glumbert

Loved every second of it!

I love the cut and paste nature of this video to give the impression that we were lied to. There is a difference in being wrong and lying. There is a difference in removing from context the information to bolster an opinion and taking things in toto. It would be no effort to show the news reports (buried and surfaced) that go back 15 years showing Iraq's weapon's manufacturing and use. We have found remnants of weapons and chemicals that would leave one believing that the intent was there and the capability. I would like to remind everyone that the world was of one voice in its intel through 2002...Saddam has made and used WMD's. That is a helluva lie for the whole world to tell.

Ok, way to rub salt in the wounds....

Ah, I think we're getting to the bottom of it: Iraq was developing a "nucular" bomb.

Neil
You were saying that you are stupid and/or in denial, or maybe worse, cowards. Yes, the whole world. British and French intelligence from the mid90's did not suggest WMD production, but asserted it directly. Brainiac, why were the weapons inspectors there? Why were the spineless resolutions unanimously approved in the UN?

neanderthal-none of what you say is true. The build up to the war was slow and deliberate with intel from around the world. The French never supported us but we used their intel to help bolster our claim that Iraq was central to a war on Islamic fanaticism. The fact that a world does not support us and sees us as hypocrits is part of doing business. The "world" has always been jealous of certain parts of what it means to be American that we have never really been liked...this is just the current popular reason to be pissy towards us. Read Stephen F. Hayes...review the lead up to the war. WMDs were a small part, at first, of the argument to engage Iraq.

sellout...move. America is ashamed of you. Tough talk from ignorant lips sounds a lot like what happened in the 90s while Al Qaeda was building itself up for 9-11. None of what you say happened except in your small mind.
I wish you the best, however, because we can all change. (Nice touch with the heartless reference to NYC and 9-11...your mom would be proud.)

Its a great video, But having people laughing at George Bush joking whilest showing the dead soldier in his coffin or the grieving relatives was wrong.

streamlined...must be hard to breathe with your head right up your ass..read the the "terror conspiracy by jim marrs" before you sound any more idiotic..then tell us what you think of your leaders...fool...join the real world

worldcitizen-Iraq/al Qaeda was a connection. Harboring known terrorists in Iraq is well documented. (See Stephen F. Hayes) There was no operational link to 9-11 and no one ever made the claim. The Bush Admin did not put for the notion of Iraq having WMDs---the world did! What were those UN Inspectors doing? Clinton-Gore '98 both strongly endorsed regime chnge in Iraq because they had WMDs, not because we felt they had them. Please put all of the history in context and stop cherrypicking what you want to believe. It is a complex ordeal...possibly too complex for you.

Steamlined:

Yeah. Me again.

Know what? For whatever it's worth, I'm gonna respond to your post by giving you some insight here, and it may come as a shock:

Know what I get all verbose and opinionated re: matters inside the U.S.? Well, it's because of....envy. Yes. You heard correctly. Envy. I am envious that a nation was founded on the principles of such as your Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Congress, etc. These are good things. SOUND things. It set out an ideal way to build a great Republic; one that is not ruled solely by military clout, but principles of fairness, decency and a legitimate voice for the average citizen. These are just some of the many things, even as a kid, I always admired about your country. And it is precisely because of these ideals I am envious. BUT.....somehow, that's all changed now. As I've said many times, in other threads, the entity that was founded THEN....is NOT the same entity that exists NOW. I have come to see a once-proud, respected nation be hijacked by a corrupt few; a few who would lie to, cheat or betray that Republic based on their own short-sighted stupidity and/or greed; Thomas Jefferson once shot a man in the head, on the White House lawn, for treason; why anyone hasn't dragged this current sonofabitch out of that ivory tower and given him a taste of that kind of justice, is beyond me. And his Vice-President is probably the biggest snake of all. To what point do the Amercian people have to pushed, Steamlined? Huh? How much? When is enough......enough? When are they simply going to snap, and say "Oh wow. Fuck this guy. Fuck his gang. We're taking back the this nation from these lying, murdering, treasonous cocksuckers!" When will this happen, Steamlined? Please don't drag other nations into this; they ALL (except Tony Blair) told the President "Don't fucking do it." Period. They SAID THAT. The U.N. inpectors were in Iraq actually doing there jobs. Period. The U.S. government made accusations, so the U.N. went in to investigate these allegations. Simple. And when it looked like they were coming up with nothing, Bush Jr. said, "Get out....'cuz I'm goin' in." Meanwhile, Osama is still running around, getting a suntan in the Bora Bora region. Add to all of this Cheneys assertion that he's his OWN branch of government, and can tell Congress to get lost; illegal wiretapping; firing federal lawyers; the fiasco response to Hurrican Katrina, and on and on and pathetically on. Streamlined....here's a shocker for you: the President is the Commander-in-Chief, right? Okay. BUT...he's the C-in-C of all personnel in the U.S. MILITARY....NOT the civilian population. So what exactly is his role? Simple: CONGRESS sets policy...the President, being C-in-C with the military at his disposal....CARRIES IT OUT, utilizing said military. That's it. That's all. This is why the Founding Fathers specifically mandated Congress with being the sole authority to declare war. However, what you have now is the complete reverse: the President, acting much like a fucking two-bit despot, starts vetoing Congress's bills and basically says to them "Fuck you; I'm the Commander-Guy!"

I ask you again, Steamlined....when is enough....enough?

This Glumbert clip actually didn't make me upset or nuts.

It made me sad to think that there are STILL sensible Americans out there...who just don't care. Because if they did...

I'd be seeing a certain someone standing in a prisoners dock in D.C. right now, stuttering and gulping their way through some sort of goddamn, half-assed explanation, as to why over 3,600 of America's best, brightest treasures won't be coming home.

When's enough...enough?

P.S.

Streamlined? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, ok? So knock it off.

Canuck-The issue with Ms. Myers will be left for the courts. That is why we have that system. I doubt, but I could b wrong, that they will charge her with contempt since the hearings are a farce. The gamble is to keep the Bush Admin (of which I am not a fan) on constant defense. The current dems are still fuming that they cannot get a corrupt charge to stick since they have to make stuff up to go forward.
If Bush is acting inappropriately, he should be punished and so should Ms Myers. This charade is hardly worth anyone's time.

This is liberal propaganda from hell. Wow I like how Liberals use eclipse tactics and footage of corners politicians to sway a pre-allegiance to a political agenda.
People don’t care that Iraq was a regime of rape and murder before the war. People don’t care that Saddam publicly announced $20,000 for the families of all suicide bombers that kill an American. People don’t care for the Iraq-Americans that rejoiced that we went over the pond. People don’t care that Iraq has its own people in suffering. What the American People care about if lowered Gas prices and cheaper IPODs.

I don’t care if Bush said that Saddam had Sharks with lasers on their heads. War in the Middle East was inevitable and better now then later. People are so worked up on Bush's lies that they are willing to give up what is important. "Who cares that Iran wants Israel dead, Al Qaeda mission is to convert Europe and America to Islam, Who care that terror is a justified by over half of Muslims in the United States. Who cares that a Terrorist aims to target Schools, Hospitals, Churches, Parades, Children and Civilians in the United States ...because Bush is a liar.

Stop the war and you will see the Liberal resolve. We will be there in IRAQ, IRAN now or later, whether Democratic or Republican President. Despite the Liberal stance of backing down and giving up … the United States will be back in Iraq if we leave. We saw what happened in Germany in Post WW1, We saw what can happen when we stayed in Japan, Korea, and Germany Post WW2.

Japan, Korea, and Germany are beautiful. Leave now and all you will have is the crater of revenge and hatred bred by the first power that bleeds with hatred for anything outside Islam to wage a determined dream to destroy the West.

An American Soldier has accepted the mission because they see the bigger picture. We are not fighting for Bush. We are fighting for our family and our way of life. We accepted the mission and support the mission because we see what Islamic extremist have in store for us. You all forgot what 9/11 felt like. You all forgot what 9/11 was about. You treat it like a car accident on a Friday night. Our fathers and mothers, sisters and brothers ... neighbors and lovers died in a hell that was designed to attack the unarmed citizens of America.

To be honest I rather send my fighting force of young men and women, who are trained and armed to fight and took an oath to defend the United States, then watching again the unarmed children and citizens’ burn while we watch helplessly. How many Americans need to die before the liberal realizes that the enemy will eventually find his way to your home.

Whatever the outcome. American Justice has found its way out whether it was through a liar or militaristic president. Like my father once said, "A ass-kicking from a pink ballerina is still an ass-kicking"

Canuck...1812?! Would you like reparations? Feelings still hurt, eh? That's not too far after our founding, of which you are so envious.
I did not get nasty. I pointed to what appears obvious in your juvenile tirades. I think we aought o go one point at a time...you ask me question, I'll answer...then ask you one. Otherwise, we get no where in your re-education process.

Imthebigbadwolf-don't own a tv, I do travel and I speak another language.
You are just stupid and that won't go away.

Canuck-Scaife paper disagrees with Bush! Alert the presses...NY Times...the Tribune! APB:There is dissention in conservative circles over the war. The Pittsburgh paper has hardly been conservative even if Mellon-Scaife is kinda one. Before making a fool of yourself, do some background...and critical thinking.

Got to go Steamlined, but I accept your offer of "one question at a time", I'll be back later, but I'll open up first:

Why did your political elite tell so many lies (i.e. WMD's, implied an Al-Queada link with 9/11, said they KNEW where the WMD's were, ALL courtesy of the clip above)? And please....don't give me any shit about this clip being "spliced" or "biased". It's as plain as the nose on your face AND THEY ARE ACTUALLY SAYING THE THINGS THEY'RE SAYING, in proper context, so stick to a solid argument; that's all I ask.

Talk at you later.

Guys, it's not about politics! And I'm talking about the simple question: Did the President and his assets lie, or did they tell the truth? No matter what party, no matter if republican or democrat. The great government of one of the most powerful countries in the world, who could find a needle in a haystack from outter space if they wanted to, did not find weapons of mass destruction. So, fact, at this point, is, it was a lie. Nothing more to debate.
Besides: Anyone ever thought about the fact that Bush ownes a part of the company where most of the weapons used in the latest gulf war were bought?
I know this is an emotional issue. But nothing good can come from a discussion based on emotions.
And I'm not even American. Where I come from, the media is quite impartial. And stilll, from the information I got here, the war on Iraq was a crime. (no dissrespect against the soldiers who gave their lives, and their families)

streamlined you have opened a whole value bucket of fail in this thread.

gb2/fox news

canuck is right. If the Bush administration had said "we want to remove Saddam from office because he's mistreating his people", how many Americans would have agreed to this war? And as canuck already pointed out: there are lots of other countries where the citizens are mistreated, like north korea or china (tibet) for instance. And apparently there's no need to attack those countries. Maybe because they're too strong or there's no oil or maybe because they don't have a reason there either. Let's face it, whoever is responsible for 9/11 (watch lose change btw) the Bush administration used this catastrophe to their advantage. If this was my president, I would not trust, not support and certainly not VOTE FOR HIM THE SECOND TIME!!! I would organize demonstrations, do whatever I can do to get him out of office. Remember the time before 9/11? The world was a lot peacefuller, and the people had a lot less anxieties, and were a lot less afraid. And not only in the USA. The whole world was/is freaking out just because Bush is a f***ing a**hole.

Total BS

Canuck, give us all an f'in break. You don't live in the U.S., never have, never will, and yet you continue to act as an authority on how americans live, should live,could live, and should be governed. You do this based on the odd conversation you have with an american while sipping a beer in the west indies and the reading that you've done (reliability unknown).

The only thing this video is for sure is an example of how facts taken out of context can be used to make any argument. Kind of like you do on a lot of these threads. You have a pre-disposed position and search for facts to back it up. It's plain and utter wrong and you know it.

I am an American, and I mostly agree with canuck1963. His comments are articulate, and well meaning. It is useless to argue with extremists (Religious or political), because they are angered by truth, and then lash out.

I lived through quite a number of US inspired wars now, and I know that these wars are inspired more by profit, than almost any other motive.

If the individuals above believe that invading Iraq can be justified by stating that the country was being run by a unstable individual, and that the country had WMD's, and that there was a chance that they could use these weapons to attack another nation. Then how does the rest of the world see the US now?

How would the conservatives above feel if some superpower stated that they did not like the US and they wanted to put a stop to US aggression before we went too far? They invade, they bomb, etc. Would they still be supporting their philosophy of preemption if they were on the receiving end of it?

isn't there, like, a comments ref or something? when is round 2? cuz i gotta take a piss and get a beer.

yup, that video was right. it knows how to piss off an american.

podman, I agree with you. If you look at many of the other vids/threads, however, you'll see that canuck looks and takes every opportuinty to slam the us. In fact, they tend to be the only vids he comments on! That's what i take issue with.

Darn, look at all these posts - make me puke bunch of liberal ass tree huggers! There isn't a government that will ever tell us the truth about anything no matter the political party - no matter the government! They should have dropped a dozen nukes on the middle east and then shot the one's they missed! Yea - Genocide - how I miss the good 'ole days.

Yah, whatever.

Bullshit "The world was of one voice". The only people who believe that watch American mainstream media which was hijacked and continues to be so. If you were outside the US (anywhere else in the world) at the time you would have seen the massive anti-war marches and protests. We even caught glimpses of the small ones within the US where they were abused by their own scared little countrymen. I respect and admire any Yank who sees beyond the facade and speaks up about it. Fucking respect!

Streamlined. If you don't watch the tele at least read a book. The support wasn't sizable, it was just made to seem that way and you believed it. 40 odd countries as the "willing"? Many of which were tiny pacific nations who don't even have a military but were "willing" to sign anything in return for financial support. But then 40"willing" countries sounds better than a few bullied countries. Far from unanimous. Yes, I am choosing what I believe and unlike you I don't have a funnel attached to my brain. It's a sieve which allows me to catch the nuggets of truth which are apparently rattling around in your noggin without anything to attach themselves to. Sorry, I just resorted to your condecending mode of communication of belittling someone instead of peaceful debate.

Once again the voice of reason seems absent from the mind of the war monger.

I just wonder why in America can an idiot like GW Bush become President, and then STILL get re-elected when all evidence show he is AN IDIOT?

Do you know that he is a liablity to USA? With him in the White House, more and more people outside USA hate the USA! Not because they hate American's 'way of life ' or 'freedom' etc, but because with GW Bush in the White House, the policy of interventionism in OTHER COUNTRIES would continue!

EXAMPLE: Ask yourself if you like it if someone from (for example) Uganda, or Indonesia or China, or Russia, sending troops into USA to cleanse USA of nuclear weapons? You like someone coming into your house and turning over all furniture and making a big mess, and also molesting your mother wife and daughter while at it? THINK ABOUT IT!!!! Because that's waht YOUR GOVERNMENT IS DOING!

People outside generally don't hate you. But they hate the GOVERNMENT!

AMERICANS, DO SOMETHING FOR GOD'S SAKE! get the current idiot OUT of the White House!

thisnameused is correct! You people had better "WAKE UP" before it's too late. Unfortunately, the political correctness has run amuck way too long and the United States is in danger of being NO MORE! Enjoy your freedom while you have it. I pitty the future of our children

Streamlined? I'll get to you in a sec.

I see that "herro" has adopted radio silence; good. Tough to argue with logic, when it's slapping you in the face with a bucket of cold water.

Ahhh, Throbstick: My old deaf, dumb and prone-to-childish-games stalker; still spewing the ol' "he's anti-u.s.-and-anti-American" bullshit, huh? Well, I refer you to the very first post I made on this thread at to why I'm so impassioned about the U.S. as a whole. You're credibility has long since evaporated on these threads, so take my advice: go back to changing your name again. You're embarrassing yourself by NOT READING PROPERLY.

Podman: You captured it beautifully when you used the term "well meaning"; I save my venom and bluster for those who come at me with patently stupid arguments/reasoning, whilst simply draped in a flag (whether said individuals are American, Canadian or British or whoever); this is the same kind of nationalistic fervor that blinded people to the rise of the National Socialist Party in Germany; the same kind of fervor that spawned the breeding ground in Stalins era after the Bolshevik Revolution; and sadly, it's the same blind, nationalistic fervor that has allowed President George W. Bush implement a catastrophic foreign policy, that's left thousands and thousands of people dead, American AND Iraqi.

Billboat: Nice to see ya again. Only two more months to hockey season. I'll buy the beer, you buy the pizza.

Now, on to Streamlined:

Good argument. On the surface, it kinda sounds sane.....but very, very, VERY incorrect. Here goes:

Osama Siblani (cute first name!) , publisher of "The Arab American" newspaper, says George W Bush told him in May 2000 that he is going to "take out" Iraq and Saddam Hussein (which is at least a little better than "We're gonna smoke'em out!!). In January 2004, Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill tells "60 Minutes" that removing Saddam Hussein was topic "A" at the very first National Security meeting in January 2001. Richard Clarke, counterterror czar under Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43, writes in his book Against All Enemies: “Since the beginning of the administration, indeed well before, they had been pressing for a war with Iraq,” Immediately after 9/11, Clarke actually recalls Secretary Rummy pushing for retaliatory strikes against Iraq.

Holy shit! So, immediately following the 9/11 attacks — when there was ZERO evidence linking Saddam to al Qaeda – prominent right-wing nutjobs behind the inevitable march to war were arguing in favor of attacking Iraq. On September 16, 2001, Richard Perle went on CNN and explicitly friggin' linked Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden. Did you read what I just TYPED?? Like, holy fuck man. (kind of like in this video clip on Glumbert, showing Cheney doing the SAME THING!).

On September 20, 2001, "The Project for a New American Century think-tank" sent President Bush a letter urging him to respond to the attacks by retaliating against Iraq.

On September 11, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld ordered the military to draw up strike plans. His notes are quoted as saying: "Best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden. Like, Rummy can't even SPELL this turds name right. Taken together, there is A LOT of documented evidence that the Bush administration had every intention of regime change in Iraq even before taking office. Once 9/11 happened — despite any evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks — the same people who argued for years that Saddam had to go----after they felt that the bastard ceased to be a "useful asset" (and the same people who were now running the federal government) began using the attacks as a justification to carry out their bullshit agenda.

You see? This is NOT about there being "no lies because the Intelligence was wrong", rather, it was the intelligence being framed around the outright lies. It's fucking horrific that a government (ANY government) can be allowed to function this way. AT ALL. And as far "keeping the terrorists off our soil", I remind you that 9/11 happened without the current war in Iraq, plus the U.S. government actually OUTSOURCED the search for him to....Pakistan! Yup. ONE BILLION (that's a "B") DOLLARS to President Musharrif to find the prick who was behind those bloodthirsty attacks on 9/11; and to add further fucking insult to injury, Bush has not even held him ACCOUNTABLE for all that dough. Streamlined, do you know for how many years Saddam was an employee of Washington? There's Rummy, shaking hands with the bastard like they're buds (I've seen the picture; have you?). When Saddam started his fucked-up war with Iran (1980-1988), Washington simply adopted the philosophy that Saddam was now their "asset" against Iran, and will give him maps, weapons, intelligence on Iranian troop movements, etc. That is until, as I've said above, their "asset" stopped paying a return investment......and invaded Kuwait.

One dictatorship....invading ANOTHER dictatorship. And the prize in the middle? O-I-L.

And another question: Why are YOU telling selloutkat above to "sellout...move. America is ashamed of you"??? Huh?? Why should he/she MOVE?? Why? What happened to free speech? What happen to healthy debate? And who are YOU to say that a WHOLE nation should be ashamed of ANYONE?? Are one of these folks who also believes that "America was founded as a God-fearing nation"-myth?? I truly hope not. Indeed, I think it would be a crying shame, considering you DO know how to put togther a sentence pretty good (even if it is inaccurate).

I suggest you re-dedicate (or remind) yourself of the fundamental principles of the Constitution of the Republic, and not sound so...dictatorial.

Your turn to ask the next question.

Go.

Your tactic of expressing passion about the goals of the founding fathers, etc. was simply a ploy to justify your rants. Gimmee an f'in break about your admiration as a kid. BS. Like everyone else as a kid, you were choking the monkey. Of course if you weren't, that would explain a lot.

Pent up frustration...displaced anger...etc.

"Herro"? "Throbstick"? Go take a potty break while I talk to Streamlined:

So, let me see if I understand you correctly: you agree with SOME FACTS as I've set out; you AGREE with SOME points, re: the lead-up to war; you AGREE with SOME salient points re: the dishonesty of this war......

BUT.....

you "disagree" with the "biased" way in which I've CHOSEN to look at these things/people/places/events?

And YOU are not being "closed minded" or "biased".....right?

OKay...once more...with gusto, and I'll get right down to the chase..LISTEN:

I've gone into this time and time again, and all I get from the right-wing zealots is a lot of personal attacks as their common defence (it's almost predictable), so here goes:

This current war can be summed up as part of a much broader, much consistant pattern with the successive U.S. Administrations since the end of World War II....with a single word:

Blowback.

Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has engaged in a SYSTEMIC and PATTERNED foreign policy of regime-changes, overthrow of democratically-elected governments and anyone else she deemed as not useful towards her own self-interests. Case-in-point: Iran (and this is only ONE example). In 1954, the democratically-elected government of Iran decided it was going to nationalize their resources, i.e. oil; this meant that Iranians, not British or U.S. companies, would have a say in what the hell they do with it. The U.S. and Britain flipped. The CIA engineered a coup, that overthrew the government, and installed...guess who?...the Shah!! For the next 25 years, this asswipe ruled the country with the CIA's help; using his secret police, known as "Savvak", to systemically brutalize and oppress ordinary folk; engage in torture; and basically terrorize the entire nation. In 1979, the Iranians had enough, and said "fuck you", and exploded by taking over the American embassy, culminating in a hostage situation that went on and on; at this point, over at the Canadian embassy, Ambassador Ken Taylor, our diplomat, put his life as well as that of his own staff at huge risk, to smuggle six U.S. embassy workers out of that country (so much for being "cowards", huh Herro? Fucking ingrate. You're welcome). And now? Well, guess what? Iran is becoming the boogeyman once again, thanks to Georgie-Boy and his pals.

As I've said...this is ONE example of the CIA-coined term "blowback"; the list is many: Noriega; Pinochet; Batista, ad nauseum.

Have the West been battling "terrorists" for the last 30 years? Yes.......

BECAUSE YOU'RE GODDAMN GOVERNMENT KEEPS CREATING THEM!!

Blowback.

Blowback.

BLOWBACK.

And this policy...is why you're in the mess you're in now; and WE are in the mess WE'RE in (Afghanistan).

P.S. 15 out of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi shitbags.....not a single Afghan or Iraqi (the rest were Egyptian).

Why is your government STILL treating them with such....finesse? Such gosh-darn-it...warmth?

Over to you.

So much rhetoric, so much passion...I would find it much more interesting if only I had a "delete vulgarity" button, and a "delete ad-hominem" button. Otherwise, the thoughts, though intensely opposed, are interesting to review.

I am reminded of the anonymously coined phrase..."It's tough to be at the top"...meaning, everyone is out to get the person at the top. On the world stage, it is very similar. Every U.S. action is micro-critiqued...generally, only the negative draws comment. Canuck makes a lot of sense, but even as he criticizes his neighbor to the south for being in Iraq..."not US business"...he also criticizes the U.S. for not engaging in the Darfur tragedy, and what could be by the same measure, an endless list of other world tragedies. Of course, were we to do so and stumble in the process, he could make the same comment..."not US business".

It's not that he's wrong, but he seems unaware that there is no way the U.S. is going to act in world affairs without worldwide comment, little of which will be supportive despite the issue. There is world envy of the U.S. indeed...so many begrudge its position in the world economy. Little of what it does collectively is eveer praised...instead, the commentary is uniformly critical....should be doing more, generally meaning the U.S. ought to be addressing the woes of the world in every corner and, not having done so, is a just target for derision and scorn.

Regarding our "incumbent", Bush Jr. was elected the second time for two reasons...first, Kerry was his opponent, a man of little Presidential worth other than his slight New England accent...and second, because he (Bush) had not yet exposed his now roundly criticized smug stupidity - at least at a deadly level - as of the time of the election.

The U.S. has had a long list of military confrontations over its history. Needless to say, each was seen to be necessary, or at least unavoidable at the time. Viewed through the lens of time retrospectively, while some were indeed warranted, others, arguably, were not...or were conducted badly...and so on. Iraq now (in my opinion) appears to be both...unwarranted and badly conducted. I had semi-supported our action in Iraq, meaning that I thought the U.S. should wait the two months more delay that France and Germany had advocated in the U.N. before engaging the conflict. Bush and his staff elected to proceed without waiting further...I think because they may have thought Saddam would have that time to conceal the WMDs. So they proceeded without waiting, a fact that allows me to distance myself from the result, I suppose. Still, we are there...what to do next is the problem.

How to leave is more than the simple issue of just walking away. Both Japan and Germany, post WW2, were rehabbed wonderfully, as was South Korea...largely due to a continued U.S. presence, and on the long term, U.S. finances and trade support. Not so for Vietnam...and now, what to do at this point in Iraq...no easy answers, I think. Vietnam more-or-less reverted to despotic control after the American departure...there was no rehab opportunity or capability. Iraq might be the same, albeit there is a world market for their oil if they are ever to be able to turn it to the benefit of the Iraqi people...and what do you suppose might be the chances of that happening?

Excuse me....I did run on. I hope there might be more discourse on this topic, but hopefully those involved might honor differing opinions without resorting to juvenile epithets...so many display intelligence, and a well-founded depth in support of their opinions.

This is agony--I believe you are writing for other readers, which explans why you are so proud of yourself in your answers.
The US Governments should learns what, exactly? What someone in front oa computer suggests? No apathy, just real life must play with the cards you're dealt mentality.
You make two consitent logical fallacies, repeatedly:
1) Uniformity: (This is why I accused racism.) This is the fallacy that because a certain type does a cetain thing a certain way, all of that type will do or have done that thing... that way. You constantly cite the US government as if there was some uniformity in its approach to the world...as if the same people have been making the decisions for 300 years. That is why I admaonish context and history, not jst qotes and dates and people to support your positions.
2) Out of context arguments: The above video is a wonderful example.So s everything Michael Moore ever spewed. Cherry-picking events, quotes and leaving out their context.
The fact that the terrorists were saudi-born can at most complicate matters a little. All battles are chosen in a cost-benefit analyis. Putting Canada in SA's place does not lead to your conclusion. Aside from it being a hypothetical with an illogical end; if it were to happen, we would still deliberate over the best tactic to deal with the attack. (The current wahabi govmnt in SA is not efficient and is broken into factions of US support and hatred. The official position of the SA govmnt is to root out terrorism, which is why the saudis who hate us are training elsewhere...like the ones who launched the attak on us.) Argued your point and I a not nearly as cynica as you. Canadian terrorists to the US would not result in a bombing...state sposored terrorsm, now that's another matter. That(among other things) is why Iraq is different from SA.
Keep in mind...terrorists are grown and developed in a culture an it takes time. GWB and others on my side of this argument recognize that we are waging war on an idealogy that has been the same for 900 years. Part of the war i cultural, part military.
This war boils down to whose got the stomach for it...not the blood shed...but the patience. This is probably WW3, it just took us 300years to figure it out.
Here is your original question that I now sk you:
Why did your political elite tell so many lies (i.e. WMD's, implied an Al-Queada link with 9/11, said they KNEW where the WMD's were, ALL courtesy of the clip above)? And please....don't give me any shit about this clip being "spliced" or "biased". It's as plain as the nose on your face AND THEY ARE ACTUALLY SAYING THE THINGS THEY'RE SAYING, in proper context, so stick to a solid argument; that's all I ask.

No outrage over other people's actions, Canuck. You're rewriting history and casting it in the only light you know how...what pristine democracies did we crush again? Double check that bit of simplistic misinformation before answering, as if it were so simple. This is the point I keep trying to make.
If I had the horror and disgust that you suggest should have, I would do something about it. That fact separates me from many who hve the outrge but not the stones. That is false outrage and cowardice.
You are my neighbor and a good one at that (which is why we would never bomb you if some of the terrorists were Canadian.)
I am no more outraged at decisions made by people unrelated to me or my circumstances as I am about the US involvemtnt in the slave trade. The outrage would be a waste--like all outrage without action.

So much rhetoric and passion....I only wish I had a "delete vulgarity" button and a "delete ad-hominem" button. There are well supported ideas and opinions being expressed here, though hotly oppositional. Good discourse, I think...but just ought to avoid personal assaults, I think.

Canuck makes great arguments. I do squirm a bit at his references to the U.S. There is indeed a world envy of the U.S. that generally is displayed in harsh criticism wherever they are seen to fall short of expectations. And expectations are subjective. Canuck criticizes the U.S. for being in Iraq as the issue being "none of their business". He also criticizes the U.S. for not having been involved with the ongoing Darfur tragedy...by the same measure it could be faulted for tragic issues in every corner of the world...but those aren't the "business" of the U.S. either. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The anonymous phrase "it's tough to be at the top" has its base in reality. The U.S. is begrudged its economic position at the same time as it is pursued for its economic support. We have been hurt on the world stage by a number of unfortunate decisions and events...but everywhere and always we are expected to meet the needs and expectations of the rest of the world. Were Canada to shut off the oil valves, it would be committing economic suicide...or at least serious self flagellation. We are its largest oil customer, and economic partner. And we are friends politically, socially, and economically. So....stop with the invective.

Bush Jr. was elected to a second term for, in my opinion, two reasons: first, John Kerry was his opponent, a man with little presidential worth aside from his wonderfully superior New England accent (it has been said that a Brittish accent automatically add 20 points to one's suspected IQ, and his is an Americanized English accent), and second, because he (Bush) had yet to reveal that his smug stupidity was deadly. There were no other viable options at the time. But despite our unhappiness with our leadership, in our evolved society, we wait till election times before displacing leadership. Beats constant revolution, though sometimes we might wish otherwise.

Not all the decisions made in Iraq were wrong, but many were, and our situation today is critical. Post WW2, I think because of a continuing U.S. presence, both Japan and Germany eventually became exceptionally "rehabbed". That was due to the installation of a selfless governing group, and the ready economic and trade support of the U.S. Same in South Korea, who now is a major contributor to the U.S. economy, and vice versa. But not Vietnam, whose leadership continued to be despotic. Nor, I fear, will be Iraq, though they have oil resources that could benefit its poplace if only they had a government interested in doing that.

Sorry to run on. No easy answer here. And no reason for U.S./Canadian rancor, in my opinion.

This comment system is not the best... I lost sight of what was posted when while I was at work...
To answer the post above: Of course the government can't always tell the truth. But there's a difference between not telling the truth and lying.
And what is a "patriot" anyway? By definition someone who wants the best for and defends his country no matter the cost. But not running blindly into war because someone is saying "we're being attacked". In the french revolution e.g. the people who removed their king from office were the real patriots. (I know it's more complicated than that, but you get the point)
So, everyone who calls himself patriot, has the duty not to simply follow orders but to THINK! and decide for himself what's best for his country and his people. And I don't get how you manage to argue about the fact that the reason for the gulf war, WMD, was a lie. This is one of the few really proven facts, something that couldn't be faked, it's just the way it is!
It's like the Mc Carthy era. At the time no one had the guts to speak up, because of Millions of stupid idiots who called themselves patriots. Now we know it was a witchhunt. What's the difference between you "patriots" here and those during the Mc Carthy era? I really don't want to talk down the USA, I like the country, most of the people I've met and in the past, the USA has done many great things to solve world wide problems and to help keep peace. Of course there were many not-so-good actions, but every country has made errors. NO COUNTRY IS FLAWLESS!!!
I call myself patriot of my country. But not because I do exactly like I'm told by my government, but because I try to find solutions and betters ways to live together and get this society to work!

Sorry about my double postings over the last hour or so....I thought the first had been lost, so tried again. I am impressed with the quality of discourse here. Much divided views...like the real world.

Congrats streamlined!!! You have nailed canuck.

I've been trying to figure out what bugged me so much about him and you hit it. He writes to make himself look good to the other readers instead of writing in the true spirit of a point-counterpoint debate.

Canuck, Podman, others . . . I don't have time at this moment to get further involved in the conversation, as I have to leave for work. But I just want to stand up and be counted with you. Please hold on to your highest hopes for us, the Americans among us who love the America we once were, and who aren't so full of arrogance and hubris and other bullcrap up to our eyeballs and ears that we can't hear or see truth (and lies) in front of our faces.

More than half of us didn't vote for George Bush either time. Lots of us are ashamed of those who answer truth with the kind of ignorant lowlife mudslinging that will, of course, be aimed at me for making these remarks. They think they've made some point, when they've only further shown their ignorance. I doubt if they've ever bothered to read our Constitution. I've just learned to give them all the consideration they deserve.

The term "Ugly American" never meant so much as it does today. The truly ugliest are the ones who haven't a clue how ugly they appear to the rest of the world.

Benjamin Franklin, when asked what type of government he and the other founding fathers had given us, answered, "A Republic. If you can keep it." Who knew that in just over 200 years there would be so many, out of total ignorance, so ready and eager to give it up and live under tyranny.

GOD DAMN TALK ABOUT TAKING SHIT OUT OF CONTEXT! YOU CAN TWIST ANYTHING AROUND AND MAKE IT SOUND LIKE WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT. WHOEVER UPLOADED THIS DESERVES A MAJOR ASS KICKING AND I GOT A 55 GAL DRUM OF WHOOP ASS READY AND WAITING. FUCKING PRICKS

Good grief.....let's not toss in the towel. The U.S. still is a wonderful place to live and have dreams that might actually be attainable. This present time is certainly not its best era, but it will survive and grow as a result...despite its leadership. For goodness sakes, complain as you'd like, but don't think the world ends here. I can hardly wait to see the next chapter....slow as it might be to develop. We remain a good-hearted society with good intentions....poorly lead now and then....but at the roots, good. Why not stress the up-side. In a while we get to vote out those stupidos who let us get where we are....perhaps the next generation of leadership will be more repersentative of their electorate than the last.

Hey stream....we didn't get what we asked for. We couldn't. We had dopes on both ends of our voting options. The lesser of the dopes got elected. That might be an over-simplification of the dumbing down of our leadership, but that is what happened. Some of us wait anxiously for the opportunity to change the strength and direction of our marvelous republic...wait and see is what we do, while meantime hoping we are not further harmed by our current leadership. And what else can be said of a good society?

chaz - In a previous post you write: "I think because of a continuing U.S. presence, both Japan and Germany eventually became exceptionally "rehabbed". That was due to the installation of a selfless governing group, and the ready economic and trade support of the U.S."

I agree with this, but Iraq was never the industrial giant that Germany and Japan were before they were destroyed. They already had a model and the skills in their societies to lift themselves up from the ruin.

If we are going to lift Iraq up into the modern age, then I fear our country does not have enough money and manpower to lift them up so very very far. Also their theocracy is the cause of their problems, and that cannot be removed.

And after we rebuild Iraq, then what? On to Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc. Why don't we let China pay for all of this?

This discussion is making me wet. Especially all that dirty talk from canuck.

989-- Manuel Noriega CIA agent

U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega
3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties
1990-- Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S.

1991-- U.S. enters Iraq and Bush Sr. reinstates Dictator of Kuwait

1991 to Present-- American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis
UN estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombings and
sanctions

1998-- Clinton bombs "Weapons Factory" in Sudan
turns out to be an Aspirin factory

2000 to 2001-- U.S. gives Taliban ruled Afghanistan $245 million
in "Aid"

9-11-2001-- Osama bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to
murder 3000.

"And so we go on with our lives
We know the truth, but prefer lies
Lies are simple, Simple is bliss.
Why go against tradition when we can
Admit defeat, live in decline.
Be the victim of our own design.
The status quo built on suspect
Why would anyone stick out their neck?" -NOFX

pod and others.
I leave you to your arguments. And, nicely, the past few have been on topic and not particularly vulgar. There are many well stated positions. None of us have access to the objective data, so are left to make judgements individually based on what we can find in media (or accept the positions propounded by talk-radio mouths). I have mine...and admit to an inclination to U.S. favored reports....but do not mistake that as empty headed acceptance of all the pap that may emanate from D,C....not hardly. But I do bristle at the "campy" (i.e., currently popular) position of U.S. teardown...as if this fabulous country had never done anything correctly. Criticize where you wish, but allow for the fact that no country in the history of the world has ever done more for those within, and outside of its borders, than America, as faulted as it might be.

And as mentioned somewhere in these posts, the "people" and the government are not always...perhaps seldom...in concert. Thankfully, that applies in all places...the french have been wonderfully accepting and congenial in our several visits to their beautiful country, as have the Canadians.

A demain..........

I love Dubya. He's hot!

I hate my country so much. Well not really the country just the idiots who live here. They know who they are.

Streamlined:

Please clarify your question; it only appears as if you're cutting-and-pasting MY original question. Or are you curve-balling the same question back at me?

Also, thanks for the kind sentence above; coincidentally enough, I kinda had a similar attitude towards yourself (the vast chasm that separates our viewpoints notwithstanding).

What we now have here, is an argument that boils down to a very simple point: I gave you facts about people, places and things that have actually happened; while not specifically disagreeing with anything I've said insofar as the events themselves, you did say that both of us are looking at the same things through a "prism", of sorts. Maybe. Maybe not. But I will say this: when there is a CONSISTANT, or rather a HABITUAL pattern of the same thing happening again and again....then to what point does an interpretation of watching through a "prism" end......and a dawning attitude of "Uh-oh. Houston? We have a problem", begin? It's my own belief, that the United States CAN be a power for good, with all of its economic and military clout; I've said above, WWII is the last classic example of this; 400,000 U.S. troops who went into it, and never came home; jeeps, tanks, planes, tommy-guns, bullits coming off the assembly lines about every 7 seconds and HOW was that possible? Because EVERYONE pulled together, in the field....and at home. The cause was just; the goal was clear. Had not the U.S. entered the war when it did (wish they'd done it sooner, but no matter, I'm happy they did), I shudder to think what the world would look like today. Now..that was THEN. This is NOW. I may leave myself open to criticism with yet ANOTHER case-in-point, but so be it: President Clinton had his suppoters and his detractors; he could have done this-or-that, or should have done this-or-that, but he DID do one thing: about ten years ago, Kosovo, in the eastern balkans, was being hammered by communist Serbs; we're talking ethnic cleansing; mass graves; people standing in line getting mortared; children being butchered, etc. President Clinton oredered the United States Navy to begin bombing selected targets in Serbia-proper, to get them to lay off. For 78 days, U.S. Navy jets pounded Serb positions, and guess what? The Serbs stopped, pulled back, and got suddenly SERIOUS about negotiating. And, Streamlined, do you know what the beauty of this example is?

There was no oil interests involved.

Just people.

To this day, I've yet to hear anyone criticize Clinton for this, for a simple reason: he did the right thing. The JUST thing. Gods, that man was respected for that. Everytime he comes to Toronto, he gets MOBBED by admirers. Now, Bush was there recently, and the Kosovars love HIM (a rarity), simply because he's capitalizing on what Clinton did for them, and ALL Americans are aces in their books. See my point?

America CAN...and SHOULD..be a power for good on the planet, because out of all the nations on this topsy-turvy planet of ours.....only THEY are capable of it. I believe what another poster above trying to tell you, was "With great power...comes great responsibility". I'm proud of what my own country has accomplished; VERY proud. But because we do not have the resources at our disposal that YOUR country has....it's not enough. We try; but it's not enough. In Rwanda, we had a Brigadier-General on the ground, trying to stop the slaughter; screaming for help from the U.N., the U.S., ANYBODY. But no one came, not even us, even as ten men under his command were butchered. But to our defence, as I've said, we COULD NOT, for resons stated above; however, the U.S. COULD HAVE. There's a big difference. And lest you think I'm blinded by Clintons term in office, HE was the President while all this was happening. A pity. He could have added that to Kosovo as another one of Americas shining moments. Ever see the movie "Hotel Rwanda"? Remember the character Nick Nolte played? He played a Canadian army officer; THAT was based on Brig.-Gen. Romeo Dallaire. Today, he serves as a Senator in parliament. Good for him, at least.

So, I guess my whole point is thus, Streamlined:

America should NOT be mired in a war without end; a war that, whatever the gains, do NOT match the returns; a war that has now turned into a civil war; a war that squanders a nations wealth, pride, resources and young people.

Once the reasons, excuses or information about that war (or ANY war) become suspect (let alone lacking in TRUTH)....then it all seems moot.

Congress is the voice of the people; they say OUT;

The new-and-improved Iraqi governments' Prime Minister is the voice of THEIR people; they say OUT;

The Iraqis....say OUT.

And ORDINARY AMERICANS are the LAST, TRUE voice of your nation; and to them...I say:

God Bless You. And your Republic.

Over to you, Sir.

Manipulative drivel.

Of course they lied to cover up for their MISTAKES, because people like the liberal trash who made this video would have crucified them for their MISTAKES.

Yes the war was a mistake. That doesn't mean we went in because we're evil.

No, Saddam didn't have WMD. That doesn't mean we said he did because we're evil.

They're mistakes.

Then showing irrational, angry liberals (whom have never FOUGHT a day in their life... which makes them a curious proponent for the lives of those in the military... as if they assume the soldiers themselves are mentally, or physically incapable of standing up for themselves... regardless of the fact that they have more intestinal fortitude then a dozen hippies) throwing things at cars, and interrupting interviews, and conferences, as if just because angry, irrational people believe something, it must be true.

Its sad that partisan politics have grown this fervent. It isn't about the beliefs. Its about the letter following his name. Bush got just as much shit back before 9/11, only then the problem was that he was a "do nothing" president, who's just wasting our time.

Liberals suck, and no one is going to read this. I do, however, feel better about having the opportunity to reply to all the liberal trash out there.

Good day.

Streamlined:

"Canucklehead"? LOL I only cackled at that once I typed it and saw how it looked.

As to your/my question....okay...here goes:

I don't think that your political elite made this decision because of "oil" or any other natural resource because (as I mentioned above, and according to the United States Dept. of Energy website), Canada is the U.S.'s largest oil supplier, along with natural gas, fresh water, coal and assorted other fossil fuels; Mexico is second; Venezuela is third, and Saudi Arabia clocks in at #4, in terms of who supplies the U.S. the most with black gold. So, in terms of resources? No. I would have take that off the table altogether; let's see...were they a "threat?" Colin Powell recently said that whoever gave that bogus information, should be held "severely accountable" in the intelligence agencies, but I think he's deflecting a bit here. Many documents have surfaced that show various intelligence sources as saying exactly what everyone else was saying: no evidence of WMD's (see clip above with Condi speaking, dated August, 2001); no operational link whatsoever to Al-Quaeda (as stated by even yourself); no credibility re: information of Husseins attempt at purchasing "yellow cake" uranium from Nigeria (see Joe Wilsons assertion of same, culminating in the outing of his wife, a CIA operative, in retaliation for his honesty; no link to 9/11, as admitted by the President; so I am taking "threat" off the table as well. Was it to "liberate" the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator? On the surface....very noble. Very simple. yet...I cannot accept this as an suitable answer, for a very simple reason: that man's brutality is quite well-documented and known. But so was the British Empires' treatment against the colonies; so was the French aristocracy's treatment against the downtrodden commoners. In both scenarios, the people rose up, and said "enough"; here's my point: if the Iraqi people WOULD not rise up, and say "enough"....then no one can or SHOULD to it for them. You cannot instill liberty or democracy or freedom upon a people who very clearly had not the spirit to do it for themselves. This is compounded by the fact that the country has now fractured into warring sides.....a civil war. If the Iraqis DID have this spirit, then I would have seen IED's, insurgents, an underground movement directed at Saddam...not U.S. forces. Plus, there are currently 30-40 tinpot dictators operating in the world right now; what is Bush to do? Take them ALL out, one-by-one? Therefore, I am forced to take the notion of "liberating Iraq" off the table as well.

Hmmmm.....

Is Iraq the "central front on the war on terror?" Again, makes no sense. 9/11 happened without Iraq; the terrorists cropping up now in the West, are MOSTLY homegrown and schooled, or from Saudi Arabia; also, there IS a problem NOW, with "terrorists" actually honing their skills as this occupation progresses; this could have some truth, in which case you could say this invasion has made things...worse. BUT, we go back yet again to what I've said before: this was NOT the reason given at the start of the war. I therefore am forced to take THIS off the table as well, in relation to answering the question at hand.

Hmmm...(no sarcasm here; I'm serious).....

Okay, here's what I am forced to deduce:

The interest was "strategic". I think the President and his advisors and Chief Of Staff were primarily driven to establish a "strategic" presence in that part of the world; I think they were honestly sick of relying on the Saudis as a whole, meaning they're just not reliable at all, plus, I think they felt that having a significant U.S. presence in that area would ensure some form of achieving an advancement of U.S. influence (be it political or military), effectively cutting off a reliance on SA's co-operation. When 9/11, happened, they felt, "Bingo!"; Americans (predictably and rightfully so) were hurt, upset and horrified at what happened. But sooner or later, those emotions will turn to one thing: Anger. Rage. The Administration knew this; hence, Rummy started drawing up his initiatives; the American people NEEDED someone to blame; be held to accountability; to PAY for this atrocity. Bush, Cheney, Rummy...simply saw a window of opportunity, and gave it to them. Currently, something like 40% of the American public STILL believes Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

Soooooo....I guess my answer would be.....

I believe they lied to fit a pre-concieved notion, i.e. the "strategic" reason I've stated, and to do this, a "war" had to be sold to the public-at-large. Once the reasons didn't pan out, and the "war" was losing favourability with the Hometown crowd....then reasons started shifting...changing. And along with it....a serious hit was taken by the White House, in terms of credibility.

Sorry about the long response.

Just trying to be as honest and concise as possible.

P.S. Are you a hockey fan at all? If not...it's KA-POW!!

P.P.S.

I only add this because I feel it does give food for thought, not just in relation to what I've said, but the topic as a whole:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2129675,00.html

I also found THIS to be particularly intriguing:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003793904_iraqexit18.html

Dude Canuck. Your last post was really well written. You also came to the same conclusions I have so since I think I'm smart then I think your conclusion is smart. (half serious). You made a lot of good points in there, and didn't get all pissed off and swear at people or name call! Thank you.

Hosrex... um... what makes you think there are no liberals in the military or that there haven't been any liberal soldiers? Also, please define liberal. It's such an over-used term these days. And sorry... but I strongly doubt that the reason we went to Iraq were because of "honest mistakes". That's ridiculous. Iraq has NEVER been a real threat to us b/c they don't have any weapons that can actually reach farther than just outside of their borders, and we have ICBM's. (that's Inter Contintenal Ballistic Missiles) that deliver serious nuclear payloads. Now THOSE are WMD's!!! We have em!! Not Iraq.

Get a clue.

Sorry; I'm adding this, because even as some soldiers face death everyday in Iraq, they can still crack me up:

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/popup?id=3382593

Note:

Read the caption to the right, next to the photograph.

You guys seriously have nothing better to do than type long, drawn out arguments back and forth?

Get a LIFE!

Since none of you are using PRIMARY sources of data, but rather SECONDARY sources that have been neatly packaged for you to support someone's agenda, ALL of your opinions are suspect regardless of how well thought out b/c the underliying data is suspect. This is further compounded for historical events for which you weren't even around.

So .... by all means put your thoughts out there, but move on! No more detailed, detailed e-mails spouting facts that are not primary facts but pre-packaged facts for your consumption to regurgitate as a puppet for someone else's agenda.

Never said that mine weren't suspect. Of course they are. I've been brainswashed in a particular direction also.

The better communications technology gets, the lazier we get, the more we rely on what we're fed, the less independent our thoughts (even though we think they are). This is why I'm so light-hearted about all this stuff b/c I'm resigned to only being able to access the data THAT ANOTHER BIASED HUMAN has made available to me, regardless of how hard I look. There's no truth in history and there's no truth today other than the microcosm of life that you yourself are actually living and even that is being bombarded and manipulated with agendas. This is streamliend prism theory on steroids only we didn't build our prisms ourselves.

At least you didn't cuss at me!

The rest of that interview with Jon Stewart (that the video starts with) is available here:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04272007/watch.html

Stewart's analysis is one of the best I have seen.

Typical response from cafuckhead. When was the last time YOU, YES YOU personally validated the facts (supposed) that you base your rants on? I'm not talking about reading the paper, reading trade rags, watching the news, reviewing government stats, or searching the internet. What, that's all that's available? Excatly my point twathead.

Avoiding the f'in question again. You blindly belevie everything you read, which is selective at best, and would then have us agree with your arguments that are based on this stuff.

Case in point on your selectivity. You discard and discount pretty much everything the U.S gov says, yet use info. from that very same source (U.S. gov website outlining oil suppliers) to support your arguments! How ridiculous is that.

I guess your employer saw this too and fired you which is why you have so much time to spend creating this crap.

Btw, your profanity continues to provide great examples to your kids.

love him or hate him. . .he's killed a shitload of ragheads. . .

C-Here goes.
Citing an article here and there constitutes exactly nothing. MSNBC, NYTimes, CNBC, CNN, to a lesser extent Fox...all play by a similar template in their news. Cting an MSNBC article is like m citing a Bill OReilly piece to you...no cred...ever.
Your caselaw argument/article is a good one. Covert has been loosely used down here to mean secret or clandestined...she was not. I am guilty of loosely using it a well. It should be noted that her civil suit has been dismissed. Nothing there. I have no intention of goingthrough the entire history of what led to now, but from my end: Joe Wilson has been shown to be an opportunist and a liar. The case that Bushies were retaliating by outingher is known andhas been known to be false. From jump street Fitzgeraldknew that Dick Armitage (no Bush fan) was the leak. The reason there is no story here is because Armitage did not think Plame was of a deep level of cover...neither did Novak. (Apparently, neither did Plame whn she posed with Wilon on the cover of Vanity Fair.) I concede that she was technically covert, not undercover and certainly not deep. Finally, she and Joe Wilson are liars. She recommended Joe to go to Niger to the CIA. Then denied doing that. Then the people she recommended Joe to started to talk. oops. It is probably very good for Wilson and Plame that their civil suit was dismissed and as of now her attornies havenot commented. (My sources for all of this are not one or two articles but putting together what is credible as pieces come out. Bush should remove Fitzgerald and investigate his tactics.)
I spent the last 30 minutes re-reading your postings all the way up. If there was term stronger than hypocricy, I would use it. You spent a lot of space telling us it is none of our business...unless of course you agree with it, like in Kosovo. So there must be a time when we can make it our bsuiness, I guess. I rest my claim on the fact that going into Kosovo was the moral thing to do for the reasons you say...even if there was really no danger of that war spreading too much. It can only be seen as hypocritical not to apply similar standards to Iraq, which had lived much longer under the thumb of a maniac...a maniac who was developing and even used the WMDs that you deny even existed. (Please read Stephen F. Hayes)
There is wide disagreement about whether Iraq is in a civil war. There are those on both sides with compelling arguments. I believe that right now it is not a civil war because of who is involved...they are not warring factions of one nation trying to establish a government. There are foreign terrorists who have a stake in not only getting the US out, but re-establishing a non-democratic gvmt. It could become a civil war, but for now we will simply have to disagree...cite all the articles in yor favor you want. I have read many and some mke compelling arguments, i just disagree.
I take a bit of umbrage at your remark about spokes in a wheel. That is an enormously arrogant statement. You have no idea about their politics or their backgrounds...only their careers. I know nothing of your life or passions and I have not generalized about you or your overall politics. That was a foolish direction to go as it added nothing to the discourse.
Vindicating Vietnam will take some time and more reading than a couple of articles. My dad was a cpt in the army during 'Nam and we were stationed in Japan. All the things he told me when I was in HS did not marry up with what was portrayed in the press. Then, I looked back at some literature of the time, some historical facts and came to the conclusion that the press purposefully mischaracterized the war...the same way it is being done now. Leaving out good news, following predictable story lines and moving public opinion. I wonder what would have happened in Vietnam if the America public had been as supportive in 1973 as they were in 67? There is no doubt that less life would have been loss, because the real killing began when we pulled out. That is historical fact.
McCarthy-please read the decrypted and declassified Venona tapes. You will not only see the outlines of communist strategies but just how successful in our own gvmt some of them were. It did not make big news in 1995(?) when the KGB declassified them because so many on our political left have been able to use McCarthy as the poster boy for rightwing power run amok.
Now that the tables have turned, the US Press has a strong interest in diminishing and minimalizing the story.
Finally, the article you cited for Qaddafi is music to my eyes. The point I was making about using Iraq as the central front and creating hostile environs for dictators: Qaddafi effectively gave up his weapons program two years ago...that is why we are now open to doing business with him. I am sure you did not mean to buttress an argument of mine...: )
The head of the snake strategy is a phrase ued inside the admin and they have claimed this as a strategy not me...so, yes, Iraq has everything to do with taking off the head. As predicted 3-4 years ago, Iran would be drawn out as their public grows weary of their own govmt. If we are weak in Iraq, Iran's public will be less likely to rise up, like some of their students would apparently like to do.
I want to clarify one thing--I thought like you about the war, in the past. I have never been a lefty. My views on the war primarily changed because of who I had inadvertently aligned myself with and the lunatic things they were saying.

You can ask anything personal--what's there to hide. I might tell you "none of your business", but so what. Fire away

This one is good with regard to defining civil wars:
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=2190

Slinging insults canuck does not hide the fact that you have been caught contradicting yourself by using the same sources that you claim to have no belief in.

I ain't getting involved in this one!

All I have to say is look at the title for the video.....
"How to make an Angry American"..... Should read "How to make Angry Bloggers!" lol.

Thanks canuck for standing up to these fuckers.

To streamlined, herro, and the other conservatives. You were all correct!

Due to the new Executive order signed by President Bush I hereby leave all political forums, and state that that "I now support the administration fully, and I think we should stay in Iraq till every American has died in pursuit of this very Nobel Goal"

So please Mr. Bush, I don't have much in the way of money or possessions, but I want to keep what I have, and I don't want to undergo rendition (extraordinary or any other way).

I guess you conservatives have won now, and I an too poor and powerless to risk stating further any opinions. It is all up to canuck1963, and other voices outside the US to continue the debate.

Bye.

Congratulations, best wishes, and long live the New America.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

Of course if I disappear no one would notice anyway :(

Away for a few days and it's like I never left!! Canuck1963 still arguing the same old bullshit, regardless of the video. To one of the comments above, do you really have a job???

So the answer to barnsley's questions is no, you don't have a job?

no meds

younger than you

your turn. one for one. job?

Well, didnt this provoke a response, and one where you all seem to miss the point, forget the old wars, concentrate on this one, the people fighting this are doing it over oil, end of, if it really was for what he was doing to his own people and neighbours, isnt it about time you invaded china for what they have done to the their own and their neighbours, oh, and china do have WMD thats fact, or what about Zimbabwe, the one bread basket of africa, now a ruined country run by a despot, millions starving, beaten etc. Please lets not worry about why this war started, it was because there is oil out there, and a damn good chance (in their minds) of winning. Come on USA lets go get those chinese, yeah right

Pods-I cannot decide where to go with your above note. I have written way too much over th past few days, all of which has been in support of my various opinions that aresupported in logic and fact. You have been an easy target because you have had no points...just yelling and cut-downs. It is funny that you think you were "harsh" in your "ego-driven" comment. You can only be harsh if what you say has any merit.

Now that explains why you have so much time on your hands! You have a laptop that you use in dunkin donuts for the vast majority of the day.

C-I took umbrage at the unmitigated arrogance of your "spokes' comment. Looking back, what were you suggesting if not to negate their appeals to me? You see, this is the second time you have stated the obvious as support for something: first it was blowback, as if your citations of blowback were unique in history or that they supported some view you have aboutAmerican Foreign policy. In all relationships, there are consequences (read:blowback). Second, it is obvious by their positions in our government that they are spokes in a wheel, C. The umbrage comes from the gaul it takes to suggest that undermines their opinions or because they were notprivy to discussions at the top end, they are just spokes in a big wheel. You have not been in those meetings either, but you most certainly have some opinions as to what went on and what came out. Why can't they be afforded the same?
Continuing with the Civil War--My response to your Colin Powell quotes was very clear: He has had a number of comments on Iraq and its status. I am only popinting out that you cherry-picked the one that supports your position. (Re-affirming my earlier OOC arguments. Out of context does not only refer to current context, but to historical as well.) It is not a cop out, either. Colin Powell was never on board with the war itself. Having State Dept background, he is a firm believer in sanctions, etc. It must have been one helluva thing for him to make th Admins case to the UN about Saddams current weapons capacities, as a justification for going to war. So, at best, Powell has had a lot of different positions on our war in Iraq...not just the one you sited.
Finding sources that agree with your position is no hard trick. Go read the ones that don't support your position. (I have a comment on that below)

Logical fallacy number 3: You do not get to assert that the US has no business in Iraq as a core belief of yours only to use POST FACTO reasons for maintaining it. "Mind your business" cannot be applied after the fact, C. You can argue that beforehand, but results that occur after we go in cannot be used to support that argument. There is a moment here, and I do not expect you to address it openly, for you to acknowledge your hypocricy. You can say a lot about me and my positions...they are wrong, misinformed, whatever. There are no hypocricies or logical pitfalls.
(By the way, many people accused Clinton's motives of being less then genuine at the time. But, they still believed the mission was a good one, even if it was a bit bungled. I know I did and still do. I still can't figure out why the UN was so lack-luster in their support. Your open belief in Bill Clinton, a known andconvicted perjurer, and your ready disbelief if Bush reveals to me a bias that I have suspected from the beginning. Your glee at reporting anti-Bush sentiment and your final analysis that history won't likely "vindicate" our efforts in Iraq support that even more.)
I am very sorry you think the Domino Theory was proved false. (You did NOT address my assertion as to why we went to war in Vietnam, you only tried to create a strawman that unfortunately insn't.) There is still good healthy debate, although very political, about the Domino Theory and its roll in Amer oreign policy. You must be unaware of the debate. (Here is a pretty good, albeit simplified, cite: http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.html )
Wait...possible self-contradictory moment: Qaddafi effectively surrenders his weapons capability due to our approach to Iraq. Thus leading to our re-openning business realtionships. Primarily Oil. I am confused with your stance...you earlier stated that oil wasn't our reason for goinginto Iraq. (Plus- you failed to understand history again: Countries, people, leaders, etc can have rocky relationships that either mellow, become excellent or even get worse...We bombed Lybia over 20 years ago, C. Our relationship with Japan healed faster!)
For the record: anytime anyone cites a newspaper piece, IT IS an opinion piece. You may have delineated one as such, but they all were. The print media in the US has an awful record of contradictions, in facts, over the course of this war...sometimes even in the same editions. Citing the WashPost or NYTimes is never a buttressing of your arguments...even worse, the UK Guardian.
You may be right about a military strike against Iran right now...but, there is a compelling argument that you may be wrong. (No, Ricedoesn't see this which is why she is pushing a diplomatic approach...Rice is in the State Dept, diplomatic approach is the only option there. US Admins have always butted headswith a State Dept-that is their job. Cheney can no more tell her to butt out than I can. I personally believe Rice was put there to undermine the State Dept's historical positions on wars since she has been one f the Admnins greatest supporters for our war in Iraq. That's jsut my opinion, though.) If we strike Iran, will peole really wonder why? They are supplying weapons, training camps, terrorists, etc

have fun

Your right streamlined. My humblest apologies.

what was the deal? i only agreed to a one for one to which i honored. re-read the thread before you make such accusations

Anyone else getting a big BLACK BOX over the post following STREAMLINED's post of 8 hours ago that ends with, "have fun?"

I then get a big BLACK BOX over the next post until the words, "Vice-President Cheney were one of the common folk right now, I can. . . "

What's going on and who is the censor? I tried reloading the page and continuously get the same result. So, who is the censor and what are they censoring?

C-Where to begin...where to begin...Your first paragraph is so illogical that I am unusually silenced. Why would you suppose that their deep impact on me was because they offered inside or new facts? I am sorry I was not clearer as I thought it would have been obvious from my phrasiology: thier perspective as a soldier and as one who has been on the VP detail helped me take a different perspective. Again, a strawman. By the way, all you have is opinion. I have spent the better part of this discourse showing hypocricy, logical fallacies and illustrating that there are other "facts" besides yours. Which is why providing a source here and there is useless unless taken in full context...historical, contemporary and in the context of differing or differently interpreted facts. Insofar as the above, you have not addressed anything.
I will only address your belief that you could actually lay credible charges against this Admin briefly: You have no access to ANY evidence beyond news clippings, spliced quotes and innuendo that support your beliefs. You would also have to indict Clinton, Hans Blix, 25-30 Senators, and couple hundred Representatives who would have been in collusion with Bush. If you are in law enforcement, then you at least have some idea as to the nature of evidence.
Ok-With regard to "mind your own business", I am lost. I have been speaking to your position, C. Not that world class dingleberry, Chretien. You are the one I am accusing of hypocricy. If, as you have lately been arguing, it is that the humanitarian argument can sometimes trump the "its none of your business" (INOYB from now on)-like in Kosovo- then it is utter hypocricy to say that it cannot also apply to Iraq. I have never said there weren't those who didn't make the argument, I have just said that it is a hypocritical one unless it is applied elsewhere. What I believe is that (maybe you) some people are only opposed to military action when the opposite party is conducting it.

The Bill Clinton argument and why does his under oath lying undermine his ability to function as president situation--I hope that my rephrasing of your question causes you to see it as rhetorical. In case that it doesnt: Clinton's affair was not so much the problem, although there are those like me who think that presidents who are willing to get a BJ in the Oval Office while keeping theIsraeli PM waiting is less than leadership material and likely signals a human weakness that we do not want running the country. It was his lying when caught...it was his suboerning perjury...it was the covering up...the deceit. Just so you know, Starr's case was one of the most successful in ever. Please go look up how many people were successfully prosecuted and found guilty after the investigation began. In terms of money well spent, it was as successful as it could have been. (Please remember why we got there in the first place...his sexcapades were not what started the ball rolling. Without telling you outright, I would rather you go relive it.)

Right, Japan and Lybia not the same. Still refuting your point, though. (You keep arguing points I am not making...either I am horribly unclear or you, as a matter of habit, create strawmen.) Please re-read what you had originally written and what I then responded to. And, what difference does it make why Qaddafi re-opened himself to inspections and shut down weapons production? The fact that he did it is the point. Your speculations about that sort of thing is pointless. The Hague?! Now there is the court that metes out levelheaded justice. If that court ever served anyone any kind of indictment, they should be told where to shove it.
It is fine with me if you think the Domino Theory has been discredited. Even though it hasn't. You may not accept it, that is fine. I showed you that there is more to it than what you think. You are certainly welcome to believe what you want. Citing McNamara only...again, there are a legion of others who disagree. (John Kerry made assertions about Vietnam when he returned. Said he was eyewitness to them. Some of his brothers-in-arms who were there with him, refute him. So, from my and your end, we only can choose who to believe, based on whatever criteria we deem sufficient.)
I would suggest, again, that you learn more about the context of Colin Powell's relationship to the Admin before blanketly asserting one or two quotes. He was not exactly on the team wholeheartedly. I do not begrudge him that as I think he had a perspective on events that the others didn't. So, his post facto criticisms of the war/ Iraq/ etc carry very little weight until he makes specific accusations...or, anyone for that matter.

Streamer:

Remember that comments I made about nationalistic fervor helping Stalin and the German Socialist Party, and how folks tended to get wrapped up in it? Well, I submit this, and ask for your opinion on it:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0703a.asp

C-This will be my last time as tedious is very accurate to describe some of these points. I knew it would only take a matter of time before you backed yourself into a corner and had no place to go but ad hominem.
Before I get started, I want to point out another two things: (1) Dismissing info immediately before seeing it or testing it because of its source makes you, by definition, a bigot. If I had simply, from the get-go, said, 'This Canuck is a lefty kook...I will dismiss everything he says," you would have been right to call me a bigot. (2)Accusations must be taken seriously. Earlier I suggested people who become outraged over this and that but do nothing are cowards. American liberals are cowards. Where are the formal accusations? Whereis the obvious proof you suggest exists? If it were so, something would be done. There is enough hatred towards Bush in the US Congress that one could at least get a censure...well, maybe not. You see, formally trying to bring to light the loony things you are so sure of would bring to light a lot of other things as well. Seriousness of an accusation is not enough to warrent an investigation. You need something concrete. Apparently, it ain't there.

Point by Point:
1) Your response--bigoted. Your monumental arrogance is showing.
2) Again, I never said they offered new facts. I gained new perspective from theirs. When one can attempt appreciating anothers viewpoint (empathos) then one can begin to see another side. I suspect you are very young, under 25...I do not seek your agreement, but trying to understand is a great starting point.
3) The point I was making is simple...for anyone to believe that prosecutable war crimes have occured vis a vis Bush lied, there would have to many people prosecuted...including weapons inspector Hans Blix, who spoke to Iraq's weapons attempts and capabilities.
4) As Richard Pryor said to the cop when stone-cold busted, " Who you gonna believe...Me? or, your own lyin' eyes?" The hypocricy is enormous. The humanitarian argument was part of the rationale for removing Saddam...from Bush down. You do not get to assert INOYB with Iraq and not Kosovo since both had humanitarian underpinnings. That is why it is hypocricy. dixi
5) I see you did not do your homework. Why was Clinton indicted, C? What was the original investigation? Those other men were not indicted or investigated for other things. Had they been, they probably would have
admitted their infidelities.
6) Agreeing with Chretien does not make either of you right.
7) You mean after we bombed Lybia and convicted the agents. Granted, it was slow. But, everytime you write a sentence you prove to me your inability to put thingsinto a historical context. Your history simplified is blinding you, C. Here is a piece by the BBC. It is a bit slanted in tone, but still helps put things into perspective.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1653848.stm
7?) I did not dismiss McNamara. I suggested you do more reading and it now seems that putting things in context is of dire need. Read what I wrote. I did not in any way dismiss McNamara. There are others who were there and disagree with him.
8) John Kerry was there. He has been taken to task and called a liar. He has never, I repeat never, defended himself against the allegations of theSwift boaters or the others who publicly took him to task. See, when my side of the aisle gets outraged, they do something and they stand by it. Kerry's campaign folks would not let him address the allegations made against him. I wonder why. Contrast that to Bush who openly commented about the sinister nature of those who would denigrate his Natl Guard service. To this day, Kerry has not refuted the claims of the Swift boaters or anyone else about the holes and inconsistencies in his recollection of history.

I submit that you don't know what a strawman argument is. Which ones have the White House been floating for the last 7 years.

Are you sure you're a cop? I can't call up the local constabulary and level accuastions without warrent and expect them to drop everything and come investigate. The example you used presumes knowledge of the deed. In the case against Bush, you have nothing but innuendo that has gone nowhere and will go nowhere. Again, if it is so cut and dry where are the brave members of Congress who will stand up to the cabal of Bush/Cheney and put them away?

I don't remember your cmments about Stalin and the GerSoc Party. Is it in any of the above sections?

this is stupid. he's a bad monkey is what he is and there is no argument thier all bad men and should be made to pay for thier crimes . but we all know that wont happen so fuck it!!!
im headed down to atlantic city w/ my brother play some hold em and talk this shat with some people whom i hope to releive of that cash that may be burdening them. so untill the next time ?

And this is why I NEVER miss Jon Stewart...
Resign or be impeached already G.B

Is there an end? Is this a new "gilded age" where the rich control the masses through FOX media and rig the elections? Can we turn the wheel away from the edge of the cliff at the last minute? Will the winner of the next election believe in "Creation Science" like Mitt Romney? Can this nightmare end soon please? Hope is not a plan. Is anybody getting up from the card table or turning off the TV? Hello?

Canuck, stop wasting space with your "response at you tomorrow". News flash, NO ONE IS WAITING for your response.

Sreamlined:

Settle down, Hoss. My wisecrack at Cheney was just that: a wisecrack. Hardly makes me "bigoted" or "monumentally arrogant"...sheesh. lol You're starting to slide into the territory of mudslinging and name-calling (the very something you gave Throbmystick a mild rebuke for); you know..."craven"...coward"....amongst many others; I would be disappointed to see that happen with YOU at THIS point, especially considering the long, long parry-thrust-pivoting we've been doing. A definite shame.

Initially, my response was going to be to poke holes and point out inconsistancies with the points you've raised (and you KNOW I could, much as you could with anything I say or even post). But I came across an item today, in the New York Times. Granted you could sit there, and say "It's a left-wing/right-wing rag", or "it's one opinion", or "he's looking up stuff to back up what he already said", or whatever. BUT...I WILL say this much: it encapsulates my whole POINT, PROBLEM and overall CONCERN with how your government and its offcials are currently conducting themselves:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/opinion/23mon4.html?ex=1342843200

(continued)

Please read THAT...and then read THIS, something I wrote SIX DAYS ago (above) that I now cut-and-paste for you:

"Streamlined....here's a shocker for you: the President is the Commander-in-Chief, right? Okay. BUT...he's the C-in-C of all personnel in the U.S. MILITARY....NOT the civilian population. So what exactly is his role? Simple: CONGRESS sets policy...the President, being C-in-C with the military at his disposal....CARRIES IT OUT, utilizing said military. That's it. That's all. This is why the Founding Fathers specifically mandated Congress with being the sole authority to declare war. However, what you have now is the complete reverse: the President, acting much like a fucking two-bit despot, starts vetoing Congress's bills and basically says to them "Fuck you; I'm the Commander-Guy!"

Remember what I said to you? "Look for the commonalities", "extrapolate a common theme", "look for a pattern or a consistancy".

Also, ironically enough, they've started another video/clip thread on Glumbert called "The Three Minute History Of Oil"; again, it echoes the what I posted during our discourse FIVE days ago:

"This current war can be summed up as part of a much broader, much consistant pattern with the successive U.S. Administrations since the end of World War II....with a single word:

Blowback"

While you did, however, acknowledge that "blowback" exists AFTER I pointed it out to you, you dismissed (again) it as having played any reason re: the U.S. Administrations' approach towards Iraq and Iran and other nations I've mentioned.

This article and video did not surprise me in the SLIGHTEST, nor even amaze me. It's been common knowledge to ANYONE who cared to look for....the commonalities; anyone who cared to EXTRAPOLATE.

Those that didn't...or didn't care to....will continue to let the accusations pile up, gain momentum and eventually put Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush into a prisoners dock.

P.S.

"Seriousness of an accusation is not enough to warrent an investigation. You need something concrete."???

Really?

So how come it was good enough for Sen. McCarthy?

I strongly urge you to re-evaluate that philosophy.

Streamlined has been lobotomised by the MSM - sadly he is a lost cause. There is NO point trying to discuss with someone as far down the evolutionary chain as himself.

Then you'd drive home setting a fine example as a law enforcement officer. The differnece between you and stremalined is that he makes his own logical arguments. You just cut and past a collage made up of the views of others.

Got back just in time--Yeah, we would easily have a beer or 12.
One quick note on McCarthy, since you have not as of yet looked up the history of the time or the Venona tapes: He accused BECAUSE he had something concrete. That is a matter of history and transcript. The arguments against McCarthy settled into 2 camps: (1) What's the big deal? So we have people in the US who are Communists. It's America where that type of dissent is welcomed, right? Commies are peaceful dissenters. (this is the one that was used primarily to make McCarthy look like a raving lunatic.) And, (2) That he had only circumstantial evidence. This one was not very good over time because it turned out he had more than circumstantial. Before further comment, you should read...a lot. (BTW-McCarthy was a Senator. Many people are confusing his roll and the House Committee on Un-American Activities.) I arrived here precisely because I rethought it.

C-In all seriousness, bigoted is not a pejorative but a word with specific meaning. I did not mean it as a slam or cut-down, but as a criticism of your argument. If your remark about Cheney's detail was a wisecrack, I don't see the humorous part. When I said coward, it was based on your remarks that lent me to believe so. I do not call names for "Hi 5" points. I have chosen my words carefully...I believe that is why you did not cite any inconsistencies of which you claim I have written plenty. You will not find one.

The NYTime article expresses a lefty position that has been hurled against all Republcan presidents. The problem with your assertion and this charge is that it is unfounded. Please explain what he has done, in your opinion, to usurp the Constitution, specifically. Then explain why no one is taking action. I remind you that Congress (twice) reaffirmed the direction of this war by giving Bush his current powers. The primary reason Bush did not declare war and this was a very public notion (I believe again in the State of he Union): Upon whom would we declare it?
You have a biased misunderstanding of our Constitution. I have a copy right here.
Insertion: A word of advice: When looking for commonalities and patterns in order to extrapolate a common theme you are falling into one of researches' primary pitfalls: pigeonholing. That is, placing all that you see into the patterns you already believe. This tends to lead to only looking at those things that agree with what you believe and discarding that which doesn't fit into the pigeonhole. A true open mind, which is difficult to have and maintain, will digest all and be open for change. Already in the US, attitudes are changing about what we are doing because many people don't have their own being tied up in being right or wrong.

I acknowledged blowback, C. It is, as I stated, a statement of the obvious. I dismissed it not as untrue but as not buttressing your arguments since you have taken most of your facts out of context, prticularly historical context.

The accusations are piling up and have been piling up...to what end? Where are the galant and brave individuals who will get so outraged that they will put Bush an Cheney away? It will not happen and many like you will rest on what you think are your laurels that Bush was a crook who pulled the wool over everyone's eyes. This is a pattern that has been common in the left in their opposition to the right. When the American right levels the same claims, people go to jail...even in their own party.
To that end I will make a rare prediction: If the war shows continuing progress as we near the end of the Bush term, the Dems will try an impeachment...that will fail...but, it will get lots of press and then, like now, Bush will be tried in the public arena and it won't matter the outcome.

I'll take that bet with the stakes of your choosing. In a heart beat.

1. Sorry you didn't find the humor in the Cheney-bit; another classic example of humor being subjective, I think.

2. Quote for you:

"110TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION

RESOLUTION

Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States, against Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors."

That was from mid-April, 2007, as put forth by U.S. representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

I guess some "galant" folks have already started, huh? Longest journey starts with a single step. Plus, when you say that Congress gave Bush the go-ahead for this current fiasco, do you mean the last two REPUBLICAN-controlled Congresses? The Congress's who couldn't put party-loyalty aside and just carry out their CONGRESSIONAL duties, instead of rubber-stamping everything Bush did (or wanted)? You mean THOSE Congresses?? Riiiiiight.

Streamer, c'mon: the President does NOT have the authority to dictate to Congress....it's the other way around. Period. Why are you arguing this?? He was fortunate in his early terms to have like-minded party officials who drew him a blank cheque...but guess what? He dosen't have that anymore!! The gravy train is OVER, and now he MUST be brought to heel, and start taking his marching orders from Congress, as set out under Constitutional law. If there is something I'm mistaken or "pidgeon-holeing" here, well come on then: out with it. Let's have it. If you've got a link or a quote from the copy you're holding, that disputes this very issue, go ahead. I'm waiting.

Still looking into this "venona tapes" issue. Will get back to you.

As far as your comments about "extrapolating" goes...ummmm, no. If I see a crime scene, or even have "accusations" connected to that crime scene...then the worst thing in the world I can do is go by an already-established, or pre-concieved belief pattern. The WORST thing. For the umpteenth time: dig. ask. investigate. extrapolate. match the pieces. decide picture.

Based on THAT criteria alone....Cheney and Bush SHOULD start be shopping for lawyers. Good ones. And I would ABSOLUTELY be ready to percieve them as innocent until proven guilty....provided they get to that court to begin with.

I don't care what kind of rationalizing you use, as far as calling me names.

I'm hurt.

Say you're sorry.

Stop fixing blame and face that there is something to fix, too many cooks spoil the stew. Age old proverb don't believe what you hear and only half of what you see. Stop putting this trash out to corrupt minds.

Loved it. Nice to see the truth printed. I cannot wait until the truth is fully exposed. I am ready for our country to be a democracy again.

more info from others fom canuck; noting form his own mind

do you really believe that the us gov. thought there were weapons? and no, not from canada...

just wish that we could jail the folks that should be there... the current regime in power.

What the hell are all you Americans saying ? That none of you voted these fucking idiots into government ? Well someone did. These lying corrupt mother fuckers didn't just 'appear' in the whitehouse. Take some responsability for your own actions. Your country is single handedly raping the rest of the free world, so don't sit back now and say "it had nothing to do with me."

You guys should rent a documentary video called "Why We Fight". It's VERY eye-opening and I recommend it to everyone. War is money, people...war is money.

C-
I will be out of town until Sunday and may or may not have computer access.

Noticed you are now citing polls that appear to lend credence to your opinions. What a shame. I'm not sure if you are aware but polling for the last 3-4 months has shown Congress' approval lower by almost 10 points than Bush...which means nothing. All of your assertions about lies, misleading to war, etc are only embraced by the waccko-left. The politicians who publicly give support to varying parts of your arguments are unwilling and afraid to take formal action. (Kucinich is nuttier than squirrel crap and knew when he tried to bring impeachment up that it would go nowhere...
which is why he brought it up. My question remains: Where are all those (plural) brave and galant...? You named one guy who has no support. Even if I cede his courage, and I do not, he is still the nut yelling out there in the wilderness. See, one can publicly undermine someone in order to gain political favor. But, when push comes to shove, where's the real outrage and action. I desire impeachment hearings. I desire a public finger-pointing and out and out fight to see what has merit and what doesn't. The Dems have useful idiots fighting their causes because they won't. When I call them cowards, I was not being flippant or mean...just accurate.

I asked you specifically what it was in our Constitution that GWB is violating. Still, no answer. I believe you are and have been regurgitating the DailyKos mantra and talking points. Either that or you have utterly no idea what is in our Constitution...or, both. Like-minded?! Gray-train over?! What are you talking about? The war is still funded and will be no matter who is in office. Please tell me you are not one of the "pull out now" types! In its infinite lunacy, Congress (of both parties) will not defund...again, Dems are cowards: no money where there mouth is...the Dem Pres candidates are saying so now, even as they campaign. Pigeonholing is what you are doing in your argument's entirety. The definition I gave you implies selective application of what you think is proof, over time...not just one item. Proof is your entire body of witty ripostes.
You changed your example, C. First it was accusations made must lead to investigations. I showed that that was faulty and only fascist law (pre-war Germany-cold war Russia, among others) operates that way. Now, you change you original example to that of a crime-scene accusation. Thank you for proving my original point.

They may indeed need lawyers. As I said before, if things don't go well for the Dems in the next year, they will try to impeach Bush. There are those that have said that since 2000. It will not succeed. (I do want to stress that success in Iraq means failure for the Dems...so, who does one root for?)

I do not believe for moment that you are hurt. You are a big boy. I notice in almost all of posts to others, hurting them with names is not a concern of yours. I did not make any claims about you that were intended to hurt. However, if I did, you could still handle it.

well, "illiterate prig" might have been mean. Begging forgiveness, but hey, that was before we started holding hands and dating.

What do YOU care what I said to a specific few brain-dead types on these threats?? (lol....you're right; I'm a big boy; good to see you have SOME sense of humor)

Look, I'll be absolutely the FIRST one to agree with you, that the Democrats SHOULD be doing their jobs, and start investigation/impeachment proceedings....but they're not. And they are fully within their rights to do so. I'll say it again: the President takes his marching orders from Congress; he then carries out those orders. If he cannot or will not, then he's in violation of the Constitution. PERIOD. I've asked you to offer something that contradicts this, and you've ignored it. Now what am I to think? Okay fine then...I'll cut-paste-and-quote it for you, and save you the trouble:

"Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II"

That is a DIRECT QUOTE from your Constitution. Pretty cut-and-dried to me. THAT'S the law. So this ends THAT portion of the debate.

Just because Congress hasn't taken stapes to impeach Cheney or Bush, does NOT mean that there wasn't a crime committed; in this case, it's a case of the "cops" (i.e. Congress) REFUSING to even investigate. Why? Sorry, I wish I could tell you. And its PRECISELY WHY their numbers are low...because they aren't taking steps to deal with this President and Vice-President, according to how a majority of the American people WANT them dealt with. But before you dismiss Kucinich as a "nut", recall what I said: the longest journey starts with a single step. The Republic was NOT founded overnight; it'll gather momentum; it will gain steam, and when it does, then we'll see Congressional Law enacted properly, fairly and with due consideration to party loyalty. THAT is MY predication. Place your bets here. "Scooter" Libby got HOW MUCH TIME??? That was just the beginning. Rove, Card, all of them. And let's not even talk about Mr. Paul Wolfowitz, late of the World Bank; wonder how he's making out? You'll need an entire cellblock reserved, when all is said and done. And to probe, or investigate an accusation/allegation (especially the serious ones) is not "fascist"...lmao. It's rooted in basic jurisprudence, stemming from english common-law, to modern-day American and Canadian law. "Fascist"??? Oh man. Streamer? C'mon. You're slipping now. And stop twisting my examples into something I'm not trying to convey, awright? Ya wanna see an example of "fascism"? Okay..here ya go:

" A man walked up to Dick Cheney, calmly told him he thought his Iraq policy was reprehensible, and walked away. A few minutes later he was arrested by the Secret Service, in front of his 8-year-old son, for “assault”.

When he asked what would happen to his child, the Secret Service said, “He can be sent to Child Services.” Luckily, the boy found his mother and was safe.

But the citizen who practiced his free speech spent a few hours in jail before he was released.

This is a story that was just told by Matthew Rothschild on Thom Hartmann’s radio show."

Sayyyyyyyy...Streamlined? Didn't you say your relative was working on the V.P. detail?? Please ask him about this; I'd hate to think he was out there acting like a...well, you know...a "fascist". (heavy sarcasm invoked here)

And as to you question about what the hell to impeach this "Commander-Guy" for? Well, okay, here goes:

1. The Offense of Wiretapping Surveillance in Defiance of the Law
2. The Offense of Lying and Inducing America to Support a War
3. The Offense of Reckless Indifference to the Lives and Welfare of American Troops
4. The Offense of Torture in Violation of U.S. Laws and Treaties
5. Disregarding Congressional Directives and Mandates (e.g.: timetable for withdrawal from Iraq)

That's just for starters. I can think of LOTS more. Maybe enough to even get a warrant for search-and-siezure of ALL their offices....oh wait...the Dems are in the process of doing that. Sorry. And how come whenever they manage to get a Republican to testify in front of a Congressional Commitee, ALL of them have the SAME answer: "I cannot recall". Over and over and over again. I could get more solid answers out of a prisoner, without even laying a hand on him. The corruption on that Hill stinks to high hell; like the draft from a slaughterhouse filled with spoiled meat.

And I'm waiting for the day it gets cleaned out....THOROUGHLY.

My computer time will be limited in the next few days as well...

'Till then.

Toodles.

I don't know where to start - Geez. How about a medical analogy first:

You have a tumor. Your doctors have done tests and conclude that while it may not be malignant now, it may be in the future. You can sit and do nothing, or take a chance and risk surgery. You're scared frankly that this unknown thing might get much worse later if you do not act now while it's still operable. So, you go through with the operation, the tumor is removed, and then you sue the doctor because the post-op reveals that it was a lot more benign then they thought after putting the whole thing under a microscope?!?! You want all the doctors fired because they didn't have a crystal ball in which to consult?!? That's how I characterize Canucks analysis.

Streamlined started out this whole post absolute right when he said there is a huge difference between lying and being wrong. Hey, we had a plan to seal Iraq and Turkey F'ed us and unwillingly created an out for the WMDs. No one saw them move all that crap to Syria or wherever it went, but we're over it now. Bin Laden's been dead for years - we're over him too.

Canuck, dude, instead of ranting about how right you are in hindsight, how about trying to comprehend having the responsibilty to protect the lives of 300 million people in North America during a period of intense fog and friction from an assymetric threat? You've got to think ahead given the current set of circumstances. In overcoming the beast of the USSR, things didn't smooth out perfectly in the world for everyone involved. We really can't do much about how we got to Sept 10th 2001, but Sept 11th changed everything.

We were pissed! Big Time. We had to flush them out of Afghanistan, and then figure out where they were going to go next. We were sure they were going to attack us again, we just didn't know where they would get new additional funding and support.

I was working at CENTCOM when we figured they would probably go to Somalia, and they did, but it was such a sewer they courted Yemen instead. The Yemenese, to their credit, empowered themselves to not harbor these losers (post USS Cole pressure), so the next logical suitor was....you guessed it...Iraq.

My spouse is an Intelligence officer and can vouch for how decimated our entire intel community became during the Clinton years. He didn't think we needed anybody out there because the cold war was over, so our contacts in that and many other regions atrophied beyond recognition. Do I think Clinton should be tried for treason and make this ridiculous accusation that he is solely responsible for 9/11, no, but it's a contributing factor as to why the fog has been so thick since the spring of 2003.

I try not to criticize folks too much until I've walked a mile in their shoes (that way, when I do criticize them, I'm at least a mile away.....and I have their shoes!). Seriously, a lot of folks think they know better how to shoulder the responsibilty of protecting a civilization from harm by watching TV or Hollywood glamour. In actuality, it comes down to hard work and doing the best with what you've got. Bush, Rummy, Franks, Abizaid, Powell, all have had tremendous challenges very few can even begin to fathom. Once you've sat in VTCs, meetings, or traveled with them to southwest Asia, you begin to realize that there are just not enough hours in the day to get what you need accomplished, let alone stop what you're doing and explain everything.

We stopped trying to explain stuff when it became apparent the liberal media would filter out all the good accomplishments and put together clips like this. We were just going to have to let our accomplishments do the talking for us, but unfortunately the west has a very short attention span, and that doesn't jive with what has to happen on the ground in Iraq.

People are constantly asking me, "Why is this taking so damn long?!?...". Well, even in a country with an established infrastructure it takes several years for a pedestrian to become an effective defender of his society. Iraq has to build its infrastructure first, assuming they want to. We thought they wanted to, and some optimists still think that. Now that they're bombing soccer fans, maybe that will empower them to be like the Yemenese and take action. We'll see. But, give them a chance. The Iraqis that I've met are very fine, upstanding individuals that I would trust to take the helm, but they're still shell shocked from Saddam, Sadr, AQ, JAM, etc. It's very difficult to trust anyone over there right now, but we're making some progress.

I want Canuck and his ilk to appreciate being able to sleep at night without having to think and/or worry about which way those 107mm rockets are going to come from tonight. There has not been a successful AQ terrorist event in North America in six years. The QEW and 401 have no bombs in them. Electricity is 99.9% dependable. Canuck can go to any med clinic at any time for any health issue and only pay a pittance for admin fees. Life is good, friend, because tough decisions were made under duress during crappy times

We are fighting them over there, not here. No need to impeach anybody for that, just a thank you will suffice.

You're welcome.

See? I even posted some of that stuff TWICE, just so ya get it.

Jesus H.

Oh...and another thing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071702007_pf.html

Oh yes.

I feel SO much safer.

Damn I missed out getting into this thread before... and no doubt I'll get my ass kicked for coming in late but as seemingly everything that needs to be said has been said, all the shit that can be flung has flown I guess imho it boils down to:

1. Afg being the right place to have focused on - but with insufficient follow up.

2. Iraq being the wrong place to invade - predicted on laughable intel, creating massive anti-US / Western sentiment, a generation of future terrorists and a(nother) failed state

3. Zinni not being listened to when GW made his mind up to go into Iraq... If he'd had some bandwidth given to his views we might be in a different situation there...

4. America as the world's policy maker and policeman is undisputably a FAR, FAR better alternative to an Islamic caliphate whatever your views on the guys in charge there - so fighting fundamentalist terror is STILL worthwhile; just keep the scope on the right target

5. Most politicians in most nations are parasitic, baby eating, truth-economist scum bags who'd sell their own grandmothers for personal benefit

6. How can the (mostly) well informed views, rational thought, passion and caring attitudes displayed here be translated into something that politicians will actually fucking listen to?

7. Looking to the future the LAST thing in the world the US should even contemplate doing (and it will surely be the US alone if it happens) is to go into Iran. Please don't... NO REALLY! At this point I almost feel like one of those drunken women standing by as her trailer trash husband fights with the neighbour. 'Leave it George... Leave it... He aint't worth it!'

Having read the entire thread from top to bottom I'm now tired and emotional. Happy ranting to all!

We impeached one President for lying to us and being morally corrupt but we've given a pass to his successor who not only lied but whose regime has played fast and lose with the Constitution. How can we buy the argument that we are fostering democracy abroad while it is being eroded at home? Where have all the statesman gone? Where have the Republians gone who fought to uphold the Constitution? Where have the Democrats gone who stood up to the leadership? Does anyone recognize truth, or morality, or ethics in this country? Or are we all too busy living superficial lives through the tabloids and reality TV? When did we lose our moral compass?

Thank you framprncss (posted above), so well spoken. But you forgot the thing that is the basis for ALL conflict. Money. I think that the 2008 U.S. has to come to grips with the terms "world economy" and the fact that money knows no nationality. Money is driving everything here folks, when can we finally take a deep breath and realize that? Patriotism (like professional sports), the principle of standing up for ones geographic and political home(team), is used by a corporate power structure to have poor folks enlisted to become dead "heroes" (or rabid t-shirt customers in better times). The best indicator of the movement towards multi-national corporate wealth operating beyond government control is the avoidance of taxes by corporations using a foreign address as a corporate headquarters. Like Haliburton. When the rich avoid military service in harm's way (Bush, Cheney, Rush Limbaugh), look for a robust stock market in companies exploiting natural resources (copper, aluminum, etc.) found in other countries. This is why Henry Kissinger (remember him) is raking in millions to this day- he's a multi-national corporate middleman, also something Bush Sr. (Carlyle Group) is now, and Bush Jr. will be. Media patriotism is a product folks, just the same as Paris Hilton....there's a bill paying sponsor for both programs, turn the channel and watch what you like, but some company is selling something and paying the bills for you to see it. Rupert Murdoch Mr. FOX news channel, what government does he REALLY support? Australia (where his passport reads)? India, where he owns the satellites that beam down the news? England where he owns almost everything that sees print? China, where is young wife is off cutting deals? America, where he's trying to buy the Wall Street Journal? Smart old Rupert is about Money, period. And it doesn't matter if it's euros, dollars, swiss francs, or gold. If Democratic Party brand patriotism begins to sell- he'll pitch that too....that's why he's supporting Hillary Clinton this time around. (Ever consider that fact?) And finally this, if the Muslim masses all had a future without poverty they'd get out of their madrassas and mosques and man the cash registers at their family businesses so that they could buy a Mercedes Benz now and they'd stop killing themselves for a Benz in the afterlife. Bin Laden-Murdoch-Bush all the same. Rich people manipulating (religion=patriotism)less-rich people for a bigger revenue stream for them and their friends. p.s. Why are rich men with bibles in their hands hiding the collection plate in their pictures? How about some fairness doctrine there. "This fear-driven and threat-filed exhortation do do the work of a 1st century poor carpenter who died in the name of love brought to you by the soon to be wealthy church of (independent religious contractor name here). Tithe (buy, watch, vote) or go to hell. Greetings from New Orleans, U.S.A. where there are still abandoned boats in the streets.

Found this OPINION piece today:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_6493724?IADID=Search-www.contracostatimes.com-www.contracostatimes.com

(continued):

I refer you back to what I posted 1 week ago in this thread, as comparison.

Okay.

I've went back, and looked at ALL of the posts we've made thus far. Point-counter-point; offer-rebuttal; tit-for-tat; and on and on. And once I really looked at it, you can actually see a picture emerge; not only that, one can begin to easily sump the others position in a few short sentences or more; example....YOUR position is thus:

1. Make claims based purely on your say-so;
2. Dismiss any/all arguments as "left-wing", or "biased"; or feign mock-anger when a political leader is jabbed.
3. When above options appear to be failing, resort to childish name-calling, which is the proven, last bastion of most/any blind, right-wing zealots (this pattern is disturbingly, but predictably, consistant).

Look, you had me admittedly hooked on this debate, because you seemed quite sensible and articulate with your arguments....BUT....you keep following the same pattern: you make claims...but offer only your say-so or belief behind them; you've made maybe one or two or three posts to illustrate/verify or attempt to give credence to what you've said; the other times? Zip. Zilch. Just name-calling. That's it. You ask me questions, I answer them honestly, and instead of giving DECENT reasons as to why I might be wrong or mistaken...you go back to the friggin' condescending/name-calling. You make these goddamn grandoise claims of "having a copy of the Constitution", and yet when I ask you REPEATEDLY to quote me something out of your GREAT COPY...you do nothing. So when I do it, you turn around and like a little kid throwing a tantrum, you say "OOOOO! Noooo! It's WRONG!! That's not what it SAYS!!! You got it from Salon, or such-and-such place!!" And did you post ANYTHING out of your GRAND EFFING COPY TO SHOW I'M WRONG??? Ah, no. Instead, all you do is make the most seriously, insipid argument that ANY DECENT LOYAL AMERICAN (not to mention the Founding Fathers) would have you strung up for; you said:

"The Pres does NOT taking marching orders from Congress...never has, never will."

In-fucking-credible.

You've just elevated George W.-I-Can't-Even-Speak-Normal-English Bush....to a....monarch. Is that it? The President is like a "king"?? His powers all-sweeping? Holy Christ. Okay. ONE LAST TIME: CONGRESS SETS POLICY....THE PRESIDENT IS THE GO-BOY WHO, AS C-IN-C of the MILITARY....CARRIES OUT THAT POLICY, USING THE MILITARY IF NEEDED. Comprendo? He is NOT the C-IN-C of EVERYONE, okay??? JUST THE MILITARY. NOT CIVILIANS. NOT CONGRESS. NOT THE SENATE. NOT THE LOCAL GODDAMN 7-11. JUST...the military. Now, if you got something that FACTUALLY DISPUTES this very issue...then let's have it. Stop wasting my time with name-calling and labelling, and let's SEE IT. And depending on what you show me, this issue could (or will) be over with. So let's have it. Shit or get off the pot. I raised, and now I'm calling. What're you holding?

To press on.......

I. "Scooter" Libby (Dick Felon-In-Waiting Cheney's former Chief of Staff) was found guilty and convicted on four out of five counts of perjury and obstruction. He drew a 30-month prison term, but your effing "king" commuted his sentence, and instead let him pay a $250,000 fine, and that was that. I'm sure a pardon will follow. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. Anyways, it's the first concrete evidence of rot, arrogance and cold, dank shit that exists in a once-proud office, previously held by great men. But the crew in there NOW? They allow for great temptation to slip into a sweet, frothing "Lynch Mob-mentality", and have them ALL taken care of in that way. And what do I base THAT on? Well, I can answer that with a question to YOU: Streamer....you like being a MEMBER of the 29% Club?? 29%!!!!! 29 goddamn PERCENT!! That means 70% of Americans CANNOT STAND THIS MAN. Last November, the people spoke....and that was that. End of story. Goodbye, Mr. Chips.

Your "king" ordered wiretapping WITHOUT a warrant. He got one LATER, when he knew he was, well, maybe, kinda in the wrong about it. Incomptetent fool.

As far as the "torture" issue goes, of course I'm not going to quote the Geneva Convention to you; close-minded zealots like yourself often abhor written agreements that your government signed onto; those like you who support this kind of government, usually prove that their signatures aren't worth anything at all. Rather, I'll go another route: your government is actively involved in "extrordinary renditions"; it is actively engaged in torture around the world; it is common practice to kidnap, detain and transport anyone they like, to a "Black Site" ; it has done so for a VERY long time now (even before Abu Ghraib...that was only because actual pictures came out of there, and someone was sickened enough to take action; deserves a medal)). It does this because your "king" has decreed that they are "enemy combatants", and such are not eligible to have the Rule of Law applied to them (be it American or Common law). Recently, though, your "king" (idiot that he is) has made it clear he WILL abide by the Geneva Convention Articles. My fuckin' hero. Dosen't matter, because niether I (nor 70 % of Americans) believe ANYTHING that comes out of his illiterate, shit-spewing gate; and that goes TRIPLE for the lying, traitorous guttersnipe that calls himself "the V.P." (who, by the way, shot an old man in the face, and didn't even have a hunting licence to begin with; shoulda gotten an inmate number for that fiasco ALONE. Fuck.)

As for a "timetable of withdrawal"? I believe in no such thing.

"Timetable"???

Oh give me a fucking break.

Get every boat, every plane, get every ANYTHING to EVERY PORT or AIRPORT....and load'em up. And take the next fuckin' stagecoach out. Simple. Easy. Affordable. No layaway plan. No more needless American deaths. Don't know what the bickerings all about. And this can all be accomplished relatively easily because......INOYB.

And never was.

Here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051602395.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Yes...it's another OPINION piece; so READ IT. And look who's doing the writing. A QUALIFIED source, I'd say.

So enough with the name-calling, flag-waving, condescending, sabre-rattling bullshit.

"Having travelled pretty well, most would fall into the envy category, from my perspective."

Gee, I'm shocked. Now THERE'S a healthy dose of objectivity. Fuck sakes.

Either show me CONCRETE PROOF I'm wrong....or say nothing at all, but don't keep spewing the same "It's all left-wing crap" bullshit, ok? (because then you'll look sillier than you already do).

Jesus H. Christ On His Throne.

thank you canuck. you have hit the target and im sorry for the 29%, bush could walk in on thier dinner and rape thier loved ones right in front of them then
tell them bla bla bla and thay would still vote for him. go figure? i can't.

and fram, well said on the post 4 days ago i liked it very much coming from an american it rings loud and i feel sad in this dark and immoral time in american history because when history is written for this era it will not pail well if the truth is told.

and i think jesushbush is someone i know,like my pinhead brother ?who is actually a current regime loather more than myself lol what a nimrod.

canuck1963, It is as I suspected.

Streamlined has the same viewpoint as the Christian Right.

A viewpoint based on religion: "Indendent thinking has been sacrificed for ideological cohesion. ur moral compasses are in the same places they have always been...in a profound fear of God. Until individuals go there or return there, everything else is moot."

There is no way to change a religious driven viewpoint. A mind poisoned with religion is not capable of change or common reason. Their view (same a s a Gods view) cannot be argued with, and it is heresy to oppose His (and the followers) will.

My mind, and my opinions are my own. They are based on my own experiences, and my own moral code.

I do NOT fear your God.
I do not WANT your God.

I will not be rendered MOOT because of this.

C-
Does this mean we're breaking up?
I will not be brief as this has proven my points from way back...I am sorry that you are so angry that you cannot articulate in an adult manner. The constant use of His name and the ever-present swearing, notwithstanding, all you have done is...nothing.
1.I have used logic and critical thinking to dismember your positions and have done so fairly well. The fact that the only way you can buttress your opinions are with the frailties who support you and newspaper articles who slant in your favor is telling. (There is more carnage below.)
2.I have not once dismissed your arguments because they were left-wing. I have called them left-wing, but have not dismessed them. Our long-winded threads show that. I have, however, dismissed the NYTimes, WashPost and others for being left-wing because they all sing from the same hymnal. When I was an undergrad, I learned an amazing lesson in research: check and recheck the sources. For example, if I cited a number of people's research to buttress a claim of my own and then found out that they, in turn, were citing the same source, what have I really done except draw from the same pool. If those sources ever show themselves to be independent journalists, they will then start having credence. Until then, I will not only question their facts but their spin on those facts.
3. It is interesting that you would criticize me for childish name-calling by...drum roll please...childish name-calling. Thank you for proving my point that you are illogical and cannot think independently. The names I have called you: coward, hypocrite, (I am beginning to rethink my retraction of "illiterate prig")...I stand behind as justifiable. No childish name-calling here. As I read through these threads, you are the king of epithetery (made that one up). Your hypocricy knows no bounds.

Your next paragraph is your most absurd yet and you have bested yourself, C. I have never claimed anything about my opinions that hasn't been backed up, ever. You may not like how I have backed it up, but they remain just that, my opinions.
You made assertions, C, about the Constitution that YOU needed to back up...not me. You have never cracked a page of that thing and I have read it at least 100 times. The copy I have is right here, highlighted and dogeared. What else do you need to know about it...except that you are willing to lie about. I now add that claim to my list of name-callling: You claimed to be quoting the Constitution, but made it up entirely. The line you wrote is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Of course, you would know this if you had ever picked it up and read it. (Why is telling you that it is not in there childish? Your self-congratulatory manner in which you erroneously quoted it deserved a good old-fashioned humbling. Take it or leave it. But on this point you are either a liar or stupid.

Saying the Pres does not take marching orders from Congress is not the same thing as elevating him to a monarch. Again, your amazing lack of knowledge about our gov is showing again. You are so wrong in your ALL CAPS, C. The Congress and Pres have enumerated powers, separate powers that one can find, lo and behold, outlined in the Constitution. My statement refutting your "marching orders from Congress" assertion does not imply that he is CIC of everyone. Only in your feeble mind does that become the sole alternative. Please, go get a copy of our Constitution and read it...less than a half hour I promise. By the way, there is nothing to refute, C. You made the assertions that need to be proven, not me. If you want proof that what you say is not in there, go read it. My proof for you is the whole thing.

1. Scooter Libby (Deep breath). There are those who see this as a political victory for the Dems as proof that there was a crime. However, there are thosein the same party who want it to go away...and it ppears to be doing just that. When the investigation began, to find a leaker of Valerie Plame, it was quickly (within days) discovered that Richard Armitage had said her name to Robert Novak who then went on to write his now-famous piece. Manyin the press knew this, but Fitzgerald continued an inestigation into...I don't know, because now we know there was no crime. I have read some of the testimony upon which he was hanged. He could not pindown phone call dates...to reporters...the information was immaterial. I am sure, since you are in law enforcement, that when a prosecutor takes up a case/investigation, there is enormous pressure to find some guilt...as in the Duke rape case. MY OPINION: the case should have been shut down once it was discovered that NO crome had been committed from the beginning. The aftermath of that little episode is why many wish it would drop: Civil case-dismissed, No underlying crime, a man's life tarnished for nothing.
Guess where the Pres derives the power of commutation:(I am not going to tell you, you'll have to read it.)
By the way, I would be in the 70% crowd. Bush has had only 2 parts of his presidency that I have supported: The War on Terror and the tax cuts. Everything else-no fan here. Your phenomenal inability to critically think is your worst enemy. However, disagreeing with him is different from hating him. I didn't even hate Bill Clinton.
The wire-tapping was pre-approved and was, as interpreted by other judges, not needing of a warrant because of who was being tapped. By the by, who is tapped, C? Everyone? Or, just certain numbers already flagged as linked to terrorism? I will be in your camp if someone is ever prosecuted for ordering a pizza. The legal debate about it was real and went on for some time before the Dems saw that they could use it as a political tool.
No, the reason you won't cite the Geneva Conv is because you know that armed combatants/ terrorist without a national allegiance do not fall under the Convention guidelines about torture. Again, you would have to read about it to know that.
Since you know so very much about our tactics, especially our covert and secret ones, C, I will ask you this: What would you do to people you suspect are plotting to blow up buildings, etc? I do not suggest that all our steps are perfect. I do, however, take issue with people like you who sit on the side and safely armchair quaterback everything that is going on. I wish Bush had not caved to the Geneva Conv guidelines.

For a while, I thought the idea of a withdrawal timetable was the most stupid idea ever. Nope. Withdrawing now is. Since you are so enamoured with the opinions of everyone else, where do you suppose that one falls, C?

Finally, C, you have sadly proven all my points: You are a hypocrite (Humanitarian argument: Bosnia OK---Humanitarian argument: Iraq NO, as one example). Illogical (See everything you wrote), a possible liar (Your Constitution quote that isn't)-if you admit you are wrong on that, the liar part will retracted, Inability to critically think (pigeonholing example and now the Gonzales note from above), Bigoted thinking (accusing me and others of the exact thing you routinely do...see the Gonzales note above.)
The way you self-congratulate is probably the most telling aspect of your threads. You would rather be right than for the war on terror to be won, esecially by the US. That is why I say you take glee in anything critical of the prosecution therof. I do not expect to change you or for you to even start thinking. Praying. That's the place to start.

I read some of the other posts in support of you and was not surpised. I would ask those who ridiculed me for my moral compass being rooted in a fear of God: Where is yours rooted, if not in absolutes?

dear mr streamlined
thank you for your well thought out and writtin summery. forgive me for any misspellings that may or most likely will occer in this responce.
you are a man it seems deeply commited to his beliefs and i commend that. in your last post you did not rant you did not stand on the podium and preach down on anyone well atleast thats how i saw it. unlike some of yourselfs i did no research on the previous post's ,comments and rebuttals. i speak only as an angry american my schooling is minimal so please do not be to disapointed. as i stated befor i am an angry american and it is my own goverment that im angry
at . you were writing about the constitution and im not certain but i believe you support this usurper in the white house ( and as i said im not clear if you are or not? ) if this being the case any debate, argument or otherwise discussion is void!
because if were talking morality and god and if god is truth then let us speak of god and let us speak of truth. this man came to power in a very questonable manner hence the word usurper (a position of power taken by force or illegally)
here it was the latter.and as most people in the world who are aware of the current events that are befalling our goverment even as i sit here composing this form of thought think he not only should be removed immediately but also imprisoned for his wrong doing since he didnt lie about the wmd and he was just( wrong and or mislead ) and i watched the press conference where he joked around knowing the cat was out of the bag about whear the wmd's where, maybe thier over here or maybe thier under here and thay were laughing blissfully not caring about the thousands that would be bleeding soon at thier folly. well now were splitting hairs was it a bold face lie or was he misslead ? well if he was that easly misslead the so called leader of one of the so called superpowers then he has no business being in office and should go to prison and if he lied then the same applies.
and as for a god ...... my god is a loving god not the vengeful god so many preach on t.v and radio and in most church's it is a god such magnificence to create evolution by desine. or just try and imagine all the galaxy's and all the universe's then a power grand enough to create all that ................ how could someone like me or any one else really know gods plan ? perhaps its as easy as teying to do the hardest thing known to man and that is love one another as god would love . huh maybe

did that make anyone cry?

Randall-thank you for a thoughtful reply.
I do, infact support Mr. Bush in the war on terror. Iave spent many a thread showing that there is nothing to back up the claim that he has done anything illegal. You may wish his impeachment and, as I have said before, that will likely be attempted...but, will not succeed. Only time will tell.
You call him a usurper even though he did nothing untoward in getting into the Presidency. I am sorry you are still upset about that, but it seems that is the source of your hatred and you (and many like you) are continuing that hatred into whatever Dubya does. (Is that the love you were referring later in your post?)
You should research a bit the lead up to the war. Since the early 90's it wasknown that Saddam had, used an continued to develop various WMDs. (That's why there was a UN inspection team for years and that is why the UN had 13 or so resolutions against him.) Not finding intact WMDs was a shock to everyone. There are a number of suggested outcomes: (1) His caabilities were overstated, (2) Many of the weapons were sold, (3) Many were dismantled, (4) Iraq is a big place and some may still be found, (5)a combination of all the above. (There is evidence of all of these.) Incidentally, it wasn't a press conference where he joked...it was the Natl Press Clubs annual event where the participants joke and make fun of the Pres (and others).
If he was mislead, so were many others, including leaders of other countries, like those in the UN. (Being mislead is not prosecutable as a crime.)
That is the God I know, Randall. The Bible reveals His overall plan and it is unambiguous but its application is through us...broken, imperfect human beings.You are right and you just cited the foundation of Christian love.

once again streamline if i stated anywhere that i hated (and i probley did) the person in the cic chair an apologia is here . now while i do loath and despise his caricature as he acts as president of our beloved country. only as the president or any other form of office he should hold does this apply . i do not hate his sole nor do i judge his sole. i only speak of the job or lack thereof job he undertook when usurping the seat with the help of his brother in florida. now it could be coincidental and all that the misshap was in that perticular state but if the powers to be were to prosecute me or any regular joe or even (you) on charges of tampering w/ an election or commiting fraud or lying to congress or even on the suspicion of any one of those charges we would be in prison before it would have snow balled into all this. and yes i am still angry about the whole affair that started almost 8 years ago but i believe justice will prevail.
let me ask you this. did or do you think jimmy carter is a great man as well as a humanitarian ? if i know a littel bit about you i would say your answer is yes.
and if so he himself denounced the bush cabinet as the worst in the history of america . thay shot back at him some rubbish w/ was just nonsensical. so there is right and there is wrong no gray here. god is everything or he is nothing. one man in his comment is correct and should'nt they wear it if it fitts or is it all just opinion's i think we get stuck believing in something so much that when the truth starts to emerge and it isent very plesant we involuntarily start to deny whats in front of us sort of like shock or simply denial. its a hard thing but its a necessary thing. or perhaps given a bit more time you may be able to say ... yep he did lie to me . or maybe not?

someone once said christianity is the perfect idea of philosphy, the only problem is its full of christens . now i say that to bring about the point that man given his rope will 9 out of 10 time's undo himself.

p.s no personal insult intended, hope none taken.

yours most respectfully RF

Streamlined:

I hope that Randal and ANYONE else reading this thread, will pay VERY close attention to what I'm about to say. It is IMPORTANT. Ready? Okay...here we go: I'm going to cut and paste something here, from a reply I made to you WAY, WAY back:

"I'm sorely tempted to ask you a VERY personal question, because the more answers you give, especially in relation to who and what YOU are, as well as the beliefs you once held but now don't....well, it leads to a theory that's been gnawing at me....about YOU, Sir. Not a bad one, just a theory. Not important, at any rate. Perhaps it will either be shot down, or confirmed on it's own. I won't pry."

You remember me saying that? And here Podman captured it...and I completely missed it; my question would have been "Did you dramatically change your views in life because of a religious influence or conversion?"

You got "saved"....didn't you? You went and simply got....religion.

Okay. It was gnawing at me and gnawing at me for the longest time, and I'm thinking "Why is this person so...so...judgemental? Why is he solidly supporting those under suspicion of criminality in the White House, while at the same time condoning torture upon other people? Something is off-kilter here."

And now we have it. Finally. It all makes beautiful, incredible sense. Now don't get me wrong...I'm NOT taking a jab at your personal religious beliefs; would never do that. However, it DOES amaze me, that George Bush's nonsensical religious prattling (and he's about as religious as a potted plant), is something he's done steadily throughout his tenure, as a means of pandering to his base of support, i.e., christian fundementalism. This is about the ONLY base of support he now has; all others have pretty well deserted him, and rightfully so.

According to you, you once had a sense....a view....a way to look at things; and then it all changed. And now I know why. Where once you had temerity to question....you now advocate blind loyalty; where once you probably accepted other peoples' viewpoints and were tolerant of them without judging them....you now treat them like "infidels", as if YOUR Almighty has the last word over EVERYTHING, and YOU can speak for HIM.

See, whether you realize it or not....Bush (or whoever occupies that office at any given time) is a POLITICAL leader....NOT a RELIGIOUS leader; if you want a RELIGIOUS leader, then go to Iran, and follow an Ayatollha; or go to the Vatican, and follow the Pope....because they are "religious" leaders; the President of the U.S.? He is a POLITICAL leader; and if he carries out his duties according to ANY personal religious beliefs he has, or is otherwise influenced by them...then he has violated what the Founding Fathers intended, i.e., DEFINITIVE separation of church and state; if one wants to practice his/her religious beliefs on a day-to-day basis....fine; then become a rabbi; or a priest; or a baptist preacher......but NOT....the President Of the United States of America.

You advocate torture because to YOU, these people are unsaved heathens, deserving of what they get; it's almost like a "crusade" to you...isn't it? Gods christian soldiers marching onward, to vanquish the heathen hoardes....right? And, on the flip-side of the coin....THEY take a couple of planes, and smack them into buildings, killing innocent people, because they believe "Allah" will send them to Paradise, with 72 black-eyed virgins. Yes, people sure do strange things in the name of "God".

Some will even stubbornly argue a foregone conclusion, because of a solid belief in whatever-deity.

Recently, I read an article from out of South Carolina; it talked about a $27 million "Creationist Museum" being built there; apparently, this "museum" has wax-figures of humans and dinasaurs co-existing; they firmly believe the Earth was created some 6,000 years ago; and all of their teachings fly in the face of every scientific principle ever printed. I read this, and I slapped my hand to my forehead, thinking, "$27 million bucks for THIS???" Insanity. Sheer insanity.

Now, I again re-iterate: I'm NOT knocking your personal religious beliefs; they work for YOU, and that's fine. But to argue or debate from a theological foundation (or from an influence by same), is not only mistaken...but only strengthens your blindness to what's happening. Perhaps when George Bush said "I'm saving America....one soul at a time" , you truly believed him; however, for someone on the outside looking in, the only thing he's "saving" (or trying to "save"), is his own credibility-bankrupt hide.

Are we "breaking up"? Nah. Probably not. Not in my own view, at any rate.

Not when I now know (and suspected a week ago) what I now know.

BTW....instead of simply couching yourself in ignorance, and screaming "liar!" at me....prove I was wrong. Simple...right?

Looking forward to the next, exciting installment.

Adieu.

C.

Apologies....strike that last one.....here it is:

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view

okay...never mind....the whole addy won't post.

ah screw it

OK, I think you wanted this one. Wow! This says it alll:
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view

"http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view

OK, maybe the government does not want us to reference this one?
niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org
/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view

That is really odd! That link will not post.

This link:
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm
to the article titled: "Can American leadership be restored?"

Hey Podster! Streamlined! If either one of you have three minutes and fifty seconds of your lives to spare, check out this video...it's hysterical!! I actually had Randall in mind when I spotted it:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/1d71c315a2

C
I am very sad to say that your analysis of me is off. I have been a Christian all my life and was not recently saved. The "conversion" I had a few years ago, as it relates to the war, was a media conversion. When I said that I thought like you about certain things, it was directly related to how I uncritically digested the news, politics, etc. (Uncritical in thinking--not just finding other sources but asking questions. Also, as I got older I began to understand better that we are all humans who have the same basic weaknesses and frailties...politicians and leaders are not immune. Neither are you.)
Your long psychoanalysis of me did not show your ability to derive insight, but your inability to think. You pigeonholed me right away andthen read into my previous posts things you wanted to believe. The fact that I freely bring up may faith makes you uncomfortable, C. No problem here. You, like everyone on Earth, has to wrestle with their relationship with God one way or another.
So, let me, again, dismantle your arguments:
1) "Why is this person so...so...judgmental?" I have been judging the actions and writings of others over the past threads, not their person. I know you can tell the difference. That is what we are supposed to do when we analyze what another human does or says. So far, you are the one who has been judgmental and this last post shows it.
2) Why is he solidly supporting those under suspicion..." I am not solidly supporting them, C. Our discourse, I mean, my discourse, has been specific. Point-counterpoint, as you say. Yours, however, has been to generalize. You want to lump what I say in support for something specific into a sweeping generalization about who I am, etc. Also, the same question you asked can be reversed about those supporting Bill Clinton when he was in the White House. However, I do not ask that question because the answer does not necessarily stereotype the person.
3) You cannot find one shred of one sentence for you to think I condone torture. I disagree with your absurd position but that does not mean I condone torture. You cannot define it (torture). So, I know it makes you feel very powerful and secure to pigeonhole all your beliefs about me in order to satisfy what you beleived from the beginning but it is not the case...again.
4) You are taking jabs at my religious beliefs. Please read some of your own posts in agreement with others. I do not mind, though, C. Because a belief is religious does not invalidate it.
5) You just cited me as judgmental, C. And only one paragraph later you accuse Bush's nonsensical religious prattling as pandering and even disengenuous. How would you know something like this? I mean, he is either a religious knucklehead who can't tie his shoes...or, he is now pandering to (what you believe to be) a small minority of people who oddly got him elected. If it is one, it is not the other. Comes down to critical thinking.
6) Wow...you keep upping the ante on your ignorance of our Founding Fathers and our history. What you are now saying cannot be chalked up to ignorance, really. Foolish and stupid. Your asinine belief that the public forum is supposed to be devoid of reiligious content has no root in American History...none. To suggest that a political leader cannot be moved to this or that based on his religious beliefs is simply stupid. There is nothing in our history or in the Constitution supporting that. We have no reason to think that religion is solely a private matter. By the way, there is no separation of church and state, in the manner you put it. You probably think that phrase is even in our founding documents...it is not. (Search Thomas Jefferson on that one.) I will not go into 7th and 8th grade civics class to teach you how so very wrong you are...it should be your assignment to just do some basic history of the States, ifyou are interested. It will, unfortunately, undo your pigeonholing ability about America and therefore shake some of your securities about your neighbors to the south.
7) Since, I have never advocated torture and you are extrapolating to an enormous degree, I will only say this to your "unsaved heathens" paragraph: People do do strange things in the name of their gods. But your set-up has no rationale since I am not aware, nor are you, of anything posted by me thatwould suggest Christians are supporting the war on terror in order to destroy Islam. You are not as bright as you think you are, C...all self adulating aside. This again is showing your critical thinking deficit and your ability to stereotype and pigeonhole ad infinitum.
8) Arrogance, sheer arrogance. I know the people at the Creation Museum and am a big supporter. You, and I mean you personally, C, just castigated a group of people based on NO KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR OWN. Which scientific principle ever printed has been violated? Your ignorance vis a vis arrogance is smothering you. I am a biologist with a degree and this is NOT an area you want to go. And by the way, what difference does it mak to you that private money built a museum? Go there and see what it has to say before you stereotypically toss it aside. I will pay for your pass.
9)Yes you are knocking my personal beliefs. By the way, you again show your unmitigated gaul to misquote and take out of context (OOC) something Dubya said in order to satisfy your narrow beliefs: HE DID NOT SAY THAT!
Here is the transcript: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040601-10.html
10) What you suspected a week ago, asnd you know this, was a true as gravity to then as it is now...even though it is not true.
11) I did prove you wrong, C, on the Constitutional quote and possibly a liar. You see when you say it is in there and I demonstrate that it is not, if you still wish to prove that it is, cite it. The reason I called you a possible liar is because you said that that line was direct quote. I then showed you it was not by citing a source for your quote. The burden of proof is on you to prove you even read the thing...I assert you did not or you would not have said something so foolish.
You have misquoted Bush, made up quotes about the Constitution and routinely taken things out of context. I do not believe for a minute that you are over 25 or an active duty cop. The guy who apparently tried to dig up research on you must have missed by a mile...and needs to get a life. Whatever you do, I hope you do it well, C.

If you want to go to the Creation Museum, I will pay for your gas, hotel and ticket. No joke.

Does anybody have to go TO a creation museum. According to the rhetoric aren't we living IN the creation museum.

Streamlined:

Again....with the name-calling. What IS it with you "christians"?? At the way YOU sound, you're ready to tie me up at the stake, and burn me as a heretic.

I say things....and instead of providing proof I'm WRONG...you resort to using a high school attempt at a reverse-onus twisting of the burden of proof. Well, let me tell you, I DID read your link there...from top to bottom. So my question is thus: would it have been possible to express these sentiments WITHOUT the invocation of any religion, deity or other supernatural drivel? COULD it have been possible? To be quite honest, the Man sounded like an ad hoc baptist preacher...not the PoTUS. Pathetic. And he DID say that quote I mentioned, but what's the point of posting a link to it? You won't believe it, or you'll dismiss it, like everything else. During the last presidential debates between John Kerry and Bush, a member of the studio audience asked a question about sten cell research; I WATCHED THIS; and the answers from both I vivedly recall: Bush went on and on, blathering about what a great "christian" he is, and how as a "christian", he could not support this issue; Kerry, much to his credit, said the following: " I am a devout Roman Catholic; I am very sincere in my faith to myself, as well as The Church; BUT....if I am elected as President, I CAN NOT....and WILL NOT...allow my own personal, religious beliefs dictate as to how I conduct myself as the PoTUS." Beautiful. And, as a bonus, he sounded like a brilliant statesman. I submit this quote to you, I found today:

"Before we continue to dismantle our "separation of church and state" and advance "faith-based initiatives" sponsored and paid for by government, we need to step back and look at modern examples of church/state marriage. Al-Qaeda is a faith-based initiative, as is the Taliban. The Israeli/Palestinian and Irish/English conflicts are faith-based. Do we want to emulate that which we condemn in others, that which we label as "evil," that which we war against? I'm afraid to answer that question."

You claim to have a "degree in biology", and STILL support this "Creation Museum"? Okay....here:

http://crazytalk.typepad.com/bluegrassroots/2007/06/fun_at_the_crea.html

Now you tell me: I just want a comment as to the CONTENT of this article, NOT a dismissal of of it being "leftist" or "biased"....just the CONTENT. Are you capable of THAT? Because if the content is even a quarter truthful, I'm going to puke. People have $27 million dollars of PRIVATE money to waste on this nonsense, yet they can't do something about the homeless problem? Domestic abuse? Kids living in poverty? And YOU, having a "degree in biology"...."support this and the people behind it??" Where did you get that "degree"? In Mexico? (that's a little payback for ALL of your childish shots at MY job). I appreciate your offer of the gas, hotel and ticket (and oddly enough, I think it was sincere). However, my own scruples (yes, I DO have them), wouldn't even allow me to THINK about taking your offer. But thank you anyways.

And as far as your arguments about the Constitution goes, well here you go:

Among the enumerated powers given Congress are those listed in Article I Section 8, namely---

“ The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
”

"The authors of the Constitution expected the greater power to lie with Congress and that is one reason they are described in Article One."

Read ALL of it. Once more (with gusto): Congress SETS policy....the President, as C-in-C of the MILITARY....carries it out."

Until such time as you decide to get your "dog-eared copy of the Constitution" out of the drawer, and QUOTE from it, I'll consider a "checkmate".

There's even a section there that deals with your "christian" fundamentalists....how about THAT? (i.e. "promoting SCIENCE", etc.).

Kinda sums it all up....don't it?

C
I am sorry, but not surprised, at how little it takes for you to get angry and further lose grip on Reason.
When one sees a phenomenon, one must name it. There has been no childish name-calling, C, except on your part. When I called you a hypocrite, I then proved you to be one (further example of your hypocricy is in this thread: decrying my namecalling while doing the same back to me.) When I called you illogical, I gave proof of your exercise thereof. When I called you a liar, I proved it...and now, in this last thread, you proved it by FINALLY looking at the Constitution and quoting it; something you did not do earlier, showing yourself to be willing to lie in order to make a point.
Kerry, for what it'sworth, is a coward for not standing by his religious conviction. What do you suppose is the moral foundation against, let's say, murder? If it is a religious one, then by your rationale, one could not enforce or impose anti-murder laws because "I cannot allow my own personal, religious beliefs (to) dictate as to how I conduct myself as the PoTUS." Again, you are exraordinary in your ability to suspend rational thought in order to prove a point. After all of that ranting...still, no point.
I am glad you read the transcript. Since you read it, you will know that Bush did not say what you quoted. His phrasiology was different and he was responding to a question, thus, you failed to consider context. If it was in error, then ok. However, I believe you have no problem deceiving to make a point. The irrationale continues.
You have, with your Taliban-as-State analogy to the US, shown your (again) inability to reason on a basic level. What makes you think anyone in our government has any intention of setting up a religious state? By the way, (and this is for those who don't know where the separation of church and state comes from) the Constitutions provisions for religion were to prevent the Federal gov from interfering with religion...not the other way around. The Civil rights movement in America was a Christian-religious movement...the Anti-Slavery movement was a Christian-religious one...the argument for the Great Society and (partly) the New Deal were predicated on and appealing to Christian charity. You wolud not know that since your sources would not tell you or you choose not to put history in its context.

I got part of the way through the "crazytalk" article. How could you ask for a comment on its content? It was a bile-filled, arrogant and hateful piece. Why don't you make up your own mind and not have others think for you. (This refers you back to the childish name-calling thing...you are illogical.)

You assert, again illogically and stereotypically bigoted, that by giving to the Creation Museum that somehow deprives the homeless et al ofmoney. You have no idea thedegree to which I or any of my friends give to charities or help PRIVATELY in society. (Or, the people at the Creation Museum, for that matter.) I re-add bigot to the name calling list. The proof is in the thread. Offense is not the objective, but accurately identifying a phenomenon in nature is.

When I read that you finally read the Constitution I was releived. When I saw how you distilled to that purile statement you have used repeatedly, I was again saddened. Bush went into Iraq with the approval of Congress. What argument are you making or who are you arguing with?! Go find that in the Constitution. You are stuck, C. A lot of typing, no new info. It is fine that you think he commited a crime, but you have no grounds on which to accuse. When I read the Constitution I see Congresses largest powers are over the purse strings!
You have considered issues shut before, C. Feel free to think that now. Each time you have shown your inability to reason.

I will have more later on the Creation Museum...go to:
www.answersingenesis.org and see the FAQs about what they teach.

and this . this here is what these fourms are for. i find this to be an excellent form of debate. and i thank you both for affording me the opportunity read both arguments.
although i agree with canuck and on most if not all his ideas on humanity and sense of humor. now you may say to your self what does a sense of humor have to do with what we were talking about? well just stay with me here. we have spoken alot on christianity have we not? well there are many different christens . we have the catholic the protestant, methodist, baptist,presbyterians and so, on and so on correct? all christens waving all flags for one man, christ son of man son of god. now i was taught at the catholic school i attened for nine years and ingrained into my head that we were created in gods image. and jesus being god in flesh is what i was also taught. now those were my experiences and are not my beliefs.
humor is a great part of love its all over the world and most likely stretch's throughout the universe its in our every day life it helps when we feel sad or angry it is so good i would say good humor is godly because if laugher is such a big part of us then is it not god who we should give all the glory (and if you can follow me here just a bit more) where is it written in the bible that god let out such a laugh that the earth cried with joy . its not .or in the new testament that jesus said onto peter, peter how many nazarene does it take to catch a fish? don't look you wont find it . and here is my point i pray every morning and night and when i pray im not embarressed to say that i think of this man jesus who know very littel of and here is where are version will differ. i believe jesus was laugh riot he was funny and he told joke's all the time he was a pistol sharp witted and seldom down in the dumps he laughed the loudest and loved the most he also showed the liers, thiefs, whores and murderers how thay could get to god without the priests or synagogue. the bibel is a great reference book but thats it. i was told that the bible was inspired by the hand of god , well its a nice thought .but man has had his hand in there so many times how could anything not be twisted or a half lie as you said earlier man is broken and its man whos hand has altered this book. and there is no worse lie than a half lie. i try to practice the jesus philosophy which is the same as mahatma gandhi and a few other enlightened men of this world in general. taking me back to why i have to side with canuck his humor tells me he's spiritual yet not blinded by faith in where i will believe because some one in the hierarchy says to . god gave us brain for thought (well at least some of us) and to question are origin and how or better yet why are we here? archeology ,carbon dating its all factual its all proven scientifically by scientists who have strong beliefs (such as yourself) in god and the bible.
one great caricture defect of mine used to be contempt before investigation i pray you may avoid this short coming .

Just a couple of unreferenced thoughts...

There are none more ignorant and useless than they that seek answers whilst on their knees with their eyes closed...

This one really makes sense to me:

Several thousand years ago, a tribe of ignorant near-savages wrote various collections of myths, wild tales, lies, and gibberish. Over the centuries, these stories were embroidered, garbled, mutilated, and torn into small pieces that were then repeatedly shuffled. Finally, this material was badly translated into several languages successively. The resultant text, creationists feel, is the best guide to this complex and technical subject.

I rest my case m'lud

stream it has been nice reading both yours and canucks remarks in the last few days.
this site appears to be going off the internet or something is going on so if it does
and i dont see or hear or read anything from you guys jest let me say now it was enlighting

enlightening and im over at youtube under imrandalflagg and at laughordie.com
hope we don't have to move but..............................peace and more peace.

Yeah, you're right Randal; I think this site had ground to a halt. Oh well...I'm sure we'll find another venue to wreck.

Mako...Padman...good points. I'll mull those over.

Streamlined:

Alrighty then. I've given and thrown every kind of point-for-point argument at you; with my last entry....you did it again: you ignored EXACT quotes I've given; you could NOT comment on the content of what I showed you (i.e. your dismissal was "It's a hate-filled site", or "it's full of bile"), which tells me that it does have some merit; I gave you EXACT quotes out of the Constitution, and again......blithe ignorance and dismissal from you; you gave more petty judgements and personal attacks; and you've shown, yet again, how you use your own religious beliefs to rationalize how "misguided" or how others have a "lack of faith". You've actually labelled me a "bigot", and "hypocritical". And you know what? I've come to one simple conclusion about you:

You're a religious zealot.

See, I'll let you in on something: I'm a retired Catholic (!); at this stage of my life, I am most definitely NOT "religious", per se; rather, I believe myself to be...spiritual. There's a HUGE difference between the two. And that's what differentiates YOU and ME. With YOU, you've decided to place all your beliefs into a book written by a group of old men a couple of thousand years ago, about the boogeyman, and taken it as fact, i.e. "it's the word of God"; now because if this, I'm sure that you have quite a stringent view as to same-sex marriages, religious beliefs of others, abortion, and on and on; It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if you even had sympathy for the KKK (another faith-based initiative). For instance, say you and I are (at the exact same moment) sitting down at our respective kitchen tables in the a.m., having a cup of java, reading the same newspaper; we both catch a news item; let's say it's a story about a school bus full of kids, that had a horrific accident, and went over a cliff, killing all onboard. I KNOW I will look at that and say to myself, "That's terrible! Oh man! How did this happen?? And how can we make sure it never happens again? Was the driver reckless? Drunk? If so, the bastard better be pegged as such, and the school board be held accountable for hiring the S.O.B. to begin with, and let's take preventative measures to see that it does not happen AGAIN"; I picture YOU, as sitting there, being equally as shocked and appalled....but with a difference: YOU will probably say "It's God's will", or "He works in mysterious ways", or "It's all part of HIS divine plan". Well, you know what? That is pure, self-deluded CRAP. That cheque now bounces with me, and it does not WASH.

And this boils down to my simple point:

We (meaning YOU, ME and ALL human beings) are--or have been---cowards by nature. Total, undiluted cowards. And here's why:

Since the dawn of human history (your buddies at the C.M. would say it started 6,000 years ago...ummm...ok), humans have invented a "Devil" to blame...and a "God" to give credit to. And in the process, we have washed our hands of ALL responsibility, because we're too cowardly to take accountability for OURSELVES. Example; some years back, I had occassion to sit through a sermon in a baptist church (I'm still in therapy over it); afterwards, one of "flock", a lady, starts yapping about how she had to get to some appointment, and was running late, and if she didn't make it, it would have the DIREST of consequences, because she had lost her car keys. She couldn't find them at all. She said she "prayed and prayed and PRAYED"...and then..voila! It "popped" into her head, and she looked under a pillow or something...and there they were. She said she screamed "PRAISE JESUS! He helped me find my keys, and I got to my appointment on time! Amen! Hallellulja!!" Guess what? I'd had enough. I snapped. I went up to her, in front of the "flock", and said "Lemme get this straight: there's about several discreet wars going on right now, in the wrold; innocent children are dying by the THOUSANDS each day from starvation, disease, malnutrition; people everywhere are committing the most heinous of crimes against one another....and and with all of that going on , "JESUS" has the time TO HELP YOU FIND YOUR FUCKING CAR KEYS????" By the time I was through with her, she looked like she was gonna cry (or call the cops).

Know why people believe in that nonsense? It's because of ONE thing:

FEAR.

What if when we die...there's nothing? I mean...NOTHING. No heaven; no hell...just...blank. Like final curtain at a play; curtain comes down, and fade...to black. We simply just...wink out of existence. Isn't that horrifying? Can you get your head around that? Most people can't. Sooooo...we better BELIEVE in something...anything...because that possibility is just too terrifying to contemplate. I'm not even enough of a "hypocrite" to go for Pascals Wager. I am definitely NOT a communist, but maybe Marx was on to something, when he said "Religion is the opium of the masses." It's a narcotic. That's all. And we use it to justify ANYTHING, whether it be a war, murder, racism, bigotry, justify our own values/ideology over others, dismissal of scientific evidence or even to support a severly-corrupted political leadership. If you're lost on a lonely, dirt road in the middle of the night, and a blind man comes up to you, and says "Follow me; I can lead you out of here", well, of course you'll go. After all, you're lost as it is, and SOME guide is better than NO guide. BUT...as soon as the sun comes up, and you can see where you are, and where you'll go, daylight had lit up your surroundings....then it's time to thank the blind man, and respectfully part company.

You're a zealot. And you have followed the path of ALL zealots through the ages: you judge; you condescend; you wrap yourself in your blind faith; you engage in "hypocrisy", whilst you accuse others of it; you lash out at things/ideas that may throw a monkey wrench into your "belief system"......you're NO DIFFERENT.

And the sad part of this is......

there are MANY more like you. Always have been.

Always will be.

But there is also a bright side to it as well:

There will always be people like .....me....around.

To keep things in check.

Streamlined - dunno where to start really as your apparent zealotry will frankly make discussion useless!

However you're worth talking with if only to help you start thinking more clearly before getting those fingers moving on the keyboard...

Let's go with the illegality of the war in Iraq:

1. I said GW went against the charter set up within the UN of which the US is a signatory.

Now in response to this you challenged with a very simple question - and in doing so you implicitly admit that illegal acts WERE perpetrated! The answer is one a lot of people know so don't think you're some fucking ubermind for being aware of it:

The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII). Hmm not sure Saddam was really in either category at the time. That Bush had to go as far back as res 660 and 687 to try and create some form of legitmacy is also very telling. And also wrong as these still require the UN council itself and NOT individual members to determine how they are enforced.

Oh of course you'll bring in res 1441 and say that states 'all means necessary'. Indeed it does, BUT ONLY with the rest of the UN mandating it.

2. I said Kofi Annan warned the world that this act was illegal back at the start of the war.

Not sure what your response point is here? Are you disagreeing that Annan said the war was illegal? Are you blind as well as stupid? Like I said, Google it and see. IT WAS ILLEGAL. Your CinC is therefore by definition effectively a war criminal. I know you'll do the ostrich here and bury your head in the sand so I expect no rational response to this element of the argument, or 'argumentation' as you prefer to say...

3. I said that even a prominent hawk in the US administration (Perle) admitted that the invasion and subesquent occupation was illegal, but he managed to include a little wriggle room by stating that 'International Law got in the way of doing the right thing'.

You haven't acknowldged that Perle said this - I assume because it would undermine your view that GW acted correctly. Interesting.

Am pretty certain, although am sure you'll argue the point otherwise, that Iraq didn't actually attack the US so you've kinda shot yourself in the foot there as well fuckwit. HAD Iraq attacked the US and the US responded then absolutely no problem.

As for whether international courts work. I'd agree that their effectiveness has been diminshed. The Nuremberg and the Tokyo trials after WWII were certainly effective. Because they were truly international I guess.

Your view that the courts don't work is probably blighted somewhat by the fact that the US withdrew its jurisdiction in 1986 and subsequently has decided it can act unilaterally and without answering to anyone. Has this got anything to do with the US politicos knowing that their future actions are likely to be viewed as illegal under the UN terms?? I'll give you a simple analogy:

I played by your rules before. Then I wanted to do things which weren't playing by the rules and would have had you and everyone else telling me this. So I spat my dummy out of the pram, took my toys home, started throwing them around and ignoring everyone who said I was acting like a dick.

Now the UN courts COULD work and HAVE worked in the past. PROVIDED ALL THE PLAYERS PLAY BY THE RULES. If the US wishes not then so be it, but don't come crying to Moma when China decides it can act unilaterally and you're not in a position to do anything about it. Oh, Russia planting it's flag on huge undersea oil reserves under the Arctic... maybe that'll be an issue?? Tough shit bud - the US has set the precedent here...

UN stands for United Nations and NOT for UNilateral.

4. I said your very own US consitution also requires a UN security council vote - Because the US is a signatory of the UN Charter, the constitution effectively provides that the Charter has Treaty status and as such should NOT be ignored.

You questioned me in terms of my ability to read. Now you read back to me (slowly now...take your time, it seems you need it) what Article VI states... "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

This happened in 1945, the United States signed and ratified the Charter of the United Nations. RATIFICATION made the Charter a TREATY binding on the United States, and thereby an integral part of the "Supreme Law of the Land," according to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, quoted above.

Now ultimately the US, as with any sovereign state, is allowed to act in defence of it's interests. But in the case of Iraq the claims made were spurious. Sorry streamy but you are just plan wrong. End of.

Now onto your (little bit) scary musings on religion:

You state, "we are physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual beings. If that is the case and those are the fundamental ways in which we experience the world, why is the spiritual one invalid? I suggest the other three are rendered useless without our spiritual nature. If you deny your spirituality..."

Agree with you! But what on earth makes you think I deny spirituality? No dear boy. No. I deny zealotry, which is what you come across as pedalling.

Everyone is welcome to believe what they want provided they allow others to voice differing views without stucking their fingers in their ears and going, 'na, na, na, can't hear, na, na!'. Then people will take you seriously and not for a bible basher!

Spirituality to my mind is something that resides within the self. And for those people who have a more insightful view of the physical and elemental world we live in, they feel no need to bow to a book or to some entity defined as omnipotent by others.

For those people who have no real concept of self, their (and by the looks of things your) spirituality requires them to absolve themselves of ultimate responsibility for how they are and how they live their lives. I was in Karachi only a couple of days ago, and hearing 'insha allah' as often as I did, it just made me think how similar both christianity and islam are when you get 'all fundamentalist on my ass'.

Believing in the unprovable existence of an entity who supposedly loves us all unconditionally, and yet who also apparently metes out such horror on the planet I just cannot buy into. It's simply an unwillingness to take responsibility and look further into the human condition. We cause our own problems. Nature causes problems. Living causes problems. Oh, nearly forgot... religion causes HUGE problems

As for who built the pyramids. Fantastic! You complete knob jockey! Let me explain to you. Think of me as YOUR personal God, as you seem to think I want deifying. I don't by the way, but hey if you want to then fine. Bow down beotch!

The Egyptians were animists who didn't believe in one God in your sense. In fact their belief system, to my mind at least, is FAR in advance of yours in it's ability to command a feeling of true spirituality about the world we live in.

Animist beliefs encompass the world as a product of a complex system of relationships among people (living and dead), animals, plants, and natural phenomena. Its central premise is that all things are animated by life forces. Each minute particle of everything is in constant motion, i.e. energized, as acknowledged in the kinetic theory. In other words, everything is animated (energized)—animals, trees, rocks, birds, even the air, sun, and moon.

Einstein by the way was an Atheist! He probably would have approved of animism given it basically ran on the same principles as the theory of relativity! My, my Streamlined, you are one poor innocent.

My view on religious texts written thousands of years ago remains, and you my poor delusional friend can do nothing but tell me to read it as if I am suddenly going to undergo an epiphany and think, 'My God, Yes! I beleive. This isn't just the best PR document ever written to help people control the masses! No. This is ALL true and I will believe every word'

Please Streamlined. Wake up and smell the coffee!

What do you think all these names have in common?

Abraham Lincoln
Benjamin Franklin
Freiderich Neitzsche
James Madison
Karl Marx
John Adams
Leo Tolstoy
James Joyce
Isaac Asimov
Galileo
Ernest Hemmingway
Van Gogh
Thomas Jefferson
Sigmund Freud

Yep - atheists to a man. All thinking people. All able no doubt to at least see the view of the other person even if they do not agree with them!

You, Streamlined, certainly do not fall within this category.

Now bow down and prostrate yourself before me my poor idiot savant child. You will be forgiven. Unless you continue talking total shite. In which case I shall smite thee down with another glumbert quality posting.... Oh doubt that'll happen.

Oh well.

C-
Sad...I have addressed all of your ideas, opinions and facts. I can accept a diffeing oipinion, whereas you are incapable and extraordinarily judgmental.
Why does it offend you that I, in sincerity, call you a hypocrit (having proved it)? It does not offend me for you to label me a zealot. I can understand being upset at being called a liar; but, when I showed that you lied...that's when the venom spewed.
I argued your quotes from the Constitution. You keep showing your inablity to critically think and counter the rationale laid out clearly in there. How many times do I have to expose your illogical derivations and OOC arguments? Whether you like them or not, they are there. In fact, C, you quoted more of the Constitution than was necessary. "Me thinks thou dost protest too much."
Not only have I labelled you a bigot, but everytime you rebut the claim, you prove me to be correct. The description of how you left a Baptist church and your treatment (in the post) of the woman who lost her keys proves it. So does your example of the busload of kids. You are arrogant and bigoted. Time to address those issues in your life.
Bigot is too light a word, but it will have to do.

C-Who are you trying to impress in your posts? Calling me a religious zealot and citing nothing. Asserting my views on abortion, etc...the KKK!? More proof you are bigot of grand proportions. Throughout your threads you have made sweeping generalizations abou those that skewer your facts and reasoning...on the other side, I have identified you as a liar, a hypocrit, and a bigot...and have cited my proof by hanging you with your own words.

The Old Testament admonishes aguing with fools...which is why I did not comment on the article you sent. To what end should I comment? Who gains? I sent you (and others) to AnswerInGenesis...what did you think? No bile, venom, condescention or hatred there. Those awful Christians.
Your dissertion on man creating gods and devils to explain nature is entirely too simplistic. I would have thought you wouldbe a bit more nuanced. Those primitives that you cite were at the same time building cities, applying geometric priciples, building ziggurats and pyramids, charting the stars. Your thoughts ar nothing new as I heard them in introductory college classes as well. However, when you study a culture or a people you find that it is not as simple as the way you put it...but, complexity is hardly your home turf.
Religion may be the opium f the masses...God is not. Ifyou are a spiritual person, please say something deeper than the last few weeks of this.

Prove I am a religious zealot, C. Prove my hypocricy. Your admirers are watching.

I do believe people like you keep things in check. Lenin called you useful idiots.

And another thing...I asked (2X), where do you get your moral foundations if not from God?

mako100 - How to build a bible (a brief history thereof):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/scriptures.html

Wako-
I thought for sometime tht you and Canuck might be the same person...self congratulatory rhetoric, arrogance, bigotry. You still might be...one of you graduated McGill, one of you dropped out Frosh year.
(I know McGill because my Pa was evadin' the draft in '68)
Look, all kidding aside, this may be a competition to you, but it is no to me. Your soul is between you and God. I am simply acting the seive. Some of my arguments are better than others...that notwithstanding, I will attempt to undo what you have knotted.
Couple of gneral points:
a. You have repeatedly called me a zealot. By your standards, I see this as a compliment. However, you may wish to qualify zealotry as I am not familiar with the Christians who blow up their kids to destroy others...and they are also religious zealots.
b. I have not generalized those who disagree on any grounds as atheist zealots...until now. You are a rabid, uneducated bumpkin; an illiterate hayseed whose direction could not be found with a compass glued to the North Pole; a beer swilling knuckledragger who can't see beyond the 21 year old mustache that he hasn't shaved since 1999; come out of that igloo, Nanook, the world is a much bigger place than the butter-smeared interior of your mother's ice dome.
Now, I said all that to retract it...it does not add to the discourse and it removes your credibility. I meant none of those slams as they have no place in our exchange.
1. True but IRRELEVANT. (There is no implicit admission of illegality.) Childish swearing notwithstanding: Why have none of the dunderheads in the UN indicted GW? Were is so cut and dry you might have a case. Since you don't, keep shouting that from the mountain tops.
(It wasn't just 1441...The UN opinion is not required for any nation to take steps necessary to protect itself. You may disagree wit those steps, but good luck prosecuting.)
2. No, Anna said it. So did Jimmy Carter. Both real solid sources. So, how's that prosecution going for ya? I wiash eeryone was as smart as you, oh legal theoretician. You are arguing what you think law should be versus what it actually is. Keep pluggin', though, sparky.
3. Perle probably said it...irrelevent to your argument, M. I give you his remark. What would it undermine, legal scholar? Others have said it wasn't illegal. Feel stupid yet?
Remember: You may disagree with our rationale to remove saddam and attack bagdhad, but that does not make it illegal. BTW- the Nuremburg hearings were set up by Allied powers after a war. a victorious ones...not UN courts set up during peace time...different rationale equals different means. Did you just equate what Hitler did with GWB?
Why should the US not act unilaterally? Or, Canada for that matter? Sovereignty has its merits, one of which is acting in its own self interest. That is NOT undone by the UN Charter.
Your analogy is asinine, M. No country needs the UN's permission to act as it sees fit. When you get people as smart as you to agree with you, then prosecute. Until then, well, keep fightin' the power!
4. The UN Charter does NOT override the Constitution or the application thereof...ever. Now, each Admin will apply its situations to the Charter vis a vis the Constitution and there will be disagreement. Part of doing business. But, aagin, when the rubes in US and UN decide to see it your way, then they can indict and prosecute.
You may disagree with our claims for war, but so what? So did others. YAWN We don't need anyone's approval. Let's see: Canuck says GWB needed a declaration of war: WRONG, he got the right permission from Congress. Mako says US needs the UN permission: WRONG, hence the paucity of indictments.

You find Christianity and Islam similar...on what grounds? I said it before, only one who is ignorant of both makes that claim.

Faith requires no proof, M. That's why it is called faith. You have it as well since you do not believe. You prove it by saying tat God metes out these horrors...are you sure, M? Meting it out is different from allowingit to happen. You are right, we cause our own problems. Which Christian tenet doyou believe is at the root of so much evil?

Knob jockey---should get lots of laughs from your 7th grade chums, M. Especially your following discourse. You are quite the linguist. (Everytime you write something like that, you expose your bigotry and hatred...but, by all means keep it up as you routinely make my points)

The Egyptians were animists. Good. Their advanced animism is so good it lasted until the 20th...no wait, 19th century...wait, I lost it...when was that a real religion, druid? I am sorry I was not clearer in my rhetoric. You seemed to dismiss a people as near-savage, etc...by implication I read that we are much more civilized. The Hebrews were instrumental in math, science, agriculture, building technology. That was my larger point. Forgive my clumsiness.

Albert Einstein
Abraham Lincoln
Ben Franklin
James Madison
John Adams
Galileo
Thomas Jefferson
Atheism they did not have in common. Spoken like a true moron. Time to do some digging on deism, M. But, keep speaking...you only validate my points of arrogance.

I never accused atheists of being unthinking, M. If you got that, my apologies.

You will gain more credibilty when you cease the self congratulatory back patting every time you write. The points you have are drowned out by your applause...some of them are good, M.

Please define zealotry as you use it.

M-
From people, experience, etc.
I see. So if my experience is differnt from yours I can come to a different and equally valid set of morals. All your arrogance aside...for it to be right and wrong, it must have an absolute...where do you get your absolutes?

My-my-my.

Look at the "good christian" here, with all the name-calling and insulting. Pitiful. Absolutely pitiful. You haven't addressed ANY of my points...at ALL. Just more of the same...name-calling, dismissal, insults, "onward christian soldiers" rhetoric, blah-blah-blah-and-freakin'-BLAH! You won't give a valid response to what I asked you about the content of that STUPID museum, and you instead say "The Holy Book says not to argue with fools". Fer chrissakes, man! Is THAT your answer??? And you have the NERVE to call yourself a "biologist"??? It's too late for gags, ok? Instead, you go hide in your book of fables. Jesus (!) And don't give me any of that crap about THOSE folks "charting the stars", or "building the pyramids", ok? THOSE folks were Egyptians, Greeks and Romans (among others) , who used intitutionalized religion (and slavery) as a means of population control. That was the MAIN thrust of it. However, they HEAVILY encouraged scientific research, military up-keep, engineering and political enlightenment. THAT'S why they had empires; NOT because of any solid footing in any instutionalized religion. The nations of that day who DID have such a basis, simply executed questioners of their theological domains as "heretics"; Spanish Inquisition? Yeah, ok. Salem, MA? Over 300 women burned alive at the stake, in the 17th century, as "witches" by "christians", just because someones crops went bad, or no rain happened? Uhhh, right. The Crusades? Killed how many? Sure, Hoss. And THESE are the folks who were "mapping the stars"??? RIIIIIIGHT. Which Irish sects were butchering one another again, for years and years? Oh ya! The "protestants" and the "catholics". And what "venom" are you talking about?? The only thing I ever called you was a "zealot" (which you seemed to revel in); YOU, on the other hand, had some REAL doozies for ME, as a "christian": "liar", "hypocrite", "arrogant", "idiot", ad nauseum. Okay, sure.

You're checkmated on the Constitution (gave you the EXACT verbage); you're checkmated on the "Creationist Museum" (too afraid to respond to it); you're checkmated on Bush's moronic, ILLEGAL war (funny how when folks like YOU need the U.N., they're A-OK for getting business done in Korea and in the Persian Gulf War.....but when they tell you DON'T DO IT!, re: Iraq...well, then you got no use for them...imagine that!).

And the you have the nerve (more nerve than a TOOTH, actually) to accuse mako100 there, of being ME! Meanwhile, if you'd see some of the past posts between us, you'd easily see that he's an equally-opinionated fellow, with keen wit and intelligence; you think he's simply agreeing with me for the hell of it? Ah, no. He and I have had several intense, and even hilarious debates. And if he thinks I'm wrong, he has (and will) inform me as such. And guess what? HE DID IT WITHOUT BEING A SANCTIMONIOUS, PIOUS, CONDESCENDING S.O.B., WHO HIDES BEHIND "THE GOOD WORD". See my point? THAT....is cowardice, Sir; Abject...cowardice. It's a great relief to know that Occums Razor disposes of all that nonsense, quickly, neatly and with minimal fuss.

Number ONE cause of war, throughout human history? You guessed it, chuckles:

Institutionalized religion.

What's THAT tell you?

And in closing...I'll re-iterate ONCE more to you:

29%.

And still in free-fall.

That makes folks like YOU....the minority.

Do you get so angry here (or at me) that it renders you blind? Or that you can't see? You're telling me I didn't read the link you posted, or respond to it, yet here am I am cutting-and-pasting my OWN remarks again:

"Well, let me tell you, I DID read your link there...from top to bottom. So my question is thus: would it have been possible to express these sentiments WITHOUT the invocation of any religion, deity or other supernatural drivel? COULD it have been possible? To be quite honest, the Man sounded like an ad hoc baptist preacher...not the PoTUS. Pathetic."

So as far as your point about wars and religion goes, you're saying.....well, WTF ARE you saying? Are you saying "Yes, religion used to be the cause of "wars" over-all throughout human history.....BUT....not in the 230 years, with THESE wars...i.e., Rev, Civil, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, etc.?? Okay, I'm not even sure YOU what the hell you're talking about anymore, brothuh. Okay, fine. If you wanna split hairs over the last 230 years, then fine; wars weren't the cause of THESE conflicts, but your "men of God", i.e., all the presonnel of whatever theological-movement were around DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO STOP IT, NOW DID THEY?? As a matter of fact, you even said so yourself (this time it's YOU I'll cut-and-paste):

"not caused by religion but impacted by it as the people involved must eventually make moral claims to move forward, retreat or "stay the course".

How come? How come these "children of God" are helping move wars forward?? Why didn't they do MORE, or enough, to halt them in their tracks? Okay, maybe you kinda forgot, but "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" does NOT have one of these * at the end of it, ok? It's pretty....oh, I dunno.....ABSOLUTE, wouldn't you say? But folks like YOU, well, you'll try to put that * on the end of it, and make whatever rationalization you can. (It's called an "asterisk", btw).

I'm glad you get your "moral foundation, by fixing it on an absolute".

Kinda like Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan, Napolean and George "Dubya" Bush.

Gotta love those "absolutes", huh?

And I read your Heritage link there, wiseguy. Nice little conservative site, that quotes and praises Tom Delay (yet ANOTHER disgraced, indicted, Republican felon). As soon as ANY site or paper uses that scumbag as a quoting source or give him ANY weight or legitimacy....then that raises an automatic red flag with MOST folks, who are sensible.

And if you think I make these arguments just to score points in a "please-come-and-like-me" way, then you're even more of deluded fanatical, zealot than you let on.

P.S.

Just to get back to the "political" or "war" debate we started out with, have a look at this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070804/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

This how "Dubya" wins hearts and minds? Dirty water, rotting food, no electricity, no refrigeration or air conditioning in 130 degree heat and worst of all, no end in sight.

"Humanitarianism"? Sounds pretty "humane" to me.

Riiiiiiiiight.

And another thing......your arguement about Iraq failing to comply with any U.N. Security Council Resolutions (and thereby used by the Bush Administration as a pretext to go to war) , is a spurious and lop-sided one.

You CANNOT quote alleged-violations of ANY U.N Security Council Resolutions (in this case, U.N. Resolution #1441), and simply allow ONE or two nations to enforce it. Period. THAT...is the freakin' problem. According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and NOT individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced. End of story.

If George had followed that very simple rule-of-thumb, he wouldn't be in the jackpot he's in now. And you DO NOT need hindsight to figure that out.

Just some intelligence.


Comprendo?

M,C-
In an effort to be economic, I will respond to both of you.
1. We have reached the invariable stalemate with regards to the war. You believe, because of what you have read, that GW prosecuted an illegal war. Your heels are ground in and will probably not move. I believe for the same reasons that the war is not illegal. Now what? If you are calling me stupid because I interpret the application of the UN Charter differently than you, fine. By implication, those who don't indict him (because it is so simple and plain to you) must also be stupid...or, as I have said before, cowards.
You have cited article after article and (nothing new here) shown...nothing new here. To me, it is the same old stuff at DailyKos. But, keep preaching it, knock yourself out. You believ what you believe, I believe what I believe. (C-if you want to cite who's in the majority on this question, feel free.)
2. M-None of those men were atheists. They may not have been Christians at the time of those quotes, but that was not your claim. You should put people's lives into context...read a biography of any of these men. Distilling their beliefs down to a few quotes is juvenile. Deism, atheism and agnosticism are notthe same. I will take from your openning paragraph that you admit your error.
3. I have never asserted that atheists can't be great thinkers.
4. The larger point of asking what moral foundations you rest your beliefs on continues to be pitifully answered. Mako suggested as a defense of his positions that the first Jews were near-savages. When proven wrong as to his bigotry, he then argued that it wasn't God but human ingenuity that lead to those things...thus changing the argument. (I would argue tat human ingenuity is another of God's gifts to us to manipulate our world. Since that is unproveable and so would your argument be, who has the high ground? You rely on blind faith as much as I do; I just admit it and accept it in the security of a perfect God rather than in imperfect and fallible human beings.) Mako also asserts that his moral foundations are from "people, education, the world around me." Since these things are constantly subject to change, they can hardly be called "foundations". So, when your, education, disagrees with my education...who has the morally correct stance. For example, when is lying ok with you? If you are with someone who has the same moral compass as you, how could you possibly be hurt if they lied about you. They got their guidlines from people, education and the world aroundthem. If you truly believe that, you are in no postition to make a moral case against the war, let alone anything.
5. C-My larger points about religion have now been expressed. (I even asked you a question in my previous posts that you have yet to answer...which prompted my "you must not be reading my posts" question: Why should God/religion beleft off the table of a discussion involving morale positions...war, etc.) Sorry, my point you are questioning was not clear. I was refuting your "number one cause for war claim" by showing you the last 230 years as not falling into that stupid assertion. The number one cause for war is aquisition/retention of power. No one is immuned from it. No matter what the reason, aquisition of power or prevention of someone elses aquisition. I am not saying right or wrong here, only the fact. So, by your final absurdity, (where you quoted me and not only missed the point but made one up): One can be a Christian and be moved to war. Your grotesque ignorance is overflowing, C. You must read the Bible some. (Thou shalt not Kill--is actually "Thou shalt not Murder". Were it so simple in real life, how could God have commanded and instructed so many wars in the Old Testament...after the 10 Commandments. Little tidbit here--God never instructed anyone to lie, steal, commit adultry, make graven images...but he did instruct killing. He must see a difference that you don't.)
6. What absolutes did Hitler, Stalin, Khan, Napoleon and GW fix upon? It is funny, every time you write you expose yourself as the one who cannot think. (Honestly, in your head and heart, do your really think GW belongs with these guys? If he does, please make a comparison of actions show that you may capably defend your assertion.) I never asked for the absolutes themselves, C--I asked from where did they come. Wht grounds? Tough to answer when there is no answer.
7. I see--not going to argue with the Heritage piece. Interesting. Well, your hypocricy knows no bounds.

8. Neither of you have told me what you think a zealot is...Mako, by his question, believes I am a zealot because I have not said why I believe my system is THE way. First, that does not constitute a zealot. Second, I have answered that a few times: faith. You see, my experience with people, education and the world around me has only reinforced my faith. Our converstions are doing the same thing. It appears to me, that you are as sure about yourself as I am with me...but, I am not sure of myself, I am sure of God.
(M-you can help it. All you are showing cutdowns and swearing. I know there is more to you than that. Right, C?

C-as to your rape article. You must be joking. That there are bad people on each side, in a war, acting independently and disobeying their oaths and orders....proves what point that you take glee in trying to make? HE WAS CONVICTED, BRAINIAC! 110 years. They do not need this atrocity to recruit or make a case to hate us more. Apparently you do.
I am sure someone in Canada has raped someone and then killed them. What point would that make about Canada?