Justice

Okay, look: I've been trying to get into chat this entire semester. I finally get in here... and not a soul to be found. What the hell?!

What??? http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/thisw...12_30_terr.html From your own article. Meltdowns, especially one like that, which would be releasing things like smoke and such from the likely explosions, could easily put tons of radioactive ash and material into the atmosphere. Is it that hard to believe?

Well, if a plane were to fly into a nuclear reactor, it would likely cause a massive meltdown. I believe the analysts looked into this pretty throughly a few years back and said that if an attack like that were to happen, a nuclear fallout cloud the size of Pennsylvania would basically be hovering over the US and Canadian border. Not exactly doomsday, but pretty fucking bad, I'd say.

Well, even then there's the question of whether this can effectively mute parental power over the child. They have to act as guardians, even if the child bought an outside phone line they still have parental discretion. It's totally dependent on age, really; I don't see the phone line being the problem as much as age. I'm 22 and don't have a driver's license because I don't need to drive. I don't deserve any privacy? Yeah, hippie. Get a car, then get a job. Otherwise... *shines billy club*

You know, it'd be really badass to do this with the Bill of Rights and the Constitution being embroidered all across the robe. At least, as long as we are on style tips right now.

Of course, they've never had a system where one didn't have absolute power over the others. Who is to say that with democracy these tensions won't calm due to each faction getting a voice? Again, what would make this process legitimate to you? The UN? Considering the UN failures all around the world when it comes to holding elections (I think East Timor might be the latest of those, not sure), I think we have a better chance getting it done ourselves. What would prove that it's an actual democracy to you? Is the only way to prove it is for Iraq to elect a theocracy? Well, if we are going by dead families, I'd say Saddam killed more and hurt more people, so I think they'd welcome the change. On Al Qaeda membership: It'll always be going up whenever we do anything. If it isn't going up, then a terrorist organization harbored safely within another country will. What's the point of hunting these people down through 'police actions' when they'll always retreat to safe zones like Syria, Iran, SA, and Iraq? You bring up Islamic Fundamentalism, but you never noticed that it's ALWAYS been like this. There has ALWAYS been like this due to the Fundamentalist Islamic states. Don't be fooled into thinking that since we've been there this is a new trend or something. Unless they are gone, this will ALWAYS be like this. Unless you have some magic answer (Which I'd love to hear, since you tend to criticize without ever giving your own solution), the only way of ridding the world of this threat is to destroy the states that propagate it. Perhaps you would like to hand them flowers and completely back out of the region while taking the blame for all their own actions as "Simply a response to American Imperialism"? Again, very minor. You can say as much as you want "70 cultures of Anthrax", but sadly we've never found any weapons made from that or derived from it in Iraq. And that IS a minor shipment; it's nothing that large. Why do you ignore that our involvement and support was tolken and that France and Russia had far active support of him? Where is France building them a nuclear facility helping him into power, or perhaps Russia selling him just about everything his military was made of, including chemcial and biological weapons supplies? Or does that not help your argument of "THE US DID IT ALL!" Okay, talk out your ass again; after the invasion, he splattered any form of rebellion against him. His power was fairly absolute before this, why would be any different afterwards? There was no chance for rebelling, so sanctions did little in the way of 'securing his power' which was already there and absolute before. And let's kindly forget the UN Scandal with Food-For-Oil conviently giving him millions of dollars to him and the Annan's. Why did it take so long to care? Uh, I don't know if you read the entire thread through, but we've been caring for a long, long time now. We've been waiting to fix the mistake we left in Iraq. I think the hypocracy lies more in people like you, who bash the US for going in, then berate them for not going in sooner. You say we should have taken Saddam out after the Gulf, then produce quotes of the Administration saying we shouldn't have gone in after the Gulf and support it saying "They knew the mess that would occur!" You talk of us not caring, and then ignore that Saddam has caused the death of over 300,000 of his own people through negligence and skimming of aid programs. You say "We should have supported the rebellion" and then say "Well, they would have rebelled anyways, why go in?" Have it one way or the other. Um... technically if we didn't institute a change in government, Saddam would still be in power and it would still be a dictatorship. You know this, right? And you keep believing that we want troops over there forever and that we don't want the Iraqis to take over. It's cool to have dreams like that. Frankly, I can't wait until the day where we can hand it all over to the Iraqis and just get back on to handling our own affairs rather than having troops in a foreign country like they are right now. I just understand the necessity of it in the times that we are in.

Agreed, they hammered the Dems, but it seems liike more and more that their commentary has gotten more and more political. Maybe it's just the climate of the news today, maybe it's just Stewart's personal bias, but he seems just that much more vicious when talking about Bush and Co. nowadays.

But... that's not true. He came off looking like just as big an asshole as they. For all the "He wanted to bring the substance, he's the one that didn't want to get to an actual subject and kept harping on Begala and Carlson. I agree with his views, but damn he came off as a huge hypocrit when he was on because all he did was do exactly what they do: Bitch and shout down the other guys.

You know, after re-reading a few of these, it's almost sad to see who we've lost over the years. As much as I love the Edwin/Silent match, Raynor's Genesis III opus is perhaps the emotional highpoint in the fed's entire history. And Edwin's farwell promo still rocks.

Huh. Weird, 'cause I caught that from my local. Though locals all vary, so whatever. On the second one, though, that's more crap than anything. As a rule, the show loves to take quotes out of context and other such stuff. I wouldn't exactly say that's 'exclusive news' as much as them flinging bullshit around.

Which stories in particular? I'd like to know exactly what stories he brings up. And much of the time it is style over substance; he tends to fill in way too much with an overgeneralized smart-assed remark about everything. Especially after his suck up interview with John Kerry, I really don't find him to be that much of a substance guy.

Because people prefer style over substance, not because of it's liberal slant. That's just a side-effect that has happened because Stewart has becoming more and more political as he's gotten more and more noteriety. Seriously, it's not because the Daily Show is some sort of bastion of left wing liberalism left on T.V, it's because young people nowadays are more into getting soundbites and smart-ass remarks than actual news.

Well, some people knew: Clearly, these Anti-American comments prove they hate freedom. We've seen the quotes before, bud. Times change, and so must the things that are done. Does this post have a point, or do you constantly have to use other peoples words to make up for your lack of a real opinion?

Why not have a TSM Survivor? I know a few other forums (Notably Scotsman's, though I'm not sure if they are still doing theirs since they haven't updated in a while...) have done it and it's pretty damn hilarious, even when it was with a board lacking in members. Personally, with the right stipulations tacked on, I think it'd be hilarious. What say the almighty mods and admins?

Pot, meet kettle.

I think you completely missed the entire point of his posting the resolution. Perhaps he was pointing out the fact that it wasn't just some evil plan by the PNAC to invade Iraq and that the idea to change Iraq's government was fairly universal.

Proof? Yes, we love invading other countries. It gives us a real hard on to think of death and gore. Jesus, you are hopeless. The WMD reason for the War was purported by just about EVERY INTELLIGENCE AGENCY IN THE WORLD. You CAN'T dispute this. Hell, most of our intelligence came from UN Inspectors. Of course, somehow Bush knew that there were no WMDs, so he used the chance to invade and get his rich oilcrat buddies rich, right? Wow, if your that desperate to try and end the argument... I think we are reading distinctly different strategies. They say that the US should us it's Military more actively in world affairs and in the promotion of US Goals. Somehow you've managed to twist that into a regieme of terror and corporatism spreading across the world. You keep harping on the "Needs a Pearl Harbor" reference that it makes, but to a point it does make sense. We had been put into an isolationist and anti-war state after World War I, which prevented us from acting earlier on the early stages of World War II. It took Pearl Harbor to finally wake us up and realize that we actually have to act to change things. One could say the same with Islamic Terrorism: We've been fairly indifferent to what has been forming over in the Middle East for so long it took something like 9/11 to finally realize "Hey, we have to take care of this." But hey "BUSH DECLARES WAR ON ISLAM!" makes a better rallying point for your cause, doesn't it? *Sighs* Just making sure... See above. *Calls BS* You've constantly described this war by saying "The US indiscriminately bombing innocents". Please, at least have the balls to stand by your own statements. It's not in better shape in terms of infrastructure and stability, no. Dictatorships tend to create a lot of stability because, well, who is there to create instability when you've crushed any sort of resistance against you? I'm not going to say that you support the stability that Saddam created (I know you aren't dumb, just... different), but having a chance to start something better from scratch is better than tyrannic stability for a lifetime. And yes, we'll walk all over insurgents who want a return to the Baathist government to return. I'd think that'd be a good thing. Reagan, at worst, gave them some outdated Anthrax. The UN, after the Gulf War, never found any weapons that weren't exclusively made by Iraq itself. Again, tolken support with his war against Iran, because at the time Iran was considered to be the bigger threat. Hell, to be honest, Germany has given them more in the way of equipment to produce WMDs than we have. I have a picture of it somewhere around here, I'll post it when I find it. At any rate, though, we are hardly the ones who supported Saddam. Many, many other countries were infinitely closer to him and kept him in power more than the US. Touche. Of course, you ignore the Sandistas killing and imprisoning thousans of Nicaraguans who wouldn't privatize their farms and the hundreds of attrocities committed against the coastal Indians who were dragged into the experiment. Jesus, by '83 they had over 20,000 political prisoners. I guess that's all right and good to support, right? I don't think they weren't stupid enough to vote in the right people. Germany 'voted' in Hitler; they just didn't know any better. Communism has great appeal to the lower classes, but it tends to hurt them just as badly as any other form of government, if not worse due to political prosecution and the loss of what little they actually own. Sorry if the world isn't as black and white as you'd want it to be, but we chose to support the side we thought would be better. Neither side was innocent in that conflict. Frankly, I'm not really a fan of the Contras. But I hardly think that the Sandistas did nothing, and hopefully you'll recognize that. Really? Pinochet, while horrible, doesn't compare to any Communist dictator of the 20th Century. You can try and play it up, but you can't find a Communist dictatorship that didn't outdo the mistakes in US foreign policy. It's not just that a Communist regieme won't play ball. It's that, as a rule, they tend to be slaughterhouses and extremely militaristic. Not only that, but look at the Cuban Missile Crisis to see why the US wouldn't want another Communist regieme in it's back yard. I don't assume that it's all for humanitarian reasons. Hardly. But do I think that, in the end, it works out better when it comes to humanitarian conditions? Hell yes. I don't approve of laying down dictatorships all over, but I can understand why the US would act when there's the possibility of a Communist regieme popping up in it's backyard. Aww, did I offend you? It seemed fairly true to me. Of course, we tend to differ on where the truth lies, so let's keep it there. Jobber: Halliburton got the deal long before the whole "We did it, we get to rebuild" thing. They had the contract a year in advance, pending we actual invade. THAT'S when all the bitching occurred, so don't even try to pull it into that. The Army went with the safe choice they've worked with before. It's not like Bechtel is being denied any contract. Please, get some decent reasons before you start bringing that sort of stuff here. Swigg: Actually... no. In comparison, most Communist dictatorships are far more brutal when it comes to forced relocation, collectivization, and suppression of resistance and dissidence. Where did someone say the CIA was at work? Maybe I totally missed it, but as a rule Communist regiemes tend to be bad because they are COMMUNIST, not because of the CIA. Just like Nazis are bad because they are NAZIS and that. I never said we don't make mistakes, but the point being made here is that the US is a selfish, heartless entity pushing over much better regiemes in place of worse ones that they could work with. I have yet to find a Communist regieme that was better than the one we put in place, which is very, very sad considering the mistakes we've made like Pinochet.

Oh God. First off, how much experience does Bechtel actually have in Iraq? We were expecting oil fires and other such stuff, which Halliburton has handled in the past. Secondly, we need international support from COUNTRIES not COMPANIES. It shouldn't matter where they are from. Your two points are pretty much irrelevent. Edit: Hell, Bechtel got a contract after the invasion anyways.. What's the big deal here?

I'd agree with this.

Huh? I honestly don't get this. It's wrong to believe you live in the greatest country in the world? I honestly don't see that to be too bad as long as it doesn't run your life. It's simply an opinion. What is the greatest country in the world in your opinion?

Explain how it's out of historical context, please. Many of the times he talks of us terrorizing or intervining often involves some sort of Communist state being involved. When looking at the Communist States at the time (China, USSR, North Korea), Communist states tend to be militaristic and usually destroy the population with an initial purge of any dissenters. Almost ever instance of "US Terrorism" that he brings up involves the overthrowing of a Communist government. Given the previous examples, it's not too hard to see why the US worked so hard against them. Not to say they didn't work out all the time, because there were obviously failures. But to say we just put into place dictators for no reason other than to watch their countries suffer is a pretty dumb assumption.

Conflict of interest? Cheney isn't with Halliburton anymore and doesn't get any more money helping them than hurting them. Secondly, Halliburton took care of the oil fires and other problems in the First Gulf War and have a lot of veterans from that one. Why shouldn't we get the best people to do it when all that's stopping it is a flawed idea of "conflict of interest". Oh great, this again. It's cool that you ignore historical context like you do, but it gets dull after a while. OMG WE ARE A TERURIST STATE~!@#$$@#!$@ On Cheney: What's the point of bringing up his continual pay? He gets that whether or not they go out of business. It's made to disconnect him completely from Halliburton, but he doens't lose the money that he would have made anyways. It's basically a long term serverence package. I can't understand why so many on the left try to hang onto this as some continuing connection to Halliburton when it's a standard practice. Read: War for Oil, it's all a hegemonic capitalist plot. Of course, it's never humanitarian. Jeez, I mean, all we've done is kill innocent people, burn and bomb their houses, while setting up as tolitarian regieme friendly to us so that we may eventually control all the oil reserves of the Middle East. I mean, we wouldn't be building schools and other public buildings like we are right now if it were humanitarian, right? We wouldn't have been unloading food and water for the citizens of Iraq on the first day of the invasion if it were for humanitarian reasons. Right? Perhaps I don't remember this, but we've never given that much support to Iraq. We gave some tolken support when he invaded Iran, but never anything more than that. It doesn't compare to the full-fledged support of France and Russia before and after sanctions. Hey, if the shoe fits... Perhaps it's the assumption that everything we do and have done is completely unjust and in our own self-interests that makes it so hard to actually listen to you. To hear you constantly harp on US foreign policy as making us a "terorist state". All we do is invade sterling countries like Iraq and Afganistan for no other reason to further our own evil gains as we look to dominate the world's energy resources.

NOTE: I have a new name (w00ty). Send it to Justice, not the old one. I've edited the card to this effect. - TMF

o.0

Of course, NoCal ignores just about the entire last year of growth sparked by the Tax Cuts. Nice.