cbacon

You know when C-Bacon dropped the line about 'military interventions that serve their own interests' he was just dying to go there, so I accommodated him. But you're right, it has nothing to do with it. Well, besides them, the Caryle Group is raking in the dough from death profiteering. Of course GWB's daddy is part of the group as well as the CIA so he get's daily intelligence briefings. All and all, the group stand billions from the war. Hmm, conflict of interest?

Jesus Christ. Has this already happened?

You missed the obvious. I was referring to military interventions that serve their own interests rather than the citizens of a country. Staging various coup's around the world and robbing nations of democracy, ironically the very prinicple that the US government extensively praises. And arming and funding terrorist groups in order to perserve these self interests . That is the history i'm referring to. And many of these elements are transcending the issue in Iraq today. Thinking the betterment of Iraq is at the top of priorities list is quite naive.

To think that Iraq will progressively become better off thanks to US intervention is very naive. History has taught us that such intervention very rarely helps the citizens of a nation, and oppressive regiemes flourish further. When it comes to having a democracy in Iraq, many are quick to point out that "Well, Japan and Germany converted just fine". What isn't taken into account is the fact that both of these nations were made up of an entire homogeneous group. By that token, one could argue that the US was heterogenous in the days of the founding fathers, but there was a common goal there. You simply can't have that with Iraq. It's a makeshift country full of differing religious, social, and political ideaologies. This is in part thanks to British colonization after the first World War. The Shites have the larger majority in Iraq, and if in power, the conflict of interest will only intensify between the Sunni majority and the Kurds, whether it be in January or 10 years from now. This type of tension is not at all comporable to the differing religious ideaologies in the United States. Of course, the US will have their hand picked puppet regieme in there, painting a picture of 'progress' in Iraq until the day it's found too much of a bother to take care of anymore. But hey, they've got bases in the county, that's all that is really needed. It's also outrageous to even argue the point that "well, it's suppose to look bad now, it's expected" in regards to the current state of the country. 15,000 Iraqi's are dead on the basis of 'false assumptions'. Oh democracy, how convenient.

Yes it does. Should tide many us over till FG starts up.

www.planet-familyguy.com

I'll keep an eye out for that. Futhermore, has anyone seen Hijacking Catastrophe? Supposedly another really good doc.

Exactly. *taps nose* *mumbles incohrently over the lack of an 'edit title' feature*

Since I reformatted, all of my old Word documents open in crazy computer language, asking me how I want to convert them (none of the options revert them back to their original state). I'm using the same version (2002) as I did before reformatting. What gives?

Nevermind, problem sovled.

My computer won't boot up from the disc drive, so i have to boot from the A drive using a boot disk. However, everytime I type "Format C:/" or "Format C:\" or any other variation, I get an error/invalid message. Any other route I can take to get this reformating going?

New York Illinois Florida Passed through a bunch including Michigan, Tennessee and Georgia to get to Flordia however. In Canada, just Ontario and Quebec.

And already the controversy ensues: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3729968.stm

That analogy is all well and good. However, there are several key points that should be considered: 1. The existence of the group revokes any notion that current US foreign policy is a response to 9/11 2. The premeditated attack on Iraq to began in January 2001, and to take control over the region whether or not Saddam was in power. 3. The Rebuilding America's Defenses (RAD) mentions that the US must 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'. Now, using intentions such as 'delivering freedom and democracy' sound good on paper, further building of arms and war mongering seem to be the only means of achieving this. Further building of arms will only intice other countries to do the same, a scary realization in itself. It's a question of whether waging wars to solve these problems is right. 4. The willingness and to use and build more nuclear weapons to achieve "American" goals. Additionally, biological warfare is emphasized I make note of these because of the obvious danger they present, and the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq are pre-cursors to what is essentially being said within the RAD section of the NACP . Whether or not you see this as a threat or not is up to you though. http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebuildi...casDefenses.pdf

THE RIGHT TO VOTE????!!!!??!! Are you insane? NOBODY had the right vote under Hussein. I'll be damned if you tell me otherwise. Oh they had the right to vote, but it was basically Saddam or jail/death. If you realize this...what was your point with the first post about women voting? The point relating to how Bush can make the claim that women voting is some sort of new ideal in Iraq. It's misleading. The entire concept of free voting is an incredible concept in Iraq right now. And women voting in the Middle East in a Free election is a first time thing. Nice try to worm your way out of it, though... Which will make little difference in a nation where religious ideals will further intensify and not all women will be represnted. The idea of a democratic Iraq is wishful thinking at best. But you hold on to that vision Bush has painted of Iraq, full of sunshine and lollypops. And it was a nice way to collectively 'worm away' from the hypoctical/selective interests issue.

THE RIGHT TO VOTE????!!!!??!! Are you insane? NOBODY had the right vote under Hussein. I'll be damned if you tell me otherwise. Oh they had the right to vote, but it was basically Saddam or jail/death. If you realize this...what was your point with the first post about women voting? The point relating to how Bush can make the claim that women voting is some sort of new ideal in Iraq. It's misleading.

THE RIGHT TO VOTE????!!!!??!! Are you insane? NOBODY had the right vote under Hussein. I'll be damned if you tell me otherwise. Oh they had the right to vote, but it was basically Saddam or jail/death.

So in short, there was no reason rather than false assumptions. That's the plan, and while it seems all well and good in theory not all of Iraq will be represented. I think you just contradicted yourself there. "Two wrongs don't make a right", so wouldn't that imply that removing Saddam by bombing the counrty would be wrong due to his evil deeds? I'm not saying Saudi Arabia should have been invaded, but there should have been more emphasis on capturing OBL rather than attacking a country that posed no threat to hurting America. Wouldn't that have been a greater measure in an attempt avenge those lost on 9/11? Herein lies the hypocrisy though. The fact that the US can premote democracy yet have military bases in non-democratic countries such as Saudi Arabia. Using the 'young democracy' claim and that women might be able to vote one day dosen't deter this hypocritical theme and further extends the notion of mere self interest from the Bush Administration. Bush is merely a figurehead amongst a regieme that pushed for the war. I'm no debating whether Kerry has an interest in continuing it, but if he takes over in November he's faced with the daunting task of handling the situation. That said, i'm not necessarily advocating Kerry here as much as I am critical of Bush. Whether it's a Republican or Democrat at the helm, history has taught us that both groups can be as coniving as the other.

WOW. Human rights? You honestly believe this war was a battle for human rights? Not withstanding the thousands of casualties, what actions has the US taken to ensure such human rights in Iraq besides bombing the place. They advocate one thing like bringing 'democracy' to Iraq which will NEVER happen, and the same time they support dictatorships and have their hands sharing pockets with countries that severley opress their own people. Saudi Arabia comes to mind as one of them. But they dare not meddle in their affairs, oh no. Oppresed genders? It's funny that Iraqi women have had the right to vote since 1980(in respect to their respective parties) while at the same time two strong American allies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait supress women's right's even further. It's an easy scape-goat and public pandering to exploit human rights like ths. This war on terror is simply for the Bush Administrations own self interests.

A quagmire of what? If you want to discuss an issue, you might want to consider BRINGING one. -=Mike You know I thought about that, but given your track record you'd be hurt by all the nasty things said about America's leaders, heaven forbid. And of course you'd reply with your oh so savvy "CONSPIRACY!" or "THIS IS IRRELEVANT!" replies. Thus we repeat the cycle. And with that, i'm off to bed.

"And when faced with a certain quagmire, play dumb" - MikeSC

Mike tip # 425: When painted into a corner, ignore the issue! WHAT ISSUE?! *sigh* The information contained at the NACP. How simply writing it off implies ignorance. Or, if you disagree. Other than the "it means nothing" 'agrument' and simply writing it off. The issue is Mike's consistent reputation of ignoring issues such as this for whatever reason. It's not an attack against conservatives, but Mike really gives others such as himself a bad name based on his constant showing of ignorance and stuborness. I've heard of extreme right-wing robots before, but yeesh.

Mike tip # 425: When painted into a corner, ignore the issue!

Say WHAT? I don't think the idea of further American imperialism and war tendencies would go over well with the general public. You seem to miss the psychology of the neocons: they do not give a shit what the public thinks about them Yes, but there's certain measure they'll take as disguise their hidden agenda. In the public context, I can't fathom the existance of putting up such a site though