simply told Japan that they had the capability to blow the shit out of them with two bombs, Japan would just strengthen their anti-air capabilities. Also, as Roy said, the bombing was the lesser of two evils - a full scale invasion would have taken months, maybe even over a year and would have caused far worse losses and damage. Just because the US has used nukes before doesn't mean they'll use them again - that's like saying you can't give Germany insecticide because they might try to use it to kill the Jews again. I agree with unilateral nuclear disarmanent, but as it is, the nuclear deterrent is still needed in this day and age, and countries that are likely to use them, such as Iran, should not, under any circumstances, be allowed to have them.

You say this is hypocrisy? Okay, look at their records : the USA is under pressure to maintain good relations with the UN and if it ever used its nuclear weapons without justification then the economic sanctions against it would kill the country, plus there would be riots across the country, plus terrorists may attack more strongly against the US. Iran, on the other hand, is already on the UN's shit-list, couldn't give two shits about any other country and is ruled by a crazy idiot who maintains the theocracy and the majority of the electorate hate America as much as their President does, plus they really really hate Israel and would have no qualms with killing thousands of Israelis, even if it meant they were invaded.

There, that's it.

Blademaster
25th May 2006, 04:02 PM
...

You know what, guys? Heald is right. We aren't really getting anywhere with this debate, which has gotten too off-topic already as it is. We're just causing tension here; I came to TPMF to make friends, not enemies...

So, I think I'm just gonna leave this thread behind - we're bickering like newlyweds for no reason...

Later, guys - don't kill each other while you're here, OK?

Peace out!

-Blade

Roy Karrde
25th May 2006, 04:05 PM
Hey Blade don't worry about it, debating in Misc is something that is as normal as night and day. I really wish we had more of these since it seems that Misc has become so relaxed lately that it has forgotten it's routes and how back in the day we would have grandious 30 page debates on anything ranging from Politics to Abortion. So don't worry about making enemies, no one holds what you say against you here, trust me if they did I would have alot of enemies.

Dark Dragonite
25th May 2006, 04:40 PM
I think MSN said it best:

"Ultimately, Bush’s Justice Department pressed the case against Enron — and won.

Still, when the history books are written, the debit side of the Bush Era ledger will include a line labeled “Kenny Boy.” That’s the nickname Bush gave the guy he later claimed he barely knew.

As Texas governor from 1995 to 2000, Bush and consiglieri Karl Rove cultivated the Enronites for their vast connections and money; more than that, Bush linked arms with Lay in the belief that market forces alone should guide the production, distribution and use of energy. But the theory ran riot at Enron, giving license to corporate buccaneers who blithely screwed consumers, employees and shareholders alike. The old saying applies to Enron: you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.



On the plus side

ECONOMIC RESILIENCE: Commentators made fun of Bush for advising Americans to go shopping after 9/11, but he had a valid aim in saying so. Osama Bin Laden himself said that his goal was to cripple the American economy, and since two thirds of that economy is based on consumer spending, the president’s instincts were on target. Analysts rightly wring their hands about the twin deficits in the federal budget and in the balance of trade. But in the face of the most devastating attack on the American homeland ever, the economy’s overall recovery was — and is — remarkable. Did Bush’s stimulative tax cuts help? In the short run, sure.

NO POST-9/11 ATTACKS ON THE HOMELAND: Americans know that another attack is not only possible, but, perhaps inevitable. The Bush Administration is smart not to make any sweeping claims on this front — they would look not only silly but tragic in an instant. The various Patriot Act and security measures the administration has undertaken are controversial, but voters seem to be willing to give the president considerable leeway — and a measure of approval (the best of all his numbers) for being a Tough Cop. Are we safer here because we are fighting the bad guys “over there?” Again, in the short run, maybe.
On the minus side

KENNY BOY CULTURE: Lay was among the people Dick Cheney consulted as part of his off-the-record task force on energy policy -- and they were brothers-in-arms in opposition to price caps. Beyond Lay is the growing sense that wealthy CEOs and others in their vicinity are prospering out of proportion to, and at the expense of, average Americans. Overall growth rates are strong, and the rising tide has lifted most boats, but there’s a sense in the country that the gap is growing between the Rich and the Rest. Even though the gap has been growing for years — it was characteristic of Bill Clinton’s time in office — Bush’s tax cuts leave him open to the accusation that he exacerbated the problem.

THE 16 NIGER WORDS: Bush’s statement that Saddam was trying to buy uranium in Africa, since recanted, is and will forever remain one of the key moments of his presidency. It has come to encapsulate everything that was wrong, or dubious, about the decision to go to war in Iraq – one of the most important decisions any president has ever made. Now we know why Dick Cheney was so upset about attempts to undermine the Niger story: it provided a pathway into deeper questions about the justifications — or lack of them — for war.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED: The president was talking about “major combat operations,” and in that sense he was right. But it turned out to be a distinction without a difference, and, in retrospect, the image of him strutting his stuff on the Abraham Lincoln became the photo op from hell — an ironic reminder not of success but of failure.

HECK OF A JOB BROWNIE: As we approach hurricane season, the country is hoping that New Orleans — and every other vulnerable location — survives intact. But the enduring legacy of Katrina is an eroded faith in leadership at all levels, including the presidency.

OBL ON THE LOOSE: Just the other day Osama bin Laden emerged from the shadows to defend the innocence of Zacarias Moussaoui. This latest audiotape was a reminder that, nearly five years after 9/11, the mastermind of Al Qaeda remains out there, somewhere. Initially, Americans liked the idea of a president who talked tough about capturing the evildoer, “dead or alive.” But if you want to be sheriff, you gotta get your man."

Oh, and there is the little fact of Bush using more vacation time than any president to date...during a "war" and other crisies...

Roy Karrde
25th May 2006, 06:31 PM
Heh that just seems like that article has a bunch of "Wait and Sees" when it comes to several things. Such as the effort taken to stop any other terrorist attacks on American Soil, and that the Economy is on the rebound. I wonder if these people would use the same statement of "Wait and See" when we were coming out of the depression. It's quite sad to see some of the Political Bigotry in the Op Ed Collums today.

It's funny they want to point out the Niger problem, yet they fail to mention how British Intel has stood by their statement, even a year after the war started that Saddam was trying to buy materials from Niger. It's also funny that they kind of gloss over the whole point that Bush was RIGHT when standing on the Abe Lincoln and saying that Major Operations were over with. It's also funny how they neglect to mention that the whole responce to Katrina was the fastest time that FEMA has ever done, and that their is land and cities that were effected OUTSIDE of New Orleans that FEMA also had to deal with. Yet all is fair in Political Bigotry right?

Just thought I would point that all out.

Heald
25th May 2006, 07:56 PM
Heald is right.I've spent pretty much most of my post count trying to get people to understand it, and finally it is working. Hallelujah.

Roy Karrde
25th May 2006, 08:03 PM
Ah one of the first things I learned here. Usually Heald is 90 to 100% right on most if not all subjects.

Dark Dragonite
25th May 2006, 09:24 PM
Just out of curiosity Roy, Do you find Bush to be completely incapable of doing any wrong, or Republicans for that matter?

Has Bush, or any Republicans done anything wrong, like you say Democrats like Clinton have?

Systematic Revolution
25th May 2006, 10:15 PM
Well... I haven't bothered reading all four pages of this. Just the first few posts, actually. But I'm going to throw out my beliefs. This is happening more than just with a couple jackasses. It happens a lot more than what we think. In fact, it happens infinitely more often than is reported in the media. There have been, what? Two or three cases of complete desecration of the code during the entire war reported? In reality, it happens every day. The general mentality is "those damn towel-heads need to die". Keep in mind, the general consensus of the US as a whole reflects our military. If there are hundreds of thousands or even a million people in the US NOT fighting in Iraq that think "kill all of the towel-heads", then that is going to reflect our military as well. Not to mention I know a guy who used to be in the airforce. He's been to Iraq before during this war and he's seen the mentality. He wants nothing to do with the military anymore. He feels that the soldiers are a disgrace to the US.

This kind of ignorance is going to destroy this country even faster than Bush. This war is going to destroy the human race. After Iraq, what's next? Iran. Then Syria. Eventually, every country with nuclear weapons will be invaded. That includes China, France, Israel (Maybe an exception here), Russia, the UK, India and Korea (probably both sides). All of 'em. The US is turning into a fascist country. I hear the words "for the country" from Bush's mouth a lot more often than "for the people of the US". Eventually we're just going to take 'em all out and take over. The Constitution has been thrown out the window, my friends. Bush has just admitted a few weeks ago that he has a log of every phone call made in the US since 9/11. That's fucking ridiculous and comlpetely unnecessary. He also noted that it was illegal but done in the name of "national security". This whole war is just going to turn into another Holocaust. Bring out the ovens because this isn't a war--it's a crusade. Bush is out there to destroy anyone who doesn't agree with him 100%. We could very well see the annihilation of the world's oldest race in our lifetime, people. Where and when will it stop? It's horrible. Something needs done about all of this.

It is accepted that people suffer in war... But for Christ's sake... Just kill them. Don't draw out their deaths. It's unnecessary. Welcome to fascism.

Roy Karrde
25th May 2006, 10:26 PM
* Looks at Systematic Revolution's post and shakes his head * That is just sad, really really sad.

Anyway to answer something much more saner, I do not believe Bush is without any wrong doing, the same goes with the Republican Party that I am apart of. I believe that they should have handled the Immigration thing alot faster than they have been doing, and if they had put it off any longer it would have killed the party. I believe that the whole thing that happened in Florida a year ago with what's her name and her husband wanting to take her off of life support, should never have happened. That it was just a bunch of Political Grand Standing and that the Party was just being a bunch of idiots.

I believe that both parties should have let Major League Baseball do it's own thing a few months back instead of holding all the hearings and crap. I believe that both parties should have taken a stronger and more active approach to prepare for the Bird Flu pandemic than just wait and see. Yet from what I have always argued is that we are a country of reactionist, and that we had finally gotten a President that wasn't a reactionist, yet still we need to do more than just wait, wait wait.

That all being said, the major arguments used against them always have two sides, the only problem being is that people take the stupidest things, such as the Mission Accomplished statement. And magnify it, when in reality the truth can be much more simpler than what it is made out to be. And you know if the Democrats were really smart, they would get out of this 'Bush Sucks' rut and start pounding on the real issues, talk about why the Borders weren't secure last year when we had to have Minute Men come down there and secure our borders. Talk about why we don't have enough Bird Flu vaccine and how you plan to get more, talk about Iran and how they pose a danger since everyone in the entire world except Russia and China seem to that.

Just talk about something, anything, except for 2004 soundbites. Eventually the party will have to since come 2008, Bush will be out of office and there will be someone running for Preisdent not named Bush that will be running for office.

Dark Dragonite
25th May 2006, 10:34 PM
Holy crip, it's a crapple!!
LOL
We actually aggree on something(Terri Schiavo and immigration)

I do, however have a theory... Look, Bush Sr. was in for 1 term, changed the supreme court justices up for Republicans... then the Democrats took over, but with Republican justices making life harder for their agenda...8yrs later, Bush Jr. takes over, changes justices to Republicans...only he almost blew it with his lady friend nomination...Jeb, the gov. of Florida has said he will not run in 2008...he won't...although he's out of office in January(term limits)...he may run for senate, or congress, his name is in decent standing down here, BUT...8yrs from the 2008 elections...2016...Jeb will run, and switch up the justices for Republicans again...just you wait and see...if you have the executive branch power, combined with the judiciary branch in your favor...guess what...you can do almost anything.

Systematic Revolution
25th May 2006, 10:46 PM
* Looks at Systematic Revolution's post and shakes his head * That is just sad, really really sad.

Anyway to answer something much more saner, I do not believe Bush is without any wrong doing, the same goes with the Republican Party that I am apart of. I believe that they should have handled the Immigration thing alot faster than they have been doing, and if they had put it off any longer it would have killed the party. I believe that the whole thing that happened in Florida a year ago with what's her name and her husband wanting to take her off of life support, should never have happened. That it was just a bunch of Political Grand Standing and that the Party was just being a bunch of idiots.

I believe that both parties should have let Major League Baseball do it's own thing a few months back instead of holding all the hearings and crap. I believe that both parties should have taken a stronger and more active approach to prepare for the Bird Flu pandemic than just wait and see. Yet from what I have always argued is that we are a country of reactionist, and that we had finally gotten a President that wasn't a reactionist, yet still we need to do more than just wait, wait wait.

That all being said, the major arguments used against them always have two sides, the only problem being is that people take the stupidest things, such as the Mission Accomplished statement. And magnify it, when in reality the truth can be much more simpler than what it is made out to be. And you know if the Democrats were really smart, they would get out of this 'Bush Sucks' rut and start pounding on the real issues, talk about why the Borders weren't secure last year when we had to have Minute Men come down there and secure our borders. Talk about why we don't have enough Bird Flu vaccine and how you plan to get more, talk about Iran and how they pose a danger since everyone in the entire world except Russia and China seem to that.

Just talk about something, anything, except for 2004 soundbites. Eventually the party will have to since come 2008, Bush will be out of office and there will be someone running for Preisdent not named Bush that will be running for office.


What, exactly, is sad?

Roy Karrde
25th May 2006, 10:50 PM
The only problem with that is that you cannot guess who will be elected President in 2008 or 12. There is a good possibility the Republicans will be able to win if they hold on to a stratagy of strong national defence * meaning Iran keeps doing what they are doing * and a healthy economy * meaning the Economy keeps doing what it is doing *. The only issue I can truely see happening in 08 would be Iran, and that being if we have already attacked, or if we are in the process of Sanctions. The Immigration bit will be over with, along with anything else that is happening right now. Infact I don't really even see Immigration playing too strong of a roll come the 06 elections since the Immigration bill is recieving Bi Partician approval.

Possibly, just possibly the Debt will play a part in the debate, but as long as it isn't effecting our economy, and as long as Bush keeps pointing back and saying "Hey I tried to lower spending this past year but X member of Congress attached a Amendment or Rider" then I doubt we will see too much of that. Like I said, America is too much of a reactionairy country, people wont care about things like the debt until it starts to effect them. That is when the question starts to come around of "Why didn't we do anything sooner." But in the spirit of Bi-Particianism in this thread, I gotta just say that the whole Terri Shiavo thing was the craziest, stupidest, and most crippling thing that I have ever seen happen to the Republican Party.

Edit: Systematic you're ranting like a Lunatic, going crazy about us attacking every country with Nukes, and how this is turning into the Holocaust. It would be funny if it didn't sound so crazy.

Systematic Revolution
25th May 2006, 11:02 PM
Well maybe if you would think about it for more than a second... So far we've turned a blind eye to our allies who have nukes. But anyone else who has nukes we start bitching.

Remember in elementary school when you and your friends would do something and then some kid you don't like would emulate you and you would just tell on him out of spite? Same concept. It doesn't last long, though. I'm not saying this is definitely going to happen. I'm just making a prediction. The US has turned to imperialism. Which is partly why I mentioned the constitution being thrown out the window. The other reasons obviously pertain to the breeching of our freedoms. The US will only allow other countries to have nuclear capabilities for so long. Most likely, the shit will hit the fan eventually. Either we will pull through okay and have a few extra countries and their resources at our disposal, or we'll be totally annihilated. No one really knows for sure. I'm only speculating.

And I never said it's turning into THE holocaust, I said it's turning into A holocaust. This is as much a war against terrorism as it is a crusade against the Arabs. G Dubya even said it himself in the beginning of the war--this is a holy crusade. Though he has no right to call it that... The fact that he did is scary. I'm not saying the circumstances are identical. Just that this is going to turn into an extermination of the Arabs if it keeps going in this direction. If some hardcore asshole in office next term, it could happen. I doubt there will be crematoriums and gas chambers. But we've already seen how some US soldiers (and others too) treat POWs. I am ashamed, in fact, that there are people from my country that are so inhuman. To treat another human being the way some of the soldiers treat them is just... absolutely disgusting. The entire idea of treating someone like shit because they are different is ridiculous as well. Racism is such a primitive and barbaric point of view. It's incredible how difficult it seems to be for the world to let go of it. We are all humans. And really to call Arabs a different "race" is silly as well. I know what dictionary.com says about race. But taht doesn't make it any less ridiculous. We're all part of the human race. I wish more people would start to adopt the idea that not everyone is out to get us.

Roy Karrde
25th May 2006, 11:11 PM
Well for one I would like for you to find me a quote of that, so that I can see it in the context of the speach. Second it isn't a crusade against the Arabian People. If it was we would not rely on our allies and the region, and if it was we would not be trying to deal with Iran through diplomatic channels. We would also have attacked Syria and Iran right after Iraq. We would also not be trying to rebuild Iraq right now, or working with other Arabian countries. We would be pressuring Isreal to attack Palistine instead of working against them. Yet I guess we just throw all that logic out the door right? Becuase it is eaiser to stick your head in the sand and say Bush is Bad, the US is bad, We are all Imperialist!

BTW may I ask which parts of the constitution have been thrown out the window? Can I no longer own a gun? Can I no longer own a Bible or a Korran? Can I no longer say what I want out in public with in reasonable boundries, Can I no longer publish something? If a Officer comes to my house, am I forced to give him my property? I'm just trying to find out so that I can adjust my way of life.

As for Imperialists, Dictionary.com first states that Imperialists are: The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition. So when did we aquire territory? Is Iraq the 51st state? Becuase I think I may vacation down there and I want to be sure that I don't have to bring a Passport.

Systematic Revolution
25th May 2006, 11:28 PM
Well for one I would like for you to find me a quote of that, so that I can see it in the context of the speach. Second it isn't a crusade against the Arabian People. If it was we would not rely on our allies and the region, and if it was we would not be trying to deal with Iran through diplomatic channels. We would also have attacked Syria and Iran right after Iraq. We would also not be trying to rebuild Iraq right now, or working with other Arabian countries. We would be pressuring Isreal to attack Palistine instead of working against them. Yet I guess we just throw all that logic out the door right? Becuase it is eaiser to stick your head in the sand and say Bush is Bad, the US is bad, We are all Imperialist!

I don't have a copy of it right now. Before my computer crashed I had it saved. I'm running Linux off of a disc right now so you'll have to wait until I repair Windows for the direct quote. Why wouldn't we rely on allies? Crusades passed through allied countries back in the middle ages and picked up people on the way from those countries. That's how it worked. This would be a crusade in the modern sense. Why wouldn't we rebuild Iraq? If we make it a US territory then we can profit from it. We aren't done in Iraq yet so whether we attack Syria and Iran remains to be seen. I'm not sticking my head in the sand, as you put it. I am making observations. There is a difference. I'm not saying the US is bad. I'm saying the way we are doing things is bad. And the US has a pretty lengthy list of examples of imperialism.


BTW may I ask which parts of the constitution have been thrown out the window? Can I no longer own a gun? Can I no longer own a Bible or a Korran? Can I no longer say what I want out in public with in reasonable boundries, Can I no longer publish something? If a Officer comes to my house, am I forced to give him my property? I'm just trying to find out so that I can adjust my way of life.

Well lets see... The Constitution mentions not being imperialistic... We are. It also mentions those simple freedoms like privacy and whatnot but who cares about those right? They don't really matter, of course. the basic freedoms on which the country was built upon are almost dust in the wind.


As for Imperialists, Dictionary.com first states that Imperialists are: The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition. So when did we aquire territory? Is Iraq the 51st state? Becuase I think I may vacation down there and I want to be sure that I don't have to bring a Passport.


Well need I mention that we have more territory than the states? Forgive me if I miss one or two... Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, Midway Islands, Wake Island, Johnston Atoll, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Kingman Reef, Narvassa Island, Palmyra Atoll, Federated States of Micronesia... Anyone who fails to realise that we own more land than just the continental US and Hawaii really needs a history lesson. Note: Imperialism doesn't necessarily mean territory acquired by force either. It can be bought or invaded. Are we forgetting the Louisiana Purchase and how we bought Manhattan for 60 guilders? How about driving the Indians out of their homes to gain more land? All examples of imperialism. Need I say more on this topic? I guess you missed those days in history class.

Roy Karrde
25th May 2006, 11:36 PM
So I ask you this, why would we make allies with the very people we are trying to exterminate? And why go after Syria? They agreed to disarm their Nukes so why is that even brought up? And if we were Imperialists why not just go after Iran? Unless, and wait for it. We are trying to stabalize the region a bit, through both Military and Democracy, and not trying to aquire territory. Also would you please point out where in the constitution we have a right to Privacy? Please what is it the 11th Amendment? The 12? C'mon I mean I studied the constitution and I don't remember seeing one in there. And you mentioned freedoms, and then just mentioned one thing.

Also I would like to ask where your idea of us being Imperialists came from, we have helped set up a Government in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of just aquiring the territory as the definition of Imperialists states. I mean if you believe invading and helping rebuild a country means that we are Imperialists. Then we were Imperialists during World War 2 when we invaded Germany and Japan and set up Governments there. Do you count that as Imperialism or does that not count?

Systematic Revolution
25th May 2006, 11:49 PM
So I ask you this, why would we make allies with the very people we are trying to exterminate? And why go after Syria? They agreed to disarm their Nukes so why is that even brought up? And if we were Imperialists why not just go after Iran? Unless, and wait for it. We are trying to stabalize the region a bit, through both Military and Democracy, and not trying to aquire territory. Also would you please point out where in the constitution we have a right to Privacy? Please what is it the 11th Amendment? The 12? C'mon I mean I studied the constitution and I don't remember seeing one in there. And you mentioned freedoms, and then just mentioned one thing.

*Ahem* Having studied the constitution, perhaps you are familiar with the 9th amendment? I believe the exact words are "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.". Which translates into "Just because it's not in the constitution does not mean it's not a right". Ever hear of "basic human rights?" Several supreme court cases have determined that the Constitution DOES in fact guarantee a right to privacy. And whose job is it to interpret? Oh yeah! That thing called the "Judicial Branch". History lesson, folks! How about Loving v Virginia, Griswold v Connecticut, Olmstead v US. All deal with the right to privacy in some form or another. The Supreme Court has found that the right to privacy appears in the Constitution in several pre-existing forms, in fact!. For example, the police are not allowed to search your home or papers without a warrant, which is a direct protection of privacy. And the majority of supreme court justices have found that the right to privacy has a right to be extended, as well. Tsk tsk, I expect better from someone who has "studied" the constitution. How sad. Ya know what? I studied the constitution for one nine weeks last school year! If you need more court cases, Google is at your disposal. I picked ones off the top of my head but you are welcome to search yourself.


Also I would like to ask where your idea of us being Imperialists came from, we have helped set up a Government in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of just aquiring the territory as the definition of Imperialists states. I mean if you believe invading and helping rebuild a country means that we are Imperialists. Then we were Imperialists during World War 2 when we invaded Germany and Japan and set up Governments there. Do you count that as Imperialism or does that not count?


I suggest you read my post directly above yours since obviously you missed my whole response to your ignorance of the history of US imperialism.

Roy Karrde
25th May 2006, 11:58 PM
You are also speaking of things that happened in the early 1800s, are we using Iraq as land acquisition? The point is that no we have not, we have not moved our people in and kicked the Iraqi's out, as we did in the events you mentioned. In turn we are helping them rebuild after ousting a tyrannical Government. Which would fall more in line with Nazi Germany, and Imperialist Japan, than the Louisanna Purchase. Now if you wanted to have a example of the Louisanna Purchase, we could have done something more along the line, of invading Iraq, taken the land, and said that it is now under the property of say Syria, that now all Iraqi's must move out and allow the Syrians in to build homes. Or we could have taken the land or bought the land and said that all Iraqi's must move out or live under U.S. rule and that U.S. citizens come first.

As for the argument against and for the Freedom of Privacy, the 9th Amendment is vague, it was ment to be vague, I will agree that there is room for a Right to Privacy in there. The problem is that it does not spell it out, and thus it could be interpreted several different ways. Which is the reason we allow Telephone Tapping, along with CCTV, and other things.

Systematic Revolution
26th May 2006, 12:11 AM
You are also speaking of things that happened in the early 1800s, are we using Iraq as land acquisition? The point is that no we have not, we have not moved our people in and kicked the Iraqi's out, as we did in the events you mentioned. In turn we are helping them rebuild after ousting a tyrannical Government. Which would fall more in line with Nazi Germany, and Imperialist Japan, than the Louisanna Purchase. Now if you wanted to have a example of the Louisanna Purchase, we could have done something more along the line, of invading Iraq, taken the land, and said that it is now under the property of say Syria, that now all Iraqi's must move out and allow the Syrians in to build homes. Or we could have taken the land or bought the land and said that all Iraqi's must move out or live under U.S. rule and that U.S. citizens come first.

1800s or not, the law still applies.


As for the argument against and for the Freedom of Privacy, the 9th Amendment is vague, it was ment to be vague, I will agree that there is room for a Right to Privacy in there. The problem is that it does not spell it out, and thus it could be interpreted several different ways. Which is the reason we allow Telephone Tapping, along with CCTV, and other things.


Here comes the clue train! Yes, it was meant to be vague. It was meant to counter arguments from assholes who say that we don't deserve basic rights. So far you aren't interpreting the constitution as it has been interpreted by the US Judicial Branch so really all this blather about no real right to privacy means squat. Ya know, wiretapping, oddly enough, IS illegal. I don't remember the exact court case. Something v US I think. Either way, it's illegal without a warrant. Just like search and seizure except under certain circumstances. Unfotunately, there are no "certain circumstances" when it comes to wiretapping. You need a warrant, regardless. Unfortunately, that law is broken every day.

Roy Karrde
26th May 2006, 12:18 AM
It's nice how you just flew past the first part, as for the second. The Supreme Court changes with every new Justice, and as such the interpretation of the Constitution changes. Unless you believe that Seperate But Equal is still right becuase the Supreme Court once said it so. Or that if you have a slave and they come onto free land, that they are still considered a Slave. Now yes Phone Tapping is illigal with out a Warrant, luckily now the FBI and CIA in their operations do not have to wade through the already clogged court system, and they have their own Courts they may approach to recieve a warrant. Doing so as allowed in the Patriot Act, does not violate Illigal Search and Seizure, but it does speed up the process and has allowed the capture of terror suspects that before would not have been possible.

Edit: Anyway debating this has taken away from work on the ASB RPG forum, work that should have taken minutes, took over a hour. So I have that and a Digimon Reunion post to get to, so I will probably not reply until tomorrow morning at the earliest.

Systematic Revolution
26th May 2006, 12:31 AM
It's nice how you just flew past the first part, as for the second. The Supreme Court changes with every new Justice, and as such the interpretation of the Constitution changes. Unless you believe that Seperate But Equal is still right becuase the Supreme Court once said it so. Or that if you have a slave and they come onto free land, that they are still considered a Slave. Now yes Phone Tapping is illigal with out a Warrant, luckily now the FBI and CIA in their operations do not have to wade through the already clogged court system, and they have their own Courts they may approach to recieve a warrant. Doing so as allowed in the Patriot Act, does not violate Illigal Search and Seizure, but it does speed up the process and has allowed the capture of terror suspects that before would not have been possible.{/quote]

Flew past the first part, yes. That was all that needed said. Laws apply until they are changed. wiretapping is still illegal without a warrant, unlawful search and seizure is still illegal without a warrant.

[quote]Edit: Anyway debating this has taken away from work on the ASB RPG forum, work that should have taken minutes, took over a hour. So I have that and a Digimon Reunion post to get to, so I will probably not reply until tomorrow morning at the earliest.


Kay. Evil Fluffy Puff?

EDIT: Fixed my screwed up quote-job, eheheh.

Roy Karrde
26th May 2006, 12:35 AM
Gahh, I couldnt resist. I'm a Fluffy Puff becuase I was initiated into Kalah's group called the Fluffy Puffs. Check VP, Bulbasaur4, and others for Fluffy Puffs too. As for being Evil, I just got done watching Gargoyles episodes a few weeks ago, the man you see in my Avatar is the main villain on there, and he is also a Shade of Grey type evil. So I figured I would get a Xanatos Avatar and go with Evil Fluffy Puff. I could always go back to my Hazing name of: Pretty Princess x.x

Dark Dragonite
26th May 2006, 12:54 AM
I was looking for the quote, found this...interesting...

"Like any crusade, the War in Iraq, has its rituals, its saints, its sacraments, its relics, its holy writs and its holy martyrs.

Last Sunday, Iraqis stood in line to take the sacrament. Instead of marking their foreheads with ashes, as Christians will do next Wednesday, they dipped their fingers in blue ink - as proof that they had come to the holy place and been sanctified. Whatever sins they had committed in that benighted era before the U.S. invasion were cast out. Now they were democrats, solemnly marking their sacred ballots with the sign of the cross."

We are making them Christian...hence...a Holy War...fighting for land(to be controlled by someone we can be buddies with, and changing their religion...didn't we do this to the Native Americans too?)

"My reaction was about that arrognat Quote of Mr. Bush given the impression america invended democracy. I think its a terrible thing Bush said democracy is the gift from God to humanity because it shows he is using God as excuse and explaination for his actions. Who is he to speak in the name of god? Thats the same talk people like Bin Laden use saying they are fighting in the name of God. Just like Bush points out every chance he has, that america is fighting in the name of God. God(if he exsists) makes no War people do. And i get mad at people using religion as an excuse to go to War and i dont care if thats a Bin Laden or a Bush. Using religion to achive a political goal/power is just disgusting! Also that he points out this is a holy crusade makes me sick since he doesnt seem to know what terrible things happened during those crusades in the middle ages."

This is true, he is constantly "speaking with God" or getting messages of what we should do from "God"...which leaves no room for those who believe in religious freedom, even if it means atheism...

This I found, made a lot of sense...:

"The Democrats' dislike for religion may have the same roots. Wooing religious voters with religious appeals seems too much like sleeping with the enemy--the very enemy that struck on 9/11. What the rest of the world is seeing when they look at George Bush and Osama bin Laden are two opponents of the same basic kind, both in agreement that this is a Holy Crusade. Hardly a reassuring thought, because these are precisely the terms that Political Islam would like to use in the discussion. They're still angry about the medieval Crusades, and they want to fight them all over again. "

Heald
26th May 2006, 05:49 AM
Woah, I go to sleep for a few hours, wake up and find this.

That's it, I'm not touching this with a ten-foot pole, you're on your own guys. Have fun.

Chris
26th May 2006, 01:49 PM
I was looking for the quote, found this...interesting...

"Like any crusade, the War in Iraq, has its rituals, its saints, its sacraments, its relics, its holy writs and its holy martyrs.

Last Sunday, Iraqis stood in line to take the sacrament. Instead of marking their foreheads with ashes, as Christians will do next Wednesday, they dipped their fingers in blue ink - as proof that they had come to the holy place and been sanctified. Whatever sins they had committed in that benighted era before the U.S. invasion were cast out. Now they were democrats, solemnly marking their sacred ballots with the sign of the cross."

We are making them Christian...hence...a Holy War...fighting for land(to be controlled by someone we can be buddies with, and changing their religion...didn't we do this to the Native Americans too?)


Um, yeah, I think you completely missed the analogy there. It's as if you saw the words "Iraqis" and "Christians" and skipped the rest of the paragraph.

Dark Dragonite
26th May 2006, 02:43 PM
Um, yeah, I think you completely missed the analogy there. It's as if you saw the words "Iraqis" and "Christians" and skipped the rest of the paragraph.


No, I was looking for the crusade quote Bush was supossed to have said, and found this article...How many Christians are in Iraq?

RELIGIONS
Islam
23,00,000 92%
Shi'i
14,000,000 56%
Sunni
9,000,000 36%
Christianity
1,300,000 5.2%
Nestorians
750,000 3%
Chaldean Catholics
420,000 1.7%
Syrian Catholics
100,000 0.4%
Armenian Orthodox
20,000 0.08%
Other Christians
10,000 0.04%
Yazidis
500,000 2%
Ahl-e Haqq
200,000 0.8%
Mandeans
30,000
Shabak
70,000 <0.1%
Baha'i
3,000 <0.1%
Judaism
2,500 <0.1%
http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?p=91538&mode=linear
There is a similar article, read it, tell me it's off

Roy Karrde
26th May 2006, 02:52 PM
The only use of the word Crusade that I could find from any speach came a few days after 9/11 when Bush said. "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile." No mentioning of Arabs, no mentioning of Muslims, just a Crusade on Terrorism. Infact any worrying that he was mentioning Muslims when talking about Terrorism would be washed away by his next comment in which he said infront of a Islamic Center in Washington, in which he said. "the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about." So can we please stop this shit that he said there will be a Crusade against Arabs, Muslims, or anything else but Terrorism. Unless of course you want to make the blanket statement and draw a line that connects all Arabs and Muslims with Terrorism. Yet that would be racist and I doubt anyone here would dare make that statement.

Dark Dragonite
26th May 2006, 04:54 PM
I wouldn't make that statement, but I seem to remember him saying The axis of evil included Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, 2 of 3 are heavily islamic areas, then you throw in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan... I haven't seen Bush try to invade North Korea to rid them of Nukes, aren't they unstable, and run by a dictator who is starving his people?
What ever happened to Cuba? Aren't they enemies as well? I'm sure Castro has no problem funding terrorism that hurts the US, we haven't gone after 2 major countries, I guess it's a coincidence they aren't countries with heavy Muslim numbers.
What about France, and Russia, who supplied Saddam with weapons to hurt our attempt to liberate Iraq?
Not even a slap on the wrist?

Look at the rest of Bush's actions, Christianity is against homosexuality...he has forefronted legislation that makes gay marriages not legal...but apparently Christians have nothing to fear from guns, I guess gay people kill more Americans than guns do...
He's trying to get legislation to make abortions illegal...obviously it is frowned upon in Christianity...
His agenda is sounding like when the colonies first came, which was for religious freedom, then we had to kill and/or convert those savages who had no claims on the land they lived on first.

Roy Karrde
26th May 2006, 05:14 PM
If you remember, around 2004 we were preparing actions against North Korea, but even with Nukes they pretty much have no way to launch them. Unlike Iran, their military is basically non existant when it comes to technology, and for the last ten or so years. They do the same thing, every few years they rattle their sabers, the UN gives them more stuff, and they shut up. It's a game but it keeps them in their place.

As for Cuba, one of the agreements of the Cuban Crisis of the 60s, the US signed a Treaty with Cuba in that we would never attempt or play in any attempt to overthrow Cuba. So we have to go on and wait till Castro dies and then hope for a better replacement.

For France and Russia, the extent of what France did is still under question, we know that they supplied Saddam with funds by abusing the Oil for Food Program, and we know that Russia supplied Saddam with weapons most likely before the 1991 invasion. After that Russia continued to supply Saddam with funds, and we know that right before the start of the 2003 invasion, Russia supplied Saddam with spy information on US forces. Since there is no proof that Russia supplied Saddam with any weaponry post 1991 * Most likely it was destroyed or moved out right before the invasion * there is no way we could persue or bring Russia up on charges.

Bush's actions in 2003 and 2004 were more designed to pander to the far far right, which in turn helped him with the election. He knew as well as everyone else, that legislation against gay marriages wouldn't pass, the same with illegal abortions. Mostly becuase the conservative base of the party like myself, is more inclined to allow the states to pass laws that would either allow or not allow gay marraiges and abortions, and take the power of those decisions out of the Federal Government, and put it in the hands of the voters of the states instead.

Systematic Revolution
26th May 2006, 07:11 PM
Waiting for Fidel Castro to die could take forever... By all rights, he should be dead by now! He's like a hundreds years old! (Exaggaration)

It would be like waiting a round for a perfectly healthy macaw to die when the macaw was born on the same day as you--chances are you'll die before the damn bird :)

Dark Dragonite
26th May 2006, 07:38 PM
Date of Birth: 13 August 1926(some sources say 1927)
that would make him 80 this August, not horribly old, for a leader? yes... My grandmother lived that long, not incredibly hard to do...

Roy, remember, his son, Fidel Castro Diaz-Balart, born in 1949, has served as head of Cuba's atomic energy commission. He could be the perfect replacement...

"A member of the social-democratic Ortodoxo party in the late 1940s and early 1950s, Castro was an early and vocal opponent of the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. On July 26, 1953, Castro led an attack on the Moncada army barracks that failed but brought him national prominence. At the time, his political ideas were nationalistic, antiimperialist, and reformist; he was not a member of the Communist party. Following the attack on Moncada, Castro was tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison but was amnestied in 1955. He then went into exile in Mexico, where he founded the 26th of July Movement, vowing to return to Cuba in order to fight against Batista. In December 1956, he and 81 others, including Che Guevara, returned to Cuba and made their way to the Sierra Maestra, from which they launched a successful guerrilla war. Castro proved himself a strong leader; he also demonstrated shrewd political skills, convinced that he had a historic duty to change the character of Cuban society. Seeing his army collapse, and unable to count on the support of the United States, Batista fled on Jan. 1, 1959, paving the way for Castro's rise to power. In its early phase, Castro's revolutionary regime included moderate politicians and democrats; gradually, however, its policies became radical and confrontational. Castro remained the unchallenged leader, and the masses--whose living conditions he improved--rallied behind him. "

Castro was not originally communist...he was "social-democratic"...

Roy Karrde
26th May 2006, 07:42 PM
The problem though is that no matter what we do, our hands are virtually tied with Castro. We can't really do anything, and we monitor everything he does so he can't really do anything. So until some one in Cuba is stupid enough to try anything, or smart enough to realize that communism has failed them. All we can do is sit on our butts, make sure they play nice, and work on problems elsewhere.

Systematic Revolution
26th May 2006, 10:22 PM
I just find it hard to believe that he could live so long. He's reputed to have a rather unhealthy lifestyle...

Dark Dragonite
27th May 2006, 12:08 AM
Unfortunately, we are constantly lied to...I believe I heard about Saddam being ill, and near dead...and Osama has renal failure, so he'll be dead soon as well...excuses...

Dark Dragonite
28th May 2006, 08:55 AM
WTF is he doing now?

"NEW YORK (AP) - The Bush administration has asked federal judges in New York and Michigan to dismiss a pair of lawsuits filed over the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program, saying litigating them would jeopardize state secrets.

In papers filed late Friday, Justice Department lawyers said it would be impossible to defend the legality of the spying program without disclosing classified information that could be of value to suspected terrorists."

"The government's motion, widely anticipated, involves two cases challenging an NSA program that allows investigators to eavesdrop on Americans who communicate with people outside the country suspected of terrorist ties.

In New York, the Center for Constitutional Rights has asked a judge to stop the program, saying it was an abuse of presidential power. The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups filed a similar lawsuit in Detroit.

For decades, U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies have been required to seek court approval before using electronic surveillance on Americans. That was not done by the NSA in the program at issue, but President Bush has said the eavesdropping was made legal by a congressional resolution passed after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."

My step-mom talks to her family in Russia, she probably gets spied on too, it's BS, the blanket of "suspected with terrorist ties" who determines who is suspect, and why...it's way too broad of a generalization, like me going to McDonald's and saying I would like to order food. If they are only looking for middle-easterners...isn't that racial profiling?

"Shayana Kadidal, an attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights, called the administration's motion "undemocratic.""

Ample safeguards could be put in place to allow the case to continue without disclosing classified information, he said. The center has also argued that the court already has enough information to decide whether the program was legal.

"The Bush administration is trying to crush a very strong case against domestic spying without any evidence or argument," Kadidal said in a written statement. "Can the president tell the courts which cases they can rule on? If so, the courts will never be able to hold the president accountable for breaking the law."

Systematic Revolution
29th May 2006, 12:01 AM
Somehow, some people still don't understand how fascist that really is. It's disgusting.

Roy Karrde
29th May 2006, 12:24 AM
fas·cist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshst)
n.
often Fascist An advocate or adherent of fascism.
A reactionary or dictatorial person.

fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.


My question is how is that oppressive? or socioeconomic control? Or suppressing opposition through terror or censorship? Well actually that is three questions I guess. Anyway my true question is why does this matter to anyone? The step mom that talks to her family in Russia most likely wont get listened in on, mostly becuase Russia doesnt have a history of Islamic Terrorism activities. So really guys what is the big problem with this? If you are calling someone in say Iran, yeah you will most likely get listened in on, if you are calling say your Sister in Iran, they will listen one time, realize it is nothing and drop it. Now if say you are calling a Mosque leader in Iran and saying something like "The Bird Flys at Midnight" or "Bush doesn't even suspect what's coming to him" then yeah the Government may start looking into that.

Basically the argument for it boils down to: If you are doing nothing wrong, why do you even care? The people against it sound like the same people that hate having cameras in intersections becuase it will catch them running red lights. Instead the difference being here that instead of speeders, this is catching Drug Smugglers, Terrorists, and who knows maybe even Pedophiles that are trying to get trips out of the country to countries with less strict laws on that sort of stuff. So really, if you're not doing anything wrong, why does anyone care?

Systematic Revolution
31st May 2006, 11:44 PM
You rely a lot on dictionary.com. It's not always entirely right. Especially in this instance. Fascism = country before people.

Hmm. This is why our privacies are disappearing. People who, like you, think "oh who cares if they hear what I'm saying it doesn't matter how private the matter is." You really want some asshole government official listening in on your conversation for shits and kicks? If you even think that there isn't a single one of them there that might listen in on phone calls just to do it rather than for business and defense purposes you're shittin' yourself big time. For every honest politician/government official there are three corrupt ones. Not good odds. Haha, if everyone thought like you do we'd be just like the Iraqis were--No freedom at all! How sad. In your attempt to make me see "the light" as I guess you seem to see it... You forget the dark. You have got to be the most persistently optimistic person I have ever met. The US is teetering upon the edge of a knife over a landmine, figuratively speaking. And you are just too blind to see the peril. You don't seem to understand that once one priviledge is revoked, there will be even more taken right out from under us in the name of "national safety". But even then you will probably still see nothing as being wrong.

Ultimate Charizard
1st June 2006, 12:07 AM
Well i dont know the details and im too lazy to look them up but apparently there is an investigation coming to a close looking into a suspected cold blooded murder of men, women and children in an Iraqi town by a US marine squad which had recently lost a man to an attack on their convoy.
Theyre calling it the worst slaughter since Vietnam.

Like i said i dont have the details. But if this is true then it kinda proves the point i originally tried to make. There are some 'men' that just shouldnt be soldiers.

Roy Karrde
1st June 2006, 12:43 AM
And here is the problem, you on the other hand are incredibly paranoid. Most of the people including myself do not have the time to care if a Government agent is listening in on a long range call to Iran, Iraq, or anywhere else in the Middle East, what will they do with the information anyway? How can we not know that they have always listened? They have obviously had the means, does that make you use your cell any less? Will you start to talk in code to your friends in fear of them listening? If they listen what does it matter to you. That should be the question at heart. You will never meet this person that is listening, you would never know that a person is listening, you can never know, nor should you care. We have bigger problems in our lives right now than caring about if some one is listening to make sure you or some one else is not about to comitt a terrorist act in the United States.

You talk about the dark, what about the dark that could have been brought upon the United States and other countries from Terrorist, Criminals, or any number of things. All of these were prevented by this program. Yet you would rather care about someone listening in as you talk to your aunt thousands of miles away, than care about the lives that were saved from this program. Atleast that is what I gather.

You talk about being too blind to see the peril, well I could place you in the same catagory. You are too blind to see the problem, to see the problems that have arosen in the last years. In that we cannot be blind as we were in the 1990s, that blindness has a price in blood. The difference between our so called blindness, is that the one you label for me, leads to no bloodshed, infact it prevents more blood shed from taking place. You on the other hand, your blindness and withdrawl of harmless countermeasures, leads to the preventable bloodshed of innocent lives. Which Blindness is worse?

Also I just use Dictionary.com becuase it is a easy and mostly reliable source, if you have a better one than link me to it and I'll check it out.

Edit: Yeah I agree with you on that, those men are monsters if they are guilty. Yet at the same time lets keep a clear head on this. Back in the Vietnam era, alot of finger pointing took place before the facts were revealed. I would rather have a full investigation happen and a distinction drawn between these soldiers and the ones that are the true heros and serve faithfully. If we don't have the patience to see that, then I fear that we will regress back to Vietnam era activities, in which Pissed Off Civilians attack wounded Soldiers and Soldiers that have served faithfully for their country, just becuase they have worn a uniform.

Dark Dragonite
1st June 2006, 01:09 AM
Right now, they're also investigating NO GUN RI...where a letter supossedly was sent to the president, who has denied this, that if anyone tries to cross your line, shoot to kill, somewhere between 100-400 died, mostly women, and children, unarmed, trying to escape the war...

Also, a pregnant women, and her friend were killed recently, as they sped through a US stop...I see how it could be interpreted as danger...but oye...