cbacon

wow.

*scratches head and leaves*

I wish I lived in Vancouver :>(

Pressure from the Egyptian populace is as much responsible as any diplomatic pressure, but still, this amounts to basically no change at all. At the end of the day Mubarak's lock on power is iron-clad.

ol.

Oh yeah? That so?

I just bought Bret/Piper. Best $1.49 i;ve ever spent

The American government isn't correcting a mistake and has yet to admit to one. Their simply re-affirming what they sent Saddam in to do in the first place. And sorry doesn't bring back the dead.

Didn't say that. Exactly, and they should also be codemned It wasn't their intention to stage military coups for democratically elected governments? Yeah, they sure were looking out for the best interests in places like Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala when they helped attack soft targets and innocent civilians. That what? They were a reaction to US foriegn policy? They were, as Jingus so helpfully pointed out. Of course that's just one aspect in a line of many. Not like the Arab world dosen't have a right to be pissed or anything. If your trying to allude in some way that I feel the actions of 9/11 were deserved, then I suggest you stop there. I do. I refrain from flaiming and pety insults unless provoked, and when dealing with the likes of Mike, that can be hard to do. I stand by what I say because I believe it to be true. Why should I hold back? I don't think many Liberals take these concerns as serious given their huge implications. It concerns me what the geopolitical landscape will look like 10, 20, 50 years from now as a result of the actions being taken now. O On the contrary, the things that I bring up are often overlooked. Despite the dissent movement in the States, the majority still has no qualms with the actions being taken, and many don't know or even care. This is a dangerous sceanario and everyone should be aware of whats going on in their name.

But the argrument is that it would be costly and ineffective. We don't need it so we shouldn't adopt it. So places like Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc. are going to sit by idley while the dominant superpower builds BMD capabilities and mililtarize space? Thats quite naive. I wouldn't want to invest billions of dollars in something that's 1% effective. If you say so... Right.

Well thats just simply not true. I point out what are very valid concerns regarding US foriegn policy, past and present. Thus, I strongly disagree with the way the country is being run, but that dosen't make me Anti-American. It's like saying if I oppose the policies of my elected representatives here in Canada, that i'm anti-Canadian. When, have I ever gone out of my way to attack the US without a valid reason? The major issues i'm critical of are it's current "War on Terror" and the crimes that the country has committed since the end of the WWII, mostly in Central America. Should I just ignore this even though it's a concern? Given the fact that we're dealing with the world's greatest super power making such reckless decisions, it should be the concern of everyone. While the US wouldn't be my first choice, I'd certainly rather live there than North Korea. Why you brought up such an absurd and irrelevant argument though, i'd like to know. Psst, if you can't tell i'm generally against countries that build up weapons and commit human rights violations. Enlighten me, how am I 'actively hating' rather then disagreeing? Hmm? Drawing parallels with Hitler now? Please. Don't think I ever used the word evil to describe the US. Hmm. I'm not sure what your asking here. Should I post reasons why I like America everytime I make a criticism of it? Pictures of flowers and bunny rabbits perhaps? I didn't realize being hostile towards a certain aspect of a particular nation would strike up such a label.

Yes Vyce, criticism of US foriegn policy makes everyone self-righteous. Of course. You can observe the US psyche by the actions they carry out. If Americans think that they're the good guys, no matter what situation or what disaster they cause, is that being self righteous? Of course it is.

Ah, this is a good spin-off from the missle defense thread.

This was the reason given in Bush's address. The primary reason. The typical American was made to believe this, and this alone. Because the other reasons such as humanitarian issues do not suffice, because the US still supports other dictators. Other countries can be guilty of this. Dosen't exempt the US though. Historically, we've seen the US take such pre-emptive action, so a nuclear strike isn't out of the question. The frog thing is a racial slur. It's not so much being self-righteous than it is being critical of US foriegn policy. The majority of Canadians believe this. As does most of the world and a large number of Americans. Are those that oppose these policies in your country thus self-righteous? But of course these threats will be exagerrated to get the public to buy in to whatever your administration does. We've seen it time and time again. If you can get people to believe that Iraq, a country that posed no threat to you was about to attack, then you can easily get people to believe that North Korea is about to attack tomorrow morning, regardless if it's true or not.

Except for those times they did the triple title match gimmick. and there is no such rule considering how often People have held two titles at once. They just havent had a champion vs champion match as high profile as WM6 since. Correction: Stupid WWE Rule #8743: Can't have a guy with a singles title wrestling another guy with a World title for the World title, unless a stipulation is that the titles are being unified (rule implemented after Wrestlemania 6). No Mercy 03 HHH(World Champ) vs. Kane( IC Champ) The titles were unified.

Ok, but I think it's safe to say that the Earth is older than 10,000 years, right? That's my personal belief. Again, the whole hangup I have with the 10,000 years thign is that I know a ton of people who would say "A day for God is eons for us". I don't think the whole 10,000 years thing is completely accurate. Alright, so according to them 10,000 years in God's time = 4.55 billion years in ours. Fair enough. Scientific fact still pretty much states the Earth is 4.55 billion years old in 'our time' regardless of the God/Human conversion scale.

He was on the inside from '81 to '89 as vice president. Not to mention other top administration officials who were part of the Reagan years who are part of Bush II.

Rudo should post in CE more often. Balance things out a bit.

Ok, but I think it's safe to say that the Earth is older than 10,000 years, right?

Does that matter? Like Common Dreams, the articles derive from other places.

http://www.refuseandresist.org/culture/art.php?aid=1493 Boon, in regards to your query regarding what else besides stem cell research that religion dictates in policy, you can also look at gay rights and women's reproductive rights in addition to many of the points outlined in the article above.

I disagree with the context, which attempts to downplay 9/11 by justifying it. But we've been through this before, haven't we? Speaking of context, I believe your getting it mixed up again if you believe they 'justify' the 9/11 attacks by saying it was right for them to occur. It's a difference between justifying reason and action. But I guess we've been through this before too. *nods*

I'm not saying that's the case for the majority of Americans, or the reason for going to war. But there are a large number of evangilists who believe this. I suppose im talking about the extreme fanatics who believe this stuff, but moderates still share some their ideology.

I forgot to mention that they were simply freedom fighters fighting the power. My bad. Ok, and I agree with the statement you quoted, which is that it was indeed a response, which you disagree with. I asked you if it wasn't a response to US foreign policy, then what was it? Oh, neat. And while the articles they post do have a tendency to be far left, it's hard to argue much of what they're saying. Some are extreme left, but most of what they post derive from reputable sources and publications.