Justice

I love you, too. No matter how much you can get on my nerves for disagreeing with me, you almost always bring up a pretty logical argument to it. You definitely have my respect along with a few other people on this board for being the good guys on the other side of the aisle.

Vietnam wasn't unjust. We were defending an ally from being invaded by a hostile Communist Government (And back off those of you who say that we were defending a corrupt President: We weren't happy with him either and we were the ones who put in a decent political council after he was gone). Explain to me how the North Vietnamese were justified by invading South Vietnam. That would be like us not acting when Kuwait was invaded. Indeed one could argue that the war was ultimately too micromanaged by Johnson and the media was more concerned about showing dead Americans than reporting American successes (See: Tet Offensive), but to say it was unjust is just plain stupid. Lying to get us there? Dude, you are sad. The fact that Bush had to gain support by using WMDs (Which hasn't been disproven yet) because the international community was too concerned with the status quo and its own interests with a CORRUPT AND VICIOUS DICTATOR (Germany and France's oil deals that kindly went behind the 'Food for Oil' program in the UN, Russia's continued arms support) is unjust. To oppose a war that frees the Iraqi people from someone who terrorized them for years is unjust. How has GW "FUCKED us"? We've lost a minimal amount of troops so far. GW giving contracts to his buddies? Uh, the military handed out those contracts, dude; GW didn't have any power in giving them out. Oh, and an update on the Haliburton thing: Turns out that Haliburton didn't overcharge, people. The Kuwaiti supplier did. Sorry. We've hijacked their resources? Explain to me where this money is, because frankly, I don't think anyone in the US or in our Government is seeing a cent of it, especially when we are handing Iraq a $87 Billion rebuilding gift/loan out of our own pocket. Oh, don't worry, I'm sure that the Republican Party will be installing a skull radio in your head to make you believe that the war on Iraq was cool. I'm sure, though, they'll have a hell of a time removing the ones that the Left-wingers have already installed... Well that's nice. ... Do you realize that that will ONLY OCCUR IF THE THREE THINGS ABOVE HAPPEN? Jesus H. Christ, you must be retarded NOT to realize this. Which is why we are actually doing the things above. Why would we do things that we don't need to do if we aren't for them? I guess that's left wing logic for ya. Uh... Proof? This is costing us much more than it will make us, man. The man wanting to give Iraqis freedom, dislodge a tyrannical dictator before he could start handing out dangerous weapons to terrorist groups, and is now rebuilding Iraq is CERTAINLY UNJUST GOALS! DAMN HIM, DAMN HIM TO HELL![/JR] Please don't mistake no one agreeing with your mindless accusations as no one caring, it's just that a majority of Americans have tuned out the useless "OMG WAR FOR OIL BUSH IZ TEH BADZ FAUX NEWZ LOL2K3*#$908" drivel that you continually spout. We do care. We care for the Iraqi people. All you care about is trying to find ways to bitch about the US over and over again. Selfish? Wow, what a hypocrit. We are giving tons of things to the Iraqi people, and just because you dislike the current President you immediately dismiss it as "selfishness". And it is just because you hate the current President. This isn't a normal, logical 'Jobber of the Week- I'm worried this may not be the right justification to do this' dissent, this is 'WE ARE ALL CAPITALISTIC BASTARDS AND EVIL AND NOTHING WE DO SHOULD BE TAKEN AT FACE VALUE' shit. You are exactly what a liberal should not be. You make liberals and your causes look bad because of your inane hatred and distrust of the US and anything we do. Hopefully some of the smarter liberals on the board will find you and smack the shit out of you someday for making them look bad.

... So this means that Trey Parker and Matt Stone are War Criminals because they violated the Geneva Convention?

Well, if you want something utterly hilarious, then go here. I never thought I'd see anything like this before. Edit: And since we got cartoons going....

And it was British and Aussies who trained and saved Ho-Chi Minh from dying back in WWII, yet we don't blame them for Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh and Osama Bin Laden are just a LITTLE bit different. Ho Chi was fighting for his country's independence from the French, the Japanese and later the Americans. Australia and Britain supported him because he opposed the Japanese. I normally think that type of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' thinking is idiotic, and creates more problems than it solves (see America, United States of), but it was WORLD WAR TWO. Australia was at a very serious risk of losing South East Asia completely. If there was ever an excuse to say 'Oh, this guy is a communist guerilla insurgent leader, but he hates the Japs so let's give him stuff', it was THEN. And how exactly can Ho Chi Minh, and therefore Australia and Britain be blamed for Vietnam? What about the French, whose colonial ambitions created the conflict in the first place? Or the Japanese? Or the Russians or, gee, maybe those Americans who spent billions continuing a war they were never going to win for a supposed strategic interest? And who (along with others in the international community I'll admit), turned a blind eye to the actions of the Khmer Rouge across the border until years later? My point about Sadaam may have been exaggerated, but at least it was grounded somewhere in reality. Indeed, and a Soviet move into Afganistan put incredible danger on the Middle East oil fields and really become a threat to the entire West's way of life. Of course, you probably didn't know that so I'll let it slide. Ho Chi Minh and Osama are very different? Not really. Both are thought of as freedom fighters (Osama fought off the Russians; that's fighting for one's independance?). Both have killed many innocents via terrorist attacks (Guerilla attacks in Saigon and other such things), both have probably hurt their people more than they intended to save them. Osama was of a vital interest to us because he was fighting the Russian which would stop them from gaining a valuable striking position to take the Middle East and their oil-fields. Australia and Britain supported Ho Chi Minh (And saved his life as well) because he was fighting the Japanese who were threatening to possibly invade Australia. Both of them were completely abandoned when the war ended (Though hostilities between Osama and the US actually sprung up when the US was asked to send military help to Saudi Arabia, though it is often mistaken for our support in Afganistan). They are very very similar. You are just being a hypocrit because you THINK that you guys were more justified when in actuality both moves were justified: Neither of them at the time had shown any true hatred for the West. This wasn't "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", they thought they had an ally. Both decisions by both countries were completely justified. If you took a guy to a wrestling match who then went on to kill 20 people years later because of that wrestling match, are you to blame for him? Were you a conspirator? No. Your logic doesn't add up, but again, that's no surprise from you. War we could never win? Bwuahahahahaha... Dude, the only reason we lost was because of the media at home. Have you ever actually READ anything about the Vietnam War besides what you get in the local party dispatches? We could have stayed there for as long as we liked; the NVA did not have a chance of uprooting us. But whatever. No, the whole Saddam/Weapons thing ISN'T grounded in reality because people fail to realize that we didn't give him that much. We didn't give him tanks, guns, planes, missiles,artillery, APCs, trucks, or anything that really built up his army. It's just like the British saving Ho Chi Minh.

Holy Conspiracy theories! Did you guys EVER wonder why Gore only asked for a recount in 3 counties? Because he knew he had no chance to clear the small gap if he included Republican counties. If he really thought he won the state, why didn't he ask for a simple statewide recount (By the way, all of the subsequent Newspaper-done recounts have shown that yes, he did win)? Disputing Florida is idiotic; that would suggest that every poll worker in the inner city is a Republican so that they could turn away people because they were "ex-convicts". How likely do you think THAT is? People lack knowledge of what a real fix is: Chicago/Daly, when they had DEAD PEOPLE voting. In Conclusion, shut up about the 2000 election. Congratulations, you got the popular vote. You also won less than 200 Congressional districts. That's like thinking you won a football game because you have the most offensive yardage. Sorry, but you have to get points instead. Oh, and I have a new respect for Wildbomb. You really are more moderate than I thought. I guess I was a bit jaded about you because you are only kinda far left on media subjects and that's all I used to see you post in...

We propped him up? Um, we did send him a small amount of weapons, but we didn't support anything he did until Iran invaded Iraq after Iraq's falled offensive aganist them. Please get your facts straight. And it was British and Aussies who trained and saved Ho-Chi Minh from dying back in WWII, yet we don't blame them for Vietnam.

He has Russian Tanks, Russian Artillery, Russian Planes (With some French Mirages as well), Russian SAMs, Russian APCs... Yeah, I think we do. But I'm sure this was trying to be a hit at the US for giving Saddam a token amount of Anthrax and Chemical weapons back in the 80's, ignoring the fact that the Russians (And partly the French) literally built his military to where it was in 1991 and 2003. And that's the last of the negativity that I'm going to bring tonight.

Well, a lot of us believed that he buried them when it became evident that a US attack was inevitable. We've found buried trailers, buried planes, buried everything in Iraq. Tons of place in the desert to bury stuff, so why not WMDs? I just feel that if Saddam had had available WMD's he would have used them on us when the war started. I'll be really surprised if any turn up. Then again, if he did he'd immediately damn himself and justify the US actions. If he didn't he could hurt the US continually on the international level because it looks as though he didn't have the WMDs. It's kind of a "Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't" decision, but that's what it probably came down to.

Well, a lot of us believed that he buried them when it became evident that a US attack was inevitable. We've found buried trailers, buried planes, buried everything in Iraq. Tons of place in the desert to bury stuff, so why not WMDs?

And all it took were 3,000+ innocent Iraqis and 455 (and counting) coalition troops! Well, considering that this also comes with a newly freed Iraq, I'd say those casualties are worth it. I'm sure there are a lot of Iraqis who would agree with me as well.

It seems most of these men have absolutely nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. They're poorly organized and are far from Al-Qaeda standards. Direct threat, my ass. What ARE Al-Qaeda standards, first off? And personally they don't seem like a rabble: The do seem organized to an extent, just when you try to engage the US Military you never really look good. I'd say these are probably Al-Qaeda members, though they probably just aren't veterans.

Wow. A smart democrat . Whouda thunk it? Do you support Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, etc? Indeed you could debate Afganistan, but in a country that completely lacks any form of infrastructure and almost Middle Age-ish technology, how much CAN you do?

OMG BAN PLZ~! Edit:... wait a sec, The Left is a race now? Shit, Mike is right... I think he was joking... As was I.

OMG BAN PLZ~! Edit:... wait a sec, The Left is a race now? Shit, Mike is right...

You watch too much CNN ... I don't get cable. EDIT: After some consideration, I wonder about you SideFX. You seem to be the most partison guy on the board, and that's saying a lot. Between you and Marney, I wonder whose nipples got the hardest when they heard the news this morning. I got money on you. Judging by their reaction, the Iraqi people probably take that nod. But, hey, who cares about THEM, right? -=Mike I am sure our administration didn't care that much, considering they have said numerous times that catching Saddam doesn't really matter, yet I am sure the capture will be used more then the explanation as to the debacle in Afganistan. Debacle in Afganistan? We aren't doing THAT bad over there. Are you referring to Osama then? Because hey, if that's the only gripe you have on this whole war against Terror you really have your priorities messed up.

I am sure gays can careless about the name "marriage" if civil unions were put on equal footing as marriage in terms of benefits and recognition, then I doubt people would have a problem with it. ... I'm confused by the wording of that statement, but you are agreeing with me, right? And I voted for the Civil Unions thing up there, which is what I was supposed to vote for, correct?

Civil Unions with the same benefits. Fighting simply for the word marriage, though, is something that would be utterly inane for all those involved and would likely ruin any positive momentum you have.

Are you sure? I thought it was 10%, but I could be wrong here...

We lost 441 soldiers from the whole Iraq conflict last time I checked. The fact of the matter is that the longer we stay in Iraq, the more it will become another Vietnam. ... ... ... *Shakes head* Dude, you should be smacked. Hard.

Lemme guess... us giving him a small amount of Anthrax and chemical weapons somehow completely cemented his reign of terror. w00t!

Hi, I'm Dick Cheney and I'm the former owner of THE EVIL CORPORATION :firedevil: HALLIBURTON :firedevil:

Aww, wittle baybee gonna cry because Saddam got captured? I think, to the Iraqi people, capturing Saddam means far more than any WMDs could, and I'm sure a lot of the people in the US will agree, if only because he will be able to pay for his crimes. But thanks for making a small and pathetic attempt at trying to make this war look bad. *Buddy Christ thumbs up*

Maybe the school had problems between different races, religions, sexual orientations, etc. that resulted in some fights and unnecessary drama. Or they just might have wanted the students to be exposed to something that they currently know little about, but will be confronted with in the real world once they graduate. Either way, the things that most of us take from high school have nothing to do with math, science, or history, but with whatever "life lessons" that are learned either directly (like from this kind of program) or indirectly (through one's own experiences). A kid I'm close with went to this school and it really wasn't because of anything other than the "It's Ann Arbor, we are our own perfect country and we need to show that off ALL THE TIME" attitude in the area. Apparently they had a lawsuit like this a little while ago and lost out to that as well.

CNN.com OMG COMMIE NEWZ NETWORKZ LOL 2K3!@!U*(#)!@*_#! Of course, you guys have never shown WHY someone else is more qualified, but hey, let's keep the vague conspiracy theories rolling.