Temperature at which the brain begins to die

[KodeShark]

I posted this before, but it was in the wrong place So here....check this out

What temperature does the brain begin to die?

Click Here to find out!

[demotivater]

I saw that the other day. It'll be nice to see Moores bs exposed for what it really is.

[Ex-FB]

Much as I dislike Moore, that was pretty thin on substance. One quote (possibly taken out of context?) from him.

Hardly undermining stuff. I would prefer to see an expose of the obvious staging of some of the Farenhiet 9/11 scenes etc.

[KodeShark]

A big bowl of nachos

Me and my dad watch politics all the time. Kerry really shot himself in the foot....baaaaad....he gave the election to Bush lol....(I probably just pissed a lot of people off). That video shows the truth behind, not only Moore, but also the extreme left. (Saying they like dictatorship if they provide free healthcare...forget about the fact that he kills people in public and does what he wants when he wants without being governed by the people. If they like dictatorships so much...they should go live in one for a while...)

[demotivater]

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Much as I dislike Moore, that was pretty thin on substance. One quote (possibly taken out of context?) from him.

Hardly undermining stuff. I would prefer to see an expose of the obvious staging of some of the Farenhiet 9/11 scenes etc.

Hopefully, it's an actual full length deal countering Moores film. Can't view the trailer at work, but from what I remember, I didn't get a clear impression wether it was actually going to be shown at theaters or not. I'm sure it will be the right wing version of a left wing "documentary" *cough*, but hopefully it will be more truthful than Moores film. At least, I hope they back up what is presented.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
A big bowl of nachos

Me and my dad watch politics all the time. People think it's kinda weird for me to be so informed (I'm only 17). I think it's interesting. Kerry really shot himself in the foot....baaaaad....he gave the election to Bush lol....(I probably just pissed a lot of people off). That video shows the truth behind, not only Moore, but also the extreme left. (Saying they like dictatorship if they provide free healthcare...forget about the fact that he kills people in public and does what he wants when he wants without being governed by the people. If they like dictatorships so much...they should go live in one for a while...)

Again, I can run around, get a couple of quotes from folk and then present it as representing millions of peoples views.

I think that the Bush campaign is deliberatly trying to skew the whole Saddam thing. Very few people are sad to see him (Saddam) removed from power (apart from the couple of wackoss they show on the trailer), rather it's the simple fact that it was one of the worst moves possible if you want to combat terrorism. And yet Bush keeps saying the world is a better place without Saddam. I don't believe it is. By attacking Iraq without obvious provocation he has handed Osama a massive recruiting tool (not to mention removing one of Osama's avowed enemies - Saddam).

Unfortunately, much as I dislike Moore for his misquoting of facts, I feel much the same about this show. Whatever happened to honest reporting of facts without politicaly based interpretations being fed to the viewer.

[KodeShark]

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Again, I can run around, get a couple of quotes from folk and then present it as representing millions of peoples views.

I think that the Bush campaign is deliberatly trying to skew the whole Saddam thing. Very few people are sad to see him (Saddam) removed from power (apart from the couple of wackoss they show on the trailer), rather it's the simple fact that it was one of the worst moves possible if you want to combat terrorism. And yet Bush keeps saying the world is a better place without Saddam. I don't believe it is. By attacking Iraq without obvious provocation he has handed Osama a massive recruiting tool (not to mention removing one of Osama's avowed enemies - Saddam).

Unfortunately, much as I dislike Moore for his misquoting of facts, I feel much the same about this show. Whatever happened to honest reporting of facts without politicaly based interpretations being fed to the viewer.

Well, I said extreme left. (The extreme right is just as bad) I am not really too sure about pulling Saddam out of power was a bad thing, I think it was something that did have to be done. Iran (I presume) will be next...The stories of WMD's are building in that country too. (By the way, we didn't go to Iraq because he was a big bad dictator, I think it was more of the reason he was harboring terrorist.

I got more on my mind....it's just really hard to get out because I've been programming all day.

(Let's try to keep this thread from turning into a flaming contests...Reasonable debate shouldn't be too hard...considering most of the people who even give a crap about politics are older.....lol....)

[Foxer]

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
(Let's try to keep this thread from turning into a flaming contests...Reasonable debate shouldn't be too hard...considering most of the people who even give a crap about politics are older.....lol....)

You're a moron if you think that'll happen any day soon.

[KodeShark]

lol. And about politics....what am I thinking

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
Well, I said extreme left. (The extreme right is just as bad) I am not really too sure about pulling Saddam out of power was a bad thing, I think it was something that did have to be done. Iran (I presume) will be next...The stories of WMD's are building in that country too. (By the way, we didn't go to Iraq because he was a big bad dictator, I think it was more of the reason he was harboring terrorist.

But that's the whole point, he wasn't harbouring terrorists (or certainly not Al-Queida one's. Osama was a deadly enemy of Saddams. If you want to go after all countries harbouring terrorists, why not go down to Boston and start arresting IRA sponsors? The war on Iraq not only gave Osama much needed breathing room, but actually strengthened his hand, IMHO it was an incredibly stupid move.

As for Iran, this is one of the reasons the world has become less safe with the removal of Saddam. Bush labelled three countries as the Axis of Evil (Iraq, Iran & North Korea) (Which is kinda daft given that Iraq and Iran are mortal enemies as well.. but enough of that). Is it any suprise that both are now pursuing the Nuclear bomb as the only means of defence against America? If you hadn't got bogged down in Iraq, which county would be next on Bush's little world conquest plan? He has destabilised the whole world. North Korea or Iran would be insane not to be actively building an atomic bomb as a means of defense. If Iraq had such a weapon then I bet the US wouldn't have attacked. And I'm sure these guys are thinking the same thing..... way to go....

It's noteable that not only do you not go after China, but they are one of your biggest trade partners....

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
I got more on my mind....it's just really hard to get out because I've been programming all day.

(Let's try to keep this thread from turning into a flaming contests...Reasonable debate shouldn't be too hard...considering most of the people who even give a crap about politics are older.....lol....)

I wasn't flaming you in any way shape or form. Sorry if you felt that I was. I don't do that sort of thing, I onlycome here for the free beer.

[KodeShark]

no no I know you weren't flaming. I mean people like to flame. I didn't mean you were flaming. I was worried about someone coming here and flaming. So far it is reasonable discussion.

I do agree that the world is a bit ..... destabilized.... but what should we have done? I mean...N.Korea and Iran would be building nukes anyways...( I'm not sure why we went after Iraq...Iran and N.Korea are exact same, brutality-wise)

Are you saying we should have gone after N.Korea or Iran first? And you are right about China...They are huge....army is brutal...and they are big time trade....lots of economy there...


edit:
free beer!? WHERE?

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer

I do agree that the world is a bit ..... destabilized.... but what should we have done? I mean...N.Korea and Iran would be building nukes anyways...( I'm not sure why we went after Iraq...Iran and N.Korea are exact same, brutality-wise)

Are you saying we should have gone after N.Korea or Iran first? And you are right about China...They are huge....army is brutal...and they are big time trade....lots of economy there...

I'm saying that we should have gone after the real threat (Osama Bin Laden). Apparently the man is guilty of 3,000 odd murders yet we don't bother persuing him and get distracted by Saddam? That to me is criminal.

N. Korea have stated that they restarted their nuclear program after seeing that Iraq got attacked, (no matter how much they tried to appease Bush by decalring missiles etc.).... I doubt if N. Korea had reason to build nukes before hand... neither did Iran. Nuclear weapons are expensive and not really a good idea for an offensive weapon (given the massive world retaliation they would invoke), but man, they're probably about the only thing that would make Bush think twice. N. Korea certainly can't use nukes against south Korea, as this is the land they are trying to reclaim. They daren't use them against China..... so why would they persue them, for the same lauded reason that the West has always used them... defense. Sorry, as an outsider, I see one massive agressor in the world, one mad dog, crazy for the taste of blood, and I'm afraid it's Bush. Sure, there are far more evil people in power around the world, but the fact is that this particular warmonger is in charge of an army sufficiently strong to actually use it. How would you view matters if this was North Korea invading countries, to oust a dictator and put in a form of government which matched their ideals..... I'm betting you would see them as war mongers. Why then the suprise whent he rest of the world views the US in this way too?

Okay, imagine this. There are a number of nuclear powers in the world, all capable of destroying any country they choose. Now, these self same powers say that no one else can have nuclear weapons. Fair enough. But then, these self same "civilised" powers start kicking over the other regimes which don't have nukes. Why would those regimes not arm themeselves with the bomb? Apparently, it's the only way left to protect themselves from Bush.

To further this discussion, you might argue that everyone swore on scouts honour that they wouldn't develop the bomb, and that should be good enough. Yet Bush is actively persuing a Battlefield nuclear bomb, so the guys that already have it can make it more effective, yet those who don't have to stay in the dark. If you were a foreign power, what would you think of this double-talk. Also, there have been no repurcusions against Pakistan, India or Isreal for getting the bomb, but they're fine, 'cause they're mates with the West, so really, if you're a foreign power and you don't get the bomb, you're going to be the next Iraq.

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
edit:
free beer!? WHERE?

Sorry, gary drank the last of it....

[KodeShark]

I'm saying that we should have gone after the real threat (Osama Bin Laden). Apparently the man is guilty of 3,000 odd murders yet we don't bother persuing him and get distracted by Saddam? That to me is criminal.

We never stopped looking for him, we can do 2 things at once~

I doubt if N. Korea had reason to build nukes before hand... neither did Iran. Nuclear weapons are expensive and not really a good idea for an offensive weapon (given the massive world retaliation they would invoke)

They would do enough damage to be worth the retaliation that was invoked. I mean...these guys would target the biggest, most populated city to do the most possible damage to us....physically and mentally. And that would put us at a disadvantage~

But I do see where you are coming from lol. My thing is. If we didn't go after them. Why wait for them to come after us? We had to do something about the terrorist. We had to have access to Iraq to hunt them down. We weren't just going after Bin Laden. We were going after all of them (which is never ending and stupid to begin with). But none the less it is something we must do because they will come after us. The U.S.S Cole back in the early 90's and the WTC in the early 00's. When do we fight back??? We can't just let them keep getting away with it.

And yes if I were Iran or N. Korea...I'd DEFINITLY be building one because it's already hitting the air that Bush is going to go after them too (diplomatically first, then, if it must be, war). I kinda like Bush so it's kinda bias...coming from me~

Sorry, gary drank the last of it....

Gary must DIE!! Or he could just buy more

[Xcoder]

Originally posted by demotivater
but hopefully it will be more truthful than Moores film. At least, I hope they back up what is presented.

on an election year? yeaaahhh riiiiight....

[demotivater]

Ex-FB, you've got to be kidding me? N Korea and Iran had no reason to build a nuke until the US invaded Iraq? That's the craziest thing I've heard all day, and I had three meetings today. So, a nuclear weapons program can begin and produce a result in the span of less than 2 years? C'mon, put the glass down.
Granted, on paper, we should have gone after Iran first. But, as we all know, we don't get the whole story. Perhaps Iraq is a stepping stone in a bigger plan? And not going after Osama, giving him breathing room? Not sure how much breathing room there is in his cave?? C'mon. That's just stupid to say.
As far as nukes not being an offensive weapon, of course they aren't if they are actually used. But the possesion of a nuke is a huge offensive weapon. The buildup of nukes brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union. Offense without firing a shot (not including the shots inside the mouths of the men and women of intelligence services).
I can't go on, you've driven me to drink. (more)

[KodeShark]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by demotivater

Ex-FB, you've got to be kidding me? N Korea and Iran had no reason to build a nuke until the US invaded Iraq? That's the craziest thing I've heard all day, and I had three meetings today. So, a nuclear weapons program can begin and produce a result in the span of less than 2 years? C'mon, put the glass down.
As far as nukes not being an offensive weapon, of course they aren't if they are actually used. But the possesion of a nuke is a huge offensive weapon. The buildup of nukes brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union. Offense without firing a shot (not including the shots inside the mouths of the men and women of intelligence services).

lol. I agree. I didn't think about that (nukes being a great "persuasion" on other countries...especially USA.) Unfortunately, Saddam would have been crazy enough to use them....unlike the USSR.

Granted, on paper, we should have gone after Iran first. But, as we all know, we don't get the whole story. Perhaps Iraq is a stepping stone in a bigger plan? And not going after Osama, giving him breathing room? Not sure how much breathing room there is in his cave?? C'mon. That's just stupid to say.

Not only that. But we ARE still looking for him. Just because the press doesn't get info on it, doesn't mean its not there. "Loose lips, sinks ships"

Origianally posted by: Ex-FB

I'm saying that we should have gone after the real threat (Osama Bin Laden). Apparently the man is guilty of 3,000 odd murders yet we don't bother persuing him and get distracted by Saddam? That to me is criminal.

I over looked this. Is Iraq not a real threat??? I beg to differ
.

[Ex-FB]

Okay lots of good points, so I'll try and address them all.

Re: Not looking for Osama Bin Laden. If you poured all the troops into Afghanistan I'm pretty certain you would have him by now. Instead they're off in another country creating more terrorists. I'm betting Al-Queida was on it's knees before Iraq, now they've got no end of fresh recruits for their cause.

Re: Saddam not a threat and N. Korea having the bomb etc.

Simple human nature dictates that every person (unless barking mad) has a reason for their actions, especially major ones.

Do you think Saddam woke up one day and decided to invade Kuwait? Do you think he randomly gassed the Kurds? He had his reasons (sick and dispicable though they are), but he stood to gain something out of it. Which is the crucial driving force. What would he stand to gain by attacking the US? What would N. Korea stand to gain by attacking the US? Or Iran? What is their motivation to do such a thing? I'm not saying their sweet and innocent, I'm just saying that they are at present being backed into a corner where they have to develop the bomb as the only way to detter the blood thirsty Bush from attacking next.

As for Saddam being a threat, come off it. How exactly was he a threat. His non-existant WMD? His ongoing war with Al-Queida?

What makes it okay for your country to start invading other countries, yet if anyone else did it you would say it was wrong? Is it better for someone to die from an American bullet than a Palestinian one? Face facts. Invading Iraq created an army of anti-American terrorists. It was a dumb move.

Re: Nukes being an offensive weapon.
Again, are you so self centred that you believe that North Korea is going to sacrifice itself just so it can nuke an American city? What motivation would they have to start a nuclear war, one which they would lose in minutes.

America has a number of enemies around the world, very few of them are prepared to actually act upon this hatred and start a shooting match. Quite simply your biggest enemy is Al-Quieda. How do you react to this threat? You invade two countries (one of which has no link whatsoever to Al-Quieda) and strengthen the terrorists hand. You have given justification to their cause, and the next time (god forbid) there is another horrific attack on US soil I doubt if there will be the massive outpouring of world sympathy that 9/11 evoked. The mnner in which you attacked Iraq has alienated many of your closest allies and shown your hand as blood thirsty conquerers (in the eyes of many muslims). The attack on Iraq gave Osama Bin Laden the moral support he needed to continue this fight.

[KodeShark]

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Okay lots of good points, so I'll try and address them all.

Re: Not looking for Osama Bin Laden. If you poured all the troops into Afghanistan I'm pretty certain you would have him by now. Instead they're off in another country creating more terrorists. I'm betting Al-Queida was on it's knees before Iraq, now they've got no end of fresh recruits for their cause.

Re: Saddam not a threat and N. Korea having the bomb etc.

Simple human nature dictates that every person (unless barking mad) has a reason for their actions, especially major ones.

Do you think Saddam woke up one day and decided to invade Kuwait? Do you think he randomly gassed the Kurds? He had his reasons (sick and dispicable though they are), but he stood to gain something out of it. Which is the crucial driving force. What would he stand to gain by attacking the US? What would N. Korea stand to gain by attacking the US? Or Iran? What is their motivation to do such a thing? I'm not saying their sweet and innocent, I'm just saying that they are at present being backed into a corner where they have to develop the bomb as the only way to detter the blood thirsty Bush from attacking next.

As for Saddam being a threat, come off it. How exactly was he a threat. His non-existant WMD? His ongoing war with Al-Queida?

What makes it okay for your country to start invading other countries, yet if anyone else did it you would say it was wrong? Is it better for someone to die from an American bullet than a Palestinian one? Face facts. Invading Iraq created an army of anti-American terrorists. It was a dumb move.

Re: Nukes being an offensive weapon.
Again, are you so self centred that you believe that North Korea is going to sacrifice itself just so it can nuke an American city? What motivation would they have to start a nuclear war, one which they would lose in minutes.

America has a number of enemies around the world, very few of them are prepared to actually act upon this hatred and start a shooting match. Quite simply your biggest enemy is Al-Quieda. How do you react to this threat? You invade two countries (one of which has no link whatsoever to Al-Quieda) and strengthen the terrorists hand. You have given justification to their cause, and the next time (god forbid) there is another horrific attack on US soil I doubt if there will be the massive outpouring of world sympathy that 9/11 evoked. The mnner in which you attacked Iraq has alienated many of your closest allies and shown your hand as blood thirsty conquerers (in the eyes of many muslims). The attack on Iraq gave Osama Bin Laden the moral support he needed to continue this fight.

As we learned in World War II, containment is not an option for a leader who has demonstrated no regard for human life, save his own and is willing to use terrible force on his own countrymen as well as his neighbors. He can't stay in power. He isn't a threat to the US. We would squash him (as we demonstrated in the Gulf War). He is a threat to neighboring countries and his own people.

I am glad to see that the left is actively opposing this war/action. I believe that this is a healthy expression of the freedom of America. One of the problems with the American Left, though, is that they are a rag tag collective of various special interests. At any rally you will see a collective of pacifists, American Socialists, PETA, minority groups, greenpeacers, human rights activists, and the American Communist Party. In most cases they are people who have good intentions but are highly misguided. And they are now creating a more defiant Saddam Hussein.

On Monday (Feb 24, 2003) Hussein was openly defiant of the UN indicating that he would not destroy the missiles which exceed the range allowed in the resolution that ended the first Gulf War, while challenging President Bush to a debate.

Once this operation is complete we will learn about many atrocities that have been carried out in Iraq, unfortunately the same group of special interests will then complain that we did not do enough to stop the suffering under Hussein.

[Xcoder]

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer

At any rally you will see a collective of pacifists, American Socialists, PETA, minority groups, greenpeacers, human rights activists, and the American Communist Party. In most cases they are people who have good intentions but are highly misguided.

Care to explain in what way you think they are highly misguided?

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer

Once this operation is complete we will learn about many atrocities that have been carried out in Iraq

[sarcastic rant]
committed by hussein or the US troops?
[/sarcastic rant]

What attorcities are you referring to? carried out by whom?

If you mean saddam hussein we already knew he was a criminal dictator, if you mean biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, a year and a half has passed and where are they?

[KodeShark]

Care to explain in what way you think they are highly misguided?

Big government never solves any problems~

committed by hussein or the US troops?

Why do you think so little of the U.S. Army? My brother serves in the Army and I'm going to be serving in the Airforce. Don't bring up Abu Garab prison....They had panties on their head....so what? Their heads weren't chopped off on television....you wouldn't judge the US military by one handful of people would you? (by the way, they were discharged and prosecuted .)

If you mean saddam hussein we already knew he was a criminal dictator, if you mean biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, a year and a half has passed and where are they?

Who cares. He didn't comply with 17 UN resolutions~ He had his chance The could be buried underground....in Syria...Why dont you ask the relatives of the people that were gassed? (Also note: We just captured the mastermind behind the nuclear weapons program he was running....it's just a matter of time)

Have you not seen the masquerade ( people got their hands cut off because they accepted money from the wrong person. What if your mother was raped by Uda Hussein? Public assasination for not agreeing with him .

edit:
Look. I don't like war any more than you do. But something had to happen~ We can't just sit and let more attacks come. Going after Iraq, (soon Iran and maybe N.Korea) is something that had to be done. They hold terrorist and/or are MAJOR threats. Dictatorship is not right. Big government is dangerous. I have to agree with the war because it was an inevitable war. Better to deal with it now than later.

The reason dictatorship is dangerous is not because it is different from a republic (which seems to be most of the replies so I'm saving the threadspace), but it is because they believe in military force, rather than diplomacy.

P.S. We tried to deal with Iraq diplomatically, as did the UN. He didn't comply, so we did what we had to.

[Ex-FB]

So while your righting wrongs why just focus on Saddam. What about Isreal, let's go after them, and Jordan, and China, hell, let's go after the US, after all they seem to qualify. Invaded 2 countries recently. Hold prisoners without trial (Guatanamo bay). People being tortured and killed in their prisons (Abu Gabi). Avid supporters of terrorism (IRA money). By your own standards you should be bombing yourselves..... oh, but I forgot, it's okay when you do it isn't it because you can justify it with phrases like

"Saddam Hussaein was in violation of the UN treaty" - Yes he was, but even the head of the UN has said that wasn't grounds for an attack.
"The prisoners in Guatanamo Bay are enemy combatants" - a made up phrase to mean are held without trial or access toa lwayer.
"But Guatanamo Bay is out of our juristiction" - er ***, you put them there.
"But the Taliban harboured Osama Bin Laden" - as I recall they were still asking to review proof that he was behind 9/11 when you attacked - would the US hand over a person to a foreign power for prosecution without proof.
"Abu Gabi was an isolated incident" - Isolated or not - you can't ignore the effect it has had on the local population.
"The IRA are freedom fighters." - No, they're blood thirsty terrorists.
"Saddam was evil" - Yes he was, but I would argue that it's not worth killing >5,000 people and creating a whole pile of terrorists just to bring him to justice.
"Containment never works" - Er, actually it does. Look at most of the middle east. Look at Africa. It works fine. As for the Hitler statement, well no one was trying to contain Hitler before WWII.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer



edit:
Look. I don't like war any more than you do. But something had to happen~ We can't just sit and let more attacks come. Going after Iraq, (soon Iran and maybe N.Korea) is something that had to be done. They hold terrorist and/or are MAJOR threats.

Where were the terrorists in Iraq? There weren't any.

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
Dictatorship is not right. Big government is dangerous. I have to agree with the war because it was an inevitable war. Better to deal with it now than later.

Better to deal with it diplomatically. What was the rush, why was Bush so eager to use his military might.

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
The reason dictatorship is dangerous is not because it is different from a republic (which seems to be most of the replies so I'm saving the threadspace), but it is because they believe in military force, rather than diplomacy.

Er, aren't the States the instigators in the last two wars..... it kinda looks to me that they're the one's who believe in military force...

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
P.S. We tried to deal with Iraq diplomatically, as did the UN. He didn't comply, so we did what we had to.

No you didn't. You did what Bush was itchin' to do. The war in Iraq served no purpose but to strenghten Al-Quieda's hand.

Actually, I think there are lots of times when war is the best answer, but this was certainly not one of them.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Big government solves many problems, it's just that the right has been on this line for so long that people start to believe it. Would you like to get rid of big government? Let's look at some of the things they bring us:

Interstate highways (Eisenhower started it, with obvious cold war rational)

Social Security (may be gone by the time we retire, and I'm not so young).

Rural electrification and phones: I forget the name of this agency, but it may have finally disappeared. If you live in the country, this is why you have electricity, because there is no way in hell it's cost effective to give you power, so no company would do it.

Public health: Any number of immunization and disease suppresion programs. Medicare (may still be around when you retire, and you WILL use it unless you manage to be very rich).

Space Program:No real benefit here....unless you use GPS, Sat phones, other phones....etc.

Military: We tried state by state militia.....it failed, and is utterly unworkable now.

Environmental Issues: I grew up in NH. Without a central government going after the air polluters upstream, that place would be a wasteland (see Lehigh Gap, PA for an example)

I could go on, but you get the point.


You can bet Iran and N Korea will not be next. We can't afford it without a draft. Already there are governors complaining to Bush about the use of National Guard troops and reservists on extended overseas deployment. They are complaining because they are hearing it from their constituents, and they are much closer to the ground than Bush.

As for going after evil dictators rather than containing them, we did not learn that lesson in WWII, because we immediately began containing the worst one of them all: Stalin. There was never an intention of going after him (though Patton wanted to) even though he was killing his people, and going after us at the same time. We do contain, and it works...it just takes decades.

Furthermore, as I have said before, the US is being very selective about which ruthless dictators it goes after. We have army troops stationed in Uzbekistan, and the ruler of that country is probably worse than Saddam.....but we need him, so nobody hears about what he is doing to his people. We didn't hear anything bad about Saddam, either, until we didn't need him anymore. The time we needed him was the time he was gassing the Kurds, so we didn't say anything then. Now we can, because he's just in the way, and not essential. Just hyposcrisy. Don't learn history, you'll find out that there is another side to this story. You remember the 80's the way I remember Watergate...or maybe even less, you would have been pretty young. I remember the Iran-Iraq war, and the hostage crisis. Saddam was on our side then, because we were saying "Bomb Iran", and he was.

Speaking of that, David, I'm glad you're interested in politics. I was deeply involved at your age, since my mother was my elected representative. I actually read bills (duller than all git out), and hung out at the state house. Politics is not what you see on the news from the left or the right. When you are actually in it, it is more of a game, and what we see is the result of many little forces pulling in many different directions.

[Xcoder]

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
Big government never solves any problems~

what does that has to do with all those organizations?

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer

Why do you think so little of the U.S. Army? My brother serves in the Army and I'm going to be serving in the Airforce. Don't bring up Abu Garab prison....They had panties on their head....so what? Their heads weren't chopped off on television....you wouldn't judge the US military by one handful of people would you? (by the way, they were discharged and prosecuted .)

well, the abuses in that prison go far beyond panties in their head.

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer

Who cares. He didn't comply with 17 UN resolutions~ He had his chance The could be buried underground....in Syria...Why dont you ask the relatives of the people that were gassed? (Also note: We just captured the mastermind behind the nuclear weapons program he was running....it's just a matter of time)

Have you not seen the masquerade ( people got their hands cut off because they accepted the wrong money. What if your mother was raped by Uda Hussein?

but the US has also captured all the other cards in the deck, and has contact with Saddam's relatives, and still no WMDs....why?


and what does my mommy has to do with this madness?

[Shaggy Hiker]

And let's not ask about your daddy

Big Government is generally the right's code word for "Get rid of the federal government." They tend to go on about the evils of taxation, and how we would be better off without the government. They conveniently overlook how much they benefit from having the government.

[demotivater]

Quick point

Where were the terrorists in Iraq? There weren't any.

Al Zarqawi (sp) was in Iraq prior to the US liberation recovering from a wound he got in Afghanistan. Iraq was crawling with terrorists before we got there.

[Shaggy Hiker]

So IS Saudi Arabia. Al Zarqawi is Jordanian, though. Jordan is a pretty decent place, but there are bad apples everywhere.

If you read Generation Kill (which is pretty good reading, even the right wingnuts would enjoy it...till their lips got tired), there is a chapter towards the end where the marine recon unit that the book is centered on, goes to Saddam City (now Sadr City). The point I took from it was that the kind of stuff we see now was pretty much inevitable. There was a huge amount of anger, more than the bulk of Americans ever see, and they were just looking for some target to vent it at. We happened to be available.

You get some people beat down far enough, and their response is at a pretty low and immediate level. You don't see much of that in America, because the bulk of us never really see hardship, so we can be civil. They live hardship. Lots of unrest, with no civil constraint. Good ground to grow the type of people who just want to strike out at whatever oppression they perceive. Then all you have to do is tell them what to perceive.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by demotivater
Quick point



Al Zarqawi (sp) was in Iraq prior to the US liberation recovering from a wound he got in Afghanistan. Iraq was crawling with terrorists before we got there.

Really? Could you post some proof that Iraq was crawling with terrorists. It seems to have been missed by most of the US press, but Osama Bin Laden is an avowed enemy of Saddam and had repeatedly decried him as a heretic and wanted to replace Saddams regime with a proper Muslim one. It was pretty obvious to anyone who knew anything about the situation that Al-Quieda wouldn't be in Iraq except to be fighting Saddam.

[mendhak]

And a quick question to DavidProgrammer:

You sure your opinion isn't biased just because your brother is in the Army? I've been observing this a lot.

[KodeShark]

Originally posted by mendhak
And a quick question to DavidProgrammer:

You sure your opinion isn't biased just because your brother is in the Army? I've been observing this a lot.

This is true. But I still agree with different things on both sides. I'll post some examples tomorrow...I'm a bit tired tonight~

(Thanks for the post mendhak..kinda cooled the topic down )

[demotivater]

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Really? Could you post some proof that Iraq was crawling with terrorists. It seems to have been missed by most of the US press, but Osama Bin Laden is an avowed enemy of Saddam and had repeatedly decried him as a heretic and wanted to replace Saddams regime with a proper Muslim one. It was pretty obvious to anyone who knew anything about the situation that Al-Quieda wouldn't be in Iraq except to be fighting Saddam.

Maybe your just reading the wrong papers.

per your request

[KodeShark]

This is from me by the way (check your pm's).

Al Zarqawi is Jordanian

This doesn't take away from the fact that he was in Iraq...

Big government solves many problems, it's just that the right has been on this line for so long that people start to believe it. Would you like to get rid of big government? Let's look at some of the things they bring us:

I wouldn't want to get rid of it. Just keep it at a reasonable size. I can only give one example (my youth cripples me because I don't know as much history) but the welfare program. It crippled the African American community by making them dependent on the government. Instead of wondering how they can make money, they are wondering how they can find loopholes to get money from the government. You see more African Americans than you do Caucasians in the suburbs. Why? This country isn't racist...or bigoted... In fact I think it is against the law to not hire someone based on the color of the skin....

There is a saying when something like this is brought up:

"Have you ever had a job from a poor person?"

[lokespas]

Originally posted by demotivater
[B]Maybe your just reading the wrong papers.

lol that´s the funniest thing i have heard all week...

[Wally Pipp]

Why aren't you invading Saudi Arabia?

Terrorists? *check*
Funding of radical islamic groups? *check*
State imposed islam fundamentalism? *check*
Al-Quaeda links? *check*
Played a part in 11/9? *check*

But oh no, they're our partners and providers of the black gold so our hope rests on the shaky and fragile Saud family ...

Or Pakistan?

Terrorists? *check*
Radical islamic groups? *check*
Dictator at the helm? *check*
Weapons of mass destruction? *check*
Al-Quaeda training camps? *check*

etc ... as long as they are our "friends" we let them go about their business quietly.

Once Bin Laden was considered a "friend", once Hussain was considered a "friend" ...

So excuse me when I no longer buy your humanistic, altruistic, let's-make-this-world-a-better-place evangelical bullshit.

[demotivater]

I'm all for invading Saudi Arabia. They aren't nearly as squeaky clean as we're supposed to think. They do, however, allow us on their soil, as do the Paki's. And it's there we were able to stage for Iraq. I'm sure they're on the list, albeit way down at the bottom.

I don't know if that was directed at me, but I'm not selling anything, and I'm not evangilizing (word?). And I'm certainly not altruistic. The only way I could think to make the world a better place is to destroy half of it without knocking it off it's axis.

[davebat]

are you in the army demotivater?

[demotivater]

I'm a member of the Elite Army of Programmers here at work. It's an army of one.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by demotivater
Maybe your just reading the wrong papers.

per your request

Er, this was the most reliable source you could find was it

But okay, let's look at the points.

* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.

He also lived in the states, does that makes the states complicit in the attack? This is a very tenious link.

* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

Yes, this is the same intelligence that reported the country littered with WMD.

* Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.

Which has since been reported as the Iraqi's telling Bin Laden to stay out of Iraq.....

* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.

Donald Rumsfeld also met Saddam Hussain, does that mean they're best buddies.

* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

And this is wrong because? Besides, if the first post was correct they were already helping each other out in the early 90's.... so which is it to be?

* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.

The Guardian is a rag.

* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.

Again, a link of communication is not a link of support. The US had representatives going back and forth with Iraq before the war?

The conclusion drawn from these reports is wishful thinking I'm afraid. If I was to use this logic I could "Prove" that Bush was behind 9/11 (I don't think he was, but I'm pointing out how flawed the logic is).

[demotivater]

Okay, so where's your proof there were no terrorists inside Iraq until the US invasion?

[Shaggy Hiker]

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer

There is a saying my dad says to me when something like this is brought up:

"Have you ever had a job from a poor person?"

I gotta say, I haven't a clue what that means.

And just in case you were unclear on it, racism is alive and well in this country. I'm in that group of people that doesn't get discriminated against by anyone: Tall, white, men. One thing about that is that nobody watches what they say around me. Sometimes I just let their racist rantings roll off me, sometimes I lay into them over it, but I hear plenty of it.

I also happen to live in Mormon coutry, and worked for a Mormon for several years. In most ways, he was a really nice guy, but that was mostly if you happened to be white. That regligeon did not remove their official racism until the 70's, and they still say that the Caucasian race was created superior to all others.

From what I have seen, poverty begets poverty, and welfare has nothing to do with it.