Today's Terrorists

Kamala Harris - Kamala - Find jobs - Watch Anime - Wordpress Themes

Pages : [1] 2 3

nevetS

Apr 13th 2005, 1:19 am

Is it just me, or does anyone else have a problem with the fact that these guys were arrested in august, held since then, and finally charged today. (obviously I'm just restating what I think I heard on the news today.

yfs1

Apr 13th 2005, 1:26 am

nevetS

Apr 13th 2005, 2:45 am

Ahh... sorry. Apparently a few guys were casing out some financial institutions under Osama's orders. They were discovered and arrested last august. The FBI announced that they are charging them today. Here's a link at cnn... http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/12/terror.indictment/index.html

I've got no love for these guys at all, and I realize they were originally arrested in London, but the fact that we have gone from "we must charge you in 24 hours or release you" to "we'll hold you indefinitely and maybe charge you" scares me. I realize this is a special terrorist only thing, but if you look at other things - like the no-fly list that you can't see unless you are on it (which non-terrorists (http://www.hypocrites.com/article15650.html) are on (http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/040425/flight.shtml)), and the fact that we now have laws that we have to follow, but aren't allowed to read (http://www.pittsburghpostgazette.com/pg/05058/462446.stm) because of national security really bothers me.

fryman

Apr 13th 2005, 2:47 am

Oh, boy... I hear AC coming around with 58 posts under his arm...

nevetS

Apr 13th 2005, 2:50 am

LOL... Oh well. I didn't mean to start a tyrade here. Just spitting out what's in my head. Take it for what it is worth AC.

/me DUCKS!

wendydettmer

Apr 13th 2005, 3:42 am

I agree with you nevetS....problem is constitutional laws only protect american citizens, which is how they can make laws to get around that type of thing. Lord knows how complicated they get with international law, most of which is still hazy at best.

sheelgohe

Apr 13th 2005, 5:05 am

I agree wendydettmer!! Same is the case in India!!

SEbasic

Apr 13th 2005, 5:40 am

What really worries me is the definition of a terrorist.

TechEvangelist

Apr 13th 2005, 6:03 am

There are a few important issues missing in the CNN article (as usual). They were arrested in Britain, but how long were they held there? When were they extradited to the US?

The problem with the current breed of terrorists is that if you follow due process and give them the benefit of the doubt and release them, they immediately go back to planning other attacks. A good percentage of the Gitmo detainees that were released were arrested again because they went right back to what they were doing before.

I don't know where we should draw the line between protecting the rights of terrorists and protecting the rights of citizens. If they actually have the right guys and they were doing what is alleged, I would not shed one tear about their rights.

Whose rights are more important? Those of inoccent civilians or those of the criminals?

Okay, Anthony, let's hear your perspective about how this is all a Bush plot to control the planet.

wendydettmer

Apr 13th 2005, 10:14 am

The same can be said for most criminals though, the only difference is that terrorist tend to hit larger numbers of people. btw, i believe they were held since august of 2004.

Release someone who steals, they aren't going to wait until they are charged to resume their habits.

I'm all for arresting and charging criminals, but the arrests shouldn't' happen unless you have proof of the crime. I know it's a lot more complicated then that, but the ramifications can be so dangerous.

it's a tricky issue.

anthonycea

Apr 13th 2005, 10:33 am

It is real simple, these nations hate America because of our support of "what men call Israel" which was an ancient nation of God's that consisted of 13 different tribes, Judah was only one of those tribes.

After WW2 in 1948 those folks fleeing Eastern Europe seized Palestine and took God's name of Israel and put it on a man made state with the support of America.

America is hated for turning this small country into a nuclear powered 51st state of America and that is why these nations hate us.

Really Simple Syndication if you are willing to understand history.

wendydettmer

Apr 13th 2005, 10:36 am

we are hated for more then that. we helped keep evil people in power to benefit us, while the people of those countries suffered. Iran is a great example.

AzAkers

Apr 13th 2005, 10:38 am

WARNING: This post contains content of an opinionated and speculative nature.
The statements and opinions of this post do not necesarrily reflect the position
of the DP forum owners/management, nor the original poster
- enjoy ;)

I have NO love for terrorist - or even 'demonstrators' who feel that violence will forward their 'cause'.

That being said the definition of terrorist is being revisited almost daily - I fear (as a conspiritous person) that the definition will remain fluid, and become a umbrella for the jusification of gross governmental involvement in more and more aspects of daily life.

The conspiritorial influence further proposes that eventually this will lead to complete empirical governmental domination of the American (and dare I say global) citizenry.

Further it can be speculated that this empirical force would be utilized to force the days flavor of 'democracy' down the throats of every person on the face of the earth creating 'Terrorists' out of anyone who fails to comply with the socio-political leanings of the empowered regime.

But then again...I have watched the Matrix, and read Revelations (KJV Bible) no less than 50 times each ;) (j/k)

wendydettmer

Apr 13th 2005, 10:42 am

I agree with some of your concerns AzAkers, but not all :) I'm not worried that everyone who does not agree with pure democracy will be deemed a terrorist, but I have seen a lot of racial profiling in the US as a result of 9/11. I lived in florida at the time, about 15 miles away from where the terrorists learned to fly planes, and I knew a lot of arab individuals. They were treated horribly, pulled over by cops, arrested, abused for no reason, etc etc.

a lot of people didn't care, saying it was 'natioanl security', but that's just ridiculious. to say that because a person is of a certain race or cultural automatically makes them a terrorist (or other negative thing) is just plain stupid, yet people in a panic will talk themselves into anything.

AzAkers

Apr 13th 2005, 10:43 am

hah - I don't even believe all the stuff I said - just putting some kindling on the fire ;)

You're right though - Unfortunaely society is ignorant (not stupid mind you)

Individuals are smart, but matched with ignorance and fear a crowd makes poor decisions.

Historically the politically empowered have used the 'national security' blanket to promote fear and ignorance in their constituants in order to mask the real underlaying efforts.

But I digress (been doing that all day)

Terrorism HAS to be a realative term or else they will just develop new (not listed as a terrorist act) methods of destroying life in their 'twistedly justified' manner.

So what IS a good definition for "Terrorist.".?

Blogmaster

Apr 13th 2005, 10:47 am

we are hated for more then that. we helped keep evil people in power to benefit us, while the people of those countries suffered. Iran is a great example.
I agree, I have been to Europe before 1990 and the French and Germans hated us back then as well.

GTech

Apr 13th 2005, 10:47 am

Lock em up, throw away the key. No virgins for these terrorists.

As far as "these nations" hate us, they hate us because we are infidels. Non-believers.

Blogmaster

Apr 13th 2005, 10:49 am

Oh, boy... I hear AC coming around with 58 posts under his arm...
lol ... is gonna be a long thread, I gotta log off before it's too late :D

wendydettmer

Apr 13th 2005, 10:49 am

Lock em up, throw away the key. No virgins for these terrorists.

As far as "these nations" hate us, they hate us because we are infidels. Non-believers.

Not everyone in 'those nations' are as radical as that. And we have given them reasons to hate us beyond that over the years.

dont' get me wrong, hate terrorists, love america - but we have overstepped our bounds on several occasions in the world, and many hate us for it. not an excuse for their actions by ANY means, but it's the truth nonetheless.

and if they are guilty, i agree, throw away the key.

wendydettmer

Apr 13th 2005, 10:50 am

hah - I don't even believe all the stuff I said - just putting some kindling on the fire ;)

well aren't you evil lol :)

anthonycea

Apr 13th 2005, 10:51 am

Well Wendy to be fair they were pulling over a lot of folks just to check ID's, I was pulled over by the state highway trooper for speeding after 9/11 he let me go for the speed because my ID checked out and he knew I lived just down the road after running it.

After Timothy McVehe bombed OK, City I was moving my company in a Rental Truck and the troopers in Ohio pulled us over to find out if we were hauling fertilizer and diesel fuel, so those things happen all over the country after major alerts.

The government knew about the possibility of 9/11 before it happened but was sitting on their hands like the UK government did the other day when the reporter drove a van into the castle complex.

Blogmaster

Apr 13th 2005, 10:51 am

Lock em up, throw away the key. No virgins for these terrorists.

As far as "these nations" hate us, they hate us because we are infidels. Non-believers.
right ever notice how arrogant they come off? They think we are garbage and we don't get it and by the sword they shall conquer. Is war good? no
Killing is never good. But evil causes evil and they have always been against Jews and those who support them. If we don't support Israel then who will. Should we all stand by and turn the blind eye while innocent people get slaughtered?

GTech

Apr 13th 2005, 10:51 am

AzAkers

Apr 13th 2005, 10:52 am

hehe - I edited my post instead of adding about 50....hmm...lokks like this will be a rough ride though...better start responding faster ;)

Blogmaster

Apr 13th 2005, 10:53 am

well aren't you evil lol :)
unfortunately this is a very serious matter :(

wendydettmer

Apr 13th 2005, 10:54 am

No one said that 'everyone' is a common demonimator before realizing there is a problem, that would just be silly, even even silly to imply that's what i said. My point was simply that the statement was a gross generalization of a nations people.

Of course a serious problem exists regardless of if 'everyone' hates us or not. I wasn't denying that.

Blogmaster

Apr 13th 2005, 10:54 am

Who says "everyone" is a common denominator before realizing a problem? Should we wait till "everyone" has aids before we work on a solution? Should we wait till everyone has cancer before we attempt to find a cure?

All is not a common denominator to wait for, while contemplating whether or not a problem exists.

right! Quaddafi, Khomeini, Osama ... someone else is in line. I for once have had enough of surprises and the last one should also have been the final one.

AzAkers

Apr 13th 2005, 10:54 am

sitetutor -
this serious yes - but THIS is just a post - lose your cool here and you can never make a REAL difference out THERE.

nevetS

Apr 13th 2005, 10:55 am

anthonycea

Apr 13th 2005, 10:57 am

Blogmaster

Apr 13th 2005, 10:57 am

I have to say that the opinion of Germany, France and Russia matters little to me. Those nations are jealous of us and it has nothing to do with our political agendas. They cannot stand seeing someone else more powerful than themselves. Look at their histories, hundreds of years of war with each others over nothing, similar to the muslim world. War is not good but what we do has at least a reason behind it and we are not as selfish as the other nations, we do a lot for other countries, a lot more than any other nation on earth.

AzAkers

Apr 13th 2005, 10:57 am

nevetS -
This is what I was leaning on in my 'conspiritorial' way

Short answer:
There DOES need to be more vigilance in apprehending these deviates
BUT we have to be careful how much power we give govenrment

Right answer:
Got me - which is what everyone comes to - that or wild - passionate solutions that are usually one sided

Blogmaster

Apr 13th 2005, 10:57 am

anthonycea

Apr 13th 2005, 10:59 am

Ohio is called Ohio and that is also accepted by the UN :o

wendydettmer

Apr 13th 2005, 10:59 am

So what do you guys think about the arrest and hold until whenever thing?

1) It doesn't apply to american citizens, so we don't need to worry about it?
2) We should lead the world, show them our justice system works, and give ANYONE the rights that we enjoy.
3) That only applies to criminals. I'm not a criminal, I could care less.
or
4) We had to change things because of 911 and I'm glad we did.

Personally, i think it's lousey. The US government claims to want a democracy in other parts of the world, yet are willing to treat those citizens with less rights. Can't have it both ways.

But number 4 is also very valid, things did have to change, but there is a line somewhere, and i think in the case you mentioned it was crossed.

International waters get murky, who is really in charge of it? US? UN? whoever is willing to?

AzAkers

Apr 13th 2005, 11:04 am

This thread is developing much too fast me to respond(as do natural conversations about this subject)

At this rate most responses are purely emotional and rarely drafted to inform or convert minds. I am always interested in facts, dates, and provable historical examples - none of which are like to make it into most passionate posts.

I would LOVE to read through this later and find content that effects me rather than passionate disortations. I hope we get some good posts in all of this.

anthonycea

Apr 13th 2005, 11:06 am

Go study these keywords on Google or Yahoo

1948 founding of Israel

Eastern European Jews Palestine

American role in founding of Israel

Bring back your relevant content and post it :o

AzAkers

Apr 13th 2005, 11:07 am

I think nevetS is looking for some public opinion of the nature of our loopholed laws that empower our government to label individuals 'outside' of natural law, and put them into a seperate category where normal rights are negated.

Currently this applies only to 'terrorists' which can be defined as...check your latest daily update..

wendydettmer

Apr 13th 2005, 11:09 am

Are we sure it only applies to terrorist? While I studied international law for a bit, i'm no expert, but i'm not sure that's correct. We were not the ones who arrested these individuals, Britian detained them, so whose juristiction is it really?

i'm gonna go do some research

AzAkers

Apr 13th 2005, 11:11 am

Opinion:
I think it stinks that people can be imprisoned with-out the right to prove their innocence

I also find it comforting to think that real terrorists would be confined to prison and unable to terrorize us

I also see that the system is flawed like EVERY form of Government EVER

GTech

Apr 13th 2005, 11:12 am

Go study these keywords on Google or Yahoo

1948 founding of Israel

Eastern European Jews Palestine

American role in founding of Israel

Bring back your relevant content and post it :o

Anthony, Isreal goes back much farther than 1948. Israel was Israel long before muslims savagely conquered it (and most of the world) in the spread of islam.

wendydettmer

Apr 13th 2005, 11:13 am

International Law website can be found at http://www.un.org/law/

Have to warn you though, the design leaves something to be desired, and the colors hurt the eyes :)

edit: after doing some reading, the international criminal court does NOT try cases involving terrorism, but may be added in a future review.
http://www.un.org/News/facts/iccfact.htm

anthonycea

Apr 13th 2005, 11:22 am

Anthony, Isreal goes back much farther than 1948. Israel was Israel long before muslims savagely conquered it (and most of the world) in the spread of islam.

Go back in the Old Testament GTech, you can read about when Moses brought the real children of Israel out of Egypt there.

GTech

Apr 13th 2005, 11:23 am

So you agree, Israel was Israel long before islam was invented?

One little step of progress at a time.

http://www.factsandlogic.org/ad_06.html

anthonycea

Apr 13th 2005, 11:27 am

Go read the story about how Abraham's wife could not have a child so he had a child by the servant girl, that child was Ishmael GTech for your information and he is the father of what we call Muslims today. God himself said that that man would be set against every man and every man against him for your intelligence needs, so blame God and try to fight with him if you wish.

Your the one that has zero grasp of the truth here.

wendydettmer

Apr 13th 2005, 11:33 am

You are correct in that the bible does talk about that...but then again, the 'truth' of all that depends on if one believes the bible is accurate

anthonycea

Apr 13th 2005, 11:34 am

I would say it is much more accurate than the RNC propaganda GTech will prepare soon :o

GTech

Apr 13th 2005, 11:35 am

So what you are saying, in a round about way, is that Israel was Israel long before 1948? That's what I thought you were trying to say.

Thanks for the offer to read, but I know my history well enough. Well enough to know Israel was Israel before 1948. I'm glad you agree with that too :)

wendydettmer

Apr 13th 2005, 11:36 am

I would say it is much more accurate than the RNC propaganda GTech will prepare soon :o

yes well those are not the only two sources of history :)

anthonycea

Apr 13th 2005, 11:37 am

You and I always agree GTech :) :) :)

PS: Or you are forced to agree with me at some point :D

nevetS

Apr 13th 2005, 12:16 pm

Forgive me for not doing my research...

But can you briefly explain what isreal has to do with this thread? or how it all correlates?

anthonycea

Apr 13th 2005, 12:18 pm

I guess you don't understand that this is the main reason we are fighting these people because of their hate of what men call Israel, I thought everyone understood that :cool:

nevetS

Apr 13th 2005, 12:24 pm

The way I think of it is that we are always going to be fighting someone or something. The reasons why are usually not that important and are always up to speculation.

anthonycea

Apr 13th 2005, 12:28 pm

This is a battle for control of Oil, that is why they want us out of the oil fields, when Trillions of dollars are at stake it simply means that the war will not end because men will continue to fight over money.

Bush is now begging for help from these countries that SiteTutor thinks are not important, so it goes to show you where his head is.

Blogmaster

Apr 13th 2005, 12:35 pm

I don't see Bush begging, Anthony, I see him reaching out. That is what you wanted him to do, correct?

GTech

Apr 13th 2005, 12:36 pm

Israel has nothing to do with oil fields.

Nor does killing infidels have anything to do with Israel.

Your oil scandal is with the UN, you just don't have the ability to realize it.

Bush is asking countries to help, and many are. Some were bought out by Saddam and have since been caught red handed for such. Still, we offer them the opportunity to be a part of the effort, which is succeeding, despite your wishes it wasn't.

mikmik

Apr 13th 2005, 1:18 pm

Anthony, BUDDY!!!!!

Hah hahahaaaaaaaa, let's go:O)
Sitetutor said
I have to say that the opinion of Germany, France and Russia matters little to me. Those nations are jealous of us and it has nothing to do with our political agendas. They cannot stand seeing someone else more powerful than themselves. Look at their histories, hundreds of years of war with each others over nothing, similar to the muslim world. War is not good but what we do has at least a reason behind it and we are not as selfish as the other nations, we do a lot for other countries, a lot more than any other nation on earth.

This is the same old same old I hear constantly from neo-cons that just don't understand there is a world outside the US that gets unbiased and propagandaist news.

No one is jealous of the US, they are sick of the US and it is a worldwide phenomonem.

PROVE that anyone is jealous, OKAY???

I am not at all jealous, I think King Bush and his ultra-right Fundamentalists are undermining freedom and democracy in a way you can only fear in your nightmares.

The US is trying to destabilize the Mid East, and they have had more than large and ample opportunities to show compassion and help oppressed people and nations, even just feed people, let alone invade their countries, but they haven't.
It doesn't even make sense for onwe second to think that the Bush regime is altruistic.

The Neo-cons are out of control (see senator about saying Supreme court justices are out of control for not cow-towing to the governments attempts to pass legislation that contravenes your own charter of rights), they wan6t to rewrite textbooks, they want to impose their laser-beam narrow view of religious morality, and $$$$$ worship on the rest of the world, and so on.

When will you people get it through your heads that others have different values, that we don't give a hoot about military power, that we would rather spend money on making people have access to basic human need of medical care and clean water, and a philosophy of enviornmentalism that understands what is going an and realizes that this mad corporate consumerism is destroying the planet, destroying human spirituality, and destroying trust.

Bush and cons are the biggest and most audacious hypocrites of all time in any developed country, they are undermining and twisting the ideas your country was founded on for their own motives and purpose.

Don't get me wrong, I not only don't admire that, I despise it with all my understanding and capacity.

I cannot stand the sight of Bush and quotes from the ultra-right wing Moral inquisition majority, they make me sick with their blatant disregard for minority rights and even majority opinion, and their self-endowed 'agents of God' status.

Why in the world would we be (read the rest of the world) jealous of something we despise???

Why would we be jealous of a country that is systematically being destroyed economically, one that will not be able to pay-off thei4r5 INTEREST PAYMENTS on their debt in 10 years??

One that the people are hated and mistreated, rightly or wrongly, in the rest of the world??

Tell me, sitetutor, please explain to me why we would be jealous, okay?

Oh, this post is far to long, but I will be back to give multiple links to news sources that thoroughly substantiate my points above. They are numerous, and omnipresent on the news agencies in the rest of the world.

Uh, GTech, you want to explain this one?
Nor does killing infidels have anything to do with Israel.

Your oil scandal is with the UN, you just don't have the ability to realize it.

Bush is asking countries to help, and many are. Some were bought out by Saddam and have since been caught red handed for such. Still, we offer them the opportunity to be a part of the effort, which is succeeding, despite your wishes it wasn't.

Succeeding??? LMFAO. Tell me how you get this fantasy to manifest as reality, please?

Mia

Apr 13th 2005, 1:21 pm

Anthony, Isreal goes back much farther than 1948. Israel was Israel long before muslims savagely conquered it (and most of the world) in the spread of islam.

This is true!

Blogmaster

Apr 13th 2005, 1:22 pm

I was not referring to Canada, or the UK, or Australia ... only certain nations such as the ones I have named.

wendydettmer

Apr 13th 2005, 1:25 pm

Ok, just a few things...

1) Don't generalize everyone in the United States. There are millions of people here, with a variety of viewpoints. I don't appreciate being referred to as 'you people'. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but leave it to the person you are debating with, not the whole country.

2) While you may wish to 'spend money on making people have access to basic human needs, etc etc', that is quite foolish to think the rest of the world agrees. In many countries worldwide it is still legal to beat women, they are treated as property and it is acceptable for them to be treated worse then animals. I think they would disagree with you on what they view as important.

3) I am not a fan of President Bush, and hated the fact he was re-elected. But when compared to the international theater of politics, he is not all that ultra-right winged. US is fairly moderate in comparision to many countries. I still dislike most of his policies however.

I guess my point is this.....your post is obvisouly an emotional one, which you have a right to, but don't lump everyone in the US in the same category, and don't assume that everyone outside the US will have the same agenda. That's simply not the way the world works.

mikmik

Apr 13th 2005, 1:25 pm

And so was I, so tell me, how do you come to believe that they are jealous of you???

I'll give you a hint.... France is now seen as the top country for leading the political view of the rest of the world, they are trusted above any other, and the US is at the bottom, below russia and china.

wendydettmer

Apr 13th 2005, 1:27 pm

Blogmaster

Apr 13th 2005, 1:27 pm

French propaganda is one thing we do not see on American TV, we do hear about it but don't want to see it. Why the French are so anti-American? beats me and I don't care.

Blogmaster

Apr 13th 2005, 1:30 pm

We don't have an issue with the French but they obviously do with us, so the problem is theirs and not ours.

Blogmaster

Apr 13th 2005, 1:30 pm

And please don't try to tell me it is because of the war, it has always been like that.

Mia

Apr 13th 2005, 1:32 pm

It has nothing to do with supporting what you call Israel TOOT, which is a man made state made possible only with our money and military might.

That is our 51st state and a military base that WW3 will be fought over and if we do not solve that problem in a way that is fair we are surely going into WWIII and there is no stopping a nuclear war.

We are already in WWIII and have been since Sept 11, 2001. WWI was not called that until there was a II, and WWII was not WWII unitl sometime after the US got involved. On paper anyway.

I think when the history books are re-written we will find that what we have been involved in for several years now, is indeed WWIII.

wendydettmer

Apr 13th 2005, 1:33 pm

We are already in WWIII and have been since Sept 11, 2001. WWI was not called that until there was a II, and WWII was not WWII unitl sometime after the US got involved. On paper anyway.

I think when the history books are re-written we will find that what we have been involved in for several years now, is indeed WWIII.

Quite possibly. The concept of 'war' is not the same as it was for WWI and WWII. There are different fronts, and different kinds of enemies. It's just a different world for fighting.

GTech

Apr 13th 2005, 1:34 pm

AzAkers

Apr 13th 2005, 1:40 pm

Why the French are so anti-American? beats me and I don't care.

Answer: French Fries, French Toast and French Kissing - they're mad because we do them better and use their name.

(just kidding - where is Crazy Rob - 'They're just posts guys.")

mikmik

Apr 13th 2005, 2:02 pm

wendy, I am certainly not predjudiced aginst individual Americans at all. I am lumping Neo-cons and the Republicans together when I say 'you people', or am voicing how the world in general see american citisens. Do you know that 56% percent fof the world sees the average american as dumb?

i want the sitetutors of the population to understand just how wrong they are.

I have many freinds in the states, some of my best friends, that are despondent over the state of the government. I still have deep belief that if and when things start to get to out of hands 'you people' will not put up with it one bit.

My country is so much like yours as to be almost identical. I have some severe criticisms of my Government as well, but the one thing I detest is the administration's of the US arrogance and assumptions that they should dictate matters to the rest of the world.
Protests in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4429137.stm)
Two years since Saddam Hussein's (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4427151.stm) statue was torn down, Iraq is now on the verge of having its first elected government in half a century.

However, many Iraqis are frustrated not only at the continuing violence, but also at the lack of jobs and basic services, says the BBC's Caroline Hawley in Baghdad.

One protester from Sadr City, 30-year-old Ali Hussein, told AFP: "The war has been finished for two years. What did we get? There is no electricity, no services, no nothing."

Little has been heard from Mr Sadr in recent months since the uprisings by his followers in many parts of central and southern Iraq last year.
Children 'starving' in new Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4395525.stm)

Boston Globe:US takes the lead in trashing planet (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/04/13/us_takes_the_lead_in_trashing_planet?mode=PF)

The Guardian: Don't be fooled by the spin on Iraq (http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5169518-103677,00.html)
Saddam Hussein's effigy was pulled down again in Baghdad's Firdos Square at the weekend. But unlike the made-for-TV event when US troops first entered the Iraqi capital, the toppling of Saddam on the occupation's second anniversary was different.
Instead of being done by US marines with a few dozen Iraqi bystanders, 300,000 Iraqis were on hand. They threw down effigies of Bush and Blair as well as the old dictator, at a rally that did not celebrate liberation but called for the immediate departure of foreign troops.

For most Iraqis, with the exception of the Kurds, Washington's "liberation" never was. Wounded national pride was greater than relief at Saddam's departure. Iraqis were soon angered by the failure to get power and water supplies repaired, the brutality of US army tactics, and the disappearance of their country's precious oil revenues into inadequately supervised accounts, or handed to foreigners under contracts that produced no benefits for Iraqis.

From last autumn's disastrous attack on Falluja to the huge increase in detention without trial, the casualties go on rising. After an amnesty last summer, the numbers of "security detainees" have gone up again and reached a record 17,000.

The weekend's vast protest shows that opposition is still growing, in spite of US and British government claims to have Iraqis' best interests at heart. It was the biggest demonstration since foreign troops invaded.

OTTAWA - Canada plans to impose a 15 per cent surtax on imports of U.S. cigarettes, oysters, live swine and some types of fish starting May 1.

Ottawa said Thursday it is slapping on the duties to retaliate against the United States for its failure to comply with the World Trade Organization ruling on the Byrd Amendment.

The amendment allows U.S. producers to receive anti-dumping and countervailing duties collected by the U.S. government from foreign competitors.

The WTO has ruled the amendment is illegal, and in November 2004, the trade body gave Canada and the other co-complainants the authority to retaliate.

Canada's decision to retaliate came as the European Union took similar action. (http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2005/03/31/tradefight-050331.html) The EU is planning 15 per cent tariffs on U.S. paper, textiles, machinery and farm produce beginning May 1.

Okay, let;s get serious now.
Europe influence seen as positive (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4413913.stm)

After the US, Russia was the country with the least positive reputation abroad among those questioned.
In 22 of the 23 countries polled, people felt Europe had a generally positive influence on the world.

France had the best reputation of the big nations, viewed favourably in 20 countries.

That one is new, this one is from january:
Global poll slams Bush leadership (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4185205.stm)

Negative feelings for Mr Bush extended to Americans as a whole
More than half of people surveyed in a BBC World Service poll say the re-election of US President George W Bush has made the world more dangerous.
Only three countries - India, Poland and the Philippines - out of 21 polled believed the world was now safer.

"Negative feelings about Bush are high and are generalising to the American people who re-elected him."

On average across all countries, 58% of people - and 16 out of 21 countries polled - said they believed Mr Bush's re-election to the White House made the world more dangerous.

Traditional allies

Most negative feelings were found in Western European, Latin American and Muslim countries.

I have tons of stuff, including people on forums in Europe talking with amazement at what is on the US TV stations News compared to what the rest of the world reports.

Make no mistake, the US is seen as a gigantic propaganda machine, and the US population that voted him in as brainwashed.

I only want people to understand what is really going on. I love nature, I love peace and humanitarian, like most people do, of course, but I am scared for the first time ever, and I remember the 60's and the cold war, so don't misunderstand what fear is when you are hanging on to your mom waiting for a nuclear war to start.
I am scared that the US is so twisted that they will sacrifice the world rather than show some humility.

There are many, many paralle1s to erosion of rights, and propaganda to other oppressive times and places in the last 150 years, and there are strong warnings coming from many Republicans that are worried.

The New Right (http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_westell/20031202.html)
CBC News Viewpoint | December 2, 2003

An alliance of economic neo-conservatives and moral conservatives took control of the U.S. Republican party years ago and launched "the politics of conviction" – politics based on beliefs and values that admit no compromise. The result has been to embitter party warfare, divide Americans almost 50-50, and elect a president, George W. Bush, who appeals to both wings of the new Republican party.

He is a "born again Christian" who says God put him in the White House, and a fervent believer in low taxes and minimum government.

The same scenario may now be playing out in Canada as the Canadian Alliance tries to take over the Progressive Conservative party.

There are several parallels between the traditional Republican party, now almost forgotten, and the disappearing PCs. Both had roots in the founding of their country and, for that reason, were based in the long established regions, the Republicans in the northeast and the PCs in Ontario and Quebec.

They called themselves conservative, but were flexible enough to embrace "progressives" – populists in the U.S. and Red Tories in Canada. Coming from the great eastern and central cities, both were able to adapt to the social and cultural revolutions that began in the 1960s.

Yup, I am worried about my country like you wouldn't believe, also. I have no hesitation in seeing the majority of people here as naive and just plain stupid as well.

It is just that Canada is not proud of it and don't act like Gods answer to the worlds problems. Yet ... We'll see after the next election.

If people want to destroy my country and make it a 'state' of the us, and impose christian values to replace the constituional rights, you will see fighting mad then.

I always thought things would just right themselves, and I used to be so pro US and think global warming and ecological destruction was an overreaction.

Not any more, not for a while now - it has been obvious for a long time.

As are Bushes transparent motives.

wendydettmer

Apr 13th 2005, 2:10 pm

I'll take some time and read those news articles, thank you for providing them. I am leery of considering them 'proof', as I have yet to meet a news source that isn't bias in some fashion. Same can be said for statistics. You say that 56% percent of the world sees the average american as dumb? Where did you get that from? Is that from ALL nations, or only industrialized ones, or only western ones?

Honestly, While President Bush may be a loon, he is not as powerful as everyone seems to think he is. We have a pretty good system of checks and balances...his bark is worse then his bite.

Thank you for taking the time to clarrify your earlier statements.

Mia

Apr 13th 2005, 2:35 pm

am voicing how the world in general see american citisens. Do you know that 56% percent fof the world sees the average american as dumb?

So what else is new? This has pretty much always been the case, at least as long as I can remember. The last few years have not had much of an affect on that sentiment.

Personally, I really do not care. Why? Well, 99.9999% of us came from somewhere else first, ie., Europe, Asia, even, (God forbid) Canada.

So when you can an American "dumb", you are in affect re-affirming a belief that "dumb" is pretty much universal, no matter what your current nationality.

(BTW, define dumb, and take a look at the spelling errors located in the short quote above. Also, American needs a capital "A" :-) )

mikmik

Apr 13th 2005, 2:36 pm

Thanks for being so understanding - I am a hothead and reactionary :o

mia We are already in WWIII and have been since Sept 11, 2001. WWI was not called that until there was a II, and WWII was not WWII unitl sometime after the US got involved. On paper anyway.

World war two started in 1939 on paper, the Germans had Belgium and poland by 1940, and churchhill was begging the US to get involved in May 1940. He wanted to stop the Germans from occupying France, and indeed he was trying desperately to get help and tell the French leader not to surrender, it wasn't to late.

The US didn't join the war until they were attacked. It was almost to late.

This is not world war III, and the US has a big responsibility to face for medling in other governments, financing wars, and creating the hatred that exists betwwe Islam and the west, most importantly the US.

That is why the polls show the world considers it more dangerous with Bush in power.

The US is not a saviour in the eyes of many, many people and countries. Money is the root of evil, and the love of money is the root of all evil.

Unbridled consumerism and waste is much to blame, NA and specifically the US creates 7 times as much waste as the rest of the world, and 2 times western Europe.

World war?? The US, and western society to a significant extent, has declared war on the ecology a long time agio, and that will destroy the planet and mankind, not terrorists.

War can do tremendous amount of local damage, and now with depleted uranium in 'Allied' militaries, very long term radioactive poisoning of local enviornments.

Time is for people to understand that there is no 'one villain' responsible for the wrongs, there are plenty of instigations and callous behaviors on the 'goog guys' side, and that has to be understood.

There is no war if you can see there are other solutions, either. War is one direction. One of my favourite quotes:
"Violence is the diplomacy of the dull"

One criticism of the US by the UN and EU is that the US is not open to different methods of handling problems but by war.

GTech

Apr 13th 2005, 2:40 pm

No wonder you are so anti-American mikmik, you pick some of the worst sources of opinionated commentary to present as factual evidence. I noticed you didn't post anything about soldiers building schools in Iraq or any of the positive things. You think the media in the US is showing positive influence? I say they go to great lengths to find the most minute of negativity (that doom and gloom thing they love so much) and ignore positive stories that come out. But that's what they do.

Fortunately, the only thing I worry about in our country are people that tend to make excuses for terrorists. I'm damn glad we have a president that won't put up with it, like we did in the 90s.

I'm always amazed when I read just how many countries, foriegn leaders and even the UN were bought out with saddam's corrupted money in order to vote against the war. France being right up there at the top. They had by far, more gross income in the oil for food program (billions) than any other country. No wonder they didn't want to go to war. Fortunately, it's not Iraqi's we're at war with, just a bunch of coward terrorists coming in from neighboring countries.

I worry about the world. I worry about the corruption and tolerance some have for those that would prefer to (and often times do) just kill them.

mikmik

Apr 13th 2005, 2:41 pm

Haha, I difine dumb as 'lack of ability to understand and comprehend'. Spelling and grammar, I can do very well if you wish, but that is a sign of lack of education, not innate ability to reason.

But, you make a good point, 'dumb' is a very judgemental and interpretive term, and I am by no means not 'dumb' and 'non-understanding' much of the time :O)

wendydettmer

Apr 13th 2005, 2:45 pm

I also doubt that you found find ANY reliable statistical data that used the word 'dumb' as part of a question. No offense mikmik, but that statistic you quoted is meaningless.

and the reality is, i could honestly care less what the rest of the world thinks about me. They have their opinion on the US government, they don't even know me.

mikmik

Apr 13th 2005, 2:47 pm

GTech, I'm always amazed when I read just how many countries, foriegn leaders and even the UN were bought out with saddam's corrupted money in order to vote against the war. France being right up there at the top., at least you some reason for stating this! It is meaningless otherwise.

Sigh, I have lots of stuff on the coruption of the Food for Oil program, and it is with the Iraq government and US people, as well, and the UN to.

The war is with Suddam Hussiens Refusal to give up his WMDs, that even the CIA says was a completekly wrong conclusion.

The war is not on terrorism in Iraq, it is with the Iraq government under Hussein. The war initiated terrorism against the Forces, even Bin Laden said that he was glad Bush won the last election, because it gave then reason to continue their involvement in Iraq.

The war was a lie, pure and simple, it is propagacda that it has anything to do with terrorism. That is a lie that Bush perpetrated (and Blair)

GTech

Apr 13th 2005, 2:53 pm

Really, so why did the New York Times recently report an explosive story about armed units (not Americans) that came in took out WMD just after the war started? Where's the WMD when it's convenient, where is it when it's not?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/international/middleeast/13loot.html?pagewanted=all&position=

BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 12 - In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein’s most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government’s first extensive comments on the looting.

The Iraqi official, Sami al-Araji, the deputy minister of industry, said it appeared that a highly organized operation had pinpointed specific plants in search of valuable equipment, some of which could be used for both military and civilian applications, and carted the machinery away.

Dr. Araji said his account was based largely on observations by government employees and officials who either worked at the sites or lived near them.

“They came in with the cranes and the lorries, and they depleted the whole sites,” Dr. Araji said. “They knew what they were doing; they knew what they want. This was sophisticated looting.”

As for the rest of you comments, just anti-American drivel that has no substance.

P.S. add that article above to your collection. Somehow I doubt you'll use it in the future though. It would go against what you want/hope others to believe.

mikmik

Apr 13th 2005, 2:54 pm

I also doubt that you found find ANY reliable statistical data that used the word 'dumb' as part of a question. No offense mikmik, but that statistic you quoted is meaningless.

How so?

If you don't care, you are commit to the same results and it will never change.

The most useless argument, one drevoid of validity is 'attacking the source'. If you have contrary evidence, or reasons your opinion is based on, bring them.
Or else it looks like pouting.

But I think I made my point that France, Germany, the world - in fact the closer you are to the US, the less jealous you are.

I used the word dumb, not the survey.

There are kies, damn lies, and statistics, eh? So all evidence, empirical data, in fact any sort of bookkeeping is invalid? LMFAO, I don't think so.

You evaluate data as presented.

mikmik

Apr 13th 2005, 3:03 pm

They HAD weapons installations, no one is argueing that. How do you think they launched Scud missiles and made them???

Whatever, you can say what you want, it is the common thread of all losing arguments

"As for the rest of you comments, just anti-American drivel that has no substance."

Why don't we let the rest of the world be the judge of that, I have already shown you are brainwashed by the Media and the conned by the neo-cons.

Name calling, my, my!
"It may be possible to charge Hell with a bucket, but against stupigity, the gods themselves contend in vain."

I have used similar as your quote to show the mismanagement of the situation, don't worry. I am not afraid of the truth, not do I ever fear backing up my claims with multiple sources, something which you still fail to do.

Why don't you read my pre -election debate at WPW? I have many, many more links to world prganizations, and interpretations of of the desecration of the meaning of your constitution by Bush et al, from Republicans and political scientists alike.

Have fun travelling to to Europe or Australia next time - be sure to wear an American flag on your back. LMAO

GTech

Apr 13th 2005, 3:03 pm

But I think I made my point that France, Germany, the world - in fact the closer you are to the US, the less jealous you are.

That coincides with who had the most money to loose by going to war with saddam:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm

In fact, it coicides rather well. No wonder they didn't want to go to war. What corrupt country in it's right mind would give up so much, not to mention the added oil-vouchers that were handed out like candy on Halloween.

Saddam very much had a role in terrorism. He paid families of suicide bombers. Then there are the connections to the OKC bombing here and many others, including Zarqawi who was in Iraq before the war began. Or have we forgotten about the Jordon bomb plot with 20 tons of wmd that Zarqawi was behind. Gee, I bet those WMD were picked right off the WMD fruit trees somewhere.

Blogmaster

Apr 13th 2005, 3:05 pm

But I think I made my point that France, Germany, the world - in fact the closer you are to the US, the less jealous you are. then please explain to me why nations like Germany and France have been so obsessed with talking bad about Americans for about the past 30 years. No matter who was President. No matter what was going on. It has been like that the whole time thru. The current political situation is just another excuse to have something bad to say. Honestly, Mik, I do not care and nobody should what the media in those countries sells to their people. being anti American brings ratings ... it is sick but very very true.

If you think it is time to start reasoning, where was that time when ppl try to diss us?
I am not one bit impressed by France and their effort to look like the peacemaker of the world. Hasn't their government been bribed by Saddam?

It is so funny how everyone expects us to keep smiling when bad things are being done to us. Everyone expects Jews to be good victims. Guess what the times have changed.
We have made our mistakes but that is what happens when you act. Better than leaning back, doing nothing and talking bad about others. We try, we do a ton of good and we protect those who want peace. Europe is for Europe, French for the French, Germans for Germans. Try bringing justice to all. If you want to believe the French media, fine, but don't expect everyone else to live out their unfounded hatred towards us.

Have a nice day!!!

Blogmaster

Apr 13th 2005, 3:09 pm

btw I hope that's not you in your avatar :D

GTech

Apr 13th 2005, 3:09 pm

Damn good post SiteTutor.

Funny how the mikmiks of the world forget the aid we send to countries, let alone the recent tsunami victims. We'll never see the good we do come up in a discussion started by those that prefer to unleash hatred and self-victimization.

anthonycea

Apr 13th 2005, 6:05 pm

We started out discussing why we have "terrorists" wanting to attack us again as they did on 9/11/2001 and that reason is their great hate of American policy in the middle east and our involvement there.

They really do believe that those oil fields are theirs and not ours, they really do believe that in 1948 Palestine was stolen from them by Eastern Europeans running from Poland, Russia and Germany.

They really do believe that the United States of America is responsible for all of the above and that is why this is a war that will never end until God ends it himself.

PS: Great posts by everyone of you.

PSS: This guy always starts threads that are blockbusters :o :D

GTech

Apr 13th 2005, 6:13 pm

We started out discussing why we have "terrorists" wanting to attack us again as they did on 9/11/2001 and that reason is their great hate of American policy in the middle east and our involvement there.

While those are current contributing factors often used to blame America with, the cause goes much deeper and more religious. Not sure it's worth going into here, but I can assure you whether we are there, or not, they will continue doing what they do because their religious doctrine teaches such.

We have these very types of schools, funded by Saudi Arabia, right here in America that preach this violence, INTOLERANCE, and hatred.

http://freedomhouse.org/religion/news/bn2005/bn-2005-01-28.htm

Appeasing them will make no difference. This is not a blame America issue. This was going on long before 9/11. It just took 9/11 to wake people up to what's going on around the world, every day.

anthonycea

Apr 13th 2005, 6:17 pm

But why do they preach war GTech?

Because of the OIL & ISRAEL issues, until we address these issues openly here in America without our leaders being bought by the lobbies, then these problems can not be solved and we surely are going into a major conflict.

One more thing SiteTutor should be aware of before he makes statements like Russia does not matter, well he should realize that they have big bombs pointed directly at his home town and should they send them all you will see is a flash of light, that's it.......

wendydettmer

Apr 13th 2005, 6:18 pm

I used the word dumb, not the survey.

There are kies, damn lies, and statistics, eh? So all evidence, empirical data, in fact any sort of bookkeeping is invalid? LMFAO, I don't think so.

You evaluate data as presented.

If someone else in the world wants to hate "American People" without much evidence of the American people, then what is the point of trying to be rational with them? It's very different to say they hate the government then to hate the people.

I also was not attacking your statistical source as you did not provide one. Having dealt with statistics a great deal, I was simply saying that 'dumb' is not a professional way of phrasing a question. You may have been paraphrasing for all I know.

I also never said that all statistical data were lies - you were the one who read into that. I deal with them ALL the time, and know a great deal about how polls and results change based on how the information is presented, the questions asked, the demographics involved, etc. The methadology BEHIND the statistics is very important. Just quoting them doesnt' mean much.

But you are free to read more into what I said then what I said. You would simply be wrong however.

wendydettmer

Apr 13th 2005, 6:23 pm

While those are current contributing factors often used to blame America with, the cause goes much deeper and more religious. Not sure it's worth going into here, but I can assure you whether we are there, or not, they will continue doing what they do because their religious doctrine teaches such.

We have these very types of schools, funded by Saudi Arabia, right here in America that preach this violence, INTOLERANCE, and hatred.

http://freedomhouse.org/religion/news/bn2005/bn-2005-01-28.htm

Appeasing them will make no difference. This is not a blame America issue. This was going on long before 9/11. It just took 9/11 to wake people up to what's going on around the world, every day.

Religion and politics go hand in hand in this case, as they have in many historical cases (crusades, etc). I agree that there were probably a lot of Americans who simply did not care about the issue before 9/11. I have friends in Israel, and I know it has been going on just about forever....back to biblical times as AC mentioned earlier.

America is not to blame for the hatred....doesnt' mean we always help the sitaution though.

ah well. regardless of if some guy from canada hates us, I actually am quite proud of being an American. Sure, there are problems, as with anywhere, but I would (and do) wear the American flag with pride when I travel, and have it hanging in front of my house, and a Bill of Rights in my room.

GTech

Apr 13th 2005, 6:24 pm

But why do they preach war GTech?

Please don't make me go there Anthony. You know the real reason, don't make me quote scriptures.

anthonycea

Apr 13th 2005, 6:28 pm

Quote what ever you want, this is not church, but it is sure a thread that will be read by folks worldwide.

Happy 500 GTech :)

GTech

Apr 13th 2005, 6:31 pm

I'll pass (for now) on quoting the scriptures to explain the hatred. Besides, you already know them, I'm sure ;)

GTech

Apr 13th 2005, 6:33 pm

ah well. regardless of if some guy from canada hates us, I actually am quite proud of being an American. Sure, there are problems, as with anywhere, but I would (and do) wear the American flag with pride when I travel, and have it hanging in front of my house, and a Bill of Rights in my room.

I can't even start to tell you how refreshing comments like this are to read, Wendy. A far better read than those always trying to blame America for everything and always making excuses for terrorists.

wendydettmer

Apr 13th 2005, 6:38 pm

I can't even start to tell you how refreshing comments like this are to read, Wendy. A far better read than those always trying to blame America for everything and always making excuses for terrorists.

Thanks GTech. One of my majors in undergrad was political science, and I spent a lot of time studying other systems of government, international relations, etc. While it has nothing to do with my current career, I do find it interesting.

Nothing is perfect, but I AM very proud of my country. Sure, people may hate us, but there are also people who starve themselves for months in the bottom of boats to come to the 'land of the free' because frankly, we are a better place to live then a lot of other countries that persacute their people. It's good to remember that from time to time i think....

anthonycea

Apr 13th 2005, 7:07 pm

America has been a great nation since it's founding at the Boston Tea party :o

The problem is the management of the intelligence community and the agencies that are supposed to be serving for the good of mankind, instead in the past they have caused great trouble in other lands such as Iraq.

We will not get into all that because it is very controversial, but the CIA has been deeply involved in every overthrow of successive governments there including when Saddam was put in power and taken out.

PS: Maybe another reason they hate us in their hearts :confused:

GTech

Apr 13th 2005, 7:14 pm

Nice try Anthony, but I'm proud of my country. I don't make things up to blame the world's problems on her. I don't sell my family, friends, or my country out.

The hatred is religious ideology. 'nuff said.

anthonycea

Apr 13th 2005, 7:55 pm

So is that why they fight in the UK over Northern Ireland :confused:

mikmik

Apr 13th 2005, 11:25 pm

Originally Posted by wendydettmer
ah well. regardless of if some guy from canada hates us, I actually am quite proud of being an American. Sure, there are problems, as with anywhere, but I would (and do) wear the American flag with pride when I travel, and have it hanging in front of my house, and a Bill of Rights in my room.

I can't even start to tell you how refreshing comments like this are to read, Wendy. A far better read than those always trying to blame America for everything and always making excuses for terrorists.

Reality sucks, eh?

I don't hate you, but I hate your government. Sure, political science, eh?

I don't blame America for everything, and I don't take terrorists side.

where do you get this stuff.

You can refute my points, or you can pout. You choose to pout, and ignore what is really going on. There is nothing wrong with being proud of your country, but there is something seriously wrong when you can't take criticism, or admit wrongs, or take accountability.

I am just some guy from Canada, but I speak for the majority of the worls when I merely report and then show what I was saying.

I am tired of people who think sticking their heads in the sand is the answer, but you only get what you deserve then, don't you.

That is apathetic, and exactly the criticisms leveled towards Americans. You are just individuals, but you unkowingly verify the very criticisms by acting exactly the way you are criticised for acting.

You attack character to defend arguement, you say Oh, we do good to, why don't you look at that, when doing good is not a license to commit attrocities, bully, and be arrogant.

Yes, tough talk, but until you go and wear your flag in other countries, it is all hot air, isn't it.

If you took political science, why don't you use some of that education to disprove my points? You took it, but that is meaningless. I took physics and chemistry and psychology. You took it, but did you pass? was it your major? just details.

I swear, your types motto out to be "Don't let details and reality substitute for the truth"

All I hear are excuses and non sequitors. Pathetic, and proud of it. You can't argue or disprove a pointr, so you 'make stuff up, and pretend that is the point.

Maybe you should have taken critical thinking skills and logic instaed of poly-sci, then you could grasp the enermity of your ignorance.

Don't take my word for it, though, read the news. No, I don't mean FOX, I said news.

Talk about weak and fragile egos as well. Go and criticise Canada, and see the different reactions from people. I don't practice denial, which is all I get from you, people here face the facts and accept responsibility. what is so tough about owning up? I swear, every time I get into, or see one of these, american RWM and neo-cons get a persecution complex, and write it off as "You are just jealous" and "I don't care what you think" and character asassination. Grow up and quit whining, you three. You can wish and pretend all you want, but that doesn't change reality one little bit.

Like I said, I have many friends in the States, and many of them are embarassed and just as critical of your government as I am, as the rest of the worls is. That is class. Whining and pouting is for losers, and every time you evade a point, say you don't care, change the subject, or attack the person instead of the argument, you are showing that you really don't have an answer. That you are wrong.

Here is what you sound like: You guys are pouting because you are just jealous of me. I am smarter than you, and you can't bear to face it.

Sounds good, eh?

Go, wear your american flag proudly, I dare you to. Empty words, just like the rest of it, until you really go do it, eh?

GTech, man, you just don't get it, way over top:Nice try Anthony, but I'm proud of my country. I don't make things up to blame the world's problems on her. I don't sell my family, friends, or my country out.

But you do, and I just showed you that. You sell everyone out by denying reality, and you sell everyone out by letting yourself be manipulated - you are selling yourself out. No, you don't blame the worlds problems on her, but you blame the worlds problems on the terrorists.

Of course you don't blame the worlds problems on the US, but you don't even acknowledge that you cause any problems period.
No one is blaming the worlds problems on the US, do you get it? You make up dramatic sounding yak like that, but it doesn't mean anything. It is a lie, because you are insinuating that our criticisms are the blaming of all the worlds problems. Where ever do you get this?

Are you ever going to address a point head on? Are you?

Accusuing your government for lying about why you are at war, and why you started it, is not "blaming the worlds problems on you" Get it?

Good, of course you don't. Go read the Bill of rights, the one that Great men made possible, and don't bother listening to the people who are trying to point out that it is being twisted and violated and destroyed.

That might take some thinking, and we wouldn't want you to stress, would we now.

You are American, damn it, and we are just jealous. Of what, I have no idea, but it keeps you happy. Ignorance is bliss, and you are proud of that, also.

Anytime you want cut my arguments to shreds, and stick to the point, I don't care what you call me, or belittle me and my arguements, I welcome the honesty, got that? Some of us would rather know the truth than think we are right. We want to know what is right.

mikmik

Apr 13th 2005, 11:38 pm

Oh, just remember, that when Bush takes another 80 billion USD loan out next week, that is 250 bucks per person you are paying. Man woman, and child. Plus interest.

the total? three times that? He lied to you.

Here Bush, take my money, I don't need it. You cut taxes, remember? Accounting? What's that?

Add 'Business accounting' to those 'should have taken' courses there.

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 6:20 am

Aww, our favorite anti-American is back. Do you spread this kind of trash in your Mosque as well?

Where do I get the idea that nutjobs like you blame the US for all it's problems? Why, from nutjobs just like you. You know, the ones that defend terrorists, the ones that obscure every point into a dark gray cloud of confusion that no one really has any idea what the hell is being said. The ones that that attempt to create doubt about any/everything as the first step to induce dissention.

It's not just the terrorists that are causing the world problems, but those that support them and or ignore their actions because it's part of their religious ideology.

And I'm damn glad George Bush is doing his part in taking them out. I see you clammed up about those WMD when presented with the truth. Good job, you should clam up about it. You know the truth ;)

I'm not worried about bush taking out another loan and neither are you. I'd rather be safe from nutjobs looking to earn some virgins. That's a real issue. If Bush would setup a Paypal account, I'd send it to him directly :D

yfs1

Apr 14th 2005, 6:24 am

So is that why they fight in the UK over Northern Ireland :confused:

Yeah right :rolleyes: ... not for some time now

yfs1

Apr 14th 2005, 6:27 am

but I speak for the majority of the world.

Utter arrogance...You speak for yourself. Why is it people are always saying stupid things like "I speak for Europe" or "I speak for the rest of the world".

No you don't. We didn't elect you (Believe me, I would have remembered that campaign poster)

wendydettmer

Apr 14th 2005, 6:39 am

You can refute my points, or you can pout. You choose to pout, and ignore what is really going on. There is nothing wrong with being proud of your country, but there is something seriously wrong when you can't take criticism, or admit wrongs, or take accountability.

i stated several times in previous posts that I know my government has done wrong, and has given countries reasons to hate us. If you choose not to see that i've admitted that, not my problem

If you took political science, why don't you use some of that education to disprove my points? You took it, but that is meaningless. I took physics and chemistry and psychology. You took it, but did you pass? was it your major? just details.

not that i need to justify anything to you of all people, but I earned a 4.0 in the major from a top ten school in the country, and if you had read earlier, yes it was one of my majors, it is simply not what I am doing now as a career. And the only reason I mentioned it is because this sort of thing interests me, i never claimed to be an expert.

I have no reason to critique canada, I find the country enjoyable and a majority of the people pleasant. I agree with the health care and social policies. I'm sure you have your problems as well, but you know what? I'm not going to take what I see on CNN as gospel and go bashing what I know nothing about.

You are simply annoyed because people disagree with you, so be it, you are entitled to that form of arrogance. as for me, I have better things to do with my time then to go back and forth with someone who reads what he wishes to read, ignores what he wishes to ignore, believes his 'sources' are gospel and spouts pompous rhetoric.

Be well

wendy

wendydettmer

Apr 14th 2005, 6:42 am

And I'm damn glad George Bush is doing his part in taking them out. I see you clammed up about those WMD when presented with the truth. Good job, you should clam up about it. You know the truth ;)

I'm not worried about bush taking out another loan and neither are you. I'd rather be safe from nutjobs looking to earn some virgins. That's a real issue. If Bush would setup a Paypal account, I'd send it to him directly :D

Well GTech, you can send him money then :) Honestly, I think a lot of his efforts are misguided. While I agree it is an important fight, we are losing ground at home. Schools are closing, losing programs, losing teachers and education is going down the crapper. I'm willing to give up a lot of things, but education is something to cherish and to pass along to future generations. President Bush needs to recognize that and start taking some notice.

I work with youth who has fallen through the cracks, and the cracks are just getting wider and wider.

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 6:44 am

mikmik is a very bright individual and so is Wendy mikmik, so how this got so personal I don't know but you are both very smart and there is no reason to take it personal.

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 7:00 am

There is never enough that can be done on education, Wendy. I've not stayed current on education enough to cover it. I remember reading last year that Bush has put more financially towards education than previous presidents.

wendydettmer

Apr 14th 2005, 7:04 am

Part of the education problem is the way the funding is set up. Most of it comes from the states and local taxes. But if you have a poor neighboorhood, there won't be as much funding available as the richer areas. It can make for a horrible cycle.

I think reform is needed in that area, but has taken back burner for, oh just about forever. It's not so much a Bush problem per se, but it is frustrating to see 3 overcrowded as it is schools close when billions are going overseas.

You may be right about Bush and his budget, i'll have to go look into that after my first cup of caffiene :)

jlawrence

Apr 14th 2005, 8:39 am

This is too good to stay out of any longer :)

Wendy - you'll have to explian what a '4.0 in the major from a top ten school' is, I know what a top 10 school is ;) but I'm sure I'm not the only none US person who hasn't a clue what a 4.0 in the major is - when I went to school, majors were taught in music :)

My definition of a Terrorist is pretty simple - some one who's aim it is to bring Terror to people.

What frightens me, is simply this - the war in Iraq was justified by the existance of WMD ( Funny how so many ground troops were sent in without adequate protection against the weapons that we're supposed to exist, but that's another matter) and whether those weapons existed or not, the war had nothing to do with Terrorism, if it did then we (the UK and US) are as guilty as the Iraqys (can't spell that) as we both helped keep that regime in power over the years - thus we're guilty accessories to any crime that regime committed.
Regardless of any war in Iraq (or the non-resaons for it), no true democracy can ever hold persons (of any nationality) in prisons (of any kind) without the right to trial. By doing so, we are now no better than those countries which are run by dictators we supposedly are hell bent on turning to democracy.
Mr's Blair and Bush have brought in laws which violate one of the basic human rights associated with the so called free world - the right to trial.
If you haven't got the evidence, then you can't hold the person captive. If you have got the evidence then you go to trial - so it stands to reason that the various people held under the terrorism laws are being held illegally.
Holding anyone against their will (without trial) is illegal in any so called civilised country, and that is exactly what our two countries are doing.
As it stands at the moment, our 2 governments could pull any one off the streets and hold them indefinitely under the anti-terrorism laws put in place - including people who simlpy disagree with the government. That is what dictators do (generalism - there may well be some that don't), not what the self proclaimed leading democracies in the world are supposed to do.
Blair and Bush are making our two countries into hipocracies - simply do as we say not as we do.

yfs1

Apr 14th 2005, 8:42 am

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 8:47 am

Hell now we are all in trouble, we have a smart woman on the forum :eek: :eek: :eek: :cool:

I hope crazy is more powerful than smart for my sake.......

PS: Great post JL, in times of war things like this happen, ABU GRAVE...or at least it was/is a grave error on our part.

yfs1

Apr 14th 2005, 8:53 am

Hell now we are all in trouble, we have a smart woman on the forum :cool:

I hope crazy is more powerful than smart for my sake.......

If she indeed graduated from a Top 10 University (Harvard, Yale, Brown, etc) then she would be able to run circles around anyone in this forum in her major. That would put her somewhere in the 99.99999999% percentile.

Right up there with Chelsea Clinton :rolleyes: (She was Stanford)

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 8:55 am

Yes but CC has the benefit of her father being a Rhodes scholar also :o

yfs1

Apr 14th 2005, 8:57 am

Yes but CC has the benefit of her father being a Rhodes scholar also :o

Yes but that was for other reasons :eek:

http://nick.assumption.edu/WebVAX/ETnew/wclin09Jun96.html

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 9:00 am

Bill Clinton as head of NATO?

This search shows in the results that some are wanting that, how about that :confused:

http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=utf8&q=Bill+Clinton+Rhodes+scholar&rys=0&_sb_lang=pref

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

yfs1

Apr 14th 2005, 9:02 am

I like the fourth result in that search

chrishaas: Fuck Enterprise Rent-A-Car
Current mood: frustrated. Current music: Drowning Pool. Fuck Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Congratulations to ladyrisa7 who submitted the best answer to my twentieth analogy.
more hits from: xhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/chrishaas/15922.html - 16 KB

lol... I wonder if thats a bit of word association with Clinton ?!?!

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 9:05 am

Good looking Blog..... :o

Bill Clinton (Hillary) for President 2008, anything (a monkey) would be better than Cheney or Condi Rice :p :p :p

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 9:07 am

As it stands at the moment, our 2 governments could pull any one off the streets and hold them indefinitely under the anti-terrorism laws put in place - including people who simlpy disagree with the government. That is what dictators do (generalism - there may well be some that don't), not what the self proclaimed leading democracies in the world are supposed to do.
Blair and Bush are making our two countries into hipocracies - simply do as we say not as we do.

Our governments are not going after anyone, they are going after those looking to harm our countries and the people of our countries. The suggest of could does not mean it is being done. Perhaps your country is different.

I know of no instance where someone has been detained without evidence or cause. I'm not talking about an hour, or a day, I'm talking about detained. As much as our MSM loves to criticize our country and often side with terrorists, they would be all over it.

Times are different. And with the changing times, so will our laws change. I'd much rather have that, than to be on the other side complaining about how our governments are not doing enough. There is no room for being soft on terrorists.

These very laws help capture people like these:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050413/ap_on_re_us/hamas_trial_1

Three Dallas-area brothers were convicted Wednesday of supporting terrorism by funneling money to a high-ranking official in the militant Palestinian group Hamas.

Ghassan and Bayan Elashi and their company were found guilty of all 21 federal counts they faced: conspiracy, money laundering and dealing in property of a terrorist. Basman Elashi, who faced the same counts, was convicted of three counts of conspiracy but acquitted of the other charges.

And there are plenty of other cases where these laws have helped. But I know of no incident where these laws have been used on the "average" citizen to detain the "just becase."

BTW, Ghassan Elashi is the founder of the Texas chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations—CAIR. Not the first senior level CAIR member to be convicted on terrorist related charges.

jlawrence

Apr 14th 2005, 9:44 am

jlawrence

Apr 14th 2005, 9:46 am

NOTE: I'm not saying that either the UK or the US have detained people under the anti-terrorism laws, without trial - just that they could.
And we (the public) would be non the wiser.

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 9:52 am

I have posted on this before also JL, you are correct, the President can use emergency power usurping the laws of the land and could detain any one of us for posting on this forum if he wanted to.

http://vivisimo.com/search?v%3Asources=Web&query=President+Bush+Emergency+power+terrorists&x=38&y=10

That goes to show you what free speech in America is worth, there is no "free speech" if they want to make you "pay a price" for your thoughts.

jlawrence

Apr 14th 2005, 9:58 am

In the case of the UK, it does't even have to be the prime minister that uses the power - the home secretary could do it himself.
Hopefully Shaun will resist for a short while before handing over our details - at least long enough for us to disappear :)

Mia

Apr 14th 2005, 9:59 am

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 10:10 am

How would one "Let you Know" Mia :confused:

The power of one: Cases to test authority of the president

By David G. Savage

Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has set the stage for a series of rulings on the reach of presidential power, decisions that could arrive just as voters focus on whether to endorse President Bush and his strong style of executive leadership.

Since November, the justices have voted to take up five cases that test the president's power to act alone and without interference by Congress or the courts. They involve imprisoning foreign fighters at overseas bases, holding U.S. citizens without charges in military brigs, preserving the secrecy of White House meetings, enforcing free-trade treaties despite environmental concerns and abducting foreigners charged with U.S. crimes.

The case taken up Friday may be the broadest of all. Two years ago, the White House said the president had the power to designate U.S. citizens "unlawful enemy combatants" and hold them in secret military custody, without filing charges or allowing them to plead their innocence.

Bush's lawyers said the "time-honored laws and customs of war" gave the commander in chief the power to hold captured soldiers. But not until recently had a president contended that his military power extended to arresting Americans on U.S. soil.

In December, a federal appeals court in New York ruled the president overstepped his authority in the case of Jose Padilla, a New York-born Muslim who was taken into custody at Chicago's O'Hare Airport and imprisoned in a military brig in South Carolina. The judges said the administration must either charge him with a crime or release him.

The justices announced Friday they will take up the issue and rule on whether the president has the constitutional power to bypass the courts and hold U.S. citizens in military custody.

"The Supreme Court appears poised to issue the most important set of decisions about the scope of presidential power since World War II," said Deborah Pearlstein, director of the law and national-security program for the Lawyers Committee on Human Rights.

Veteran lawyers who have argued before the Supreme Court compared the lineup of pending cases to the era when President Nixon was in the White House.

"This administration has massively asserted presidential power unlike any since Nixon," said Alan Morrison, a lawyer for Public Citizen, a liberal group that has opposed Bush in several pending cases. "The thread running through all these cases is that (administration officials) don't believe the part of separation of powers that has checks and balances in it. They say they have a right to do it because it is a war, and they don't have to be bound by all these constraints in the law."

There is "an amazing convergence of a lot of these cases all at once," agreed Richard Samp, an attorney for the conservative Washington Legal Foundation. "I think it's because there is a basic disagreement on what American history shows and what the (founding) fathers had in mind, in this area of the law."

At their core, the disputes center on the role the Constitution gives the president in times of war and national emergency.

The Bush administration's lawyers assert that since the Constitution made the president the commander in chief of the armed forces, he has the unilateral power to act. Moreover, since terrorists brought their attacks to the United States in September 2001, the president's war powers extend to the home front, they say.

This view was on display in Padilla's case. He was arrested in Chicago after a flight from Pakistan and was suspected of having been involved in a plot to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United States.

Since June 2002, he has not been allowed to speak to a lawyer or to his family. No charges have been filed against him.

When Padilla's New York lawyer sought a court hearing for him, the Bush administration took a stiff stand. The lawyer is not allowed to meet with her client, and the judges have no authority to hear his pleas, the administration said.

"The capture and detention of enemy combatants during wartime falls within the president's core constitutional powers as commander in chief," Bush's lawyers told the U.S. court of appeals in New York. "There is no basis to second-guess the president's conclusion that Padilla is an enemy combatant."

They cited as a precedent a World War II case involving Nazi saboteurs. Eight German soldiers, one of whom was born in the United States, were secretly landed on Atlantic beaches. But two of them surrendered to the FBI, and the others were soon arrested.

President Franklin Roosevelt ordered them tried before a military court in Washington. They were found guilty and sentenced to death, although Roosevelt spared two of them. The Supreme Court met during the summer and affirmed their convictions, saying the "president's wartime detention decisions are to be accorded great deference from the courts."

But last month the U.S. court of appeals in New York said Congress and the courts have an equal role to play in terrorism cases within the United States. Its judges looked to a much different precedent: President Truman's seizure of steel mills during the Korean War. Fearing the impact of a strike, Truman ordered the military to take control of the mills.

In 1953, however, the Supreme Court reversed Truman's order and said the president had overstepped his bounds. In a key opinion, Justice Robert Jackson said that while the president has great authority when U.S. forces are fighting abroad, that authority does not extend to the home front.

In Padilla's case, the appeals court quoted Jackson's opinion to reject Bush's claim of an "inherent constitutional power" to hold U.S. citizens who are arrested on U.S. soil.

"We agree with Padilla that the Constitution lodges these powers with Congress, not the president," the court said in a 2-1 ruling.

While Congress could authorize the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects, the court noted that a 1971 law prohibited such actions by the chief executive. "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an act of Congress," the law says.

Separately, lawyers for Yaser Esam Hamdi, a second "enemy combatant," urged the court to review his case. A Saudi born in Louisiana, Hamdi was fighting for the Taliban when he was captured by U.S. troops. Rather than hold him as a prisoner of war, the administration sent him to the military brig in South Carolina.

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to review his case and to decide on the president's authority to order military detention of U.S. citizens.

A case involving the Guantánamo detainees, to be heard in the spring, tests whether the president can order hundreds of foreigners to be held without charges or a hearing. Lawyers for the nearly 600 men do not say the detention is illegal. Instead, they say the men deserve a hearing to show they are not guilty.

Bush's lawyers say no such hearing is needed, and none may be ordered. "The courts have no jurisdiction to evaluate or second-guess the conduct of the president and the military," wrote Solicitor General Theodore Olson.

In the White House secrecy case, the high court will decide whether a judge can require Vice President Dick Cheney to turn over documents detailing who met with the administration's energy task force early in 2001. Two groups, one liberal and one conservative, sued Cheney, contending corporate lobbyists met with the Bush advisers in violation of an open-government law known as the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

Bush's lawyers say the Constitution shields the White House from responding to such court orders. Disclosure would "interfere with the president's exercise of core executive constitutional functions," they said.

In a case involving Mexican trucks, the court will decide whether the president can sidestep environmental laws to enforce the North American Free Trade Agreement.

When environmentalists sued, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the government must first study the potential for pollution before it allows tens of thousands of older trucks to move goods across the border. Bush's lawyers said this decision "endangers the president's ability to act quickly and decisively in areas such as foreign affairs and national defense."

And the outcome of a Mexican abduction case, which began during the war on drugs in the 1980s, is crucial to the war on terrorism today, Bush's lawyers have said.

In June, the 9th Circuit ruled that a Mexican doctor who was seized in Guadalajara can sue the federal agents who ordered his abduction.

In his appeal, Olson said that if this rule became the law, U.S. agents who locate Osama bin Laden would be barred from seizing him. "The use of transborder arrests — and judgments regarding the necessity of such measures — are for the executive branch to make," not the courts, Olson said.

All but the Padilla case are due to be decided by the high court by late June. Administration lawyers say they are confident of winning most of the cases. However, some of Bush's critics believe the administration might have overplayed the theme of executive authority.

"This president has taken an aggressive and extreme view of his power to act unilaterally without congressional or judicial review," said Steven Shapiro, national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union. "They have imposed maximum secrecy wherever possible, and they have asserted their actions are unreviewable by the courts. I think they will have a hard time selling that view to the Supreme Court."

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 10:10 am

I hear your arguement GTech, but show me your proof that those held under the anti-terrorism laws actually committed any offence. You have none - ZERO PROOF - why because they have never gone to trial, without trial there is NO PROOF of wrong doing. That is a basic premise on which our two countries are run.

They are held on evidence. And as I previously stated, I'd much rather they be held on "evidence" than returned back to finish their operations. I can understand some want them to be able to follow through on their mission before detaining. I prefer they be prevented in the first place.

How do you know the laws haven't been used on the 'average' citizen - you don't. You can't see what evidence they have (if any) because that would prejudice any case that they might ever get around to bringing. And I'm damn sure neither of our governments are going to stand up and say that they've detained someone 'just because' - they've been detained under the anti-terrorism laws.

I believe I was very clear on this point. As much as MSM (and I'll include yours as well, as the UK has some moonbat news organizations as well) loves to paint the most negative of pictures of our countries and often times supporting (indirectly) the plight of terrorists, if there were people being held for no evidence "just because" we would hear the never ending cries of the looney left. Is that emperical evidence? Nope, but I have nothing that suggests people are just rounded up "because."

Is there evidence that the detainees in G'tmo (can't spell that place in Cuba) committed any crime - some of those returned to Britain are now walking around as free men, WHY, because there was no proof of wrong doing.
In the cases you mention - you use the magic word - CONVICTED. This implies trial, thus they have not been held in definitely without trial under the anti-terrorism laws. Those cases are not what I'm talking about. I'm worried about those that are held indeffinitely without trial and without any eveidence being shown of wrong doing - and that is in breach of a basic human right that our two societies are based on.

Yes, there is. Many of these people have provided valuable evidence. And while some may be walking free, some that were released have since been detained AGAIN for similar reasons.

You may be worried about those held indefinitely with no evidence, but I don't know of anyone being detained without evidence of wrong doing. Perhaps you are suggesting hypotheticals? Otherwise I presume you would have pointed out some who were in fact being detained without any evidence.

Me personally? Prevention is a lot better than placing blame after the fact. Why wait for a mushroom cloud before taking action?

Edit:

Here is a list of information on those that were released, and have gone right back to terror:

http://www.siteinstitute.org/bin/articles.cgi?ID=news34304&Category=news&Subcategory=0

Source: Newsweek

Seven Ex-Prisoners Return to Terror

WASHINGTON-- Despite gaining their freedom by signing pledges to renounce violence, at least seven former prisoners of the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have returned to terrorism, at times with deadly consequences.

At least two are believed to have died in fighting in Afghanistan, and a third was recaptured during a raid of a suspected training camp in Afghanistan, Lt. Cmdr. Flex Plexico, a Pentagon spokesman, said last week. Others are at large.

Additional former detainees have expressed a desire to rejoin the fight, be it against U.N. peacekeepers in Afghanistan, Americans in Iraq or Russian soldiers in Chechnya.

Some 146 detainees have been released from Guantanamo, but only after U.S. officials had determined the prisoners no longer posed threats and had no remaining intelligence value.

Pentagon officials acknowledged that the release process is imperfect, but they said most of the Guantanamo detainees released have steered clear of Islamic insurgent groups.

The small number returning to the fight demonstrates the delicate balance the United States must strike between minimizing the appearance of holding people unjustly and keeping those who are legitimate long-term threats, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said.

Human rights groups frequently criticize the Defense Department for holding the hundreds of prisoners at the naval base, largely without charges or legal counsel. Many have been held for more than two years; only a few have been charged.

From a Reuters article:

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Abdullah Mehsud, a former Guantanamo Bay inmate who masterminded the kidnapping of two Chinese engineers, has claimed responsibility for a blast last week at Islamabad’s Marriott Hotel, a journalist said on Monday.

Pakistani journalist Rahimullah Yusufzai said Abdullah, the target of a huge manhunt after the kidnapping of the engineers last month, made the claim after contacting him by telephone from an undisclosed location on Sunday.

“We carried out the Marriott bomb blast,” Yusufzai quoted him as saying.

An explosion hit the Marriott Hotel on Thursday, injuring seven people, including a U.S. diplomat, two Italians and the Pakistani prime minister’s chief security officer.

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 10:41 am

Secrets about Bush Secrets are in the next article.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002198512_secrets06.html

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Crazy_Rob

Apr 14th 2005, 10:49 am

I was arrested last night due to a clerical mistake the court made after I got a speeding ticket. Damn cop really cranked down on the cuffs for some reason. My wrists are still sore over 12 hours later.
:mad: :mad:

Anyway, I was only held for a while, maybe 20 minutes or so. But I can't imagine what it would be like for these people who are held without being charged and denied all rights. What a nightmare!

Guilty or innocent, we have a set of laws to protect the accused. And it seems that these laws are going straight into the toilet.

Terrorism = FEAR! It doesn't take long to connect the dots to see who benefits from this fear.

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 10:51 am

Sorry to hear that Crazy Rob, don't you think it is time to drop "Crazy" as your name :confused: :p

Maybe they thought you were crazy :D

You could always use the AnthonyCea defense, just plead insanity, it really works for some of us, I am still waiting for my nut check though :(

Crazy_Rob

Apr 14th 2005, 10:55 am

I am still waiting for my nut check though

I get one every year when I go for a physical. :p

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 10:59 am

The last doctor that looked at me said I had the prostrate of a 16 year old, but that is the last time any man runs that test on me, this doctor enjoyed himself I think. :confused:

I would rather die than do that again. :eek:

wendydettmer

Apr 14th 2005, 11:00 am

i'm sorry to hear that Rob....that had to suck.

Crazy_Rob

Apr 14th 2005, 11:00 am

YIKES! I had that done once a few years ago when I was in the hospital.

My girlfiend (now wife) was in the room at the time. How embarrassing!!!!

"You might feel some pressure, Rob...."

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 11:03 am

i'm sorry to hear that Rob....that had to suck.

You talking about his nut check, his prostrate examination or being arrested ??? :p :p

I will take being beat up by the cops..... :D

jlawrence

Apr 14th 2005, 11:03 am

I must admit your reference to MSM passed me by - I had no idea what you were on about (still don't) but I now assume it's some news channel or something.
As for the news - I very rarely watch or read any.

How would the looney left be shouting - they'd see exactley the same evidence we would (ie they'd not be allowed to see any).

Would I rather potential terrorists were locked up before committing whatever act - damn right. On this I agree with you. Should these terrorists be held without trial - no. If there is evidence, then charge them - there are enough laws that they could be charged under, conspiracy to commit etc etc.
I do not have proof that people are being held without evidence nor do I have proof that they are being held with evidence - and it is that simple fact that should have people worried, people simply CAN be held without evidence being presented.
If a prime minister (talking about the UK here) can take a country to war on a lie (and yes it was a lie - his proof was flawed and he knew it, and admitted it afterwards) then how can we trust him (or his government) to use these draconian powers correctly. I know this isn't the situation in the US (your president cannot take the country to war without consent - I can't remember which houses consent).

Many of the people in G'tmo have provided valuable evidence - prove it. How do you know that evidence didn't come from other intelligence sources - you don't (unless you're privy to that level of information - in which case you wouldn't be talking about it here :) ). We simply have to believe, on these matters, what our respective governments are telling us. The question comes down to - Do we believe that our governments are telling us the truth (as much as any politician does anyway).
Recent history has shown us that in the UK, you cannot tell whether the government is telling the truth on sensitive matters (or contraversial matters) - therefore, you take a big risk in believing them in what they say their use of anti-terrorism laws are.
My views are formed from my own experience (and others that I personnaly know) not from the badly informed shit I read in the papers or hear on the news.

Crazy_Rob

Apr 14th 2005, 11:04 am

i'm sorry to hear that Rob....that had to suck.

Thanks, Wendy!

I just didn't understand why the cuffs had to be so tight. The pain was so intense that I almost puked. And I have a fairly high pain threshold. I still can't make a fist today. :mad:

[added]

Did you guys check out fryman's new avatar?

[/]

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 11:07 am

JL, I think he is talking about Michael Moore the film maker :o

jlawrence

Apr 14th 2005, 11:14 am

Ohh, still no idea what he's on about - will have to see what google can tell me

Mia

Apr 14th 2005, 11:21 am

How would one "Let you Know" Mia :confused:

Copy/Paste..

Yawn.. The saga continues. Thank you for the entertainment though :)

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 11:25 am

JL, GTech's term MSM may mean "main stream media" as you will see in this search.

http://vivisimo.com/search?v%3Asources=Web&query=msm+michael+moore&x=56&y=12

MIA, if it is so boring why do you come back for entertainment :confused:

You are sending some conflicting signals here :confused: :o

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 11:27 am

jlawrence

MSM - Main Stream Media. I often take for granted some are not familiar with the term.

So you are saying you have no proof that people are being held without evidence, but making an issue of it? So your outrage is hypothetical. A "could be," "might could happen," etc.

You are entitled to that opinion. But I won't accept a personal belief without anything to back it up as anything more than that.

There is evidence against those being held here. Take for example, the terrorist Anthony was trying to defend, Jose Padilla. There was plenty of evidence against him. He's not going anywhere, whether detained or convicted.

So without any evidence that people are being detained "just because," I don't see it as a valid issue. I know without a doubt that "I" won't be detained. Now, if I were buying books about how to build a bomb, or hanging out on known terrorists sites screaming "Death to America" from my Kansas home, exchanging emails with others that are known terrorists, then I might be a bit worried. Since those things don't apply to me, I have no worry at all. And since you have no evidence that any of the things you are outraged over are in fact happening, I'd say it's a dead issue.

Crazy_Rob

Apr 14th 2005, 11:29 am

And since you have no evidence that any of the things you are outraged over are in fact happening, I'd say it's a dead issue.

And if GT says it's a dead issue...IT'S A DEAD ISSUE! :rolleyes:

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 11:31 am

Not everyone can fabricate victimization out of thin air, Rob ;)

But then not everyone will defend the rights of terrorists. There's always someone looking for a cause.

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 11:32 am

Yeah we seen it, sort of a good refreshing shot of Fryman, plus he does not need to bang his head anymore :o

You have a good photo there also Crazy Rob, was that the mug shot from last night :confused: :o

You have good teeth too huh Rob :D

Crazy_Rob

Apr 14th 2005, 11:36 am

...was that the mug shot from last night

No, I had no reason to smile last night! :mad:

Not everyone can fabricate victimization out of thin air, Rob

huh?

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 11:40 am

He is talking about me CR :o

Ask those folks who lost their retirements to Bush friend Ken Lay and Enron if they were victims out of thin air or the folks that are being ruined by high gas prices GTech, that is not thin air.

Or the families that will not let their kids sign up for the draft and those who died fighting for your favorite cause, Halliburton :o

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 11:46 am

Anthony, you can do better than that. You have the looney power to make up better stories than those, that many people on the forum have "debunked" them time and again.

You exhibit learning capability. It's a shame you don't use it.

wendydettmer

Apr 14th 2005, 11:49 am

As a nation we have held people 'just because' before....The Japanese during WWII. The ones being held were not screaming 'death to america' or building bombs. Many were American citizens just living their life in a time of fear.

Not saying that totally applies to current situations, but the American people and the American government were able to justify it back then. It's what happens in a time of fear, people justify their actions even if they are clearly wrong.

PS - out of curiosity, did anyone apologize to you last night Rob, for the error?

Mia

Apr 14th 2005, 11:49 am

MIA, if it is so boring why do you come back for entertainment

You are sending some conflicting signals here

While the entertainment value ranks up there with a Saturday Night Live skit at times, I never said it was boring.. My "yawn" is more one of, "I've heard it before, ie., same old same old".

The entertainment value is there.. I think it is much more fun to sit back and watch.

Some things I find funny:

1. Let me Google for those facts, I'll show you...
2. I've got tons more "links" to support my ramblings...
3. I may not know how to spell or use proper grammar, but I sure can rip on America.
4. The whole world hate us, boo hoo...
5. Bush is bad, I don't like Bush, if Bush was not president the world would be oh so cool!
6. Keep repeating all of the above over and over and over and over and over and ...

Never a dull moment.

The nicest thing about participating in a discussion like this is that it resembles a soap opera. I mean, you could be out of the loop for 6 months, and then just jump back into the discussion again. It's like you never left. Nothing really changes, though some of the "internet facts" (snopes) get stretched so thin, the many times appear as though they have to be true.

Keep up the good work.

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 11:50 am

Mia

Apr 14th 2005, 11:53 am

Mia

Apr 14th 2005, 11:56 am

See if you can "Debunk" this story, I did not "make this one up" :o

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

You were the one that said all this insanity and war was not over oil :o

You do remember that statement :confused:

There is a difference between reporting news (facts), and commentary (talk show), is there not?

Keep em' coming! Funny stuff!

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 11:57 am

You obviously didn't see the way this op-ed quote people all saying "neo conservative"

Please, spare me your fabricated oil outrage that you pretend to have. Otherwise, you'd be making a huge fuss of the UN oil for food scandal and all those countries that were bought off by saddam.

But no, not Anthony. Never an outrage for the real oil thieves and never an outrage for terrorists.

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 12:00 pm

Hey Mia, wasn't it democrats who were pushing for a draft? I know Anthony likes to pretend it was republicans, but in fact, it was democrats. In fact, Kerry had plans for a draft and when people started finding out about it, he removed the page from his site that had those plans. Fortunately, many were able to grab it from google cache.

Anthony will make up outrage that republicans planned a draft, but ignore the fact it was his beloved democrats that were the only ones pushing it.

Convenience?

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 12:01 pm

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 12:03 pm

stop being a jerkoff

And stop hiding behind your keyboard like a coward and discuss your issues.

Coward...

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 12:04 pm

What was that post for GTech :confused:

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 12:07 pm

Either anthony, jlawrence or CR left it in my feedback. Like a coward, instead of addressing issues. Since I'm tracking who is in the thread and quite sure Mia wouldn't leave it.

Crazy_Rob

Apr 14th 2005, 12:08 pm

PS - out of curiosity, did anyone apologize to you last night Rob, for the error?

No. And I didn't really expect one because it was the County Court Clerk's office that screwed up. The police saw "suspended license" on their screen and "did what they had to do."

Although the cop could have apologized for hurting my wrists. I took some pictures which I plan to send to them just so they can feel bad. Although I'm sure they don't care one bit. :(

The nicest thing about participating in a discussion like this is that it resembles a soap opera. I mean, you could be out of the loop for 6 months, and then just jump back into the discussion again. It's like you never left.

:D

wendydettmer

Apr 14th 2005, 12:08 pm

I wish I had realized it was rep you were talking about, i just went back and reread like 3 pages of posts seeing where that was from lol

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 12:09 pm

I have never left you any rep GTech in how many heated threads have we been in :o

Crazy_Rob

Apr 14th 2005, 12:10 pm

Either anthony, jlawrence or CR left it in my feedback. Like a coward, instead of addressing issues.

That pisses me off too!

I don't think I've ever received red rep from someone that actually had the guts to leave their name.

wendydettmer

Apr 14th 2005, 12:10 pm

No. And I didn't really expect one because it was the County Court Clerk's office that screwed up. The police saw "suspended license" on their screen and "did what they had to do."

Although the cop could have apologized for hurting my wrists. I took some pictures which I plan to send to them just so they can feel bad. Although I'm sure they don't care one bit. :(

:D

See, that is what bothers me. Sure, it may not have been their fault, but an apology wouldn't have hurt them in the least. It may not have fixed the problem by any means, but come on, the level of niceness has gone down.

And you are right, they could have gone easy with the cuffs. Suspended license doesn't usually mean a huge danger to society.

anyway....power hungry people suck.

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 12:12 pm

It's no biggy Anthony (and thanks for the comment you just sent, appreciated). I have more than enough positive. I just think people can discuss their issues and rationalize their stances on them without that kinda crap. I don't back away from an argument. And I don't make excuses for terrorists.

Crazy_Rob

Apr 14th 2005, 12:13 pm

And you are right, they could have gone easy with the cuffs. Suspended license doesn't usually mean a huge danger to society.

Not only that, but I had no other offenses on my record. And I was one block from my home. I asked if we could go to my house so I could show him the court document.

"Nope, you have to have it in your possesion!"

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 12:16 pm

They think we are the terrorists GTech :confused:

We are the one's in their lands, not they in ours :cool:

PS: One thing about GTech, I may not agree with him, but it is always a sure thing that any thread that he is in will create great interest and he is a good fighter and does have a lot of intelligence, I just wish he was a bit more objective. :)

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 12:18 pm

If we were fighting Iraqis, you might have a point Anthony. But we're not. We're rebuilding Iraq and taking out a few cowards from other countries who want Iraq to fail.

Crazy_Rob

Apr 14th 2005, 12:19 pm

Then why did you call him a jackoff, anthony?

;)

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 12:21 pm

It wasn't anthony. Otherwise he couldn't have given me blue rep. And I didn't think it was him, or even you Rob.

I just think it's a cowards way out, instead of debating.

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 12:22 pm

That happens to everyone here, just part of Digital Point is all :o

I have had folks use my name to give RED to Minstrel and my votes don't even count and did not then either, so you really don't know for sure even if one leaves a name :eek:

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 12:24 pm

Yep, not my first, nor my last. And don't misinterpret it as being a victim! I was calling him out to continue the debate. Apparently I was too formidable for him :D

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 12:26 pm

You can be scary GTech, just ask Rob, he will tell you all about it :o

wendydettmer

Apr 14th 2005, 12:29 pm

Well it wasn't me, I gave GTech a green the other day for the debate :)

jlawrence

Apr 14th 2005, 12:30 pm

MSM - not an acronym I'm used to, Gtech thanks for clearing up what you meant.
Personally, I'm not convinced that the whole war was just about oil - now if Saddam said he was going to turn off the supply....
I'm not saying it wasn't - I don't have evidence either way.
I don't watch too much MSM, and yes the bbc is certainly MSM in the UK. More than that I'd treat with scepticism anything on the BBC - unless I knew it was fact. They are controlled by the Government, they set the BBC's budget, approve senior approintments etc etc, and keep an illegal tax in place to fund it.

Gtech, you obviously love your country as I do mine. I don't know how old you are, nor your background, but get some military (or government) experience you'll soon find out - once the law's are passed, the powers that be will do what the hell they please with them. If that means they want to detain 'activists' (note not terrorists) then they will use whatever laws they want to in order to do so. You can define an activist anyway you please. It's the same with military law as it is with civil law, if you can do it within the law you (or someone) will.
Many laws are put in place simply to keep the people in power from abusing that power (at least openly abusing it). Laws that circumvent these restrictions shouldn't be allowed - times of war are an exception, but there are still laws governing those times also (at least if you're on the loosing side there are). We are not in a time of war - other than wars we choose to start. Against what AC thinks, world war III hasn't yet started - at least I hope not, 'cos atm there is only one way that war would end - we may be in a precursor, but I don't believe it's actually begun yet.

As to defending terrorists, that is something I hope I'd never do. If there is evidence, put them on trial and put them away for life (life meaning exactly that with no parole) or put them on trial and have them extridited to somewhere where they could face the death penalty. If you have evidence, you bring them to trial. If you don't have evidence, then you let them go. That's the way our society's work are imho it is a good way.
If you have evidence, you don't ever need to detain people without trial. Only if your NOT certain about your evidence would you ever need to do that.

I'd be interested in hearing any argument why you'd want to detain people without trial if you had evidence of wrong doing against them.

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 12:31 pm

Now GTech has the forum in the palm of his hand :eek:

That is scary :eek: :eek:

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 12:31 pm

I know Wendy :) I know who it was. The disappointing part was, he was doing really well debating the issues.

wendydettmer

Apr 14th 2005, 12:33 pm

Well, I'm going to go poof now, have to go to a doc visit, and when I come back there will probably be 90 more pages of this :)

take care all!

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 12:37 pm

You will never know GTech, like I said many folks just read here and others will use someone's name in the thread just to take potshots at folks and get them at each others throats.

Don't feel that even if you think you know that you can really tell because there are too many folks here now.

jlawrence

Apr 14th 2005, 12:37 pm

Gtech, we'll it wan't me. I only came across this rating stuff yesterday, and gave someone a green (I think).
Perhaps someone could point me to a tread/faq that explains how to use it.

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 12:41 pm

Jlawrence, thanks for picking back up the debate.

Yes, I do have military service. Seven years. You give up your freedoms to protect the freedoms of your country.

I find it difficult to debate on "it could happen." To suggest we lower the level at which we go after terrorists on the notion that someone "could be" detained for absolutely nothing, is beyond my reasoning. There are too many real threats out there, many being found right here in the US almost weekly now. I have faith that sitting in my living room, a squad of police are not going to bust in on me and detain me for "nothing."

Now if I were hanging around on terrorists chat boards, screaming "Death to America" and buying books on how to build a bomb (or other such activities), as I said previously, I'd be concerned.

I have no information, nor have I seen any, that our government is abusing these powers. In fact, so many real threats are there, I would think they have no interest in doing so.

As for a good reason to detain, vs a trial, the only real good reason that comes to the top of my head is security. We have a very liberal court system and it would be highly likely that judge would assign a fairly light sentence. As far as I know, it is only those declared as enemy combatants. No matter, I simply cannot bring myself to rationalize why we would want to protect the rights of those trying to destroy our country. I understand the typical system...but these are different times.

But then the whole issue is a hypothetical. A what if. If we are going to go on "what ifs" then I say "what if" we let one go (as I noted above with gitmo prisoners) and they carry on their operation? Then do we blame our government for doing too little, or too much? I caution on the side of the best interests for our country.

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 12:42 pm

Just click on "RATE" in the upper right hand corner, make a comment, do not change the button selection unless you want to change to negative rating and you are there. :o

jlawrence

Apr 14th 2005, 12:42 pm

just read through the last 3 pages again - are you saying that if I rate a post, and give a message, then it doesn't say who the message is from ?
I would have assumed that the message would always say who it's from - hmm, I learn something everyday.

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 12:46 pm

No it does not leave your name, that is part of the problem, others can leave your name on a RED or negative comment and make it look like it came from you just to stir up trouble between two folks involved in the debate.

Someone gave Minstrel a RED and put my name on it and I do not even have voting power. :D :p

jlawrence

Apr 14th 2005, 12:47 pm

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 12:48 pm

It doesn't say, unless they leave their name. If you say you didn't, I take your word for it. I was enjoying the debate. You have some good points, much better points and rationale behind your positions, than most I've debated here.

I enjoy a good debate, even if it's heated. The opportunity to debate something besides "Bush broke into my garage and stole my can of 10w40" is rare. Appreciate the good spirt and nature.

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 12:51 pm

Yeah OK GTech, if not for that you would not be known around these parts so count yourself lucky man.

I never said anything about Moonbats or WD 40 that is your crap, don't put it on me man, I might sic Minstrel on you if you keep it up :eek: :eek:

PS: Just because you have no ground to stand on in the Oil War debate does not mean you have to be bitter GTech :(

jlawrence

Apr 14th 2005, 12:53 pm

well I never, I've never really looked in the user control panel. So hadn't noticed the rep stuff.
/me will have to remember to add my name to any reps and leave rep for posts I enjoy.
One things' for sure, I'll never leave a bad rep for some one who simply has a different opinion than my own - they're as entitled to their opinion as I am to mine.

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 12:54 pm

JL you are a good man, welcome to Digital Point :)

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 12:56 pm

Indeed, as a 'what if' it leaves too many questions unanswered.
However, if they are 'enemy combatants', and there is enough evidence to bring them in for interrogation (and yes, it would be that rather than questioning) then if out of the interrogation you get more information (which admittendly may not be using in a court of law due to the nature of how you got said information), then I think we both know exactly how the security services would handle it (not within the law that's for sure).

Perhaps that's where we differ. I could care less about the rights of a terrorist. After all, they are here to kill me, my family, my way of life and my fellow countrymen. I'm sure you'll understand that I have absolutely no concern for their perceived rights.

I have faith that better men than I, will do the right thing and protect our country from those that wish to do us harm. And they are doing just that. Until I see evidence otherwise, my opinion is not going to change based on 'what ifs'.

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 1:02 pm

Would those better men happen to be those in the Air Force that are raping women there or the one's guarding Abu Grave Prison GTech :confused:

Face it man, this is just as bad and more dangerous than Vietnam and we are being laughed at by the Russians, the EU and China GTech and we will not hold that ground in the end as China and Russia will continue to send in weapons as payback for past wars in Afghanistan and Vietnam.

This nation is already in deep debt and Bush will drive it into bankruptcy unless he makes a deal with NATO to get us out quick.

The EU knows this and they are not going to let Bush off easy.....

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 1:02 pm

PS: Just because you have no ground to stand on in the Oil War debate does not mean you have to be bitter GTech :(

I'm not bitter at all :D

I know the United Nations and over 270 corrupt world leaders, businessmen and countries were bought out with saddam's oil money. I know the United Nation's vote was bought off. I know what countries stood to loose the most from the oil for food program by voting to go to war. These are a matter of public record. I know who the real oil thieves are, I don't have to make up stories to try and pass the blame off where it doesn't belong.

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 1:05 pm

Why are you defending policy that is ruining the economy and this nation then :confused:

Mothers do not want to send their kids to fight Halliburton's war GTech, can't you get that :confused:

We are in debt up to our ass already and need to get out of Iraq, understand this, these are facts GTech :eek:

Blogmaster

Apr 14th 2005, 1:07 pm

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 1:09 pm

Would those better men happen to be those in the Air Force that are raping women there or the one's guarding Abu Grave Prison GTech :confused:

No. I would never group all of the "better men" into such a small category of people that did something wrong, the way you are. Abu was isolated. The few responsible are paying for their crimes, where the men of saddam were encouraged to do far worse and paid to do so. But it's rare you see outrage over the enormous attrocities commited there or by saddam. A few select prefer paint everyone with that very small brush.

Face it man, this is just as bad and more dangerous than Vietnam and we are being laughed at by the Russians, the EU and China GTech and we will not hold that ground in the end as China and Russia will continue to send in weapons as payback for past wars in Afghanistan and Vietnam.

This nation is already in deep debt and Bush will drive it into bankruptcy unless he makes a deal with NATO to get us out quick.

The EU knows this and they are not going to let Bush off easy.....

I'm flatter that you pretend to be concerned about laughter from China and Russia, but I suspect they have their own agendas to tend to. You are probably missing good media coverage lately about how well things are going and how the terrorists are attacking far less today (because of our efforts to eradicate them).

It's not all doom and gloom. I know you prefer that, but it's not.

Mia

Apr 14th 2005, 1:11 pm

You guys (MIA & GTech) are like those that supported Nixon until the day he left the White House in disgrace, well these Nixon Boys in the White House are still there living in their disgrace and I am glad they are so none of the DEM's get blamed for the coming disaster to this nation's economy and people.

It is time we Impeached Bush & Cheney as we did with Nixon.

I'd like you to Google me up some cool facts showing me just where Nixon was impeached. Do that, and I am going to give you a green rep every single time the board allows me too!

Keep em' coming.. Funny stuff!

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 1:12 pm

Get it through your head GTech that the guys over there want OUT, there were 3 car bombs today and an American is on TV held hostage with guns pointed at his head because he is a servant of Halliburton.

I guess you will never see the truth :cool:

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 1:15 pm

I'd like you to Google me up some cool facts showing me just where Nixon was impeached. Do that, and I am going to give you a green rep every single time the board allows me too!

Keep em' coming.. Funny stuff!

http://vivisimo.com/search?v%3Asources=Web&query=Richard+Nixon+Impeachment&x=58&y=10

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 1:16 pm

Why are you defending policy that is ruining the economy and this nation then :confused:

Who says I am? I'm not the one defending the rights of terrorists here. I'm not the one that pretends the real oil thieves are not the UN.

Mothers do not want to send their kids to fight Halliburton's war GTech, can't you get that :confused:

If this is Halliburton's war (was Bosnia Halliburton's war under Clinton? I know....you won't address that and ignore it), the that whole conspiracy theory was a huge flop. Haliburton stocks are down and their profit margin is about 2.x percent. I'd call that a huge failure, if in fact what you suggested were true. But it's not, and we've covered in detail many times. I can help you with the information, but I can't help your will to accept the truth.

We are in debt up to our ass already and need to get out of Iraq, understand this, these are facts GTech :eek:

I think it's rather sad you would just leave them there to fight these terrorists from Jordon, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other surrounding countries. But then by doing that, it would be a failure. Perhaps the thought of failure at all cost is what you prefer? That's fairly common for Democrats.

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 1:18 pm

With the obcession with impeachment, I'm surprised Anthony has to go so far back in history. Wasn't there a more recent impeachment? If impeachment is a valid concern, why does Anthony ignore that one?

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 1:20 pm

As the main contractor to support the military with an open ended contract with no money limits on it they are all Halliburtons wars GTech.

nevetS

Apr 14th 2005, 1:24 pm

Well this turned into a lively discussion. With a 5-to-1 read to post ratio at that. I suppose this means terrorism is still a hot button issue for people.

jlawrence

Apr 14th 2005, 1:24 pm

GTech, we don't differ as much as you may think. Suspected terrorists do have rights - all suspects have rights regardless of what they're suspected of. If you've got proof that they are terrorists then you take them through the courts, if you got that proof through interrogation then you deal with them in a military manner.
If you interogate them and don't get the proof you want/need, then you have to let them go - that's the game - and then you wait for the shit storm.
You want proof: you interrogate, humiliate, whatever, but must never get caught. If you get caught, you make sure it's never the people who gave the orders that takes the rap - no one will ever witness those orders being given, thus no one could ever prove that they were given.
I'm not defending what happened to prisoners in Iraq (far from it), but if it is really is a war then that shit happens - it's just no idiot is supposed to take pictures and the person wouldn't normally be able to talk about it afterwards.

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 1:25 pm

I've gotta step out for a while. Will check back later. To all that offered opinions, whether agreed or disagreed, in the spirt of debate...thank you.

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 1:26 pm

Well this turned into a lively discussion. With a 5-to-1 read to post ratio at that. I suppose this means terrorism is still a hot button issue for people.

I think this is your second BlockBuster thread, how do you do it man :confused: :p :p

Blogmaster

Apr 14th 2005, 1:29 pm

I've gotta step out for a while. Will check back later. To all that offered opinions, whether agreed or disagreed, in the spirt of debate...thank you.
it'll be on page #45 by the time you return :D

jlawrence

Apr 14th 2005, 1:33 pm

nevetS - terrorism is certainly still a hot button.
I think this thread is as much about : do people actually believe that their relevant governments are telling them.
Not quite sure exactly where AC is coming from - yet ;)
AC, are you saying that Halliburton, through their asociation with Cheney, engineered the whole thing in Iraq. Or indeed the whole Osama thing.
Why ?? - note, I don't know all the industry's Halliburton have their fingers in.
Even with a puppet government in Iraq, the wouldn't get control of the oil supply there. Now, if the US took the whole of the middle east .....

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 1:38 pm

Anyone can run a search on:

Halliburton KBR

http://vivisimo.com/search?v%3Asources=Web&query=Halliburton+KBR&x=45&y=19

It is all there.

We can only take it so far on a webmaster forum my man :o

Blogmaster

Apr 14th 2005, 1:43 pm

We can only take it so far on a webmaster forum my man :o
I agree :)

nevetS

Apr 14th 2005, 1:49 pm

Not quite sure exactly where AC is coming from - yet ;)
AC, are you saying that Halliburton, through their asociation with Cheney, engineered the whole thing in Iraq. Or indeed the whole Osama thing.
Why ?? - note, I don't know all the industry's Halliburton have their fingers in.

LOL... If that is the case, somebody needs to remove 24 from their Tivo season pass list.

jlawrence

Apr 14th 2005, 1:49 pm

agreed. Time to move on to something else.
It must be a couple of days since I saw an adsense cheater post :)

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 1:51 pm

Please not that or another reputation thread :p :p :p

Mia

Apr 14th 2005, 2:29 pm

http://vivisimo.com/search?v%3Asources=Web&query=Richard+Nixon+Impeachment&x=58&y=10

I don't speak URL. Could you possibly answer the question? Heck, I'll take a shot. Nixon was not impeached, nor was he removed from office. He resigned. Articles of Impeachment had been drawn up. To the best of my knowledge only two presidents have been impeached, one in my life time as a matter of fact.

More specifically, only two US Presidents have been Impeached.

Bill Clinton - Convicted, but no removed from office
Andrew Johnson - Acquitted
Richard Nixon - Resigned

The Articles of Impeachment for Nixon can be seen here: http://watergate.info/

You'll get no argument from me, reading the Articles of Impeachment, the crimes listed are certainly Impeachable offenses.

However, with all due respect, you are wrong. Only two Presidents have ever been Impeached; Johnson and Clinton. One acquitted and one convicted, and neither removed.

Your history lesson today brought to you by the letters G and B, and the number 1.

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 2:35 pm

Yeah and Barry Bonds never took steroids either, so what Nixon resigned or he would have been impeached the next day.

I call that impeached, you can call it what you want MIA. :o

I did not get thrown out of my house, I left when the Sheriff got there and told me to leave or he was going to arrest me. :p

Mia

Apr 14th 2005, 2:44 pm

Yeah and Barry Bonds never took steroids either, so what Nixon resigned or he would have been impeached the next day.

I call that impeached, you can call it what you want MIA.

I did not get thrown out of my house, I left when the Sheriff got there and told me to leave or he was going to arrest me.

So what you are saying is that you purposely mis-state facts, because if you say so, it must be so? Am I understanding that correctly? Or are you saying that the facts do not matter so long as you interpret them the way you want to?

Anyway, NO, it is not the same thing. Impeachment does not remove a President from office. Look back just a few short years. So even if Nixon had been Impeached, he would not have been told to leave because he was convicted. There is another step in the process.

My suggestion is to audit a poli-sci or history class at the local community college. That or stop relying on the net for your information :)

Blogmaster

Apr 14th 2005, 2:46 pm

What is the definition of "is"?

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 2:47 pm

Blogmaster

Apr 14th 2005, 3:02 pm

he made a deal and put Gerald Ford another Republican loser in his place :p :D

I want Arnold Swarzenegger in office and everyone will be happy!

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 3:05 pm

Arnold will go the same place Jessie Ventura went after they chew him up out there.

He is a numbskull for supporting Bush in 2004 and will pay for that by getting booted out of California :eek:

How do you like paying Arnold and George $3.50 a gallon for gas TOOT :confused: :p

Blogmaster

Apr 14th 2005, 3:10 pm

Arnold will go the same place Jessie Ventura went after they chew him up out there.

I doubt it and will bet you anything that he won't!

wendydettmer

Apr 14th 2005, 3:12 pm

well, no way to know if everyone would be happy, as it's illegal for him to become president :)

nevetS

Apr 14th 2005, 3:13 pm

I don't know. I thought Arnold was a joke to start out with, but he's been doing some good things lately. He's obviously trying to put himself into that Reagan mold - he's going to use the power of the people to fight the state legislature. It backfired last time, with his big measures not getting passed, but it set the tone. I'd say he's a shoe in for re-election with the fact that his supporting base is up and there is nobody left to challenge him.

Blogmaster

Apr 14th 2005, 3:16 pm

well, no way to know if everyone would be happy, as it's illegal for him to become president :)
I believe after being a citizen for 25 yrs + he should have the right to run :)

Mia

Apr 14th 2005, 3:17 pm

OK, go back and look at the search link I left you then tell me that he was not impeached, you are right, same thing, he made a deal and put Gerald Ford another Republican loser in his place :p :D

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Impeach+Richard+Nixon&ei=UTF-8&fr=sfp&fl=0&x=wrt

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I seem to recall being alive then. Internet links are not always fact, nor are they always 100% accurate. No, Nixon was NOT impeached. Because you found a sight on the internet that says he was, does not mean that it is true.

I am sure if you search long enough for something you will find the answer you are looking for whether true or false. The fact is, only two US President's have ever been impeached. One was convicted, one was not. Neither were removed from office. Nixon was not one of them. I'm sorry man, I'm not making this stuff up. This is actual history that I am old enough to have lived through.

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 3:19 pm

Arnold is a phony married to a DEM Kennedy, so he is of little political substance to either party, both of them are sucking the life (he and his wife) out of the state of California and is nothing more than an ambitious actor putting on a show. Give the people a few more years of Bush and Arnold then see where he is at then :eek:

4 mooooooore yeeeoooooos :p :p

OK MIA, so if he would not have quit he would have been impeached a week later, same thing man, he was a disgrace then along with Kissinger, Baker, Cheney and Bush and taught all of the current Republicans everything they know about corruption in high places. :cool:

Mia

Apr 14th 2005, 3:26 pm

OK MIA, so if he would not have quit he would have been impeached a week later, same thing man, he is a disgrace and taugh all of the current Republicans everything they know about corruption in high places. :cool:

No, it is not the same thing. Even if he would have been Impeached, that does not mean he is instantly removed from office. That is not the way it works. Clinton was impeached, convicted, but not removed.

Take a gander at http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rn37.html rather than Google'ing for fluff.

I seem to recall when Nixon gave his resignation speach he mentioned that he did not want to put the country (already tarnished by his actions) through more pain by having a lengthy Impeachment trial. Imagine if President Clinton had had the balls to do the same. Would have saved a lot of time and trouble. Personally though, I am glad he did not resign as I liked him a lot more than eGore.

In any event Impeachment, and resignation is not the same. If it was, there might actually have been a President Gore.

Much hatred I sense in this one. This leads to the dark side. :)

Blogmaster

Apr 14th 2005, 3:27 pm

Anthony I am happy to see you back in green but you are full of $hl+ :D

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 3:33 pm

SiteTutor I just want you to have this photo of the spiritual leader of the Republican party that steals elections like Nixon tried to do.

Breaking election laws and committing fraud lead to his impeachment or whatever Mia wants to rename it, too bad this country has lost any integrity it once had or Bush would be impeached also or whatever Mia wants to call it

Mia

Apr 14th 2005, 3:35 pm

SiteTutor I just want you to have this photo of the spiritual leader of the Republican party that steals elections like Nixon tried to do.

This election fraud lead to his impeachment or whatever Mia wants to rename it, too bad this country has lost any integrity it once had or Bush would be impeached also or whatever Mia wants to call it :p

You really believe you are right. That's fine man. Like I have said in the past, if you say something long enough, I suppose eventually it must be the truth.

Whatever. Thank you for more humor! Keep it real~

Blogmaster

Apr 14th 2005, 3:37 pm

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 3:40 pm

Arnold can kiss my Arnold :p :o :p

Blogmaster

Apr 14th 2005, 3:41 pm

he would kick your Arnold to where you won't be able to login at this forum again.

Mia

Apr 14th 2005, 3:42 pm

Wendy, citizenship should mean integration into our society, correct? Not giving someone the right to run for our highest office would mean us putting ourselves above Arnold, correct? Our founding fathers were great but not perfect. Denying someone to go for it and live up to his own potential would be un-American and against everything that we stand for. The American dream is based upon success stories which don't happen anywhere else and Arnold is the best example of what hard work and dedication can achieve.

AC, so what if he married Maria ... you don't believe in true love?:D

I was under the impression that the reason the fouding father's made it a requirement that you be born on US soil and a native citizen to insure that someone from some other country say the UK, or France at the time, could not just wonder in, become a citizen, then run for president and turn the country over to their native land.

At least that is the way I remember it being explained to me.

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 3:43 pm

Arnold is going down the tubes with the economy and Bush dude, he is a loser as all Republicans will be in the next few elections. :p :p :p

Blogmaster

Apr 14th 2005, 3:44 pm

I have never thought of that before, Jeremy but it does make a ton of sense to me. You have to look at the time it was written and back then there was a genuine fear and justifiably so.

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 3:47 pm

The same kind of integrity Clinton was impeached for? Or is that a different kind of integrity, Anthony?

All the concern over impeachment, and only two presidents in history have been impeached. And Anthony can't name either :D

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 3:49 pm

I don't like his old lady, but if she can get Clinton's Brains back in the White House I would vote for her over a Bush Suck Ass like Condi Rice or Fat Dick :cool:

PS: See the stock market crashing GTech :confused:

Thank Cheney and Bush for this economic destruction :eek:

Blogmaster

Apr 14th 2005, 3:54 pm

Fat Dick
who you think you referring to? :mad:

just kidding :D

Cheney won't run. And don't lie, you're hot for Hillary :cool:
She doesn't look bad for a middle aged chick but her cold demeanor could get a man to cheat. Wait a minute .. did that ever happen? I must be imagening things :D

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 3:57 pm

If you think this country is screwed now with 8 years of Condi or Pacemaker Dick we would turn into a division of China :p :o :p

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 3:58 pm

You mean like the Clinton Stock Market crash of March 2000? How about 1998?

Do you place those on Clinton? Or does he get a pass?

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 4:00 pm

Was the dollar worthless and the country in deep debt under Clinton?

Was gas at $3.50 a gallon and the economy down for the count? :confused:

Blogmaster

Apr 14th 2005, 4:00 pm

Sorry about my last post ... a Democratic President cheating on his wife: too far fetched :rolleyes:

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 4:04 pm

So you don't blame Clinton for those stock market crashes, but you choose to blame Bush for one that hasn't happened? That sounds about par for you :)

Gas was a huge problem for Clinton, as I've tried to educate you before. He experienced soaring gas prices and oddly enough, Clinton didn't have the power to control oil prices. I guess the House must have just up and given that super duper special power to bush, eh?

Remind me again about how Clinton gutted the military to balance the budget, partially explaining why we let terrorists run amok on us during the 1990s? Oh, nevermind, that's not something you would normally discuss.

Mia

Apr 14th 2005, 4:06 pm

Was the dollar worthless and the country in deep debt under Clinton?

No, the dollar was not worthless, nor is it now. Was the country in debt? Sure, since Washington it has been in debt. President number one started the national debt at $50k. Of course in today's dollars, that is quite a bit.

Was gas at $3.50 a gallon and the economy down for the count?

Where did the extra buck come from? $3.50 gal? Where do you see that.

To answer your questions though.. Look at what we inherited. A recession, bordering on depression. A near defunct military. Secrets and nuclear technology given (not sold) just given to the Chinese. Terror on a regular basis, that is until we waged a war on it. Scandals, lies, deceit...

Trite, trite, trite... Of course that is trite too, isn't it? Anyway.

Blogmaster

Apr 14th 2005, 4:06 pm

You mean like the Clinton Stock Market crash of March 2000? How about 1998?

Do you place those on Clinton? Or does he get a pass?
Thank you, for some reason that has been downplayed by the media.

anthonycea

Apr 14th 2005, 4:07 pm

Let's focus on the success of Bush and Cheney in taking this country into a depression, not a recession. :eek:

Because that is where we are heading GTech, a rising tide floats all boats, so one that goes back into the Sea will have an effect on you too GTech.

Hope you enjoy the ride Bush is going to take you on :p :p :p

wendydettmer

Apr 14th 2005, 4:07 pm

Wendy, citizenship should mean integration into our society, correct? Not giving someone the right to run for our highest office would mean us putting ourselves above Arnold, correct? Our founding fathers were great but not perfect. Denying someone to go for it and live up to his own potential would be un-American and against everything that we stand for. The American dream is based upon success stories which don't happen anywhere else and Arnold is the best example of what hard work and dedication can achieve.

AC, so what if he married Maria ... you don't believe in true love?:D

well, be that as it may, it's against the consitution. I can see the point of the founding fathers on that one, but I do agree it's a bit outdated.

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 4:09 pm

I suppose it would be convenient to not talk about Clinton's woes. Personally, I think Clinton is quite a likeable guy. Probably why I voted for him twice. Sadly, I was not aware of politics back then. Just the average American who voted for who they thought best based on what the news gave us. Today, I know better.

Why focus just on Bush? I mean, if you are going to blame Bush for something that hasn't even happened, how can you ignore the very same concern that DID happen on Clinton's watch?

Help me understand that rationale, if in fact, there is any to it?

Mia

Apr 14th 2005, 4:10 pm

Let's focus on the success of Bush and Cheney in taking this country into a depression, not a recession. :eek:

Get your facts straight. We were in one before Bush entered office.

Because that is where we are heading GTech, a rising tide floats all boats, so one that goes back into the Sea will have an effect on you too GTech.

Hope you enjoy the ride Bush is going to take you on :p :p :p

I'm not sure I follow these most amusing soliloquies of yours. They are quite entertaining though.

wendydettmer

Apr 14th 2005, 4:12 pm

It's also not fair to blame the economy soley on the president. Congress plays a large role as well, and getting them to agree on anything is usually quite a feat.

GTech

Apr 14th 2005, 4:15 pm

Anthony, how often do you forget the ONE TRILLION dollars we lost in the stock market the day it opened following 9/11.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I suspect you forget it quite often :D

I suspect you forget the truly remarkable recovery we've had in a relatively short amount of time too. After all, 5.4% unemployment with Clinton was hailed as a huge success, but 5.4% under Bush means???

jlawrence

Apr 14th 2005, 4:16 pm

$3.50 a gallon - I'll take it, as much of it as my bank manager would allow me.
Quit bitching about the prices you pay for gas, move to the UK then you can see some real prices.

wendydettmer

Apr 14th 2005, 4:18 pm

well jlawrence, it is all relative. The prices for gas here shouldn't be that high as most of it is due to taxes and most of them are state imposed. We pay around 2.20 here for a gallon. Yes, it is cheaper then most places in the world, but that doesn't mean that it's not higher here then it should be.