Justice

Actually, I was expecting you to back up your ideas with actual legal precedents, as you have usually done in the past. :\ Sorry, there really isn't much legal precedent for my opinion. It's sort of a makeshift solution that I've been promoting because it secures the rights of prisoners while not allowing them the out of making rampant untrue accusations to the media to hurt our image abroad. Honestly, I think it's the best solution. Too many people get freaked about military 'tribunals' for no real reason, which is why it isn't being suggested. I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. Are you saying it's bad or good for people to say that they believe in their country, or something else completely? We have political capital, yes. And we've unseated governments before, rightly and wrongly on occasions. But we aren't an empire. We are a superpower, which relies on political capital and pull and, every now and then, military force. Lesser powers can even do what you described above. So the statement is still wrong. We have bases because people ask us to. Europeans are actually afraid that we'll eventually leave because we'll take so many jobs with us. We aren't there because we are just planting them down, which would be the act of an empire. We are there because people asked us to be.

Few of us are claiming America is perfect or that we are completely just. Indeed, we've racked up our amount of mistakes. Then again, trying to believe this propagandized bullshit that those who actually believe in the US are simply tools of a brainwashed machine is 'pot/kettle' syndrome. You call us corrupt, but look at your own government in Canada and try to say that with a straight face, or perhaps the UN instead. To try and yell at us for being corrupt is you being too busy to see the problems with your own country. Please try again. For God's sake, your version of Global Supervillians are the PNAC. You look so hard for corruption that you eventually see it everywhere because, well, that's what you want to believe. You want to believe that everything that America does has some corporate agenda, that they are constantly trying to subvert and control the rest of the world. If you want to believe that we are corrupt just because "You have to be, you just have to be!" without anything else, then go ahead. I can't fix that. But I can say that it's perhaps your weakest argument that you've put up yet. This maybe true in certain regards, but wouldn't it be logical to assume that the US will one day become more guilty than these old-world European countries, given the current path of militarism the US is currently trending towards? Would it also be logical to use these countries as examples that growing too influencial militarly has a negative effect? Example: Napoleon's defeat, Russia's rise and fall of communism, Germany's two World Wars. These countries lost their power/influence because they expanded themselves too far economically/militarly. Is the US currently heading in such a direction, and are steps and countermeasures in place to deter such a 'fall of empire'? I'm more focused on the present than the past. And to logically 'assume' that we'll clear it is a jump. And secondly, despite what you think, we aren't an empire. As fair as I remember, we have some Pacific Islands as protectorates but that's about it when it comes to real, honest territory. If we are going to say something is going to fall, don't we need territory to be taken? Where is this massive empire that I've always heard of. Are we holding the morgages on Spain and Italy or something? Trying to equate the invasion of Iraq with something like Germany's invasion of Poland, Napolean's Conquests, and the Eastern Bloc takeover is completely wrong at worst and majorly flawed at best. People who claim of an "American Empire" are too caught up in the lingo to look at a map and see that it's just not there.

More of an explantion on the 'dark side taint' mentioned earlier. It happened when he defeated a band of rogue jedi, one of which who was extremely skilled in the Dark Side. They fought for something like three days (second hand source, take it as you will) before he finally killed him in that swamp with the cave. The lasting aura is powerful enough to drowned out his own considerable good aura, making it impossible to find him. And I agree: Alec Guinness nailed that role because all his reactions and such are exactly what you'd expect after watching ROTS.

I would like to also agree on Gil. He's perhaps one of the most interesting characters I've ever seen in a Television show.

In 2004, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that people detained at Guantanamo were legally outside of the U.S. and did not have the Constitutional rights in the case Rasul vs. Bush, and ruled that prisoners in Guantanamo have access to American courts, citing the fact that the U.S. has exclusive control over Guantanamo Bay (thus making this example different than the rules established by the Johnson v. Eisentrager case about the treatment and rights of German war criminals after WWII). While the Constitution puts limits on what the American government is allowed to do, it never states that the rules are nullified if non-Americans are involved. In my opinion, the US government must treat everyone the same, regardless of where they were born. Imagine if the Declaration of Independence said "Only American are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights". That'd totally violate the spirit of the document, and yet that's what saying "Only Americans have Constitutional rights" argues for. Whether you believe in a devine power or not, it has been the official position of this nation since its founding that all men should have the same rights (failures to do follow this have led to historic struggles in which freedom has ultimately prevailed). Rights are naturally occurring things, not provisions provided to citizens by their government. (I'd be very interested in reading Justice's thoughts on this topic.) If you really want to know my feelings on the topic: Military tribunals, ones without press exposure, are my solution. I agree that they may deserve a trial, but I also understand that it's quite easy for them to lie their asses off and the media to eat it up (See: Newsweek + Koran). Military Tribunals are the same courts that are reserved for our men and women serving over there, and while I'm sure some people would have reservations, I think that military tribunals are a fair and safe way to preserve the rights of every man while minimizing the possibility of misinformation being spread by those on trial. I personally never really believed the whole Gitmo/No-Trial deal for most Afganis (Of course, I restrict this pretty much for Afganis, considering that any fighting done by the Iraqis right now is completely in violation of the Geneva convention from step one), but I've ALWAYS been against public, reported trials. The media is fairly dumb on either side, and this would qualify as a feeding frenzy. Is that what you were expecting? Oh, and to call out C-Bacon and a few others: France, Germany, Russia, and many other European countries are far more guilty than us. Canada and New Zealand rarely do anything on the global stage, and barely have the capacity to do anything if they wanted. I'm sure Luxembourg ranks pretty high on that list for you, but do they really matter when it comes to world affairs?

Edit: Robo, finish your posts.

Source? I thought they were SUSPECTS--meaning we don't know if they're actually guilty or not. If they're terrorists, then what acts of terrorism have they committed? If they are terrorists supporters, what have they actually done to support terrorism? Thats a great question RJ. Hopefully its understood my post before was done with eyes rolling the whole way. Well, to be completely honest, many of them were caught firing at US Troops, so that could be considered something criminal.

General Veers is perhaps one of the most ruthless and successful Imperial Generals of all time. He brought the Empire it's greatest victory in the entire Rebellion Conflict at Hoth, especially after the failed idea of catching the Rebels by surprise allowed Rieken to form a decent defense and escape plan.

How I see it... Old School Original Trilogy. Kenobi: Stevens, the old retired face who is looking to pass on his knowledge to a talented youngster. Luke: Z (Old School)! A slightly dorky, but still heroic character. Han Solo: Edwin MacPhisto. No one else could have the sly wit. Chewbacca: Chris Raynor. CHEWIE SMASH! Leia: Mistress Sarah, most likely. Especially since you had to rescue her before. C3PO: Bobby Riley. Need I say more? R2D2: Andrea, because she's short and funny. Darth Vader: Thugg. Sorry, King, but Thugg is truly the towering villian. Moff Tarkin: Chris Wilson, of course. Who else could be cheesily super-villiany? The Emperor: Stubby, of course. I thought Zed would have said this first. Guy saves fed from destruction, gets in power and lets it all go to his head. Boba Fett: Silent. Because he's completely badass. New Trilogy, from a set of new(er) guys. Qui-Gon Jin: Dante Crane. Old vet that came back for his bud but sadly just got cut out of the real action way too quickly. Obi-Wan Kenobi: Perhaps CIA, if only because he was one of my favorite faces ever and seemed destined for greatness. Count Dooku: Justice! w00ty! My design of the character was almost EXACTLY his, so I figure. General Grevious: Rule! Trained by Dooku, technical master. We were both cooler in the Clone War series and got completely misused in the movies. Jar Jar: Spike Jenkins seems about right. Anakin: Tox, because he's pretty much grown to become the entire focus of the fed. Padme: Jet. KILL HER! DO IT SO THIS CHOICE MAKES MORE SENSE! Jango: Okay, Manson. Forgot completely about Fett. And the special, non-movie characters: Dash Rendar: Suicide King/King of Hearts. Why? Because Dash rules EVERYONE. He's simply a better version of Han Solo as far as I'm concerned. Xisor: Tom Flesher. Irresistable to women, hated by all.

Don't worry, I had a brilliant defense strategy. "If the rules permit, you must acquit."

Ugh. I appologize to everyone at the moment. My internet connection is miserable, and my work hours are basically completely random, which has completely fucked up all my free time. I'm hoping to normalize everything in my life, but being at home hasn't helped much. I promise, though, this won't happen again unless there is an extreme emergency.

Hockey. +/- is how many goals you've been out on the ice for. You get +1 for a goal on your side, a -1 when they score and you are out. Guys who put up more while giving up less are more efficient defenders, or so the saying goes. Points is a combination of both your goals scored and your assists. And butterfly style is the most prevelent style of goalie in the NHL. I don't really feel like going in depth because I'm still pretty rusty on it (I'm more of a positional scrambler (A guy who cuts angles off from the goal and does wild scrambles) myself).

Hearford would SO be a starting Goalie. Master of the Butterfly style, biatch!

I've heard a rumor from a friend that it's the Sandman, but just like all the rest, it's only a rumor.

More like you hope we never reform Justice and Rule...

It's not that's it's bad or anything. I think one of the critical things is that the magic is sort of getting used up. Star Wars brought us to these fantastic worlds, Empire took us further, and Jedi is sort of at the edge of running out. It probably doesn't help that two fo the set changes have been used before (The Death Star aspect and Tatoonie). Plus, the "Point of View" After-school special. Luke saying "A different point-of-view?" is probably the one line in the entire original that kinda makes me wanna groan, especially with Mark's delivery. Overall, the acting didn't seem as solid as the other two, which is completely my opinion and nothing else.

My listings: 1) The Empire Strikes Back: So much excellent stuff in it. Perhaps the best Saber fight of them all (Luke vs. Vader #1 just OOOOZES drama, emotion, and story), the best surprises, and perhaps the most meaningful character development. The Battle of Hoth is very good, and the Asteroid Field is one of my favorite sequences ever (And by far my favorite theme out of the series). Overall, the pacing, the acting, and the plot are the best of them. 2) A New Hope: You might rag on it for showing it's age, but despite it all it shows us what a first episode SHOULD be. It has some great acting (Watching Alec Guinness' performance today, it's almost as though he had the prequels in mind. It's really amazing...), the Death Star battle still holds up today (It's well-paced and action-packed, but not to the point of being overbearing like too much is today). The saber battle might not have been the best, but I still like it better than most of the prequel ones because of the emotion and story behind it. 3) Revenge of the Sith: Loved it. You actually got emotional attachment to the characters. I thought Christensen worked out very well, and McGregor got back to form after a really out-of-place performance in #2. The fights are great, the overall feel was much better than the other prequels, and it felt like Lucas actually committed to making a dramatic film and not trying to split himself between kids and adults. 4) Return of the Jedi: I dunno, this one just didn't click well with me. There are some parts that are really good, but it just doesn't feel on par with the others. It's not just the Ewoks, it's just... I dunno. It's not a very good reason, I love the end battle, but part of it just drags for me. :-\ 5) Attack of the Clones: Okay, but that's it. A lot of stuff just seemed like it was happening just for kicks. It just never developed a real flow for me. The end battle scene doesn't work for me. It's cool, but it just comes off as "Look at all the neat things the concept artist drew up!" 6) Phantom Menace: Ugh. Something only saved through some great acting. Qui-Gon is an excellent character, embodies pretty much exactly what yuo think the Jedi would act like: Wise, patient, defensive. I enjoyed him greatly. And he wasn't wrong: If they didn't teach him, he'd never have Luke and Leia. Luke is the one who brings about balance to the force. This could only come about if Anakin was trained. If he wasn't, the Sith would still have suceeded (Sidious had the Jedi in his pocket for the most part). Anakin's actions are immaterial to the fact that it would have come to pass anyways and through Anakin came Luke who brought the balance. Not only that, Qui-Gon is the one who comes up with the idea of "The Living Force", which is why he's the first one who can do the ghost thing (That's his little mention at the end). That's why he's so much better than most Jedi. Uh, other than that, the movie for the main part sucks. Anakin really needed to be older to be believable, Jake Lloyd can't act worth crap, Jar Jar was horrid in the role of comic relief (Which should NEVER really be in a Star Wars movie save for the droids), and while the overall idea was good, it was just shitty, shitty execution.

This is always the one that needs to be dealt with first, and is probably the dumbest critique you can have of Jar Jar. Bitch about him being useless and irritating, but please. I don't get pissy because Anakin and Palpatine are obvious representations of 'the Man' and are both caucasian males. Plus, this also ignores the fact that, as a whole, the Gungan race nobly sacrifice themselves to save Naboo and all in all aren't all that bad. And this is from a person who hated Episode One. Kotz is right, you look WAY WAY too into this. Pfft. They aren't the main heels. They are supposed to be in the dark half the time because the war isn't their idea, it's Sidious's. They are NEVER sure of it. They aren't actually evil, they are just drawn into the conflict through the manipulations of Sidious. Darth Maul and Darth Sidious are the main heels, never the Trade Fed. They shouldn't be expected to be incredibly evil or anything. 1st part, I disagree. It's primarily to show you that Vader was a great person and a great hero who came from a lowly upbringing like Luke. But Jake Lloyd just isn't good enough to get anyone behind him. 2nd part I do agree. ...? Qui Gon is a more compelling Jedi Character than Mace, in my opinion. He embodies the wit, wisdom, and ideals of Jedi. He can't trick Watto because his race is immune to it, he doesn't exactly get 'owned' by Maul, and Liam Neesen is one of the performances (Actually making a very convincing Jedi without ANY buildup) that makes the movie standable. I don't think he is anything less than great in that trainwreck.

Hey, hush. It took a while, but it's up now. Sorry for the delay, but trying to read those at 1 AM is just takes too much concentration that's available to my tired mind. Post the losers and I'll try to get my comments out. They all were very good, which is another reason why I waited so long to edit them in.

from the memo: This was news to me. And it shows that the administration itslef doesn't buy the argument that the invasion was okay just because of something the Clinton Administration had stated, despite conservatives' arguments to the contrary. Using the justification "well, the Clinton's wanted regime change too" as a justification is ridicules. Hell, the Clinton Administration wanted universal health care...you don't see Bush invading Canada to get it. ... That's the British Attorney General. So I ask again, what is new? This makes absolutely no sense. Bush was continuing the policy of getting Saddam out of office. Clinton was looking into arming opposition groups to boot him out. Bush simply used the United States Army to. Not exactly like the comparison you made earlier, eh? I don't understand why the 'terrorism' claim instantly 'ridicules' this. In a time where terrorism at home has suddenly become a reality, saying a guy that was reported by everyone to have massive stocks of bio and chem weapons and a grudge against the US suddenly nulifies the entire idea of taking down Saddam? Bush used terrorism because that's where the reality of an attack lies now. Clinton didn't because terrorism wasn't as much as a 'threat' in our minds back then, even though the reality was quite different. Edit: I just realized you wanted to say 'ridiculous'. But my statements still stand. And apparently Martin was as bad as Saddam? I don't like the guy much, but he was as much a tyrannical despot as Bush or Clinton. o.0

*giggles* Aww, I love you too. Internet goes down for a weekend and I miss this lovenote. Anyways, this still isn't news. If you want to write it off to 'same old Republican talking points', you should really read your posts because Lord knows you parrot the exact same stuff in just about anything and everything you post. Clinton wanted the same thing. And whether you like it or not, RJ, even if Bush went an extra step in execution, the policy was still the same: Get Saddam out of office. Bush just went through with it, Clinton simply wanted to weaken him. Different approaches but still the same idea, no matter what way you really want to look at it. But seriously... what's all that new in the letter? They had decided on military intervention in Iraq in July of 2002. They were cynical about trying to push something through the UN. When he says "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy", he's not referring to possible fact-fixing, he's referring to options. Look at the next sentences: "The NSC had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record." He meant that they were set on how they wanted to promote this and how they wanted to go about this, and they were cynical about using the other means. The facts they wanted to present were being fixed due to the policy, and thus not including other facts or options (Hence the mention of the disdain for the UN route, and the publishing of Iraq's record). In the end, though, they still went to the U.N and wasted theri time there, and still made those arguments. There's no 'smoking gun' here, no matter how desperately someone like C-Bacon wants there to be one.

That's not the gist of the article. You: So effectively the article says nothing but "We can't be sure." Fair enough, that's about it. It doesn't really go into disproving the number, it just says it might not be fact. Also note the article I cite is almost a month fresher. At any rate, you have failed to disprove the fact that Iraqi Armed Forces are taking over more and more operations from the Coalition. You sort of ignored that in your fervor there.

You must be privy to some information that the rest of us aren't. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=580235 ?? The article states that the Iraqi Security forces aren't yet up to par. That's true; they aren't the best and there have been problems with them. I never denied this. Total of 155,000 men. And yes, they have been acting in more and more operations. It's the reason why the US Casualty rate has been down so much. And indeed, violence has turned up. We've seen it happen before. We've heard cries of Civil War before as well with Sadr. They got through those, and I'm sure they'll get through these as well. They've just got a new Democratic government and they have a hardline insurgency to deal with. It's not to be unexpected. I'm not saying it's sunshine and roses, but it's been improving slowly since the original invasion and it'll continue to, despite the insurgency turning it up every Spring (Before today April 2004 was the big month as well, and then things calmed back down again).

Huh? It all started with Iraq, if I remember correctly. And it's gone "Downhill" since then. Please, don't try to pin this one on us. Improving daily. Free elections, a military and police force that is beginning to take over operations... much better than you'll likely admit. Of course, it would have helped to had our closest ally (And I mean that with all honesty; I'm a dual citizen and we are honestly closer to Canada than anyone else). It was quite a shot to us that you didn't support us, whether you like to believe that or not. 'Cause, you know, a missile defense wouldn't let you know that in the first place, right? Bad reasoning, I'd say. First off, Highland is Canadian. Stop referring to him as an American and accusing him of shit. And you are an ass. One fifth of all our total exports are to you, and we account for nearly 1/4 of your economy. You want to try to disconnect us? You'll wither just as quickly. Jesus, it's all of these uppity asses who live in Ontario and think that they'll just be fine without the US. No, no you won't. You won't be fine by just rejecting us, just as we won't. We are too interlinked to possibly consider a 'split', so trying to bring one up is more retarded than Doyo's opinion on the Pentagon Plane. Just because you agree with us doesn't make you a lapdog. You agree with us tons with Clinton, why are you suddenly a lapdog with Bush? All this jingoistic shit that people like C-Bacon try to push down your throats is utter bullshit, and if you could just see past the 'OMG NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY" bullshit you'd understand that you've always had it and the US has never intended to take it from you, despite all the "51st State Jokes". God...

I loved that as well. Apparently that is pertinent to the argument because we settle world disputes Rollerball-style nowadays. o.0 And arguably the physical differences don't amount to too much: So they won't be caring the SAW. They can still boast a M-16 fairly easily, and there is no accuracy difference between sexes.