Justice

Thank God.

That's true, but the Britain one stands out because they were ACTIVELY arming them for the invasion of one of their best allies. Seriously, should we really have to bitch to tell you to stop selling missiles to the guys killing our troops?

God, I might. I'm really fucking tired, and I didn't realize how much bullshit he actually put into my part until I was really disecting it. We'll see. Maybe sometime later tonight.

Yes. France is not in that group. -=Mike France has never attacked us. France is not aligned with a country that has ever attacked us. France poses no threat to us, and to suggest they did would be laughable. Americans are not being held captive in France. The French army is not killing Americans. It's all propaganda. No, but it did sell Exocet missiles to Argentina when it invaded the Falklands, which in turn were used against British Destroyers. It took a sufficient amount of bitching from the US and UK to get them to stop selling them any more. I'd call that being a VERY shitty ally.

I can understand why, but understand that I'm not saything they will eschew Islam, but more the Fundamentalist version. I think that, honestly, it's not too hard for pressure to start mounting on other countries when these Democracies start getting off the ground. I think that they will succeed; with all the support we are giving them right now, I don't think there is a chance that they will fail unless we have someone like NoCal and Teddy Kennedy constantly decrying it. I think that when we start closing the gap, I think social pressure will start to mount both inside and outside of Saudi Arabia to change. We already see something like this in Iran where students are demanding reform and asking for more liberty and rights. I think this will be different. Vietnam is one domino. This is multiple dominos. Multiple forces pushing for it will be able to reach them. I can understand your doubts, but I see the setup for this as being a bit different. Most reports I've read have always said that the majority of Iraqis do support the new Government. Of course, you have the Sunni Triangle where there's more resistance, but the overall I've always heard that most Iraqis are supportive of their new government. I know of the poll, and I'd say it's probably close, maybe a little lower. I think there's a lot of difference between supporting the Americans being there and supporting the new government.

Eh, that's more the sad fact that they have a coalition government, which gives the Greens much more power than they should have. They aren't allowed to use or build up their military unless it's in defense, so they basically can't do anything or the Liberals lose power.

This is basically proven wrong by the Dueffler Report. Saddam was well on his way to lifting sanctions through bribes and restarting his programs. Unless you actually wanted to invade when he had them, I feel we got pretty damn lucky that he probably didn't. Uh, yeah, there is. As much as you bitch about it, Saudi Arabia is probably the last on our list because invading it does the least amount of actual good. Invade the place with Mecca and Medina? Are you nuts? I outlined this before in the thread, but you obviously didn't read it. We set the dominos up, and then push them down. That's how we'll get Saudi Arabia: Social Pressure from the rest of the Middle East. Otherwise it's nigh off-limits unless you want something worse than Vietnam ever could be. And people wonder why I don't want a liberal handling my foreign policy. Well, no shit. Like? There weren't any other Taliban strongholds. We have US troops fighting them in the Phillipines already, where else do you want us to go. And this means what to me? *Sigh* You don't get it, do you? Look, we aren't fighting just terrorism, we are fighting an ideology. This ideology is not only bred in terrorist organizations but propagated and furthered on a national scale in nations like Iraq, Iran, and Syria. All you seem focused on is "What can we do to solve this now?" when there is no immediate solution. It's a long, hard process of destroying the bastions of this ideology, but it's the only way that is a long term solution. Destroying Al Qadia while ignoring the states that produce and support such an ideology is just ignoring the real problem, which is something we don't want to do. Destroy the nation-states that further this and plant down the system that destroys such ignorance and they'll not have a place to hide or breed. That's one... odd sentence. Just weird-ass wording. Never said that there weren't Iraqis that opposed the US prescence there. Of course: Insurgency made up of both terrorists, Saddam loyalists, and religious extremists? That has to be the worst comparison ever. Seriously, that's disregarding many of the facts behind Iraq and the fact that a majority of Iraqis support the new Government. Wow, so did they hire the same political propagandist as C-Bacon? It's not a 'fucked up mess'. It's a tough situation, but a fucked up mess, hardly. This isn't a place that is impossible to succeed, there are just so many people trying to blow everything out of proportion (Example: C-Bacon and his inflated numbers, and hell, this story since we haven't figured out why the hospital has been hit. Cere made a great point since, well, it wasn't really told whether it was a weapons cache or a resistance HQ). It's irritating to see so many people not understand that shit happens during an operation such as Iraq and it's not all fun and games, but that doesn't mean that it's a fucked up mess. There's the possibility, but it hardly has become one yet.

Wikipedia has already made a page on voting problems in the 2004 elections. But its neutrality and accuracy have been questioned, according to the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Ele...nic_voting_bias Eh, the way they are penned they really don't seem too unbiased. Your avatar rules my soul.

Aren't, though, a lot of those states bringing in a ton of revenue due to state taxes? I mean, a lot of those states have a lot of extra taxes and state taxes that make federal aid redundant. :\

I'll start with my quotes first. If the label fits... Yes, you do. You assume we are bombing the hell out of the civilian population for kicks or whatever other reason you can make up. You honestly think that the Bush Administration is trying to create a New World Order starting with Iraq. It's quite obvious that you are trying very hard to try and find some massive, underlying evil with Bush and his administration. And yes, you are bitter. If you can't recognize that 9/11 is a bigger tragedy than this election, you are extremely bitter. You're hatred colors you very much so. I've justified the war to you already. There are numerous ones under the large, overarching reason I gave you. You can't give me another solution to Iraq besides the incredibly vague "Stop being so damn Imperialistic". Face it: Your ideology lacks a solution to the Middle East. If it were up to you, we'd still have the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq because nothing was going to be done about them by the World. Give me a solution to fix those problems other then spouting off rhetoric and vague statements and we'll have an actually 'two-sided' argument going. I'm not trying to dictate how they feel. Of course there will be sadness and anger after a family member dies by accident. But the realization sets in that it wasn't purposeful and that it was an honest accident. Obviously you don't quite realize that people do rationalize an "Accident" and an "Attack" in different lights. And, of course, everything is in vain because Bush is a 'tyrant out of control'. Nope, no blinding hatred there. What would you say to those who had family members killed or tortured by Saddam, or those who suffered because Saddam was completely abusing the programs meant to help them? "Sorry, better luck next time?" No, it was childish. Take responsibility for your own fucking quotes and actions. You are the one who made the childish attack, and now you are trying to pass the blame like a child. Very very nice. I'd say your the one who is scary. They only believe that because, well, the UN and every other country in the world told them that for around 11 years. It's hard to believe after finding weapons throughout the early and mid-90s that suddenly he doesn't have any anymore. At least theirs is more understandable. You believe that Bush is some soulless tool of the business leaders to enforce consumerism on the rest of the world. You believe that the US purposefully commits these attrocities for profit and pleasure. Seriously, theirs had a realistic, factual basis. Yours is basically tied together by a loose amagamation of conspiratorial facts and beliefs. Who is worse off? This is a joke, right? Do you understand why the oil fields were seized first? Lemme give you a clue: Last time we left the oil fields alone, Saddam burned them up in one of the largest ecological disasters of the time. Seriously, get your head out of the "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" box long enough to understand how dangerous it is to allow these to be lit up. This time there were only 40 oil well fires, thankfully, so we managed to avoid another huge environmental disaster. So... what's the problem with that? Or does actual military strategy not fit into your plan? It's funny, really. This post really has such little substance outside of accusations about oil and invading Iran (Because, you know, the Ayattollah is such an excellent, excellent guy. Seriously, I'd want him sticking around...) that there's little else to comment on. Veiled comments about the imminent failure in Iraq with little to actually sustain it. Um, any proof on that first statement, or still talking out of your ass? Because it's a really ridiculous statement. And um, the Dueffler report pretty much shreads your second statement up completely, since it's been proven that Saddam was actually looking to make WMDs after he was able to buy sactions off. If you actually bothered to read anything outside of CommonDreams or Matthew Good, perhaps you would get somewhere here. Uh... okay then. I'm not even gonna address the second part of the statement because it's basically conspiratorial crap that you've claimed you don't put forth. This is a lot easier than last time. Yep, keep posting the baseless conjecture and black helicopter stuff. *Sigh* Alright, we are just getting desperate here. Yes, we've made mistakes. Then again, hindsight is 20/20. You forgot the massive genocides of people like Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh (I'm sure the Brits regret helping him now), and Jung. Hey, that's practically all the major Communist leaders there. Fancy that. All the regiemes you speak of are either 1) Communist or 2) Religious theocracy. I've already told you why we don't trust Communist Regiemes: They tend to execute massive amounts of people, starve them, and become militant in the region whenever possible. Explain why we should expect anything less from another Communist regiemes? Look at the Middle East constantly invading Israel during the period you speak of. You act as though these incidents were simply the US trying assert power over whatever it could rather than actually looking at what happens when a Communist regieme would take over or an unfriendly religious theocracy was in place. All those incidents are justifiable. Maybe mistakes, but they are justifiable from what other regiemes had shown us before. Of course, in your view, we simply put these brutal dictators and contras in place to suit all our own needs. We are a ruthless bunch, we are. We never have honest intentions like you. Only a thirst for money and power. Never anything good. Never. Uh, corrected a mistake in there. Of course, if you want to defend a corrupt nepotist like Diem, go for it! *thumbs up* Moving on... On Hezbollah: First off, Israel invaded Lebanon not because they just felt like it, but because the PLO and they had signed a cease-fire agreement and the PLO repeatedly violated that agreement. At the time, the PLO had massive weapons stockpiles and training camps in Lebanon, which made it impossible for the Israelis to slow down their growth. Because of these attacks (It came down to an attempted assassination of an Israeli Ambassador to really push Israel over the edge) and the situation at hand, Israel was forced to invade. Hezbollah was formed as a Catspaw by Iran, not the Lebanese, and at the moment it's controlled and funded by both Syria and Iran. Whoa, nothing to worry about there. Certainly not terrorism. I mean, with a resume like this: I can't understand HOW we could possibly label them as terrorists. But hey, I guess it's all because they disagree with us, right? On the attrocties: All I find is PLO troops massacring the Christian town of Damour, and the Carbombing is the one that killed the American Troops, correct? Are you blaming the US and Israel for these somehow? And is the one in Tunisia in 2002, that killed all the tourists? Seriously, how are you condoning this by tossing the blame on the US? You continually say "Well, I'm not condoning this" the go on to claim "But you guys brought it on yourselves with your own foreign policy". That's called excusing it, and excusing organizations who are intent on only creating more death and destruction to further their own political causes. The UN has always had a significant bias against Israel. France and Russia are probably the two biggest, since both of them have been manufacturers of Arab Military equipment for quite a while. Many of the UN resolutions against Israel are pushed through because of the large amount of anti-semetism in the World Assembly and on the Council itself. Hell, they had one condemning Israel for having a military parade after the 7 Days War. Please, don't get me started on this. I'd just like to say, as an asside, that was perhaps the shittiest argumetn you've put forth in this entire thing. No, again, you fall victim to treating the symtoms, not curing the disease. Police actions DON'T work: you are fooling yourself when you think police actions work. Clinton practiced police actions, and we can see what it got us. Police actions are a step backwards, not forwards. Just as we saw with Lebanon and Israel in the above statement, you can only fight so much on your home turf. You are missing the point on Al-Qadia: Many of those who are apart of it now in Iraq were former Fejadeen fighters and such. There were already part of the extremist Islamic movement, only under Saddam. You don't take into account the fact that many of those who joined were already doing such things and believing such things under Hussein, so the pickup isn't nearly as massive as you think: They are simply moving from one side to another. I didn't expect you to catch that, though. Terrorism was born out of the culture gap between the West. To rectifiy this, we need to bring the Middle East into the 21st Century. Allowing people like Saddam to further propgate their sort of hateful Islam neutrilizes anything that we do with police actions, and because of this need to start taking out those in power who push this sort of belief. Your foreign policy doesn't have a solution for that. You can't give me a solution where we can fight terrorism and allow these people to continue to fund and allow terrorists to hide inside their countries. You can only do so much at home before you have to root them out and destroy the places that they are allowed to breed. See two entries up. Plus, actually read my previous posts instead of posting your knee-jerk, played out reactions. Pressure of change and all that jazz. Otherwise, this post is again useless rhetoric. You have a lot more of this this time, lemme say... Easy. People like you, the UN, and those who supported police actions wanted sactions and inspections. Please, don't tell me that I should have gone earlier when you said that I shouldn't have gone at all. It just shows how hypocritical you are: We didn't go in because people like you wanted to work it out through diplomacy and police actions (Inspections), and it failed miserable. Now it's time to actually fix the problem rather than spew some useless rhetoric and pat each other on the back. Again, you focus desperately on one reason because you know that there are dozens others that invalidate your claim. It was quite obvious that there was more to the invasion of Iraq than just WMDs; it's more complex than one reason. The reason why that one was expounded was because the other ones would promptly be laughed out of the UN (See: Darfur). If the UN wanted to do it on humanitarian needs, they would have gone in a while ago. But the UN doesn't care about that. Bush tried to frame it in a way that the UN would actually give a damn about. Yes, yes, we've imposed a despotic regieme under Allawi. Of course. All we did was just bomb the place, put this guy in, and it's all done. Now we steal the oil and run. Democracy! Seriously, and you can't understand why I call you a child when you post that 14-year old response. Not true at all. This is a fact. We tried to let the Shiite majority rebel back in 1991 when there was little left of Saddam's military, but he managed to utterly brutalize the resistance and push it down. If they couldn't beat Saddam when he was at his weakest without our help, how in God's name could they possible rebel against him? It makes no sense. He would have kept them under reigns just as he did before. You lack a true understanding of how much control he actually had. Saddam's reign hadn't been shaky at all in the past few years. I don't see where you get that idea, especially with sanctions waning. Of course, though, sanctions and the whole Food-For-Oil scandal was our fault yet again. Damn us for letting him get away with this stuff! It's obvious he wouldn't have been bad if we had just let him loose! Of course, it was the US all along giving the biggest support to Saddam. Ah, I love that myth, since he his entire military was made up of Soviet equipment and all, and much of his chemical weapons came from Russia, Germany, and France. But hey, what did Kierkgaard say? Belief has nothing to do with how or why. Belief is beyond reason. They believe because it is absurd. Keep believing, buddy. Of course, you've proven yourself to be a massive hypocrite, approving of the reasoning behind the terrorists while saying you don't actually condone their actions. Ask us why we didn't take care of this along time ago while condemning us for taking care of it now. You ignore the absolute genocides committed by Communist regiemes which influenced our foreign policy, then decry us for trying to stop them from coming to power. You say we support dictatorships while defending to the death people like Saddam Hussein and the Taliban from being prosecuted. You are the hypocrite, you only need to open your eyes and take a long look at your argument here to see it. You've also shown us that, beyond a shadow of any reasonable doubt, you don't have a firm grip on the reality of the world. Your own hatred of America in general (As shown by your utter trashing of anything they do as something out of greed, deceit, and lust for power) and of the current administration. You've gone over tired and worn talking points that no longer hold water anymore. Everything that is done over there now has some conspiratorial link right to the top, to some massive takeover and implementation of a slave society under consumerism where Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld preside over as kings. Nothing is to be taken at face value, because that's what the Illuminati want you to think. Because of you, I reward you with this: Occaim's razor. It's not just for shaving anymore. I'll get to the earlier part of your post in a little bit. After sifting through all that bullshit, I think I need a long shower.

*Jumps on Tyler* I AMZ TEH SUP3R10RZ!$*()!@$*#()@!$*@#()$ ... ... ... ... *Shoots self in leg*

You've tried to push on us proof that the US Government is trying to set up a consumer-slave culture across the world. That's not conspiratorial? I guess I missed that meeting. Bob already pointed out the benefits to each country. Afgani women, for the first times in memory, got their chance to vote for their leader. Of course, you were quick to point out that the elections had problems (To which investigators were quickier to show that it was needless whining from the losers), but to say they haven't benefitted at all is ignorance, plain and simple. I've never denied that things haven't gone wrong, nor that the US hasn't done anything wrong. We've made mistakes in the past. I hardly, though, think that past mistakes are accurate ammunition against the United States today, nor do I think that they intentionally tried to hurt anyone with their mistakes, unlike you who always seems to assume that we like to abuse as many people as we can get our hands on. And the reason your own rhetoric is considered conspiracy is not considered valid is because, as a rule, it IS conspiratorial. Bush has his hand in everything, every attrocity, every oil transaction, everything. And on the whole "My country, right or wrong" statement, I don't accuse Jobber of being a bad person who hates America. He might throw in a few cheap shots, but damn if I can say that he honestly hates America. There ARE valid criticism of America, the best being we went in with one shitty occupational plan. It's not the same with you: You're hatred is so pronouned that you can't get past any event without hinting at some US injustice being committed or some underlying plot by Bush to further rape the lands. Your bitterness is just utterly incredible, so much so that we can no longer take you seriously because you pretty much go out of your way to try and make the US some evil empire that destroys everything it touches. Perhaps I'm missing the fact where one was an accident and one was meant to kill as many innocent civilians as possible. There's a different between an accident and an attack, and the size of the attack. No offense, but one air raid accidentally killing a family doesn't equal up to 9/11 simply because of the size, scope, and intent. It's an inaccurate comparison, but I figured you'd be desperate enough to try and make it. No, you aren't looking at the entire scope of things, because then you'd realize that Iraq, in the long run, is likely better off because of this. If you were looking at the whole scope of things, you'd realize that there is something noble behind what's going on, even if it's a last ditch attempt to change the region. But you don't. All you can look through your colored glasses is an inflated death count, which means everything to you and your argument. Don't try to act like you are the one looking at the big picture when all you seem to be able to concentrate on is one subject. You believe that he's an inherently evil man for his actions. You honestly believe that he doesn't care about any of this, that he has no compassion or sympathy for these people. Perhaps it's just because I understand the situation better that I realize that he made hard decision, and one that he probably regrets despite knowing it's the right one. Of course, continue to preach that he's a soulless tool of corporatism that will do anything to further his own goals. Remember, kids, that's not conspiratorial in the least! *Sigh* I figured you'd defend it. You defended a viewpoint that 9/11 was only a response to a massive consumer-slave culture being pushed upon the rest of the world by Bush and company. It is synonamous with Terrorism and Tyranny and intolerance. Have we ever found a regieme that's truly been tolerant of multiple religions? Certainly not the Taliban; they demolished Buddhist statues all around Afghanistan. Apparently that was caused by US Foreign policy. The virulent hatred of Jews. I guess, when they got their own state, we must have tricked the Arab countries into attacking them rather than compromise, right? I guess this: Just wasn't enough for the Arabs. But that's our fault. Face it, it's been growing and developing for a long time now. It's been growing and developing, without US assistance. It's grown because the culture there is behind the culture change in the West, which naturally creates jealousy. Why wouldn't someone believe that the US is holding them down when we have such wealth and they don't? It's easy to point a finger at us, so they do. It's not as though we haven't tried working with them, they just refuse to work with us many times. It wasn't created by the US. It was created by the culture and wealth gap of the West, which is something we are actually helping with the institution of Demcracy there. Invading hardcore dictatorships that support this doctrine of hate and abuse their people are exactly what we want to target. Sure, claim that we give them more terrorists: They'd be getting them anyways. It's easy to twist any action of our around into some Imperialist plot to steal their oil and wealth. I mean, hell, you seem to do it often enough that I'm sure that the professionals can make it pretty damn convincing. The fact is that if we did nothing, they'd count it as a victory, that they intimidated the US, and their ranks would swell with those who wanted to be on the winning side of things. If we attack, they call it open warfare and their ranks swell again. They will swell as long as these leaders are in political power in the Middle East and they can speak out. One way, we are making progress, even if they are gaining troops because they will ALWAYS be until we start to cut down on their political power structure. Create pressure by destroying the political systems that started this viewpoint and allow it to thrive. No, my policy doesn't state that it's the center of Islamic Fundamentalism. If there are more dominos to be set up, then it obviously isn't the center. The center is Saudi Arabia, but it's pretty much impossible to justify an attack there. We realize this, which is why we are trying to set up democracy after democracy around it. It'll cave under the notion of social change and understanding. Of course, you're getting desperate, so a purposeful misinterpretation of my policy is pretty much expected right now. I mean, seriously, you are defending the concept of Islamofacism. And, no offense, but right now more than one religion is in on the whole "The Middle East is wrong". It's not strictly Christian right now, it's pretty worldly. That's because the idea that all other who don't believe in your religion are evil and must be destroyed generally doesn't come across well to, well, those that don't share that belief. Oops. Uh, you were very, very wrong on both accounts, though you don't seem to admit it. Good for you, though, to try and take the moral highground. I say you condone these actions because you constantly act as an an appoligist, not I. They kill people not because they are extremists who are intolerant and thrive on dictatorships and religious fundamentalism, but because they are a product of US Foreign policy and simply misunderstood. We need to help them, right? By condoning their reasoning, you do condone their actions. I never condoned the torture of Abu Ghraib; I didn't condone the mindset and I'm glad they are being punished. You, on the other hand, condone the mindset as not their fault, so through that you condone their actions as not really their fault. You condone them by not damning them; it's as simple as that. Hey, and trying to make a veiled attack by saying I condone civilian attacks by the US! Good for you. Of course, there's a distinct difference between 'accidental' and 'purposeful', but you didn't grasp that with 9/11 so why should I expect you to now? Once again, you fail to give a solution under your own doctrine. How do you want to deal with the 'barbarians'? Give me a solution better than the one right now. How should we have dealt with Saddam? More inspections? More time? You wonder why I call you a child. Here's why. You act as though we go in, bomb indiscriminately, and say "Hey, we got Democracy!". You overgeneralize and simplify so that you can validate your extreme viewpoint. They've been bitching ever since we rightly supported Israel during the first invasion of their country. It's made them bitter and they've refused to recognize their mistake in doing so. I'll say we've made mistakes there, but it hardly accounts for all of the accusations being made, nor does it count as something one would consider 'rampant imperialism'. Yeah, believing in the Status Quo does help ya. It's okay to have fundamentalist dictators running around. It's our fault, anyways, so let's just sling some rhetoric around and not actually do anything while feeling good about ourselves for being so darn progressive and understanding. No, because things like "That really showed the terrorists!" really is so mature. You've shown a lack of understanding when it comes to the reality of the world we live in; you have yet to grow up. Until then, you are a child. Sorry, that's life. I guess if one wants to believe that we are all just slaves to corporate America, that the United States Government is intent on dominating the world through the imposement of consumerism on all we can see, that we are selfish, heartless tools of a soulless hegemony that demands more money and oil to fill it's coffers, I must be living in a dream. It all fits together so well. Perhaps after reading this, I should blow up a government building so that I can fight the power as well as my freedom-fighting brothers in the Middle East, right? I never said there weren't problems with what's going on: There will always be. It's inevitable. But your warped viewpoint is utterly indefensible. It lacks reality and it lacks logic.

*Sigh* No, it's your virulent, conspiratorical hatred of a man and nation that you so want to believe is evil. You've posted nothing on this forum that doesn't damn the United States for being an Imperialistic, Capitalist-Driven, Slave-creating state that enjoys nothing more than hurting other countries and enforcing their will as though we got some sexual thrill out of having to invade other countries. You constantly posted incredibly biased and flawed commentary that generally that lacks any deeper message that "America bad! World doomed!" and act as though we should thank you for enlightening us with this sardonic drivel that lacks even the factual merits of a Michael Moore film. The entire 100,000 Iraqis being dead hasn't yet been confirmed by anyone and has been called into question by numerous people world-wide truly shows how easily you grasp onto something that has yet to be proven definitively yet fits your needs for the moment. I love the "war criminal" accusation. Truly brilliant, indeed. You've just shown yourself to be as original as the 14-year olds at the Democratic Underground. You lack any real understanding of what 'reality' is, and instead to justify your extreme ideological differences you paint your opponents are war-mongering, hateful capitalists, abusing and raping Iraq 'til her bossom is sucked dry and her people are left to die in the wasteland that we have created for her. You lack any understand of the fall of the Twin Towers to compare the two. You illogical, blinding bitterness has completely shielded you from any concept that could possibly mean that Bush does not wish death and hegemony upon the rest of the world. As though he called for the destruction of the Iraqi people for the glory of the Aryan race. The towers falling meant something deeper psychologically to every American. I doubt you understand it: You subscribe to the theory that it was a reaction to the Consumer Slave culture that the PNAC is trying to push on the World. It's not a true tragedy, we brought it on ourselves. Of course you think an election result is worse. You child. You toddler. Wake up. Realize the truth that has been sitting infront of you. Stopping going blind from looking for words between the lines that don't exist. Saddam killed over a million people abroad. He caused the deaths of 300,000 during sactions due to his skimming off a program meant to help the people of Iraq. All while you and the rest of the world watched, approving only because it held the status quota. Now the same goes on in Darfur, waiting for the UN to react. Please, where's the numbers on that one? Or do you ignore that because it doesn't fit into your agenda? "The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." I suppose, though, doing nothing is your MO. Gotta protect that status quo, and all. Considering that they are fighting against a government recognized by the UN and the majority of Iraqis, I suppose that would be it, right? I guess when they drive car bombs into buildings they are only setting the brainwashed fools free, rather they live their lives on their knees under the reign of Bush's dog Allawi. We should thank them for such an honor. Funny. I remember Saddam torturing numerous people for opposing them. I suppose putting someone on an electrified bedframe is equal to what we've done. Of course, they did much more of that and other unspeakables that you really don't like talking about because it makes your inane, flawed talking points sound that much less childish. Saddam didn't torture or kill anyone, right? Is that something you got from Common Dreams, or just Matthew Good? Perhaps I'm the only one remembering the starvation and poverty that Saddam kept his people under, the squallor they endured while he had Presidential Palace after Presidential Palace built. Maybe I'm just creating the general underlying fear that the Iraqi people constantly lived under because Saddam constantly kept his people under the watch from his own secret police. Again, Saddam took over a Million Lives before we invaded, and after we put sanctions on him over 300,000 died to fill his greed. Not even open warfare and fighting, but from starvation, hit squads, torture, and bad living conditions. If you forgot that, I'll be pleased to remind you of the fact. But, please, clinge to the notion that Iraq will forever be worse because we intervined there. It amuses me greatly that someone can be so ignorant yet try and act so intelligent. No, they can't have democracy. It's impossible. They need a tyrant to hold them all together. In suffering and in fear. What an excellent idea. I guess Stalin was A-OK in your book because he really unified the Russian people under his Iron Curtain of mass purges and poverty. Do you want to know the real reason? The real reason why we are there? Not for oil. Not for the spread of Christianity. Not for WMDs. Not for the glorious spread of Democracy. We are there because this is thelast resort for the Middle East. There is no other foreign policy solution besides laying down democracy. It isn't a happy thing, it's a sad, last ditch effort to fight Islamofacism. Containment failed. Appeasement failed. Ignoring it failed. Quite spectacularly, actually, on 9/11. Now, the only way to destroy this entire ideology is by placing down the system that wipes out this sort of ignorance: Democracy. We are just setting up the dominos right now: We have Pakistan, which we strong-armed with the "You're with us or you're against us" message, which is now holding up Afganistan as well. Iraq is teetering, but holding. Next is probably Syria/Lebanon (I'm sure your weeping for the Baathist regieme there). We are standing these democracies up so that eventually the center of all this will finally collapse under the social pressures of change. It's a long, hard plan, but it's the only way to truly eliminate Islamofacism. Though, I have to say, I love the hypocracy of first damning our actions and then berating us for not moving faster. Nothing works better than slapping a guy for doing something you don't approve of and then slapping him again for not doing it faster this time. If you want to try and claim we are the facists, go ahead. Feel free. You support people who attack civilians, behead innocent people, and call for the death of those who do not believe in their twisted take of Islam. I guess it doesn't hurt me when I know what sort of company that you are in. I await for your solution of ignoring it again and hoping that the terrorists will lay down their arms because of the stop of all "imperialistic" actions by the evil empire in their region. I want to hear your ideas for fixing the region through peace, love, and compromise. I want to hear something other than your vague promises and unabashed rhetoric. Oh, and you finally admitted that "Alright, Saddam did do bad stuff". Good for you.

Actually, it's like everyone who wanted a state constitutional amendment against gay marriage overruled the bunch of college kids. Ah, denial. Keep thinkin' that, bro! The Republicans didn't really win, they just got lucky! *Thumbs up* If this keeps up, we might get past the fillibuster barrier by 2006...

omg cockfight

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

I was just responding to an assertion that most industrialized countries haven't ratified the treaty. The US, Australia, and Switzerland are the only ones on the list of non-ratifiers that I saw. Unless you count Indonesia--semi-industrialized I guess. I thought Russia didn't either. I'm not sure, but I remember them at least turning it down right after Bush did.

Very sad news indeed. Praise be to those freedom fighters! Fight the evil Americans! Make them pay! Sources: CNN

You theory is statistical crap. The margin of error is massive because not only your small sample, but the possibility of bias in your sample: Did you do your demographics right? Did you get an equal number of male and female? Just picking 20 people is just idiotic. The Labor Department samples THOUSANDS of people. I'd say they are far more accurate than you. Not only to add in all those outside organizations that do things like household surveys and notice just about the exact same thing. Bottom line: Your theory is out of whack because it is statistically unsound in just about every way possible. Are there any, like, codified, non-hersay answers here, or are you just trying to make up crap? In any case, salary grew at an incredible rate during the 90s during the big Internet boom. During a recession, when the salaries went down to stabilize, it's only natural that they'd be a bit lower. *shrugs* Thank God you didn't post them. These are severely disappointing. *Shrugs* My father's a construction worker and he's had two pay increases. I guess it just shows that ancedotal evidence = nothing when trying to make a real argument. Uh... is there any proof that this will all happen under your policies, or are we in FairlyLand? ??? What's the accusation supposed to be here? I got 150 bucks for mine. w00ty! Yeah, and the Democrats sure did for not developing any sort of platform. You original post is hilarious, bud: Yeah, you guys are funnier, because we are the ones laughing at you. Laughing as you continue to try to hold your superiority when you continue to sink down by believing that you are the ones who are right and that the Republicans need to change. Keep trying to believe, bud, and I'll keep laughing.

Your justification of AA. Seriously, I thought you could at least understand that much. Bakke basically said that the entire "Priviledge" thing and social justice aspect of AA is not a proper justification for it. It's dead as an argument, so if you can't come up with a better argument, then you are basically up a creek without a paddle. Grutter v. Bollinger (Or was it Grotz?) that basically struck down U of M's policy of AA on admissions based on the 'diversity' justification. It's basically the end of all you are talking about. Why the hell don't you know this shit? And I can't undertand why you defend it so much when you aren't sold on it.

Why the hell does everyone think the youth didn't turn out? Turn out increased all around, even the youth. Problem is, everyone with sense overrules a bunch of college kids.

And lastly, Kahran Ramus pretty much killed any debate last time on the Kyoto Treaty. I think it was the fact that CO2 is a fairly shitty Greenhouse gas and that the entire treaty's main concern is that kinda weakens it. It's 'feel-good' legislation, I believe it was called.

A. R. Pratkanis & M. E. Turner, The proactive removal of discriminatory barriers: Affirmative action as effective help (1995). Manuscript submitted for publication. Reported in Faye Crosby, Audrey Murrell, John Dovidio, Rupert Nacoste, Anthony Pratkanis, Janet Helms, "Affirmative Action: Who Benefits?", a briefing paper of the American Psychological Association, Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, Society for the Psychological Study of Ethnic Minority Issues. A 1995 U.S. Department of Labor study found that whites filed only 3,000 reverse discrimination cases that year, and almost all of them were found to be without merit. Fewer than 100 cases actually involved reverse discrimination, and only in six cases could the claims be substantiated. Source: R. Wilson, Affirmative Action: Yesterday, Today, and Beyond (Washington, DC: American Council on Education, May, 1995). Um... Gruder v. Bollinger? That's the only one that really matters, bud, considering it basically kills off your idea. *Shrugs* I love how you bring up all these statistics and reasons and ALL of them are basically invalidated by SCOTUS cases. Jesus, you just don't seem to get it, do you?

Aww... BoyScout returns. What happened to the end of the Republicans, dude?