<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Oct 4 2004, 02:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Oct 4 2004, 02:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the way, I'm sorry you don't want to live in America, which happens to be the richest nation on the earth and has the most personal and economic freedoms. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least it did, until our government used terrorism as an excuse to take a bunch of them away. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Can you tell me any instance since 2000 where you couldn't do something that you could do in 1999?
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Oct 4 2004, 02:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Oct 4 2004, 02:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the way, I'm sorry you don't want to live in America, which happens to be the richest nation on the earth and has the most personal and economic freedoms. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least it did, until our government used terrorism as an excuse to take a bunch of them away. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Are you for real...? We haven't lost any rights that we normally haven't lost in a period of wartime.
And if you are such an oppressed fellow I hear N. Korea is accepting promising young individuals
<!--QuoteBegin-404NotFound+Oct 4 2004, 04:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (404NotFound @ Oct 4 2004, 04:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Oct 4 2004, 02:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Oct 4 2004, 02:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the way, I'm sorry you don't want to live in America, which happens to be the richest nation on the earth and has the most personal and economic freedoms. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least it did, until our government used terrorism as an excuse to take a bunch of them away. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Can you tell me any instance since 2000 where you couldn't do something that you could do in 1999? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How about express an opinion about the government without my president calling me 'Unpatriotic', or basically 'A communist' as it'd have been said in the 1970s.
Get a job and not have to worry about some <span style='color:orange'>mild racism removed</span> taking it? Or worry about the CEO running off with billions leaving me without any money whatsoever?
Oh and Forlorn that was one of the most ignorant comments in this thread. Not like I expected more.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Oct 4 2004, 04:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Oct 4 2004, 04:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Oct 4 2004, 02:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Oct 4 2004, 02:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the way, I'm sorry you don't want to live in America, which happens to be the richest nation on the earth and has the most personal and economic freedoms. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least it did, until our government used terrorism as an excuse to take a bunch of them away. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Are you for real...? We haven't lost any rights that we normally haven't lost in a period of wartime.
And if you are such an oppressed fellow I hear N. Korea is accepting promising young individuals <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah, ye old "If you don't like america then you can get out" argument. A favorite amoungst the ignorant. This is my country damnit, I consider it my duty as a citizen to try and do something about its problems. Thats why I'm not running off to some other country.
I swear, the next time a conservative complains about paying for welfare I'm going to use that line, just to turn the tables on them for once.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are you for real...? We haven't lost any rights that we normally haven't lost in a period of wartime. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't recall losing any rights during the first gulf war. And though I didn't live through it I can't recall any rights that were lost during korea or vietnam. So when was the last time we lost rights because of war?... Best I can think of is when we shoved the japanese in camps WWII.
And even if I'm wrong in the above statement (and I very well might be) does that make it right? Seriously, just because it has happened before doesn't mean that its ok for it to happen again. By that logic it would be ok to enslave african americans again.
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Oct 4 2004, 05:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Oct 4 2004, 05:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-404NotFound+Oct 4 2004, 04:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (404NotFound @ Oct 4 2004, 04:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Oct 4 2004, 02:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Oct 4 2004, 02:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the way, I'm sorry you don't want to live in America, which happens to be the richest nation on the earth and has the most personal and economic freedoms. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least it did, until our government used terrorism as an excuse to take a bunch of them away. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Can you tell me any instance since 2000 where you couldn't do something that you could do in 1999? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Be against government action without my government telling me I'm 'unpatriotic'?
Get a job and not have to worry about some Indian taking it? Or worry about the CEO running off with billions leaving me without any money whatsoever?
Oh and Forlorn that was one of the dumbest comments in this thread but I've learned to expect as much from you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you've actually done stuff and been called unpatriotic by "the government?"
Is "The Government" cool? Does he like to go party on fridays, too?
Also, outsourcing is actually a result of ABUNDANT FREEDOM. It's the company's freedom to do almost what they want to make money (there are some restrictions) and it's your freedom to work harder, get more training, more education, etc. to make yourself more viable to the company.
In fact, if people were totally free it would be called anarchy. Wait.. you mean there should be.. *gasp* "limits to freedom?"
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't recall losing any rights during the first gulf war. And though I didn't live through it I can't recall any rights that were lost during korea or <b>vietnam</b>. So when was the last time we lost rights because of war?... Best I can think of is when we shoved the japanese in camps WWII.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ever hear of a little thing called the <i>draft</i>? I would say that being forced to serve in the military is taking away a little bit of my freedoms, wouldn't you?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How about express an opinion about the government without my president calling me 'Unpatriotic', or basically 'A communist' as it'd have been said in the 1970s.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you show me when the president (not Fox News, not Darryl down the street, the president, whatever that may be) has called an individual (such as yourself) unpatriotic or a communist because of their opinions?
So wait, I'm supposed to show you where the president made a comment but I'm not allowed to link to news sites? 404BrainsNotFound more like.
I also like how you're taking things to a literal level. If the presidnt called all homosexuals 'sinners', and if I were a homosexual, then therefore the president called me a sinner.
Your IQ must be this high to ride the discussions forum. I'm sorry you'll need to go back to off-topic.
Secondly, the draft is not a right taken away.
Outsourcing is 'abundant freedom'? Hardly, because the rest of the world has no right whatsoever benefiting from our 'freedoms'. Freedom at the expense of someone's livelyhood is not a freedom. The president has done nothing to stop outsourcing, he even encourages it.
Please spend more then two minutes forming a post next time.
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Oct 4 2004, 05:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Oct 4 2004, 05:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So wait, I'm supposed to show you where the president made a comment but I'm not allowed to link to news sites? 404BrainsNotFound more like. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You do realize that news sources do have columns in which opinions are formed, and in these columns some authors tend to have outlandish ideas.
But news sources also do stuff called "reporting" in which they don't inject their own opinions, but rather quote what has been said.
Thus, when I ask when the president has ever "called an individual..." I mean show me through direct (like he actually told you) or indirect (like a news source) means. This would result in a documentation of the president "calling an individual..." but it isn't the news source itself doing the calling, it's the president.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Secondly, the draft is not a right taken away.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"they[Men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." -The Declaration of Independence
So you're saying that being forced to go to war is still letting me keep my right of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness? Tell that to the Vietnam war memorial.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Outsourcing is 'abundant freedom'? Hardly, because the rest of the world has no right whatsoever benefiting from our 'freedoms'. Freedom at the expense of someone's livelyhood is not a freedom. The president has done nothing to stop outsourcing, he even encourages it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, so you're saying we should also shut down every overseas factory that the US imports from? Wanna give up everything you own that isn't marked 'Made in the USA?'
Why shouldn't a company be able to choose how to run it's business? Do you think that there should have never been an industrial revolution because it took away the freedoms of workers who could be easily replaced?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I also like how you're taking things to a literal level. If the presidnt called all homosexuals 'sinners', and if I were a homosexual, then therefore the president called me a sinner.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, that logic is fine by me... and by it my original question still stands. Care to cite when you've individually been called unpatriotic or a communist?
Did he or did he not pass a law known as the 'Patriot Act', designed to scarifice civil liberties to 'protect us'?
"It's a law that is making America safer" says Bush. "The best way to secure our homeland is to stay on the offensive against the terrorist network"
Bush said the legislation should be expanded to allow subpoenas in terrorism cases to be issued without approval of a judge or grand jury, to allow terror suspects to be held without bail and to make sabotage of defense or nuclear facilities that results in loss of life punishable by death. The law was passed 45 days after the Sept. 11 attacks. It gives federal agents more power to spy on U.S. citizens and noncitizens while hunting alleged terrorists.
"A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken in February found that 71 percent of Americans disapprove of a section that allows agents to delay telling people that their homes have been searched secretly. About half said they were uneasy about a provision that allows the FBI to obtain records from hospitals, bookstores and libraries and another that allows agents to ask banks whether terrorism suspects have accounts with them."
'Patriot' means 'Someone who loves his or her country'. Bushes passes the patriot act, the title of which assumes 'If you love the country, this law is here to protect you'. Not only is this an example of rights and liberties being taken away that was wanted before, but since the "Patriot Act" all supports the war, therefore the Bush administration is seeing anti-war sentiments against their agenda, and therefore unpatriotic.
The Bush administration even attacked Kerry's anti-Vietnam protesting. What was the angle at here? That he wasn't a flag-waving pro-war patriot. The Bush administration saw Kerry sitting in front of Senate explaining the atrocities he had seen done in Vietnam as anti-american and a character flaw.
I never said I was called a communist. In the 70's, if you were against the govrenment (ie: a hippy) you were considered 'red', an anti-American communist. We're right back there.
USA PATRIOT ACT: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...but since the "Patriot Act" all supports the war, therefore the Bush administration is seeing anti-war sentiments against their agenda, and therefore unpatriotic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All cheerleaders are pretty. Sally is pretty. Is Sally a cheerleader?
The Bush administration implies that all those who support the war are patriots. John is a patriot. Does John support the war?
This is regaurdless of the fact that the content of the act itself doesn't deal with patriotism at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Bushes passes the patriot act, the title of which assumes 'If you love the country, this law is here to protect you'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Loving your country and NOT being a terrorism suspect are different things.
Say, for instance, you don't love your country. Does that mean you are trying to secure Uranium and will then be caught by upped survalience? Nope. not at all.
I don't agree with the Patriot act either, but to use it as the basis to argue that you've been called unpatriotic by the president is a stretch.
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Oct 4 2004, 05:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Oct 4 2004, 05:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So if I said Bush is a bigot would that be a stretch too? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Depends if you think that being opposed to homosexual marriage is being intolerant.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Oct 4 2004, 05:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Oct 4 2004, 05:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Oct 4 2004, 04:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Oct 4 2004, 04:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Oct 4 2004, 02:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Oct 4 2004, 02:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the way, I'm sorry you don't want to live in America, which happens to be the richest nation on the earth and has the most personal and economic freedoms. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least it did, until our government used terrorism as an excuse to take a bunch of them away. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Are you for real...? We haven't lost any rights that we normally haven't lost in a period of wartime.
And if you are such an oppressed fellow I hear N. Korea is accepting promising young individuals <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah, ye old "If you don't like america then you can get out" argument. A favorite amoungst the ignorant. This is my country damnit, I consider it my duty as a citizen to try and do something about its problems. Thats why I'm not running off to some other country.
I swear, the next time a conservative complains about paying for welfare I'm going to use that line, just to turn the tables on them for once.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are you for real...? We haven't lost any rights that we normally haven't lost in a period of wartime. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't recall losing any rights during the first gulf war. And though I didn't live through it I can't recall any rights that were lost during korea or vietnam. So when was the last time we lost rights because of war?... Best I can think of is when we shoved the japanese in camps WWII.
And even if I'm wrong in the above statement (and I very well might be) does that make it right? Seriously, just because it has happened before doesn't mean that its ok for it to happen again. By that logic it would be ok to enslave african americans again. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> First, I hate it when people even vaguely relate something to us losing rights or some kind of trash like that. There is no sense in bashing something like that without a remedy. Or, at the very least, name a right we lost!
Second, the korean war was basically the begaining of the cold war, enter the time of nuclear threats, not going to communist countries, etc. etc. (there are tons of examples, esp. the whole "Living in Fear" thing)
Oh and people still argued about the same crap back in WW2 as they do now:
This was the first red scare, 1917, and the fear americas had by the disorder of it all.
The red scare then lead on to prosecute people who really didn't do anything wrong but may have been linked to communism. (Patriot Act going after possible terrorists? Except the patriot act is much more lame compared to the red scare, as people's lives were ruined if they were even linked with communism, people who are possible terrorists have nothing more than an inconvience)
Now in vietnam, besides the obvious (the draft!) you also had masses of student protests all over the country. Many had different reasons but as far as "abuses" of our freedoms:
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Oct 4 2004, 06:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Oct 4 2004, 06:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> First, I hate it when people even vaguely relate something to us losing rights or some kind of trash like that. There is no sense in bashing something like that without a remedy. Or, at the very least, name a right we lost! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How about the right to consult with a lawyer, for starters. Granted, this only applies to "suspected terrorists", which, IIRC, the PATRIOT act is sufficiently vaugue in defining as to lump the WTO protesters into that group. Give me a minute to find the link that points out the other rights it removes. Heres a start: <a href='http://www.truthout.com/docs_02/09.09C.ap.rights.p.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.truthout.com/docs_02/09.09C.ap.rights.p.htm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Second, the korean war was basically the begaining of the cold war, enter the time of nuclear threats, not going to communist countries, etc. etc. (there are tons of examples, esp. the whole "Living in Fear" thing)
So I was wrong about that part. I said I probably was, I'm not a history buff and most of those things happened before my time. That still doesn't explain why it is OK to do it NOW.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Oct 3 2004, 11:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Oct 3 2004, 11:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Oct 3 2004, 09:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Oct 3 2004, 09:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Oct 3 2004, 06:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Oct 3 2004, 06:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Oct 3 2004, 04:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Oct 3 2004, 04:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Oct 3 2004, 02:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 3 2004, 02:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I mean if you don't invade Iraq and they DO have nukes, then Bush would have gotten hell. Likewise if he did invade and they DIDN'T have nukes, Bush would have gotten hell. I suppose he weighed the decisions carefully and decided a few soldier deaths were better than cities of innocents dying by the hands of a ruthless dictator. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about giving weapons inspectors enough time to do their job before invading. How about back-channel negotiations to avoid as much bloodshed as possible.
It's not just about dead soldiers, many have lost limbs and are in constant pain. Cities of innocents dying...theirs or ours? Now that Iraq has been destabilized there seems to be no end of car-bombings etc. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh yeah, 13 years of negotiations and inspections JUST AREN'T ENOUGH TIME PPL!
And I guess I missed the part of the US killing entire (aka nuking them was in the original post) cites. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Inspections just before the invasion were actually working, with the highest level of Iraqi cooperation I might add. I hope none of your children (assuming you have or had any) die by playing with an unexploded cluster bomb. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They were working?
Look, the reason the inspections were working towards the end was because the USA was putting a LOT of pressure on them in the first place at the time, so they "started" to coorpirate in order to buy time. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> In other words the threat of force (and not the use of force) was sufficient.
Buying time for what? To develop the "death star" and get that army of jedi-clones going ?
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Oct 4 2004, 05:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Oct 4 2004, 05:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-404NotFound+Oct 4 2004, 04:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (404NotFound @ Oct 4 2004, 04:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Oct 4 2004, 02:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Oct 4 2004, 02:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the way, I'm sorry you don't want to live in America, which happens to be the richest nation on the earth and has the most personal and economic freedoms. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least it did, until our government used terrorism as an excuse to take a bunch of them away. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Can you tell me any instance since 2000 where you couldn't do something that you could do in 1999? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ...
Get a job and not have to worry about some Indian taking it? Or worry about the CEO running off with billions leaving me without any money whatsoever?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I fail to see how outsourcing of jobs is the result of increased government limitations on rights.
<!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Oct 4 2004, 09:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Oct 4 2004, 09:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In other words the threat of force (and not the use of force) was sufficient.
Buying time for what? To develop the "death star" and get that army of jedi-clones going ? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Threats of force are pointless if the opposing party calls your bluff.
As for the buying time arguement. Saddam was at his weakest at that moment. There really was no other time to remove him without greater loss of life.
Had Saddam been able to regain complete control over his country we would have had a dictator, with a country and a grudge against the Western world. Not a good idea when he is sitting next to a country thats export is what makes our military work.
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Oct 4 2004, 10:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Oct 4 2004, 10:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Oct 4 2004, 09:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Oct 4 2004, 09:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In other words the threat of force (and not the use of force) was sufficient.
Buying time for what? To develop the "death star" and get that army of jedi-clones going ? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Threats of force are pointless if the opposing party calls your bluff.
As for the buying time arguement. Saddam was at his weakest at that moment. There really was no other time to remove him without greater loss of life.
Had Saddam been able to regain complete control over his country we would have had a dictator, with a country and a grudge against the Western world. Not a good idea when he is sitting next to a country thats export is what makes our military work. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> We already demonstrated force with Gulf War I.
Saddam is not stupid, he's a survivalist. That's why he hid in a little-hole as opposed to dying in some glorious battle with the "infidel". I highly doubt he'd move in any direction that would get him squashed (the situation that you alluded to).
He just underestimated the fact that Bush had his eye on Iraq - for dubious reasons - and that no amount of weapon inspection activities would suffice.
<!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Oct 4 2004, 11:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Oct 4 2004, 11:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Oct 4 2004, 10:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Oct 4 2004, 10:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Oct 4 2004, 09:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Oct 4 2004, 09:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In other words the threat of force (and not the use of force) was sufficient.
Buying time for what? To develop the "death star" and get that army of jedi-clones going ? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Threats of force are pointless if the opposing party calls your bluff.
As for the buying time arguement. Saddam was at his weakest at that moment. There really was no other time to remove him without greater loss of life.
Had Saddam been able to regain complete control over his country we would have had a dictator, with a country and a grudge against the Western world. Not a good idea when he is sitting next to a country thats export is what makes our military work. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We already demonstrated force with Gulf War I.
Saddam is not stupid, he's a survivalist. That's why he hid in a little-hole as opposed to dying in some glorious battle with the "infidel". I highly doubt he'd move in any direction that would get him squashed (the situation that you alluded to).
He just underestimated the fact that Bush had his eye on Iraq - for dubious reasons - and that no amount of weapon inspection activities would suffice. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Saddam destroying his WMDs with no proof is like you going to class, and instead of handing in your 40 page thesis paper you tell the professor it's on your computer at home, but "I swear I did a really good job on it, can I have my A now?"
im sorry forlorn, WMD's arent just destroyed, chemical agents are left, documents are left, labs are left, storage facilitys are left. Weapon inspectors for 13 years inspected every grain of sand in iraq and said there were no WMD's before bush started his war. US soldiers cant find any reminants of the WMD's. Neway lets think logically.
IM SADAMN AND I HAVE A WMD WITH CAPABILITY TO ATK ANYONE I WANT. (This is what bush's intelligence said)
USA atks me and what do i do with my WMD. I shove it up their **** and press the red button thats what i'd do.
Sadamn had no real weapon capability there was no missiles firing coming from iraq when US invaded. He didnt pass over any weapons to terrorists because if he did they would of used them by now. Face it there never were any WMD's and sadamn had no intention of making any because he knew if he did try something and the weapons inspectors found out the UN would rape him. He couldnt stop Bush with his personal vendetta atking him and his people(you think sadamn is happy at the 20k+ innocent iraqis killed by the US invasion, and before u say **** about sadamn killing his own people, he atk'd terrorists camps on his soil of islamic extremists, he was having his own little war on terrorism he also stopped civil war from happening by doing so, which by the look of it USA cant stop now they've taken sadamn out of power).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->USA atks me and what do i do with my WMD. I shove it up their **** and press the red button thats what i'd do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> All the more reason for people like you not to have WMDs at your disposal, for the amount of lives that would be lost as a result.
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/10/iraq.02/also.butler.html' target='_blank'>Why inspections weren't cooperative...</a> This didn't just happen once or twice. This happened for 12 years! What makes you democrats so certain they were willing to cooperate?
Shortly before America was to invade Iraq, Iraq started cooperating. The ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was given, and while he didn't show any signs of following Bush's ultimatum, he started letting inspectors in. Now, you could say that he was being a generous old man finally getting around to what he couldn't for years, OR you could say that maybe Saddam was doing this as a destraction. He was hoping we'd back off and say: "Oh, so you're being cooperative now. Okay. We'll throw out our ultimatum because we know you will give us full cooperation." (and I might add that he had the rest of the world believing this)
Bush had no intentions of throwing down his ultimatum. He wanted Saddam out, and that was exactly what he asked for. Makes USA look horrible because Saddam started cooperating towards the end, but I promise he would have continued to be uncooperative if we stopped. It was a joke. He was using the investigations as a tool to make the world delay their invasions. How can this not be evident?
<!--QuoteBegin-Mr.Robot+Oct 5 2004, 01:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mr.Robot @ Oct 5 2004, 01:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> im sorry forlorn, WMD's arent just destroyed, chemical agents are left, documents are left, labs are left, storage facilitys are left. Weapon inspectors for 13 years inspected every grain of sand in iraq and said there were no WMD's before bush started his war. US soldiers cant find any reminants of the WMD's. Neway lets think logically.
IM SADAMN AND I HAVE A WMD WITH CAPABILITY TO ATK ANYONE I WANT. (This is what bush's intelligence said)
USA atks me and what do i do with my WMD. I shove it up their **** and press the red button thats what i'd do.
Sadamn had no real weapon capability there was no missiles firing coming from iraq when US invaded. He didnt pass over any weapons to terrorists because if he did they would of used them by now. Face it there never were any WMD's and sadamn had no intention of making any because he knew if he did try something and the weapons inspectors found out the UN would rape him. He couldnt stop Bush with his personal vendetta atking him and his people(you think sadamn is happy at the 20k+ innocent iraqis killed by the US invasion, and before u say **** about sadamn killing his own people, he atk'd terrorists camps on his soil of islamic extremists, he was having his own little war on terrorism he also stopped civil war from happening by doing so, which by the look of it USA cant stop now they've taken sadamn out of power). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Complete trash man, please don't rant.
1. Chemical weapons don't need to be destroyed, they can be sold, moved, buried, hidden, etc. etc. wake up
2. Saddam wouldn't use weapons on us because he'd rather do something like win the long fight by bad media? Instead of justifying "Bush's" war he'd rather remove the reason we used it to invade, and instead use the idoits that plague our countries that would rather spend all day attacking our country as opposed to fixing it.
"Pacificts are nothing more than useful idoits." - Joeseph Stalin
3. Not only did we have extensive intelligence that Saddam could produce WMD's, but we also sold back to him in the 80's:
- Not only did we sell him WMD's (and I'm sure we still have the reciepts) but - I'm sure we gave him enough info to <b>produce</b> his own as well.
its the discussion forum ill rant as much as i want aslong i consider other possiblities then my own(forum discussion rule you seem to ignore, you regard my post as <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Complete trash man<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->) and i dont flame people(ur quote of stalin is technically flaming anyone that believes in peace). You suggested sadamn sold/gave weapons away(which is pretty hard as most islamic countrys and extremist groups wouldnt buy toilet paper off sadamn, let alone the trust needed for chemical trade which can easily easily be a trap, and if he sold to eastern europe they will take the weapons and tell america here they are so that they can be rewarded).
As for chemical labs and storage facilities what happened to them? did he bury them i know he cant sell them ;.;'. What about all those pictures of mobile chemical labs as train units we were given as an excuse (we're having problems locating chemical weapons + labs so heres teh purty picture of a train lab we invented). They werent demolished, if there was a wierd looking building getting demolished in the dessert im pretty sure all those satelites covering iraqi soil would of recorded something.
Those weapons sold in the 80's were all confinscated by the weapon inspectors to them those receits were a checklist and they got through that well before bush deceided to goto war.
Cnn might say this and that but read the reports of the weapons inspectors not the heavily censored media hype about how sadamn is such a bad man. Im not saying it was an easy smooth job for the weapons inspectors but well lets just see we've found nothing they said nothing was there, they got the job done didnt they? so they couldnt of been that retricted.
If you're going to flame, create a new thread and flame there. This thread shouldn't suffer because of it. I respectfully ask everyone to post nicely here.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Oct 5 2004, 10:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Oct 5 2004, 10:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1. Chemical weapons don't need to be destroyed, they can be sold, moved, buried, hidden, etc. etc. wake up
Anything else to add? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sold, moved: tracked by satellite. Buried, hidden, etc.: dug up using the same intelligence gathering strategies we used to dig up Saddam. His top scientists are some of the most eager to cooperate in the first place. If you read the reports issued by the Bush administration, or at least the summaries of the reports, or at least listen to what the Bush administration is saying, or at least listen to the talking head's clever quips about the summaries of the reports, you would realize that there really were no WMDs and no significant infrastructure for producing them.
How many times do different sources within the administration have to say it, how many different investigation committees have to be appointed by the government before you are convinced, especially when they all say the same thing?
The WMD defense is no longer a sufficient defense for the war, as evidenced by the Administration's distancing themselves from it.
Also remember that selling them leaves a massive paper trail. A multi-million dollar transaction from Uzbekistan from a country that has political sanctions on it... that wouldn't go unnoticed.
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Oct 6 2004, 05:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Oct 6 2004, 05:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Also remember that selling them leaves a massive paper trail. A multi-million dollar transaction from Uzbekistan from a country that has political sanctions on it... that wouldn't go unnoticed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Just because there may be a paper trail doesn't make it obvious. Lets say that mulitmillion dollar transaction is listed as: Administrative costs - wages and benefits for Iraqi Health Administration. Money is easily laundered.
One of the easiest ways to get around sanctions and such is through diamond sales. This is one of the reasons why I personally will never purchase a diamond. How the heck are you going to trace a handful of diamonds?
Comments
"How?"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least it did, until our government used terrorism as an excuse to take a bunch of them away. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you tell me any instance since 2000 where you couldn't do something that you could do in 1999?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least it did, until our government used terrorism as an excuse to take a bunch of them away. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you for real...? We haven't lost any rights that we normally haven't lost in a period of wartime.
And if you are such an oppressed fellow I hear N. Korea is accepting promising young individuals
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least it did, until our government used terrorism as an excuse to take a bunch of them away. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you tell me any instance since 2000 where you couldn't do something that you could do in 1999? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about express an opinion about the government without my president calling me 'Unpatriotic', or basically 'A communist' as it'd have been said in the 1970s.
Get a job and not have to worry about some <span style='color:orange'>mild racism removed</span> taking it? Or worry about the CEO running off with billions leaving me without any money whatsoever?
Oh and Forlorn that was one of the most ignorant comments in this thread. Not like I expected more.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least it did, until our government used terrorism as an excuse to take a bunch of them away. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you for real...? We haven't lost any rights that we normally haven't lost in a period of wartime.
And if you are such an oppressed fellow I hear N. Korea is accepting promising young individuals <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, ye old "If you don't like america then you can get out" argument. A favorite amoungst the ignorant. This is my country damnit, I consider it my duty as a citizen to try and do something about its problems. Thats why I'm not running off to some other country.
I swear, the next time a conservative complains about paying for welfare I'm going to use that line, just to turn the tables on them for once.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are you for real...? We haven't lost any rights that we normally haven't lost in a period of wartime.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't recall losing any rights during the first gulf war. And though I didn't live through it I can't recall any rights that were lost during korea or vietnam. So when was the last time we lost rights because of war?... Best I can think of is when we shoved the japanese in camps WWII.
And even if I'm wrong in the above statement (and I very well might be) does that make it right? Seriously, just because it has happened before doesn't mean that its ok for it to happen again. By that logic it would be ok to enslave african americans again.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least it did, until our government used terrorism as an excuse to take a bunch of them away. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you tell me any instance since 2000 where you couldn't do something that you could do in 1999? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Be against government action without my government telling me I'm 'unpatriotic'?
Get a job and not have to worry about some Indian taking it? Or worry about the CEO running off with billions leaving me without any money whatsoever?
Oh and Forlorn that was one of the dumbest comments in this thread but I've learned to expect as much from you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you've actually done stuff and been called unpatriotic by "the government?"
Is "The Government" cool? Does he like to go party on fridays, too?
Also, outsourcing is actually a result of ABUNDANT FREEDOM. It's the company's freedom to do almost what they want to make money (there are some restrictions) and it's your freedom to work harder, get more training, more education, etc. to make yourself more viable to the company.
In fact, if people were totally free it would be called anarchy. Wait.. you mean there should be.. *gasp* "limits to freedom?"
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't recall losing any rights during the first gulf war. And though I didn't live through it I can't recall any rights that were lost during korea or <b>vietnam</b>. So when was the last time we lost rights because of war?... Best I can think of is when we shoved the japanese in camps WWII.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ever hear of a little thing called the <i>draft</i>? I would say that being forced to serve in the military is taking away a little bit of my freedoms, wouldn't you?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How about express an opinion about the government without my president calling me 'Unpatriotic', or basically 'A communist' as it'd have been said in the 1970s.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you show me when the president (not Fox News, not Darryl down the street, the president, whatever that may be) has called an individual (such as yourself) unpatriotic or a communist because of their opinions?
I also like how you're taking things to a literal level. If the presidnt called all homosexuals 'sinners', and if I were a homosexual, then therefore the president called me a sinner.
Your IQ must be this high to ride the discussions forum. I'm sorry you'll need to go back to off-topic.
Secondly, the draft is not a right taken away.
Outsourcing is 'abundant freedom'? Hardly, because the rest of the world has no right whatsoever benefiting from our 'freedoms'. Freedom at the expense of someone's livelyhood is not a freedom. The president has done nothing to stop outsourcing, he even encourages it.
Please spend more then two minutes forming a post next time.
You do realize that news sources do have columns in which opinions are formed, and in these columns some authors tend to have outlandish ideas.
But news sources also do stuff called "reporting" in which they don't inject their own opinions, but rather quote what has been said.
Thus, when I ask when the president has ever "called an individual..." I mean show me through direct (like he actually told you) or indirect (like a news source) means. This would result in a documentation of the president "calling an individual..." but it isn't the news source itself doing the calling, it's the president.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Secondly, the draft is not a right taken away.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"they[Men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." -The Declaration of Independence
So you're saying that being forced to go to war is still letting me keep my right of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness? Tell that to the Vietnam war memorial.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Outsourcing is 'abundant freedom'? Hardly, because the rest of the world has no right whatsoever benefiting from our 'freedoms'. Freedom at the expense of someone's livelyhood is not a freedom. The president has done nothing to stop outsourcing, he even encourages it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, so you're saying we should also shut down every overseas factory that the US imports from? Wanna give up everything you own that isn't marked 'Made in the USA?'
Why shouldn't a company be able to choose how to run it's business? Do you think that there should have never been an industrial revolution because it took away the freedoms of workers who could be easily replaced?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I also like how you're taking things to a literal level. If the presidnt called all homosexuals 'sinners', and if I were a homosexual, then therefore the president called me a sinner.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, that logic is fine by me... and by it my original question still stands. Care to cite when you've individually been called unpatriotic or a communist?
"It's a law that is making America safer" says Bush. "The best way to secure our homeland is to stay on the offensive against the terrorist network"
Bush said the legislation should be expanded to allow subpoenas in terrorism cases to be issued without approval of a judge or grand jury, to allow terror suspects to be held without bail and to make sabotage of defense or nuclear facilities that results in loss of life punishable by death. The law was passed 45 days after the Sept. 11 attacks. It gives federal agents more power to spy on U.S. citizens and noncitizens while hunting alleged terrorists.
"A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken in February found that 71 percent of Americans disapprove of a section that allows agents to delay telling people that their homes have been searched secretly. About half said they were uneasy about a provision that allows the FBI to obtain records from hospitals, bookstores and libraries and another that allows agents to ask banks whether terrorism suspects have accounts with them."
'Patriot' means 'Someone who loves his or her country'. Bushes passes the patriot act, the title of which assumes 'If you love the country, this law is here to protect you'. Not only is this an example of rights and liberties being taken away that was wanted before, but since the "Patriot Act" all supports the war, therefore the Bush administration is seeing anti-war sentiments against their agenda, and therefore unpatriotic.
The Bush administration even attacked Kerry's anti-Vietnam protesting. What was the angle at here? That he wasn't a flag-waving pro-war patriot. The Bush administration saw Kerry sitting in front of Senate explaining the atrocities he had seen done in Vietnam as anti-american and a character flaw.
I never said I was called a communist. In the 70's, if you were against the govrenment (ie: a hippy) you were considered 'red', an anti-American communist. We're right back there.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...but since the "Patriot Act" all supports the war, therefore the Bush administration is seeing anti-war sentiments against their agenda, and therefore unpatriotic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All cheerleaders are pretty. Sally is pretty. Is Sally a cheerleader?
The Bush administration implies that all those who support the war are patriots. John is a patriot. Does John support the war?
This is regaurdless of the fact that the content of the act itself doesn't deal with patriotism at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Bushes passes the patriot act, the title of which assumes 'If you love the country, this law is here to protect you'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Loving your country and NOT being a terrorism suspect are different things.
Say, for instance, you don't love your country. Does that mean you are trying to secure Uranium and will then be caught by upped survalience? Nope. not at all.
I don't agree with the Patriot act either, but to use it as the basis to argue that you've been called unpatriotic by the president is a stretch.
Depends if you think that being opposed to homosexual marriage is being intolerant.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least it did, until our government used terrorism as an excuse to take a bunch of them away. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you for real...? We haven't lost any rights that we normally haven't lost in a period of wartime.
And if you are such an oppressed fellow I hear N. Korea is accepting promising young individuals <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, ye old "If you don't like america then you can get out" argument. A favorite amoungst the ignorant. This is my country damnit, I consider it my duty as a citizen to try and do something about its problems. Thats why I'm not running off to some other country.
I swear, the next time a conservative complains about paying for welfare I'm going to use that line, just to turn the tables on them for once.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are you for real...? We haven't lost any rights that we normally haven't lost in a period of wartime.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't recall losing any rights during the first gulf war. And though I didn't live through it I can't recall any rights that were lost during korea or vietnam. So when was the last time we lost rights because of war?... Best I can think of is when we shoved the japanese in camps WWII.
And even if I'm wrong in the above statement (and I very well might be) does that make it right? Seriously, just because it has happened before doesn't mean that its ok for it to happen again. By that logic it would be ok to enslave african americans again. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, I hate it when people even vaguely relate something to us losing rights or some kind of trash like that. There is no sense in bashing something like that without a remedy. Or, at the very least, name a right we lost!
Second, the korean war was basically the begaining of the cold war, enter the time of nuclear threats, not going to communist countries, etc. etc. (there are tons of examples, esp. the whole "Living in Fear" thing)
Oh and people still argued about the same crap back in WW2 as they do now:
<img src='http://www.tfaoi.com/am/8am/8am204.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://www.tfaoi.com/am/8am/8am206.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://www.tfaoi.com/am/8am/8am205.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
And these were done by Dr. Suess. That gives you an idea how popular these common day issues were becoming.
Next on display, see how the "evil government men want to take away your freedoms through fear!"!:
<img src='http://www.wordiq.com/knowledge/images/1/14/Come_unto_me%2C_ye_opprest.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
This was the first red scare, 1917, and the fear americas had by the disorder of it all.
The red scare then lead on to prosecute people who really didn't do anything wrong but may have been linked to communism. (Patriot Act going after possible terrorists? Except the patriot act is much more lame compared to the red scare, as people's lives were ruined if they were even linked with communism, people who are possible terrorists have nothing more than an inconvience)
Now in vietnam, besides the obvious (the draft!) you also had masses of student protests all over the country. Many had different reasons but as far as "abuses" of our freedoms:
<img src='http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0010/images/h-selma.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Here is a cartoon about police abuse, notice the nazi helmet in the background. There were many civil marches against police abuse.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about the right to consult with a lawyer, for starters. Granted, this only applies to "suspected terrorists", which, IIRC, the PATRIOT act is sufficiently vaugue in defining as to lump the WTO protesters into that group. Give me a minute to find the link that points out the other rights it removes. Heres a start:
<a href='http://www.truthout.com/docs_02/09.09C.ap.rights.p.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.truthout.com/docs_02/09.09C.ap.rights.p.htm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Second, the korean war was basically the begaining of the cold war, enter the time of nuclear threats, not going to communist countries, etc. etc. (there are tons of examples, esp. the whole "Living in Fear" thing)
ect.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So I was wrong about that part. I said I probably was, I'm not a history buff and most of those things happened before my time. That still doesn't explain why it is OK to do it NOW.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I mean if you don't invade Iraq and they DO have nukes, then Bush would have gotten hell. Likewise if he did invade and they DIDN'T have nukes, Bush would have gotten hell. I suppose he weighed the decisions carefully and decided a few soldier deaths were better than cities of innocents dying by the hands of a ruthless dictator.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about giving weapons inspectors enough time to do their job before invading. How about back-channel negotiations to avoid as much bloodshed as possible.
It's not just about dead soldiers, many have lost limbs and are in constant pain. Cities of innocents dying...theirs or ours? Now that Iraq has been destabilized there seems to be no end of car-bombings etc. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh yeah, 13 years of negotiations and inspections JUST AREN'T ENOUGH TIME PPL!
And I guess I missed the part of the US killing entire (aka nuking them was in the original post) cites. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Inspections just before the invasion were actually working, with the highest level of Iraqi cooperation I might add. I hope none of your children (assuming you have or had any) die by playing with an unexploded cluster bomb. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They were working?
Look, the reason the inspections were working towards the end was because the USA was putting a LOT of pressure on them in the first place at the time, so they "started" to coorpirate in order to buy time. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
In other words the threat of force (and not the use of force) was sufficient.
Buying time for what? To develop the "death star" and get that army of jedi-clones going ?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least it did, until our government used terrorism as an excuse to take a bunch of them away. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you tell me any instance since 2000 where you couldn't do something that you could do in 1999? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...
Get a job and not have to worry about some Indian taking it? Or worry about the CEO running off with billions leaving me without any money whatsoever?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I fail to see how outsourcing of jobs is the result of increased government limitations on rights.
In other words the threat of force (and not the use of force) was sufficient.
Buying time for what? To develop the "death star" and get that army of jedi-clones going ? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Threats of force are pointless if the opposing party calls your bluff.
As for the buying time arguement. Saddam was at his weakest at that moment. There really was no other time to remove him without greater loss of life.
Had Saddam been able to regain complete control over his country we would have had a dictator, with a country and a grudge against the Western world. Not a good idea when he is sitting next to a country thats export is what makes our military work.
In other words the threat of force (and not the use of force) was sufficient.
Buying time for what? To develop the "death star" and get that army of jedi-clones going ? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Threats of force are pointless if the opposing party calls your bluff.
As for the buying time arguement. Saddam was at his weakest at that moment. There really was no other time to remove him without greater loss of life.
Had Saddam been able to regain complete control over his country we would have had a dictator, with a country and a grudge against the Western world. Not a good idea when he is sitting next to a country thats export is what makes our military work. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
We already demonstrated force with Gulf War I.
Saddam is not stupid, he's a survivalist. That's why he hid in a little-hole as opposed to dying in some glorious battle with the "infidel". I highly doubt he'd move in any direction that would get him squashed (the situation that you alluded to).
He just underestimated the fact that Bush had his eye on Iraq - for dubious reasons - and that no amount of weapon inspection activities would suffice.
In other words the threat of force (and not the use of force) was sufficient.
Buying time for what? To develop the "death star" and get that army of jedi-clones going ? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Threats of force are pointless if the opposing party calls your bluff.
As for the buying time arguement. Saddam was at his weakest at that moment. There really was no other time to remove him without greater loss of life.
Had Saddam been able to regain complete control over his country we would have had a dictator, with a country and a grudge against the Western world. Not a good idea when he is sitting next to a country thats export is what makes our military work. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We already demonstrated force with Gulf War I.
Saddam is not stupid, he's a survivalist. That's why he hid in a little-hole as opposed to dying in some glorious battle with the "infidel". I highly doubt he'd move in any direction that would get him squashed (the situation that you alluded to).
He just underestimated the fact that Bush had his eye on Iraq - for dubious reasons - and that no amount of weapon inspection activities would suffice. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saddam destroying his WMDs with no proof is like you going to class, and instead of handing in your 40 page thesis paper you tell the professor it's on your computer at home, but "I swear I did a really good job on it, can I have my A now?"
IM SADAMN AND I HAVE A WMD WITH CAPABILITY TO ATK ANYONE I WANT. (This is what bush's intelligence said)
USA atks me and what do i do with my WMD. I shove it up their **** and press the red button thats what i'd do.
Sadamn had no real weapon capability there was no missiles firing coming from iraq when US invaded. He didnt pass over any weapons to terrorists because if he did they would of used them by now. Face it there never were any WMD's and sadamn had no intention of making any because he knew if he did try something and the weapons inspectors found out the UN would rape him. He couldnt stop Bush with his personal vendetta atking him and his people(you think sadamn is happy at the 20k+ innocent iraqis killed by the US invasion, and before u say **** about sadamn killing his own people, he atk'd terrorists camps on his soil of islamic extremists, he was having his own little war on terrorism he also stopped civil war from happening by doing so, which by the look of it USA cant stop now they've taken sadamn out of power).
For those who still believe Bush won the stupid debate.
All the more reason for people like you not to have WMDs at your disposal, for the amount of lives that would be lost as a result.
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/10/iraq.02/also.butler.html' target='_blank'>Why inspections weren't cooperative...</a>
This didn't just happen once or twice. This happened for 12 years! What makes you democrats so certain they were willing to cooperate?
Shortly before America was to invade Iraq, Iraq started cooperating. The ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was given, and while he didn't show any signs of following Bush's ultimatum, he started letting inspectors in. Now, you could say that he was being a generous old man finally getting around to what he couldn't for years, OR you could say that maybe Saddam was doing this as a destraction. He was hoping we'd back off and say: "Oh, so you're being cooperative now. Okay. We'll throw out our ultimatum because we know you will give us full cooperation." (and I might add that he had the rest of the world believing this)
Bush had no intentions of throwing down his ultimatum. He wanted Saddam out, and that was exactly what he asked for. Makes USA look horrible because Saddam started cooperating towards the end, but I promise he would have continued to be uncooperative if we stopped. It was a joke. He was using the investigations as a tool to make the world delay their invasions. How can this not be evident?
IM SADAMN AND I HAVE A WMD WITH CAPABILITY TO ATK ANYONE I WANT. (This is what bush's intelligence said)
USA atks me and what do i do with my WMD. I shove it up their **** and press the red button thats what i'd do.
Sadamn had no real weapon capability there was no missiles firing coming from iraq when US invaded. He didnt pass over any weapons to terrorists because if he did they would of used them by now. Face it there never were any WMD's and sadamn had no intention of making any because he knew if he did try something and the weapons inspectors found out the UN would rape him. He couldnt stop Bush with his personal vendetta atking him and his people(you think sadamn is happy at the 20k+ innocent iraqis killed by the US invasion, and before u say **** about sadamn killing his own people, he atk'd terrorists camps on his soil of islamic extremists, he was having his own little war on terrorism he also stopped civil war from happening by doing so, which by the look of it USA cant stop now they've taken sadamn out of power). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Complete trash man, please don't rant.
1. Chemical weapons don't need to be destroyed, they can be sold, moved, buried, hidden, etc. etc. wake up
2. Saddam wouldn't use weapons on us because he'd rather do something like win the long fight by bad media? Instead of justifying "Bush's" war he'd rather remove the reason we used it to invade, and instead use the idoits that plague our countries that would rather spend all day attacking our country as opposed to fixing it.
"Pacificts are nothing more than useful idoits." - Joeseph Stalin
3. Not only did we have extensive intelligence that Saddam could produce WMD's, but we also sold back to him in the 80's:
- Not only did we sell him WMD's (and I'm sure we still have the reciepts) but
- I'm sure we gave him enough info to <b>produce</b> his own as well.
Anything else to add?
As for chemical labs and storage facilities what happened to them? did he bury them i know he cant sell them ;.;'. What about all those pictures of mobile chemical labs as train units we were given as an excuse (we're having problems locating chemical weapons + labs so heres teh purty picture of a train lab we invented). They werent demolished, if there was a wierd looking building getting demolished in the dessert im pretty sure all those satelites covering iraqi soil would of recorded something.
Those weapons sold in the 80's were all confinscated by the weapon inspectors to them those receits were a checklist and they got through that well before bush deceided to goto war.
Cnn might say this and that but read the reports of the weapons inspectors not the heavily censored media hype about how sadamn is such a bad man. Im not saying it was an easy smooth job for the weapons inspectors but well lets just see we've found nothing they said nothing was there, they got the job done didnt they? so they couldnt of been that retricted.
Anything else to add? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sold, moved: tracked by satellite. Buried, hidden, etc.: dug up using the same intelligence gathering strategies we used to dig up Saddam. His top scientists are some of the most eager to cooperate in the first place. If you read the reports issued by the Bush administration, or at least the summaries of the reports, or at least listen to what the Bush administration is saying, or at least listen to the talking head's clever quips about the summaries of the reports, you would realize that there really were no WMDs and no significant infrastructure for producing them.
How many times do different sources within the administration have to say it, how many different investigation committees have to be appointed by the government before you are convinced, especially when they all say the same thing?
The WMD defense is no longer a sufficient defense for the war, as evidenced by the Administration's distancing themselves from it.
Just because there may be a paper trail doesn't make it obvious.
Lets say that mulitmillion dollar transaction is listed as: Administrative costs - wages and benefits for Iraqi Health Administration. Money is easily laundered.
One of the easiest ways to get around sanctions and such is through diamond sales. This is one of the reasons why I personally will never purchase a diamond. How the heck are you going to trace a handful of diamonds?