PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Black Samurai on December 01, 2002, 05:41:41 PM
-
Taken from here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58308-2002Nov30.html)
By Charles Lane
The Bush administration is developing a parallel legal system in which terrorism suspects -- U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike -- may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without legal protections guaranteed by the ordinary system, lawyers inside and outside the government say.
The elements of this new system are already familiar from President Bush\'s orders and his aides\' policy statements and legal briefs: indefinite military detention for those designated "enemy combatants," liberal use of "material witness" warrants, counterintelligence-style wiretaps and searches led by law enforcement officials and, for noncitizens, trial by military commissions or deportation after strictly closed hearings.
Only now, however, is it becoming clear how these elements could ultimately interact.
For example, under authority it already has or is asserting in court cases, the administration, with approval of the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, could order a clandestine search of a U.S. citizen\'s home and, based on the information gathered, secretly declare the citizen an enemy combatant, to be held indefinitely at a U.S. military base. Courts would have very limited authority to second-guess the detention, to the extent that they were aware of it.
Administration officials, noting that they have chosen to prosecute suspected Taliban member John Walker Lindh, "shoe bomber" Richard Reid and alleged Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui in ordinary federal courts, say the parallel system is meant to be used selectively, as a complement to conventional processes, not as a substitute. But, they say, the parallel system is necessary because terrorism is a form of war as well as a form of crime, and it must not only be punished after incidents occur, but also prevented and disrupted through the gathering of timely intelligence.
"I wouldn\'t call it an alternative system," said an administration official who has helped devise the legal response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "But it is different than the criminal procedure system we all know and love. It\'s a separate track for people we catch in the war."
At least one American has been shifted from the ordinary legal system into the parallel one: alleged al Qaeda "dirty bomb" plotter Jose Padilla, who is being held at a Navy brig, without the right to communicate with a lawyer or anyone else. U.S. officials have told the courts that they can detain and interrogate him until the executive branch declares an end to the war against terrorism.
The final outlines of this parallel system will be known only after the courts, including probably the Supreme Court, have settled a variety of issues being litigated. But the prospect of such a system has triggered a fierce debate.
Civil libertarians accuse the Bush administration of an executive-branch power grab that will erode the rights and freedoms that terrorists are trying to destroy -- and that were enhanced only recently in response to abuses during the civil rights era, Vietnam and Watergate.
"They are trying to embed in law a vast expansion of executive authority with no judicial oversight in the name of national security," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, a Washington-based nonprofit group that has challenged the administration approach in court. "This is more tied to statutory legal authority than J. Edgar Hoover\'s political spying, but that may make it more dangerous. You could have the law serving as a vehicle for all kinds of abuses."
Administration officials say that they are acting under ample legal authority derived from statutes, court decisions and wartime powers that the president possesses as commander in chief under the Constitution.
"When you have a long period of time when you\'re not engaged in a war, people tend to forget, or put in backs of their minds, the necessity for certain types of government action used when we are in danger, when we are facing eyeball to eyeball a serious threat," Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, who leads the administration\'s anti-terrorism legal team in the federal courts, said in an interview.
Broadly speaking, the debate between the administration and its critics is not so much about the methods the government seeks to employ as it is about who should act as a check against potential abuses.
Executive Decisions
Civil libertarians insist that the courts should searchingly review Bush\'s actions,
so that he is always held accountable to an independent branch of government. Administration officials, however, imply that the main check on the president\'s performance in wartime is political -- that if the public perceives his approach to terrorism is excessive or ineffective, it will vote him out of office.
"At the end of the day in our constitutional system, someone will have to decide whether that [decision to designate someone an enemy combatant] is a right or just decision," Olson said. "Who will finally decide that? Will it be a judge, or will it be the president of the United States, elected by the people, specifically to perform that function, with the capacity to have the information at his disposal with the assistance of those who work for him?"
Probably the most hotly disputed element of the administration\'s approach is its contention that the president alone can designate individuals, including U.S. citizens, as enemy combatants, who can be detained with no access to lawyers or family members unless and until the president determines, in effect, that hostilities between the United States and that individual have ended.
Padilla was held as a material witness for a month after his May 8 arrest in Chicago before he was designated an enemy combatant. He is one of two U.S. citizens being held as enemy combatants at the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. The other is Yaser Esam Hamdi, a Saudi Taliban fighter who was captured by American troops in Afghanistan and sent to the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, until it was discovered that he was born in Louisiana.
Attorneys are challenging their detentions in federal court. While civil libertarians concede that the executive branch has well-established authority to name and confine members of enemy forces during wartime, they maintain that it is unconstitutional to subject U.S. citizens to indefinite confinement on little more than the president\'s declaration, especially given the inherently open-ended nature of an unconventional war against terrorism.
-
"The notion that the executive branch can decide by itself that an American citizen can be put in a military camp, incommunicado, is frightening," said Morton H. Halperin, director of the Washington office of the Open Society Institute. "They\'re entitled to hold him on the grounds that he is in fact at war with the U.S., but there has to be an opportunity for him to contest those facts."
However, the Bush administration, citing two World War II-era cases -- the Supreme Court\'s ruling upholding a military commission trial for a captured American-citizen Nazi saboteur, and a later federal appeals court decision upholding the imprisonment of an Italian American caught as a member of Italian forces in Europe -- says there is ample precedent for what it is doing.
Courts traditionally understand that they must defer to the executive\'s greater expertise and capability when it comes to looking at such facts and making such judgments in time of war, Bush officials said. At most, courts have only the power to review legal claims brought on behalf of detainees, such as whether there is indeed a state of conflict between the United States and the detainee.
In a recent legal brief, Olson argued that the detention of people such as Hamdi or Padilla as enemy combatants is "critical to gathering intelligence in connection with the overall war effort."
Nor is there any requirement that the executive branch spell out its criteria for determining who qualifies as an enemy combatant, Olson argues.
"There won\'t be 10 rules that trigger this or 10 rules that end this," Olson said in the interview. "There will be judgments and instincts and evaluations and implementations that have to be made by the executive that are probably going to be different from day to day, depending on the circumstances."
The federal courts have yet to deliver a definitive judgment on the question. A federal district judge in Virginia, Robert G. Doumar, was sharply critical of the administration, insisting that Hamdi be permitted to consult an attorney. But he was partially overruled by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond.
The 4th Circuit, however, said the administration\'s assertion that courts should have absolutely no role in examining the facts leading to an enemy combatant designation was "sweeping." A decision from that court is pending as to how much of a role a court could claim, if any. The matter could well have to be settled in the Supreme Court.
Secret Surveillance
The administration scored a victory recently when the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ruled 3 to 0 that the USA Patriot Act, passed by Congress shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, gives the Justice Department authority to break down what had come to be known as "the wall" separating criminal investigations from investigations of foreign agents.
The ruling endorsed the administration\'s view that law enforcement goals should be allowed to drive Justice Department requests for special eavesdropping and search warrants that had been thought to be reserved for counterintelligence operations. But the court went further, agreeing with the administration that "the wall" itself had no real basis in pre-Patriot Act law. Instead, the court ruled, "the wall" was a product of internal Justice Department guidelines that were, in turn, based partly on erroneous interpretations of the law by some courts.
There is no clear line between intelligence and crime in any case, the court said, because any investigation of a spy ring could ultimately lead to charging U.S. citizens with crimes such as espionage.
The decision overruled an earlier one by the lower-level Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, in which seven judges sharply criticized past Justice Department misstatements in applications for permission to do secret surveillance.
Administration officials say that the ruling permits what is only sensible -- greater sharing of information between federal prosecutors and federal counterintelligence officials.
Thanks to enforcement of "the wall" by FBI lawyers, they note, pre-Sept. 11 permission to search Moussaoui\'s computer was not sought, a crucial missed opportunity to prevent the attacks.
In practical terms, the ruling means that the attorney general would still have to convince the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that he has probable cause to believe that a given subject of a wiretap or search is an agent of a foreign terrorist group, a standard that is not dissimilar to the one required for warrants in ordinary criminal cases.
Yet civil libertarians say that targets of such investigations who end up being ordered out of the country or prosecuted would lose a crucial right that they would have in the ordinary criminal justice system -- the right to examine the government\'s evidence justifying the initial warrant.
"So the government starts off using secret surveillance information not to gather information upon which to make policy, but to imprison or deport an individual, and then it never gives the individual a fair chance to see if the surveillance was lawful," Martin said.
-
I don\'t find a thing wrong with this considering the times we live in. There are too many loopholes in the judicial and immigration process for terrorist to enter and live in this country. People will claim their civil liberties and rights are being destroyed, but who will really be effected by this?
This country already has too many freedoms and something like this is acceptable. If one is trying to launch a terrorist act in this country why should their citizenship play a factor?
The paranoid among us will claim it gives the government free reign to spy on us... Once again I ask... who among us will this effect?
In reality this won\'t affect our lives unless someone is plotting something criminal anyway.
-
I\'ve seen this comin\' for awhile. Everything screams that we are becoming a more and more policed state and this is just the tip of the iceberg. That is not to say that I agree with it - I think it would be one of the worst things for this country and if it is passed, I would seriously consider moving .
The Bush Administration and Bush himself are maybe the worst thing for this country. I have always said this and this only conforms my thought even more. Power hungry? Very.
This country has gone to a hell in a hand basket and will only get worse. Goodbye America and hello Hell. The nation of policed state and dead idea\'s.
-
Gohan, check this out. I didnt read what you posted completely, but looks like this stuff goes hand in hand.
http://www.psx2central.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26334
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
I don\'t find a thing wrong with this considering the times we live in. There are too many loopholes in the judicial and immigration process for terrorist to enter and live in this country. People will claim their civil liberties and rights are being destroyed, but who will really be effected by this?
This country already has too many freedoms and something like this is acceptable. If one is trying to launch a terrorist act in this country why should their citizenship play a factor?
The paranoid among us will claim it gives the government free reign to spy on us... Once again I ask... who among us will this effect?
In reality this won\'t affect our lives unless someone is plotting something criminal anyway.
You have got to be ****ing kidding me. The fact that people can be detained indefinitely with no proof of them doing anything wrong, with no due process, with the terms of their detainment not being spelled out, and with the courts having no authority over it doesn\'t seem wrong or unamerican to you? Who of us will this effect? The fact is, we don\'t know. But what if you were framed, or wrongfully accused, and you had no chance to even show that you were innocent? God, I swear, I honestly think Bush is one of the worst presidents we have ever had. This bullshit is horrible. He has taken 9/11, and used it to push bullshit through again and again. This just crosses a line.
-
Thank God someone agree\'s with me. The man has used and abused 9/11 for his own personal agendas and power.
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
You have got to be ****ing kidding me. The fact that people can be detained indefinitely with no proof of them doing anything wrong, with no due process, with the terms of their detainment not being spelled out, and with the courts having no authority over it doesn\'t seem wrong or unamerican to you? Who of us will this effect? The fact is, we don\'t know. But what if you were framed, or wrongfully accused, and you had no chance to even show that you were innocent? God, I swear, I honestly think Bush is one of the worst presidents we have ever had. This bullshit is horrible. He has taken 9/11, and used it to push bullshit through again and again. This just crosses a line.
I just noticed you turned 18 this year. Go figure you would be so up in arms about this. Did you vote in the last election? How would you know what other presidents have done first hand? Seven years ago people bitched how bad Clinton was. You were what... 11??? How closely did you pay attention to anything regarding politics in this country back then? I swear most of those who bitch don\'t even vote, let alone write a letter to their representative to do anything about it.
To those who say age doesn\'t matter regarding political issues I strongly disagree. If you are under 18, you don\'t pay property taxes, you don\'t vote, you don\'t have kids... I could go on and on. I guess its the trendy thing to do when you are young. Hate the government and especially a Republican president. The political apathy in this country is deep, especially among the younger voting generation. Does anyone ever wonder why the 1950\'s were considered to America\'s greatest? Because people actually cared about their country and one another. You don\'t see that anymore.
Back to the topic... If you aren\'t doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about. Getting framed :laughing: ? Who is going to frame you shockwaves? You look at this proposal in such black and white terms. It isn\'t so cut and dry as you may think. Yes it does bypass the courts, but it still isn\'t as easy as you think to just grab someone and hold them - especially if they are innocent. This isn\'t the Gestapo after all.
What "bullshit" has Bush passed through because of 9/11? List it and how it has effected you. This law will not effect anyone who isn\'t doing something they shouldn\'t. Would you rather have the government not monitor suspicious activity?
As Ace or someone said a while back some of you really must look up in the sky for black helicopters. :rolleyes:
-
I\'m not paranoid about being framed. I just think it is wrong that the goverment has this much power. The idea of this country was so that one goverment would not control the people to this degree - and yet look what is happening. We are at an all time high of a policed state and losing freedoms day by day.
Now George W. Bush has issued his war on terrorism - that wasn\'t enough and he never did get Bin Laden, so what does he do? He suspects Sadam may have weapons of mass destruction, let\'s start another war. Nevermind the fact that we should not be starting wars on mere suspsicion. Nevermind the fact that he claims "the smoking gun will be in the form of a mushroom cloud" - yet we are the ones who have used weapons of mass destruction in a time of crisis. He has done nothing for this country except put us into a further hole and make us regress.
I will agree with you that the 50\'s was a good time because people did care about the country and people did want to make a difference. Now\'a\'days, people don\'t see a point to voting. It\'s a high-rated popularity contest and nothing more.
I don\'t look for black helicopters but I do think this country has went to hell in a handbasket.
-
I agree this country is going to pot LIC, but for different reasons. I wish the government didn\'t have to be so big, but with the world the way it is today its a reality. Before 9/11 no one would have believed we could be attacked like that, but it happened and it has made us all a bit uneasy. Everyone questions the actions and policies of our governent because there are too many special interest groups whining about this and that. You didn\'t have that back in the 1950\'s. America had a self identity then, but with immigration and liberal policies, it has lost a lot of that. Yes, some good came out of the 60\'s, ie civil rights, etc... but I fear more harm came out as well. We don\'t have a national language (which makes me sick) and the Constitution keeps being reinterpreted on an almost yearly basis.
Iraq should have been taken care of back during Desert Storm, but once again the UN mandate limited the scope of that operation. Now we have to go back and do it again. Why you say? I believe better safe than sorry. Saddam has called for the destruction of Israel an the US, what makes you think if he develops a nuke that he wouldn\'t give it to some Islamic extremists? As far as us using weapons of mass destruction - it was a different era and the world was at war. You can\'t compare a terrorist setting off a nuclear weapon in a western city with the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan. Are they teaching revisionist history in school now a days?
What has Bush done to "put this country into a deeper hole" as you put it? Don\'t blame the economy on him. The economy was in a slide while Clinton was still in office.
-
Wow Giga, I respect you. Because anyone who will discount my opinions based almost exclusively on my age must be much more mature and well informed than I am :Rolleyes:
Yes, I voted. I voted Green. From the way you have posted, I\'d guess that you have your own opinions on what this says about me, but save it.
By the way, I love the way you tell me I wouldn\'t know anything about stuff that has happened in this country before my time, then go on to rave about how great the 50s were. Remind me, how old were you at that point? Oh yeah, you weren\'t born yet. You wanna play the age card? Fine, go ahead. But I\'ll tell you right now, you\'re wrong to do so. A person of any age can be a lot more mature and well informed than someone twenty years older.
As for what he\'s pushed though, and how it\'s effected me...let\'s see:
1. The most obvious...he is using 9/11 to go after Iraq. He is creating a war that we do not need to fight. How does this effect me? Well unlike you, I\'m of drafting age. Hell, I\'d say that\'s one way in which my views are more valid than yours, because that\'s a piece of our nation that I could potentially participate in, and you wouldn\'t.
2. I might as well stay on the topic. These proposed laws, coupled with the homeland security measures, are robbing us of our liberties, that Americans historically have charished. The framming example wasn\'t a concern, it was an example of an extreme situation to prove a point. The real problem though...the government doesn\'t even need a reason to detain someone, or investigate someone, under these new laws. These provide the government with a way to legally deny due process to anyone they see fit. The point isn\'t whether it will effect me or not. If a law was passed making rape legal, it probably wouldn\'t effect me either. I probably won\'t be raped in such a situation. That doesn\'t make it right though. Laws like this are being put in place for a reason. The point is, what does it matter if they affect me? The point is, they affect someone, and with laws like this, they could only affect someone in a bad way. Although, thank you for taking this position. It\'s this me first, "if it doesn\'t affect me, I don\'t care" attitude that makes me hate people of your political beliefs so much. And how, exactly, would you know how easy it would be for them to grab someone out of the blue, and detain them? After all, once this passes, it will be perfectly legal. So who\'s to say this doesn\'t change, or at least start to change the way things are in this country, for the worse?
3. I could go on and on...from tax policies to budget changes. The fact is, this stuff isn\'t displayed to the public, as it should be. What the public gets is the war on terror, the "fearless president, doing what he can to protect the innocent US citizens". This war on terror, and the aftermath of 9/11 has been deliberately used to hide what the government is actually doing from the public.
Oh, and you\'re right, if a nation like Iraq were to nuke us, it would be different from what we did to Japan. How? Japan wasn\'t bombing us at the time.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
I just noticed you turned 18 this year. Go figure you would be so up in arms about this. Did you vote in the last election? How would you know what other presidents have done first hand? Seven years ago people bitched how bad Clinton was. You were what... 11??? How closely did you pay attention to anything regarding politics in this country back then? I swear most of those who bitch don\'t even vote, let alone write a letter to their representative to do anything about it.
To those who say age doesn\'t matter regarding political issues I strongly disagree. If you are under 18, you don\'t pay property taxes, you don\'t vote, you don\'t have kids... I could go on and on. I guess its the trendy thing to do when you are young. Hate the government and especially a Republican president. The political apathy in this country is deep, especially among the younger voting generation. Does anyone ever wonder why the 1950\'s were considered to America\'s greatest? Because people actually cared about their country and one another. You don\'t see that anymore.
Alright, I\'d say something about the topic, but being that it\'s a school night, I\'m goona be going to bed after what I have to say about this nonsense that you\'ve stated.
You know what you sound like? An older sibling. It doesn\'t matter if you\'re right, but being that you\'re younger, you don\'t matter. Seriously, if that\'s your entire argument to turn down Tony, then you\'ve got nothing. Talking about the 1950\'s was even better, because even though you weren\'t around back then, you automatically ate it up. Ignorance at it\'s finest.
I mean seriously, is that all you got? Your republican ways have clouded your judgement, and being that the republican party is full of a lot of old people anyway, you have automatically gone with the fact that younger people do in fact not matter. Idiocy.
Now, again, I\'m not going to say anything really ON topic, but I probably will later. Hell, I didn\'t agree with anything you said anyway, so I\'ll just get to it after school.
See Yuz.
-
Originally posted by ROL Jamas
Ignorance at it\'s finest.
Ignorance? That works, but I\'d be more inclined to call it hypocracy.
-
First of all shockwaves, it is widely known that the 1950\'s and early 1960\'s were a time of great prosperity for this country. Anyone can learn that in school, so your reference to saying Bush is the "worst" president really doesn\'t hold water since you haven\'t experienced any others - try Jimmy Carter who is widely viewed as the worst president of the past 50 years.
Once again I ask you what liberty have you lost since 9/11??? You haven\'t lost one. No this law won\'t affect me in a "bad way" so no I don\'t mind it and actually think it is good that our government is diligent when it comes to threats within our borders. It is people of your political preferences that I despise - those that claim the government is inherently evil and obviously can\'t do anything positive. Does another, more devestating attack have to happen for you to realize that certain laws have to modified??? Or will you continue to bury your head in the sand?
Yes I would like to hear your list of tax policies and budget changes. Frankly I was glad to recieve my tax cut this past year. Tell us all what the public doesn\'t know shockwaves. Tell us your source as well!
Oh yes you are scared of a draft... I haven\'t seen anything regarding reactivating the draft so you don\'t have to worry slacker. Before you say, but you don\'t have to worry... I put in my 4 years thank you. You exemplify what is tragically wrong with your generation. You don\'t know the meaning of patriotic or self sacrifice.
Lastly, are you so blind or ignorant that you don\'t think Japan\'s attack on Pearl Harbor was wrong? Do you not know who started World War 2??? No Japan wasn\'t bombing us at the time, they were just shooting at our troops and wouldn\'t surrender. Maybe if you were an 18 year old marine back in 1945 getting ready to invade Japan itself you would have thanked whomever that those two bombs were dropped. Think about that one, while you worry about being drafted.
-
Originally posted by ROL Jamas
I mean seriously, is that all you got? Your republican ways have clouded your judgement, and being that the republican party is full of a lot of old people anyway, you have automatically gone with the fact that younger people do in fact not matter. Idiocy.
Now, again, I\'m not going to say anything really ON topic, but I probably will later. Hell, I didn\'t agree with anything you said anyway, so I\'ll just get to it after school.
See Yuz.
:laughing: Thats right ROL you don\'t matter. What have you done to better this country other than bitch about the government on a message board? Unfortunately, the biggest whiners are the ones who never do anything to improve a situation. Now go to bed, go to school, learn some things an come back and discuss. Why am I even responding to you regarding this topic?
-
Next thing you know the gov\'t will be trying to read our minds without a warrant.
*ben puts on aluminum foil deflector beanie*
http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html
-
ANother intresting turn of the Bush Doctrine, the "Age of American Imperialism," Pax Americana, or the Corporate Oil Conglomerates\' Takeover of the World—whatever we want to call it.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?107:1:./temp/~c107j11x5F::
To require the induction into the Armed Forces of young men registered under the Military Selective Service Act , and to authorize young women to volunteer, to receive basic military training and education for a period of up to one year.
Also to quote...
October 3, 2002—It\'s called the "Universal Military Training and Service Act of 2001." It was introduced by two Republicans in the House on December 20, 2001, and it sits there, waiting until enough people feel that it\'s needed. It\'s what we call, simply, "The Draft." While it waits, it can be read at: http://thomas.loc.gov (search for Universal Military Training and Service Act)
And it is waiting. To think that this act will not be made law, probably within the next 12 months, is to remain completely deaf and blind regarding the Bush Doctrine, the "Age of American Imperialism," Pax Americana, or the Corporate Oil Conglomerates\' Takeover of the World—whatever we want to call it.
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/LThomas100302/lthomas100302.html
-
Well as I feel the need to put my two cents in, I\'m with giga on some things and for the most part he does have a point telling you Shock that you don\'t back of your shit up with sources or information, we have luckee doing that for you so you need to thank luckee for making you look half right, no offense I just love a good debate, and if I sound like I\'m getting personal I\'m not, so don\'t take offense. Sometimes people read to deep into laws and see them for how unjust they could be, and not for the good of humanity, and trust me if the new law is unconstitutional, I guarantee that you will see it being revoked by the Supreme Court, so Shock worry nothing everything will be ok. We will only go to war with Iraq if for some reason they have nukes or any other type of harmful weapons to us, or rather we sit back and let Hussein build them and just wait for him to use them on us, and then react, wait we already did that and we are two buildings short of a financial center and 2000 less great Americans, forget about that day, I sure the hell haven\'t!!!
-
Omg... LIC and Shockwaves, I agree with your views 10000%.
Note to Giga: You don\'t need to adress my views if you don\'t want to, seeing as how I\'m:
1) Young
2) Not a US citizen
But to the rest of you... this SUCH fuc&ing BS! I mean, I\'m really shocked. How does your national anthem go again? "And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave o\'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!" *cough*
It\'s not about whether or not \'it affects you\'; it\'s the princip of it! This crap is probably just the beginning and it makes me sick. You can now thank that retard GWB and his friends that the US can no longer (if it could at one point) be called \'home of the free\' and \'the land of freedom\'... please.
In theory this means they could arrest anyone for whatever BS reason they see fit and contain them as long as they like - along with \'real\' terrorists of course. But who really would know if it\'s only used on \'real\' terrorists/criminals?. Great stuff - remind me again, what was it the WWII veterans fought for?
It amazes me that ANYONE can justify this for whatever reason. If you do accept this \'for the greater good\' then don\'t EVER tell me that the US is all about freedom and justice, where every man has the right to a fair trial. :rpissed:
-
beginning of a policed state?
its already been one for 50 years
-
Going off of what luckee said. I believe a mandatory 2 year civil service or military service should be reinstated in this country. Some people truley don\'t know what it is to devote time and energy towards ones own country. They do this in Europe, why not revive it here? I think it might help some of these disinfranchised teens grow up a bit.
-
Originally posted by Samwise
Omg... LIC and Shockwaves, I agree with your views 10000%.
Note to Giga: You don\'t need to adress my views if you don\'t want to, seeing as how I\'m:
1) Young
2) Not a US citizen
But to the rest of you... this SUCH fuc&ing BS! I mean, I\'m really shocked. How does your national anthem go again? "And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave o\'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!" *cough*
It\'s not about whether or not \'it affects you\'; it\'s the princip of it! This crap is probably just the beginning and it makes me sick. You can now thank that retard GWB and his friends that the US can no longer (if it could at one point) be called \'home of the free\' and \'the land of freedom\'... please.
In theory this means they could arrest anyone for whatever BS reason they see fit and contain them as long as they like - along with \'real\' terrorists of course. But who really would know if it\'s only used on \'real\' terrorists/criminals?. Great stuff - remind me again, what was it the WWII veterans fought for?
It amazes me that ANYONE can justify this for whatever reason. If you do accept this \'for the greater good\' then don\'t EVER tell me that the US is all about freedom and justice, where every man has the right to a fair trial. :rpissed:
Samwise, I respect your opinion on this matter, but there is such a thing as too much freedom. How many murderers in this country slip through the judicial system on technicalities??? Why should people who conspire to kill innocent people in the name of religion be given the same rights as a petty criminal?
These people are combatants and should be treated as such. American citizens who conspire with them should be tried on the grounds of treason. I know it sounds harsh, but as I have stated before - there will not be mass abductions of people. Most of us probably won\'t know anyone who is effected by this. My question is to those who think this is such a terrible idea - Should our government do nothing? Should we just wait for the next attack and be the good freedom loving people that the world takes advantage of us for?
If it were up to me, we should immediately withdraw from the UN, kick them out of NY and see how well they handle things without US support.
-
The world changed on 9/11 and for the US it has changed the way will be doing "business" for a very long time.
I think in unusual times like these there has to be unusual measures taken to secure the safety our citizens . If some of these measures get out of control they will change because this country won\'t stand for it. That\'s why we are the greatest country on this earth.
I for one do not like giving away freedoms, but if it means that we will stop the next horrific display of some Islamic wacko then we might all have to suck it in. As I said though, if this is something that gets out of control amendments will be made. I wonder if GWB did nothing and more buildings were being leveled, or planes continued to drop from the sky, how many of you would be praising the Prez for not erroding our civil liberties.
shockwaves,
Did you forget a little thing called Pearl Harbor?
To even compare the dropping of the bombs on Japan to a terrorist letting off a nuke in one of our cities has me sick. We saved thousands of American lives, and that\'s what matters.
Ace
-
These unusual times? What have changed? There have always been terrorists, it\'s just that recently they hurt the US in a visible place. But come on... it weren\'t exactly rocket science - the damn morons hijacked some planes and crashed them into buildings.
And what is the function of CIA, FBI, Interpol, NSA etc. etc. if not to track down criminals and stop them? I don\'t see exactly why it\'s so \'critical\' to toss away privacy in this so-called war on terrorism.
Hell, any moron can do damage if they want - homeland security bills or not. The only ones to truely suffer from this are the ordinary Americans.
-
Samwise, none of us are suffering from these laws. As I have asked all who disagree with it (who live in this country) what liberties have they lost??? No one has replied because they their lives haven\'t changed at all. As for your privacy issue:
TIA Targets Terrorists, Not Privacy
November 22, 2002 | |
“A supersnoop’s dream,” The Washington Times calls it. It will give government agents “a computerized dossier on your private life,” warns William Safire of The New York Times.
It’s the federal government’s Total Information Awareness (TIA) program, and if it’s not positively Orwellian, say civil libertarians, it’s at least X Files. Worse yet, they argue, the program is being developed by John Poindexter -- the professorial, pipe-smoking Reagan capo convicted (later overturned) of redirecting money to the contras trying to overthrow the communist government of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua.
If this goes forward, critics ask, will Poindexter and his beady-eyed bureaucrats know what Internet sites I like to frequent? That I’ve maxed out a credit card? That I play the office football pool? That my daughter has asthma?
Shouldn’t I be worried about this?
Actually, only those already identified as terrorists have anything to fear.
What the government seeks to do with TIA is piece together the puzzles of terrorist networks before they launch their attacks. And it wants to do this in such a way -- in fact, Poindexter and his staff spend much of their time on it -- that our privacy and civil liberties are protected to the maximum extent possible.
And they are doing, if not the Lord’s work, the work of the American people, who since Sept. 11, 2001, have called for some systematic way for various intelligence and other fact-gathering agencies to share and analyze information. Poindexter and his staff have gone to great pains to make their deliberations as public as possible. They have described the work of those seeking to launch TIA in symposia around the country, and they even post information on their Web site http://www.darpa.mil/DARPATech2002/presentation.html.
Even if they wanted to, TIA employees simply won’t have time to monitor who plays football pools, who has asthma, who surfs what Web sites or even who deals cocaine or steals cars. They’ll begin with intelligence reports about people already suspected of terrorism, according to Ted Senator, project director of a component of TIA.
Those already identified as terrorists or potential terrorists by the intelligence community then could be monitored through existing public and private databases to build an in-depth portfolio, including contacts and frequent activities, Senator says. These portfolios should enable authorities to determine whom to watch and where to find them when they suspect a terror strike is imminent.
Access to this information should be limited to those with appropriate clearances as well as by need to know, and programmers are hard at work on filters for these purposes. Moreover, the Genisys program, another component of TIA, is being designed to separate identity information from transactions and match up the information “only when we have evidence and legal authority to do so,” officials say.
The key to the program -- both in terms of its effectiveness and its potential to gain acceptance from the millions of Americans who rightly worry about privacy and erosion of civil liberties -- is to limit its use to detecting terrorists and preventing future attacks. That means the FBI, the CIA and the soon-to-be-created Department of Homeland Security intelligence arm.
It does not mean state and local law enforcement or even those who wish to use it for causes such as aviation security and health surveillance -- monitoring for epidemics and biological warfare, etc. Americans must be able to trust that extremely few people will have access to these capabilities and that the punishment for misuse will be severe.
To meet the needs of these other agencies, Poindexter’s group or the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) could -- and probably should -- develop limited spin-offs dedicated to specific needs, such as linking city and state health surveillance networks to the Centers for Disease Control or cross-referencing airline passenger manifests with terrorist watch lists.
Americans are right to hold the government to a high standard on this. They are right to expect that officials won’t comb through the records of everything they buy, every time they visit the doctor and so on.
But Americans also understand that technology exists to detect perhaps even entire terrorist cells, to prevent future Sept. 11-scale attacks, and that we’d be foolish not to take advantage of it. The trick, of course, is to strike the right balance between citizens’ expectations of privacy and government’s need to protect those citizens. Poindexter seems on track to do this.
Let’s let him. It seems little enough to prevent another Sept. 11 -- or worse.
Michael Scardaville is a policy analyst in the Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org), a Washington-based public policy research institute.
So you see its not a lets spy on Joe Public and see if he looks at gay porn on his computer. This is a case of the liberal left overreacting.
-
We saved thousands of American lives, and that\'s what matters.
How many innocent Japanese lives were lost?
Then again, my knowledge on the subject isn\'t what it should be. Perhaps they were asking for it.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Americans must be able to trust that extremely few people will have access to these capabilities and that the punishment for misuse will be severe.
And herein lies the answer. Do and can the Americans trust that they\'ll only do what they say they\'ll do? I won\'t debate that intensively, because frankly, I don\'t have the answer. But I worry. Hopefully my worries are pointless.
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
How many innocent Japanese lives were lost?
Then again, my knowledge on the subject isn\'t what it should be. Perhaps they were asking for it.
Really, this argument is making me sick as Ace stated. What are they teaching in schools now a days? The Japanese attacked us!!!! They were asked to surrender before the first A bomb was dropped - THEY REFUSED. They were asked to surrender yet again after the first one was dropped - AGAIN THEY REFUSED.
Do you know that the Japanese were preparing to defend Japan its self by arming women and children with spears to attack GI\'s when they hit the beaches? They were going to make a fight to the death. Not only did the 2 atomic bombs save American lives, but they also saveds many Japanese lives.
How many innocent people died at Pearl Harbor??? I suggest you take a trip to Pearl Harbor itself and visit the Arizona Memorial. When you look at it IN PERSON - think of the 1000 plus sailors that are still entombed in it.
Sorry if this comes across as hostile, but these revisionist accusations that we were wrong in ending World War 2 with the atomic bomb are really insulting. Not just to me, but to the people who actually served in World War 2. To me that truly is the greatest generation. They served their country without hesitation. It was their sacrifice that allow you to have what you do today. Your cars, your PS2s, your computers, your standard of living. I wonder how many today would actually answer the call if the need arose.
-
Originally posted by Samwise
And herein lies the answer. Do and can the Americans trust that they\'ll only do what they say they\'ll do? I won\'t debate that intensively, because frankly, I don\'t have the answer. But I worry. Hopefully my worries are pointless.
I agree Samwise, it is a spectre that will loom over this entire process. We have no choice though, sit and wait for another attack or try and weed out the terrorist before they strike. My vote is for the latter.
-
I was just curious as to the reasoning behind it. I wasn\'t being sarcastic when I said my knowledge on the subject isn\'t what it should be. :)
-
To require the induction into the Armed Forces of young men registered under the Military Selective Service Act , and to authorize young women to volunteer, to receive basic military training and education for a period of up to one year
First off, if this happened I would move out of this country in a heart-beat. I refuse to go to war because Bush is a power hungry dolt.
And the scarey fact is, with all these wars he is starting he will end up needing more troops - which means us that are under 28 or so could get drafted and put out on the battlefield. So, yes, it does matter to us "younger" people what the hell happens to this country. Do you want another vietnam where young people die for no reason?
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
First off, if this happened I would move out of this country in a heart-beat. I refuse to go to war because Bush is a power hungry dolt.
And the scarey fact is, with all these wars he is starting he will end up needing more troops - which means us that are under 28 or so could get drafted and put out on the battlefield. So, yes, it does matter to us "younger" people what the hell happens to this country. Do you want another vietnam where young people die for no reason?
Damn you, I was just about to ppost something similar. You pretty much stated my feelings more or less.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
First off, if this happened I would move out of this country in a heart-beat. I refuse to go to war because Bush is a power hungry dolt.
And the scarey fact is, with all these wars he is starting he will end up needing more troops - which means us that are under 28 or so could get drafted and put out on the battlefield. So, yes, it does matter to us "younger" people what the hell happens to this country. Do you want another vietnam where young people die for no reason?
Here we go again with the Bush bashing. If you are so opposed to him, do something about it. You of course won\'t.
Bush is not starting wars, he is preventing them. What power is Bush exactly getting by removing Saddam Hussein from Iraq? Don\'t say oil, because we only import 5 percent from Iraq (5 percent too much if you ask me).
Hussein is a madman who kills his own people and is a threat not only to the region, but the world. Don\'t agree? Check this report out - http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/120202_saddamdossier.pdf
As I said in my previous posts, your lifestyle is due to previous 18 year olds serving their country. Also we have a professional army, you need not worry about being drafted. If by chance the draft comes around again - write me from Canada.
-
ask bjorn about mandatory military services for all citizens
what has our civilization come to when our ancestors were proud to fight for thier beliefs and going to war was an honor? thier descendants are cowards who hide behind laziness and excuses
i would have given a year of my life for my country
shame on you if you wouldnt
(now a year for my current govt? hell no)
anyone who doesnt live in the middle east and defends or supports hussein shot be shot for ignorance alone
LIC, whats is yer age
just curious, dont mean it as a derogitory statement
-
19!
-
Firstly, do not worry about a draft. It is very unlikely that they will re-institute a draft. The armed forces do not want unwilling participants.
Thank God we have a large number of people who are willing to serve this country. When the Gulf War was gearing up we heard about the the massive casualties that would befall the US. That obviously did not happen. We are hearing the same thing now.
One day, during the Gulf War, I was walking to my office and this long haired dude asked me where the Army recruiting office was. I pointed across the street where it was located and he told me thanks! He said he wanted to join the fight in Iraq. That\'s an American.
Ace
-
Originally posted by Ace
One day, during the Gulf War, I was walking to my office and this long haired dude asked me where the Army recruiting office was. I pointed across the street where it was located and he told me thanks! He said he wanted to join the fight in Iraq. That\'s an American.
Ace
Thanks for sharing that... That truly is an American.
-
or a deadbeat that needed a steady paycheck
-
Originally posted by mm
or a deadbeat that needed a steady paycheck
Whatever . . . He was willing to put his life on the line for this country. A lot of people in the service today have joined because they want an education. Would you discount their service?
Ace
-
Originally posted by Ace
Whatever . . . He was willing to put his life on the line for this country. A lot of people in the service today have joined because they want an education. Would you discount their service?
Ace
I\'m with ya on that, I would serve if need be, but as I see it right now they have enough people right now to basically destroy the whole middle east without having to draft a single soul, war 25 years ago is much different than today or even 10 years ago when we took on Iraq. The army has it\'s ups and downs, but I live a great life because of it, so I don\'t bitch and complain about the army at all, seeing as it has kept my family a float for the past 20 years.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
I wonder how many today would actually answer the call if the need arose.
It was great what that generation did.Those were awful times and an awful war that almost ended with a maniac ruling the entire world.You would think world leaders would have done what they could to end war after coming that close.They didn\'t.
It\'s been hundreds of years since this planet has had a day without war in some part of the world.Not one day.Even after the greatest of all wars nobodys done a thing to end it.So don\'t call on me cause I\'m not serving.I won\'t go to my death blindly for some so-called noble cause.You can if you want to but there will just be another "noble cause" 20 years after your dead and in the ground and if the side you were fighting for losses then your death all those years ago was pretty much pointless wasn\'t it.Would you really go so blindly for the cause of the day mm?Would you really let yourself become another forgotten bloodsmear in the history of endless wars?Cause theres just going to be another one a few years after your gone.
I guess what I\'m saying is theres no real point in dieing in war as long as theres just going to be another one right down the road.Keep doing that and eventually we\'ll lose,rendering everything you fought for moot.
And where is technology taking us.Straight to the end of the world that\'s where.You\'ve got to figure that even countries like Iraq and N.Korea can\'t be more than 20 years behind us technologicly.What were we capable of 20 years ago?Some pretty bad shit that\'s what.And our country wouldn\'t have hesitated to use a "super bug" against a country if we were losing a major war that would have cost us our country.So what are they going to do when were dominating them and on the brink of taking them over?
Take away even a little of our freedoms?No thanks.Terrorist would just work around whatever methods we would impliment. Then the government would take a little more of our freedoms to try and catch them,pretty much a never ending cycle.Americans screen for guns on airplanes?Well they allow knives with less than 6" blades so let\'s get on board with those and take over a plane.No more knives or even nail clippers?Well they dont screen your shoes for explosives?Let\'s put a bomb in a shoe and bring an airplane down.They even check the bottom of shoes now.......the terrorist will try something else,and it will be something nobodys thought of.Maybe a massive cyber attack to cripple our internet infrastructure and cost our economy billions of dollars.The government would probably want the right to monitor your computer without a warrant then.And terrorist will just do something else.They won\'t suffer because the government is monitoring everything you do online,we will.While terrorist have moved on to something else.They are plotting their evil deeds on cell phones............
-
You ben have no sense of patriotism, so all those that fought to free our country when or if ever this country begins its decline, then I guess you can say all those deaths were meaningless and pointless too??? You look so blindly at things I wonder if you think at times, good don\'t fight I wouldn\'t want someone like you out there defending our country you can stay at home a jerk off all god damn day!!! You are right if you died you would of died for nothing because you wouldn\'t have believed in it in the first place, wtf is it with people now a days, who the f*ck raised y\'all Hitler???
-
So what is your answer ben high? Sit and do nothing? Be a nation of pacifists? I understand what you are saying, but what you are seeking is a utopia. Unforunately, you are correct about war and where it leads, but sitting back and doing nothing is not the answer.
-
war is good business, the US realized this over 200 years go
-
Originally posted by mm
war is good business, the US realized this over 200 years go
I can\'t tell if your playing us with comments like this one and comments like them in other topics. I can\'t figure you out.
Yet! :)
Ace
-
thats an honest statement
war is profitable
-
Yes it is. But your statement infers that the US starts them or joins them for profit.
Ace
-
I am 19. However, I do not see the logic in Bush preventing a war with Iraq by starting one? That\'s alittle counter-productive, now isn\'t it?
Since when did we start declaring war on countries because we suspect they have weapons that could do mass destruction? I do not support Saddam, but I think Bush\'s logic and reason for his latest war is convulted and simply stupid.
His war on terrorisim has been indecise. Originally it was a war on Bin Laden and he had said that it would not be finished until Bin Laden was found dead or alive. Now that he has been a complete failure at that, the war is actually on terrorism .
I personally wanted Gore to be President and it\'s not that I liked him a lot. I just liked him more than Bush.
-
hussein was nuclear weapons and you DONT think that is a priority?
-
Hmmm have we gone to war with Iraq yet??? What war don\'t see one as of right now all we are doing is letting the U.N. search for these weapons, we haven\'t declared war, we may be waiting for him to make a mistake, but I still see no war, how is it counter-productive when haven\'t started war, all we want to know is where are his weapons, fine if he doesn\'t have any he\'ll be dead in a few years so just wait it out no problem with me!!!
-
Originally posted by mm
hussein was nuclear weapons and you DONT think that is a priority?
Kids don\'t seem to understand today all they f*cking care about is themselves, LIC must not see that Nuke\'s kill massive amounts of people, and not only Nukes, but if the wrong people like psycho-path lunatic dictators who happens to just hate our f*cking country, well then thats just fine and dandy, hell we\'ll even bring them into the country for him too!!! No???
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
I am 19. However, I do not see the logic in Bush preventing a war with Iraq by starting one? That\'s alittle counter-productive, now isn\'t it?
Since when did we start declaring war on countries because we suspect they have weapons that could do mass destruction? I do not support Saddam, but I think Bush\'s logic and reason for his latest war is convulted and simply stupid.
His war on terrorisim has been indecise. Originally it was a war on Bin Laden and he had said that it would not be finished until Bin Laden was found dead or alive. Now that he has been a complete failure at that, the war is actually on terrorism .
I personally wanted Gore to be President and it\'s not that I liked him a lot. I just liked him more than Bush.
Did you forget the Gulf War? Saddam has been in violation of the treaty so many times it would be justified to take him out on this alone. Oh by the way, we won that war.
Now that he has the potential to nuke we are in every way justified in going in there and disarming him whether he likes it or not. If he finds his way to the seventy virgins he was promised in the process, so much the better.
Ace
-
Originally posted by Ace
Did you forget the Gulf War? Saddam has been in violation of the treaty so many times it would be justified to take him out on this alone. Oh by the way, we won that war.
Now that he has the potential to nuke we are in every way justified in going in there and disarming him whether he likes it or not. If he finds his way to the seventy virgins he was promised in the process, so much the better.
Ace
LMAO, yeah what he said!!!
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
I am 19. However, I do not see the logic in Bush preventing a war with Iraq by starting one? That\'s alittle counter-productive, now isn\'t it?
Since when did we start declaring war on countries because we suspect they have weapons that could do mass destruction? I do not support Saddam, but I think Bush\'s logic and reason for his latest war is convulted and simply stupid.
His war on terrorisim has been indecise. Originally it was a war on Bin Laden and he had said that it would not be finished until Bin Laden was found dead or alive. Now that he has been a complete failure at that, the war is actually on terrorism .
I personally wanted Gore to be President and it\'s not that I liked him a lot. I just liked him more than Bush.
LIC, when did Bush ever say the war on terrorism would be finished when Bin Laden was found? From the beginning the administration has said that all forms of terrorism would be attacked. It isn\'t going to stop with the death of Bin Laden anyway and everyone knows that.
How is the war on terror a complete failure??? How many top Al Qaeda personel have we nabbed??? I wonder how many terrorist acts have been foiled since 9/11.
Already today CNN has reported Iraq admitted that it tried to purchase aluminum rods for what they say are conventional weapons - but they are used to make nuclear weapons as well. UN inspectors have just reported that components present at a missle site in 1998 are no longer there... do you still think he isn\'t hiding anything?
-
I\'ll respond to the rest of the posts later since I have to be somewhere in a few.But I wanted to comment on Iraq.They don\'t have nuclear weapons right now.Are they trying?Who knows for sure.North Korea does,and we are still at war with them(only a truce was signed there is still no treaty between us,that\'s why we still have tens of thousands of troops in S.Korea) yet nobody is trying to start a war with N.Korea.Not only are they in violation of our truce but the U.N. mandated treaty on the production of nuclear weapons.Do you hear our peesident talking up a war with N.Korea?No?Have fun going to Iraq and dieing if you\'re so patriotic,you would really only be dieing because Hussien tried to assasinate George Bush Sr.
-
Ignorance at its best ^^^^
-
Korea proves the point. We have to play very carefully with Korea now because they have nukes. We do not want to be in that position with Iraq.
Ace
-
Ignorance is such a nice term for ben, I\'d just straight call it stupidity!!!
Korea is a much touchier situation than Iraq, like Ace we want to try and prevent that situation with Iraq!!!
-
Point out what\'s untrue about my post.
-
Bush is only going after Hussein to get him back for trying to kill his father, this isn\'t the playground, so grow up and realize not everything is for a personal vengeance
-
Originally posted by ben_high
I\'ll respond to the rest of the posts later since I have to be somewhere in a few.But I wanted to comment on Iraq.They don\'t have nuclear weapons right now.Are they trying?Who knows for sure. Have fun going to Iraq and dieing if you\'re so patriotic,you would really only be dieing because Hussien tried to assasinate George Bush Sr.
Who knows if he is trying to build a nuclear weapon??? Uh everyone - except you it seems. We are only going after Iraq because Hussien tried to have Bush Sr. assasinated?? :laughing:
-
Sorry dude pick up a paper.At least once in a while.Hussien has been trying to set up nuclear power plants.Those can be easily used to enrich uranium for weapons,and probably is the reason he has set them up in the first place,I have no doubt about that.But so far that is all he\'s done is try to build the same kind of nuclear power plants every other major country has.And import CNC mills and lathes that the bush admin sees as tools for making nuclear weapons.I use these machines every day.
It\'s only suspicion right now.IMO well founded considering the kind of man Hussien is,but still it would take him at least half a dozen years to relize it.In that time America has stood by while Pakistan,India,and N.Kore have in fact developed nuclear arms in just the last three years.Yet no outrage,no threats,no action has been taken against those countries to prevent it.We knew what they were doing and did nothing to prevent it.
And despite what you may think about pakistan after our (short lived) use of their airfields during the war in afganistan,out of all those countries Pakistan is the greatest danger to us.Their military is filled with hard line muslim extremist ready to take over that country.
-
The amazing thing Mj, is you\'re taking a simple debate and making things personal. This is not personal. If you can\'t behave, please don\'t even bother posting in here, okay?
I have no problem with everyone\'s opinions. Everyone is entitled to one and I think it is a good thing that everyone feels so strongly about their political standpoint on America at this point. It shows some sort of dedicate. However, when it comes to cheap shots and name calling, it is pointless and stupid, so come on, let\'s keep it civil, otherwise a perfectly decent thread is going to end up in a flame war and closed.
My main quam wit Bush is the fact he is power hungry. I knew this when he was over Texas. The man had one of the highest rates of execution. Now personally, I can\'t support him. I don\'t believe in capital punishment. His actions in the white house only prove my thought more. He likes death and destruction. Bush craves this stuff and in my humble opinion, may lead America into a worse downward spiral than it is already in. We don\'t need all these wars.
Better yet - I can sum this thread up.
Giga > Ace > Mj > Etc for Bush.
Shock > Sam> Me > Luckee> etc against Bush.
The two sides never agree with the other.
Politics is beautiful.
;)
-
I LIC don\'t see what is wrong with capital punishment, how does this show that he is power hungry??? Hope I didn\'t say anything personal in this post ;-)
-
Giga, I can\'t even begin to respect a thing you are saying. The fact that you have stated perfectly outright that you don\'t care about things that don\'t affect you sickens me. It is people like you that make up the core of what is wrong with the American system. It\'s people like you who don\'t care about anyone or anything but themselves and what directly affects them that cause so many of the problems we have.
And how is what I said about Bush any different at all from what you said about the 50s? You say that you can learn about the 50s in school or in books. Well can I not learn about the actions of former presidents in the same way? I don\'t see how my comparison is any less valid than yours.
Did I say that the government can do no right? No. Way to continue making assumptions about me though. I think that our government does a lot of good. I don\'t, however, blindly accept whatever they do as good. That\'s the difference. Terrorist actions in this nation are far lower than most other parts of the world as it is. And do you really think that laws like these ones recently imposed are going to prevent something as well thought out as the events of 9/11? If so, you\'re naive to think so.
As for military service, I would serve my country in a heartbeat in a war where my services are needed, and we are fighting for a just cause. World War 1? I\'d enlist. World War 2? Ditto. A war in Iraq? No. I\'m not going to fight in a war that I think is wrong to begin with. That goes back to my not wanting to blindly follow my government.
As for the differences with WW2, and what we did with Japan...I think that the dropping of the bombs was one of the single worst events in human history. The fact that we picked civilian areas like the ones targetted is sickening. We didn\'t take out military, or even industrial targets. We bomb Hiroshima first, a largely residential city that had no major industry, and no military presense. And there was no need to drop a second bomb...don\'t even try to tell me otherwise. Of course Japan\'s attack on Pearl Harbor was wrong, but that doesn\'t make the dropping of the two atomic bombs right.
As for the tax cuts...they were blatantly in favor of the rich. The 28, 31, and 36 percent rates fall by 3 percentage points, while the 39.6 percent rate falls by 4.6 (source (http://www.brook.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb101.htm)). In otherwords, the largest tax cuts went to the rich...the ones that needed it the least. Actually, if you wanna look at the bottom of this report, you find something interesting.
Our findings, based on recent economic research, are stark. We find that EGTRRA was fiscally unsustainable even before the economic downturn and the September 11 terrorist attacks slowed the economy. We estimate that the tax cut will not raise long-term growth, but it will raise burdens on future generations. EGTRRA will also raise interest rates.
Wow, sounds like this one\'s gonna be a real winner.
As for the budget...with these tax cuts, money has to come out of something, right? Where is it coming out of? Environmental programs, energy conservation, and agricultural preservation.(source (http://www.sierraclub.org/politics/bush/budget.asp)) Hell, the tax cuts Bush is giving to the top 1% of Americans total $555 Billion, while he isn\'t even proposing that half that same amount be used in the continuing increase in educational or medical programs. Infact, when all is said and done, it is estimated that the money saved by the top 1% of the nation will be greater than the new resources proposed for all other national priorities combined. (source (http://www.cbpp.org/3-2-01bud.htm)). In other words, instead of putting money back into the American educational and medical systems, and environmental programs, the money is being given back to the richest people in the country...those who need it least. As if it wasn\'t bad enough that the top 1% of this nation already have more wealth than the bottom 95%.
Ace: I was not trying to compare the dropping of two bombs on Japan during wartime to a terrorist setting a bomb off in an American city. Those things souldn\'t be compared, and if that\'s what you thought I said, you are right to argue that. I was talking about a bomb being potentially used against the United States during a large scale war.
Giga (again): Why you treated James\' post as you did I don\'t know, but once again, it sickens me. He had said he would post more today. He was just reacting to your blatantly hypocritically view of my post.
Mike: Sources. Happy?
-
Thank you so much for the sources, I\'m going to post later, about my thoughts on everything so I can clarify where I stand on every little bit that is up for debate here, I\'m I guess you could say along the fence
I have homework, damn this sucks waiting till the last minute to do it!!!
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Better yet - I can sum this thread up.
Giga > Ace > Mj > Etc for Bush.
Shock > Sam> Me > Luckee> etc against Bush.
The two sides never agree with the other.
Politics is beautiful.
;)
Thats why I\'m not republican or democrat. Neither side is right and they are all morons. They screw up the country. We need a new party or more independants IMHO. I do support Bush in the war with Iraq. He is the most likely to set off a nuke in the world. Does he have any? Probably not. Is he hiding something? Yes. He\'s also violated quite a few signed treaties. He fired on us which violated the UN treaty with us and Iraq. As for N.Korea, they like to remain in isolation. They don\'t want anything to do with the rest of the county. However, they might strike. We are keeping a close watch with them.
-
Originally posted by Titan
Thats why I\'m not republican or democrat. Neither side is right and they are all morons. They screw up the country. We need a new party or more independants IMHO.
I couldn\'t agree with this more.
-
Shockwaves - I must leave work right now, but I will eventually get around to replying to your post. Don\'t worry pal, the feeling regarding respect is mutual.
-
What have I done to deserve the mutual feelings, besides get mad at you for insulting my intelligence and disregarding my opinion based solely on age? You\'ll notice I didn\'t say that I have the same feelings towards Ace, although he shares your viewpoint. I\'m not pety enough to hate someone based on their political beliefs. It\'s when they decide not to respect what I have to say based on such bullshit reasoning that I form opinions.
-
Originally posted by mjps21983
I don\'t see what is wrong with capital punishment
What is right with capital punishment? As a matter of fact, what is right with the prison system as a whole?
BTW, before anyone gets on me about the prison system. I think that it is necessary but I also think that it is fundamentally skewed.
Also as far as the FIA goes. My main problem is the amount of unchecked power that it gives. They say that it will only be used for identified terrorists. So who decides who is a threat to america? Anything with sweeping unchecked powers is wrong, period.
I also think that everyone should be required to perform some form of military duty. It will be better for the person in the long run than the country though.
-
What have I done to deserve the mutual feelings, besides get mad at you for insulting my intelligence and disregarding my opinion based solely on age?
Easy. You share the same mutual disrespect towards each other because you both strongly disagree with each other and find the other\'s view on this matter radical and or nonsensical.
-
Originally posted by Jumpman
Easy. You share the same mutual disrespect towards each other because you both strongly disagree with each other and find the other\'s view on this matter radical and or nonsensical.
Well, as I stated in the part of my post you chose not to quote, my reason for hating him has nothing to do with his beliefs. He is entitled to believe whatever he wants. It\'s about his disrespecting me, and discounting my opinions based solely on my age. I, personally, am above losing respect for someone based on their views alone. I would like to think that we all are, but I guess that isn\'t the case.
-
The only reason they want to make a new legal system is b/c the one we have is broken. It\'s hard enough to put murderers and rapists and pedophiles in jail and once they get there people like Bill Clinton pardon them and put them in government positions.
-
Sorry Shock. I didn\'t read the rest of your post. My bad.
-
No problem :)
-
Shockwaves, I have come to believe you would rather have a welfare state that gives free handouts than a country where you are rewarded for your achievements.
I am definitely not rich, and every year my I take home more money than the previous year. I am not getting poorer. Those who are depend on welfare. I am sorry, but we do not live in a socialist country. I am also not surprised one of your main arguments is the environment. I would rather get any tax break than see it spent on the environment. Most Americans feel the same way. So the top 5 percent are wealthier than the bottom 95 percent combined... is this supposed to be some new secret that has been exposed?!?!? It has been that way since the Industrial Revolution.
Yes, you have yet to SHOW what I asked you to. You claimed GWB was using 9/11 to hide his true agenda. If you claim the tax cut was "hidden" behind 9/11 you really are off track.
Once again I ask... what has Bush done to make your life worse? Anxiety about being drafted??? :laughing: Oh and I doubt you would have enlisted in any war. You would have been putting up the same argument as you are now, back in 1941. One last question for you - Why do you oppose going to war with Iraq? I can\'t wait to hear the answer to this one.
-
An enormous percentage of taxes are payed by a minority of Americans:
The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
Our tax system is not so much progressive as it is confiscatory -- Frederic Bastiat called this phenomenon "legal plunder." A progressive tax is based on the premise that those with more income can afford to pay more taxes, and conversely, those with little or no income should pay no tax. However, a quick look at Graph 1A below shows that the U.S. tax system has become far beyond progressive. Fully half the taxpayers contribute almost nothing in individual income taxes.
The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.
Furthermore, the Top 1% are shouldering a roughly 50% higher proportion of the overall income tax burden than they did in 1977.
The argument most oft used against tax breaks are that they benefit only the wealthy. It is clear from even a cursory look at the numbers below that the \'wealthy\' will receive the majority of any income tax reduction because they pay a disproportionately huge percentage of the income taxes! To structure a tax break such that those in upper income brackets are excluded would constitute nothing more than transfer of wealth from those who have it to those who don\'t (i.e. legal plunder.)
Man, the liberals have played this game so well. The data above is several years old so the numbers have changed. But as you can see the wealthy pay a lot in taxes.
Instead of being jealous of the wealthy do what I do, aspire to become wealthy and join them.
Ace
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Shockwaves, I have come to believe you would rather have a welfare state that gives free handouts than a country where you are rewarded for your achievements.
I am definitely not rich, and every year my I take home more money than the previous year. I am not getting poorer. Those who are depend on welfare. I am sorry, but we do not live in a socialist country. I am also not surprised one of your main arguments is the environment. I would rather get any tax break than see it spent on the environment. Most Americans feel the same way. So the top 5 percent are wealthier than the bottom 95 percent combined... is this supposed to be some new secret that has been exposed?!?!? It has been that way since the Industrial Revolution.
Yes, you have yet to SHOW what I asked you to. You claimed GWB was using 9/11 to hide his true agenda. If you claim the tax cut was "hidden" behind 9/11 you really are off track.
Once again I ask... what has Bush done to make your life worse? Anxiety about being drafted??? :laughing: Oh and I doubt you would have enlisted in any war. You would have been putting up the same argument as you are now, back in 1941. One last question for you - Why do you oppose going to war with Iraq? I can\'t wait to hear the answer to this one.
I\'ll take this one piece at a time. I never once said that I want the United States to become a welfare state, or have a socialist government. However, I do think that the largest part of the tax burder should be paid by those most able to pay. Sure, the top 5% pay 50% of the taxes, but the top 5% have well more than 50% of the wealth. Afterall, the top 1% has more wealth than the bottom 95% (not the top 5% as you said). I think that when the top tax bracket is getting the biggest tax cut, that\'s wrong. The people in that tax bracket can afford to pay the taxes perfectly easily. It\'s the people in the bottom tax brackets who need every penny they can get.
You say the environment was a major part of my arguement? Were you reading what I posted, or what someone else did? I mentioned the environment in only 2 sentences of my entire arguement thus far, and one of those was a sentence summarizing what I had just said. And I would not cut taxes to these programs. The environment, and energy conservation are definitely not areas that need tax cuts, and they are definitely areas that myself, and a large number of Americans are happy to pay taxes for. I really don\'t think that you can speak for the majority of Americans when you say what people do and do not want to pay taxes for. Hell, if you\'re gonna argue that, get a source. I posted my sources for my last arguement, why don\'t you show that your arguement has something behind it as well?
As for showing that Bush is hiding behind 9/11, I can\'t show that. They don\'t publish statistics for things like that. Hell, they refuse to even cover things even remotely like that in the media. But, of course, this is your point. I can\'t prove it. It\'s just something that any informed and intelligent American should be able to see for themselves. Oh, and on the other side of it, if you think this view is so far off, prove to me that he isn\'t hiding behind 9/11.
And the last paragraph, oh, I just love this one. Passing judgement on someone you don\'t know, have never met, and are forming opinions on based on a couple posts on a message board. I would have enlisted in the two wars I named. Hell, to go further, I would have gone to Spain, and fought in the Spanish Civil War, against the fascists, if I had been alive then. What good is it to have views like mine if you aren\'t willing to fight for them? My point is, there is no way in hell I would fight in the United States Army for a cause I do not believe in. If I was this age during Vietnam, and got drafted, I would be a Canadian Citizen by now. And don\'t tell me I\'m a coward for saying so. I just will never kill others, and risk my life for a cause I am against. By the way, don\'t take me for some hippy, anti-violence extremist. If you have that impression, you\'re dead wrong. By the way, the draft example was just that, an example. It was an extreme case, and I have said so several times already. You\'re a moron for ignoring that, and continually bringing it up.
Why do I oppose going to war with Iraq? Well, the main reason being given to us is that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction. First of all, I doubt very much that this is the case. My source? Former chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter. Say what you will about him, but I know the man. He lives a couple of blocks from me. He knows what he\'s talking about. However, even if we put that aside, and assume they do have weapons of mass destruction, I still wouldn\'t support going to war with them. It\'s progress, and it\'s inevitable. We can\'t keep our enemies from having such weapons forever. Besides, even if they did have them, they wouldn\'t use them against the US. Doing so would be suicide. If any nation ever nuked us, we\'d destroy it before they even knew what happened. I seriously doubt they would use such a weapon. They just need it for security. If your nation had been bombed as much as Iraq has from various, mainly US aircrafts, you would want to develop something to try to even the field too. They wouldn\'t use it, they\'d just use the fact that they have such weapons to try to get the UN to back off (which they should). I don\'t blame them. It\'s wrong to attack someone because they may or may not have something that could potentially be used sometime in the future to hurt Americans, which is all this boils down to. When we get rid of our nukes, then maybe we can tell other people that they should too. Until then, I don\'t agree with it. You can\'t punish someone for a crime they haven\'t committed yet, without evidence. But then again, isn\'t that how this arguement started in the first place?
Ace: Well, of course we all aspire to become rich ourselves. They don\'t call it the American dream for nothing. Rags to riches...something that is great about this country. If you are intelligent and hard working enough, you can really make things happen for yourself. I would never want to deny people this ability. I just think that the poorest people should have a bit more help. Not everyone is fortunate enough to succeed like this, and I think it is important to give back as well. Ideally, the thing I would want to do is raise the minimum wage to a true living wage. That way, people who do work, and hold down a stead job will have enough money to live on, and their children won\'t be the ones who end up being punished.
-
Raising minimum wages would be a horrible thing to do, I\'ll find my source here in a few, but as for now it would only harm more, than do good Shock.
-
Find it soon, I wanna see it :)
-
"WASHINGTON, D.C. - As the President prepares to focus on a proposal to raise the minimum wage to $6.15 an hour by 2002, policy which Congress is due to consider this year, Bruce Bartlett, economic expert and senior fellow for the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis, warns Congress to reconsider. According to Bartlett, raising the minimum wage has extremely harmful effects on the very people it is designed to aid - the poor, particularly black teenagers. "A raise in the minimum wage has always been an easy sell in Washington," Bartlett says. "But whatever the political realities, it\'s still a bad idea."
Based on demographic studies of past minimum wage hikes, according to Bartlett:
A 10% raise in the minimum wage will reduce overall youth employment by 2.1%
For low income workers earning minimum wage or slightly better, a 10% minimum wage raise has an even greater impact - 10% job loss.
For minimum wage workers who do not lose their jobs as a result of a mandated wage hike, 80% of the net benefits will go to employees who live in families who are not poor.
A higher minimum wage encourages teenagers to drop out of school, reducing their overall capacity to rise above low-skill level jobs."
I\'ll find more arguments, thats the first thing I saw
-
More Sources on why Minimum Wage raises would be harmful (http://www.self-gov.org/cox02.html)
Here\'s more I\'m just going to post the link, as it is easier, to post links than to copy and paste, and I could just continue to post more links in this very post
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
As for showing that Bush is hiding behind 9/11, I can\'t show that. They don\'t publish statistics for things like that. Hell, they refuse to even cover things even remotely like that in the media. But, of course, this is your point. I can\'t prove it. It\'s just something that any informed and intelligent American should be able to see for themselves. Oh, and on the other side of it, if you think this view is so far off, prove to me that he isn\'t hiding behind 9/11.
Why do I oppose going to war with Iraq? Well, the main reason being given to us is that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction. First of all, I doubt very much that this is the case. My source? Former chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter. Say what you will about him, but I know the man. He lives a couple of blocks from me. He knows what he\'s talking about. However, even if we put that aside, and assume they do have weapons of mass destruction, I still wouldn\'t support going to war with them. It\'s progress, and it\'s inevitable. We can\'t keep our enemies from having such weapons forever. Besides, even if they did have them, they wouldn\'t use them against the US. Doing so would be suicide. If any nation ever nuked us, we\'d destroy it before they even knew what happened. I seriously doubt they would use such a weapon. They just need it for security. If your nation had been bombed as much as Iraq has from various, mainly US aircrafts, you would want to develop something to try to even the field too. They wouldn\'t use it, they\'d just use the fact that they have such weapons to try to get the UN to back off (which they should). I don\'t blame them. It\'s wrong to attack someone because they may or may not have something that could potentially be used sometime in the future to hurt Americans, which is all this boils down to. When we get rid of our nukes, then maybe we can tell other people that they should too. Until then, I don\'t agree with it. You can\'t punish someone for a crime they haven\'t committed yet, without evidence. But then again, isn\'t that how this arguement started in the first place?
These two paragraphs show what a naive little child you are. Asking me to prove that Bush didn\'t have any hidden agenda when you can\'t even bring up ONE instance that he has had one since 9/11! You made the accusation, now prove it. :rolleyes:
Here is where you are really naive. Iraq/Hussein would not "nuke" us with an ICBM, but he would give a bomb to some terrorists to do it for him and deny all liability. "Iraq needs nukes for security"!?!?!?! I am really trying not to laugh at you... Iraq lost the Gulf War - remember? Victors decide the terms of the surrender and the defeated is bound to comply. Iraq only gets bombed when it fires at our aircraft in the "no fly zone".
I especially love your assumption that no one would ever "nuke" the US. No one ever thought a bunch of Islamic nuts would fly two passenger planes into the World Trade Center either now did they? You need to grow up and realize that the world is a very dangerous place and as 9/11 has shown, an enemy doesn\'t always come in the form of a country.
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
They just need it for security.
:nut:
-
i don\'t know what all the fuss is
the police should be able to do what ever they hell they want !
and no the Omen is not making me say this ;)
j/k
-
OO7??? Last I recall your leader has his nose so far up Bush\'s ass, and if he knows whats good for his country he\'ll keep it that way, Bush might as well be President of U.S and England, it\'s basically been that way for the past 50 years anyways. Last I reacall you\'d be part of Nazi Germany if we hadn\'t stepped in!!! I know you don\'t agree with Blair, but you talked shit about me country I get to talk shit about yours, fair??? ;-)
-
As I lose respect for you, I also begin to truly question your intelligence. Yes, I made an accusation, in saying that Bush is hiding behind 9/11. But how, exactly, do you think one would prove something like that. This isn\'t a concrete, black and white issue. It\'s not something that has direct evidence. Rather, it is something that I have observed, and many others have as well. And by the way, hiding behind the event and its aftermath is different from having a hidden agenda. He isn\'t entirely masking his tactics from the public, he is simply diverting attention to other areas by capitalizing on a situation created by 9/11. Besides, why should I provide proof? You haven\'t had proof with a single thing you\'ve said yet. Until you provide some proof yourself, you can\'t tell me that I need to. Take a lesson from Mike. I posted sources for him, he posted them for me. It has to go both ways. My point in telling you to prove that he isn\'t hiding behind the 9/11 events is that you can\'t prove it. It isn\'t something you can prove either way. Some things can\'t be proved like that.
And are you telling me it matters if you were nuked by an ICBM, or by a terrorist detonating a weapon in a city? What 9/11 showed us wasn\'t just that things can happen, but that when they happen, we will find out why they happened, and who made them happen. Four planes were hijacked, they caused serious damage, and there were no survivors. If we were so rapidly able to trace such a thing back to Osama Bin Laden, and then to Afghanistan, do you not think we could trace something even harder to conceal...a nuke...back to a nation like Iraq? I never thought they would attack us with an ICBM. They aren\'t close to that type of technology, that much I can guarantee. However, sending someone to America to detonate the bomb in a city, as if it were a terrorist attack, is just as risky in many ways.
As for the Gulf War, I believe that the treaty was unfair, and if I were Iraq, I wouldn\'t respect it either. So what if they lost the war, if an unfair treaty is imposed on a nation, they still probably aren\'t going to accept it. You think if America lost a war, we\'d accept something like a no fly zone in our nation? Not a chance, we\'d do the same thing. Why people always treat other nations differently from America is amazing.
I also never said no one would ever nuke the US. I said no nation would. That would be suicide, and foolish for them. Terrorists are a different thing entirely. 9/11 wasn\'t the action of a government, it was the action of terrorists. A nation would never do what those terrorists did on 9/11 either. If a terrorist group is developing nukes, then of course you stop them. But Iraq isn\'t a terrorist group, they are a nation. If you can\'t see that there is a difference between the two, then that is pretty bad.
I\'m the naive little child? It seems to me that you are easily the one who is missing more here.
Oh, and you\'re damned right they need if for their security. I would do the same if I ran the nation. How about, instead of laughing at it, you actually address it, and tell me why it\'s so invalid?
Mike: There\'s no way Britain is conquered by Germany if we don\'t join that war. Even if they don\'t attack Russia, I doubt it happens, but the second the Germans attacked Russia, it was over for them. They never had a chance.
-
Mike...I looked at the artical you posted. Isn\'t the minimum wage already $5.15? I believe it is. If so, do you have any statistics to show that the number of jobs actually were affected as these people projected following this increase?
-
Originally posted by mjps21983
OO7??? Last I recall your leader has his nose so far up Bush\'s ass, and if he knows whats good for his country he\'ll keep it that way, Bush might as well be President of U.S and England, it\'s basically been that way for the past 50 years anyways
your an Idiot if you think the UK would follow Bush blindly.......if there is a reason for us to attack IRAQ along with you then we will do it...unlike the *coff**coff French*coff**cofff*
please note that it is the United kingdom or UK & not England which is one part of the Union (that would be like me calling the US ......Alaska)
Also we havn\'t always seen eye to eye
Remember Veitnam ?
oh yes we followed you blindly then didn\'t we :rolleyes:........
. Last I reacall you\'d be part of Nazi Germany if we hadn\'t stepped in!!! I know you don\'t agree with Blair, but you talked shit about me country I get to talk shit about yours, fair??? ;-) [/B]
:rolleyes:
IF it wasn\'t for OUR efforts during the Cold war..... you would be speaking Russian. Go and get a map read up on HISTORY and not US propaganda and then figure.
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
As for the Gulf War, I believe that the treaty was unfair, and if I were Iraq, I wouldn\'t respect it either. So what if they lost the war, if an unfair treaty is imposed on a nation, they still probably aren\'t going to accept it. You think if America lost a war, we\'d accept something like a no fly zone in our nation? Not a chance, we\'d do the same thing. Why people always treat other nations differently from America is amazing.
I also never said no one would ever nuke the US. I said no nation would. That would be suicide, and foolish for them. Terrorists are a different thing entirely. 9/11 wasn\'t the action of a government, it was the action of terrorists. A nation would never do what those terrorists did on 9/11 either. If a terrorist group is developing nukes, then of course you stop them. But Iraq isn\'t a terrorist group, they are a nation. If you can\'t see that there is a difference between the two, then that is pretty bad.
Oh, and you\'re damned right they need if for their security. I would do the same if I ran the nation. How about, instead of laughing at it, you actually address it, and tell me why it\'s so invalid?
Are you forgetting something here shockwaves? Iraq invaded Kuwait. Annexing territory is against international law. Iraq was defeated and as a punishment they were to be disarmed. As part of that, the UN also designated no fly zones to protect the minorities within Iraq from the wrath of Saddam. I am beginning to wonder if Saddam isn\'t paying you $10,000 just to post this nonsense. :rolleyes:
Iraq is a terrorist nation. What makes you think otherwise? They have used chemical weapons on the Iranians and their OWN people!!!!! They looted Kuwait - raping and killing as they went. They are trying to obtain nuclear weapons to use quite possibly against Israel. What do you not see here?
" Oh, and you\'re damned right they need if for their security. I would do the same if I ran the nation. " - shockwaves
You are nuts shockwaves. Your statement right there says it all.
shockwaves = :nut:
-
Originally posted by ooseven
your an Idiot if you think the UK would follow Bush blindly.......if there is a reason for us to attack IRAQ along with you then we will do it...unlike the *coff**coff French*coff**cofff*
please note that it is the United kingdom or UK & not England which is one part of the Union (that would be like me calling the US ......Alaska)
Also we havn\'t always seen eye to eye
Remember Veitnam ?
oh yes we followed you blindly then didn\'t we :rolleyes:........
:rolleyes:
IF it wasn\'t for OUR efforts during the Cold war..... you would be speaking Russian. Go and get a map read up on HISTORY and not US propaganda and then figure.
Calm down there ol\' chap, I was only f*cking kidding with you, jeez!!! :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
-
Originally posted by ooseven
IF it wasn\'t for OUR efforts during the Cold war..... you would be speaking Russian. Go and get a map read up on HISTORY and not US propaganda and then figure.
Yes, the "Thin Red Line" scared the hell out of the Soviets :rolleyes:
The UK ceased to be a superpower after World War 2.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Yes, the "Thin Red Line" scared the hell out of the Soviets :rolleyes:
The UK ceased to be a superpower after World War 2.
Yeah but they would of Nuked us First (because we have most of your early warning systems on UK soil) which would of given you 6 more min\'s to get to the old bomb shelters ;)
only j/k
I was of course talking about intelligence/ counter intelligence as well as a large range of strategic insulations that added in the “defence of Europe”
it was a cold war after all ;)
-
Yes, Iraq invaded Kuwait. I never said I support Iraq. But even if what they did was wrong, that doesn\'t mean that how we treated them for it was right. I am in no way pro Iraq. I just don\'t support the way we go about relating to them.
A terrorist nation and a terrorist are also two very different things. Once again, I don\'t think I should have to explain this difference to you. A terrorist nation has something to lose. It has its nation that it has to think about with everything it does. A terrorist doesn\'t have the same responsibility.
And yes, they need it for their security. Once again, as I have posted several times, why is that so hard to believe? If it is so obvious, it shouldn\'t be hard to prove, should it be? Yes, they need it for security. We are a hositle nation in their eyes, as we should be. We are threatening to go to war with them, afterall. So if you know that a conflict is coming, why would you not try to arm yourself, even if it is with weapons you don\'t intend to ever need? This war has been coming since we imposed an unfair treaty on them after the Gulf War. The nukes aren\'t to use against another country, but to get other nations to respect them and their military power a little more, in order to avoid war. Tell me, if you were in Saddam\'s position right now, what would you do?
By the way, you say that I\'m young and naive, and insult me, and discount my arguement because of it, but you are by far acting like the less mature person in this arguement. I am posting facts, reasoning, and I even posted sources. You are posting very few facts, and relying mainly on personal attacks towards someone you\'ve never met. I ask you, read over the thread, and tell me who has acted more mature. You may be older than me, but if it weren\'t for the posting of birthdates, a person would never guess it.
-
Flee
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
, if you were in Saddam\'s position right now, what would you do?
Take the UN weapon inspectors hostage.. use them as human shields and then launch everything we have at Israel......
/me realises that everyone is now looking at me
What ?
you did ask what would you do if you were him....:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
A terrorist nation and a terrorist are also two very different things. Once again, I don\'t think I should have to explain this difference to you. A terrorist nation has something to lose. It has its nation that it has to think about with everything it does. A terrorist doesn\'t have the same responsibility.
And yes, they need it for their security. Once again, as I have posted several times, why is that so hard to believe? If it is so obvious, it shouldn\'t be hard to prove, should it be? Yes, they need it for security. We are a hositle nation in their eyes, as we should be. We are threatening to go to war with them, afterall. So if you know that a conflict is coming, why would you not try to arm yourself, even if it is with weapons you don\'t intend to ever need? This war has been coming since we imposed an unfair treaty on them after the Gulf War. The nukes aren\'t to use against another country, but to get other nations to respect them and their military power a little more, in order to avoid war. Tell me, if you were in Saddam\'s position right now, what would you do?
Once again your reasoning behind why Saddam needs a nuke is insane. Hell, why not hand a nuke out to every country for the sake of "self protection". You can not have a detent with Iraq. It was possible with the USSR because of mutually assured destruction, but these people in Iraq will think they are martyrs.
Iraq sponsors terrorism. Proof - the Iraqi government handing out checks to the suicide bombers families in Israel. If they will pay for someone to blow up a few Israelis why is it so hard to believe the won\'t find a willing participant to deliver a nuclear payload to the US? There is no logic behind anything you have posted regarding the right for Iraq to posses weapons of mass destruction.
-
Originally posted by ooseven
Yeah but they would of Nuked us First (because we have most of your early warning systems on UK soil) which would of given you 6 more min\'s to get to the old bomb shelters ;)
only j/k
I was of course talking about intelligence/ counter intelligence as well as a large range of strategic insulations that added in the “defence of Europe”
it was a cold war after all ;)
Of course you were there ooseven! I totally forgot - you were the man in Dr. No. :D
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Flee
*shakes head in disgust*
Anyway, There are many points here, so I\'ll just go over some uncovered information.
Yes, Bush has hed behind 9/11 to push is own agenda. If you haven\'t read the Newspaper or picked it up from somewhere, he just created a cabinet position for "Homeland Security", which will place wiretaps and other "spyware" if you will, on people that they see fit need to have it on. Not only is it the first Cabinet position created in 31 years, but it\'s the biggest, and along with that, it violates the privacies of Americans. That we have to rely on the governments word of mouth just to retain our privacies is ridiculous.
How else has he? He sees Iraq as a "Terrorist Nation", so he plans to go after them, saying that to eliminate Terrorism, Iraq is a place that he must hit hard. Basically, you answered your own question there, Giga, when you stated that Iraq was a terrorist nation.
And on a more broader scale, he has bought the Nation with the way he handled it. If 9/11 doesn\'t happen, the Democrats not only retain the Senate, but quite possibly could have won the House. Bush visited states that his fellow men were losing in, shaked a few hands, got on TV a couple times, and voila, bought the public.
Oh, and just to update everybody -- the man he soely blamed for 9/11 is still alive. Last I checked, Bush hasn\'t said anything at all about Osama, and has directed his entire attack on Saddam Hussein...what happened to the "Osama Bin Laden -- Dead or Alive" statement?
As for you bashing young people, if we\'re young, you have to be the most senile person I\'ve ever had to talk to. See? I can make personal attacks, too. Now, if you\'re going to debate, fine, but if you\'re going to act like an 8 year old, don\'t throw the "you\'re young, thus insignificant" card in our face -- take a look in the mirror.
See Yuz.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Once again your reasoning behind why Saddam needs a nuke is insane. Hell, why not hand a nuke out to every country for the sake of "self protection". You can not have a detent with Iraq. It was possible with the USSR because of mutually assured destruction, but these people in Iraq will think they are martyrs.
Iraq sponsors terrorism. Proof - the Iraqi government handing out checks to the suicide bombers families in Israel. If they will pay for someone to blow up a few Israelis why is it so hard to believe the won\'t find a willing participant to deliver a nuclear payload to the US? There is no logic behind anything you have posted regarding the right for Iraq to posses weapons of mass destruction.
Ideally, I don\'t think anyone should have nukes. But if we are going to be hostile towards a nation, and we have nukes, then it is perfectly logical for the other nation to try to develop the same types of weapons.
And once again, I don\'t see how you make these connections. Suicide bombers in Israel are different. We aren\'t going to retaliate the same way for something like that. But if they were to nuke us, we would retaliate with incredible force...probably by nuking them back even worse. That\'s the difference. Once again, I don\'t know how you can\'t see that.
Why is it that you are discounting my opinions because of my age, and yet I know several people who have posted in this topic, on BOTH sides of the arguement who believe you are the one who needs to grow up. I post reasoning and facts, even with sources at one point, and you respond with questions (not counterarguements of your own), and personal attacks. Also, despite the fact that you respond with questions after each of my posts, you refuse to answer the questions I ask you. Way to show your maturity.
-
Mj is young and seems to have his head screwed on right. You are a Dem ROL - it explains your hostility and opposition to Bush. You have not provided one piece of evidence suggesting Bush has always wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11.
The sad fact of the matter is Clinton let Saddam violate numerous UN resolutions and turned a blind eye. Now that we have a president who will stand up to him you are upset. Typical liberal mass hysteria. Iraq was a terrorist nation way before Bush came into office.
Maybe if the Democrats had taken care of this issue when Clinton was in office we wouldn\'t be having this conversation right now.
-
I\'m only 19 does this make me wrong, I\'m not siding or saying anything I\'m just posing a question?
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
Ideally, I don\'t think anyone should have nukes. But if we are going to be hostile towards a nation, and we have nukes, then it is perfectly logical for the other nation to try to develop the same types of weapons.
And once again, I don\'t see how you make these connections. Suicide bombers in Israel are different. We aren\'t going to retaliate the same way for something like that. But if they were to nuke us, we would retaliate with incredible force...probably by nuking them back even worse. That\'s the difference. Once again, I don\'t know how you can\'t see that.
Why is it that you are discounting my opinions because of my age, and yet I know several people who have posted in this topic, on BOTH sides of the arguement who believe you are the one who needs to grow up. I post reasoning and facts, even with sources at one point, and you respond with questions (not counterarguements of your own), and personal attacks. Also, despite the fact that you respond with questions after each of my posts, you refuse to answer the questions I ask you. Way to show your maturity.
You have yet to say anything enlightening about this topic shockwaves. Who has taken your side? Maybe ROL? Thats really about it. I don\'t think ANYONE will agree with your statement that Iraq should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Anyway I must go... have fun.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Mj is young and seems to have his head screwed on right. You are a Dem ROL - it explains your hostility and opposition to Bush. .
you do realise Giga that if he wasn\'t a US national, then his Attatude would be considered "normal"
:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Mj is young and seems to have his head screwed on right. You are a Dem ROL - it explains your hostility and opposition to Bush. You have not provided one piece of evidence suggesting Bush has always wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11.
1. You\'re damn right I have hostility towards Bush. As do a lot of people...you wonder why he didn\'t win the popular vote in 2000, don\'t you?
2. No piece of evidence? HE CREATED A NEW CABINET POSITION SIMPLY BECAUSE OF 9/11! IT\'S IN THE NEWSPAPERS! IS THAT NOT A SOURCE?!
Sorry for the Caps, but you have a real hard time comprehending what is and what isn\'t said. Just get it through your head. If 9/11 does in fact not happen, that Cabinet position is never considered, or created. If it was being considered, why? I honestly have no clue as to why it would be created even if 9/11 didn\'t happen.
See Yuz.
-
1. Bush made national news for bombing Iraq before 9/11, with the excuse that they had set up radar stations that ould cover the no fly zone. So yes, we bombed Iraq unnecessarily under Bush before 9/11.
2. I said both sides of the arguement. There are multiple people who share my view on you and your arguing methods. In fact, everyone I\'ve talked to about it shares them. I won\'t post who these multiple individuals are though, because they told me so in private conversations, and I don\'t want to violate their privacy (once again, a concept you clearly don\'t understand). If they want to post, they can.
-
Hey I think Shocks views are right in some manner and he isn\'t being ignorant or naive when he posts, these are his views, thats how it is, he believes this then his opinion counts, cuz he votes, what is it to say one mans belief is better then the others??? When you do this you have just basically pointed out to everyone that see\'s this that you yourself are ignorant!!!
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
1. Bush made national news for bombing Iraq before 9/11, with the excuse that they had set up radar stations that ould cover the no fly zone. So yes, we bombed Iraq unnecessarily under Bush before 9/11.
hell we (US & UK) have been doingthat ever since his daddy (Bush) was in power
even under
Clinton/ Major
&
Clinton/ Blair
-
Indeed, we have. However, it usually didn\'t make national news. This did, because it was a more large scale bombing (and yes, civilians were killed in it).
-
Originally posted by EmperorRob
The only reason they want to make a new legal system is b/c the one we have is broken. It\'s hard enough to put murderers and rapists and pedophiles in jail and once they get there people like Bill Clinton pardon them and put them in government positions.
I don\'t agree with the pardon system. The people screwed themselves, they should pay.
-
I bet some of you guys, deep down inside, thinks GWB had the planes flown into the towers.
Ace
-
Not me you have to be really really fanatical to think that, shit
-
I was about to say the same thing Ace. On another note I am still trying to understand shockwaves assertion that Iraq should have nuclear weapons... *shakes head*
-
Well not nuclear weapons, but in all reality if you are a Sovereign State as they are, they do have the right to defend themselves, we can\'t totally disarm them, that would like be putting a football player in there without pads or helmet, wait that sounds alot like a sport called Rugby, hmmmm
-
Originally posted by Ace
I bet some of you guys, deep down inside, thinks GWB had the planes flown into the towers.
Ace
With all the secret things going on in our government, I wouldn\'t be suprised. But Bin Laden admitted that he did this. You really don\'t have evidence.
-
I have a deal for all you Iraqi sympathizers.
When the US uses biological weapons on, lets say, Iowa, then I will agree that Iraq should have nukes.
Ace
-
Someone please queue the X Files theme.
Ace
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
1. Bush made national news for bombing Iraq before 9/11, with the excuse that they had set up radar stations that ould cover the no fly zone. So yes, we bombed Iraq unnecessarily under Bush before 9/11.
2. I said both sides of the arguement. There are multiple people who share my view on you and your arguing methods. In fact, everyone I\'ve talked to about it shares them. I won\'t post who these multiple individuals are though, because they told me so in private conversations, and I don\'t want to violate their privacy (once again, a concept you clearly don\'t understand). If they want to post, they can.
Shockwaves - you have yet to put forth one LOGICAL argument favoring why Iraq should have nuclear weapons. You have disregarded everything he has done in the past that I have brought up. It figures the rest of your teen club would not agree with me as they come from the same mindset as you. You don\'t know half of what you think you do. Its not your fault - its your age. Let me clue you in on something... when I was your age I thought I knew everything - then I realized I how much I didn\'t. I too didn\'t particularly like Reagan at the time, but in hindsight I see that I was wrong with about 90 percent of what I thought about him. The fact that you have bring up people who won\'t even post their opinion in this thread really shows you have no backbone to your arguments. If they agree with you so much let them speak for themselves.
Bombing radar/missle sites in the no fly zone unnecessary??? They were violating a UN resolution not to mention firing at US and British planes.
I am done debating you on this - if you can call what you are doing debating. Your debate style is reminiscent of an 8 year old asking the question "why" to everything. Actually, I have noticed that style in quite a few members of this forum who all seem to fall around your age group. An example of this would be you asking me what would I do if I was in Saddams shoes... What kind of idiotic question is that? Its the only type of argument you seem to be able to create.
-
Originally posted by mjps21983
Well not nuclear weapons, but in all reality if you are a Sovereign State as they are, they do have the right to defend themselves, we can\'t totally disarm them, that would like be putting a football player in there without pads or helmet, wait that sounds alot like a sport called Rugby, hmmmm
Nuclear weapons are a deterent in most cases (Islamic countries don\'t apply), but you can\'t classify them as a "defensive weapon". :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Ace
I have a deal for all you Iraqi sympathizers.
When the US uses biological weapons on, lets say, Iowa, then I will agree that Iraq should have nukes.
Ace
Finally someone said it. Yes shockwaves you are a sympathizer despite your claim to the contrary.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Shockwaves - you have yet to put forth one LOGICAL argument favoring why Iraq should have nuclear weapons. You have disregarded everything he has done in the past that I have brought up. It figures the rest of your teen club would not agree with me as they come from the same mindset as you. You don\'t know half of what you think you do. Its not your fault - its your age. Let me clue you in on something... when I was your age I thought I knew everything - then I realized I how much I didn\'t. I too didn\'t particularly like Reagan at the time, but in hindsight I see that I was wrong with about 90 percent of what I thought about him. The fact that you have bring up people who won\'t even post their opinion in this thread really shows you have no backbone to your arguments. If they agree with you so much let them speak for themselves.
Bombing radar/missle sites in the no fly zone unnecessary??? They were violating a UN resolution not to mention firing at US and British planes.
I am done debating you on this - if you can call what you are doing debating. Your debate style is reminiscent of an 8 year old asking the question "why" to everything. Actually, I have noticed that style in quite a few members of this forum who all seem to fall around your age group. An example of this would be you asking me what would I do if I was in Saddams shoes... What kind of idiotic question is that? Its the only type of argument you seem to be able to create.
The radar sites were not in the no fly zone, they just were able to cover part of it with their radar coverage.
The people I talked to were Mike and James. They have both since posted against you, so I think it\'s fair to reveal that. They both did post their opinions, and they both initiated the talks about your posting style. Just letting you know.
You have changed since you are 18? Not surprising. But how do you know you won\'t change again in 20 years? Believe it or not, you still don\'t know everything. I also seem to picture you as being a very ignorant 18 year old. Not saying you were, just what I picture.
You have asked more questions, and I have posted more facts in this thread. If you want, I can count it up for you. Therefor, this reasoning is worthless, and means nothing. It just shows how unaware you are of your own actions.
My arguing style is like an 8 year olds? Half of yours was personal attacks. Mine had more facts, with sources backing them up. I addressed every question you asked, while you haven\'t answered any of mine. Hard to believe that you know as much as you think you do on these topics if you can\'t answer any of my questions, and instead throw even more questions right back at me.
And why do Islamic Coutries not apply? That\'s my point, they are a deterent, and that is why Iraq is trying to develop them. Tell me why this doesn\'t hold true in their case. By the way, in case you say this is just me asking "why?" again, it isn\'t. I\'m simply asking you to back up what you post, like you have asked me to. You posted a statement with no reasoning or facts backing it up.
And once again, in case you still can\'t read my posts, I don\'t think anyone should have nuclear weapons, but I think that if they must exist, then there shouldn\'t be any nations that have a right to them over others.
Besides, not to call us terrorists or anything, but who do you think kills more innocent civilians, the US government or the Iraqi government? It\'s us...by a whole hell of a lot.
And Ace, I never thought that Bush in any way helped organize the attacks on the World Trade Center. I may disagree with his methods and policies, but it is clear that he loves his country. He wouldn\'t do something like that.
-
Originally posted by Ace
I bet some of you guys, deep down inside, thinks GWB had the planes flown into the towers.
Ace
WHile I dont believe that, I wouldnt be the least surprised. No one believed the government flooded the streets with drugs untill the reports came out.
-
Gee, if you found out the Pres had something to do with 9/11 you would not be surprised?
A wee bit cynical luckee?
Ace
-
It wouldnt matter which pres. had a hand in it. Just the simple fact that our government is f\'n\' dirty.