Is this what you'd expect from your Military?

[Roy Karrde]

* 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]

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]

* 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[quote=Roy Karrde ]
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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/showt...38&mode=linear
There is a similar article, read it, tell me it's off

[Roy Karrde]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I just find it hard to believe that he could live so long. He's reputed to have a rather unhealthy lifestyle...

[Dark Dragonite]

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]

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]

Somehow, some people still don't understand how fascist that really is. It's disgusting.

[Roy Karrde]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...