glumbert

Emma Watson's Sex Video
http://youkillanimal.blog93.fc2.com/

Such an accomplishment! Well not really, but hopefully it makes you feel better!

boobs r kool.

Happy to oblige.

You know.....slapping around you and Stream-O about this guy is pathetically easy....you DO know that, right? Right.

1. He went to war to get "cheap oil"? So last summer when Americans were paying about 4 bucks a gallon at the pumps was "cheap", right? Newsflash for you, my washed-up, brainwashed, ignorant swabbie friend: the price of oil is determined by speculators on the INTERNATIONAL market, and NOT by who wages any silly 'war'. Besides, even if that was the case, I'm sure the families of all those who perished in this 'war' would be gratified to know that they died for Texas Tea.

2. He DOES and CAN take a HUGE portion of the blame for the economy and the state its in, because a) he started two wars without raising taxes to pay for them; b) he and his neocon buddies championed as much deregulation as possible as well as dismantling any oversight over the leeches at Wall St.; c) no, he did not cause Hurricane Katrina----but rather the blame rests with this idiot on how he handled the AFTERMATH of it; d) the democrats (8 years ago) DID vote for his 'war'....because they took this silly sonofabitch at his word and believed everything he and his administration claimed (except for Barack.....he said "no".) The democrats were "equally responsible for the economic crash"??? You're welcome at any time to explain this stupid statement.

Sooner or later, you'll see that the buck DOES have to stop somewhere.

Asinine enough for ya?

Randalflagg; the nicest guy on glumbert, but never here
Canuck: Searching for zee truth, whilst getting higher blood pressure
Arse: Multi personality, whilst actually a good guy and highly intelligent
Miter: He says it how it is, he would be the only guy to survive in the wild.
Redshift/infin/list; Shows resolve but unreadable, shorten please and stop being so self obsessed
Goldbarb; Searching for friendship, she's a great lady
Surfer; the dude, with knowledge
Billboat; straight talking, good guy, but sporadic
Pod; Level headed, highly intelligent, love him, but has a temper
Mako; The shark is sharp as, bored of glumbert
The BUg; our German friend, a voice of reason
Chaz; Our in house gentlemen, who doesn't like expletives,
Helldiver: Inconsistent
Streamlined; Not as extreme as many think
Pacsex; Tomboy, with attitude, but friendly
Gymg; Where art thou
Free: Missing
Rizamoon: Missed
Canadaman: loose cannon (sorry)


To the idiots; quantint and crowd; inmates with time on their hands

To the rest i've missed; peace and love

Arse; good luck and don't hold back

Actually....that list is pretty accurate.

Good to se you again, Compadre!

Seriously, my impersonation of Georgie-Boy is to die for....I swear.

nothing worse than reading your own post, i'm cringing

I think i was trying to get everyone together again,

peace and love (cheers ringo)

Skids....hope your effort works. Miss the voices of reason. I know I come off prudish, but I'm not actually that way. I just think it's absurd to demonstrate that one is unable to converse without resorting to vulgarity, as our juvenile constituency has been doing, and doing to such an extent that they so infect a string of comments that the more cogent contributors simply skip past it.

BTW, I agree with your characterizations...even re: Streamo. And your own posts are consistently intelligent and/or entertaining.

"Prudish", Professor?

Nahhh.

Not by a long-shot.

Wow C, did you ever fall for it. I was being sarcastic about the war being fought for oil, I was mocking the liberal montra. And you come back with making my point for me, so thanks for that. Maybe my sarcasm wasn't apparant to you. I've said many times that this war wasn't fought to secure oil supplies, if it was, we could have simply taken them long ago. Its usually the liberals saying we only fight wars where there's oil.

I never said Bush doesn't share a huge portion of the blame for the economy, in fact I've said clearly Bush is partially to blame. My point is that Democrats are also partially to blame, with their implicit government backing of Fannie and Freddie under Clinton, and their government pressure on banks to secure risky loans to people who couldn't afford them, in the name of providing housing to all. It was democrat backing that pushed / enabled Fannie and Freddie to take the financial risks they did, along with de-regulation.

I have also stated before that the war should have been paid for by the government having to sell old-fashioned war bonds, as they did in WW2. This forces the government to make their case, and only the supporters pay for the war. But imagine how bad the economy would have been, had Bush raised taxes with $4 a gallon gas, before a major economic collapse? Obama will still have wars, but he'll give away even more money, and he doesn't want to raise taxes either, or so he says.

I agree Bush did not cause Katrina. He did immediately offer federal assistance to New Orleans and Louisiana, only to be told by both Democrat major and governor for several days that they didn't need federal help. These are the wrongdoers. Bush was only guilty of not forcing federal assistance, against the wishes of the state. Brownie wasn't the best FEMA director, but Bush did remove him.

As for Democrats voting for the Iraq war, only because they took Bush at his word... Well I can find plenty of clips of famous Democrats prior to 2000, discussing how Saddam needed to be removed from power. In fact, it was Clinton who was the first to authorize the CIA to work towards Iraqi regime change. So maybe those Democrats supporting the Iraq war took Clinton at his word? But regardless of who's word they took, as leaders, they are responsible for their decisions. They had access to the same intel Bush did. They could have questioned it themselves. The Democrat leaders failed as well as Bush, except they had the luxury of blaiming everything on Bush, and denying any responsibility. Well its real easy to criticize a war when you're not the CinC, and its real easy to blame others for a war you voted for.

And Obama was not yet a US senator in time to vote for or against the Iraq war. Check your facts, Obama became a US senator in 2005:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

Obama says he never supported the Iraq war, but he never had to make a decision in 2003. Hindsight is 20/20. All that talk about Obama never voting for the war in Iraq in complete bullshit! Well I never voted for the war in Iraq either.

Now Obama wants to close Gitmo. Streamy told you some of the Gitmo inmates were being released, and going right back to Al Quaeda. You told him to post a link. Well here's one for you:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090127/wl_csm/oyemen

Bush happened to be hit with an extraordinary number of crisis under his leadership, not all of his making. 9/11, Katrina, two wars, and the economy. While Bush certainly made mistakes, you can't hold him accountable for everything. I never said Bush is the sharpest tool in the shed, but he did try to make the right decisions, and he did have resolve.

You forgot/ignored what else I posted for Stream-O:

"Although the Pentagon has said that dozens of released Guantanamo detainees have returned to the fight, its claim is difficult to document, and has been met with skepticism".

Did you catch that part?

You think this is true because.....who said so? "Military brass"? Pentagon PR spokesman? Enough already. Just why and how did you become the type so eager and willing to believe all the shit that's been been spoon-fed to you? Huh? But let's be honest here: even if Georgie-Boy had personally burned down your house, you'd STILL say "Awww, shucks...he's only PARTIALLY to blame". Don't make me laugh. You and Stream-O are a standing joke, you know that? But at least HE had the balls to directly say in his last answer to my questions "I don't know. I'd like to know myself". But YOU? You take the usual cowards way out.....and just ignore them, because well, you don't like your widdle bubble being popped.

Too bad, I say.

Plus all of your other points are completely, stupidly and utterly skewed, and jus' plain moronically w-r-o-n-g.

*Applauds HD*

And of course .... Canuck just glosses over the fact that HD Actually owned him in that last comment. Skips over the fact that not only did HD make excellent points, but also pointed out the fact that Canuck totally missed the sarcasm in his original post... making the case for Canuck's relentless stupidity even stronger. Because he can't actually contend with any of your points he throws them away and says they are w-r-o-n-g. Yet fails to explain. He says that you listen to bias reports and you believe everything you are "spoon-fed" ... though he obviously doesn't know what the liberal media tries to spoon feed us here.

Anyway, I just wanted to say thank you to HD for your intelligent post. It's so sad that it will fall an Canuck's deaf ears. As Canuck gets older he pays less and less attention to common sense and detail. I fear by this point Canuck is truly senile.

Well you know what Mickle, I don't really write my posts for Canuck. I know he doesn't really listen. I write them for intelligent objective readers like yourself. So thanks for your praise, and making my efforts seem worthwhile!

Canuck, I don't know for sure that released Gitmo detainees are back with Al Quaeda, although I believe at least one has already been killed in combat with US troops in the past. I did catch the part that one released inmate returning to Al Quaeda does not mean the entire rehabilitation program failed, unless that inmate becomes the next OBL.

But before you go slamming my beliefs, I was just posting the link. And the link isn't even conclusively against releasing these guys.

The important thing is, what to do with the Gitmo detainees? The remaining bunch is the hardcore. The wannabees have already been released. Bush started to give them their due process, and try them, but Obama put a stop to that. So you have the following options: Give them trials and possibly imprison them, free them, move them to another prison in the US or overseas still untried, or execute them. Are you saying we should immediately release all these hardcore terrorists? Can we release them in Canada?

I'm full of hope for change, that Obama will execute them!

And you are hardly man enough to call anyone else a coward.

Those who hold extremist political viewpoints will be blinded to the actual causes of the financial crisis. When any event is willingly observed through a political lens to access the reality of the events as they have unfolded, and continue to evolve, then you will have a view that is distorted by the personal, political, and other bias applied to the events.

If you have 48 minutes to listen to a podcast on this subject from NPR: http://www.thislife.org/radio_episode.aspx?episode=355

This situation was not created from the bottom up, but from the top down....and the top never suffers the consequences of their greed.

http://video.aol.com/video/bailed-out-banks-keep-most-top-executives/2402273

IMHO you guys have to put down the flags, and the political banners and view the situation for what it is.

It is a criminal operation backed by deregulation and personal greed manufactured by Wall Street, and sold by Washington for the massive profits the elite. You can go on blaming the the guy who got the loan, but when there are no regulations to promote rule of law, then there is no law, and hence no crimes.

Regulations are the basis of civilization. If we were to say there are no traffic laws, and everyone is on the honor system to drive as they wish, then chaos would be the result. There is no such thing as a deregulated market, because a deregulated market is a lie told by thieves to commit crimes without penalty.

Another interesting story on rehabilitating captured terrorists:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090128/wl_time/08599187427800

The answer to the last question: "When do you let a head chopper out of rehab?" Well the answer to that would be never. Once a violent murderer, there is no rehab. Even the true God-fearing mujahadeen found this to be reprehensable.

But its interesting that Saudi Arabia would have a terrorist rehab "campus", actually focusing on rehab. I wonder how much of that is show for the media. The press is coming today, break out the ping-pong tables and pepsi, take off the leg shackles and threaten the prisoners. Somehow I just don't see Saudi Arabia taking the lead on the humanist touch. Maybe the truly effective part is the fact that they pay these guys to stay out of trouble, spy on them, and try to get them a stabilizing wife for some good clean stress relief Saudi style? So where do they get the women to jump at the offer to marry a "reformed" terrorist?

So Podman, when you refer to those who hold extremist political viewpoints, are you referring to me? Or are you more appropriately referring to Canuck? Maybe even yourself? Because pretty much everybody here has what you might lable an extremist political viewpoint.

I agree deregulation is part of the problem, and banks very much profited wrongly from it. When banks can sell their risk to some offshore phony risk insurance company, for the illusion of lowering their risk, that is bullshit. I'm not denying the greed of wallstreet and washington was part of the problem.

But when people who have no job, can qualify for a mortgage to buy a $400,000 dollar house, where's the fault at? The bank for being stupid, but also the borrower that should have sense enough to know what they can afford. Ok, borrowers are all completely stupid innocent victims of mortgage lender scams and false promises, right... We live in a capitalist society. Its buyer beware for everything. As Forrest Gump would say, stupid is as stupid does. But I never for once put all the blame on the guy getting the loan. Banks should be responsible.

Here's the real problem. You have the government suspending true capitalism, that is the real de-regulation. The government told the banks, go ahead and make those risky loans, we'll bail you out if it bites you back. We would never allow our government sponsored mortgage companies, Fannie and Freddie, to actually go bankrupt! Not when they are busy fullfilling the American dream to millions of new homeowners, spreading economic diversity, and buying Democrat votes!

You're right that we need rules to protect us from greed. But it wasn't only de-regulation that was the problem. It was also government suspension of the threat of bankruptcy to their banking friends, that allowed banks to take unneccessary risks. The bailout is a crock of warm steamy shit. Let those banks fail, and the survivors would be more careful next time. Bail them out, and nothing changes. Capitalism does actually work, if the government leaves it alone. You can't promote huge profits, and suspend the risks.

HD - No not everybody here has a world view supported by extremist viewpoints, but those who do, can rarely comprehend those who do not. Among extremists there is a necessary ideology rooted in fear and/or ignorance that needs to be supported by extreme irrationality, because it cannot be supported by logic, or truth.

Hence we have the need to fix responsibility to a point that superficial understanding or bias would support, but logic and reality do not. Ninety eight percent of the arguments on this site, and indeed the planet, are based on this misguided philosophy. The assumption that any single individual has all of the information needed to find the correct answer, and pronounce it as the ultimate truth is nonsense.

IMO Deregulation is ninety nine percent of the problem. With no rule of law, there are no rules to be broken. The lender has the greater responsibility, because the lender is the guardian of the public money supply, not the borrower. There is blame on the borrower as well but only to the extent that the law permits such actions, and in the deregulated environment, any actions are legal. Both the lender and borrower broke from a legal and moral code that a civilization depends on, but for both to do so requires an environment that supports the actions of both.

With regulations, the Fed would have raised interest rates to supply the downside of the IT bubble, there would have been no IB's, there would have been no NINA loans, there would have been no financial crisis at all.

True capitalism can only flourish in a highly regulated environment, not the other way around. Regulations provide standards of measure, law, and action that level the playing field for all forms of investment and commerce, when the regulatory environment is removed, true capitalism is no longer in effect, because they are two sides of the same coin.

The current problem is that there is no dividing line between the needs of the people (government regulation), and the needs of corporations to meet those regulations. The government is now interlaced with corporate America to a point that there is little distinction between the two. The government should not be our enemy, because it is supposed to be the peoples voice.

It is now under control of the oligarchy, and is little different than that of Russia.

You're right that no one ever has all the information possible to make a decision. And we are discussing our opinions, not necessarily all facts. Your statement that government deregulation is 99% of the problem is your opinion, and you cannot support it as fact.

I'd put deregulation more like 40% of the problem, and government interference in a free enterprise banking system more like 50% of the problem, with maybe unscrupulous home buyers responsible for the last 10%. Every major bank (especiallya GSE-government sponsored enterprise) knew the government would bail them out in a major financial jam, ever since the SnL bailout. Banks were encouraged by the government to take big risks in their lending practices, partly by deregulation, but also by implicit support of GSE mortgage companies. They knew they were too big to fail. The accounting scandals in Fannie and Freddie were partly the fault of government meddling as well.

"The current problem is that there is no dividing line between the needs of the people (government regulation), and the needs of corporations to meet those regulations. The government is now interlaced with corporate America to a point that there is little distinction between the two. "

I agree with this statement. But my solution is to get the corrupt and inefficient government the hell out of corporate America. Sure the government can make regulations, but the government should have no say in how the business is run. They should not "encourage" lending practices. They should not implicitly offer to back up risks. They should not appoint ex government fat cats to be GSE CEOs. Its crooked and corrupt.

We have a seperation of church and state in this country. We should have a limited seperation of business and state.

Its not that the government is our enemy, they sort of occasionally half-assed represent us. But government is corrupted by lobbyists, bribes, golden parachutes, etc. Government is too big and too powerful. To implicitly trust government without question will make us subjects, not citizens.

Micklebrain:

....."Because he can't actually contend with any of your points he throws them away and says they are w-r-o-n-g. Yet fails to explain."

I have. And I did. Many, many times previous. Ad nauseum. Over and over and over again. If you're to lazy, stupid or ignorant to not let whatever I explain or say sink into to your thick, biased, selectively-obtuse skull....then that's YOUR problem. As for me? Nope. Not gonna go over the same crap again, with others not answering some very basic straight-forward questions. Besides, at this point, you're so stung by having been slapped around by me so many damn times, that ANYONE offers the slightest viewpoint that's the opposite to what I say, you'll happily jump on. Even if Bin Laden himself came onto these threads and came at me, you'd still wind up being HIS lapdog. So give it a rest, dufus. No one gives a rats ass.

Helldiver:

Same goes for you. Ain't gonna keep repeating the same points that you love to ignore over and over again. But I'll tell you one last time, point-blank: I am NOT advocating that everyone at Gitmo just be "let go". Never said that (repeating myself again). All along I've said/asked the same thing: DO...SOMETHING...WITH...THEM. Denial of due-process is NOT an option; torture is NOT an option; indefinite custody without charge, trial or legal representation is NOT an option. DO....SOMETHING....WITH...THEM. Spending the last 7 or 8 years in a screwy limbo is NOT an option. And in your continued defence of Georgie-Boy....ahhh, no. Having secret military tribunals without public scrutiny or record is NOT fair or due-process. Not by ANY stretch of the imagination. And Obama put a stop to....what, exactly? See? The guys been in office how long, and you're ready to crucify him. And yet you once AGAIN give a free pass to Georgie-Boy and his 8 years of starting this bullshit.

Now...you have to be pretty gonzo in the head to disagree with ANY of that.

Either your better than the so-called "enemy"....or you're not. Either you give them SERIOUS due-process....or you don't.

Well....which is it?

And don't either of you waste my time again with nonsense that I've already gone on and on about already, and answered repeatedly.

"Somehow I just don't see Saudi Arabia taking the lead on the humanist touch"

Why not?

They were/are your ex-presidents' best buddies. Yours, too, I'll wager. Ain't they? I mean, putting aside their long history of producing scumbags who love to kill Americans, that is. They're your pals....no? I mean, YOU went to war to help'em out...didn't you?

"We have a seperation of church and state in this country"

LMFAO! You really believe that??? Don't make me laugh. So lemme get this straight: anyone who wants to be President who proclaims he's an avowed atheist.....can, in fact....be President....right? Riiiiiiight. G'head. I dare to answer that without a "LOL" attached to the end of your answer, and be serious.

LOL!

I'll put this here as well:

http://law.shu.edu/administration/public_relations/press_releases/2009/shl_defense_dept_wrong_on_gtmo.htm

Suck it up, Little Boys.

C - LOL You are totally correct about the separation of church and state comment. What was I saying above about fixing the argument to a point that bias would support, but logic and reality do not.

Wishful thinking and ideology in America always trumps, reality...every time.

Problems cannot be solved by applying rhetoric and hope, but require truth, and reality, but I'm an engineer, and no amount of prayer has ever solved any problem I have faced, but that kind of empirical evidence has no place here in America.

I considered the military tribunals of enemy combatants to be due process. This was the norm following WW2. These are not American citizens. They are not entitled to US constitutional rights, jury by their peers, or even innocent until proven guilty. I agree they should not rot in prison forever, without trial. They should be tried. Bush had ordered them to be tried. Obviously this wasn't good enough for P-BO (president Barack Obama), so he immediately stopped any trials. I'll suspend judgement until I find out what Obama plans to do with them. I asked you, what you would do with them?

"I mean, YOU went to war to help'em out...didn't you?"

Wow, ripping on my military service because you didn't like some of our allies? Possibly a new low, even for you. Did your forefathers in WW2 openly love and support the Russians? I got news for you. The first persian gulf war wasn't fought only to protect Saudi Arabia.

The seperation of church and state is real, in that the state can't tax churches. The state can't order its citizens to follow any one religion, or any religion at all. The state can't use religion to justify much of anything. The church can't have its leaders run for political office. The church can't directly lobby Washington. The church does try to influence laws, and that may be pushing the spirit of seperation of church and state, but its still mostly in tact. Democracy is a rule of the majority, and if the majority of the citizens are God-fearing Christians, with Christian inspired morality, than Christian thought will pervade the laws.

I never said an avowed proclaimed aethist candidate can get elected president. That aethist candidate can run, but would not win the trust of the American voters. I would say many secret aethists have run for president, and some have even probably won. But proclaiming your aetheism is not how the game is played in America.

"The church can't have its leaders run for political office. The church can't directly lobby Washington"

They can....they have....and they continue to do so.

"I considered the military tribunals of enemy combatants to be due process. This was the norm following WW2. "

No. It was not. The Nuremburg Trials were in an open forum and venue.

"Democracy is a rule of the majority, and if the majority of the citizens are God-fearing Christians, with Christian inspired morality, than Christian thought will pervade the laws."

Then if THAT'S the case, and the so-called 'majority' of voters think and act this way.......then the idea of "separatiion of church and state" is just a lot of meaningless crap on paper, if the 'majority' of voters can't separate the two in THEIR HEADS.

"I considered the military tribunals of enemy combatants to be due process"

No. Military tribunals that are held in secret, behind closed doors from the glare of public transparency are NOT "due process"; never have been; never will be. That's the way the Soviets used to do business. You better than them? Or not?

"But proclaiming your aetheism is not how the game is played in America"

If there truly WAS a "seperation of church and state" (not just on paper, but in peoples' minds and practice, as well)......then there would be no need to even "play a game" to begin with....now would there?

"I would say many secret aethists have run for president, and some have even probably won"

Please provide ONE.....i.e., a SINGLE.....example of this statement....and I'll give you this round.

".....so he immediately stopped any trials"

He put a halt to an inefficient system, that was NOT producing ANY tangible legal results. Enough was enough. It was becoming a running joke.

"....or even innocent until proven guilty. "

Considering THAT statement....it's renders everything else a moot point with you....don't it?

"Wow, ripping on my military service because you didn't like some of our allies?"

No. I was just pointing out to you, that your "allies" that YOU had been ordered to go and help out and risk YOUR life for, were responsible for more American deaths in the past fifty years than any other nation (for the gazillionth time). That's just a fact. No need to kill the messenger. Take it up with the muckety-mucks that sent you there. Kuwaiti Arabs...Saudi Arabs.....two peas in a pod, in that "war". That's a fact, Jack.

".......than Christian thought will pervade the laws."

Prosecution rests, Your Honor. No further questions on the issue of "church-state seperation".

AND......you're a necon.

What's worse? A necon? Or a necon who's too much of a goddamn yellowbelly to ADMIT he's a neocon?

Yellowbelly.

*neocon, even

So name me some leaders above small town mayor, that are church leaders and hold elected office? Any senators, congressman, governors? I'll help you, Huckabee is an ex-baptist minister. Jimmy Carter came from that boat too. They had to give up that job to run for office. But its certainly not the norm. Not like the Catholic church controlled government in medievil Europe.

That doesn't mean voters have to abandon their faith and morals as they vote. Their faith may very hell help them chose who they vote for. That goes on both sides. Bush worked for the God vote pretty hard. But this last go round, I think Obama maybe worked that God vote harder than McCain. They all fake religiosity to win votes. Its disgusting, but its just that simple.

"then the idea of separatiion of church and state" is just a lot of meaningless crap on paper, if the 'majority' of voters can't separate the two in THEIR HEADS. "

Voters often can't. But the constitution still provides framework on laws congress can and cannot pass.

The Nuremburg trials were not due process.
Read "The Validity of the Court" at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

It was even more secret trying Japanese prisoners, as whole episodes of genocide against the Chinese were covered up. Only the big leaders got the full court trial.

What is your definition of due process? Public trial? Jury of peers? Innocent until proven guilty? These are not necessarily international standards of due process, they are American standards, driven by the American constitution, which applies to all American CITIZENS. Some illegal immigrants are held for extended periods before facing deportation. That's not entirely due process either is it?

"Please provide ONE.....i.e., a SINGLE.....example of this statement....and I'll give you this round. "

Well how do you prove a presidential candidate only pretends to believe in God? Its not possible to prove what someone else feels. I highly suspect neither of the Clintons attends church for anything other than appearances.

"He put a halt to an inefficient system, that was NOT producing ANY tangible legal results. Enough was enough. It was becoming a running joke. "

Well in your opinion. But public trials may be no better. Like OJs trial wasn't a joke.

"Considering THAT statement....it's renders everything else a moot point with you....don't it? "
Again, American concept only. Even in much of western Europe, you are considered guilty until proven innocent. Where's Bug when you need him?

"No. I was just pointing out to you, that your "allies" that YOU had been ordered to go and help out and risk YOUR life for, were responsible for more American deaths in the past fifty years than any other nation (for the gazillionth time). "

Well technically it wasn't the fanatical Islamic terrorists that were our allies against Iraq, they were only our allies against Russia in Afghanistan. The Saudi leadership is more progressive than the terrorists. They've even stopped promoting Wahabbi Islam. Frankly, that was a bigger social shift accomplished by the Saudis, than letting open gays in the US military. While Saudis are distasteful, their leadership is much more western looking than their people.

And I believe the last 50 years just may have include Vietnam, which was only responsible for some 50,000 US military deaths.

And as for your Neocon label:

from Wiki:
Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States. Its key distinction is in international affairs, where it espouses an interventionist approach that seeks to defend what neo-conservatives deem as national interests. In addition, unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.

That ain't me by a long shot bitch. I've been railing against Bush for his fucking bail-outs since the start, and I've been railing against all government on both sides for interfering with the banking industry, with the overriding social purpose of providing housing to all.

I sure as hell don't want any form of welfare state, or growing government dependence. Something your nationalized health care only increases.

As for this definition: "an interventionist approach that seeks to defend what neo-conservatives deem as national interests" well that means jack fucking shit.

Seems to me that neocon might be synonomous with RINO, republican in name only, those darn "centrist" republicans like Bush and McCain, that support government interference fucking up the economy, just like Democrats, and support a larger government with growing dependence on government, something I sure as fuck don't agree with.

So as for your accusations of me being a neocon, I think my posting history defends itself. The only thing I agreed with Bush on was invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Everything after that point, and Bush has been pissing me off, kinda like you.

"The Saudi leadership......"

W-r-o-n-g.

The Saudi D-I-C-T-A-T-O-R-S-H-I-P.

In others words.....YOUR buddies.

Vietnam???

Fucking nuts, is what you are.

"Something your nationalized health care only increases."

Our universal health care system (as well as that of every other western democracy) is truly a source of intimidation for folks like you.....isn't it?

I thought you weren't talking to me anymore? That sure didn't last long, I guess you must have missed me.

I never said the Saudi Arabia wasn't a dictatorship. Are all US allies required to be democracies, just like Russia was in WW2? Allies can be enemies of your enemy, that doesn't necessarily make them your friends. I fail to see any reasonable point from your statement.

As for my Vietnam reference, you're the misguided soul claiming, and I quote:
"No. I was just pointing out to you, that your "allies" (refering to Saudi Arabia) that YOU had been ordered to go and help out and risk YOUR life for, were responsible for more American deaths in the past fifty years than any other nation (for the gazillionth time). That's just a fact. "

So Saudi Arabia, which indirectly did support the radical Wahabbi Islam, which indirectly led to 9/11, caused less than 3000 American deaths. Yet North Vietnam directly inflicted some 50,000 American casualties, within the last 50 years, actually only 37 years ago. So once again, your point is wrong.

Nationalized health care will only make American citizens more dependent on their government micro-managing their lives. It will not improve the quality of health care, it will drive our government further into debt. Because our government is not capable of balancing a budget, at the possible expense of votes.

The problem with socialism, is that you eventually run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher

You wanna quibble over dates? Okay fine, Dummy:

Between April 30th, 1975 and the present.....Saudi Arabia has produced more scumbags who've killed more innocent Americans than any other nation combined, in THAT time.

Happy?

Now go suck some more Saudi dick, you fucking Dummy.

That is just not supported by the facts. Or are American soldiers in Vietnam not innocent enough to count?

If you're referring only to Americans killed by terrorist acts, well then yes 9/11 trumps them all, but this was hardly a direct act by Saudi Arabia. Perhaps you're suggesting we should have bombed or invaded Saudi Arabia? See, you're only supposed to use military force, where diplomacy doesn't work.

Besides, you should know that 9/11 was really a conspiracy between the mastermind George Bush and the Jews.

"That is just not supported by the facts"

Yes.

It is.

No matter how hurt you feel about your Saudi buddies getting dissed.

Why do I keep on with this? (rolling my eyes)

"Or are American soldiers in Vietnam not innocent enough to count?"

I'm gambling that even YOU know how asinine THAT sounds.....right?

"See, you're only supposed to use military force, where diplomacy doesn't work."

Oh really?

And Georgie-Boy used "diplomacy" re: Iraq....right? Somehow, I don't think not letting the U.N. weapons inspectors do their jobs, mouthing off saying "Get outta town within 48 hours" or lipping off saying "Bring it on!" counts as "diplomacy".

Does it?

Riiiiiight.

But lemme tell you something, sport: if all or even most of those nineteen hijackers were Canadians....then I tend to think YOU would be the first one to be screaming for exactly that: bomb/invade and otherwise obliterate your neighbours to the north.

Easy-peasey. Just like that.

"

You're missing the point.

If a small group of Canadians killed thousands of Americans, and America demanded Canada hand the guilty over to America, Canada would probably work with us to help arrest and extradite them. Canada and America would work together to be more vigilant, and America would probably float a few billion dollars to Canada to buy their mounties shiny new badges. This is the case with Saudi Arabia.

On the other hand, if a small group of Canadians killed thousands of Americans, and America demanded Canada hand the guilty over to America, and then Canada told us to get fucked, and that they wouldn't turn over the guilty because they were guests of Canada (not even Canadian citizens). Then America might become slightly more hostile. This was the case with Afghanistan.

See the difference? You work with a nation that is willing to work with you. You only use military force, when a nation is unwilling to work with you, and you feel something still needs to be done even against their will.

Now Iraq clearly was not willing to work with us anymore. They gambled we didn't have the will to use force, and many people, including you, didn't. Yet the majority of Americans at the time actually did have the will to use force, and so our representative government of republicans and democrats all voted to start a war. But then a few republicans almost fucked it all up for us, so they got replaced by people who don't have the will to use force.

Signs I saw folks carrying around FOUR DAYS after 9/11:

"Bomb Afghanistan ASAP"

Well I don't that. Maybe you should give Bush some credit for resisting immediate urges to retalliate, and actually give the Taliban a chance to resolve the situation peacefully? (even if it was a bit heavy-handed, but America was pissed)

You should also remember that Clinton had already bombed Afghanistan is a purely punitive attack, so its not like the precident wasn't already set.

Bush resisted the simple punitive bombing, in an attempt to actually capture Al Quaeda and remove the Taliban. Now his success was hardly perfect. But he did kill many many bad guys, and he did drive the Taliban from power at least for a while. He certainly had more effect than Clinton's pathetic attempt.

So yesterday, you stated you initially supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps you even initially liked Bush, which is maybe why you're so pissed at him now? Perhaps you feel duped by Bush's neocon thinking, and maybe you even were a neocon?

I think everyone left because they can't see the damn videos. I come back and check every once and a while but they still haven't fixed it. Kinda hard to comment on videos that you can't see I guess... although there always were a few that didn't give a crap what the video was and just come on here to spew some crap. Well, see you all in a few weeks. Here's hoping they'll fix this site. Too bad, kinda makes miter's 5 for 5 a little bit lamer. Kinda like kicking a 5 year olds ass. Pretty sweet but not as satisfying as you would like.

Take a look at porchmonkey below, for starters. Between scut like that and the never-ending adolescent shriek of brainless, pointless, and stunningly vacant vulgarities, the site may have been fatally degraded.

I'm looking elsewhere to see if some level of entertaining discourse might exist in other sites.

Glumbert has lost its cool, due to the flash 10 issues I'm afraid. And the random vagrants as chaz mentioned.

I guess I'll go back to Flash 9, then I'll hook up my Commodore 64 and phone modem. C'mon Glumbert wake up.

What's difference between most here (even qlanet) and you?

About 100 IQ points!

Jesus Christ.

Porchmonkey....I have to hand it to ya:

You make such a great and enticing case for someone (like me) who wants very badly to become a supreme dictatorial ruler. Know why? Because I'd do everything in my consolidated power to round up YOU and those LIKE YOU, and have the land totally cleansed. And you know what, sport? I wouldn't stop there: I'd have you and your whole LINEAGE erased, so you and those who share your genes couldn't pollute the nation (much less the planet) ever again.

It would be as if you and your ilk never even existed.

Oh well.

It's nice to think about.

If there's any good about someone like this, it's that we're witnessing the end of them. The last pathetic, ignorant rantings of a moron that judges someone by nothing other than the color of their skin. It must be tough really, to have that type of infection rotting in your brain. To walk around as the TRUE minority on this planet, a racist! I'm with C, in hoping your genes have not polluted the world with it's genetic abnormalities any further than the back woods you came from! Let me offer you a way out...go into your garage, shut the door, turn on the car, and recite your pathetic attempt at humor over and over until you go to sleep.

Miter.....I nominate you to run in 2012!

LOL!

I suggest everyone ignore this clown until he goes away. Don't let him get the rise out of you he so desperately seeks.

Exactly, helldiver.
I'll tell you guys what you told me:
Attention is what he wants. Don't give it to him.
(But keep piling on qlane, he deserves it. =)

She doesn't have to be someone's hero to see that she was assaulted for her beliefs.

I doubt that she's the hero of anyone on this site Canuck, but you certainly are a nuisance. What even prompted you to post something like this here? Is "stream-o" even posting in here? You constantly look for ways to start problems don't you? Chill out old man.

Hey, Fuck Anita Bryant
Who the Hell is she
Telling all them faggots
That they can't be free
Throw that bitch in prison
then maybe she'll see
just how much them goddamned homosexuals mean to me

Because they...
Wash your clothes
clean your cell
help you drain your hose
give you smokes
laugh at jokes
sew up all your clothes
rub your feet
beat your meat
Heaven only knows
What I'd do without those homosexuals

They all
Read and Write
Fuck all night
Clean your fingernails
help you dress
play you chess
lay you down some rails
Be your wife
take your life
in a jealous rage
who says we don't need them homosexuals

I tell you
Some are big
some are small
some are in-between
some are yellow belly queers
and some of them are mean
some are killers
some are thiefs
some are singers too
In fact Anita Bryant
Some act just like you

So, fuck Anita Bryant
Who the Hell is she
Telling all them faggots
That they can't be free
Throw that bitch in prison
then maybe she'll see
just how much them goddamned homosexuals mean to me

........David Allan Coe

"She doesn't have to be someone's hero to see that she was assaulted for her beliefs."

W-r-o-n-g.

A-g-a-i-n.

She was "assaulted", as you say, because her "beliefs" inspired/incited simple hate, nothing more. And these "beliefs" are rooted in her religious foundation. (How come it's always the so-called "christians" that are the worst bigoted SOB's???). Hence, the knock at Stream-O. YOU walk into the middle of Harlem, N.Y., and start flapping your fat yap about how YOU "believe" that white folks are 'superior'.....and see where YOUR "beliefs" get you.

See the Big Picture now?

(Goddamn, I feel like I'm lecturing a third-grader here)

ANY "belief" that encourages one to believe he is somehow 'better', or 'superior' or more 'normal' than the human being next to him/her....has an effed-up "belief", and deserve to be put in their place and get what's coming to them.

Like this broad.

End of story.

P.S.

You need look no futher than a couple of postings above by the current piece of s*** haunting this joint, with his long-winded list of purile "jokes". THAT....is exactly the kind of crap that people like him deserve to get knocked out for.

Again:

Same as this broad.

C-
So...when someone acts out of hate (particularly someone with whom you agree) its ok, right? The were "inspired" to do it.

Like your urge to round up all the racists.

You are no better than a KKK member, C-.

Stream-O...if you think/believe THAT'S the same thing ...then you truly are a fucking oblivious, clueless, rationalizing imbecile.

A complete and total one, at that.

And PLEASE let us not forget that the scum you call "KKK" were spawned by YOUR likes, in YOUR neighbourhoods, down thar. Which, come to think of it, kind of explains why I've yuet to hear YOU denounce them in any way, shape or form.

Categorically and CLEARLY, I mean.

Figures.

P.S.

WE have Hate Crime laws up here, so yes...WE DO "round up racists" and thrown their hate-inciting asses in fucking jail.

Hardly makes me or "us" the same as "them", now does it?

You fuckin' doorknob. No wonder Sherman was able to slice through you hicks in a huge swath like a giant knife: 'cuz y'all are so damn dumb and backwards, and everything south of that Mason-Dixon Line shoulda been jettisioned away a long time ago.

The Union let you off WAYYYY too easy.

They went for simple victory....whereas I would have went for complete erasure. COMPLETE. ERASURE. NO ONE would have even known a treasonous, traitorous, seditious "confederacy" existed.

Ever.

We're talking wiped out completely.

Would have saved everyone a lot of headaches down the road.

OMG!! This qlanet I like! You're not all bad, I knew it!

Now, back to the insults I'm sure LOL!

it's a trap miter

What it is is qlane trying to divert the attention from himself.
If he can get someone else names "lowest of the low", he's one step higher.
=]

Q............You are one transparent motherfucker

I'm sorry he died. He seemed like a guy who could have contributed much had he lived on. But I think maybe his life had more value contributing to the Marine Corps and Afghanistan's fight against the Taliban, then an entire life of acting could have accomplished. Some people live their whole lives, never standing up for anything, never doing anything. This guy fought for something he believed in, he's a part of history. You see this as a tragedy. But we all gotta die somehow. This kid died with honor for a noble cause. You just don't believe in that cause, so its wasted life to you. I'm sure his parents don't consider his life to have been wasted in the Marine corps.

"This kid died with honor for a noble cause. You just don't believe in that cause, so its wasted life to you".

Really?

So...like...if someone gave his family a chance to re-live this over again...they'd agree with YOU, right? And they'd say "Nope...go ahead...the Marine Corps is right...we're wrong. We can do without you, for the rest of our lives." Right? Someone famous once said, "There ain't no 'honor' in dying.......there's just dying" (you'd be surprised where that quote came from). Maybe YOU best be mindful of that, before you goddamn-well start cheerleading this kids' death in some shithole half-a-world away for a cause that's murky, at best. When Georgie-Boy was C-In-C giving the orders...there wasn't ANY 'honor' in ANYTHING. At all.

And what effing "cause" would that BE, anyways?

"I'm sure his parents don't consider his life to have been wasted in the Marine corps"

I love the way oblivious neocons like yourself can claim to speak for a family who lost someone on a battlefield.

Like I said...you just don't get it....and you just don't care. Kinda like a 'Nam-dodger or a 5-time draft deferrment-type who would send kids like this to get killed, but ban all photos of coffins coming home, because, well, THAT would be a downer for them.

Yeah.

You're kinda like THAT.

Its easy for you to judge me and make assumptions about my thoughts. But you're the one calling his life a waste. Do I think that marine felt honored to die for his country? Probably not.

"War isn't about dying for your country, its about making the other poor bastard die for his" Gen. Patton.

I'm not pretending to speak for the grieving family. But I do take offense, and I think the family would do, at your comment that his life was a waste. So before you go ripping on me being some neocon, you are guilty yourself of assuming what the family feels in their time of grief.

Every mother wants her soldier son back. That's one reason war is a terrible sacrifice. If it was easy, then pussys like you might fight.

Oh, and I already served my time in war. I'm no hero, but I've stood on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier as terrible accidents happened. When did you serve again? You are using this kids death to project your anti-war, anti-military, anti-Bush political views. Why don't you just show the kid some proper respect, and shut the fuck up. You sound just like Hillary Clinton.

I got a better idea:

Why don't YOU shut the fuck up, you fucking yapping turd. This kid is DEAD...have you got that??? FUCKING DEAD! And the LAST thing his family needs, is a gutless, flag-waving, NEOCON, fucking, lunatic who's cheerleading about it. And he is DEAD...because a FUCKING MORON (who thinks EXACTLY like YOU) sent him there. Have you got all that, now? This ain't a fucking video game, asshole, okay? The kid AIN'T COMING BACK! Savvy? And how come me (as a 'foreigner') is placing more emphasis on what a fucking tragedy this kids' death is.....than YOU, one of his supposed 'countrymen'? Huh? You haven't been right about a SINGLE GODDAMN THING on these boards....AT ALL. This is just yet another example of that. No...fortunately I did not serve in any 'war'....but I did do my time in the service, and would have gone if called upon to do so; however, unlike a swabbie fuckhead like yourself, who got to "watch accidents" first-hand on a carrier deck (what....is that some kind of fucking joke?? You probably caused half of them, by standing in the goddamn way)...I was in the infantry. In MY world, I would have fragged a goddamn loudmouth, misguided, clueless sonofabitch like yourself a dozen times over, simply because an asshole like YOU would have gotten a lot of good men needlessly fucking wasted, because of outright stupidity, for want of anything else.

"You are using this kids death to project your anti-war, anti-military, anti-Bush political views"

Gawd, you really ARE a fucking DUMMY (remember that term?)

Go away, you sorry, sad-sack of human fuckin' being.

And you ARE a necon. A torture-loving, due-process-despising, Constitution-screwing, Bill-Of-Rights-hating, fuckin'........N-E-O-C-O-N.

And IF you ain't.....then stop fuckin' acting/sounding like one.

Just about as simple as pie, I say.

Yes, he's dead. Just as dead as a Canadian soldier storming the beaches of Normandy in WW2. People die in wars if you haven't noticed. But when you go disparaging the cause he died for, fighting for your freedom, then you have cheapened his reason for dying.

The really last thing his family needs is some liberal anti-war fuck, telling them their kid died for no reason. I'm pretty sure his family would appreciate my respect and honor of their son much more.

Now I'm pretty sure we've already had this conversation before, but Obama supports the war in Afghanistan. He apparantly deems this war worthly of sending more young Americans kids off to die. So who is wrong, you or Obama?

You're full of shit about being in the infantry. But nevertheless, a carrier flight deck at night (which I worked) during wartime ops, is one of the most dangerous places on Earth. We were at much more danger of accidents, than from the enemy, which is nearly the norm for all US soldiers in combat. I've helped tie an F-14 down, which had fallen half off the flight deck into the catwalk, crushed one drop tank, with the engines still turning. A man was sucked into a jet intake on my cruise. That was a constant risk. I nearly bought it from an E2-C prop spinning quietly as night. Fires were a constant threat. I faced risks every damn night, just like infantry.

"And you ARE a necon. A torture-loving, due-process-despising, Constitution-screwing, Bill-Of-Rights-hating, fuckin'........N-E-O-C-O-N. "

No, I pledged an oath to support the constitution. I support the war in Iraq, because I helped fight it the first time. If you understood the constitution and bill of rights, you would realize these apply to US citizens. Unless you buy into the whole God-given rights thing? You support giving freedoms to our enemies, at the expense of American defense.

You sound a little chastened there. And well you should.

You don't wanna believe I served in an infantry unit? Okiee-dokiee. That's fair ball. What can I say to that? Not a heckuva lot.....except: I can also say that I think the closest you ever got to an aircraft carrier, was when you were trying to patch a hole in a dinghy. So, that about makes us even, I guess.

You're equating the greatest invasion of the 20th century......to 'nation-building' in a mudhole, in a place where no one cares about capturing the guy behind 9/11? Please.....stfu, okay?

You pledged an oath to "support the Constitution", huh? A) So how come you don't understand it? B) How come you like to crap all over it? C) Were you an officer? I seem to recall you weren't. So how did you come swearing an oath to the "Constitution"? D) Try to keep your stories straight.

As for your question about Obama's policy in Afghanistan....I am unsure. Still processing. Although, I'm becoming more and more concerned as to what "cause" now OUR troops are dying for. If it's 'nation-building', then I say screw it.....come home NOW. Not our job to spill Canadian blood, to compensate for the lack of will of others who should be doing it for themselves (especially after nine goddamn years). YOU may think it's just fine in that regard.....but I do NOT. I personally know that there are a large number of guys from my old regiment over there, and this whole concept is starting to really piss me off.

"You support giving freedoms to our enemies, at the expense of American defense."

Laughable. Like all of your other points.

"If you understood the constitution and bill of rights, you would realize these apply to US citizens."

Not even gonna bother.

"I faced risks every damn night"

Say that to an infantryman who has a C.I.B., a couple of Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, a Silver Star.......and here's what will happen (after his fits of laughter subside, but necessarily in this order): 1. He will knock you the fuck out; 2) He will eat your liver; 3) He will tell you to stop wasting his goddamn time, and get his pizza ready. What was it that that Marine (played by Kiefer Sutherland) in "A Few Good Men" said to some sailors? "Oh, we like you Navy boys just fine.....you always give us a lift when we need to go fight".....LOL!

Puh-leeze.

Or is THIS wtf we're doing there now??:

http://news.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/abc/world/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CBC-WORLD-V3&showbyline=True&date=true&newsitemid=afghan-poppies

Drug dealers?? We've now come to the point where we have to go half-a-world away to fight goddamn drug dealers????

O-U-T.

N-O-W.

You and your buddy Stream-O-The-Zealot can suck on this, too:

http://www.bringtheguardhome.org/

Looks like a LOT of other folks out there don't believe in your....ahhh....."noble cause".

Gee, what a shocker.

I know you were never infantry for several reasons. First, you've told me before you never served, which proves you're a liar either way.

Second, you don't support wars against terrorist fucks. Any infantry man I ever met was chomping at the bit to kill the enemy.

Third, you actually trust our government to make the right decisions, with your best interests at heart. Any infantry man would understand that his government would send him to fucking die, if it felt it might be sorta worthwhile. You're no infantry. Never served, never will.

I feel no further reason to prove my military service with you.

Furthermore, if you had been infantry, you would understand that all US enlisted military members pledge an oath of loyalty, not directly to the president, but to support and defend the constitution.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/oathofenlist.htm

Further proving your bullshitness.

"As for your question about Obama's policy in Afghanistan....I am unsure. Still processing."

One of you has to be wrong, which is it? Either Obama is a war-mongering neocon, or you just don't understand that Afghanistan is a war that needs fighting. And its not just America is it? French, Germans, British, and your fellow CANADIANS all agree this war is worth fighting, and losing soldiers for.

As for nation-building, that's already on its way out of fashion. Maybe Obama can get back to carpet bombing?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090203/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_afghanistan

Basic project management 101. If your project can not be completed on time and on budget with the desired quality, re-scope the project.

And I fully appreciate a real infantryman's service, you just aren't one.

As for your link, what are you asking me for? Go ask your perfect socialist Canadian government?

Its not that we give a fuck about the drugs, we are cutting off the Taliban's money supply, to buy weapons, troops, and loyalties.

"Looks like a LOT of other folks out there don't believe in your....ahhh....."noble cause". "

Lots of people don't believe in any war for any reason. Lots of people opposed US involvement in WW2. Lots of people believe in aliens, and they all voted for Obama.

Y'know....straightening out a lying sack of deluded shit like yourself is becoming more and more easy.

1. "you've told me before you never served" Cut-and-paste where I've said this, torture-lover. Anytime. Puke.

2. "you don't support wars against terrorist fucks" W-r-o-n-g. Been through this nonsense before with both YOU and the bible-sucker. Not gonna do it again and waste my time.

3. "You're no infantry. Never served, never will." If you say so. But your jealousy about never having had the fucking balls to be an grunt is most unbecoming. Too bad.

4. "that all US enlisted military members pledge an oath of loyalty, not directly to the president, but to support and defend the constitution." Know what? It amazes at how some turds like yourself who claim they "served" and love to wave the flag.....yet are so dumb, and know pathetically little. Enlisted personnel take an oath to the Commander-in-Chief; Officers in the service are the ones who take the oath to 'defend the Constitution' (which is what I told you earlier):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office

Sounds to me like you've been kinda, like....busted, ya? Tsk-tsk-tsk....liars should really be careful about the stories they spin....shouldn't they? Fucking doorknob. Try again, Dummy.

5. "As for your link, what are you asking me for? Go ask your perfect socialist Canadian government?"

I would, gosh-darnit....except that this same "perfect socialist government" is who sent OUR troopps there to fight, because, well.....YOU and and YOUR country were attacked. Not us. YOU. You're welcome, you flag-waving fucking maggot bullshitter lying sack of dogshit wannabee.

6. "Lots of people opposed US involvement in WW2" STILL love to compare this shitty little mudfight to a world war, on an epic scale....don't you? Ahhhh....the world of the torture-loving neocon. Your type just hate the light of day....dontcha? Too fuckin' bad, I say. Go fix your dinghy.

All in all......quite a good bit slicing and dicing on my part, if I do say so. It was kinda nice reducing you to having to resort to Stream-O's favourite "Liar-liar-pants-on-fire" tactic, when he also gets backed into a corner.

You fucking goombahs are a sad pair.

And here's a cut-and-paste from YOUR oath link:

"......and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice".

THAT....is NOT an oath officers take, asshole. It is the oath that low-level worker-ants like YOU, ALLEGE to have taken (gee, ya think I was an officer to be able to say that? Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Patton).

Stop watching Rambo movies. They give you a false sense of history.

Like....have you always been a tortue-loving fuckin' Dummy? Or is this new?

If you had properly read my post, you would realize I said I was enlisted, and properly gave you the link for the oath of enlistment. But since you can't read, I'll paste it for you:
"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.[1]

So how does obeying the orders of the president of the United States necessarily pledge allegiance to one man, or violate supporting and defending the constitution? The president can be replaced. An enlisted man pledges to follow the orders of whatever sitting president there is. I didn't see the military revolt against Obama, to follow Bush.

If congress impeachs a president, and successfully removes him from power, the military no longer follows him. The military supports the constitution, which makes the VP the new president, and then we take his orders.

So you don't support the war in Iraq. You've never said anything about Afghanistan other than bitch about it, and complain its a waste of life, not worth fighting. Yet this is where the terrorists were holed up. Maybe you'd just rather be bombing Saudi Arabia?

America is in far more danger of being attacked by WMDs on our mainland now, then we ever were in WW2. So yes, Afghanistan is a worthless shithole, but that doesn't mean the war isn't worth fighting. If you pull out, the Taliban and Al Quaeda just take over again. I'm perfectly fine discussing better ways to fight them, but you either support fighting them, or you don't.

So do you support the war in Afghanistan? Here's your chance to set the record straight. Of course this would make your first post completely stupid and irrelevent, since you would now be guilty of supporting the action that cost this talented young marine his life.

As for finding your post mentioning how you've never served, well I'll just fire up the friendly Glumbert search engine... no that won't work... well if I can't prove it, I'll retract it. If you were infantry, I'm thankful for your service. It even makes sense in a way, grunts are known for their smarts. But I'll keep looking.

Okay.

It was ONLY on the basis of how civilized and REASONABLE your last paragraph sounded, that I'm going to answer your question(s) in kind:

1. The enlisted oath specifically says one will obey the President. The Constitution is attached to it, yes, BUT the oath an officer takes makes NO mention of having to obey the orders of ANY "President", and is is specifically geared to the Constitution EXCLUSIVELY. In summation, any enlisted person will say his/her oath is to the C-in-C, while any officer will say it's to the Constitution. It's a basic concept that's even drilled into all first-year West Point cadets. You can say I'm wrong, and that's A-OK. But you'd better sit down and pen a letter to THEM, and tell them THEY'RE wrong, as well.

2. Afghanistan and this young Marine's death: Right from Day One, back in 2002, my support for this military action there was unwavering. Why? Very simple: The United States was attacked on its own soil; it was attacked by a Saudi prick who was hiding there; this same prick was being sheltered by the "government"-of-the-day, namely, the Taliban. Hence, THEY were culpable as well. So, we had a governing body that HAD to be taken out, along with a terrorist network that had to dismantled. I am WITH THAT. Even as Canada started taking three times the casualty rate as any other NATO nation there (vs. the ratio of the numbers we have present on the ground)....I was STILL WITH THAT. Even when Georgie-Boy went mucking about where he wasn't supposed to, and left us (among other NATO countries there) holding the bag and leaving the cause in Afghanistan virtually neglected....I was STILL WITH THAT. But it's now almost SEVEN years later. This mission has now become....mutated, it seems. Almost perverted. We did NOT sign on to 'nation-build' a "democracy", okay? You think you or we or the Germans or any member of NATO are the first ones to dig in, in Afghanistan, and try to 'nation-build' that joint? The Brits were there a hundred years ago; Alexander The Great before that; the The Soviets....and guess what? It turned out to be a graveyard for ALL of them. But I digress. We were SUPPOSED to go in there, take out these murdering bastards, and tell the general populace simply this: "We're done now, and we're going home...BUT....if we have to be back because you let this crap flourish again....then we WILL come back, and may Allah help you if we do. And oh yes....this Bin Laden fella? We want YOU hand over his head on a platter, within thirty days." Plus, just to make good and attack the root causes of why these scum rose to power in the first place, I'd say give'em money, aid for schools, hospitals, and assist in building an appropriate infrastructure. And then....poof....we go home. But militarily assisting them to rebuild a so-called "democracy"? No. This was NOT the original mission to begin with. But it seems to have turned out that way.

Now....with this young Marine: if I had read this same article back in 2002, 2003.....I would probably have mouthed similar sentiments as you: had to be done; noble cause; supreme sacrifice......yadda-yadda-yadda. BUT...this is NOW. Any notion of this being a "noble cause" has long-since been twisted way, WAY out into the wind. I don't solely blame the American government-of-the-day for this (I'm not that clueless). I have come to place a fair share of it on OUR government, as well, for failing to stick to the original INTENT of why we (and you) are there in the first place. This is NOT WWII; we do NOT (today) adhere to the same mission; as a result, we do NOT have a clear enemy; instead, all we have now is a very pissed-off IDEOLOGY at us, and this will feed a perpuating, self-sustaining bullshit conflict. That muslim who lives in the dankest corner of Chechnya or the one that hides in the jungles of Thailand or the Philipinnes......is today just as filled with rage at us, as the one who hides out in the deserts of the MIddle East. Warring against an ideology is NOT the same, as warring against a uniformed foe of a specific nation on an open battlefield. No. This is a whole new kettle of fish. It ain't Normandy; it ain't the Alamo; it ain't San Juan Hill; it ain't the Ardennes; it ain't Vimy Ridge; it ain't Valley Forge; it ain't Little Big Horn; it ain't Gettysburg; it ain't Pork Chop Hill; hell....it ain't even like that goddamn snowball fight I saw kids on my street having yesterday. This is NOW (in the words of Monty Python)....something completely different. It is NOW a 'war' against an ideology. And because there was complete bungling on ALL sides since 9/11......we're now ALL in the crapper.

So...to sum up: I support military action in Afghanistan with a CLEARLY defined mission and purpose and goal (like it was originally) , and the work towards completing that goal/mission, even at the cost of lives (regrettable....but necessary).

I do NOT support the 'mission' (or whatever' it's become) as it is CURRENTLY being prosecuted and/or carried out.

Don't kid yourself: any military orginization is basically like a civilian corporation: they can only operate as they've been going for so long, before someone, somewhere...will want/need to see results. RESULTS. If those rsults don't come....there's gonna have to be some changes-----either in the job itself, or in the upper-management. Or, at least that's the way I see it.

And that about sums it up for me.

You know what? You got me on a roll here, so I'm going to share a true-life "Canuck1963" story with you. This is NOT intended to justify my military service to anyone; you either believe me, or you don't. Besides, if YOU were what you say YOU were, you'll be able to tell regardless. Instead, this is intended to illustrate my points above, re: the 'management' of a mission or operation:

The year was 1982.

My unit was engaged in a routine exercise in Nothern Ontario. The terrain was similar to something I guess you'd find in West Virginia: forests; dense woods; uneven ground, with some open patches, etc. The season was late summer, or therabouts. Back then, our head-gear consisted of wearing 'piss-pots' which made it worse (you know....the same helmets they wore in those 'Nam movies and WWII, complete with camo covers and everything). Anyways, I was a platoon leader. Our mock-intel said that the "enemy" was holed up in a fortified position about 4 klicks up ahead. Our sole job was to go up there, scout it out, assess troop strength/movement, and IF possible....over-take and capture AND take any prisoners for interrogation AND do it in a certain time frame. All sides had what we called MO's (military observers....or "umpires", we called them) that were assigned to each section every step of the way, to evaluate and decide who's "dead" , "wounded" or "alive". Follow me so far? Okay. Our captain, (whom I shall now henceforth refer to as Capt. Dumb Ass) is a real ass-licker, right? This yahoo really, really, REALLY wants to impress the colonel (our regimental commanding officer). So before he starts, he pulls me aside, as says "I want you to do WHATEVER it takes to carry this out. Do you fucking understand me?" What he meant was, was that he wanted lots of fireworks, lots of shooting, a big enemy-dead count, and some old-fashioned guts-and-glory. "Yes, Sir", I says. "Good", he says, and he's got this big shit-eating grin on his face, right? Looked like he ate a 500-lb. canary, y'know? So I give my guys the order to move out, and away we go. We get there, and sure enough, there's the "enemy": my point-man holds up his hand and clenches his fist and we stop and get to cover. I take a peek through the binocs. Ya....there they are: hunkered down, occassionally moving between the several or so "huts" or "shacks", at least company-strength (maybe a little more), three or four fortified machine-gun emplacements, a couple of parked deuces, two or three jeeps with mounted howitzers, a few....huh? WTF??? WTF??? W....T...F????? The numbers were bad enough, but howitzers??? No intel we had said anything about THAT. Plus their perimeter size was a huge nightmare in and of itself. Nice. Real nice. I couldn't help but think this was a set-up by Capt. Dumb Ass. So my corporal crawls over to me and whispers "Sir? What do you think? We do a right or left flanking? Direct assault? Or just withdraw and report?" I didn't know whether to be sick or pissed off or both. My dilemma was between what Capt. Dumb Ass, and what has plagued anyone in the field for the last hundred years, namely get the job done with as few casualties to you and your forces as possible. Sure, it was an excerise, but I tell you as Stream-O's God as my witness....it was running through my head that I'm going to get all these young bucks with me potentially killed. And there's the MO, just staring at me, waiting to see how I react and what I'll say/do next.

Then it dawned on me.

I could kill to birds with one shot here (no pun intended). Oh yeas. This was beautiful. OH YES! I look at my corporal, and hiss at him in a whisper, "Get the rad-op up here...on the double." He looks at me like I've just gone freakin' mental, but gets him. The rad-op crawls up to me, and rip the hand-set away from him. And I start taking:

"Tango-Romeo One-Niner-Two....this is call-sign Echo Six-Five. Copy."

"Tango-Romeo One Niner-Two....go", came the reply.

I reply:

"Fire-mission at grid co-ordinates such-and-such-and-such...fire one for effect. Copy."

The reply:

"Echo Six-Five...copy. Firing one for effect. Inbound. Advise."

I could see the MO shaking his head, smirking to himself. If he could have laughed, he would have, I think.

I guess the "enemy" could hear the chatter on THEIR radio, and started to get the idea, because as I was looking through my binocs, they were suddenly looking out frantically all over the place trying to find us, wanting to shut us up for good. But screw that crap.

I get back on the horn:

"Tango-Romeo One Niner Two....you're on target. Repeat", I said.

At this point, I see the MO attached to the "enemy", motioning them ALL to lay down on the ground. LOL!

Then, I leaned back, took out a stick of Wrigleys, and just started chewing. I said to the guys "Take five. Smoke'em if ya have'em."

About 15 minutes later, Capt. Dumb Ass comes racing up to us in his jeep. He's jumps out, and man-oh-man...he is PISSED. I mean REALLY effing PISSED, y'know? I thought blood was gonna be bursting from his ears, I swear. He pissed because none of us got hurt; none of us were killed; he was robbed of his Big Show. Starting saying I was a goddamn lazy disgrace to the uniform, and I'll be disciplined for this, and I'll be wearing mukluks in the Northwest Fucking Territories for the rest of my goddamn effing life when HE'S through with me, and blah-blah-blah. Sudden;y, we hear this voice (literally...out of nowhere):

"Gentlemen"?

We turn. It's the Regimental C.O. We snap-to. The Old Man calmly walks to us, and motions me and Capt. Dumb Ass aside, for a private chat. He asks what happened. Before I could even say anything, Capt. Dumb Ass starts spilling his guts, and promising the Old Man I'll be SEVERELY PUNISHED for this FIASCO. Yes, Sir...SEVERLY PUNISHED.

"No-no-no", says the Colonel (quite gently, come to think of it), "...he fulfilled his mission; his men are safe; the enemy is dead; the road is now open. Pot-holed, somewhat....but open. This is the way it appears to me. Does the MO concur?"

The MO looks from person-to-person....then nods.

"Do you disagree, Captain?"

NOW, instead of looking like he wants to rip my guts out, Capt. Dumb Ass looks like he wants to go home and cry.

"No, Sir", he says.

"Carry on, then", says The Old Man. We snap-to as he goes....and that was that.

My point in this story?

Once you get mismanagement at ANY level in a battle or 'war'.....you get lost in a very murky pit, at best.

This is what I thought of, when I read about Pat Tillman, and how the Army handled the aftermath of that tragedy and what his family went through because of it. It don't matter if you're the C-In-C, the Prime Minister, a Colonel or even someone like Capt. Dumb Ass: if the ones calling the shots don't know what they're doing.....then someone, somewhere...MUST take a stand SOMEHOW. To do nothing, and let things (and THEM) go status quo, is NOT an option, especially if they're getting progressively worse.

P.S.

I got a slight reprimand for not making an effort to take prisoners, but I figured the ones that didn't live through the arty-strike, simply just comitted hari-kari rather than fall into our hands. That made it nice-and-tidy.

Wow, I'm in shock! Mr. Civil pokes his head out again!

We are fighting more than people over there, which is one reason why Iraq go invaded, we are fighting an ideology. Like the fight against communism, this will be a long hard slog. Our ideology of life and freedom, against their's of death and intolerance. Iraq was one battlefield in the battle of ideology, to create a bastion of democracy and freedom in the ME. Ok, its not entirely successful so far, but Japan didn't switch over in 7 years either.

I have no problem with a change in management, so long as he supports the original mission, which he appears to. They're already giving up on democracy building, which might not be good for Karzai. But if you leave, it takes 10 times the political will to return, as we saw in Iraq. Threats don't work against religious zealots. Hasn't Streamo taught you that? ;-)

Good story, but you're gonna scare our audience with all this civility shit!

I just finished reading "House to House". Its a non-fiction account of one squad's battle in Fallujah. If you were really infantry, you'd like it.

But the Navy would have smoked the entire enemy force with one precision guided cluster bomb.

".....we are fighting an ideology. Like the fight against communism, this will be a long hard slog."

Uhhhh....no.

Fighting against a POLITICAL ideology is NOT the same as warring against a RELIGIOUS ideology.

Vast gulf of a difference.

True, communism fell, as most political systems tend to do. But the Islamic faith (especially their extremist elements) have been around much, much longer.....and will NOT "fall" anytime soon, and will continue to be around.

So long as folks continue to draw parallels between the two, this crap will go on and on and on, because they believe it's the same thing.

And good men will continue to die as a result of mismanagement of same.

Political......vs. religious.

Not the same thing. Never was. Never will be.

"House To House"?

How did this escape my attention???

Is this a recent release? Hardcover or paperback?

"But the Navy would have smoked the entire enemy force with one precision guided cluster bomb.'

(wagging finger, here)

What few precision-guided cluster munitions may have been around at that time, were still in their infancy, if at all. We were still a long ways off, from anything resembling a "push-button war." Although NOW, I heard we're sending all kinds of neat little gizmos to Kandahar, i.e., UAV's and the like.

http://www.davidbellavia.com/
http://www.amazon.com/House-David-Bellavia/dp/1416574719
Enjoy.

Well its not like cluster bombs came out of thin air in 1991, there might have been a few in 1982. They were used in the Falkland's war, 1982:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

Once again, smoked by superior information. But I will admit the laser guidance may not have been installed on all planes yet.

Actually, when I said "we", I was mainly referring to WE, as in "up here". Of course, even in 1982, the U.S. and the Brits and more sophistacated toys obviously; but for us at THAT time? Dude, to me, the mere concept of "laser-guided" munitions was shit you'd find in a Buck Rogers story.

I assumed we were both refering to the US Navy. Does Canada even have a Navy? Canada has a shore defense Navy only, which wouldn't really require offensive weapons. As compared to the US, which has a power projection Navy, designed to attack anyone, anywhere, anytime.

Clustor bombs aren't normally used against enemy shipping, but I've seen aircraft video of clustor bombs used against Iraqi ships in 91. Maybe not by plan, maybe just a target of opportunity came up and they used the ordinance already on the rails.

Sucks to be infantry with these things around:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Cluster bomb&sitesearch=#

Yup, we have a navy. Small, but still able to send out a token force out to the Persian Gulf for patrols.

Sadly, however, at the end of World War II, Canada had the THIRD-largest navy in the world (after the U.S. and Great Britain), and the FOURTH largest Air Force.

A pity, in many ways, that we didn't elect to up-keep and maintain a proud military history/tradition up here. But I like to think the work our forces are currently doing in Afghanistan kinda make up for it (in spite of my misgivings about the current mission itself).

Oh well.

Maintaining such a large military would be damned expensive, and I suspect the US and UK gave Canada significant funding during WW2. Of course most everyone's military might shrank after WW2, except for Russia's.

canuck living in a fantasy world still. hey canuck, how many kids u pretending to have these days? you're such a schmuck.

You know what's sad?

YOU have just made more sense than anyone on this thread.

You should be proud......because that ain't saying much.

Is this how your momma taught you to make friends?

Maybe you're on Glumbert because you're an inadequate sicko, with too much time on your hands and not enough brain cells. But don't project your own reasoning onto others. some of us come here to argue some meaningful shit, not who's ass smells better.

I was in the Navy for 3 years, during Desert Storm. VF-2 F-14 squadron, deployed aboard the USS ranger. Both planes and carrier now sadly decommissioned. But I don't really give a fuck if you believe me. If I wanted to brag up my past, I'd have been an F-14 pilot, not a lowly avionics tech. And my call sign might be "Maverick"... Nah, too gay.

Sounds like a ghost story to me.

Hit the road.

And your infantry unit was what? The peace-lovin pantywastes?

Hit the road, I said.

Torture-lover.

Dummy.

You continue to make a joke out of yourself. Keep it up c-.

p.s. Your easy.

p.p.s.s. You are a whipping boy, nothing more.

"And your infantry unit was what? The peace-lovin pantywastes?"

Actually, you'd be quite surprised to know that up here, the common belief (with maybe a bit of smugness on my part) is that one cannot consider ones self a 'true-blue Canadian' if one has not heard/know of my infantry regiment. I'll even go so far as to say that even our members here Glumbert who reside in the UK know of/or are at at least aware of, my unit.

It'd be a total shocker of they didn't.

Well since I'm not a true-blue Canadian, perhaps you'll enlighten us?

Ya-ya-ya....I know.

I'm aware of this site.

Trust me:

The nuts who run this site are MARGINALIZED up here. These are simply just Republican-wannabees, who really don't represent mainstream Canadian thought. I'd say they're the equivalent to "Newsmax" down there. GRanted, Prime Minister Harper is a 'conservative' (hell, I voted for'em), but he's probbaly what many would call very centrist, or moderate. The yokels who are on this site, are so "out there", that I think they remain in a stationary orbit between Mars and Jupiter.

Can't comment much on this otherwise.

Plus, in answer to your preceding question......I'm gonna throw out a couple of hints, just as a lark, to see if anyone can come up with a guess (like I mentioned, I'm kinda thinking that the UK'ers might get it):

The Dirty Four Dozen (nickname);

Latin phrase: Dileas gu brath;

Colonel-In-Chief: H.M.QEII;

32 Bgde Grp

(It'll be interesting to see if there's any takers)

Correct.

(never occured to me that Wiki might have it.....kinda cool, actually)

Wiki's got it all baby. My old squadron:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VFA-2

That's a cool unit patch, actually.

We called ourselves the "Bounty Hunters" but our sister squadron VF-1 called us the "Bunny Humpers". VF-1 was called the "Wolfpack", but we called them the "Pound Puppies" (that one dates itself).

"Pound Puppies"

LOL!

Just a little friendly unit rivalry.

Tell me about it.

Our rivalry was with another infantry regiment who had their Battalion Orderly Office right smack-dab across the parade square from ours, called "The Queens Own Rifles" (we were all based out of the same armoury, along with the 7th Toronto Artillery Regiment, now that I recall). See, the Queens Own (I have to admit) are excellent soldiers; more-so because they are classified as an airborne-infantry regiment, whereas we are strictly infantry all the way (or, "ground-borne", as we used to say----OO-AAH!). Had to be jump-qualified to be with those boys. They had an equally illustrious history---Normandy, WWI, Korea, Afghanistan, etc). But the rivalry?? Man-oh-man. To this very DAY, I have a good buddy of mine who's a co-worker, and he's ex-Queens Own, right? We STILL bust each others balls. He'd say, "Awwww, whatsamatter Highlander? You stub you're toe again? That's so saaaaad...." And I say to him, "Uhhh....thanks, Mr. Queens Own....but please do me a favour, will you? While I'm cleaning up this mess with my toe DOWN HERE, why don't you just go and get tangled up in a tree or something, okay?"

And on and on it goes.

Kinda hilarious, actually.

I wouldn't think it would be too hard to make fun of "Queens".

Yeah, I know.

I used that one too. LOL!

But I I keep telling the bastard, "Look, your regiments name may have been good for its time....but seriously, Bro....maybe you guys should really think about changing it to something a little more...I dunno...manly? Cool? Contemporary?" LOL!

Ah hell.

1. Yes...they are. And it goddamn-well gives me a pang when I think about those guys. I hope they get back safe.

2. I already answered that. But I WILL add, that if President Obama insists on carrying forward using inadequate, moronic, unproductive Bush strategies...then HE is in the wrong. The mission intent/strategies MUST change.

And I am NOT gonna answer this one again.

Capeesh?

Ok, so I'm now on P-BO's side of this arguement, against Canuck, which is ironic since I didn't vote for him, and you wanted to!

So which inadequate, moronic, unproductive Bush strategies do you disagree with? Because so far, Obama is carrying them all forward.

And how can you not support the mission that your old infantry unit is currently fighting for? Dileas gu brath?

You simply exist here to:

A.) Blithely ignore what I write;

B). Shit-disturb.

C.) Try to provoke an argument.

Face it: you have one of two alternatives, here:

1. Read what I say.

2. Remember what I say.

3. Do as you're doing.

If #3 is the only option you have left after coming out and looking silly because you're so inconsistant......then that's YOUR problem.

You guessed what my unit was. Great! Revel in it! But that's the most you'll get, so enjoy it. I don't toss out too many bones these days, but you earned this one.

So enjoy!

Okay.

THIS....is what I'm talking about:

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5187WE20090209

You see what this nutjob is saying???

"........so our efforts there to bring about some semblance of security and democracy".

"DEMOCRACY"?????

Like, when THEE hell did this 'mission' suddenly morph into NATION-BUILDING??

THIS is why I have a a problem NOW with this 'mission': this was NOT the original intent/spirit with which we initially went there. AT ALL. It is not worth spilling ONE DROP of Canadian (or American, or German, or British, or Dutch, or French, for that matter) blood, to do something on THAT scale, that these people/tribes won't/should be doing for them-goddamn-selves (especially after SEVEN goddamn years). Frakkin' backwards, lazy, religious heathen. The whole lot of'em. But they sure got enough get-up-and-go to get down twenty, thirty times a day to pray to Allah. F*** sakes. Religion strikes again. Beautiful. Just beautiful.

This is TOTAL.....ahhhh, screw it.

You get the point.

Canuck, I am only trying to help you resolve your inner conflict. You're still in denial that Obama is really Bush 2 (or maybe 3). I don't try to provoke an arguement, I try to provoke a discussion. There is a difference.

So the whole idea of not doing nation-building, of not trying to build democracy, that was what Bush failed to plan for after invading Iraq. He just went in there guns blazing, and expected the terrorized Iraqis to pick up the pieces themselves. Well Afghans are even more backwards sheep-humpers, and they need nation-building more than maybe any nation on Earth.

I'm not saying its our responsibility to build their nation for them, but I don't think we'll forever eliminate the taliban, without replacing it with something better. And we've spent too much time in past history propping up the next dictator puppet. We have to learn sometime.

So either we do it right, or we get the hell out. Doing it half-assed is a waste of effort and lives. (that doesn't mean we don't have to set realistic goals) If you pull out tommorrow, the Taliban is back in power in a week. Then we have to keep bombing them, and they just don't have enough worthy targets. We've lost too many good soldiers, not to do something meaningful with that country. And if you got them started with democracy / republic, maybe it would even curb the religious rule. What are the options? Would you rather have another theocracy?

These Muslims are still in there dark ages. They need either enlightment or bullet ventilating. They forced our hand on 9/11. If you leave, they won, and they would probably be back to terrorize us again. This is not a crusade as Bush wrongly stated, of Christianity over Islam. It is an enlightment of western culture over Islamic fanaticism. Shouldn't you be all supportive of that? And who better to lead this effort than an ex-Muslim democrat president?

These people have never believed in any form of "democracy" for at least a thousand years. Now suddenly...what? WE'RE gonna show them the light? No way. The orginal intent was tosmash a terrorist network hiding out there. It's been done. As I've already said, you give these people the very BASICS to get started over again, and let them be. And you warn them....WARN THEM....that if we have to come back.....it'll be the last time-----for THEM. Because their lights will be shut off----permanently.

But to 'nation-build'? To stay there indefinitely? No.

Not our jobs.

If President Obama follows Bush policy in this regard....then I say again:

He's wrong. Dead wrong.

And he was NEVER a "muslim". Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. Trust me on this one.

P.S.

The unfortunate give-and-take with having had the Taliban there in power, was that on the one hand they gave safe haven to Bin Laden and his murdering pukes....but they also stamped out the drug/opium problem they had.

And now?

The Taliban have re-emerged; the drug trade is back.

Keeee-rist.

Look at this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/4585669/War-against-Taliban-will-be-lost-by-autumn-unless-strategy-changes.html

And what have I JUST told you?

This not good.

At all.

The Japanese weren't very big on democracy either in 1945. The Japanese were every bit as alien to our culture, had a completely alien religion, and were every bit as suicidally fanatical in their war against America. Nation-building can be done, but maybe it does take an atomic bomb or two to convince the locals.

Obama will now support a surge of troops in Afghanistan. The same surge strategy used successfully in Iraq, that Obama never supported, even though he now admits Iraq is nearly won. A surge of troops, and rebuilding, will bring Afghans around.

But I am aware that Afghans are fiercely independent and resistant to all outsiders. They generally view the Taliban as outsiders as well, since they are so intertangled with Al Quaeda. We need to keep a low footprint at the same time as we increase troop strength. That means less boots in Kabul, and more boots where the bad guys are.

I don't think threats of annihilation work against religious fanatics. The Japanese didn't surrender after Tokyo and many other cities were firebombed, and Hiroshima vaporized. The entire Japanese economy was destroyed. There wasn't a single ship getting in or out of Japanese harbors. Even after Nagasaki, many wanted to keep fighting. They only stopped because the emperor commanded it.

Obama did attend a Muslim school. Regardless of his personal beliefs, he should understand Muslims, and Muslims should be more willing to believe Obama understands them.

And its currently the Taliban running the opium trade. They did stop it for awhile, they did provide security for awhile, but their morals dropped over time.

Afghanistan needs a government based on / exploiting their belief in Islam and their fierce nationalism. Maybe we need to let the Afghan government we created, pretend to act tough against us invaders, and eventually kick us out. That might sway taliban to the governments side, and away from Al Quaeda. One thing for certain, Afghan loyalties are fickle at best.

I still strongly disagree.

But one thing's for sure:

Time will tell....won't it?

Yes, it most certainly will.

But would you admit that Iraq is a much better place than it was 2 years ago, and that this improvement just happened to coincide in time with the surge of US troops?

Would you admit that Obama basically said as much in this weeks speech?

And certainly Obama has clearly stated he intends to send more troops to Afghanistan. I believe these are facts we can agree on.

Now when Obama does surge troops to Afghanistan, and claims victory, will you attribute the victory to Obama's brilliant democrat leadership? Or will you realize this is what Bush or McCain planned to do all along?

And if Afghanistan goes to hell, partly because of Obama's surge, will you blame Obama for the mess, or blame Bush? Whether the surge is right or wrong, Obama has to make the decision, and the buck stops there right?

(sighs)

Okay. Because we're such great pals now, I'm going to break my own rule, and repeat what I've said, and I will try to be as black-and-white as possible:

1. No....I do NOT think Iraq is a "better place" today; sure, American casualties are down (with a slight up-tick again!), but in a greater 'context'? No. Why I say this? Please read:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090211/wl_mcclatchy/3165866

And that's just from YESTERDAY. One DAY. This has been going on DAILY, to varying degrees. The whole country is one big, fat mess and now has so many damn concrete walls to partition the sectarian combatants, that it puts the old East Berlin to shame. Nope. I do not believe that Iraq is better off today, than two years ago. Remember how I kept posting daily Iraq updates for Stream-O? You think I stopped because things got a whole lot rosier?? Nahh. I stopped because he just don't care, man. He couldn't give a f***. He sees what he wants to see, and hears what he wants to hear. But that does NOT mean it's because things 'got better', or stopped happening. He just don't care.

2. Yes, Obama said he's sending more troops to Aghanistan. And I'll repeat what I've said: it's great if he decides to alter the strategy of this 'mission', because currently? It's crap. As far as Bush goes, don't forget: HE was the one who NEGLECTED Afghanistan and the 'mission' there for several years, choosing instead to screwing around where he wasn't 'sposed to. This is why we NOW have the problems there that we do. It was only in the later stages, that Georgie-Boys' alarm clock went off, and figured he'd better at least do SOMETHING about it. But by then, the neglected problems had taken root, and now someone else has to clean up the mess (kinda sounds like the economy...don't it). So if Afghanistan "goes to hell", as you say, then it's because a) Georgie-Boy had ignored it for so long; b) President Obama then compounded it, by following Georgie-Boys' inept policies there, in which case yes, HE would be equally (if not more) culpable.

In that regard....yes...the "buck DOES stop there"....with HIM: follow the policies of the idiot who held the job before him? Or alter his actions accordingly, and try to clean up this crap? This is something he's said on the campaign trail all along. If he follows Georgie-Boys' tact and FAILS....then absoultely, he'll wear it even worse than the Yale cheeleader.

And there ya go.

Lemme throw a question at YOU, now:

Lets' say hypothetically I became a millionare tomorrow courtesy of our tax-free lottery system (*snort*), right? Okay. I ask YOU for your home addy because I'm gonna buy me and send YOU some airline tickets to Iraq (assuming we get in, of course). I ask you to come with me, so we can go strolling around in downtown Baghdad, or Mosul, or Tikrit, or Al Anbar province-----no hovering Blackhawks, no 101st Airborne at our backs, no up-armoured Humvees, no flack vests, no weapons---hell, not even a SLINGSHOT---and we go as......tourists. That's all. I won't even ask you to hold hands with me.

Would you go? (it's a 'yes' or 'no' proposition, as it stands NOW).

If 'no'.....then.......when?

I request a clear, concise answer, please.

On top of that, I'll also throw in this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/11/AR2009021100596.html?hpid=artslot&sub=AR&sid=ST2009021103361&s_pos=

This is a quote in this article from a guy who actually LIVES there:

"Will more American troops be able to stop this? Never," said a shaken Sakhi, the clerk who escaped the Justice Ministry and watched from the street while commando teams raided the building. "The more the number of troops increase, the more insecurity will increase. The future of Afghanistan is getting worse day by day."

I dunno about you.....but I find this troubling.

VERY troubling.

I'm not saying Iraq is better off than before the invasion yet, but it is better off than 2 years ago. Sure violence continues, but sectarian killing is way way down, something like 90%. Is the war over and won? No. But is it time to turn Iraq's future over to Iraqis, and their finally semi-competent military and police force? Yes. Its time to begin a slow controlled withdrawal of US forces. This is a vast improvement over what Obama wanted to do two years ago, immediate withdrawal, leaving Iraq in a violent civil war. And this is possible only because of relative successes brought on by the surge, and the continued political progress (particullarly with the Sunnis) made possible by the surge. Even Al Sadr is being marginalized now. No, its not perfect yet, but relative to 2007, its much much better. The relatively peaceful democratic elections in Iraq are proof of some success, and hope for a decent future for Iraq.

Do I want to go to Iraq as an obvious westerner unarmed target? Well actually, in the far north Kurdish area, it might not be too bad. But for the most part, no, probably not. There are some Iraqis maybe not grateful to America, but at least understanding that they need us. However, the danger of kidnapping or random attack is far too high. I have little kids to support. I would consider going there as part of the US military, where I could hopefully make a difference, and at least be able to defend myself. But I'm not going there without a purpose, and its not such a great vacation spot.

I've been to Abu Dhabi, UAE. The ME is one big shithole. Even in peaceful tolerant Abu Dhabi, brand new skyscrapers going up, cranes on every third building, but sandstorms blowing down the streets. Everything is sand or concrete, no green. As a Minnesotan, I have green withdrawal even going to Las Vegas on vacation. Anyway, the land if fucking ugly. They can't drink, they can't fuck, their damn oppressive religion controls their daily lives and their politics. No wonder they want to grab a gun and fight. What the fuck else better do they have to do? They need hope for a better life, and an enlightened Islam lite.

As for Bush abandoning Afghanistan, to invade Iraq... well that will always be arguable. Some would say we should have finished the job in Italy, before we moved forces to invade Normandy. I say its a war on militant Islam ideology, not just the Taliban. Remember most of the hijackers were Saudi, something you may have mentioned once or twice. ;-) Fighting in Afghanistan does nothing to stop the fanatical Islam in Saudi Arabia, in Lebanon, in Gaza, and you can't fight everywhere. Saudi Arabia wisely has been cooperating thoroughly with America, they know they have to. The Islamofacists will bring down Saudi Arabia if they don't. Well if they're already working with us through diplomacy, we don't need to bomb them.

But we did want to start some reform and enlightenment in the ME, to get them off their fanatical Islam, get them out of the fucking dark ages. Maybe give them something better, something to hope for. That was the intent of invading Iraq, to kill 2 birds with one stone. Remove Saddam, but also create a more enlightened democratic spot in the ME, to be a model of reform for the rest of the ME. Iraq had potential. But that didn't work out very well, mostly because of piss-poor planning and execution. That I blame Bush for. But Iraq may still become the model of reform in another 10 years. The Iraqis need to want it themselves. This is a fight of ideologies, and I full well expected it to be a long hard slog.

As for Afghanistan, I think I've already expressed my opinion thoroughly. I don't consider an Afghan clerk to be a solid source of advice on military planning. I'll leave that to general Petraeous.

Divide and conquer. Afghan loyalties are fickle. Surge the troops, make Taliban life hell, but hold out constant peace offers with real political opportunity. Get the Taliban split, the moderates joining the Afghan government, the hardcore being fought by us, and by moderate Afghan and Taliban. Part political, part military, part classic Caesar. That would be my strategy. I fully agree military force alone cannot win, we need to engage Taliban, just as we engaged Sunnis in Iraq.

"I don't consider an Afghan clerk to be a solid source of advice on military planning. I'll leave that to general Petraeous."

They guy LIVES there.....HAS lived there all his life. I'd say his views probably carry the most weight at the end of the day. More than Petraeous's; more than yours; more than mine.

Good arguments, otherwise; I still disagree, dude, and stand by my opinion on this matter.

"Some would say we should have finished the job in Italy, before we moved forces to invade Normandy."

PLEASE....stop comparing ANYTHING about WWII to this mess. I already went over that with you. Jeeeez.

As I said....Time itself will eventually prove one of us wrong.

And the day either one of us CAN walk around in Eye-Rak without all of that other nonsense, is the day I'd be inclined to agree with you.

That's about the best I can sum it up at this point.

"As for Bush abandoning Afghanistan, to invade Iraq... well that will always be arguable"

Excuse me??????

HUH????

"Arguable"????

Uhhhh....no.

Not even close, man.

I certainly agreed with invading Iraq at the time. And even in hindsight, I might have made the same call, especially if someone else was doing the post-war planning.

But I don't consider Bush to have abandoned Afghanistan. Sure he shifted away resources, and Afghanistan was not the top priority, but that's not the same as abandonment. Afghanistan isn't lost yet, especially with the dirty four dozen on the job!

NOW YOU'RE TALKIN', GODDAMN IT!!!!

LOL!

Glad you agree, now I'll play devils advocate, and post some dismal news:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090213/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_afghanistan_anniversary

He might have more credibility than an Afghan clerk.

Possibly.

But what I find bothersome, is that these two people have virually identical points of view about the same situation (and BOTH were there!).

Now THAT'S scary.

Well, they say nothing beats co-operation between friends, I suppopse:

http://www.metimes.com/Security/2009/02/16/fort_bliss_simulates_afghan_summer/de3e/

Looks like we're sending yet another regiment there.

"The Canadians traveled to the 1,700-square-mile Fort Bliss, located in Texas, for their final confirmation exercise and to train in an environment that is similar to the rugged conditions they will face in Afghanistan during the summer"

What environment are they referring to? Weather? Landscape? All the locals carrying guns and fucking goats? They really need to narrow that down a bit.

I've been to Texas. Have you?

Jesus Christ, man. You KNOW wtf they mean by that.

Yes, I've been to Texas several times. My comment was a joke. See locals in Afghanistan carry guns and fuck goats, so do Texans... nevermind.

Those boys who remember The Alamo ain't never gonna forgive you for that one.

Well, I think Iran may actually want to end the hostility with America, partly to end the sanctions. Apparantly Iran's economy is in the crapper, with huge inflation, and Ahmadinijad is about as popular as Bush, and may lose the election in June. A little political coup for him might save him the election. Although, I think the real power in Iran is with the Ayotollah anyway. Ahmadinijad is the puppet faceman, with all the smooth gaffs of Joe Biden or Bush.

I'm sure Iran isn't worried about the US attacking them anymore, and I bet Iran is keeping a low profile as far as harassing US Navy ships in the Persian gulf, or supplying weapons to Iraq. Until Iran gets tired of Obama not caving fast enough, then they might start playing hardball.

Pakistan is a friggin mess, but I don't think Iran is that concerned, I don't see Iran being an immediate target from Taliban or Al Qaeda.

"Although, I think the real power in Iran is with the Ayotollah anyway. Ahmadinijad is the puppet faceman......."

Completely correct.

Been hammering that point for a long time, now.

If Satan really exists, then his most effective tool is religion.

And TOTALLY agree with THAT.

Now here we go with this arguement again...

I'm not religious, BUT I don't go blaming all the world's problems on religion. Frankly most of the nutcases pervert religion to suit their nutcase goals.

When Stalin was sending Soviet citizens off to die in Siberia, or Hitler sending Jews to the gas chamber, was that not evil? Yet no religion was involved, other than the ideology of the all powerful supreme state. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, its just that occasionally those with the absolute power abuse religion to justify their abuses. It is a fine tool for recruiting those that may not think for themselves, but so are unions.

If anything is evil, I might say fanatical ideology of any kind is the real evil, with religion being just one more possible fanatical ideology out of many.

Religion can be and often is a source of good; whether that be providing comfort (false or not), inspiring people to care for their fellow man, inspiring moral support, etc.

Anyway, to hear a bunch of atheists wonder if Satan may exist, kinda destroys your argument. ;-)

Religion (to varying degrees) has been the Number ONE cause of war and/or human conflict in the entire history of mankind.

That's a fact.

Ergo, the concept of institutionalized/organized religion is a blight on the human psyche, and the sooner we as a species grow up and shrug it off....the better off we'll be.

Or more realistically, mankind will always be a warlike being, unable to tolerate his neighbors without occasionally killing them.

Historically most humans have been religious, but recently a great number of humans have given up their religion, and still the wars go on...

Did religion cause the wars, or do we just eternally look for ways to justify murdering our fellow men, and religion has always been a better justification than WMDs?

You blame everything on religion, because to blame it on human nature, might destroy your optimistic humanist view of the ever evolving and improving human. Rid the world of religion, and sadly wars and genocide will go on.

"Rid the world of religion, and sadly wars and genocide will go on."

Disagree.

Strongly.

Well then maybe we have a real debate here! So by your thinking then, for all wars and genocide to cease without religion, then we should be able to prove every war and genocide had some religious cause right?

What was the cause of WW1? Mostly strong nationalism, old grudges, and a spark. Nothing to do with religion.

What was the cause of WW2? Expansionism, empire building, and totalitarian governments. Again, little to do with religion.

What about the cold war and almost WW3 between the US and Soviet Union? Mostly political and economic ideology, and massive distrust. Again, not religion.

How about Vietnam? Did we invade Vietnam to crusade against the Buddhists? Hardly.

Ok, so maybe the Korean war? No religion again, more part of the cold war, defending our capitalist freedom ideology against communism.

Well lets go back a while, must be more religion in historical wars... How about the American civil war? No, that was about the southern states trying to secede from the union.

How about the American Revolution? No, that was about the 13 colonies fighting off oppressive British rule.

Well lets try going forward. Surely today with those darn Muslims, all our wars must be religion based! Well but Iraq was fought to steal Iraqi oil right? Or was it to eliminate WMDs? But it was never about eliminating Islam, only certain Muslims.

The Afghanistan invasion was purely retaliatory for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which may have been inspired by religion. The terrorists certainly believed they would be rewarded in Jannah. But suicide attacks are hardly new, and have been done for Earthly motivations before. The Japanese and Vietnamese committed suicide attacks to defend their homelands or push their ideology. Also, the 9/11 terrorists had more motivation than simply jihad. They had political ideological motivation as well.

Maybe I could grant you the war in Yugoslavia, since Muslims fought Serbians, but even this was more ethnic war than religious.

How about the slaughter in Rwanda? Religion based? Hardly. Ethnic slaughter and genocide once again.

Man is sadly quite capable of hating and killing other humans, brutally and savagely, just because they're different in any possible way. Religion is only one possible difference. But since most all the world's religions attempt to constrain man's desire to kill (since most were founded by enlightened peeps of the time), then man needs to distort religion to his needs, so his followers are willing to blindly go slaughter the enemies. This is basic human politics. Find what motivates people, and distort the truth if need be to get the job done. If religion is the current trendy and popular tool, than that's what you use. But racism and ideology have filled in nicely before to justify murder, when no convienient religious difference was availible.

Religion is just a tool to the war-mongers of the world. Always has been. Always will be. This was certainly the case during the crusades. Medievil knights and surfs used religion to justify slaughtering Muslims, or even other Christians, so they could steel their land and wealth. Sure there were some devoutly religious men who actually believed in the purpose of the war, but there were also a great many men who didn't give a fuck about religion, and happily killed for fame, glory, and profit.

To believe anything else, is simply to deny human nature. I say to you, prove religion is the cause of ALL wars. In fact, prove religion is the cause of a single war!

I'm really looking forward to your reply. You're so toast on this one! ;-)

Okay.

Here it is; I'll cut-and-paste my own quote from above:

".......to varying degrees".

Sometimes overt; sometimes subtle.

But ALWAYS.....there.

"....In fact, prove religion is the cause of a single war!"

Why?

You've already made up your mind.

How about YOU research it?

That sounds MUCH better.

Total cop-out! When you realize you're wrong, the polite thing to do is admit it. I just gave you the causes of every major conflict in the 20th century (granted from an American perspective), and maybe one had a little bit to do with religion. Face it, if religion ended tommorrow, man would still find PLENTY of reasons to kill each other for.

Have I made up my mind? Well you've certainly offered nothing to convince me otherwise.

I mean I busted my ass writing you a proof of my point, and that's the best you can do?

New Glumbert rule: Put up a sporting fight, or admit you're wrong!

"".......to varying degrees"."

What part of that doesen't compute with you?

And, to be quite honest, you (and Stream-O) have glossed over, ignored, twisted and otherwise cherry-picked far too much of what I've said thus far. Ergo, once I see that you've blatantly made up your ind about something....it truly IS a waste of time.

If my telling YOU to go and do a little research into something is a "cop-out"..well, then....I guess to you it'll be a "cop-out. Why? Because you've made up your mind. Y'see? The correct response should have been, "Okay, wise-guy! I'll get back to you with what I find, along with some FACTUAL data".

And if you DID do that...I'd be mor than happy to say, "Hmmmm.....I think I may have been mistaken here."

But please....don't play Steam-O's stupid game of "blind faith", okay?

There's been enough of that around here already.

Don't give me that crap. I have researched major wars, I know the causes, I even summarized them for you. Very little or nothing to do with religion, much to do with mankinds inhumanity to man and greed.

You're the one saying rid the world of religion, and all wars and genocide will forever cease. Well here's your big chance to prove your point. I haven't made up my mind, I'm only done updating my opinion until you provide me evidence to convince me otherwise.

Maybe you're having a tough time accepting that man can be so cruel to his fellow man, without some evil religion as the true cause? WW1 was notorious for destroying all man's sense of civilization. Would this acceptance make your belief in the all powerful benevolent government harder to swallow? You atheists look to socialized government as religious men look to God: giving it all your trust and faith, bowing to its superior intelligence and divine intervention into your personal life.

Maybe you're not truly atheist Canuck, you're a devout believer in socialism, an ideology every bit as powerful as any religion ever was. And why not? Religion maybe pays off in the next life. Socialism pays off in this life right? Of course, this devout belief in socialism, this willingness to support government over individual rights of men, this has all been done before. It kicked into high gear around 1939. Feel free to do your own research.

Holy hell, man. You're getting as sensitive as your pal, Stream-O.

I think a little bit of clearing the air here, is in order:

1. "You're the one saying rid the world of religion, and all wars and genocide will forever cease". Ahhhh.....no. What I am saying is....no. Forget it. Not gonna repeat that again. You don't WANT TO get it. I'll wrap THAT up, by saying that since we have NEVER had a world without institutionalized religion, you can't very well say that getting rid of religion would get rid of wars...right? And if the day comes when we get rid of that superstitious shit, we'll have at least a damn good chance. But don't sweat it: I think folks like YOU will always have an Invisible Man In The Sky to talk to.

2. "I haven't made up my mind" Ummmm....yes. You have.

3. "You atheists look to socialized government as religious men look to God: giving it all your trust and faith, bowing to its superior intelligence and divine intervention into your personal life." Uhhh....who said I was an "atheist"? Know what? This petty, childish name-calling is starting to bore me. Fast. And seeing as how YOU are now living in a newly-founded "socialistic" country...I'd be a little more non-judgemental, if I were you. The myths you that you were brainwashed by all your life, are starting to unravel. This hysterical rant you keep having about "socialism" is making you seem like a loud, ugly woman who's out of control. Give it a rest already, fer chrissakes. It's almost embarrassing. It's a system that's worked just fine-and-dandy for me, this country and every other G8 nation. All that's happening now, is that YOUR folks are coming to terms with it. So chill out, and enjoy the ride, man. Besides, I'll let YOU have a little read-over of something I gave to Stream-O:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183670

Consider THAT a little bit of 'wake-up' juice for ya.

See the stock market results today?

3. "this willingness to support government over individual rights of men"

HAH??? You've flipped your lid, man. LOL! I bet ya I've enjoyed just as many "individual rights" as YOU ever did (along with ALL of the other 'socialized' western democracies), and maybe even more, come to think of it. But if YOU can give me ONE stellar example of something YOU have that I DON'T....be my guest. I really don't know what eff's been taught to your types down there, but you seriously need to expand your horizons a little more. Newsflash, sport: the more folks like YOU carry on thinking/acting like you're the end-all-to-be-all...then the more devolved you become, and by consequence, the less liked YOU are. Or are you just upset that Joe Mccarthy ain't around to dig up anymore of them 'commies' for ya? Puh-leeeze.

4. "It kicked into high gear around 1939. Feel free to do your own research"

You kidding me...or what? Or have you really gone over the edge with that flag-waving nonsense? Because I hate to burst your freakin' bubble again, there, Gen. Patton, buuuuut....what WE'VE had, goes back a LOT further than "1939", and it still works for us (and most other nations), so thank-yuh-thank-yuh-vury much. And we ain't seen no sign of a little fella in a funny moustache, either. Golly, how 'bout that?

You just made yourself look very foolish with that last statement.

Your words:
"Religion (to varying degrees) has been the Number ONE cause of war and/or human conflict in the entire history of mankind. That's a fact. "

and

"my statement: Rid the world of religion, and sadly wars and genocide will go on."
your response:
"Disagree. Strongly."

You're blaming organized religion certainly (maybe not just personal religion) for the majority of the wars and genocide on Earth over history, if not all. Yet I can name every major conflict of this century, and it had nothing to do with organized religion.

I wasn't calling you atheist as any personal insult. To believe there is no God is an opinion, not an insult. I don't think Mako would have taken that as any insult. But you're saying you are personally religious, but against organized religion? That I can completely agree with, except for the personally religious part. I'm simply agnostic.

But how do you reconcile your comments of:
"And if the day comes when we get rid of that superstitious shit, we'll have at least a damn good chance. But don't sweat it: I think folks like YOU will always have an Invisible Man In The Sky to talk to. "

with:
"Uhhh....who said I was an "atheist"?"

If you're not an atheist, isn't that almost by definition believing in an invisible man in the sky? Or do you simply have a different religion, and all others are in your opinion superstitions? Help me out here, I'm trying to understand your viewpoint, which is conflicting.

You're viewpoint that since we have always had organized religion, and wars, that they are cause and effect is ludicrous. Maybe its our many wars that cause organized religion? We've always had taxes throughout history, maybe they cause wars? Sounds silly to make a cause and effect statement without basis don't it? How about, we have always covetted our neighbors land, water, minerals, oil, etc, and that is the primary cause of wars?

You're the one deeply (almost fanatically) defending socialism, not me. And while it may have worked well for Canada, that doesn't mean it will work well for the US. I'm anti-fanatical to just about everything. I also don't want a government any bigger than it is now, or government taking over more and more of our personal decisions and responsibilities, because despite Obama's best wishes, some day we're gonna elect another George Bush.

My point about 1939 was not any statement about you or Canada, only that man's blind faith in any ideology and giving absolute power to any government (in this case Nazism) often has disastrous results. Government should always be limited in power and accountable to its citizens, not the other way around. If you get the majority of your citizens dependent on the government tit for their livelihood, than you lose control of your government. I'm against giving government more and more control over our personal lives, I'm for getting back to self-reliance and personal responsibility. That is not the socialist way.

Maybe socialism works well in Canada because Canada is such a peaceful non-military society, with a fairly weak military. (no offense to the dirty 4 dozen) Maybe it works because the lawmakers are still held accountable to its citizens, unlike 1939 Germany. But here in America, I'm losing faith in our lawmakers accountability, on all things: foreign policy, economics, illegal immigration, personal rights, education, why would I expect nationalized health care to be any better than the fucking mess we call public education? Why should be give government more power, more authority, when it already gets us in foreign wars you don't like, spys on us, and screws up our economy? You're personal mantra should be to work for the government that is impervious to another Bush presidency. You do that be keeping all decisions as local as possible. You keep your schools funding, health care, laws, etc. controlled by the city/county/state, not the ever increasing fed.

I don't want some unaccountable bastard in Washington telling me how to live, how to educate my kids, what health treatment is acceptable for me. I want those decisions to make myself, or at least keep the decision local, so I have somebody to yell at!

Maybe I'm no republican. Maybe I'm "devolving" as you say into a libertarian? Except, for one that doesn't see the need for economic protectionism and does recognize a need for the common defense.

FINALLY!

You hit the nail on the head on something here!

But I gotta go....be back tomorrow in the a.m. to give this a reply.

Toodles.

Good morning.

Shit, man, this is becoming a ritual: get up, take the kids to school, get my cup o' java, thaw out, log-on to the next exciting installment of "Changing The World Through Glumbert One Post At A Time".....and start typing. Ahh, well....there's worst ways that my life could be. Here we go:

Dude, seriously....you have GOT to get out of this mind-frame, that The World As You Know It started in 1776, and that somehow history prior to this was a blank slate. Everytime you bring up WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. you only box yourself even more, into a small vacuum of Time. My EXACT quote again: "Religion (to varying degrees) has been the Number ONE cause of war and/or human conflict in the entire history of mankind." Did you catch that part? The ENTIRE HISTORY OF MANKIND. Those wars you mentioned above? They are a BLINK of time, compared to the history I'm referring to. A BLINK. In THOSE days and in THAT history, it was nothing for any leader to say "We'll kick their asses because they are not following OUR 'God', and we will smite their sorry asses until they do because GOD wants us to!! ITS WHAT GAWD WANTS!!" This has been illustrated to a lesser degree TODAY, with Georgie-Boy saying that what HE'S doing is "Gods work", or that "HE'S on a mission from God". Now, do I believe that Georgie-Boy used "God" as an excuse to launch a war? Shit, no (although Sarah Palin seems to think so, even saying that the Iraq fiasco is a "task from GAWD"). No..I think today it's primarily about money, oil and military influence. Whereas throughout HUMAN HISTORY (i.e. NOT U.S. history), religion was that golden card to play when waging war.....today it's reversed: it comes out AFTER THE FACT, to CONTINUE to justify said 'war'. How many times have you heard "godless communists"? Lots, I bet. So trust me on this one: the wars waged througout history in the name of "God" and the destruction/casualties caused by same therin....far, FAR outweigh the alternative reasons behind WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. And who says only 'wars' come out of religion? Guess what country in the 20th century even tried to throw its citizens in JAIL for teaching evolution in the classroom, and going against the Good Book? Hint: Look up "Scopes Monkey Trial". Pathetic, yes? Whether it's wars...or some poor slob facing imprisonment on the home-front...it's what I've been saying: INSTITUTIONALIZED RELIGION is a goddamn BLIGHT on humanity. Wanna worship the deity of your choice? Fine. There's your house. Go worship in peace...and in private. Leave it outta the law books...and outta politics. Like I said....it's not"God" I have an issue with....it's His fucked-up and deluded Fan Club.

Gotta run for a few minutes.

I'll continue this shortly.

I woke up this morning, and didn't have to milk cows or shovel shit. Every day is a fucking good day! (I grew up on a farm, probably the source of my personal responsibility and self-reliance mantra)

I never said the world started in 1776, heck it might even go all the way back to 1492 or so. ;-)

You're point was that organized religion is the cause of all the world's wars, and that if only we rid the world of organized religion, we would rid the world of its wars. That's why I rattled off a list of relatively recent wars, none with religion as their cause. Direct evidence rebutting your claim. I'm not saying a damn thing about historical wars, even though they were usually about stealing land, wealth, or power as well. Religion was just another tool to aquire power, and motivate the masses to fight. I never said there weren't wars caused by religious differences in the past, I said without religion, we would still have wars.

"No..I think today it's primarily about money, oil and military influence. Whereas throughout HUMAN HISTORY (i.e. NOT U.S. history), religion was that golden card to play when waging war.....today it's reversed: it comes out AFTER THE FACT, to CONTINUE to justify said 'war'. "

That is certainly not the point you were making before.

"How many times have you heard "godless communists"?"

Communists were atheists, so that was factual, even if it didn't apply to ordinary Russians. We didn't fight the cold war, Korea and Vietnam, to spread Christianity now did we? No, we fought it to preserve capitalism, democracy, and freedom. Religious freedom maybe being one component of that, that may have motivated certain people more than others. Maybe some of those immigrants whose religious freedom was restricted in the past, by people like you that may have wanted their organized religions eliminated?

"So trust me on this one: the wars waged througout history in the name of "God" and the destruction/casualties caused by same therin....far, FAR outweigh the alternative reasons behind WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. "

I might disagree that primitive weapons were capable of producing the death and destruction seen in WW2, but that's beside the point.

This wasn't the point you were making before, you're changing your point to something more supportable. Even if religion was responsible for historical wars, (something I admit played an important part) we still have ample evidence of wars continuing without religion. My point.

"And who says only 'wars' come out of religion?"

You did. Whether you meant to or not, that's exactly what you said.

"INSTITUTIONALIZED RELIGION is a goddamn BLIGHT on humanity. Wanna worship the deity of your choice? Fine. There's your house. Go worship in peace...and in private. Leave it outta the law books...and outta politics. Like I said....it's not"God" I have an issue with....it's His fucked-up and deluded Fan Club. "

See that's your true point. You just want to rid the world of organized religion, regardless of whether its responsible for continued wars or not. Be honest about it.

Most of what you believe is the American way, seperation of church and state, and my personal thinking as well. We disagree over the details of seperation of church and state. I don't need to remove the ten commandments from courtrooms, or "In God we trust" from the dollar bill, not because of religious crap, but because these are national traditions that unite Americans together. Americans believe in the rule of law, not the rule of the church, its just that sometimes these things are the same, since religious and atheist people miraculously occasionally share the same morals, despite what Streamo may have said.

But how do you go about eliminating organized religion from the world? Eliminating something incredibly personal, that some would fight to the death to preserve? Well, you're gonna have to use force, to kill the true believers and defenders of organized religion. The Nazis tried it. The Communists tried it. You're saying that's what you truly want? Or might it be better to compromise, base your government on seperation of church and state, but allow citizens freedom of religion? Seems much better to me.

I agree that does come at cost, you have to be forever vigilant against religious oppression, just as you should against government repression. But its an eternal balancing act. Besides the Nazis and Communists found out you can't eliminate religion, only drive it underground.

You could try the European model, of just trying to evolve this religious free, enlightened, extremely liberal society, that has no further use for religion. But isn't France in a religious re-awakening now?
You want to eliminate organized religion from the world? Be careful what you wish for.

Okay...where was I? Oh yeah:

As I've said before on this "socialism" issue, I'm telling you HERE and NOW, as a FACT......that I, as someone who was born, raised, educated and employed in THIS country with its "socialist system".....have NOT received a single goddamn thing LESS THAN ANY average American already had his/her whole life (medical bills excluded). Is it 'perfect'? Hell, no....but name me ONE system that is. Does it mean everyone else MUST follow it? Christ, no. BUT...would I say that it's given me a wealth of an equal lifestyle/standard of living to yours? Yes. 100 per cent. All the way. I bet ya as a kid growing up, I watched the same sports, the same Lee Marvin/John Wayne movies, the same Saturday morning cartoons, read the same comic books ("Weird War Tales" was my favourite), ate the same breakfast (crispy bacon and eggs, with a side of buttermilk pancakes) and opened up presents on X-Mas mornings (one year, I got a lump of coal...I was a bad boy), went to the same bullshit Sunday morning services (Father O'Brien was a mean bastard, and a drunk). So, when I see you go on and on about the evils and ills of "socialism"....I ask myself (seriously, here)..."W....T....F....is.....he...talking....about???".

Like..c'mon...you ever stop to think that you've been...I dunno....'conditioned', I guess....to automatically believe that there's something B-A-D, about that concept? Trust me: it is NOT like whoever or whatever has been telling you. It just.....is. That's all. It ain't "communism" (my parents fled that shit over 50 years ago....so by no means am I a fan of THAT crap), and it ain't 'subversive', and it ain't The Devils Work, either. It's just a system that seems to work okay, providing there is a common consensus/will to MAKE it work. It don't matter if it's "Canada", the U.S., or any other nation: if you have that consensus and a common fundamental purpose amongst the average folks.....then it CAN work. Seeing has how our good friends to the south have never given it a shot, while we (and many others) have.....I'd say it has some merit....no?

Actually, when I look at the latest economic data (all pretty damn lousy).....this only gives what I'm saying a TINY bit more credence. TINY.

And hey....enough potshots at our military...okay? Sure, we've never had the muscle Uncle Sam did....BUT....when it was NECESSARY, we did what we could, with what we had and NEVER failed to step up to the plate. I mean, shit, it was enough to scare the Kaiser in WWI; where you think the Germans got the name "stormtroopers"? That's what they called US, because we were complete psychopaths on the battlefield. So they kept it for themselves when WWII came rollin' round. Nahh, man: when necessary, we made good and goddamn sure that whenever we put our boots on the ground in ANY conflict, that we took names, numbers and made effing sure the "other side' KNEW we had come a'callin', and they weren't gonna soon forget it.

For a long, long time.

"....In God we trust" from the dollar bill, not because of religious crap, but because these are national traditions that unite Americans together".

Ummmm....errrr.....no. THAT.....only came about in the early '50's (as did your One-Nation-Under God" caveat) because of the hysterical Sen. McCarthy witch hunts against those "godless communists". Insanity at its best, man.

"That is certainly not the point you were making before."

Yes, It was. When I said "in ALL human history".

"I might disagree that primitive weapons were capable of producing the death and destruction seen in WW2, but that's beside the point."

That IS the point. Add up the tally. You'd be surprised.

"See that's your true point. You just want to rid the world of organized religion, regardless of whether its responsible for continued wars or not. Be honest about it.'

You're half-right; I want to rid the world of organized religion because of its propensity to incur war and hate.....but also because it holds all of us back from genuine progress.....and it's just no effing good, to put it simply.

"And who says only 'wars' come out of religion?" "You did".....

Yup. War is the biggy. And the other stuff is it spawns it is bullshit as well.

"The Nazis tried it."

Excuse me?? Better go read up on THAT one some more. Most of the bosses in the Third Reich were Catholics (even A.H.); and the Catholic Church was allowed to thrive under their rule. Got a clear miss on that one, Hoss.

" Most of what you believe is the American way, seperation of church and state....."

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. I just wish it would be CLEARLY and FAIRLY and CONSISTANTLY enforced. This is why your Founding Fathers were brilliant men, in my own opinion: they saw the need for this, and wanted to make sure that "freedom OF religion" (which is great) ALSO means "freedom FROM religion" (which is even better). Take that Church down the street from my house, for example (I'm sure this is true in your case as well): I get real PISSED OFF when I ask myself "Now how come THOSE pricks don't have to pay property taxes....while I do?? Why do THEY get a free goddamn ride on MY dollar??" See, if it was up to me, I'd tax every single frakkin' Church, Mosque, Synogogue and Temple I could find, and say unto them "Let your Messiah pick up the tab!". THIS....is what INSTITUTIONALIZED RELIGION has wrought; a free ride for the shamans and high priests. Swell.

"You want to eliminate organized religion from the world? Be careful what you wish for."

Relax. I'm smart enough to know that it ain't gonna happen in MY lifetime. A crying shame, I tell ya.


Shit, I'd sooner see my money go to some rummy sleeping in a cardboard box in downtown Toronto.

Plus, when I come across items like THIS, it at least gives me reason to hang on to SOME optimism:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/jan/01/uknews2.mainsection

Some day....some day......

I think Gym made your same point a long time ago about freedom of religion also meaning freedom from religion. Well a person's personal rights should extend only up to where they impinge on others personal rights. So yes, religious people should keep it to themselves if they find discussing it with you is offensive in any way. But how will they know if they never bring it up? They're only trying to save your infidel soul after all.

I look at free speech like free television. You may not always like what's on, you may not like the commercials, but its free so quit your whining. Free speech means utter and complete idiots like the KKK or Reverend Phelps get to speak, we just have to chose not to listen. Religious freedom means they get to speak about religion, you just need to ignore it.

The Guardian is a pretty far left liberal rag. As for this:

"Steven Pinker, a psychologist at Harvard University, highlighted the decline of violence: "Most people, sickened by the bloody history of the 20th century, find this claim incredible. Yet, as far as I know, every systematic attempt to document the prevalence of violence over centuries and millennia (and, for that matter, the past 50 years), particularly in the west, has shown the overall trend is downward."

I don't buy it. I don't believe wars will ever end. Even if we could evolve beyond war, it wouldn't happen in hundreds or even thousands of years, when it took us hundreds of thousands or millions of years to learn to fight and hunt. Mankind always has a brutal savage monster lying just below the surface, waiting for the right opportunity to come out.

No, I don't buy it, which is why I still support a strong military. Peace through superior firepower.

"Free speech means utter and complete idiots like the KKK or Reverend Phelps get to speak"

Bad-bad-BAD analogy.

Freedom of speech is NOT the same as the freedom to incite hate. The KKK? Phelps? You think those folks are simply entitled to breed and incite pure hate??? No way. I already went through this with you (or maybe someone else around here): this is why many countries have "hate laws". You think your 'freedom of speech" is all-encompassing and all folks should have a blank cheque? Okay: walk into the middle of Harlem, N.Y., and start shouting about how they're a bunch of inferior n*****s and how whitey REALLY IS better. I give you about a 5-second life-span after that. Don't like that one? Okay, try picking up a bullhorn, and standing on a soap box in the middle of downtown Manhattan, and start screaming about how the "Jews" are the cause of ALL the problems......and see what happens. Your ass will be in the slammer so fast it'll make your head spin, and wondering "Golly..where did my freedopm of speech go?". And the KKK has already been branded a "terrorist group" by the U.S. Justice Department, by the way. Freedom of speech and HATE speech are NOT the same thing. It just so happens that our dear friend Mr. Religion has ALWAYS been purdy good at invoking that kind of thing (besides the all the wars).

"They're only trying to save your infidel soul after all."

I say thanks....but no thanks. I'll look after MY OWN "soul".

"it took us hundreds of thousands or millions of years to learn to fight and hunt"

Excuse me? "millions"?? Uhhh...how long do YOU think the human bipod has been around? (and if you ask Stream-O for advice on THAT one, I swear by christ I'm gonna reach through this screen and strangle you).

"which is why I still support a strong military. Peace through superior firepower"

All wars will cease....when all men refuse to fight them.

All it takes is to make the RIGHT choice, on our parts.

Believe me, if someone like ME can say THAT after 23 years of dealing with the low-life, vicious scum I've had to tolerate....then there CAN be hope for you yet.

We all have a choice, bruddah. Always.

It just takes making the right one. The SENSIBLE one.

"Bad-bad-BAD analogy. "

Not really. The KKK gets to speak and march in public, they just need a permit.
http://www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dws/txcn/austin/stories/110405kvueKKKRally-cb.2aaec025.html

Reverend Phelps gets to spew his hate freely all the time, that's why so many states are passing laws about spewing hate within such and such distance of a funeral, and Freedom Riders try to drown them out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps

Its only a hate crime if you advocate or commit violence to someone else. You'd be perfectly legal, dead, but legal to shout n***** in Harlem. You can shout Jews are the cause of all problems publicly, you might get cited for disturbing the peace, or not having a permit. But you can legally get a permit, and spew hatred publicly in a legal way. The KKK does this still. Hopefully nobody listens.

You don't have free speech to yell fire in a movie theater, because then someone else might get hurt. You've just stepped over someone's elses rights.

But you're getting way off track, because religion generally is definitely not hate speech. Free speech means you get to hear their religious attempts to better you and society, you can only choose not to listen. You're doing that thing you do again, where you try to change the topic, rather than admit when you're wrong.

"Excuse me? "millions"?? Uhhh...how long do YOU think the human bipod has been around?"

Best scientific estimate is what 3 million years, depending on what you could define as "human"? I'm not in the creationist camp, not by a long-shot.

"All wars will cease....when all men refuse to fight them. "

Which unfortunately will NEVER happen. Wars are kinda driven by the lowest common denominator of human kind. No matter how civilized and enlightened you may become, that doesn't protect you from aggression by the most evil barbaric thugs. Aren't you supposed to be a cop or something, you ought to understand that.

"All it takes is to make the RIGHT choice, on our parts. "

Was that like Chamberlain giving England "peace in our time" by appeasing Hitler in 1939? Do right choices on our parts eliminate thugs like Saddam Hussein? Only if you agree the right choice was to kill him.

No matter how civilized or how enlightened we think we are, there's always evil bastards trying to use military force for political gain. Maybe they'll be religious, maybe they'll be trying to forcibly eliminate religion. I don't see mankind ever getting past this, so long as he thinks war can be an opportunity for personal or political gain, and he thinks he can "win".

Seriously, do you think both sides in WW1 would have fought that war knowing both sides would lose staggering casualties? And yet 21 years after that dismal shattering of civilization, Europe was right back at war, apparantly having learned nothing from its first blood bath.

But you'll argue Europe has evolved past war since then? Doubtful. Maybe if you don't try to count Yugoslavia. I think the hope of the global economy might be reduction in wars, and maybe it does work where people are part of the global economy, and the economy is doing well. But the economy doesn't always do well, and not all countries are included in the global economy.

I think your reasoning is similar to many civilized European's thinking right around 1913.

Well it seems you have me on a technicality.

Apparently within the U.S., it's one of the few countries where it's perfectly legal to make "hate speeches":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_Speech

From the list of countries, I'll cut-and-paste what it says about Canadian laws on this isue:

"In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990)."

Others countries mentioned here have also made it a criminal offence. So....I must say I'm quite surprised. Oh well. When I'm mistaken.....I'm mistaken. Simple as that. And I'll say so.

Y'know...you keep bringing up Hitler, the Nazis, yadda-yadda-yadda repeatedly, although everytime you do, you have it (and them) pegged wrong, or you seem to think the these Nazi asswipes are the end-all to-be-all in terms of being a barometer for....what, exactly? To prove they were 'dangerous'? Or "bad"? Or "evil that needs to be stopped"? Or the EVERY war and its causes are comparable to WWII? Okay....well if THAT'S the case, you'd better realize a few things here:

1. Hitler began to consolidate his influence/power in the very beginning by making....ta-da!!....hate speeches! You know....Master Race....Inferior types......Bad Jews......got everyone pumped up and feelin' great...and all that. Kinda like...oh ya!....Mr. Phelps! Or the KKK! Riiiiight. Relative to the above-mentioned laws, it seems there's slightly more of a chance a modern-day "Hitler" can crop up in the U.S., more so than in these other nations, yes? I mean, "he" can legally say/galvanize whoever/whatever "he" wants....right?

2. Plus, if Hitler was a 'danger' and 'sooooo bad' and 'soooo evilll' (which he was).....then how come it took the U.S. three years to jump into things against him? Don't get me wrong here...I'm GLAD they did....but seeing as how Britain, Canada, France and a few others got in his face from the get-go....I dunno. Did someone forget to read the papers? Or miss the memo? Enough with the WWII left-overs, ok? I seem to recall I balked when you did the SAME comparison with Saddam/Iraq! Keeee-rist.

3. "I think your reasoning is similar to many civilized European's thinking right around 1913."

Ummm....well...no.

It's based on...humanity. Common sense. YOU may think YOU'RE no better than some of the "barbaric thugs" out there, and if you want to share the same pond as them or believe that you do...hey...that's YOUR business. All the power to you. I just know I AM better than them. And for me....that's a simple f-a-c-t. Oh some days I'd LOVE to kill'em all...for sure. It's nice to vent sometimes. But actually doing it? Different story.

Another clean miss on your part, bruddah.

I never said allowing hate speech was ok, but certain groups like the ACLU defend the free speech rights of filth like the KKK, so that's why its still around in the US.


"Y'know...you keep bringing up Hitler, the Nazis, yadda-yadda-yadda"

I'm a firm believer in history repeating itself, and knowing your past, so you don't commit the same mistakes in the future. The Nazis represent maybe the best example of a good decent civilized democratic nation losing control of their government, and then spiraling into a barbaric genocidal evil empire. That is something to be vigilant about. Its not like Germany was third world, and if it could happen there, we'd be foolish to believe it couldn't happen here. Despite all your optimism about wars becoming obsolete.

"you seem to think the these Nazi asswipes are the end-all to-be-all in terms of being a barometer for....what, exactly? To prove they were 'dangerous'? Or "bad"? Or "evil that needs to be stopped"? "

Well not every Nazi was evil, Nazi was mostly just a political party. What was evil, was a government in place that controlled its population through spying, intimidation, arrests and murder, quite the opposite of a nation's population controlling the government as it should. That's one of many reasons I don't want the US government getting ever larger, with the population getting ever more dependent on government assistance.

"Or the EVERY war and its causes are comparable to WWII?"

That I did not say. But there are numerous historical precidents and lessons to be learned from all human history, especially conflicts.

"1. Hitler began to consolidate his influence/power in the very beginning by making....ta-da!!....hate speeches! "

Again, I wasn't defending hate speech as some crazy right of free speech, just pointing out that it does exist. Although it was earily similar to all the "leftist liberal" or "right-wing nutjob" hate speech flying here in the US not too long ago. You yourself want to eliminate all organized religion from the world, and I suspect some of Hitler's speeches might have resonated with you at the time. Hell, some of it might have resonated with me.

"You know....Master Race....Inferior types......Bad Jews......got everyone pumped up and feelin' great...and all that. Kinda like...oh ya!....Mr. Phelps! "

Lets be perfectly clear... In my opinion, Mr. Phelps is probably the lowest slimiest piece of shit to ever walk the face of this Earth. To berate a fallen US soldier at his funeral, in front of his family and loved ones... I gotta give the Freedom Riders serious credit for not beating this man to death.

"Relative to the above-mentioned laws, it seems there's slightly more of a chance a modern-day "Hitler" can crop up in the U.S."

Hence my reasons to be ever vigilant, and want to limit federal government power, and return power to the states.

"2. Plus, if Hitler was a 'danger' and 'sooooo bad' and 'soooo evilll' (which he was).....then how come it took the U.S. three years to jump into things against him? "

Well nothing to do with anything else here, but it reflected a deep American tradition at the time to stay the hell out of others conflicts. Washington himself warned a young America to beware of foreign entanglements. Plus you have to consider that there were very large populations of German immigrants in America, and up to 1941, the true evil of Germany was not yet known. I might argue however, that America did more to win the war in 1940 with our massive lend-lease act sending weapons to England, than Canada did sending troops. America may have been out of the fight prior to 1941, but we weren't exactly neutral either.

"It's based on...humanity. Common sense. YOU may think YOU'RE no better than some of the "barbaric thugs" out there, and if you want to share the same pond as them or believe that you do...hey...that's YOUR business. All the power to you. I just know I AM better than them. And for me....that's a simple f-a-c-t. Oh some days I'd LOVE to kill'em all...for sure. It's nice to vent sometimes. But actually doing it? Different story. "

Its not a matter of not being better than the thugs. If the thugs wage war on Canada, you're gonna defend it right? There will always be barbaric thugs in the world: Al Quaeda, Hussein, Mugabe, Kim Jong Il, that oppress people through violence and spy networks, that keep others afraid to speak out. If you do nothing, allow ruthless dictators to oppress their people, then I would argue you are no better than the thugs. Not that military action is always the best option. But there will always be thugs. If these thugs are powerful, they may be aggressive against other nations, leading to war. If these thugs are not powerful, like Al Quaeda, then maybe they just murder people anonymously, until you use military force to eliminate them.

Maybe / hopefully we will never see another world war, since the weapons of destruction are just too powerful. But both sides had chemical weapons in WW2 (there's my history again) and neither side used them. We had nukes for Korea and Vietnam, and never used them. So I think limited wars, even limited world wars are still possible. Certainly small wars will continue to be possible. You can't keep every part of the world completely in economic bliss and political stability forever.

Even in Canada, Canadian troops will continue to be drawn into international conflicts around the world, and I see no end in sight in my lifetime anyway.

You've actually made/raised some good points.

Buuuuut.........

again I strees to you, that to make ANY comparisons to todays conflicts (or any others, for that matter) with ANYTHING about WWII is specious and flawed. Dynamics will always be different. ALWAYS. Ho Chi Minh was no Hitler; Saddam Hussein was no Ho Chi Minh; Saddam Hussein was not Hitler; even the way the battles themselves are vastly different, for chrissakes. So to make ANY comparisons that they are alike.....no way, man. No way.

"Its not a matter of not being better than the thugs. If the thugs wage war on Canada, you're gonna defend it right?"

Of course I would. BUT....that is NOT the same as BEING a "thug" who goes out and assaults/threatens others for no good reason, now is it? Let's say you knew I was on my way to your house with a weapon or whatever, and I poised a very real and legitimate threat to you and your family. You're gonna get a shotgun, and blow my brains out, right? Of course you would. But does THAT make YOU a "thug"?? Hardly.

As for your actual examples, I think what you're advocating is that the U.S. be the "World Cop"; y'know, I'm not entirely against that concept. Really, I'm not. BUT......IF that's the case, then I expect that "cop" to carry out his duties responsibly and in GOOD FAITH. I don't expect 'perfection', mind you......just consistancy and being responsible. That's all. That simple.

Hussein? Omigod. STOP WITH HUSSEIN AWREADY!! Look, this guy may have been a "thug" or a "threat" (he was...but more to his own populace, than anyone else, let alone the U.S. directly)....but he was the U.S. governments' "thug" for YEARS before the Gulf War. AND HE was the one holding the influence of the Iranians at bay in that region. A real pal, he was. So, please.....enough with the "He-Was-As-Bad-A-Threat-As-Hitler" nonsense....ok? The guy was a tyrant who was a joke unto himself, and simply a worthless excuse for Georgie-Boy to go after, to show his Pappy he could do what Pappy couldn't. That's all. That's it. We went from "WMD's" (which was bullshit)....to "fighting al-quaeda IN Iraq (bullshit again because they were NOT there until AFTER Hussein was bumped off).....to "liberating the Iraqi people" (bullshit yet again! WHOA!).....to "spreading democracy" (MORE bullshit!).....to where we are now....which is...what? I dunno. What's reason d'jour for this bullshit NOW?

And you're STILL even REMOTELY comparing THIS to WWII or Hitler?????

AAARRRRGGGHHHH.

Plus, if Kim Jong Il is suuuuch a "thug" (he prolly is).....then how come he was removed from the the terms of the Trading With The Enemy Act....while Cuba was left on it? Seems to me that someone in Washington don't think he's THAT much of a "thug" or a "threat" anymore.....do they? Golly, I wish those beltway-types would make up my mind, here.

" I might argue however, that America did more to win the war in 1940 with our massive lend-lease act sending weapons to England, than Canada did sending troops."

Uhhh...besides the fact that THAT STILL does NOT answer my question, I think your flag is wrapped too tight. It's a sincerely nice flag, to be sure.

But....YOU got it wrapped too tight, nonetheless.

".....it reflected a deep American tradition at the time to stay the hell out of others conflicts."

Ummm......that answer is incorrect. Wildly incorrect. I'll give you one more chance to give the CORRECT answer, before I offer it up to you. So does that mean that you are NOW ready to "get involved in other peoples' conflicts"? Has that NOW changed? Or is it ALL open season, now?

But even IF it were correct (it's not)....when your northern neighbour has blatantly engaged in all-out war with this asshole.....and we said to our neighbour to the south "Hey! This guy's a serious threat! He needs an ass-kicking!".....why still sit on the side-lines? Didn't you wanna believe us? Ya think we were lying? Fibbing? (and yes, "lend-lease" IS the 'sidelines'). Well? 'Cuz last time I checked WE were not some European nation, then or now. Sooooo....how come?

Why are OUR soldiers dying in Afghanistan again? Gosh-darnit...help me out here....Hmmmm.......ahhhhh....golly...I dunno.......any ideas? (hint: it's something I've already explained to you a gazillion times, and is the DIRECT REVERSE of what YOU'VE said above).

C'mon.

Let's get real here.

Actually, you know what? before you respond, take a time-out and have a gander FOR FREE, at this documentary (it's called "Why We Fight"):

http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=93

Then get back to me.

"again I strees to you, that to make ANY comparisons to todays conflicts (or any others, for that matter) with ANYTHING about WWII is specious and flawed. "

I disagree. Sure there are serious differences, but there are important lessons of WW2 that still apply.

"Ho Chi Minh was no Hitler"

Ho Chi Minh was not entirely an evil man. He fought for a united Vietnam, and an end to foreign colonization. He did not wage genocide. Although he did terrorize peasants, or simply allow them to be terrorized, to support the Viet Cong. But had he not been communist, the US might have supported his cause.

"Of course I would. BUT...."

But nothing. There will always be people willing to kill and steal your wealth and land. Hopefully, there will always be good people willing to defend it. But that hardly makes wars go away now does it?

"that is NOT the same as BEING a "thug""

I never said you were a thug, again you're reading something into what I said, that I did not say. I said wars will not ever go away, with the end of religion or not. You said wars will go away.

"Let's say you knew I was on my way to your house with a weapon or whatever, and I poised a very real and legitimate threat to you and your family. You're gonna get a shotgun, and blow my brains out, right? Of course you would. But does THAT make YOU a "thug"?? Hardly. "

But it don't make me an anti-war passivist either!

"As for your actual examples, I think what you're advocating is that the U.S. be the "World Cop""

Not really. I'm kinda sick of the US having to do all the heavy lifting at taxpayer expense. I liked Bush's strategy on North Korea, of getting the six party talks going. Let someone else squeeze NK for once. I like getting Nato into Afghanistan, share the burden, share the pain. Iraq is simply the US mess to fix. I can understand no one joining us after it got messy.

"Hussein? Omigod. STOP WITH HUSSEIN AWREADY!! "

I disagree with you. Hussein was as evil as Hitler, he certainly murdered enough of his own people. He just wasn't nearly as powerful as Hitler. Lack of power didn't make him less evil. As for the reasons to invade Iraq, I've gone over this entirely too many times before, and we will forever disagree.

"Plus, if Kim Jong Il is suuuuch a "thug" (he prolly is).....then how come he was removed from the the terms of the Trading With The Enemy Act....while Cuba was left on it? "

That was purely part of the 6 party talks, to keep NK from building nukes. It doesn't mean we don't think Kim Jong Il is a thug, it only means he successfully blackmailed the US for concessions. This guy continues to oppress, torture, imprison, and murder his own citizens. He really needs to be eliminated. The problem is, he holds a gun to Seoul's head. He has thousands of bunkered howitzers pointed at Seoul.

If South Korea was willing to tolerate NK's collapse, it would have happened by now. SK doesn't want NK to collapse, it can't afford it.

"But....YOU got it wrapped too tight, nonetheless. "

Those lend-lease weapons sold to Russia and Great Britain prior to 1941, enabled both nations to stay in the fight against Germany. Maybe you don't realize the scope of equipment sent to both nations. Trucks, fighter aircraft, tanks, in the thousands upon thousands. Older Russians still talk fondly of "Dodge" trucks back in the day. It was a way to profoundly influence the war, without sending US troops, something the US citizens were very against at the time.

"Ummm......that answer is incorrect. "

No, it was American tradition prior to 1941. America had to be dragged into WW1, America wouldn't commit to the League of Nations. America was dragged into WW2. After WW2, granted that all changed, and America became the world cop. But only after realizing the isolationism doesn't work.

"So does that mean that you are NOW ready to "get involved in other peoples' conflicts"? Has that NOW changed? Or is it ALL open season, now?"

The standard has definately changed since WW2. No way America would have gotten into Yugoslavia with the mentality we had before WW2. The cold war obviously helped keep America from slinking back to isolationism, that and all those troops now permanently stationed in Germany and Japan.

Today, I would hope America would avoid conflicts that don't involve US national security interests. I can see national security interests in Iraq, not in Yugoslavia. So why was it ok to stop the genocide in Yugoslavia, but not in Rwanda? Does the world just care less about Africans? I think its partly because of the precedent of WW1 starting in Yugoslavia, and spreading throughout Europe. War in Yugoslavia had much greater potential to spread, then the war in Rwanda.

"and we said to our neighbour to the south "Hey! This guy's a serious threat! He needs an ass-kicking!".....why still sit on the side-lines?"

I assume you're referring to Hitler again? It took time for Roosevelt to change American attitudes about isolationism. This was a deeply ingrained American belief. What, are you still pissed about that?

"Didn't you wanna believe us? Ya think we were lying?"

Again, why do you think America was lend-leasing weapons to Great Britain and Russia by the thousands? We also had American loyalties to Germany.

"Why are OUR soldiers dying in Afghanistan again?"

To support their Nato allies, help rebuild Afghanistan, and eliminate the Taliban. Guess what? The US was not Nato allies with the UK prior to WW2. If it helps you, think of your troops as fighting religious extremism.

"take a time-out and have a gander FOR FREE, at this documentary"

It was blocked at work, maybe this weekend I'll get a chance.

Fair enough.

Have a watch of it, and then let me know. I'll put up my response to your post above when you're done, and we'll take it from there.

Talk at ya soon.

C.

Okay....wait....I MUST at least respond to this:

" What, are you still pissed about that?"

I think you're missing the entire point here. No..I am not "pissed" about THAT. Actually, I'm not "pissed" at that at all. I think the more apt word would be "realistic". Look, I'll tell you what I zero in on: it's when someone takes a particular or singular issue (in your case, the lend-lease program), and decide they're going to somehow make it this great big, super-duper fantastic example of it somehow being.....well, pivotal. Was it important to a degree? Sure. But think about this: it PALES in comparison to those spilling blood in the field. Not even in the same league. Now, had you sat there, and said "Yeah, you're right...but we eventually paid a huge cost ourselves, and lost 400,000 of our own kids as well and, as a result, helped turn the tide of the war""....well, then, you'd be correct, and I would salute that sentiment. You can't argue with it. But to just come out and make this lend-lease program out to be any kind of game-changer??? Not even close. And when you talk about Ivan fondly remembering his Dodge truck, it makes it seem even more...well.....ludicrous, in that sense. The reason the U.S. didn't enter the war had less to do with the mentality of that time, and a LOT to do with the fact that the U.S. government was selling supplies and equipment to BOTH sides, and making a killing. Nice. It was only when ONE side seemed to be getting the upper-hand and Pearl Harbor came about, that some direct action needed to be taken. Otherwise, Uncle Sam would have been quite content to sit back, make some dough-ray-me, and let a "thug" keep right on truckin'. So please.....let's put the comical lend-lease act aside. Hell, I'd be more inclined to to agree with you if you talked about how proud you are of the likes of Audie Murphy. But "lend-lease"?? Uhhh...ya. Right. Okay....if it makes you happy and fits in to helping you package something nice about that part of history...then fine: thanks for the Dodge pick-ups. They helped transport our troops to the fighting. Happy now? Sheesh.

"We also had American loyalties to Germany." Correct. See above. Although I would add "business" to "loyalties". Then you'd be bang-on the money.

"I said wars will not ever go away, with the end of religion or not. You said wars will go away."

Well, seeing as how we've NEVER had a world without instituionalized religion effing us up all through history....how do you know this? And I went to on to say that wars will cease when men refuse top fight them AND getting rid of oraganized religion would be a great, helpful first step. Until thaty happens, you can't say I'm wrong....can you?

"To support their Nato allies, help rebuild Afghanistan, and eliminate the Taliban. Guess what? The US was not Nato allies with the UK prior to WW2. If it helps you, think of your troops as fighting religious extremism"

No. That answer is based on the nutty, right-wing disease called 'mission creep'.

Our troops are fighting and dying in Afghanistan because our neighbour to the south was attacked by assholes based out of Afghanistan. Maybe we should have considered lend-lease.....yes?

Lend-lease.....jesus effing christ.

".....I've gone over this entirely too many times before, and we will forever disagree"

I 'spose so.

BUT.....this DANGEROUS, EVIL, BAD MAN........was STILL.....YOUR governments buddy. So let's have not have him brought up ANYMORE. It was a specious argument anyways.

"I like getting Nato into Afghanistan, share the burden, share the pain. Iraq is simply the US mess to fix. I can understand no one joining us after it got messy."

Then...ummm...errrr.....how come Georgie-Boy didn't make Afghanistan THE priority in the first place? And as for your comment about Iraq.....well....WE didn't decide not to join you after it "got messy"....because WE didn't join you in Iraq to begin with (besides Britain and a few tin-pot, third-world mudholes). As a matter of fact, WE (and a lot of the other MAJOR nations) told Georgie-Boy NOT to do it. But noooooooo......he went and did it. And Afghanistan went down the effing toilet. And NOW you're begging NATO to "help out" and "share the pain". O-kayyyyy. I can see that. (*cough-cough-cough*)

Like I said, man uwrap that flag....it's furled too tight. WAY too tight.

"I can understand no one joining us after it got messy."

Wrong. Again.

Besides Britain, most other countries didn't "join you" in Iraq because they:

A) saw it was a cluster-f**k from the get-go, and

B) don't have a military-industrial complex to keep feeding.

So your statement, which implies cowardice upon other nations not joining "because it got messy" is kind of....wellllllll....delusional.

They just had more brains than Georgie-Boy and his self-serving neocon scumbags, that's all.

Or do YOU consider "tenacity" and "courage" to be an exclusively or "unique American concept" (along with all the other things you believe fall into this category)?

You keep saying nonsensical things like that, and more and more you have me believing I'm debating on-line with Fred Flintstone here.....y'know?

"But it don't make me an anti-war passivist either!"

Uhhhhh....now you've REALLY lost me: are you saying I'm an "anti-war passivist"?

???????????

Well...ummm...no. I just consider myself a LOT smarter and more sensible, than your average bear (or regular, clueless, oblivious, fun-loving, ignorant right-wing-neocon).

"Anti-war paCIFIST".

"Terror-symp"

"UN-American"

"ANTI-American"

"Atheist"

"Socialist"

"Commie"

"Libruls"

Man-oh-man....you types got no end to the moronic labels you have to sling....do you?

Way, way, WAYYYYYY too tight.

I agree donating thousands of tons of expensive war materials pales in comparison to the personal sacrifice of giving lives in battle. However, I could pretty soundly argue that Great Britain and / or Russia could not have held out against Germany without them. These war materials certainly shortened the war. While Canadian troops fought bravely and made the ultimate sacrifice, can you say they turned the tide of the war? During the peak of the Battle of Britain, Britain may have completely lost air superiority to Germany without US war materials, which could have then resulted in the end of British resistance in WW2. It was that close.

Similarly in Russia, the thousands of US made trucks and P-39 Air Cobras helped turn back the Nazi drive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-39_Airacobra
"A total of 4719 P-39s were sent to the Soviet Union"

I'm not saying all this war material was worth a single Canadian soldiers life in terms of national sacrifice, but in terms of winning the war... WW2 was won by economies and manufacturing.

"But to just come out and make this lend-lease program out to be any kind of game-changer??? "

It very much was.

"a LOT to do with the fact that the U.S. government was selling supplies and equipment to BOTH sides, and making a killing. "

The US did not sell war materials to Germany or Japan in WW2. Japan couldn't even buy our oil. And while Great Britain may have paid a fraction of what all the lend-lease materials were worth, I seriously doubt Russia paid a pittance. Frankly you missed the true motive of lend-lease, at least for Russia. It wasn't about making money, it was about keeping Russia in the fight killing Germans, so we had less to fight ourselves. So yes, it was partially selfish, but not purely profit driven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

"Lend-Lease was a critical factor in the eventual success of the Allies in World War II[citation needed], particularly in the early years when the United States was not directly involved and the entire burden of the fighting fell on other nations, notably those of the Commonwealth and, after June 1941, the Soviet Union. "

"Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of US-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge ¾ ton and Studebaker 2.5 ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front."

See, not just my opinion!

"Hitler cited the Lend-Lease program and its significance in aiding the Allied war effort when he declared war on the US on 11 December 1941."

Apparantly even Hitler agreed with the significance of Lend-Lease!

"Well, seeing as how we've NEVER had a world without instituionalized religion effing us up all through history....how do you know this? And I went to on to say that wars will cease when men refuse top fight them AND getting rid of oraganized religion would be a great, helpful first step. Until thaty happens, you can't say I'm wrong....can you? "

Easily, because most of the wars of the last 200 years had nothing to do with religion, which totally proves my point. And sadly men will never refuse to fight wars, when there is profit to be made. I could just as easily argue all wars will cease when we eliminate organized governments, and we know that isn't true.

"If it helps you, think of your troops as fighting religious extremism"
"That answer is based on the nutty, right-wing disease called 'mission creep'. "

You're the one who wants to rid the world of religion! Why not start in Afghanistan where religious extremism is a proven problem?

"Our troops are fighting and dying in Afghanistan because our neighbour to the south was attacked by assholes based out of Afghanistan. Maybe we should have considered lend-lease.....yes? "

If you think that would help? Does Canada produce any war materials, anything not purchased from the US? ;-)

Look, I really appreciate the contributions of Canadian troops in the fight against terror, and I have never said anything less. There is a special historical bond between Britain, Canada, Australia, and the US, in war and peace. Maybe its just an English speaking thing.

"Then...ummm...errrr.....how come Georgie-Boy didn't make Afghanistan THE priority in the first place? "

He did, up until the Taliban were routed from power.

"WE didn't join you in Iraq to begin with (besides Britain and a few tin-pot, third-world mudholes)."

Would that be Spain, Poland, and Australia you're referring to as tin-pot third-world mudholes? Maybe you meant Italy and Denmark?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq

Now I'll grant you El Salvador might qualify, but it wasn't just third-world mudholes that supported the mission.

"Like I said, man uwrap that flag....it's furled too tight. WAY too tight."

Say I noticed at Obama's speech to Congress recently, that P-BO sports a fine flag pin on his suit these days. Remember the crap about him not wearing one? Well maybe Obama is wearing his flag too close to his heart now to eh?

"So your statement, which implies cowardice upon other nations not joining "because it got messy" is kind of....wellllllll....delusional. "

I never implied cowardice. I said other nations didn't want to join in, precisely because it turned into a clusterfuck, and I don't blame them for it.

"Or do YOU consider "tenacity" and "courage" to be an exclusively or "unique American concept" "

Nope.

"You keep saying nonsensical things like that, and more and more you have me believing I'm debating on-line with Fred Flintstone here.....y'know?"

I can assure you, my car has floorboards.

"Uhhhhh....now you've REALLY lost me: are you saying I'm an "anti-war passivist"? "

No. I interpreted your comment as only thugs will wage war on others, and self-defense does not make you a thug, but those enlightened beings capable of self-defense can simply chose not to wage war, as if that higher moral ground alone will keep thugs from waging war on them. But there will always be thugs in the world, and there will always be those willing to defend their families and their nation, so we will always have wars. Religion or not.

Interesting idea though, brings up Switzerland. They've had peace and neutrality through two world wars, must be that they simply chose not to fight? That they are the more enlightened humans? Or was it mostly the fact that they had excellent mountain ranges for physical protection, and they formed a strong military themselves? Peace through strength, just like Ronnie Reagan.

"Well...ummm...no. I just consider myself a LOT smarter and more sensible, than your average bear (or regular, clueless, oblivious, fun-loving, ignorant right-wing-neocon). "

See, there you go again with your "I disagree with you, so I must be smarter than you mentality." :-(

"Man-oh-man....you types got no end to the moronic labels you have to sling....do you? "

Dude, I learned that from you. Glumbert OJT. Anyway, I wasn't calling you a passivist.

(sighs)

"While Canadian troops fought bravely and made the ultimate sacrifice, can you say they turned the tide of the war?"

(sighs)

I already SAID what "turned the tide of the war" was actual U.S. entry into the war (and glad for it). It was NOT "lend-lease".

"I never implied cowardice"

Yeah. You did. And you know it.

"Say I noticed at Obama's speech to Congress recently, that P-BO sports a fine flag pin on his suit these days. Remember the crap about him not wearing one? Well maybe Obama is wearing his flag too close to his heart now to eh?"

Who gives a shit if the POTUS wears a lapel pin or not?? I've been saying that for a million years now.

Australia, huh? Okay. Right alongside Poland, Palau, Morrocco, Bulgaria, Romania, etc, etc, etc. If you say so.

"......most of the wars of the last 200 years had nothing to do with religion, which totally proves my point."

Well, gee....I guess you got me there; your history encompasses the last "200 years" and nothing else. Which is okay. But at LEAST have the cajones, man, to say I was maybe right on THAT. Jesus.

"Does Canada produce any war materials, anything not purchased from the US?"

Cute.

"Britain may have completely lost air superiority to Germany without US war materials, which could have then resulted in the end of British resistance in WW2. It was that close."

Correct....but only to a point. This program went on more than it should have, because support (monetary and otherwise) was being given to Nazi Germany as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Banking_Corporation

Hint: Do a little more digging on this.......and see who sat on their board of directors! THIS.....is just ONE example of this. There are MAAAAAANY more. Kinda defeats the purpose of "lend-lease", ya?

"But there will always be thugs in the world, and there will always be those willing to defend their families and their nation"

Yup. Like Iraq, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Haiti, etc. I got ya....they were real threats alright. Hoo-boy. I bet every major American city was quaking in fear at these "nations" invading them.

"Peace through strength, just like Ronnie Reagan."

Tell it to Ghandi.

He got what YOU did (independence), without firing a single shot. A ballsy roll of the dice? Or just solidarity with his non-violent ways? IF ONE man can do it....oy! Think of the possibilities.

I'll make it REAL easy for you. Here you go:

http://www.yuksel.org/e/guest/interventions.htm

There.

Don't ever say I don't do anything for you, Gipper.

I'm gonna start up at the end of this thread, since this is getting down right painful to find the start.

Good idea.

I'm getting vertigo every time I have to scroll up.

"Why would religion hold this special place of privacy?"

Because ALL religions are fear-based. ALL. That is to say, they all have the same underlying core belief, i.e., you better do THIS and live THIS way....or you'll be taking the express elevator DOWN. And it is through these means that the "religion" is able to exert control. Pretty soon, before you know it, you'll have many, many followers with glazed eyes, no minds left and a knack for justifying their own superiority (be it moral or otherwise). That ALONE necessitates it havingto be "private". Ever see a Benny Hinn revival? Peter Popoff? Tom Cruise? They're all pathetic. Them, and their "flock". Have a look at this, and tell me (honestly) if this dosen't make you or anyone else SICK to their stomachs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxdt_f0hwUg&feature=related

Besides all the wars, civil injustices, and outright hate that "religion" has spawned (I'm not even going to get into a certain 19 fellows who believed that they would be partying it up in "Paradise" with some black-eyed virgins because they threw a couple of planes at some buildings), it (more than politics) has been used by many, many individuals down through the ages to justify their own ends. I have actually heard many "christians" give a sensible answer when asked about their beliefs, many, many times: "My belief and faith in my Creator is a personal and private one, between Him and I". Perfect. PERFECT.

Now....let's ALL work on helping you/them to KEEPING IT "personal" and "private".

Got your own house? There you go. Have at it.

No tax-exempt structures necessary.

Hey Stream-O!

Y'know.....every once in a while....a GREAT while....there'll be some form of artistic expression (be it poetry, music or, in this case, film) that truly encompasses and/orbecomes a microcosm of a very basic argument or disagreement. And in that expression (whatever it may be), facts always have a habit rearing their ugly heads. So, if you have eight minutes to spare, get some popcorn and a bottle of Tums....and have a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtNdYsoool8

There will always be that moment where there is a climactic confrontation between darkness and light, between sanity and insanity, between right and wrong, between fear and valor, or in THIS case..... between science and superstition. THIS.....is one of the all-time moments of the latter, captured on film, and that this is based on a true event in 1928, Tennessee.....it makes it all the more repugnant. Should religion be "private"? Hell, yes.

I leave it to YOU to decide in which characters I've cast myself and yourself.

I fail to see any historical knowledge spewing from you to contradict me, or even support your point.

Incidently, I compare WW2 to Iraq in many instances, because I know you support WW2, but do not support Iraq. Maybe that's why you resist my comparisons so much, because you know I'm right, and it makes you question your opinions.

LOL!

Not gonna bother.

Went through this already with you.

Just pointing out how the fanatical hatred of religion you share, taken to extremes, can be the source of absolute evil. You want to rid the entire world of all religion, by unspecified means. Hitler only tried to eliminate one religion in only one continent, and it was pure fucking evil. I'm not trying to say you're evil, or that you condone any of Hitler's methods of eliminating Jews, just that you share a similar goal. You want to eliminate other peoples religion, whether you've acted on it or not. What gives you the right to impose your beliefs on others? Not like you appreciate religious people imposing their beliefs on you.

Wrong.

Again.

Go back and read what I said more carefully. I never made a case for "eliminating peoples' religion".

And I won't go through THIS again with you.

Well so how far does eliminate organized religion go? Does that mean eliminate all churches, synagagues, mosques, etc? Does that mean carpet-bomb the Vatican? Does that mean groups of more than 2 people are not allowed to gather to discuss religion?

You're the one who wants to eliminate organized religion, even though others may want and feel its their right to have organized religion. Please explain how far we should go...

"Please explain how far we should go..."

As far as it takes for all of us to grow up.

Please see "What If God Disappeared?" video, for further elaboration of same-to-same.

I watched that video, its funny! I even commented on it. But its irrelevent whether God exists or not. What we are talking about is you wanting to rid the world of organized religion, which some will fiercely defend as their right to freedom of religion.

So I ask again, how far are you willing to go, to rid the world of organized religion? Laws against religion? Taxing churches? Force? Re-education camps?

And what constitutes "organized" religion? Churches? Ministers/priests/rabbis etc? local church fundraisers?

You've just blamed almost all the worlds evils on religion, so surely no price is too high to rid us of this horrible menace to society? So how would you propose ridding the world of organized religion once and for all? Would you be willing to impose on others rights to do so?

Hope the trip up north went well. :-)

Please point out the historical instances of the British Empire creating concentration camps, gulags, and mass execution sites.

Okay.

Fine:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/dec/27/eu.turkey

And I'm not even GONNA got through what they did to YOUR kin-folk when THEY decided to part company from Mother Empire.

Plus, as an added BONUs, I'll toss this in for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_and_internment_camps#Kenya

And if you order this minute, I'll even cut-and-and-paste this quote for you, from article of same:

"The term concentration camp was first used by the British military during the Boer War (1899-1902)".

Still wanna put that "vast historical knowledge" you have, up for grabs?

The question (amongst all the others) has been answered, Logan 5.

Well you got me there. GB apparantly has plenty of skeletons in its closet. Quite sad actually.

Sad, maybe.

But should it be surprising?

I say this because thus: can you think of ONE, single group on Earth (at ANY point in history) that achieved "empire" status (be it Britain, Spain, Ottoman-Turks, Persian, Greek, Roman, Macedonian, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and yes, even American.......because there were no "skeletons in their closets"? Dude, NO ONE becomes an "empire" by being through-and-through nice guys. NO ONE. And if you wanna be in charge of one, i.e. an "emperor", it's gonna look very bad on your resume if it says "nice guy". It won't wash.

By saying all this, I am NOT knocking the U.K. or the Uniited States (especially since the U.K. was responsible for the creation of BOTH our nations, advertantly or inadvertantly). I can admire them, appreciate them and hell, even like them.

BUT......I don't have to be blind to them OR their histories either, y'know?

By-the-by:

The 48th fought in the Boer War as well.

My old unit never did get tired of cleaning up other peoples' messes.

Jeez.

Shit, I even remember reading about THIS, as a kid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre

And THIS guy was no "nice guy" either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banastre_Tarleton

Apparently, he was well-rewarded by the Empire, for his....ahhhh....'services' to same.

Well I do admit, that as an American, my history is weighted with American history. And I agree that no empire is built, without breaking some eggs.

It does seem that most attrocities seem less planned and deliberate than the Nazi holocaust, but its man's inhumanity to man just the same.

But this only proves my point. Even in the legendary civilized British empire, there lurks a dark evil potential in all of us. The dark evil potential in every born man, is why wars will never end. And it has nothing to do with religion, unless you want to buy into the Satan theory.

Emma Watson's Sex Video
http://youkillanimal.blog93.fc2.com/

Emma Watson's Sex Video
http://youkillanimal.blog93.fc2.com/