cbacon

I'd go to Wilco/Flaming Lips

In kayfabe terms, Guerrero still has the better team.

How bizarre. I've never heard a Bright Eyes song on the radio.

30 minutes on treadmills during the week. I work arms and shoulders one day, chest and back the next.

- Create a fed - Multi-player seasons - Online seasons - Classic wrestler themes, rings, PPV sets (WWE, WCW, ECW, NWA etc)

Can someone explain to me how Kenny came back from the dead?

Or, trying to prevent it. Iraq at the top of the Isalmofacism list is a fallacy.

keelebasa, your allllllright.

Wow. Lot of work here. Ok then *takes deep breath*, here we go…. Fuckhead? C'mon Bob, i'm sure you could find better insults to use just by watching your favourite pre-teen movies. That seems your area of expertise, this nullifying anything you say here as the same old conservative drivel that helps to put a happy face on the massacre thats going on in Iraq. Of course your being subjective, 9/11 is going to mean more to you than the war on Iraq is going to mean on the famalies that lost loved ones. Your ignorance is truly remarkable and further exemplifies the epedemic that only cares what happens in our part of the world. Of course you blatntatly ignore what I said about the ramifications of the election and still imply that i'm more pissed off at the literal act of Bush being re-elected. I'd re-iterate the part you quoted, but it would either fall on deaf ears, or your blatant lack of understanding will misconstrue the message yet again. If I were you, I’d be pissed off that my President used 9/11 to exploit peoples emotion’s in order to wage war on a Third World country. The real impact of this election won't be seen until 10 years from now... Boo hoo. There's a reason why we didn't go to this unjust war and why the world is against it. Your diehard conservative attitude has distorted your view of reality as you grasp for straws to find justification. So your not getting any sympathy. Oh, the irony. Nothing anyone has posted here has made the war against these nations justifiable. None. But if your view of democracy is whats going on in Iraq right now, I pity you. On the contrary, it means i'm sick to my stomach of what will happen in the next four years as a result of Bush being re-elected. I feel the sick feeling everytime I read of the huge humanitarian crisis thats going on the country. But if images like this make you feel better about whats going on in the world, it's clear here who really disregards the value of human life. Re: It's unfortunate and unccessary. I can tell you right now the civilian deathswould not be on the same level as they are now. Nevermind that Saddam could have been removed without going to war (which i'll get to later). And obviously the civilian casulaties is in fact, a non issue. Why, all we have to do is look at what happened this past week. They're targeting hospitals. A good way to make sure your enemy cannot rejuvenate, but what about the civilians? This tactic is also illegal in adherence to the Geneva Convention, but hey, fuck that too right? In regards to the casualty numbers, there's a reason we never hear an exact number. We rarely we hear of them, and they aren't officially tabulated and the US estimations are significantly lower than that of everyone elses. So by that token, the actual death toll seems to be closer to the hundreds of thousands than it does of the ttens of thousands. You might as well be blowing up the entire Middle East with that attitude. Civilians will be taken down, but as along the terrorists are marginally taken care of, everything will be all right. Ah yes, the Afghani elections, a prime example of the US history of creatign a de factor President into foreign nation with little to no opposition. Sure, there were a dozen names on the ballot, but who were they exactly? And who was voted in? Why, just who the American's wanted, Hamed Karzai, and his willingness to comply with the planned Unocal pipeline. Of course the country is still in shambles, but as long as their government remains the US lap dog, i'm sure there will be great strides that benefit the people. Nevermind the election process was a farce, with many people having multiple votes. Funny how the only person that is claiming the elections to be fair, is Karzai himself. Iraq remains to be seen, but we already know that territories will not be represented and various Sunni groups are protesting it. How legitimate will they be if only part of the country is allowed, or part of the country is willing to partipate in this? When the people of Iraq were asked their opinion of the US occupation: - 1% thought the US invaded to bring democracy, 50% felt that the US wants democracy in Iraq. The full response is that the US wants to establish a democratic government but will not allow Iraqi’s to do without the US pressure and influence. Ah, that wonderful democracy, how convenient. Democracy is fine, but only if you do what your told. (see also: Haiti) More facts (Oxford Research, btw): - less than 1% worry about occupation forces actually leaving - 60 % want Iraqi’s to be in charge of security - 79% have no confidence in US/UK forces Nominal sovereignty is a deliciously appeasing term. Bush did not put a cap on international terrorism, he merely inticed more of it. Had Iraq had a hand in 9/11 the world might be a bit more forgiving. Yes there is differences in each concept, but the ideology of the Bush admin. is posing a threat to millions, and the collateral damage will suffer through these reckless and unjust actions. Fanatical Islams do, yes. But now your generalizing. It's the result of the MINORITY suffering under Western exploitation. The common misconception is that ALL Muslims are extremists and violent and generally barbaric. Gotta love the media for portraying this lovely stereotype. If somone attacks a mosque in the name of Judaism or a Christian commits a hate crime against a Muslim community, are thse reflective of their beliefs as a whole. Islam, the word itself derives from the root worde meaning peace. They'll fight, but like Christinaity it will be in defense (i'm not condoning terrorist attacks here, just providing rationale towards their stance). Fundamentalists will mis-interpret and twist the Quran to their favor for their own ideological purposes. Christanity is also terribly guilty of this in relation to the Bible. The core basics of Islam, promote peace. See, thats your problem, your trying to label me as such. I don't go around looking for unjust reasons for every questionable move the US makes. But when it becomes so blatant and detrimental it's terribly hard to find any good. Am I bitter? No, i'm deeply concerned that the route your government is taking the world down. Except the accident was the result of a war that was totally unjustifiable. Would what you just said be any concellation for the famalies those already dead? That they died in 'some accident' and 'an attack' . Your trying to dictate how people should feel about having a loved one killed. Here's news for you, they feel the same no matter what, and in both cases, the deaths are in vain. Both examples are unjust acts. Both are the results of an out of control tyrant. What I said was in relation to the mindset of many. The majority of Bush supporters will have that kind of attitude. And why not? 70% that voted for him still believe that Iraq had WMD and they had a hand in 9/11. It's downright scary. I lumped these quote together for the sake of convenience so we can take a look at the 'grander scheme of things' as it relates US intentions and Iraq/Saddam Hussien. When Iraq was first invaded, oil installations were immediately seized. The second largest oil reserves are now safe again for the world market and global oil companies. Controlling Iraq means that the US is in a position to extend it’s domination of the major energy resources of the world. This much is known to be true. In short, Iraq has become the “Petri dish” (thank you NY Times) in this experiment for pre-emptive policy. Next on the list, Iran. Words like “liberation” and “democracy” will be used as a pretext for whatever else happens. The problem with Iraq is handing it over to the people and leaving without any US ‘guidance’ will prove to be an unwise move from the US standpoint. With a Shiite majority, strides will be made to improve relations with Iran. Preventive war falls within the category of war crimes. Any country has the potential to produced WMD, the intent is in the eye of the beholder. How low will the bar go to take measures such as this? The US has outlined their global management since WWII. The premise is to basically containing the centers of global power within the overall framework of order and to be able maintain control of the world’s energy supplies. Cheney, Rumsfeld and co. are officially declaring an even more extreme policy that aims at permanent global hegemony by reliance on force where necessary. Another threat to humanity is the ridiculous need to militarize space and create ballistic missile defense systems. This of course, will facilitate the more effective application of US military power abroad and will make it easier for the US to shape environment. Is this really meant to protect America, or a means to secure dominance? After all, building up arms is counter productive in the sense that other nations will follow suit, and create a ripple effect around the world. Not to mention the US is one of only a few countries that refuses to sign any treaties that will prevent moves such as this. Why are so many skeptical over the situation in Iraq? Why do so many people question the actions of the US government? All you need to go is look at the past. The US itself has committed acts of terrorism and aided terrorists in the name of ‘democracy’. Look at the 80’s, where the two main foci on the war on terror were Central America and the Middle East. In Central America, the terrorists were infact the US themselves, helping to aid Contras that attacked soft targets in Nicaragua, including the fact they were trying to oust their democratically elected government. All you need to do is look at El Salvador, Panama, Cuba etc. for more indication. According the official definition of terror, this would make the US literally the leading terrorist state. Additionally, anyone that opposes their ideology is deemed a terrorist. Look at US and Israel. They regard Hezbollah as a leading terrorist organization, not because of the terrorist acts they commit, but because it was formed to resist the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, and succeeded in driving out invaders after two decades of defiance of Security Council orders to withdraw. So basically, anyone that resists US aggression is defined as a terrorist (South Vietnam, Iraq). One of the single worst atrocities occurred during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the 80’s. Now, I’m certainly not condoning the acts of Palestinian terrorists, or any terrorism for that matter. But the fact remains that the US supplied Israelis with the power and arms for invasions such as this and operations such as this add to the US record of state-supported international terrorism. You only have to look at the car bombings in Beirut and the bombing of Tunisians for more examples. Terrorist networks can be weakened. This happened to al-Qaeda after 9/11, thanks to strong police work notable in places like Germany and Pakistan. Delicate social and political problems can not be ‘bombed’ away. It’s counter productive. It entices terrorism. Al-Qaeda recruitment dwindled after 9/11 but shot up after the Iraqi invasion, so using the argument that ‘they were going to join anyway’ is a fallacy. The actions of the Bush admin. have made the world much less safe for Americans in this sense. The actions taken has increased radical fundamentalism around the world, and its growing concern would not be an issue in the first place, had years of previous foreign policy not occurred. The war has created a new terrorist haven, Iraq itself. Terrorism is born of fear, resentment and powerlessness in the face of massive expansion from the West. And what really has changed since 9/11? The US STILL supports dictatorships of Central Asia, yet they use the argument of removing another dictator as a means for going to war. This is why there is so much hostility and how Islamic Fundamentalism spreads, since the US supports every possible anti-democratic government in the Islamic world. Terms like ‘freedom’ and democracy’ cannot be taken seriously. Egypt is a prime example amongst many, where the human rights record is atrocious, but they’re ok to support since they’re so vital to US interests. If unseating people like Saddam was really a top priority for war, why wasn’t he taken out years ago? The motive the Bush admin. keeps spewing is similar to that of Hitler of 1939. Now no one is going to draw a parallel to the level of threat between these two now are they? The motives for declaring war on Hitler were honorable, so was the removal of Saddam but this was not the reason for war to begin with was it? Of course Bush would have the American public believe that he did indeed have a hand in 9/11, as I mentioned before, many still do, no matter how much evidence proves otherwise. Regieme change does not mean a regime that Iraqi’s will prefer, but one that the US imposes, and calling it ‘democratic’. Throw in a seemingly unstable “election” in a couple of months, and you have a nice little occupied nation and energy reserves occupied. Mission accomplished! Of course the twelve years of economic sanctions only strengthened Saddams regime, thus the people depended on him for survival is usually a fact that’s overlooked. Had the Iraqi’s had their economy and lives back, the Shiite majority would have almost certainly rebelled and overthrown him in. There is reason to believe that if the sanctions had been directed at PREVENTING weapons programs rather than administering them in the manner the US demanded, the population of Iraq could have been able to send Saddam to the same fate as others supported by the US. Tyrants like Ceausescu, Marcos and Chun Doo-Hwan were ousted without invasion. Saddam’s reign has been terribly shaky the past few years anyway. Unless the population is given the opportunity to overthrow a brutal tyrant as they did with other members of the US Dictatorship Fan club, there is no justification to resort to outside force to do so. So in summary, any justification for attacks on acts of terror and wanting to bring democracy, while at the same time supporting dictatorships around the world , make the US one of the most hypocritical of nations, thus their stance on the ‘war on terror’ can hardly be seen as noble. Yes, the US provides humanitarian aid and does do well in the world. Don’t take my rant as entirely anti-US for the sake of doing so. It’s not. I like the US as a country, I just the despise the way its foreign policy has taken shape, especially now, and how the American public has been duped into conforming to this ideology “The president has adopted a policy of "anticipatory self-defense" that is alarmingly similar to the policy that imperial Japan employed at Pearl Harbor, on a date which, as an earlier American president said it would, lives in infamy. Franklin D. Roosevelt was right, but today it is we Americans who live in infamy.” – Arthur Schlesinger, Historian

Extremist? Hardly. -=Mike Oh please, extremist is an understatement.

It must be nice to have people posting your opinions for you, dosen't it? Makes trolling all the more easy.

No one needs to believe in some sort of conspiratorical doctrine to know that the actions taken by this administration are not benifitting the Iraqi, Afghani or American people for that matter. You accuse me of constantly pointing out the 'evils' of US foreign policy. I have serious qualms with the way your country has gone about their actions, so obviously I would. By the same token I could say that you act as a constant reminder that further exemplifies the 'my country, right or wrong' attitude when all you do is act as an apologist for the war, never acknowledging the many things that have gone wrong since the invasion or even coming to terms that your government has done some awful things in the past and present no matter how many instances are brought up. Anything other than the same rheoteric being echoed by the media is considered outrageous and border-line conspiracy, heaven forbid the US has unjust intentions. There's a noble and honest reason for everything right? Psychologically the Twin Towers falling means more to Americans? That's understandable, but how do you think an Iraqi man 'pyschologically' feels about his family being killed as a result of a US air raid? Your getting into personal bias, obviously the recipeints of such crimes are going to feel the pain more. However, when the death tally is added up between the the war on Iraq and 9/11 the devastation is highly more severe in Iraq. Of course you'd like to conveniently draw a parallel between me thinking that the specific act of a President I do not like being re-elected and the events of 9/11 being on the same level. This is not the case, i'm looking at the entire scope of things here, the re-election of a man that sent thousands to die in the desert and kill ten to hundreds of thousands in the process. Does Bush wish death upon the world? It seems like your trying to paint me as somone who is literally trying to say that Bush and Satan are one in the same. An extreme exaggeration on my stance on the whole issue really. No, I do not believe that Bush 'wishes' death upon the world, but rather he has no qualms about the loss of human life to sustain this administrations goals. And evidently, neither do you. And for what? Not for WMD's you say? What did Bush say exactly on his address to the nation just before the war? Not for democracy you say? Funny, Bush uses buzzwords like that whenever the issue is brought up regarding what will happen to the country. Hmmm. So, according to you, it's a fight against Islamofacism? Well, it's good to know that your government is helping to deter the beliefs of millions in the Middle East. Now, you'll argue the term is synonymous with tyranny and terrorism, and in some ways, you'd be right, but why would there be such resentment towards the West in the first place? General distain for the West based on religious doctrine that totally unjustifiable? An ideology has been created based on US foreign policy, 'destroying' it by launching wars against nations such as Iraq is counter-productive. And again, it's interesting how the US picks and chooses which nations are a threat and which they can leave on their own and not worry about. Your rationale dictates that Iraq is the centre of Islamic fundamentalism. You know that's not the case. Of course when you have a leader that basis his actions on 'good' vs. 'evil' you tend to get this fundamental Christain attitude towards the Middle East. Their wrong, we're right, they must be changed. Is this suppose to ease resentment towards the West? Or further propagate future terrorists and al-Qaeda members? According to you i'm trying to allude that Saddam never comitted any atrocities and Saddam is the glue that holds the country together. I love your spin doctoring here, it's admirable in the sense that you try so hard to vigilantly accuse me as a Saddam apologist to coincide with your opinion that i'm merely here to act as an anti-American zealot. I never did try to paint Saddam as anything less than a tyrant, but merely pointed out that the current status of the US occupied Iraq is far more devastating before the invasion. Even more outrageous is your warped claim that I somehow condone the actions of those who attack civlians and behead people. Obviously I don't condone the attacks on civlians, otherwise i'd be siding with you on your stance on how the US has gone about bombing the damn country. There were no qualms about targeting 'soft' targets such as in Nicaragua, and this war against the resistance movement is eerily similar. And no one should have been put in harms way for these barbarian fundamentalists to behead such prisoners in the first place. If your solution to maintaining peace and civility and a democracy that is unlikely to sustain itself is to bomb the country and kill thousands of civilians, then the rest of the world has lots to look forward to. You act as if American imperialism is some fabricated notion of a delusional mind. If that were the case, there wouldn't be so many pissed off Arabs in the Middle East. Or are they just bitching for no reason? Of course believing the status quo makes everything seem justifiable. That US foreign policy is fine the way it is, and the course of action currently being taken is truly the way to achieve a safer world. And I really find it ironic for you to call me a child, all the while your slinging your childish insults as a means of validating your positions as correct. But hey, if reality to you means America as the peace-spreading, equal opportunity and down-right do-gooding nation, who am I to trample on your bubble?

Jesus Christ. (reaction to the article)

Yes, I think we can all agree that Saddam was an evil man who did evil things like that to his people.

It's more than an election. It's shaping the geo-political nature of the world for the next 4 years and beyond. Put it into perspective, on 9/11 3,000 innocent lives were taken. A horrible tragedy yes, but how many lives have been lost since war was waged on Iraq? By the time it's all said and done, there will probably be the same amount of US troops dead, not withstanding the 100,000 dead Iraqi's. But the media would like not like to acknowledge this as often, American lives are worth more right? The point is, the re-election of George Bush has let a war criminal continue his war mongering idealogy. The fact that half of the US voted for this man acknowledges that these atrocities are justifiable. I, along with many others felt the same sick feeling in our stomachs the moment of hearing his election that we did when hearing of the attacks on the Twin Towers. Except this time the end result is far more civilian deaths. If these were the Nuremberg trials, he would have been hanged by now. Obviously when you look at it from a connotative perspective, a plane crashing into the WTC is worse than an election. Except one of these outcomes has far more dire consequences to the lives of innocent lives in Iraq, and God knows who and where else in the next 4 years. That's a nice spin on it. Anyone acting as a resistance to a US led occupation is now a terrorist. Good to know. Funny, I don't recall hospitals collapsing and cities being destroyed the way they are now while Saddam was in power. Nor do I recall civilians being physically humiliated and emotionally and sexually tortured. Nor do I recall the amount of lives taken being on the same level as Saddam's regieme. And how is this democracy going to work exactly? A nice little US occupied state with permanent military bases with little representation of all states seems the likely outcome. The heterogenous nature of the country will not be able to sustain a strong democracy without resulting in chaos. Sunni Muslims and Kurds won't take to kindly to a Shiite controlled nation. But what does it matter in the long run, as long the US has their permament military bases there? Furthermore, if you believe the removal of Saddam is the first priority on this occupation, why isn't the US going over to their friends in Saudi Arabia and liberating their people? Or Egypt even? They don't seem to have problems with oppressive dictatorships such as these. They've being doing so for years.

Nothing to do with bias. There's no real redeeming qualities in this situation. We can put on a happy face and pretend that strikes like this are making slow strides towards real democracy and human rights. Evidently many have.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1106-22.htm

There's hundreds I like but can't recall the name of the song or band for any of them. Of course huge bands like The Beatles or Hendrix are a given, but I was thinking along the lines of bands like The Byrds or Joe Cocker. Although lesser known Beatles and Hendrix songs are good too.

What happened on November 2nd was more depressing. The Bush Admistration led to far more many lives lost than 9/11. That cannot be disputed. It's a slap in the face of human decency.

Your apathetic in the consequences this entails, think what you like about Michael Moore, but he is sincere. The loss of victims in this unwarrented war, and the loss of Iraqi and Afghani lives that seem less important. It's distgusting. For this monster to be re-elected is a crime against humanity. The next four years lies on the blood of American voters hands. Those succumbed to this regieme, will not take this sitting down. We will not accept this regieme , full of risregard for human life......

Apathy is king......it's sad times we're living in.

RAW A-Train Palumbo Gail Kim Nidia Test Rodney Mack Jazz SD Billy Gunn Rico Stamboli

It dosen't say that on WWE.com.....

And if not, John will surely sue for malpractice OK, keep it tasteful. Just because I was banning unhinged liberal trolls doesn't mean you can make fun of Elizabeth Edwards' illness. This coming from someone who joked about uriniating and dismembering John Kerry's body.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1103-28.htm