MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

1) We are losing Afghanistan back to the Taliban.

2) We have lost Somalia.

3) We are Losing in Iraq.

4) We cannot stand up to North Korea or Iran.

5) We have no Credibility among aour allies.

6) We "captured" a group of clowns in Miami who were ENTRAPPED by some moron from Homeland Security posing as a member of Al Quaeda. I predict acquittals. These idiots couldnt find the local sears let alone the sears tower.


Gee, I sure feel safe with this gang in power.

Well all good things must come to an end

Beware of the sleeping Giant China,they will soon be the most powerful country in the world

Iran, North Korea, China....give me a reason to sleep good at night.

Well maybe some one should tell Mr Bush to mind his own buisness,and concentrate on running his own country

forget winning n losing all these battles do we even relize how man innocent people are being killed everday women and children. george bush is just a glorified hitler. he is eliminating one religion just as hitler did, how is this not a genecide or how is he not considered a major war criminal. may george bush burn in hell

Bush isn't Hitler. I don't respect the President, but he aint the Fuhrer.

dontomasso, I don't know WHERE you get your information, and I've already conceded on this Board that you are a lost cause, so whatever you post here doesn't affect me personally, and doesn't change the fact that GW was right to go into Iraq.

But do yourself a favor and get your head out of the sand.

You'll feel alot better...someday.

Apple

but he is killing off a religious group which he hates for no reason just as hitler did. hitler was a horrible man dont get me wrong but george is giving you bullshit for y all these people have to be massacred. i mean the guy bombed afghanistan for a MONTH killing people that have no reason to be killed espcially in the fashion he's doing it. and now in another country killing those people. how is this even justifiable. i mean imagine non stop for 30 days everything around you and your home including your family being destroyed and mutilated. 9/11 is happening everday over in Iraq. say what u want but to me this man is man may not be hitler but he itching closer. y do they always assassinate they the ones fighting for better things for this country n let this moron hang around 8 years.


Iraq

Deaths

What made it right for Bush to invade Iraq? Is it because of their attack on this country (if you're asking "what attack?" right now, that's good, because so am I)? Or because of the WMDs? or to "promote democracy" (which is what we should be doing in Africa right now)? I think we've almost run out of excuses to invade Iraq. Then again, we could always invade Afghanistan, the people responsible for 9/11. I guess it's the United States once again proving that they can't tell brown people apart.

how???

Again, for those who can read and comprehend...see attached for Iraq War Resolution, agreed to by Democarts and Republicans alike..and without which Bush could've done nothing.

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html

For those who cannot (or will not ) both read and comprehend...well, then keep posting your ignorance & hatred if it keeps you happy. There's not much the rest of us can do about it.

Best,
AppleOnYa

I can see where this thread will end up

Ya, but apparently this board loves those repeating records....

If there are any countries which should be invaded, then it are Soedan, and definitely Congo.
Congo is the representation of hell on Earth.
Too bad no Western countries have any benefits from a Congo without famine, war and hell.

I'm sorry, but this is just a completely ignorant statement. You may hate the man, and that's fine, but the correlation you're trying to draw is nothing short of ridiculous.

Amen to that! I would see no problem with invading Congo.

Unfortunately, it's kind of too late now. We need to get out of this federal debt, and I can't see Bush accomplishing any financial wonders unless it involves cutting spending on some kind of program.

And who's fault is that? When the President of Afghanastan, a man who was elected and is supposed to rid his country and his government of remanents of the Taliban with the help of the coalition forces, comes out and says this : Its not acceptable that hundreds of Afghans have been killed in the recent offensive against the Taliban in four southern provinces. Even if they are Taliban, they are the sons of this land." how is it our fault? Obviously by making a statement such as that, when he is supposed to be a part of the war on terror, he is empowering those who are still left to stand up and fight. His statement that they are "sons of this land" gives them the encouragement to attempt to recapture and control the country. How is this President Bush's fault?


And exactly why did we lose Somalia? Is your memory that short? Or have you conveninetly forgotten that it was President Clinton who failed miserably with his foreign policy in Somalia? It was he who did nothng when our Marines were dragged through the streets after being tortured and maimed! It was Bill Clinton and his administartion who abondoned those people of Somalia.


Says who? You? The Liberal media? While I fully recognize
that our men and woman are getting killed over there, and I don't like it one bit more than you do, I wouldn't say that we are losing Iraq. All I hear from the left is how we are losing the war, how we haven't accomplised anything over there and how the administration has no plan. But three years after those same people who voted to go into Iraq and now get on their political soapboxes to talk out against the war, I have YET to hear an idea, a plan or a suggestion from them. All they seem to do is remind our men and woman who are fighting there everyday that they cannot win this war. And you've managed to get in line right behind them.


We can't? We haven't? Gee, that's news to me. If the leaders of those nations thought in the same manner as you do, then tell me why they haven't made a move against us already? I'll tell you this though ; if we were to cut and run from Iraq in the manner that the liberals want us to, then Iran would be inside of Iraq within a day of our leaving. Iran is flexing it's muscles and making these threats against the US in hopes that people such as yourself support and elect those representatives in this country who after 3 days in office would cut and run. It's what Iran is hoping that our country does. Then they'd
make their move. You can bet on it.

Who, France, Germany, Russia? Gee, that makes me want to go out and beg them for their forgiveness. :rolleyes: But that's ok Don T. You don't have to mention the other twenty something nations out there who have given us their full support through all of this. I guess from your side of the fence, those countries don't count.


So because they are homegrown, and are not part of Al Qaeda, then their being caught doesn't count on the scoreboard for us? According to you it doesn't matter that they were looking to purchase the items they needed to carry out their mission. According to you it doesn't matter that they thought that they had hooked up with an Al Queda operative that would help them get this job done. :rolleyes: That's ridiculous Don T and you know it. ENTRAPPED! It's amazing how without knowing the facts, the liberal left such as yourself immedeatly assumes that these people have been or are being set up! Is that reaction from the lawyer side of your brain or the liberal side? You immedeatly yell ENTRAPMENT! No facts, no details, but you draw your conclusion. The when someone here posts a news story about a terrorist being captured, and we yell "Lock him up!" You and your liberal buddies cry that we are rushing to judgement without the facts! Well isn't that what you've done here? No difference at all. But then again, when it suits your cause, it's ok, but when it doesn't is entrapment and unconstitutional.


Hey, you ever hear of the Taliban, their provision of Al Qaeda training camps and September 11th 2001? Do you live on this planet?


Don Cardi

You should :

DISRUPTED PLOTS SINCE 9/11

West Coast airliner
In mid-2002 the US disrupted a plot to attack targets on the West Coast of the United States using hijacked aeroplanes. The plotters included at least one major operational planner involved in planning the events of 11 September 2001.


East Coast airliner
In mid-2003 the US and a partner disrupted a plot to attack targets on the East Coast of the United States using hijacked commercial aeroplanes.

Jose Padilla
In May 2002, the US disrupted a plot that involved blowing up apartment buildings in the United States. One of the plotters, Jose Padilla, also discussed the possibility of using a dirty bomb in the US.

2004 UK urban targets
In 2004, the US and partners disrupted a plot that involved urban targets in the United Kingdom. These plots involved using explosives against a variety of sites.

2003 Karachi
In the spring of 2003, the US and a partner disrupted a plot to attack Westerners at several targets in Karachi, Pakistan.

London Heathrow Airport
In 2003, the US and several partners disrupted a plot to attack Heathrow Airport using hijacked commercial airliners. The planning for this attack was undertaken by a major 11 September operational figure.

2004 UK
In 2004, the US and partners, using a combination of law enforcement and intelligence resources, disrupted a plot to conduct bombings in the UK.

2002 Gulf shipping
In late 2002 and 2003, the US and a partner nation disrupted a plot by al-Qaeda operatives to attack ships in the Gulf.

2002 Straits of Hormuz
In 2002, the US and partners disrupted a plot to attack ships transiting the Straits of Hormuz.

2003 tourist site
In 2003 the US and a partner nation disrupted a plot to attack a tourist site outside the United States.

2004 Herald Square Subway Plot
A Pakistani immigrant is arrested and charged with plotting to blow up New York City's herald Square.


And that's all that they've told the public about so far.


Don Cardi

Are you implying that Bush should be assassinated?


Don Cardi

I don't think it's possible to top what Don Cardi has so eloquently done (do I detect a bit of my clever quips in Cardi's oh-so-succinct responses? ) by squelching the usual suspects in this "thread."

And kudos to RRA, for pointing out that some like to imagine this board as a broken record; unfortunately, the needle hasn't worn down. Apologies to those born after the mid-80's, since that last reference probably went way over your heads.

---

Allow me to recollect to a magical time they called the latter half of the 70's...

1.) The Middle East is growing increasingly unstable, and may create future problems for our nation and the world.

2.) Our President blames the American people for our nations problems and claims we have a "crisis of confidence" in his public speeches.

3.) Our President drafted his advisors from a bunch of Georgian cronies who know nothing about the political system but are surely corrupt and filling their own coffers.

4.) Interest rates have skyrocketed to record-highs, exceeding twenty percent, as our economy experiences stagflation and the nation's confidence sinks down the tubes.

5.) American is in the midst of an historic energy crisis, and our President tells us that we can "weather the storm" by "wearing sweaters."

6.) Fifty-three Americans are being held hostage by the ruthless Iranian government while our President sits idly by watching while they are in grave danger.

Gee, I sure feel safe with Jimmy Carter in power. :rolleyes:

Judging by your grammar, I'm not sure what kind of education you've had, but regarding your knowledge of historical facts, you are painstakingly misinformed.

Hitler killed more than Jews, you must realize. He killed Soviets, Poles, Czechs, Slavs, and a plethora of others, and not all were Jews - some were homosexuals, criminals, spies, or just people he didn't like.

Should I get out the worlds-smallest violin again? Do we really want to have a debate on the Pilgrims and Native Americans or Indians throughout American history?

Because I don't mind getting out the belt.

And, yet again, as I've said about a thousand times to you specifically before, France/Germany/Russia/etc. aren't doing anything right now. Why don't they get off their asses and stop this problem? In fact, let's start with who created the problem - your native Belgium, who were some of the best at exploiting the Congolese, no?

"Don't hate me because I'm beautiful,"
Double-J

And, yet again, as I've said about a thousand times to you specifically before, France/Germany/Russia/etc. aren't doing anything right now. Why don't they get off their asses and stop this problem? In fact, let's start with who created the problem - your native Belgium, who were some of the best at exploiting the Congolese, no?[/b][/quote]And for the 1000th time, where did I said I only blame the USA? I said, 'all Western countries'. By which I mean, Western Europe, Russia, Australia, USA, and Canada.

Congo is Africa's fifth largest oil producer. The majority of Congolese crude production is heavily reliant on foreign personnel and technology. Most of Congo's crude oil exports are destined for Western Europe and the United States.

Congo contains an estimated 3.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves, the third largest in Africa. In 2002 Chevron invested $32 million in the building of a gas fired power plant in Congo.

So you're gravely mistaken if you believe that the Western World does not want stability in that region of the world. It is quite obvious that stability would be very beneficial to the Western world.


Don Cardi

I'm certainly no Bush-lover, but comparing him to Hitler is ridiculous.

I believe that for the most part his heart is in the right place.

I just don't think that he's all that intelligent, and that he's been misled by many of his advisors, he has a kind of mis-guided view of what the role of the U.S. should be vis a vis the rest of the world, he's way too self-righteous, and he's a bit too dependent upon his religion for guidance than I care to see.

But to say he's anything at all like Adolf Hitler....he has a long way to go before that would be a fair comparison.

That's where you underestimate him, as have so many liberals.

That's simply 'projection'.

It it to your credit though, that you admonish the comparison to Hitler.

Apple

And, yet again, as I've said about a thousand times to you specifically before, France/Germany/Russia/etc. aren't doing anything right now. Why don't they get off their asses and stop this problem? In fact, let's start with who created the problem - your native Belgium, who were some of the best at exploiting the Congolese, no?[/b][/quote]And for the 1000th time, where did I said I only blame the USA? I said, 'all Western countries'. By which I mean, Western Europe, Russia, Australia, USA, and Canada. [/b][/quote]I happen to think that if you're going to mean the superpowers, or members of G8, or the 1st-world nations, then you should say that specifically. To saw "Western" nations tends to imply the West, which typically wouldn't include Russia, Australia, etc., but only the US, Canada, and Mexico, and almost always refers specifically to the USA.

This is one thing I've always questioned, since it seems like there is either two choices in a President - an amoral President who goes to the Cathedral in D.C. for show (Clinton), or a President like Bush who expresses his faith and is deemed a zealot.

I'm just wondering - what particular view, if any, makes you think he's "too dependent on his religion," since most of the stances (Gay Marriage, Abortion, Stem Cells) aren't exclusive to religious beliefs or interpretations.

"One nation under God,"
Double-J

The Hitler comparison made by that member is just too outrageous to even answer as far as I am concerned.

I have to agree with you on some of your points though, and the ones that I don't agree with you on probably come down to the different way that you and I perceive him.

I agree that some of his advisors leave a lot to be desired. And while a a part of me admires him for his willingness to speak out about God and his deep beliefs in him, there is also a part of me that feels that on certain occassion he brings his beliefs in God into the mix when there really is no need to.

There is no question, at least in my mind, that his heart is in the right place.

Now where I disagree with you comes down to the way that you perceive him versus the way that I do.

While there is absolutely no question that his speaking abilities, when addressing the public or the press can really use some sprucing up, I also see that on some occassions he really speaks from his heart and not his script.

I think that many times people such as yourself and the press mistake his confidence for self-righteousness or cockiness. I sincerely believe that he is a very confident person who really believes that his ideas and his plans are someday going to make the world a better place for all. I truely think that President George W. Bush is a compassionate man who sincerely wants to see the people of the middle east, and the world for that matter, live in a democracy. I feel that deep down he really believes that America, with him leading it, can eventually make this happen.

I don't think that he is a stupid man at all and I see him as a confident man, (yes with very weak public speaking skills) who had the vision and the foresight to see where this world was headed based on how the middle east was shaping up with people like Saddam in power, and the rise of Al Qaeda, The Taliban and terrorist organizations like that.

His vision to democratize the central part of the middle eastern world, was one that I believe truely came from his heart and soul.

His compassion was evident in the days and months after 9/11. One would have had to been blind not to see the hurt and the pain that he felt for this country and it's people in his first State Of The Union Address immedeatly after 9/11. It showed in his eyes.

And I also felt that when he made his state of the Union Address announcing that we were going to start a bombing campaign in Iraq because Saddam refuse to meet the deadline for getting out, he labored about making such a decision and it took it's toll on him. He looked very hurt and distraught when he made the announcment that we had to go inot Iraq, his eyes showing the pain of having to finally come to that decision to 'give the order' to attack.


The eyes Chico, they NEVER lie!


Don Cardi

DC, this is where we disagree. I think that the President's campaign against Iraq came from a personal vendetta, to finish up what his father didn't. Imagine if the first President Bush had actually listened to Schwarzkopf and given him the extra time he asked for, to finish the job properly?? I wonder what the future would've held.

Although I do feel he embraced the nation after September 11th and was grateful for the unified front that we as a people offered him, I think that he made a mess of Homeland Security, which was a golden opportunity to create an agency capable of real achievements. Instead, it became an agency run by political cronies that were not equipped to deal with their responsibilities. A real waste, IMHO.

What exactly in your opinion were their responsibilities?

Would it have anything to do with Don Cardi's earlier post...entitled : DISRUPTED PLOTS SINCE 9/11 ?

As for that 'personal vendetta' reason, you've given it before and it's quite unrealistic. While the attempted assasination plot against Former President George H.W. Bush IS listed as one of the points in the Iraq War Resolution (have you read that yet?), it is certainly not THE reason G.W. went to war. Even if he were NOT the father of the current President, he is a former president whose life was threatened by a foreign government. Also, according to George Stephenapoulus in his book 'All Too Human', President Clinton also launched the first series of air strikes against Hussein...'in defense of the president he had defeated.'

From the book:
"Two months earlier, Kuwaiti authorities had arrested fourteen men for planning to place a 175-pound car bomb in the parth of former President Bush as he received an award in Kuwait City. Immediately after the arrest, Clinton ordered the FBI and CIA to determin if this assasination attempt was authorized by Saddam Hussein. The official report was due on June 24, but we already knew that the investigation had established a link between the bombing suspects and the Iraqi Intelligence Service."

Also from the book:
"It's a small, select club, a peerage, the few men alive at any one time who have served as president. What unites them, ultimately, overwhelms partisan differences or even the bitter memories of past political battles. Only they know what it's like to be president - to order troops into battle.....to sit alone in the Oval Office late at night and contemplate the imperfect (emphasis added) choices that are the stuff of history."

And true, in effect GW is finishing what his father started, however it is in part due to the fact that Saddam violated many if not all of the resolutions he agreed to in order to remain in power after being defeated in the Gulf War, which was Bush 41's answer to Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

So what GW is really finishing is what Saddam Hussein himself started, would have finished given the opportunity, and which between 1993 and 2000 (during which time there were MANY attacks against the USA both at home and abroad), the Clinton Administration and many of their Dem pals including John Kerry were quite vocal in claiming what should be done (about Saddam, that is)...but were too cowardly to carry out.

(Thanks in part to the idiotic contributions of Madeline Albright - talk about being 'misled' by advisors...)

Thank GOD for George W. Bush.

AppleOnYa

You're right. If it wasn't for him Dick Cheney would be president.

Actually, SC...if it wasn't for G.W....AL GORE would be President!!

For I'm pretty certain that Gore would've handily defeated John McCain....without the necessity of even a single recount.

Apple

Sorry, misunderstanding. I always have learned and used the terms 'West' or 'Western countries' as referring to Western Europe and USA/Canada. Maybe it's indeed better to refer to the G8, or the industrialized countries, or the rich countries.

Nevertheless, I still think the rich countries should help the poor, and ALL the poor, not only those where stability comes in handy. I know I've played this violin too many times for JJ, but these boards consist out of nothing but violins so...

Okay, fair deal. But then, why isn't anyone doing anything for that country? There was a war between 1998 and 2003, with 4,000,000 deaths. No one did something. After 2003, another half millions deaths only caused by violence.

You're right. If it wasn't for him Dick Cheney would be president. [/b][/quote]

As far as Bush goes, he is certainly no Hitler. He is dumb and he has the wrong goals and a bad intern policy and a bad global policy and he even does the wrong things to reach his goals which were already bad.
But that's caused by ignorance, stupidity, a clouded mind and bad advisors, not by an all-out almost biologically determined evilness like Hitler.

Apathy? I mean, you have to admit, nations like the ones we've called "allies" (Germany, France, Russia, etc.) have done a pretty good job at keeping their hands out of the dirt for some time now, allowing the U.S. to do the dirty work and then lambast them when something goes wrong.

I dunno. I'd think a bad intern policy is getting caught, and that wasn't Bush, but Clinton.

Best,
DJ

But come clean, Enzo...tell us what you really think of the President of the United States of America, Chief Executive, Leader of the FREE WORLD!!

Oh, that's right...he's no Hitler.



Apple

At least he isn't Hitler... :p

I know. Germany, France and the UK are fuckers, too busy worrying about a bunch or racists in their own countries. Italy? :rolleyes:

Others said he was. And because of my anti-Bush thinking, I had to say I am not like other lefties who think he's right there with Hitler. You don't want to suspect me of opinions I don't have, do you Apple.
:p

What will the future bring us?

Aha! And this should be your epiphany.

You denounce the West (G8?) for not acting in the Congo...and yet you've just acknowledged salient internal/domestic problems that each has to bear which, as you've alluded to, are significant dilemmas for each individual nation.

You also forget the Russians and Chechnya. :p

However, forgive me for wondering why the French Islamic problems are keeping the UN from actually doing something. :rolleyes:

Yes. They are too busy with things that shouldn't even be problems, while the real problems are out there, somewhere else.

And I just learned a new word: epiphany. Thanks!
What exactly does it mean?

Like what?

Considering the U.S. (and the other coalition nations) are fighting global terrorism and warring in two countries, I should think those other countries mentioned as well as the UN would be able to spare their armies or begin some earnest action to stop those African issues. But again, it isn't worth it for them to get their hands dirty. With people like Kofi Annon making money off the oil-for-food scandal, why would they care about Congolese genocide?

---

Epiphany

Best,
DJ

I think certainly the cartoonish people on these boards are the extremist partisans, from Person A, who while in the middle of hating terrorists for doing awful things to our troops, then launched on an attack on Democrats, while Person B just compared Bush to Hitler.

Really, can't we just have crazies of both sides just locked away on some island?

Like what? [/b][/quote]Wrong finance of social security and a lacking view about immigration. And every political party in Europe is spending half of his time worrying about all the votes the extreme-right parties of every country get.

Exactly.
I think Kofi's the same as Bush. Good intentions, but wrong actions.
Anyways, global terrorism is also African terrorism , not only Jihadi terrorism. Not talking to you JJ, but people in general tend to forget that.

Well I partially agree with you SB on the point about a personal vendetta. Only I don't believe that his personal vendetta was the deciding factor in his decision to go into Iraq. Yes, it may have played a small part in that his thinking was that he now had the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. After all Saddam had taken a contract out on his father's life. And any human being would want revenge on someone who ordered the death of their father. Wouldn't you?

But I absolutely do NOT believe that it was the major deciding factor in our going into Iraq.

As for your statment about his father not listening to Norman Schwarzkopf, well you along with several others have made that assertion in the past. However I must remind you that when the gulf war took place, it was done WITH the approval of the United Nations and under the laws and the supervision of the United Nations. And had George Sr. wanted to assassinate Saddam at the time, he could not do so because he would have needed UN approval. And at that time of the Gulf War, the UN rules stated that Saddam was a UN recognized President of a country. Therefore under UN rules a nation cannot assassinate a president of a country that is recognized with the UN. Had Bush Senior ordered the killing of Saddam, he would have broken all UN rules and would have subject himself to being brought up on trial in a world court and charged with war crimes.

So it was out of father George's hands at the time.

Perhaps that is why President Bush Junior told the UN to see where they had to go when he petitioned them to take action against Saddam and they refused. He probably did not want to have his hands tied the way that his father did had the opportunity arose where he could have Saddam killed.


Don Cardi

The cause for wars is irrelevant to the populace. Its the results that matter.

If America had, somehow, won Vietnam, would people give a spit about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and other shit done at the time to get more direct American military involvement in the region?

Again, look at the Spanish-American War. If anything, the hysteria at the time with the U.S.S. Maine being blown up by a Spanish mine is now silly, since most believe an explosion, probably the engine itself, blew up. Of course, that is irrelevant, since the Americans went to war in April 1898, and a few months later, we got some nice islands.

Now at Iraq, are we winning? If we are, how close in direct measurements? Better yet, who else do we have to blow up?

Well it all depends on what you consider winning and how it is measured. But let me give you some facts :

According to UNICEF more than 2,500 schools have been renovated with the goal of 4,000 being completed by the end of the year. School attendance in Iraq has increased by almost 80% and more than 3 1/2 million children had been immunized since the removal of Saddam.

The Iraqi Ministry has reported that all 240 hospitals in Iraq as well as 2400 primary health care clinics have been restored to full operation since the removal of Saddam.

I believe that a constitution was signed over the past year and for the first time ever national elections took place giving the people of Iraq the freedom and right to pick their own leaders.

Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.

The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.

Sewer and water lines are installed in almost every major city.

Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.

Girls are allowed to attend school.


So again, it all depends on what you consider a measurement for winning the war. I'm sure that those Iraqi people who've have been given the benefit of all the things mentioned above, things that you and I take for granted everyday, will tell you that in their eyes the coalition forces are winning the war.


Don Cardi

I don't really think that its the same. Even if you disagree with the Iraq War, arguably most would concede that Bush's motives were good in trying to defeat terrorism, remove a genocidal dictator with WMD's, etc.

Kofi Annon stole money that was supposed to be going to the Iraqi people, and was involved in the corrupt business dealings with Saddam.

---

And as far as global terrorism goes, Somalia just appointed an Al Qaeda man to lead the government.

DC, I understand what you said about Saddam wanting to assassinate his father, but I don't believe that he should've taken it personally. I mean, his father was the president of the USA. That's a risk that comes with the job. That's what the Secret Service is for, isn't it? While he may have wanted to take his personal revenge, do you put a nation and an army of young men and women at risk to satisfy a personal vengeance??

"He'd have a very big Schwarzkopf,"
Double-J

The President’s $100 million East Africa Counterterrorism Initiative (EACTI) was implemented to combat terrorism, provide military training for border and coastal security as well as police training in Africa.

The Interagency Terrorist Finance Working Group which happens to be under the United States Department Of Defense has worked with African officilas for the past 3 years to fight terrorism in Africa.

So I don't know why you imply that The United States, some of it's people and The President have forgotton that global terrorism is also African terrorism.


Don Cardi

Absolutely not!

But as I originally said

Don Cardi

Perception. I have this impression every time Bush talks about his "War on Terror" he means Al Zawahari and his Jihadi fucks. But thanks for telling me about East Africa, didn't know that yet.

Perception. I have this impression every time Bush talks about his "War on Terror" he means Al Zawahari and his Jihadi fucks. But thanks for telling me about East Africa, didn't know that yet. [/QB][/QUOTE]


I think you mean presumption.

And you're very welcomed.


Don Cardi

I deliberately posted this on Saturday to see the level of debate, and overall it is excellent. All sides making good points worth debating. Of course we have this one exception here who cannot make a reasonable argument, si it takes a personal shot at me. While I respectfully disagree with many people and others respectfully disagree with me, this poster shows no respect, just its usual nasty, vituperative and bascially nasty nature. Perhaps some therapy is on order.

DC, as always, great points. I'd also like to point out how closely we were working with Arab nations at the time, especially Saudi Arabia, who certainly wouldn't have approved of us trying to depose Saddam. The first Gulf War had one purpose, to push Iraq out of Kuwait, and it was an outstanding success.

All these people monday-morning quarterbacking saying that we should have done this, or killed him aren't being realistic. They're trying to take a complex situation and turn it into a really simple one.

Thanks DC for the info, but what about enemy military forces?

That is what I'm interested in.

I don't understand your question and am not sure which of my posts you are replying to. Could you be more specific?

What information are you looking for about what enemy forces and in which situation?


Don Cardi

Okay, how many more people do we have to blow up that are part of the insurgency?

10,000? 5? 500?

Trust me, the Pentagon has assesments in regards to how many are in it, so you know DC?

I know?

You use the term "people" in your post and what you do is make it sound and imply that we are just arbitrarily blowing up innocent people. And the term "insurgency" makes it sound like these terrorists are minutemen fighting for freedom.

So I'll rephrase your question for you :

How many terrorists do we have to blow up that are a part of the extremist jihadist movement who's goal is to destroy all non believers?

As many bombs as it takes to eventually wipe these scumbags out or send them back to their caves.

Your question is one that really cannot be answered because it goes right back to my earlier assertions that the terrorists are not a part of a government, a military or a nation. So therefore it is almost impossible to estimate how many members are a part of their organization.


Don Cardi

So what do you think they are 'fighting' for, then?

So what do you think they are 'fighting' for, then? [/b][/quote]Well if you've read my political posts over the years in regards to the War On Terror, I think that I have been very clear as to what I think the terrorists are fighting for. If you've read my posts over the past few years you would not need to ask a question like that of me.

But out of respect for you I will indulge you once again and try to sum it up for you in one paragraph:

They're fighting for the extremist belief that all non Muslims are 'infidels' and are 'the great satans' who need to be destroyed. They are not fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi or Afghany people. They are fighting and attacking coalition forces and civilians out of sheer fanatasism and in hopes to just wipe out anything and anyone that does not adhere to their twisted and demented doctorine. They intentionally blow up innocent Iraqi and Afghany people in there fight. And no true freedom fighter intentionally blows up the poeple that he or she claims to be fighting for.


And being that you even had to ask me that question, after all that I've continually said here on these boards, I have to believe that you already have a different opinion than mine as to what YOU think they are fighting for.

So I ask you two questions ;

1) Do you consider the terrorists who are fighting our coalition forces in Iraq to be freedom fighters / minutemen type soldier?

2) What do you think that they are fighting for?


Don Cardi

enzo do u think that terrorrists are fighting for some kind of freedom? They are pieces of shit who dont deserve any kind of recognition because all they want to do is kill people and preach the twisted religious shit that they believe in.

we should show what humanitarians that we really are and give them their wishes by bombing as many of them as we could so that they could go to the 72 virgins that are waiting for them.


ds

Well, yes, they are fighting for freedom, I think.

But that doesn't mean I agree with their definition of freedom, and the way they go about it.

DC with all respect I think your questions oversimplify the situation.

There are real insurgents in Iraq. They are Sunnis from the old Baathist regime who are afraid they are going to lose their control of the country to the Shia;;; there are the Shia who have been the majority of the population who think they will get screwed again, and to a lesser extend some kurds who want an independent state. Many of these people do not trust the United States, and they believe we are there to occupy them forever (rightly or wrongly).

The Terrorists are another story. It is in their interests to keep the insurgency going. That is why Zarqawi blew up the Shiite mosque....to get the Shiites mad at the Sunnis.
The Al quaeda forces in Irag have no interest in building up that country, they want to see it devolve into chaos and force the US out.

At this point the US is in a very delicate position because we have to foster some trust among the groups of insurgents and do what we can to keep these people from having a civil war. I will not go into my usual diatribe about the stupidity of this operation, because we are there and we are stuck with it. I think the release of people from Abu Grahib was a good start, and I am encouraged by the offers the Iraqi Government is making about offering an amnesty to insurgents who will lay down their weapons. The only hope in Iraq is that the people there realize it is in thei best interests to put aside tribal differences and rebuild their country into what could be a rich, oil producing place.

The Al Quaeda there will do everything in theor power to make sure this does not happen, and slowly those people need to be found out, and executed. If we can get some of these militias to lay down their arms, it might get easier to determine who the minutemen are and who the terrorists are. I suspect there are fewer Al Quaeda there than we think.

DonT,

I fully understand that there is an insurgency in Iraq that are fighting for exactly what you point out in your post above.

However that does not mean that those who may have originally started out as insurgents, afraid of losing their country haven't resorted to 'terrorist' tactics. If some of these people sincerely started out as insurgents who were fighting to keep hold of their country, and eventually began to use terrorist tactics by carrying out suicide bombings in market places along with kidnappings that result in torture and beheadings, does that make it ok because they are NOT a part of AL Qeada? The bottom line is that too many of the anti-war newspapers, newscasters and public figures have thrown this fake covering over our enemies by trying to paint them as freedom fighters. Therefore many people have been tricked into believing that those we are fighting over in Iraq are NOT terrorists just because the Cindy Sheehans, the media in general and those in the public eye have replaced the term terrorist with insurgent.

Again, I realize that some are insurgents who are afraid of losing thier country to a foreign occupation, but where I have to disagree with you is when you said that there are more insurgents in Iraq than there are terrorists. I think that it is the other way around.

And just to clear this up, I believe that Enzo was talking about terrorists, and that is why I replied what I did to him and asked him what I asked.


Don Cardi

If these people didn't have a cause to fight for, then they wouldn't have anything to keep themselves busy. They live for doing just this type of thing, year after year after year.

I see your point, but I think it is the influence of people coming from Iran, Syria and God knows where else that is stirring it up tp the point that the insurgents will resort to these tactics.

What is scary is that we can draw a parallel between this and the scene in GF II where the rebel blows up the police captain and Michael realizes that "they could win" because the police captain is paid a salary, and the terrorist isnt.

God dammit dude. Did I call them "minute-men" or freedom fighters? Fuck no. Really, be silly politically with others' posts, but I asked you a simple question, and through your post, I assume your answer is.....you don't know. Why couldn't you simply admit honestly, as JESUS would do, that you don't know? I mean not like I would be a bitch against you, because hey, I figure you or somebody might know, but whatever.

BTW Don Cardi, look up "insurgency" in the fucking Webster Dictionary, which unless you want to call it a liberial media outlet, is what it is:

Main Entry: in·sur·gen·cy
Pronunciation: -j&n(t)-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
1 : the quality or state of being insurgent; specifically : a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency

Really, DC, I'm sorry if I write like I'm pissed, but when you warp your posts into assumptions about me, then you've lost me.

P.S. - What else should I call them besides "people"? Arabs? Ragheads? Camel Jockeys? Madmen? I could have simply listed them as terrorists or meatbags or water flesh or whatever....besides, can't people be both evil and good?

Grazie consigliere.

My opinion about the true goals of Jihadi terrorists is the same as yours on some aspects, but in some I disagree with you.
I kind of agree with what Capo said: the definition of freedom; which is not something that is totally, a 100% the same in all cultures and countries; is different for you than it is for Arabs in Syria, it's different for me than it's for Bush.

Anyways, to give a overall view of what I think I don't have the time these days, I'm busy and typing a text in English that is a bit longer than a one-line post takes some time for me. Maybe I'll give my opinion later...
I hope you understand.

Nowhere in the Qur'an is there any mention of the prospect of meeting with 72 virgins in Heaven after committing an act for the holy Jihad. Double-J stated that there actually is something like this in the Qur'an but that it's about 72 raisins.
I never read the Qur'an so I don't know what the truth is, but I know for sure no one (not even the craziest ultimate religious Jihadi bastard) would blow himself up just to fuck 72 raisins. :p
So I don't think they're fighting for raisins, and also not for virgins.

Enzo,

I understand what you are trying to say and I understand that you are busy with schoolwork, which needs to come first. But I look forward to what you have to say sometime in the future.


As for the mention of 72 virgins, well there is a passage that makes reference to that. I've posted an explaination in the past along with the section of the Quoran that it is in.

But like everything else this passage has been twisted by the extremists and made to suit their finatatical beliefs.

If I ever find the time, I will locate that passage for you and PM it to you.


One thing that I must say about you Enzo. At least you've shown that you can give an intelligent discussion/ debate without having to resort to the same old rhetoric, fingerpointing and whining that two others have done in this thread. I guess that they really cannot present a strong case for why they believe what they believe or stand up for what they represent, so it is easier for them to live in the past and wallow in something that they believe was 'stolen' from them when in truth it really wasn't because the people of my great nation voted in an election and put into office the ONLY man that was right for the job. TWICE!


Don Cardi

Is there really Koran scholars who believe that the passage is meant to imply 72 raisins? I've seen reference to this on the boards twice now, but I heard the thing about the raisins on a Robin Williams comedy album and thought he just made it up as a joke, judging from the laughter in the audience afterwards. It seems about as believable as many other facets of religion, so I suppose it could be true. Unless of course, someone just happened to hear the same sketch I did and tried to pass off the joke as their own. :rolleyes:

Stuff like this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.s html

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3502861

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html

I have no objection to the man being religious, but the thing is that "his" God may not be the "right" God or the "real" God, and the things that "his" God are telling him may be incorrect.

Also, while the issues you cite - Gay Marriage, Abortion, Stem Cells - may not be exclusively religious issues, I believe that the basis for people's opinions on those issues is grounded in their religious beliefs.

And there's a lot of middle ground between being amoral and a religious zealot - you don't have to be one or the other.

I personally am not at all religiously inclined, but that certainly does not make me amoral.

I'm not saying he's not intelligent, like thinking he's stupid.

I just don't think he's a man of exceptional intelligence, which I believe is a necessary requirement for a successful presidency.

And it's not only liberals - which I am absolutlely not BTW - who believe that.

Altho I very often disagree with don tommasso, finding him way too radical for my taste, sadly I must agree with him with his comments about how you consistently bring comments about the poster to the discussion, rather than comments about their posts.

But at least I can rest assured that although I choose not to engage in a pissing contest with you, I can out-piss you any time I care to.

With a few simple maneuvers I can alter the direction, distance, and intensity of my pissing, while you, unfortunately, are fairly limited in those areas to a simple and unimaginative flow in the same direction, with the same limited intensity, and always traveling pretty much the same distance, depending on how low you care to get to be closer to the target.

Welll it's just great to hear that I "admonish" ( ) the comparison to Hitler.

Now I can sleep tonight. :rolleyes:

Yet you refuse to admit one's mistakes.

To paraphrase what some green sci-fi puppet would say..."Wisdom, you don't have yet, padawan!"

The first link, as I understand, is a documentary by two men who are recounting what the President said in a meeting, not necessarily a quote by Bush. But okay, if he said that, sure, that likely seems excessive, especially to the anti-religious lot.

The second link puts some of his quotes back into context, and establishes the fact that Bush is a religious man, while putting it into perspective. And the article is probably correct - "That said, to speak frequently and directly about religion in a divided America can itself be divisive. But America is a country in which the place of religion in the public sphere has never been fixed, and probably never will be." When Bush speaks frankly about his religion, its no surprise that many (left leaning) people either purposefully go into hyperbolic wall of separation seizures, or simply dismiss him as a zealot.

The third link, again, is a rehash of the first, with someone claiming what Bush said in a meeting. How reliable is that? I don't know. Keep in mind that it is from a Palestinian viewpoint (which is by and large anti-American), as well as being printed by the Guardian, the left-leaning paper of the UK.

This (Guardian, yes those liberals! :p ) article helps to explain the misconception - it seems to be terrorist leaders warping the minds of their followers into believing in some sacred reward for suicide attacks.

The raisins I've mentioned actually came from a discussion at my Uni during an international relations seminar, where an Islamic professor mentioned the translations of 72 "raisins" (which isn't necessarily an original idea, many had been saying this since the 72 virgins idea was thrown about) and I've always thought it ironic if these terrorists were "rewarded" with a box of Sunmaid's if upon reaching Allah.

Listen, if you've read any of my posts, you know how I am with regards to citing facts and such. I'm not going to steal his material. Though it is funny, I admit.

A bit of self-denial, my friend?

"Bombs over Baghdad,"
Double-J

Didn't Bush once make a comment about how he was "doing God's work"?

That statement alone I find rather scary.

Even if he did, it’s his personal faith, which came in the package when he was elected.

I personally don't see that as a problem. Since the issues in question are not exclusively decided by the President's religious beliefs, then the whole idea that he is too dependant on religion for guidance it somewhat moot, as the process to determine policy likely takes into account far more weighted issues or standpoints (ranging from public opinion to international response).

"And no religion too,"
Double-J

I hope you're right about that.

But we don't really know for sure exactly what he bases many of his decisions on, do we?

Do we ever really know for sure what exactly any President bases his decisions on?

"Where Does Love Go When It Dies,"
Double-J

God Talks to Bush all the time. He also talks to Pat Robertson and Osama Bin Laden. I wonder if he is giving them all the same advice, or if he is just messing with them.

Thanks, I look forward to see it.

Do we ever really know for sure what exactly any President bases his decisions on?

No, but when a president tells me what he's basing his decision on - a belief that he's doing "God's Work", I'm troubled by it.

Suppose we had a president who came out and said that he was basing his decisions on the answers he was getting from a Ouija Board? Or a psychic?

There are people who believe in that stuff you know.

Bush is perfectly entitled to be as religious as he wants to be, and in the absence of proof tot he contrary I can't argue that there is no God, or if there is the Christian God in which he believes in not the "real" or "right" one, contrary to what other of the world's religions may believe.

But just as I can't argue that God does not exist, I don't believe that anyone can successfully make the argument that he does.

Which makes religion and a belief in God strictly speculative and a matter of faith.

And I would prefer a president who made decisions based on facts, not faith.

I believe many decisions in the Reagan administration were made by a psychic.

While Bush envokes how a president should be; strong, decisive. He lacks the polished personna that a leader of the GREATEST NATION on earth needs. Fact is John Kerry would have crumbled under the stress of being president. I can't belive that jackass even became the democratic canidate.

One thing I do find extremely ass backwards is how the Rebulicans want a less involved Central Government, yet they want to tell us who we can marry, who we can have sex with, what we can do to our own bodies, who is allowed to become an American, and what we can say, listen too, and read.

In fairness to the other side, some decisions in the Clinton administration were made using crystal balls.

Oh, wait, they weren't crystal. Never mind.

And then there is Dubya... I think he just uses crystals in general.

Actually those decisions were not made by balls, but you're close.

I believe many decisions in the Reagan administration were made by a psychic. [/b][/quote]Gee, I guess it would have paid off if some Democrats would have listened in the last couple of elections. :rolleyes:

Thus the battle of the dung beatles fighting for the elephant shit, continues.......see the thrilling next chapter, Part 67889, next week on the same channel!

An excellent point, vote Libertarian in 2008!

Actually, feel free to go fuck your male buddy in the bum. We don't care. At least have the common courtesy to wear protection. We just don't think you should be legally recognized in the sacred institution of marriage, that's all.

Second of all, I'm not really understanding your point regarding "who is allowed to become an American." I think you're implying the recent controversy with illegal immigrants. Boohoo. Come into the country legally, get a visa, apply for citizenship.

Finally, as far as what you can say, listen to, or read, try China. The U.S. still allows more personal liberties with regards to free speech - you can criticize the President, you can protest against the war, you can read anti-American books. Try that in Shui-Ban's country. See what you get.

Cheers,
Double-J

Actually, feel free to go fuck your male buddy in the bum. We don't care. At least have the common courtesy to wear protection. We just don't think you should be legally recognized in the sacred institution of marriage, that's all.

Second of all, I'm not really understanding your point regarding "who is allowed to become an American." I think you're implying the recent controversy with illegal immigrants. Boohoo. Come into the country legally, get a visa, apply for citizenship.

Finally, as far as what you can say, listen to, or read, try China. The U.S. still allows more personal liberties with regards to free speech - you can criticize the President, you can protest against the war, you can read anti-American books. Try that in Shui-Ban's country. See what you get.

Cheers,
Double-J [/b][/quote]Is marriage really such a sacred institution when divorce is still allowed?

Besides man, you ever been to Vegas or Atlantic City? You telling me a fucking drive-thru chapel or an Elvis church is sacred?

Marriage is just an institution that has been there for most of human societal history, along with law/order, "government", and so on. Thing is, is it sacred to you Double J because of religious reasons, or because its traditional? What about polygamy, or polyandry(several men tied to a woman)? Are you gonna fight the Mormons in Utah(though most don't actually follow polygamy anymore, of course there are still many hold-outs)

As for China....well ya, of course America is better than China. Do we have a new Master of the Obvious?

Thing is, America is a great place...but it can be greater. A nice person can be nicer. I've lost weight, but I could lose more.

Besides DJ, you remind me of a friend of mine. I once attacked I think Michael Mann's ALI as a nicely-shot, if so-so, picture. What did my friend say?

"So? Its still great compared to PEARL HARBOR"

PEARL HARBOR was a horrible movie, but ALI is still a decent/nothing spectacular film on its own. Comparisons are nice, but they can't be the only defense.

In a way DJ, when America had serious segregation against blacks, what was the defense of many when this was brought up in the 1930s and 1940s? "We're better than the Nazis or Mussolini, or those Reds"

Think about it DJ, but don't respond with a lame-ass wise-ass remark, or posting some stupid pic.

I would, but then I'm afraid the Knights of Columbus might come knocking on my door telling me I'd make a great candidate for the priesthood.

And who allows divorce? Certainly it is not considered kosher (pardon the pun) in Christianity or Judaism. The closest thing would be an annulment, which would be the Catholic way of saying "it never happened."

But nonetheless, the institution, traditionally, is one of sacred and everlasting vows. Just because today's society lacks the moral fiber or fortitude to entertain "'til death do us part" certainly shouldn't detract from an oath before God.

No, but again, the idea of marriage as a holy union that has been based on traditional principals. Just because you can get one with a Happy Meal doesn't make it correct (though why you'd want to swap genes with Ronald McDonald is beyond me).

True, most civilized societies have had a variety of religious rituals (though law and order certainly can be debated).

However, that being said, I think that in the case of Western traditions, it is not simply one particular facet of the culture, but an important moment that is/should be meaningful and spiritual.

Both.

What about polygamy? Probably shouldn't be legally recognized either (last time I checked, it wasn't).

No, but we certainly have a bunch of cretins who act like they are standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square the way they talk about how their rights to freedom of speech, what they can read, etc. has been restricted in America.

Maybe if we would have less people defending terrorists, dealing crack, killing babies, etc...(the list is infinite)

Well, since many people at the time were indifferent to the Nazi's (Joseph P. Kennedy comes to mind), one has to wonder what the hell you are talking about.

And the Bolshevik Revolution, scary shit, but not really scary until Joe McCarthy.

But anyways, what was the defense?


I can't help it if nonsensical or vacuous posts beget responses like O RLY. As Captain Planet would say: "The power is yours!"

I would, but then I'm afraid the Knights of Columbus might come knocking on my door telling me I'd make a great candidate for the priesthood. [/b][/quote]KoC kicks ass. Seriously. I hope to join them someday. I don't see what is wrong with people giving money to disabled kids and other charities and supporting Catholicism.

But anyways, I don't think you'd be a candidate for priesthood, since you'd be banging your "buddy" and not your altar boy.

"I have here in my hand a list of two hundred and five people that are complete wankers,"
Double-J

DJ, In part, I actually see myself agreeing with some of what you posted (gasp!). I agree that marriage is a sacred institution and that the rampant rate of divorce is contributing to the downfall of this country. Marriage vows should be honored. They are exactly that - a vow - and, although the better or worse part is tough at times, they need to be taken more seriously.

However, I have no problem with homosexuals being given the right to a CIVIL union. Maybe it's not marriage, maybe it's a "commitment ceremony". But I do believe that if a couple agrees to be monogamous, to be truly committed to one another, why shouldn't they be able to share the benefits that any other couple would? Benefits such as health and life insurance, being recognized as next of kin, etc.? I know that a heterosexual couple that doesn't marry can't enjoy those benefits, but they CHOOSE not to marry. It is forbidden to homosexual couples and that's a big difference.

If you have a religious marriage ceremony and Vow before God to stay together "until death do you part or whatever", that's one thing.

But if two people who are not religious get married in a civil ceremony and view the marriage as a contract with no other implications, there's not reason why the contract should not be disolved - like any other - with the consent of both parties.

For various reasons, some people should absolutely not remain married and it's completely unfair to expect them to in the name of "sacredness".

Plaw, that would depend. I am not familiar with the vows exchanged in a civil ceremony. Are they the same Until Death sort? If they are, then that's that. Of course there are circumstances, such as spousal abuse, and that union should be dissolved. But considering that some folks want to divorce because of the way the other person hangs the toilet paper, then that's just stupid.

IMHO, marriage is hard work. It's not easy. I think that too many people opt for divorce when they feel that the fairy tale is over. Well, guess what?? It never was one. That's for story books. I don't personally believe that people should stay in marriages that are harmful, just for the sake of the institution, but I do believe that society's acceptance of divorce has led to way too many of them. People opt out of marriages when things get tough because they're convinced that something better is out there. And do you know who is suffering? Our children.

Get this through your head - there is nothing better out there. The same cutie that you're so hot for right now will age and become everyday and ho-hum, just like your current spouse. After cooking, cleaning and taking care of the kids, and possibly holding an additional job outside the home, there will be days when your wife doesn't look like the woman you married. After a tough day at work and a horrendous commute, your husband doesn't resemble that hot young stud you fell in love with. GET OVER IT!! That's reality. And too many people go for the easy divorce because they didn't think that reality and marriage would ever cross paths.

But that's just me...

As far as gay marriage is concerned, if people are against it that's fine, but they better damn sure not be a smoker. If two men or two women wish to marry, that's their decision, it doesn't hurt the rest of us, so why should we care and tell them what they can and can't do if they aren't hurting anyone else? Smoking is legal, yet a person who smokes can cause harm to others who are against smoking as a result of second hand smoke.

Gay marriage may or may not be a sin, I certainly don't have enough knowledge about religion to know the answer to that question, but I do know that passing judgement on others is most definately a sin.

Regarding divorce, I do agree with the majority of your post, SB. I think people should try harder to make marriage work and divorce is often the first option, rather than the last. However, I don't think we can generalize marriages or divorces, just like it's wrong to generalize people. Some marriages are destined to last forever, some marriages simply will never work out. Again, it's two adults, so they should be allowed to make their own decisions. The bad thing about divorce is there are often children involved who are often deeply affected as a result of that decision. As a teacher, I can tell you stories from both sides of the coin, so I really don't know if it is more harmful to children who have divorced parents or they're better off not having to listen to mommy and daddy fight every night. Again, it's a case by case basis. Sometimes a child could be harmed further by watching mom and dad struggle to hopelessly work it out.

If you believe in God, then it's not up to you to decide what is morally right and morally wrong for other people. It's up to each person to decide what is right and wrong for them, then God gets the final say. Not the church, not the government, nor any member of this board.

Actually, feel free to go fuck your male buddy in the bum. We don't care. At least have the common courtesy to wear protection. We just don't think you should be legally recognized in the sacred institution of marriage, that's all.

Second of all, I'm not really understanding your point regarding "who is allowed to become an American." I think you're implying the recent controversy with illegal immigrants. Boohoo. Come into the country legally, get a visa, apply for citizenship.

Finally, as far as what you can say, listen to, or read, try China. The U.S. still allows more personal liberties with regards to free speech - you can criticize the President, you can protest against the war, you can read anti-American books. Try that in Shui-Ban's country. See what you get.

Cheers,
Double-J [/b][/quote]As far as illigeal immigrants i do feel they should they should get a visa and come over legally. the problem is that the system is so screwed up. I have a friend who is from India. He came to America for schooling and has a Ph D in engineering and a law degree. He has been here for 8 years and is still not a citizen. He is still on a work visa. that is messed up.

As for having more freedom than people in China, yes we do and I want to keep it that way. I don't want more just preserve what we have.

As for gay marriage, I just think it is not the governments job to govern over the sanctity of marriage. I also don't think it should be an issue for debate when there are many, many other more important things going on. What is the problem? If it is the tax breaks and insurance then it is a business decision not preservation of marriage.

At least smoking isn't contagious, though, unlike homosexuality.

I would compare the statistics of second hand smoking and second hand homosexuality.

[read. [/qb][/QUOTE]Actually, feel free to go fuck your male buddy in the bum. We don't care. At least have the common courtesy to wear protection. We just don't think you should be legally recognized in the sacred institution of marriage, that's all.


Well you see here is the problem. Marriage IS a sacred institution. It is a religious thing, and therefore it is something the state cannot control. What should happen is we can do the same thing they do in the free countries in Europe....you go down to the city hall and get a license and get hitched. This should be allowed for gays and straights.

Now if someone wanted to get married in a church, and that church had the belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman, then the church would have the right to disallow such "marriages."

Perhaps he owes for tuition? I don't know. However, I do agree that the legal immigration system does need to be improved to prevent cases like you've mentioned from happening.

And, with regards to the marriage issue - are we ready as a nation to take the next step towards Sodom and Gomorrah?

SSDD...*yawn*